By
The Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle
In the season after the General Convention 2022, there has been debate about 2022-A059, which is now returning to the convention as A072. The Anglican Theological Review posted an article by The Rev. Dr Matthew Olver of Nashotah House. As a member of the drafting group for the House of Bishops regarding the 2022-A059 revision, we bring background and clarity into the ongoing dialogue with an eye to the argument made by Olver. He wants to convince the deputies that the actions of the last Convention were not wise. Below, I offer a defence of General Convention actions regarding 2022-A059 and a response to Olver’s argument.
I first offer seven critical contexts operating on the floor of the House of Bishops during the debate and within the group assigned to work on a means forward. These themes of conversation are: a) the 2022-A059 as presented was not going to be approved; b) there were issues raised about what belongs in the Constitution vs what belongs in the canons; c) members of the House did not want the process that has been underway for existing trial rites to be delayed – specifically those regarding marriage; d) bishops who hold a traditional view on marriage, or whose diocese were in their processes of dealing with the change, were concerned that a passage of the new rites would require canonical obedience; e) there was a lot of concern over having an actual paper bound book; f), there were issues about the continued translation of texts; g) and finally, there was concern that bishops had not been attentive to and that rules were changing around those rites permitted by bishops alone as the chief liturgical officer of the diocese. While it may be suggested that 2022-A059 in the form presented was simple, the context in which it arrived upon the floor of the House of Bishops for debate was decidedly not simple, and failure was its immediate apparent outcome.
Another subtext is that the typical member of the General Convention seated in either the House of Deputies or in the House of Bishops do not understand the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, especially regarding those with an effect upon liturgical forms and the use of liturgical terminology. This context means that when different liturgical resolutions come before the two houses, people may very well pass them but not understand if they passed a text for "Experimental Use," "Supplemental Use," or "Trial Use." There is also confusion over which are to be used freely and which are not. Not all of these are oriented towards the revision of The Book of Common Prayer. This fact was admitted by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. These terms were generally used among the liturgists but not understood by the wider church.
This is essential background because the history of how things are changed and the context in which they are changed is essential to the continuing life of the Episcopal Church's constitutional, canonical, and liturgical life. With the above in mind, I turn to the text of 2022-A059, now A072 itself.
Let us begin by saying that we do not agree with all of Olver's constitutional and canonical points about The Episcopal Church's Constitution generally. Part of the work of this proposal was to help TEC navigate the future regarding the nature of a physical book, an online book, and the wide variety of approved BCP liturgies and liturgical forms available to the local priest and churchgoer alike. Many churches today use booklets and projection and even devices to help with the service. Some still use the book itself. This clouds the issue. The reader should remember that the context of the amendment included different understandings of the proposal's intention. These sometimes-conflicting perspectives were and are at the very root of the issue that faced 2022-A059 and our Constitution and Canons. These opposing forces and disagreements might be categorized in this way:
- Those who envision a Book of Common Prayer produced by a printer and those who envision an Ebook of Common Prayer
- Those who envision marriage equality within the Book of Common Prayer and those who are concerned they will be constitutionally forced to bless all marriages for an ever-expanding LGBTQ+ community by placing the marriage rites in the Book of Common Prayer.
- Those who experience the latent reality that translations of liturgical materials are not seen as essential to a multiethnic and multinational church and those who don't understand the issue of flexibility with liturgical texts achieve parody across our diverse church when it comes to liturgy
- Those who want structure and clarity for revision and those who didn't know we were without such clarity and structure
- Those who want to create openness in the process and those who don't want openness
- Those who want to be able to work with others to develop mission-responsive and those who want to slow down the process
- Those who want to build a new prayer book from scratch and those who don't want this at all
The conflict we saw in 2022 regarding 2022-A059 was very much rooted in the same conflict, which has been building for three decades and came to a head in 2018, resulting in B011. I helped author this proposal with the very best liturgical minds of the church, as was my participation in creating the amendment that will surely be before us.
To this end, the great revision underway in the 21st century regarding liturgy hoped to create a constitutional framework that would allow for the existence of these views, not to continue the muddled past which was created as times and contexts have changed, and enable us to move forward, while holding onto one of our greatest assets The Book of Common Prayer as the shared prayer of this church. Olver implies this was slapdashed and needs more consideration. That is just not the reality of the overall history of the proposal, the authors involved, and the bishops and deputies in the last convention.
Unfortunately, The Episcopal Church does not have the time, money, or clarity of intention to produce a single book today. Therefore, we agree with Matthew Olver's perspective that, indeed, "yes", we had to find a way for the Episcopal Church to revise the contents of the Book of Common Prayer in steps. However, as Olver implies, this was not to mimic the ever-expanding books of liturgies as in the Church of England. Instead, it was to make clear that the doctrinal and unity of the BCP must be maintained and that a process for relieving pressure and allowing the work of liturgical formation to move forward also needed to be dealt with constitutionally and canonically.
An astute friend once quipped, ‘The Book of Acts is about the church catching up with a resurrected Jesus and the mission of God.’ The truth is that in our era, the Book of Common Prayer cannot keep pace with the mission underway, and we need time for that mission to bear fruit theologically and liturgically.
Olver also implies that 2022-A059, now A072, as we have it before us, rejects a systematic doctrinal revision and does so piecemeal. That is not true. Olver's argument infers that the modifications to the marriage canon do not come out of deep thought and wrestle with doctrinal theology. Yet, they do, and several texts illustrate the work the Episcopal Church has done through convention over thirty years to build a doctrinal case for the passing of these liturgies. Indeed, those who hold to this church's traditional view of marriage might disagree and side with Olver. We need to remember, though, that the church has made a particular decision about marriage and that those rites are going through a process of liturgical approval for the Prayer Book as outlined in previous texts – it has been approved for trial use. We also suggest that this is not true for other proposed and used texts of material that have come before the General Convention for entrance into The Book of Common Prayer – if we are deliberate in how we proceed. The fear of a crashing plethora of liturgies entering our doctrinal life is a "fear", not one founded in the 2018-B011 or 2022-A059 proposal that is now before the church for a time of consideration. It is instead a fear and an anxiety. Those against the amendment hope to share this unnecessary fear to defeat the text.
Olver and Robert Pritchard’s proposals that will also come before the constitution and canons and possibly liturgy committees will indeed create precisely the problem that they fear – multiple books. You will discover as you read is that all of the other proposals seek competing Books of Common Prayer in one form or another. The proposal I have helped to write and argue for below is the only one that keeps a solo Book of Common Prayer while maintaining the use of 1979 and older books.
It is true that in the end, the church may choose to reject the offer made by 2022-A059, now A072, to engage in careful, theological work, which allows us to overcome our church's liturgical lethargy and offer a both/and solution. This solution would allow the competing desires mentioned above to all be true during this season of revision while we give time for the church to determine if it will have both an ebook and a physical Book of Common Prayer. However, our work here creates an adaptive and doctrinally centred church liturgical life.
It is an approach approved by chancellors and carefully written in the language outlines of the constitutional language.
Please note that both 2022-A059 and Olver’s proposal retain the current and historical requirement that neither an "alteration" (which I understand to mean a change in the existing text) nor an "addition" (which I understand to mean adding text, not just a phrase or two, but a significant addition) may be made to the BCP without the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Convention.
The next concern by Olver is the implication that A072 will get rid of the two-convention rule. Both 2022-A059 and Olver's proposal would add to Article X the requirement that, in addition to the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Conventions, no alteration or addition to the BCP could be made without previously – that is, previous to the first voting General Convention – being authorized for Trial Use. The good news for marriage equality advocates is that the marriage rite has already been set up this way and will not keep it from moving forward. Moreover, under the carefully proposed A072, Article X would speak only to the BCP and its alteration and amendment; it would be silent as to other liturgies that the General Convention might authorize and would leave any discussion of such liturgies to the canons. Why? Because only the liturgies in our BCP are doctrinal.
Moreover, the authors 2022-A059 suggest a canonical amendment that would add text to Title I.1.2.n.2 addressing liturgies authorized for use. Returning to 2018 B011, this canonical change must follow the approved four-part articulation – with careful editing. This suggestion is essential to the success of A072. The order of approval here makes the accountability work. The group of authors and I would not be in favour of approving the new A072 without the amendments to Title I.1.2.n.2. Let me explain. By contrast, under the ATR proposal, Article X would address liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and liturgies permitted for "Supplemental Use." In Olver's words and the words of the authors of the Constitution, amendments need to be precise. Olver writes and quotes from the following:
The function of a constitution is to provide "a concise statement of the most basic and important of the Church's laws," to embody "the organic law or principle of government of an organized society," and to articulate "those laws which are 'constitutive' of the nature and function of a community." (Stevick, Canon Law, 97.) Williams Jones Seabury wrote that a constitution is "a law to lawgivers." (Williams Jones Seabury, Notes on the Constitution of 1901 (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1902), 8; qtd. in Stevick, Canon Law, 97-8.) "It lays down broad powers; details are left to the Canons." (Stevick, Canon Law, 98.) Unlike the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble to TEC's Constitution is not aspirational, which is to say, its purpose does not communicate the intentions of its framers.
As proposed, this is correct, and A072 makes clear what the Book of Common Prayer is and what it is not. This keeps the "Prayer Book for the Episcopal Church is enormously disproportionate compared to other related churches"…regarding the "teachings of the church." It also keeps other liturgies from using doctrinal power as the Constitution prescribes. This is essential. Olver’s proposal would leave such vagueness.
The process and limits for liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and "Supplemental Use" under the canon suggested by 2022-A059 are identical to the process and limitations set out for such liturgies by Olver's proposal, with one important exception. Disregarding the need for missional liturgical application, Olver's submission seeks to slow down the experimental and supplemental use under the direction of a bishop. His proposal actually places more power for mission principles to guide liturgy at the local diocesan level and places them at the General Convention level. Moreover, it potentially places all liturgy at a doctrinal level. The 2022-A059 proposal to amend Title I.1.2.n.2 spells out those processes and limits in the canons where they belong. Instead, Olver's proposal spells them out in Article X of the Constitution, tremendously slowing the operation of any missional adaptation. It is not our opinion that a church as diverse and needing liturgical breadth (not doctrinal breadth) is better served by having experimental and supplemental use in the canons and not the Constitution. The proposers desire a way for the liturgy to be crafted for mission purposes.
The group’s edit of Article X includes the words "is intended to be…" We disagree that it is aspirational but argue instead that it is intentional. It is not "aspirational language", as Olver suggests. Etymologically the word “intended” is to direct and move forward – borrowed from the French in the 14th century. It is to call attention to in Latin. It is a plan and a purpose. It is to direct a course of action. The Constitution offers a course of action for the church and the people of the church to use this doctrinal text in common and private devotions.
The full phrase with which Olver regards imprecise is this: the book’s nature is “intended to be communal and devotional prayer.” The church knows that not everyone uses the Book of Common Prayer as intended, and not every person uses it as a devotional. Yet it has been something that sets the course of action within and without the church. Olver overlooks this in his argument. In this way, the intention is more than aspirational; it is a statement of rootedness in our prayer book tradition. The book is in the language of the people, clergy have been at times constitutionally ordered to say the daily office – daily. Cranmer and the reformers desired that the Book of Common Prayer become all that was needed besides the bible to stir and support reformation. Each American Book of Common Prayer included prayers for saying at home, and the Daily Office itself has become a rule of life for many baptized. Priests and bishops have so many well-worn little Book of Common Prayers given to them that observation alone suggests they were used more than on Sunday.
Olver's stated concern is the addition of the statement in 2022-A059/A072 that reads, "The Book of Common Prayer in this Church is intended to be communal and devotional prayer enriched by our church's cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts." Olver suggests that this is wholly unnecessary. I have already addressed the nature of the word "intended" above and believe we ought to revise the term.
His second concern with this statement concerns the time "devotional". He states that the Book of Common Prayer was never meant to be devotional. Yet, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is used by church members as a devotional text. The framers of the 1979 Book have included the daily office and compline. They included the prayers for "Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families". Also, there are the collects for all kinds of settings, the psalms, and the prayers for the sick – often prayed by the sick. While it is likely that Thomas Cranmer would not have imagined private devotional use of the Prayer Book, by the 13th century, clergy were using it as a private devotion, which has expanded wherein today, many use the book for private devotion.
Olver's point that Cranmer might not have imagined it does not mean Cranmer didn’t mean for The Book of Common Prayer to be a tool in the hand of the church for the formation of individuals and congregations alike. We know that there are examples of families reading from The Book of Common Prayer and using it for devotion in their habitations. If it is to continue to form us, then attention to both its devotional and worship implications for the church needs to be raised to the level of Constitutional consideration.
Prayer book commentaries have taught the baptized the importance of the liturgy – to pray constantly. And, there was published even the Family Prayer Book; a commentary for the home on the use of the Book of Common Prayer. Marion Hatchett notes in his Commentary on the American Prayer Book that ancient private prayer has always been prevalent and that the 1979 reformer (not unlike Cranmer’s tradition) sought to make the daily offices accessible and even to add simpler offices for individuals and families. Therefore, we would suggest then that both by title, inclusion of prayers, and history it is meant for both communal prayer and individual.
I now take up the issue Olver and others have with the translation requirement. Given the concern over the diversity of context and the awareness of past colonial behaviours, our lack of respect for translation for the wider church and the many unfulfilled resolutions promising translation, the second part of the sentence was added by the group who felt strongly about justice. We as a church cannot shy away from the truth; we have yet to have a Book of Common Prayer in Navajo. A corrected Book of Common Prayer in Spanish has finally come to fruition while printed on cheaper paper than the English version. The Episcopal Church is a multinational and multiethnic church in which many languages are spoken, including Asian and African dialects. The Church's Book of Common Prayer needs to hold before the reality of being a Book of Common Prayer for all the people of our Church. This, like many arguments, seems lost within the current debate.
Matthew Olver suggests that the recent attempts to amend Article X "attempt to shift the Church's awareness that contemporary and future methods of publication may not be restricted to the form of a book. What the General Convention adopts as a Prayer Book is not a form of publication (a book) but rather the content, i.e., the text of the liturgies. This has always been so and, in fact, was not copyrighted until recently. Moreover, even Olver points out that the church has a history of approving liturgies that have not always been readily published in book form.
The writing group and I believe we will have printed Prayer Books for the foreseeable future. If we took creation care more seriously, we would use the book and electronic media more often. The church cannot pretend that even now there is a strong use of liturgies printed in bulletins and online usage. Ebooks of Common Prayer are emerging and in gatherings it is more normal to see people using iphones and other devices. This is true in the House of Bishops. We even have ebinders now at the General Convention, so no future prayer book revisions will be seen in writing until a book is published.
As a church we need be aware that those who are legally blind, or have difficult with paper books because of physical challenges, find the eBook of Common Prayer accessible because they can enlarge the text, or even have it read to them. Inclusivity cannot be limited to ableist understandings of prayer book publishing.
Will ebooks, over decades, replace printed Books of Common Prayer? We do not know. However, the Constitution should not be shortsighted. As a constitution, it resides under the reality of the present and future context it seeks to guide. The design of Article X’s words need make room for such to happen without amending the Constitution at every convention to deal with change.
Therefore, the logic is that the Book of Common Prayer is at once a collection of texts that can always be found in a physical instantiation that one can open and read to the name given to all readers that receive two sequential General Conventions to authorize their presence; and, that it may also be found online. This is a both/and solution that many have a problem reconciling. Yet it is time to reckon with our present reality and provide constitutional and canonical frameworks to do.
Some approved Book of Common Prayer liturgies may exist electronically before the custodian of The Book of Common Prayer issues an entirely new edition. Both liturgists and canonical lawyers have a problem with this latitude and open possibility. However, the church must hold both these ideas simultaneously (a Book of Common Prayer and an eBook of Common Prayer). This is all the more reason to be clear about what is a Book of Common Prayer liturgy and what is not.
Another fear that many remain concerned about and Olver seeks to prevent is a new Book of Common Prayer. I have been in conversation with the liturgical leaders both past and present. There is no urgency of a total rewrite of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
We are at least 4 to 6 General Conventions away from a new Book of Common Prayer being created slowly within the financial means of the Episcopal Church and given the fast-moving tech trends of our culture it could be 2035 or 2040 before we could financially fully underwrite and bring to fruition the task. A conservative estimate places a new Book of Common Prayer out 20 years or more, given convention timelines, finances, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music's ability to bring forward the new book written wholesale plus accomplishing all their other tasks.
Olver suggests that we have to do a revison of the Book of Common Prayer as one thing knowing full well that is not possible and placing the ability for change even further.
The final problem that Matthew Olver notes is the importance of clarifying the process of new prayer book liturgies within Article X. He notes that the concern arises from the ability to bring the new marriage rites forward for inclusion. Olver omits this from his argument and reveals in his proposed changes that he would prefer to have the marriage rites defined as Authorized Liturgical Rites. 2018 B011 suggested this, which was itself a suggestion following the past authorization guidelines for the Book of Common Prayer book rites. (I believe it is essential to get such guidelines into the canons.) There was never an intention to locate an approved Book of Common Prayer rites not printed in a new book. 2018-B011 was meant to provide a way to create diversity in liturgical use without building a collection of texts in a new Book of Common Prayer. While memorializing the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer 1979.
Olver's proposal implies relegating the new marriage rites to a new category that is not a Book of Common Prayer rite and has yet to be created by the SCLM and Convention. His suggestion does not exist and actually proposes creating paths for many liturgies that will create the very problem he hopes to avoid regarding the multiplication of rites.
The Church has already decided to set the new marriage rites towards Book of Common Prayer status. We are already in a time of trial usage, and it comes before the convention. Olver’s proposal for the new marriage rite changes the midstream process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the writing group, liturgical leaders, bishops and deputies who passed what is now A072 supported the amendment because it represent a better understanding of our church's expression of common prayer. I continue, as do the authors, to support this amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, to then work and draft the necessary canons to further define our church’s process of liturgical revision. It is true that not amending Article X is in the power of both houses – to do so is also to continue a dangerous course where many do not have clarity about guidelines for liturgical use in this church.
