ACNA: We Come to Praise (and Bury) Cranmer

On its website, the ACNA has just released a draft of its in-progress prayer book revision, a draft it calls “Texts for Common Prayer”

I had been writing a blog posting on the new ACNA prayer book — based on fragmentary data online and what I learned at the Kingdom Conference (the Oct. 11-12 convention of the Diocese of Western Anglicans). At the convention I observed the trial use liturgy, spoke to several people between sessions and attended a seminar by Bishop Bill Thompson, who is both the local diocesan and (until his retirement next June) the chair of the liturgy task force.

Now with the online release of the drafts last week (as reported by VirtueOnline), no speculation is necessary to understand what and how the ACNA plans to institute its new prayer book.

The upshot:

• The ACNA prayer book is based on the form (but not the language) of the 1662 (CoE) Book of Common Prayer
• It has one liturgy — contemporary — marking the end to Rite I and the traditional language that was the mainstay of all Anglican prayer books before 1960. As Bp. Thompson said during the seminar, “we felt we need to do these liturgies in the way that we talk.”
• It will replace both the TEC and Anglican Church in Canada liturgies inherited prior to ACNA's founding
• The ordinal is officially approved, while the Eucharist, Morning and Evening Prayer services are awaiting College of Bishop approval after feedback from the province.

New Transparency

I have been trying all year to find out what has been going on with the prayer book revision, given its obvious implications for ACNA hymnody (particularly service music). The ACNA and its task force have been holding their cards very close to the vest, whether for secrecy reasons or (as their plea for help implies) due to a lack of resources. Our parish tried the new communion service during Lent, but (in preparing this posting) I was unable to find anything substantial about the process — until last week’s posting.

The posting of the new texts, FAQs and other information marks a dramatic breakthrough in the transparency of the liturgical revision process.

For example, for the first time the ACNA has provided the names of the nine members of the “Liturgy and Common Prayer Task Force”. Below are their names and what I know of their affiliations

• Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, retired Bp. of Quincy and president, Forward in Faith North America.
• Rev. Darrell Critch, rector, Church of the Good Samaritan, St. John’s, Newfoundland and director of the Anglican Network in Canada
• Rev. Eric Dudley, D.Min, rector, St. Peter’s Anglican Church, Tallahassee, Florida
• Rev. Chip Edgar, rector, Church of the Apostles, Columbia, S.C.
• Rev. Martha Giltinan, D.Min, assistant professor of Pastoral Theology, Trinity School for Ministry
• Rt. Rev. David Hicks, bishop, Diocese of the NorthEast and Mid-Atlantic of the Reformed Episcopal Church
• Rev. Arnold Klukas, Ph.D, retired professor of Liturgics and Ascetical Theology, Nashotah House
• Andy Piercy, praise musician and retired rock star who runs a “School of Worship” for praise musicians at Trinity School for Ministry and the Diocese of South Carolina.
• Rt. Rev. Bill Thompson, bishop (2009-2014), ACNA Diocese of Western Anglicans

End of Cranmerian Language

All Anglican liturgies trace back to the work of Bp. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury to Henry VIII and Edward VI before he was executed (after Lady Jane Grey) in 1556 for treason and heresy. Bp. Cranmer prepared the 1549 and 1552 BCP for Edward VI, while his successors prepared the 1559 BCP under Elizabeth I.

The ACNA liturgy adopts the form but not the language of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, prepared after the Stuart restoration of Charles II. The one exception to modernization is the Lord’s Prayer, which retains the 1662 (not the 1549 or King James) version: if our congregation is any indication, there was a rebellion in ACNA parishes against modernizing this prayer.

This seems to be one area of ecumenical agreement on liturgy. There was a similar rebellion against CoE modernization in England. Even the 2010 Catholic liturgical revision — which made many changes large and small — kept the 1662 prayer (omitting the “For thine is the kingdom…” added by Protestants after 1662). This prayer also provides perhaps the only prayer shared by all Christians in our country.

At the convention, Bp. Thompson said that a major goal of the text was to have contemporary text that sounded natural. Both he and a priest at the convention told me that Prof. Klukas (of Nashotah) played a central role in writing the words of the new liturgy.

In response to a question, Bp. Thompson said the task force specifically rejected the contemporary language 1662 BCP produced by the late Peter Toon, because the language was “wooden” and often updated “Ye who” to “You who” (i.e. “yoo-hoo”). The bishop said “I could see exactly what he was wanting to do and it was laudable,” adding that it provided a place for the task force to start.

FAQ

The website provides answers to some Frequent Asked Questions. These answers provide important insight into the Task Force’s thinking.

Some cover obscure points, but here are some more interesting ones:

• Like the Roman Catholic 2010 ICEL revision, “et cum spiritu tuo” is now translated “and with your spirit” instead of the incorrect translation of 30+ years (“also with you”).
• The 1662 HC used two lessons because it was assumed to follow a morning prayer; the new HC uses three.
• Contrary to the Latin “credo” and centuries of Western practice, the Nicene Creed retains the 1979 BCP translation of “We believe”; the FAQ explains

The original Greek text used "We Believe" because this Creed reflects the belief of the whole Church as a united body, as contrasted with the Apostles' Creed which is a personal profession of faith used at baptism.

Status of the Process

At the convention, Bp. Thompson said the status of the prayer book is as follows

• Ordinal (for ordaining bishops, priests and deacons): the ACNA’s top priority due to defects in the 1979 prayer book, final text approved by the College of Bishops
• Holy Communion: ready for trial use
• Morning and Evening Prayer: nearly done at the convention, but now (judging from the website) apparently ready for trial use. A member of the audience praised the new MP/EP, saying it was much better for a laity-led worship than the more complex forms used in 1979, 1928 and CoE prayer books.

Bp. Thompson said that the task force has started to talk about marriage and burial (among the missing rites), and he expected that in 3-5 years a new prayer book will be released. The current releases do not include a daily or Sunday lectionary.

What happens between now and when the texts become an official printed prayer book? The ACNA website explains:

With the exception of The Ordinal, which has been authorized and adopted, and is The Ordinal of the Province, the other materials offered in Texts for Common Prayer are “working texts” approved for use by the College of Bishops. These working texts are not yet finalized, awaiting response from the experience of their wide use in the Church. With that in mind, these rites are commended as appropriate forms for worship in the present season. The Archbishop’s instruction to the Liturgy and Common Worship Task Force was the production of rites that were “so faithful and attractive that the Church would want to use them.” The hope in making Texts for Common Prayer available now is to give evidence that the assignment is well underway, and to invite the whole Body of Christ into the process of receiving and perfecting.

All services are contingent upon approval of the ACNA College of Bishops — unlike in ECUSA/TEC, the laity play no role in approving a new prayer book.

It will take some time to pour through the 96 pages of the new liturgy and compare it to earlier texts. I’ll post additional observations once I have more time to study the texts.

The Evangelical Church in North America

The Anglican Church in North America has always been an interesting compromise. Today at the diocesan convention of the Western Anglicans, keynote speaker (and ACNA primate) Robert Duncan described ACNA as “three streams, two integrities and one church.”

During his subsequent answers to written questions, Bp. Duncan described the two integrities (two views on women’s ordination) and the three streams

• “First of all, evangelical. We hold ourselves accountable to the word of God.”
• “The second stream, the Catholic stream, holds itself accountable to tradition.”
• The third stream was once called the “liberal” (sometimes now Charismatic). It was defined by a willingness to be free within the power of the Holy Spirit — but more recently has meant free to do anything.

Since the founding of the Church of England in the Tudor era, the tension of the Anglican Church has been most visibly between the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the church. The Oxford movement of the early 19th century was the most successful effort of the past half-millenium to restore the influence of Anglo-Catholics within the CoE. The two sides share power in the CoE, although the Evangelicals appear to be dominant (while many of the liberals left the CoE to become Methodists).

Abp. Duncan’s address — and the worship of the entire diocesan convention — make it clear that the ACNA is an Evangelical church with little room for Anglo-Catholics. In theology, ACNA may position itself in the historic (Reformed) Christian tradition, but in terms of worship style it’s distinctly modern.

At all four services, the 7-piece praise band (with drummer) performed a series of 21st century CCM tunes. A few were familiar to the congregation members, and many (although not all) appear to be worshipping to praise music at their home parishes. Two of the services had one token hymn each.

Rehearsal by Diocese of Western Anglicans praise band, October 12

I’ve been in all three California dioceses — San Joaquin, Western Anglicans and the proto-diocese of San Francisco Bay. The first two are conservative theologically (at least on WO), but it’s clear liturgically that both (like the Bay Area) are largely following the contemporary worship fad, marginalizing worship (and music) that would have been the only worship style one would have seen in an ECUSA church 30 years ago. Our form of worship may be (Rite II) liturgical, but in terms of music we in ACNA are all Pentecostals.

The archbishop commands us to be “in the world but not of the world.” But conforming our worship style to contemporary culture — Pop Goes Religion as Terry Mattingly put it — seems to imply that we must join the culture to reach it.

Yes, every generation adds its music to the canon. But throwing away centuries of tradition — all of the prior canon — in favor of the past five years is a hubris only a Baby Boomer could attempt (even if the nominal reason is appealing to millennials).

In the meantime, we Anglo-Catholics will go gray and die while waiting for another Oxford-style revival (much as the Baroque revival in the 1960s and 1970s brought back Bach and other music that had been largely forgotten in this century). Or we can join and support the Schism I churches, which — despite their many faults — are the one Anglican institution in this country that will pass along our historic liturgy in the state that they received it.

The Lord has promised good to me

Instead of going to work today, I went to a funeral. It was held at a Lutheran church — formerly ELCA, now LCMC. (For Anglicans, LCMC is a group of about 80 continuing Lutheran churches that would have joined LCMS except they want to ordain women.)

Although the Lutheran Book of Worship was in the pews, the order of service was printed in the bulletin:

• Greeting
• Amazing Grace (LBW #448): 3 verses
• Prayers
• Recollections of family and friends
• Scripture: Psalm 23, Revelation 21:1-6, John 14:1-6
• Homily
• Prayer
• The Lord’s Prayer
• How Great Thou Art (LBW #532): 2 verses

Initially, what I was curious about was the challenge of mounting an ecumenical funeral (memorial) service. I'm guessing less than 20% of the congregation were regular parishioners, and the overwhelming majority was under 30. Because the Lord’s Prayer was the King James version,  half the congregation (perhaps more) knew it well enough to recite it in unison.

Amazing Grace went well enough, although I was surprised how few people were singing. (It may be because many don’t normally sing.) We ended with the greatest hit of Carl Boberg (1859-1940), based loosely on his 1885 Swedish poem “O Store Gud” and a Swedish folk tune. The pianist played the tricky rhythm faithfully, but the congregation had trouble singing it without the music (or at least I did).

In the middle were the familiar passages of mourning and the promises of the New Covenant. Everyone knows Psalm 23, but I didn’t realize what was in Revelation 21:4:

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away. [ESV]

And then for the first time, I heard John 14:2 in the context of John 14:6:

2 “In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
4 And you know the way to where I am going.”
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The pastor had an unenviable job, perhaps one of his hardest tasks of the year: explain the death of a 23-year-old man to his parents, his older brother, and a room full of (largely unbelieving) twenty-somethings. This means overcoming the classic “why does a loving God let good things happen to bad people” objection, only more so.

The pastor, the man’s mother and his friends recalled a sensitive, caring and troubled young man. The homily was based on John 10:10

[Jesus said to them] “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

The beginning of the passage seems to fit the man’s (ultimately unsuccessful) fight with his personal demons; the end, the pastor said, reminds us of the promise of eternal life made by Jesus himself.

Or, as the traditional Requiem prayer from the Latin mass

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis.

is translated by the Rite I burial service in the 1979 ECUSA prayer book:

Rest eternal grant to him, O Lord:
And let light perpetual shine upon him.

Create in me a clean heart

During my brief period as an LCMS Lutheran, I grew to love The Lutheran Hymnal (1941). Like Hymnal 1940, the hymnal was a brilliant integration of many streams of music that served faithful Christians for decades during the postwar era, until revisionists took ahold of the liturgy and “improved” it.

One thing to admire about TLH was the simplicity of the service music: there were no alternative variants, but a standard text and tune at every point in the service. For example, morning prayer (which our parish did semi-monthly) comprised pp. 5-14 of TLH.

On pp. 12-13 was a simple 17th century tune that followed the sermon, with the text “Create in me a clean heart”:

This morning, I was reminded of that tune when a parishioner read this passage from Psalm 51:

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

(I’ve shown the KJV text available in 1941, but this morning we used the ESV).

The tune is no longer part of the LCMS liturgy with the Lutheran Service Book (2006). However, as a sop to the blue-haired faithful, it is reprinted (with the same harmonization) as Hymn #956.

TLH didn’t offer credits for service music, but LSB helpfully notes

Text: Psalm 51:10-12
Tune: Johann Georg Winer, 1583-1651, adapt.: setting, The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941
Schaffe in Mir, Gott

Our gradual used this text, but a much more contemporary setting attributed to Keith Green. I was able to find a few versions on YouTube, but the official Keith Green version seems to be more plodding and schmalzy than what our praise band did. Still, if they had asked me, I’d request the Winer version.

I want my, I want my NIV!

Technology changes society — often in unexpected ways, and sometimes not in good ways.

In 1981, the music industry was changed forever. MTV premiered on cable channels, and all of a sudden consuming music wasn’t just listening, but watching. (As Dire Straits famously proclaimed: “I want my MTV.”) Major acts ended devoting up to half their production budget for video promotions — videos for which they don’t receive a penny.

Today, people are shifting to electronic books for their tablets. When visitors come to our house for the first time, I point out the bookshelves in my office (custom-built last year) and joke that my grandchildren will ask: “Grandpa, why did you need so many shelves to store books on your iPad?” Others may use online services, such as BibleGateway.com.

This brings me to the February decision (which I only recently noticed) made by the NIV copyright owners (and its allies) to discontinue availability of the 1984 NIV and only offer the 2011 edition. While I’m more of an RSV/ESV kinda guy, we did give our eldest a pocket 1984 NIV for confirmation and expected it would get decades of use.

The copyright owner is Biblica (née the International Bible Society), the translation was developed by the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), while the publisher Zondervan has exclusive North American rights.

The 2011 translation is controversial mainly (but not entirely) because it substituted inclusive language for male nouns and pronouns. The language is a compromise between the original 1984 NIV and the (even more aggressively gender neutral) TNIV, but it appears it’s more like the latter than the former.

I found summaries of the controversy on Diane Montgomery’s blog and Michael Marlowe’s Bible Researcher site. In June 2011, the largest US Protestant body (the Southern Baptist Convention) disapproved the new NIV for its members and (unsuccessfully) for its LifeWay bookstore chain:

WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.

Don’t get me wrong. We live in a free country. Publishers should be allowed to distribute and preachers and laity are entitled to use whatever worship resources they desire.

What bothers me is the discontinuation of the previous edition. In January, blogger Zania, a Christian computer scientist from New Jersey, highlighted the problem:

The NIV 1984 Bible is all but gone. I don’t know if it’s a homicide or suicide. I don’t know if I should phrase that it started falling ill in 2010 and now died at the end of 2012. I don’t know if we intentionally or unintentionally let the enemy change an integral translation that fed the souls of many for 28 years. Its traces can still be seen on biblegateway.com and in popular mobile Bible applications such as Lifechurch.tv’s Youversion. You can also snag one from Christianbook.com’s NIV 1984 Closeout sale. But it’s all but gone from giant online retailers like Amazon.com and when I visited my local brick and mortar Christian book store last week they told me that NIV’s United States publisher, Zondervan, ordered them to turn in all 1984 versions in exchange for 2011 equivalents. As one of my beloved translations of the Protestant’s Bible I will miss it.

Worse, Bible Gateway — which a year ago offered the 1984 NIV, TNIV and 2011 NIV on its website — in February was forced by Biblica to discontinue offering the two older editions:

The NIV remains the most popular English contemporary translation, with more than 450 million copies distributed since it was first published in 1978. During the transition to the most recent edition of the NIV (first published in 2010), the older 1984 edition and the TNIV were made available for more than two years on Bible Gateway to make it easy for people to compare the upgrades in the text as they transitioned to the current edition. This transition period mirrors the earlier two-year transition from the 1978 version to the 1984 version. Now that this transition period is over, the NIV’s worldwide publisher, Biblica, has requested that we remove the older 1984 and TNIV editions from Bible Gateway, and we are complying with their wishes.

Since the latest edition of the NIV was published in December 2010, over 11 million copies have been distributed and it has been adopted by thousands of churches, ministries, authors and other publishers around the globe. We understand your disappointment that the 1984 edition of the NIV is no longer available, but we hope you’ll grow to appreciate the updated NIV, as many other Bible Gateway visitors have done.

The justification by Biblica comes across as self-important at best and arrogant at worse:

It is customary for Bible publishers to focus their efforts on the most current edition of their translation, and to make available only the best, most up-to-date work of their translators. This is the case with the updated NIV, as it is for most other major Bible translations. For example, seven different editions of The Message have been published since 1993, but the only one available today is the most recent, published in 2002. The same is true for the NASB (last updated in 1995), the NLT (last updated in 2007), and the ESV (last updated in 2011).

There is only one NIV, which was commissioned by a broad coalition of evangelicals in the 1960's. The original charter of the NIV called for rigorous, ongoing attention to both the source languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, as well as the target language of English as it is spoken today. The current, updated NIV represents the best available NIV translation, and is thus the edition Biblica is committed to continue publishing and has chosen to make available on websites.

Biblica can't remove the two paper copies of the 1984 NIV from our house, and I just ordered a third. However, they can (and did) remove the Internet copies on BibleGateway.com and other websites. And since there is no vendor that offers used e-books, the e-book NIV I could have bought 8 months ago is no longer available. Biblica has also forced Bible software publishers to drop the old NIV, which from my own experience means previous customers who paid for it will be unable to access it when they buy a new machine with a new OS that doesn’t run the old software.

(This seems to be trend specific to gender-inclusive translations, although a quick visit to Amazon suggests that the NRSV has not completely extinguished the RSV. Still, TEC is happy to sell Hymnal 1940 to us bitter clingers.)

This is also ironic given the trends of the Internet towards making all versions of historic worship resources available to scholars and laity. Today, the 1549, 1552, 1559 and 1662 CoE prayer books are available online, as are the 1789, 1892 and 1928 US prayer books. But then current bible translations are treated more like commercial products — complete with planned obsolescence — than worship resources.

To me, this seems very much like the New Coke debacle. (A history lesson for millennials: after introducing New Coke in 1985, Coca-Cola first offered Coca-Cola “Classic” in parallel and then soon abandoned New Coke). However, Biblica doesn’t have the visibility of Coca-Cola and thus it’s less likely to prompt a public rebellion; many unsuspecting Christians will wander into their local bookstore and buy the “new and improved” NIV without knowing the controversy.

For the objections to the NIV to have meaning, the market share formerly held by the NIV will have to be replaced by other translations. The KJV provided a common understanding of the Bible for 300 years or so, when it was replaced by 3 or 4 20th century translations (of which the NIV was the most popular in the US). Perhaps this mark the end of the unity of the NIV (at least among American evangelicals) for some 30 years. As Trevin Wax wrote on The Gospel Coalition:

I am at a loss as to why the NIV 2011 will force the original NIV out of commission. Why not keep both in circulation? Goodness, we can still read translations like the King James which are hundreds of years old.

It’s ironic that the NIV 2011 revision is scheduled to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the King James Version, the most popular and most influential English translation of all time. Unfortunately, the launch of this new revision will have the opposite effect of the KJV. The King James Version united Bible readers around a common text. I’m afraid the NIV 2011 will speed up the growing fragmentation of evangelicals in regards to Bible translations.

Unless Biblica admits their mistake, my grandchildren won’t be reading the Bible that our eldest uses. But fortunately they will have many other fine translations to choose from.