I’ve been writing about the place of agreements (“rules”) in our common prayer. This is the third post in that series, and if you haven’t read the previous two, I suggest you read here and here first.
Whose is the liturgy, our common prayer? To whom does it belong?
It does not belong to the priest. Keeping to our agreements (“rules”) protects the worshiping community from the eccentricities of the priest. Priests vow and sign that they will follow our agreed common prayer.
Screwtape, the senior devil, writing to his nephew, a junior devil named Wormwood, speaks of the advantage to their cause by having the priest abandon the lectionary, for example, to keep to the few favourite truths the priest holds.
A priest may hold eccentric beliefs, or yearn for different practices – there is an agreed process whereby we can alter doctrine and discipline. Discuss it in the appropriate forums, by all means, but don’t, as a priest, inflict your particular disagreement on others – especially not in our community worship.
Puhleez don’t misread this as barren legalism and some sort of rubrical fundamentalism. No one, but no one, suggests that woodenly adhering to the rubrics will breathe life and vitality into worship. Leading worship is a gift, a call, a ministry; it requires training, ongoing study and formation. And let’s also not forget that in the context where I am writing, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the agreements (“rules”) are so permissive that the discussion should be whether they are sufficient to genuinely speak of them as being the scaffolding or skeleton of common worship.
Not only do our agreements protect laity from clergy, keeping to our agreements (“rules”) protects the priest from the eccentricities of the worshiping community. Sometimes explaining the reason for a Christian practice is extremely complex, involving deep history, theology, etc. It is a helpful starting point, when strong members of a community want a certain practice that is contrary to our agreements (“rules”), to be able to start from, “this is what I have agreed to and vowed and signed to do”.
Keeping to our agreements (“rules”) is one way of living our claimed catholicity. Certainly, spend any time on this site, and one would realise the last thing I am advocating is cloning worship from one context into a quite different one. Nor, just to be clear, am I encouraging ecclesiastical butterflies, flitting from one congregation to another. But. When we do move around from one community in communion with another, claiming to share “common prayer” together, should we not expect to see family resemblance? Not least when we claim that our primary community is the diocese. And also when we claim that dioceses have voluntarily agreed to join together in voluntary compact. And that primarily in the area expressed in “common prayer”.
This catholicity and protection is experienced strongly when a community needs to appoint a new priest. If a community’s worship has moved from our agreements (“rules”), how can a new priest arrive and fit in and lead…
Finally for this post, keeping to our agreements (“rules”) can help preserve us from the idol of incessant novelty and creativity. Worship is not entertainment. Worship is not a distraction. Worship is about going deeper and deeper into union with God…
Postscript: someone will be thinking that I am making a mountain out of a molehill again. This or that rubric is not really important. The thing is, one person’s molehill is another person’s mountain, and vise versa, and living together as a community means that we come to agreements about how we will live together.
Hi Bosco,
I am largely in agreement with what you write here, and especially in agreement with protecting priest and congregation from the eccentricities of one another. But it is only ‘largely’!
In the warp and woof of parish life, a number of priests are working with eclectic congregations rather than with solidly Anglican congregations. This is especially so (in my experience) in some of our smaller towns where the Anglican church may be the ‘only Protestant game’ in the district. Negotiating a liturgical pathway which both avoids eccentricities but also avoids parishioners feeling like they would be happier taking a longer journey to worship by going to the Baptist/Pentecostal/Etc church in the next town, can be quite a feat.
The ‘common life’ of liturgy in such situations can be a very delicate balance between the common life of Anglicans and the common life of the particular congregation which is gathered at this time and place … in such situations we might find (to refer to your post yesterday for one example) the Peace enacted in ‘unfamiliar’ ways!
Thanks, Peter. There is a lot to unpack in your comment.
I’m not really sure what “solidly Anglican” means – but let’s put that to one side.
I have ministered as a vicar in small towns, including cooperating with other denominations. Are you suggesting that Anglican clergy are only making these vows, promises, and agreements, and signing documents for the convenience of being ordained, getting a job, and receiving a stipend – or do they actually mean them? Would you encourage dropping references to the Trinity in order to “avoid parishioners feeling like they would be happier taking a longer journey to worship by going to the Unitarians”? Marry same-sex couples to keep in with the…? Hold seances to avoid… Spiritualists? Not have a woman preach to …? Not celebrate Christmas, Easter, and birthdays because of the…? Where do see the edges, and why? Blessings.
I am suggesting, Bosco, that some Anglican clergy taking their vows seriously find themselves ministering to an eclectic congregation which places pressures sometimes subtle even unspoken, sometimes outspoken on the performance of the liturgy, for not all Christians see the liturgy the way Anglicans do.
In seeking to honour their vows our colleagues may find themselves inheriting a liturgy which over preceding time has evolved in ways which do not conform to Liturgy 101, let alone the rubrics of our church.
The foolish cleric walks into this situation and seeks to bring everything into line with the rules. Ructions occur, people leave and great hurt is experienced. The wise cleric thinks carefully before acting and works with the grain of the politics of the parish.
Many Anglican parishes basically stick to the liturgy, including the rubrics, and successive vicars need do little revolutionary work and thus are free to take on board your well made point about leading the liturgy in a life giving way.
But not all Anglican parishes are alike. The point then is not to question the fidelity and integrity of our colleagues but to ask how reform of liturgy can take place without liturgical wars breaking out and casualties occurring.
Thanks, Peter. I think what you are describing is another way of expressing some of what I wrote in my post. I still think it worth hearing where you would see the edges of such accommodation (I gave some examples in my comment). In point of fact, as I also mentioned, in our concrete context of NZ Anglicanism (other than using grape juice or Ribena for “wine”) I struggle to imagine anything within your paragraphs that would not fit into the wide allowances of NZ Anglicanism (or we move into the examples I gave in my comment). With that in mind I’m intrigued by your concept of “the way Anglicans see the liturgy”. In my concrete NZ experience I would struggle to speak homogeneously of a single way Anglicans here see the liturgy. It would certainly be interesting to have a NZ course outline and summary of what you term Liturgy 101. Blessings.
Hi Bosco
Well, use of grape juice and small cups is definitely a pressure point for some ‘eclectic’ parishes!
Anglicans (IMHExperience) are used to the liturgy and do not feel straitjacketed by it. Many non-Anglicans (IMHExperience) feel straitjacketed by the liturgy and chafe at its constrictions (do we have to have confession each week? why does the priest need to say the absolution and not the lay leader? three readings, won’t two do when we are pressed for time this week? its all too formal – I like informality … and spontaneity …).
The constant questioning, which springs from a non-Anglican background, wears some of our colleagues down … I reckon.
It is at this point in our conversation, Peter, that I should point back to my saying that in NZ Anglicanism “the agreements (“rules”) are so permissive that the discussion should be whether they are sufficient to genuinely speak of them as being the scaffolding or skeleton of common worship.”
Anglicans (and others) from other countries may/will be surprised.
No, we do not “have to have confession each week” here, in fact we never need to have confession in the Eucharist at all. Not only will two readings “do”, only one is required: “A reading from the Gospel”.
Blessings.
“and living together as a community means that we come to agreements about how we will live together.”
I think that you’ve left yourself wide open with that one! 😀
“Worship is not entertainment.”
But would you not agree that some folks can make prayerbook worship an unbearable bore? 🙂
Absolutely, Brother David! There is a movement, “say the black – do the red”, as if that’s all that’s needed to worship. I repeat: “No one, but no one, suggests that woodenly adhering to the rubrics will breathe life and vitality into worship. Leading worship is a gift, a call, a ministry; it requires training, ongoing study and formation.” Blessings.
Until it is struck off, every rubric is important and should be the concern of every ‘liturgist’ – placing there own personal feelings very carefully to one side until the appropriate time has come to deal with them.
Far too many people ‘directing’ liturgy feel it is about them. Liturgy is a part of pastoral care – the 19th century Catholic Revival in the C of E knew that very well. Read Robin Green’s ‘Only Connect’ – a good commentary on the subject.
Far too much of liturgy today – in most traditions – is as about as exciting as wilted cheeseburger, ( from any fast food outlet ).
Thanks, Graham-Michoel. Robin Green’s book is added to my wishlist. Blessings.