The 1979 Book of Common Prayer—the Most Widely Used Prayer Book in the Anglican Church in North America

The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 4

By Robin G. Jordan

A number of developments have influenced the evolution of Anglican service books in the past 100 years.  They include the Anglo-Catholic movement, the ecumenical movement, the liturgical movement, the indigenization movement, the charismatic renewal movement, feminism and the gender equality movement, the gay-rights movement, the Ancient Future worship renewal movement, the secularization of Western societies, the waning of Christianity and the decline in church attendance in Western countries, the expansion of Christianity in non-Western countries, and the rapid growth of digital information technology. The last 100 years has been a significant period in Prayer Book revision. While the influence of these developments has not impacted all provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Church equally, all have felt their impact in one way or another.

The decade after World War I would witness a spate of Prayer Book revision. This Prayer Book revision would produce the 1918 Canadian Prayer Book, the 1926 Irish Prayer Book, the 1928 American Prayer Book, the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, and the 1929 South African Prayer Book.  The 1918 Canadian Prayer Book and the 1926 Irish Prayer Book were conservative revisions of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1928 American Prayer Book, the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book, and 1929 South African Prayer Book, on the other hand, introduced radical changes in the Prayer Book. The 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book would prove too radical for Parliament, which twice rejected the revision.

1958 would mark a major watershed in twentieth century Prayer Book revision. The 1958 Lambeth Conference adopted four resolutions on Prayer Book revision and a fifth resolution on the Holy Communion service. 

In Resolution 73 the 1958 Lambeth Conference would commend to the study of all sections of the Anglican Communion the Report of the Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer on the subject of “the contemporary movement towards unanimity in doctrinal and liturgical matters by those of differing traditions in the Anglican Communion as a result of new knowledge gained from biblical and liturgical studies.”  In the second part of Resolution 74 the conference urged that “a chief aim of Prayer Book revision should be to further that recovery of the worship of the primitive Church which was the aim of the compilers of the first Prayer Books of the Church of England.” In Resolution 75 the conference commended to the study of the whole Anglican Communion “the counsel on Prayer Book revision given in the Report of the Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer.” 

Resolution 76 stated:

The Book of Common Prayer - The Holy Communion Service

The Conference requests the Archbishop of Canterbury, in co-operation with the Consultative Body, to appoint an advisory committee to prepare recommendations for the structure of the Holy Communion service which could be taken into consideration by any Church or Province revising its eucharistic rite, and which would both conserve the doctrinal balance of the Anglican tradition and take account of present liturgical knowledge.    

These resolutions would open a floodgate of theological and liturgical diversity. Among the recommendations the Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer was that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer should no longer be considered “the norm of doctrine and worship and uniting factor in the Anglican Communion” as it had been before that time. The next 50 odd years would see a proliferation of liturgies that bore no resemblance to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in language, doctrine, and liturgical usages.

It deserves special mention that the second part of 1958 Lambeth Conference’s Resolution 74 was based upon an argument used by the Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer. In a Churchman article, “Lambeth 1958 and the ‘Liturgy for Africa’” Roger Beckwith examines this argument:

The final argument used by the committee is that Cranmer's aim was a recovery of the worship of the primitive church : in this he achieved notable success, but was hampered by having less knowledge about early Christian worship than we have today. This definition of Cranmer's aim is less than a half truth, as the prefaces "Concerning the Service of the Church " and " Of Ceremonies " in the Prayer Book sufficiently show. Cranmer's great concern was to restore worship to conformity with the Christian Gospel, as set forth in Holy Scripture, and to construct orderly and edifying services based on the principles and instructions which Scripture contains. Anything which had never subserved this end or had ceased to do so, however ancient, he discarded. He undoubtedly retained what was old in preference to substituting something new when the new would have been no better, and restored what was old when it was better than what was in use and better than anything he could devise himself. But it is clear that he would not have restored what was old just because it was old, though no better than what was in use : this would have been contrary to his principle of avoiding needless changes in existing customs (see the preface ·~Of Ceremonies", and cf. Article 34). Had Cranmer known all that is known today about early Christian worship, he might well have made more use of it at points where changes were then needed. But he would not have made use of this knowledge at points where changes were not then needed, and he would not have expected us to make use of it at points where, because of his work, changes are not needed today. His work may not always have been " primitive ", but, in whole or in part, it has held its ground in all branches of the Anglican Communion since their inception, and therefore, on the basis of his principles, it has now the same claim to be left standing as the harmless medievalisms which he left standing himself.

Beckwith goes on to point out:

In any case, if Cranmer "achieved notable success" in restoring the worship of the primitive church, as the committee says, why need his Prayer Book be wholly set aside by those who wish to carry the restoration further? It must always be remembered that a complete restoration of the worship of the primitive church would be impossible for, as A. Couratin remarks, when criticizing the committee's report at this point, the evidence from the first three centuries is still scanty, the ecclesiastical and social situation was then completely different, and theology was in an immature state (Lambeth and Liturgy, 1959, pp. Sf.).

The 2008 Jerusalem Declaration is in part a rejection of the doctrinal and liturgical recommendations of the Report of the Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer. With the declaration the first GAFCON Conference sought to undo the damage that the 1958 Lambeth Conference would cause with its endorsement of the sub-committee’s Report. It calls the Anglican Church back to the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as the Anglican standards for doctrine and worship.

The 1960s and 1970s in the United States would see the production of series of experimental liturgies and trial services for use in the Episcopal Church, which would culminate in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The process of Prayer Book revision would prove divisive for American Episcopalians. Some would welcome the new liturgies and services; others clung resolutely to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The movement to ordain women and other developments in the Episcopal Church would exacerbate the situation.

General Convention’s authorization of the 1979 Prayer Book and women’s ordination would cause an exodus of Episcopalians unhappy with these changes and the formation of the abortive first Anglican Church in North American. The Continuing Anglicans as they would come to be called soon fell out over doctrine and other matters. The first Anglican Church in North America would quickly fragment into a welter of rival Continuing Anglican jurisdictions.

A form of extreme Anglo-Catholicism would become the dominant theology in most of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. While these jurisdictions would retain the 1928 Prayer Book as their official liturgy, in the jurisdictions in which this form of Anglo-Catholicism was the dominant theology, the texts and rubrics of the 1928 Prayer Book would be supplemented by those of various editions of the Anglican Missal. The Anglican Missal would become their standard of doctrine and worship.

A number of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions have disappeared since the early days of the Continuing Anglican movement. The remaining jurisdictions have seen a decline in the number of their clergy and congregations with the shrinking of their population base due to attrition from ill-health, death, and defection to the Roman Catholic Church.

During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century the Episcopal Church had developed an anti-evangelical identity that associated evangelism with evangelicalism. The Continuers who were for a larger part former Episcopalians shared this identity. They did not develop in their churches the evangelistic culture that is essential to a church’s fulfillment of the Great Commission and its subsequent growth.

The Continuing Anglican jurisdictions in starting new congregations relied heavily on building these congregations around a core of traditionalist Episcopalians unhappy with developments in the Episcopal Church. They essentially targeted a very miniscule segment of the population. They also relied on the appeal of what they touted as the traditional worship of the 1928 Prayer Book to attract additional members.

Due to their clergy’s use of various editions of the Anglican Missal, worship of their churches went well beyond that of the 1928 Prayer Book. Even where only the 1928 Prayer Book was used, the worship of Continuing Anglican churches would have limited appeal. It did not prove the draw which Continuers though that it would: It did not cause people to flock to their churches. The way they worshiped was too strongly associated in the popular mind with Roman Catholicism. Their church services were tiresomely long and the language used in the services unfamiliar. Other factors contributed to their worship’s lack of appeal.

This miscalculation has resulted in the decline of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions as their clergy and their congregations have aged and died. A new generation of Episcopalians unhappy with developments in their denomination is accustomed to the 1979 Prayer Book. This generation has preferred to form its own breakaway jurisdictions—the Anglican Mission in America and the second Anglican Church in North America.

What has happened to the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions shows how the choice of a service book can adversely affect the life and ministry of a denomination.

The 1979 Book of Common Prayer has been in use for more than three decades. The 1979 Prayer Book was a more substantial revision than its predecessor. Like the 1928 Prayer Book , it shows the influence of the nineteenth century Catholic Revival. It also shows the influence of the twentieth century ecumenical and liturgical movements.

The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is the official Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church. The 1979 Prayer Book enjoys wide use in the second Anglican Church in North America and is used in a number of other denominations. It is the most popular source of liturgies for the convergence movement, a movement of evangelical and charismatic churches in the United States, which blends charismatic worship with liturgical forms of service.

While retaining a number of services in traditional or Jacobean English, the 1979 Prayer Book’s principal language is contemporary English—not quite the vernacular but what can be described as “good liturgical English.”  It introduces a number of new prayers and rites and a new liturgical Psalter.

The 1979 Prayer Book emphasizes the centrality of the Holy Eucharist to Christian worship. For celebrations of the Holy Eucharist the 1979 Prayer Book adopts the structure recommended by the 1958 Lambeth Conference’s Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer.

The doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice championed by the 1958 Lambeth Conference’s Sub-committee on the Book of Common Prayer is evident in the 1979 Prayer Book’s eucharistic prayers and catechism. This doctrine maintains that the church participates in Christ’s ongoing sacrificial activities through the celebration of the Eucharist. It has been critiqued by Roger Beckwith, J. I. Packer, and others and shown to be inconsistent with the Scriptures and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The 1979 Prayer Book’s doctrine of eucharistic presence is one of moderate realism. The wording of the four eucharistic prayers and the words of administration in the Rite II Holy Eucharist and the second eucharistic prayer and the retention of the 1548 Order of Communion in the Rite I Eucharist point to a real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements. Both rites do not entirely exclude the twin notions that the eucharistic elements undergo a change in substance and that the Eucharist itself is a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

The eucharistic doctrine of the 1979 Prayer Book is far removed from that of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. It is a culmination of the movement of the American Prayer Book away from the eucharistic doctrine of the classical Anglican formularies that began with the Episcopal Church’s adoption of the 1789 Prayer Book and its subsequent adoption of the 1804 revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Episcopal Church would not require clerical subscription to this revision. The 1979 Prayer Book relegates the Thirty-Nine Articles to its historical documents section, reflecting a common view in the Episcopal Church (and its latest offspring, the second Anglican Church in North America) that the Thirty-Nine Articles is a relic of the past.

While the 1979 Prayer Book has been criticized for the emphasis that it gives to the baptismal covenant, the target of this criticism is in actuality the liberal interpretation and application of this covenant and not the book’s. The rubrics and wording of its baptismal rites permits two different interpretations of these rites. One interpretation is that confirmation, as understood in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, occurs with the anointing of the newly-baptized with chrism, or blessed oil. In any event the position of the 1979 Prayer Book is that baptism is complete initiation into the Christian Church. This position is consistent with the Scriptures and is one of the 1979 Prayer Book’s strong points.

Among the other strong points of the 1979 Prayer Book is that metrical versions of the Invitatory Psalms, and of the Canticles after the Readings,  may be used at Morning and Evening Prayer. In special circumstance, a hymn may be sung in place of a Canticle. These provisions in the Additional Directions for Morning and Evening Prayer are a boon to small congregations which lack the musical leadership, acoustical environment, and/or voices to sing chant, which have a large number of children in the congregation, or whose ministry target group shows no affinity for plainsong or other forms of chant.

The most common method of reciting the Psalms in churches used in Episcopal and Anglican churches is responsively. This is the most boring, pedestrian, and uninteresting method of reciting the Psalms. Its use accounts in part for the lackluster worship of small Episcopal and Anglican congregations for whom Morning Prayer is the principal service on most Sundays and whose circumstances prevents them from singing chant.

Morning and Evening Prayer may be used as the Liturgy of the Word at a celebration of the Eucharist.  

An Order of Worship for the Evening with the addition of psalms, readings, canticles, hymns, and prayers may be used as an evening service. This provides congregations with an alternative form of evening worship in place of the Eucharist or Evening Prayer. The format is particularly suitable for the use of house congregations and other small congregations worshiping in unconventional settings.

The 1979 Prayer Book offers a number of options for the entrance rite of the Eucharist. Among these options is that an Opening Acclamation may be said and a metrical version of a Canticle or  hymn sung, after which the service may continue with the Collect of the Day. This simplified entrance rite is musically less demanding for small congregations than singing both a hymn and a Canticle. The offertory is free from the unnecessary accretions that clutter this ancillary rite in a number of more recent Anglican service books. The Eucharist moves quickly to a close after the distribution of communion.

The first half of the Eucharist through the Prayers of the People may be used as a separate Service of the Word on Sundays and other occasions where there is no celebration of Holy Communion. A collection may be taken after the Prayers of the People and the service concluded with the the Lord’s Prayer, the General Thanksgiving, and the Grace.

This option permits congregations that are accustomed to a weekly celebration of the Eucharist to use a familiar service in the absence of a priest. The service may be led by a deacon or licensed lay reader. It also provides an alternative form of morning worship for congregations with a large number of unbaptized adults and children. It offers the advantage of familiarizing them with the worship format that they are most likely find in other churches using the 1979 Prayer Book. People are inclined to prefer the worship format with which they are most familiar. In addition, the service provides an option for congregations that simply wish to gather as God’s people around the God’s Word on Sundays and other occasions.

The 1979 Prayer Book also provides directions for informal celebrations of the Eucharist—sometimes dubbed “Rite III.” These directions include two forms which may be used to prepare eucharist prayers for use with these celebrations. The rite’s major drawback, beside the wording of these  two forms, is that it may not be used at the principal Sunday or weekly celebration of the Eucharist. The directions for the rite may also not be used to craft an informal Service of the Word. These restrictions greatly limit its usefulness.

Among the weak points of the 1979 Prayer Book is that the services of Morning and Evening Prayer do not permit the omission of everything after the Salutation, “The Lord be with you,” if the Litany or another general intercession is used. The omission of the Suffrages and the Collects is a common feature of the more recent Anglican service books when the Litany or another general intercession is used for the Prayers. This keeps the service from becoming overly long and burdensome and eliminates redundant elements from the service. It also applies the general liturgical principle, “less is more.”

The 1979 Prayer Book contains no provisions for alternative forms of morning worship other than those already noted. While the Episcopal Church has produced a number of new rites since the adoption of the 1979 Prayer Book, it has not produced any new forms for regular services of public worship. The focus of the supplemental liturgical material in Enriching Our Worship 1 is the use of gender-inclusive language and feminine imagery of God in the Eucharist.

From a liturgical perspective the Episcopal Church has not come to terms with its declining worship attendance and increasing clergy shortage. Its worship continues to be centered on the Sunday or weekly celebration of the Eucharist. In other parts of the Anglican Communion provinces have responded to declines in attendance and shortages in clergy with new patterns of worship and greater reliance upon licensed lay readers. They are exploring new formats for gathering as God’s people around God’s Word and new ways of doing church. In upcoming articles in this series we will take a look at the lessons we can learn from the experiences of these provinces.

See also
A Prayer Book for What? The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 3
A Compendium of More Recent Anglican Liturgies
A Prayer Book for Where? The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 2
A Prayer Book for Whom? The Challenges of a Common Liturgy—Part 1