How a Book is a Book (and Why it Still Matters)

[Edited after the HoB Vote on July 9 at 7:50pm].

I've been spending the past couple of days in Baltimore as an Alternate Clergy Deputy from the Diocese of Western Michigan at the 80th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If I just said more than three words that make no sense to you, you can probably skip this post. 

The Convention has been shortened from the normal amount of legislative days down to just four and both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops are working tremendously hard to do the essential work of the church. You see, in the Episcopal Church, this bicameral legislature is our highest authority—no true and lasting change occurs (in theory) without the support of a majority of bishops... and clergy... and laity. 

For the past two days, the House of Bishops has spent significant discussion on the question of what exactly should constitute the Book of Common Prayer. It started with Resolution A059, the primary goal of which was to provide a holding container, constitutionally, for the various liturgies authorized by General Convention. In the approach of A059, those liturgies were categorized as original BCP, then there were trial use liturgies and then alternative or supplemental liturgies. However, Resolution A059 also  redefined the Book of Common Prayer to be all those liturgies authorized by General Convention. In the words of the explanation for the resolution on page 649 in the Blue Book, "A second sentence is added to express the understanding that all liturgies that General Convention authorizes following the protocol of Section 2 are part of the Book of Common Prayer."

In response, Bishop Provenzano of Long Island produced the excellent substitute B011, which made a distinction between The Book of Common Prayer and other liturgies that might be established by the Authority of our church. In addition to the BCP, Bishop Provenzano provided for liturgies in Trial Use, Experimental Use, or Supplemental Use. His resolution was moved as a substitute and passed the House of Bishops on a slim margin, 60 to 57 (with one abstention). 

Rather than vote on the amended resolution, however, there were some technical fixes and so the matter was delayed until after dinner last night. After dinner, Bishop Hollingsworth of Ohio moved that the entire question be delayed for consideration the next day, so that a compromise resolution could perhaps be crafted. 

Tonight we heard that compromise resolution in Floor Amendment 031, which may indeed be a compromise but is one that still maintains the key change made by A059 by stating, "The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention." To wit, it is a compromise that still fundamentally alters our understanding of what constitutes The Book of Common Prayer. 

During the discussion, one bishop was noted to have said something to the effect of, "My sense is that we do not know what book means." We are evolving beyond books (I am told by bishops many years my senior) and now our BCP should be understood to be everything General Convention has authorized. All hail the cloud liturgy and the final accession of cut and paste worship.

Except, I do know what a book means. It means a definable text, with clear limits, often accessible in paper form. And you know who else knows? People who visit my parish and pull a book out of the pews, or people who visit me in my office and are curious about our church. I always tell them what I was told in seminary, "If you want to know what we believe, read this," then I hand them a free leather-bound edition of the prayer book. "Our prayers will tell you what we believe."

I understand that some of the resistance to Bishop Provenzano's substitute was because it would mean liturgies that make the Sacrament of Marriage available to all couples are not part of the Book of Common Prayer. To be clear, I absolutely share that concern. The solution, however, is not to wave our hands and say that now "The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention." 

The solution is to modify the prayer book itself. 

Because when a gay couple comes into my parish, they will not go to the (very helpful!) website https://www.episcopalcommonprayer.org to find out what we believe. I love that website. It's great work and will be helpful to seek a clear listing of authorized liturgies and to know what sort of restrictions, if any, exist in their use. 

But the gay couple who comes to my church will pull out a 1979 BCP. Then, they'll listen to me explain (as I have countless times) that our prayer book has not caught up to our church's teaching on marriage. But they will be confused, because they are holding a book in their hands that tells them something different than what exists on the internet, in the META PRAYER BOOK. They won't know why we didn't change the book we put in our churches. They will be baffled when I tell them the book is just part of the book, and an inaccurate book, and the whole book is actually on this website. (I'm sorry, please come back. I promise you my church knows how to make sense.)

Bishops, I appreciate your hard work to find common ground, but you have taken a step backwards. My own hope is that when this Resolution comes to the House of Deputies, it will be defeated. Then, I hope the House will concur with A145, the constitutional change already began in 2018 to resolve the important question of how we authorize various texts. Let's not redefine the prayer book at this Convention.

But I think we can do more as well. We can fix the can that was kicked back in 2018, when Resolution B012 said that the trial use of the same-sex marriage rites "shall extend until the completion of the next comprehensive revision of the Book of Common Prayer." Instead, pass a new resolution which will be crafted to be the first reading of the a change in the BCP rite of marriage to the gender-neutral form approved in 2018. Include with it a revision to the catechism, while you're at it.

And then, two years from now, pass both of them again and we will have the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, as amended in 2024 to reflect our church's teaching on marriage equality. We'll also have a Constitution that makes sense and clearly articulates the reality of a variety of liturgical forms that carry varying weight because they reflect varying stages of discernment as we seek the Spirit's call to us as Christians today.

Don't amend the definition of the Book of Common Prayer in our Constitution (particularly not in a shortened Convention without the needed time for debate). Instead, amend the prayer book itself and make the fact that marriage is between two persons—without regard to gender or sexual orientation—the clear teaching of our church as found in the BCP any visitor might pick up in a local parish. 

And, by sticking with Bishop Provenzano's original substitute, you will also create the constitutional container our church needs for the variety of liturgical forms that are indeed essential for the church of the 21st century. Because I agree, our church needs growing and evolving liturgical forms. We need supplemental liturgies and trial rites. 

But we also need the Book of Common Prayer.