An open question - the BCP, new services, adaptation, creation and tradition

[Malcolm Heath]

First off, since I'm new to anglimergent, let me introduce myself briefly.

I'm Malcolm Heath, and I'm a lay person, a nearly lifelong Episcopalian, and an active member of my parish, Sts. Peter and Paul's Episcopal in Portland, Oregon. In other places, I'm an information security specialist and system administrator. I'm a husband, and a member of Gen-X, and much else besides.

I've gotten the impression that many here are clergy, former or in discernment, or otherwise hold advanced degrees in theology or divinity. My somewhat paltry BA in Religious Studies will hopefully allow me to keep up with you all. My qualifications as someone who was raised Episcopalian, but left for a long time, and found my way back, might be of more use, come to think of it.

At any rate, as we discuss at our parish various new programs for outreach and fostering emerging Anglicanism, I find I sometimes struggle with a nexus of issues that related to the BCP and developing new liturgical patterns. This is more or less of a list of notes and questions, and I'd be very happy to get your input.

The BCP itself is something I love a great deal, even as it drives me batty. I find the patterns of worship seem natural and powerful to me. The have a pace and a rhythm that works very well, with times of quiet, and times of noise. They build well, and offer a framework that really seems to work well for many.

On the other hand, the rubriks are confusing at times. The choice of collects and selection of various texts, antiphons, and even whole sections can be daunting. I know that this came out of a desire to make it more flexible, and it likely has, but it's often easier to start with something a bit more simple and build from there, than it is to start from something complex, and try to wrestle something meaningful out of it.

There certainly isn't a shortage of readings to substitute, of course. There are vast depths of liturgical material in the broader Anglican tradition that are sitting there, waiting to be used. Celtic inspired texts, ones with a Benedictine flavor, old forgotten collects and phrases from prayerbooks past, and much else besides.

But I fear that, given the plethora of material, some of the rhythm might be lost if we're not careful.

This has been somewhat rambling up to now, so let me try to sort this out a bit more clearly.

I would love to see "alternative liturgy" developed at my parish, and my clergy and vestry support it.
We have a celtic flavor that calls us deeply.
At the same time, the power of the liturgy of the BCP is something that the Anglican church has to offer, and isn't something that should be cast aside, I think.

Given all that, perhaps the questions are "Do you feel bound to the prayerbook?" and if so, why?
Also, "if the prayerbook speaks to you, what parts would you take along with you, in terms of broad frameworks for liturgy, into a new form for worship?"

[Richard R.]

Hi Kay:

I didn't hear the word "paperless" until I'd been with my Eucharistic Community (non-Anglican) that I worship with on Sunday evenings for about a year and I realized "hey, that's mostly us." We're mainly nominal Roman Catholics and former Roman Catholics, and use just a 1-page bulletin and a hymnal. The pastor had ditched reliance on Missalettes and made the changes like the following:
- Instead of a shared prayer of confession, a time of guided silence followed by an extended chanting of the kyrie, lead by a cantor.
- Heavy emphasis on sung repeated refrains/responses.
- Rare use of the creed, and usually in the context of a renewal of Baptismal vows (so that the officiant leads the creed in a question-answer format).
- Trained lay assisting ministers who can lead readings, prayers, etc., without everyone need to have their own personal copy. For instance, while our prayers of the people are printed for the officiant and lector, we don't print them for everyone in the congregation (we use a simple sung response lead by a cantor).

Since almost all people in the congregation either know or quickly catch onto typical liturgical responses ("The Word of the Lord... Thanks be to God," the Gospel Alleluia/acclamation/responses, the Kyrie, the Sursum Corda), and we have a hymnal for other common liturgical texts (Gloria, memorial acclamations) and we use chant or sung responses as often as possible on Sundays, people catch on pretty quickly. My feeling is that if we used more Taize-style chants and fewer hymns, we could even rely on the hymnal significantly less than we do.

Since I wasn't there from the founding, I'm not sure how things took the shape they come to now, but to me it seems that a simplifying process guided by repetition, silences, and music would significantly reduce the amount of paper needed. We've found our visitors, even those without liturgical grounding, have been able to follow along as much as they want and only a few of our older members (who were lifelong Catholics, oddly) said they missed following along in a missal.

[Kay Flores]

Richard (or any of the rest of you) tell me more about how you make paperless work.

We have been trying to figure out how to go paperless for the season of Pentecost or maybe just for the summer. It is partly a desire to stop using so much paper, and partly a desire to simplify the life of the team that produces bulletins, and partly a desire to get our noses out of the book.

The problem is we just can't quite picture it. :)

[Richard R.]

Hi All:

First off, like Malcolm, I'm also new to Anglimergent. I've been an Episcopalian all of my adult life, but took some time off to worship and work with non-Episcopalian communities (spent a year or so in an ELCA church and have been worshiping and working with an independent catholic-tradition community for about two years). As I make my way back into weekly attendance and worship with the TEC parishes in my area, I'm sort of wondering the reverse: what can I bring back with me?

Here are some thoughts:
- Breviaries: While I know Church Publishing put together a two-book set containing the offices with readings for a full year, the price at the time was well over $100. Even the improved simplicity of "Celebrating Common Prayer" and "Common Worship: Daily Prayer" pale in comparison to the simplicity of using "Christian Prayer" or "Shorter Christian Prayer" (or the even simpler Divine Office series by Phyllis Tickle). The Folks at Mission St. Clare, Oremus, and The CofE have done much to get everything online in a simple format, but there are still folks who prefer/want/need small, portable, usable resources for personal devotion.
- Paperlessness: Through reliance on simple ritual formula and common, accessible music, I've seen liturgists outside The Episcopal Church improvise freely within a liturgical framework without losing themselves, their assistants, or their congregations. Episcopalians sometimes seem too fond of having their noses stuck in a book and following along, worrying about whether everyone is on the same page. Some things will never be wholly paperless, but Episcopalians could be more adventurous in moving that direction.
- Open Tables

Of course, Anglicans have a lot of gifts to bring, too:
- Eucharist: While not promoting a rigid theology or understanding of what happens in the Eucharist, The Episcopal Church (along with other Anglicans) understand it as the central act of Christian communal worship, a chance to encounter the other.
- Strangeness: The stories here of the public celebration of Ash Wednesday reminded me of this one. One of the glories of The Prayer Book is it's oddness. Even the prayers in contemporary language aren't hip or trendy or All-American or urbane. It's weird, peculiar, and strange (or, at least, it's an acquired taste). As such, it has a chance to remind us how weird, unhip, etc., the Christian Life can be. By having some common liturgical reference points, we have a chance to resist what Henri Nouwen saw as the temptations to be relevant, powerful, and important. A neo-pagan friend recently told me that he felt like he lived in a world that was like the one everyone else lived in, except stranger. I think good liturgy can give us the same feeling.
- The Psalms: The 1979 BCP is probably the most accessible public domain psalter in contemporary English, and Anglican (like Benedictine) daily prayer draws on the Psalms in all of their unadulterated messiness: rage, exhaustion, territoriality, xenophobia, and the desire for revenge live alongside some wonderful poetry of adoration, longing, and gratitude.

-Richard

[Malcolm Heath]

I want to thank everyone who commented. Excellent stuff.

The last comment by Deanne Gibbs-Brown hit closest to what I was ineptly asking. "What to bring along?" What things about the structure of say, the Eucharist, removed from specific prayers, is valuable?

For my part on the "dominating" language - I'm surprisingly comfortable with it, on one level. It took me years to get there, however. And I admit that it takes some mental gymnastics to do so.

Back in the day, kingdom/lord/military language really bothered me. But somewhere along the line, I realized two things - one is that I do in fact feel like it's appropriate to be completely subservient to God. This doesn't in any way mean that I'm going to be subservient to anything else, mind you. And secondly, that while God's kingdom may be spoken of in terms of militaristic, lordly terms, my understanding of what the kingdom looks like is completely opposite of that. "Bring all things under subjection to your Christ" still grates a bit.

This is not to say that a rewrite/reconsideration isn't a very excellent thing to do.

[Deanne Gibbs-Brown]

I love the BCP structure, as I am a cradle Episcopalian. BUT the language is often so male dominant/empire building... that it interrupts my ability to pray. I have to stop and re-center and pray 'in-spite-of' the soul crushing words.
I am looking forward to the time when we can do the next 'generational review' and at least add more inclusive and less dominating images (options) to the prayer language. Yet I believe inclusive should include everyone, not just the ones who agree with me.
So it's all about having an option to pray less aggressive dominant language.

What to take along??? Compline !!!
The open structure of the last Eucharistic service,
The emphasis on the Psalms found in the Daily Offices, which connects us to the desert fathers and even to the faithful before the birth of Christ.
The option to use Rite I when it is appropriate for penitential seasons/days. (It reminds me that I am not God.)
Participative Worship...We all pray, sing and participate in the sacraments. (It is not a performance with passive observers.)
I agree with Kit Wang that the discipline of following a prescribed reading schedule keeps us grounded in the words that we hear so little of in our larger world.
Praying the Daily Office consistently is a rich experience, even if it often seems lonely.

[Kit Wang]

I think that it's always useful to make sure that one is using the resources at hand fully before trying to reinvent them--I often find that when I try to reinvent somehting, I actually find it somewhere I haven't looked yet--there's still plenty of Enriching Our Worship to explore in most places! That being said, I'm largely in agreement to what's been said above, with one caution--I am quite cautious when folks talk about using "alternate readings." In general, I think that alternate readings are ok at exceptional services when it is apparent that other readings/recommended or available readings fail, however, except in communities where the Daily Office is prayed daily and well attended, and Sunday attendance is near 100%, there's just WAY too little Biblical contact in most places today. If on's community (and not just oneself as clergy!) spends a lot of time with Scripture and is incredibly Scripture-literate, I would advise against alternative readings.

[James L. Thibodeaux]

The practice at St. Peter's, Seattle is currently to make the prayer book liturgy the touchstone for our common liturgical life. Sunday mornings are BCP Rite II Eucharist with a twinge of Anglocatholic sacramentality and a dash of Evangelical passion. Other services are wide open.
The BCP represents for me a carefully crafted Middle Way for the church local and at large. In times of anxiety, needless straying from it's provisions has caused greater heartache. On the other hand, a "Prayer Book Fundamentalism" is just as inadequate. Grace in all things, I suppose.
I believe you will find enough room in the '79 prayerbook to flavor a Prayerbook Eucharist with almost any bent - Benedictine, Celtic, Anglocatholic, Evangelical, Franciscan, etc. Giving the expected (Prayerbook service) the unexpected twist (like Celtic spirituality) may encourage curiosity in those who otherwise would dismiss an outright innovation. And sometimes accepting limitations fosters greater creativity and not less.

[Michelle Harvey]

I don't know if it's cheating that we know each other, but it *is* an excellent discussion point! I am madly in love with the structure of the BCP, but there is a lot in that one little book that remains unexplored in traditional liturgical services (Compline, for one!). I was in charge of liturgy when I worked at Triangle Lake Camp, and remember "creating" liturgy with the kids using Compline + "Prayers and Thanksgivings" (each kiddo chose and read a prayer/thanksgiving that spoke to them at that moment). I would love to make substitutions with prayers from other sources etc. I think there are many alterations that can be safely made to BCP liturgy without losing its framework and depth.

[Revnelli]

Hi Malcolm,
The BCP for me is a symbol - not to be taken too seriously, but used as a measure for 'new' liturgies.
Before I got to my current post (vicar in rural BC) I was in England, and never used the BCP. The anacronism was just too vivid. Now I use it twice a week - at midweek and early sunday eucharist. This because the congregations are in their 60's plus. Its their history, what they grew up with, so It has resonances for them. I'm happier to use it then when I started and have no intention of 'easing' them onto the Canadian BAS.
In the UK they are now on a 3rd Generation prayer book - "common worship" (available online) - which is totally pick 'n' mix. The BCP has the advantage (to me) of familiarity - the same yesterday, today and forever. I'm not convinced about the language - as for the theology - ugh.

If I was working with an emergent congregation I guess we'd be doing liturgy from scratch - but using the BCP as a way of benchmarking how far we wanted to go. But don't tell my Bishop ;-)