Recently, a commendation was cobbled together from principles of the Quadrilateral with two additional principles added besides toward a vision of what we share in our unity in Jesus Christ and through Him and in the Holy Spirit as participation in the Life of the Holy Trinity. Not only as Christians, but specifically as Anglican Christians. The fifth reads:
The Book of Common Prayer as authorized in this Church in General Convention as the normative standard of worship in this Church.
Nothing in this commendation is new. It's a reframing of what others have handed to us, especially Maurice and Reed Huntington, but also Ramsey, Gore, Elizabeth I, and many, many others. This commendation, among other things, works within a generous framework to nevertheless affirm Prayer Book discipline. Fortuitiously, as at least one author, myself, had not read the latest Cambridge-Ridley Covenant Draft, yet it does seem that those who proposed this Anglican Covenant and some of us who remain hesitant or skeptical of such a Covenant in its juridical and discerning capacity, do nonetheless see need for further elucidation of principles beyond the Quadrilateral: Prayer Book discipline (Common Prayer in a National or Regional Church) and Diakonia (service to the world). The former lends us to God, the latter to our neighbor.
Though the Covenant addresses the Communion and this commendation addresses The Episcopal Church, agreement in this much is not a waste of time or mediocre as so many are suggesting. Further articulation of what it means to be Anglican is to be welcomed, even if what is articulated is merely elucidation of what has been said in other ways by ancestors in faith. This elucidation of Prayer Book discipline and Diakonia could be said to be a co-incidence of what is seen as important and necessary in the life of a particular Church (after all the Quadrilateral began its life here) and the life of the Churches-in-Communion--a deepened elucidation of what it means to be an Anglican Christian
While a shared national or regional liturgy is an assumption of the Church Universal, a la Maurice, and we can see this in most of the Churches even of the Reformation. For example, the Lutheran Territorial Churches in Germany have orders of service to this day. The current situation in the ELCA of do-it-yourself orders and emphasis on "resource" is anomalous, and very U.S. American rooted somewhat in its amalgam history of ethnic groupings and in a trend toward the new. Nevertheless, the Prayer Book is a particularly and peculiarly Anglican take on Church and Communion life, and this way of unity through common prayer needs highlighting, especially in a milieu in which do-it-yourself is all the rage. We are not a do-it-yourself tradition. Some of us became Anglican, at least in part, because of a consistent pattern of worship.
Besides being one of the most careful expositors toward an Anglican ecclesiology, because of his refusal to import other ecclesiological systems Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, and because of his being firmly rooted in an understanding of the historical contingencies and particularities of Anglicanism, Bp Sykes offers an important word on the Prayer Book and its import for our common life:
One should expect, therefore, the Prayer Books of the Anglican Communion to express with a certain clarity, but not with overdefinition, the principal features of an understanding of the unity of the Chuch. This unity is implicit, of course, as much in the rubrics as in the text....The linguistic and behavioural order of the congregation needs to express and embody [I would say articulate which assumes both] the priority of Scriptural symbols....The fact that the symbols are part of a system of communication, that they must proclaim and embody 'the Gospel', implies that they are in need of revision, since cultures have their own symbol systems, some of which make it impossible for the Gospel to be heard. Constant and fussy revision, hoever, undermines the significance of repetition, which is a key factor in the way in which human beings are embedded within the Christian world of meaning. Elite groups within the Church [clergy and scholars both--as well sometimes as laity] are occasionally insensitive to the fact that their manipulation of variety or alteration of common texts is an affirmation of their dominance over 'lower' participants in the Church. The repetition of symobls constitutes a major way in which the whole Church exerts subversive power within a culture, adn the preservation of a common text is the delivery into the hands of the whole people of God an equal share in the resources which all will need for their 'vocation and ministry'. (Stephen Sykes, Unashamed Anglicanism, 117-118)
Note something very central to common prayer. It is the inheritance, right, and responsibility of the whole Church, not just experts or clergy. An increasing tendency of localized revisions, usually the whim of clergy, is an abuse. The laity are right to resist.
Further, repetition is central to common prayer. Idiosyncratic or personalized (most often clericalized) changes not only to the text or even to the rubrics, but to articulation in full, including space, music, posture (including orientation of clergy ad orientam or versus populum according to parish custom), and gesture in a particular parish/congregation is to be avoided and changed only due to theological necessity or violation of rubrics (which means, we have quite a range of latitude and clergy should not whimsically make changes to a congregational customary and certainly not without real conversations that may entail thoughtful lay "pushback"). In other words, any changes made should be made on careful liturgical and theological grounds, remain respectful of the congregational customary, and occur only in conversation with the community. A presbyter or bishop who single-handedly (and often, ham-fistedly) imposes his or her piety and latest learning and desires on long-standing and efficacious articulation in a particular parish or diocese is abusing the parish or local Church.
This increases in a social milieu rife with want for the novel and next greatest thing. The point of Prayer Book practice in any given congregation and local Church (diocese) is not novelty and trend-setting, but consistency and constancy. A regular, known liturgy changing only within the seasons of the Church, tells us of God's constant love and leads us to deepened trust. We get God deep in the bones.
I would hasten to add that in want to be relevant culturally, we sometimes sell ourselves (and newcomers) short because it's easier to change our worship than to catechize to our worship. Granted I'm a bit geeky. Nonetheless, if I, a 21st century American of Celtic-Saxon extraction can at the age of 19 enter into the worship of a Greek-speaking Greek Orthodox parish without any exposure beforehand besides icons (and no knowledge of Greek), do we not think we might be able to catechize the interested to our own riches already in a "language understanded of the people"? We're too quick to change rather than patient to be changed. We're too quick to sell centuries of literature and liturgy down the river rather than do the hard work of education to our rite. Rite II is turning 30 this year. I am 34. Many are proclaiming Rite II outdated and practicably doing so by doing their own thing. I would contend we have barely settled into Rite II enough to be formed. Rootedness, stability are not something to take lightly in a sped-up world, and it is we younger people who perhaps know this more sorely:
Finally, in a time marked by sore divisions, we encourage due care and lack of haste in making revisions to or providing for a future Prayer Book, and when such revision or provision is made, that an “appropriate educational component” be provided for throughout this Church before implementation.
7 comments:
I agree completely, Greg. Christopher's voice is a very important one, perhaps now more than ever. Given what I've read over at his blog, and his comments here and over at my blog, and add to that the fact that he's a Ph.D. candidate in "Liturgy and Church History" - we need folks like Christopher to help us clearly articulate and live more deeply and faithfully into who we are as Anglicans and as heirs to the Catholic tradition.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, though I do have to say that sometimes it is the laity who are urging nonconformity and the clergy who are the ones who must hold the community accountable to the tradition and the wider Church. I'm going to e-mail my Pentecost sermon to Christopher (it quotes his recent post on the third chapter of Benedict's rule in the context of a forum about our parish's worship). Later, I'll post it publicly, but not before it's preached.
"I agree with this wholeheartedly, though I do have to say that sometimes it is the laity who are urging nonconformity and the clergy who are the ones who must hold the community accountable to the tradition and the wider Church."
Good. And the clergy are right when they resist, too.
I second Fr. Bill's observation that laity too do this. I hope my post didn't sound anti-clerical. It's not. It is my observation though that many of these changes, at least on the West Coast (and it seems in Michigan), are imposed by priests (note that some parishioners protested changes in Michigan, but were ignored), who do have a great deal of power to effect these changes regardless of lay response. That power when used in this way is abused, stepping outside of our understanding of responsible authority.
Three things:
1) I assume that our priests have responsibility to educate on these matters regularly and to pastorally but clearly deny lay tinkering in our public worship that contramands our Prayer Book both in prayer texts and rubrics. This means that liturgy/worship preparation committees that propose such things should be vetoed by the priest of a parish. In other words, when I prepare a liturgy for use in my parish, I always seek the "imprimatur" of my priest as well as input from others on the Vestry. Our lay leaders are responsible for our public worship and common life. And moreso, my priest is ultimately responsible for our public worship and common life in the parish. He is also the one who is answerable for it in the end. This understanding of authority as reponsibility, which is I think Anglican and Benedictine, need not be tyrannical, but it is hierarchical--meaning, that some have gifts for certain ministries and are set aside for responsibility in certain ways by the Church in the power of the Spirit. Our priests are set aside to uphold the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of this Church. I expect them to do so pastorally, sensitively, judiciously, prudently, and surely.
2) I know that laypersons can abuse their own authority. Yes, we do have authority, sometimes quite a lot actually. This too is an Anglican distinctive as Bp Sykes notes, and important to our way of conversation in all orders. One abuse by laity I have encountered repeatedly is use of leitourgia as "the work of the people" to suggest we could order our Divine Service without the Creed, for example, because it's our work (our choice) after all. Or wanting to take out a Confession of Sin during Lent because we don't like that. Which requires a three pronged response (one juridical, one historical, the third theological): 1) We are not a do-it-yourself tradition. Inclusion of the Creed is required by our rubrics. It's not optional or up for debate. (and for me, it's one of those rare die in the ditch matters); 2) leitourgia in the Greco-Roman context meant any public service, i.e., taking out the trash. But semantics do not Christian usage make. Christians have used liturgy in a particular way, primarily not as our work, but as God's work for us, i.e., Divine Liturgy, Divine Service, Holy Communion, in which we participate through response in thanks and praise. This being the case, liturgy must include those elements central to proclaming God's work for us in Jesus Christ. The Creeds are central to this proclamation and here's why...; 3) Lent without a Confession guts the conversion aspect of that season of the Church Year and does not adequately address anthropology and Christology, raising the former and ignoring our own alienation from God/want to crucify. Our Prayer Book (1979) does a tremendous job of balancing sin and grace, and we trip it to our peril. We don't like admitting we're sinners, and that is the greatest sign that we are indeed so. Paradoxically, it's liberating, because we come to recognize that we need God and cannot do it ourselves.
3) As a budding scholar in liturgics, which is an interdisciplinary field of history/theology/ritual studies, I also have some modicum of responsible authority as well both to educate and to speak up when suggestions for public worship are given that contramand our Prayer Book. As a layman and scholar, I come with a particular perspective to these matters, meaning I am very concerned about the formation aspects of our liturgy over the longhaul as a pew-sitting participant. Bp Sykes words on repetition are like music to the soul.
We need a conception of lay authority that is grounded in the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism and not the power of the purse. This needs to be balanced with the legitimate role of clergy, exercised collaboratively with the laity. The balance can go too far in either direction. At its best, the Episcopal Church models it pretty well. I often tell folks that we are not a democratic community but an egalitarian community. We do have some democratic elements in our polity, as well as some hierarchical ones. All is in the service of a well ordered community that is open to the Church-shaking power of the Holy Spirit. The clergy have a particular responsibility to keep the local liturgy accountable to the Prayer Book and thereby the tradition and the wider Church. Lay people share in this responsibility. It is in fact part of their baptismal vows. I greatly respect Christopher's appeal to the sensus fidelium.
I agree with all the comments posted here, for two reasons:
1. I do not see the current Episcopal liturgy as crying out for reform. On the contrary, as a refugee from Rome I can honestly describe the '79 BCP as the finest one-volume Catholic liturgy out there. It contains everything necessary to nourish a truly Catholic liturgical prayer life.
2. Even if I saw our BCP as seriously flawed, the time is most inopportune for a Prayer Book revision. Our rage-filled fringes are destructive enough, and our common ecclesial life is fragile enough, without our embarking on the brutal war that a BCP revision would surely entail.
Let's try to resolve the current controversies and then engage in a healing of our life together BEFORE embarking on such a dangerous and unnecessary project.
Post a Comment