Bishops and lawmakers consider finalizing constitutional amendment defining Book of Common Prayer – Episcopal News Service

(Episcopal News Service-Louisville, Kentucky) The Book of Common Prayer is 475 years old, but even in 2024, Episcopalians are still divided over how to properly define their prayer book, or whether it even exists as a physical book. Such questions sparked heated debates at the 80th General Assembly two years ago, and this week they again underlie one of the most controversial resolutions before the 81st General Assembly.

Resolution A072 is called “second reading” because it proposes changes to the Episcopal Church’s constitution that must be approved in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly. One of the key changes would more clearly define the Book of Common Prayer as “those liturgical forms and other texts approved by the General Assembly in accordance with this article and the canons of this Church.”

This is the wording, a rewrite of Article X of the Constitution, approved by the House of Bishops and House of Deputies in 2022 after a series of revisions. This year, however, some MPs have raised concerns that the new Article X is so ambiguous as to cause confusion.

“The meaning of the first sentence is open to two or three interpretations,” the Rev. Matthew Olver, a vocal critic of the resolution, told Episcopal News Service on June 23 after a meeting of the General Convention’s Constitution and Canons Committees. He is a member of the Committee on Delegates as a representative of the Diocese of Dallas.

The Committees of Bishops and Delegates on Constitution and Canons meet on June 22 at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Kentucky. Photo: David Paulsen/Episcopal News Service

A day earlier, on June 22, those committees had made a mixed decision on A072. Bishops and alternates are assigned to parallel committees that normally meet and deliberate, although they vote separately on whether to recommend resolutions. The five bishops for Constitution and Canons voted unanimously for A072, while that vote failed in the Committee of Alternates by a vote of 4 to 6.

Since the House of Bishops is the “house of first action” for resolutions on the Constitution and canons, A072 will next be presented to the bishops with a recommendation for approval. If the bishops reject it, the resolution lapses. If the bishops pass it, it will be forwarded to the House of Deputies for debate, despite the alternate committee’s rejection.

Olver, a professor at Nashotah House Theological Seminary and editor of The Living Church, said he understands that the language of the Constitution does not need to be as specific as the language of the Episcopal Church’s canons, which detail how the core principles laid out in the Constitution are to be implemented. But “when we revise the Constitution, the meaning needs to be clear and unambiguous.”

When bishops and MPs passed the “first reading” of this amendment in 2022, the intention was to provide a constitutional basis to elevate certain liturgies not already included in the Book of Common Prayer to “prayer book status,” whether replacing older liturgies or standing as standalone additions. Part of the support for such a change was rooted in the desire of some church leaders to include same-sex marriage rites and cross-gender liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer, which has not undergone a major overhaul since 1979.

The existing Article X of the Constitution sets out how the Book of Common Prayer may be revised, but does not address the status of other authorized liturgies that are not proposed revisions to the existing book. Over a dozen liturgical texts have been “authorized” by the General Convention over the years – for trial use, experimental use, or simply “made available.”

The debate in 2022 also revolved around whether the term “Book of Common Prayer” still refers only to the physical book or can also refer to the text in another form, such as on a website or a PDF document.

With this change, the church would “recognize that common prayer is evolving,” the Most Reverend Jeffery Lee, former bishop of the Diocese of Chicago, said at the 80th General Assembly when he chaired the bishops’ Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music. “And it creates a framework for that evolution, including the inclusion of a number of different rites in a curated collection.”

It is currently unclear how much opposition the second reading of the constitutional amendment, A072, will face in the House of Bishops and House of Deputies this week, although Olver is not the only one raising concerns. The Rev. Scott Gunn, a delegate from the Diocese of Ohio and executive director of Forward Movement, was critical of A072 in a blog post summarizing the constitutional and canon resolutions.

“We have too much liturgical chaos in our church. The last thing we can do is confuse people who ask the question, ‘What is the Book of Common Prayer?'” Gunn wrote. “And then there is just the almost Orwellian oddity, at first glance, of calling something a book when it really isn’t a book.”

But Reverend Ruth Meyers, a representative of the Diocese of California and a professor at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, rejected criticism of the constitutional amendment proposed by A072.

“I don’t think the language is ambiguous. I think the language is clear,” Meyers told ENS on June 23 after attending the opening ceremony of the 81st General Assembly. Article X generally defines the Book of Common Prayer, and “we interpret that through the actions we take at the General Assembly, the changes we make to the canons over time.”

Meyer, vice chair of the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, previously served on the Liturgy and Prayer Book Revision Task Force that originally proposed this constitutional amendment in 2022. (The Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music has written answers to frequently asked questions about A072 here.)

“The resolution allows us to preserve what we love about the 1979 Book of Common Prayer … and opens up the possibility of adding further material that addresses current concerns,” she said. It also adds a requirement that new liturgies must first be approved for trial use before being considered for inclusion in the prayer book.

“We are maintaining our process, our very conservative approach to prayer book revisions, which requires (votes at) two consecutive meetings,” she added. “So I think that’s a good solution.”

– David Paulsen is a senior reporter and editor at the Wisconsin-based Episcopal News Service. He can be reached at [email protected].