Technically speaking, “modern English” is broadly conceived as the English spoken since about 1500, as opposed to Old English and Middle English. However, I’ve been using the term here in the sense of contemporary English. It’s true that this too is rather difficult to define, as David suggests, but it’s certainly not the case that English changes so quickly that whatever is written today will sound incredibly dated within a decade. This can be readily seen with Bible translations, which take decades to complete. For example, the original Good News Bible, translated in the 1960s, still reads as very natural English. Textbooks, in the meantime, are usually updated to reflect changes in scholarship rather than the language. Liturgy does not by any means have to try to be fashionable, and indeed it would sound perfectly ridiculous if it did. Instead, I would say that it should be written at the level in which a moderately educated Canadian would write.

There are more problems with the language of the BCP than the elimination of the second-person singular form of verbs. Its version of the Nicene Creed illustrates some of the confusions for contemporary listeners that can result from an older usage. Take the phrase “very God, of very God”. The use of “very” in the sense of “real” has become archaic; “true” is a more natural equivalent in contemporary English, and does not change the meaning. Another potential confusion is the line “incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary”. A new worshipper could confuse “of” as possessive, reading it as saying that the Holy Spirit belongs to Mary. Of course, the preposition is intended in the sense of “born of the Virgin Mary”, but the word order here (which is derived from the Latin) wouldn’t make sense to someone not acquainted with either the older usage or a modern version of the Creed. There’s also “the quick and the dead”. Lovely as that phrase is, it may not immediately communicate the meaning of “those who are living” to a modern listener.

As a matter of fact, there already have been attempts at modern liturgies that follow the BCP more closely. Perhaps one of the better ones was An English Prayer Book, published in 1994 (in which I believe Dr Packer was involved). For such a thing to gain traction, however, it would need to have the official support of the church.

I agree with Frank that these are problems that are of secondary importance in comparison with the issues of teaching that are currently being disputed within our church. It can be rather amusing at times to see how we as Anglicans can be involved in such heated debates over liturgy, but it reflects the importance we place on having a common life of worship together. That said, I think that a passage from 1 Timothy 6 should be kept in mind here:

“This is what you are to teach and preach. Anyone who teaches otherwise, and does not devote himself to sound precepts – that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ – and to good religious teaching, is a pompous ignoramus with a morbid enthusiasm for mere speculations and quibbles. These give rise to jealousy, quarrelling, slander, base suspicions, and endless wrangles – all typical of those whose minds are corrupted and who have lost their grip of the truth.” (REB)

In my opinion, I think that modernising the BCP, more than it already is, is impossible. Even if it could be undertaken, the underlying ideology driving it is an attempt to make the BCP all things to all people. My fear is that in attempting this it will become nothing to everybody.

You keep referring to the BCP as ‘sixteenth-century English.’ This is not true of the 1962 revision. Maybe you could say that the 1662 version but not of the present one in use. Jacqueline says she is referring to the 1962 edition. A question I have for you is what do you mean by ‘modern English?’ If you mean: the English as commonly spoken by the average individual on the street at this time; you have some methodological problems that need to be worked out. First, who’s modern English are you going to use? I am on a study program at Oxford University. Oxford English is different than the Queen’s English which is different from Canadian English which is not the same as Deep South English. Even if you could overcome this geographic difficulty the rapidly changing nature of English presents its own unique problem.

It usually takes more then 6 years, to go from concept to published book. This means that if a committee started work today it would be 2016 more likely closer to 2019 before the revised BCP would be used in its first service. The result of this is that any book’s English is almost 9 years out of date when it is brand new—this explains why the Oxford English Dictionary and text books are constantly being revised and edited. This may not seen like a big deal, and most of the time it is not, however, in attempting to make the language new and hip this time lag can result in errors being introduced. For example: a word which has changed in the last 6, or so, years is the word bling, meaning gaudy jewellery with sparkle. When this word was introduced from ghetto slang into modern English the word was bling-bling. As more people started to use the word, the second bling was thought to be redundant and stupid sounding and was dropped. Therefore, a book trying to be cool and hip that used bling-bling by the time it was published would be clearly dated.

My final point has to do with the difficulty of the BCS’s English. There are only about 5 words that you need to know to understand most services in the BCP: thee, thou, art, and precedes are the ones that come immediately to mind. How hard is it really to learn five new words? Any new undertaking, whether it is a new job, hobby, or academic discipline will have special words and definitions. In my opinion, anyone who is unwilling to learn 5 new words is not actually that interested in the subject. Which means no amount of modernisation will make any difference. My friends who comment on the language usually have some underlying dislike with the BCP service that they will reveal upon questioning; i.g. ‘I don’t like the priest centered style on worship. I want to be personally involved with God and feel the presence of the spirit in me [read wave my arms in the air and mindlessly sing praise and worship songs].’

I have suggested this elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating here. I would be willing to consider a BCP written in modern English. No other changes. For example, just things like going from “thou art Holy” to “you are Holy”.

Are either of you, or both of you, willing to take on a project of “translating” the BCP into modern English? Of course, I would strongly suggest that any work be reviewed by someone like Dr. J. I. Packer (who is likely the most respected theologian in the Global Anglican Communion) before being accepted into use at any Worship Service.

In Faith
Allan

“And moreover, whereas St. Paul would have such language spoken to the people in the Church, as they might understand, and have profit by hearing the same; The Service in this Church of England these many years hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understand not; so that they have heard with their ears only, and their heart, spirit, and mind, have not been edified thereby.”

Sixteenth-century English is certainly much better understood today than Latin was in the fifteenth century, and indeed it’s still the same language. Yet change “in Latin”, and you have an excellent description of the situation that a growing number of modern listeners are put in when they hear texts read from this period. If perhaps it is not entirely incomprehensible to them, simple words like “hath” are major stumbling blocks to the growing number of people who have never regularly attended a traditional church service or studied texts from this period beyond snippets of Shakespeare.

Nonetheless, I certainly agree that the Book of Common Prayer deserves to be better known and used. When my parish back home got a new minister a couple of years ago from the Diocese of Niagara, she said that had never officiated with the BCP, having been a pastor since the 1990s. Since our early communion service uses it, she had to learn it for that, and she wasn’t any worse for it. The BCP should continue to be read not only because it is a model of how one can pray and worship through Scripture, but also because it’s part of our heritage, and indeed the English language itself. Even now, for example, everyone knows snippets of its wedding service from literature and movies. Furthermore, it links us with certain biblical texts, ancient prayers, and modes of thinking in ways which the BAS does not, and this is certainly a deficiency of that book. This is a problem of sources, and not of language.

I haven’t actually claimed that youth or otherwise necessarily prefer one particular form of liturgy. To be honest, I have no idea what the results would be, were there to be a study done on the topic. That said, my own observations might be helpful. (I’d rather not state my precise age, but I’m younger than your oldest brother.) In my own experience, I’ve noticed that many of my friends are more interested in traditional forms of worship than in modern forms (whether Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.), which could indeed be said to be somewhat blander and less thought-provoking. This is not only the case in our church: the BAS, as you probably realize, was part of a broader liturgical movement of the 1970s and 1980s, the results of which have not aged very well overall. I think that it can definitely be said that youth and young adults are looking for genuine expressions of faith, and the BCP if properly understood meets this need.

That said, I’ve also invited a number of my non-Anglican friends to services from the BCP at my parish while I’ve been at university. Some of them have readily appreciated it. Others have found it rather bewildering. Some of these didn’t understand the concept of liturgy, but others found that the language of the BCP simply didn’t make sense to them, because it wasn’t their natural language of worship. Even some of the younger deacons at my own parish stumble through BCP services when they lead them, because they obviously don’t know how the older form of the language works. No, this isn’t something to be celebrated, because it means that these people have lost touch with their past. We need, however, to meet people where they are, and in many cases this necessitates the use of modern language. Public services of worship need to be accessible. There’s simply no way around the problem that a text cannot communicate its intended message if it is in a language that is not understood by the listener.

If modern liturgies are to be used, then, these do not by any means have to be along the lines of the BAS. Common Worship, produced at the beginning of this decade by the Church of England, is a better example of the sort of thing we should be aiming for; it’s based more solidly on Scripture, more beautiful, and more respectful of tradition than the BAS. A BCP in modern form could potentially be very effective indeed. You make a good point in your last paragraph, namely that this would likely be a bad time to create a new liturgy, given the current climate of distrust and disagreement over the place of Scripture within our church. Perhaps Common Worship could simply be authorized for use (which would be very efficient), but I suspect that such a move would not be popular with everyone. Hopefully this situation will gradually improve.

Until then, the practical reality is that we have a good liturgy in the BCP that some either cannot fully understand or do not wish to take the time to do so. Language is central to the way in which we worship; some people will simply stop listening if they think that they cannot understand it, and in which case it is unlikely that they will gain anything from it. The BAS, in the meantime, is the only authorized modern-language liturgy in the Anglican Church of Canada. For those who absolutely must worship in modern language and can be best reached through this, I think that it’s the best overall solution, given the current state of affairs. While locally authorized liturgies are possible, these often bring very poor results, often much worse than the BAS. For those who can understand the BCP, its use should certainly be encouraged, but only so long as this does not result in a church turning into an exclusive club that is closed to the outside, as I’ve seen happen. In the long term, we should work to improve the understanding of historical forms of the English language, so that not only the BCP, but also the numerous other English writings of the last centuries can continue to be widely understood and utilized; it would be tragic indeed if the ability to read these texts became a specialized skill, as reading Latin has now become. In the meantime, we must continue to work towards the integration of sound doctrine, the language of the Bible, and the principles of traditional worship into modern liturgies.

Jacqueline

Foot notes:
1- Canon XIV http://www.anglican.ca/about/handbook/index.htm
2-Mr. Sue Careless’s book Discovering the Book of Common Prayer
-things in [] are direct quote from Andrew from Ottawa
-things in () are direct quote from other sources on this site

Take a look at the original prefaces to the BCP (in the back of the 1962 book); these do an excellent job of explaining why liturgy needs to be in a language that the worshippers understand. By implication, they also demonstrate why we now need liturgy in a modern language. The fact is that many people simply do not readily understand writings from the sixteenth century, as can be seen by attending any high-school English class, and this can become a hindrance to worship. If we are to follow Cramner’s original principles, we must worship in language that aspires to the glory of God, but is also natural to the worshippers. An excellent example of this is that the majority of churches – even those that use the BCP – do not read Scripture from the King James Version, but then they also don’t use the Contemporary English Version, which has a very low reading level. Instead, they usually use something like the New Revised Standard Version, which could be characterized as being somewhere in between.

Another difficulty is that it’s rather ambiguous to simply “bring back the BCP”. Which BCP? The revised edition of 1962 has a number of its own problems (I recently heard it called “far too liberal”); so do we go back to the 1918 revision, with its Victorian eccentricities? The 1662 book, still used in England? One of the earlier books? “Going back to the BCP” is not a change that would immediately erase all of the theological difficulties with our liturgy. Because of both the language and revision problems, it is in our present context much more productive to create a modern liturgy, ideally one strongly based on the best aspects of the BCP, and, most crucially, reflecting a strong Scriptural basis for prayer. This, admittedly, is an aim that the BAS often falls short of.

Thanks
Jacqueline

P.S
To Andrew from Ottawa
I actually hate the language in the BAS as there is nothing special about it. The BCP’s language is not just “Elizabethan English” it is the personal style that would have been used between friends. And yes we are to fear God, but is he also not are friend?

There have indeed been a lot of changes over the past 50 years. But if you carefully consider those items that I said I would like to change, most of them are Biblically based, the exception being the 1st item pertaining to the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) versus the Book of Alternate Services (BAS).

The BAS was “sold” to us as an alternate to, and not a replacement of, the BCP (as the name suggests), and that it was written in modern English was at the time a big deal. This modern English, we were told, would both attract and help keep younger Parishioners. However, if you were to Prayerfully compare the two you will see that much more than just the version of English used was changed. For example, please compare the Confession Prayers. The BCP places an emphasis upon us to change so that we may be closer to God. This, in my opinion, is missing in the BAS. I have no problem with updating the BCP to modern English, so long as that is all that is done. In the meantime, lacking a modern English version of the BCP, we are far better to use the BCP as it is rather than the BAS.

My other 5 items are Biblically inspired. Additionally, as Anglicans, we have the 39 Articles of Religion. (The 39 Articles of Religion are printed in the BCP, but for some reason were not printed in the BAS). I refer you to the following:
Article IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Article XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
And
Article XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.
Also, please be sure to be mindful of 1 Timothy 3, Matthew 19, and Mark 10.

I would like to quote a Prayer of Confession from the BCP Morning Prayer Service:

“ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.”

Isn’t part of being penitent making things right? I think that it does. That in turn means doing those things we ought to do but have not yet done, and undoing those things that we did but should not have done in the first place. To mean that means that the reasoning for the original mistakes does not merit any consideration. We should stop following the devices and desires of our own hearts, and make an honest effort to obey God.