Further thoughts on a digital BCP
My Ethical Musings’ blog post, For
such a time as this … an electronic prayer book, had previously appeared as
a contribution
to the Episcopal Café. That article received twenty-five comments mostly
dissenting from my proposal that The Episcopal Church (TEC) publish its next revision
of the Book of Common Prayer exclusively in a digital format. This post
responds to those comments even though they failed to address many of the
issues I raised in support of TEC utilizing an exclusively electronic (digital)
Book of Common Prayer.
Revising the Book of Common Prayer will require at least
ten years from today. If next year’s General Convention (GC) appoints a task
force or tasks an existing body to draft a revision, the 2021 GC might forward that
draft to dioceses for comment, asking the body that drafted the revision to
carefully consider those comments; the 2024 GC could then debate the revised
draft, probably amending sections and perhaps authorizing trial use; if the
trial enjoyed popular acceptance, the 2027 GC might adopt the revision as TEC’s
new prayer book. The actual timeline would conceivably (probably?) take longer,
especially if some groups find some of the proposed revisions particularly
problematic.
By 2027, our world will be far more digitally dependent
than it is in 2017. Comfort with electronic media will be even more widespread.
Some elementary, middle, and high schools already issue each student a personal
computer or tablet, increasingly relying upon digital instead of printed
materials. A growing percentage of college textbooks are available only in a digital
format. Commercial sales of e-books continue to grow rapidly.
Consequently, for many people juggling a bulletin, prayer book,
and one or more hymnals while trying to worship will feel increasingly awkward,
distracting, and unhelpfully anachronistic. A forward-looking TEC will choose
to adopt contextually appropriate technology rather than clinging to outdated
media. As one response to my proposal noted, printing the first Book of Common
Prayer represented utilizing the best technology then available. Since that
time, branches of the Anglican Communion have published various editions of the
Book of Common Prayer adapted to their context and in their language(s). Moving
to an exclusively digital version of the Book of Common Prayer is simply the
logical progression of this living tradition.
Furthermore, the proposal to publish any revision in an
exclusively digital format is actually less radical than it might appear. TEC and
others (some unauthorized) already make the Book of Common Prayer, other
liturgical resources, and much of our hymnody available electronically. Illustratively,
growing numbers of people, ordained and lay, say the daily office utilizing digital
resources that incorporate the relevant Book of Common Prayer materials and prayers,
scripture readings, and sometimes music and/or historical information about the
saint(s) or event commemorated that day.
Incorporating hymns and service music into the revised electronic
Book of Common Prayer may likely, as another respondent noted, raise copyright
issues. That is not a reason to reject electronic publishing. Instead, it constitutes
an issue that those who draft the revision and TEC’s lawyers will have to
address. A printed Book of Common Prayer that incorporates hymns and service music
would be both physically unwieldly and too large to fit in most pew racks. Only
an electronic version offers the convenience of having all of our liturgical resources
in a single, readily accessible source.
A digital resource will allow congregations and dioceses to
make unauthorized changes, a problem that more than one respondent to my
original proposal highlighted. These respondents ignored my observation that
this already happens. Like them, I value being part of a Church that is defined
by common prayer rather than common belief. However, ostrich like behavior that
tries to ignore the unfortunate practice of local, unauthorized changes to the Book
of Common Prayer’s liturgies and rubrics is not constructive. Not printing a
revised Book of Common Prayer will neither accelerate or decelerate the use of unauthorized
changes to the liturgy. This is a separate issue, one that deserves our
attention, but not a reason to object to publishing a revised, comprehensive Book
of Common Prayer in an exclusively digital format.
Currently, TEC has a number of alternative liturgies (e.g.,
for the eucharist) that congregations may use with their diocesan bishop’s
permission. These liturgies are not in the Book of Common Prayer. Thus, congregations
utilizing these liturgies must either print a service leaflet that contains the
full liturgy or leave attendees in the dark about the timing and wording of participatory
responses. These liturgies represent a de facto step away from total reliance
upon a printed prayer book and a step toward use of a digital resource. The
same issues arise when using the Book of Occasional Service’s seasonal and
other liturgical resources.
Advantageously, relying upon a comprehensive, digital
version of TEC liturgical resources will allow timely, no cost updates to language
and content, e.g., replacing the outdated, exclusionary masculine terms in the
rubrics with gender neutral ones and including both newly adopted materials as
well as items authorized for trial use. As the multiple revisions to the Book
of Common Prayer in this and other Anglican provinces attest, the Church’s worship
is framed in continually evolving language and liturgy.
Finally, none of the respondents to my original piece adequately
addressed the substantial financial costs to congregations and individuals who
would need or desire to purchase printed revisions of the Book of Common Prayer
and other TEC liturgical resources. These costs would greatly strain the
financial resources of many of our small congregations. And TEC consists
primarily of small congregations. One respondent did raise the important issue
of environmental harm attributable to an increased number of congregations printing
a leaflet for each service containing the full liturgy. However, that cumulative
negative effect will very probably be significantly less than the combined adverse
environmental effect attributable to printing both tens of thousands of copies
of a revised Book of Common Prayer (TEC has over 5000 congregations) and the
weekly leaflets containing the full liturgy that many congregations presently
print.
I appreciate some people deriving personal comfort in
holding a printed book. However, the Church is not about me or any other individual.
The Church exists to minister to the world, particularly those hurting or spiritually
empty persons who seek a different or new form spirituality. Over half of all Episcopalians
began their Christian journey in another denomination. Concurrently, the fastest
growing religious demographic in the US is the number of people who
self-identify as having no religious preference, many of whom lack any
religious background. Meanwhile, our culture is relentlessly switching to
digital.
Becoming a people who truly welcomes both those moving from
another denomination and those with no previous religious identity requires TEC
to make its worship resources and materials as user friendly as reasonably possible.
One vital component of this welcome is to provide the entire liturgy, words and
music, in an easily accessible format, e.g., leaflets printed with the full
liturgy, loaning attendees a handheld electronic device that displays the
liturgy, projecting the liturgy onto one or more large screens, or a mix of
these options. A digital Book of Common Prayer that includes our hymnals and
other liturgical materials best supports all of these options, best utilizes TEC
resources, and is most contextually appropriate for TEC as it lives into the
twenty-first century.
Comments
There certainly are alternative liturgical materials available these days… so many of them that I wonder whether they undercut the notion of “common prayer”. It’s one thing for there to be authorized materials. It’s something else when the authorized materials are largely in the hands of clergy and parish administrators.
I have the .pdf of Enriching our Worship 1; it’s a free download. But I suspect that less than 1% of Episcopal lay persons have ever looked at it, even though it’s been in use for a while (including Nativity). A proliferation of materials can be challenging for even a regular attendee to assimilate. Seems to me that we are inadvertently making it more difficult for liturgical content to be inculcated.