Category Archives: Anglican

More on Preaching

This article just came down the wire on the teaching of preaching in Episcopal seminaries.

There’s quite a lot I want to say about this—but don’t have the time at the moment. I’ll just let out a few bullet points for now:

  • First, there is a shortage of trained faculty. No kidding… These days there are basically two kinds of preaching profs I’ve seen around and the situation relates directly to how PhD departments of religion are structured. You either have 1) biblical scholars who did preaching as an outside area (like yours truly…) or 2) people who fall into the “religious practices” category which includes things like missions, Christian Ed, etc. The second group doesn’t fall within the classical German way of seeing things and is often considered “lesser.” The key difference between these groups is formation–how they have been trained as scholars. And that includes languages.
  • The biggest problem that I have encountered in my years of being a seminary student, TAing seminary students, and teaching them is that many have difficulty constructing clear English prose. Good writing skills are not necessarily a prerequisite to good speaking and preaching skills–but they sure don’t hurt. As I keep reminding my students, St. Augustine continually emphasized the importance of clarity. He reminds us that eloquence is wonderful and helpful–but not at the expense of clarity!
  • Large amounts of constructive feedback is an essential part of the teaching process.
  • Hethcock says that those who believe a good preacher from the neighborhood can be brought in as an adjunct professor are mistaken. He’s absolutely right. One of the problems that this band-aid fix perpetuates is that a good preacher is not always a good teacher of preaching. Some people are simply born with a talent for fitting words in memorable and meaningful ways. I’m skeptical whether a natural-born preacher can teach others to do what they do the way they do it–but that’s often what we see happening. Rather, all preachers can acquire habits and skills based on the formal and informal rules of rhetoric that enable them to become better preachers. That’s what needs to happen–not an attempted transfer of eloquence. (I’m not saying that naturally gifted preachers can’t teach preaching–I’m just saying that the attempt to teach their own personal style fails more often than not.)

For the Person Searching for Goth Liturgy…

Check out the Sanctorum Mass at Church of the Apostles in Seattle if you haven’t already done so. Church of the Apostles is an Emergent experiment staffed by both ELCA Lutheran and Episcopal clergy.

I linked to this a while back and noted that I had a friend in the Seattle area who had a Skinny Puppy collection rivaling LutherPunk’s and that I’d ask him if he’d heard of it. No need to—he’s the priest who leads it… :-D

(…and yes, I’ve received several click-throughs on various days for ‘goth liturgy’ Google searches…)

Anglican Monasticism

Fr. Marshall Scott of Episcopal Chaplain at the Bedside has a great article up at the Episcopal Cafe on Anglican monasticism. Two points struck me in particular.

First, the monastic orders are one of the Episcopal Church’s best-kept secrets—and they shouldn’t be… Those of us who have experiences with them need to talk about them and invite other people to learn about them too.

Second, I confess that in the past I’ve sometimes considered the Anglican orders to be something less than the Roman ones—that the Roman ones were somehow more real or authentic. But the lives and commitments of modern Anglican monastics are no less real and no less earnest than those of Roman monastics.

Today I’d like to lift up in particular three groups who have influenced me and who have taught me about the monastic heart of Anglicanism:

  • The Order of the Holy Cross. Also, don’t miss the blog by the Prior. From my time in New York and afterward, I’ve met or have corresponded with a number of people connected to the order either as monks or associates.
  • The Order of Julian of Norwich. This is an order whose cause is close to my heart—it values tradition in its worship and common life and seeks to make the riches of the contemplative life better known and meaningful to those of us on the outside.
  • The All Saints’ Sisters of the Poor. This is a very Anglo-Catholic order of nuns who maintain the traditional hours of prayer and are situated on a beautiful rural campus (more than suitable for retreats…)

Those of us who are devoted to the Daily Office and to the Benedictine way of life in general owe it to ourselves to not just be in conversation with books. And, as great as blogs and blog communities are, even they are no substitute for actually spending time absorbing the monastic spirit from those who have really committed to living that way. Look some of these up. Look over the full range, see who’s near you, and start making some connections.

Guest Post: Mother M on Common Prayer

The “Common” in Common Prayer

What exactly is “common prayer”? In the Anglican/Episcopal
tradition we use this term frequently: our main liturgical book is titled The
Book of Common Prayer. Yet it is a phrase so commonly used that I think we
often gloss over it and fail to think about what it really means. I must
confess that I never really thought about it until I read my husband’s blog and
saw his questions and invitation to post for the carnival. Common prayer is a
compilation of prayers and liturgies that we as a denomination hold to be
representative of our faith. These prayers and liturgies are grounded in
scripture, reason (to some extent), tradition and history. They are used
throughout the world or country as the norm—the core. There have been a number
of BCP’s over the last 458 years. There have been many revisions during this
time, but the core of the BCP has
remained mostly the same. The 1928 BCP for example has mostly been retained in
the current 1979 BCP. Many of the forms have been revised, condensed or used in
different ways in the newer version, but the core of our faith can still be
found. While I am pretty content with the 79 BCP, I know that the day is fast
approaching when the Church will have to reevaluate and revise the current
prayer book. I believe a new book will be inevitable when the current BCP is no
longer able to adequately address the larger Church in terms of social
concerns, liturgical language (language and images), pastoral needs, and
mission. The world we live in today, while changing quickly, is still not that
different from 1979 that we would need a new prayer book yet. That is where
supplemental and trial liturgies fit in (that is a whole other essay for
another time). So, I don’t see “common prayer” changing all that much in the 21st
century. In order for this to happen though here are some tips I would offer to
those revising the BCP:

  • remain
    faithful to the Scriptures and the liturgy of the early church
  • unify
    the Church
  • edify
    the people

As Marion Hatchett in his Commentary on the American
Prayer Book reminds us, these three points have been kept in mind during
previous prayer book revisions and should be for future ones as well. I also
would hope that the revisers would continue to draw from:

  • Scripture
  • Church
    fathers
  • Historic
    liturgies

Of course these things would be in combination with the
present world/culture/church conditions as well as missionary needs, pastoral
needs, and social needs/concerns. One of the points of the BCP as I see it is
to draw those in the Anglican communion closer to each other rather than
tearing us apart. The BCP addresses the needs and concerns through prayer and
liturgy of the whole body, not just one member.

There are a couple of other ways to think of “common” as
well: one way to think of common prayer that dates back to the medieval church
is as the regular or cyclic services of the Church (the Daily Office, the
Litany, and Eucharist) in contrast to the occasional sacraments/services and
other rites that ritually mark particular points in the Christian life. Alternatively,
common prayer could also mean those sacraments/rites/services that are for all
people and not just clergy and monastics. Participation in the liturgy as
opposed to the liturgy being done on one’s behalf (mass intentions). This is
one of the obvious shifts of Cranmer’s first BCP in 1549 compared with the
medieval mass. Any thoughts or ideas on this are most welcome!

One last thought on “common” prayer before shifting to local
organic liturgies. Common prayer in my dream world would include a common ordo
too. Currently the Anglican bodies do not have this and I often wonder what it
is that is holding us altogether if we actually don’t have a book of common
prayer or a common ordo. Ordo refers to the pattern of essential
elements in worship and their ritual ordering. Anyway, I see this uncommon ordo
to be a problem if we say we are in communion with each other. We ought to—at
the very least—have this in common. It makes me think: what in the world is the
Anglican communion anyway? There are two reasons that I can see why we need a
common ordo. First, it gives us an identity as a faith community. Second,
it strengthens our relations with other Anglican groups and, in theory, helps
us to support each other. For lack of time I have not thought anymore on this
subject, but I do strongly believe it to be quite important to the future of
both the Anglican communion and “Common” Prayer in the 21st century.

Local Organic Liturgies

Local organic liturgies certainly have their place in
worship, but I do not think they should be included in a book of common prayer
such as the BCP. There is a definite need for services to reach out to specific
ethnic groups. More should definitely be included of their culture, practices,
and traditions and they should be able to use these types of services with
ease. However, they should still use, know, and participate in the BCP’s
prayers and liturgies on a fairly regular basis since that is what is common
and the core of our faith. Newer local customs and liturgies are just that—local,
so it does not really fit in with my idea of common prayer.

New prayers and
liturgies are okay and actually should be encouraged as we need liturgical
imagination for our current age. The phrase “liturgical imagination” often gets
a bad rap when referring to certain forms of non-traditional ways of worship—like
decorating the altar with fabric and other crap as they did at one of the three
seminaries I have attended… This is not what I mean when I use the phrase. All
I am saying is that we need language and images that speak to our time, culture,
and social situation. These do not have to be new or non-traditional. We just
have to constantly reevaluate our worship and liturgies and make sure they are
meeting the needs and concerns of our current society. Those who know me know
how much I love old things and tradition, particularly in all things
liturgical. I love[most of ]Ritual
Notes—need I say more? Anyway, sometimes the old just doesn’t work. (Though
often it does.) As Gordon Lathrop reminds us in his book Holy Things the
old is made to speak the new. It is all
about juxtaposition (also another essay for another time).

Mother M

Interim Version of Anglican Lauds and Vespers

Whenever discussions of the Daily Office come up, someone, at some point, will make some comment about how a discipline like this no longer fits into the lives of modern professional people. That is, if you’re not a priest, student, or church-worker, how do you find time to do the Office in the midst of everything else you’ve got going on??

One answer which sounds flippant but really isn’t is–if that’s important to you, you’ll figure out a way to make it happen. This is easier said than done, of course. For several years I had it easy–I had a commute on public transit. So, I got into the habit of reading the Offices on my way to and from work. I had my trusty two-volume Daily Office Books which are small enough to easily stow the volume for the appropriate year in my work bag and it was no problem.

No longer.

I’m now in a city with notoriously unreliable transit that does not go from where I am to where I need to be. Furthermore, I’m putting in way more hours than I’d like–I’m not getting enough sleep as it is now, so getting up earlier is not an option…

My problem is this: I don’t have time to do the Office in a prayerfully, non-rushed manner with a book in front of me. I do, however, have a lengthy vehicular commute. The solution is a version of the Offices that I can do in the car without needing a book.

Here’s the framework that I’ve come up with: An Anglican Lauds and Vespers. As the two main day offices, Lauds and Vespers classically shared the same structure; only the elements were different and these didn’t have an awful lot of variation. I adapted the shared ordines of these two Offices for one that I could do from memory in my car. The one advantage to my current situation is that I’m not in a transit car with a bunch of other people–so I can chant it if I like…which I like…

Does this solve the initial question posed above? Is this a solution to enable the ancient patterns of devotion to be kept in the modern world? I’m not sure… It works for me–and it may work for you–but I don’t see it as a solution for the majority of church-goers. In any case, explore it, play with it, try it, and let me know if and how it works for you…

I call it “interim” in the title for a reason, though. This ordo refers to seasonal items–and they’re not included in the file. I started on adding them, but didn’t have time to get it together because I have to focus completely on the dissertation now, not on liturgical fun… They’ll show up eventually. In the meantime you can find the bits you need–the little chapter and hymn–here.(Click the “Recite the Office” button, then click on the service for which you need the material and scroll down.)

Cathedrals and Clergy Formation Revisited

AKMA writes on a visit and presentation by Bishop Neil Alexander on the purpose and point of worship in the seminary context. Apparently he listed four:

  1. A monastic model where the seminarians are formed into a particular tradition
  2. A pedagogical model where they learn how to do a liturgy or liturgies
  3. A parish model that replicates where the students came from and where they will go
  4. Creative worship where they freely explore liturgical possibilities without the expectation that it will be used in a parish

My seminary experiences were heavy on the last–and I hated it… The model I’ve experienced that worked the best is the first–the monastic model–as lived out at General. Once I encountered it, I knew that’s what I had been missing at my first two seminaries…

Reading this reminded me of my earlier thoughts on clergy formation wherein I was thinking out loud along with some others about what new models for clergy education could look like. Rather than centering the formative educational experience at an academic institution, I suggested basing it in an ecclesial institution: at cathedrals rather than seminaries. Academic environments are great for training academics. But what if we want to train priests…?

Organic Development

There’s been some discussion on my Periodization of the Liturgy piece over at Young Fogey’s place. One of the key issues is the discussion about whether the Roman Novus Ordo (the post-Vatican II mass) can be considered an “organic development” from the Tridentine Mass.

Not being a Roman, of course, I don’t have a dog in that hunt nor a lived experience of both (I’ve only ever attended one TLM, though many NOs). Where the question comes home to roost for me is with the American ’79 BCP…. Is it an organic development from the ’28?

And to push the envelope further–What’s the relation of the American ’28 to the English 1662 through the 1559 to the 1552 to the 1549?

Needless to say Laud’s would have to fit in there as well…

All that is to say, with the tangled webs of Anglican liturgies, what does it mean to talk about continuity and organic development?