Support the Café

Search our Site

Further thoughts on an all-digital BCP

Further thoughts on an all-digital BCP


by George Clifford


In my last contribution to the Episcopal Café, I proposed that The Episcopal Church (TEC) publish its next revision of the Book of Common Prayer exclusively in a digital format. That proposal triggered a flurry of comments, mostly negative. Those responses are worth answering even though they failed to address many of the issues I raised in support of TEC utilizing an exclusively electronic (digital) Book of Common Prayer.

Revising the Book of Common Prayer will require at least ten years from today. If next year’s General Convention (GC) appoints a task force or tasks an existing body to draft a revision, the 2021 GC might forward that draft to dioceses for comment, asking the body that drafted the revision to carefully consider those comments; the 2024 GC could then debate the revised draft, probably amending sections and perhaps authorizing trial use; if the trial enjoyed popular acceptance, the 2027 GC might adopt the revision as TEC’s new prayer book. The actual timeline would conceivably (probably?) take longer, especially if some groups find some of the proposed revisions particularly problematic.

By 2027, our world will be far more digitally dependent than it is in 2017. Comfort with electronic media will be even more widespread. Some elementary, middle, and high schools already issue each student a personal computer or tablet, increasingly relying upon digital instead of printed materials. A growing percentage of college textbooks are available only in a digital format. Commercial sales of e-books continue to grow rapidly.

Consequently, for many people juggling a bulletin, prayer book, and one or more hymnals while trying to worship will feel increasingly awkward, distracting, and unhelpfully anachronistic. A forward-looking TEC will choose to adopt contextually appropriate technology rather than clinging to outdated media. As one response to my proposal noted, printing the first Book of Common Prayer represented utilizing the best technology then available. Since that time, branches of the Anglican Communion have published various editions of the Book of Common Prayer adapted to their context and in their language(s). Moving to an exclusively digital version of the Book of Common Prayer is simply the logical progression of this living tradition.

Furthermore, the proposal to publish any revision in an exclusively digital format is actually less radical than it might appear. TEC and others (some unauthorized) already make the Book of Common Prayer, other liturgical resources, and much of our hymnody available electronically. Illustratively, growing numbers of people, ordained and lay, say the daily office utilizing digital resources that incorporate the relevant Book of Common Prayer materials and prayers, scripture readings, and sometimes music and/or historical information about the saint(s) or event commemorated that day.

Incorporating hymns and service music into the revised electronic Book of Common Prayer may likely, as another respondent noted, raise copyright issues. That is not a reason to reject electronic publishing. Instead, it constitutes an issue that those who draft the revision and TEC’s lawyers will have to address. A printed Book of Common Prayer that incorporates hymns and service music would be both physically unwieldly and too large to fit in most pew racks. Only an electronic version offers the convenience of having all of our liturgical resources in a single, readily accessible source.

A digital resource will allow congregations and dioceses to make unauthorized changes, a problem that more than one respondent to my original proposal highlighted. These respondents ignored my observation that this already happens. Like them, I value being part of a Church that is defined by common prayer rather than common belief. However, ostrich like behavior that tries to ignore the unfortunate practice of local, unauthorized changes to the Book of Common Prayer’s liturgies and rubrics is not constructive. Not printing a revised Book of Common Prayer will neither accelerate or decelerate the use of unauthorized changes to the liturgy. This is a separate issue, one that deserves our attention, but not a reason to object to publishing a revised, comprehensive Book of Common Prayer in an exclusively digital format.

Currently, TEC has a number of alternative liturgies (e.g., for the eucharist) that congregations may use with their diocesan bishop’s permission. These liturgies are not in the Book of Common Prayer. Thus, congregations utilizing these liturgies must either print a service leaflet that contains the full liturgy or leave attendees in the dark about the timing and wording of participatory responses. These liturgies represent a de facto step away from total reliance upon a printed prayer book and a step toward use of a digital resource. The same issues arise when using the Book of Occasional Service’s seasonal and other liturgical resources.

Advantageously, relying upon a comprehensive, digital version of TEC liturgical resources will allow timely, no cost updates to language and content, e.g., replacing the outdated, exclusionary masculine terms in the rubrics with gender neutral ones and including both newly adopted materials as well as items authorized for trial use. As the multiple revisions to the Book of Common Prayer in this and other Anglican provinces attest, the Church’s worship is framed in continually evolving language and liturgy.

Finally, none of the respondents to my original piece adequately addressed the substantial financial costs to congregations and individuals who would need or desire to purchase printed revisions of the Book of Common Prayer and other TEC liturgical resources. These costs would greatly strain the financial resources of many of our small congregations. And TEC consists primarily of small congregations. One respondent did raise the important issue of environmental harm attributable to an increased number of congregations printing a leaflet for each service containing the full liturgy. However, that cumulative negative effect will very probably be significantly less than the combined adverse environmental effect attributable to printing both tens of thousands of copies of a revised Book of Common Prayer (TEC has over 5000 congregations) and the weekly leaflets containing the full liturgy that many congregations presently print.

I appreciate some people deriving personal comfort in holding a printed book. However, the Church is not about me or any other individual. The Church exists to minister to the world, particularly those hurting or spiritually empty persons who seek a different or new form spirituality. Over half of all Episcopalians began their Christian journey in another denomination. Concurrently, the fastest growing religious demographic in the US is the number of people who self-identify as having no religious preference, many of whom lack any religious background. Meanwhile, our culture is relentlessly switching to digital.

Becoming a people who truly welcomes both those moving from another denomination and those with no previous religious identity requires TEC to make its worship resources and materials as user friendly as reasonably possible. One vital component of this welcome is to provide the entire liturgy, words and music, in an easily accessible format, e.g., leaflets printed with the full liturgy, loaning attendees a handheld electronic device that displays the liturgy, projecting the liturgy onto one or more large screens, or a mix of these options. A digital Book of Common Prayer that includes our hymnals and other liturgical materials best supports all of these options, best utilizes TEC resources, and is most contextually appropriate for TEC as it lives into the twenty-first century.




George Clifford, a priest in the Diocese of Hawai’i, served as a Navy chaplain for twenty-four years, has taught ethics and the philosophy of religion, and now blogs at Ethical Musings.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Rev. Thomas C. Jackson

Discussing an Electronic BCP reminds me that ours is a church of privledge and affluence. Why not focus on the content of the book first and then open the way for people to use it as they see fit?

Whitney Burton

By going to a fully digital BCP, we rule out those who don’t have a smart device. I see countless people, even in the younger generations who do not have a smart phone because they either don’t want it, or can’t afford it. I love the idea of encouraging good stewardship of the Earth, but see a need to have options for those who do not have the resources.


I sometimes watch a Sunday Mass from Cologne Cathedral via What German Roman Catholics have is a common service book and hymnal called Gotteslob (“praise of God”) that’s thoroughly numbered from cover to cover, and there’s a small but quite visible electronic sign that displays only the number of the next needed item in Gotteslob. Maybe that’s a better use of projection and balance of technology: definitely printed books, but with a fairly subtle yet effective bit of electronic assistance.

Sean Bala

I would like to raise three points.

First, while the article does talk about many of the innovations that technology could bring to worship, I ask if technology is widespread enough to justify getting rid of the physical prayer book? The Episcopal Church is often seen as the church of the wealthy – won’t moving to this sort of format exacerbate this perception? It is innovative – but only when everyone if your congregation has an iPad or some type of tablet or phone.

Second, consider the idea of what worship might look like with an entire congregation bent over glowing screens – how does this make worship any different than being on a subway browsing on your phone? Going into church is meant to be a transition to a different time and space for a time. To commune with God and with each other.

Third, there is an element of nostalgia to wanting to have a physical book. But there is also a practicality – you don’t need electricity to read it. The BCP is one of the reasons I became an Anglican / Episcopalian – I can hold the primarily liturgies and prayers of my church in one book in my hand – accessible to all, clergy and laity alike. The physical BCP is a powerful symbol that should not be discarded lightly.

Jody Howard

TEC, always on the cutting edge of several decades ago. Even if one doesn’t buy the suggestion that the growth of ebooks has plateaued, the format does seem to lend itself to certain things more than others. For example, I may want a text book or technical guide in ebook format–or even the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, since it’s searchable. I enjoy brain-candy on trips delivered through my kindle. I even use electronic prayer apps on occasion. But print’s demise was greatly exaggerated for a few reasons, some of which apply directly to the sacred, and the place of the Book of Common Prayer. Indeed, I can imagine people in the hospital being taken aback or even insulted if I whipped out a smart phone or iPad to do the Ministration to the Sick or Ministration at the time of death.

There are other issues as well. For example, we know that people remember what they read in physical books more easily than what they read on a screen, just as we tend to remember what we have hand-written more easily than what we’ve typed. Then there’s the anthropological reality that those things which are most sacred change most slowly (one of the reasons we still have, and most people still use, the traditional language Lord’s Prayer even in Rite II). People generally want a physical object of things they enjoy or that hold a special place for them. So, if I enjoy an ebook, and know I’m going to read it again, I will buy a physical copy. I might make use of a Bible or BCP app in a utilitarian fashion, but nothing will replace the physical versions when it comes to devotional life and, especially, passing along something sacred to others.

And in terms of parishes doing their own thing: I don’t think that should be encouraged beyond limits. The BCP is a contract between a laity that predominantly likes stability and a clergy that often likes to experiment based on their personal preferences and eccentricities. The bounds of the BCP keep eccentric clergy at least somewhat in check and serves as an agreement among all who worship in an Episcopal Church.

The idea that a parish wouldn’t be able to purchase BCPs is just defeatist and displays the lack of confidence that will continue to fuel decline in TEC. It’s the wrong kind of imagination.

I do hope we have (good!) digital resources–we don’t have a good track record on that front–but I don’t think they can or will stand in for a bound book.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café