In thinking about liturgy and what we can do about it, Caelius earlier raised the frightening prospect of a Prayer Book revision in 2008. If GC’06 transpires as it seems to be unfolding, the church will be in chaos with departures, fights at the parish and diocesan levels, and an exodus of the more conservative folks currently within ECUSA. All in all–a prayer book revision at this time would be…less than prudent. The wheels are already in motion though. A book called “Enriching our Worship” is, I believe, essentially a volume of trial liturgies.

I thought I’d head over to ECUSA’a website to see what I could find on this. When you go to liturgy and music you are sent to another site which at least looks and feels like an official ECUSA site for all things worhip and liturgical: The Worship Well. Again, I know nothing about it but the little bit I’ve glanced at has me concerned. Why, you ask? Well…try the opening lines for resources for the season:

The end of summer and the beginning of fall–here in North America, anyway!–is an excellent time to incorporate eco-justice themes into your community’s worship. …

If we’re thinking about doing something about this prayer book revision we may well already be behind the power curve. Perhaps it’s time for a conspiratorial memo of our own… ;-)

Over at Topmost Apple there’s a discussion about the east-wall altar written—I believe—by a current or former dean of Nashotah House. In any case, it’s interesting to see the responses. Furthermore, it’s time to set them within the larger picture. Academic thought tends to move in pendulum swings. A good idea moves a field in a certain direction. The trajectory pushes the idea to its acceptable limits. Then beyond them into the borders of wacky-land. The next generation pulls it back more toward the center in an vaguely Oedipal exercise of doktor-vater slaying and this movement, in turn, moves the pendulum in a different direction. The process repeats itself in generational cycles.

The field of liturgy has been dominated by the success of the Liturgical Renewal movement. This is the Protestant side of the movement that resulted in Vatican II. Essentially it called for a return to third/fourth century norms, an elevation of the place of the people, and the suppression of clericalism. It’s tied in to Baby Boomer notions of equality and social justice making itself present in the liturgy. The young fiery proponents of this way of doing things that shook things up then are now the endowed-chair professors and are starting to retire if they haven’t died already. So—we’re talking Don Saliers, Gordon Lathrop, Aidan Kavanaugh, Paul Bradshaw, etc. These people were responsible for the liturgies enshrined in the liturgical books of the late second half of the twentieth century.

But now—their time is over.

The critiques have already begun. The east-wall altar discussion is symptomatic of a larger questioning of their theological and liturgical project. They turned the altars around. They put the liturgy back into the vernacular of the people (remember y’all—until the most recent BCP and the LBW services were still in thees and thous…). They emphasized the role and participation of the people. Now, we’re starting to rethink these innovations. Now we get to look at them again through the lens of time. It’s time for us to start sorting through in order to find what we’ve gained and what we’ve lost. And certainly, gains were made. Dirty bathwater was poured out. However, it’s now our job to discover the babies that went with it and to re-collect them. It’s time to re-question some of the assumptions that were foundational to these scholars.

In the course of this sorting process, however, the pendulum is being pushed—but where does it go now? As we move the pendulum away from the borders of wacky-land (self-congratulatory congregation-centered prayers, entertainment liturgy, etc.) where should it go from here? Where does the renewal move?

The way I read it—feeling the pulses that are out there—I’d like to see it move to rediscovering monastic qualities. A lot of us are drawn to this, especially some of the Benedictine forms. The rhythm of the Offices, living into the Psalter, a community at prayer lay and clergy combined, the antiquity and authenticity of a prayer tradition rooted in our common Catholic heritage and emphasized again in the Anglican Reformation all speak to a postmodern world that earns high marks for style but low marks for substance.

What do you think?

Chris over at Lutheran Zephyr is thinking about stewardship time. I left a comment over there that I think really needs to be expanded on. I don’t have the brain cells to do it now but here’s the basics.

Good philanthropy is about creating a solid and stable investment. You should never have to feel like you are begging money from your donors or, worse yet, extracting gifts. The first gft you extract is the last one you’ll ever see from any given donor. Assuming that you do have a legitimate cause and are attending it to (heh–not always a given, unfortunately), the fund-raiser’s task is to demonstrate to constituents that a) the donor and the organization share key concerns and motivations and that therefore b) a donation to the organization is a good investment that will 1) advance the donor’s interests, 2) assist the organization, and 3) improve life for the organization’s service population. In good philanthropy, everybody wins. It’s good *stewardship*.

In all my time in churches, I’ve never heard any clergy approach stewardship this way. Instead it’s: you have it, we need it; you warm our pews, so fork it over. Now–let’s be clear. Clergy should not be thinking of themselves primarily like non-profit execs. I know some people and places that exalt “leadership” languages and resources to the point where they’re nigh indistinguishable and I think that’s a problem. Hwever, I think this is an area where the church can do some learning.

If congregations and their leadership–both lay and clergy–are doing church right then we are 1) proclaiming Christ incarnate, crucified and resurrected, 2) putting the congregation in touch with the power of the resurrection through good liturgy and good education, and 3) offering sound ministries that enable people to act in love towards their neighbors, especially those less fortunate. That’s just the start, of couse, but here’s my question. Aren’t these three things important to your congregants? Can your congregants see that your church is doing these things? If the answer to both of these is yes, then you’re in a good place for a dscussion of stewardship as investment. I suspect that the answer to both of these isn’t always yes. If so, shouldn’t we as leadership types start thinking long and hard? Can we in good faith ask people to invest? If not, why not–and get it fixed damn fast.

So there you have it–my “temple talk” for stewardship season… ;-)

There would have even been a quiz last week…but I was in Philly for M’s ultrasound. It’s a healthy girl! We’re thrilled, of course, especially about the healthy part. Not that we’re not thrilled about the girl part–we are–but neither of us were surprised in any way on that one. We’d both “known” it was a girl through different means for a while; the ultrasound confirmed it.

Anastasia’s dissertation progress is sparking me to do more writing. I just *have* to get back in the groove of things. So here’s my plan–I’ll write for as long as I can tonight, then post on it. See? We get a built in shame factor going on that way… So I can’t renege on it unless I delete this post which I can’t do because it tells y’all about my newest daughter.

Upon asking my father-in-law about advice for rasing a houseful of girls, he–a more-or-less mild-mannered middle-school language teacher–replied: “Keep lots of beer on hand…” :-)