Liturgical intergrity

This week I received another circular from the Prayer Book Society. In the UK this is a group which promotes and monitors the use of the 1662 Prayer Book in public worship in the Church of England. (The 1928 USA prayer book is substantially similar with some of the more florid language removed and replaced). Oddly I am wondering whether to join - although I am not sure that my views would be widely welcomed.
Why would I join such a thing you may ask. Well there is a bit of me that rather likes to revel in Shakesperean English but it is more than that - I would like us to be honest in the way we use our liturgy. Few clergy in parishes can say that they are going to do a 1662 Eucharist service without a shake of the head or a roll of the eyes indicating that they are not looking forward to it and are eager for the day when it can be dropped from the schedule in favour of the more modern liturgical offerings.
Perhaps there is no real argument here - the Eucharist should be open and inviting and using five hundred year old language is simply not appropriate. But if that is the point, if that is what we think then we jolly well ought to show some guts and some leadership and say so. Otherwise, if we are saying that the older liturgy has value we should engage with it and pray through it as we would any other piece of liturgy.
And really this is where my point lies - 1662  as presented in the Book of Common Prayer and in Common Worship Order 2 (traditional language) is a perfectly coherent liturgy in it own right. Yet, many congregations who believe they are using 1662 would be shocked and surprised if they were to be presented with a 1662 service in its extant form. My complaint is that tinkering by well meaning clergy has left us in many places with a sort of dishonesty which we need to clear up.
If a congregation balks at the genuine and complete liturgy we need to explore why that is. I recently attended an 8am which most of its attendees probably believe to be 1662 and the order and many of the words were. But there had been ammendments to make it more palatable  - some of the priest only parts had been converted to congregational parts - nothing which does not happen in the other Eucharistic Orders mind you - the priest added in pieces throughout the service which are from the more modern rites, there was no sermon (and it was a Sunday) and the longer words of distribution were not used. I could go on, and it is easy to pick holes. But my point is that it did not have the rhythm which the authors of the 1662 liturgy intended because of the omissions and interpolations.
I am not making a legal point (although I certainly could) but a practical one. If the service, as written, no longer serves our purpose - if those who think that what they are getting is what they remember as a child 80 years ago and it isn't then we have to be honest about it.
Anyone who has done any level of liturgical and congregational development will know that there is always a heartfelt cry from traditionalists when change is mentioned - perhaps that is why the sneak attack has been so popular. But I wonder whether it is time to confess what has been going on - that, in fact, many Churches are using what was Rite B (1980 ASB) but in a mostly 1662 form.
Does God care how we talk to God? Within these sorts of legalistic strictures I am not sure God does - but that really is not my point - it seems too be a question of integrity. On the one hand we like to wave the historical, liturgical and community banner, on the other we tinker around the edges until we get caught and never really confront the deep seated spiritual and emotional issues of those congregations whose liturgy we are eroding.
Perhaps I would not complain if I went to services where I felt that the clergy were engaging with the liturgy which had been fiddled with but recently experience tells me that all the interpolations are them trying to fix something which they believe to be fundamentally broken. If we are regularly leading services which are using liturgy which we fundamentally disagree with and which annoys us it will come through into lacklustre and disillusioned congregations who may simply be coming to Church out of habit or worse, because they are too frightened not to.
That is why I gave the Prayer Book Society a second thought. Not because I want to reinstate the Prayer Book everywhere, it is simply not always a useful tool, but because I do not think the liturgy in it is broken. It is what it is and if it does not work we have the option not to use it.
If we need to publish a new version of the Prayer Book which maintains some of its integrity but offers a more palatable version (and remember 1928 was never legally approved in England - although from the amount of green books in churches this is hard to judge!) then that is a conversation we need to have. But let's not pretend - this is not about feeding the poor or world peace and some will say it does not matter. But I think it does - our liturgy is, week by week, our public and communal proclamation of who we are, of what we believe, of God's love and mercy to all people - and as such I think it is vital that we examine carefully what we are doing, that we do not call a cow a sheep because it is fluffier.
Jesus was hardest on those who pretended to be something they were not. With all the hypocrisy which besets us I am reluctant to use that word - but that is what this is. We need to express our hearts of love, hearts caught and turned by God in our liturgy - not slug through week by week, wishing it would go away and adding too much sugar, making the unpalatable just sickly sweet.