Hang onto Your Hats: It’s Time for a New Book of Common Prayer

by

 

by Eric Bonetti

 

When the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) was released, many scholars felt that the task of revision was made more challenging by the theological changes that had occurred since the 1928 version. Indeed, some scholars claimed that the 1979 version represented an abandonment of the Tudor/Archbishop Cranmer notion of deity. Will we face similar challenges this time around? And how might our changing role in society affect the process of revision?

 

I suspect that, true to form, there will be many shifts in focus, while attempting to avoid painting those with differing views into a corner.

 

One big change, I suspect, will be to make the language of the BCP more gender neutral. It’s always struck me that one of the great ironies of the 1979 version, emerging as it did during the push for greater gender equality, is how obviously male-oriented the end result was. How many churches, for instance, which use Eucharistic prayer C, now insert the names of the matriarchs after the language, “Lord God of our Fathers: God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,”? Surely a good call, and one long overdue to be made official.

 

Similarly, has our view of race relations changed? I well remember the excitement of the 1970’s, where many in the church, myself included, felt that we were on the brink of much wider inclusion and social justice. But in light of recent racial issues in this country, have we made the progress we thought we would? Many Sundays, as I look out over the almost all white congregation in my parish, I sigh deeply, feeling like we have just not made the progress we had hoped for.

 

Of course, marriage equality will be a big issue. In this space, the hymnal will need to evolve, and the rubrics of the BCP as well, for our canons treat the rubrics of the BCP as binding, yet the BCP still treats marriage as being between a man and a woman. This, as well as race relations, might also be topics for inclusion in the Catechism.

 

More thorny will be open communion. Many churches practice de facto open communion, tactfully omitting any discussion in their Sunday bulletin of the need to be baptized to take communion. Other churches are quite clear that all are welcome – as long as they are baptized. Allowing freedom on conscience in this space will be tricky, but my hope is that we will adhere to the highest and best aspects of the via media.

 

Then there’s the perennial tension between high, low, and broad church proponents. It has been said that the 1979 BCP reflected the ascendancy of the high church movement, with greater emphasis on saints days, the Great Vigil of Easter, and more.

 

In this regard, my sense is that many parishes are becoming more liturgical and somewhat high church. Even the church of my childhood, once squarely in the low church tradition, now has a tabernacle and other “Catholic” accoutrements (along with some horrid woodwork dating from the late Seventies, which was intended to make the church less Gothic in appearance. Instead, it now looks like a badly done fast food restaurant.)

 

Even here in the Diocese of Virginia, which overall is decidedly low church, one sees more votive candles, aumbries, and other hints of an increased appreciation for our Roman heritage. So, I suspect these changes will be reflected in the new BCP.

 

There’s also the issue of what to do with some of the loose ends in the 1979 BCP. For instance, there’s the somewhat odd section for a “build-your-own-Eucharist.” Nice idea, but I suspect that anyone who’s been through seminary already has a pretty good idea of the constituent parts.

 

Meanwhile, one of the downsides of the via media is our tendency to weasel-word things when the going gets tough. Understandable, but it’s often the loose ends that get us in trouble. Yet, at the same time, are we still content to envision a God “up there,” a hell “down there,” and the other now-quaint phrases of the creeds? Is of understanding of God now one that transcends the specifics of time and space?

 

What do you think? What things do you need to see in the next Book of Common Prayer? And what things would you like to see go away?

 

 

Eric recently retired, and is enjoying hanging out, going to the gym, cycling, doing volunteer work, and teaching kids’ cooking classes, not necessarily in that order.

Dislike (1)
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedinmail
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Paula Moore
Guest
Paula Moore

Seriously, when the arguments are over and the dust has settled, those who do the housekeeping will need to know if churches will need 3 Sunday services? Will we have Rites I, II, and III? Some will find this funny or think I'm being sarcastic. Not true. I was there in 79 and it was fun but it was also deadly. We still have churches where Rite I is the main service and we are now blessed with the Anglicans, some who want our building and our land
I'm not saying don't do it. Just saying, be careful, the soul gets bruised too.

Like (1)
Dislike (1)
Kathryn E Macek
Guest
Kathryn E Macek

I think TEC can learn a lot from our ELCA brothers and sisters. Take a look at the 2006 "Evangelical Lutheran Worship."

Like (0)
Dislike (2)
Jim Jordan
Guest
Jim Jordan

I agree. Much to be learned about user-friendly formatting and about more modern but still liturgically rigorous content.

Like (0)
Dislike (1)
Chuck Wharton
Guest
Chuck Wharton

Agree 100%!

Like (0)
Dislike (1)
Ann Fontaine
Editor

I doubt there will be a wholesale revision. The expense of books will be hard on any who still use books. Probably more alternative and supplemental rites. One sad thing about current usage is the full printed bulletins - and the seeming loss of the use of any services other than Eucharist and Burial.

Like (1)
Dislike (0)
Lexiann Grant
Guest
Lexiann Grant

As long as it's not "dumbed down" as so much text is anymore. And the option for a more lyrical, ancient verbiage remains to reach back through the millennia and link us to those who came before.

Like (2)
Dislike (0)
Steven Wilson
Guest

Editing would be great. Why do some of the suggested forms for Prayers of the People suddenly switch from speaking TO God to speaking ABOUT God? And there's that achingly interminable sentence in the Ash Wed service, "It was also a time when those who because of notorious sin, had been separated from the body of the faithful, were dot dot dot wake me when it's over." But on the whole, other than tidying up some loose ends and rationalizing the canons and striking the needlessly masculine pronouns which make Rite II more sexist than Rite I, I hope we tread lightly. There are more important tasks facing the Church than liturgical revision, and we will distract into liturgical in-fighting if given the opportunity. It's a safe, familiar auto-default that allows us to talk about change without actually having to do much change.

Like (0)
Dislike (2)
1 2 3 9