Why 1662 matters in Creationtide

Following on from the recent post defending Creationtide, it might be wondered if 1662 has any place in its observance. We might think not, whether we are enthusiastic progressive supporters of the Season of Creation or those who bemoan it as another sign of the Church embracing a 'woke' agenda. Contrary to both, however, 1662 (here used as shorthand for the 'classical Prayer Book tradition') offers in three ways a liturgy with deep theological foundations significant for observing Creationtide.

Firstly, a rich theology of creation is built into Mattins and Evensong.  The opening exhortation call on us "to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul", reminding us that we embodied beings with creaturely, physical requirements dependent upon the environment. At Mattins, the Venite praises the God in whose "hands are all the corners of the earth ... and his hands prepared the dry land". The Te Deum rejoices that "Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty: of thy glory", a joy that is given particular expression in Benedicite: "O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord".  The alternative canticles at Evensong, Cantate Domino and Deus Misereatur, rejoice with the created order before the Lord: "Let the sea make a noise, and all that therein is: the round world, and they that dwell therein"; "Then shall the earth bring forth her increase: and God, even our own God, shall give us his blessing". The doctrinal significance of this praise is then proclaimed morning and evening in the Apostles' Creed: "Maker of heaven and earth". Creationtide flows from and is dependent upon a rich Christian theology of creation. Such a theology is much more evident in the 1662 offices than in many contemporary Anglican variants. Indeed, the widespread absence of the Creed in those variants removes from the offices the dogmatic confession at the very heart of Creationtide.

Secondly, 1662's robust Augustinian theology of sin more effectively captures the dynamics of environmental exploitation and degradation than is the case with the rather reticent approach of many contemporary liturgies to sin: "our manifold sins and wickedness ... not dissemble nor cloke them before the face of Almighty God ... We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts ... And there is no health in us".  The Communion does likewise: "in love and charity with your neighbours ... We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness".  Any meaningful approach by the Church to the stark environmental challenges faced by this age must include the realism of an Augustinian theology of sin and a recognition that the exploitation and degradation of the created order is primarily a spiritual matter, flowing from the truth that "We have offended against thy holy laws".  To put it bluntly, a few platitudes associated with a Kyrie confession in Creationtide falls dramatically short of 1662's acknowledgement of that "there is no health in us", that our relationship with the created order is profoundly disordered.

Thirdly, contemporary liturgies are often characterised by an embarrassment when it comes to recognition in prayer of our dependence upon and, equally, the fragility of the environment.  The 'Prayers and Thanksgivings' of 1662 include prayers 'For Rain', 'For fair Weather', and 'In the time of Dearth and Famine'. The thanksgiving include those 'For Rain' and 'For fair Weather'.  By contrast, it is very rare indeed for contemporary Anglican liturgies to include such prayers and thanksgivings, presumably having lost theological confidence in any notion that God is interested in the rain, weather, and thus the land: a weak vision of God that fails to resonate in a time of pronounced environmental challenges. 1662's unembarrassed understanding of providence results in a willingness to pray and to give thanks for rain and fair weather that is much closer to the concerns of Creationtide - and the patterns of prayer Creationtide seeks to encourage - than many contemporary liturgies.

1662, therefore, can have a deep relevance for Creationtide (itself a reminder of the flexibility of the Prayer Book offices).  Contemporary liturgies are too often marked by a theological shallowness that contribute to a theologically shallow observance of Creationtide.  What is needed is a rich theology of creation, a robust Augustinian view of human sinfulness, and a confident understanding of the providence by which God sustains the creation.  In other words, 1662 has much to offer any observance of Creationtide.