Introduction
The purpose of this evaluation is to consider the Order of Confirmation in the Chilean Book of Common Prayer of 1973 (hereafter BCP 1973) in the light of the Order of Confirmation in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (hereafter BCP 1662). We understand that the 1662 rite is the normative pattern within our doctrinal standard in the Anglican Church of Chile (hereafter IACH) (see the Constitution of the IACH). Consequently, every subsequent change must be measured against it, both in its liturgical form and in its theological content.
1. Initial Exhortation
BCP 1662: The initial exhortation is doctrinal and catechetical. It establishes as a requirement knowledge of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Short Catechism, so that Confirmation may be a conscious ratification and not a mere formal rite. This reflects an essential Reformed principle: true faith is not a vague feeling, but knowledge of the truth of God, received and confessed by the believer (see Article XVII). Confirmation in 1662 is in continuity with Baptism: what was promised on behalf of the child by godparents is now personally ratified with understanding and faith.
BCP 1973: The introduction is longer and more pastoral in tone. It highlights biblical passages on the laying on of hands and presents Confirmation as a moment of special blessing and renewed commitment.
Evaluation: BCP 1973 shifts the emphasis from doctrinal discipline to subjective experience. The exhortation of 1662 guaranteed preparation in the faith, whereas that of 1973 risks reducing Confirmation to an emotional experience of commitment. The Anglican Reformation understood that the Church must instruct the people in the Word of God so that each liturgical act is a conscious response of faith. By softening this element, BCP 1973 impoverishes the formative character of the rite.
2. Presentation of the Candidates
BCP 1662: There is no formal presentation of the candidates. The focus is not on what the Church declares about them, but on what each person ratifies with his or her own mouth and heart. Confirmation does not depend on a prior declaration by others, but on the personal confession of the catechumen before God and the Church.
BCP 1973: Introduces a presentation of the candidates, affirming that they are baptised, born again, and have received instruction.
Evaluation: A delicate issue arises here. In Reformed theology, the new birth is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, not something that can be generally declared of all who come to Confirmation (see Article XVII). By enunciating it en bloc, BCP 1973 risks confusing ecclesiastical administration with the inner work of God. BCP 1662 avoided this difficulty by concentrating on the candidate’s personal confession, without presuppositions regarding his or her spiritual state. Thus it maintained theological sobriety: the Church administers the means of grace and demands preparation, but acknowledges that only God knows the heart.
3. Examination
BCP 1662: The examination is simple and direct: the bishop asks whether the candidates renew the baptismal promises. The liturgical sobriety aligns with the Reformed principle that Confirmation is not a new sacrament but a public ratification of what was already received in Baptism. The emphasis is on fidelity to baptismal promises and perseverance in faith.
BCP 1973: Expands the examination with several elements: recognition of original sin, repentance, renunciation of the devil and the world, confession of the Creed, personal trust in Christ, and promise of obedience.
Evaluation: This development has a positive side: it introduces clearly the doctrine of original sin (see Article IX), the necessity of repentance, and the confession of the Apostles’ Creed. However, it can also shift the centre. BCP 1662 keeps Confirmation tied to Baptism: it is a ratification. BCP 1973, by contrast, can be understood as a rite of reaffirmation of conversion, more typical of modern Evangelicalism. The doctrinal consequence is that the theology of the rite is altered: it ceases to be confirmation of what was received in Baptism and comes to appear as a new commitment or second decision—something alien to the classical Reformed pattern.
4. Prayer and Laying on of Hands
BCP 1662: Includes a prayer asking for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, godliness, and the fear of the Lord), followed by the laying on of hands with the formula: “Defend, O Lord, this thy Child…”.
BCP 1973: Omits the prayer for the gifts of the Spirit, though it retains a nearly identical laying-on-of-hands formula.
Evaluation: The omission of the prayer for the gifts of the Spirit weakens the pneumatological emphasis. BCP 1662 understood Confirmation as an ecclesial act of prayer for growth in the Christian life. By suppressing that prayer, BCP 1973 reduces the doctrinal and catechetical richness surrounding the Holy Spirit, limiting itself to the formula of laying on of hands without the theological framework that sustained it.
5. The Lord’s Prayer and the Collects
BCP 1662: The Lord’s Prayer is always said, together with two doctrinally rich collects that ask for grace, obedience, and perseverance in the faith.
BCP 1973: Retains the Lord’s Prayer, but opens space for free intercessions and alternative collects.
Evaluation: BCP 1973 diminishes the doctrinal weight of fixed prayers, giving greater space to spontaneity. Though this may encourage congregational participation, it weakens the liturgical uniformity and doctrinal continuity that characterise BCP 1662. The fixed prayers were not empty formalism but a means of transmitting clearly and consistently the Reformed doctrine of grace and perseverance.
6. Reception into the Church
BCP 1662: There is no formal rite of reception. It is simply emphasised that no one may receive Communion without having been confirmed, showing the link between Confirmation and participation in the Lord’s Supper.
BCP 1973: Adds a communal reception with fraternal embrace and public signing of the register of members.
Evaluation: This addition underscores the institutional and communal dimension of ecclesial belonging. It may have pastoral value, but it also risks shifting the emphasis towards sociological identity rather than towards the personal ratification of baptismal promises. At its Reformed root, Confirmation is not an act of registration into a human community but an affirmation of the faith received in Baptism before God and his Church.
7. Final Blessing
BCP 1662: Concludes with a solemn Trinitarian blessing, a condensed expression of the historic faith of the Church.
BCP 1973: Concludes with a biblical blessing from Jude 24-25.
Evaluation: BCP 1973 replaces the traditional formula with a biblical text. While appropriate, the change introduces a significant variation in the liturgical register. The Trinitarian blessing connects with the historic confession and theology of the universal Church; replacing it with an alternative text risks weakening that confessional continuity.
Expanded Evaluation of BCP 1973 in the Light of BCP 1662
The review of the Confirmation rite in BCP 1973 reveals, on the one hand, certain pastoral advantages, but also raises serious risks when measured against the pattern of BCP 1662, which is our doctrinal standard.
Advantages:
- Greater clarity in the profession of faith: The examination in BCP 1973 includes an explicit confession of sin, repentance, renunciation of the devil, confession of the Creed, and promise of obedience. This may be useful in a pastoral context where many candidates lack clarity in basic doctrine or need to affirm personally their faith in Christ.
- Communal integration: The rite of reception with embrace, signature (and in many cases a certificate) may strengthen the sense of belonging in communities needing to consolidate identity and commitment.
- Pastoral tone: BCP 1973 adapts its language to be more accessible and relational, which may aid in the immediate understanding of the liturgical act.
Weaknesses:
- Loss of doctrinal density: By omitting the prayer for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, BCP 1973 reduces the pneumatological and catechetical richness that BCP 1662 placed at the centre of the rite. This impoverishes the understanding of Confirmation as an ecclesial act of prayer for strengthening in faith and growth in the Spirit’s gifts.
- Shift of the formative criterion: Whereas BCP 1662 requires, as a prior condition, proper preparation of those to be confirmed, BCP 1973 transfers the weight to the examination during the liturgy itself. The risk is that Confirmation may become an emotional and momentary act, without the doctrinal solidity that the Church has historically sought to guarantee.
- Redefinition of Confirmation as a rite of belonging: The inclusion of a moment when the confirmed sign the parish register highlights the institutional dimension of belonging. While pastorally useful, this risks eclipsing Confirmation’s principal character as the personal ratification of baptismal promises before God and the congregation.
- Liturgical fragmentation: The opening to spontaneous intercessions and alternative collects introduces variability that may weaken the uniformity and theological continuity that characterise the classical rite of BCP 1662.
- Inconsistency in liturgical language: BCP 1973 alternates between the terms “minister” and “pastor” within the same rite. For example, at one point it states that “the minister shall present the candidates to the bishop”, while later it notes that “the pastor of the church and members of the council” may participate in the reception. This variation may be explained by the historical context in which the book was produced, when many congregations were led by lay ministers and there were few presbyters. Nevertheless, introducing such terminological flexibility opens the door to successive changes that, over time, may dilute the clarity and coherence of our liturgical language. Uniformity in usage is not merely stylistic, but essential to maintaining the doctrinal and ecclesiological integrity characteristic of BCP 1662.
A Question of Authority
Here a fundamental question arises: who decides these changes? Our constitution recognises BCP 1662 as the doctrinal standard. It cannot be overlooked that Confirmation in BCP 1973 represents significant modifications in theology and practice.
Changes of this magnitude cannot depend on the isolated decision of a single individual or even a single body. Does a bishop, by himself, have authority to produce a nationally binding liturgical book? Clearly not. Nor is it sufficient for a synod, on a single occasion, to approve by simple majority a modification of such weight. In the Anglican tradition, when major liturgical reforms are in view, a more rigorous process is normally required: approval in synod with broad majority, confirmation in a subsequent synod, and in many cases higher ratification ensuring continuity and stability (see Article XXXIV).
It should be emphasised that one must not doubt the good intention and honourable character of those who drafted BCP 1973. The ecclesial and pastoral circumstances of that time were very particular and no doubt led to the search for rapid solutions. It is not a matter, therefore, of issuing a personal judgement against them. Yet it must be recognised that decisions taken in pressing situations can have deeper effects with the passage of time. A liturgical alteration, though at first small and apparently necessary, may become the foundation for further modifications. Thus an initial variation may develop into a chain of changes which in the end significantly alter both liturgy and the doctrine it conveys.
For this reason, the question is not one seeking an immediate answer, but rather an invitation to reflect: whenever we introduce a liturgical change, are we fully aware of what we are modifying and of its possible long-term consequences?
The Cumulative Risk
It is important to insist that liturgical changes rarely show their full effect at the outset. An alteration may seem minor and even convenient, but when added to others it may, in accumulation, lead to a rite substantially different from the original pattern. Confirmation in BCP 1973, by omitting a key prayer and adding rites of communal belonging, sets precedents that, if extended, could result in a liturgy substantially distinct from that of BCP 1662.
Another fundamental issue also arises: who holds authority to decide liturgical changes? By definition, the Anglican Church conceives itself as a National Church, which suggests that such decisions must proceed from the Church as a whole and not from particular initiatives. Is it therefore the National Church that must decide such changes? Or do dioceses have freedom to produce their own liturgies? This is a matter that deserves to be discussed seriously and resolved clearly, so that we do not act upon normative vacuums that only generate confusion, alter the unity of the Church, and weaken its common witness. We must not forget that the original purpose of the Book of Common Prayer was precisely to unify liturgy in the life of God’s people. Thomas Cranmer strove earnestly to replace the dispersion of multiple local uses with a single reformed rite, clear and accessible. To abandon that principle would be to endanger the cohesion of the Church and to depart from one of the deepest convictions of our Reformation. When introducing changes, it is wiser to think first and act afterwards.
It should also be remembered that this phenomenon is not merely theoretical. The history of Anglican churches that embraced liberal positions shows that liturgical changes were introduced gradually, almost imperceptibly at first. What seemed small or occasional alterations became, in time, the foundation for new modifications, leading eventually to rites and theologies very different from the classical standard.
The lesson is clear: we must learn from that experience. If we are not careful to preserve fidelity to BCP 1662, each particular liturgical decision—no matter how small it may appear—can become the first step in a series of cumulative changes that profoundly alter the doctrinal identity of the Church.
Conclusion
BCP 1973 cannot be understood simply as a stylistic version of BCP 1662. It represents substantial modifications that alter the orientation of the rite: it shifts catechesis from prior preparation to an examination within the service itself, omits the prayer for the gifts of the Holy Spirit thereby reducing pneumatological density, introduces a strong communal and sociological accent through formal reception, and opens space for greater ritual variability. Although some changes offer evident pastoral advantages, such as clarity in the profession of faith or emphasis on communal integration, the risks of doctrinal loss and progressive departure from the normative standard are plain.
The Church must therefore carefully discern:
• Which adaptations are legitimate.
• Which compromise fidelity to the received pattern.
• And who possesses authority to introduce changes, avoiding situations where occasional decisions uproot the confessional continuity that guarantees our Anglican identity.
At the same time, it must be remembered that this is not a matter of questioning the honour or good intentions of those who produced BCP 1973. The circumstances of that moment were very particular and explain the search for practical and rapid solutions. Nevertheless, the experience of other Anglican provinces teaches that gradual liturgical changes can, in time, profoundly transform the doctrine and identity of the Church.
The lesson is clear: we must learn from history. Without idealising BCP 1662, we recognise in it a book with clear, Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical theology. Changes are not in themselves negative, but they must be undertaken for the right reasons and by the proper processes, so that they strengthen rather than weaken the Church’s fidelity to the tradition it has received.
Moreover, this analysis highlights a wider need: the importance of training both clergy and people in knowledge of their liturgy, particularly of that which we acknowledge as our doctrinal standard. If BCP 1662 is the pattern that ensures continuity and theological fidelity, it is urgent to promote its study, understanding, and use. For this, it is equally necessary to produce an updated and accessible edition of BCP 1662, so that it may be applied clearly in the life of the Church and transmitted to new generations.
Soli Deo gloria
©Samuel Morrison 2025
