General Synod Te Hīnota Whānui (GSTHW) of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP) met in Hastings from 19-23 May 2024. The Minutes are online now and found here. I was not present, so I am reliant on the Minutes, Reports, and information told to me by those who were present.
This post reflects on some of the liturgical decisions made there.
Common Life Liturgical Commission
Report of CLLC (Common Life Liturgical Commission) reports on the meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation. I was surprised only 17 provinces (of the over over 40) were represented. Liturgy, clearly, has a low status internationally. The report notes: “An important subtheme was the lack of training and resourcing of clergy in liturgy. Something that is true of our own province as well.” My question to CLLC and GSTHW is: if there is agreement (and I have certainly been stressing this – and will again in this post) of such lack: WHY is something significant not being done about this?! You have the power/authority/finances…
The new East Asian Eucharistic Prayer was highlighted. if this is approved at a General-Synod level in an Anglican province, it may be used in ACANZP – using the B1 rite, see Case Study below. [I am not giving a full review here: I note it is over 800 words long – that’s getting on to double the length of many Eucharistic Prayer. It is a good prayer which could be improved by having seasonal variants/proper prefaces. I prefer the second acclamation to be after the anamnesis, and I prefer a third acclamation leading into the final ‘Amen’].
GSTHW Confirmed
Three statutes were confirmed, completing their “twice round” process to become formularies (agreed doctrine/teaching and practice of our Church): moving the location of All Saints’ Day prayers; giving alternative Glorias to conclude a Psalm.
I continue to not be able to make sense of the third statute confirmed – to move St Matthias the Apostle from 24 February (where he clashes with no one and it is celebrated on 24 February by many Churches) to 14 May, where he clashes with Ngākūkū, Missionary in Mataatua. St Matthias the Apostle has the status of a festival, displacing Ngākūkū! I am especially surprised Tikanga Māori allowed this to go through; in order for this to have proceeded to this point, they have voted in favour of this at the Hui Aorangi. I have been unable to ascertain the reasoning for such a vote.
Non-Formulary Services in A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa 2020 & 2024
As has been pointed out on this site, all services in editions from 1989 to 2005 editions of A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa [NZPBHKMA]went through the twice-round process of our Church and are formularies (agreed teaching and practice in our Church). This changed in 2020 when a new, much-enlarged, Prayer Book was published. About a third of the content of this book, still titled A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa, had not gone through such a twice-round formulary process. Since then, a revised version has since been published in 2024.
A Bill was presented to GSTHW to begin the twice-round formulary process so that all the services in the book titled A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa would again be agreed teaching and practice (formularies) of our Church.
The Bill is here.
The “Schedule” (ie the material in the NZPBHKMA 2020 & 2024 that is not a formulary) is here.*
But this Bill failed to pass. I understand this is because the Synod did not have the confidence that the collects and readings proposed were a coherent and substantial revision that would be “safe”. In fact, I have already pointed out, they are in breach of an earlier decision.
For those of you interested, I certainly am grateful to Rev’d Toby Behan who has produced a spreadsheet of collects in the 2020 edition of the New Zealand Prayer Book comparing them to the “original Prayer Book” (the 1989-2005 editions). This spreadsheet can be found here. From this work, it seems that about 72 of the agreed collects from the 1989-2005 editions (which are agreed formularies!) are missing in the 2020 (and subsequent) editions.
*The “Schedule” of this (unluckily-numbered, but thereby-memorable) Bill 13 has revised the shocking introduction of male pronouns for God into the NZPBHKMA “collection”. It is also notable that the failed Bill is only in English, whereas the material in NZPBHKMA 2020 & 2024 is notable by the provision of Te Reo Māori. I understand that some are not fully supportive of some of the translations. More significantly, I understand that Tikanga Māori is not wanting to simply translate Pakeha/English material, but to produce liturgical resources sourced in their particular context.
We now have a new stage in the history of our Prayer Book: we now not only have publications titled A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa with a significant proportion which has not been passed as formularies by General Synod Te Hinota Whanui. We now have two editions of the book titled A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (2020 & 2024) which, when a third of the book was presented to General Synod Te Hinota Whanui, GSTHW was not prepared to begin the process to make this third of equal status to the rest of the book!
There has been discussion that an authorised translation of a formulary is itself, thereby, a formulary. I cannot see reference to this in the Minutes, so it may be that this position has not been pursued. I am against this – I think formularies should be understood as being of the whole Church and the whole Church should have its say in agreeing to it.
Amending the Constitution
I have regularly, on this site, pointed out that our Church’s Constitution has A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa as binding on us, individually and together. With several different editions of NZPBHKMA, there have been some significant leaders in our Church who interpreted this to mean “all formularies” whether bound in NZPBHKMA or not (rather than referencing a physical book). This befuddlement has increased since 2020 when a physical book was published with the title A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa but a third of this book was not formularies of our Church. This befuddlement has now reached an apex: when this meeting of GSTHW was presented with this third of the physical book to begin the process of making this a formulary, it declined to begin this process, stating that more work was needed.
Bill 8 has begun the process of altering the Constitution to replace A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa with:
Formularies contained in A New Zealand Prayer Book – He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa, and Formularies as agreed by this Church but not contained in A New Zealand Prayer Book– He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa.
Why GSTHW is not simply suggesting that it be changed to “Formularies as agreed by this Church”, wiser minds than mine will be needed! All that I would note – underscoring what CLLC reported (above) to GSTHW, the “lack of training and resourcing of clergy in liturgy” – is that it has become nigh on impossible in our Church to ascertain what is required, permitted, or forbidden in our Church. Further: see the Case Study below.
Motion 13
[That memorable number for liturgy again!]
Several liturgical issues are brought together into Motion 13 (not on the original list of motions). This alludes (1 Calendar B) to the moving of St Matthias to clash with Ngākūkū. Although we do not know (as far as I know) the date of death of Ngākūkū, we also do not know the date of death of St Matthias! And I have already noted that where we commemorated Matthias is where many Churches do so.
I am supportive of the points made in Motion 13. The GSTHW Minutes do not indicate whether this motion was discussed – certainly there is no “Agreed to” Motion 13. My understanding is (though I think this should be minuted?) that Motion 13 goes to General Synod Standing Committee to be discussed (further).
A Case Study
Recently, a senior priest asked me to verify their presumption (from our formularies) that the Eucharist always has a Gospel reading. I had a similar presumption. It did bring up my experience of a Sunday Eucharist in NZ where the congregation stood for the only reading: “The Holy Gospel according to Paul’s letter to the Galatians chapter … beginning at …!
My presumption was wrong! And it reinforces, in a Church where we now admit formally to ourselves that we have a “lack of training and resourcing of clergy in liturgy” (see above), that it is nigh on impossible to ascertain what is required, what is allowed, and what is forbidden.
So – to our formularies:
The fly in the ointment – and honestly I had missed it – is the p730 service. Everywhere else, a Gospel reading is clearly required.
404 requires all the set readings; I think one might fairly argue that the psalm, hence, is required
456 is looser, but requires at least one reading AND the Gospel
476 – same requirements as 404 – all the set readings (& as above, including the psalm)
511 at least the Gospel
B1 explicitly has 2 readings, psalm between those, & the Gospel
So p730 is simply an outlier (“The Gospel for the day or other Scripture may be read here“). I have NO idea what the Prayer Book Commission & General Synod were thinking. My suspicion is that it simply slipped through without reflection or being noticed – just as I have no recollection of ever noticing it previously. So – if there’s a rubrical fundamentalist who says p730 doesn’t need a Gospel, my response would be:
p730 is “For use with individuals or small groups to meet special pastoral needs”
Such a rubrical fundamentalism approach would receive my further response: “which of the rites is being used?”
If the response is 511 – then it needs a Gospel reading
If they are using an international Anglican Eucharistic Prayer (allowed under B1) then they MUST have 2 readings, psalm between those, & the Gospel
Do follow:
The Liturgy Facebook Page
The Liturgy Twitter Profile
The Liturgy Instagram
and/or sign up to a not-too-often email
