What is Anglican Worship - whether 'Prayerbook Style' or not? Anglican churches use a prescribed liturgy - a written form for worship. This distinguishes us from those churches that choose not to have a written liturgy. Not only do we have a written liturgy, which means that our worship conventions can be examined and tested to see if they are good and uplifting ones, but we also have some long established principles of worship. In the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (formulated in the 16th century), Article XXIV, Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth, says, "It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and to the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people." Strong language, even for that time, that raises the question: what is 'true' to the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) - campaigning to keep 16th century language in use, or using 21st century English for all our worship, in order to be understood by everyone?
The 17th century Preface to the BCP says, "It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England, ever since the first compiling of her Publick Liturgy, to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation from it." In 1906 a Royal Commission reported that "the law of public worship in the Church of England is too narrow for the religious life of the present generation". This started the process which is only ending now with the publication of the final parts of Common Worship. Obviously, "to keep the mean" has been a slow process! However, when that slow process is complete, it is more than time to move on, if we are to be true to our Anglican principles.
In fact the 'process' was so slow (for reasons, like the 1928 Prayerbook debacle, that would take too long to describe here) that by the time Common Worship appeared it was already out of date. So much effort went into trying to appease those who wanted to retain the BCP rather than acting on BCP principles, that General Synod was blind to what was happening all around them: that people were deserting the C of E, or at least the more traditionally inclined parts of it, in droves. The 'Decade of Mission' launched by the then Archbishop of Canterbury in 1990 never fully happened, but the Church of England did change: from thinking of mission as irrelevant in 1990 to seeing it as a priority in 2000. General Synod sponsored a report: 'Mission-Shaped Church', recommending initiatives to revive churchgoing, which was discussed at its meeting this year. The Weekly Telegraph in an article: 'Latte and prayers to lure back pagan Britons' says:
The Church of England was urged to experiment with new styles of worship, from midweek services with coffee and croissants to cathedral raves led by rapping DJs.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said a new report recommending initiatives to revive churchgoing was a "moment of decision" for the Church, which is facing sharply declining numbers. He told the General Synod in London that the report, Mission-Shaped Church, was an "opportunity for the growth and maturation of the Church", though it presented a bleak picture. It said society was now "second- or even third generation pagan" and Sunday was no longer seen as a day for worship but rather a "family day, or DIY day, or sports club day or whatever people choose to do".
New ideas being considered include "Café churches", "cell churches" and "seeker services" for those who are unsure of their faith. These are not normally held on a Sunday. Most of these innovations have been regarded as fringe worship by traditionalists, but the bishops now want to make them part of the mainstream to attract young people. We too have 'an opportunity for growth and maturation'. What kind of church are we? Are we a church which seeks to recreate the past that members left behind when they moved to Switzerland? [And, given the many very different backgrounds we all come from, that could be difficult!] Or are we a church that is seeking to proclaim the gospel afresh for this generation in such a tongue as the people understandeth. One of these is distinctly Anglican, the other, according to the Book of Common Prayer, is not even Christian. What do you think?
Yours in Christ,
Richard Pamplin
And to keep you up to date: