Ship of Fools: Eccles: 'Authorised' Bible translations in Public Worship

Thread: Eccles: 'Authorised' Bible translations in Public Worship Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000813

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I started a thread in Kerymaniacs some time ago about the Message 'Bible' but want to focus more specifically on its use in liturgy.

We have an old lady who, when it is her turn on the rota, reads from 'The Message' Last Sunday showed a glaring heresy in the epistle reading:

- Colossians 2: NRSV Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
Message: Christ. Everything of God gets expressed in him

Are there rules about what official, authorised translations may be read and which are barred?

[ 29. September 2011, 07:38: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There certainly used to be. I had an archdeacon once (the nearest I've experienced to the one in Rev) who was distinctly sniffy about reading from the Jerusalem Bible. But since he objected to the RSV as well, which I'm pretty sure was authorised, I think he might have been using the law as an excuse.

Strangely, he had no objection to using the English Missal. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

The relevant rules in The Episcopal Church in the USA are as follows, from Title II, Canon 2 of General Convention:

CANON 2: Of Translations of the Bible
The Lessons prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer shall be read
from the translation of the Holy Scriptures commonly known as the
King James or Authorized Version (which is the historic Bible of this
Church) together with the Marginal Readings authorized for use by
the General Convention of 1901; or from one of the three translations
known as Revised Versions, including the English Revision of 1881,
the American Revision of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version of
1952; from the Jerusalem Bible of 1966; from the New English Bible
with the Apocrypha of 1970; or from The 1976 Good News Bible
(Today's English Version); or from The New American Bible (1970);
or from The Revised Standard Version, an Ecumenical Edition,
commonly known as the "R.S.V. Common Bible" (1973); or from The
New International Version (1978); or from The New Jerusalem Bible
(1987); or from the Revised English Bible (1989); or from the New
Revised Standard Version (1990); or from translations, authorized by
the diocesan bishop, of those approved versions published in any other
language; or from other versions of the Bible, including those in
languages other than English, which shall be authorized by diocesan
bishops for specific use in congregations or ministries within their
dioceses.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Wow, it looks like leo is a bit stuck. PDF page 8, document page 188 seems to indicate a rather open policy in the C of E.

We use NRSV because it is what the bulletin supplier provides (see here). Many ELCA churches use this supplier, which is our church publishing house. Our bulletin readings are in NRSV, and our lectionary books are in NRSV.

leo, from an American perspective, if you want a certain version, use pre-printed bulletin inserts.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I see my archdeacon was being disingenuous. Even more like the Ven Robert. RSV and JB were both authorised in 1965.

(PS: I'm sure, leo, that the Incumbent/PCC or even yourself could overrule the lady who wants to choose which version to use.)

[ 29. July 2010, 16:36: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

This looks to me like rather a gray area - I think most of us would suggest that when a service appoints, say, John 3:8-15, it intends a genuine version of this to be read rather than a paraphrase, or commentary or something entirely unrelated.

The problems would emerge where one person's altered paraphrase is another's perfectly acceptable re-rendering. Most of us would accept the NRSV, the NIV or the Jerusalem Bible as 'real' Bibles, but a version set to limericks of Lolcat-speak as something different. Unfortunately, 'The Message' looks to me to lie somewhere in the middle.

But as pointed out by Angloid, lay readers only do so under the relevant authority (which I would suggest within the parish to technically be the churchwardens, or whoever they have delegated to). If they have a problem with it, then it is for them to deal with this as they best see fit.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Our canons state that we may use for the lessons at MP and EP either the AV or either of the two translations known as the Revised Version. I think I would add the 1952 version of the RSV to that list.

PD

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

For Mass, we use the lections set out in the Roman missal/lectionary, so presumably all are from the Jerusalem Bible. People reading at any Mass (whether High or Low) use the book or sheet provided, rather than their own personal version. Is there some way, leo, you can tighten up by providing the book or sheet for the lector, rather than them bringing their own?

For BCP services, we use the Authorised Version, or sometimes the Good News Bible - both of which, I assume, are doctrinally sound!

Ian J.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Wow, it looks like leo is a bit stuck. PDF page 8, document page 188 seems to indicate a rather open policy in the C of E.

We use NRSV because it is what the bulletin supplier provides (see here). Many ELCA churches use this supplier, which is our church publishing house. Our bulletin readings are in NRSV, and our lectionary books are in NRSV.

leo, from an American perspective, if you want a certain version, use pre-printed bulletin inserts.

We have pew bibles - NRSV - and the bulletin gives page numbers.

The pdf in the link talks about 'versions' not 'paraphrases'.

[ 29. July 2010, 18:08: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I see my archdeacon was being disingenuous. Even more like the Ven Robert. RSV and JB were both authorised in 1965.

(PS: I'm sure, leo, that the Incumbent/PCC or even yourself could overrule the lady who wants to choose which version to use.)

In interregnum - but I have persuaded the wardens to overule - it took some doing. They did not understand why I kicked up a fuss over 'something as silly as the incarnation'. - C of E liberals - there you have it.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The pdf in the link talks about 'versions' not 'paraphrases'.

Indeed. Would the bishop be sympathetic to issuing a notice against paraphrases?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have persuaded the wardens to overule - it took some doing. They did not understand why I kicked up a fuss over 'something as silly as the incarnation'. - C of E liberals - there you have it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The pdf in the link talks about 'versions' not 'paraphrases'.
Indeed. Would the bishop be sympathetic to issuing a notice against paraphrases?

Well, he is an evangelical.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Which implies?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That he believes in Scripture, not paraphrases,

He attends services in rochet and chimere and carries a big leather, floppy bible.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

English-speaking Orthodox people from western countries seem to love the KJV. Even churches that use English contemporary with our time for services often insist on the KJV for scripture readings. I have no idea why. From an Orthodox POV, I'd have thought there'd be concerns about it but this seems not to have stopped it being used. I grew up with it at church, school, and privately so I have no trouble understanding it. I just don't like it and much prefer the RSV or NRSV for personal use. That said, I have given both NRSVs away to people who needed them and have become very happy with my OSB, (linked below).

It is the KJV that is used in our Gospel book at church but the Apostle lectionary uses the text of the Orthodox New Testament, which is not bad. It sounds traditional without being so archaic as to be incomprehensible to many native English speakers, not to mention people whose first language is not English. The text is generally chantable and is much clearer than the KJV in parts but has one or two minor quirks about it. For instance, while it renders most proper names in an Anglicised form, it leaves Iakovos untranslated. I usually translate it when I'm reading. I'm thinking of donating the corresponding Gospel book to church. It is from the same publisher and uses the same translation.

For the Old Testament, we use the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint, which is used as the Old Testament text of this. This is in dignified contemporary English and sits not uncomfortably in a traditional English language service.

I suppose there'd be no objection to us using the text of this on grounds of origin and content but I haven't examined the text yet.

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

I take it that the Orthodox Study Bible's NT is NKJV (from Thomas Nelson, whose CEO of late happens to be an Antiochian), and the OT component is done in NKJV English, but translated from the LXX.

I admit that I belong to the "use what has always been used in your shack" school of thought, although my eyebrows will hit the ceiling when somebody uses, say, the Amplified Bible in public worship.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

The most sensible practice I have come across is using a proper translation for a Bible reading before a sermon. Then if a paraphrase or semi-paraphrase like The Message provides a good way of illuminating a certain point then the preacher might mention that during the sermon. This practice is influenced by our new Lead Pastor's strong push for daily Bible Study becoming a core spiritual discipline, which so far is phenomenally successful.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Leo, I agree.

Also, if there are pew bibles, I'd have thought it would be best if is accepted that readings are from the same version - even if its one the individual reader doesn't like all that much.

If a person wants to make a point in a sermon about preferring the way a different version has put something, that's a quite different issue.

Rant alert:-

Why do so many translations omit the Apocrypha? Even the ones that do have it are usually printed without it. The NIV doesn't translate it at all. I bet the Message doesn't either.

I accept it's not authoritative in the same way, but IMHO any official 'Readings Bible' should include it (Viz Article 6). By any standards, Ecclesiaticus, Wisdom, The Song of the Three Children etc are a lot more edifying than plenty of other books we get exhorted to read.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Agreed.

I have persuaded the wardens to make an edict in both churches that only the NRSV be used. (Actually, it is reissuing an edict of the last incumbent.)

That also stops an old man who uses the KJV.

Also agree on the Apocrypha. I always preach on it when it comes up in the lectionary.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
. By any standards, Ecclesiaticus, Wisdom, The Song of the Three Children etc are a lot more edifying than plenty of other books we get exhorted to read.

But the canonical books aren't there just because they are edifying or interesting or useful.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I find it amusing that the Good News is authorised for BCP services but not the NRSV! With Holy Communion you could claim Order 2 Trad, but with Matins you ought not to use it!

I might try slipping the NAB in a service some day and see if anyone notices?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Where can I find the 'rules' about this? (ie translations allowed with BCP, Common Worship etc.)

Someone posted a link above that suggested that any 'version' could be used and there were no prohibitions.

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

leo,

Martin L posted this above:

quote:
PDF page 8, document page 188

It's from the Supplementary Material to the Canons.

Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :

One of my online blogger friends has sent me a a Sunday Lectionary he compiled based on the Message Translation. I think it is rather good and may use it for a First Communion Mass (we usually celebrate an "instructional mass" on those Sundays).

In the name of Jesus and Mary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
leo,

Martin L posted this above:

quote:
PDF page 8, document page 188
It's from the Supplementary Material to the Canons.

Yes, I know, but it contradicts what Edward Green says. According to it, you can use any version whatsoever.

Watchtower Bible anyone?

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
leo,

Martin L posted this above:

quote:
PDF page 8, document page 188
It's from the Supplementary Material to the Canons.
Yes, I know, but it contradicts what Edward Green says. According to it, you can use any version whatsoever.

Not in my reading of it. From the document:

quote:
By virtue of the Prayer Book (Versions of the Bible) Measure 1965, the following may be used in Book of Common Prayer Services (with permission of the parochial church council) instead of the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Psalter in The Book of Common Prayer.

Revised Version Jerusalem Bible
Revised Standard Version
Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
New English Bible
The Revised Psalter
The Liturgical Psalter (The Psalms: A New Translation for Worship)

It seems quite specific about what is allowed and the NRSV isn't listed.

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

Yes, that particular Appendix is looooong overdue for revision.

The NRSV and NIV are the two versions programmed in for lectionary readings in Visual Liturgy Live.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

However, the published lectionary books, with all the readings in, are based on the NRSV for Common Worship services. And the Common Worship Lectionary: Advent 2009 to the eve of Advent 2010, on page 7 says

quote:
All Bible references (except the Psalms) are to the New Standard Revised Version (New York 1989). Those who use other Bible translations should check the verse numbers against the NRSV. <snip>
References to the psalms are to the Common Worship psalter published in Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England (2000) and Common Worship: Daily Prayer (2005). A table showing the verse number differences between this and the psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is provided on the Common Worship website

If you click on the link you'll be redirected, but I copied the link as written in the book.

Cross post with St Chad

[ 04. August 2010, 17:30: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Not in my reading of it. From the document:

quote:
By virtue of the Prayer Book (Versions of the Bible) Measure 1965, the following may be used in Book of Common Prayer Services (with permission of the parochial church council) instead of the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Psalter in The Book of Common Prayer.

Revised Version Jerusalem Bible
Revised Standard Version
Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
New English Bible
The Revised Psalter
The Liturgical Psalter (The Psalms: A New Translation for Worship)
It seems quite specific about what is allowed and the NRSV isn't listed.

I took that part to apply only to liturgies using the Book of Common Prayer.

There was a part lower on the page that mentioned "Alternative Services and Commended Services." I actually took this to be a dated reference to the Alternative Service Book. It said:

quote:
Any version of the Bible or Psalter not prohibited by lawful authority may be used with Alternative Services and Commended Services. There are currently no such prohibitions.

I do find it hard to believe that this document is the newest one in existence. Certainly there must have been some sort of update in the era of Common Worship, although I guess there isn't much point since this seems to allow anything "not prohibited by lawful authority."

In the US, among the Mainline churches that use the RCL, it is very much the norm to use the NRSV.

[ 04. August 2010, 17:55: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
leo,

Martin L posted this above:

quote:
PDF page 8, document page 188
It's from the Supplementary Material to the Canons.
Yes, I know, but it contradicts what Edward Green says. According to it, you can use any version whatsoever.
Not in my reading of it. From the document:

quote:
By virtue of the Prayer Book (Versions of the Bible) Measure 1965, the following may be used in Book of Common Prayer Services (with permission of the parochial church council) instead of the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Psalter in The Book of Common Prayer.

Revised Version Jerusalem Bible
Revised Standard Version
Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
New English Bible
The Revised Psalter
The Liturgical Psalter (The Psalms: A New Translation for Worship)
It seems quite specific about what is allowed and the NRSV isn't listed.

Granted - but it says you can use any version with Common Worship services. That is where io think it is grieviously mistaken and unwise.

[ 04. August 2010, 19:02: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
There was a part lower on the page that mentioned "Alternative Services and Commended Services." I actually took this to be a dated reference to the Alternative Service Book.

No. "Alternative Services" are any authorised alternatives to the BCP. "Commended Services" are services not in the BCP that have been commended by the House of Bishops. Everything in Common Worship (except for a few BCP services) is either alternative or commended. So there are no restrictions on which version of the bible can be used with these services. In particular, it is perfectly legal to use the NRSV in a CW service.

Until its authorisation lapsed in 2000, the same was true of the ASB.

[ 04. August 2010, 22:34: Message edited by: Peter Owen ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Not in my reading of it. From the document:

quote:
By virtue of the Prayer Book (Versions of the Bible) Measure 1965, the following may be used in Book of Common Prayer Services (with permission of the parochial church council) instead of the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Psalter in The Book of Common Prayer.

Revised Version Jerusalem Bible
Revised Standard Version
Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)
New English Bible
The Revised Psalter
The Liturgical Psalter (The Psalms: A New Translation for Worship)
It seems quite specific about what is allowed and the NRSV isn't listed.
I took that part to apply only to liturgies using the Book of Common Prayer.

That's right. I was posting in response to leo's post, where he said that the document contradicted what Edward Green said, which was:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I find it amusing that the Good News is authorised for BCP services but not the NRSV!

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:
No. "Alternative Services" are any authorised alternatives to the BCP. "Commended Services" are services not in the BCP that have been commended by the House of Bishops. Everything in Common Worship (except for a few BCP services) is either alternative or commended. So there are no restrictions on which version of the bible can be used with these services. In particular, it is perfectly legal to use the NRSV in a CW service.

Until its authorisation lapsed in 2000, the same was true of the ASB.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm surprised the CofE still persists in using the designation 'alternative services.' It seems like they have been trying to make the modern language liturgies the norm and BCP the alternative for a while now (not that they would ever dare call the BCP alternative).

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The document you're all referring to is old, dates back to 1980 when the ASB was around, and hasn't been changed to take on board that Common Worship is now legal useage along with the BCP. And as I quoted above, the Common Worship lectionary currently uses the NRSV as the standard for the readings. And if the church has a lectionary with all the readings to be read from at a service, that very likely to be NRSV too.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The document you're all referring to is old, dates back to 1980 when the ASB was around, and hasn't been changed to take on board that Common Worship is now legal useage along with the BCP. And as I quoted above, the Common Worship lectionary currently uses the NRSV as the standard for the readings. And if the church has a lectionary with all the readings to be read from at a service, that very likely to be NRSV too.

The document is published online with the canons and, certainly, when I was in the CofE and up on these things, this online material was updated regularly. Checking it again, I see revisions dating from 2002, and even as recently as 2008, so it certainly doesn't date from 1980 and seems to me to be quite up to date.

I think there may be some confusion over what has been said here. Of course the NRSV may be used with Common Worship - nobody has disputed that.

Martin L originally linked to the document and commented that the CofE has a fairly open policy on the scripture translations permitted, which it does where alternative and commended services are concerned, but not the Book of Common Prayer. It was the BCP that was the subject of Edward Green's post, in which he noted that the rules curiously permit the Good News Bible to be used in BCP services but not the New Revised Standard Version. He didn't say anything about the permissibility of using the NRSV with Common Worship.

M

(bringer of clarity since 198....)

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:
No. "Alternative Services" are any authorised alternatives to the BCP. "Commended Services" are services not in the BCP that have been commended by the House of Bishops. Everything in Common Worship (except for a few BCP services) is either alternative or commended. So there are no restrictions on which version of the bible can be used with these services. In particular, it is perfectly legal to use the NRSV in a CW service.

Until its authorisation lapsed in 2000, the same was true of the ASB.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm surprised the CofE still persists in using the designation 'alternative services.' It seems like they have been trying to make the modern language liturgies the norm and BCP the alternative for a while now (not that they would ever dare call the BCP alternative).

It's a legal matter, dating from the proposed revisions to the Prayer Book in 1927 and 1928 which were approved by the CofE but failed to get through Parliament. The only way to get any revision done was to keep the 1662 BCP as the legal standard Prayer Book and designate everything else as "alternative" to it. That remains the situation today, although, as you rightly note, the reality on the ground is that, in many (most?) parts of the country, a BCP service is something you have to make a concerted effort to find and get to, and most clergy ordained within the last few years have never had cause to use it except perhaps at Evensong.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I recently attended a service where the Gospel was read from William Tyndale's version, CW not BCP and a weekday festival, not a Sunday.

I don't think I've never heard it read aloud before. It was surprisingly modern.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The reason that the NRSV is not in the authorised list is that at the time the list was produced the NRSV did not exist. As others have noted the list doesn't apply to any services autorised as alternative to the 1662 BCP services. 1662 is still the standard, and the fallback where incumbent and PCC can't agree on the form of service to be used and everything else is alternative to it (if authorised) - even if much more frequently used - or 'commended' if not authorised through a full synodical process.

I suspect that the business is rather too much of a hot potato for anyone to be keen to embark on it unless the clearest kind of problem emerges.

There is some more recent guidance from the House of Bishops which may be helpful to leo.

[ 14. August 2010, 14:56: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I recently attended a service where the Gospel was read from William Tyndale's version, CW not BCP and a weekday festival, not a Sunday.

I don't think I've never heard it read aloud before. It was surprisingly modern.

He is the Father of English for a reason. Tyndale still forms the backbone of most English bible translations, particularly the NRSV.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
It's a legal matter, dating from the proposed revisions to the Prayer Book in 1927 and 1928 which were approved by the CofE but failed to get through Parliament. The only way to get any revision done was to keep the 1662 BCP as the legal standard Prayer Book and designate everything else as "alternative" to it. That remains the situation today, although, as you rightly note, the reality on the ground is that, in many (most?) parts of the country, a BCP service is something you have to make a concerted effort to find and get to, and most clergy ordained within the last few years have never had cause to use it except perhaps at Evensong.

This is not my experience at all. In my curacy I presided at as many BCP holy communion services as common worship, and still do some weeks!

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I suspect that the business is rather too much of a hot potato for anyone to be keen to embark on it unless the clearest kind of problem emerges.

I doubt it.

As far as MP and EP go, actual usage of BCP material deviates from the 1662 in many ways - use of 1928 materials, for example, use of hymns (for which there is no provision in the BCP) and what happens after the third collect. Technically, all "illegal" because the BCP does not permit it. However, CW includes within its main Sunday volume, forms of BCP offices which allow for these variants - and thus these variants, by being within CW, are also within the ambit of the CW rules on Bible versions. So the defence to any charge of using the NRSV at Mattins is "We woz using Mattins in the form permitted by CW, m'lud."

Arguably, Order Two (Trad) service does something similar for the BCP Communion service (it being effectively a permitting of variant practices) so likewise, by technically being a service permitted by CW, a BCP Communion with NRSV should also be perfectly permissible..

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
As far as MP and EP go, actual usage of BCP material deviates from the 1662 in many ways

And has for an awful long time. At least some Evangelical parishes had shortened forms of the liturgy with hymns at least as far back as the early 19th century, and such things were legalised in the late 19th century IIRC. I'm no expert but I have a vague idea that 18th-century evangelical Anglicans who used hymns, or had lay preachers, or open prayer meetings, did that outwith the BCP liturgy, perhaps before or after Morning Prayer, or on Sunday afternoons.

And when it comes to the Anglo-Catholics...

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
...the reality on the ground is that, in many (most?) parts of the country, a BCP service is something you have to make a concerted effort to find and get to, and most clergy ordained within the last few years have never had cause to use it except perhaps at Evensong.
This is not my experience at all. In my curacy I presided at as many BCP holy communion services as common worship, and still do some weeks!

I think your experience is out of the ordinary.

I've been asked in a couple of places to put a curate through their paces with the BCP because:

a) there was no use of the BCP in their parish

and/or

b) their training incumbent had little or no experience of the BCP

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Is that a rural-urban divide? I wonder if the BCP is more prevalent in country parishes; many city ones ignore it altogether.

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

I think use/non-use of the BCP is probably a rural/urban divide.

Clergy having no experience of it is a deficiency in training, it seems to me.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

We're another parish that's 50:50 - 8am Sunday is BCP (mostly - not on Saint's Days) as is noon Fridays. Wednesday morning and main sung service on Sunday are Common Worship. The other team churches are also 8am said BCP on Sundays (not that they get one every Sunday - just the Sundays when they get the lay led all age worship service in the main service slot)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Is that a rural-urban divide? I wonder if the BCP is more prevalent in country parishes; many city ones ignore it altogether.

We do BCP HC once a month (at 8am) and BCP Evening Prayer (Choral) once every two months. We are deeply urban.

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

BCP evensong or evening prayer every Sunday except in August. BCP communion once a month I think. Suburban parish.

I'm at vicar factory part time and there have been BCP services at college so those who have never come across anything other than praise and worship band combos can experience something different.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Is that a rural-urban divide? I wonder if the BCP is more prevalent in country parishes; many city ones ignore it altogether.

Within evangelical circles, it is usually a new / old church / service thing.

By which I mean that old evangelical parish churches which have long been in that tradition, will usually maintain some form of traditional language material for the mostly older parishioners if there is continuing demand. Could be weekly, fortnightly or monthly edited BCP Communion at 8am or 9am say.

Whereas a new housing estate evo conventional district / church plant which never used the BCP and was set up after 1980 (or at least 1945!) is unlikely to use it. A 10.30am family service loosely based on CW Service of the Word is more likely. There might be a trendy alt.worship service at 6.30pm as well.

Evangelical familiarity with BCP depends on experience / placement in an old church it seems to me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We do BCP HC once a month (at 8am) and BCP Evening Prayer (Choral) once every two months.

So 90% of the congregation will never use either?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

More like 20% use neither.

Choral Evensong has a large following and gets about 20% fewer than at the eucharist (and nearly all the 20-somethings are very keen on BCP evensong).

The BCP HC is a different matter - it attracts those who go to 8.00, regardless of which rite we use.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Back to my Op about the Message bible.

Next week's gospel is the parable of the unjust steward - one of the most difficult stories to preach about.

As I shall be reading the gospel before preaching, the congregation won't be treated to The Message. if they were, they would be told that: Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens.

That fails to understand the Jewish background, in which Jesus mentions 'the children of light' - I am taking this up as a reference to the Essenes and it will form a major part of my sermon.

Although The Message isn't banned, it ought to be.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I have just come across another heinous mistranslation in The Message.

Daniel 5:14 (King James Version): I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. – The Message has ‘Holy Spirit’, thus asserting belief in The Trinity on behalf of a Persian king.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Ancient Persian kings (apart possibly from Cyrus the Great) were technically supposed to be monotheists. But when dealing with subject peoples they usually went along with the religious language of their subjects. So when in Babylon they sacrificed to the local Babylonian deities, in Asia Minor to the local gods there, and so on. This was a marked contrast to the Assyrians and Babylonians who hauled statues and idols and relics away from conquered cities and placed them in subjection to their own local idols.

Hence the use of the phrase "God of Heaven" in the Persian's dealings with the Jews in Ezra and Nehemiah - deliberate choice of language acceptable to both sides.

Which is to say that if Daniel is an accurate report of the dealings of a Persian king with the Jews then the official language used might well have reflected Jewish scruples. So if a Jew might have talked of the Spirit of God, so might a Persian. Actually I have no reason to think that a Zoroastrian couldn;t talk about the Spirit of God either. Though neither of them would be likely to mean a person by it, just a character or activity or manifestation of God.

Of course the records of the acts of the Persian kings were all written in Aramaic anyway, by Syrian scribes, many of whom were Jewish. The background to Daniel and Ezra and Nehemiah and even Esther, in which educated Jews have high positions in the Persian administration, is exactly in accord with what we know of the Persian Empire.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0