Clearing Away the Liturgical Clutter

Earlier articles in this series are “A Proposed Supplemental Eucharistic Prayer and Post-Communion Thanksgiving for The Book of Common Prayer (2019),” “Workarounds for the 2019 Anglican Standard Eucharistic Rite: A Guide for Reformational Anglicans,” and “The Early Reformed Eucharistic Prayer, Its Characteristics, Its Use, and Its Implications for Reformational Anglicans.”

I recall a conversation that I had with an elderly priest of my acquaintance more than a decade ago. At the time I questioned the necessity of the additions that he had made to the Prayer Book Communion Service—ceremonies and devotions from the Anglican Missal. He insisted that they were part of “our” worship. I thought to myself, “They are a part of your worship. But they are not part of the people’s worship. Your worship and the people’s worship are not the same thing.” The additions were what he had become accustomed to doing. From a liturgical perspective they were redundant or superfluous. They did not enrich the service in any way. They simply made it longer and more tiresome. 

After having sung an entrance hymn, it was pointless to recite an introit—a snippet of a psalm which had at one time served as the entrance song of the rite. The assembly had already sung an entrance song, in which the priest had “processed” down the church’s short central aisle, proceeded by an aging acolyte with a processional cross. It was time to move onto the next component of the Prayer Book service. The Prayer Book service itself was too long as it was. There was no benefit to making it more tedious.

For the priest in question the additions which he had made to the Prayer Book Communion Service were steppingstones to worship. For him they were familiar rituals that he performed when he officiated at a celebration of Holy Communion. But for myself and, I suspect, for the other members of the congregation, they were hindrances to worship. The other members of the congregation went along with these additions because they otherwise might not have a priest to administer the sacrament of Holy Communion on Sundays. When he did poll the congregation about some major changes to the service, they expressed their preference for the order of the Prayer Book service.

If one strips a celebration of the Holy Communion down to its barebones, here is what is necessary—Scripture readings, a sermon, prayers of intercession, a penitential rite (self-examination, confession of sin and declaration of forgiveness), preparation of the elements, praise and thanksgiving to God, and communion. Everything else in our eucharistic celebrations are accretions that the liturgy of the eucharist has accumulated over the centuries. They are like knickknacks that Great Granny collected and which we hang onto for sentimental reasons rather than throw them out. We do not need them to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We may come up with all kinds of rationalizations for hanging onto them, but those rationalizations are just that—rationalizations.

We have no need of the Opening Acclamation, the Collect for Purity, the Decalogue, the Summary of the Law, the Kyries, the Trisagion, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Salutation, the Collect of the Day, the Nicene Creed, the exchange of the Peace, the ingathering and presentation of the people’s gifts, the Fraction, the Lord’s Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, the Words of Distribution, the Post-Communion Sentences, the Post-Communion Thanksgiving, the Blessing, and the Dismissal. All these elements can be tipped onto the liturgical trash heap. They are extraneous.

We can even celebrate the Lord’s Supper without the Scripture readings, a sermon, and the prayers of intercession. A formal penitential rite was also originally not a part of the Lord’s Supper. The people gathered. The bread and the cup were prepared. The president offered praise and thanksgiving, the elements were shared, and the people left. By the time of Justin Martyr instruction and intercessory prayer had been added to the Lord’s Supper and the deacons immediately afterwards brought the elements to those who were too sick to attend.

Shocked?

How then do we go about determining what should be included in our celebrations of Holy Communion? I have found these questions and questions like them useful in making such a determination.

Does this particular component embody the teaching of the Bible? Does it reflect biblical practice? Is it agreeable to biblical teaching? Is it agreeable to biblical practice? Does the rite need this particular component to embody or be agreeable to biblical teaching? Does the rite need a particular form or practice to be agreeable to biblical practice if and when it is warranted? May the biblical doctrine expressed by this particular component be expressed by alternative forms and practices? If so, what forms and practices?

Embodying biblical teaching and agreeing with biblical teaching are not the same thing. When component of a rite embodies biblical teaching, it gives expression to that teaching. When it is agreeable to biblical teaching, it is not contrary or inconsistent with biblical teaching or practice. While something may not be expressly forbidden by the Bible, it may give expression to doctrine that conflicts with biblical teaching or it may take the form of a practice that is clearly at odds with biblical practice and the Bible contains nothing that genuinely justifies ignoring biblical practice. It is not necessary to follow all biblical practices, but it is important to not ignore biblical practices that may have a bearing upon what we have been doing.

For example, we cannot argue from Scripture that it is necessary to pray that God sanctify the water in which we are about to baptize someone. We find no evidence of the practice in Scripture. But we do find evidence of baptisms in which there is no mention of prayer before the baptism. If there was prayer, this detail is omitted. It was not considered important.

Now we might argue that Scripture does not specifically forbid the practice and therefore we may invoke the Holy Spirit’s sanctification of the water in the font—the normative principle. However, the Holy Spirit’ sanctification is not invoked in regard to inanimate objects in Scripture, only in regard to people. So, invoking the Holy Spirit’s sanctification of the water in font, while it is not expressly forbidden, runs counter to what the Scriptures teach, that is, the Holy Spirit sanctifies people, not inanimate objects—water, bread and wine, olive oil, cloth, salt, etc.

On the other hand, praying for the baptismal candidate does not run counter to what the Scriptures teach. If we examine the 1552 baptismal rites, we will find that the prayer before the baptism is a prayer for the baptismal candidate that he should receive the benefits of the sacrament. It does not petition God to sanctify the water in the font. It is consistent with what Scripture teaches. Later prayers such as the 1662, 1789, 1892, 1928, 1979, and 2019 prayers break with what the Scriptures teach.

After we have subjected each component of the service to the Bible test, we subject it to the Thirty-Nine Articles test, using a similar set of questions. In the preceding case the prayers at the font from 1662 on arguably break with the principles of the Articles of Religion. Article XXIII refers to “ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation” but says nothing about “consecrating” the Sacraments. However, these later prayers give the priest an increasingly larger consecratory role. So, they may be viewed as running counter to principles of the Articles of Religion as well as the teaching of the Bible.

The third test to which we subject the components of the service is the pragmatic test—the test of practicality, flexibility, adaptability, and sensitivity to changes in language, attention span, and related factors.

Our measuring sticks so to speak are the Bible and secondly the Articles of Religion. We may use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a measuring stick to the extent that it conforms to these two other measuring sticks.

Our third measuring stick is what will work in this day and age, what the task of making disciples on the North American mission field demands. This is an important measuring stick, next to the Bible and the Articles of Religion.

Except where a particular form or practice is the only form or practice by which a particular doctrine of the Bible or principle of the Articles found in Scripture or derived from Scripture may be expressed, we do not need retain that form or practice. We may use other forms and practices in their place provided that these forms and practices give expression to that doctrine of the Bible or principle of the Articles. This may include a particular order of service or pattern of worship.

We cannot operate from the assumption that what worked in the past will work now. Retreating to the past is not the way to reach and engage the unchurched in the present. When we do that, we are putting our preferences and tastes first. 

Nor can we operate from the assumption that what works in one locality will work in another. If we operate from these assumptions, we will not be faithfully fulfilling the Great Commission. 

This is not to say we cannot use the old where it may be well-used. The key is that what we choose to use has the objective capacity to be well-used in the twenty-first century, and not just clutter our rites and services and serve no useful purpose other than self-gratification. Its use must also not run counter to the teaching of the Bible or the principles of the Articles of Religion.