Tag Archive for 'worship'

Resources for Lent 2

Published on February 25, 2010 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Some are celebrating the Transfiguration this Sunday (Luke 9:28-36), others are reading Luke 13:31-35. Here are some reflections for starters

Second Sunday in Lent February 28 (Transfiguration option) from the collect/opening prayer
Second Sunday in Lent February 28 (CofE Common Worship) from the collect/opening prayer

O God, whose glory it is always to have mercy:
Be gracious to all who have gone astry from your ways,
and bring them again with penitent hearts and steadfast faith
to embrace and hold fast the unchangeable truth of your Word, Jesus Christ your Son;
who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
BCP (TEC) Lent 2

Others may like to add hymns, prayers, ideas, resources, for Sunday or Lent generally

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

How Jewish is your Jesus?

Published on January 28, 2010 in liturgy. 10 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Last week a flight from New York to Louisville was diverted to Philadelphia when the flight crew saw a 17-year-old Orthodox Jew wearing a pair of tefillin (phylacteries) while praying. The flight attendant asked for, and received an explanation. Nonetheless, fearing a terrorist attack, police, officials from the FBI, and Transportation Security Administration stormed the plane, at gunpoint ordered everyone to put their hands up, and handcuffed the lad.

Jesus, it seems had tassels on the four corners of his outer robe (Mt. 9:20; 14:36; Mk. 6:56; Lk. 8:44), Jesus most probably wore tefillin (phylacteries) while praying, and almost certainly the Pharisees who disputed with him would have worn them all the time. Is this your image of Jesus? And if not, why not? Do we make Jesus into our own image, forgetting that he would feel pretty much at home in contemporary Jewish or Eastern Orthodox worship, and might feel a bit out of place in the “non-liturgical” worship that maybe most of those on the plane are used to?

It fascinates me, that as I was looking on the web for an image of Jesus wearing tefillin to add to this post: I could not find a single one {other than this one by (the Jewish) Chagall}. I asked my 46,000 followers on twitter. Not one of them could find an image of Jesus wearing tefillin either. Reinforcing the point of my above paragraph.

And if (as Christians) we don’t recognise the tefillin (phylacteries) from our interest in Jesus (and at least our reading of Matthew’s Gospel), what about our knowledge, respect, and understanding of other great World Faiths, not least the Jewish religion? Jews regularly wear tefillin (phylacteries) on planes flying into New York from Israel. New York is well known for its large, significant Jewish population. Surely knowing about Jewish prayer practice is an essential part of well-educated general knowledge?

In this video, Shmuly Tennenhaus demonstrates how one might pray using tefillin on an aeroplane without frightening ignorant passengers and crew.  As always, beneath good humour is a serious point. Enjoy.

Kippah/zuchetto/yarmulke tip to Seven whole days

homodoxy

Published on January 21, 2010 in liturgy. 31 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

I think the word “orthodox” might be in trouble. Let’s try and save it from losing its meaning.

I am seeing a lot of people calling themselves “orthodox” Christians and using the term to put down others as “unorthodox”, “heterodox”. But actually I don’t think these particular people should be allowed to use the term “orthodox” – as they are changing its meaning (and hence emptying its meaning IMO). They are perfectly welcome and free to start a new movement, start a number of new movements, but these particular people are not orthodox – there is a perfectly good word for them: they are homodox.

Orthodox, first of all, means “right worship” (ortho – right; dox – like doxology – worship). If you call yourself orthodox, at the very least it should mean that most Christians for the first 1500 years or so of Christian history should be able to walk into your worship and pretty much feel at home. Augustine, Teresa, Ambrose, Luther, Francis, Hildegard, Basil, Julian, Justin, etc. should be able to walk into your worship and recognise you are following a lectionary inherited from the Synagogue, have the basic shape of worship inherited from the earliest church, a Eucharistic Prayer, and responses that go back to the Last Supper and beyond, to a thousand years or so earlier…

Orthodox, would also mean, right beliefs. At the very least that would surely be affirming the important doctrines and disciplines of the seven ecumenical councils of the united church of the first thousand years or so. Should that not include the church’s structure that along with its liturgy and scriptures evolved fairly quickly in the earliest period of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Some might call themselves “orthodox” but could probably not name the councils, let alone state anything they teach, or justify why they reduce them to, for example, four, or claim to hold to them but would balk at, for example, calling Mary “Theotokos”)

Homodox means “having the same opinion”. Many people who are misusing, abusing the term “orthodox” are in fact not orthodox at all, they are homodox (let me preempt the comment now: it does not mean worshipping gays :-) ) They want everyone to think exactly like them (yes, often particularly about gays). Orthodox can cope with diversity, do not need everyone to agree about everything, celebrate diversity, honour difference: In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas. (In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.)

So next time you see someone putting down others, and calling themselves “orthodox”, pause, check whether they really are orthodox or whether that word is being abused and emptied of its meaning. And then, if they pause momentarily from their tirade, and you have even an inkling they might be prepared to listen to someone else, take a deep breath and very politely tell them they aren’t orthodox but homodox. Of course if they listen to you, and are prepared to change their mind,… maybe they aren’t.

The sound of silence

Published on December 1, 2009 in liturgy and spirituality. 9 Comments Tags: , .

John Cage (1912–1992) composed Four minutes, thirty-three seconds (or “Four, thirty-three”) in 1952. The score states the performer(s) do not play an instrument through three movements (thirty seconds, two minutes and twenty-three seconds, one minute and forty seconds).

For the premiere David Tudor sat at a piano and closed the keyboard lid. Some time later he opened it marking the end of the first movement. This was repeated for the second and third movements. John Cage said, “They missed the point. There’s no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began patterning the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.”

This reminds me of my experience of watching  Into Great Silence:

It is a unique experience to sit in a quiet, full cinema, where we are used to at least some background music, and for the first thirty to forty minutes there is no music, no human voice. Every sound is heightened – the sound of the snow falling on the screen, a cough in the cinema.

Silence is an essential part of worship – individual silence, corporate silence. [Those who have been to Taize or have been part of that style of worship know how silence is integral there]. How do you use silence individually? As a community?

priest is my altar ego

Published on November 18, 2009 in liturgy. 25 Comments Tags: , , , .

Occasionally one encounters an internet troll. Their aim is merely to pick a fight. Recently I had a person on twitter take issue with my calling myself a priest.

This person claims to be a church leader (not a priest!) in a well-known denomination, claims to be able to read Greek, etc. But he could not and would not answer my simple question posed in different ways: “what is the origin of the English word priest?” Even after I twice sent him links on the etymology of the English word priest. Instead, I got a barrage of responses about Maryolatry, Christ’s unrepeatable sacrificial death, the inefficacy of works, the absence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priesthood of all believers, the evils of tradition, and on and on it went…

The word priest came up in last Sunday’s reading didn’t it:

Hebrews 10:11-14,(15-18),19-25

11 And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins.
12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,”
13 and since then has been waiting “until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.”
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds,”
17 he also adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh),
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful.
24 And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds,
25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

The problem is akin to the issue with the English word “love”. Generally people have become more nuanced with that word, clarifying if they mean love (agape, αγάπη) or love (eros, ἔρως), etc. We need to do the same IMO with the word priest.

The English word priest derives from the Greek presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος), in fact it is a contraction that can still be spotted from the original word PRESbuTeros. [Just as the English word bishop derives from the Greek episcopos (επίσκοπος) and is also a contraction that can still be spotted from the original word: ePISCOPos.]

The word used in the letter to the Hebrews reading above, in the concept of priesthood of all believers, in the Old Testament for Levites, etc. is NOT presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος). It is a completely different word: hiereus (ἱερεύς). Unfortunately the English word priest does double duty. It is rightly used for the ordained elder in a community, the presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος), as it has from the beginning of Christianity. It has also come to be used for hiereus (ἱερεύς).

Unfortunately, because of this simple dual usage of the English word, theological confusion reigns. Many abandon the Christian tradition going back to the New Testament of leadership by a priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) on some sort of misunderstood assumption that our shared hiereus (ἱερεύς) has overthrown the New Testament and undivided-church tradition of such leadership by a priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος). Unfortunately the prevalence of clericalism in some quarters, where priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is treated as some sort of sacred caste, has in fact made the issue worse, not better.

Because of the misunderstanding between the terms, many think and act as if getting the laity to act more like a priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is somehow affirming the priesthood of all believers when it does nothing of the sort – it is unfortunately merely clericalising all the baptised rather than affirming and living any real vocation to our shared hiereus (ἱερεύς) with Christ. Getting laity up the front in worship and dressing them priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος)-like, advocating for the abolition of priestly/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) presiding at the Eucharist, and so forth is not about understanding the hiereus (ἱερεύς) of all Christians whatsoever, it is merely showing an ignorance of the multi-faceted vocations that are offered within the one body of Christ, the church.

No comments from internet trolls please :-)

I provide wonderful resources for those who genuinely want to work harder at understanding the original biblical texts.

Introducing “liturgy”

Published on November 12, 2009 in liturgy. 10 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Liturgy as language (part 5)

There are those who look at thriving, fruitful, vibrant worshipping communities, see they are not “using liturgy” and suggest comments like, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it”, or “introducing liturgy will destroy this – you will be on a hiding to nothing.”

I disagree.

First let’s clarify. Liturgy, by definition, is doing worship together. Each of those words is important.

  • doing – liturgy is an activity. People too quickly associate liturgy with set words, books, etc. Liturgy is action – often accompanied by interpretive words, yes, but liturgy is action – “the work of the people”.
  • worship – is an active verb. It is not passive. Liturgy is not a spectator sport. We are a gathered congregation, an active assembly – not spectators or an audience. It is not watching an orchestra – it is being the orchestra.
  • together – liturgy is a community event. It is not individualism. Not even congregationalism. Most liturgical texts are plural, “we confess… we believe… Our Father…”

People sometimes use the term non-liturgical worship. Generally that is an oxymoron. Like saying a non-marriage wedding. Liturgy is doing worship together. Non-liturgical worship might be worshipping alone – but even when we worship alone that is done as part of the church, the body of Christ, with Jesus – even alone we can still pray “Our Father…”

So we have this thriving, fruitful, vibrant worshipping community. I believe it can only be enriched by incorporating the insights from the series Liturgy as language:

Introductory post; Kiwi Anglican history 1, Kiwi Anglican history 2, Liturgy as language (part 4)

Where do we start?

In fact working with a thriving, fruitful, vibrant worshipping community may even be a better place to start than trying to get an unsuccessful, dry, colourless, dour, individualised community, that is going through the motions of liturgical texts, to move forward to some vibrancy.

Where might be some places to start? Well if there is some dialogue between leader and assembly, for example as the service starts, that might be energetically channelled through some biblical greeting and response. The deep sense of prayer might be enriched by the leader, early in the service, suggesting a general point for prayer and the whole community praying for a good period in deepening silence, and then the leader collecting this gathering silent prayer by proclaiming a collect to which the now-fully-gathered community responds heartily with the biblical “Amen.” The readings can be drawn from the Revised Common Lectionary - with people growing in a sense of belonging to the world-wide Christian community and made aware of the many many resources that come with this enriching their lives not just at the service but throughout the week. Some communities will be stretched as they risk just listening to a reading, God’s Word, “neat” – without every text being filtered through the leader’s interpretation. If communion is celebrated the community might be enriched by using the biblical tradition of blessing by thanksgiving and using the great Jewish-Christian prayer structure going back to Jesus’ prayer at his last meal and beyond. There are many many excellent Eucharistic Prayers and outlines that cannot but enrich a thriving community’s life.

These are but some suggestions. Readers may have other insights, even from their own experience of deepening and enriching the worship life in a community.

St Michael and All Angels

Published on September 28, 2009 in liturgy. 1 Comment Tags: , , .

Mikharkhangel

Feast day September 29

Let us pray (in silence) [that we may share in the ministry of the angels]

pause

Everlasting God,
you have ordained and constituted in a wonderful order
the ministries of angels and mortals:
Mercifully grant that,
as your holy angels always serve and worship you in heaven,
so by your appointment
they may help and defend us here on earth;
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.

click here for further reflection

Rugby café worship

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

v3_webRugby stadiums changing to a new format based on cafes are finding that they are beginning to fill again in comparison to those stadiums not moving with the times and continuing to play Rugby in the way they did in the past.

“People are not familiar with the game of Rugby in the way they used to be,” says Rugby Union spokesperson, U. R. Joking. “Over the years we’ve made some changes to the way Rugby is played – those who haven’t been for a while would be surprised at the changes – but it still hasn’t stemmed the tide of diminishing numbers. Parents and grandparents are no longer bringing children to Rugby games and helping them understand the game in the way they used to.”

Some stadiums and rugby playing fields have taken a leaf out of café-culture books. “Nearly everyone is familiar with going to a café or a night club so we have taken ideas from cafes and night clubs and applied them to the game.”

No more complicated scoring systems – children and the “un-Rugbied” are clearly not familiar with them and find them confusing. They have been scrapped. People generally are much more familiar with cups and mugs than with rugby balls so the game now starts with each of the 50 players (the number has been increased to improve participation) starting holding a cup of coffee (there are no sides – competition is not part of café or night-club culture). Each person who gets more than half of their coffee across the line gets a point. There are clearly checks and balances: those with a short black are at an advantage because the cup is lighter -but it is easier to spill more than half of the contents. Tackling is still allowed. But there are no scrums as they would look out of place in a café or on the dance floor. After scoring a point players can move on to running with a muffin or cake (2 points), mains (3 points), and deserts (4 points).

Traditional Rugby games are still held but they are increasingly attended by diminishing numbers of aging spectators. At fields that offer both traditional and café-style the traditional will be on at a less convenient time. People generally are not trained to play traditional Rugby any more as it is clear where the future of Rugby is going. When challenged that the new café-style Rugby isn’t really Rugby is it, and that when people come to a Rugby stadium they might expect to be part of real Rugby, and that people’s ability to learn is being grossly underestimated, U. R. Joking looks bemused and responds, “the numbers clearly tell a different story.”

Churches changing to a new format based on cafes are finding that they are beginning to fill again in comparison to those churches not moving with the times and continuing to have liturgy in the way they did in the past.

“People are not familiar with the liturgy in the way they used to be. Over the years we’ve made some changes to the way the liturgy is prayed – those who haven’t been for a while would be surprised at the changes – but it still hasn’t stemmed the tide of diminishing numbers. Parents and grandparents are no longer bringing children to church and helping them understand the liturgy in the way they used to.”

Some churches have taken a leaf out of café-culture books. “Nearly everyone is familiar with going to a café or a night club so we have taken ideas from cafes and night clubs and applied them to services.”

No more complicated liturgies or communion – children and the “un-churched” are clearly not familiar with them and find them confusing. They have been scrapped.…

Traditional liturgies are still held but they are increasingly attended by diminishing numbers of aging congregants. At churches that offer both traditional and café-style the traditional will be on at a less convenient time. People generally are not trained to pray traditional liturgy any more as it is clear where the future of services is going. When challenged that the new café-style church isn’t really church is it, and that when people come to a church they might expect to be part of real liturgy, and that people’s ability to learn is being grossly underestimated, …

(This post will count as part 5 in the Liturgy as Language series. Parts 1 to 4 can be found from here)

popularity of liturgy & worship?

Published on September 24, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

The search for the term “liturgy” on Google (top line) in the last six years has approximately halved. Online news about “liturgy” (bottom line) has grown a little in the same period:

searches for liturgy

searches for liturgy

The search for the term “worship” on Google (top line) in the last six years has approximately halved. Online news about “worship” (bottom line) has grown a significantly in the same period:

searches for worship

searches for worship

Use this free online tool to compare other search terms – put a comma between terms you seek to compare. Any ideas why such changes in the search for “liturgy” and “worship”?

Visitor numbers to this site have been increasing or steady. I think that is also due to the site expanding onto twitter and facebook:

pageviews & visitors to Liturgy site 2006-2009

pageviews & visitors to Liturgy site 2006-2009

Your thoughts?

The Lectionary (part 3)

Published on September 17, 2009 in lectionary and liturgy. 6 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

As promised, this post will provide links to some of the best online resources connected to the lectionary.
The first post gave the history of the lectionary. The second post highlighted advantages of using the lectionary.
One of the huge advantages is that the lectionary has such a wealth of supporting resources. This post will highlight some of these.

The Text this week Amazing collection of resources linked to RCL – new each week. The best starting point.

Revised Common Lectionary comments from Montreal Anglican Diocese

Sarah Laughed A wonderful lectionary blog – not currently being added to, but you can search for earlier reflections.

United Methodist Church Wonderful collection of worship resources
includes hymn and song suggestions

Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary (a subscription list)

SAMUEL from the United Church of Christ.

Creating Worship with Deep Soul developed by Marcia McFee.

Strong Center Open Doors is a new worship planning website by Dan Benedict

Worship Tricks a collection of resources by Jonny Baker, pastor of an emerging congregation in the UK

Sacredise (pronounced “say’-cred-ize”) a South African Methodist worship resource by John Van de Laar

Laughing Bird an Australian lectionary-based liturgical worship resource

HymnSite.com is an online source for Free Hymn Texts, Tunes, and Sheet Music; Lectionary and Psalter Resources; Audio and Data CDs; Free Downloads;

Buildingworship.com Worship Resources including Worship Backgrounds Powerpoint Images and Planning Materials

The Painted Prayerbook is a lectionary commentary with weekly art

Hermanoleon clip art based on the lectionary (you will have seen their art on this site)

Churchpowerpoint.com PowerPoint backgrounds and other slides based on the lectionary

The Work of the People video and stills for lectionary-based worship

Vanderbilt Divinity Library texts, prayers, comments, art for the lectionary

I am sure this is only skimming the surface of what is available to enrich lectionary-based worship – online and generally free. A larger collection of links is provided in my worship and lectionary links section of this site. If you have a site related to spirituality and worship and have linked to this site – please let me know. If appropriate I link back to provide as good as possible list of resources for visitors to this site.

If you have or know of an online lectionary-based resource, please add it to the comments section below.

Liturgy as language (part 4)

Published on August 8, 2009 in liturgy. 9 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

If you have skipped the last couple of posts in this series because they have had a particularly Kiwi Anglican focus, do not skip this one. This post is what the series has been leading up to and why the series has the title “Liturgy as language”.

(Series so far: Introductory post; Kiwi Anglican history 1, Kiwi Anglican history 2)

Language as a model for liturgy

Language is picked up naturally during our formative years by participating in a community that uses that language fluently and creatively. As we grow up we also normally complement this formation by receiving some instruction in how to use this language from those who have studied the way the language functions well. Historically there may be moments when language makes a significant change. Shakespeare was such a change within the English language. In the sixteenth century the English language became acceptable whereas previously in England French and Latin had dominance as the respectable languages. Some have credited Shakespeare with introducing 10,000 new words into the language. This is most probably an exaggeration – but it is still likely that he introduced at least a sixth of this sum into English literature.

The “rules” of grammar and the explanation of the meaning of words are hence descriptive – they describe the way that native speakers use the language. If you are not a native speaker, or struggle with the language, then the rules of grammar and dictionary can also be prescriptive – prescribing, stipulating, how to use the language.

A living language is only ever one generation away from vanishing. Once a language has been lost it is possible to revive it. Dictionaries and rules of grammar will then, of course, no longer be descriptive – as there is no living language that one is describing. If the language is being recovered, the attitude to dictionaries and grammar rules will be primarily a regarding of them as prescriptive.

Applying the model of language to liturgy

This series began as a response to an assertion that NZ Anglicanism was not using liturgical prayer fruitfully – and that this struggling to use liturgical prayer has been happening for the last twenty, to twenty-five years – a full generation. I then summarised how this generation lost the liturgical facility (in this post followed by this post).

I want to use the model of language I have developed above to reflect on this. There is a danger in my using language as a model for liturgy. The danger is that people will think I am primarily focusing on the words used in liturgy. In fact I think of gesture and vesture, worship environment, music, and so on, as all part of the “language of liturgy” as well as the words used in liturgy.

Liturgy is picked up naturally during our formative years by participating in a community that uses liturgy fluently and creatively. As we grow we also normally complement this formation by receiving some instruction in how to use liturgy from those who have studied the way liturgy functions well. Historically there may be moments when liturgy makes a significant change. From the 1960s was such a change within liturgy.

The “rules” of liturgy are hence descriptive – they describe the way that well-formed communities use liturgy. If you are not part of a well-formed community, or struggle with liturgy, then the rules of liturgy can also be prescriptive – prescribing, stipulating, how to use liturgy.

If living liturgy vanishes it is possible to revive it. Rubrics and responses will then, of course, no longer be descriptive – as there is no living liturgical life that one is describing. If liturgy is being recovered, the attitude to rubrics, responses, and so on will be primarily a regarding of them as prescriptive.

When a presider at worship stands in front of the gathered community, opens arms wide and says “The Lord be with you” (from memory/by heart), and the community responds enthusiastically from memory/by heart – then this is a sign that this community is using liturgy as a “living language”.

When, on the other hand, a presider at worship stands in front of the gathered community gripping a book, reading the statement from the book, and even addressing the book – and the community responds by reading from the book or from a screen or sheet – then this is a sign that the “language of liturgy” has died. In this second scenario, in which liturgical life has been lost, when a community still follows a prayer book, there will be a much greater emphasis on doing the liturgy in the way the book says only because “that is what is required”. The book, for them, becomes more prescriptive than descriptive. The greeting from the liturgical book is no longer a real greeting – but used mostly (or even solely) because it is prescribed. In such a community the liturgy from the prayer book becomes increasingly “unreal”, disconnected from the real life of the community, even false. It is understandable that such a community increasingly abandons liturgical life in a spiralling circle. In such a service when the presider shifts from using liturgical responses to addressing the gathering “normally” s/he appears to peek out from behind the fixed liturgical pieces and then withdraw again to the prescribed material. The greetings of the liturgy are not experienced as real greetings. Inevitably the prayers are not experienced as real prayers. And the promises are not experienced as real promises.

This is not to suggest, of course, that in a well-formed liturgical community there is no place for following texts. Quite the opposite. In a well-formed liturgical community hymns will still be sung from books just as readings will be read from books and prayers and other texts will be read from books. But such a community will be agile in when we address each other (from memory/by heart), when God, and so on.

Languages have been revived from nearly having died – but it takes significant passion and commitment. The same, let us hope, may also be true for liturgy.

Dance – a model for evangelism

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

In June I published a post on a man dancing as “another model for evangelism” – living in such a way that people cannot help but catch the enthusiasm and join in. This clip in Antwerpen’s Central Railway Station in Belgium is once again a fun clip – but it might just give pause for thought about living our lives as a Christian community so differently that we provide joy in the lives of others and also draw others in to our different lifestyle…

Lord of the Dance
Dancing and worship
Play it again

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.