Prayer book versions in ACNA

[The Liturgist]

Out of curiosity, is the 2019 BCP mandated in ACNA, or are there still dioceses or parishes where the 1979 BCP, or the 1928 BCP, or the officially sanctioned traditional language version of the 1979 BCP, the Anglican Service Book, etc, are still allowed?

I would assume the Reformed Episcopal Church would continue to use their distinctive BCP version?

Now, I have warmed up a bit to the 2019 BCP, but I really wish it was entirely public domain like the Episcopalian tradition indicated, and likewise, that ACNA had followed the tradition of publishing a Standard Edition, which sadly there hasn’t been one since D.B. Updike’s typographical masterpiece of the 1928 BCP. Speaking of which, I desperately want to see first hand one of the high end versions of the 1892 Standard Edition, also by Updike, with the Art Nouveau / Arts and Crafts / Late Victorian border artwork, a scan of which is here: The 1892 Book of Common Prayer: The Standard Book

Also on this page you can find fascimiles of the less expensive, but still incredibly expensive 1892 Standard Edition, the 1928 Standard Edition (which only had one design, but each diocese was issued one printed on vellum, whereas the subscribers got high quality paper stock), and the very elegant design prospectus prepared for a planned Standard Edition of the 1979 BCP, which sadly never made it into production (that said, the regular 1979 BCP copies in the pews have very elegant typography).

Speaking of which, I actually like the 1979 BCP, in particular because it allows for Rite II services to be translated into traditional ecclesiastical English, which the Anglican Service Book basically is, and also because of the range of daily offices it provides for, in contrast to earlier editions. Also the contemporary language is not that bad; the only aspect of it I think could be improved would be replacing the response ”And also with you” with the more semantically correct “and with your spirit”, but this was an error resulting from the 1979 BCP drawing heavily from the Novus Ordo Missae. However the Novus Ordo Missae I would like quite a bit more if it included the Tridentine liturgy as a Rite I, like the 1979 BCP. The 1979 BCP also has the advantage of “Rite III” which allows for the occasional use of other liturgies such as that of St. John Chrysostom provided just a few specific phrases are present.

I am greatly disappointed by the fact that the Episcopal Church reversed its earlier decision not to replace the 1979 BCP for fear of repeating the schism that resulted (which could have been avoided by allowing continued use of the 1928 BCP, and for that matter the 1892 BCP, which is a very good and very underrated edition), and is now working on a new one. The documents about the process suggest that it will be very much in line with the prevailing theological direction of the Episcopal Church, and I also fear that if its use is made mandatory, it could interfere with, among other things, the liturgy at St. Thomas Fifth Ave., whose boy’s choir (an increasing rarity in the Anglican community) and dedication to the choral heritage of the church make it something of a national treasure - it is also noteworthy as T. Tertius Noble served as an organist there before going to York Minster, and indeed many accomplished Church of England musicians have had a stint at St. Thomas Fifth Ave. Of course, this probably won’t happen, given the permissiveness of the Episcopal Church to liturgical variation, but what would happen would be use of Rite II and the 1979 book becoming quite rare, which would be a pity, especially from an Anglo Catholic perspective, in my opinion. Basically I am dreading something like the 2006 hymnal which replaced the Lutheran Book of Worship in the ELCA, which I actually like quite a bit, and which is a direct relative of the 1979 BCP.

Thus, I am very interested if there are places in the ACNA where the 1979 BCP still survives, because of course, while I greatly love the Continuing Anglican churches, they are committed to the 1928 BCP, which is good, because the 1928 American BCP is in my opinion one of the three best editions ever compiled, the others being the 1928 Deposited Book approved by the C of E but rejected by Parliament, and the exquisite 1929 Scottish BCP (I suppose if I were asked to name my three favorite editions that actually made it into print, it would be the 1892 and 1928 American books, or the 1549 English book and the 1928 American book, and in either case, the 1929 Scottish book). Still, I very much like the 1979 BCP, for the reasons stated above.

I cannot recommend The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England enough for Prayer Book versions, as it is masterfully curated, and I would note that among the prayer book versions hosted there, the 1938 Melanesian BCP and the early 20th century proposed Mexican BCP, which is an English and Spanish translation of the Mozarabic Rite still celebrated in the cathedral in Toledo, Spain, in a dedicated chapel, but alas nowhere else, which is a spectacular liturgy of the Gallican family which was for a time predominant in Spain during the Islamic occupation. Also of great interest for supplementary liturgical material such as the classic 19th century Anglo Catholic Ritual Notes and the Directorum Anglicanorum, and the brilliant Parson’s Handbook by Rev. Percy Dearmer, is this site: Anglican Liturgy

 

[Deegie]

I am greatly disappointed by the fact that the Episcopal Church reversed its earlier decision not to replace the 1979 BCP for fear of repeating the schism that resulted (which could have been avoided by allowing continued use of the 1928 BCP, and for that matter the 1892 BCP, which is a very good and very underrated edition), and is now working on a new one. The documents about the process suggest that it will be very much in line with the prevailing theological direction of the Episcopal Church, and I also fear that if its use is made mandatory,

I'm curious where you heard that there has been a shift in strategy and that the 1979 BCP is now being replaced. From everything I've seen, the plan is to create supplemental liturgies but not eliminate the 1979 book. Indeed, the amendment to the Constitution (resolution A059) redefines the concept of "Book of Common Prayer" to specifically include all authorized forms of worship. The 1928 BCP is still allowed for occasional use (a provision which many congregations define rather liberally) and I don't see any chance that the 1979 BCP will stop being used at least for many decades.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm curious where you heard that there has been a shift in strategy and that the 1979 BCP is now being replaced. From everything I've seen, the plan is to create supplemental liturgies but not eliminate the 1979 book. Indeed, the amendment to the Constitution (resolution A059) redefines the concept of "Book of Common Prayer" to specifically include all authorized forms of worship. The 1928 BCP is still allowed for occasional use (a provision which many congregations define rather liberally) and I don't see any chance that the 1979 BCP will stop being used at least for many decades.

In 2018 I recall reading there had been a vote to proceed with development of a new prayer book, and there was a paper on “Imagining a New BCP” by Rev. Dr. Ruth Meyers. Indeed here is an article about the new prayer book: A Greener Prayer Book

And indeed here is a presentation she made on the same:

If indeed the plan is still to keep the 1979 book and supplement it with additional material no one would be happier about that than me, since as my friend Fr. Brian who ran the Creedal Christian blog for several years liked to point out, the 1979 book had quite a number of good features. Because my understanding prior to 2015 is that was the plan, and then it ceased to be the plan, to my dismay, and then in 2019 ACNA released their prayerbook and I heard the new BCP for TEC was supposed to not be far behind, and then of course the dreadful pandemic happened.

If you could, using your status as an Episcopal priest, find out what the plan is and tell us, I would be in your debt greatly, because as I have said, I really like the 1979 BCP, and if the Episcopal Church plans on maintaining the liturgical status quo and supplementing the 1979 BCP with additional material as they had been doing for some years prior to 2015, that would be a cause of great joy for me, because the liturgical status quo in the Episcopal Church is a delicate balance, and I do care about the Episcopal Church and its long term future, and I also happen to like the liturgies generated at certain parishes by the current liturgical arrangements.

Regarding the 1928 BCP, my friend Fr. Brian also mentioned how technically some congregations used the 1928 BCP more than they are in theory allowed; I think this is probably in TEC’s best interest to overlook, since otherwise those parishes might go over to one of the Continuing Anglican churches where the 1928 BCP is the standard, and you also have the other end of the extreme in the form of St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco, and it seems equitable and most beneficial to spiritual economy to permit a certain diversity in worship.

Also for that matter, presumably for compatibility with English settings of the service, St. Thomas Fifth Ave in New York is using Choral Evensong according to the English rubrics, as one would find it in the 1662 BCP and the equivalent to Rite I in Common Worship, I have never heard them sing Phos Hilarion (actually unfortunately there are very few good Anglican settings of Phos Hilarion; I find myself wishing the C of E would add it to Common Worship and encourage its use and encourage composition of settings of it, as that particular change to the 1979 Divine Office was brilliant, and creates liturgical continuity with the Eastern churches where Phos Hilarion is an integral part of Vespers) and they always seem to do the full English preces.

Also, there is an Episcopal church online whose priest served the 1549 and 1662, and I think a few other versions of the Prayer Book, on consecutive Sundays, which was a good strategy on her part to maintain interest when Ordinary Time becomes rather too ordinary.

 

[Deegie]

If indeed the plan is still to keep the 1979 book and supplement it with additional material no one would be happier about that than me, since as my friend Fr. Brian who ran the Creedal Christian blog for several years liked to point out, the 1979 book had quite a number of good features. Because my understanding prior to 2015 is that was the plan, and then it ceased to be the plan, to my dismay, and then in 2019 ACNA released their prayerbook and I heard the new BCP for TEC was supposed to not be far behind, and then of course the dreadful pandemic happened.

If you could, using your status as an Episcopal priest, find out what the plan is and tell us, I would be in your debt greatly, because as I have said, I really like the 1979 BCP, and if the Episcopal Church plans on maintaining the liturgical status quo and supplementing the 1979 BCP with additional material as they had been doing for some years prior to 2015, that would be a cause of great joy for me, because the liturgical status quo in the Episcopal Church is a delicate balance, and I do care about the Episcopal Church and its long term future, and I also happen to like the liturgies generated at certain parishes by the current liturgical arrangements.

Aha. That helps me understand where you are coming from, thank you. Yes, in the lead-up to the 2018 General Convention, there was much buzz about prayer book revision. It was the House of Bishops who were quite against it, leading to a revised resolution (number A068) which reads in part:

Resolved, That this Convention memorialize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a Prayer Book of the church preserving the psalter, liturgies, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, Historic Documents, and Trinitarian Formularies ensuring its continued use; and be it further​

​

Resolved, That this church continue to engage the deep Baptismal and Eucharistic theology and practice of the 1979 Prayer Book; ...​

​

Resolved, That liturgical and Prayer Book revision will continue in faithful adherence to the historic rites of the Church Universal as they have been received and interpreted within the Anglican tradition of 1979 Book of Common Prayer, mindful of our existing ecumenical commitments, while also providing space for, encouraging the submission of, and facilitating the perfection of rites that will arise from the continual movement of the Holy Spirit among us and growing insights of our Church; ​

During the period from 2018 to 2022 (since our ordinarily triennial General Convention was delayed a year due to COVID), much work was done by the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, leading to a report to the 80th General Convention in 2022. Here is a link to it if you wish to read the whole thing. On page 5 of their report, you will see that one of their main recommendations is: "that the 1979 BCP is maintained as an authorized text within a growing set of authorized liturgical materials for common prayer".

And so that, as far as I have heard, is the last authoritative position on the subject: that we will keep the 1979 BCP and just keep adding new liturgies to it as they get approved. (And rather than editing the hard-copy book, the new liturgies will be made available electronically.)

 

[The Liturgist]

Aha. That helps me understand where you are coming from, thank you. Yes, in the lead-up to the 2018 General Convention, there was much buzz about prayer book revision. It was the House of Bishops who were quite against it, leading to a revised resolution (number A068) which reads in part:

Resolved, That this Convention memorialize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a Prayer Book of the church preserving the psalter, liturgies, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, Historic Documents, and Trinitarian Formularies ensuring its continued use; and be it further​

​

Resolved, That this church continue to engage the deep Baptismal and Eucharistic theology and practice of the 1979 Prayer Book; ...​

​

Resolved, That liturgical and Prayer Book revision will continue in faithful adherence to the historic rites of the Church Universal as they have been received and interpreted within the Anglican tradition of 1979 Book of Common Prayer, mindful of our existing ecumenical commitments, while also providing space for, encouraging the submission of, and facilitating the perfection of rites that will arise from the continual movement of the Holy Spirit among us and growing insights of our Church; ​

During the period from 2018 to 2022 (since our ordinarily triennial General Convention was delayed a year due to COVID), much work was done by the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, leading to a report to the 80th General Convention in 2022. Here is a link to it if you wish to read the whole thing. On page 5 of their report, you will see that one of their main recommendations is: "that the 1979 BCP is maintained as an authorized text within a growing set of authorized liturgical materials for common prayer".

And so that, as far as I have heard, is the last authoritative position on the subject: that we will keep the 1979 BCP and just keep adding new liturgies to it as they get approved. (And rather than editing the hard-copy book, the new liturgies will be made available electronically.)

Glory be to God! You have made me immensely happy. I really feel the House of Bishops made the correct decision, and I am really glad they made it, because you know I spent a full year in the Episcopal Church to be with my friend Fr. Steve during his last year before retirement, and grew to love the 1979 BCP, and so in 2015 when that discussion began it was difficult to receive that news with much equanymity.

I have to confess I feel better about the trajectory of the Episcopal Church at present than I did a decade ago. In particular I like Presiding Bishop Michael Curry.

One thing I wish the Episcopal Church would do however, is to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1979 BCP by finally ordering a print run of 500-2000 books from Arrion Press based on their Prospectus for the planned Standard Edition. I would definitely buy one.

 

[Paidiske]

Also for that matter, presumably for compatibility with English settings of the service, St. Thomas Fifth Ave in New York is using Choral Evensong according to the English rubrics, as one would find it in the 1662 BCP and the equivalent to Rite I in Common Worship, I have never heard them sing Phos Hilarion (actually unfortunately there are very few good Anglican settings of Phos Hilarion; I find myself wishing the C of E would add it to Common Worship and encourage its use and encourage composition of settings of it, as that particular change to the 1979 Divine Office was brilliant, and creates liturgical continuity with the Eastern churches where Phos Hilarion is an integral part of Vespers) and they always seem to do the full English preces.

My bold, with a raised eyebrow. Really, they do the whole lot, including praying for the king? In America?

I do agree with you about the beauty of Phos Hilaron, though. We include it here in our order for compline (or, prayer at the end of the day).

 

[The Liturgist]

My bold, with a raised eyebrow. Really, they do the whole lot, including praying for the king? In America?

I do agree with you about the beauty of Phos Hilaron, though. We include it here in our order for compline (or, prayer at the end of the day).

I believe you are thinking of the Prayers which follow the Collects and Anthem, and precede the dismissal, and I have never heard them pray any of them, even the Prayer of St. Chrysostom disappointingly enough, and the Prayer for the King’s Majesty and for the Royal Family they do not pray (the second and sometimes the first and/or third collect they do pray, however). So basically Evensong at St. Thomas Fifth Ave. usually concludes with:

The Second Collect at Evening Prayer:

O God from Whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed; Give unto thy servants that peace which the world cannot give; that both our hearts may be set to obey thy commandments, and also that by thee, we, being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

Then follows the Anthem (as indicated in the 1662 BCP with the elegant rubric “In Quires and Places where they sing here followeth the Anthem.” which has inspired the names of several series of recordings of Evensong, namely the album “Here followeth the Anthem” and the 26 episode “Quires and Places Where They Sing” program on the BBC, and then the Dismissal, which is usually from 2 Corinthians 13 as one would expect: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.”

The Preces on the other hand is the name given in recordings of Evensong (and Mattins) for this part, also known as the Invitatory, intoned by the Minister and the people (or choir, traditionally) right after the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of the service:

Then likewise he shall say,
O Lord, open thou our lips.
Answer. And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.
Priest. O God, make speed to save us.
Answer. O Lord, make haste to help us.

Here, all standing up, the Priest shall say,
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Priest. Praise ye the Lord.
Answer. The Lord's Name be praised.

in the 1789, 1892 and 1928 editions of the American BCP the preces for both Mattins and Evensong looks like this:

Then likewise he shall say,

O Lord, open thou our lips.
Answer. And our mouth shall show forth thy praise.

Likewise Matins in the 1979 BCP using Rite I (the traditional language Rite), it looks the same, but in Evensong, it conversely reads as follows:

The Invitatory and Psalter
All stand

Officiant O God, make speed to save us.
People O Lord, make haste to help us. Officiant and People
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen.
Except in Lent, Alleluia may be added.

The following, or some other suitable hymn, or an Invitatory Psalm, may be sung or said

And the follows Phos Hilarion, which curiously the 1979 BCP names in the original Greek and also translates, but it translates it as “O Gracious Light” which is unfortunate in terms of restricting the already limited supply of musical settings, because Anglophone Eastern Orthodox settings of the hymn without exception, so far as I am aware*, translate it as “O Gladsome Light” owing I would assume to the strong preference for literal translation rather than dynamic equivalence among the Eastern Orthodox (which is why Orthodox prayers tend to conclude with “Unto ages of ages” rather than “Forever and ever” as this is most literal translation of the Biblical Greek phrase eis toùs aiônas tôn aiṓnōn - which in Latin is translated as, In Saecula Saeculorum, which the BCP translates as “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end”, which I have also seen in English translations of Roman Catholic services.

Now that said, I have no doubt Episcopalian and other Anglican choirs can either deal with Orthodox settings which are either public domain or otherwise available for use using the word “Gladsome” or else sing “Gracious” instead, since the number of syllables is the same, and if so this would open the door to using the exquisite settings by tne English convert Sir John Taverner. For that matter there is an excellent setting by the Ukrainian Catholic composer Roman Hurko, who is one of my three favorite living Byzantine Rite composers, along with Avro Part, who is Estonian Orthodox and very well regarded, although his music, as exquisite as it is, lacks liturgical practicality, much like JS Bach’s Mass in B Minor, and Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, the former director of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarch, who resigned from that office due to the conflict in Ukraine (which had the effect of collapsing or at least temporarily politically obstructing all the bridges he had spent fifteen years of his life building, but he is still the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox parishes in Hungary and has a personal friendship with Pope Francis and the controversial Hungarian President Viktor Orban).

But in any case, using Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholic translations of Phos Hilarion, which are numerous (that by Roman Hurko being one of the better examples) would effectively compensate as a temporary measure for the shortage of Anglican renditions. But we need more Anglican settings composed to work with Anglican choirs. The composer whose name escapes me who did the beautiful anthem “This is the Day” for the wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales, as they are now styled, in 2011, would be ideal for such a task, and I can think of about five or ten others who I wish would also set to composing musical settings of it. But someone has to pay them. And unfortunately because the 1662 BCP lacks it, and St. Thomas Fifth Ave appears to be using that version of Evensong rather than the Rite I version from the American BCP which has it (which is used at the National Cathedral in Washington DC, but they lack a Boy’s Choir, a Girl’s Choir, and the vast endowments for choral music and indeed other liturgical enhancements that St. Thomas Fifth Ave has been entrusted with over the years).

By the way I think that only once have I heard Choral Evensong using Rite II, which is unfortunate, but I believe the Episcopalian Benedictine Monks of the Order of the Holy Cross use the Rite II Divine Office.

*I would not be surprised if there is some obscure poorly translated service book out there used by some Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction that translates it differently. For example, there is a very poorly translated contemporary language Greek Orthodox service book used in some parishes for Holy Week and Pascha (which is nonetheless useful because it has all the services, including the Holy Unction service the Greeks and Antiochians usually do on Holy Wednesday, which the Russians, Ukrainians, and in a variant form, the Copts, who have almost the identical liturgy, customarily do on the Friday before Palm Sunday).

 

[Paidiske]

I believe you are thinking of the Prayers which follow the Collects and Anthem,

No, I'm thinking of the responses which run thus (my bold):

Priest: O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
Priest. O Lord, save the King.
Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
Priest. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.
Answer. And make thy chosen people joyful.
Priest. O Lord, save thy people.
Answer. And bless thine inheritance.
Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
Answer. Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.
Priest. O God, make clean our hearts within us.
Answer. And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

Even in Australia the prayer for the king's majesty is seldom heard.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, I'm thinking of the responses which run thus (my bold):

Priest: O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
Priest. O Lord, save the King.
Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
Priest. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.
Answer. And make thy chosen people joyful.
Priest. O Lord, save thy people.
Answer. And bless thine inheritance.
Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
Answer. Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.
Priest. O God, make clean our hearts within us.
Answer. And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

Even in Australia the prayer for the king's majesty is seldom heard.

Oh, those, they were fairly common even in otherwise abbreviated services as recently as the 1980s in the UK, and indeed their disappearance is a pity given their contribution to the English language, for example, the phrase “peace in our time.” I believe American editions have these sans the prayers for the King’s majesty.

 

[Shane R]

ACNA is a mess. They've got dioceses on Common Worship, 2019 BCP, and the REC BCP of 2005? (maybe 2006). Bp. Sutton of the REC has been trying to persuade his churches to transition to BCP 2019. There are probably a still holdouts using the 1979 BCP. That is also targeted for eradication (though much of the 2019 is copy-paste from the book). There are individual parishes that still use the 1928 BCP. And there are parishes that make up their own liturgy.

And don't get me started on hymnals. There are at least 5 in use. And many an ACNA parish just carries a CCLI license and uses the K-LOVE top-40.

 

[Paidiske]

In Australia hymnals are not prescribed or proscribed; although there are one or two books in very widespread use, hymn choice is a matter for the local vicar or rector.

 

[Shane R]

In Australia hymnals are not prescribed or proscribed; although there are one or two books in very widespread use, hymn choice is a matter for the local vicar or rector.

My old organist never wanted my input. And on the occasions I did request a particular hymn, it was a 50-50 chance she would play it. It was a major battle between the rector and her just to get her to drop the reciting tone by a 3rd to get it more comfortably in my range.

 

[Paidiske]

In both dioceses I've worked in here, the parish governance acts specifically give control of the liturgy to the vicar/rector. While hymn choice might be delegated or shared with others, if push comes to shove that's where the final say lies.

I am generally happy to delegate, and negotiate a bit as needed, but I've been fortunate to mostly work with reasonable people who've worked well with me. I've only had outright defiance once, and while I was pretty unhappy about it, under the circumstances (it was the last Sunday before Covid lockdown and we were, I think, none of us at our best) it was probably understandable!

 

[The Liturgist]

My old organist never wanted my input. And on the occasions I did request a particular hymn, it was a 50-50 chance she would play it. It was a major battle between the rector and her just to get her to drop the reciting tone by a 3rd to get it more comfortably in my range.

That sometimes happens and it is unfortunate and indeed occasionally catastrophic. Even in Eastern Orthodox parishes, since a priest is largely reliant on the congregation to provide the choir, even bishops cannot enforce a musical agenda as firmly as they desire (which has occasionally preserved things which otherwise would have been lost). The ideal however is Sobornost, or conciliarity, which I think should apply here as much as anywhere.

 

[The Liturgist]

In both dioceses I've worked in here, the parish governance acts specifically give control of the liturgy to the vicar/rector. While hymn choice might be delegated or shared with others, if push comes to shove that's where the final say lies.

I am generally happy to delegate, and negotiate a bit as needed, but I've been fortunate to mostly work with reasonable people who've worked well with me. I've only had outright defiance once, and while I was pretty unhappy about it, under the circumstances (it was the last Sunday before Covid lockdown and we were, I think, none of us at our best) it was probably understandable!

Very good. This sounds like a blessed situation.

By the way, is the music fairly traditional in your parishes, with organs and the singing of traditional hymns, etc, or have the electric guitar and praise and worship music become predominant?

 

[Paidiske]

By the way, is the music fairly traditional in your parishes, with organs and the singing of traditional hymns, etc, or have the electric guitar and praise and worship music become predominant?

Where I am now, somewhere in between. We no longer have trained organists willing to volunteer their skills (nor can we afford to pay one), so instrumentation at most services is reasonably high quality electric keyboards capable of producing a range of organ sounds as well as other tones (piano etc), since I have volunteers who can play those well.

In services I take, the song selections are a mix inclined more heavily in the direction of traditional hymns; but I have very diverse congregations and try to do a bit of something for everyone, so there are some praise-and-worship type things in the mix. The lay leaders who take morning prayer in my absence prefer to rely on recorded music and their taste differs; some do more trad stuff and some more praise-and-worship style stuff.

The biggest musical issue I have here is, to be blunt, the congregations have an absolutely woefully limited repertoire. So trying to keep the hymn choices relevant to the texts and themes of the day, theologically and pastorally appropriate, musically vibrant, and so on, becomes a real challenge when any time you give them something they don't know, you get streams of complaints. I am gently stretching them but it is taking time!

 

[The Liturgist]

Where I am now, somewhere in between. We no longer have trained organists willing to volunteer their skills (nor can we afford to pay one), so instrumentation at most services is reasonably high quality electric keyboards capable of producing a range of organ sounds as well as other tones (piano etc), since I have volunteers who can play those well.

In services I take, the song selections are a mix inclined more heavily in the direction of traditional hymns; but I have very diverse congregations and try to do a bit of something for everyone, so there are some praise-and-worship type things in the mix. The lay leaders who take morning prayer in my absence prefer to rely on recorded music and their taste differs; some do more trad stuff and some more praise-and-worship style stuff.

The biggest musical issue I have here is, to be blunt, the congregations have an absolutely woefully limited repertoire. So trying to keep the hymn choices relevant to the texts and themes of the day, theologically and pastorally appropriate, musically vibrant, and so on, becomes a real challenge when any time you give them something they don't know, you get streams of complaints. I am gently stretching them but it is taking time!

Did you know that if you can play the keyboard well, you can actually play the organ to an acceptable, and most organists start out that way and gradually work their way up to learning the more advanced features like the pedals, which are basically a keyboard worked with the feet, and also playing multiple manuals (keyboards) at the same time. The musical director of the LiturgyWorks Foundation of which I am a member, who has a PhD In music composition and theory, was at one time a church organist and can still play, but she due to a back injury cannot work the pedals, but she would be prepared to provide easy advice for your keyboard players so that if you have a working pipe organ, it is not neglected.

She is presently working on an a capella setting of Choral Evensong for St. Sepulchre without Newgate in the City of London, which is the National Musician's Church in the UK, but unfortunately at presenet despite having an excellent choir, does not have a working pipe organ; they have the pipework but the bellows and other machinery are broken and they are still a few years away from getting it fixed (which has not stopped them from releasing an excellent album, which is available on iTunes, and which I strongly recommend, I can look up the name of it if you wish).

She can also get you in touch with an excellent organist who could provide further advice (as she is primarily a composer in the Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran tradition).

 

[The Liturgist]

The biggest musical issue I have here is, to be blunt, the congregations have an absolutely woefully limited repertoire. So trying to keep the hymn choices relevant to the texts and themes of the day, theologically and pastorally appropriate, musically vibrant, and so on, becomes a real challenge when any time you give them something they don't know, you get streams of complaints. I am gently stretching them but it is taking time!

You are doing the right thing in pushing them outward, because there is so much beautiful music just within Anglican tradition, not to mention the vast smorgasbord of broader Christian musical heritage, and my own faith has been greatly enriched by reaching beyond without rejecting the beautiful four-part chorales I grew up singing, so that I now derive equal pleasure from the Wesleyan Chorale Christ Our Lord Has Risen Today, and the Troparion Christ Is Risen From The Dead, Trampling Down Death By Death. And occasionally these intersect, for example, in Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silent, although I prefer the version by Pavel Chesnokov to the version set to Picardy commonly found in hymnals.

 

[Paidiske]

...if you have a working pipe organ...

We don't. There's a rather sad electric organ in a shed, but they've never had a pipe organ here. It's not a wealthy parish.

One of my two musicians can muddle around on an organ a bit, the other can't and/or isn't confident enough. And given they're both trained as pianists, it makes more sense to concentrate on what they can play well, than insist on an instrument with which they'd struggle to support the singing of the congregation.

 

[Arcangl86]

In Australia hymnals are not prescribed or proscribed; although there are one or two books in very widespread use, hymn choice is a matter for the local vicar or rector.

There is actually a rubric in the 79 prayer book only allowing for use of authorized hymns. Though we do have a lot of hymnals authorized, with 5 currently allowed IIRC.