Non-negotiable

by Derek Olsen

As part of his year-end round-up, our beloved editor Jim Naughton threw down a gauntlet concerning the types of stories and discussions that he’d like to see around the Café in the coming year:

My sense, increasingly, is that these type of stories need to take a backseat to stories that point a way forward. The popularity (#10) of that small item about the decline in membership in our church, and the interest sparked by Bishop Budde's willingness to look mainline decline in the eye and talk about how the church should respond, give me some hope that the attention of our church is shifting, and that perhaps, however gradually given that we are an all volunteer operation that depends heavily on aggregated items, the attention of the Cafe can shift a bit as well. The greatest danger facing our church has less to do with its stand on LGBT issues than with its quickly diminishing capacity to witness effectively on behalf of the Gospel.

I am hoping we can pay some attention to the simple issue of survival in the year ahead.


In response, then, I’d like to offer my first of probably several reflections by way of picking up that gauntlet. This response is further informed by a later discussion that was entitled “In renewing the Episcopal Church , what exactly is up for grabs?” I’m going to focus on what is not up for grabs, from my perspective, and why it’s not up for grabs.

To begin properly, we must acknowledge the kinds of problems that face us. Our membership is declining. What remains of our membership tends to be aging. Our children leave the church when they head off to college (or before) and, at the traditional time for coming back—when they start a family and have kids—they’re not coming back. (I’ve heard the birth-rate arguments and I don’t buy them; it doesn’t matter how many children we have if they don’t attend our churches…)

Membership issues are exacerbating budget issues. Giving is down. When members of younger generations do join and do give, it’s often substantially less both dollar-wise and percentage-wise from what the previous generations gave. As a result, the parishes that have endowments are drawing from the principal not the interest and the bequeathed funds are being drained dry. In dioceses like mine where we have historic buildings, the buildings require more and more money to repair. If repairs are put off—guess what?—the maintenance problems get worse and more expensive.

Churches aren’t the only ones having budget issues—so are clergy. As church budgets get squeezed, so too do clergy salaries. Most churches have gotten rid of their rectories, and for the ones that have retained clergy housing, the housing itself further complicates the maintenance expenditure picture. This means that housing costs must be paid to the clergy too, further stretching budgets. But most people graduating from seminary are saddled with increasing amounts of debt. They’ve got to be able to eat, feed and clothe their families—and pay back student debt. And, no, expecting the clergy spouse to bear the full burden (or slashing the clergy health benefits because the spouse has some [that they usually have to pay for]) doesn’t cut it either and only fuels the already high rate of clergy divorce. Increasingly, I hear two answers floated to ease the burden: part-time clergy and bi-vocational clergy. Both of these may be options for some congregations. Heck, it works for a lot of Methodist and Baptist parishes I know—but those churches are also used to this kind of arrangement; the parish doesn’t already have a set of expectations geared towards full-time clergy—as most of our parishes do.

So—what do we do? What sort of tentative half-measures do we take, or, alternatively, what sort of wacky out-of-the-box solutions do we throw ourselves towards? What should we do? Or, what shouldn’t we do?

For me, from my perspective, there’s one thing that’s completely off the table. If we want to renew and strengthen the Episcopal Church in light of these very real challenges that are facing us, then the one thing that we dare not mess with is our commitment to the contents and spirit of our 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

I know, I can hear some of you already: just another attempt to put our heads in the sand and “worship the worship.” That would indeed be a worthy charge—if we were a set of local social services agencies, or a set of local political action committees. Those groups have no need of worship; it’s not their key function. But we’re a church. Care and attention to how, when, and why we worship isn’t just “worshiping the worship”, it’s connecting with our primary function from which all of our other functions flow. That having been said, I want to attend to three areas in particular.

First, many of our people know the Book of Common Prayer as the book that our Sunday services come from. I’ll challenge this mindset in a moment, but this much at least ought to be the case. The Sunday services that Episcopalians experience should be common because they should proceed in common from the Book of Common Prayer. Whether it ought to be or not, Sunday morning is our main scheduled moment in the cultural eye. Deciding to monkey with the services in order to appear relevant doesn’t look relevant, it looks desperate. While I realize that the reverend clergyperson might have had a flash of insight on Thursday night that involves changing everything around to make some point about something going on in the news or culture, consider that not everyone else might share or appreciate that insight. Consider that the couple on the brink of divorce or the mother who just heard of the death of a neighbor’s son, might not be feeling your whimsy at the moment. We have enough things in our life and daily surroundings that change on a constant basis. Click over to the CNN website and the stories will be different from what was there just 5 minutes ago.

We need some constants too.

One of the most consistent and enduring images of God in the Psalms is the rock. What if our church could witness to that aspect of who God is by at least providing the stability of common prayer?

I’m not saying the book is perfect. There are certainly some things that I’d change if I had the chance. But recognize this: 1) it is an authentic expression of the historic Western liturgy that has nourished literally millions who have come before us. 2) It is an authentic expression of the English devotional experience. (The importance of this is not that it’s English, of course, but that it is a rooted, embodied, inherited tradition that has been embraced and passed on by a diverse group over a period of centuries—not just dreamed up by a few people last week.) 3) It is an authentic expression of historic Anglican liturgy that balances reform of Western norms with Scripture and the theological and spiritual practices of the Early Church. That’s actually quite a lot of things going for it—and it’s more things than would be going for most services either you or I would dream up.

Most people I know don’t go to church on Sunday morning to experience the rector’s latest exciting innovation; they go to church because they hope to experience God and to get a concrete sense of what it means to live out love of God and love of neighbor. Using the book doesn’t guarantee any of this, but it is a big step in the right direction.

Frankly, I don’t care if you’re “into” Quaker spirituality and so want to cut out some of the prescribed prayers and have us sit in silence then; I’m “into” Anglican spirituality, and I’d appreciate it if you did what the book says to do. Perhaps I’m a little touchy on this topic, but I’ve seen too many places where Sunday morning deviations from the book are about the rector inflicting the twists and turns of their own spiritual journey on the congregation. If we want to get serious about being the Episcopal Church then I suggest we would do well to get serious about our core messages and principles and—by canon as well as plain ol’ good sense—these are in the book. As a layperson, I see the book as a contract. It may not be exactly what I want, but it’s an agreed-upon corpus of embodied theology that we have all given assent to. I promise to use the book, and I expect that the clergy will do the same. This is a benefit that we offer those who come seeking—a place of stability in a culture that desperately needs it.

Second, (this is perhaps my most important point) the Book of Common Prayer isn’t just the book for Sunday services. Instead, the Book of Common Prayer offers a full integrated spiritual system that is intended as much for the laity as the clergy and which is founded in a lay spirituality that arose in the medieval period. If you look at the book as a whole, it offers a program for Christian growth built around liturgical spirituality. The best shorthand I have for this is the liturgical round. It’s made up of three components: the liturgical calendar where we reflect upon our central mysteries through the various lenses of the seasons of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and in his continuing witness in the lives of the saints, the Daily Office where we yearly immerse ourselves in the Scriptures and Psalms, and the Holy Eucharist where we gather on Holy Days to most perfectly embody the Body of Christ and receive the graces that the sacraments afford.

So—here’s why this is important and the meat of how it relates to the issue at hand. The purpose of any spiritual system is to bring the practitioner and their community into a deeper relationship with God—to create a family of mature Christians. Through their increasing awareness of who God is, how much God loves them and all of creation, they translate that love they have been shown into concrete acts of love and mercy in the world around them. There are several different strategies that different spiritual systems use to accomplish this. One of the classic ones—referred to in St Paul’s direction to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:17)—is the recollection of God. The idea here is that if we can continually keep in mind the goodness of God, the constant presence of God, and an awareness of the mighty works of God on behalf of us and others, that we will more naturally and more completely act in accordance with God’s will and ways. Continual recollection is nearly impossible, but there are methods to help us in this habit.

A primary goal of liturgical spirituality is to create a disciplined recollection of God. Thus, if we specifically pause at central points of time—morning and evening; noon and night; Sundays and other Holy Days—to reorient ourselves towards God and the mighty acts of God, whether recalled to us through the Scriptures or experienced by us through direct encounters with the sacraments, then this discipline will lead us towards a habitual recollection of God.

In the liturgical round, the Book of Common Prayer gives us specific moments to stop and orient our time and ourselves around the recollection of God. As a result, one of the most important parts of the book is the Daily Office section that provides forms for prayer at morning, noon, evening and night. These prayer offices are our fundamental tool for disciplined recollection; they provide the foundation for our spiritual practice. This foundation, then, is punctuated by the Eucharist on Holy Days (at the least). And, conceptually, this is how we should view Sundays—not the day of the week on which we go to church—but as a Holy Day which recurs on a weekly basis.

While this sounds all awfully churchy it’s actually not. Indeed, this liturgical structure was mediated into the prayer-book tradition by a spiritual devotion for the laity. The idea of the Daily Office was originally a regular communal practice. By the end of the 4th century, it was transitioning into a monastic practice and began to be less of a feature in lay life. By the medieval period, it was expected that the laity would be at Matins and Vespers—as well as Mass—on Holy Days. With the rise of lay literacy in the High Medieval period though, came the Books of Hours. These were the central devotional books used by laypeople (men and women alike) and they contained a cycle of offices that followed the basic structure of the monastic and priestly breviaries but with reduced psalmody and no seasonal variations. On the eve of and during the English Reformation, the Latin Books of Hours and the English-language prymers held an important place in the devotional lives of upper- and middle-class lay Christians who prayed these several Offices on a daily basis. The Daily Offices that appeared in the initial 1549 Book of Common Prayer—and in every book subsequent—are equally derived from these lay prymers as well as the Sarum breviaries.

Just as the prymers informed the faith of the laity before the Reformation, so the Offices inform the faith of the laity (and clergy) now. Much of the talk I’ve heard about how effective or energetic a parish is seems oddly institutional. That is, the discussions seem to focus on what sort of programs are run out of the building, what sort of activities the institution supports. But that’s only part of the story. The other part that is harder to quantify yet no less important is how the faith is filtering into the everyday lives of the people in the parish. When the strengthening effects of the sacraments, when daily recollections of God impel a person to stand up against questionable business practices in the office or against a bully in the schoolyard, the Gospel is being lived entirely apart from what programs are housed in the church edifice.

What’s more, recollection is more accessible than just marking whether you showed up to church or not, prayed the Office or not. Our parishes have an important role here. What if someone has a real job and can’t make it to church when a service is being had? The fact that the parish is having a service, that members of the congregation are gathering in prayer or for the sacraments, is itself a recollective witness. If the people prevented—by whatever cause—from coming can but remember that a service is occurring, that prayer and praise are taking part, that they are connected to the act through the spiritual community that binds the parish together, then recollection has occurred; the parish is doing its work. And it doesn’t just serve for congregants either. A church with open doors and posted services serves as a recollective witness to anyone passing by, whether it’s their spiritual home or not. They are reminded—wherever they happen to be on their spiritual journey—that here are people who are remembering God and his redeeming love in the world. Who knows what the impact of that may be? Who knows when they might not walk past and instead walk in.

For me, this is where the church lives or dies. Are we forming communities that embody the love of God and neighbor in concrete actions? Not just in what programs the institution is supporting, but are we feeding regular lives with a spirituality that not only sustains them but leads them into God’s work in a thousand different contexts in no way related to a church structure? Are our parishes witnessing to their members and to the wider community in their acts of corporate prayer for the whole even when the whole cannot be physically there? Therefore this is why, when we worry about the fate of the church, my answer will be a call for more liturgy. Not because I like to worship the worship, but because of the well-worn path to discipleship found in the disciplined recollection of God that the liturgy offers.

My firm belief is that if membership is a problem, our best move is to head for spiritual revitalization. People who are being spiritually fed, challenged, and affirmed by their church will be more likely to show it, to talk about it, and to invite their friends and neighbors to come and see it for themselves. This won’t—it can’t—fix all situations, but even if it doesn’t, spiritual revitalization is what the Church is called to be about.

Third, the Book of Common Prayer sketches the fundamental roles of the four orders of ministry. The laity form the great body of the church, and are called to witness to our faith and practice in the various spaces and places where they find themselves. Bishops are set as overseers to guard the faith of the church and to care for the clergy entrusted to them. The priests are set apart to preach and to administer the sacraments and to give the spiritual and emotional care to communities that are part and parcel of the preaching and sacramental experiences. Deacons are called to serve the bishops and to spearhead the church’s works of mercy.

These roles—identified in Scripture, coded in our tradition, ratified in our prayer book—are not negotiable.

What is negotiable is how we train them and support them.

Will part-time and bi-vocational clergy be the future of our church? I don’t know. But I certainly suspect they will. That means change—and a lot of it. Episcopal congregations have expectations of their clergy; expectations that need to be severely checked if this does turn out to be the new normal. Plenty of churches have gone down this road before. In many of the Methodist and Baptist churches of my acquaintance these realities are the norm, not the exception. But the congregations also have a different expectation of what their clergy will do for them and how they will be present for them.

We don’t need to clergy to lead the Offices for us. We laity can do that ourselves whether corporately or alone. But we do need priests for the Eucharist. We do need bishops for Confirmations and Ordinations. Must these be paid full-time positions? Well—that’s part of the negotiation that needs to happen. The roles themselves, however, are not negotiable.

So, that’s how I see it. As we consider the future of the Episcopal Church, we must do so with a sense of where we’ve come from, where we wish to go and how to keep our experience of and witness to the Triune God at front and center of our efforts. For my part, I find that in the spiritual system of our Book of Common Prayer, in the common prayers agreed upon there, and in the structure of the church that we have received. Let’s think things over, let’s shake things up, but let’s make sure that what’s left at the end of the day never loses sight of the spiritual priorities that drive everything else that we do.

Dr. Derek Olsen has a Ph.D. in New Testament and Homiletics at Emory University. Currently serving as Theologian-in-Residence at the Church of the Advent, Baltimore, he leads quiet days and is a speaker to clergy groups. He has taught seminary courses in biblical studies, preaching, and liturgics. A layman working in the IT field, Derek created and maintains the online Daily Office site The St. Bede's Breviary. His reflections on life, liturgical spirituality, and being a Gen-X/Y dad appear at Haligweorc.

Comments (23)

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Andrew Ford

A fantastic article! I so agree with your discussion of "feeding regular lives with a spirituality that not only sustains them but leads them into God’s work...."

A great discussion of the Prayer Book, too - and of the fact that people need constants in their lives - especially during the hard times in their lives.

A wonderful piece.....

I am in agreement with Dr. Olsen here. If we start to reduce church to a community service agency or a community activity center, we forget what it's all about- God! Not that we shouldn't do all those things, but we must always orient it back to God.

The 1979 Prayer Book is a fantastic book, and I treasure it deeply.

If we can embrace Morning/Evening Prayer more, we can actually help more people (especially the laity) know how to actually lead the service. My parents joined the Episcopal Church a few years ago, and I pray Evening Prayer with them occasionally. My parents now feel comfortable enough to pray it on their own, and they were really excited to learn about the lectionaries and how to look up the readings! First, though, they had to experience evening prayer many times to get the 'rhythm' of it down, but now they love it and treasure it. How many more people in the world would love to pray with the Psalter and Bible like the Daily Office does, but have no one to teach them? Writing yet another spiritual book on how to do would be absurd; it's praying, and praying is doing!

I think we are still struggling with what it means to be the Church. What is the primary role of the Church? To proclaim the Gospel in thought, word, and deed; to care for the sick, the orphaned, the hungry, and the alone; to share in the Apostles' teaching and fellowship and prayers. The Church is not "just" another social service agency, nor is it a club for singing pretty songs on Sunday mornings. It's much, much more than that. Much more.

My biggest frustration with the Episcopal Church is that, so often, the mystery of the tradition, the rich and in fact beautiful liturgical and devotional heritage of the Church is cast aside or brutally chopped up in favor of liturgical innovations, trendy spirituality and political interests. We have this wonderful, powerful resource and rock-amidst-the-storm in the BCP and we dismiss it for our own agendas. There are certainly days when I look longingly at the riches of our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters and understand the reliable strength they draw from mass/liturgy.

Paragraph four includes the following:

"...parishes that have endowments are drawing from the principle...."

That should be "principal." Still reading
the article, and may have further
comment.

[Editor's note: Thanks, fixed.]

Very important points. And I would report that this is what consistent with what I hear from younger people, beyond old categories of liberal and conservative. Like Eli, I hope I am able to listen.

I concur!

The youth and young adults are amazingly sophisticated and will bolt at the faintest whiff of more-of-the-same secular jive.

Your post gives me courage to explore beginning praying the Daily Office in community as a ministry.

Thank you Dr. Derek!

Wonderful article, thank you!

[Editor's note: Thanks for the comment. Please leave your full name next time.]

Thank you Dr Olsen. Perhaps one of the reasons we are experiencing challenges as the Episcopal Church is that in so many of our churches we have stopped being Episcopalians.

That may sound rather tart but I have seen far too many examples of creeds re-written, the Trinity re-defined, worship as an afterthought, and so forth.

Thank you again!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dr. Olsen. You have captured in positive terms matters of concern to many of us who have been troubled by some responses to challenges before the Episcopal Church. I know many clergy colleagues who share my profound dis-ease with abandonment of Prayerbook disciplines but like me have not wanted to be dismissed as merely cranky traditionalists. You have spoken eloquently on our behalf.

To me, the prayer book is the first thing that can and must be negotiated. It is killing the church in many ways.

For starters, my generation has shifted its emphasis away from wordiness of past generations to images and other visual media and experiences, including in worship. The worship of fundamentalist churches is what brings young people in by creating a pseudo-mystical experience. People are hungry for God and looking down at a book, looking at the back of other people's necks and being read at is failing as a worship medium for many people. There are many other worship resources in the spirit of Anglicanism, which could include some elements from the BCP but must move beyond it, but these resources are not there because we haven't created them yet. They are waiting to be birthed.

Secondly and just as importantly, the language of the prayer book reflects a very particular theology and approach to God, emphasizing distance, God up in the sky, Jesus' blood, Almighty-father-heavenly-king, etc... all models which have become inoperative for many of us. I feel like I am going into the court of a king when I go into a high church Anglican service, and this is only one historical way of imaging God. We must vastly expand the language of the next prayer book to facilitate a much expanded encounter with God, using some of the many, many, other names for God in the Bible, emphasizing Love more than power, and for God's sake, including the Divine Feminine in our language, which would have a tremendously healing effect for both men and women and launch us more quickly into God's future.

I want to speak to Josh Magda's comment, because I think he is partly right about something, but drawing the wrong conclusion from it. What is right is that different people are drawn to God in different ways. There are many people who can only find God through what the megachurches (and the like; I'll use that term for lack of a better one) do, and for the sake of those people, it is good that the world has megachurches. But there are also a great many people who can't connect to God through that. Many of them struggle to find a spiritual home...until they walk into a liturgical church, and discover that the ancient liturgy, and the very rich spirituality that comes with it, is exactly what they need in order to find God. I have seen this time and again among my 20s and 30s peers. There is a real demand for what we have.

There are plenty of megachurches, but only one Episcopal Church. If God needs all kinds to reach all people, then for God's sake we need to do our part, and reach out to the people who need us.

So yes, I think Dr. Olsen is exactly right. We have inherited and are stewards of an incredibly valuable tradition. Our unique vocation is to nourish it, build it, live it, and embrace it. If we do that--if we focus on being who we are called to be rather than trying to imitate who we are not--we will be strong, and we will have plenty of vigor for the many other missions God calls us to fulfill.

In response to Josh, I strongly disagree. The more time we spend trying to 're-imagine' God the less time we spend actually worshipping God.

And why can't we talk about God having "power"? What is wrong with it? I am glad that God is in charge of history, that everything will turn out fine and that God can bring good out of evil. I want to believe in a God who has the power to redeem the people and save them from evil.

Or is "Love" just a nice, soft, inoffensive, inert thing, something that doesn't require me to change but "accepts me as I am"? NO. God loves me deeply, but God calls me to be much, much more than what I am now. Any healing involves pain, too. It requires facing limitations and drawing on God's powerful strength to be transformed.

A prayer book that abandons the history of the church and the language of the Bible ceases to be a prayer book and becomes merely a reflection of a select few's theological agenda, and that theological agenda has nothing to add to a Western world that actually already believes that everything's just fine as it is and needs to do nothing to change. It's "Oprah-ism" which affirms things as they are, asks nothing in return, and gets nothing in return.

(And, on a side note, what do you mean by "Divine Feminine"? What are the characteristics of that? How are they any different from how we talk about God? Any attempt to talk about any characteristic of God being "feminine" is, frankly, limiting. Compassion is not feminine or masculine. Mercy is not feminine or masculine. Power and strength are not masculine or feminine.)

And, as one of those 'young people', I think you should really go look at the multimedia presentations at megachurches. Just as much reading, far, far less mystical experience.

Thanks for the comments, all!

Josh,
I wanted to address your thoughts and I'll do so in the order that you presented them.

First, while what you describe (heads down in the books) can happen, I think the issue there might be more with the community and the presider than the book itself. In my experience, regular use of the same liturgy brings the freedom that comes with memorization. I rarely touch the book on Sundays, partly because I serve at the altar and frequently have other things in my hands, but also because repetition has brought comfortable familiarity. My eight year old daughter who serves along side me doesn't use the book either; she has her parts memorized as well--not because I've forced her to do so, but simply through natural repetition. (My five-year old is coming along. She still hasn't gotten the full post-communion prayer and seems fuzzy about some parts of the creed--but then some clergy seem to be in that boat too...)

While screens and powerpoint are sometimes recommended to the problem of heads in the books, I believe it just shifts the problem which then becomes faces glued to the screen.

Your second point is the more important to my mind and here's how I'd address it. There's a difference between common prayer and private prayer. Common prayer and the Book of Common Prayer is our public starting place for prayer--not our ending place. Once we have learned and internalized the models of prayer in the prayer-book and psalms, then in our own prayer we can be as vast and expansive as we'd like.

Let me give you an example. I too feel that there is a lack of the feminine in our liturgical language. However, I'm not so much feeling a lack of the "Divine Feminine" but of the human, embodied, feminine who teaches us, leads us, points us, and mediates to us the divine. I'm speaking of the preeminent disciple who was present at the Incarnation of Christ, his public ministry, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the birth of the Church and who treasured and pondered all these things in her heart--the Blessed Virgin Mary. My spirituality feels more complete with devotions that ask the Blessed Mother to pray with me to her Son. Now, I understand that not all Episcopalians feel this way. In fact, for some Episcopalians anything around the Virgin Mary is viewed as unedifying or even down-right divisive. Because I know this about our church, I would not push for including a host of Marian devotions into our prayer book. It simply wouldn't be common prayer, and the controversy and division would not be worth it. However, there's nothing against me including a Marian devotion or two to supplement my private praying of the Offices.

(Please be aware that Jim's created a new thread to discuss the implications of Josh's comment. If you're thinking of commenting on it, it may apply there as well.)

Derek, I absolutely agree about the prayer book being non-negotiable as the norm for worship in the Episcopal Church. It was the beautiful liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer that motivated me to return to my present church after my initial visit. I remember juggling the prayer book, the hymnal, and the bulletin with the readings and instructions, and, even with the juggling, I felt a strong pull to become a part of the church community because the powerful liturgy drew me closer to God.

June Butler

But could the BCP be an electronic version with links to scriptural readings and other resources, including a search feature for prayers, thanksgivings, announcements, etc.?

Right before I went off Vestry, we had this conversation as our parish was moving to becoming part of an inner-city two-point parish.

As a pastor's spouse, I reminded folks that there really is no such thing as a part-time pastor/priest, so we had to get clear about what is central to the call:

1) Word and Sacrament ministry: preaching, liturgy of Holy Communion, confession, etc.;
2) pastoral care especially to the homebound, hospitalized, dying and grieving;
3) cure of souls

That has required lay folk stepping up to administrative tasks as well as drawing on the riches of several theologically educated folk to teach, etc.

It is difficult, however. What seems to go absent in these sorts of conversations is that lay people too have over-full lives, a product of our insane society, and can get burned out on Church which becomes one more series of things to do, rather than experience...

What can also happen and often does in these conversations is a clericalizing of the laity so that we speak of these churchy tasks as our vocation, rather than our daily lives, work, and loves as the arenas in which our vocation happens.

Josh,

I wonder about such over-generalizations of entire generations. Yes, many are attracted to the styles of worship you describe with their uses of electronic media. However, there are ancient and traditional ways of experiencing the multisensory, incarnational aspects of God meeting us in the Divine Service: icons, statues, stained glass, incense, vestments, paraments, etc. In our overfull lives, being able to unplug and experience God in "old-fashioned" ways also appeals to many folk I know in their 20s and 30s.

With Derek, I would highlight that our common prayer is the heart of our rule of life together...and Prayer Book liturgy and that whom it requires, all four orders, is non-negotiable.

How training happens and how priests are compensated is open to change. After all, for centuries our Orthodox kin in Greece trained priests by a mentorship model after the fall of Constantinople...but the liturgy continued.

While there are certainly languages of transcendence or outside of ourselves or more than in our liturgies, there are also languages of immanence or with us or one of us. I think of the close of the Prayer of Humble Access, for example.

I do not experience high or anglo-catholic liturgy as distant, but as incarnational...the Great I Am is in our midst and no more so than by the proclamation and as Holy Communion.

More so, our Anglican spirituality not only can capably handle St. Anselm's and Bl. Julian's gender-bending Jesus, it can incorporate the love of the Theotokos, without requirement than all do either.

This is perhaps the most fantastic and thoughtful article article I have ever read on this site. This is the sort of thinking that not only helps us become more faithful Anglicans/Episcopalians... it transcends the normal conservative/liberal or traditionalist/progressive arguments. Its the sort of thing that many of us, regardless of other skirmishes or positions, can get behind.

Christopher,

I have seen many posts on the thread started in response to this one that seem that some people ARE willing to negotiate the structure and contents of the prayerbook.
And I have never argued that the old forms or traditional language need to be completely transplanted, but they must be deeply augmented.

For the final time, I will repeat the statistic that young adults make up 2 percent of TECs membership, and in my experience, and I would be willing to wager elsewhere, they make up an extremely privileged and elite few. This as a pattern for a church that considers itself to be a comprehensive and broad approach to the Christian faith is unsustainable, and our church and world deserve better.

I am not willing to consign my generation to fundamentalist churches or no church while a few elites prattle on about preserving, in tact and without alteration, ancient liturgy in its highly verbose and deeply patriarchal format

June, I miss juggling the books! My parish prints out the entire service from the Anglican Service Book, sometimes with hymns if they aren't in the Hymnal 1982, on a large, easy to read, and rather noisy leaflet (all those dead trees!); it's the one part of our parish's liturgy I truly do not care for. I think I felt more part of a tradition holding an actual book; the leaflets are just too - I don't know, *disposable*, maybe. I felt more tied in holding the book (actually, I kinda miss the simplicity of the '28 Book, but that ship has sailed). My experiences with projected texts have been even more unsatisfactory.

Jean, I know a young curate who dreams of making an iMissal for use at the altar. I'm sure the same could be done for a pew edition. You can get the BCP for iPhones and iPads and whatnot now, but in my experience they're hard to navigate.

Jean

This whole article seems, bizarrely, to be predicated not on defending the 1979 BCP but on defending some sort of broadly Anglican form of liturgical worship. Surely, the overwhelming majority of people who dislike the 1979 BCP are not advocating some sort of free-form Protestant worship service. By and large, they are supporters of the 1928 BCP, or of the American Missal or, in a few more 'advanced' cases, the English Missal. They would point out, rightly in my view, that the 1979 BCP contains much that looks, in too many places, like an embarrassing relic of 1960s liberalism. The Church of England's 'Common Worship', although it is not superior to the 1979 American Book in every way (the Baptism service in particular leaves much to be desired), makes some attempt to 'reform the reform' of the 1960s. It does not, however, go far enough in this record.

My particular concern is that 1979 BCP seems to go out of its way to be 'different' in too many places. Why, pray tell, does the Eucharist begin with 'Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' rather than using the conventional 'In nomine Patri' formula familiar to all Western Christians? Why do the offices of Morning and Evening Prayer deviate so strikingly from the normal Anglican order of these offices as it existed from 1549 to 1979 and exists today in many provinces of the Anglican Communion? Also, now that Rome has finally seen the light, can we please finally get rid of the ludicrous response 'And also with you', which borders on the meaningless and is certainly neither idiomatic English nor an accurate translation of any liturgical text that has ever existed?

Dr Olsen suggest that the 1979 Prayer Book is 'Non-negotiable', but I think this attitude has been deeply harmful to the unity of the American Church. The fact is that a large part, if not the majority, of the laity always had misgivings about what is still widely known as the 'new Prayer Book' (even amongst those who, like myself, were born after its approval). W.H. Auden's comments on the subject are particularly revealing. People, particularly those under the age of about 35 or 40, are now desperate for a 'reform of the reform'. This movement is already underway and has been for some time (S. Clement's, Philadelphia, is one parish that briefly experimented with liturgical modernism before settling on a fairly traditional rite with traditional ceremonial), but it needs to be undertaken at the national level.

So please, Dr Olsen, it's time to negotiate.

Add your comments
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Advertising Space