Introduction

In 1928 Parliament rejected revisions to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) in what became known as the “Prayer Book crisis.”²2 On this, see: D. Cruickshank, The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis, 1906–1928 (Cham: Palgrave Pivot, 2019); M. Grimley, Citizenship, Community, and the Church of England: Liberal Anglican Theories of the State Between the Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), chap. 4; J. Maiden, National Religion and the Prayer Book Controversy, 1927–1928 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009).
With the rejection of the 1928 Prayer Book the BCP remained the only legal text of the Church of England, despite its age, and against the wishes of many clerics. And, as a result of this shock the Church did not embark upon wholesale liturgical reform again for several decades. From 1965, however, a series of new services were introduced as part of a process of a process of experimentation. These texts, known as Series 1, 2, and 3, started as developments of the failed 1928 Prayer Book, but over time became more radical. By the 1970s their use was widespread in the Church. Indeed, there was little liturgical uniformity in England.³3 E. Filby, God and Mrs Thatcher: The Battle for Britain's Soul (London: Biteback, 2015), 152; R. C. D. Jasper, The Development of the Anglican Liturgy, 1662–1980 (London: SPCK, 1989), 342–66.
Meanwhile, in 1974 the (recently established) General Synod passed the (not uncontroversial) Worship and Doctrine Measure, permitting reform of the liturgy with the proviso that the BCP was to remain available for use. Yet even as the measure was in Synod a “BCP Action Group” were attempting to derail it. They believed that the “measure will deprive people of what is presently their automatic right to their spiritual birthright,” and that “by their encouraging of the alternatives and neglect of the BCP it is reasonable to assume that they wish to kill the BCP,” something which, they claimed, “[w]e know to be against the wishes of a large proportion of the laity.”⁴4 “Bid to Delay Key Church Measure,” Church Times, 14 June 1974, 1 + 20.
They rejected the views of the Synod as unrepresentative, being elected by only 3 per cent of the Church's total franchisees. They sought to get the Joint Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament to act against it, to prevent it becoming law.⁵5 “Bid to Delay Key Church Measure,” 1.
The appeal failed, yet it set the tone for the next decade, a period in which proponents of the BCP fought a campaign to protect the 1662 text. A heated war of words took place in the columns and letter pages of not only the Church Times, but also in the national broadsheet newspapers, supplemented by books such as Ritual Murder: Essays on Liturgical Reform (1980) and No Alternative: The Prayer Book Controversy (1981).⁶6 B. Morris, ed., Ritual Murder: Essays on Liturgical Reform (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1980); D. Martin and P. Mullen, eds, No Alternative: The Prayer Book Controversy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981).
When Will Ye Be Wise? (1983), edited by Anthony Kilmister of the Prayer Book Society, and the strikingly titled The Church in Crisis (1986) also contained sections on the issue.⁷7 D. Martin, “Where Stands the Prayer Book Now?,” in When Will Ye Be Wise?: The State of the Church of England, ed. C. A. A. Kilmister (London: Blond & Briggs, 1983), 150–68; C. Moore, G. Stamp, and A. N. Wilson, The Church in Crisis: A Critical Assessment of the Current State of the Church of England (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1986), 19–25.

From 1974 onwards, Parliament became a battleground for liturgical disputes. On 21 March 1978 Lord Sudeley introduced a Prayer Book (Ballot of Laity) Bill into the House of Lords. His concern was that not enough was being done to protect the 1662 text, nor to prevent parishioners' liturgical wishes being overridden by the desires of antagonistic incumbents. He does not seem to have expected the bill to succeed, merely hoping to open up a debate on the issue.⁸8 UK Parliamentary Debates, Lords, 5th ser., vol. 389 (1978), cols. 1725–85; “Bill to Allow Ballots on New Services Withdrawn,” Church Times, 31 March 1978, 20.
Three years later, on 8 April 1981, Sudeley introduced another remarkable piece of legislation into the House of Lords, a Prayer Book (Protection) Bill, again aimed at preventing the 1662 text from disappearing from church use. Both bills sought to give the laity the power to request continued use of the BCP: the 1978 bill required lay consent for liturgical alternatives to be offered on the parish level, whilst that of 1981 would have allowed twenty or more parishioners to petition for at least one Prayer Book service a month. Further, the Protection Bill would have made it a criminal offence for a cleric to refuse to use the BCP.⁹9 “Accept Ye No Alternative,” Guardian, 8 April 1981, 12.
The bill, “intended more as a propaganda exercise than anything,” according to Anthony Kilminster of the Prayer Book Society (a point reinforced in the memoirs of fellow PBS man David Martin), got further than some expected, in spite of government opposition.¹⁰10 “BCP ‘Propaganda Exercise’ Delights its Supporters,” Church Times, 16 April 1981, 1, 20; D. Martin, The Education of David Martin: The Making of an Unlikely Sociologist (London: SPCK, 2013), 173; “BCP Bill Over the First Parliamentary Hurdles,” Church Times, 16 April 1981, 20. David Martin (1929–2019), a figure who appears frequently here, was a Professor of Sociology at the LSE, and later an Anglican priest. His academic research focused on the sociology of religion.
Sudeley introduced it again in April 1984, this time with less success, although with similar motivations.¹¹11 Parl. Deb., Lords, 5th ser., 450 (1984): 1208–66.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is served by a mixed historiography. Although there are several works covering its history there are few which engage with the contemporary period in any extended way.¹²12 A general overview of twentieth-century liturgical change throughout the Anglican Communion can be found in L. Weil, “Liturgical Renewal and Modern Anglican Liturgy,” in The Oxford History of Anglicanism: Volume IV: Global Western Anglicanism, c.1910–Present, ed. J. Morris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 50–67.
David Martin, one of the principal participants, provided a useful narrative in 1999, whilst Colin Buchanan's chapter on “Preserving the Classical Prayer Books” also mentions the foundation of the Prayer Book Society and offers a brief account of the events of the period.¹³13 D. Martin, “The Stripping of the Words: Conflict over the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church,” Modern Theology 15, 2 (1999), 247–61; C. Buchanan, “Preserving the Classical Prayer Books,” in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, ed. C. Hefling and C. Shattuck (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 261–67; 266–67.
R. C. D. Jasper's The Development of the Anglican Liturgy, 1662–1980 covers the introduction of the Alternative Service Book (ASB) from a contemporary perspective, although it does not engage fully with the BCP debate.¹⁴14 Jasper, The Development of the Anglican Liturgy, chap.15.
A discussion of the theological development of the Anglican Communion service can be found in a thesis by Edward Lloyd.¹⁵15 E. G. Lloyd, “The Revision of the Eucharist in the Church of England: A study of Liturgical Change in the Twentieth Century” (PhD diss., University of Durham, 1997).
Likewise, Vernon Bogdonor argues that the 1981 bill illustrated an increasing gulf between Parliament and the Church, but does not pursue a wider discussion of the topic.¹⁶16 V. Bogdonor, The Monarchy and the Constitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 225.
Canon Peter Moger's chapter on “The Prayer Book in a Mixed Liturgical Economy” again discusses the relationship between the BCP and the ASB, but is not an historical study.¹⁷17 P. Moger, “The Prayer Book in a Mixed Liturgical Economy,” in The Book of Common Prayer: Past, Present & Future, ed. P. Dailey (London: Continuum, 2011), 140–50.
The theological implications of the Faith and Worship Measure, 1974 for the legal status of the Prayer Book have also been briefly considered by Paul Benfield.¹⁸18 P. Benfield, “The Legal and Constitutional Position of the Book of Common Prayer,” Faith and Worship 78 (Lent 2016 ): 19–32.
The passage of the 1974 Worship and Doctrine Measure through Parliament was itself the subject of an article by Gavin White in 1982.¹⁹19 G. White, “‘No One is Free from Parliament’: The Worship and Doctrine Measure in Parliament 1974,” Studies in Church History 18 (1982): 557–65.
Two modern assessments of the controversy, by Eliza Filby and Jeremy Morris, offer only brief accounts, both in the wider context of Anglicanism in Britain.²⁰20 Filby's thesis was slightly adapted for publication, hence both are cited here. E. Filby, “God and Mrs Thatcher: Religion and Politics in 1980s Britain” (PhD diss., University of Warwick, 2010), 161–63; Filby, God and Mrs Thatcher, 150–52; J. Morris, “Anglicanism in Britain and Ireland,” in The Oxford History of Anglicanism: Volume IV, ed. Morris, 425–26. The history of the Church as a whole during this period is also covered in A. Chandler, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century: The Church Commissioners and the Politics of Reform, 1948–1998 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006); H. Clark, The Church Under Thatcher (London: SPCK, 1993); A. Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 1920–2000 (London: SCM Press, 2001), chap. 39; A. Partington, Church and State: The Contribution of the Church of England Bishops to the House of Lords During the Thatcher Years (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006); P. A. Welsby, A History of the Church of England, 1945–1980 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
There are, therefore, no writings that consider the history of the Prayer Book in the context of church reform since 1974: this limited historiography belies what was a significant conflict within the Church of England.²¹21 P. Bradshaw, “Liturgical Development: From Common Prayer to Uncommon Worship,” in Comfortable Words: Polity, Piety and The Book of Common Prayer, ed. S. Platten and C. Woods (London: SCM Press, 2012), 121–31 gives a very brief overview.

This article seeks to consider this defence of the Prayer Book during the 1970s and 1980s for several reasons. First, it will explore the cultural question of why people sought to defend the BCP, and whether their concerns were doctrinal, liturgical, or aesthetic. In doing this it will show the extent to which the BCP was seen as a vital text both by its church supporters and by the cultural establishment. This was, however, tied to another motivation: a revulsion at the modern liturgical language in the revised texts on offer, especially the ASB. Yet it will also become apparent that its advocates saw defence of the BCP as a vital part of ensuring doctrinal continuity within the Church. By placing these debates in context, it will further expose issues within the governance system of the Church during this period. It will argue that the “BCP crisis,” such as it was, stemmed from deep-seated distrust within the Church which highlighted divisions over doctrine, language, and institutions. It will additionally demonstrate the significant differences between the two sides about the nature of the Church of England as a national religion, especially the role of the state in its governance. After all, not since 1874 had ecclesiastical legislation been passed by Parliament without the consent of the Church.²²22 Parl. Deb., Lords, 5th ser., 450 (1984): 1218–19.
Lastly, it will propose that, with some caveats, the Prayer Book Society's campaign was broadly successful in achieving its aims of preventing the BCP from the very real possibility of disappearing into history. These debates influenced the way in which liturgical reform took place during the 1990s. Filby argued in her thesis that the defence of the BCP should be seen as having been “deliberately fashioned as a defence of Englishness, rather than as an Anglican or religious issue,” focusing on its “literary significance” and “popular religiosity.”²³23 Filby, “God and Mrs Thatcher,” 162.
This significantly understates the issues that were being discussed. She was, however, closer to the truth when she later described it as “a dogged defence of the old trinity of Englishness, Anglicanism and Toryism.”²⁴24 Filby, God and Mrs Thatcher, 152.
Whether intentionally or not, the BCP's supporters offered a wide critique of the Church as they saw it. For them it was formed of the whole nation, responsive to the laity and the state, with the BCP as its fundamental (although not sole) liturgy. And their campaign (and the response to it) highlights how far this conception was divorced from the direction in which the Church was travelling during this period. The struggle over the BCP was, therefore, a “presenting issue” in a struggle between two sides. The first group sought to defend a traditional, English, Protestant church, embodied (as they saw it) in the BCP.²⁵25 At least one writer made explicit his belief that the BCP supported the “[i]ndependence of National Churches,” in that “[t]he essay ‘Of Ceremonies’ ends by… claiming the right to order worship for its own realm, without being obliged to obey directives from Rome or to follow examples set in Zürich or Geneva”: R. Beckwith, “Doctrine and Devotion,” in No Alternative, ed. Martin and Mullen, 77–78. To this could be added David Martin's argument that “the new products do not arise from the People, but are devised in agencies, some of them international, and disseminated downwards”: D. Martin, “Alternative – or Replacement?,” Letter to the Editor, Church Times, 1 August 1980, 10.
The second group was more internationalist, ecumenical, and less historically minded. These people, who were mostly clerics and theologians, sought to use the drive for clearer liturgical language as a vehicle to move the Church towards their goals.

中文翻译：

---

祈祷书之争，c.1974–c.2000：二十世纪后期英格兰的礼仪、教会和议会1

介绍

1928 年，议会否决了对 1662 年公祷书(BCP) 的修订，这被称为“祈祷书危机”。²2关于这一点，请参阅：D. Cruickshank，The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis，1906-1928（Cham：Palgrave Pivot，2019）；M. Grimley，《公民身份、社区和英格兰教会：两战之间国家的自由圣公会理论》（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2004 年），第 3 章。4; J. Maiden，《民族宗教与祈祷书之争》，1927–1928 年（伍德布里奇：博伊德尔，2009 年）。
尽管 1928 年的祈祷书被拒绝，但 BCP 仍然是英国国教唯一的法律文本，尽管其年代久远，并且违背了许多神职人员的意愿。并且，作为这次冲击的结果，教会几十年来没有再次开始大规模的礼仪改革。然而，从 1965 年开始，作为试验过程的一部分，引入了一系列新服务。这些被称为系列 1、2 和 3 的文本开始于 1928 年失败的祈祷书的发展，但随着时间的推移变得更加激进。到 1970 年代，它们在教会中广泛使用。事实上，英格兰几乎没有统一的礼仪。³3 E. Filby，上帝和撒切尔夫人：英国灵魂之战（伦敦：Biteback，2015 年），152；RCD Jasper, The Development of the Anglican Liturgy, 1662–1980 (London: SPCK, 1989), 342–66。
同时，在 1974 年（最近成立的）总主教会议通过了（并非没有争议的）崇拜和教义措施，允许对礼仪进行改革，但前提是 BCP 仍可使用。然而，即使该措施是在主教会议上进行的，一个“BCP 行动小组”也在试图破坏它。他们认为，“该措施将剥夺人们目前自动享有的精神与生俱来的权利”，并且“通过鼓励替代方案和忽视 BCP，可以合理地假设他们希望杀死 BCP，”他们声称，“[我们]知道这违背了大部分俗人的意愿。” ⁴4 “Bid to Delay Key Church Measure”，Church Times，1974 年 6 月 14 日，1 + 20。
他们拒绝了同理的观点，作为一个不成绩，只有3％的教会的总特许经营者所选。他们试图让议会联合教会委员会采取行动反对它，以防止它成为法律。⁵5 “投标推迟关键教会措施”，1。
上诉失败了，但它为接下来的十年定下了基调，在此期间，BCP 的支持者发起了一场保护 1662 年文本的运动。一场激烈的口水战不仅发生在《教会时报》的专栏和信件页面上，也发生在全国性大报上，并辅以仪式谋杀：礼仪改革随笔（1980）和没有替代品：祈祷书等书籍争议（1981）。⁶6 B. Morris, ed., Ritual Murder: Essays on Liturgical Reform (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1980)；D. Martin 和 P. Mullen, eds, No Alternative: The Prayer Book Controversy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981)。
你们什么时候会明智？（1983 年），由祈祷书协会的安东尼·基尔米斯特（Anthony Kilmister）编辑，标题引人注目的危机中的教会（1986 年）也包含有关该问题的部分。⁷7 D. 马丁，“祈祷书现在在哪里？”，《你何时会明智？：英格兰教会现状》，编辑。CAA Kilmister（伦敦：Blond & Briggs，1983），150–68；C. Moore、G. Stamp 和 AN Wilson，危机中的教会：对英格兰教会现状的批判性评估（伦敦：Hodder 和 Stoughton，1986 年），19-25。

从 1974 年起，议会成为礼仪纠纷的战场。1978 年 3 月 21 日，苏德利勋爵将祈祷书（平信徒选票）法案引入上议院。他担心的是，没有采取足够的措施来保护 1662 年的文本，也没有采取足够的措施来防止教区居民的礼拜愿望被敌对的现任者的愿望所取代。他似乎并不指望该法案会成功，只是希望就此问题展开辩论。⁸8英国议会辩论，上议院，第 5 卷，第一卷。389 (1978), cols. 1725-85 年；“允许取消新服务投票的法案”，《教会时报》，1978 年 3 月 31 日，20。
三年后，即 1981 年 4 月 8 日，苏德利向上议院提出了另一项非凡的立法，即祈祷书（保护）法案，再次旨在防止 1662 年的文本从教堂使用中消失。两项法案都试图赋予平信徒要求继续使用 BCP 的权力：1978 年的法案要求在教区级别提供礼拜替代方案获得世俗同意，而 1981 年的法案将允许 20 名或更多的教区居民申请至少每月一次祈祷书服务。此外，保护法案会将神职人员拒绝使用 BCP 定为刑事犯罪。⁹9 “Accept Ye No Alternative”, Guardian , 8 April 1981, 12。
根据祈祷书协会的安东尼·基尔明斯特（Anthony Kilminster）的说法（这一点在 PBS 同事大卫·马丁的回忆录中得到了加强），该法案“更像是一种宣传活动，而不是任何事情”，尽管遭到政府的反对，但仍超出了一些人的预期。¹⁰10 “BCP '宣传运动'令其支持者高兴”，《教会时报》，1981 年 4 月 16 日，1, 20；D. 马丁，大卫·马丁的教育：不太可能的社会学家的形成（伦敦：SPCK，2013 年），173；“关于第一次议会障碍的 BCP 法案”，《教会时报》，1981 年 4 月 16 日，20。大卫·马丁（David Martin，1929-2019 年）是一位经常出现在这里的人物，他是伦敦政治经济学院的社会学教授，后来是圣公会牧师。他的学术研究侧重于宗教社会学。
Sudeley 于 1984 年 4 月再次引入了它，这一次成功率较低，但动机相似。¹¹11 帕尔。Deb ., Lords, 5th ser., 450 (1984): 1208–66。

1662 年的《公祷书》采用混合史料编撰。尽管有几部作品涵盖了其历史，但很少以任何扩展的方式涉及当代。¹²12对整个英国圣公会 20 世纪礼仪变化的总体概述可以在 L. Weil 的“礼仪更新和现代英国圣公会礼仪”中找到，在牛津英国圣公会历史：第四卷：全球西方英国圣公会，约 1910 年至今，编辑。J. 莫里斯（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2017 年），50-67。
主要参与者之一大卫·马丁 (David Martin) 在 1999 年提供了有用的叙述，而科林·布坎南 (Colin Buchanan) 的“保存古典祈祷书”一章也提到了祈祷书协会的成立，并简要介绍了该时期的事件。¹³13 D. 马丁，“文字的剥离：圣公会圣体圣事的冲突”，现代神学15, 2 (1999), 247-61；C. Buchanan，“保存经典祈祷书”，《牛津普通祈祷书指南：全球调查》，编辑。C. Hefling 和 C. Shattuck（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2006 年），261-67；266-67。
RCD Jasper 的The Development of the Anglican Liturgy, 1662–1980涵盖了从当代角度介绍 Alternative Service Book (ASB)，尽管它没有完全参与 BCP 辩论。¹⁴14 Jasper，圣公会礼仪的发展，第15 章。
爱德华·劳埃德 (Edward Lloyd) 的一篇论文对圣公会圣餐服务的神学发展进行了讨论。¹⁵15 EG Lloyd，“英格兰教会圣体圣事的修订：二十世纪礼仪变化研究”（博士论文，达勒姆大学，1997 年）。
同样，弗农·博格多诺 (Vernon Bogdonor) 认为，1981 年的法案说明议会与教会之间的鸿沟越来越大，但并未对该主题进行更广泛的讨论。¹⁶16 V. Bogdonor，君主制与宪法（牛津：牛津大学出版社，1995 年），225。
Canon Peter Moger 的“混合礼仪经济中的祈祷书”一章再次讨论了 BCP 和 ASB 之间的关系，但不是历史研究。¹⁷17 P. Moger，在“在混合礼仪经济祈祷书”的公祷书：过去，现在与未来，编辑。P. Dailey（伦敦：Continuum，2011 年），140-50。
保罗·本菲尔德 (Paul Benfield) 也简要考虑了 1974 年信仰和敬拜措施对祈祷书法律地位的神学影响。¹⁸18 P. Benfield，“公祷书的法律和宪法立场”，信仰与敬拜78（Lent 2016）：19-32。
1974 年通过议会的崇拜和教义措施本身就是 Gavin White 1982^年一篇文章的主题。¹⁹19 G. 怀特，“‘没有人能脱离议会’：1974 年议会中的敬拜和教义措施” ，教会历史研究18（1982）：557-65。
Eliza Filby 和 Jeremy Morris 对争议的两项现代评估仅提供了简短的说明，两者都在英国圣公会更广泛的背景下。²⁰20 Filby 的论文稍有改动以供发表，因此这里都引用了这两篇论文。E. Filby，“上帝与撒切尔夫人：1980 年代英国的宗教与政治”（博士论文，华威大学，2010 年），161-63；菲尔比，上帝和撒切尔夫人，150-52；J. 莫里斯，“英国和爱尔兰的圣公会”，《牛津圣公会历史：第四卷》，编辑。莫里斯，425-26。A. Chandler, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century: The Church Commissions and the Politics of Reform, 1948–1998 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006)也介绍了这一时期整个教会的历史；H. Clark, The Church Under Thatcher（伦敦：SPCK，1993）；A. 黑斯廷斯，英国基督教史，1920-2000（伦敦：SCM 出版社，2001 年），第 1 章。39; A. Partington, Church and State: The Contribution of the Church of England Bishops at the House of Lords during the Thatcher Years (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006); PA Welsby, A History of the Church of England, 1945–1980 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)。
因此，自 1974 年以来，没有任何著作在教会改革的背景下考虑祈祷书的历史：这种有限的历史编纂掩盖了英格兰教会内部的重大冲突。²¹21 P. Bradshaw，“礼仪发展：从普通祈祷到不寻常的崇拜”，用舒适的话：政体、虔诚和普通祈祷书，编辑。S. Platten 和 C. Woods（伦敦：SCM Press，2012 年），121-31 给出了非常简要的概述。

出于几个原因，本文试图探讨 1970 年代和 1980 年代对祷告书的这种辩护。首先，它将探讨人们为什么要捍卫 BCP 以及他们的关注是教义、礼仪还是美学的文化问题。在这样做时，它将显示 BCP 在多大程度上被其教会支持者和文化机构视为重要的文本。然而，这与另一个动机有关：对提供的修订文本中的现代礼仪语言的反感，尤其是 ASB。然而，显而易见的是，其倡导者将捍卫 BCP 视为确保教会内教义连续性的重要组成部分。通过将这些辩论放在上下文中，它将进一步暴露这一时期教会治理系统中的问题。它会争辩说，像这样的“BCP 危机”源于教会内部根深蒂固的不信任，突出了教义、语言和机构的分歧。它还将进一步证明双方在英格兰教会作为国教的性质，特别是国家在其治理中的作用方面存在显着差异。毕竟，自 1874 年以来，议会从未在未经教会同意的情况下通过教会立法。²²22 帕尔。Deb ., Lords, 5th ser., 450 (1984): 1218–19。
最后，它会提出，尽管有一些警告，但祈祷书协会的运动在实现其目标方面取得了广泛的成功，即防止 BCP 真正有可能消失在历史中。这些辩论影响了 1990 年代礼仪改革的方式。菲尔比在她的论文中认为，对 BCP 的辩护应该被视为“被故意塑造为对英国性的辩护，而不是英国国教或宗教问题”，重点是其“文学意义”和“大众宗教信仰”。²³23菲尔比，“上帝和撒切尔夫人”，162。
这大大低估了正在讨论的问题。然而，当她后来将其描述为“对英国人、英国国教和托利党的古老三位一体的顽强捍卫”时，她更接近真相。²⁴24菲尔比，上帝和撒切尔夫人，152。
无论有意与否，BCP 的支持者都对他们所看到的教会提出了广泛的批评。对他们来说，它是由整个民族组成的，对俗人和国家做出反应，并将 BCP 作为其基本（尽管不是唯一）的礼仪。他们的竞选活动（以及对它的回应）凸显了这一概念与教会在此期间前进的方向背道而驰的程度。因此，关于过境点的斗争是双方斗争中的一个“呈现问题”。第一组试图捍卫一个传统的、英国的、新教教会，体现在（如他们所见）BCP 中。²⁵25至少一位作家明确表示他相信 BCP 支持“[i] 国家教会的独立”，因为“[t]他的文章‘仪式’的结尾是……声称有权为自己的领域安排崇拜，不必遵守罗马的指示或遵循苏黎世或日内瓦的榜样”：R. Beckwith，“教义与奉献”，No Alternative，ed。马丁和马伦，77-78。对此可以补充大卫马丁的论点，即“新产品不是来自人民，而是由机构设计，其中一些是国际性的，并向下传播”：D. Martin，“替代 - 或替代？”，致信编辑，《教会时报》，1980 年 8 月 1 日，10。
第二组更国际化、更普世、更没有历史头脑。这些人主要是神职人员和神学家，他们试图将追求更清晰的礼仪语言作为推动教会实现目标的工具。