Here is the SUBSTANCE (without personal references and allusions) of an address I expect to give within the marriage services I shall take this weekend of couples who are graduate students:
In the marriage service the bride and the bridegroom each say several times, “ I will.” They do not say “Yes” or “I do” but “I will.” This form of the verb is not by accident but is based on both sound teaching and experience of relations in marriage.
First, think of “will.” Let us agree that this form of the verb points to INTENTION, PURPOSE, DECISION and COMMITMENT.
It is rooted not in raw and unstable emotions, feelings and affections that ebb and flow like the ocean tides. Not in the raw and passionate love that is celebrated in many popular songs. Rather “will” is rooted in the conviction and determination of the mind to act and behave in a certain way towards the other.
Therefore the use of WILL emphasises that love, true love, genuine love, lasting love is rooted not so much in the affections as in the mind/will. Love is a committed intention & purpose to do good to the other person, to think of his or her true good and always to work to that end.
Now think of the “I” in “I will”.
Here we have to think very carefully. For many younger people today the “I” is the mix of feelings that they have about themselves, those feelings that are unique to the specific individual. So I am unique because of the unique feelings that I have of myself, of others and of things in general. And of course this modern understanding of who I am is much fortified and encouraged by the media, by pop songs and modern culture.
But the more sensible understanding of “I”, and one upon which this marriage service and the Christian religion is based, is that of personal identity – that is, the I/ ego, is rooted in personal relations.
So if I ask, “Who are you?” the answer is NOT: “I am I myself with my own unique feelings possessed only by me;” BUT “I am who I am because of unique relations, relations of order. I am the daughter of my parents, the sister of my brother, the granddaughter of my grandparents, the cousin of my the children of my uncles and aunts and so on.”
Personal identity is rooted in the fact that I am a unique creature of God the Creator and that I am related in the order of creation to specific fellow human beings.
Thus the “I” who says “I will” has both a very specific identity as a human being and a very specific commitment, intention and purpose to do good unto the other.
Now to complete this reflection, in this marriage service the relatedness of the “I” and the range of the “ I will” are both being extended. The relations of identity now include a spouse who takes first place amongst the relatives; and the meaning of “will” to do good is directed specifically and for all time under all conditions to that spouse.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Friday, August 16, 2002
Monday, August 12, 2002
On the Language of Worship: Liturgy, Bible Versions and Hymnody - 1960-2000
From the vantage point of 2002 and looking back into the last century, we can see three basic phases to the massive linguistic changes that took place in translating the Bible, creating Liturgies and producing hymns for the English-speaking parts of the Christian Church... Read More
Saturday, August 10, 2002
You = Thou in the Catechism (1549, 1662, 1928) of the BCP – or does it?
Today people [even those “experts” who produce modern language services for the churches] assume that “you” was not used in 16th century English to refer to an individual person. In those far off times, it is believed, people always said to one person, “Thou art” and to more than one “You are.”
There is of course truth in this but it is not the whole truth. “You” is used as the second person singular and thus as equivalent grammatically to “Thou” from well before the reign of Henry VIII (See “You” the Oxford Dictionary for examples).
Read More...
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
There is of course truth in this but it is not the whole truth. “You” is used as the second person singular and thus as equivalent grammatically to “Thou” from well before the reign of Henry VIII (See “You” the Oxford Dictionary for examples).
Read More...
The Revd Dr Peter Toon
Eight bishops propose new plenary council of U.S. (Roman Catholic) church
PLENARY COUNCIL Aug-6-2002 (850 words) xxxn
By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Eight U.S. bishops have asked their fellow prelates to consider convoking a national plenary council to promote holiness, priestly celibacy and sound sexual morality in the U.S. Catholic Church.
Such a council would be the first in the United States since the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884, which lasted nearly a month and led to the development of the Baltimore Catechism and strong efforts for Catholic schools throughout the country.
In a letter sent to the bishops in mid-July and obtained by Catholic News Service Aug. 6, the group said the bishops "took a first step in dealing with the crisis of sexual abuse of minors" at their June meeting in Dallas.
The letter added, however, that the bishops still need to address "the root causes of this crisis" and the challenge posed by Pope John Paul II April 23 when he called on the American hierarchy to "bring a purification of the entire Catholic community ... a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate and a holier church."
The proposal calls for the plenary council to have the aims of:
It asks the bishops to bring the question of a plenary council to a debate and vote when they gather in Washington this November for the fall general assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
It calls for the bishops to designate the metropolitan archbishops of the country as the members of a general preparatory commission that would have chief responsibility to work out the preparations for a council.
In a five-page background paper two of the signers, Auxiliary Bishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit and Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Helena, Mont., outlined what the proposed plenary council would do and some of the pros and cons of convening such a council.
The others who signed the letter were Archbishop Daniel A. Cronin of Hartford, Conn.; Archbishop James P. Keleher of Kansas City, Kan.; Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb of Mobile, Ala.; Archbishop John G. Vlazny of Portland, Ore.; Bishop Raymond L. Burke of La Crosse, Wis.; and Bishop Daniel N. DiNardo of Sioux City, Iowa.
CNS was unable to reach any of the eight for comment Aug. 6.
One of the recipients, Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly of Louisville, Ky., said he was not convinced that the bishops should call a plenary council at this time, "but I'm very willing to listen to the arguments in a debate over this."
The idea of a plenary council "is very much alive in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. One of the tasks of the episcopal conference is to see if we think we need one," he said. "It's a legitimate form of coming together" to deal with pastoral issues confronting the church, he added.
The code says, "A plenary council, that is, one for all the particular churches of the same conference of bishops, is to be celebrated whenever it seems necessary or useful to the conference of bishops, with the approval of the Apostolic See."
It adds that it is up to the bishops' conference to convoke such a council, to decide where it is to be held, to select a president -- subject to Vatican approval -- and to set the agenda, topics to be treated and its opening and duration. The conference also can decide to transfer, extend or dissolve a council.
All diocesan bishops, coadjutors and auxiliaries in the territory of the bishops' conference and bishops who work in the territory by Vatican or bishops' conference assignment are automatic council members with a deliberative vote. Retired bishops can be invited, and if they are, they have a deliberative vote.
The code spells out a number of other participants who have a consultative voice in a plenary council but not a deliberative vote. These include all the vicars general and episcopal vicars throughout the territory, a determined number of representatives of major superiors of religious orders, rectors of all Catholic universities and deans of faculties of theology and canon law, and a determined number of seminary rectors.
Other priests and lay Catholics can be invited to participate with a consultative voice, but their number is not to exceed half the total of the other participants combined.
In addition, the bishops' conference can invite others, such as representatives of other churches, as guests.
END
By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Eight U.S. bishops have asked their fellow prelates to consider convoking a national plenary council to promote holiness, priestly celibacy and sound sexual morality in the U.S. Catholic Church.
Such a council would be the first in the United States since the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884, which lasted nearly a month and led to the development of the Baltimore Catechism and strong efforts for Catholic schools throughout the country.
In a letter sent to the bishops in mid-July and obtained by Catholic News Service Aug. 6, the group said the bishops "took a first step in dealing with the crisis of sexual abuse of minors" at their June meeting in Dallas.
The letter added, however, that the bishops still need to address "the root causes of this crisis" and the challenge posed by Pope John Paul II April 23 when he called on the American hierarchy to "bring a purification of the entire Catholic community ... a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate and a holier church."
The proposal calls for the plenary council to have the aims of:
-- "Solemnly receiving the authentic teaching" of the Second Vatican Council and postconciliar teachings on the identity, life and ministry of priests and bishops, on sexual morality in general and on celibate chastity as an authentic form of human sexuality.
-- "Giving unequivocal endorsement and normative force to the means" set out in church teaching "to foster the acts of virtue required of pastors and the means needed to achieve those virtues, especially celibate chastity."
-- "Confirming the bishops in the authoritative exercise of our ministry" and strengthening priests in teaching the Gospel "especially in regard to sexual morality, so that we can give support to the lay faithful in responding to their call to holiness."
It asks the bishops to bring the question of a plenary council to a debate and vote when they gather in Washington this November for the fall general assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
It calls for the bishops to designate the metropolitan archbishops of the country as the members of a general preparatory commission that would have chief responsibility to work out the preparations for a council.
In a five-page background paper two of the signers, Auxiliary Bishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit and Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Helena, Mont., outlined what the proposed plenary council would do and some of the pros and cons of convening such a council.
The others who signed the letter were Archbishop Daniel A. Cronin of Hartford, Conn.; Archbishop James P. Keleher of Kansas City, Kan.; Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb of Mobile, Ala.; Archbishop John G. Vlazny of Portland, Ore.; Bishop Raymond L. Burke of La Crosse, Wis.; and Bishop Daniel N. DiNardo of Sioux City, Iowa.
CNS was unable to reach any of the eight for comment Aug. 6.
One of the recipients, Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly of Louisville, Ky., said he was not convinced that the bishops should call a plenary council at this time, "but I'm very willing to listen to the arguments in a debate over this."
The idea of a plenary council "is very much alive in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. One of the tasks of the episcopal conference is to see if we think we need one," he said. "It's a legitimate form of coming together" to deal with pastoral issues confronting the church, he added.
The code says, "A plenary council, that is, one for all the particular churches of the same conference of bishops, is to be celebrated whenever it seems necessary or useful to the conference of bishops, with the approval of the Apostolic See."
It adds that it is up to the bishops' conference to convoke such a council, to decide where it is to be held, to select a president -- subject to Vatican approval -- and to set the agenda, topics to be treated and its opening and duration. The conference also can decide to transfer, extend or dissolve a council.
All diocesan bishops, coadjutors and auxiliaries in the territory of the bishops' conference and bishops who work in the territory by Vatican or bishops' conference assignment are automatic council members with a deliberative vote. Retired bishops can be invited, and if they are, they have a deliberative vote.
The code spells out a number of other participants who have a consultative voice in a plenary council but not a deliberative vote. These include all the vicars general and episcopal vicars throughout the territory, a determined number of representatives of major superiors of religious orders, rectors of all Catholic universities and deans of faculties of theology and canon law, and a determined number of seminary rectors.
Other priests and lay Catholics can be invited to participate with a consultative voice, but their number is not to exceed half the total of the other participants combined.
In addition, the bishops' conference can invite others, such as representatives of other churches, as guests.
END
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
WILLIAMS AFFIRMS LAMBETH RESOLUTION ON SEXUALITY
WILLIAMS AFFIRMS LAMBETH RESOLUTION ON SEXUALITY.
LET US IN THE NORTH & SOUTH, EAST AND WEST PRAY FOR HIM , ALONG WITH HIS FELLOW PRIMATES --P.T.
From the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Monmouth
Tuesday, 23rd July
My dear friends,
You will be hearing today the news that I have accepted appointment as
Archbishop of Canterbury. My first reason for writing is to ask for your
prayers; I am deeply thankful that we are not strangers to each other, and I
hope that the friendships formed in the Primates' Meetings will continue and
flourish as we work together under God. At the moment, I am chiefly
conscious of bringing to the task only the fear, the confusion and the sense
of inadequacy that come from my personal resources. I have to trust that God
will give (not least through your fellowship and intercession) what is needed
-and that I shall have the grace to receive and respond to what he gives.
I also write because I know that some disquiet has been expressed over the
possibility of my appointment because of what are believed to be my views on
certain questions, in particular on human sexuality. On this matter, I wish
to say two things. First, an archbishop is not someone elected to fulfil a
programme or manifesto of his own devising, but to serve the whole Communion.
He does not have the freedom to prescribe belief for the Church at large. I
have indeed in the past written briefly on the subject of theology and
sexuality, and hope that what I have written has contributed to the
continuing discussion; but my ideas have no authority beyond that of an
individual theologian. Second, the Lambeth resolution of 1998 declares
clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion, and
what the Communion will and will not approve or authorise. I accept that any
individual diocese or even province that officially overturns or repudiates
this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the
Communion.
In both respects, I have to distinguish plainly between personal theories
and interpretations and the majority conviction of my Church, and have always
tried to make such a distinction when I have been questioned on this subject.
Since the Lambeth resolution also commends continuing reflection on these
matters, my main hope will be to try and maintain a mutually respectful
climate for such reflection, in the sort of shared prayerful listening to
Scripture envisaged by Lambeth. I hope too, very earnestly, that we can hold
to the urgent common priority of mission and evangelism, and avoid the
temptation of becoming trapped in questions where the politics of our culture
sets the agenda. I believe with all my heart that through Christ we are
given a unique and immeasurable gift, and that all our work as apostles and
pastors and teachers must grow from our thankfulness to God.
Once again, I ask your continuing prayers, and hope that we shall be able to
work together in love and trust. I rely on all of you to 'speak the truth in
love' to me and to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to me so that I may
be strengthened to speak for Christ to others. This comes with warm
affection and gratitude.
In Christ,
Rowan....
LET US IN THE NORTH & SOUTH, EAST AND WEST PRAY FOR HIM , ALONG WITH HIS FELLOW PRIMATES --P.T.
From the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Monmouth
Tuesday, 23rd July
My dear friends,
You will be hearing today the news that I have accepted appointment as
Archbishop of Canterbury. My first reason for writing is to ask for your
prayers; I am deeply thankful that we are not strangers to each other, and I
hope that the friendships formed in the Primates' Meetings will continue and
flourish as we work together under God. At the moment, I am chiefly
conscious of bringing to the task only the fear, the confusion and the sense
of inadequacy that come from my personal resources. I have to trust that God
will give (not least through your fellowship and intercession) what is needed
-and that I shall have the grace to receive and respond to what he gives.
I also write because I know that some disquiet has been expressed over the
possibility of my appointment because of what are believed to be my views on
certain questions, in particular on human sexuality. On this matter, I wish
to say two things. First, an archbishop is not someone elected to fulfil a
programme or manifesto of his own devising, but to serve the whole Communion.
He does not have the freedom to prescribe belief for the Church at large. I
have indeed in the past written briefly on the subject of theology and
sexuality, and hope that what I have written has contributed to the
continuing discussion; but my ideas have no authority beyond that of an
individual theologian. Second, the Lambeth resolution of 1998 declares
clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion, and
what the Communion will and will not approve or authorise. I accept that any
individual diocese or even province that officially overturns or repudiates
this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the
Communion.
In both respects, I have to distinguish plainly between personal theories
and interpretations and the majority conviction of my Church, and have always
tried to make such a distinction when I have been questioned on this subject.
Since the Lambeth resolution also commends continuing reflection on these
matters, my main hope will be to try and maintain a mutually respectful
climate for such reflection, in the sort of shared prayerful listening to
Scripture envisaged by Lambeth. I hope too, very earnestly, that we can hold
to the urgent common priority of mission and evangelism, and avoid the
temptation of becoming trapped in questions where the politics of our culture
sets the agenda. I believe with all my heart that through Christ we are
given a unique and immeasurable gift, and that all our work as apostles and
pastors and teachers must grow from our thankfulness to God.
Once again, I ask your continuing prayers, and hope that we shall be able to
work together in love and trust. I rely on all of you to 'speak the truth in
love' to me and to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to me so that I may
be strengthened to speak for Christ to others. This comes with warm
affection and gratitude.
In Christ,
Rowan....
Monday, August 05, 2002
Do "mankind" and "man" really exclude or include women?
An answer from a brilliant Victorian woman!
The translator into English of the famous German book, Wesen des Christentums (1841) by Ludwig Feuerbach was George Eliot (= Marian Evans) and she entitled it, The Essence of Christianity (1854).
Here is one small part of this brilliant woman's choice translation:
Oh that we could say today with this Victorian feminist -- "that as a woman he be truly woman" - and not be found guilty of a major crime against humanity!
We recall that certain stigmatized words (by liturgists and biblical translators) such as "man" and mankind" do have feminine equivalents (woman, womankind), BUT whereas the feminine has traditionally been used to DISTINGUISH, and to EXCLUDE the male counterpart, the masculine has traditionally been taken as always INCLUDING the female.
Then can we bowdlerize virtually all hymns written before 1970?
Think of John Henry Newman's
And:
Or Wesley:
How can we change these and keep any purpose in the verses?
I close with the Creed:
If we leave out "men" we change the doctrine of the Creed!
Dr Peter Toon August 5, 2002
The translator into English of the famous German book, Wesen des Christentums (1841) by Ludwig Feuerbach was George Eliot (= Marian Evans) and she entitled it, The Essence of Christianity (1854).
Here is one small part of this brilliant woman's choice translation:
"What is virtue, the excellence of man as man? Manhood. Of man as woman? Womanhood. But man exists only as man and woman. The strength, the healthiness of man, consists, therefore, in this: that as a woman he be truly woman, as man, truly man." (page 91)
Oh that we could say today with this Victorian feminist -- "that as a woman he be truly woman" - and not be found guilty of a major crime against humanity!
We recall that certain stigmatized words (by liturgists and biblical translators) such as "man" and mankind" do have feminine equivalents (woman, womankind), BUT whereas the feminine has traditionally been used to DISTINGUISH, and to EXCLUDE the male counterpart, the masculine has traditionally been taken as always INCLUDING the female.
Then can we bowdlerize virtually all hymns written before 1970?
Think of John Henry Newman's
Manhood taken by the Son.
And I trust and hope most fully
In that manhood crucified.
And:
O generous love, that he who smote
In man for man the foe
The double agony in man
For man should undergo.
Or Wesley:
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus our Immanuel.
Born that man no more may die!
How can we change these and keep any purpose in the verses?
I close with the Creed:
Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven.
If we leave out "men" we change the doctrine of the Creed!
Dr Peter Toon August 5, 2002
Sunday, August 04, 2002
Moscow Patriarchate Says Preaching by Catholics "Unacceptable" New Attack on Religious Liberty in Russia
MOSCOW, JULY 31, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The Russian Orthodox Church has denied the Catholic Church the right "to preach the Gospel to all people," particularly in territories under the Moscow Patriarchate.
The patriarchate made that announcement through its Department for External Church Relations. The department published a statement after the Catholic Church responded to the agency's charges of "proselytism."
The response forms part of the letters sent by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Catholic Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz at Moscow.
The Orthodox patriarchate stated that in the letters, the "Catholic hierarchs insist on the right of their Church 'to preach the Gospel to all people.'" It adds, "This position is unacceptable for the Russian Orthodox Church."
"From the experience of the last years, we know that by this they mean missionary work aiming to convert to Catholicism as many people as possible, including those who belong to Orthodoxy both by baptism and national and cultural tradition," the patriarchate's statement says.
"All these facts not only complicate dialogue with the Vatican and its Church structures in Russia and other countries of the commonwealth, but also make it doomed to failure beforehand," the document adds.
"An even more serious damage to relations between the two Churches has been caused by the recent Vatican decision to establish new dioceses in historically Orthodox regions of Ukraine," it further states.
The statement says: "No lesser concern is aroused by the plans of the leadership of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to move from Lviv to Kiev and establish their patriarchate there."
The original accusations of proselytism were presented in a letter by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, chairman of the patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations.
Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop Kondrusiewicz said that the problem in the dispute consisted in defining the world "proselytism."
Cardinal Kasper previously explained: "'If a women's religious congregation is called, for example, 'Missionaries of the Sacred Heart,' the fact that the name includes the term 'missionary' is not a proof for the accusation of proselytism. The Church itself is missionary, but it does not proselytize." (See Zenit.org)
"There are many facts that are not convincing, and yet it is possible to engage in dialogue," the cardinal had added. "The Holy See's policy with the Russian Orthodox Church is clear: We want dialogue, we want collaboration, we reject proselytism, we want ecumenism, we want to promote the pastoral care of our Catholics."
The Holy See believes that the Orthodox refusal to allow the Catholic Church to have its own hierarchy in the country is a serious attack against religious liberty.
In recent statements (see Zenit.org), Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican secretary for relations with states, reminded the Orthodox that this position is a violation of the final document of the 1989 Vienna Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which the Russian Federation has followed.
The patriarchate made that announcement through its Department for External Church Relations. The department published a statement after the Catholic Church responded to the agency's charges of "proselytism."
The response forms part of the letters sent by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Catholic Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz at Moscow.
The Orthodox patriarchate stated that in the letters, the "Catholic hierarchs insist on the right of their Church 'to preach the Gospel to all people.'" It adds, "This position is unacceptable for the Russian Orthodox Church."
"From the experience of the last years, we know that by this they mean missionary work aiming to convert to Catholicism as many people as possible, including those who belong to Orthodoxy both by baptism and national and cultural tradition," the patriarchate's statement says.
"All these facts not only complicate dialogue with the Vatican and its Church structures in Russia and other countries of the commonwealth, but also make it doomed to failure beforehand," the document adds.
"An even more serious damage to relations between the two Churches has been caused by the recent Vatican decision to establish new dioceses in historically Orthodox regions of Ukraine," it further states.
The statement says: "No lesser concern is aroused by the plans of the leadership of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to move from Lviv to Kiev and establish their patriarchate there."
The original accusations of proselytism were presented in a letter by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, chairman of the patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations.
Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop Kondrusiewicz said that the problem in the dispute consisted in defining the world "proselytism."
Cardinal Kasper previously explained: "'If a women's religious congregation is called, for example, 'Missionaries of the Sacred Heart,' the fact that the name includes the term 'missionary' is not a proof for the accusation of proselytism. The Church itself is missionary, but it does not proselytize." (See Zenit.org)
"There are many facts that are not convincing, and yet it is possible to engage in dialogue," the cardinal had added. "The Holy See's policy with the Russian Orthodox Church is clear: We want dialogue, we want collaboration, we reject proselytism, we want ecumenism, we want to promote the pastoral care of our Catholics."
The Holy See believes that the Orthodox refusal to allow the Catholic Church to have its own hierarchy in the country is a serious attack against religious liberty.
In recent statements (see Zenit.org), Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican secretary for relations with states, reminded the Orthodox that this position is a violation of the final document of the 1989 Vienna Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which the Russian Federation has followed.
Thursday, August 01, 2002
Keeping it SIMPLE and ACCESSIBLE!
Are these laudable aims?
It has been assumed by the majority of those pushing for liturgical reform since the 1950s in the Roman Catholic Church that key ingredients of new Rites (Liturgies with attached symbolism & ceremonial) should be simplicity, intelligibility, development of community & a theatrical role for the Celebrant & ministers. Within the Anglican Churches it has been a similar story with similar ingredients, with "relevance to/for modern people" being a high priority.
It may be argued that the Church has a duty to make her message to the world, of the Lord God the Creator who is also the Redeemer through His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, as simple and intelligible as possible. Not simplistic but simple in the sense of introducing as few difficult concepts and words as possible. Yet as St Paul declares "No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Evangelism without the effective work of the Holy Ghost in the human mind and heart will never succeed even if be simple as simple can be. And minds touched by the Holy Ghost understand much more truth than without that divine illumination and inspiration.
But back to public worship & common prayer in the house of the Lord. Let us look briefly at the emphases of modern liturgists.
SIMPLICITY There is no evidence that a simple form of service is more effective in leading people to God than an elaborate, lavish and elaborate service. Likewise there is no evidence that the simplest form of English in terms of vocabulary, grammar and syntax is more effective in leading people to God than a rich form of English in terms of its vocabulary, rhythm and sentence construction. The art of lifting the soul from the cares and joys of this world to the heights of heaven is not necessarily achieved in the shortest, quickest and simplest manner be it of words or symbolism.
INTELLIGIBILITY It is doubtful whether making every part of the service as clear as possible (in terms of modern notions of clarity) does justice to the fact that the engagement in worship is with the supernatural, the transcendent and ultimately the infinite and eternal God who makes himself known as he will. The relation that is established in worship with God is of such a nature as to stretch language in several directions so that scientific intelligibility is not a realistic aim. The intelligibility that is to be sought in the language of worship belongs to the unique sphere of the worshipper actually engaging in communion with the Lord God. For this the language of poetry and metaphor of sign and symbolism is more appropriate. And this is so, in fact supremely so, even when we allow for the important fact of the Incarnation of the Son of God and his presence as the exalted Lord with the worshippers through the Holy Ghost.
COMMUNITY The effort to create community, to make people feel they belong to one another and thus to God in this or that local congregation, must by its nature put the emphasis upon what we may call the horizontal rather than the vertical, that is on the immanent rather on the transcendent. The Christian Hope is that of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come within the new Household of God, the Body of Christ. In this world only a taste and sampling of this future fullness of communion is possible. If the emphasis in worship is upon God and by his grace upon the heavenly calling and the future fellowship/communion, then there is likelihood that a real foretaste of this will be known in the assembly. But community as community is not a worthy end of public worship and leads to over-use and mis-use of such things as the passing of the peace!
LITURGICAL AGENCY. THE ROLE OF THE MINISTER(S). When the minister(s) are covered by robes or vestments and when they use a well-established service in traditional language where one part follows another smoothly and without announcement, then their role is not that of an individual named Joe or Jean doing his or her thing, but of an official minister of the Church of God. Here the laity participate spiritually, often in silence, and they only make a noise when singing or engaging in public responses. The ministers are part of the Liturgy and they facilitate it so that it may be the means of leading people to God. The aim is to lift up the soul to God as he in grace descends to assist in that uplifting.
But when the minister takes on the role of the actor, plays a part, reveals his or her personality, makes everyone feel wanted and welcome, and guides the people through the service with explanations and light-hearted comments and expects them to participate in obvious ways, then the whole orientation is not vertical but horizontal. God is seen as present in the horizontal experience.
Thus, Simplicity has to be joined to complexity, Intelligibility to mystery and Community to communion (koinonia) and the theatrical role of the minister has to decrease, if there is to be worship of the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost.
It seems to be the case that the rejection of the accumulated wisdom of the centuries beginning in the liturgical revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has led to an understanding of worship and to forms of worship which seem to be more for the self-development of human beings than for the adoration and greater glory of God as God. This modern form of worship is seen everywhere from the entertainment-type worship of the interdenominational community church to the modern folk mass of the Roman Catholic parish. It exists on the horizontal plane and aspires not to the vertical.
Happily there is a still a remnant found across the denominational spectrum which believes that the chief purpose of Christian humanity is to adore God and in adoring the Blessed Trinity to enjoy and glorify him for ever, unto ages of ages.
August 1st, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
It has been assumed by the majority of those pushing for liturgical reform since the 1950s in the Roman Catholic Church that key ingredients of new Rites (Liturgies with attached symbolism & ceremonial) should be simplicity, intelligibility, development of community & a theatrical role for the Celebrant & ministers. Within the Anglican Churches it has been a similar story with similar ingredients, with "relevance to/for modern people" being a high priority.
It may be argued that the Church has a duty to make her message to the world, of the Lord God the Creator who is also the Redeemer through His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, as simple and intelligible as possible. Not simplistic but simple in the sense of introducing as few difficult concepts and words as possible. Yet as St Paul declares "No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Evangelism without the effective work of the Holy Ghost in the human mind and heart will never succeed even if be simple as simple can be. And minds touched by the Holy Ghost understand much more truth than without that divine illumination and inspiration.
But back to public worship & common prayer in the house of the Lord. Let us look briefly at the emphases of modern liturgists.
SIMPLICITY There is no evidence that a simple form of service is more effective in leading people to God than an elaborate, lavish and elaborate service. Likewise there is no evidence that the simplest form of English in terms of vocabulary, grammar and syntax is more effective in leading people to God than a rich form of English in terms of its vocabulary, rhythm and sentence construction. The art of lifting the soul from the cares and joys of this world to the heights of heaven is not necessarily achieved in the shortest, quickest and simplest manner be it of words or symbolism.
INTELLIGIBILITY It is doubtful whether making every part of the service as clear as possible (in terms of modern notions of clarity) does justice to the fact that the engagement in worship is with the supernatural, the transcendent and ultimately the infinite and eternal God who makes himself known as he will. The relation that is established in worship with God is of such a nature as to stretch language in several directions so that scientific intelligibility is not a realistic aim. The intelligibility that is to be sought in the language of worship belongs to the unique sphere of the worshipper actually engaging in communion with the Lord God. For this the language of poetry and metaphor of sign and symbolism is more appropriate. And this is so, in fact supremely so, even when we allow for the important fact of the Incarnation of the Son of God and his presence as the exalted Lord with the worshippers through the Holy Ghost.
COMMUNITY The effort to create community, to make people feel they belong to one another and thus to God in this or that local congregation, must by its nature put the emphasis upon what we may call the horizontal rather than the vertical, that is on the immanent rather on the transcendent. The Christian Hope is that of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come within the new Household of God, the Body of Christ. In this world only a taste and sampling of this future fullness of communion is possible. If the emphasis in worship is upon God and by his grace upon the heavenly calling and the future fellowship/communion, then there is likelihood that a real foretaste of this will be known in the assembly. But community as community is not a worthy end of public worship and leads to over-use and mis-use of such things as the passing of the peace!
LITURGICAL AGENCY. THE ROLE OF THE MINISTER(S). When the minister(s) are covered by robes or vestments and when they use a well-established service in traditional language where one part follows another smoothly and without announcement, then their role is not that of an individual named Joe or Jean doing his or her thing, but of an official minister of the Church of God. Here the laity participate spiritually, often in silence, and they only make a noise when singing or engaging in public responses. The ministers are part of the Liturgy and they facilitate it so that it may be the means of leading people to God. The aim is to lift up the soul to God as he in grace descends to assist in that uplifting.
But when the minister takes on the role of the actor, plays a part, reveals his or her personality, makes everyone feel wanted and welcome, and guides the people through the service with explanations and light-hearted comments and expects them to participate in obvious ways, then the whole orientation is not vertical but horizontal. God is seen as present in the horizontal experience.
Thus, Simplicity has to be joined to complexity, Intelligibility to mystery and Community to communion (koinonia) and the theatrical role of the minister has to decrease, if there is to be worship of the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost.
It seems to be the case that the rejection of the accumulated wisdom of the centuries beginning in the liturgical revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has led to an understanding of worship and to forms of worship which seem to be more for the self-development of human beings than for the adoration and greater glory of God as God. This modern form of worship is seen everywhere from the entertainment-type worship of the interdenominational community church to the modern folk mass of the Roman Catholic parish. It exists on the horizontal plane and aspires not to the vertical.
Happily there is a still a remnant found across the denominational spectrum which believes that the chief purpose of Christian humanity is to adore God and in adoring the Blessed Trinity to enjoy and glorify him for ever, unto ages of ages.
August 1st, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
On establishing an accurate text and making a good translation
Since the 1950s there has been a tremendous explosion in translations and paraphrases of the Bible.
Not a few people, who use one or another of these versions, do not wholly appreciate the difference between (a) a sound original text, and (b) a good translation of that original text. In fact, one can get the impression from reading the Prefaces to modern versions of the Bible, and the publicity material generated to sell them, that because we now have superior texts than did our forefathers (e.g., those who translated the texts of the King James Version) therefore our translations are (in fact must be) better.
If one considers this matter for a while, it is relatively easy to grasp that establishing the best texts of ancient books is one sort of thing, while translating ancient texts into a modern, living language is yet another thing. Two very different types of expertise are required.
Thus it would have been relatively straightforward to have preserved the idiom and style of say the King James Version at the same time as using the superior Greek texts that we now have of the books of the New Testament. In a sense this is what the Revised Version of the 19th century attempted to do. But this approach seems not to have been seriously contemplated since the 1960s. (The New King James does not dothis but changes archaisms and goes for “You” instead of “Thee/thou”.)
Instead the notion is abroad that a new text (that is improved original text) requires a radically new method of translation. “A new text requires a new idiom in the modern [or post-modern] world” seems to be the watchword. Such a position arises not from the act of translating but from a mindset or ideology brought to the act of translating.
Indeed, the invention of a new idiom for ideological reasons results in LESS accurate translations. So one can have a version of the Bible based upon the best known original texts and yet be a poor or bad translation because the ideology has got between the original text and the modern rendering of it.
This is probably the case with a whole series of modern versions of the Bible.
Take the example of the Revised Standard Version [RSV] from the 1950s and the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] from the 1990s. In terms of modern textual scholarship it is everywhere admitted that the NRSV is based upon the better texts. Yet, at the same time, it can be argued and with good reasons that it is an inferior translation of the originals. As the Preface to the NRSV explains it is committed to the elimination “of masculine-oriented language.” In most cases this was achieved “by simply rephrasing or by introducing plural forms.” Thus the old “Blessed is the man” becomes “Happy are they” in Psalm 1, and “If any man will come after me” becomes “If any want to be my followers” at Matthew 16:24. While the NRSV may be said to be a more acceptable version of the Bible in modern western society committed to the equality of women (and thus the large denominations have adopted it), this does not mean that it is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew and Greek originals than the RSV. Modern humankind may not like what old mankind was taught by God!
And the commitment to inclusive language is not the only problem with modern versions, which claim to be based upon the best available texts.
The New International Version (NIV) from the 1960s/1970s and the Bible of evangelicals, has been strongly influenced by the principles of dynamic equivalence in translation. This theory states that the words of the translation should make a similar impact on its readers today as the original did on its readers yesterday. This leads to paraphrasing rather than word for word translation, and where a text may be understood in several ways it excludes certain possibilities in the name of clarity.
It is the claim of the New English Standard Version of 2002 that it improves on the RSV without falling into the pitfalls of the NSRV, the Revised English Bible (REB) and the NIV. Yet when it comes to the addressing and naming of God, it has left behind the RSV (which retained Thee/Thou) and gone with the NSRV, REB & NIV. Thereby it has abandoned the long-established English idiom of prayer and submitted to the requirement from the 1960s that we address God in the same way that we address one another.
And what is true of the latest set of Protestant versions of the Bible is also true of those from Roman Catholic sources (e.g., the New Jerusalem Bible).
Aside from the slavery to ideological idols, one great danger of so-called contemporary translations is that they oversimplify the meaning of the original text. The Church has always recognized that large parts of Sacred Scripture are difficult to understand in a good translation because they are difficult to understand in the original. Their meaning is only yielded to those whose lives are holy and who are prepared to chew the text until its savour is released.
Then we cannot escape the fact that the biblical texts are, to the perception of most of our contemporaries, unbelievingly old. It does not help their appreciation of that fact if we translate them as if they were written in the 1960s. Their very antiquity makes for a certain difficulty of translation, and any such translation should at least take into account that the human world in which the scriptural text was written is very different from our own.
The use of "dynamic equivalents" (whether in symbolism or in words used in translation) to produce a result easier to understand often results in some of the original real meaning---and not infrequently the key part of the original meaning---being lost. It becomes quickly obvious how many misunderstandings, errors, even modern heresies come from or are abetted by oversimplified renderings of the sacred text.
For all these reasons and others, there are still good reasons for using the King James Version or the Revised Standard Version. Those who know the original languages are very impressed with the literal-type translation of these versions. If you do not believe me, make the comparison.
LITURGY
The problems and errors raised by modern attempts to translate the Bible are matched by the attempts to translate the classic Latin and Greek Liturgies as well as ancient Creeds, Canticles and Hymns. In this respect the translation guidelines set forth by the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council and the Vatican immediately after the Council have not helped. They emphasized accessibility and comprehensibility and simplicity. That translators were not supposed to sacrifice accuracy to comprehensibility was not said clearly enough, and the Vatican Commission on Divine Worship has now – at this late stage- had to issue new guidelines to rectify the disastrous results of this. As yet there has not been the same recognition of past failures by the Protestant churches.
We need to be clear that in both Bible translation and in Liturgy translation (and creation) it is difficult to find a contemporary form of English that is not already the bearer of certain modern ideologies (especially human rights and feminist ones for example).
In modern times, pushed on by the Zeitgeist of the 1960s, the Church in the English-speaking countries has too quickly abandoned the inherited treasure of a long-established and refined language to and of God the Transcendent One; and has tried to create a modern contemporary idiom that is simple, comprehensible, accessible and informal. And we are probably no nearer in 2002 to finding or creating such a language now that we were in 1970. We seem not to be able to keep current ideologies out of the idiom!
Therefore it seems only right to allow those who wish to use the inherited classical idiom of public prayer and worship to continue to do so and thus to keep available such books as the King James Bible, the RSV and the Book of Common Prayer – not to mention the classic Latin Mass!
August 1st 2002.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Not a few people, who use one or another of these versions, do not wholly appreciate the difference between (a) a sound original text, and (b) a good translation of that original text. In fact, one can get the impression from reading the Prefaces to modern versions of the Bible, and the publicity material generated to sell them, that because we now have superior texts than did our forefathers (e.g., those who translated the texts of the King James Version) therefore our translations are (in fact must be) better.
If one considers this matter for a while, it is relatively easy to grasp that establishing the best texts of ancient books is one sort of thing, while translating ancient texts into a modern, living language is yet another thing. Two very different types of expertise are required.
Thus it would have been relatively straightforward to have preserved the idiom and style of say the King James Version at the same time as using the superior Greek texts that we now have of the books of the New Testament. In a sense this is what the Revised Version of the 19th century attempted to do. But this approach seems not to have been seriously contemplated since the 1960s. (The New King James does not dothis but changes archaisms and goes for “You” instead of “Thee/thou”.)
Instead the notion is abroad that a new text (that is improved original text) requires a radically new method of translation. “A new text requires a new idiom in the modern [or post-modern] world” seems to be the watchword. Such a position arises not from the act of translating but from a mindset or ideology brought to the act of translating.
Indeed, the invention of a new idiom for ideological reasons results in LESS accurate translations. So one can have a version of the Bible based upon the best known original texts and yet be a poor or bad translation because the ideology has got between the original text and the modern rendering of it.
This is probably the case with a whole series of modern versions of the Bible.
Take the example of the Revised Standard Version [RSV] from the 1950s and the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] from the 1990s. In terms of modern textual scholarship it is everywhere admitted that the NRSV is based upon the better texts. Yet, at the same time, it can be argued and with good reasons that it is an inferior translation of the originals. As the Preface to the NRSV explains it is committed to the elimination “of masculine-oriented language.” In most cases this was achieved “by simply rephrasing or by introducing plural forms.” Thus the old “Blessed is the man” becomes “Happy are they” in Psalm 1, and “If any man will come after me” becomes “If any want to be my followers” at Matthew 16:24. While the NRSV may be said to be a more acceptable version of the Bible in modern western society committed to the equality of women (and thus the large denominations have adopted it), this does not mean that it is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew and Greek originals than the RSV. Modern humankind may not like what old mankind was taught by God!
And the commitment to inclusive language is not the only problem with modern versions, which claim to be based upon the best available texts.
The New International Version (NIV) from the 1960s/1970s and the Bible of evangelicals, has been strongly influenced by the principles of dynamic equivalence in translation. This theory states that the words of the translation should make a similar impact on its readers today as the original did on its readers yesterday. This leads to paraphrasing rather than word for word translation, and where a text may be understood in several ways it excludes certain possibilities in the name of clarity.
It is the claim of the New English Standard Version of 2002 that it improves on the RSV without falling into the pitfalls of the NSRV, the Revised English Bible (REB) and the NIV. Yet when it comes to the addressing and naming of God, it has left behind the RSV (which retained Thee/Thou) and gone with the NSRV, REB & NIV. Thereby it has abandoned the long-established English idiom of prayer and submitted to the requirement from the 1960s that we address God in the same way that we address one another.
And what is true of the latest set of Protestant versions of the Bible is also true of those from Roman Catholic sources (e.g., the New Jerusalem Bible).
Aside from the slavery to ideological idols, one great danger of so-called contemporary translations is that they oversimplify the meaning of the original text. The Church has always recognized that large parts of Sacred Scripture are difficult to understand in a good translation because they are difficult to understand in the original. Their meaning is only yielded to those whose lives are holy and who are prepared to chew the text until its savour is released.
Then we cannot escape the fact that the biblical texts are, to the perception of most of our contemporaries, unbelievingly old. It does not help their appreciation of that fact if we translate them as if they were written in the 1960s. Their very antiquity makes for a certain difficulty of translation, and any such translation should at least take into account that the human world in which the scriptural text was written is very different from our own.
The use of "dynamic equivalents" (whether in symbolism or in words used in translation) to produce a result easier to understand often results in some of the original real meaning---and not infrequently the key part of the original meaning---being lost. It becomes quickly obvious how many misunderstandings, errors, even modern heresies come from or are abetted by oversimplified renderings of the sacred text.
For all these reasons and others, there are still good reasons for using the King James Version or the Revised Standard Version. Those who know the original languages are very impressed with the literal-type translation of these versions. If you do not believe me, make the comparison.
LITURGY
The problems and errors raised by modern attempts to translate the Bible are matched by the attempts to translate the classic Latin and Greek Liturgies as well as ancient Creeds, Canticles and Hymns. In this respect the translation guidelines set forth by the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council and the Vatican immediately after the Council have not helped. They emphasized accessibility and comprehensibility and simplicity. That translators were not supposed to sacrifice accuracy to comprehensibility was not said clearly enough, and the Vatican Commission on Divine Worship has now – at this late stage- had to issue new guidelines to rectify the disastrous results of this. As yet there has not been the same recognition of past failures by the Protestant churches.
We need to be clear that in both Bible translation and in Liturgy translation (and creation) it is difficult to find a contemporary form of English that is not already the bearer of certain modern ideologies (especially human rights and feminist ones for example).
In modern times, pushed on by the Zeitgeist of the 1960s, the Church in the English-speaking countries has too quickly abandoned the inherited treasure of a long-established and refined language to and of God the Transcendent One; and has tried to create a modern contemporary idiom that is simple, comprehensible, accessible and informal. And we are probably no nearer in 2002 to finding or creating such a language now that we were in 1970. We seem not to be able to keep current ideologies out of the idiom!
Therefore it seems only right to allow those who wish to use the inherited classical idiom of public prayer and worship to continue to do so and thus to keep available such books as the King James Bible, the RSV and the Book of Common Prayer – not to mention the classic Latin Mass!
August 1st 2002.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Divine Worship and the Numinous
There are various elements which go into the making of divine worship by an assembled congregation. Yet with these is needed "the sense of the Numinous."
The text used (the liturgy), the music, the symbolism and ceremonial, the deportment of the ministers and people and the general ethos all have a part, yet not an equal part, to play. Obviously some kinds of words, some kinds of music, some forms of symbolism and ceremonial, and some forms of dress and deportment are more effective (for most people) than others in the lifting up the soul in adoration and praise, thanksgiving and petition, intercession and confession to the Father through the Son with the Holy Ghost. Yet other - related - words, music and symbolism seem to be more conducive when the aim is community-building or evangelising or teaching the faith or providing Christian entertainment/recreation.
If the "worship service" is seen more as a time of fellowship (community-building and/or the affirmation of each self before God) or a time of teaching (instruction in aspects of how to be a Christian in modern society) or Christian entertainment (be it high brow or low brow to make people feel good about themselves) then the form of service, the music, the symbolism and ceremonial and the dress and deportment will not be the same as when the service is primarily intended as adoration of the supremely Adorable, Blessed and Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
The mind has to be enlightened, raw emotions purified, and the will rightly directed in order for there to be adoration of the Father of mercies, who is the Supreme Beauty and Glory. Only the presence and work of the Holy Ghost can guarantee this purifying, enlightening and guiding; but, how assembled Christians prepare and present themselves before the Divine Majesty has an important part to play. The Spirit waits to be welcomed by God's people to do his sanctifying work.
There will need to be present in this kind of service - whether in Latin or in English and whether in a University or a blue-collar parish - what has been called " a sense of the numinous." "Numinous" means "imbued with religious gravity" and thus points to the utter seriousness of the occasion and to the wholesome and wholehearted commitment and consecration of body and soul to the exercise of worship - of truly acknowledging the supreme worth of the Holy Trinity - and to the atmosphere created and the ethos realized.
So a form of words will be chosen which have a numinous quality to them, that are able to lift up the soul and make her strive for the highest; music will be used that ennobles the soul and gives her a sense of the transcendent dimension of Being; there will be moments of quiet and stillness to recognize and feel/know the presence of the Lord; symbolism will be such as to turn the mind and heart away from material objects and the world of the senses towards Christ the exalted High Priest; bodily posture will be such as is compatible with the soul that is humble and reverent. And so on.
And in the main the words, music, signs, symbols, dress and deportment will be different from those generally used in secular living, although there will be obvious overlapping here and there. Happily the Church over the centuries has developed such means and they are there in her treasury of tradition to be adapted and utilised by people in the 21st century.
One of the amazing features of a service that aims to adore the Adorable, to contemplate the Glory of the Holy Trinity and to admire the Ultimate Beauty is that it does have all kinds of side-effects. Those who have adored are more likely to be those who want to be taught the Faith, to love their neighbours, to do good to those of the Household of Faith and to promote fellowship/community.
If you major on majors then as a by-product you often take care of minors!
If you major on minors then you never reach or attain the major!
And if you search for a liturgy to adore the Adorable then you find that your choice is very limited. Obviously the traditional Orthodox Liturgy of St Chrysostom has this potential and so does I think Mattins, Evensong and Choral Holy Communion from the classic Book of Common Prayer.
If you want a Liturgy to be merely simple, intelligible, accessible, community-building , one that keeps you warm-hearted in the horizontal position and where the sense of the numinous is hard to come by then your choice is vast in the productions of the last forty or so years.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 31st 2002
The text used (the liturgy), the music, the symbolism and ceremonial, the deportment of the ministers and people and the general ethos all have a part, yet not an equal part, to play. Obviously some kinds of words, some kinds of music, some forms of symbolism and ceremonial, and some forms of dress and deportment are more effective (for most people) than others in the lifting up the soul in adoration and praise, thanksgiving and petition, intercession and confession to the Father through the Son with the Holy Ghost. Yet other - related - words, music and symbolism seem to be more conducive when the aim is community-building or evangelising or teaching the faith or providing Christian entertainment/recreation.
If the "worship service" is seen more as a time of fellowship (community-building and/or the affirmation of each self before God) or a time of teaching (instruction in aspects of how to be a Christian in modern society) or Christian entertainment (be it high brow or low brow to make people feel good about themselves) then the form of service, the music, the symbolism and ceremonial and the dress and deportment will not be the same as when the service is primarily intended as adoration of the supremely Adorable, Blessed and Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
The mind has to be enlightened, raw emotions purified, and the will rightly directed in order for there to be adoration of the Father of mercies, who is the Supreme Beauty and Glory. Only the presence and work of the Holy Ghost can guarantee this purifying, enlightening and guiding; but, how assembled Christians prepare and present themselves before the Divine Majesty has an important part to play. The Spirit waits to be welcomed by God's people to do his sanctifying work.
There will need to be present in this kind of service - whether in Latin or in English and whether in a University or a blue-collar parish - what has been called " a sense of the numinous." "Numinous" means "imbued with religious gravity" and thus points to the utter seriousness of the occasion and to the wholesome and wholehearted commitment and consecration of body and soul to the exercise of worship - of truly acknowledging the supreme worth of the Holy Trinity - and to the atmosphere created and the ethos realized.
So a form of words will be chosen which have a numinous quality to them, that are able to lift up the soul and make her strive for the highest; music will be used that ennobles the soul and gives her a sense of the transcendent dimension of Being; there will be moments of quiet and stillness to recognize and feel/know the presence of the Lord; symbolism will be such as to turn the mind and heart away from material objects and the world of the senses towards Christ the exalted High Priest; bodily posture will be such as is compatible with the soul that is humble and reverent. And so on.
And in the main the words, music, signs, symbols, dress and deportment will be different from those generally used in secular living, although there will be obvious overlapping here and there. Happily the Church over the centuries has developed such means and they are there in her treasury of tradition to be adapted and utilised by people in the 21st century.
One of the amazing features of a service that aims to adore the Adorable, to contemplate the Glory of the Holy Trinity and to admire the Ultimate Beauty is that it does have all kinds of side-effects. Those who have adored are more likely to be those who want to be taught the Faith, to love their neighbours, to do good to those of the Household of Faith and to promote fellowship/community.
If you major on majors then as a by-product you often take care of minors!
If you major on minors then you never reach or attain the major!
And if you search for a liturgy to adore the Adorable then you find that your choice is very limited. Obviously the traditional Orthodox Liturgy of St Chrysostom has this potential and so does I think Mattins, Evensong and Choral Holy Communion from the classic Book of Common Prayer.
If you want a Liturgy to be merely simple, intelligible, accessible, community-building , one that keeps you warm-hearted in the horizontal position and where the sense of the numinous is hard to come by then your choice is vast in the productions of the last forty or so years.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 31st 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)