Care with the Cure: Sub-Committee on Revising the Book of Common Prayer

Today, I'll take up the final sub-committee report from the Standing Committee on Liturgy & Music (SCLM), the sub-committee on revising the Book of Common Prayer.

Summary of the Report
In 2015, the 78th General Convention (GC) directed the SCLM to prepare a plan for comprehensive prayer book revision (see the resolution online here). The SCLM spent a year discussing this mandate before deciding on four options to present to GC. They posted those options online, weighed feedback from around the church, and distilled them down to two options. In the words of their report:

1. Option One (1+2) envisions a decision by the upcoming General Convention to move into the revision process immediately, the first stage being to gather data, resources, and ideas, and then set up the structure to begin drafting immediately after 2021 General Convention
2. Option Two (3+4) envisions a slower pace, while remaining open to Prayer Book revision in the future. Option Two invites the whole church to broaden its familiarity with the 1979 Prayer Book and the history that underlies it, and provides for time to reflect as a body on the significance of common prayer in our tradition

The goal behind each of these options is the same. Once more, in the words of the report, "to move our church toward unity through a process of collective discernment rather than to cause divisiveness by attempting to assert personal piety and individual liturgical preferences over that of others."

Option One: Comprehensive Revision (Resolution A068)
The plan for comprehensive revision draws significantly from a similar plan that was actually passed by GC in 2000—though left unfunded. So the SCLM is very clear in their report that comprehensive revision cannot happen without adequate funding. They estimate that funding need for the first triennium of work at $1.9 million, with full revision likely costing between $8 and $9 million over the next decade or so.

It is important to note that the plan for revision represented in option one is a very careful and well thought-out. It includes a set of eight guiding assumptions that seek to balance the historic liturgy of the church embodied in common prayer with the rich diverse make-up of TEC in our time. It insists on rich translations of any trial use material (as opposed to the wooden translations of the current BCP) as well as full participation by church musicians. It also insists that catechesis must be an essential part of any revision process throughout.

The process itself would begin in the next triennium with a research phase. There would be a quantitative data collection of bulletins from our congregations, analyzing the actual usage of the current BCP, with the idea that such insight could provide direction for where revisions are needed due to actual practice (that is, so that our BCP reflects our actual common prayer). There would also be a qualitative data collection process which would draw together focus groups for conversations in each diocese as well as online. It would undertake a "grounded theory" research project—an approach which "seeks to conceptualize what’s going on in a social setting, building a theory on the basis of what is actually happening, not what one believes should be happening." It would also encourage seminaries to host further conferences on the subject of prayer book revision to ensure there is academic engagement with the process.

Finally, the process would include continued consultation with other Anglican provinces who have undertaken prayer book revision in the past decade. In addition to a project manager to oversee the work, the SCLM anticipates the hiring of an editor to bring together the work of various drafting committees.

The results of the research in the next triennium would enable drafting to begin in 2021 with a first draft presented to General Convention for trial use in 2024. During trial use, feedback would be gathered and then a proposed BCP would be presented for a first reading in 2027. If during that triennium no further changes are proposed, the prayer book would be adopted on its second reading in 2030.

Option Two: Intentional Engagement with the Current BCP (Resolution A069 and A070)
The second option, it is important to note, is not created to avoid the process of prayer book revision. Rather, the second option that is proposed seeks to begin with a period of deeper engagement with the current BCP before moving into research about possible revisions. Additionally, the second option calls for much-needed new translations of the current BCP along with an expansion of categorizes for forms of worship authorized in our church.

One of the key underlying understandings of the second option is that prayer book revisions has historically been a top-down process, one that seems to inevitably identify those with power and those without. Thus, one of the pieces of work that must be done is a true listening to one another across the divides and differences that exist in our church. This must be done if we are to be able to create a prayer book that could truly be called common.

The second option also resolves one of the confusing realities of our current life of worship. The only authorized worship in our church is the prayer book and trial liturgies published in the revision of that book. However, over the past two decades GC has authorized numerous supplemental liturgies which actually have no canonical home. Thus, through work with the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, and Canons, they will seek to expand the canonical categories of authorized worship so that there is both a grounding for our common worship as well as room for continued creativity and experimentation.

The second option also seeks to address one of the most significant injustices in our church: inadequate translations of the prayer book. Thus, it calls for a full process of new translations of the BCP so that all communities within our church can fully participate in our common life with worship that has the same theological weight and poetic elegance of the current BCP.

Finally, the SCLM acknowledges that the BCP is, in actuality, a model for Christian discipleship that assumes a certain way of life for Episcopalians. However, many grounding markers of the current BCP are not actually observed in the life of the average Episcopalian. Weekday observances of feasts and fasts is, they argue, a relatively uncommon practice (I assume they mean the practice of keeping feasts and fasts on their actual day, as I think most parishes have a midweek Eucharist to which feasts are commonly transferred). The public recitation of the Office—the true bedrock of Anglican spirituality—has become increasingly rare. Further, the riches of the prayer book in evangelism, catechesis, and spiritual formation is largely untapped.

If the second option is the one taken by GC, there would be a series of tasks proposed for the coming triennium. Bulletins would be collected and archived from every congregation in our church. Focus group conversations would be hosted in each diocese, with particular attention paid to the inclusion of those whose voice is not often heard. Consultation would be engaged with other provinces in our communion. We would engage deeply with communities who worship in languages other than english. The SCLM would create resources to equip "congregations, musicians, seminaries, schools, and individuals" for deeper engagement with the BCP, including those portions which are currently underutilized.

Reactions to the Report
I have to say, this report is exceedingly well-written and each of the options is well-argued. After reading about option one, I found myself totally agreeing that it is the way to go. Then, after reading option two, I found myself changing my mind and agreeing with that option. I do believe either of these paths would be fruitful for our church, each one including its own benefits and drawbacks.

However, one of the reasons each path sounds compelling is because there is actually a remarkable similarity in tasks in each of the two different paths. As I sought to understand and articulate the specific and concrete differences, I created two documents with the basic plan and budget and then made a pdf comparison (you can view it online here).

From that comparison, one can see that actually several of the same tasks would take place regardless of the option chosen:

1. Full SCLM Meetings to oversee process along with a paid project manager.
2. Bulletin Collection Project — This is called "quantitative data collection" in option one and "catalogue texts used in worship" in option two. However, the budget is identical regardless of plan (which makes it rather confusing that the plans each describe this slightly differently). The background material does not indicate any actual difference.

Some tasks would be slightly different given the option chosen

1. Consultation with Anglican Provinces and participation in the IALC — For option one we would do this to report on our own process of revision. For option two we would be focused on learning how other provinces have "lived ever more deeply into the theology of their Prayer Book." 
2. Focus Group Conversations — For option one these would take place in every diocese of our church along with an online survey to reach those unable to come to the conversations. For option two these would instead be "a more organic invitation to interested groups, parishes, dioceses, provinces, and gatherings of Episcopalians across the church." It is, thus, half the budget of the conversations in option one. 
3. Academic Conferences and Papers — The budget is the same for either option, but in option one this would be for the purpose of prayer book revision. It's not clear in the report, but my guess is that in option two these would be used to study and develop resources for deeper engagement with the BCP. 

Option One would involve the following additional work:

1. The "Grounded Theory" research project. 
2. The creation of drafting sub-committees
3. The hiring of an editor to oversee the collection of drafts and ensure consistency across the proposed book.
4. The drafting work of the 2021-2024 triennium and the trial use of the 2024-2027 triennium.

Option Two, by contrast, would involve the following additional or different work:

1. Study the need for liturgical and pastoral resources surrounding terminal illness and death, collecting those in use and developing new ones (though no budget is provided for this work).
2. New Translations of the BCP in Spanish, French, and Creole. It also includes an engagement with communities who worship in languages other than English to learn about their liturgies (though no budget is provide for this work).

So, in summary, it seems to me that the fundamental difference between these two options is that option two does not articulate the plan for revision (but still assumes it will take place in the future) and focuses our time now on understanding the BCP as well as ensuring it is available in a high-quality translation to all our members.

I would note that the call for the development of liturgical and pastoral resources surrounding terminal illness and death seems entirely out of place in this conversation—that's the sort of work that should be done in a supplementary text like Enriching our Worship (EOW) or the Book of Occasional Services (BOS). It makes little sense why it is included in option two as it does not seem to advance the fundamental goal of that option.

One would assume that if option two is taken, the next General Convention in 2021 could then take what we learned from this time of engagement and in the next triennium put in place the Grounded Theory research project along with changing the focus of academic conferences and inter-anglican engagement to focus on the beginning work of revision.

Given the tremendous amount of anxiety in the church surrounding prayer book revision, my own sense is that some form of option two is what will be chosen by General Convention. My hope is that people will engage in the process, and that this engagement will lower the anxiety of everyone around the idea of prayerbook revision.

Just to be clear, I am one of those in the minority who believes prayer book revision is something that is tremendously important. I even tried my hand at a resolution that would do a "surgical revision" of the current BCP (no deputies signed up to sponsor it). When that didn't work, I tried my hand at a resolution to call for a revision that was not comprehensive but instead a deepening of the theology of the current book (that garnered one deputy's support, not enough to send it to GC).

That said, at this point I think option two is the best one for the church. I think that option two, if engaged well, would lead us to a revision like the one I describe in the second resolution I wrote, a revision that is a deepening of the theology of our prayer book. Furthermore, even option one wouldn't give us a new prayer book for another twelve years and that is too long to wait to solve the injustice of inadequate translations.

Note: You can click here for a list of all Blue Book Reports & Resolutions that have thus far been reviewed.