Grace Episcopal Church in Holland, Michigan, has long enjoyed a rich appreciation and understanding of liturgical expression. Throughout the liturgical reform of the 1960s and 1970s the parish served as a pilot congregation in the Diocese of Western Michigan in its study and employment of the many trial liturgies produced by the national church’s Standing Liturgical Commission (SLC). To facilitate ongoing education within the congregation, to foster ongoing discussion of the various proposed liturgies, and to encourage a mechanism for providing feedback to its diocesan worship commission and the SLC, a worship committee was formed in the late 1960s. When the General Convention of 1979 approved the Book of Common Prayer, members of the congregation were well prepared to understand and appreciate its contents and emphases, most especially the weekly celebration of the eucharist.
In 1982 the parish was undergoing a search for a new rector and was fortunate to have one supply priest available for almost the entire period of the search. However, since he had held secular employment for the two decades prior to his retirement, he had not presided at the eucharist with any frequency and he was not at all familiar with the 1979 BCP. At his request the worship committee met with him regularly to familiarize him with the “new” BCP and the worship style of the parish. By that time the committee had expanded its membership to include the chairs of the altar guild, lay readers, acolytes, and choirs, as well as the organist, clergy, a vestry liaison, and interested laity. Those meetings proved educational for all and ensured a consistent and comfortable flow of worship during Sunday services, as well as adherence to the integrity of the rubrics of the BCP.
In 1989 another rector search was initiated, but during this interim more than a dozen supply priests rotated their time and styles at the altar. It was always a bit suspenseful to learn which eucharistic prayer, much less which rite, would be used by which priest at which service. While a few clergy consulted with the wardens or the worship committee, most presided without any familiarity regarding our practices and without informing us of theirs. The acolytes and lay readers became very astute liturgical tap dancers. While at times the choreography and service orders were entertaining and even amusing, they too often were frustrating, fragmented, and confusing for parishioners and visitors alike.
During that eighteen-month interim the worship committee determined it would be very useful for clergy and lay assistants to have a tool outlining our worship practices. We felt there would be three primary benefits effected by such an instrument: continuity of worship; expediency of worship service planning; and heightened liturgical awareness and education among parishioners.
The initial intent was to delineate which eucharistic prayer, intercessory prayer form, and altar furnishings would be appropriate for each season of the church year. We had as our foundation the parish’s historical practices, as well as the desire to expose the congregation to the rich expanse of liturgical options in the BCP. For several years we had customarily changed service music or eucharistic prayers with certain seasons, but those annual planning discussions had often found us scratching our heads to recall what we had done the previous year(s) and what had “worked” well or needed improvement. We had some sense of predictability with certain seasons, such as silent processions during Advent and Lent, and we wanted to include those preferences. So our service grid grew in detail, and we eventually found ourselves scrutinizing every service component. We hoped to develop a tool whereby parishioners, especially youngsters, could anticipate certain seasonal options, such as the lighting of the side-aisle votive candles during the great fifty days of Easter. We strove for continuity of worship experiences throughout the year, though we expected each season to have specific, noticeable distinctions.
About the time our preliminary grid had been drafted and formatted by Dr. Charles Huttar, we called a rector. The template proved very helpful in his quickly becoming accustomed to our worship services. He met with the worship committee each month, and recommended changes were openly discussed and adopted or refined. An associate rector was added to the staff in the mid-1990s. A recent seminary graduate, she was quickly assimilated into leading worship, with the service grid serving as an excellent tool for familiarizing her with our worship practices.
The subsequent addition of a third Sunday morning service was also accomplished more easily because of the grid’s clear delineation of service details. While the music at one service is traditional and the other contemporary, the seasonal changes, such as which form of the Lord’s Prayer is recited, are common in both services. In the summer months when both “congregations” reunite in one service, the liturgy remains comfortable and consistent with their worship experiences of the other nine months of the year.
Ongoing revisions continue with input welcomed from the entire parish. One such noteworthy recommendation was the incorporation of Morning Prayer with Holy Communion during several weeks of the Epiphany and post-Pentecost seasons each year. This blending has resulted in younger parishioners being exposed to the eloquence of those prayers and canticles, while many middle-aged and older members of the congregation enjoy their familiarity from worship of years past.
Deliberate worship commission discussions after each season and their recorded recommendations for successive years ensure the ongoing enhancement of marking the liturgical seasons, while also making more efficient the planning of worship services. Expanded liturgical education is another by-product of the grid, particularly since a youth representative has been appointed to the worship commission for the last several years. Intergenerational conversations about liturgical practices are a fine means of training future lay and clerical church leaders in liturgical foundations. It is likewise important for adults to hear and honor the worship preferences of our younger members.
Having a Sunday service template has proved a helpful tool for clergy and laity in planning worship services. Its adapt- ability and detailed breakdown of service components allows for engaging discussions, while avoiding repetitious dialogue around certain constants. As such, the integrity of worship is consistent, but services can and do incorporate alternatives, which make the seasonal changes noticeable but not distracting.
This template may be reproduced and revised as appropriate by any reader. It may serve as a planning tool for worship commissions and musicians, or as a teaching aid for adult education classes, preparing confirmands, and training lay eucharistic ministers and acolytes. I have also found it very beneficial in my work as an interim priest in encouraging congregations to maintain their continuity with the past, while being receptive to change in the future. As they participate in the thorough planning of worship services, they will retain many of their historical practices, but will also remain open to liturgical options during the interim period and following the arrival of their new rector or vicar. Then does Sunday liturgy truly become the joyful work of all the people of God.