A discussion starter
The role of Liturgical Commissions in Anglican Churches has dramatically changed since the 1960s. In the 1960s into the 1970s, inspired by what was called "Liturgical Renewal", they cautiously began to create new rites as alternatives to the received and traditional rites in The Book of Common Prayer. And they did this in the wake of the production of new versions of the Mass in Roman Catholicism, following the Second Vatican Council. In those days the Liturgical Commission blazed a trail and the Church often reluctantly followed as experimentation meant uncertainty in Sunday worship for a decade or more. Eventually some stability was achieved by the production of "Books of Alternative Services", existing alongside The Book of Common Prayer.
However, once the spirit of change and of choice was absorbed by the churches then it became difficult in many places to control it. Few parishes kept to the received texts, be they from the BCP or the new books. They felt free to adapt them excluding some things and including others. At the extreme ends were (a) the evangelicals with their Microsoft Software and Screen on which was projected the service for the day created locally and (b) the Anglo-Catholics using the modern Roman Catholic mass.
In fact, many worshippers in many congregations were much like consumers in the market place and supermarket. After all, they lived in the same culture and context. Once they got a taste for exercising their own choice and doing their own thing, then they went ahead, with varying degrees of intensity. Even as everyone had an opinion even so everyone had a preference for this or that form or part of worship. And, if asked, all offered what they deemed to be good or even excellent reasons for their choice of this or that rather than other possibilities. So the situation arose by the 1990s where no two congregations belonging to the same diocese actually had the same service because though they may have had the same general "shape" the contents were so different.
With the growing appetite for and exercise of choice and the increasing diversity in forms and content of worship, it is not surprising that Liturgical Commissions have had to change their role. This new role is seen in the non-stop production line of the C of E Liturgical Commission in presenting the Church with a vast amount of new services wherein are many alternatives, all under the banner of "Common Worship" (what a strange title for great diversity). The new role will be seen in even more marked a way when the Liturgical and Music Commission of the ECUSA begins to publish its proposals to replace the 1979 Prayer Book of that Church later this year.
However, what these Commissions -- and that of Synods and Bishops who authorize them -- are now discovering is that their first task is increasingly becoming that of seeking to convince "awakened" people that a fixed liturgy of some kind is useful, even good. Imagine that! The Anglican Way has always been a liturgical way, giving little or no opportunity for ex tempore prayer in public worship and very little choice in use of liturgical texts -- that is, until the 1970s and 1980s. Now, it is characterized not by uniformity in basics but in variety and diversity in forms and contents at the local level, and much of this not from authorized texts. So liturgists, who make their living by producing liturgies, are fighting for their lives as they seek to persuade churches that ordered Liturgy is good and should be used. So we have the general situation of liturgists who began in the late 1960s this whole process of choice and options now trying to hold it back, to keep it in check, and to stay in the driving seat. And, strangely, they are doing so by providing a vast amount of texts and options, hoping that these will quench the appetite for variety! Regrettably, their vast output suffers from dumbing-down and inferior quality and is unlikely to do anything to remedy the situation because local churches out of their own resources can do as well in producing optional texts and prayers as can the Liturgical Commissions.
So the whole Church of England seems to be dominated by the general view that choice in liturgy is in and of itself good, that the local church is as able to decide what is appropriate for worship as is a national commission, and that keeping rigidly to a set Liturgy (as was done in the past) is wholly out of date and dangerous to human freedom and development. Let's face it, the House of Bishops and the Liturgical Commission seem to be hopelessly caught in this whole mess and they are thrashing the waters for relief.
It would seem that the true alternative to the present situation of excessive choice and diversity is an ancient view holding that what human beings need to worship God aright is (a) a pure heart (b) one excellent Liturgy, and (c) well formed habit. That is, what is needed is for a series of set services, which represent the best efforts of the Church in history as texts for worship, to be used regularly, reverently and habitually by the faithful, and, as much as possible, learned by heart. This alternative was of course that of the monastic movement for many centuries and it has been that of the Anglican Way that is wholly based upon the Common Prayer Tradition -- that is on using The Book of Common Prayer according to its own internal principles, which means using fixed rites daily and inserting into them different Bible lections, psalms and canticles throughout the Christian Year.
To save the Anglican Way, the Churches may have to revert to the ancient wisdom and practice even though it would be an excessively anti-cultural way to go. Like the ancient Israelites we may have "to dig again the wells of Abraham" in order to find pure water of life.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment