Process of Liturgical Change in Southern Africa

Liturgical revision in Southern Africa has usually followed a slow and deliberate pace which has included much consultation from both clergy and laity. Based on ACSA’s constitution, there is a basic framework for any liturgical revision: ‘The initiative in revision lies with the bishops. The work of preparation is to be done by a committee appointed by them. But Provincial Synod must approve the work [on two successive sittings, i.e. at least six years] before it can become fully canonical’.Footnote ² Thus, in theory, liturgical revision is not authorized by a diocesan bishop alone, but through a process which includes all the constituents within the church. As will become evident throughout the article, the active constituents have become more and more diverse. Today the voices of traditionally disenfranchised groups in South Africa are beginning to emerge and set the agenda of liturgical change.

Considerations Pertaining to the Liturgical History in Southern Africa

Southern Africa has long been considered a province with Anglo-Catholic leanings.Footnote ³ It is true that the founding father of the ACSA, Robert Gray,Footnote ⁴ was not initially influenced by the TractariansFootnote ⁵ (even though he was studying at Oxford when their ideas were growing in popularity), but he certainly seems to have identified with their cause.Footnote ⁶ Indeed, many of the clergy he invited to work in the new province were unashamedly Tractarian. This underlying ethos has had a considerable impact on liturgical revision in the area.

The first generation of Tractarians, being mostly theologians and academics, were not particularly concerned with ceremonial and liturgy, but rather with doctrine. They defended the Book of Common Prayer 1662 (BCP 1662) and continued to advocate its general use. However, as the movement’s theology developed, its proponents became increasingly dissatisfied with the theological implications of the prayer book. By the mid nineteenth century, primarily as a result of the promptings of the Cambridge Camden Society,Footnote ⁷ Tractarian clergy began using Roman vestments for the Communion and soon Roman furnishings were common in their churches. Beyond that, some clerics began translating the Roman Missal for comparison with the prayer book. Bishops and clergy in Southern Africa introduced these ideas to their parishes and dioceses. They too began questioning the theological soundness of the 1662 prayer book. So sets the scene for the situation in Southern Africa at the turn of the century.

The founding synod of ACSA (1870) had provided for liturgical renewal on the condition that it did not disturb the main essence of BCP 1662.Footnote ⁸ This particular rider had been included in the constitution of the church by request of the Lambeth Conference in 1867.Footnote ⁹ The need for liturgical revision in Southern Africa had been brewing from the late nineteenth century. The bishops were slow to react to this need, but eventually authorized a sub-committee (composed only of bishops) in November 1908 to oversee ‘Prayer Book Revision and Adaptation’.Footnote ¹⁰ Their first task was a schedule of permissible alterations from BCP 1662. The schedule, published in 1911, included fairly minor modifications such as the option to omit the long exhortation (which appeared just before the confession in BCP 1662) and the use of the Prayer of Oblation and the Prayer of Thanksgiving in the same service (originally either one or the other of these prayers could be used, but not both).Footnote ¹¹ These adjustments may seem inconsequential, but it is here that we first encounter the influence of a major English liturgical scholar, Walter Howard Frere,Footnote ¹² whose opinions greatly shaped later major liturgical reforms. Frere advocated that liturgical renewal should be approached slowly and with dignity, and that minor steps should precede major ones, principally through schedules of permitted alterations.Footnote ¹³

Book of Common Prayer (South Africa)

Early in the second decade of the twentieth century the stirrings of more significant liturgical revision began to mature. Jasper Bazeley, a young priest serving in the Diocese of Grahamstown,Footnote ¹⁴ pioneered the process by writing a lengthy essay entitled ‘The Simplicity of Divine Service in the Church of England Compared with the Example of the Church during the First Five Centuries’.Footnote ¹⁵ In essence, the essay summarized Christian liturgical history in the first five centuries, describing the overall shape of the Eucharist and Offices. Bazeley proceeded by comparing the 1662 rite with early Christian liturgical practice. In terms of the Eucharistic service he suggested that the BCP 1662 required a greater emphasis on Christ’s redeeming work, rather than concentration simply on his death; and moving the Lord’s Prayer from after the reception of Communion, to immediately before it.Footnote ¹⁶ In the section detailing the Eucharist Bazeley was clearly influenced by neo-Platonic ideas of perfect worship offered in heaven, seeing the offering of the Church on earth simply as a symbol of this perfection. He argued that the Offices were in no need of revision.Footnote ¹⁷ The essay gained international recognition, winning the Bishop Jeune Essay Prize for Liturgical Study at Oxford University.Footnote ¹⁸

It did not reach a wide audience in South Africa, but sowed the seeds of a major challenge to the deliberate and ponderous work of the local liturgical committee. In 1913, Bazeley and Charles Gould, another scholar-priest, published their Proposals for the Revision of the Anaphora or the Central Section of the Liturgy Addressed to the Church of the Province of South Africa with an Introductory Argument and Appendices by Two Priests of the Diocese of Grahamstown. The two priests had been influenced by the work of another English liturgist, W.C. Bishop,Footnote ¹⁹ and he endorsed their proposal enthusiastically through a letter to Gould.Footnote ²⁰ They proposed a revolutionary Eucharistic Prayer, complete with anamnesis and epiclesis (which were modelled on Gallican and Eastern rites). Additionally, the theme of thanksgiving within the prayer completely overshadowed the BCP 1662’s memorial-like leanings. Thus, the proposed anaphora could rightly be called a ‘Eucharist’. Many clergy, though, considered the prayer verbose with too many options (which was not as common then as it is today). Nevertheless, the theology and scholarship behind the anaphora greatly impressed senior bishops. Even the celebrated English Anglo-Catholic priest, Percy Dearmer,Footnote ²¹ endorsed the proposal and prayer, saying, ‘It is most useful and full of good stuff’.Footnote ²² One new local bishop, Francis Phelps,Footnote ²³ being a personal friend of both priests, was a particular champion of the proposal. He went on to become the chair of the local liturgical committee and later Archbishop of Cape Town. His supportive voice was to prove influential in the future.

The proposal kick-started the process which would eventually lead to the Book of Common Prayer – South Africa (also affectionately known as the South African Prayer Book or SAPB). By 1920, the liturgical committee had issued the first of a series of alternative experimental Eucharistic rites. Three more revisions followed in 1922, 1923 and 1924 respectively. These experimental rites had the same detailed preface which detailed the necessity for liturgical revision. The committee and the bishops wanted to make it clear that they were justified in revising the hallowed BCP 1662. Among other reasons, they suggested that other Anglican churches around the world were engaged in liturgical revision.Footnote ²⁴ They also argued that it was legally within the power of the church to make revisions to the existing liturgical framework, so long as the essence of the BCP 1662 was retained.Footnote ²⁵

Theologically, they presented rationales for changes which were made. The first was the emphasis on thanksgiving.Footnote ²⁶ The second placed the rite on a neo-Platonic stage, noting that the Eucharistic action is Godward on the heavenly altar where Christ is the true celebrant.Footnote ²⁷ The third argued that the new rite presented a more unified liturgical progression from confession, through thanksgiving and prayers of humble access to communion.Footnote ²⁸ Finally, special points are offered, including a justification for the remembrance of the faithful departed and thanksgiving for saints in the prayers of the church. They defend the inclusion by referencing the First World War, and by implication the great loss of life which was a result of it.Footnote ²⁹

Also related to the war was the introduction to the prayer of the church. No longer was the prayer for ‘Christ’s Church militant here in earth’ as the BCP 1662 has it, but rather for ‘the whole state of Christ’s Church’.Footnote ³⁰ This may seem a small change, but given the aftermath of the Great War and the gradual collapse of Christendom, it is perhaps significant that ‘militant’ was excised.

The Eucharistic Prayer itself is where the greatest changes occur. Firstly, the theme of thanksgiving is much more prevalent throughout, as was suggested in the defence of the rites. Secondly, an epiclesis (following the Words of Institution) was included. The prayers of oblation, originally after the reception of communion in BCP 1662, now moved back into the canon and were followed by the Lord’s Prayer. The Prayer for Humble Access, now much later in the rite, immediately preceded the communion.

There was only one part of the 1920 rite which was vociferously contested: the original wording of the epiclesis. The draft read as follows:

Those who felt that the consecration of the elements occurred during the Words of Institution (which appeared before the epiclesis) were offended by the italicized sections above. They contested that the offending phrases implied that the elements were not holy before these words had been uttered, or alternatively, that they implied a double consecration (which in their minds was blasphemy).Footnote ³² The bishops and the liturgical committee decided to remove the italicized words in subsequent drafts. In essence, this was the only major contestation of the experimental rites.Footnote ³³

The occasional offices were less controversial and were adopted almost entirely from the 1928 Church of England revision of the prayer book. The first of these rites to be released for experimental use were for Baptism, Matrimony and Burial of the Dead. Here there were several changes which clearly stemmed from the historical work of the international liturgical movement. The most obvious additions to the baptism services are the blessing of the water, re-vesting in a white garment and the giving of a candle.Footnote ³⁴ Except for the shortening of some prayers the marriage service remained unchanged. The ministry to the sick is far more comprehensive than the BCP 1662. In the experimental version numerous passages of Scripture (for comfort and hope) were included, as well as a litany. Orders of service for laying on of hands and the communion of the sick and anointing were also included.Footnote ³⁵ It may be that the attention given to this section in particular could be linked to the Anglo-Catholic nature of ACSA. In this sense, ministry to the sick and dying would have been considered sacramental. The funeral service remained largely unchanged, except provision was made for a Requiem Eucharist and special prayers and lessons for the burial of a child.Footnote ³⁶

Hinchliff notes, ‘The South African Prayer Book originally appeared in three separate stages, bound in three separate volumes: (I) The Liturgy, Collects, Epistle, and Gospels (1932); (II) The Calendar and Occasional Offices (1936); (III) Choir Offices, etc., Psalter, and Ordinal (1954)’.Footnote ³⁷ In 1954 all three were combined into one book: SAPB. Seek, the local Anglican newspaper, in July 1975 said, ‘When the South African Prayer Book was published in 1954 it soon won praise, setting a standard which other branches of our Anglican family of churches copied.’Footnote ³⁸

The piecemeal revisions were accepted into mainstream worship fairly quickly which prompted Hinchliff to say, comparing the English Book of 1928 and the South African revisions, ‘…The South African rite has had a comparatively painless passage.’ Later in the same paragraph he makes an interesting observation:

Evidently, translations of the Roman rite were becoming popular in the Province – not an unusual occurrence considering the Anglo-Catholic nature of the Province in general.

The revised rite did not have a painless birth though. While the Anglo-Catholics had attacked the Eucharistic Prayer much earlier in the revision process, groups of Evangelicals began to oppose the rite for other reasons after its circulation as a full prayer book. The Monograph: Setting forth Reasons for not Accepting the South African Alternative Prayer Book as being Consistent with the Spirit and Teaching of the Book of Common Prayer of 1963 is one such criticism.Footnote ⁴⁰ It brings five complaints. The first is the prayer of oblation,Footnote ⁴¹ which the authors argue should be moved back to its 1662 position (after Communion), demonstrating Cranmer’s liturgical symbolism of justification by faith alone.Footnote ⁴² The second is the delay between the Words of Institution and the reception of Communion in the new rite. They argue that 1662 is more scriptural in the immediate reception of Communion after the Institution.Footnote ⁴³ The third condemns the inclusion of an epiclesis, arguing that it reinforces the concept of transubstantiation.Footnote ⁴⁴ Evidently they were unaware of Gould, Bazeley and Phelps who insisted that the entire prayer effected consecration and particularly Bazeley, who explicitly refuted the idea that the epiclesis was linked to transubstantiation.Footnote ⁴⁵ The fourth complaint is prayers for the dead which they claim is un-scriptural. They also cite the 39 Articles or Religion (article 35)Footnote ⁴⁶ which suggests that our prayers for the dead are of no consequence.Footnote ⁴⁷ Finally, they complain that the 39 Articles of Religion are not included in the revised South African Prayer Book.Footnote ⁴⁸

Within four years of the release of SAPB the Lambeth Conference of 1958 had advocated the need for significant modern liturgical revision. A sub-committee had been established to report on the Book of Common Prayer for the conference.Footnote ⁴⁹ It carefully considered the place of the prayer book tradition within Anglicanism, noting its importance to the ethos of the church and the original intentions of the revisers at the Reformation. But it also recommended numerous areas for revision. These included extensive revision of the Eucharistic ordo to reflect contemporary liturgical scholarship, new initiation rites with reviewed understandings of Christian ministry, a revised ordinal which would take into account ecumenical negotiations, a revised lectionary system, amendments to other pastoral liturgies and consideration of the sanctoral calendar.Footnote ⁵⁰ In response, the conference resolutions on prayer book revision encouraged provinces to determine what was unique to the Anglican liturgical tradition and preserve these aspects within their experiments; to recover, as best as possible, the characteristics of early church worship (the aim of the Reformers at the establishment of the Church of England); to work within an established Eucharistic structure (to be prepared by a Conference sub-committee); and to include local saints and heroes of the church within the calendar.Footnote ⁵¹ Ultimately, these resolutions set the scene for the liturgical revolution which occurred towards the end of the twentieth century and which culminated in An Anglican Prayer Book 1989 (APB) in the ACSA.

A Liturgy for Africa

In April 1961 the African primates met in Kampala, Uganda, and agreed to embark on a joint liturgical project which would produce a Eucharistic rite suitable for the whole continent.Footnote ⁵² This was a tall order, since the Provinces of Africa comprise both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.Footnote ⁵³ One of the other directives was to produce a rite which could double as Morning Prayer and a full Communion service. Leslie Brown (then Archbishop of Uganda) was appointed chairperson and liaison for the project.Footnote ⁵⁴ He had considerable experience in liturgical revision, having previously steered the committees which produced the liturgy for the Church of South India (CSI) and the Lambeth 1958 report on liturgical renewal. Not surprisingly, the report endorsed the CSI liturgy as a prototype for Anglican revision.Footnote ⁵⁵ However, CSI was entirely Evangelical in its theological underpinning.

As in the CSI, the A Liturgy for Africa was drafted almost entirely via correspondence. There certainly was lively communication regarding the theology of the rite. However, there is no evidence of any attention to the inclusion of local elements into the liturgy. Perhaps a result of all the primates being white Europeans? The South African liturgical committee produced detailed reports for the Synod of Bishops which they debated and then sent to Brown. Most of their comments were related to the absence of prayers for the dead and the Eucharist as an offering. It seems that the South African bishops were never entirely satisfied with the liturgy, but they did commend it for experimental use in the Province once it had been published.Footnote ⁵⁶

Considering the rite was finally published a few months after Vatican II, its tenets follow the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy closely. In particular, it stresses that ‘The liturgy is designed to ensure the fullest possible active participation of all of God’s people in worship’.Footnote ⁵⁷ No doubt this confirms that the ripples of the liturgical movement were widespread. The rite is commendable for its flexibility, a trait of many future Anglican revisions, and its logical ordo. In particular, Dix’s ‘shape of the liturgy’ is clearly evident, especially in the Eucharistic Prayer which is divided into four sections mirroring Dix’s fourfold pattern (‘took, blessed, broke and gave’). Some liturgists were critical of Brown for not including any particularly African elements.Footnote ⁵⁸ He was also criticized for not using contemporary language throughout (in fact, much of the rite is in Cranmerian English), even though this had been one of the original directives.Footnote ⁵⁹

A preliminary draft of the liturgy was circulated at the Pan-Anglican Conference 1963 in Toronto where it received much acclaim. In 1964 the final draft was published and disseminated across the world. Buchanan notes:

Buchanan does not mention the influence of the rite on later liturgical revision in Southern Africa, but it is clear that A Liturgy for Africa had an effect on subsequent revision in the Province. In fact, the roots of the APB Eucharistic ordo are in this rite.

Proposals for the Revision of the Rites of Baptism and Confirmation, 1967

Following the Lambeth Conference of 1958, the Liturgical Committee suggested a ‘thoroughgoing reconsideration of the [SAPB] in the light of Resolution no. 75 of the [Conference], with a view to the issue of a revised book in the years to come’.Footnote ⁶¹ The first revision to emerge from South Africa after this was Proposals for the Revision of the Rites of Baptism and Confirmation, 1967.Footnote ⁶² At the 1958 Lambeth Conference a committee studying the BCP 1662 suggested the combination of adult Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist into one service. Such a move was envisaged to resolve theological issues surrounding the bestowing of the Holy Spirit in the initiation rite and open possible avenues of ecumenical engagement with the Orthodox Church.

The services were a radical departure from all that had come before them. Firstly, the service of adult baptism, with confirmation and the Eucharist are described as the archetypal service. Secondly, there is a theological shift from baptism as the cleansing of original sin, to membership of the Body of Christ. Thirdly, the readings for adult and infant baptism are different. The adult service concentrates on water and the Spirit, while the infant service dwells on the idea that all people are children of God. Another interesting attribute of the rites is the baptism itself. The candidates are asked in turn if they believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. After replying positively to each individual question, the candidate is baptized.

Proposed Alternative Forms of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer and the Holy Communion (1969)

By the mid-1960s, it was apparent that A Liturgy for Africa was not being adopted willingly by parishes and that a local modification was necessary. Having established the need for a contemporary Eucharistic liturgy, the liturgical committee was determined to create a product which was reflective of modern New Testament scholarship, a sound theological basis and contemporary trends in the English language. In the introduction to the Proposed Alternative Forms of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer and the Holy Communion (AF), the committee notes that it had ‘not made changes for the sake of making changes, it believes that the time for mere tinkering with our Prayer Book is now past and that insistent demands for radical liturgical revision can no longer be ignored’.Footnote ⁶³ The AF were, however, only interim experimental rites intended for a period of four years. Comments regarding the revision were welcomed and according to Kelly, two hundred such correspondences were received by the committee.Footnote ⁶⁴ The committee also prepared detailed questionnaires which were sent across the Province.Footnote ⁶⁵ In particular, the responses from black clergy were of interest. They requested more freedom of expression, particularly in relation to the use of informal prayers and congregational participation. They were also interested in litany-like prayers (which echoes vernacular musical norms of call and response).Footnote ⁶⁶ This was to bear fruit in Liturgy 1975.

There were many positive developments in the new liturgy. Kelly summarizes some of them:

There were some more profound changes, though, which signalled the deep thought which was going into the process of reform. Firstly, like the Liturgy for Africa, the synaxis can be used as an independent office. This provided a general structure for the synaxis which would carry over into later revisions of the Eucharist. Secondly, the synaxis of AF could be used with the Eucharistic Prayer of either SAPB or BCP 1662. This allowed significant leeway for comprehensiveness. Perhaps most ground breaking was the introduction of rubrics which allowed for silence at particular points of the service.Footnote ⁶⁸

It came as no surprise that Dix’s four-fold Eucharistic pattern was a major influence. As a result, the offertory was moved to a new position just before the blessing of the elements, and a separate fraction was added after the consecration prayer. There were influences from Liturgy for Africa (and ultimately CSI) too, especially at the beginning of the service: the Gloria followed by the penitential rite. The Eucharistic Prayer itself was based on the English Series II Footnote ⁶⁹ experimental liturgy. Significantly, modern English was used throughout. Much of the work of revision had been done prior to the formation of the Liturgical Text Consultations. As a consequence, all congregational canticles and responses were appreciably different from previous revisions. One of the major problems with the transition to modern English was the phrasing and particularly the reference to God as ‘You’ as opposed to ‘Thou’. As a result, the committee co-opted Leonard Lanham, a linguistics expert. His work on the collects was to prove internationally influential.Footnote ⁷⁰

John Rowland, who would later become one of the principal architects of Liturgy 1975 (L75) and APB, commented that the AF, although a milestone in liturgical revision, lacked a sense of mystery. He did concede that all modern rites, even the 1969 Roman Catholic English rite, lacked this sense of mystery. He attributed this to the fact that contemporary theology tended to emphasize the humanness of Christ as opposed to his divinity.Footnote ⁷¹

AF was not well received initially. In a private letter to the Bishop St John’s, Geoffrey Bacon noted, ‘Among the few who had got round to experimenting with the “Liturgy for Africa” I find several who preferred it to the Alternative Service put out by our Liturgical Committee, but most seem never to have heard of it. I certainly think that it is still better than the Alternative Offices’.Footnote ⁷² Nevertheless, at the advent of the release of Liturgy 1975, on 29 September 1974, the Parish of Holy Trinity Kalk Bay included an 8.00 am SAPB Holy Communion, a 9.30 am AF sung Eucharist and an 11.00 am BCP 1662 Holy Communion.Footnote ⁷³ Considering that the 9.30 am service was the principal service of the day, where the Bishop Suffragan of Cape Town was the celebrant and preacher, it must have been popular in at least some parishes.

Liturgy 1975

The real liturgical revolution that profoundly affected daily and weekly worship in ACSA, occurred with the introduction of L75. The thorough research into responses from bishops, clergy and laity concerning AF, as well as the intense work done on the collects were to be the basis from which L75 would emerge. Additionally, the experience of releasing the experimental AF and gauging the response to the Church Unity Commission’sFootnote ⁷⁴ Sunday Worship Footnote ⁷⁵ proved helpful in designing a rite which would speak to people in many different spheres of life.

Although the experimental liturgies described earlier in this article had been used by a few parishes across the province, SAPB was still the favourite among clergy and laity. Not surprisingly, the principal Sunday service in the majority of parishes in the early 1970s was a 9.30 am SAPB Eucharist. This meant that even though modern English and newer liturgical trends had been tentatively introduced through A Liturgy for Africa and AF, the majority of lay folk had not yet experienced these changes. And, although L75 continued the logical progression established in the experimental rites, it is substantially different when compared with the SAPB. Thus, for those who had not encountered the experimental rites, L75 was a significant shift in theology and language. In particular, the loss of Cranmerian English seems to have hit a raw nerve with many laity. Seek, the South African Anglican newspaper, was littered with letters from lay people across the Province complaining about the newer language during 1975.

It was not only the rites themselves that had changed, seasonal festivals and even the lectionary had been substantially reviewed resulting in an experimental two-year lectionary cycle. A host of innovations from the liturgical movement were introduced as well as a number of Easter services which were revived by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s. Even localization had begun to influence the revision process. These changes amounted to the ‘radical liturgical revision’ that had been initiated with the AF and now had come to full fruition in L75.

The theological background to the rites and offices is particularly impressive. According to Nuttall,Footnote ⁷⁶ ‘Rowland introduced into the work of the committee the principal and practice of producing a rationale for the liturgical text before producing the text itself. Always the theology and history had to be considered before the liturgy, and therefore a careful memorandum was produced’.Footnote ⁷⁷ As the bishop pointed out, in this case lex credendi preceded lex orandi. RowlandFootnote ⁷⁸ was a consummate liturgical scholar, versed in the latest scholarship and well-read in ancient texts.Footnote ⁷⁹ Among the papers of the liturgical committee for the preparation of L75 is a study document on Eucharistic theology.Footnote ⁸⁰ The title page of the document gives a summary of ‘Eucharistic theology today’. It identified five principal categories: the influence of Old and New Testament studies; new light on early liturgical patterns; a withdrawal from strictly ‘dogmatic’ theology; influence of the Ecumenical movement; and the growth of Secularism. The hallmarks of the theological shifts are evident throughout the new rites. The title ‘Eucharist’ as opposed to ‘Holy Communion’ is an example.Footnote ⁸¹

Besides the influence of contemporary theology, evidence of the liturgical movement is abundantly clear. There is a significant increase in congregational participation in comparison with SAPB. In addition to the increase in congregational responses, there is a community feel about the rite. The peace greeting and offertory, both introduced in the experimental rites, were retained and provision was made for the participation of lay readers and ministers throughout the rite.Footnote ⁸² The prominence of Scripture is also evident in the synaxis.Footnote ⁸³ Here the ancient format of Old Testament, Psalm, New Testament, Canticle, Gospel was restored. Also, the four-fold action, advocated by Dix, was clearly present, with the offertory leading directly to the Eucharistic Prayer, followed by the fraction and communion.Footnote ⁸⁴ Of course, the experimental rites had already introduced these changes, but now they were more carefully refined.

There were other significant changes in the Communion service. Of importance was the inclusion of four options for the prayers of the people. The first option was adopted from AF with some additions (which itself had been a combination of the British Series II and Series III Footnote ⁸⁵ ). For example, the right use of the world’s resources and the responsible use of talents for the service of God’s work. The second prayer was adapted from the New Zealand rite, based on the prayer of the church militant (BCP 1662). The third, a litany, was locally written and the fourth, spontaneous or prepared prayers, was specifically requested by vernacular congregations, where it was (and still is) customary to pray more freely.Footnote ⁸⁶ Flexibility was not only found in the prayers. Three Eucharistic Prayers were provided. The first was updated and modified from AF – the main addition being an epiclesis immediately before the Words of Institution. The second was adopted exactly from Series III. The third was accepted for use in the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic English Rite – a vestige from Sunday Worship. It was an adaptation of the Eucharistic Prayer attributed to Hippolytus – a definite nod in the direction of the liturgical movement.Footnote ⁸⁷ The use of a Roman Catholic canon, almost verbatim, shows just how strong the Anglo-Catholic ethos of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa was at the time.

Interestingly, the combination of Mattins with Communion was abandoned in L75. Morning and evening prayer in L75 were both elaborated versions of Office II in the AF. The rather abrupt opening of the 1969 office was replaced with an acknowledgement of the Holy Trinity, followed by a versicleFootnote ⁸⁸ and the lesser doxology.Footnote ⁸⁹ Perhaps the most controversial change in the L75 offices was the placing of the Magnificat which now appeared in the morning rather than in its traditional place in the evening.Footnote ⁹⁰ One of the excellent features of the evening office is the rotational set of canticles, of which there are 21. The second set of prayers after the sermon is given full expression in L75, as opposed to the SAPB where a simple rubric indicates that additional prayers may be offered.Footnote ⁹¹

Many of the congregational responses in the Eucharistic Rite for L75 were from the ICET, for example, the Gloria, Kyrie, Sanctus/Benedictus. Other congregational portions, such as the Collect for Purity and the Prayer of Humble Access, were drawn from previous revisions either locally or internationally (particularly the English Series III).Footnote ⁹² Other texts for the services were drawn from a host of sources, including SAPB, new compositions from the liturgical committee itself, the American trial services of 1971 and the Church of England liturgical committee.Footnote ⁹³

Rowland’s enthusiastic work on the Easter cycle ensured the reintroduction of services which had been officially banned in the Anglican Church since 1548.Footnote ⁹⁴ Under his guidance the liturgical committee produced a supplementary booklet for L75 called Ash Wednesday to Easter in 1977.Footnote ⁹⁵ It completely revolutionized the celebration of Lent and Easter in parishes all over the province. The beauty of the services certainly endeared them to the laity. Rowland said:

The main source for the services was the Roman Catholic English Missal – although the committee did acknowledge that certain minor alterations were made.Footnote ⁹⁷ The Imposition of Ashes was reintroduced on Ash Wednesday and the Easter Triduum (the Institution of the Eucharist on Maundy Thursday, the Liturgy of the Day on Good Friday and the Easter Vigil) was given special prominence. A special ‘Occasional Paper’ explaining the services was released at the same time as the liturgy.Footnote ⁹⁸

In 1973 Provincial Synod tabled this resolution:

Soon afterwards the Liturgical Committee commissioned a sub-committee to address African needs. Creating a suitable sub-committee proved difficult as, ‘All persons, save one, invited by the Archbishop refused to serve’.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ One clergyperson who had been approached asked, ‘A lot of work had been done by the Provincial Liturgical Committee, what need then of reworking this Liturgy?’Footnote ¹⁰¹ Nonetheless, a committee was constituted with D.P.S. Dlamini as chairperson and convenor and Revd A.N. Mpunzi as secretary. They produced a report which claimed that attendance at the meetings was poor and official recognition was proving difficult. One of the first comments in the report is telling: ‘It was felt that this commission should have been elected to do the job before the Liturgical Committee did the new Liturgy 1975’.Footnote ¹⁰² Also the sub-committee felt that it had not been given a clear mandate. So they decided to review L75 and Africanise it where possible. The recommendations of the report are:

The sub-committee worked on a set of responsorial prayers which were included in the Eucharistic rite of L75. Originally written in Xhosa, they were translated into English for the new rite.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ Rowland commented, ‘The body of which he [Dlamini] was chairman certainly influenced the revision and produced Prayer C – though I suspect that it was his work.’Footnote ¹⁰⁵

While L75 was well received by many clergy and laity, it was not without its critics. As has been mentioned above, many people did not appreciate the use of modern English. On theological grounds, though, there was very little disapproval. The most comprehensive theological and historical criticism of the experimental rite was a master’s thesis by Eric Kelly. His suggestions in the conclusion appear to have been considered. Kelly stressed the need for liturgical training (which was provided for at the introduction of An Anglican Prayer Book 1989); that the rubrics needed greater clarification (especially in connection with postures during the services); that the penitential section be clarified (in relation to whether ‘you’ or ‘us’ should be used, e.g. ‘Almighty God, who forgives all who truly repent, have mercy on you/us…’); that slight modifications be made to the rubrics to allow more flexibility (e.g. the option of using two readings instead of three) and finally that the composition of the liturgical committee be more racially diverse and include qualified laypeople.

Birth and Growth in Christ (1984)

At the 1968 Lambeth Conference Christian initiation again featured highly. A particular focus was baptism and confirmation as ‘empowering and supporting lay ministry’.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ In response to Lambeth, the Synod of Bishops commissioned several reports: first in 1972, the Hunter Report,Footnote ¹⁰⁷ which recommended a unified initiation rite; and the second in 1976, the Nye Report,Footnote ¹⁰⁸ which affirmed the basic tenets of the Hunter Report, but made minor adaptations. Both reports revealed how uncertain clergy were about the implications of theological shifts regarding baptism and confirmation as combined rites.

In November 1980, the South African Anglican Theological Commission presented yet another report on initiation, this one focusing on the theology of confirmation in relation to baptism.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ The report acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding positions about the necessity of confirmation if baptism is to be seen as the primary vehicle for Christian initiation. Its final recommendation was that an Eastern Orthodox pattern not be adopted, that is, baptism, confirmation and first communion in one service. Instead it suggests that baptism and confirmation continue as normal with children being admitted to communion as soon as they are ready.

With these reports in hand, the liturgical committee set about creating a set of rites which would reflect the overall feelings of the Province at large. What emerged was Birth and Growth in Christ. Footnote ¹¹⁰ Three main rites of initiation were included: baptism and confirmation of adults; baptism of infants; and confirmation of adults who were baptized as children. Services of conditional baptism, emergency baptism, the reception into the congregation of those baptized privately, the admission of baptized communicants of other churches, the renewal of baptismal vows, thanksgiving of a child, thanksgiving after adoption, and the admission of catechumens were also included. The services appear to be a direct response to the three reports which preceded them. A rite of initiation (including Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist) was provided for adults; infant baptism for children of Christian parents, with required preparation, was considered normative; and an optional service of child blessing, if parents decided they could not answer the questions of faith themselves, responded to the concerns about indiscriminate baptism.

However, there was still ambiguity in the rites. Was the Holy Spirit bestowed at Baptism or at Confirmation? The services, through manual acts and phrasing, seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit is given with the laying on of hands at Confirmation, not Baptism. Yet, the preface to the rites suggests that Baptism is the entrance rite to the Christian faith, and an empowering by the Holy Spirit for ministry.Footnote ¹¹¹ This ambiguity was carried into the APB. Despite the theological ambiguity, though, the rites are the most congregationally oriented initiation services that the Province has ever had – certainly the need for the active participation of the laity had been thoughtfully considered and implemented, as had the need for a rite which was celebrated in the midst of the gathered community.

An Anglican Prayer Book 1989

The production of L75 paved the way for APB. Due to the great success of L75, it was decided to keep any changes to the Eucharist and Daily Offices to a minimum. Ronald Taylor noted,

In fact, the only major development was the addition of two Eucharistic Prayers: another version of the Apostolic Tradition, but this time from the Anglican Church in Canada; and a short, alternative version of the Eucharistic Prayer adopted from the British Alternative Service Book 1980.Footnote ¹¹³ The main work of the committee was to produce new material. This included initiation and penitential rites, wedding and funeral services, rites for ministry to the sick and the ordinal. Other important aspects such as the catechism had to be considered. Also the publication of the Common Lectionary necessitated changes to the calendar and some of the collects. Taylor, discussing the guidelines for the revision of material for APB, said,

Concerning the use of contemporary theological issues, Nuttall commented, ‘A further issue involving language in liturgy does not affect the vernacular languages,Footnote ¹¹⁵ but deeply affects the English usage. This is the issue of gender-inclusive language, which came firmly on to the [ACSA]’s agenda for the first time during the period of liturgical revision after the publication of Liturgy 1975.’Footnote ¹¹⁶ However, the version of the Psalter included in the prayer book was not inclusive. A newer Psalter has since been released and was offered free of charge to parishes. Nuttall noted that the committee did not ‘tamper’ with the masculinity of God, ‘… this aspect of the gender-inclusive debate was hardly topical in the CPSA before 1990’.Footnote ¹¹⁷ Subsequent publications, such as Praying at Home,Footnote ¹¹⁸ have tentatively addressed this issue, but a thorough rewriting of Trinitarian formulae, for example, are required to settle this issue more conclusively.Footnote ¹¹⁹

In its continuing work, the committee was able to draw on a number of completed prayer books from around the world, including those from America, Britain, Australia and Canada, when formulating APB.Footnote ¹²⁰ In essence, though, the marriage and funerals are very closely modelled on the Alternative Service Book 1980 from the Church of England.Footnote ¹²¹ Much of the Catechism is based on the Book of Common Prayer 1979 from the United States. Significantly, however, APB includes a section on angels and demons, perhaps as a response to the vibrant belief in the supernatural world in this region of the world.Footnote ¹²²

There are a few unique attributes to APB which are striking. The first is the Baptismal Creed,Footnote ¹²³ which the provincial liturgical committee derived from the allegiance questions at the service of baptism and confirmation.Footnote ¹²⁴ This creed may be used at the offices, but is often used at parish Eucharist services. John SuggitFootnote ¹²⁵ has suggested that the Baptismal Creed is most relevant for contemporary society. He advocated its use at the Eucharist.Footnote ¹²⁶ The prefaces at the beginning of each section are another striking feature. They are short theological statements to introduce each rite. ‘The prefaces, written by a number of different people, sought to express the essence of the rationales, and to do so in a way that would both inform and inspire the reader.’Footnote ¹²⁷

Apartheid raged while all of these revisions were being undertaken. Evidently, the impact of liturgical renewal would force the local church to be more community orientated, namely to address the concept of race relations head on. Unfortunately, by the time experimental liturgies had been introduced, many of the congregations in ACSA were already racially segregated. In more recent years, the community aspect of liturgy has been a catalyst for racial integration. Obviously, the scourge of apartheid was very much on the minds of the liturgical reformers. The general preface alluded to this:

In particular, the ‘Prayers and Thanksgivings for Various Occasions’ section includes a number of petitions which must speak directly to apartheid: For Responsible Citizenship; In Times of Conflict; For Our Enemies; For Those who Suffer for the Sake of Conscience; and For the Oppressed.Footnote ¹²⁹ But, Torquil Paterson, a local theologian, wondered if there was enough of a liberation spirit embodied in L75 and consequently APB.Footnote ¹³⁰ Besides the obvious prayers, it is difficult to assess the impact of apartheid on liturgy in APB. In Services for Parish Use 1993 a litany for social justice was included.Footnote ¹³¹ Undoubtedly this is a comment on contemporary South African society, but in 1993 was it not a little too late?

Perhaps the most commendable attribute of APB is its theological comprehensiveness. As Nuttall noted:

And what of localization? Only a year before the release of APB, Lambeth Conference had released two important resolutionsFootnote ¹³³ about inculturation which encouraged the transformation of worship and liturgy. A year later the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC) met in York to discuss the resolutions more thoroughly. There were South African delegates at the conference who assented to the York Statement which they released. Collectively they said, ‘Inculturation must therefore affect the whole ethos of corporate worship, not only the texts but also, for example, the use of buildings, furnishings, art, music and ceremonial. From one aspect it means cultural de-colonialisation of worship…’.Footnote ¹³⁴ In 1993 a further conference of African liturgists met in Kanamai to brainstorm the implications for Africa. Again, there were delegates from South Africa, and the Kanamai Statement which emerged was significant and encouraging.Footnote ¹³⁵ Yet, all of this was too late to incorporate into APB. While L75 had included a new local prayer form (discussed above) and actively engaged with an Africanization sub-committee, the idea of localizing liturgy in a more radical way was not yet a concern of the liturgical committee.

What of the effect of other IALC statements, which have proved pivotal throughout the Anglican world? Given that the vast majority of liturgical revision was accomplished before IALC’s important work began, its influence has been fairly weak. However, its publications and reports have been considered and experimented with in local congregations. It is highly likely that its impact will be considerable in future major revisions.

Liturgical Developments since An Anglican Prayer Book 1989

There has been a rich offering of newer liturgical material since APB. Services for Parish Use 1993 included many shorter services in connection with licensing of lay ministers and church council members. It includes, for example, orders of service for both Advent and Christmas Carol services.Footnote ¹³⁶ This is not a week-by-week service book, but rather one that focuses on commissioning, celebrating specific occasions and blessings. Also noteworthy is the inclusion of the Athanasian Creed, which had been omitted from APB. The services represent a great deal of original work by the liturgical committee, with only some seasonal blessings and the rogation service being drawn from the Church of England’s Alternative Service Book 1980.

In South Africa the Anglican Church has been at the forefront of ecumenical engagement, most particularly within the realm of the Church Unity Commission. The latest liturgy to emerge from the Commission was Unity in Worship 1996 which is a collaborative ecumenical publication including input from local Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational liturgists. There are eight orders of service. The first three are seasonal Eucharistic Liturgies for Christmas, Lent and ‘Easter to Pentecost’.Footnote ¹³⁷ This seasonal character ensures that the church year is celebrated with appropriate liturgical emphases. There are three additional services of ‘Word and Sacrament’ for ordinary times of the year.Footnote ¹³⁸ These services are fairly flexible, and the last rite for ‘Word and Sacrament’ allows extensive freedom – to the extent that the service of the Word is summed up in six short rubrics.Footnote ¹³⁹ Despite the flexibility of these services, there is a clear Anglican influence, for none of them depart of the standard Anglican ordo. One significant addition which forms part of the Lenten Eucharistic service is a conflation of the Ten Commandments with the confession, where each of the commandments is related to everyday sins.Footnote ¹⁴⁰ There is an order for ‘Baptism and Confirmation’ and a service exclusively for infant baptism.Footnote ¹⁴¹ Presumably in the Confirmation service ‘presiding minister’ refers to ‘bishop’ for Anglicans. The strength of the Baptism service for infants is that it clearly articulates the intention of the rite, that is, bringing the child/children into the fold of the Christian faith. It places significant emphasis on the role of the parents as role models for their children, asking them if they are ready to commit to this responsibility. It goes further, requiring the congregation as a whole to ensure that baptized children are cared for in the community. As such, it resolves the confusion which is evident in APB. The final order is ‘The Induction of a Minister’.Footnote ¹⁴² The rites are heavily influenced by the liturgical movement and would be readily recognizable in the contemporary Anglican context. Indeed, the external sources for the compilation are all Anglican.Footnote ¹⁴³ There are no specific records available concerning the forging of this set of liturgies, so the inner workings of the committee who compiled it are presently unknown. Unity in Worship was authorized for provincial use by the Synod of Bishops in 1996, but has not been widely used.

In the mid-1990s, when Christian communities asked for forgiveness for their part in apartheid during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, several churches pledged to address contextual issues in their liturgy.Footnote ¹⁴⁴ The Anglican Church has faithfully sought to present these issues in liturgy since then. As a result, publications such as HIV/AIDS in Worship (which includes congregational prayers and a Eucharistic Prayer focusing on the challenges of HIV/AIDS all of which were locally drafted), Season of Creation (a six-week series addressing creational stewardship locally drafted) and a Worship Resource Manual 2009 have appeared. While these sources carry an unmistakable APB character in that much of the language is similar, they also speak vividly into contemporary issues surrounding daily life in South Africa.

So, for example, Seasons of Creation includes a significant amount of environmental information concerning South Africa’s biodiversity, water issues and fauna and flora. This feeds directly into the formulation of materials for sermons. A downside of this resource is the use of newly written hymns from Australia. Why not commission South African hymn writers to reflect on these issues? Another problem is that the two Eucharistic Prayers which are part of the series are exceptionally long in comparison with APB. While they are beautifully constructed in terms of theological content, and revising and reinterpreting the Words of Institution, they tend to over-state their case.

The Worship Resource Manual is a liturgical guide with permitted changes for the APB calendar, a number of special Eucharistic Prayers,Footnote ¹⁴⁵ revisions to existing APB services, litanies and pastoral rites (including a liturgy for recognizing the closure of a marriage). The Eucharistic Prayers show a greater interest in seasonal theology and a concern for young people. One important gesture with these prayers is the reintroduction of Communion on Good Friday. The Anglo-Catholic ethos of Southern Africa had meant that such a celebration was unpopular. The new prayer offers a creative opportunity for parishes to experiment with this sometimes ignored Anglican custom. The canon for Eastertide is of interest because it places the Sanctus at the end of the prayer, in the manner of a climax. While this is somewhat unusual and unexpected, the replacement gives the congregation a chance to experience something old presented as something new. A significant move towards localization represented in this manual is the addition of services like the end of a period of mourning (especially important in several of South Africa’s local cultures), reburial and exhumation (related to South Africa’s turbulent past) and the Manche Masemola pilgrimage (a martyr). All of the material in these publications was produced in South Africa, by South Africans for South Africans – perhaps the first time that a truly local liturgical voice has been heard and recognized.

What can be seen from this brief history is a vibrant and living liturgical tradition in Southern Africa. What can also be witnessed is the gradual understanding that localization is imperative (at first from a purely theological perspective, more lately more towards cultural values). Today, as the ACSA embarks on the next major revision of its liturgy we can expect a far greater emphasis on local liturgical elements which reflect the diversity inherent in contemporary society. Perhaps one day Anglicans of the future will look back on this process with pride and recognize in it the next step towards a more vernacular rite.