Rethinking Prayer Book Revision
A recovery of a common scriptural language will facilitate the development of a new Book of Common Prayer for Anglicanism in North America.
By: The Rev. Keith Acker, Alpine Anglican Church of the Blessed Trinity, Alpine CA (Reformed Episcopal Church)
Fundamental to the English Reformation was a recovery of Holy Scripture and Liturgy in the language of the people. Most prayer book revisions, and especially those which have caused alienation and division, have approached the process as seeking modernization or adding variety to our prayers. However, I believe that the Book of Common Prayer possesses a greater principle of common scriptural language as its foundation for revision. If emerging Anglicanism in the United States is to approve a new Book of Common Prayer, we need to regain a common scriptural language.
The Books of Common Prayer in American usage prior to the 1950s had a common scriptural language of the Authorized Version (King James). While Canada and United States have divergent formations of their Books of Common Prayer, they shared the same common scriptural language. With a prayer book whose content is predominately biblical (some place it at 80+ percent scriptural reference) the language of the Authorized Version has long been our common prayer language. The introduction of multiple modern language translations of the Bible has also introduced a divergence into our common prayer language.
It may be necessary to approve as authorized liturgies interim texts which reflect our historic Anglican theology embodied in the prayer books of 1662 and prior to meet our immediate need to distance ourselves from more modern theological innovations. I believe American Anglicans have an opportunity to recover a common scriptural language in this year of the founding of a new Anglican province in North America. Recovering a common scriptural language means having our various partners, dioceses, affinity groups, and other constituents authorize a new translation of Holy Scripture, a new authorized version.
In this year of our provincial founding, the English Standard Version of the Bible was released with the Apocrypha (January 2009, Oxford University Press). This version has a translation heritage from the William Tyndale New Testament to the Revised Standard Version, incorporating the richness of language and authenticity to the ancient texts. This is a new millennium translation which is finding acceptance among traditional and modern language worshipers at this early stage of its publication. As a 1928 Book of Common Prayer user, I find the texts of the English Standard Version flow nicely in its use of the Daily Office, from opening sentences to the Psalter to the canticles. As Anglicans have always insisted that Holy Scripture includes the books of the Apocrypha (see the 39 Articles), in this year of our formation, the English Standard Version can provide us with a common scriptural language.
Reacquiring a common scriptural language only occurs by common usage. The leadership of the new province has an opportunity at our formation to give its endorsement of the English Standard Version as we authorize interim liturgical texts and work toward a new American prayer book (likely a Canadian and a United States version for each national group’s Anglican heritage and identity). With the advent of modern translation in the previous century, our Church gave its approval to specific translations as adequate translations of the ancient texts (i.e., without redaction from a sectarian theological perspective).
Now is the time for us to recover a common scriptural language which reflects the language of the people in A.D. 2009. We need our House of Bishops, our partners, our diocese, and our leaders to see the magnitude of this opportunity. As King James’ Authorized Version shaped our common prayer for several centuries, we have a chance to build a language of common prayer for the coming century. Until we have a common scriptural language to form our Prayer Book revision, there is sure to be disappointment and dissatisfaction. We are venturing to build a spiritual reawakening, and as Anglicans we need to embody Lex orandi, lex credendi in our new province.
Keith Acker is pastor to a church plant congregation ( www.AlpineAnglicans.com ) affiliated with the Reformed Episcopal Church, Forward in Faith NA, San Diego Anglicans, and Western Anglicans. He serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of Nashotah House Seminary, a member of Council of Forward in Faith NA, and a member of the Society of the Holy Cross. He is the guitar instructor of the outreach program www.FreeTeenGuitarClass.com. He and his wife live east of San Diego in Alpine, CA.

Comments
I am not convinced that a
I am not convinced that a "common scriptural language" is going to help overcome the deep theological divisions that divide Anglicans--Anglo-Catholics, charismatic evangelicals, and confessional evangelicals. The likelihood that the ACNA, which is not yet an Anglican province and may not be for number of years if at all, will produce a new American prayer book that is acceptable to these disparate theological schools of thought is highly unlikely.
The two attempts that the AMiA made to produce a common liturgy for that body were too Catholic for both charismatic and confessional evangelicals in the AMiA, especially for the latter group. The REC's 2005 Prayer Book authorizes the use of 1928 services that contain elements harkening back to the pre-Reformation medieval service books as well as introduces Catholic elements into the 1662 services and restores language and forms that the conservative evangelical founders of the REC rejected. It strongly disliked by conservative evangelicals in that REC.
Anyone who has studied prayer revision should be aware that whatever theological school of thought dominates the prayer book revision process determined the theology of the revision. The more recent service book have tended to move in a Catholic direction even when evangelicals have been involved in the prayer book revision process, for example, A PrayerBook for Australia (1995) and Common Worship (2005). The result has been that they have been rejected by evangelicals.
If you are proposing to use the ESV versions of the canticles in a new American prayer book, you will find a number of them unsuitable for liturgical use. The translators of the ESV did not have liturgical use in mind when they translated those particular sections of the Bible.
I am involved in a new church plant that is targeted at students at a local university and young adults and their children in the community. I use the ESV in private Bible reading and study as well as small group Bible studies. I have discovered that students and even college graduates have difficulty with the langauge of the ESV. We often use other translations that are easier to understand.
I must agree with Robin — the
I must agree with Robin — the divisions are there and long-standing. Anyone who reads the story of the 1549, 1552, 1559 and 1662 BCP will be struck at how delicate a compromise this Reformed and Catholic compromise really is.
I do not have the experience using the ESV in worship, but my experience has been consistent with the original claims: an updated RSV without the PC nature of the NRSV. Certainly everyone uses the NIV at some point or another, because it's at an 8th grade reading level rather than the 12th grade of the RSV or KJV. The ESV is supposed to be at a 10th grade level, but I haven't compared it side-by-side to the RSV.
Post new comment