What's happening to TEC

[Margaret3110]

I'm very concerned about the direction TEC is headed with prayer book revision etc. They seem quite anxious about people who feel excluded by words like "Father" and "kingdom," and not anxious at all about losing people (like me) who are nourished by the traditional language and theology. Am I that much of an outlier?

If I didn't love my current congregation, I would probably already have found another church. I don't know where to go though.

 

[seeking.IAM]

You are not alone (although I am skeptical I will actually see a prayer book revision in my lifetime). The wheels of change move slowly as well they should. I, for one, am not a fan of scrubbing language of gender-specific pronouns, except in cases where gender can't be identified. I think persons who think they can do a better job of re-writing the Lord's Prayer than Jesus who gave it to us are deluded and should be avoided. And if you can't see yourself as a part of the "Kingdom" of God, maybe you are in the wrong place. I frequently rub shoulders with another denomination who has replaced "Kingdom" with "kindom" which I find to be something quite different and also quite silly. I make sure I pronounce a hard "g" when I worship with them.

That said, the one good thing about our church is that we are not homogeneous, and if you don't like the flavor of one congregation you may find another more to your liking. Recently, I emailed a diocese in which my children live asking for recommendation of a church for me to visit when I am in the area over a weekend. I identified my particular leanings. Within 20 minutes, I had a response from the Bishop steering be toward just the right place well-suited for me. I have to pass 3 Episcopal Churches to get there, but website review tells me I'll be quite happy I did.

 

[Margaret3110]

You are not alone (although I am skeptical I will actually see a prayer book revision in my lifetime). The wheels of change move slowly as well they should. I, for one, am not a fan of scrubbing language of gender-specific pronouns, except in cases where gender can't be identified. I think persons who think they can do a better job of re-writing the Lord's Prayer than Jesus who gave it to us are deluded and should be avoided. And if you can't see yourself as a part of the "Kingdom" of God, maybe you are in the wrong place. I frequently rub shoulders with another denomination who has replaced "Kingdom" with "kindom" which I find to be something quite different and also quite silly. I make sure I pronounce a hard "g" when I worship with them.

That said, the one good thing about our church is that we are not homogeneous, and if you don't like the flavor of one congregation you may find another more to your liking. Recently, I emailed a diocese in which my children live asking for recommendation of a church for me to visit when I am in the area over a weekend. I identified my particular leanings. Within 20 minutes, I had a response from the Bishop steering be toward just the right place well-suited for me. I have to pass 3 Episcopal Churches to get there, but website review tells me I'll be quite happy I did.

I hope you are right about change going slowly! I'm only in my 30s, so I expect I will see changes to the prayer book, but it would be nice if it didn't happen too soon.

There is a large Rite 1 parish near me (we actually used to go there) and I wonder what they will do in the event of a major overhaul to the liturgy ...

My current congregation is quite small and friendly and diverse. I love it and would be very sad to leave.

 

[PloverWing]

@Margaret3110 , you raise a good and important point.

I'm one of the folks who wishes the 1979 BCP contained more gender-inclusive language than it does (though they did well for the 1970s). I avoid using gendered pronouns for God, and it warms my heart when I visit a parish that's using inclusive-language liturgy.

With all that said, any prayer book revision should proceed extremely cautiously, because

1) It's easy to write bad liturgy, and difficult to write good liturgy. I'd rather see well-written liturgy that's full of he/him/man/father language, than to see poorly-written liturgy. And, more importantly,

2) The church is bigger than just me. People who love the traditional language and metaphors are part of the church, and the church's liturgy needs to include their voices too. Also,

3) Insofar as we value Tradition, those gendered metaphors are part of our Tradition.

As seeking.IAM noted, prayer book revision proceeds very slowly, as it should. Whenever the BCP is next revised, I hope it includes a variety of options -- some more traditional, some more inclusive -- much in the spirit of the current Rite I/Rite II/prayers A,B,C,D.

 

[Margaret3110]

Sorry, technical difficulties. Will try in another comment.

 

[Margaret3110]

@Margaret3110 , you raise a good and important point.

I'm one of the folks who wishes the 1979 BCP contained more gender-inclusive language than it does (though they did well for the 1970s). I avoid using gendered pronouns for God, and it warms my heart when I visit a parish that's using inclusive-language liturgy.

With all that said, any prayer book revision should proceed extremely cautiously, because

1) It's easy to write bad liturgy, and difficult to write good liturgy. I'd rather see well-written liturgy that's full of he/him/man/father language, than to see poorly-written liturgy. And, more importantly,

2) The church is bigger than just me. People who love the traditional language and metaphors are part of the church, and the church's liturgy needs to include their voices too. Also,

3) Insofar as we value Tradition, those gendered metaphors are part of our Tradition.

As seeking.IAM noted, prayer book revision proceeds very slowly, as it should. Whenever the BCP is next revised, I hope it includes a variety of options -- some more traditional, some more inclusive -- much in the spirit of the current Rite I/Rite II/prayers A,B,C,D.

That would be wonderful if they still included a more traditional option and congregations could choose which one to use. My fear is that in some quarters there's a belief that no language which is not deemed fully inclusive can be in our liturgies ever because someone will feel hurt. I guess we have to wait and see what happens.

I do understand that not everyone relates to the traditional imagery the way I do, and that's fine. My hope is that there's room in the church for all of us.

 

[Paidiske]

My fear is that in some quarters there's a belief that no language which is not deemed fully inclusive can be in our liturgies ever because someone will feel hurt.

I would be very surprised if that were to eventuate (although I am on the other side of the world, so I'm a bit out of touch with the American scene). Like PloverWing, I would expect and hope for a variety of options, which could be chosen from according to local custom and need.

 

[seeking.IAM]

And while we're at it can we please remove the filioque? I'd be much more interested in that.

 

[Margaret3110]

And while we're at it can we please remove the filioque? I'd be much more interested in that.

Lol. My husband used to be Orthodox and I attended his church with him for a while. Ever since then I always stumble over the filioque.

 

[Deegie]

I'm very concerned about the direction TEC is headed with prayer book revision etc. They seem quite anxious about people who feel excluded by words like "Father" and "kingdom," and not anxious at all about losing people (like me) who are nourished by the traditional language and theology. Am I that much of an outlier?

You're not at all an outlier. I think that's why the House of Bishops slowed things down at the General Convention in 2018. The final version of resolution A068 contained this language, which may make you feel better: "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." While there is still no clear plan for what revision will look like, my guess is that the 1979 BCP will always be an option and we will continue to add choices, much as we have with the EOW series.

I am personally all for inclusive and expansive language (and note that those two concepts are perhaps related but are not at all the same thing). But I get a lot of push-back in my parish, so we move at the speed with which everyone is comfortable...which is very, very slowly. So far we have just made minor changes which have overwhelming support -- things like adding "God of our mothers..." after "God of our fathers..." in Prayer C. I think the House of Bishops at least understands this need for discernment at the parish and diocesan level and won't be forcing any wholesale changes on you any time soon. I think.

 

[Shane R]

And while we're at it can we please remove the filioque? I'd be much more interested in that.

Recent prayer books have sometimes made it optional, just as the Apostle's creed can be said two ways at Morning Prayer.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Recent prayer books have sometimes made it optional, just as the Apostle's creed can be said two ways at Morning Prayer.

It's been considered optional in my pew for years. At least on my end of the pew. Very optional.

 

[Arcangl86]

So if a bishop allows use of Enriching Our Worship, the filioque is optional. Most churches still use it though in my experience. I personally don't.

 

[Deegie]

So if a bishop allows use of Enriching Our Worship, the filioque is optional. Most churches still use it though in my experience. I personally don't.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the use of Enriching our Worship requires the bishop's permission any longer. Prior to 2018, the EOW rites were authorized by General Convention each triennium "under the direction of a bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority". But the 79th General Convention left that part out. So they are simply authorized now.

 

[Arcangl86]

For what it's worth, I don't believe the use of Enriching our Worship requires the bishop's permission any longer. Prior to 2018, the EOW rites were authorized by General Convention each triennium "under the direction of a bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority". But the 79th General Convention left that part out. So they are simply authorized now.

Interesting. I didn't know that.