As a relative new comer to all thing Anglican I've read a lot about how the book of common prayer is what defines liturgy in the church. There have been various revisions through the years, what did those revisions add or take away and what would you consider to be the one version that has it all so to speak?
I generally read from the 1928 American edition, albeit sometimes from the 1979 as well. It is hard to say which one has it all, as you say. Later prayerbooks such as my 1979 have more "stuff" in them but the theology becomes far more unreliable, so I hold the 1928 as more or less sturdy and theologically reliable prayerbook. The Canadian prayerbook has some neat Collects as well. Of course we all stem from the fount of the earlier centuries-old British Books of Common Prayer, so from that perspective those would be even more reliable.
I have a copy of the 1979 prayerbook which I mistakenly bought from Amazon thinking it was an earlier edition.
There are a few: no prayers for the monarch or royal family, the addition of the Epiclesus to the Lord's Supper's liturgy, and some tweaks to the Articles to fit the US's situation are the most notable. A great way to compare the different editions of bcp by province can be found here: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcp.htm
I have mentioned this before, but I think this thread is best suited. As pertaining to the music and settings used in the liturgy, is there a standard, or is it purely subjective? What I mean is, with the communion spread across many people groups now, we have people following the skeleton and actual words of the historic BCP, but with different instrumentations, melodies, settings, compositions, etc. Thus do we care for a uniform set of principles guiding this realm, that impose certain standards of uniformity? Certain instrumentations, certain caidances, certain chord types, etc? More generally, is anyone arguing that, for the human being, is the domain of worshipful music inherently subjective or objective? Whatever the answer, what seem to be the theological consequences?
are you basically asking something like: are modal progressions in multi-part a capella chant objectively superior in worship than major progressions in unison accompanied by bongo drums? or is it just subjectively superior?
Huge question. I'm not sure where to dive in. Is there an expected uniformity in music for traditional Anglicans? I haven't been Anglican very long so I don't know the answer to this. Is music subjective or objective? Since the Endarkenment -- sorry, the Enlightenment -- we've got this notion that "Art is free" and "Art is subjective." From culture to culture, yes, aesthetic is subjective, but within any culture it is objective. And it's up to a professional to make that call. Generally speaking, yes, music that uses modes is vastly more superior and more appropriate for worship than bongo drums _for churches in the west_. But I've heard some pretty atrocious modal melodies and english tune dirges, too
You think objectivity should span all cultures? My terms may be too broad or unclear. I mean to say that within every culture are various music practices -- and within each practice judgments can be made as to quality.
I get what you mean. My gut feeling, however, is that certain elements of music transcend culture, and attain to a true level of objectivity. I just don't know enough about the relationship between certain characteristics of music and the moods/feelings they evoke. I have a feeling that certain aspects of music necessarily evoke moods/feelings appropriate to the divine worship of God. Perhaps I can rephrase my dilemma with this question: Is there a proper mood or set of feelings that the communal worship of God with singing should evoke?
Right! So I'll say just a bit more: if we compare Bach's B minor mass to the body percussion and dancing of the folks in Nagaland -- yes it's vastly superior art. I do not believe in the whole "all cultures are equal" idea. But! All cultures are people and everyone is valuable. The Christians in Nagaland dance the tithe down the length of the church (you can read about this, it's amazing) because that is their cultural expression and so there's a Hudson Taylor part of me that worries about presenting Christisnity as a western religion. Will Nagaland learn to sing in beautiful polyphonic harmony as epitomized by western art? Generations from now I hope they at least learn about it, but right now they're one generation from their past as headhunters ....and God came to them at that time. So yes we agree. And I would answer your newly phrased question as "yes." And I think the "proper mood or set of feelings" is every sanctified mood and feeling that humans feel! Consider the psalms.
You guys may be comparing ultimate objective worth of music with its pragmatic concessions to local cultures. The Nagaland folk may dance tithing though the nave, and they aren't a false church thereby, but it doesn't mean they should not move to a polyphonic choir as soon as they are capable. It's just the same as guitar-folk singing evangelicals here in the States- to me no better from Nagaland dancers. Their choice of music doesn't make them false and yet they must move to objectively superior Church Music when capable.
Sure, which is what I said. But high quality music is not an easy thing to attain. Adult Nagaland ears aren't capable of hearing western harmonics, although years of training does improve things. That's why it's a generational thing.
And btw guitar evangelical music here in the States is in a far worse state of affairs than the dancers of Nagaland -- because we know better.
True enough. Do you think it should be a project in the church, to gently advocate for polyphonic music whilst allowing for local traditions?