| THE SYNOD agreed to the drafting of special eucharistic prayers for children, after being told that the number of children who are communicants is increasing.
Introducing the debate, Dana Delap (Durham) told of a church school where children regularly attended a eucharist in the local church and had been well taught and involved in the worship by the vicar; but a new vicar came whose ministry concentrated more on the elderly, and she found it difficult to relate to children. It was in such cases that a liturgy — a eucharistic prayer especially — that was adapted to engage the interests of children would be a real help.
But such a prayer must not be patronising. “We are not looking for armchair liturgy in the motion,” Ms Delap said, “but a prayer full of mystery and awe, both sustaining and evangelising.” It could also be a mistake if such a eucharistic prayer were used on all occasions when a majority of those present were children. She spoke of her own daughter, who enjoyed New Wine worship with bands and hand-raising, while her son was a cathedral chorister who preferred a highly liturgical mass. “Children are individuals, each quite different, with different learning styles and needs.”
Parishes increasingly admitted children to communion before confirmation. In Durham diocese, 35 per cent of parishes did so. The need was particularly for a suitable prayer for children of infant- and junior-school age, where the majority would be communicants. School services were often a wonderful mission opportunity, as both children and adults were drawn to God through awesome and yet accessible worship.
Canon Suzanne Sheriff (York) had found the background documents positive, and commended appreciation of a non-book culture. Set eucharistic prayers for children would help and communicate with occasional attenders, making sure that language was spoken which expressed their feelings.
There was a big difference between “simple” and “simplistic”. A gap in the market needed to be filled. Canon Sheriff was tired of bending the rules, adapting, “working under the radar”. It was important to have language that expressed what people felt.
The Revd Nicola Milford (Exeter) suggested that there was already “an inexhaustible combination of eucharistic prayers” from the Liturgical Commission. Prayer D had been drafted with children in mind. She was not convinced that she could vote in favour: “the provisions we have are more than adequate.”
The Bishop of Wakefield, the Rt Revd Stephen Platten, said that the increasing admission of children to communion had created a new situation. There were now eucharistic celebrations, especially in church schools, where the majority were communicating children. There was a need to look at whether liturgy met those needs.
The Bishop cited A Service of the Word with Holy Communion as ideally suited to such situations, consisting in effect of a series of rubrics and offering enormous flexibility. Just four texts in the service needed to be authorised. But it lacked a eucharistic prayer suitable for children in its entirety — hence the support of the Liturgical Commission for the motion.
Keep the task focused and manageable, he urged. Young people’s worship raised different issues, and the answer might not be more texts.
Barry Higgins (Deaf Anglicans Together), signing his speech through an interpreter, said that he particularly welcomed that part of the proposals that spoke of the provision of high-quality, well-written, linguistically accessible eucharistic prayers. It would be educationally positive as a means of nurturing children in a religious setting.
But plain-English eucharistic prayers were essential, not just for children, but also for adults. They were needed for deaf people who used British Sign Language as a first language or a preferred language. He attended a deaf church, where the chaplain signed parts of the service, but in a “main church” he relied on interpreters. Some were familiar with churches, but others were unfamiliar with what was going on and “frankly, can’t cope”.
Similarly, those whose first language was not English and did not have high levels of English skills also needed eucharistic prayers that retained high quality, beauty, and richness, but used plain English.
Catherine Wiltshire (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) said that it could be more appropriate to familiarise young people with the Church’s shared worship than to introduce a new prayer. Changing the language of a prayer complicated the familiarisation process for children, and the prayer could be out of date by the time they learnt it, and they could have to learn a further prayer when they became adults.
It was a false premise to say that changing language would make the prayer more accessible and manageable. Words themselves did not command attention, what did was the quality of the presentation.
Canon David Bird (Peterborough) had put down two amendments. One was to ask for more than one prayer to meet the needs of different age groups; the other was to make specific mention of young people, not just children, in the motion.
Ms Delap, responding to his first amendment, said that she had sympathy with what he said, but many people already felt overwhelmed by the choice of eucharistic prayers.
The Revd Tim Stratford (Liverpool) urged the Synod to resist it, and stick to the distinct task of eucharistic prayers for use with children: “If Synod asks for a dog’s breakfast, it may get a dog’s breakfast.”
Andrew Britton (Archbishops’ Council) said that costs might increase for more than one prayer. The House of Bishops would have to determine how many were produced.
Dr Anne Toms (Peterborough) supported more than one prayer to cover all potential groups. There was a continuum between children and young people, as there was between other groups; and there were cost savings in bulk purchase.
Canon Bird’s first amendment asking for more than one prayer was passed by a large majority, but Ms Delap then replied to his second, which she resisted. Children generally conformed and accepted what was put to them, she said; but it was the nature of teenagers and young people to rebel.
Richard Whitmill (Church of England Youth Council) agreed that it was important to consult the young people themselves. “If I had had time, I would have consulted my peers. If we are going to talk to young people, then let’s do it properly and go out to talk to them in our parishes and dioceses, not just tack the idea on to this motion.”
The Revd Richard Moy (Lichfield) said that nowhere in the proposals before the Synod was the prayer required to be written: it could be a visual prayer. As a pioneer minister, he would stretch himself to the limit to find ways to use PowerPoint presentations to help him communicate the reality of the eucharist to young people.
Instead of individual ministers’ working to create their own innovative presentations, why could not a series of ten DVDs be produced that could be used as the prayer?
Canon Dr Paul Roberts (Bristol) said that there was a tendency to load eucharistic prayers with credal statements, but simplicity was essential. The Liturgical Commission would need a clear and precise motion to help it to prepare one that would help children and not “explode into some synodically generated nightmare”.
Canon Bird’s second amendment was lost.
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Stephen Venner, had found references to “dumbing-down”, “simplistic”, etc., disconcerting. Worship with children was about opening up to wonder and to the way Jesus made himself known through the whole act of worship, gradually moving towards holy communion. The missing dimension in the debate was the gift of such acts of worship to children and to adults. Children’s worship was “one of the most moving, warming, challenging” aspects of ministry.
Mgr Andrew Faley (Roman Catholic Church) wanted to reflect on the broader context borne out of the RC Church’s 30 years experience of worship with children and eucharistic prayer. Thanksgiving, memory, gift, narrative, petition, and praise were all elements of eucharistic prayers in both traditions. Liturgy should be seen as a context for worship and an opportunity for transformation, particularly in a family context. He urged the Synod to think more imaginatively about how children participated — not as commodities, but as fully active participants.
The Revd Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Durham and Newcastle Universities) said that at a eucharist where all the children were the children of clergy or ordinands, and therefore might be considered to be more familiar with church language than most, they discovered that none of the children understood the word “covenant” and had little understanding of “eternal”, “proclaim”, “resurrection”, and many more. Even “restore” they thought had something to do with shopping.
Not every word in the liturgy needed to be familiar, she said; but the prayer needed to be a bridge to the adult eucharistic texts, and so 90 per cent of the words should be familiar.
Canon Andrew Nunn (Southwark) said that early in his career, he had been recommended to use the BCP prayer for the sick, “because it was short”. But brevity was not important.
Fr Thomas Seville CR (Religious Communities) said that the motion was “a serious mistake”, because liturgical prayer was not primarily about text, but about participation, movement, sign, and words that “are inherently self-critical”. They did not need more prayers, but the Liturgical Commission needed to be encouraged to carry on its work on “transforming worship”.
Education and formation were being confused. The participation in the high priesthood of Christ in the eucharist was not a matter of education and instruction. The liturgy was something that was exposed to the workings of the Holy Spirit, but much of the driving force behind the motion came from a misplaced understanding of the place of education in the worshipping community.
The motion as amended was carried. It reads:
That this Synod request the House of Bishops to commission the expeditious preparation of Eucharistic Prayers suitable for use on occasions when a significant number of children are present or when it is otherwise pastorally appropriate to meet the needs of children present. |
back to Synod reports
previous story
|
next story 
