Monthly Archives: September 2010

And Then There Were Two (Updated)

Anglo-Catholic parishes in the Episcopal Church in Baltimore…

This has been rumored for a while and I’d heard through unofficial channels but it is now officially announced: Mount Calvary is seeking to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Roman ex-Anglican Ordinariate. This comes as no surprise to those who know the church or the rector.

I’ve heard from off-line sources further rumors that they are in negotiations with the diocese to purchase the property. All I can say is, with the way that the Roman Church closes down low-attendance parishes, it would be a tragedy if they left and were able to buy the building only to have their new church close them down and consolidate them into some 1970’s space…

Update: The parish voted this weekend to join the Ordinariate. According to some sources, both votes (one for leaving, one for joining the Ordinariate) were about 85%. The upshot is that the remaining 15% have decided to remain within the Episcopal Church. Thus, the remaining congregation will be retaining the property. Legal difficulties will, no doubt, ensue.

Cafe Piece on Christ and Culture

I have a new piece up at the Cafe. I’ll be interested to see what kind of response it receives… Long-time readers here know my positions:

  • I don’t believe in an infallible church (where YF and I part ways) and thus the Church is responsible for remaining attentive to the Spirit and how the Gospel is working its way both in the church and in the culture (to the degree that these can be separated which is never completely as human institutions inevitably partake of the cultures in which they are embedded…)
  • I’m a firm believer in the ordination of women. I believe that, based on what I see in Scripture and what the tradition has taught on the nature of the Spirit, neither the presence or absence of a penis has anything to do with how the Holy Spirit is able to work through an individual for the up-building of the greater community.
  • I strongly believe that Christian morality is rooted in a virtue-based character ethic. That’s what I see in the New Testament—I see all of Paul’s arguments pointing that way and this is, in particular, his understanding of the now-abrogated Mosaic Law. This is also how significant strands of historic Christian thought—especially the western monastic ones—understood these texts. On the basis of that, I believe that clergy have a responsibility to model chastity to their communities in their household/family relationships. And that goes for M and myself as much as it does for anyone else. Gay and straight Christians all have a responsibility to demonstrate faithful love; of course it’s not easy—but it still has to be done.
  • In some ways our current American culture is moving in these directions as well—promoting equality for women and a wider acceptance of non-heterosexual relationships; there are things that the church has to and needs to learn from the culture about the nature of the Gospel. But it is just as certain that there are movements in the culture that directly contradict the Gospel and that, particularly in the realm of human sexuality, go against a Gospel-rooted virtue-based character ethic. The church doesn’t need to learn or teach these. Just because the church and culture agree on points doesn’t mean we agree in all points or—and this is key—agree for the same reason.
  • It frustrates me when I see public figures in the church not sufficiently distinguishing cultural movement from Gospel movement. There’s no doubt that our leadership is liberal and it moves along with the more liberal elements of the culture. But we must not elide the Gospel with the culture especially where there is insufficient overlap.
  • On the contrary side, it frustrates me when I hear conservatives talking about Gospel values and biblical models and the paradigms that they espouse are right out of white-bread 1950’s Americana. Yes, it’s what you may have been raised in but that doesn’t mean it fulfills the Gospel more purely than the current state of things.

Discernment or Death: The Interpretation of 1 Cor 11:27-34

In the discussion of the Communion without Baptism, at some point the discussion inevitably turns to—or at least towards—1 Cor 11:27-34:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some of died. But if we have judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another–if any one is hungry, let him eat at home–lest you come together to be condemned. (RSV)

What exactly is Paul saying here? I think sometimes th first section is pulled out of context—but. Paul is connecting unworthy reception of the Eucharist to becoming ill and dying and to waiting for one another.

What I haven’t seen recently in the debate is a sufficient unpacking of this cluster of thoughts. What’s the connection between reception and death? Paul is being allusive here. Is he alluding to a supernatural punishment for those who eat and drink unworthily? Is he alluding to a social problem in the community where some are sick and weak from lack of food and Paul is complaining that the social & ecclesial dimensions of the Eucharistic feeding are being lost?

How do you read what’s going on here?

Frere on Ceremonial, Part 1

I’ve been thinking a lot about ceremonial recently; my Fortescue arrived, but before I start posting anything on it, I’m taking the time to read through a little volume I discovered a while back but hadn’t yet read. It’s by the eminent Victorian liturgist W. H. Frere and it’s entitled The Principles of Religious Ceremonial. Written in 1905, the Ritualist controversies are the backdrop to it; nevertheless, some parts sound quite modern. It’s a valuable read and here are some snippets from it as I read along…

Introductory Remarks

  • “THE subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling.” p. 1
  • “Here are two widely contrasted types. The world might be classified according to them ; for every one has his affinity either with the mind of the Quaker on the one side, or with the mind of the so-called Ritualist on the other. And every one who handles the subject of religious ceremonial will do well to think beforehand what his own affinity of mind is, and to make allowance accordingly. It is only by recollecting continually his own personal bias that he will be able to be fair and considerate to others.
    These two types of mind are not only widely separated ; they are also to a large extent inexplicable each to the other.” p. 3
  • “The broad general outlines of the history of ceremonial controversy have some thing to teach by way of caution and patience. Disturbances of this class seem to recur in cycles, and one phase of them follows upon another in a more or less regular sequence. The full cycle may be expressed by three divisions : first comes a period of experiment or innovation; after this has continued for some time, as the controversy attendant upon it dies down, there follows a period of consolidation and settlement; finally comes a period of quiet, tending to stagnation and formalism, before the cycle begins to recur.” pp. 4-5
  • “The real matter to be considered, alike in ceremonial and doctrine, is not whether it is Roman, but whether it is legitimate and true. For, after all, not everything that is Roman is wrong.” p. 7
  • “Ceremonial, it may be truly said, either safe guards piety or else degrades it ; and any changes in traditional ways bring within the horizon the peril that some may value the changes, not as ancillary to devotion, but for some less worthy reason for novelty’s sake, for their artistic beauty, and so forth ; and if so, degradation has set in.” p. 11
  • “Ceremonial is an external because it is an expression of an inner reality ; this reality is often of such a sort as to baffle expression by any other means. Reverence, for example, is more eloquently signified by the Publican’s bowed head than in any other way. Irreverence too is equally plainly signified by an attitude or a gesture. No other method of expression could be so expressive.” pp. 11-2
  • “It is therefore a form of blindness, not commonsense, that prevents a man from recognising that behind ceremonies there lie realities, principles, doctrines, and states or habits of mind. No one can hope to judge fairly of matters of ceremonial who does not see that the reason why they cause such heat of controversy is that they signify so much.” pp. 12-3
  • “It is difficult to say how far unity of doctrine and feeling precedes unity of ceremonial, or how far it follows it. Ceremonial is at one moment the outcome of doctrine, and at another the inculcator of it.” p. 13

Of Ceremonial in General

  • “A task has to be done : then it must be done somehow. That ‘ somehow ‘ may be good or bad ; therefore prudence suggests that a method should be
    devised and laid down. Ceremonial has begun.” p. 16
  • “The individual may, and if he takes enough trouble he can, avoid forming a ceremonial habit ; he can vary his methods to the extreme limit of all known permutations and combinations. But a body of people must be corporately bound ; and a ceremonial rule of some degree of strictness or laxity must govern all joint action.” p. 17
  • “No doubt in all ceremonial, secular as well as religious, some allowance must be made for differences of temperament and training. The manners of a foreigner must often seem over-demonstrative to the phlegmatic Englishman, and the ceremoniousness of Court functions over-pompous to a blunt country squire. But this principle does not extend beyond the securing of a modification in details; and ceremonial remains still undethroned as a universal law governing human action in every sphere.” p. 19
  • “It is evidently true that in the right sense ceremonial must be ‘natural’; but the question rises whether the ideal is that of nature untrained and unrefined,
    or of a refined and trained nature. For example, it is true with regard to social ceremonial that manners are not good unless they are natural. On the other hand, it is no less true that good manners do not come naturally, at any rate to
    people as a whole ; they are almost, if not quite, universally the result of careful and minute training in one form or another.” p. 20
  • “The art of ceremonial proficiency, be it in good manners or in good habits or in good drill or in good religious ceremonial, is best exemplified when it is most concealed, when the best rules have been so well acquired and assimilated that they have become, as we say, ‘ a second nature.'” p. 20

Of Religious Ceremonial

  • “…religious ceremonial is action Godwards, and therefore demands the highest possible degree of excellence.” p. 22
  • “it is often to be observed that in churches where the puritan tradition is strong, and where pale horror would creep over the face of the minister if it was even suggested that he was a ‘Ritualist,’ there does exist a well-defined ceremonial. . . . It is all highly individual ; it rests perhaps on nothing else but the vicar’s own ways or oddities ; it has possibly no relation at all to the traditions of church worship ; but it is ceremonial for all that; and it differs from the ceremonial of the ‘ Ritualist ‘ only in being based on no authority, in
    being the result of individual caprice, and possibly further in being ill conceived, or even, it may be, grotesque in character.” pp. 26, 27
  • “Public worship, besides being individual, is also essentially corporate : it is the approach to God not of a merely fortuitous conglomeration of individuals, but rather of an organised body. Just as the Court in its attendance on the sovereign is a body performing a corporate action round his throne, so the worshipping Church is a body performing acts of corporate worship round the throne of God; and it is this conception rather than the individualist view which underlies the major part of religious ceremonial.” p. 27

Congregation and Ministers

  • “One can hardly fail to see, even in the dim obscurity which surrounds all early liturgical history, that the tendency to deprive the people of their part of the service, by making it so elaborate that it was of necessity confined to the choir, was one which showed itself at very early stages. . . . Yet, in spite of all such changes, the old ideal still remained, viz. that all should contribute their
    share to the corporate Christian worship ; and it is not too much to say that without any doubt this is the only true ideal of Christian worship. . . . Then the relics of the Liturgy which remained were conglomerated into the hands of the
    celebrant and formed the Missal, or compound sacerdotal book ; the participation of the faithful disappeared, and the resultant service was rightly
    called ‘ Low Mass,’ for it represents the low- water mark of eucharistic service, and is a painful contrast to the true but almost lost dignity of the
    old celebration of the Holy Mysteries, with the full and intelligent co-operation of all the faithful, each in their several spheres and grades taking their own proper part in the adoration of Almighty God.” pp. 36-7
  • “Now there is a very close connexion between the multiplication of Eucharists and the decay in the manner of celebration. It is only in special circumstances, as for example in monastic or collegiate or cathedral churches, that it has been possible to retain the old ideal together with a daily celebration. In ordinary circumstances a choice had to be made between the two things, the multiplication of celebrations and the retention of the old ideal. Here, roughly speaking, the East and West parted company, for the East kept the ceremonial ideal and denied itself the advantage of daily celebrations, while the more utilitarian West sacrificed the ceremonial ideal to the practical advantage of
    frequent communion and daily Mass.” p. 38
  • “Other similar changes go alongside with this and influence the history similarly in the direction of decay. The spread of the Church into country
    places and the multiplication of village churches made it impossible to go on looking upon the bishop as the normal celebrant of the Eucharist, as was the case in the early days. When a priest took his place at the altar, the service was ipso facto less, not exactly because the priest was less in dignity than the bishop, but rather because the whole character of the assembly was altered.” p. 38
  • “For in practice, as the Church grew, and small churches and parishes belonging to special shrines or connected with landed estates took their place
    in the Christian economy side by side with the town churches, the materials were not available for the old solemnity of the Liturgy. For choir and
    ministers the parish had to make the best shift it could with whatever materials were available ; and when it became necessary to define the lowest terms which should be considered possible for a celebration of the Eucharist, the minimum requirement was fixed at two persons, the priest and a clerk to
    serve him. And so we come to the duet.” p. 39
  • “The multiplication of Low Masses of this sort had, no doubt, many advantages ; especially as chantries and chaplains multiplied, the convenience of numerous classes of working people who wished to attend daily was met by two or three services daily at different hours. Whatever may rightly be said derogatory to the character of such daily worship at the Holy Eucharist in the pre-Reformation days, there is no doubt as to the extent of it; all classes of persons thronged the churches daily, especially in England, where an Italian
    visitor was astonished at the universality of daily attendance at Mass.” p. 40
  • “The character of pre-Reformation Service-books in England was especially calculated to keep up a good deal of the old ideal. While continental mass-books very constantly contemplated nothing better than Low Mass, the English books always had High Mass in view. Indeed, this is so much the case that it is a matter of great difficulty to reconstruct what an English Low Mass was like before the Reformation, since the Service-books make little or no provision for it.” pp. 41-2
  • “Liturgical worship must be co-operative and corporate. It is a false sacerdotalism that seeks to comprehend as much as possible in the one pair of
    hands of the priest or celebrant. It is always a gain that, with due regard to structure and liturgical principles, the services should employ many persons in divers functions. The clergy and other ministers, servers, clerks, and choir, all have their own part. The different parts of the ceremonial action must be harmonious ; but, so long as this is the case, it is no harm, but only good, that different people should simultaneously be doing different things. A good deal is needed to get rid of the false idea of the duet of parson and clerk, or parson
    and choir, or even parson and congregation. For example, it is far better that the psalms, when read, should be read as they are sung, from side to side,
    and not as a duet; that the lessons at Divine Service and at the Eucharist should be assigned to different persons ; that the first part of the Litany
    should be sung by clerks ; and that many other survivals of the old ideal be retained. And most of all it is desirable that the true ideal should be
    so clearly set before the congregation that it may become less of a cold critic of a ceremonial which it does not understand and perhaps dislikes, and more
    of an active and hearty participant in a great act of corporate and co-operative worship.” p. 41
  • “The Kyrie and Creed at the Eucharist, and the psalms in Divine Service, are the special parts which both can be made, and ought to be kept, congregational ; and where psalms are congregational there is great gain in singing them for ‘ Introit ‘ and ‘ Communion,’ as well as the best possible authority for doing so.” p. 47
  • “But when the congregation has its own part it must not grudge others their part, nor expect to follow or share in all that others are doing ; such an expectation is a very common cause of complaint on the part of the laity, and it results from the misconception of the idea of corporate worship. No one expects or demands that on the stage only one actor should move at a time ; and if this is not expected on the stage, where all is done for the benefit of the audience, and adapted to the spectator’s capacity for taking in the situation, far less is it to be demanded in religious ceremonial, which is done not for the benefit of the congregation, but for the honour of Almighty God ; and where, therefore, there is no need, as in the other case, that it should be adapted to the congregation at all, except so far as to be decorous and uplifting in its general effect.” pp. 47-8
  • “The Eucharist is one homogeneous and continuous action, and goes forward, if one may so say, like a drama; it has its prelude, its working up, its climax, its epilogue. The Divine Service has no such unity ; it has a series of different actions which are not necessarily closely connected, and might almost equally well be placed in any other order as in their existing order. If the Eucharist may be called, in regard to the nature of the structure of the service, a dramatic action, the Divine Service may be called by contrast meditative or reflective. But, great as is this difference of nature between the two, they are alike in their ideal of corporate worship, and alike in requiring that the whole body of the faithful should as far as possible, and in very various degrees, co-operate. And in both cases this work of worship done by the Church on earth is a work in co-operation with the heavenly hierarchies in their celestial worship, whether it is the definite sacrificial climax of the Eucharist or the subsidiary work of preparation and thanksgiving, which, properly speaking, is the essence of the Divine Service.” p. 48

Turning of the Seasons

So, the seasons are definitely changing.

School has started, activities are ramping up for the girls, the air during morning walks to school with G has become more crisp.

Football season has started. I’ve never really paid much attention to this one before but living a few streets away from a major football stadium has brought it to my attention in a whole new way and greatly complicates both errands and parking.

The program year at church is also ramping up. I’ve been asked to serve as assistant director of altar guild and there are plans in the works for some Christian Ed work as well—we’re going to start a Sunday morning spiritual formation program for adults as well as children; I’m just trying to figure a way that it doesn’t conflict with choir for those who want to do both.

Solemn High Mass season started too. We did the Solemnity of the Holy Cross as our big kick-off event on Sunday so I was in my tunicle and Lil’ G was boat-girl. Things went well, God was duly worshiped, and the congregation edified in Word and Sacrament. Expect more postings that relate to the altar guild matters as I’ve found a number of the classic manuals for cheap through Amazon and perusing those will probably spark posting topics. I’ve also broken down and ordered a copy of Fortescue; Smokey Mary’s is what I consider a Novus Ordo Anglo-Catholic place, St George’s was straight-up Ritual Notes, so I’ve never needed Fortescue. From what I’m discovering about the Bal’mer Missal tradition, it’s much more heavily Fortescue than Ritual Notes.

Liturgical Change and Museum Religion

The post on the American Sarum conference got some comments that deserve a thread all their own. In many ways, this thread is a continuation of one of the long-standing themes that this blog has struggled with over its several years. Let me lay it out anew with major/axiomatic points in bold…

Liturgies change. Indeed, liturgical and ceremonial tinkering is inevitable across any significant group of folks whether there’s a set standard liturgy or not. Sometimes it’s because the liturgy needs a change, sometimes it’s because the tinkerers want a change.

No matter which way it goes, there’s no such thing as a liturgical change; rather there are theological changes that have liturgical implications. When a worshiping community of baptized Christians gather, they incarnate in a particular way the eschatological reality of the Body of Christ.  (This is most especially the case when they gather for a Eucharist where the whole intention is the making tangible and consumable the literal Body of Christ to be shared amongst them all.) You cannot separate the liturgy, the ceremonial, and the theology of such a gathering—they are inextricably bound up in one another. When the liturgy or the ceremonial gets changed, therefore, a theological change has necessarily occurred. When we say and do something different liturgically and ceremonially, we are just as surely saying and doing something different theologically as well. Sometimes these changes are minor—and sometimes they’re not. Sometimes these theological changes are intentional and conscious—and sometimes they’re not. Sometimes the tinkerers are aware of what they’re doing—and sometimes they’re not.

When liturgies change, my sense is that the motivation for the change and the direction in which the change occurs relate to two different axes: contemporary culture and historical practice. That is, when liturgies change it tends to be because the tinkers are trying to make a statement to the contemporary culture; history can be leveraged in a number of different ways:

  • Sometimes historical practices are jettisoned entirely because of a perceived disconnect with contemporary culture (this would be your praise & worship/Willow Creek type response).
  • Sometimes historical practices are resurrected because they represent a perceived correction to the current deplorable state of the contemporary culture—if the historical practice is maintained, the culture will be restored. (I see this as one of the motivations behind some who call for the ’28BCP & ’40 hymnal/Traditional Latin Mass: if we return to a pre-’60s liturgy, maybe we’ll return to a pre-’60s culture as well.)
  • Sometimes historical practices are resurrected because they represent a perceived connection to the contemporary culture–if the historical practice is maintained, this culture will be better able to hear, receive,  and embody the Gospel.

I’d suggest that this last approach has been behind most of the major shifts in liturgy within the Christian Church as a whole. Most of the major liturgical changes in Western Christendom have been attempts to re-engage/re-enliven contemporary practice based on historical precedents. This is not a new thing. Most of the monastic renewal movements in the eleventh and twelfth centuries were rooted in attempts to return to the True Practice whether that be the Desert Fathers, John Cassian, Benedict or a combination of the three. The Protestant Reformers attempted to return to Early Church practice. The first liturgical revival driven by the monks of Solesmes was an attempt to return to proper medieval practice. The Ritualists attempted to return to a High Medieval practice. Blessed Percy and the English Use tried to return to a Sarum standard. The most recent Liturgical Renewal encompassing Vatican II and the ’79 BCP tried to return to fourth century practice. Picking up a theme from the previous post, isolating one movement as “museum religion” is a bit disingenuous because utilizing historical precedence for contemporary practice has been a consistent habit in the West for a very long time.

Furthermore, we need to note that the exercise of identifying and utilizing historical materials is always a process thoroughly invested with contemporary meanings and limitations. The Protestant Reformers thought that they were returning to Early Church patterns of worship. Their historical reconstructions of Early Church worship didn’t have a whole lot to go on and look little like how we reconstruct Early Church worship today. We have better sources and better scholarship. (Would Luther or Calvin have used the Eucharist of the Didache had they known it?) Likewise, the work of the Ritualists and the Blessed Percy are properly understood as part of a broader English Gothic Revival rooted in English Nationalism and a political and social appropriation of the peculiarly English/British heritage over and against Continental expressions of nationalism. The work of Vatican II and attendant movements cannot be separated from the cultural and social movements of the ’60s. Historical work and even its excess—antiquarianism—are events that are contemporary in nature despite their focus on the past.

Now we tie these two threads together. The appropriation of historical practices always signals theological changes to the contemporary liturgy. Some of the theological changes are because of what the historical practice itself is or does. On the other hand, the very act of incorporating a certain practice from a certain time and place is a theological statement entirely apart from the content of the practice; the very selection of any time and place as an “ideal” is a major theological statement. The selections of the Early Church for the Reformers and the Fourth Century for Vatican II were attempts to achieve a purity that had been lost. The return to the High Medieval or Sarum reflected attempts to recapture a fullness that had been lost. None of these choices are theologically neutral—they all had and have an impact.

So what, what is a Renewal vs. a Revival vs. Musem Religion? Is it purely subjective or are there objective measures? When is a Renewal/Revival/Museum Moment an imposition into a contemporary practice and when does it represent a true enlivenment and enrichment?

For me the issue goes back to theology. As I’ve said before, we’re not the Christian Historical Society—we don’t do things because they’re old, we do them because they proclaim the Gospel. But some times the old ways proclaim the Gospel in new ways or media or avenues that our contemporary society needs to hear. Whenever we try to bring back an old practice, rite or time, my questions are these:

  • Why—to what end? Is it for the sake of nostalgia or fantasizing that the contemporary culture will go away and reformulate itself accord to the ideal pattern if we can sufficiently recall this past time? Or is it because we see a way here that the Gospel can be better communicated in this time and place?
  • Is there a coherence and an integrity between this historical practice and what the contemporary community is doing now? How radical or organic is this change?
  • Are the theological messages and intentions of this change in coherent relation with the theological trajectory of the community into which it is being introduced?

These are the kinds of questions that I see and here us asking about the Vatican II changes and the changes of the ’79 BCP. They’re also the questions that I will take with me to the American Sarum conference. Why a Sarum Revival? Why here—why now? Into what deep currents, culturally and theologically, is it tapping—or do we want to revive it because it seems “cool”? Why Sarum over some other time and place? As I’ve said before, I think there’s a case to be made for infusing as bit of the English early medieval monastic spirit into contemporary American Episcopalianism. Why is Sarum a better choice?

I don’t want to focus narrowly on Sarum here, though. Instead let me just say that this movement is raising for me—for us—a number of questions that I think are important now and may become even more important in the near future. Society is shifting. Technology and the evolving world situation are bring us into new opportunities and conflicts. Where, amongst the contemporary world and the faithful works of the past, is the Gospel best found and proclaimed?

Conference Watch: American Sarum

This is one of those items that entered my in-box at the height of the moving trauma; I shelved it with an intention to get back to it later.

Later has arrived.

There’s a conference slated for January 14th through the 17th in Bronxville, New York entitled American Sarum. As the name suggests, it’s a conference dedicated to the exploration of an American form of the English Use. For those fuzzy on this particular liturgical tradition, I’ll lay out what little I know of it—and welcome correction from the better informed.

The English Use is predominately the brain-child of Percy Dearmer (affectionately referred to as the Blessed Percy). The Blessed Percy was not himself a research scholar but was a well-read popularizer of the work of Frere, Palmer, and that whole body of scholars who investigated medieval English liturgy at the end of the nineteenth century and published works for the Alcuin Club, the Henry Bradshaw Society, and the Plainsong & Medieval Music Society.

The main thought here was this: if Anglican rites need new ceremonial and liturgical blood—and the one-two punch of the Oxford and Cambridge Movements (particularly the latter) convinced many they did—then why ape contemporary Roman Catholic ways? Why not return to the traditions and uses of the pre-Reformation English Church centered in the Sarum liturgy?

Blessed Percy set out to present a ceremonial and liturgy guide to Sarum enhancements for the Prayer Book (as he was English this, of course, means the 1662 BCP). The chief vehicle for this concept was the Parson’s Handbook which attracted a certain following in its day. This style of Sarum enrichment came to be known as the English Use. It was also sometimes known as English Museum Use and, indeed, the main criticism leveled at it was that it was fundamentally an antiquarian’s head-trip; that is, it was created de novo from old liturgical documents and did not reflect a living tradition. Instead, it was a romanticized version of a High Medieval mass with the BCP standing in for the text; how and if it spoke to its new time and place was a different story.

For whatever reason, it pretty much remained the English Use and didn’t cross the pond much. There are a few churches in America that use a form of the English/Sarum Use: one is Christ Church, Bronxville where the conference is being held, another is St John’s in the Village in my neck of the woods (and where I can be found when I’m not at the Advent).

The American Sarum conference seeks to reopen the old questions:

In an age when it is increasingly difficult to define what it means to be Anglican and many Anglicans look to Rome for answers, this conference will take a good look at the origins of our liturgical and musical Anglican heritage and dare to redefine what it means to be an Anglican. The conference will include a hard look at our history from architectural, liturgical, and musical perspectives. Discussions and re-creations of early liturgical practices will provide liturgical and musical insights that are intrinsically English and completely relevant to the liturgies of the 21st century. It is not a matter of “putting the Anglo back in Anglo-Catholic.” Those who will benefit from this experience include all musicians and clergy that identify as Anglo-Catholic, but it will be of particular interest and use to those who do not identify themselves as Anglo-Catholic. This is a conference for everyone, regardless of one’s own “high” or “low” churchmanship, who loves and respects our common Anglican heritage.

The presenters include some top-notch names like Dr. John Harper—yes, that Dr. John Harper—as well as some friends of mine. I showed M the provisional  schedule and we quickly agreed that we have to go.

Whatever you think of the English/Sarum Use—and to be honest I haven’t made up my mind—it will be an opportunity to think through some of the old important questions with some new voices at the table: What does it mean to be Anglican? What place do history and heritage hold in our modern proclamation of the Gospel? Do I prefer apparels or lace on my albs and amices?

Change

Things are changing info-wise. For those of you who actually visit my site and look at my page you’ll notice it’s in flux (again). I decided I just couldn’t live with the font combos any more… Those of you who read by rss feed won’t have noticed a thing, of course, but I’ve got a question for y’all: what rss reader do you use and why?

I learned today that my old stand-by bloglines is going belly-up and I need to find a new aggregator. I’m playing with Google reader but am confused by it at the moment–I’m still used to the Bloglines paradigm. Are there any aggregators out there that let you easily view comments?

As I mess with things the blogroll will be changing. It seems like I’ve been using and pruning it less and less recently and it no longer reflects what’s in my feed-reader. It’s due for an overhaul.

Further Morning Musing

Picking up on the theme from yesterday morning…

In my almost two decades of academic training in the interpretation of Scripture, I’ve met quite a lot of methods and techniques for doing so. Not all methods are equal. That’s fairly obvious and nowhere moreso than when trying to teach students how to preach.

The fundamental goal of interpreting the Scriptures is forming Christian habits within the community of the faithful. Not all interpretive methods tend towards this goal.

As I reflect on the matter, I believe that:

  • some methods are edifying: that is, they are good and efficacious ways to nurture Christian habits within congregations.
  • some methods are stultifying: that is, they become a comfortable means of ignoring the text to maintain a status quo. (I think of parish Bible studies that seem to consist purely of “This is how this text makes me feel” coupled with hearty wallops of “everyone’s entitled to their opinion”…)
  • some methods are pointless: that is, their aims and abilities are so removed from the goal of forming mature Christian communities that it’s a waste of time of attempt to engage them with parish realities.
  • some methods are destructive: that is, they are fundamentally incapable of contributing to Christian maturity in any way, shape, or form.
  • some methods are corrosive: that is, in small doses they may be helpful, but when used habitually and with out adequate safeguards they become destructive.
  • some methods are complementary: that is, some methods need to be paired with one or more other methods in order to be edifying—some methods work well in combination that would function poorly are negatively in isolation.

Having said that, we get to the truly hard part and the place where I find myself pondering the most. To what degree can various interpretive methods be assigned to these categories flatly and to what degree does the assignment depend on the character and composition of the congregation?

I think there are a certain number that can be classed absolutely (i.e., structuralism moves straight to “pointless”), there are some that can be classed conditionally, and yet others that require judicious classification and application.

Like I said, I’m still pondering… What do you think?