[Magdalen] Here We Go Again.

[Charles Wohlers]

The 1871 Standard (and the ones that preceded it) were simply a few minor 
edits to previous Standards - not really revisions. Prior to the 1892 Prayer 
Book we had the same basic Prayer Book since 1789 - over 100 years. The 1892 
was really not much of a revision, which may be why it only lasted 36 years.

Chad Wohlers
Woodbury, VT USA
chadwohl at satucket.com



-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Guthrie
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 1:24 PM
To: magdalen at herberthouse.org
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Here We Go Again.

> It was fifty years between revisions last time, which was one reason there
> was such turmoil over it.

Keep in mind that there was  a 23 year gap between 1928 and the first Prayer
Book Studies leading to the 1979.

But 27 years passed between the first Prayer Book Studies and adoption.

EOW was out nine years after the 1979, but keeping with the studies-to BCP
timeline we're past due.

But with the BCP 36 year sold, we're still 16 years away from matching the 
'28

There were only 36 years between the 1892 and 1928, and only 21 years
between the 1871 and 1892, so one could say we've become laggards.

Note that much of Rite II consists of the ICEL/ICET language -- not 
something
TEC created --
adopted by the RCC and other Mainline Protestants in that great sense of
ecumenical unity that permeated churches in the Kumbaya era of the 1970s.

Everyone else has moved
on, which also means we're pretty much stuck with the dreadful service music 
in
the 1982 hymnal because there's little incentive for composers to do new 
stuff,
and there's an element that disdains any of the stuff the Romans used 
(insert
ancient nincompoopery about why Romans can’t sing here if you must).

> As for the hymnal, some churches have folks juggling between three books
> now, sometimes in the same service! When I can select the music, I make it
> a point to use just one book for the entire service. It would be nice to
> have one book with more variety, especially for smaller churches that 
> can't
> afford more than one set.

I would not want to be in the room where the arguments for and agin' the 
Fanny
Crosby in LEVAS II or the Mallotte Lord's Prayer, for that matter was duked 
out.
Ditto some of the other traditional Protestant hymns "Children of the 
Heavenly
Father," "Love Lifted Me", We've a story to tell to the Nations."  in LEVAS 
II
<g>. I can hear the "traditionalist-minded organists sneering toward the 
LEVAS
II people with great disdain that the populist approach is not appropriate 
in
**real** worship.

Having sung every hymn in '82 in a choir, I can think of about 50 hymns that
could profitably be omitted. I can think of only a dozen from WL&P that I'd 
add.

I would also suggest a close look at Brian Wren's songbook and the rest of 
his
hymnody, especially if inclusive/modern language is a goal.

Perhaps what we need to do in the short run is add some service setting to 
the
1982 hymnal, just as we did in the 1958 revision to the 1940 that added four 
new
service settings and other service music. This was in response to a survey 
of
parishes discovered a significant number were still using the Stainer from 
the
1916 (Merbecke was second) hymnal, found scattered around in the 1940 (we 
fixed
their wagon in the' 82 -- by scattering the setting around as per the 
Stainer in
'40 but omitting the Stainer altogether and reworking the Merbecke to make 
it
unsingable <g>).

I would nominate the Stainer, the rest of "Community Mass" (only represented 
by
the Sanctus in '82) and adding Proulx "Missa Emmanuel" for Advent and his 
"Mass
for the City."  as well as the Gloria for the Schubert and perhaps some 
Taize to
at least get people singing without an organist <g>.

As for a new BCP -- I think we'd be heading toward books of Danielle Steele
size -- which would include Rite I, Rite II and an inclusive language Rite 
II,
along the lines of some of the stuff in the current experimental liturgies 
and
the NS Prayerbook.  The biggest expense would not be for the books 
themselves,
but for all the parishes who;d need to significantly enlarge their bookracks 
in
the pews <g>.

A also suspect that the strong Rite II supporters might create a "Prayer 
Book
Society (Rite II) that would make the 1980s version look positively 
charitable
by comparison, hence the need for three language sets bulking up the book.

>> I'd love to see us move in the direction of the New Zealand PB. It's not
>> authorized for our Sunday use, but many clergy use it for the Daily 
>> Office
>> or for midweek and other more informal services.

Finally one of Bp +Spong's "Heresies" in some quarters is that he authorized 
use
of the NZ Prayerbook on Sunday mornings. To the best of my knowledge only 
2-3
parishes took him up on it. I don’t recall if it was diocese wide or on a
parish-by parish basis, but it was the first time I encountered a full 
service
from the book (interspersed with Spanish).

Cheers,
Jim