Some Guidelines for Liturgical Creativity God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees, and flowers, and clouds, and stars. (Martin Luther)
Derek at
haligweorc pointed us to the practices of an Episcopal parish, looking for our thoughts. Sunday, August 7 featured a word from Holy Basil the Great. Unfortunately, I cannot quote this powerful word, as the readings for next week have already been uploaded, featuring a word from Holy Theresa of Avila. Both Doctors of the Church. We have been discussing the appropriateness of using such readings in public worship.
Liturgy Police and Nazis?I must confess that I am a recovering and repentant? liturgy Nazi; though I would still object to certain items (some discussed below). In my early twenties, I was a fervent watcher and hearer of all unacceptable doings. I was one of those! And could be quite uptight and even unknowingly vicious. Reporting that some were using “Mother”, “Creator”, or fudging the creed, not kneeling, or whatnot. I’m sure the priest grew quite weary of my observations. Much of my policing issued forth from my own doubts and questioning, so I put on a mask of absolute certainty. I would like to think I’ve changed a little since then, given my deeper study of theology and history. Nonetheless, the practices of this parish give pause:
My first thought is that this is the principle Sunday Eucharist (see pastoral thoughts below). My second thought is that given the public nature of worship, this might suggest that Holy Basil or Holy Theresa are part of the canon. Few realize that the canon of Scripture is attuned to that which can be proclaimed publicly in worship as basis for our secondary reflection. Worship determined the “rule” of the Good Book as the Oikumene came to a slow consensus about what was a fit apostolic witness. The goal always being the Good News of Christ, as Holy Martin Luther’s own words make clear:
Christ is the Master; the Scriptures are only the servant. The true way to test all the Books is to see whether they work the will of Christ or not. No Book which does not preach Christ can be apostolic, though Peter or Paul were its author. And no Book which does preach Christ can fail to be apostolic, although Judas, Ananias, Pilate, or Herod were its author.So, for example, the Gospel of Thomas is not considered heretical in the Eastern Church; it is, however, unfit for public consumption, and therefore, would never be read during Eucharist. I also noted that I have experienced worship where popular tunes or works considered heretical have been used. I’m not saying burn the books (we need them for scholarly purposes), but reading the Gospel of Philip in worship? No. I’m more flexible than many liturgy types, but this one crosses bounds. Who after all wants to hear the “good news” that Creation is evil or from a lesser god, that our flesh is alien to our soul? That salvation is reserved for an inner few? That is the gist of such gospels.
The Word is Still Speaking Through the BodyWith that said, when I joined the monks at Mount Angel Abbey (no hotbed of innovation by any stretch of the imagination) for the Office and Daily Eucharist (but not Sunday) in preparation for deciding to become a monk, I was likely to encounter a reading from Holy Ignatius, Holy Augustine of Hippo, or Holy Benedict among others in the cycle. And feast days of saints normally featured a reading written by that particular saint.
So, would I always and everywhere oppose such a thing? Probably not. However, some criteria would apply to when to so do and to what might be read. And, I would be hesitant to replace the Epistle, given this is the primary place where most will encounter Scripture outside of the rite itself. So, better to consider the possibility of the Word continuing to speak in the Body (if this is to be read in a public worship setting) as a Fifth Reading following the Epistle but before the Gospel. I would especially find the practice unacceptable if the Hebrew Scripture were replaced (our history of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism disallows such a move in my opinion.).
We do have a “canon” of Christian works theological, poetic, mystical considered holy reading. Much of this holy reading gives us a glimpse of the ongoing life of the Word with us by the power of the Holy Spirit. But not just any old reading would do. Who selects the reading? From where? How does it interact with the biblical texts found in the lectionary for that day? Could these be better worked into sermons on feast days of the saint? Considered in a theology or spirituality study? We don’t have a lectionary for such considerations. Yet? Perhaps this part of the Spirit’s work for the third millennium of the Church? I’m willing to pause, breathe, and let a few parishes try it out, but with clear labeling, as bls put it, of the item being served and with an understanding that this is neither the norm, nor normative.
What this conversation has done is opened the way to offer some thoughts on how I go about being creative with liturgy.
Opening ThoughtsChrist has died! Alleluia!
Christ is Risen! Alleluia!
Christ will come again! Alleluia!Liturgically I am neither a repristinator who lauds a 14th century past or whatnot (choose your century), nor a dismisser. In seminary, I often faced two competing tendencies.
Those who would romanticize past practices without attending to the historical realities past or present. For example, communion rails, which many of us have grown accustomed to and are shocked by their removal, were erected to keep dogs away from the altar. In the average Medieval parish, one was likely to encounter dogs or even farm animals in the church building at one time or another. This is not the overly-clean worship life often found in, say, Anglo-Catholic circles who laud Medieval practice overmuch. In the over-romanticization, the Gospel can be lost in our liturgical queeniness (and this goes gay or straight), forgetting, for example, that new hymns do need to be written with music styles (some) from today to proclaim the Good News. Let’s remember that Luther and Wesley set their words to bar tunes! And their hymns along with St. Ephrem’s are some of the finest. Let’s do the same…with an eye always to the Good News.
The other tendency, I would encounter is a willingness to dismiss everything from the past as unjust. Now, I understand that impulse, really, I do, given my own context. Some practices from the past are unjust, but surely not all? And are we anymore just today? Our worship brings us all to face ourselves as “not, righteous, no not one.”(Romans 3:10) I constantly found myself reminding others that worship is not a community organizing event, or if it is, our organizing is to offer our sacrifice of thanks and praise to G-d and go forth into the world doing the same in all things.
Neither, nor satisfies (me) when I give pause to think (and not fly off the handle).
I am unwilling to simply set aside the good work of our ancestors in the faith without doing the work they did working with Scripture, Tradition(s), practices, languages and language, context and culture, and so forth, when offering new materials to proclaim and practice the Good News of Christ Jesus. And I recognize, that even when I so do, I will likely miss something, even as they did. A hermeneutic of graciousness toward our ancestors in the faith is in order to balance our too-quick modern tendency toward dismissal and suspicion, which I admit to.
I’m not opposed to experimentation, but I’m careful to ask some questions of any prayer, canon, rite, hymn I may compose, especially for public use. Ultimately, our work with G-d in worship
practices us into the very accounting of our hope, Christ Jesus. (see 1 Peter 3:15) So creativity is a serious undertaking.
I am also a child of the 20th century. The gap that the Reformation Fathers posited between the first four centuries (or earlier, sometimes the Apostolic period) and the 16th century does not hold. I will not dismiss centuries of Medieval development simply because they did. Much of what we lost in their reforming zeal has returned in one form or another. With that said, I am cautious of reforming zeal generally right or left, giving heed to the words of Abba Isaac of Ninevah:
The zealous have never experienced the Truth. I know that I have dismissed or harmed one or two persons in my lifetime because they did not fit my creed-o-meter test. I only learned to be more careful and loving when I found myself on the receiving end (for reasons that should be obvious here). Remember zealots for orthodoxy poisoned Arius on his way to recant.
Were I born in the 16th century, Erasmus of Rotterdam would have found my greatest sympathies. Reform. Yes. But let’s be wise enough not to trash ten centuries of our ancestors living Gospelly or throw out popular practices without giving them greater consideration for how they might in fact point to the Good News (Reassessments of English pieties and practices show a more Gospel-orientation to things like shew bread than Cranmer could recognize.) We come around again…
Places to Start I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men. (Martin Luther)
My Starting Point ALWAYS: The Good News of Jesus Christ. Of course, theologies on exactly what this means differ. I can recognize for example that Cranmer and Calvin sought to reform liturgies with the Good News in mind, even as I am less-than-satisfied with their conclusions about, say, Eucharist, and humbled by their enterprise liturgically and theologically, respectively. I can even recognize that Zwingli sought the same, but his theology of Eucharist is unacceptable to my mind, being too much stuck in the past (What Would Jesus Do?) when ours is a living encounter with Christ Crucified and Resurrected (What Is Jesus Doing?), being caught up ourselves into the Divine Love Life. Holy Andrei Rublev’s Old Testament Trinity says this better than words ever shall:
My Starting Practice ALWAYS: Prayer. Before I begin to compose a prayer, an anaphora, a rite, a hymn, or write an icon, I begin with prayer and sometimes singing (Ave Marias are a fav). Often, I also take up some form of fasting, be it one-meal-per-day, a meatless fast, a solidless fast, a fast from sex (with my partner’s consent; word to the wise, do not do this without your s.o.’s consent), television, sometimes several of these. Not because these are bad, au contraire, these are goods, but the Holy One is our
summum bonum, and in preparing for such moments of inspiration, I have found that my attention is kept most directed toward the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by remembering that nothing and no one else can finally satisfy. In the past, when writing icons, I have often also sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well (which tells you I haven’t written an icon for a while—with one exception). At the very least, I make a General Confession of sin, not to beat up on myself, but to remember, again, Who my focus is and to seek right relationship with the One in Whom I “live, move, and have my being”. (Acts 17:29)
Thoughts on CreativityKyrie, eleison.
Christe, eleison.
Kyrie, eleison.
I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
May almighty God have mercy on us,
forgive us our sins,
and bring us to everlasting life.
Amen. (A Pentitential Rite of the Roman Catholic Church that I love.)
1) Liturgical language is poetic prose (and hence, the failure of the NRSV, in my opinion, as a liturgical edition of Holy Writ). It is primarily rhetorical or conversational, not merely dialogic or didactic. By rhetorical, I mean that a final singular meaning is always deferred to other points of meaning, so that a rich complexity of meanings is communicated and never finally grasped. Hence, the variety of metaphors and symbols raised up at various times in the historical life of the Church—all speaking of the Truth of Jesus Christ from various points (Jaroslav Pelikan’s work is excellent on this score). And hence, the variety of inspiration people walk away with as they go forth to do the work they are called to do as members of the Body.
By conversational, I mean that we are speaking with one another and with G-d. A variety of voices are in play, not just priest/pastor and people. Theologians, including Cranmer and Luther at times, sometimes (no oftentimes) make the mistake of thinking of liturgy as didactic. It is, but not in the same way that a lecture is. The teaching is multivalent, communicated through words, sounds, music, movements, silence, imagery, sacraments, and above all else, the actual practice of the meanings—hence, the centrality of our work with G-d…this is our very
practice into, our
participation in G-d’s Reign. A reduction to an orthodox systematic in prayer will not do. This is one trajectory we tend to go in modern constructions. And the Reformation forced both the Reformers and the Tridentines to do the same. We are still recovering from either/or thinking on many points on that score, including Eucharistic theology. The result is often flat, poor in imagery, orthodox, but not worshipful or fully appreciative of the breadth of the Tradition allowing others to tease out the parabolic and paradoxical variety that is true orthodoxy. And often prosaic but not poetic in phrasing. As Holy Irenaeus put it so well: “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.” I go a step further, our way of doing is attuned to the doing of Eucharist, and the our doing of Eucharist in turn confirms our way of doing.
2) Do not compose a new canon, rite, hymn, prayer and immediately put it to use—the Reformer’s sometimes made this mistake, and certainly, we do. Let it sit, pray it aloud again and again with the movements involved in the space to be used. What does the piece say bodily? How does it feel? Is the language felicitous? Is the piece beautiful? What does it say theologically in word and deed? How does it point to the Good News of Jesus Christ? No, practice us into that Good News of Jesus Christ? If you are finally satisfied, have an evening in the life of the parish that is experimental worship night (see comments below). Pray it. Seek feedback. As theology is communal, so especially is our practiced faith in worship. How does it strike others bodily, aurally, theologically, linguistically, musically, and so forth. How does it intersect with points in Holy Writ and Tradition?
3) Be careful in changing traditional elements, like say the Sanctus. A variety of Sancti do exist in the Tradition. Some anaphorae, for example, have a Sanctus without the Benedictus (Addai and Mari, III Peter, St. Mark?), or the wording may vary as the Tradition was both Scriptural and oral at the time of their composition and insertion at a variety of points in anaphorae. But, consider, local custom. In ECUSA, for example, a Sanctus without Benedictus would strike most as odd. I wouldn’t recommend such a change for principle Sunday Eucharist (see comments below).
Theological and Historical Concerns”We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
1) Does this experiment in word and deed seek first and foremost to
practice us,
participate us into the Good News of Jesus Christ? Is this experiment in word and deed consistent with the agreed upon theological norms of our tradition? This is messy for Anglicans, so, is this experiment consistent with basic dogma of the Christian faith as set forth in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed and the agreements of the Oecumenical Councils?
2) Does this experiment duly take care for the variety within the Tradition and draw upon these? Contra some repristinator’s, the Tradition of liturgies is quite a bit more diverse than may be realized, partially due to the nature by which various rites came together and variety of cultures and contexts. So, for example, the Anaphora of St. Mark used by the Coptic and Ethiopic communities has two epicleses and ends with the Sanctus before communing (Luther did a similar thing in one of his compositions—quite powerful actually). The East Syrian tradition of baptism and chrismation was focused on our becoming royal persons rebirthed. So the oil rite precedes the water rite, and is the central focus, as we are anointed as sons and daughters of the Most High. No exorcisms as in the Roman/North African/Ambrosian traditions. While the Roman/North African/Ambrosian traditions emphasized the Pauline “death and resurrection” theme, the East Syrian emphasized the “baptism in the Jordan” theme. Some lessons follow from this:
a) What themes can we draw upon from Scripture?
b) What variety in orders do we find in the Tradition that are akin to our creativity? Can we utilize these?
c) What is the general consensus theologically on a given issue, say Eucharist, in our tradition?
d) If we are disposed to use other language does this language adequately communicate the Great Mystery in the same way traditional language does, however limited our language may be, as Nazianzus recognized? I am not opposed to inclusive language, but “God” “God” “God” won’t do. Which God? Or, for example, in considering “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, I have heard “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” as a substitute. These are not theological equivalents! One is relational, the other is attributes or characteristics or modes of all three persons of the Holy Trinity, and bespeaks modalism not relationship. One could say, “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, one God” which is true, but does it invite us into the relational dynamic of the Holy Trinity in the same way as Rublev's icon (do note the gender indeterminancy of the Three)? I would say not. Sr. Elizabeth Johnson and the later Catherine LaCugna have more cogent thoughts on such changes from Catholic feminist perspectives. I’m probably going to get clobbered for this, but I am careful with the traditional Trinitarian formula, as I've seen few equivalents theologically, and it does connect us with our past. I am also theolgically astute enough to listen to the witness of Nazianzus who scoffed at those who would take these pointers too literally. Our langauge is always limited, and cannot ever fully capture G-d. To say otherwise, is well the "h" word. I also take into consideration both the actions of Pope St. Stephen and (earlier St. Clement of Alexandria) in accepting Christians baptized under other formulae (Apparently "Gnostic" formulae. I also remember that the earliest Christians may have been baptized in the name of Jesus.) Holy Stephen writes
contra St. Cyprian of Carthage, in this famous bapitism controversy. This is the controversy from which we get Cyprian's words,
extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the church there is no salvation.). I'm sure the linguistic and theological search will continue. But until then, I will work to the best of my ability to see that my sisters are actually treated equally in daily and ecclesial life—which the radicality of the fully-developed dogma of the Holy Trinity actually points to
contra some who would use this dogma to assert the superiority of men!
3)
Lex orandi, lex credendi? This phrase has become popularized in recent years, first given emphasis by Aidan Kavanaugh following Vatican II. I use it cautiously. Why? Because the technical phrase firstly relates to a specific historical circumstance (just as Holy Cyprian’s words). I want to understand that context before I let the phrase become a dictum though I recognize in both cases these have obtained meanings outside their original context. The actual phrasing is from Prosper of Aquitaine, who writes
Ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (The law of supplication founds the law of belief.). He is referring to a defense of Holy Augustine of Hippo against Bishop Julian of Eclanum in the Pelagian controversy, and pointing to the fact that the pleading of the people to Christ demonstates the late (as opposed to earlier) Augustine’s understanding of salvation by grace (Remember, I am more akin to Holy John Cassian, who provided perhaps the most subtle and thoughtful rebuttal to some of Augustine’s more severe positions on grace, a rebuttal that prefigured the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. and Holy Thomas Aquinas—whom Julian also prefigured by the way, and I’m more in tune with the paradoxical and synergistic understanding of the Eastern Church. Recent developments among Lutherans in dialogue with the Orthodox have highlighted the subtleties of Luther and Melancthon’s thinking on justification and sanctification.).
The dictum also has limited usefulness because in the history of liturgy, this has worked both ways. Holy Basil the Great’s reworking of the liturgy in line with Cappadocian Trinitarian theology, the completion of Holy Athanasius’ work, giving us the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, is a theological reworking. So also,
lex credendi, lex orandi as Pope Paul VI asserted in response to the more familiar motto. Holy Basil changes the biblical Trinitarian formula from “to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit” to “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The biblical expression itself did not finally express adequately the relational
perichoresis of the Holy Trinity needed to undo Arianism and Apollinarianism and Sabellianism, so Holy Basil made the appropriate changes. The Reformers, of course, redirected liturgy almost entirely from this side, sometimes unfortunately, in my opinion, neglecting the richness and variety of Medieval practices many of which we’ve recovered in some limited form thanks to the Tractarians, for example.
4) An experimental practice should be considered a practice
in extremis. This practice is neither the norm, nor normative. So, using donut holes and milk or Coke and Dorritos at Sunday Eucharist is out. How after all does junk food elements speak outwardly and materially to our participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, our true nourishmen? Not very well.
In extremis, in a prison, say, you are a visiting chaplain and a dying man requests communion, and that’s all that’s available, I’ll bend, pause, breathe--this is a Gospel and pastoral moment. More appropriately, a priest/pastor would have a communion kit with her or him on such occasions always at the ready. Inculturation issues become trickier on this score, though some might not see this
sans actual missionary work. For example, my brother’s partner is Iñuit. Their traditional diet consists of Seal, Walrus, Whale, Caribou, Salmon, kelp, and some tundra berries in summer. Bread is positively foreign to her culture, and not easily digestible. Wine is a huge no-no, as her people have very little genetic tolerance for alcohol. So how does using bread and wine leaven that of Christ in her culture challenging and transforming and reshaping in ongoing conversion? It doesn’t, or not very well. And with the exception of some elders forcibly converted by missionaries, Christianity is a bust among her people, except for Pentecostalism. Again, the emphasis that I can appreciate in the Reformers is everything for the Gospel of Jesus Christ… Think about it? What would you do? What is Jesus doing?
5) Other prayers? Fr. Robert Taft, SJ has done perhaps the most useful work on at least one pagan prayer. The
Phos Hilaron, one of my favorite prayers, is the “baptized” version of a pagan prayer form at the lighting of the evening lamp. Indeed, the entire practice is “baptized”, including the lighting of the lamps. Again, we have the work, likely of the Cappadocian fathers and mothers in this retooling. What is important in this retooling (remembering that the more sophisticated such as Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria, the Cappadocians, and St. Gregory the Great were willing to “baptize” pagan philosophy and here even praying practices) is the redirection of the prayer and practice
in toto toward the Light of the World, Jesus Christ.
Should prayers from other faith traditions ever be used? Perhaps. But with very careful attention that the re-vision is toward Jesus Christ, after all, our earliest Eucharistic prayers are re-tooled forms of Jewish meal prayers of various sorts (see the Didache, Chapters 9 and 10). In general, however, I caution the tinkerer against this. I appreciate the wisdom to be found in religious traditions; however, I also appreciate that I am a Christian, that I am not a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Native American (of course, inculturation can apply here IF done by Native Americans!), so to appropriate another tradition willy nilly is a hidden form of colonialism in many cases, and all too unhappy an occurrence in seminaries these day amongst those who have not yet come to fully appreciate their own Christian faith and its richness. And importantly, note that the Cappadocians’ redirection works from within a Christian theological framework. So hear the words of Pope St. Gregory the Great (watch words in my own struggles with inculturation):
Tell Augustine that he should by no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God. Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice to the demons, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them, therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of those martyrs whose relics are preserved in them build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the Devil, but for the glory of God, to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satisfied. Thus, if they are not deprived of all the exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface everything all at once from their minds, just as, when someone wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds. Mention this then to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place.Cultural and Contextual1) Remember that culture does in fact shape the way we worship and experience worship. Christmas trees and May Pole celebrations and Marzipan goodies common in Northern Europe to this day have pagan roots, baptized so long ago, we take them for granted as Christian. In many places where Christianity is still inculturating, this process is still underway. Time with the grace of the Holy Spirit, I trust, will sift through what is edifying and what is not. What feels dignified to us, may not in fact feel dignified to a Tanzanian. Hence, the beauty of having national churches that allow for differences amongst us and that also permit internal flexibility given cultural tastes and differences. Again, what feels dignified to white folk, may not for black folk. Some flexibility is key if our emphasis is the Good News.
2) Inculturation is a messy process and sometimes swings to and fro.
If you are involved in inculturing the Christian faith, as I am, expect to live with tensions, be wrong, and admit error. For example, witness this
attempt. Interesting, admirable, but I don’t’ find it fully satisfying for a number of the above criteria, but this spurs me on to offer alternatives without getting overly hostile or dismissive.
Pastoral Considerations1) Canons do have a purpose. And sometimes, they do need amendment. However, they also may serve a community-preserving function. Consider that the canons of the Episcopal Church call for the use of Prayer Book worship for the principle Sunday Eucharist. This canon serves a holy purpose in my opinion. The principle worship should be one that capably unites a broad range of Episcopalians from liberal to conservative, high church to low church, Evangelical and Anglo-catholic, gay and straight, through, well, authorized common prayer, prayers agreed upon generally, so that no matter where I find myself, rather in San Francisco or Des Moines, I can walk through the door and be able to enter fully into the liturgy with minimal difficulty, regardless of how I might be otherwise received in the community. The point is nourishment for returning to my Gospel work in the world. Even if the worshipping community is hostile to my person, Christ in Word and Sacrament is not. And I shouldn’t have to learn an entirely new rite on top of everything else just to get fed!
2) Holy seasons like the Advent-Christmas and Lent-Easter cycles are often times when people seek a traditional service. And many of the Body, who only darken the door of a church during these times, will want to find that rhythm they remember, not something new and unfamiliar. This is not the time for major experimentation. This is also a moment to be with those of the Body who have been away. To pastor them be your order clergy or lay. Do so. Find out why they may have been away. Welcome their presence. After all, they may be the greatest followers of Christ among us, having been doing the work of Christ in the world while we’ve been wrapped up our internal bickering and institution maintenance. And their Gospel work may be as simple (not!) as raising a child and going to work and setting up a loving household.
3) Repetitive does not equal uncreative. Creativity is to be lauded, but please do not get caught up in the need to do something new every Sunday. Many celebrants, myself included, appreciate the regular rhythm in word and body that set rites provide. This gives us a connection with the past and allows us to easily slip into a prayerful and worshipful mindset to do the work we have gathered to do. Having to jump through new hoops every Sunday is a distraction from worship for many of us in set liturgical traditions. Some of us, like myself, chose a set tradition because we find ourselves more easily able to worship as such (I was raised Pentecost. I know the value of good church order perhaps more than most.). Respect that, please. That doesn’t mean do nothing new. But mindfully. Change a collect. Have others compose Prayers of the People (this is a primary locus for creativity.). But consider regular rhythm not as boring but as useful in coming to the Mystery of Christ. Hence, my preference is to maintain the regular lineup. Change the Hymn of the Day. But let us have our
Agnus Dei or another appropriate piece. After all, as
James Alison, OP points out, a certain amount of boring, is really the point. This is not a stadium event! This is our reorientation, putting on and practicing the mind of Christ.
4) If an experimental piece keeps people from the Lord’s Table because of conscience, it’s better to use it at a more appropriate time, like Wednesday Eucharist, or another weekday service that will not affect the gathering of the Body on Sunday (see point 1). Anyone sitting on a liturgy committee should be prepared to receive feedback on such matters and to offer regular educational opportunities to help us think through changes.
5) Consider having a Eucharist on a weekday devoted to experimental forms, a laboratory to test, refine, and get feedback.
6) Marriages and Holy Unions. And this may offend, but Holy Paul had some words to say about getting us all at the Table and suffering when another suffers, rejoicing when another rejoices. While technically, marriages can happen within the context of principle Sunday worship, and ideally, would. Pastorally, I would recommend refraining from doing so at this time. Why? Because at this point in history, for many queer folk, this comes across as a slap in the face, a show of heterosexual dominance of the Eucharist. And because of my own
in extremis or occasional criterion, I would not ask that my brother-making ceremony or holy union happen in principle Sunday worship. A visitor might be among us on Sunday, who would not partake with us because we are celebrating the joining of two men (or under other circumstances, two women). Not ideal? I agree. But it’s a messy time in the Body of Christ, and we all must refrain from injuring one another unduly even as we live with conflicting consciences. This is the unhappy solution I recommend. This guideline keeps us all at the Table on Sunday, partaking sinners all, and that is where we must start if these dividing walls are ever to finally fall. And we can still celebrate these rites of passage, these participations in the Life of Christ, these vows of promise and covenant, and sacrament in the case of marriage (though I will quibble that my life too is such) any other day of the week or even Sunday at other times.
This may not satisfy every particular question or all folks, but this is the kind of processes and questions I ask when considering my own liturgical creativity and innovation, such as the brother-making ceremony found on May, 21 2005 and the initial reflection underlying it given on May, 16, 2005 that is rooted in reading and thought beyond the scope of this limited weblog.
Continue Reading...
