Tag Archive for 'common prayer'

fresh expressions?

Published on July 2, 2010 in liturgy. 9 Comments Tags: , , , .

Fresh expressions – towards a dialogue

Antipodean internet responses to the Church of England report A Mixed Economy for Mission (PDF) have been falling over themselves with unalloyed fervour and praise. Certainly there is much of value in this and its earlier report, Mission-shaped Church (PDF). But anyone who has previously seen the church’s enthusiasm wax lyrical about a new “solution to current issues” has probably seen the disappointment as those addicted to moving from novelty to novelty move on to the next big thing.

Please note that this balancing post is not in the context of phobia for the new. No one who spends time on this site I think would fairly accuse me of being a reactionary conservative. I am a strong advocate for an internet presence (this is the most-visited Christian site in New Zealand, Liturgy is the second-most-followed twitter page from New Zealand), I firmly encourage new monasticism, I thrive on insights from emergent and missional approaches, etc. I am enthusiastic about fresh expressions of church and see nothing ultimately sacrosanct, for example, in the inherited parish system. But just as such words as “evangelical”, “orthodox”, “liturgical”, and even “Christian” have been hijacked and are often no longer usable, so I can see this may happen to “fresh expression”.

So, to balance the praise, here are some points I hope that will encourage us to pause before we plough headlong into this latest salvation of the church. It has been well said: organised religion looks for new programs, healthy spirituality looks for new people.

Fresh expressions and liturgy

One of my strongest fears is that “fresh expression” will be used, by some, as merely another excuse to abandon the liturgical life of the worshipping community. Liturgy has often not been tried and found wanting; liturgical study, training, and formation of individuals and communities has, in many cases, been found difficult and left untried. Also, in some practice, the focus seems to be so much driven by an anxiety about shrinking and aging communities, that anything appears to be appropriate as long as it reverses those trends. This shifts the focus from God and the gospel. We may not just be throwing out the gospel baby with the inherited bathwater, but, in changing from a bath to a lounge suite, we may miss our primary purpose.

I immediately bristle when I see “vocations” used to refer solely to church positions (page 3 Mixed Economy). Such a non-missional perspective makes me alert to read what follows with great care.

A community I know speaks of their commitment to the rite Thanksgiving of the People of God (p404ff in the New Zealand Prayer Book, the most recognisably Anglican rite for anyone from anywhere in the Anglican Communion), with the complete Revised Common Lectionary, as being so rare that if there is any finance being offered for this they will apply as being a Fresh Expression.

The word “liturgy” does not occur at all in Mixed Economy, and the word “worship” occurs only incidentally.

The ‘common core’ strategy underlying Common Worship is helpful. It emphasizes patterns and structures instead of giving detailed and prescribed texts. If church planters are trained in the overall structures and patterns of Christian worship, then they should be trusted with the freedom, together with their new congregations, to develop culturally appropriate liturgy from below. This approach will help discourage the cloning of patterns of liturgy and of church in new areas of mission.
p117 Mission Shaped Church in chapter 6 some methodologies for a missionary church – patterns of worship

I totally endorse the above paragraph. In theory. Central to liturgical renewal was the shift from – the meals-on-wheels, instant-services, frozen-centrally, reheated-locally, 1662 BCP style, to – locally cooked meals:

Services in The Book of Common Prayer have often been likened to “meals on wheels.” They were centrally prepared, and then warmed and dished up locally. One began at the beginning of the service, reading most of it until one reached the end of it. Services in A New Zealand Prayer Book are more like “frozen peas,” or maybe a basket of groceries and a recipe book. A core of essential material is provided with some further resources, other content is added locally. Many will be surprised that the obligatory material from any of the eucharistic liturgies (pages 404 510) takes only about six minutes to recite. Most of the rest of the service is locally chosen. The quality of the meal is now much more dependent on the local “cook”! (Chapter 1 of my book Celebrating Eucharist)

My fear is, however, based on my experience that so, so many leaders have continued the “meals on wheels” approach, but merely with new, different texts. It appears that many, many worship leaders are not being “trained in the overall structures and patterns of Christian worship” to enable them to “be trusted with the freedom, together with their new congregations, to develop culturally appropriate liturgy from below.”

Fresh expressions and diversity

Chapter 1 in Mission Shaped Church – changing context sets the tone:

“‘One size fits all’ will not do.” p12 Mission Shaped Church (cf. Foreword of Mixed Economy)

“No one kind of worship can attract, much less hold, a major proportion of the varied population of this country.” p13 Mission Shaped Church.

The traditional, inherited model has always encouraged the meeting of people with similarities: Sunday school children, youth groups, women’s groups, etc. But there is a trend amongst some now to have that as the only or primary experience. To press the point, this approach would have a worshipping community consisting of and geared towards eg. car mechanics; no: white, male, car mechanics aged 25-35, with the likelihood that the 28 year old white male car mechanic pastor, in spending time preparing the service and sermon is alienated from his community because he is no longer sufficiently involved in car mechanicing!

Contrast this pressing of the approach, with the following quote:

When we gather around the table and break the bread together, we are transformed not only individually but also as community. We, people from different ages and races, with different backgrounds and histories, become one body. As Paul says: ‘As there is one loaf, so we, although there are many of us, are one single body, for we all share in the one loaf.’ (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Not only as individuals but also as community we become the living Christ, taken, blessed, broken, and given to the world. As one body, we become a living witness of God’s immense desire to bring all peoples and nations together as the one family of God.” (Bread for the Journey, Henri Nouwen)

I conclude this reflection with this important question: Is the primary goal of our worship to attract people into church? Or is the primary goal to worship God?

white is right

Published on May 17, 2010 in liturgy. 18 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

As is not unusual, I have again had email questions about the NZ Anglican lectionary choice of the colour Red as the liturgical colour from after Ascension Day up to and including the Day of Pentecost, and hence including what the lectionary terms the “7th Sunday of Easter”.

Firstly let me reinforce what the lectionary itself says, page 4: “The colours suggested for each day… are not mandatory but reflect common practice in most parishes.” Hence, before proceeding, please complete – which colour was used in your community last Sunday?


The lectionary is stating it is not prescriptive but rather descriptive of the use in “most parishes.” Some issues arise in the correspondence I have received in multi-center parishes, where the travelling priest appears to have to go with a whole wardrobe. Remember, the NZ lectionary regularly provides several, even all four options.

Until 2002, the 7th Sunday of Easter has been white. Suddenly without explanation, the 2003 lectionary changed the 7th Sunday of Easter to red. Ascension Day has remained white. From Friday after Ascension Day to the Day of Pentecost has become red. Can someone please explain why? What caused this change to happen in “most parishes” that the lectionary is now reflecting? [If another feast falls within those days, the colour of that feast may be chosen].

It seems to me that the colour for Easter is white, gold, or “best”, and, hence, the colour for the 7th Sunday of Easter is white, gold, or “best”. Certainly all Roman Catholics wore white – so that’s “most parishes” in New Zealand, and disproportionately “most parishes” in the world :-)

The danger in this kind of discussion is to degenerate into liturgical rubrical fundamentalism, or accusations of such, on the one hand. The danger on the other, is the complete abandonment of any common prayer. With the diminishing of unity through common prayer comes the search for other ways to find, create, retain, enforce unity.

I understand that the General Synod Eucharist on Thursday May 13 celebrated not Ascension Day but Ihaia Te Ahu. Ascension Day is a Principal Feast of our church. General Synod makes all episcopal units debate and vote and agree to “Ascension Day…should not be displaced by any other celebration.” Again, the issue is not so much enforcing rules for rules’ sake, but how can we move forward creatively and constructively and unitedly in our life and worship together?

Fascinatingly, on May 13 Roman Catholics also did not celebration Ascension Day! They celebrated Our Lady of Fatima. Now there’s another option…

If you are on Facebook there’s no better time to attend “Easter is 50 days”

Tuesday but not Wednesday in Easter Week?

Published on April 6, 2010 in liturgy. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , .
New Zealand Lectionary today

New Zealand Lectionary today

Yesterday was “Monday in Easter Week” in the official Anglican Prayer Book, A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (NZPB page 593). Today is “Tuesday in Easter Week” (page 594). Tomorrow is… ummm… well not mentioned actually! This “tradition” goes all the way back to the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. But, as far as I know, not before that. As far as I know the missals have always provided propers for every day of Easter week. Anyone know otherwise?

So why stop at Tuesday? And what about contemporary revisions? As far as I know all reputable contemporary revisions have abandoned this Sunday-Monday-Tuesday-then-nothing “tradition”. Anyone know other examples than New Zealand? NZPB has many other quirky things, but no one has yet completed a commentary to explain them. So, if you know the answer to this one – do please tell.

The New Zealand Lectionary often overrides NZPB quirkiness. But not this time – as you see in the image above. In fact towards the end of what I and most contemporary liturgy regard as a 50-day Easter Season, the lectionary abandons “common” prayer, allowing for either “Ascensiontide” (with a change recommended in the non-formulary Daily Office, “Celebrating Common Prayer”) or (in smaller type) continuing for people like me (and majority Christianity) to celebrate Easter until the Day of Pentecost (in smaller type).

Easter ends today?

I know it is hard to keep those Alleluias resounding for 50 days. We have a culture that finds it much easier to grovel and do without for 40 days (46 days including Sundays) than to celebrate and party for 50 days! [NZPB as previous BCPs all call the next proper "after Easter"] But is there something particular about Englishness that we can only celebrate for Sunday, Monday, Tuesday?

If you agree with me that Easter lasts 50 days then join the Facebook event “Easter is 50 days“, encourage others to join, put the “Easter is 50 days” badge on your blog or website, correct people these 50 days whenever they inappropriately use “after Easter” – including clergy :-)

baptism distracts from Easter?

Published on March 15, 2010 in liturgy. 8 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

easter vigil 4Whenever I am part of the Easter Vigil I am always delighted if there are baptisms. Recently I was part of conversations where some people were seeing “baptism at the Easter Vigil as distracting from Easter” and, also, seeing immersion as “un-Anglican”.

1) Behind the “baptism at the Easter Vigil is distracting from Easter” idea, I wonder if there is the understanding of liturgy as primarily “re-enacting” the Jesus story, acting it out – often this idea comes complete with donkey on Palm Sunday and Passover meal on Maundy Thursday, etc. There is an element of this, of course. But the person who dies and rises this coming Holy Week is not primarily Jesus – liturgy is about my dying and rising, your dying and rising, our dying and rising. Baptism at the Easter Vigil, far from distracting from the Easter liturgy, best expresses it as the persons being baptised are immersed in Christ’s death and resurrection. The community gathers around the ones being baptised as we remember, celebrate, and renew our own baptism, our own dying and rising, and hope that our baptism, our dying and rising, our sharing in Christ’s dying and rising, becomes a deeper, richer reality in our lives.

Every rite of the Easter Vigil I know of includes baptism, and if there are no persons to be baptised, a renewal of baptism. Far from being a “distraction”, omitting baptism or its renewal means the Vigil loses a central, essential component.

2) “Pouring” is normally well-understood. “Immersion” means being in water. “Submersion” (sometimes called “full immersion”) means being under water. The Book of Common Prayer (1662) quaintly has:

Then the Priest shall take the Child into his hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers, Name this Child. And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying,

I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour Water upon it, saying the foresaid words,

I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

baptism“Dipping” is the first and preferred option. In NZPB, the rubric is, “The bishop or priest baptises each candidate for baptism, either by immersion in the water, or by pouring water on the candidate”. TEC’s BCP and The Anglican Church of Canada’s BAS both have, “Each candidate is presented by name to the Celebrant, or to an assisting priest or deacon, who then immerses, or pours water upon, the candidate”. CofE’s Common Worship has, “The president or another minister dips each candidate in water, or pours water on them”.

It is fair to say Anglicanism is not concerned about the age of the candidate, nor about the amount of water used. “Sprinkling” is never given as an option, and one might wonder about the loss of symbolism when a little water is used and immediately wiped off (not suggesting this affects “validity”). The impact, the efficacy of the symbol in our lives is stronger IMO when water is used abundantly. The formularies are clear: immersion is not un-Anglican, in fact it appears to be the first option presented in Anglican liturgies.

Now how we can represent this architecturally, so that the font is clearly womb, tomb, and bath – well, that might be worth another blog-post. Please let us have some of your experiences in the comments, both of baptism, including at the Easter Vigil, and also of renewed or new fonts…

Anglican Covenant – partly used

Published on December 22, 2009 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Go forward in your time machine to a few years from now and imagine seeing on eBay or Trade Me: “For Sale, one partly used Anglican Covenant – owner hoping to recoup at least some of the significant amount of money and hope invested in it.”

The first drafts of the covenant were so un-Anglican the covenant did not even mention the unifying significance of common prayer in Anglicanism. I placed a submission, as did other visitors to this site. What developed was certainly an improvement in that regard. However, in the language of the New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act the proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not “do what it is meant to do.”

The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has just released the revised text of section 4 of the proposed Anglican covenant. This is available here (left hand side last draft, right hand side current draft). A commentary from the working group that did the revision is available here. Lionel Deimel provides a possibly easier-to-follow version of the changes.

God’s platypus

God created a platypus denomination that experts have never believed can actually be a living denomination. It has bumbled on. In the last five or so decades, the communion has stumbled on fine in an “impaired” manner with women priests (and even bishops), differences about divorce, and local revisions of liturgy, even local alteration to eucharistic presidency. Now, because of disagreements over human sexuality, rather than facing that issue in the same manner as with the previous ones, there is the call to alter the whole basis of our structure. Let us be honest about this. The issue is gays. Whilst our diocese has passed a motion affirming the covenant in principle, the called for a listening process to gays has not even begun. Some people are not in a hurry to face the issue: gender and sex issues have been dealt with by Anglicanism (either overtly or covertly) in only one direction (consistently: liberalisation) – except (possibly) for gays (and even there – has any formal policy been reversed and headed back towards a more “conservative” position?). In the rising tide of these issues the “Anglican Covenant” stands as a rake trying to hold it back.

The covenant in NZ

Locally, NZ Anglicans are abysmally ill-and-uninformed (we colonials struggle with our smoke-signals under new environment-friendly protocols). A pro-covenant NZ bishop published an article in which our diocesan bishop, Victoria Matthews, was said to be one of the covenant drafters/revisers. She is not. In our numerically tiny province such comments carry disproportionate weight. He claimed that diocese would sign up to the covenant rather than provinces. He was unaware that ACC had met and sought revision of section 4.

The covenant requires recognition of four instruments of communion (and possibly the newly created “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” – a fifth?) Out of these, currently our NZ Anglican church only canonically recognises the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am no canon lawyer (in fact does NZ have any canon lawyers? We generally have so few canons – if you smile nicely in our province you can mostly get away with anything you like) but if we need to recognise the other three (or four) that requires two meetings of General Synod and a year “lying on the table for anyone to challenge” – then after that we might proceed to accept the covenant. The Church of Nigeria, of course, recently removed all references to the Archbishop of Canterbury from its constitution – so that will be a fascinating province to watch in its discussion about the covenant.

Go back in your time machine, say fifty years ago, and get everyone then to sign up to this “covenant”. Returning to the 21st century, probably there is now no three-tikanga Anglican church in NZ (remember the first ever motion by the Primates Meeting was trying to prevent that development – you don’t remember? Was the General Synod voting on three tikanga even informed of the Primates’ motion? – ah, the smoke signals problem again)? With a covenant in place over the last five decades or so, there probably also would now be no women priests or bishops (only five of the 44 member churches of the Anglican Communion actually have women bishops currently); probably no communion to infants prior to confirmation; probably no marriage of divorcees (what is it with two-or-three-times-married Anglicans loudly condemning gay lifelong commitment?); probably no divorced-and-remarried bishops (maybe not even so for other clergy, see 1 Timothy 3:2); in NZ (as well as not having the three tikanga structure of which we are so proud) probably not having two co-bishops running one diocese.

The marriage covenant, blessings, and pre-nups

Covenant sounds innocent enough – it’s a biblical word and those pro-covenant have traded on its biblical resonances (”covenant” is biblical therefore this covenant is biblical). But Anglicans have devoted little energy to the understanding of that most common of covenants, marriage (the Henry VIII factor?) [For example the CofE distinction between a service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed Charles and Camilla after they took their marriage vows, and ummm… a service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury would have blessed Charles and Camilla after they would have taken their marriage vows]. It is the poverty of reflection on marriage and blessings that has landed us in this current predicament. There has been little reflection on the validity or otherwise of the marriage covenant if a couple makes a prenuptial agreement. Section 4 of this Anglican Covenant is a prenuptial agreement.

To sign or not to sign – concretely

In part covenant discussions are thin because of the poor reflection not just about the theory and theology of communion – but of its ramifications in actual practice.

Imagine, for a moment, if the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia don’t sign the covenant. Very little changes. It is possible that these provinces lose voting rights in the non-binding meetings of the communion. I suspect they would still be present “as observers” and probably have speaking rights. Anglicans will still be able to receive communion in these churches, clergy will still be able to serve in these churches, Kiwi and North American clergy will still be able to serve in England under the Colonial Clergy Act. Kiwis will still be able to elect Canadian bishops.

What about if everyone does sign? Very little changes in terms of the hoped for unity of the Communion. If all do sign, my bishop, Victoria Matthews, still cannot act as a bishop in England, nor even read the bible aloud in the presence of men in some churches in our neighbouring province. Those she has ordained are not accepted as clergy in many places. Impaired communion is as impaired as ever. It will not alter the diversity (disunity?) within a province and diocese – where one parish uses lectionary and wears vestments, and a neighbouring parish defies using lectionary, liturgy, and only wears suits; where one parish denies the literal virgin birth, and a neighbouring parish requires its belief as core doctrine. The proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not do what so many of its advocates are convinced it is meant to do.

Some of the covenant’s strongest advocates will be sorely disappointed that the final version has removed the previous draft’s option of allowing ACNA and other members of the “continuing Anglican” alphabet soup and episcopoi vagantes groups an opportunity of signing up and fast-tracking acceptance into the Anglican Communion. The final draft is clear – only current member provinces of the Anglican Communion will be offered the covenant to sign. If you want to join the Anglican Communion – there’s already a process in place to do that.

Handing over your sovereignty

The previous draft twice had “[signing up to the covenant] does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” One of those has been removed in the final covenant. Certainly within post-colonialist Aotearoa-New Zealand Anglicanism there will need to be much convincing whether or not signing up to the covenant represents submission to some sort of body beyond our shores. One thing is certain: NZ Maori will not sign up to anything that hands over their tino rangatiratanga, their sovereignty over their own life. And within our constitutional arrangements, they hold veto over our corporate life.

Does it matter? – ultimately

Ultimately, of course, church, the gospel, and life are not about denominational boundaries. Actual unity and disunity lie at right angles to the denominational lines that occupy some people so intensely. A covenant or no covenant will make no difference to climate change issues, world poverty, wars, depression, recession, the search for meaning, the journey to holiness, relationship problems, unemployment, ill health,…

The Anglican Church of Or

Published on December 3, 2009 in liturgy. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

lectionary2010

I have just purchased the Lectionary for the 2010 Church Year of The Anglican Church in Aotearoa (comma) New Zealand (no “Oxford/Harvard comma“) and Polynesia, better known as “The Anglican Church of Or”. (With a carefully thought-through official title one would think similar great care would be taken in the common prayer that holds it together as an Anglican province, but…)

This Lectionary states, “The colours suggested for each day… are not mandatory but reflect common practice in most parishes.” (page 4). So let’s take the example in the image above for Sunday November 14. The colour for the day is Green, or… ummm… Red, or…. White, or… ummm… Violet. The day before can be Green or Red. And the day before that can be Green or white or Red. Unless of course you wanted to use Violet on that day – remember colours are not mandatory. (You are starting to see why it is called the Anglican Church of Or). Page 104 expands the options (in case you don’t think there are enough) so that on our example of November 14 you might also use “Best” or Gold or Yellow or Blue or “Lenten colour” or unbleached linen, or a deep blood red.

Some senior clergy I’ve spoken to have suggested that Gw in their day meant a Green altar frontal but a white stole! That’s fine for Green and white, even Green and violet might go together, but what happens when the colours clash :-( Yuck! And what does it mean a few days earlier November 8 where it is Gr[R]? … that must mean: Green or red or… ummmm… ummmm… Red! Of course – it’s obvious.

One suggestion: Why didn’t they save ink and just write the colour you shouldn’t use? Of course: far too prescriptive (you should never use the word should)!

What do we call that Sunday? (Let’s just stay with the English-language options currently) 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, or Proper 28, or 25th Sunday after Pentecost, or 2nd Sunday before Advent, or Remembrance Sunday, or the Feast of Christ in All Creation (unless, of course, you want to call it something else).

Now to the readings: Let’s stay with November 14 as our example. I count 18 readings you can choose from suggested for a morning service. Woops – I forgot to count the ones for the Feast of Christ in All Creation which is an option. The readings are not provided in the Lectionary (why not?!) For those you have to go to the church’s General Synod Website. The readings are provided under “C” as Wisdom 13:1-9 Or Isaiah 45:9-12 Romans 8:18-25 Or Colossians 1:15-20 John 1:1-5,10-14,18 Or Mark 16:14-20. OK – that brings the total number of suggested readings to choose from for the morning service to 24. This is a competition: if you can find more than 24 readings for any part of the day in the lectionary – please point that out in the comments. Don’t forget – in NZ if you don’t like the suggestion – you can choose your own.

This, remember is a relatively tiny province. There will probably be around 30,000 people in church on the Sunday using those readings. The second competition question is: is there any other province which has so much choice??!! My guess is that any province of any reasonable size is kept unified with a sense of common prayer by having quite a limited number of options. Most fix the readings, the colour, the collect, and give a choice of a few Eucharistic Prayers. In New Zealand you can choose the collect from a wide variety of sources (someone in the comments might like to give the number of collects provided on NZ’s digital Living Liturgy). And if you don’t like the collects provided, you can find another or produce your own.

As to Eucharistic Prayers – I have lost count how many Eucharistic Prayers NZ’s General Synod has authorised. It must be around a dozen. And if you don’t like any of those – General Synod has authorised that you can use any Eucharistic Prayer authorised anywhere in the Anglican Communion – anyone got a guess of the number (please add it in the comments)? Maybe a couple of hundred? And if you don’t like any of those you can write your own using any of the frameworks authorised anywhere in the Anglican Communion (I can think of three). And if you don’t like that, just use a reading from 1 Cor 11:23ff – we all know communities that do this and are they ever called to account?

(I have not taken into account that for the 2009 Church Year the lectionary provided online was significantly different to the hard-copy version, with different readings and different titles for Sundays – we await this year’s online version to see if even more options are provided).

30,000 in church that Sunday; at least 30,000 different combinations possible. Common Prayer?

NZ Prayer Book 20 years on

Published on November 25, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: , , , .

Sunday November 29 is the 20th anniversary of the launch of A New Zealand Prayer Book/He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (NZPB/HKMA).
I would be interested in knowing how many copies have been sold in New Zealand?
How many copies have been sold overseas?
How many copies were bought and are now sitting at the back of churches on shelves and seldom brought out, or in pews and seldom used? How many are using this book as the standard for worship?
There is a lot of enthusiasm amongst some people about this Prayer Book – but is it the prayer book as a whole – or certain sections of it that people find exhilarating? My own suspicion is that there is a small collection of nuggets within the book that people treasure and enthuse about. This post is going to quickly hover over the contents and make brief comments and ask some questions.

The Calendar
The Church Year p 4-6 has changed significant shape since 1989 (the date of publication)
a lot of the regulations p 7-13 have been altered since 1989
The Calendar p 14-25 the feasts have been added to, altered, and moved

Liturgies of the Word
Morning and Evening Worship p 29-53 my guess would be that this service is little used as it stands
Daily Services p 54-103 The Common Life Liturgical Commission provided an alternative to this with Celebrating Common Prayer (NZ). Clergy here have in these last 2 decades no longer been required to pray the office. In a denomination with previously a strong dynamic that all pray the office daily, I would be fascinated to know how many of our 100,000 faithful Anglicans use this office provided here. It should not be that difficult for that to be surveyed. I suspect it would be a very small proportion.
Daily Devotions p 104-137 I suspect these are popular before a meeting, etc. They are part of what people find and appreciate as “different” in this book.
Midday Prayer p 147 – 166 I suspect as with the Daily Devotions
Night Prayer p 167 – 186 I suspect one of the most popular services in the book
Family Prayer p 187 – 191 Had you noticed it?

Psalms for Worship p 195 – 373 Controversial because of the changes to “Israel” and “Zion”, and the removal of the imprecatory material. Inclusive, yet still translates YHWH as Lord. My guess would be – widely used.

Liturgy of Baptism and the Laying on of Hands for Confirmation and Renewal p 383 – 399
My guess would be that local variants on the baptism rite exist in a majority of places. The confirmation service is probably mostly used untouched.

Liturgies of the Eucharist p 404 – 510
General Synod has allowed so many variations to these texts in the last twenty years there will be a lot of local variation. Certainly the NZ Anglican Church is not held together by a well-known, well-loved set of eucharistic texts. In any gathering of committed Anglicans beyond a regular parish community, it would not be possible to celebrate the Eucharist without giving people the texts in their hands (or on a screen). Only a very, very small number of our 100,000 would be able to give the response to “The peace of God be with you all.”
A Form for Ordering the Eucharist p 511-514 has been supplemented by General Synod with another formulary An Alternative Form For Ordering the Eucharist
A Service of the Word with Holy Communion p518-520. My guess: rarely used.
Themes for the Church’s Year p 522-524 Not used
Seasonal Sentences Prayers and Blessings for use after Communion p 525-545 Used by half?

Sentences Prayers and Readings for the Church’s Year p550-690 Mostly not used. Recently replaced by a digital resource.
Three Year Series p 691-723 Not used

Holy Communion p 729-737 Used by half?
Ministry of Healing p 738-748 drawn from as a resource?
Reconciliation of a Penitent p 750 – 753 used rarely?
Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child p 754-761 used by half?
Blessing of a Home p 762-775 used by some, including those with a sense of humour
Marriage Liturgies p 780 – 808 probably used as a primary resource. Second Form rarely used.

Funeral Liturgies p 811- 884 used as a resource

Ordination Liturgies p 887-924 often used as is; adapted as a resource for Total Ministry/Locally Shared Ministry

Catechism p 926-938 I would be interested to know
Table p 939 – 941 No longer valid

This is a completely unscientific summary. Have you been doing the Maths as we’ve gone along – is that about 8% of the text is being regularly used and is unchanged by General Synod or its commissions etc. in the last twenty years?

What are some of the best parts of NZPB/HKMA? We are a very small church (probably about the size of a large CofE diocese) if you really had a passion about something you could probably have gotten it into the Prayer Book.
The language is inclusive (horizontally and vertically) – though the Commission’s “Out of love for the world God gave the only Son…” was even beyond General Synod’s pale, and rather than leave it to “A sentence from scripture may be read” they insisted on having “God so love the world that he gave…” Lord is still Lord – and there’s lots of Lords.
There is quite a bit of complementary imagery. Probably most famously is Jim Cotter’s paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer “Eternal Spirit, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver,…” although even the Commission couldn’t cope with Cotter’s original “Love-maker”.
There’s an increased sense of creation and a focus on the environment. Some of that was patched on later, of course. The “St Anne Liturgy”, otherwise known as the “Northland Rite” or “Pink 3″ until 1983 had language like, “Therefore, Lord of glory,…” when it became Thanksgiving for Creation and Redemption there was a find-and-replace to language such as “Therefore, God of all creation…”
Maori has an appropriately significant place. Other Pacific Island languages are included. There is indigenous artwork included.
There is a very healthy theology of ordination, of the vocation of the laity.

What are some of the worst parts of NZPB/HKMA? We are a very small church (probably about the size of a large CofE diocese) if you really had a passion about something you could probably have gotten it into the Prayer Book.
Basic liturgical principles such as consistent responses to similar cues so that they can be learnt by heart were lost.
No calls were made to abandon material someone had worked so hard on (eg. the Two Year Lectionary).
Basic liturgical principles such as being able to watch during action – rather than needing one’s head in the book – were neglected.
Little attention was given to appropriate gestures that might fit with the newly created texts.
The baptism (confirmation) rite must take the international Anglican fail prize.
There is an extremely weak theology of the Trinity.
Essentially this was a text dropped into the life of the church – there is no commentary, little formation or training accompanied its introduction.
The digital text and the print films were lost, hence the Harper Collins edition of 1997 must count as one of the Anglican Communion’s ugliest prayer books, as it is essentially a bound black-and-white photocopy.
This was part of the New Zealand church losing possession of the full copyright of the text and why unlike other Anglican provinces, it cannot place the text online – much to the chagrin of many readers here.

This site already has much on this Prayer Book. I wrote a series using the model of language to illustrate liturgy – this has
Kiwi Anglican liturgy history part 1 (= liturgy as language 2)
Kiwi Anglican liturgy history part 2 (= liturgy as language 3)
as well as liturgy as language 1; liturgy as language 4; liturgy as language 5

Celebrating Eucharist my free online book accompanying the NZ Eucharistic text – hopefully of use in other contexts also.

The Archbishops’ message on the Prayer Book’s anniversary.

NZ Prayer Book 20 years anniversary

Published on November 21, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: , , , .

It is nearly twenty years since the publication of A New Zealand Prayer Book, He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa. The three archbishops have issued the following statement.

Dear friends,

Grace and peace to you from God.

Sunday the 29th November this year sees the 20th anniversary of A New Zealand Prayer Book, He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa.

The prayer book has become a Taonga of this church but has also enriched the lives of Anglicans around the world. It is appropriate to give thanks for this treasure on the last Sunday in November this year. Valuing how many people have been supported, resourced and strengthened by over 900 pages of text, prose, poetry and theology. It is truly said that what we orate in prayer we believe, in what we believe we do (lex orandi, lex credendi, lex labore). This is the Anglican experience of common prayer shaped by widely shared liturgical texts and all the faith based words we use in prayer, contemplation, and Eucharist. On this anniversary, we can be reminded of the words at the beginning of the book

The Lord’s song has been sung in this twice-discovered land since before Samuel Marsden first preached the Gospel on that Christmas Day in 1814 in Oihi Bay.

With the publication of A New Zealand Prayer Book, He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa the song is continued, the task of the Provincial Commission on Prayer Book Revision is completed, and new voices begin to be heard.

It is our hope that the use of these services will enable us to worship God in our authentic voice, and to affirm our identity as the people of God in Aotearoa – New Zealand.

Please encourage the celebration of this treasure on the last Sunday in November in what ever way you feel moved to do so.  The prayer book itself will be your inspiration.

++ David
++ Jabez
++Brown

This site already has much on this Prayer Book. I will put up another post soon. Meanwhile there was a series I wrote using the model of language to illustrate liturgy – this has
Kiwi Anglican liturgy history part 1 (= liturgy as language 2)
Kiwi Anglican liturgy history part 2 (= liturgy as language 3)
as well as liturgy as language 1; liturgy as language 4; liturgy as language 5

Catholic spirituality

Published on November 19, 2009 in liturgy and spirituality. 9 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Regular readers here will know I usually avoid classifying myself or others into different boxes and categories. Lately Anglican Catholics have been much in the media in response to the Vatican’s setting up of Anglican Personal Ordinariates.

Bishop Christopher Epting, the Episcopal Church’s deputy to the Presiding Bishop for ecumenical and interreligious relations, has just issued a valuable statement on this.

Last Sunday, Fr Peter Williams, a leading Kiwi Anglican Catholic issued this useful statement:

We Anglican Catholics have always believed that the Church of England essentially continued as part of the great Catholic Church of the west, despite the political events that severed the link with the authority in Rome. Even here, in this corner of the very dispersed Anglican Communion, we continue to believe that. The Catholic essentials continue to keep us close, even though we Anglicans have developed a marked style of our own. As an Anglican Catholic I value that distinctive style a great deal: its dispersal of authority; its unity in essentials and great diversity in inessentials; its ability to live appropriately in very different contexts; its unity through common prayer more than through common dogma; its liberality of style, and so much else.

The Vatican offer appears to invite Anglicans to retain Anglican style, while joining a Communion which is controlled and centralised as never before, which is strangling the life of many of its own communities by its rigid insistence on inessentials such as clerical celibacy and the ordination of men only, and which is inhibiting the ministry potential of so many by demanding slavish conformity. There is an inconsistency here which makes me very uneasy. It certainly has not raised my respect for Vatican judgement or leadership. I shall be very surprised if many Anglicans respond to this offer, and they are likely to be those who cannot cope with the generosity of Anglican style anyway.

The Vatican’s problems which are great, and the Anglican Church’s problems which are also great, will not be helped at all by such an ill-considered move. The spectacular decline of organised Christianity in the west is no respecter of churches, and is best responded to with a generosity of ministry and spirit, rather than with a retreat to the fortresses.

Within all these discussions one might be forgiven for asking, “What constitutes a catholic? What is essential to catholicism? What is catholic spirituality?” Is putting a chasuble on? Or swinging a thurible with some incense? Is wearing a biretta? Or wearing lace, or calling it a cotter? Or being addressed “father”?

Drawing on the insights from the Rule of St Benedict, as highlighted by Martin Thornton, Derek Olsen recently asked these questions and added a three-legged stool to the commonly-used one of scripture, tradition, and reason: the fundamental principles of Eucharist, the Daily Office, and personal prayer. Fr. David Cobb, of Christ Church, New Haven, expanded this with another three legged stool:

If our spirituality is not grounded in the Prayer Book System of Office, Mass and personal prayer- in the same way that our theology is grounded in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason-(and one might add if our life is not focused on service, stewardship and witness, another useful three legged piece of furniture) -   then vestments, titles, billowing clouds of incenses and resonant organs are just trifles.  They are, in themselves more appealing than liturgy that is sloppy or chummy or self-consciously restrained – but they are not the point.

Might I add the point that, in my opinion, catholic spirituality is founded upon an insight, a belief, a sense that God’s creation is good. We live in a sacramental universe. With flaws, fine. But creation does not manifest God, is not a vehicle for God, in spite of anything – but because of its goodness. Our human nature is good enough to be joined to God in the incarnation. So bread and wine, and water, and relationships, and sex, and flowers, and music, and colours, and smells, and gongs, and stained-glass windows, and glorious architecture, and singing, and oil, and gestures, and laughter, and tears, and processions, and icons, and candles, and… all can and are the vehicles in and through and with which we encounter the deep mystery in whom we live and move and have our being – the mystery we call God.

Just for the record: I’m an orthodox charismatic evangelical catholic :-)

comments policy

Previous posts on Anglican Personal Ordinariates:
First post
Second post
Third post
Fourth post

St Matthew September 21

Published on September 21, 2009 in lectionary, liturgy and liturgy of the hours. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , .
The Inspiration of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio

The Inspiration of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio

September 21 Feast of Saint Matthew

Collect from Common Worship

O Almighty God,
whose blessed Son called Matthew the tax collector
to be an apostle and evangelist:
give us grace to forsake the selfish pursuit of gain
and the possessive love of riches
that we may follow in the way of your Son Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

This is a contemporary reworking of the collect composed for the Book of Common Prayer (1549). That collect was based on the Gospel reading of the day:

ALMIGHTIE God, whiche by thy blessed sonne dyddest call Mathewe from the receipte of custome to be an Apostle and Evangelist; Graunt us grace to forsake all covetous desires, and inordinate love of riches, and to folowe thy sayed sonne Jesus Christ; who lyveth and reigneth, &c.

USA (TEC) BCP has replaced it with a collect composed by Rev. Dr. Massey H. Shepherd jr reminiscent of the one for the feast of Saint Andrew:

We thank you, heavenly Father, for the witness of your apostle and evangelist Matthew to the Gospel of your Son our Savior; and we pray that, after his example, we may with ready wills and hearts obey the calling of our Lord to follow him; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

collect vandalism

Published on September 4, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

In my opinion, one of the great treasures of Western Christianity is the collect. We have a treasury of collects that goes back fifteen centuries and further. A collect, like a haiku or a sonnet, has a particular, tight literary structure. It is memorable, general, and regularly expresses a profound Christian truth in a short compass. Anglicans inherit Cranmer’s magnificent translations from the crisp Latin. Roman Catholics are working on new translations of the collects (opening prayers) which will make them look a lot more like their Anglican equivalents. Many will remember memorising the great collects in Sunday School. On many occasions Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and others pray the same collect. New Zealand Anglicans, with a culture of flexibility, choose a collect from any source they like. Each week this site has provided a commentary on at least one of the great collects. Recently all NZ Anglican clergy and worship leaders were sent a new resource cutting options to one collect provided for each celebration. Whilst I energetically agree with the principle of common prayer, I even more energetically protest the vandalism that this resource does to our wonderful inherited collect taonga (treasure).

Collects for Season and Sundays (PDF)
Collects for Other Feasts and Holy Days (PDF)

A collect concludes and completes the Gathering of the Community. Individuals gather, sing (one of the most unifying human experiences), and finally (1) are invited by the presider to (2) deep silent prayer which is (3) collected by the presider praying the collect which (4) is affirmed by the community’s Amen. After this we are gathered from being individuals to being a community ready together to hear what the Spirit is saying to us as the gathered church.

The collect (like haiku or sonnet) has its own particular, recognisable structure. In the five-fold structure, three parts are always present (marked *):

*You– Address
Who – Amplification (& motive)
*Do – Petition
To – Purpose (& motive)
*Through Jesus Christ…

An example of a collect that reaches back at least one and a half millennia and is prayed by Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others:

Let us pray (in silence) that we may love God in all things and above all things

pause for deep silent prayer

Merciful God,
you have prepared for those who love you
such good things as pass our understanding;
pour into our hearts such love towards you
that, loving you above all else,
we may obtain your promises,
which exceed all that we can desire;
through Jesus Christ our Lord
who is alive with you
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God now and for ever.
Amen.

Now compare this with the first “collect” in this new resource:

Praise to you, Christ our Redeemer
for you were circumcised this day
and given Jesus as your name.
Praise to you, Jesus, well are you named
for you save us from our sins.
Hear this prayer for your name’s sake.
Amen

This is not a collect. In this new resource, any person of the Trinity can be addressed at random rather than the great liturgical tradition of praying to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. It is a lovely little prayer that so easily gets lost in the re-cluttered vestibule of the gathering rite of those who do not understand the grammar of liturgy.

The “collects” of this new resource were sent with the information that “The Common Life Liturgical Commission has been working on developing replacement pages for pages 550 – 723 of our Prayerbook.” Many leaders in our church, not being clear about our processes, have taken this at face value and now think that those pages have been formally replaced. But those pages of our Prayer Book are binding formularies of our church. They can only be replaced by (1) a vote resulting in agreement in all houses and tikanga of our General Synod, (2) assent by a majority of our diocesan synods and Hui Amorangi, (3) another vote in a newly elected General Synod, followed by (4) a year’s wait before they become such a replacement. This “collect” resource has not even been presented to General Synod (step 1). If and when it reaches stage 2 I will be voting against these becoming formularies, against their replacing our current pages. Those pages of course need replacing – but not in this manner. Those of us committed to orthodoxy (which means “right worship”) currently have a choice in which collect we use and can continue to use either a classic or more recent collect (in the style and usage given above).

Furthermore, the material is presented with the claim that “the endings are now consistent throughout” – this is clearly false. Sometimes each year is presented with the same collect at the expense of our inherited, shared collect (eg. Epiphany). Sometimes, it seems there has not even been the slightest attempt to read the collect aloud, eg. “… help us to see to see…” (Lent 3 Year B).

The typos in the text indicate this is not a quick drawing from a digital version, someone has put a lot of energy into typing up this text. Apologies to the person(s) who has(/have) put such effort into this resource that I am so under-whelmed by its usefulness and appropriateness.

Further reading on collects
If you are interested, there is more on this approach to the use of the collect in Chapter 6 of Celebrating Eucharist.

Marion Hatchett RIP

Published on August 9, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .


Marion Josiah Hatchett

1927 – 2009

No liturgical bookshelf would be complete without some work by Rev. Dr. Marion Hatchett who died August 7. He was central in the development of the 1979 Prayer book and the 1982 Hymnal for The Episcopal Church (USA).

His writings include:

Sanctifying Life, Time and Space: An Introduction to Liturgical Study (1976)
A Manual for Clergy and Church Musicians (1980)
Commentary on the American Prayer Book (1981), and
The Making of the First American Book of Common Prayer (1982).

About leading worship he regularly asked the question “Is that particular action edifying to the people?” Ask that question before you do something you like, or think is nice, or have seen someone else do. Look at the tradition and ask, “Will this edify the people?”

Here are a couple of quotes from Hatchett that I can really identify with (to be read aloud slowly with a Carolina drawl):

The prayer book committee had operated on the assumption, apparently mistaken, that clergy, lay leaders and church musicians could read italics.

The word ‘may’ indicates that something is not normative. I once attended a rite two liturgy where all three opening sentences were said, followed by the Collect for Purity, followed by the Gloria, followed by the Kyrie in English, followed by the Kyrie in Greek, followed by the Trisagian. I was just glad that all six forms of the prayers of the people were not printed in the same place as the eucharistic liturgy and that they did not opt for all four forms of the eucharistic prayer.

I had just been organising to contact him to ask if he could provide an explanation for the pattern of Episcopalians and Roman Catholics praying the same opening prayer/collect. More on Marion Hatchett here.

Most recently he was in the news for a speech he gave recently at General Theological Seminary:

The American Church jumped way out ahead of the Church of England and other sister churches in a number of respects. One was in giving voice to priests and deacons and to laity (as well as bishops and secular government officials) in the governance of the national church and of dioceses and of parishes. The early American Church revised the Prayer Book in a way that went far beyond revisions necessitated by the new independence of the states.

At its beginning the American Church legalized the use of hymnody along with metrical psalmody more than a generation before use of ‘hymns of human composure’ became legal in the Church of England. At an early stage the American Church gave recognition to critical biblical scholarship.

The American Church eventually gave a place to women in various aspects of the life of the church including its ordained ministry. The American Church began to speak out against discrimination against those of same-sex orientation, and the American Church began to make moves in establishing full communion with other branches of Christendom.

Historically the American Church has been the flag-ship in the Anglican armada. It has been first among the provinces of the Anglican Communion to take forward steps on issue after issue, and on some of those issues other provinces of Anglicanism have eventually fallen in line behind the American Church. My prayer is that the American Church will be able to retain its self-esteem and to stand firm and resist some current movements which seem to me to be contrary to the principles of historic Anglicanism and to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Here is the full text which includes several chuckles.

Into your hands, O merciful Savior, we commend your servant Marion. Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of your own fold, a lamb of your own flock, a sinner of your own redeeming. Receive him into the arms of your mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious company of the saints in light. Amen.

May his soul and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Book of Common Prayer (TEC) page 465

Thanks to @seanferrell for letting me know

The Lectionary (part 2)

Published on July 31, 2009 in liturgy. 15 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

In the last post on the lectionary I gave background to the RCL (Revised Common Lectionary) and highlighted that a community discipline of following the lectionary frees us from the vagaries and some of the eccentricities of allowing pastors total discretion to pick their own favourite Bible passages.

I think there is always a danger from some to turn liturgy into rubrical fundamentalism – always following the instructions of our liturgies to the letter solely because these instructions are there. I am far more interested in understanding the reasoning and principles underneath our rubrics (liturgical instructions). This post, hence, will look at some of the advantages of following the lectionary as well as examining some alternatives.

The Lectionary is part of Common Prayer

  • The lectionary is a whole church or denomination sharing a unified, common pattern of biblical proclamation. For example: the gospel book we are all focusing on together this year is Mark. This is the experience of over half the world’s Christians – a remarkable movement of the Holy Spirit in our own time.
  • The lectionary means that all in a community can prepare ahead: clergy, preachers, those worshipping in the congregation, musicians, Sunday School teachers, and so on.
  • Clergy, worship leaders, and preachers meet, discuss, and pray together, share resources and ideas around the lectionary. Because the lectionary is shared ecumenically, such meetings can happen locally between many churches and denominations, and even virtually online.
  • There are wonderful shared resources around the lectionary, ecumenically, internationally, and including online. These include preaching resources, commentaries, Sunday School material, and devotional resources.
  • Individuals and groups reflect prayerfully on the following Sunday readings in the style of Lectio Divina or systematic Bible study or other methods.
  • The lectionary provides a dynamic direction with a carefully thought out pathway and flow in the church’s seasons as well as in Ordinary Time.

The alternative

In my experience, the strongest criticism of RCL comes from those who claim they want to “preach through the whole Bible systematically.” For some time I have been involved with online and offline discussion and critique of RCL. One ordained minister criticised RCL for skipping gospel passages from one week to the next. I am sympathetic to this critique. But what interests me is that when I check that ordained minister’s community website it is noticeable that when the lectionary is abandoned 2 Peter 1:20-21 is followed the next week by John 14:1-6 then Luke 10:25-28 then Isaiah 53:5 then Matthew 23:1-37 then Hebrews 10:24-25! My point is that those who abandon the lectionary appear to have scripture-reading systems that are inestimably impoverished in comparison to the RCL which they criticise.

Another supposedly “systematic-Bible-preaching” site I examined, in a year apparently dedicated to preaching systematically through the book of Jeremiah, there were actually only 14 sermons and Sundays devoted to the Book of Jeremiah. That is, in fact, about the same number of Sundays that RCL devotes to Jeremiah. With a bit of planning, that community could have used the RCL AND had as good a preaching series on Jeremiah! Another similar style of site I visited had five Sundays devoted to Romans 1, another to Romans 2:1-16, nothing for Romans 2:17-3:8, a Sunday for Romans 3:9-31, and then… no more on Romans!

My challenge to those who abandon the lectionary is: show us how your community is doing something so stunning that the negatives of abandoning common prayer are outweighed by your own system.

The Protestant Bible has 1189 chapters. Read and preached on a chapter a week (the systematic manner that many RCL-criticisers mostly suggest) – this results in…. 23 years of preaching to get through the Bible! I can just visualise the Christian formation being provided to the University student attending your church for the three years of her degree when those years just happen to coincide with the systematic preaching through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy!

The RCL as a preaching tool

Each Sunday the RCL provides a Gospel reading, another New Testament reading, a psalm, and normally two tracks for the Old Testament. One track of the Old Testament links it with the Gospel reading, the other follows the Old Testament semi-continuously in the same manner that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament are read. [Consistency demands that once a community starts following one track, that is what is used at least for that liturgical year]. Those so inclined can see that these five biblical readings for three years provide fifteen years of exposition before one even needs to return to examine a text for a second time!

It may very well have been possible to have produced something better than this three year cycle we share with more than half the world’s Christians, but that opportunity has now passed. Whatever we alter in this treasure will lead to greater losses than gains in my opinion.

Whilst I rejoice at the liturgical renewal that has put the Eucharist back at the heart of the Christian community, this has not happened without some loss. The Eucharist is the jewel in the crown of Christian worship. For some (many?) that is all they experience – the jewel, no crown. The Eucharist, hence, becomes the sole place for worship, prayer, contemplation, education, fellowship, and so forth. This is a weight too much for the Eucharist to bear.

The Sunday Eucharist ought not to be the only encounter that Christians have with the scriptures. Christians ought regularly to be encouraged to read a book as a whole, for example. Mark’s gospel, our focus this year for example, takes only little more than an hour to read. A Christian community can provide other opportunities for encountering the scriptures in a deeper way – not just individually or in small groups, but online. I am amazed when communities are not providing online resources and discussions to facilitate the deeper, ongoing, systematic, continual working through the scriptures to complement what is provided Sunday by Sunday in their common worship.

RCL, then, is not merely one cool resource alongside others that people might choose from or create their own. Just to take the example of the NZ Anglican Church: the RCL was brought to General Synod where it was passed without amendment, then all the diocesan synods and Hui Amorangi unanimously passed it, then General Synod passed it for a second time, and then a year had to go by allowing for anyone to appeal this new formulary – plenty of opportunities for the sort of discussion and amending by the sort of people who now do not use it. Everything passed unanimously. Clergy promise and sign at their ordination that they will use only authorised material in leading services, and sign again each time they get a new position and licence. Our church’s pledging not to depart from formularies like this is even binding on us as a church by Act of Parliament.

The next post on the lectionary will provide links to some of the best online resources connected to the RCL.

Liturgy as language (part 3)

Published on July 25, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

This series “Liturgy as language” is going in a direction that will be relevant to other contexts (trust me – I know what I’m doing). But this particular post continues and completes the previous post in outlining briefly the New Zealand Anglican context that has brought us to this place. If you are not in New Zealand your context may have similarities – but if there are no similarities to the NZ context, and if you have no interest in this kiwi context go for a walk through a park, or telephone a friend, or contemplate for five minutes, and we’ll see you next time…

New Zealand Anglican Liturgy from 1984

The story so far to 1984 and beyond is of an increasing abandonment of the concept and experience of “common prayer.” Common prayer includes knowing what is coming, one can prepare in anticipation for the communal worship beforehand, during the service one can respond and participate at significant moments often “by heart”, worship has stability from week to week, from one congregation time-slot to another time, and there is a sense of sharing in a wider community – from community to community, locally, and even internationally and ecumenically. [Common prayer also spares us from everything being under the control of the pastor or particular worship leader.] All that changed around 1984 in New Zealand Anglicanism.

Since that post I have had people give example after example – including one of our larger communities where the response to even “The Lord be with you” varies from week to week, demanding one keeps one’s eyes on the pew sheet…

Some comments on the previous post highlighted that the loss of common prayer includes a disenfranchising of children who cannot read, of parents supervising children, and of older people. In other words the “target” of the worship is precisely towards the age-group regularly missing in NZ Anglicanism! A further reflection might be that this means that “targeting” this age-group in this particular manner is notably unsuccessful – and that is leaving to one side my opinion that the “target” of worship ought to be God…

A list of some further changes in the last 25 years

The trajectory of liturgical worship sketched in NZ Anglicanism after 1984 continued and accelerated. Some points include:

  • At the 1987/1988 General Synods, the requirement of at least those ordained to pray the Daily Office was removed from our formularies. This resulted in individualising prayer and daily devotion. Clergy of course (one would hope) continued a personal devotional life but more often did so because it enriched their own individual piety – not with a sense that they were “praying the prayer of the church.” Even those who continue praying the Daily Office now often (mostly?) do this as a way of individual piety rather than as the prayer of the church (which it now struggles to be so understood). Furthermore, a variety of different forms of daily devotions is now provided – so that there is no assurance that those committed to the Daily Office are in any sense “on the same page.”
  • Total Ministry/ Locally shared ministry/mutual ministry increasingly developed, both in rural and urban areas. This way of locally calling to ordination (and other ministries) may include having positive encouragement of the ministry of all the baptised, but in practice it also resulted in poor liturgical formation, training, and study by those being ordained. In some places the link between presiding, pastoring, and preaching was broken.
  • Having a lay person lead the “first part of the service” with the priest absolving and leading the Eucharistic Prayer often ended up re-cluttering the Gathering Rite (so that the lay leader would have something to do), increasing a magical understanding of priesthood, and breaking the sense that the Eucharist and any service is a single, unified rite with a dynamic sense of movement. [There are other issues with this: the quality of formation of such lay leadership and concomitantly its effect on the quality of worship, the clericalisation of lay ministry, the loss of the sense of the full participation of those in the pews, and the focusing of lay ministry into the sanctuary rather than into the world...]
  • The Education for Liturgy Kit (E.L. Kit), the only provincial liturgical formation resource (an undated 200 page ring-bound prepared by the Provincial Board of Christian Education) is now pretty well unknown and difficult to obtain. There appears nowhere one can obtain it. There are no references to it I can find online. New clergy, and those coming from overseas regularly have not even heard of it.
  • One of the best endowed seminaries in the Anglican Communion, the provincial St John’s College, handed over most of its academic training to Auckland University which has little energy for what it termed “parson’s papers” such as liturgy. The NZ Anglican Church keeps no statistics of the proportions of those training now at this national theological college, but I would be interested if any reader had any idea about this. I am guessing not more than a fifth of those training for ordination are training at St John’s, and even some of them are not there for a full course, but are there only for a year or so.
  • Curacy, traditionally four years formation under two different training vicars, often became not viable financially so that some of those recently ordained were immediately placed in charge of a parish with variable ongoing training and formation.
  • This province, small in worship numbers and stretched by vast distances, has increasingly put its energy into areas other than liturgy and not placed quality of worship as a primary strategy of its common life.
  • The 1996/1998 General Synods altered the Form for Ordering the Eucharist formulary so that it is now authorised for Sunday Eucharists also. Previously this highly flexible rite was explicitly for special occasions other than the Sunday Eucharist (as it is in TEC). From this time all that is required now, even for the Sunday Eucharist, is three paragraphs in a Eucharistic Prayer – all else may be sourced elsewhere or created locally. Prior to 1998 responses varied but there was a limit to the variation. That limiting ceased in 1998.
  • In 2002 General Synod passed the Worship Template which accepts any service that has the following structure: Gathering – Story – Going out; ie. a beginning, a middle, and an end.
  • 2006 General Synod authorised the Alternative Form for Ordering the Eucharist as a formulary of our church. Even the highly flexible Form for Ordering the Eucharist clearly was not seen to be sufficiently flexible. Now all that is required is that the Eucharistic Prayer be authorised somewhere in the Anglican Communion.
  • The latest meeting of General Synod (2008) authorised another raft of Eucharistic Prayers. These are mostly not new ones, but reworking of other current Eucharistic Prayers in NZPB so that those who have one of those “by heart” find themselves stumbling over these revisions and in the congregation blurting out responses that are no longer there.

A church prior to 1984 held together by the shared discipline of common worship is now held together by everyone knowing everyone (extended whanau/family style). Understandably some are clamouring now for other forms of holding our unity.

For the New Zealand Anglican church the sense that liturgy is the work of the (whole) church wherever we are, from rural church, to school chapel, to cathedral, to hospital bedside – we are all praying the same, participating in the one worship, has been mostly lost.

Liturgy as language (part 2)

Published on July 8, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

1984 25 years on

Liturgy of the Eucharist 1984

Liturgy of the Eucharist 1984

This is the second post in a series looking at how we can use fixed liturgical worship to form thriving, vibrant, growing communities. The series began from the contention of a well-informed New Zealand Anglican priest and his assertion that he cannot think of a single congregation that follows our official liturgy that is either growing, or thriving with a good mixture of ages (especially including younger people). Furthermore, this, he sees as originating in decisions made in the 1980s.

This particular post will be part focusing on New Zealand’s Anglican liturgical history essentially over the last two and a half decades as I believe that this period’s history clarifies the situation we now find ourselves in. This will continue in a later post. And then the series will continue by exploring what, in my opinion, is the underlying dynamic that has been lost during these decades. This current post may be of particular interest more to Kiwis. So, if you have no interest in Kiwi Anglican liturgical history go and have a coffee with a friend, or go and watch a sunset, or pray the daily office…

It will become clear that in the last two and a half decades in NZ Anglicanism there has been a movement away from the concept of liturgy as common prayer. The 1984 Liturgy revision began the loss of knowing responses by heart. From this point NZ Anglicans inevitably become more book-bound (pew-sheet bound, or later projector-screen bound).

Kiwis – don’t look it up: what is the response to “The peace of God be always with you.”?

1964 to 1984

New Zealand Anglicans once had had a relatively conservative liturgical life, following the Book of Common Prayer and minor variants of that. In 1964 there began a revision process that resulted in a 1966 eucharistic rite and a further revision of this in 1970. So by 1984 there had been two decades of either the BCP or a well-received, single contemporary revision. In 1984 all that changed. Now, alongside the contemporary revision were new Eucharist rites that, though structurally relatively similar, had significantly innovative texts.

In these innovative eucharistic texts the traditional, ecumenical, internationally agreed English-language texts used throughout the Anglican Communion were replaced. The following are two examples replacing the sanctus/benedictus (”Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might…”) in 1984:

Holy God, holy and merciful, holy and just,
glory and goodness come from you.
Glory to you most high and gracious God.

and

Holy, holy, holy:
God of mercy, giver of life;
earth and sea and sky
and all that lives,
declare your presence and your glory.

One of the new rites intentionally had far more for the congregation to recite, again increasing the tendency to have more time with heads in books.

Every Sunday in the 1984 revision now no longer had a single collect usually drawn out of the great collect heritage shared throughout Anglicanism. Now each Sunday there was a choice of three collects – many of them not following a collect structure or style.

Kiwis – don’t look it up: what is the response to “The peace of God be with you all.”?

A completely new Order for Celebrating the Eucharist was produced and included in the 1984 Liturgy. In this order basically everything for a Eucharist (even responses) could be resourced from anywhere or created locally (excepting the Last Supper story and one paragraph were fixed in any constructed Eucharistic Prayer).

People were not all following the same readings either. As well as the BCP lectionary, New Zealand’s own creation (a two year thematic lectionary), the Australian Anglican revision of the Roman Catholic three-year lectionary was also authorised.

As well as music and singing being central to liturgy in my opinion, singing inevitably aids memorisation. With three completely different texts (for example) for the sanctus/benedictus (not interchangeable between rites) many communities no longer accessed good quality national ecumenical music or international Anglican and/or ecumenical musical settings.

In summary

From 1984 some wonderfully poetic, imaginative, creative, inclusive, and inculturated texts were being presented to regular worshipping Anglicans. It must be remembered, all this is within the context of a very small province of church-going Anglicans. The numbers in church (say about 35,000 in church on Sunday) are probably that of a reasonable size Church of England diocese. Moving from worshipping community to community there was no longer the expectation that the same readings would be followed, that the same collect would be used, that the same responses and texts would be used, that the same musical settings would be found. Even within a single parish, moving from one service time to another one might encounter completely unfamiliar material. Week by week turning up at the same time on Sunday one could be confronted with a different set of responses in rotation.

Creativity and flexibility became values now embodied in the official rites. Saying and singing things “by heart” (in the deepest sense of that phrase) was being lost. Common prayer – in the sense of celebrating Eucharist as the great shared worship action of Christ and his body, the church – was being lost in individualism and congregationalism. The measure of a “successful” service was shifting. The understanding of liturgy was shifting from community actions and celebration accompanied by words with a significant amount sung and by heart - to reciting beautiful poetic words at each other read from books and ever-changing pew sheets.

Answers:
The Peace of God be always with you.
Praise to Christ who is our peace.
and
The peace of God be with you all.
In God’s justice is our peace.

Next time you hear either of those particular responses check – is the person addressing you/the congregation or addressing the book (pamphlet) s/he is reading from? And are most in the congregation addressing the presider in return – or do they have their eyes fixed on the book/screen/pamphlet? If in your community you are actually addressing each other and there are no books/screens/pamphlets involved at this point give yourself a gold star liturgical WOF. If you got both the above responses correct from memory your application to lecture on liturgy at St John’s College has been accepted. For the rest of us… this series will be continued…

The next post in this series is found here