Tag Archive for 'episcopal church'

Proper Ordinary Time

Published on May 28, 2010 in liturgy. 6 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

I am receiving a lot of questions: why is this the 8th week in Ordinary Time? Why is my church using Proper 3 for the office? (from someone in TEC USA). The answer is not simple.

There are 52 or 53 Sundays in a year, depending on the year. 4 are for Advent, 1 or 2 for Christmas (depending on the year), 6 for Lent, 8 for Easter = a total of at least 19 Sundays. In a year of 53 Sundays we would need another 34 Sundays – that’s the maximum number we need. Sometimes we won’t need 34 – where do we drop a Sunday not needed? The contemporary lectionary system has decided to drop such a Sunday in the moving Lent-Easter period, so that the Church Year always ends on the 34th Sunday. Do the maths and you’ll find the Sunday before Advent, the Last Sunday of the Church Year (#34), is always between November 20 and 26. It is also the Sunday closest to November 23. Counting backwards #33 is always between November 13 and 19. It is also the Sunday closest to November 16. And so on backwards.

Ordinary Time numbering:

(used, for example by the Roman Catholic Church. The Canadian BAS calls them “propers” ie. the 7th Sunday in Ordinary Time BAS calls “Proper 7”)

There is nothing “ordinary” about “Ordinary Time”. Ordinary Time is not about common, regular, mundane, or run of the mill. Ordinary Time comes from the word “ordinal” as in “ordinal numbers”. Remember your Maths: Cardinal numbers answer “how many?” “Ordinal Numbers” tell the rank, they answer “what position?” Ordinal Numbers are first, second, third, fourth, etc.

Ordinary weeks count forward from The Baptism of the Lord. After the Day of Pentecost, however, they are checked backwards from the last week of the Church’s Year which is always the 34th week of Ordinary Time. So sometimes a week is dropped out – as in 2010. In 2010 the week prior to Lent was the 6th week in Ordinary Time. The week following the Day of Pentecost is the 8th week in Ordinary Time. Next week (following Trinity Sunday) is the 9th week in Ordinary Time. Hence, one can see why Sunday 13 June is the 11th Sunday in Ordinary Time (actually technically the Sunday in the 11th week of Ordinary Time).

The Episcopal Church:

has decided not to title the earlier Sundays in Ordinary Time like that. They are numbering the earlier ones Sundays after Epiphany. They realize that the earliest the Day of Pentecost can be is May 10. So they number “Propers” from the Sunday “closest to May 11”. But the readings are actually the same as above. ie. you either use the readings before Lent, or after Pentecost. Hence for TEC the readings for Proper 1 are just the same as the readings set for the 6th Sunday after Epiphany; Proper 2 is identical with the seventh Sunday after Epiphany. This continues to the ninth Sunday after Epiphany, the greatest number of Sundays possible after Epiphany. (TEC has a “Last Sunday after Epiphany). [TEC's proper number plus 5 = the Ordinary Sunday number which is the same as BAS proper number].

Common Worship CofE:

essentially follows the same lectionary system as the above two. But whereas the above two systems link a collect/opening prayer to the readings, Common Worship acknowledges that there is no theme to the readings and so the collect is independent of the readings. The collect for Common Worship is found by counting Sundays after Trinity Sunday.

The New Zealand Lectionary (of the Anglican Church of Or)

won’t make its mind up. Sunday 6 June is given as “Te Pouhere Sunday” (“Designated by General Synod to celebrate our life as a three Tikanga Church.” complete with its own set of readings including four options for a gospel reading, and two options each for other readings. It calls the Acts of the Apostles an “epistle”). The lectionary also calls this the Second Sunday after Pentecost, the 10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Te Ratapu Tekau ma tahi o He wa ano, and Proper 5 with its own RCL readings. No one will be told off if they call it the First Sunday after Trinity. And there will be a number of communities that will celebrate Corpus Christi on this Sunday with its own readings and collect. Of course if you have a particular thing about St Boniface and want to celebrate him this day, or this year you have a family service on the first Sunday of the month focusing on each of the twelve apostles in turn – no one will be at all surprised…

Further to our current week, the suggestion in the New Zealand Lectionary that the collect for the Day of Pentecost be used during the week following is confused and confusing. I cannot locate the formulary that would have this as advised by the lectionary. Nor can I see any logic in this. Nor can I understand the liturgical purpose of following its suggestion to have two collects.

The Day of Pentecost ends the fifty day season of Easter (that’s what the Greek word “Pentecost” means!) It does not begin a “Pentecost Season”. In the Nicene canons we are forbidden to kneel on Sundays and the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea were horrified to hear of people kneeling during Pentecost – by which they meant the fifty days of what we now call the Easter Season (Council of Nicaea, Canon 20).

During the week following the Day of Pentecost, the collect is that of the eigth week in Ordinary Time. During the week following Trinity Sunday the collect is that of the ninth week in Ordinary Time. Trinity Sunday also is a feast, not the start of a season (except possibly in the Church of England).

Have an extraordinary Ordinary Time.

predictable worship?

Published on February 23, 2010 in liturgy. 12 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council has been looking at statistics of declining attendance. Peter Carrell and Episcopal Cafe are two places drawing attention to the report. My first degree is in Mathematics – my first comment is take the greatest of care in interpreting statistics, it is not for nothing that we speak of “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Secondly, from a missional perspective, there is a particular mindset that comes with focusing on church-centred statistics. We generally gather no statistics of the number of people we serve or care for. Certainly it is beneficial to have more people within the Christian community in order to help those outside it – but there is not necessarily a direct correlation between numbers in the worshipping community and numbers of people being cared for outside worship.

Mary Frances Schjonberg reports:

The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council heard here Feb. 21 that church membership and Sunday attendance continued to decline in 2008, but also heard a call for the church to promote knowledge of the characteristics of growing congregations.

During his statistic-laden hour-long report, Kirk Hadaway, the church’s program officer for congregational research, told the council that congregations grow when they are in growing communities; have a clear mission and purpose; follow up with visitors; have strong leadership; and are involved in outreach and evangelism.

Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female; are in conflict, particularly over leadership and where worship is “rote, predictable and uninspiring.”

Those who put a particular spin on TEC’s declining numbers need to take note that “the most recent trend of declining membership began in 2000 and 2001, “long before the actions of General Convention 2003.”

I already see the response suggesting that women should stay home in order to help the church to grow! My own (clearly limited) personal experience is that when I visit a community the quality of attention paid to music, to the sermon, to welcoming, to the worship including the environment can often all be easily improved and doing so would be a significant step towards having visitors desire to return. Whatever draws someone to visit a worshipping community – that need has to be met. Hence, worship cannot be too tightly themed or we will exclude visitors. Sermons need to address our emotions, our minds, and have a point we are able to put into practice in our concrete, everyday lives. The regular congregation needs encouragement and possibly formation how to welcome newcomers and visitors and make them feel comfortable, welcomed, and with their desire to return nurtured. All this is not difficult. It is just too often not done, thought about, talked about.

My hackles were raised at blaming worship that is “rote, predictable and uninspiring.” The other side of seeing worship as “rote” is seeing it as “by heart”. Worship “by heart” has been the Judaeo-Christian tradition for at least 3,000 years. I would like to see the peer-reviewed statistical evidence that there is a correlation between “rote, predictable” worship and causality of decline. I have participated in plenty of “rote, predictable” worship, from Taize, through great cathedrals, to China, and the heart of Zaire, where there is clearly no correlation to declining numbers. The danger of linking “uninspiring” to “rote and predictable” is it feeds a prejudice that in order to grow numerically in our “new context” we need to abandon the liturgical tradition of Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, etc. Nothing, IMO, is further from the truth. In this context it is worth noting the recent announcement that the proportion of Roman Catholics worldwide has increased. IMO we need training and formation as leaders and communities to celebrate worship that is “by heart, common worship, and inspiring.”

It interests me that Peter Carrell suggests complaints that “TEC’s declining stats may, at times, be hidden from sight.” This from a province that has for nearly two decades collected no statistics provincially, and where decline is often in the most surprising places (eg. the self-described “Evangelical” diocese of Nelson). In a province which clearly suffers from the idolatory of incessant novelty (”We used ashes last year, what can we do differently for Ash Wednesday this year?”), about as far from “rote and predictable” worship as any Anglican province is able to get, it would certainly be fascinating if it could be demonstrated that we have the formula for numerical growth! I suspect, however, that we would find similar, if not more alarming decline in the NZ province highlighting my contention that there is no statistical link to liturgical worship but that the causes need to be sought elsewhere.

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

Published on February 5, 2010 in liturgy. 18 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

I intend to post reviews, from time to time, of different study bibles. Prior to commencing that series, I think it helpful if I write a little on the translation I would recommend if you do not read Hebrew and Greek. I  recommend the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), with the extra comment that, those not agile in the original biblical languages need to keep one eye on the footnotes provided.

History

William Tyndale’s New Testament translation of 1525 and the King James Bible set a standard of biblical English leading to a “Revised Version” in the late nineteenth century. This led to the “American Standard Version (ASV – 1901)” of which the “Revised Standard Version (RSV)” was the authorised revision. This last work was completely revised by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches as well as Jewish representation to form the NRSV (1989).

The NRSV was able to take advantage of scholarly developments since the RSV including the availablility of  the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscript discoveries.

Translation principles

Linguistically the NRSV stands intentionally in the Tyndale-King James tradition. The Hebrew text is primarily the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical texts are from the Septuagint with reference to the Vulgate. The New Testament is a translation of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition. The principle of translation is formal equivalence (as much as possible “word for word” rather than dynamic equivalence – “idea for idea”). Where the original clearly is intended to refer to both genders the translation has attempted to do this as smoothly as possible, clearly noting this in the footnotes. God retains the masculine pronoun. No attempt is made to alter masculine concepts of God such as “Lord” etc. In fact the Divine Tetragrammaton is translated as “LORD”. The archaic second person familiar forms (”thee”, “thou”), often confused as actually being polite forms, have been standardised to “you”, “your” etc. Many translations betray their theological presuppositions in soteriology (theories of salvation) or in hiding apparent biblical inconsistencies. NRSV can be trusted not to do that.

There is an edition following the Protestant canon, another including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books; there is a Catholic Edition containing the First Testament books in the order of the Vulgate, and an anglicized edition which alters the text slightly to fit to British spelling and grammar. Other translations have been assiduous in marketing their product with a large variety of different presentations (teenage bibles, women’s bibles, men’s bibles, 12 step bibles, etc). NRSV has been notably weak in the variety of options available. Thankfully that is slowly improving.

The Episcopal Church and many Anglican provinces have approved the NRSV for worship. Common Worship (CofE) uses it as a standard. It is approved for Roman Catholic use and is the primary translation used in Catechism of the Catholic Church (the other being the RSV).

Conclusion

If you are looking for one translation and you are not confident in the biblical languages, the New Revised Standard Version is the one I would recommend.

Resources

Please remember this site has a collection of the best free, online resources to enhance your study of the scriptures. Beyond this website there is also:

The NRSV online

The NRSV online (an alternative site)

Search the NRSV online

Concise Concordance to NRSV online

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,…

Thomas Merton

Published on December 10, 2009 in liturgy. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , .

6a00e008d75255883401116866de00970c-piThomas Merton died 41 years ago today. Some years back I moved a motion at our diocesan synod, the cogs of which have been slowly working – (ACANZP’s) General Synod is anticipated to have its second vote on this in 2010 and then, after a year “lying on the table” (for anyone to make a submission that this should not proceed) he will be added to the formal calendar of this church. Appropriately; he has strong connections to New Zealand. The Episcopal Church this year added Merton to their calendar at their General Convention. In their Holy Women, Holy Men: Celebrating the Saints they describe him:

Thomas Merton [1915-Dec. 10, 1968] Trappist author and poet. Merton’s Catholic  conversion is the subject of his best-selling The Seven Storey Mountain. He became a  contemplative monk at Gethsemane Abbey in Kentucky, yet remained engaged with social justice and world affairs through reading and vast correspondence.

Gracious God,
you called your monk Thomas Merton to proclaim your justice out of silence,
and moved him in his contemplative writings to perceive and value Christ at work in the faiths of others:
Keep us, like him, steadfast in the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ;
who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Christ-like ninjas

Published on October 20, 2009 in liturgy. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , .

I always love light-hearted approaches that still strongly make a serious point!

Congratulations to Valiance Weaver and Brandon Watson

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

Worship witness work

Published on August 4, 2009 in liturgy. 3 Comments Tags: , , , .

I have just been pointed to a very attractive video by Michelle Ngo with music composed by Daron Murphy. It shows some highlights from the Episcopal Church since the General Convention of 2006. In my opinion it presents a very attractive image of a church’s worship, witness, and work. I am a strong advocate of quality and enthusiasm in those dimensions of our Christian life – and of using the new technologies available to present our life.

I am not interested in debating here decisions or directions of the Episcopal Church. There are plenty of other sites devoted energetically to that. Anglican cap tip to Scott Gunn.

Episcopal Church liturgy resources

Published on July 29, 2009 in liturgy. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

My good e-friend @scottagunn forwarded the URL of the draft liturgical material considered and now approved by the recent General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA).

You can download the report’s 398 pages in PDF form from here.

This includes
Rachel’s Tears, Hannah’s Hopes Liturgies and Prayers for Healing from Loss Related to Childbearing and Childbirth starts on page 21 of the download
Holy Women, Holy Men: Celebrating the Saints starts on page 82 of the download
Other holy persons worthy of consideration – page 379 of the download
Helpful information about those being commemorated starts on page 381 of the download

As soon as the final material is made available online I hope to place a link from this site.
The context of this site’s readers differs from place to place. I am sure there is much in this massive work that you can use or adapt usefully in your own context. Some of the material some may find particularly challenging. I am not prepared to debate that on this site. There are plenty of other sites which focus on debate about TEC’s life and direction including its liturgical life. This blog post is providing the service of making this substantial resource more widely available for you to choose and adapt material from as you find appropriate within your own particular context.

Dancing and worship

Published on July 28, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: , , , .

Continuing from yesterday’s post on dancing…

Some, of course, have built their places of worship with a sloping floor – explicitly so that the space can never be used for dancing! Some think dancing is sinful – even outside of worship…

Choreographing the Trinity

Gregory of Nazianzus used the term perichoresis (περιχωρησις) for the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. This term derives from peri “around” and choreio “dance.” In English our word choreography derives from this. God’s inner relationship is like that of a dance. Gregory’s image was picked up by John of Damascus, and is used by contemporary theologians such as C. Baxter Kruger, Jurgen Moltmann, Miroslav Volf, and John Zizioulas. [In the scriptures the word only occurs in the Septuagint in Genesis 13:10 and in Matthew 14:35 - in both cases it is used to "dwell around"].

Simchat Torah

Each year, when Jews conclude reading the Torah through, they dance with the scrolls on the feast of Simchat Torah:

This year that falls on October 11 (23 Tishrei).
See also, and here.

More dancing and worship

The Community of the Beatitudes (a mixed Roman Catholic community of men and women, celibate, single, married, and families) also incorporate Jewish-style dancing into their community life. I am unable to locate an online video of this dancing – possibly one of my readers can find one. Our local Beatitudes community is at Leithfield Beach just North of Christchurch. (More info)

Beatitudes Community Praying

I have been urged to embed the Easter Vigil service from St Gregory of Nyssa. This includes dancing:

First Communion on the Moon

Published on July 16, 2009 in liturgy. 34 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .
L-R Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin

L-R Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin

On Sunday July 20, 1969 the first people landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were in the lunar lander which touched down at 3:17 Eastern Standard Time.

Buzz Aldrin had with him the Reserved Sacrament. He radioed: “Houston, this is Eagle. This is the LM pilot speaking. I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in, whoever or wherever he may be, to contemplate for a moment the events of the last few hours, and to give thanks in his own individual way.”

Later he wrote: “In the radio blackout, I opened the little plastic packages which contained the bread and the wine. I poured the wine into the chalice our church had given me. In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup. Then I read the Scripture, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit.’ I had intended to read my communion passage back to earth, but at the last minute Deke Slayton had requested that I not do this. NASA was already embroiled in a legal battle with Madelyn Murray O’Hare, the celebrated opponent of religion, over the Apollo 8 crew reading from Genesis while orbiting the moon at Christmas. I agreed reluctantly…Eagle’s metal body creaked. I ate the tiny Host and swallowed the wine. I gave thanks for the intelligence and spirit that had brought two young pilots to the Sea of Tranquility. It was interesting for me to think: the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the very first food eaten there, were the communion elements.”

NASA kept this secret for two decades. The memoirs of Buzz Aldrin and the Tom Hanks’s Emmy- winning HBO mini-series, From the Earth to the Moon (1998), made people aware of this act of Christian worship 235,000 miles from Earth.

The 2003 Episcopal Church General Convention resolved that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music prepare propers and collects for churchwide observance of the 40th anniversary of the event, July 20, 2009, and to include “The First Communion on the Moon” in The Episcopal Church’s Lesser Feasts and Fasts and on the calendar in the Book of Common Prayer for July 20. (Biretta tip: @rrchapman)

I only have the 1991 Lesser Feasts and Fasts on my shelf so cannot quote more than what I have found online. If you have the revised version, please add any omitted material in the comments section. I understand that there is now a “Common” to commemorate “those who have died in the course of space exploration – among them a significant number of Episcopalians. In addition, it provides a way of praying for future space explorers and for the thousands of people whose work make the space program possible.” The collect for this “Common” reads:

Creator of the universe,
your dominion extends through the immensity of space:
guide and guard those who seek to fathom its mysteries [especially N.N.].
Save us from arrogance lest we forget that our achievements are grounded in you,
and, by the grace of your Holy Spirit,
protect our travels beyond the reaches of earth,
that we may glory ever more in the wonder of your creation:
through Jesus Christ, your Word, by whom all things came to be,
who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.

Colonel Aldrin holds a doctorate in astro-physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), was acknowledged as the most highly educated of the first astronauts. He is a wonderful example of a scientist who is a committed Christian.

There appear differing versions of the story whether Buzz Aldrin was a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian/Anglican. I hope this will finally be settled in the comments and then I can amend this post – please add a reference to your comment of the denomination to which Buzz Aldrin belonged at the time of the lunar landing. Here are the conflicting references I have found so far:
Anglican/Episcopalian 1, 2, 3 (click on number to got to website)
Presbyterian 1, 2 (click on number to got to website)

Other useful sites:
Buzz Aldrin website
@therealBuzz

Update: an anniversary post is now online

Baptism – communion – in which order?

Published on July 4, 2009 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishop’s Theology Committee has just produced a first report on the question of whether the unbaptised might be welcomed to receive communion.

In the past, it was those with a low view of the Eucharist who might have argued that anyone can receive communion. For them it was merely bread and wine. In that end of the spectrum, the issue would have arisen less in any case, with once-a-month or three-or-four-times-a-year communion. In fact, as I have argued on this site more than once, simplistic constructs of “evangelical”, “catholic”, and so forth, are little use any more in serious dialogue. It is often those with a high sacramental view of the Eucharist who are now the strongest exponents of allowing the unbaptised to receive communion – what is regularly termed “open communion.”

In discussion with those who are firmly only for communicating members of the church by baptism there is often an embarrassed confusion in response to the question would they refuse communion to members of the Salvation Army or Society of Friends (Quakers) [neither of which practice baptism] and do they not recognise them as being Christians, members of the body of Christ, the church?

Two models

1) Baptism before communion. This sees communion as the repeatable part of the sacrament of initiation/incorporation into the church, the Body of Christ. It is expressed architecturally by having the baptismal font at the entrance of the community’s worship space – so that one passes from the baptistery, the font to the table. Baptism is the full initiation into the Christian community life that is nourished at the community’s meal. The NZ Anglican province is one of many that allows and encourages participation in the Eucharist from the moment of baptism, and for all the baptised whatever their denomination. Unlike the Episcopal Church, it does not have a systematic set of canons. TEC has an actual canon that states “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.” So I am not sure if anywhere there is any forbidding of communicating the unbaptised in the NZ Anglican province – but perhaps someone could point to such in the comments.

This model follows the tradition of (a) baptism for all – communion for the committed or (b) baptism for the committed – communion for the committed. This model, of course in practice, can result in baptism and no communion.

2) Communion before baptism. This model, of course, includes communion continuing after baptism. It would not normally be understood as an ongoing life of regularly receiving communion regularly without exploring baptism. This model sees a strong message in Jesus’ radically inclusive table-fellowship that expressed, modelled, and lived out his good news and was highly significant in the animosity that he experienced. It is best architecturally expressed in the purpose-built church of St Gregory of Nyssa, San Francisco, where one encounters the altar first as one enters the building and has to pass that in order to get to the community’s font. From the table to the font. Communion for all – baptism for the committed.

There will be several excellent reflections out of the highly intentional positive approach of St Gregory of Nyssa.  St Gregory’s grew a congregation from nothing to about 250 in a diocese losing a third of its membership. This, of course, does not justify the practice (please let us not predicate our theology and liturgical practice on marketing strategies as is so often experienced!), but neither can such a story be quickly discounted.

First the Table, then the Font by Richard Fabian (one of the founding rectors of St Gregory’s), for the Association of Anglican Musicians, 2002
Giving What Is Sacred to Dogs? Welcoming All to the Eucharistic Feast (Article to purchase)

The House of Bishop’s Theology Committee report concludes

Whatever our views on open communion, it appears that there is a great deal of catechetical work to be done in parishes. It is essential to understand the doctrinal and liturgical connections between baptism and eucharist, especially in a church that has been affirming the centrality of baptism. These rich and complex connections are deeply manifest in the historic faith and practice of the Church.

We invite the church into this work. For in the absence of a revived catechesis and a commitment to lifelong learning and formation among the faithful, it is likely that our views on open communion will be formed either by an unreflective repetition of tradition, or strongly formed habits of individualism and freedom of choice, rather than by careful habits of theological reflection.

Sara Miles

Sara Miles is well known for her story of her unexpected and, for her, terribly inconvenient conversion from secular atheism. One morning, aged 46, for no particular reason, she wandered into St Gregory’s and received communion. She found herself radically transformed. Again Sara’s account is not validation, and she does not want it to be taken as such – but Sara does challenge us:

“I believe the presence of unbaptized people at communion is a call to conversion for the baptized. That the presence of the unwashed, the queer, the Gentile, the Syro-Phoenician, all outsiders, is always a gift from Jesus to us. We welcome strangers because our own salvation depends on them: because through them God interrupts us, breaks down our idolatry, offers us new ways to experience God’s presence than if were we locked away in a small room with the like-minded and doctrinally pure. It ain’t our Table: and the ongoing converting power of the Eucharist can’t be contained by our attempts to control the ritual.” (Sara Miles)

A note from New Zealand

The New Zealand Anglican baptismal and confirmation rite is eccentric in many ways. One of these is that the unbaptised present are explicitly excluded from verbal participation while those members of the congregation who are baptised respond with words exclusive to them. This exclusivity, in my experience is always experienced as hurtful by several present. People accept an invitation to support a friend or family member and attend their baptism and/or confirmation. They, themselves may not be baptised but are supportive of their friend’s/family member’s decision. Suddenly, in the middle of the service, the rubric has

The bishop or priest says to all those present who are baptised Christians
Let us, the baptised, affirm that we renounce evil and commit our lives to Christ. Blessed be God, JESUS IS LORD!

Even should they have experienced through hearing scripture, singing, and preaching, and participating to this point in the baptismal rite, some stirring towards Christian commitment – suddenly they may not affirm their renunciation and commitment. That, in New Zealand, is clearly only for the baptised. Soon, too, the Apostles’ Creed is recited – again to be said only by those who have been baptised. There is much else that is peculiar in New Zealand’s baptism and confirmation rite, but in the context of this current discussion, the surprising explicit verbal exclusion in a service is worth holding alongside the sacramental exclusion.

The Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations Resolution

Admission of the Non-baptised to Holy Communion

IASCER (2007)

1. affirms that Christian initiation leads us from incorporation into the Body of Christ through Baptism to full participation in the life of grace within the Church through Holy Communion

2. notes again with grave concern instances in some parts of the Anglican Communion of inviting non-baptised persons, including members of non-Christian religious traditions, to receive Holy Communion

3. reminds all Anglicans that this practice is contrary to Catholic order as reflected in principles of canon law common to all the Churches of the Anglican Communion

4. believes that the invitation to Holy Communion of non-baptised persons undermines ecumenical agreements on Baptism and the Eucharist, current policies of offering eucharistic hospitality to “Christians duly baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity and qualified to receive Holy Communion in their own Churches”[3], and eucharistic sharing agreements between churches

5. believes that the communion of the non-baptised undermines the very goal and direction of the ecumenical movement, namely the reconciliation of all things in Christ of which the Eucharistic Communion of the baptised is sign, instrument and foretaste.

Update: please take care to abide by the comments policy of this site

sacraments 101 (Or O Level)

Published on June 6, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Fr Alberto Cutié

Fr Alberto Cutié

In the midst of the media frenzy over “Oprah-famous”, telegenic Father Alberto Cutié moving from the Roman Catholic Church to The (Anglican) Episcopal Church (TEC), there has been an interesting sub-story in the confusion of long-time (20 years?) Religion Correspondent of The Times Ruth Gledhill. In essence Ruth very surprisingly does not seem to understand the traditional sacramental teaching of Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and others that ordination, like baptism cannot be “undone”.

Initially Ruth wrote a startling paragraph which she later deleted:

If Father Cutié is not eventually dismissed from his orders, but even if he is, and then goes on to become an Episcopal priest, will he need to be ordained again? And whether re-ordained or not, will the Catholic Church then view his orders as ‘absolutely null and utterly void’ or not? If not, could this apparent tool of ecumenical discord have the potential to bring about eventual healing between our two churches, beginning a line of succession that the Holy See could recognise as Apostolic? Forgive me please for the betrayal of ignorance in these questions, but if any readers have the answers, I would be most interested to know.

This paragraph appears not to understand the Vatican cannot undo his orders, Anglicans accept Roman Catholic orders and do not “re-ordain” them, and a priest cannot start a “line of succession” – only bishops can.

After some coffee Ruth must have realised some of her confusion, but she replaces the paragraph with one that is still startlingly befuddled:

I’ve deleted an earlier paragraph and am substituting this. To paraphrase Socrates it is a wise woman who knows she knows nothing, but I perhaps did not phrase my original question very well in my haste to finish the blog and get back to the poolside. ‘Speaking in thongs,’ as one wit has observed. I know of course that in the normal course of events, Catholic priests going the Anglican way do not need re-ordination and that Anglicans recognise Catholic orders and that once a priest in the Catholic Church, always a priest. What I was trying to ask, perhaps rather incompetently, was, in the event that no proper procedures, not even notification to the bishop, have been followed and Rome exacts revenge by deprivation of orders or whatever the ultimate penalty is what then? Anglicans probably would think it made no difference but what would the correct position be? That was what I was hoping to discover from readers.

Ruth continues to think that the Vatican can “exact revenge” and deprive someone of their orders. Let’s just put traditional sacramental theology on this issue as simply as one can: no one, not even the Vatican, can unbaptise someone, unconsecrate the Eucharist, or un-ordain a validly ordained deacon, priest, or bishop.

Plenty of Roman Catholic priests have joined the Anglican church. To ordain them again would be a sacrilege as it would be denying God’s action in what are clearly valid sacraments. All that the Anglican diocesan bishop does is check the documentation of ordination and can then decide, if appropriate, to give him a position by licensing him to the priestly role in the diocese.

Further internet discussion on Father Alberto Cutié has strayed into discussions on the 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, which pronounced Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”. These discussions appear unaware that since then Roman Catholics have also reformed ordination rites making them highly similar to Anglican ones. Furthermore, as well as Roman Catholic lines of succession within Anglicanism, since 1931 Anglicans and Old Catholics have been in full communion. Old Catholic orders are accepted as valid by the Vatican, and Old Catholics have, since 1931, been fully involved in Anglican ordinations, restoring continuity in the minds of those who considered there had been some sort of “break”.

Finally, there has been outrage by some against TEC for accepting Father Alberto Cutié’s request to join them – to the point of seeing it as further proof that TEC is not part of the Christian religion. There are plenty of websites where people can add their diatribes about TEC or the invalidity of certain orders. Comments below are about the sacramental theology addressed in this post and follow this site’s comments policy.

Selective biblical literalism

Published on May 12, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , .

We all, from time to time, encounter individuals (even online or elsewhere) who claim to follow the Bible literally in every detail – but a little pressing shows them to be selective in what they actually adhere to and what they ignore or sidestep.

Bart Ehrman was such a person. Raised in the Episcopal Church (Fr. Matthew’s), he had a conversion experience as a high school sophomore and was “born again”. He attended Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He held and taught and wrote about that the Bible was completely without error in the original texts. However, spending more time with those original texts resulted in his realisation that those texts themselves showed the glaring weaknesses of an inerrant approach and, as in Father Matthew’s video, Ehrman’s faith came tumbling down. And he now has a new book.

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage

There are other models for treating the Bible with appropriate reverence through which the Spirit continues to speak to the church. And which do not need us to leave our brains at the church door as we enter.

One model is the Bible as the memory of God’s people. My memory is very tied in with my identity – the Bible is tied in with the identity of God’s people. Memory is not a film of the events of my life – it is the essence of those events as interpreted by me and how they are significant to me. Memory collects similarities together. Memory distorts and rearranges in order to make sense of my life and interpret the events to myself. In the library of the Bible, with its variety of genres, of literary styles, God interprets events and makes sense of them for us. We are generally agile at recognising what literary style we are dealing with – but occasionally we do get it wrong, even with contemporary material – misjudging an ironic piece and reading it straight, or not recognising something is actually an advertisement and judging it to be an article. With ancient texts we are far less agile at recognising the literary style. We need to have the humility to acknowledge we may be incorrect in judging whether a text is history or allegory, fable, parable, or poetry. The Bible may be moving in a general direction, and we may misjudge its trajectory. Reverence for scripture need not be opposed to humility about our understanding and interpretation of it.

Hat tip to Andrew plus

“Anglican” personal prelature?

Published on February 12, 2009 in liturgy. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , , .

There has been much internet speculation that the Vatican will establish an Anglican personal prelature for unhappy Anglicans. Opus Dei is currently the only personal prelature. Unlike most church governance, which oversees a geographic territory, a personal prelature has a prelate, appointed by the pope, who oversees those linked by a particular agreement rather than living in a particular location.

Within the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church there is a pastoral provision since 1980 of the option of incorporating certain Anglican liturgical traditions within the Roman Rite. This is set out in the Book of Divine Worship. About seventy priests from The Episcopal Church have had their orders regularised and can now function as Roman Catholic priests. Seven parishes follow the Book of Divine Worship.

Internet speculation and newspaper Chinese whispers has the Traditional Anglican Communion, a body claiming about 400,000 faithful, on the threshold of being accepted as a Roman Catholic personal prelature. Ruth Gledhill, the influential Times Religion Correspondent, has repeatedly promoted this rumour (another example). The Traditional Anglican Communion parted company with the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women, liturgical revisions, and homosexuality.

Archbishop John Hepworth

Archbishop John Hepworth

Let’s put this rumour out of its misery once and for all. The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, John Hepworth, was a Roman Catholic priest who left his celibacy vows and the Roman Catholic Church, joined the Anglican Church of Australia and got married, then divorced, then married again, also leaving his commitment to the Anglican Church of Australia. And the Vatican is on the threshold of accepting this Traditional Anglican Communion as a personal prelature! Yeah right! Furthermore, the Vatican officially still holds to Anglican orders being invalid. And not one of the – is it 27? – different rites of the Roman Catholic Church has married bishops. Nor do Eastern Orthodox.

As a footnote: Isn’t it fascinating that those who hold to biblical literalism on the few, disputed texts about homosexuality, and/or women in leadership (”them“) – appear to be so selective in their stance when it comes to divorce (which so quickly is about “us”), with Jesus having said nothing about the former, and being quite clear about the latter. I have seen little (no?) disquiet about Anglican/Episcopalian twice or thrice married bishops. Just one example: Bishop Walter C. Righter was put on a heresy trial not for being married thrice, but for ordaining a gay man in Newark. [Ps. The charges were dismissed 7-1]

Update February 13: Those readers who take seriously the prophetic powers of Herbert W. Armstrong of The Plain Truth and his ascertaining that these are the end-times will be interested to note the eagerness with which their website reports these Chinese whispers:

The Trumpet has followed this subject closely because of its prophetic significance. For half a century, Herbert W. Armstrong and his Plain Truth magazine expounded on biblical prophecies foretelling the unification of Protestants with their Roman Catholic mother church. The October 1961 Plain Truth, for example, said this: “The pope will step in as the supreme unifying authority—the only one that can finally unite the differing nations of Europe. … Europe will go Roman Catholic! Protestantism will be absorbed into the ‘mother’ church—and totally abolished.” This prophecy is in process of being fulfilled right now. The Vatican may announce its decision to absorb the Traditional Anglican Communion around April this year. (Source here)

Furthermore, one might be helped to ascertain the significance of a “communion” that claims “400,000″ faithful by their international URL: http://acahomeorg0.web701.discountasp.net/tac/tac_index.aspx