I became an Episcopalian over a decade ago initially because of one key theological shift: the understanding that I needed to submit to something larger than myself and my reading of the Bible. The Bible itself is a product of the church. Jesus told us that there were more things to teach us and the Spirit would lead us. I chose the Episcopal Church because it was the catholic tradition that seemed most willing to still listen. It didn't want to cut the development of the church off at any point in history.
Always catholic. Always reforming.
And I still believe in it. I still believe the Holy Spirit moves through the institution of the church. I still believe that the Spirit guides call processes, and the election of bishops, and the discernment of vestries on budgets and ministry.
And I believe the Holy Spirit moves through General Convention.
Sure, sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes the Powers of this world—on the left and on the right (powers that divide us from one another hold no political allegiance—sometimes those Powers succeed in disrupting the work of the Spirit.
So we are called to discern. To be willing to say, "I may be wrong and I'm willing to have my mind changed." We are called to weigh directions and movements carefully, seeing if they are indeed within the Summary of the Law that Our Lord taught us: love of God and love of neighbor. Are they advancing that aim?
Today General Convention began the discussion on BCP revision in earnest. I sat though around 45 minutes or so of open testimony on the subject of revision itself along with the subject of expansive language. I heard person after person get up and talk about their experience with our prayer book. I heard two trans priests talk about how painful it is to have "he" used in such an exclusive way, how it makes it harder for them to get others come who don't believe God is a "he."
That's not my experience, I'll be honest. And I know there are LGBTQ Christians out there—many of whom are my friends!—who don't have that experience at all but who find rest and comfort in the more traditional language of the BCP.
But I listened. And my heart wrenched.
Is saying "it is right to give HIM thanks and praise" instead of "it is right to give OUR thanks and praise" really worth that pain? Is it?
I don't think it is.
And so I found myself getting up and testifying. I shared my appreciation for the pastoral need of more expansive language. I shared my own experience as a priest, telling people to look at the BCP for what we believe but then having to give a big caveat when it comes to marriage. Yes, this is a real evangelistic obstacle. I urged the committee to pursue BCP revision in some form because the time is now.
So many of those opposed to revision seem to be afraid. And, as I always tell my parish and vestry, "As Christians, we should never be afraid. God is always doing something, our job is just to figure out what it is right now."
And I do think what God is doing is calling us to what Marion Hatchett (#MarionofBlessedMemory, my dear friend and teacher) called "the unfinished business of BCP revision."
The question before #GC79 at this point is which way. I see two paths.
First, we could approve some form of Resolution A068, beginning comprehensive prayer book revision. It would include some form of the following (at a cost of between $475K or $2million depending on how many of these tasks are included in the actual process):
- Full SCLM Meetings to oversee process along with a paid project manager.
- Bulletin Collection Project to look at what is actually going on in our churches and see what we can learn through data analysis about how the current BCP is actually used.
- Consultation with Anglican Provinces and participation in the Inter Anglican Liturgical Commission (IALC) to ensure our process is in conversation with the wisdom of other provinces who recently walked this road.
- Focus Group Conversations that would reach out in some form (whether to every diocese or region or online grouping or all of the above) to find out what is important to our actual membership (not just those in power or those elected to GC or the SCLM).
- Academic Conferences and Papers to bring the voice and training of our liturgists to bear on what the next BCP should include.
- A "Grounded Theory" research project to do careful research, without preconceptions, of who we are as a church and what we would want to see in a revised BCP.
Then, in the next triennium, with what we learned we would create drafting subcommittees to do the work and hire an editor to ensure consistency across the proposed book. It would be presented to GC for a first reading and trial use. There would be feedback and then it would either be changed again and sent out to trial once more or it would be approved on second reading at the next GC.
Second, we could instead begin the revision of the BCP now, without a time of listening and study first. This could go two different ways.
- The current GC could approve a form of A085 (trial liturgies for same-sex marriage, along with other marriage related material) and a form of what Mtr. Laurie Brock is proposing for bringing more expansive/inclusive language to Rite II of the Holy Eucharist. If this happens, I hope we also get a third resolution that presents a wholesale psalter revision based upon at least one of the excellent inclusive psalters already out there. If this is what happens, all these items get a first reading now and could then be approved at a second reading in 2021, creating the 2021 Book of Common Prayer and ending prayer book revision for the near future.
- The current GC could approve a form of what Bishop Wayne Smith is proposing: giving clear direction to the SCLM for an immediate revision (likely along the lines of what is above) and having the SCLM come up with the draft of a new BCP for a first reading in 2021. A second reading could then occur in 2024, giving us the 2024 Book of Common Prayer.
The question before the 79th General Convention is, "Which of these options is more in line with the calling of the Holy Spirit to our church today, now, in 2018?"
And I'm torn.
On one side, I think the best option would be some form of Comprehensive Revision. This ensures we spend time listening before we draft. We ensure we learn what our congregations are doing and what our members want. It doesn't have to be the whole $2million. The Grounded Theory research project would cost a half a million dollars and (to be honest) seems a bit much. That cuts 25% of the cost right there. If you also do the scaled back listening (more the sort of listening that was proposed in option two), you get another half a million cut off. Then your down to a $1million dollar project for this triennium—but it is one that will ensure the next BCP is responsive to the whole church, not just those who show up at General Convention.
On the other side, there is the question of whether all that study would actually produce anything significantly different than the proposals just to revise the BCP now. Is our church really interested in a new BCP or would just fixing some of the most glaring issues with the current BCP be... enough? There is also a political reality at play in that comprehensive revision would be harder to pass in the House of Bishops. However, one of the two forms of immediate revision (either drafted now at GC or drafted in the next triennium by the SCLM) would have a better chance of passing. To wit, is the most pressing revisions actually happening more important than the gamble of shooting for a comprehensive revision.
I don't know, to be honest. I'm still not sure what exactly the Spirit is doing.
But I'm going to keep showing up. I'm going to keep listening. I'm going to keep trying to be open to approaches that are outside my perspective and comfort zone because you never know what the Spirit is inviting you into. And I'm not going to be afraid. I refuse to do that.
Furthermore, no matter what, at this point in General Convention I do believe one thing for certain. I believe that the Spirit is calling this General Convention to take some substantive action to revise our Book of Common Prayer. Will we have the courage to step forward and do what needs to be done?
I like this question: "Is saying 'it is right to give HIM thanks and praise' instead of 'it is right to give OUR thanks and praise' really worth that pain? Is it?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not really that excited about BCP revision, but it isn't from fear. It's rather a concern that we don't really have a vision for why we're revising the BCP. As someone who has studied the Reformation and subsequent theological debates in great detail, liturgical changes in our tradition and others were often made in response to really pressing theological concerns. I don't feel the same sense in our church today. We have a better sense of what trans persons want than what God wants.
You answered the above question in the negative. And I would too, except that I don't like the alternate liturgy at all. When we drop the pronoun and instead say "it is right to give our thanks and praise," we lose the most important part: WHO we give our thanks and praise to! It seems that a much more natural alternative liturgy would have been "it is right to give YOU thanks and praise" (or even what we originally started with, the gender-less "it is right to give THEE thanks and praise"). The difference between "You" and "Our" is all the difference. Is the attention on God or ourselves?
I don't want to revise the BCP because so much the theology I experience in the parishes in my diocese are Feuerbachian (at best), interested far more on ourselves than on who God is and what God is doing in the world. We do need more expansive language, and we do need to fix the marriage rites, but I will support BCP revision more when I see more of a commitment to theological depth and growth. GAFCON met a couple weeks ago in Jerusalem again, with the theme, "We will proclaim Christ faithfully to the nations." While disagreeing with much of their rhetoric, I listened to that acclamation and thought, "Why isn't that our acclamation?" I doubt most Episcopalians would disagree with it, and yet I find that I'm almost alone in my diocese in thinking that this is important to preach, proclaim, and reflect in our worship. Why do we consistently let our more conservative provinces have the high doctrine and phrases?
I'll support BCP when it is clear that we're revising the BCP because Jesus is Lord, not because of how the BCP makes us feel. I understand that many people now believe that God is not accurately reflected in masculine language. But is this because of prophetic revelation, or because we want to make God more in our own image? So much of our focus is about how the Bible or the liturgy "makes me feel." "Where do you see yourself in the story?" is the most common question I hear in a sermon. What happened to the Bible and liturgy being about "what God is saying to the Church"? It's not primarily about where I see myself in the story. It's about why God chose this Bible and these stories for us.
I have the courage to revise the BCP. I want to revise under bold, deep, and comprehensive theology that is translated into powerful, sustained liturgy that doesn't shy away from embracing the historic catholic and reforming faith. But I don't find this kind of courage in most of my fellow diocesan members. They are very intent on what gender pronouns we use. But whether a person holds to an Arian Jesus, or doubts the resurrection, or adopts a Pelegian soteriology, they don't seem to care. So no, if that's our theological outlook, then I'd rather not revise the BCP until we remember what and why we do the liturgy in the first place.
Thank you!!!
DeleteIn the 1928 BCP (and in Rite 1 of 1979) we responded, "It is meet and right so do to" - the notion of gender was unintentionally interjected by the attempt at modernizing the language while preserving the rhythm. That is why I have no problem with "give our thanks and praise." For those who push for "give God thanks and praise," you've lost the point of rhythm, euphony, and, frankly, ease of speech. Try chanting it. "vG" doesn't flow off the tongue. Thank you, for this insightful, thoughtful, and actually, hope-filled, analysis.
ReplyDeleteI care very much about the musicality and chant ability for our liturgy, having been inducted into our tradition from an Anglo-Catholic parish. Wherever there are these kinds of substantive concerns with adapting language to the sacred music tradition and chant, I'm sympathetic. Theological decisions should be integrated with the musical language and the spirit of worship. Thank you for this helpful historical perspective.
DeleteLet me second Mary Beth Rivetti's observation about the end of the Sursum Corda. The problem is a result of careless revision in 1979, not with the underlying text. In the Latin it is a simple "Dignum et justum est" -- ironically our "difficulty" was created by a wish to fit text to a melody which is not a melody, but a tone, similar to what was used in 1928. This is the odd way in which secondary issues can confuse primary matters. "It is right and good." would have been perfectly fine. No need for "him" or "our" or a repetition of "thanks and praise." It is perfectly possible to point "It is right and good" to the tone used in the Sursum Corda.
ReplyDeleteMy hope for revision is that we don't get entangled in the secondary issues and focus on the primary.
Decorus, thank you. This is exactly the problem. There is no coherent theological vision at work in this conversation that drives the proposed revision. It is based, instead, upon a pastiche of arguments that -- as far as I can tell -- rest largely on the argument that we should (1) acknowledge our human- social realities and (2) sweep away language that suggests that God is male -- a conviction that only the most obtuse might hold and plainly something that the tradition, on balance, has never held. What is at stake are the myriad theological issues that have gone unanswered by nearly every proposal for revision. So, to use Jared's example, yes there is a good deal at stake in the language, "it is right to give HIM thanks and praise" instead of "it is right to give OUR thanks and praise," including what matters most in worship: the saving work of God, or our response to it. The number of other theological issues multiply from there and it is that concern -- not fear -- that prompts many of us to oppose revision.
ReplyDelete