Why I’m No Longer (as) Grumpy About BCP2019

Unless folks have been on an extended vacation from social media, regular readers of The North American Anglican will be aware that the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has finally released their long-awaited Book of Common Prayer (2019) (BCP2019). Since its release it has received both well-deserved praise and well-deserved criticism. Regular readers may also recall that I contributed to some of the discussion as the trial texts were being finalized. As a convinced, convicted, and confirmed advocate of the classical Prayer Books, it may come as no surprise that I have had my reservations about the ACNA text. In fact, I have admittedly been rather grumpy at times about it! All that changed after receiving a physical copy and attending all of the breakout sessions on the new Prayer Book at the recent ACNA Provincial Assembly. While I and my parish will continue to use the American 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer I am no longer (as) grumpy about the BCP2019.

Granted, there are still some good reasons for grumpiness. As many folks in my circles have observed, the very concept of truly “common” prayer (i.e. prayer held in common) is effectively dead in North American Anglicanism. Even if everyone were to adapt the new text, the varieties of options would still lead to excessive liturgical diversity from parish-to-parish. That same variety of options means that there is a certain flattening of theology that goes with a text such as the BCP2019. After all, the ACNA is a “big tent.” The official ACNA catechism is now too large to be included in the new Prayer Book, but the classical “shorter” catechism was not included in its Documentary Foundations section. And most lamentably (to me, anyway), BCP2019 does not bear the marks of updating the 1662 BCP as much as it bears the marks of re-introducing aspects of the 1662 to the 1979.

Nevertheless, I maintain that BCP2019 is the best modern-English liturgy in the BCP tradition that has yet been published.

It is no secret that I am not a big fan of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement. I think that the Anglican world sold our birthright for cheap lentil stew when we abandoned over four centuries of liturgical heritage to follow the Vatican down a Novus Ordo rabbit hole. But we have two full generations of Anglicans who have known nothing else. Pastorally and pragmatically, the liturgies of the late 20th Century could not be ignored by a province such as the ACNA. Pandora’s Box has been opened, and the Liturgical Movement is here to stay. With that in mind, the bits of BCP2019 that draw on the Liturgical Movement (such as the “Renewed Ancient Text” for Holy Communion) aren’t a bad way to go. They have been thoughtfully edited to conform to general Anglican orthodoxy. Besides, the Liturgical Movement did bring about some generally welcome additions to the Prayer Book experience such as a greater range of biblical Canticles, liturgies for Lent and Holy Week, and the re-introduction of Midday Prayer and Compline. I’d rather see these in an official liturgical resource than have parishes cobble them together from the four corners of the ecclesiastical world.

Despite the influence (and outright inclusion) of elements from the Liturgical Movement, BCP2019 is an evolution of the classical Prayer Book tradition rather than a revolution away from it. Echos of Cranmer are found on most every page, though BCP2019 certainly is not limited to Cranmer’s theology. In particular, the Daily Office Lectionary and the Renewed Coverdale Psalter carry on Cranmer’s legacy from the the classical Prayer Books. The Lectionary includes more Scripture and is more systematic in its use of Scripture than has been seen since 1549. And the Psalter is a gentle update of Coverdale that would be instantly familiar to anyone who has spent time in plainsong or Anglican Chant. Perhaps the most important theological continuity with Cranmer’s legacy is the inclusion of the Articles of Religion as part of the “Documentary Foundations” rather than the 1979’s “Historical Documents,” acknowledging the place of the Articles as foundational to Anglican theology and identity.

It has been rightly pointed out that there are still many options for each service in BCP2019. Due to the diversity within the ACNA, the rubrics of BCP2019 are intentionally flexible. But most of the options are found in addenda to the main body of the services rather than within the services themselves. This means that the normal use of a “vanilla” service will be to simply go from the beginning to the end without needing multiple bookmarks to make note of the various options. While the 1979 Prayer Book had at least half a dozen Eucharistic Prayers, for example, BCP2019 only has two (one for each rite). This makes the physical prayer books much more useful than the 1979, England’s Common Worship, or Canada’s Alternative Service Book. While those texts functioned more like resources for assembling a liturgy, BCP2019 is much more conducive for use in the same physical manner as I would use my 1928 or 1662 Prayer Books.

Even for parishes like mine or individuals like me who will continue to use a classical Prayer Book as the main liturgical text, BCP2019 can be an ideal “Book of Occasional Services.” It is more comprehensive and more theologically trustworthy than most of the current supplementary texts currently in print (e.g. A Manual for Priests). The Occasional Prayer section is very comprehensive and addresses some current issues that older supplements do not. Additionally, most of the Occasional Prayers include some sort of attribution as to who composed the prayer. Special liturgies for Lent and Holy Week have been included that are welcome and often expected, even though they do not all appear in older editions of the BCP. Finally, the Family Prayer section is an excellent abbreviation of the Daily Offices that can provide an “on-ramp” into the normal prayer disciplines for those just learning the Anglican Way.

On a practical level, plans were discussed for publishing supplementary resources for BCP2019, such as traditional English editions, an Altar Book, a Gospel Book, notation for chanting the services, a pointed and noted psalter, and a supplement to guide in hymn and music selection. This indicates that the ACNA is committed to BCP2019, and working with the variety of Churchmanship within its midst.

Indeed, the ACNA is a very diverse province with respect to churchmanship, background, and theology. In the first breakout session I attended, Fr. Marcus Kaiser stated that BCP2019 is not the successor of a single Prayer Book, but of all past editions of the BCP. As much as I champion the classical BCPs, I must concur that a more comprehensive (evolutionary) book was needed for the ACNA. Though common prayer is effectively dead, as an evolutionary rather than revolutionary text, BCP2019 may even act as a bridge back to the classical Prayer Book tradition. The fact that BCP2019 is not mandated for the Province shows this potential. Certainly I’d love to have seen ACNA adapt one of the classical texts wholesale, but such a project would frankly be met with rebellion in many parts of the Province. But now, classical Anglicans have an opportunity to use BCP2019 to educate folks who have never experienced the truth, goodness, and beauty of the older texts.

As I said, there are plenty of reasons to remain grumpy. But I think the good in BCP2019 far outweighs the bad. Indeed, I look forward to learning it well enough to be able to teach it as one of the approved texts of my diocese. It could be better, but it could also be much worse. It may not be a sibling to the classical BCP, but it’s at least a first cousin.

Fr. Isaac J. Rehberg

Fr. Isaac is the Archdeacon for liturgy in the Anglican Diocese of All Nations (ACNA), and the Rector of All Saints Anglican Church in San Antonio, Texas, where he lives with his wife, Heather, and daughters, Leah and Victoria. A bi-vocational priest, he works as a residential real estate appraiser and dabbles in various forms of music. Fr. Isaac earned his BA from the University of Texas at San Antonio and his Master of Christian Ministry from Wayland Baptist University.

'Why I’m No Longer (as) Grumpy About BCP2019' have 9 comments

  1. July 5, 2019 @ 11:20 am Canon Rehberg on the ACNA BCP – We see through a mirror darkly

    […] My dear friend chimes in on his take regarding the ACNA BCP at The North American Anglican in the piece entitled, “Why I’m No Longer (As) Grumpy About BCP2019.” […]


  2. July 5, 2019 @ 12:09 pm Bob Hackendorf

    Well said, Father.


  3. July 5, 2019 @ 1:20 pm John Crutchfield

    Thanks, Fr. Isaac. Could you expand a bit on what you mean in this sentence?
    “And most lamentably (to me, anyway), BCP2019 does not bear the marks of updating the 1662 BCP as much as it bears the marks of re-introducing aspects of the 1662 to the 1979.” Does this mean you prefer the 1662 BCP? What “marks” are you referring to? Many thanks.


    • Fr. Isaac J. Rehberg

      July 5, 2019 @ 5:08 pm Fr. Isaac J. Rehberg

      A big part of what has been said by ACNA is that it is essentially an updating of the 1662 BCP. But there are numerous oddities that indicate that the starting place wasn’t actually the 1662, but the 1979, probably Rite 1. Then they brought Rite 1 more into line with the 1662. This yields different results than if they had started with the 1662 and then updated the language and brought in some elements that are expected by modern pastoral trends. A good example of this internal evidence that the ’79 was the starting point is how Matrimony, Baptism, Confirmation, etc. replace Ante-Communion (i.e. the “Liturgy of the Word”) when they’re not stand-alone services. In the 1662 and other classical texts each of these were always their own services that could be immediately followed by Communion. The problem with the ’79 method is that it a) muddles together the Sacraments/Rites, and b) ends up sacrificing some very important elements of Communion.
      I remember looking at the revisions in early 2018 and thinking in a couple places, “Huh, that’s strange. I wonder why they did that?” At the time, I was working off the assumption (because this is what we’d been told) that they were starting with the classical texts. Later, after an excellent article by Drew Nathaniel Keane suggesting that they had actually started with the ’79, all those oddities made sense.


  4. July 6, 2019 @ 10:03 pm From The North American Anglican: Fr. Isaac Rehberg on the ACNA 2019 Book of Common Prayer | Prydain

    […] in North America. For another insight on this BCP, here is a post by Fr. Isaac Rehberg, titled Why I Am No Longer (as) Grumpy About BCP2019.  He has an interesting observation: “It may not be a sibling to the classical BCP, but […]


  5. July 7, 2019 @ 5:08 pm Canon Sudduth Rea Cummings

    Thank you for a deeply thoughtful and careful analysis. While I don’t think any modern prayer book can surpass the 1928, the 2019 BCP is a vast improvement over the 1979 in theology, liturgical faithfulness to the Anglican tradition, etc. However, the award winning typography and design of the 1928 is much easier to hold and read than either 79 or 19. While 2019 is not perfect, I applaud Archbishop Duncan and his capable group that have accomplished a great and much-needed prayer book.


    • Fr. Isaac J. Rehberg

      July 7, 2019 @ 5:26 pm Fr. Isaac J. Rehberg

      I remember when I first encountered the ‘28 after re-discovering the ‘79 that I used as a child. I’d been praying using the ‘79 for about a year or so in my private devotions when I attended a parish with roots in the Continuum. At first I found the ‘28 typography a bit jarring and almost archaic. But I’ve really come to love it more than I can say. And it’s super-easy to navigate. I value simplicity and elegance. Nothing quite says “elegant simplicity” like the 1928 BCP.


  6. May 19, 2022 @ 3:49 pm Bruce Atkinson PhD

    Isaac J. Rehberg: “Nevertheless, I maintain that BCP2019 is the best modern-English liturgy in the BCP tradition that has yet been published.”

    And this is all that matters to me.… that is, the Reformed Anglican theology of the 1662 BCP is not changed in the 2019 BCP, but the language is considerably updated so as to be in the living English of today and not an archaic form which has no real liturgical value (only historical value).

    God made sure that Hebrew was no longer a spoken language by the time of Jesus, that the Greek of the Septuagint and the koine Greek of the NT were no longer a spoken language in another 500 years, that the Latin Vulgate was in a language that quickly was no longer spoken by Italians, and that the King James Authorized Version was in a language (like that of Shakespeare) which is now archaic such that most English speaking people cannot easily understand it. No one speaks this way anymore. I strongly submit that God wants His Word to be understood by the common people in the street, not just by highly trained clerics. And this goes for the BCP as well (see Article XXIV). https://www.virtueonline.org/translations-bible-issue-language


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

(c) 2024 North American Anglican