While glancing at the Christian Education & Formation section of the Blue Book, I ran across a reference to a website. Apparently, this is “the premier clearinghouse for resources and information regarding the breadth of theological education in The Episcopal Church.”
Anybody heard of it before?
It’s right here…: Theological Education for All
The folks at Stand Firm have dug up a bulletin insert wherein the Epistle reading at the bishop-elect’s church is replaced by a reading from the Qur’an announced as a biblical lesson.
It’s also noted there that the preacher is a Muslim-American scholar who, in the weekly calendar is listed as giving a Q & A during coffee hour.
We don’t have much context for what’s going on here. I read this as a Muslim-Christian inter-religious occasion where a Muslim speaker is explaining his faith and the piece from the Qur’an may well be part of that. But again, we don’t know.
I will say this:
1) The inquisitors at SF have not demonstrated that this replacement of readings is a pattern at this church. But I know that it is elsewhere; there are other Episcopal congregations who routinely replace Scriptural readings with non-biblical texts. It’s wrong and it needs to stop.
2) As evidence for or against the bishop-elect, it continues a trend of poor and questionable liturgical decisions. I’d have no problem with a one-time occasion where the sermon space is given over to a speaker on Muslim-Christian relations or even a reading from the Qur’an—but not in place of a regular lesson and not liturgically treated as such. I.e., if the speaker wishes to refer to a Qur’anic text, then it should be read in the context of his presentation. [[Ok—I was trying to be broad-minded. Nope, shouldn’t be done, especially not in a Eucharistic context.]]
The pattern that is emerging around this candidate is not good: A questionable Christology, improper changes to the liturgy, and an overly-enthusiastic embrace of the practices of another faith without clear grounding in his own tradition. Any one of these may be a misunderstanding, but here we have a pattern of a progressive who has progressed outside the bounds for one who is supposed to be a guide, guardian, and teacher of the core commitments of Christianity.
3) In the bulletin insert, Ps 40 is “paraphrased” with “Here I Am, Lord”. ‘Nuff said—this dude is toast.
…a bishop or the diocesan offices sent out a note to all the parishes in the diocese on Monday morning, asking them to please send in the sermon preached at the church the previous day?
What sort of uproar would it cause among the clergy, and what do you think the bishop would learn about the quality of preaching, exegesis, and doctrine in the diocese?
Dude—when you’re under fire for the suspect nature of your views, you don’t come out with a statement like this.
Try something more like this:
As an Anglican, I understand the Incarntion to be an especially important way that the Triune God has shared himself with humanity. As the Creeds and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church teach, Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was both God and Man in a way that tends to defy our hollow explanations. By taking on real flesh and real humanity, Jesus honored—glorified even—our humble existence and as Anglicans we treasure this act as part of the great mystery of redemption.
I’m also informed by Eastern traditions and greatly respect Athanasius’s foundational On the Incarnation. I’ve also thought a bit about how Gregory of Nazianzus thought about it…
I’m sure you can take it from there.
Bottom line—gave us what we want to hear up front. Then get subtle. Starting out subtle makes folk think you’ve got something to hide.
In some correspondence we’ve been having Donald Schell recently raised the question of the state of the liturgical renewal in the Episcopal Church. He wondered if it were distingrating.
I replied that I’m not sure which verb is most appropriate: has it dissipated, stagnated, bifurcated, fragmented, polarized—or something else entirely…
I think it’s an important question but first we must take stock of several indeces before the question can accurately be answered.
What’s your sense? Furthermore, how do we move beyond “senses” and figure out where people are? Or, alternatively, is the church best served by the presentation of a new synthesis?
As has been noted hither and yon, Lancelot Andrewes Press is coming out with a new book called The Book of Common Prayer. While it is not an officially authorized book of any jurisdiction, it’s safe to say that its intended audience is Western Rite Antiochene Orthodox and American Anglo-Catholics of whatever hierarchical loyalty.
Note, for instance, that it includes the Litany with the 1544 invocations of the BVM and other saints as well as the Proposed ’28’s prayers for the Dead.
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament begins on p. 63; the Asperges on 485…
There’s only one serious question that I have about it—what Canon does it use? While the documentation mentions some additions, it doesn’t say to what they have been added. The 1662 Canon has some nototrious issues from a catholic perspective. I mean, there’s a reason why most Anglo-Catholic churches in England now use the Novus Ordo as opposed to the prayer book and in earlier days inserted the Roman Canon around the authorized one.
Well, we shall see. And yes, I do indeed plan on picking one up as time and funds allow.
The Blue Book (to be sporting a red cover this year) was released today. For those not invested in the gobbelty-gook of Episcopal Church inner workings, this is the “Big Book ‘o Resolutions To Be Voted on at General Convention That Come Through Official Channels”
Needless to say, I took a quick stroll through the Liturgy & Music section…
Two major items struck my attention, one on daily prayer, the other on the proposed revision of Lesser Feasts and Fasts.
The first item I post here in full given its importance to many of the readers here:
ENRICHING OUR WORSHIP – DAILY PRAYER MEETINGS
April 2007, Oviedo, FL; January 9-11, 2008, Berkeley, CA; May 12- 15, 2008, Seattle, WA
SCLM members: Ernesto Medina, Devon Anderson, Clay Morris
Consultants: Mark Bozutti-Jones, Rebecca Clark, Paul Joo, Lizette Larson-Miller, Julia McCray-Goldsmith,
Elizabeth Muñoz, Cristina Smith, Carol Wade, Julia Wakelee-Lynch, Louis Weil.The SCLM was directed by the 75th General Convention in Resolution A069 to develop liturgical material for inclusion in the Enriching Our Worship series. The Commission was also directed to develop these materials
innovatively drawing on and reflecting our church’s liturgical, cultural, racial, generational, gender and ethnic
diversity. Recognizing that our current daily offices are based on a monastic model of prayer, the SCLM decided
to focus its work on the daily offices in order to develop cathedral-style ways of prayer.
The nine liturgists who gathered at the first meeting in Florida in April 2007 prayed, listened, sang and discerned
together over a period of five days. Out of this came the basic shape of the project heading forward from that
point, as well as a clear sense that the project would require more time than initially anticipated. It was clear the
scope of the project would be much larger than we had first thought.
The basic outline reclaims the practice of praying the hours. Daily Prayer allows for prayer at eight specific times
of the day:
- Daylight
- Start of Day
- Mid Morning
- Noon
- Mid Afternoon
- Evening
- End of Day
- Late Night
In addition to prayers being written for these specific times of the day, sets of prayers are being written for the
liturgical seasons of the church year. They are identified as follows:
- Advent
- Christmas
- Epiphany
- Lent
- Eastertide
- Ordinary Time (Two tracks are being developed for Ordinary Time: “Rest” and “Grow”)
The Rev. Julia Wakelee-Lynch was asked to serve as first round editor/consultant for the project, and a second
meeting with three additional consultants was held at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, CA,
in January 2008. At that gathering, a rough draft for the season of Lent was developed, which was then tested out
in a wide variety of settings in parishes, small groups and by individuals. The response was very positive.
In May 2008, six consultants gathered in Seattle, WA, to assess feedback from the initial draft and begin work on
a broader draft which would provide sets of prayers for each season of the church year, adaptable for corporate,
small group and personal use. This draft is still in progress, as well as a scholarly introduction, which will provide
a broader context for the work, and an end section with notes and appendix of prayer resources.
Our plan is as follows:
- Complete the whole set of prayers in 2009 and send to a liturgical proof editor;
- Present to the first full meeting of the SCLM in the new triennium;
- When the collection is acceptable, send the prayers out for informal trial use in the remainder of the triennium; and
- Report in full to the 77th General Convention.
RESOLUTION A089 DAILY PRAYER
Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 76th General Convention direct the Standing Commission on
Liturgy and Music to complete the work on Daily Prayer and report back to the 77th General Convention; and be
it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention direct the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance
to consider a budget allocation of $15,000 for implementation of this Resolution.
Hmmm. This could be interesting. I think I’m going to “receive” this for “reflection” for a bit…
As far as Lesser Feasts and Fasts goes, it seems that we’re going for more of a Roman-Kalendar-Just-Before-V-II feel where every single day has got somebody orther—or several somebodies!
I confess to still being really unclear on what inclusion in LFF means due to a fundamental fuzziness (deliberate I believe) around the Episcopal Church’s understand of the place, nature, and theology of sanctity. If, as Lutherans believe,” the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling” (CA 21.1) then let’s pile ’em on because we can use as many good examples as we can get.
If, however, as catholic theology teaches the saints are the Church Triumphant who, through grace, stand in the presence of God almighty now and intercede on behalf of us sinners then a special kind of discernment is called for.
Or to put it in a way more familiar to our medieval ancestors in the faith, are these individuals who have so imitated Christ that God uses them as vessels of eschatological power to extend divine grace and holiness into our daily world?
In any case…
I’m of two minds on the current state of the kalendar—on one hand I’m thrilled to see that John Cassian made it in. I’m taken aback, however, at the rubrical difficulties caused by the placement of his feast: Feb 29. What—he gets sanctoral honors once every four years? What’s that about!
St George is back (March 23)!
Again, (see above) I’m unclear on the observance of March 24th: Genocide Remembrance. I think we who have survived the 20th century have to be more aware of the sheer numbers of people who died in the previous century through genocide starting with the oft-forgotten Armenian genocide and on to on-going genocides in Africa. But is this the right way to do it? I’m quite torn on this one…
(I’ve also been concerned for a while about our martyr to non-martyr ratio. I feel that they need to be fairly on par . If we’re not remembering that death is sometimes a consequence of true faith, then we’re missing part of the scandal and the danger incumbent on all who embrace the cross. And our martyr ratio is falling fast…)
John Calvin (May 28th).
John XXIII (June 4) ?
Bach, Handel, and Purcell (July 28th). Yay!!
Catherine Winkworth to be observed (or at least commemorated) alongside J. M. Neale (Aug 7). Yay!
Cuthbert and Aidan have been combined—they no longer “warrant” separate days…
Gruntvig & Muhlenburg? Great Lutherans but… Asbury & Whitefield??
Byrd, Merbecke, and Tallis–and St Cecilia’s been restored!!
Some new commons were added including an additional set for the BVM:
The Blessed Virgin Mary
I
Collect: Almighty God, by thy saving grace thou didst call the blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of thine only Son: inspire us by the same grace to follow her example of courage and faithful witness to our Savior Jesus Christ; who with thee and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.II
Collect: Almighty God, of your saving grace you called the blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of your only Son: inspire us by the same grace to follow her example of courage and faithful witness to our Savior Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.Lessons
Psalm 34:1-8
Isaiah 43:9-13, 19a
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Luke 1:42-55I
Preface: Because even as our sister Mary didst consent to become God-bearer for thy people, thou hast called us to bear thy word of hope, healing and resurrection to a world in need of thy mercy and grace.II
Preface: Because even as our sister Mary consented to become God-bearer for your people, you call us to bear your word of hope, healing and resurrection to a world in need of your mercy and grace.
No new Marian observances, though…
So—there’s a lot here; you heard it here first…
I keep going back and forth on the whole canticle issue. Deirdre has a nice article at the Cafe that looks at the Song of Judith and reminds us that when singing the canticles, it’s important to learn the stories from whence they come. That is, the canticle means a lot more when you consider its proper context and how it portrays God acting through Judith.
I note (indirectly) in the comments that the Song of Judith is one of the new canticles given us by EOW. I’ve discussed these in the past—especially with Christopher—concerning whether more canticles is a better choice. Following Deirdre’s logic, more is better because we get exposed to more songs that have literary contexts that folks may then be interested to go and learn. More Bible is always good.
My fear is that more canticles mean that we we don’t learn any of them well. In order for more canticles to be better they have to be sung/read regularly and in a discernable order.
I’m also a complete stick in the mud and refuse to budge on the Benedictus (Song of Zechariah) as the invariable second canticle of morning prayer which means that there’s really only one free spot in the rotation—the canticle after the first MP reading.
Ack! Fewer, more, what’s a liturgy geek committed to Scripture to do! Perhaps the Benedictine option is the best—weave more canticles in amongst the Psalter…
Since I’ve been using Rite II for the Daily Office during Lent and wanted to kick things up a notch today, I used a catholic-minded Rite II resource—A Monastic Breviary from the Order of the Holy Cross. (Thanks again, Brian M!)
One of the things that sets this book apart from other non-Roman breviaries is that it uses fixed psalms on first class feasts and provides 5 antiphons for first class feasts and an antiphon for second class. So MP today had Pss 24, 29, 72, 93, 100 with proper antiphons. It also provides a hymn (which I recognized as one of the traditional Marian breviary hymns but I’ve been too busy/lazy to look up its Latin title) and a gospel antiphon—this one drawn directly from Scripture.
It’s a nice balance, contemporary and catholic.
Part 2 of my long-winded response is up at the Cafe. This is my constructive piece where I lay out how I see a discussion of Christian celibacy helping those of us who don’t remain celibate.
I’m well aware that those who believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures or the Church won’t be convinced and that’s fine with me and need not be rehashed. However, I see this as an approach that honors the Christian tradition and overall moral vision, and attempts to speak to our situation. (As opposed to views that recommend tossing out Christian tradtion altogether…)