Canon B5 vs “And to use only such services as are authorised or allowed by canon” vs Fresh Expressions
Here is the tension: the balance between missional liturgy and breaking the law. The established nature of the Church of England sets out rigidly defined forms of worship, and enshrines the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi – the way we pray is the way we believe is the way we live, at the heart of our Church. If we are therefore tied to forms of prayer which are designed by committee and authorised by Synod after a long and lengthy process, how can we respond to the needs of the people before us… in our pews, in our communities, in our schools?
Every time Blesséd gathers on one level it is breaking the law, and the moment I post a video of a Mass offered in a local school those more erudite than me immediately note that I am required to “use only such services as are authorised or allowed by canon”. My response is that all Fresh Expressions work (of which a missional eucharist in school is the highest example of mission-shaped church) is canonical under the following:
B 5 Of the discretion of ministers in conduct of public prayer
1. The minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorized by Canon B 1 according to particular circumstances.
2. The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocations, archbishops, or Ordinary under Canon B 4 use forms of service considered suitable by him for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said forms of service.
3. All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
4. If any question is raised concerning the observance of the provisions of this Canon it may be referred to the bishop in order that he may give such pastoral guidance, advice or directions as he may think fit, but such reference shall be without prejudice to the matter in question being made the subject matter of proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963.
5. In this Canon the expression ‘form of service’ has the same meaning as in Canon B 1
Especially I would draw the ecclesiatical lawyers to “all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter” – the shape of the Eucharist is more important than the form of words used, the intention of the worship to point to God and draw others on a missional journey and to express the sacramental forms in ways which are appropriate for the needs of the people to whom we are ministering.
Christ himself took a familar set of Berakah prayers shaped from the Passover meal and transformed them by their application to him, he varied the usual forms of prayer to draw the disciples into a new and mystical relationship with God. Far from being a loophole through which anything goes: for some churches choose to throw away everything Anglican and use B5 to make “Praise Worship” their staple diet, whilst others implement full Roman Rite (even in Latin!), we can see that B5 actually makes us work harder to establish Anglican identity and authenticity. I believe that what Blessed offers, and what is offered in this community conforms fully to the spirit and intention of Canon B5 whilst being overwhelmingly missional.
When I was in the parish as a curate, I found Common Worship very helpful because it does present the shape of every service and its essential components and allows for and encourages a lot of variation within this.
When I started planning all age non-Eucharistic worship, for example, there was no guidance available in the parish because each service was a one off. However in Common Worship I found a brilliant section on The Service Of the Word with a lot of explanation and a very broad outline of a service.
http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/principal-services/word/sotw.aspx
I think if we abandon the established rhythms and shapes of worship we’re in danger of losing the point of it, which is partly why we have authorisation for leading services and authorised forms of worship. Even the most seasonal and/or informal of offerings do, I believe, need to derive from these forms, not because worship should be uniform or lacking in creativity but we’re in real danger of producing something that doesn’t enable people to worship.
We were advised by our liturgy tutor when at college that as soon as we were vicars we should apply to our bishops for permission to lead experimental forms of worship – does such a thing still exist? I was very excited to discover the church where I served title had this permission, but it had been given so that the staff team could try out the new draft morning and evening prayer books, and was never otherwise used.
Thank you Fr Simon for explaining the detailed rationale of something that has been bothering me for some while. I have for years been creative (in an evangelical context) with the content of services I have been involved with, but only since becoming a Reader and as I am becoming more sacramental in my worship preference and about to start ordination training have I started to focus more clearly on the patterns that Pam describes in CW, but continued to wonder about the legality of it.
I wondered even more when reading ‘The Hospitality of God’ recently in which Blessed features a lot, so it’s really great to have the ‘Blessed’ man himself answer my question.
I shall now file this link where I can find it during ordination training, but I would love to know the answer to Pam’s question about parishes needing to get Bishops to give permission to lead experimental forms of worship. Suspect I’ve never lived/ministered in a parish that has actually done that, but probably in every case they should have done!
“It is easier to seek forgiveness than obtain permission” – Banksy (and many others). I have never asked permission for Blessed. It just is. If it feels to be of God, then go for it, and worry about it afterwards. Having said that, my new Diocesan and Suffrigan brought me here with an expectation that boundaries are to be pushed, because Mission requires it. You cannot work missionally without creative liturgy.
“You cannot work missionally without creative liturgy”
So true! When I was ordained I’d been a Reader for some time, and I got very frustrated with myself that the standard of my preaching and the attention I gave it seemed to have gone down.
My husband said he thought quite a lot of my creativity was focussed towards other aspects of liturgy, including funerals.
When I do funerals I work completely within Common Worship provisions, but there is such a wealth of material available that choosing the right components for the situation, and writing an appropriate talk, take me quite a long time. I have no idea if this has ever been ‘missional’ – I suppose only time will tell, and I’ll never find out – but it has certainly felt pastorally appropriate to tailor the liturgy to the needs of the congregation.
I think Canon B5(4) is very clear what someone needs to do if, for some bizarre reason, they had a problem with the liturgies you produce. And, frankly Michael Langrish having appointed you, already knowing your pedigree, wouldn’t have a problem in the slightest with the incredible liturgical resources you are creating and using. Indeed, you were appointed for that very purpose and your position as a Selector is a recognition of the esteem in which you are held by many, and quite rightly so.
It is one thing to do a Chris Brian or Matthew Fox and create liturgies that are off this planet and bear no relation to the catholic inheritance that we all share. Whilst I might quibble with you occasionally about the odd choice of word here or there, there can be no doubt that the stuff you produce is shaped in a manner that Dix and others would clearly identify.
Carry on Farv. And if you ever decide to deign to come to Canterbury, let me know and I’ll sub for you. Would probably have to be the Cathedral rather than SMB though. See if you can burn that one down.
Of course, we were in Canterbury in 2010 at S. Peter’s for Candlemas and I did a seminar at S. Mildred’s on Creative Liturgy. Amazingly, both sacred spaces remained intact.