Read the journal here.
In this Easter edition of the ACR Journal, we focus our attention on our gatherings and liturgy. Those who are familiar with the Prayer Book will know that we’ve titled this Easter edition in the words of Psalm 95, which is a core part of the liturgy for the daily service of morning prayer. The Psalm has a focus on hearing (“Today, if you hear his voice”) and it warns its hearers against hardening their hearts in light of hearing the word of God.
Discussions around liturgy, and particularly the use and place of traditional set forms of liturgy and the Prayer Book, have been around in Sydney Diocese for the last couple of decades. With the onset of the Contemporary Service, we’ve been wrestling for years about the form and shape of our services. In more recent times, the anecdotal evidence of young people, especially young men returning to church looking for more traditional forms of church services and liturgy, has again sparked the discussion into flame. Some are making strong calls for us to return to the Prayer Book to accommodate these seekers. Personally, I think it is hard for us to know how many young men are actually seeking such an experience. I’d also caution us against being pragmatists. In the past we’ve rightly reacted to seeker sensitive movements that have sought to make our Sunday services a light show full of smoke machines, all in the name of getting people in the door. A return to traditional or even ancient forms of liturgy should likewise not be implemented as a pragmatic “getting people in the door”. Nevertheless, we must and should be thoughtful about the shape and form of our church services.
We hope therefore, that this issue of the ACR Journal might stimulate your thinking when it comes to the forms and movement of our church services. There will be different views and opinions! This is good, as long as the difference is used to push us to think biblically and theologically. The Editorial Panel also want to be upfront that this issue is a little skewed towards authors who prefer the traditional forms of the Anglican Prayer Book. We did seek out contributors who have adopted more flexible and less formal approaches, but alas they weren’t able to write for us.
To share my own view, and to perhaps balance the argument a little, I don’t believe a return to the forms of the Prayer Book, or even contemporary versions of the Prayer Book like Common Prayer are best in the context in which I serve (in the south-west of Sydney). I am very thankful for our traditional Anglican liturgy. Indeed, I agree with Peter Adam in The Very Pure Word of God who comments that “The Book of Common Prayer provides responses to God that express Bible truths and use Bible words”.1 In this way “the people of God are taught and edified not only by the reading and preaching of Scripture, but also by the Bible-shaped response they make in the words they say in the service”.2 Similarly, I agree with Mark Ashton who observes that in The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) “Cranmer made sure that the texts of his service did not just avoid conflict with the Bible, but that they positively expressed the ideas of the Bible, often in the very language of the Bible”.3 However, I also agree with both Adam and Ashton when they say this does not mean we should return to Prayer Book services, for “the BCP was a book for a different age”4 and “it would never have been Cranmer’s wish to freeze Anglican liturgy for centuries to come”.5 Rather, what we have in the Prayer Book is the principle we find in Psalm 95 of hearing God speak and putting the word of God at the centre of our services. To quote Adams one more time, “we would do well to ensure that all the prayers we pray…words we say…and words we sing express Biblical faith and the gospel of Christ”.6 This is how I try and think of the shape of our services where I serve (and there is still much for us to improve!).
The Editorial Panel and I pray you will enjoy the discussions that follow in this edition. You’ll also find other stimulating pieces in this edition, a “From the Vault” piece from Leon Morris, and as always some book reviews.
On a personal note, this will be my last edition as Editor of the ACR. I will be stepping down from my role as Editor and also stepping off the Editorial Panel. I praise the Lord for His provision of Lionel Windsor as the new Editor of the ACR. I will continue in my role on the ACR Board, and the Board and I remain very thankful for the Editorial Panel, now led by Lionel Windsor. The decision has not been an easy one for me. I have been involved in writing, running, or editing the ACR Journal and ACR Online for 11 years. It has been a great joy. However, my role has always been on a volunteer basis, and the Lord has placed me in a very busy ministry in Leppington, in Sydney’s south-west. Since taking on the role of Rector in 2023, I’ve needed to remove myself from other ministries. Whilst it really does “hurt” to step down, it is the right decision given my primary responsibilities to the church of God in Leppington. I look forward to continuing as an interested reader of the ACR Journal!
Read the Easter journal here.
God bless
Mike Leite
Editorial Director
(On behalf of the Editorial Panel – Meagan Bartlett, Renee Capel, Charles Cleworth, Jocelyn Loane, Stephen Tong, Bronwyn Windsor, Lionel Windsor)
- Peter James Hedderwick Adam, The “Very Pure Word of God”: The Book of Common Prayer as a Model of Biblical Liturgy (London: Latimer Trust, 2012), 51. ↩︎
- Adam, The “Very Pure Word of God,” 53. ↩︎
- Mark Ashton, ‘Following in Cranmer’s Footsteps’, in Worship by the Book (ed by. D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002), 70. ↩︎
- Adam, The “Very Pure Word of God,” 12. See further page 2. ↩︎
- Mark Ashton, ‘Following in Cranmer’s Footsteps’, 65. ↩︎
- Adam, The “Very Pure Word of God,” 22. ↩︎