TEC: Theological liberals who are wedded to the 1979 BCP

Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
edited May 8 in Ecclesiantics
The Episcopal Church in the US has a reputation for being very theologically liberal, but strangely, one of the criticisms I have heard from other Anglicans is that Episcopalians are rather obsessed with adherence to the 1979 Prayer Book. In the CofE, I have heard that there is much more liturgical flexibility in going beyond the rubrics of the Prayerbook and Common Worship.

The reason I have surmised is that for TEC, the 1979 BCP is a core marker of their identity, and governs their doctrine in a way that the BCP of the Church of England has long ceased to be, and that when Common Worship was implemented, it was viewed as providing liturgical alternatives, and not replacing the doctrine of the church.
Tagged:

Comments

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    hosting/

    I think this belongs in Ecclesiantics.

    Now let me see if I can move it.

    /hosting
  • Sort of. Arguably, though, the de facto flexibility of current CofE practice has produced a dog's breakfast. There will be different views on that, of course and much else besides.

    It is a general principle, though, it seems to me, that many liberal Anglicans do tend to stick to the rubrics and adhere to older forms of the liturgy rather more than their theologically more conservative counterparts.

    I don't know why this should be.
  • Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
    Anglican identity tends to be reactive:

    Church of Ireland: reacts against the RC majority in Ireland, therefore CofI historically is low church
    Church in Wales and SEC: reacts against the Protestant undercurrents in Scotland and Wales, therefore the Anglicans tend to be high church
    TEC: reacts against the dominant low church and conservative climate of the US, therefore TEC tends to be high and liberal
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I think the TEC has more of an adherence to the BCP because that is about the only thing that unites them Any Episcopalian on a trip in the US knows that if they go to any TEC service anywhere in the US they will be using the same liturgy as their home church, essentially.
  • OblatusOblatus Shipmate
    edited May 8
    Under the USA 1928 BCP, there were the "illegal" missals such as the American, Anglican, and English, meant to fill in what was missing in the "bare" BCP rite. The 1979 BCP was seen as a triumph by those who had used the missals, allowing the use of minor propers (as a "hymn, psalm, or anthem" at their usual slots) and providing some previously missing things like the Agnus Dei (albeit cowering in a thicket of rubrics). In general, the 1,000 pages of the 1979 BCP made it seem like a quite comprehensive thing no longer requiring boundary-breaking supplements, and remaining generally quite useful to modern-day Episcopalians. It hasn't had time to become a revered but widely disused relic. We also haven't got the tradition of "alternative services" such as CW or Canada's BAS, so the BCP itself continues to be used and looked into for liturgical and theological purposes.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Oblatus wrote: »
    We also haven't got the tradition of "alternative services" such as CW or Canada's BAS, so the BCP itself continues to be used and looked into for liturgical and theological purposes.

    The 1979 BCP has two principal Eucharist services. There are variants within these services. Rite I has two very similar, but still distinct, prayers of consecration. Rite II has four prayers of consecration with greater variation.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Plus the prayers in Enriching Our Worship, which we've had for 20 years or so.
  • Perhaps TEC, like the SEC, adheres to "law of prayer is law of belief" and hence is cognisant of the impact of changing the liturgy.
  • Much of the difficulty at the time seemed to have a lot to do with cultural politics within TEC. The 1928 and 1979 books became symbols (shibbolethim?) of the two great factions in the then-PECUSA, and there was a strong enthusiasm for the 1928 in the more southern states, where many of the breakaway churches found their strength. Bishops enforced the use of the 1979 through fairly strong disciplinary measures-- for those interested in the details, the Wayback machine will show how many millions of pixels died in recording these battles. A (very) few of those involved were concerned about specific points of liturgical doctrine, and back issues of the Anglican Theological Review or the various Nashotah House publications can inform the curious.

    I liked the much-derided Star Wars liturgy in it, but I feel the whole book could have benefitted by tighter writing. O well.

    The ripples of this nasty period of fighting had a north-of-the-border effect. The Canadian House of Bishops determined that they would not make the new prayer book (aka The Book of Alternative Services) compulsory and the old (1959/1962) BCP still remains the standard, although rarely found in use outside 8.00 am or 8.30 am services.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Plus the most Anglo-Catholic of US TEC parishes can use the Anglican Service Book, which is liturgically authorized and has additions such as the Orate Fratres, the "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shoudest come under my roof...," and even the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (although parishes that use the latter are not very large in number).

    It is also liturgically authorized to use the Rite I translations of the Gloria, Sanctus, etc., in Rite II liturgies when they are sung. I wish it were liturgically authorized to use a Rite I translation of the Gloria (which is much more in accordance with the Latin), but with "You" instead of "Thou" and no "eth's" at the end of verbs.
  • As a relatively recent immigrant to Canada, I have noticed that something similar seems to happen here. Many of the theologically liberal clergy seem (to my English eyes) to be fairly staid in their liturgy. Not all, of course; some are very liturgically wacky. But I have been surprised at a lot of liturgical conservatism.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... the "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shoudest come under my roof...,"
    Is that, in either faux-antique or modern form, not part of the 'normal' liturgy in the TEC? From over here, that would now be quite surprising.

  • An TEC friend, stated to me that the BCP is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. I'm struck by that statement, has the CofE for example, ever considered their BCP, the "doctrine of their church?"

    In seminary, I learned that the Prayerbook, along with the Thirty-Nine Articles, are considered "historical formularies of the church." That is, they serve as the historical or orthodox starting point that frames the theological discussion within the church, but they are not the be-all, and end-all "infallible" answer to all things doctrinal.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    ... the "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shoudest come under my roof...,"
    Is that, in either faux-antique or modern form, not part of the 'normal' liturgy in the TEC? From over here, that would now be quite surprising.

    No, it is not in the 1979 BCP, but could certainly be argue that it is permitted. The relevant rubrics in full:

    Rite I
    The Celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread.

    A period of silence is kept.

    Then may be sung or said

    Priest: [Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;
    People Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.]

    In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except
    during Easter Season.

    The following or some other suitable anthem may be sung or said here


    O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
    have mercy upon us.
    O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
    have mercy upon us.
    O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
    grant us thy peace.

    The following prayer may be said. The People may join in saying
    this prayer

    We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful
    Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold
    and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather
    up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord
    whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore,
    gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,
    and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him,
    and he in us. Amen.

    Facing the people, the Celebrant may say the following Invitation

    The Gifts of God for the People of God.
    and may add Take them in remembrance that Christ died for
    you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith,
    with thanksgiving.


    Rite II
    The Celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread.

    A period of silence is kept.

    Then may be sung or said

    Priest: [Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;
    People Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.]

    In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except
    during Easter Season.

    In place of, or in addition to, the preceding, some other suitable
    anthem may be used.

    Facing the people, the Celebrant says the following Invitation
    The Gifts of God for the People of God.

    And may add
    Take them in remembrance that Christ died for
    you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith,
    with thanksgiving.

    The "ecce Agnus Dei" and Centurion's Prayer ("Domine, non sum Dignus") certainly seem like "some other suitable anthem" to me!
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    For the prevention of confusion, "the BCP" in TEC means the 1979 book, not the CofE 1662. A member of TEC referring to "the BCP" might, at a stretch, mean TEC's previous book, but will never be meaning the 1662.

  • An TEC friend, stated to me that the BCP is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. I'm struck by that statement, has the CofE for example, ever considered their BCP, the "doctrine of their church?"

    I don't know about the CofE but the SEC largely contends that its doctrine is found in its liturgy (a view promoted in recent years by Bishop Kevin Argyll & the Isles)
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    ... the "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shoudest come under my roof...,"
    Is that, in either faux-antique or modern form, not part of the 'normal' liturgy in the TEC? From over here, that would now be quite surprising.

    We used to say it in those words in tyhe days ofd The English Missal i.e. before 1967
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    We used to say it in those words in the days of The English Missal i.e. before 1967
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    ... the "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shoudest come under my roof...,"
    Is that, in either faux-antique or modern form, not part of the 'normal' liturgy in the TEC? From over here, that would now be quite surprising.

    No, it is not in the 1979 BCP, but could certainly be argue that it is permitted. The relevant rubrics in full:

    Rite I
    The Celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread.

    A period of silence is kept.

    Then may be sung or said

    Priest: [Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;
    People Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.]

    In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except
    during Easter Season.

    The following or some other suitable anthem may be sung or said here


    O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
    have mercy upon us.
    O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
    have mercy upon us.
    O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world,
    grant us thy peace.

    The following prayer may be said. The People may join in saying
    this prayer

    We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful
    Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold
    and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather
    up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord
    whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore,
    gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,
    and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him,
    and he in us. Amen.

    Facing the people, the Celebrant may say the following Invitation

    The Gifts of God for the People of God.
    and may add Take them in remembrance that Christ died for
    you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith,
    with thanksgiving.


    Rite II
    The Celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread.

    A period of silence is kept.

    Then may be sung or said

    Priest: [Alleluia.] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;
    People Therefore let us keep the feast. [Alleluia.]

    In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except
    during Easter Season.

    In place of, or in addition to, the preceding, some other suitable
    anthem may be used.

    Facing the people, the Celebrant says the following Invitation
    The Gifts of God for the People of God.

    And may add
    Take them in remembrance that Christ died for
    you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith,
    with thanksgiving.

    The "ecce Agnus Dei" and Centurion's Prayer ("Domine, non sum Dignus") certainly seem like "some other suitable anthem" to me!
    Perhaps, but I’ve never heard them in a TEC church.

  • An TEC friend, stated to me that the BCP is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. I'm struck by that statement, has the CofE for example, ever considered their BCP, the "doctrine of their church?"

    I don't know about the CofE but the SEC largely contends that its doctrine is found in its liturgy (a view promoted in recent years by Bishop Kevin Argyll & the Isles)

    I've herd it said that if you want to know what Episcopalians believe, you should watch us worship. But calling it the "doctrine" of the church is probably way overstating the intended meaning of that saying.

    (I often make fun of people who like to declare that "Episcopalians believe x" or "Episcopalians don't believe y," because there is a decent chance that someone the next pew over believes y and not x. Any talk about Episcopal "doctrine" probably falls into the same category.)
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Well, the Episcopal Church does use the word 'teaching.' https://www.episcopalchurch.org/what-we-believe That is just the Germanic-derived equivalent of the Latin-derived 'doctrine.'
  • And I dare you to find a whole lot of doctrine even on those "what we believe" pages. The emphasis is on asking questions and downplaying the idea that certain beliefs are what makes us Episcopalians. Look at the page on the creeds- these aren't statements of what we believe, necessarily. Rather, they are affirmations that we are part of a larger body of Christians.

    Which, I think, brings us back to the original question. We know that across our denomination, you have a very wide variance in what individuals actually believe. But by speaking the same words, we are reminded of our membership in a body (the Presiding Bishop is fond of calling it "The Episcopalian branch of the Jesus Movement") that is bigger than our own ideas and questions.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Well, the Episcopal Church does use the word 'teaching.' https://www.episcopalchurch.org/what-we-believe That is just the Germanic-derived equivalent of the Latin-derived 'doctrine.'

    Etymology is not meaning. Teaching and doctrine have rather different connotations in modern English.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    An TEC friend, stated to me that the BCP is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. I'm struck by that statement, has the CofE for example, ever considered their BCP, the "doctrine of their church?"

    I don't know about the CofE but the SEC largely contends that its doctrine is found in its liturgy (a view promoted in recent years by Bishop Kevin Argyll & the Isles)

    I've herd it said that if you want to know what Episcopalians believe, you should watch us worship. But calling it the "doctrine" of the church is probably way overstating the intended meaning of that saying.

    (I often make fun of people who like to declare that "Episcopalians believe x" or "Episcopalians don't believe y," because there is a decent chance that someone the next pew over believes y and not x. Any talk about Episcopal "doctrine" probably falls into the same category.)
    Or in positive terms, as the Prophet Robin Williams said, "No matter what you believe, there’s bound to be at least one other Episcopalian who agrees with you."

  • And I dare you to find a whole lot of doctrine even on those "what we believe" pages.

    A visitor to our church last Sunday asked the priest for a good book explaining what Episcopalians believe. (I assume she's looking for a church, and wanting to know whether she would fit in.) I promise that my face remained straight :wink:
  • To take an example, two Episcopalians say the creedal statement "born of the Virgin Mary."

    One says, I interpret "Virgin" literally to mean that Jesus was conceived without a human father.

    Another says, I interpret "virgin" metaphorically, as a poetic statement that Jesus was conceived by the divine presence of God, but not as a literal statement about how it exactly happens.

    Which is right?

  • The first interpretation is useful for me.

    The second interpretation is useful for someone else.

    There are probably Episcopal priests and bishops out there who will tell you that either (a) or (b) is right. There are others who will tell you that you are free to go either way.

    This all gets back to the BCP as our identity. What holds this whole mess together? In part, it is unity in the way we pray.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    It seems you are confusing what this or that Episcopalian believes and what the Episcopal Church teaches. Reading the website it's pretty obvious she does teach the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, for instance.
  • There are references to the Trinity and the Incarnation. But show me anything that lays these out as teachings of the Church.

    I mean, we're not Unitarians, or members of a social club. Our tradition comes out of the historic Church, and we certainly hang on to concepts like the trinity, the incarnation, and apostolic succession. But if you are looking for a statement along the lines of "Episcopalians believe x, and if you don't, you aren't following the teaching of the church," I don't think you will find one.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    There are references to the Trinity and the Incarnation. But show me anything that lays these out as teachings of the Church
    Well, it’s quite easy to find it at the website, either directly or through Google.

    The page on what the Episcopal church believes states: “We Episcopalians believe in a loving, liberating, and life-giving God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

    The page on the Creeds states: “Creeds are statements of our basic beliefs about God.”

    The page on the Catechism states that it, the Catechism, is “intentionally organized so as to “provide a brief summary of the Church’s teaching for an inquiring stranger who picks up a Prayer Book”.” (Emphasis added).

    And, finally, we find an article called Episcopal Church Core Beliefs and Doctrines, listing beliefs and practices, or doctrines, as the Episcopal Church here calls it.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    The page on the Catechism states that it, the Catechism, is “intentionally organized so as to “provide a brief summary of the Church’s teaching for an inquiring stranger who picks up a Prayer Book”.” (Emphasis added).
    And as that page notes, the Catechism is actually part of the 1979 BCP.

  • So is someone going to kick me out if I don’t believe that?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    So is someone going to kick me out if I don’t believe that?
    Well, I’m not. I’m not in to start with. :wink:

    But I’m assuming y’all are pretty much like us in this regard. There’s what the church as a body teaches (or as we’d typically say, “confesses”—for which, see our Book of Confessions), there’s what those in ordered ministry are expected* to “receive and accept” (the “essential tenets of the Reformed faith” as expressed in the Confessions), and then there’s what everyone else is expected to believe, which is much more flexible.

    * How this plays out in reality vs expectation may be a different story.

  • That was a terrible response on my part.

    What you say, NT, is probably correct. I’d say that we have our foundation in the historic church, and that comes with some basic tenets. But even that page leaves quite a bit of wiggle room, and each statement of faith is followed up pretty quickly with an acknowledgement that we encourage people to think these things out for themselves.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    So is someone going to kick me out if I don’t believe that?
    Maybe, maybe not. I guess you have to ask. The point, anyway, is that the Episcopal Church has official beliefs and doctrines. How that can be a controversial claim is beyond me.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Oblatus wrote: »
    Under the USA 1928 BCP, there were the "illegal" missals such as the American, Anglican, and English, meant to fill in what was missing in the "bare" BCP rite. The 1979 BCP was seen as a triumph by those who had used the missals, allowing the use of minor propers (as a "hymn, psalm, or anthem" at their usual slots) and providing some previously missing things like the Agnus Dei (albeit cowering in a thicket of rubrics). In general, the 1,000 pages of the 1979 BCP made it seem like a quite comprehensive thing no longer requiring boundary-breaking supplements, and remaining generally quite useful to modern-day Episcopalians. It hasn't had time to become a revered but widely disused relic. We also haven't got the tradition of "alternative services" such as CW or Canada's BAS, so the BCP itself continues to be used and looked into for liturgical and theological purposes.
    I would be interested on the perspectives of American Episcopal shippies, but to this outside observer, it looks like General Convention may have opened the door to more in the way of alternative (rather than trial-use) liturgies beyond the 1979 BCP.

    If I'm following correctly, the House of Deputies approved a resolution to begin the process of prayer book revision, with a new BCP anticipated in 2030. The House of Bishops amended the resolution to scuttle immediate work on a new prayer book and instead resolving, among other thing, to "memorialize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a Prayer Book of the church preserving the psalter, liturgies, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, Historic Documents, and Trinitarian Formularies ensuring its continued use," and that "bishops engage worshiping communities in experimentation and the creation of alternative texts to offer to the wider church." The HoD concurred. The resolution as finally approved can be read here.

    I'm interested in the take of better informed General Convention-watchers.

  • roybartroybart Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I would be interested on the perspectives of American Episcopal shippies, but to this outside observer, it looks like General Convention may have opened the door to more in the way of alternative (rather than trial-use) liturgies beyond the 1979 BCP.

    If I'm following correctly, the House of Deputies approved a resolution to begin the process of prayer book revision, with a new BCP anticipated in 2030. The House of Bishops amended the resolution to scuttle immediate work on a new prayer book and instead resolving, among other thing, to "memorialize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a Prayer Book of the church preserving the psalter, liturgies, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, Historic Documents, and Trinitarian Formularies ensuring its continued use," and that "bishops engage worshiping communities in experimentation and the creation of alternative texts to offer to the wider church." The HoD concurred. The resolution as finally approved can be read here.

    I'm interested in the take of better informed General Convention-watchers.
    I'd be interested in hearing thoughts and info on this too. Our priest remarked that a long and contentious process can be expected.
  • I think the idea is to create something like the Church of England's Common Worship, i.e. a body of resources. But the bishops have allowed individual dioceses a great deal of leeway in experimenting before reporting back. The 1979 Prayer Book will remain official and the 1928 American Prayer Book is also to be allowed (I gather that it's been more or less stated that the allowance for the 1928 book was an intentional, rather than accidental, element of the wording -- in theory even earlier prayer books might be allowed, but I don't think there's any real market for them).

    There's almost certainly now nothing stopping American parishes from licitly using the English or Anglican Missals, at least with the 1928 BCP Eucharistic prayer. Mind you, one can pretty much assemble the English Missal out of options provided for Common Worship Order 1 in traditional language, and I've certainly known and attended parishes that do so.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    We already have alternative liturgies in Enriching Our Worship (pdf). I don't know how widely it's used, but we see it in my parish regularly.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    My understanding has been that there are restrictions/limitations on how Enriching Our Worship can be used, including permission of the bishop. Am I wrong about that?

    Thanks to you, @roybart and @Columba_in_a_Currach for your comments. I look forward to following this.
  • BabyWombatBabyWombat Shipmate
    Enriching Our Worship (EOW) is available with the permission of the local bishop. I am covering a small parish, mostly aging parishioners, for whom the BCP 1979 is still “the new book”. Another priest covers some Sundays, and brings in print outs from EOW, which confuses the people.

    Now, when I teach church history, I make a big point about how revolutionary the BCP was, in that it put the words of the services in the hands of the people (well, at least those who could read.). To continue that revolutionary act parishes then need to have the BCP1979, plus EOW in the pews, and few go to that expense of having two books. Instead they hand out photo copies or downloads of select pages, which, for my terribly conservative (in these regards only!) perspective vitiates that revolutionary act -- the clergy have issued selections, but not the whole book.

    I came to deeper faith, and to TEC, through attending services and paging through the BCP during “the boring bits”…… and discovered the psalms, the catechism, the services for funerals and weddings and ordinations….. Having the whole book available brought a longing and an interest……. Bespoke handouts may be easy for folks to follow, but cut them off from the richness that is the BCP. So yes, I am one of those TEC clergy clinging to the BCP1979! And when the changes come, I want them in book format, for those who in future get bored during my sermons and can page through the book and find richness.
  • edited July 17
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    My understanding has been that there are restrictions/limitations on how Enriching Our Worship can be used, including permission of the bishop. Am I wrong about that?

    Thanks to you, @roybart and @Columba_in_a_Currach for your comments. I look forward to following this.

    I think there may be restrictions, but it's used pretty commonly in my experience. It's still not nearly as familiar to the laity as "old new" prayerbook.

    To lay my cards on the table, I'm enough of an "advanced" Anglo-Catholic that I don't much care about using the BCP services exactly as written. If I had my druthers, we'd interpolate the "Orate Fratres" and the "Ecce Agnus Dei" at the very least.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    BabyWombat wrote: »

    I came to deeper faith, and to TEC, through attending services and paging through the BCP during “the boring bits”…… and discovered the psalms, the catechism, the services for funerals and weddings and ordinations….. Having the whole book available brought a longing and an interest……. Bespoke handouts may be easy for folks to follow, but cut them off from the richness that is the BCP.

    I paged through the 1979 BCP in much the same way for a while, then went out and bought my own. This was hugely important to me. At the same time, I recognize that not everyone finds their way around books like this as easily, which means handouts are really important. At my parish there is a fair amount of focus on the BCP during adult confirmation -- those parts are currently taught by a retired priest who loves the BCP and knows its history inside out and backwards -- and when people "join" the church (not a thing normally done in TEC, I know) or are confirmed, they are given a copy of the BCP.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Thanks for the further explanation, @BabyWombat and @Columba_in_a_Currach. My experience of Episcopal churches around here has been that they’ve seemed to be pretty straight BCP. If I’ve encountered EOW, I haven’t been aware of it. But, of course, my experience is limited.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Thanks for the further explanation, @BabyWombat and @Columba_in_a_Currach. My experience of Episcopal churches around here has been that they’ve seemed to be pretty straight BCP. If I’ve encountered EOW, I haven’t been aware of it. But, of course, my experience is limited.

    In my experience, it is common at more youth-oriented services and when a parish makes a very deliberate attempt to use more inclusive language. Anglican breadth being what it is, parish use of EOW almost certainly ranges from "at every service" to "never." The same, of course, can be said for Rite I, Rite II, or the 1928 BCP. Although, in my diocese, Rite II is overwhelmingly the most common. I suspect that there are rather more Rite I services than ones using EOW, but I wouldn't be surprised if the latter have a larger total attendance.
  • BabyWombatBabyWombat Shipmate
    And, just for full disclosure, in my last parish we had 1979 Rite I for early service (and a faithful, active and engaged congregation), 1979 Rite II at 9:30. But, in July and August we fled to the cooler undercroft where we used printed handouts, simpler ritual, each summer using a new text from some authorized alternate form. The congregation took in stride, since they knew it would be over soon -- but they still came and heard and used new language and perspectives. We didn’t lose anyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.