The Prayer Book, Memorialization, and Communion Across Difference, Part III

EDITORIAL

This is the final part of my three-part essay on these matters. Part I discussed the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference that were considered in Louisville. Yesterday, I looked at the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer. Today, I explore the changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer at the 81st General Convention in Louisville and propose some ways to think about the future.

Article X

Another major development was the passage of a second reading to revise Article X of the Constitution, which is the section that establishes the Book of Common Prayer and describes the process of revision and amendment in Resolution A072. This is a subject about which I published a long article just before Convention began in which I argued against its passage. I will not repeat that article, except to summarize the three reasons why I thought the General Convention should carefully discern whether this was the best path forward.

The first reason was that I believe the new first sentence is both very “vague and open to a range of contradictory interpretations.”

The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention in accordance with this article and the Canons of this Church.

The Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision used the term The Book of Common Prayer to refer to a physical book (as it does now) and to a collection of texts that includes the rites in the physical book but also additional rites which the General Convention gives “prayer book status.” I continue to find the idea that the phrase “The Book of Common Prayer” can refer to a physical book and to a collection that may never be printed to be something that most clergy and laity will find confusing.

The generous interpretation (and one made by those who wanted to protect the conscience of the theological minority) was to have your cake (i.e., keep the 1979 prayer book intact) and eat it too (elevating the new marriage rites to “prayer book status,” on the assumption that there would not be new prayer books printed with the new marriage rites).

But here’s the rub: the way the new marriage rites are being added to the prayer book in Resolution A116 does not simply grant these rites “prayer book status.” Instead, it specifically revises the physical book with six separate references to specific pages in the prayer book where changes are to be made or texts inserted.

The question that I asked before Convention remains: What is the substantive change brought about by this revision to Article X? I have changed my interpretation of the first sentence. I have come to think that it does not change anything that is not already there in Article X. More than half of its concern is about how to revise and amend the prayer book. The General Convention was always free to do so and this revision doesn’t make it any more possible. Does this new language “free” us from the constraints of physical books? (I must admit I am a person who feels no desire for such liberation!) If the methods by which the new marriage rites are authorized are any indication of the future, it is unclear if the “prayer book status” proposal that is untethered from physical books will have any practical or conceptual purchase on how conventions will amend or add to the prayer book.

These questions deserve more focused consideration. The Living Church Foundation is already planning to host a conference on this very question where experts can engage with these and related questions and have a chance for public conversations about them. So, watch this space.

Further amendments of Article X

But this was not the end of the story with Article X. I was a member of the Legislative Committee on Constitution and Canons and it was our committee that discussed Resolution A072. Many shared some of my concerns and expressed others. In fact, there were enough questions that the co-chair suggested that a group of us craft further proposed revisions to Article X. This resolution, A224, along with Resolution B008, were debated and passed on the last afternoon at Convention and you can see the details of these debate in TLC’s coverage here. This table presents the two texts side-by-side:

This revision makes a number of clarifying changes:

• It removes two passive verbs (“is understood to be” and “is intended to be”).
• It combines the first three sentences into one sentence, removing the redundancy of “communal and devotional prayer” and “shall contain both public worship and private devotion” in the phrase.
• In addition to the defining the prayer book as “liturgical forms,” it adds the phrase “and other content,” since the prayer book contains more than just liturgical forms, such as Concerning the Services of the Church, the Calendar of the Church Year, the Psalter, and so forth.
• At the suggestion of the chancellor, the phrase “and other jurisdictions” was added in Sec. 1 and in Sec. 2 after the phrase “in all the Dioceses of this Church” simply to be more precise, since some parts of the church are not dioceses.

Memorialization

The other significant change is that it adds a new sentence to the end of Sec. 1: “Any Book of Common Prayer, or portions thereof, memorialized by the General Convention, is authorized for use at any service in all the Dioceses and other jurisdictions of this Church.” Identical language is also included in the set of additional canons created by Resolution B008.

Resolution 2018-A068 memorialized the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, in large part because of the impending addition of the new marriage rites to the prayer book and thus to assure the minority that it will continue to have access to the 1979 book as it now stands. But there are two sources of confusion with the term:

• First, memorialization remains an undefined term with no history. The first meeting of the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision spent the entire first day of our meeting debating this, and we never came to an agreement.
• Second, once the new marriage rites are added, the revised book might still be called the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which will then raise the question, Which version of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is memorialized?

The insertion of this into the constitution and canons is a great service to the Episcopal Church because it clearly answers the question about what memorialization means. Resolution 2018-A068 already gives a clear sense of the intended meaning of the term: the fourth resolve memorializes the 1979 prayer book “ensuring its continued use.” This plain meaning is giving a legal expression in this sentence: “Any Book of Common Prayer, or portions thereof, memorialized by the General Convention, is authorized for use at any service in all the Dioceses and other jurisdictions of this Church.”

Changes to the Canons

Resolution B008, Amend Canon II.3.6.a and II.4 to clarify authorization of liturgies

The last signification action about liturgy at this Convention was the adoption of B008, which revised Canon II.3.6 and created a new Canon II.4.

The significant change in Canon II.3.6 was the clarification of one of the vague features of Resolution A072 that revised Article X. The new Sec. 3 in Article X introduces this sentence:

No alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless it has previously been authorized for Trial Use in accordance with this Article and the Canons of this Church.

Our committee did not agree on what this sentence means. Does it mean that a text needs to be authorized for Trial Use first, and only later at some subsequent General Convention be approved for a First and then a Second Reading? Or is the authorization of something for Trial Use the same thing as the First Reading? Since the adoption of the 1979 prayer book, when revising the calendar to add new saints, the General Convention has often passed the revision as a Trial Use and it functioned as First Reading. Many of us assumed that because this is a new sentence was added to Article X, the intention is to introduction a change to the current practice. But the problem is, it’s not clear either way.

This was solved by the addition of Canon II.3.6.b, which states that any liturgy that the convention wishes to add to the prayer book the period of Trial Use must precede the first reading. In other words, three different conventions must act: Trial use + First Reading + Second Reading.

The second change enacted by this resolution was to bring an enormous degree of clarity to the texts that are authorized in addition to the prayer book. The SCLM wrote a number of years back that we as a church had been “working without a canonical net” (see more about this in my piece before the 80th General Convention). As strange as it may sound, the Constitution and Canons did not provide clear direction about authorizing texts beyond the Prayer Book and trial use. Texts like The Book of Occasional Services and Enriching our Worship were in an uneasy liturgical limbo. We took a first step at the last Convention in 2022, when a new section was added to Article X, allowing us to “Authorize for use throughout this Church, as provided by Canon, alternative and additional liturgies to supplement those provided in the Book of Common Prayer.” But as of yet, there are no such canons.

These new canons outline the four self-evident categories of texts we use:

• The Book of Common Prayer
• Trial Use rites
• Texts that are alternatives to what in the Prayer Book (like Enriching our Worship 1 and the expansive versions of the Rite II eucharistic prayers)
• And texts that supplement the Prayer Book, The Book of Occasional Services and Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

These new canons state that “Each liturgical text beyond those provided in the Book of Common Prayer or trial use as approved by the General Convention will be designated as either a Supplemental Liturgical Resource (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority) or an Alternative Liturgical Resource (requiring permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority).”

The canons also clearly state that if a text is authorized as either Supplemental Liturgical Resource or an Alternative Liturgical Resource, this is not trial use. “If at such time as a previously approved Supplemental or Alternative Liturgical Resource authorized by act of General Convention under this canon is to be considered for trial use, said liturgy must be brought to the General Convention to begin the process for trial use approval as defined by the Constitution and Canons of this church.”

In order to make sure that all authorized rites are available to the whole church, the new canons specify that “Before their approval by the General Convention, all liturgies authorized pursuant to this canon shall be translated by the proper authorities into English, Spanish, French, and Haitian Kreyol, following the principles of dynamic equivalence.” This effectively means that all proposed liturgies need to come to the SCLM, which is the body with the authority and the resources to enable such translations.

For the first time, the canons now state that the General Convention can authorize a Book of Occasional Services and that it is a Supplemental Liturgical Resource (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority). The canons also now specify that the Convention can authorize “Propers for the celebration of lesser feasts and fasts, as well as a lectionary for the daily celebration of the Holy Eucharist authorized for optional use throughout this Church.” Further, they state that “An Alternate Psalter may be authorized by resolution at the General Convention for study and occasional use in The Episcopal Church with the approval of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.”

Three more key changes are here.

First, as I already noted, the definition of memorialization is now in the canons, the same sentence as in the proposed revision to Article X in Resolution A224. Further clarity is introduced, however, in a second sentence: “The content of any memorialized Book is understood to be the version in use at the time of memorialization.” This means that the prayer book that was memorialized by the 2018 General Convention is the 1979 prayer book as last amended in 2015 (this is because resolutions of Convention do not take effect until the first Sunday of Advent following the convention).

Second, there is now canonical permission for older prayer books to be authorized by the bishop: “The liturgies from any other Book of Common Prayer that has been authorized previously by the authority in this Church shall be available for use for Sunday worship and for other occasions with the permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.” While Resolution 2000-B042 permitted “the texts of the Daily Offices and Holy Communion contained in the 1928 edition of The Book of Common Prayer [to] remain available for occasional use under the ecclesiastical authority subject to the guidelines for supplemental liturgical materials,” this now standardizes this permission, allowing for the use of any older prayer book with the bishop’s permission.

Third, the canons tighten up the use of the Rite III, “An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist” on pages 400-05 of the prayer book. It specifies that any use of this order “for seasonal use on Sunday” can only occur if “it has been submitted to and received advance approval in writing from the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.”

As hard as it may be to believe, there were not canons on any of these matters before 2024. But we can be grateful for never later than never.

Conclusion

There is much to commend and even cause for rejoicing after this convention. Although the Task Force on Communion Across Difference was not renewed, legal protections for the minority were enacted:

• A protection in Canon III.1 of those who hold to a traditional view on marriage is protected in the discernment process and in “any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained” enabled by Resolution A092.
• A protection of the consciences of bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage, which were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012, were inserted into Canons I.19.3 and III.12.3.a, as enabled by Resolution A093.
• A retention of the current marriage rite, including its traditional definition of Christian marriage as “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God,” in the Book of Common Prayer.

These acts make it absolutely clear that the Episcopal Church has recognized that it has two teachings on marriage and has acted accordingly.

We now have a clear definition of memorialization in the canons, and maybe after 2027, in the Constitution as well: “authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.”

We have clarity that Trial Use must precede a first reading of any amendment or addition to the prayer book, and we have clarity about liturgies beyond the prayer book, whether they require the bishop’s permission or not. Furthermore, the presiding officers were directed to create a working group with Resolution A223, whose purpose is to “review the Canons and any questions relevant to the implementation of the revised Article X; and propose as needed legislation for consideration at the 82nd General Convention.” Presumably, this will also provide direction about texts that have already been authorized by the General Convention but have not been designated as Supplemental Liturgical Resources (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority) or Alternative Liturgical Resources (requiring permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority). The simplest solution would be to create a single resolution that lists all these texts and assigns them to one category or the other.

What remains is for further work on the meaning of the revised Article X. The Living Church Foundation is already planning to host a conference on this very question, where experts can engage with these and related questions and have a chance for public conversations about them.

It also remains to be seen if the Episcopal Church really is committed to Communion Across Difference. Will the clarity about two teachings remain an ambiguity with which we are willing to live for the foreseeable future? The recent chaos in the Church of England about same-sex blessings in Living in Love and Faith is still another reminder about how essential it is for a careful consideration to be made for a minority, even as that position remains that of most of the Anglican Communion and the rest of the Christian world.

It is impossible to know how our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will look back on this period in the church’s life. But regardless of where we stand, it is essential that we hold in tension the seriousness of our theological commitments with a posture of true charity toward those with whom we disagree and refuse to unchurch each other, no matter how difficult this may be.

My experience in Louisville was of unexpected gifts of encouragement, charity, and real bonds in Jesus Christ, despite our substantive differences. It is my prayer that our Lord Jesus might “reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross” such that we “are no longer strangers and aliens” but “citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”