Abstract
Mark Earey, Beyond Common Worship: Anglican Identity and Liturgical Diversity , SCM Press: London: 2013; 164 pp.: 9780334047391, £16.99 (pbk)
In this timely contribution to the debate on Anglican identity and worship, Mark Earey looks behind official Church of England liturgical provision at the system which regulates it. Arguing that it is no longer fit for purpose, he proposes a new approach to enable local churches to offer contextually appropriate worship while remaining loyally and recognizably Anglican.
The current system of authorization is complex and is perceived as limiting rather than permission-giving. Earey examines some possible solutions – clarifying rules, expanding boundaries and loosening legal frameworks (including the possibility of ‘Bishops’ Liturgical Orders’ to allow greater flexibility in some situations) – but claims a need to address the issue more fundamentally.
Through an application of set theory, he proposes replacing the current ‘bounded-set’ approach with a ‘centred-set’ model in which worship ‘tends towards’ an ‘Anglican’ centre. Earey suggests core components for a centred set: foundational doctrinal elements (39 Articles, Book of Common Prayer), key liturgical texts (Book of Common Prayer, Common Worship), practical liturgical guidelines and a set of Anglican liturgical principles, then asks ‘what makes worship Anglican?’ In reply he draws on material from a range of traditions and offers a helpful summary of criteria which, taken together, point to how worship might be authentically Anglican – helping the Church demonstrate a degree of commonality, if not embodying common prayer in the historic sense. Offering a critique of the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi, Earey interprets it as ‘the way that the Holy Spirit leads us to worship can and should influence how we understand God’ (p. 103).
There then follow some practical implications of a centred-set approach. These include new Canons – marking what might lie at the centre rather than setting boundaries. Earey suggests rewriting Canon B 5 to allow local decisions to be taken for any service, not only those without authorized provision (a stage too far, perhaps, for some!). He rightly highlights the need for more comprehensive liturgical training, especially for those in pioneer roles, and proposes worship advisory groups to aid bishops in their permission-giving, together with a re-envisioned Liturgical Commission. Though advocating loosening the rules Earey is no liturgical anarchist – and stresses the vital importance of accountability within a context of trust if a drift into congregationalism is to be avoided.
Two appendices offer worship guidelines and sample Canons in line with his proposed approach. These are thoughtfully crafted, though I wonder whether they might still be perceived as too controlling by some of the groups Earey mentions: the Evangelical reciting 1 Corinthians 11.23–26 in lieu of a Eucharistic Prayer, or the Catholic using the Roman Rite.
Earey is an excellent communicator; the book is lucid and engaging in style, with helpful illustrative examples, drawn from extensive experience as a parish priest, theological educator and member of the Liturgical Commission. His thesis deserves to be debated seriously by the Church, difficulties notwithstanding. The major issue is whether the General Synod, the bishops and the dioceses will have the courage to invest the energy, time and money needed to give these proposals wings.