The Prayer Book crisis of 1927–1928 exists in the knowledge of many in the Church of England in a place between ignorance and folklore. Some in the Church are aware that in the third decade of the twentieth century, the Church of England attempted to get a new Book of Common Prayer through Parliament. What this new book looked like is something very few are aware of. Even to ecclesiastical historians and liturgists the issue remains somewhat of an enigma. Jeremy Morris in The Church in the Modern Age briefly mentions the crisis, specifically its ecclesiological implications: “Having gained some legislative autonomy immediately after the First World War, English Anglicans were shocked to find they had no redress when parliament prevented them from reforming their liturgy in 1928.”1 In the fourth volume of The Oxford History of Anglicanism, which covers contemporary Anglicanism, the crisis is not mentioned in Mark Chapman’s survey of Anglican theology from 1910 to 2000,2 and in Louis Weil’s chapter on liturgical renewal in the twentieth century, the Revised Book of 1927 is briefly mentioned as attempting “to create new liturgical models using traditional language”, resulting in a failed book, the only legacy of which was to serve as an example of what liturgy should not look like.3 The Books of 1927 and 1928, to many historians, are the great known unknown of the first part of the twentieth century, briefly studied by some, but mentioned only in passing, resulting in a great unknown event.
This study will attempt to make more of that unknown known. It will seek to understand the revision process of over two decades. Paul Avis has written about how “the prayer book serves not only as a resource for worship and a mark of identity, but also has profound ecclesiological and doctrinal significance”.4 This study will demonstrate how true Avis’ statement is by exploring issues of doctrine and ecclesiology. By taking liturgical theology seriously, it will show how liturgical changes signalled doctrinal shifts. Through the revision process, it will show the doctrine that was being proposed, arguing that Anglican doctrinal conformity was being expanded to encompass elements of Ritualism and Anglo-Catholicism. Secondly it will consider the ecclesiological discussions that the revision process created and nurtured. It will demonstrate that the revision process was integral in establishing a consensus for a radical realignment in Church-State relationships, which would lead to the Enabling Bill and the formation of the National Assembly of the Church of England. Limiting itself to the immediate reaction to the rejection, it will show how Parliament’s rejection of the two revised books led to even more radical ecclesiological thinking in the Church.
Studies of the Prayer Book crisis, like studies of much of the Church of England’s history in the twentieth century, are not as prevalent as might be assumed. There are five main studies of the crisis: George Bell’s biography of Randall Davidson (1952),5 J.D. Martell’s Master’s thesis on the final years of the crisis (1974),6 Ronald Jasper’s consideration of the crisis in his Development of the Anglican Liturgy (1989),7 Donald Gray’s brief two-part study of the revision process written for the Alcuin Club (2005–2006),8 and John Maiden’s study of the crisis during its stage in Parliament (2009).9 In contrast to these studies, this study will interrogate the theology behind the process. The work of Gray and Jasper comes closest to doing this, however neither is completely satisfactory. Jasper’s work was focused primarily on liturgical questions, not historical ones, and he was able to demonstrate the continuity between the proposed revisions of 1927 and 1928 and the liturgical renewal movement that would create the Alternative Service Book, a movement in which he himself was a prime mover. For understanding how the history of Anglican liturgy informed the liturgists of the 1970s and 1980s, Jasper’s work is invaluable. As a precise study of the revision process in the 1910s and 1920s, and the desires and goals of those who proposed the Book of 1927, it is rather lacking. Understandably for a liturgist, Jasper did not fully comprehend the ecclesiological contentions of the revision process, although he also did not fully go into either the process of revision or the theological trends within it, neglecting the records of both Convocations and the Assembly.10 Martell, focusing on the crisis primarily in 1927 and 1928 did not fully use the records of the Convocations. Instead he provided a thorough study based on newspapers, both religious and secular, and some of the Davidson’s papers. This study can build on Martell’s thesis by showing how the records of the Convocations and Assembly are integral to the narrative, and by looking beyond a two-year timescale towards a two-decade long one. Gray was limited by the brevity of his studies and presents a rather superficial reading which focuses on the ‘Anglo-Catholic’ tendencies of the proposed revisions, but he does attempt show the continuity of the revision movement from 1906 to 1928. Maiden’s study provides a useful framework for understanding the ecclesiological debate that took place during the crisis, however his understanding of the revision process and debate within the Church of England, rather than within the nation, is restricted, and he draws on few Church sources in his studies. His concern lies with Parliament, and that is where the great strength of his study lies.
Bell’s study is rich in primary source material and, although mainly narrative focused, it does provide a competent interpretation of Davidson’s motivations through the process, and those he interacted with. However, my own reading of the Davidson’s papers suggests that in certain aspects Bell’s picture of Davidson is rather unsympathetic, especially when it comes to Davidson’s commitment to the Prayer Book revision. Bell’s account is not only based on Davidson’s papers, but on his own personal recollection of his time as Archbishop’s Chaplain during the process of revision from 1914 to 1925. Such a closeness to a figure for study provides invaluable viewpoints, but it also creates moments based more on memory and personal recollection than on the documentary evidence that most historians rely on. As such, by returning to Davidson’s papers and placing them into the context of the records of the Convocations and the Assembly, and the Bishops’ Meeting records that Bell did not have access to, this study will judge Davidson solely on the documentary record, and thus at times disagree with the views of Bell.
This work, whilst engaging with these five texts, primarily focuses on source material. Through an analysis of the records of the Convocations and the National Assembly it attempts to understand how the Church constructed the revised Prayer Book and how these discussions and debates showed the Church of England wrestling with theology. The primary sources for this study are the records of the Convocations and of the National/Church Assembly.11 These records provide the accounts of the debates and committees that were primarily concerned with the revision process. Robert Currie considering the crisis pointed out that by the time of the first rejection of the revised Prayer Book in December 1927 “Prayer Book revision was twenty-one years old. It had developed a mystique of its own.”12 By focusing on the records of these bodies, the study hopes to bring to the surface the various trends that coalesced in those 21 years into the book that was presented to Parliament that December.
The study will also seek to demonstrate that the process of Prayer Book revision, and the crisis itself, is not a standalone moment in the history of the Church of England. By examining ecclesiology through the period, specifically understandings of Church-State relations, it will demonstrate how the crisis was an integral part in the shifting view of how independent the Church of England should be from Parliament. Rowan Strong, in a chapter in the third volume of The Oxford History of Anglicanism, provides a comprehensive overview of views within the Church of England in the nineteenth century towards Church and State relations.13 This study will demonstrate the drastic implications the thinking of the nineteenth century had in the twentieth. The system of governance the Church of England currently uses, of an independent synod, lay involvement in decision making, minimal Parliamentary oversight, and the freedom to create its own liturgy, finds its roots in the Prayer Book crisis. In the beginning of the twentieth century the United Kingdom was going through a major shift in how it functioned, from the zenith and sudden eclipse of the British Empire to the dawning of a modern Parliamentary democracy. The Church of England was not immune from this change, and this study will show how it was considering what it meant to be the Church of England in such a time of change. ...