Liturgy, Doctrine, and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer

By Robin G. Jordan

This article was suggested by a paper that the Rev. Neil Patterson delivered to the 2009 conference of the Prayer Book Society in the United Kingdom and which was subsequently published in the Prayer Book Society’s review, Faith and Worship. The Revd. Patterson is Rector of Ariconium, a Trustee of the Prayer Book Society and Chairman of its Hereford Branch.

The idea that liturgy and doctrine are inextricably linked to each other is summarized in the principle lex orandi lex credendi. “The law of prayer is the law of belief.” This principle is derived from the writings of Prosper of Aquitaine in the fifth century.

What this principle originally meant is that the words of the liturgy that we use should conform to the faith that we officially profess. In other words, our beliefs should shape our prayers. It was in this sense that the principle was applied at the Reformation in the development of the Prayer Book.

Since the Reformation, particularly in the nineteenth century, this principle has been used in reverse. The present or historical existence of prayers or liturgical texts with a particular theological implication has been taken as proof of the acceptability of a particular theological concept. For example, the Tractarians argued on the basis of the regeneration language in the 1662 Baptismal Office that the Church of England taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was compiled at a time in the history of the then Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA when the dominant theologies were Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church latitudinarianism. The 1928 Prayer Book reflects the influence of these two schools of thought. Traditional Anglican evangelicalism, which had been influential in the Episcopal Church in the 1840, 1850s, and 1860s, had disappeared from the Episcopal Church by 1900.

The small number of self-identified evangelicals and Low-Churchmen in the Anglican Church in North America and other North American Anglican bodies who use the 1928 Prayer Book are confronted with the fact that the Prayer Book that they use in their worship articulates and embodies doctrine largely at variance with their own. Its texts and practices have been interpreted as proof of the acceptability of doctrine that is contradictory to or inconsistent with their Protestant and Reformed views.

A few argue that it does not matter what Prayer Book is used, claiming that their teaching has greater influence upon the congregation than the teaching of the Prayer Book. However, the repeated use of its texts and practices and how other clergy have interpreted them to members of the congregation will influence the thinking of the congregation. The preacher is also denied the support of the Prayer Book for his teaching. The astute congregant is bound to ask why is the preacher teaching one thing and the Prayer Book another. The preacher is, in responding to this question, faced with the choice of paltering with the truth or honestly acknowledging the disparity between the Prayer Book’s teaching and his own.

Why then does this group of self-identified evangelicals and Low-Churchmen continue to use a Prayer Book that is essentially at odds with everything for which they stand? Some would say that the 1928 Prayer Book is the liturgy to which they are accustomed. They have become attached to it through repeated use. They dislike the modern service books. It represents for them continuity with the past. And so on. The answer will vary with the individual.

A number of the same individuals in their capacity as a minister have over the years omitted or altered texts in the 1928 services. They have also disregarded the rubrics when the rubrics direct the minister to follow a particular practice. They have made their own personal revision of the 1928 services for use in their respective churches.

The 1928 Prayer Book does have more variable options than its predecessors. They may, in a sense, be viewed as taking one step further a principle that these variable options embody—the adaptation of the liturgy to local circumstances. Anglo-Catholics have done the same thing, supplementing the authorized texts and practices of the 1928 Prayer Book with formerly unauthorized ones from the American or Anglican Missal.

The additions, alterations, and omissions, however, point to the uncomfortable truth that the 1928 Prayer Book does not really meet the needs of the congregations using it. For Protestant congregations the book is too Catholic and for Catholic congregations it is not Catholic enough.

I personally have difficulty with the 1928 Prayer Book due to the doctrine that the book articulates and embodies or for which it appears to offer proof of acceptability. Its Holy Communion and Baptismal Offices, its Offices of Instruction, its Confirmation Service, its Form for the Visitation of the Sick, its Burial Service, and its Form for the Consecration of a Church make it in my opinion a most unsuitable Prayer Book for a congregations and clergy committed to upholding and maintaining the Protestant and Reformed character of the Anglican Church. However, I also recognize that the heart is apt to over-rule the head in such matters and those who have been using the 1928 Prayer Book for their entire life and ministry are not going to abandon its use on the account of any critique of the book that I make however accurate it may be.

I would be interested in hearing from the readers of Anglicans Ablaze who identify themselves evangelicals or Low Churchmen, who have been using the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and who have modified its forms and services in order to make them more distinctively Protestant and Reformed. I am particularly interested in hearing what they have done to overcoming the sacerdotalism of the 1928 Prayer Book and to make its forms and services more congregational and participatory, more truly common prayer.