Dear Reader,
Following this past Sunday's
remembrances of the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks
on the United States, I am compelled to reflect upon the intersection of
liturgy and public life. Like many, this is an intersection that I
avoid because we've all seen it navigated quite poorly. I will humbly
attempt to set out the dangers of navigating this poorly as well as the
dangers of avoiding it all together. I will then conclude with some
thoughts on engaging this difficult intersection rightly.
You're doing it wrong: Church and state a wee bit too cozy
Much of why I typically avoid engaging public observances
liturgically is rooted in seeing it done so poorly so often. What
immediately comes to mind is the often onerous task of going to Church
on the Fourth of July (or the Sunday nearest). I am proud to be an
American, but flag-waving (sometimes literally) during the celebration
taking place in the Kingdom of Heaven is wantonly inappropriate. Liturgy
transcends national allegiances and raises us to the higher truth that
our first and primary citizenship is found in Heaven, rather than in any
nation (no matter how great) of this world. This is the first danger,
of making the worship of God and allegiance to the state one and the
same. I am a loyal American and a loyal Priest of the Church--but these
are two separate commitments, with my commitment to Christ and His
Church necessarily trumping my commitment to our great nation.
It is easy enough for the observer to discern when love of God
and love of country are made to be one and the same thing, but what
about a second danger that is more subtle? In some cases love of country
is presented as a component, a necessary part, of loving God rightly.
This can be more difficult to root out, because instead of conflating
love of God with love of country, one takes the qualities of a faithful
relationship with God (e.g. loyalty, love, devotion, allegiance) and
then concludes that if God calls us to be loyal and loving people--which
He does--we should then exhibit love and loyalty to the state as well.
Of course, we cannot be loyal to the state when it opposes God, so this
cannot be always true. In short, the more subtle form of this problem is
presented that the kind of person who loves God rightly is also the
kind of person who is loyal to his or her state.
With both of these errors, it's mostly a matter of degree of
error rather than of kind. We Americans in particular need to be mindful
of our collective tendency to assume that God has a special interest in
the United Sates that He does not have everywhere else. It is certainly
true that God has used our country for good, just as he has used rulers
in every age of history for good. But we would do well to remember how
absurd it would be if the paintbrush assumed that a masterpiece was
glorious due to its qualities rather than the fact that it was used by
the master artist. However God may choose to use America to paint a
small portion of the history that He is unfolding, we are still just a
brush. Love of God and loyalty to the state must always be separate,
even when the state is used for good.
Where are we going? And why are we in this hand basket?
While it is an error for the Church to get too cozy with the
state, it is also an error for the Church to abdicate her rightful role
to proclaim the Gospel in society. I found it heartbreaking to watch
some of the 9/11 memorial ceremony at Ground Zero in which no clergy
were involved, "meditative silence" replaced actual prayer, and
Shakespeare and Scripture were both read with equal reverence and
dignity. Certainly we can do better than having civic memorial events
that are so blatantly secular. I much rather would have waited quietly
for the Christian cleric's turn to pray in a long line of
representatives from every religion imaginable than to do whatever it is
I was supposed to do in the quiet of my heart after hearing from
Shakespeare. The Church has a place in wider culture, and however one
articulates that, there is no getting out of the fact that part of our
being in the world but not of it is to be in the midst of all of the
triumph and tragedy that happen in the world. We cannot permit all of
religion to be pushed to the sidelines when there is a public observance
to take place. On this I would gladly stand with persons of any faith
and oppose the false notion that one can properly remember the dead
without being at all religious.
In addition to the Church being in the public square, there is
also the issue of how to observe national events within the context of a
Sunday liturgy in the Church. Since the liturgy is the work of all of
the people, and the gathering together of the prayers of the faithful,
it would have been dishonest to have Mass on Sunday while pretending
that it wasn't the 10th anniversary of 9/11. To ignore civic
observances, especially one that has to do with remembering the dead and
the living who still suffer, is a grave error indeed. It is good and
right to situate such things within the context of the liturgy of the
Church and to interpret such events through the lens of the Gospel. We
cannot ignore elephants in the room, even if it means it will be a lot
of work to do liturgy well on a particular day. We must deal with what
is up and alive in our communities, and this will at times require us to
engage with a civic remembrance.
Thoughts on the way forward: Handling this intersection rightly
Since we cannot conflate love of God with loyalty to the state,
and since the Church is responsible for proclaiming the Gospel in all
places, including the public square, we must sort out how to rightly
deal with in intersection of the civic and the Sacred. As with most
things, it seems like a great part of the way forward is to make sure
our various concerns and commitments are properly ordered. I'll offer
some questions to help one tease this out, regardless of what observance
is being dealt with:
1. Is love of God and fidelity to Church teaching clearly seen as the highest good?
2.
Does whatever Church observance (e.g. Sunday Mass) appear to be the
context in which the other observance (e.g. 9/11) is situated or is it
the other way around?
3. Are the main duties of the Church
easily observed, or has the civic observance taken center stage? For
example, on 9/11 the Church can celebrate Mass, pray for the living and
the dead, and pray for peace (all part of Her primary mission) without
getting bogged down in nationalistic rhetoric.
4. Is the Church proclaiming the Gospel clearly--even if this
means pushing back against the state--or is She simply blessing whatever
it is that the state has given Her to bless?
These are thorny issues indeed. I hope these reflections have
been helpful in beginning to sort out an important issue that most of us
(myself absolutely included) would rather avoid. I'd love to hear your
thoughts and would welcome any and all civil interaction in the
comments. What do you think about this intersection? Have you seen
practices that you think are commendable? Have you been in a worship
context in which you were uncomfortable with nationalism? Of course, if
you wish to share a negative experience, please do spare us the name of
the parish and the denomination. We can have this discussion without
degrading other Christians.
As always, thanks for dropping by!
Peace to You All,
David+
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
To Whom Does the Liturgy Belong?
Dear Reader,
I hope this finds you enjoying the first few days of a true and proper Fall. I have certainly been pleased to enjoy returning to the out of doors.
After a brief absence, I return to consider a question of fundamental importance: To whom does the liturgy belong? This is a live question indeed, especially in light of ongoing liturgical revision in various parts of the Church. To frame it a wee bit differently, who in the Church has the right to change the liturgy? Does the liturgy as a whole belong to an appointed body of clergy and scholars or does it belong to the laos (from which we get the word "laity")--the whole people of God?
Of course, I will argue that the liturgy belongs to the whole Church, all of the faithful, and not to a small and elite few. For good order, and due to the sad divisions of the Church, on a practical level the answer is closer to saying that the liturgy within a particular portion of the Church belongs to the faithful resident in that part of the Church. This is due in part to recognized "local variation" (e.g. We in the States pray for the President rather than the Queen.) and is not at all to suggest that one portion of the Church has the right to change the liturgy in a manner that would cut against orthodox belief. It follows then that in The Episcopal Church the liturgy does not belong to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (more on that in a moment), but to all of the faithful.
A bit of history regarding liturgical revision in The Episcopal Church is needed at this point. But first, let me clarify that I'm not opposed to revision, I simply think that revision out to be done "properly, as in the daytime" and in plain view of all concerned. Up through the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, every change was worked out, individually, in General Convention. This means that if one wanted to change one tiny prayer, the entire Convention would see it and take action. Of course, this means that revising a lot of material would take a long time--a frustration to those who want to do the revising, but perhaps a welcomed help to those who want to move more slowly.
For the making of the 1979 BCP, groups of clergy and scholars worked on various rites over a number of years and published these rites as Prayer Book Studies and eventually in 1971, 1973, and 1976, and 1977 service books that would be the basis for what we now know as the 1979 BCP. There were discussions to be sure throughout this process, but at the end of the day the 1976 and 1979 General Conventions would both vote to establish this text as the new Prayer book for The Episcopal Church (As it takes the concurring votes of two subsequent conventions to establish a BCP.). The thing to note here is that all each convention did was vote to accept the text as a whole, in toto, without occasion for sorting out all of the differences in the new Prayer Book. While this may not seem problematic after a few decades of Prayer Book Studies, there were significant changes at the 11th hour before the 1976 Draft Proposed BCP was printed (More on that another time--our theology of burial was changed right before the 1976 book was printed.).
The point is that we now are contending with a system in which a small group makes sweeping changes at such a fast rate that the whole of the faithful hardly have time to attempt to digest them before a vote is called and a change has been made. For an example of this happening now, see Dean Kevin Martin's (Dean of St. Matthew's Cathedral, Diocese of Dallas) excellent post on the revision to Lesser Feasts and Fasts known as Holy Women, Holy Men. It may be found here.
What is the point? While it may seem that the point is to be discouraged, it certainly is not! Our prayer is Common to our life in part because we recognize that the Prayer Book, though it is authorized by General Convention, governs the highest and the lowest in the Church. Even bishops are ruled by the rubrics (directions and instructions which one must follow) in the Prayer Book. No one person and no one group is over the Book of Common Prayer--we all submit to it. The point is two-fold: 1.) Those in power must be open when engaging liturgical revision so that active discernment and debate may take place; 2.) All of us must remain engaged and aware of changes afoot in the Church. In their defense, the SCLM posted a blog about Holy Women, Holy Men in which all were invited to comment on different observances. The lack of traditionalist engagement was sad indeed. I too passed up the opportunity to engage the revision process.
We must pay attention to all proposed changes and hold fast to Catholic doctrine and practice, and we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while any one group makes changes to the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgy belongs to the whole faithful of God, and we all must love and defend her.
Many Blessings,
David+
I hope this finds you enjoying the first few days of a true and proper Fall. I have certainly been pleased to enjoy returning to the out of doors.
After a brief absence, I return to consider a question of fundamental importance: To whom does the liturgy belong? This is a live question indeed, especially in light of ongoing liturgical revision in various parts of the Church. To frame it a wee bit differently, who in the Church has the right to change the liturgy? Does the liturgy as a whole belong to an appointed body of clergy and scholars or does it belong to the laos (from which we get the word "laity")--the whole people of God?
Of course, I will argue that the liturgy belongs to the whole Church, all of the faithful, and not to a small and elite few. For good order, and due to the sad divisions of the Church, on a practical level the answer is closer to saying that the liturgy within a particular portion of the Church belongs to the faithful resident in that part of the Church. This is due in part to recognized "local variation" (e.g. We in the States pray for the President rather than the Queen.) and is not at all to suggest that one portion of the Church has the right to change the liturgy in a manner that would cut against orthodox belief. It follows then that in The Episcopal Church the liturgy does not belong to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (more on that in a moment), but to all of the faithful.
A bit of history regarding liturgical revision in The Episcopal Church is needed at this point. But first, let me clarify that I'm not opposed to revision, I simply think that revision out to be done "properly, as in the daytime" and in plain view of all concerned. Up through the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, every change was worked out, individually, in General Convention. This means that if one wanted to change one tiny prayer, the entire Convention would see it and take action. Of course, this means that revising a lot of material would take a long time--a frustration to those who want to do the revising, but perhaps a welcomed help to those who want to move more slowly.
For the making of the 1979 BCP, groups of clergy and scholars worked on various rites over a number of years and published these rites as Prayer Book Studies and eventually in 1971, 1973, and 1976, and 1977 service books that would be the basis for what we now know as the 1979 BCP. There were discussions to be sure throughout this process, but at the end of the day the 1976 and 1979 General Conventions would both vote to establish this text as the new Prayer book for The Episcopal Church (As it takes the concurring votes of two subsequent conventions to establish a BCP.). The thing to note here is that all each convention did was vote to accept the text as a whole, in toto, without occasion for sorting out all of the differences in the new Prayer Book. While this may not seem problematic after a few decades of Prayer Book Studies, there were significant changes at the 11th hour before the 1976 Draft Proposed BCP was printed (More on that another time--our theology of burial was changed right before the 1976 book was printed.).
The point is that we now are contending with a system in which a small group makes sweeping changes at such a fast rate that the whole of the faithful hardly have time to attempt to digest them before a vote is called and a change has been made. For an example of this happening now, see Dean Kevin Martin's (Dean of St. Matthew's Cathedral, Diocese of Dallas) excellent post on the revision to Lesser Feasts and Fasts known as Holy Women, Holy Men. It may be found here.
What is the point? While it may seem that the point is to be discouraged, it certainly is not! Our prayer is Common to our life in part because we recognize that the Prayer Book, though it is authorized by General Convention, governs the highest and the lowest in the Church. Even bishops are ruled by the rubrics (directions and instructions which one must follow) in the Prayer Book. No one person and no one group is over the Book of Common Prayer--we all submit to it. The point is two-fold: 1.) Those in power must be open when engaging liturgical revision so that active discernment and debate may take place; 2.) All of us must remain engaged and aware of changes afoot in the Church. In their defense, the SCLM posted a blog about Holy Women, Holy Men in which all were invited to comment on different observances. The lack of traditionalist engagement was sad indeed. I too passed up the opportunity to engage the revision process.
We must pay attention to all proposed changes and hold fast to Catholic doctrine and practice, and we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while any one group makes changes to the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgy belongs to the whole faithful of God, and we all must love and defend her.
Many Blessings,
David+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)