Every Episcopalian has a right to a regular Sunday service that adheres exclusively to the printed Book of Common Prayer as our communal worship. This is why regardless of permission our principal Sunday service (only one we have) doesn't use other approved sources except places allowed by rubric⚓
This feels a bit reductive as to whether or not other approved sources are viable and well-worn expressions of "our communal worship." EOW is decades old, for starters. Also, you are artificially limiting the access of your congregants to the full breadth of liturgies available in our tradition.
And I'm a BCP stan.
I'm thinking I'm terms that our tradition has prioritzed a specific book as important & the Canons make a distinction (even if eg EOW become BCP, the distinction exists) such that Episcopalians should be able every Sunday to worship in accordance with the BCP, even if other things are offered.
I'd concede that other supplements are certainly viable. And I can see how, yes, those are still communal. I suppose it seems to be that the BCP still has a priority of place that should remain respected such to be always offered until changed.
As to last. Yes, I'll have to admit that's true. With one service it becomes a matter of evaluation I suppose. & with the priority of the spiritual tradition it becomes a focus on the BCP as is, with supplements and alternatives only as secondary. I'd have to think more about that detriment.
I just don't see how the approved alternatives detract from experiencing worship when they are closely aligned with BCP as a spiritual/canonical addendum if not physically in the book itself. I also only have 1 service and play with the form frequently/seasonally (within the confines allowed).
Hmm. I didn't intend "distract". Nor never use other things in general. It's more that the status of the BCP makes me think each individual Episcopalian ought to have access to a regular service somewhere (at minimum) to a BCP service as canons define it as an expression of our core community text
I guess my push back is, as long as you're offering BCP on the "regular" that doesn't mean you couldn't or shouldn't offer alternative liturgies from time to time, especially when you're the only option in town. We're a wide, diverse communion and it's good to remind ourselves of that.
I think this is further influenced by my experience of growing up in and serving in rural/small town churches, where licensed liturgies can open up new expressions of God for folks who otherwise won't often if ever experience Episcopal worship anywhere else.
I will say that I think the closest I've ever come to being tarred and feathered was when my parish (TX) was hosting a Creation-care themed Diocesan Convention - I suggested that we not print bulletins, but maybe use the book or a bulletin attached to a QR code.
I did not learn from this. 😂
Totally reasonable idea! Obvious, even! Absurd that it should have drawn any opprobrium.
😂 the need to print things does being up questions of our commitment to being eco-friendly! I actually blame the 79 for this. It's created like a choose your own adventure text compared to the 28. It tries to have too many options while pretending to be user friendly. Next one needs a UI consultant.
We did this for the summer. Or at least printed an outline/pg number version that stayed in the pew, with a weekly insert of music, hymns, notices. Also printed a few full-text large-print for those with vision issues. Better roll-out would have given better success but ppl quickly adjusted
I’m putting a comment here not because I have a great response, but because I want to see where this goes. 🧐
I respect your views on things either way! :)
When I'm a visitor (in the pew, not presiding) I like a BCP service (pref from the actual book, not a bulletin), and extra points if the presider expands the language where appropriate. I can totally understand the desire for the services to mostly match linguistically across space and time.
But I'm not sure about this idea of "right." I think Dix and Mitchell would argue that the "right" we have is to a service shaped in the Anglican style. And General Convention has also leaned away from Book=printed book, which suggests that EOW (etc.) also rises to the level of BCP.
I'm not sure "leaned away" is yet not existing! But sure, if we end up that EOW or the BOS are declared as "Prayer Book" then that does change things. Though I perhaps still value a printed version.
Me too.
Not sure about just the shape as sufficient 🤔 RC and Lutherans follow the same shape, but I don't think that would be sufficient long term for Episcopalians. There's a priority I believe on how *we* express the shape as a specific text that I think people should have access to any given Sunday.
I'm a BCP'r for life. Our church moving closer to the common worship model of the CoE should be fought tooth and nail. I feel like the genius of the BCP is that, when done well, anyone can remeber it because it is the same. Ironically we are moving more toward pre-reformation liturgy with EOW et al
I'm on board with inclusive language, but let's stop with the proliferation of random liturgies and come together and make another BCP. Saying our theology comes from our liturgy and how we pray, but having a choose your own adventure with 1000 books, is indicative of cognitive dissonance
Either our theology comes from how we pray or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, then what does it really mean to be an Anglican? I think at this point it means to pray in the BCP tradition, adapted across time and in local circumstance
There is that point that Title 4 defines "Doctrine" as what's contained in the Book of Common Prayer! So other texts can be in line with but don't define our doctrine in the same way.
Definitely, and I'm not saying those that use EOW are necessarily out of line doctrinally (although there are definitely a few eyebrow raising things in EOW), but I do think some choices of EOW reflect a different theology than the BCP. E.g., even something small like avoiding using the word "Lord"
And I think the question becomes, can we truly say we are a church that prays in common if the approved liturgies can't fit in a single book? If you could, in theory, have two Episcopal churches that never use the same Eucharistic prayer, even if they use 3-4 throughout the year?
I do think the reactions against the 1979 were out of line, but I do think some of their fears have come to pass. We've gone from common prayer meaning having a BCP with 1 or two eps prayers, to a BCP with two whole different rites, to where we are now: some arguing common prayer means the shape!
I have seen some pretty big variation on this since I started going back to church in 2023. Our cathedral and several other parishes in my city seem to stick to the BCP exclusively and not use things like EOW. There is another large parish here that uses EOW exclusively. My parish uses EOW a bit.
We mainly use BCP, but we sometimes use EOW. We basically adjusted to the changing parish as now we are majority converts with varying degrees of Evangelical or RCC traumatic backstories.
Do you find the traumatic history to be a factor in what gets used? That would be different here where our former RC and Evangelical I'd describe as "former" rather than seem to have trauma from it
It seems to be, we try to avoid, I have noticed, a lot of the more "hell" language.
Probably true! There's a lot of variation right now. And I'm not saying never use other things - nor maybe that some places can't never use the BCP as is. More that each individual Episcopalian should have *access* to somewhere that follows the standard BCP.
Interesting.
The church I'm attending has been using the Eucharistic prayers from EOW over the summer, and while it's fine, I miss the comfort and familiarity of the prayer book.
We have been doing the same thing at my church this summer, and I will agree that I much prefer the BCP Eucharistic prayers!
Interesting. I love a BCP-in-hand Daily Office but prefer a Sunday service with inclusive/expansive language and other variable options like the EOW Nicene Creed. I’m really thankful we have multiple services and thus different styles to meet the different needs of our community members.
I think with multiple services there can be more room for other approved communal variations on the central litugical BCP text. Even with the BCP there's things I can do I'd not be willing to as part of the principal service! Like use MP as the liturgy of the Word. I could every week! But wouldn't