The "new" Prayer Book was written before I was born. I came to the Episcopal Church in my early 20s, decades after the adoption of the current Book of Common Prayer, and was received in a parish where Enriching Our Worship was the norm. The 1928 Prayer Book is something I have seen once or twice, but it holds no particular place of sentiment or nostalgia for me; indeed, if I were to think of anything as the "old prayer book," my thoughts would go to the 1662 book still official in many other parts of the Anglican Communion. But for the most part, in my heart, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is THE Book of Common Prayer: the thing cried out to me from the pew rack the first time I set foot in an Episcopal Church, and what drew me to this Church.
So it is with some bewilderment that I read Dean McGowan's inventory. While he may be correct about old habits regarding the offertory, most of the practices described in the article do not strike me as inspired by some unresolved allegiance to a defunct set of rubrics.
The lectionary indeed prescribes three readings for every Eucharist with the sole exception of Monday through Saturday of Easter Week. The rubric on page 325 and 357 prescribes that "One or two Lessons, as appointed, are read"; who it is that does this appointing is not specified, and the lectionary psalm is allowed by a "may" rubric but not prescribed (interestingly, if one used two lessons and the psalm option, what second psalm ought to be used is not suggested). In churches that regularly use a single lesson before the Gospel, I have seen far wider use of the lesson from Hebrew Scripture being included and the Epistle being omitted, which hardly seems to be lingering 1928-ism.
With regard to the Prayers of the People, the rubric on page 328 first suggests the use of "the following form" (the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church and the world) and secondarily suggests the directions on page 383. The rubric on page 359 invites the reader to "See the forms beginning on page 383." The directions on page 383 explicitly say "Any of the forms which follow may be used." While permission to adapt is explicitly granted, and permission to use freely-composed prayers that conform to the categories of prayer prescribed are implied, there is nothing unfaithful to the 1979 Book of Common Prayer about using the forms provided with minor substituions. In fact, following such forms seems to be the primary suggestion of the text. I have participated in communities that composed Prayers of the People from scratch each season, and I have participated in communities that use the forms in the book with adaptations or insertions suitable to the occasion. While the former can be done well, I have also seen it done badly, and would generally recommend the latter.
With regard to the Offertory, the rubric states "Representatives of the congregation bring the people’s offerings of bread and wine, and money or other gifts, to the deacon or celebrant. The people stand while the offerings are presented and placed on the Altar." I agree with Dean McGowan that the widespread practice in many congregations does not conform to this rubric. Mostly I see the people sit when bread and wine are brought forward, followed by a collection, then the people stand when the money is brought forward. Having no experience with the 1928 Prayer Book, I cannot say whether this pattern comes from there, or from the practices of other denominations from which people came to our pews, or from something else, but I have rarely seen the offertory bring bread, wine, and money together to the altar, the people standing. This is indeed a place where we can grow into the practice and theology prescribed by the "old new prayer book."
The posture prescribed for the Sursum Corda, preface, and Sanctus (and Benedictus, which is required in Rite II and optional in Rite I), is clearly standing. Following the Sanctus, the rubric clearly invites the people to "kneel or stand" on page 334 and "stand or kneel" on 362. While I far prefer the posture of standing for the entire Eucharistic Prayer, it is wholly consistent with the invitation of the rubrics of the Prayer Book to kneel.
For communion, the rubrics prescribe that "The ministers receive the Sacrament in both kinds, and then immediately deliver it to the people." While "immediately" might be stretched, the delays that I have seen have universally been logistical and not devotional. I recoil with horror at the notion of anyone on the altar receiving communion before the prayers and invitations to communion are concluded, and I have never anywhere see any devotional, pietistic, or liturgical actions cause delay between the communion of the ministers and the communion of the people other than delays introduced by individuals at the altar rail before taking communion. I have certainly not seen any ministers receiving before they are supposed to. If such a practice happens, Dean McGowan is right to condemn it.
With regard to the closing procession, I believe the Church has struggled to understand how to best be faithful to the instructions of the current book. If the dismissal comes from the altar and then the congregation stays in their pews while a retiring procession transports the ministers from the altar, the criticism is that the dismissal was not real, because people are not really free to "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord"; they are invited to "stay and watch while all the people in fancy vestments walk out." But if the retiring procession happens and then the dismissal comes from the back of the church, Dean McGowan accuses the sanctuary (and choir?) party of leaving before they are dismissed. While sometimes that does seem to happen, far more often I have seen the movement take place from front to back or sides, then the dismissal, at which point everyone (except those who stay to listen to the postlude) are indeed immediately dismissed. I agree with the dean that the rubrics do not seem to envision a retiring hymn or procession, and I don't believe the Church has truly determined the best way to uphold the integrity of all three of 1) letting the dismissal truly be a dismissal, 2) treating the sanctuary and choir parties as truly part of the laos, and 3) preserving the "jollity of singing on the way out of church" and our Anglican heritage of loving a good procession.
Finally, as a footnote, I would note that the rubrics indeed require a blessing and allow a dismissal in Rite I, and allow a blessing and require a dismissal in Rite II. Throughout the article, the good dean seems to conflate "The 1979 Book of Common Prayer" with Rite II. Rite I is not a vestige of the old book nor identical to 1928; it is thoroughly part of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The rubrics of Rite I are more like those of Rite II than those of 1928, and the following of them should not be construed as not embracing the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
No comments:
Post a Comment