WHAT IS A059? PREPARING OURSELVES FOR PRAYER BOOK REVISION

General Convention resolution A059 has been the topic of intense debate and discussion since it was first released in the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision’s Blue Book report last fall. But what is resolution A059, the Constitutional amendment that is likely to pass the House of Bishops today? What does it mean for the church? How did we get here? Considering these questions gives us a great look into the sausage-making processes of General Convention.

How Did We Get Here?
Revision of the Book of Common Prayer (1979) has been a hot topic for decades, as Deputy Sam Candler of Atlanta reminded the House of Deputies in his testimony on July 10, noting that he, alongside current Bishop of Michigan Bonnie Perry and retired Dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland Tracey Lind, attempted to begin the process of revising the prayer book. A 2006 resolution on the matter sponsored by the Very Rev. Ernesto Medina of Los Angeles was defeated in the House of Bishops, but 2018 brought Bishop Andy Doyle’s proposal for a Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision (TFLPBR) to focus on revisions to the Constitution and Canons to enable revisions in the future.

What Did the Task Force Propose?
The TFLPBR, chaired by Bishop Neil Alexander of Atlanta (resigned), submitted the resolution A059 to this General Convention that would amend the Constitution of the Episcopal Church to define the Book of Common Prayer as “liturgical forms authorized by the General Convention” via two readings (votes at two consecutive General Conventions). This gave way to concerns that future BCPs would be unable to print as one volume. In his explanation for his alternative proposal, Bishop Lawrence Provenzano of Long Island wrote “the proposal encourages the profusion of liturgical texts with prayer book status, without sufficient guardrails in place to ensure that they are ready to articulate the faith and order of the church to which all clergy must subscribe. Since no re-printing of new prayer books is envisioned, it would become all too easy to add continually to the new “prayer book in the cloud,” a theoretically infinite virtual three-ring binder that would rapidly become internally inconsistent and incoherent. Moreover, the resolution proposes no vetting by the SCLM or other body, but only the votes of two successive General Conventions. New texts could be written by a single deputy and proposed from the floor, and in three years attain prayer book status.”

How Did General Convention Get Here?
Committee 12, the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy, and Music, considered both A059 and Bishop Provenzano’s alternative B011, and eventually voted to recommend the adoption of A059 and to disregard (the formal term is ‘Take No Further Action’) B011. The opposition that was expressed in committee hearings remained, and during debate on A059 in the House of Bishops (each resolution is assigned a ‘House of Initial Action’ where it gets considered first), Bishop Provenzano moved to do a substitute amendment (completely replacing the committee text with something else) and replace A059 with B011. The motion passed by three votes, indicating that the House was significantly divided on the issue. Because of their progress through the legislative calendar, the Bishops were able to take time to seriously discuss the issues over multiple days. That resulted in the floor amendment that forms the basis for the current resolution – written by a group of bishops including Doyle, Bishop Jeff Lee of Milwaukee, and Bishop Mark Hollingsworth of Ohio. Hollingsworth served as the sponsor for the amendment.

That amendment is 95% of the current resolution – the House of Deputies Committee 12 moved to amend to add in a section of the Constitution that is newly amended that puts ‘alternative and additional liturgies’ such as Lesser Feasts and Fasts and the Book of Occasional Services in the Constitution and gives them legal weight, and Deputy Jim Steadman of Northwest Pennsylvania (also Vice-Chair of Deputies Committee 12) moved on the floor of the House to specify a size for the working group (more on that later) and funding for it.

What Does the Resolution Do?
Right now, very little. The Constitution of the Episcopal Church can only be amended through the approval of two consecutive General Conventions, and this is the first reading. It does create a working group, to be appointed by the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies, to propose canonical revisions to the 81st General Convention in 2024 with an initial framework provided by the House of Bishops in their notes.

If the Constitutional amendment portion passes again in 2024, then a lot more would change. Here’s a summary of the changes from the current Constitution.

Section 1: The BCP is officially defined as “those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention” under the procedures in that section. The Bishops had some very philosophical debates, but I take Doyle’s words on Twitter to heart – “Amended A059 assumes book book prayer books.” It then goes on to declare that the BCP must be enriched by the contexts of various dioceses and churches.

Section 3: This section codifies a common practice – that authorizing a liturgy for Trial Use is a necessary step towards prayer book revision. (Ask an older member of your congregation about the “Green Book” or the “Zebra Book” – both early trial versions of the BCP79.)

Those are the only two changes from the current Constitution. The proposed canonical changes, to be worked on by the aforementioned working group, will center around the specific processes around the processes of revision that would, based on the framework, require three plus triennia (nine years minimum) of work on prayer book revision – three years to write, edit, and prepare new liturgies for Trial Use; three years to use the Trial Use liturgies across the church with episcopal approval; three years to narrow the field of Trial liturgies and have them pass first reading; and then approval on second reading and printing. This is not a move towards or away revision, or towards further congregationalism in our liturgies. This is about process and structure, and the church has decided on those.