Monday, September 28, 2009

Volley #64

Time and Place

Yet another quiet revolution is happening all around us. It impacts us directly and seriously, but most of us are at best barely aware of it. The revolution is in the attitude we have toward time and place.

Why, we moderns ask, do we have to be at a particular place, at a particular time, in order to experience any kind of exchange of information involving sights or sounds (and why should we have to pay for it)? Why can’t we download life from the Internet or Tivo it for playback at our convenience—for free? If we want to listen to all the week’s lectures at 2:00 A. M. in our jammies, what is the problem with that? If we happen to be working during the week’s big game, why can’t we watch it later, as if it were just happening? If we suddenly hear of a book or article we’d like to read, or a recording we’d like to listen to, why can’t we have access to it right now, in our own home? If we have to change clothes, drive to the Mall, enter a store, and buy the thing, we’d just as soon do without—our attention will be on something else by then, anyway! And what is this fixation the church has on 10:30 Sunday morning (or 8:00, or 9:00, or 11:00, or any fixed hour), during prime sleeping time (it’s always prime sleeping time for somebody)? Sure, I should say my prayers: but why not say them when I feel like it, and where I happen to be? Does God show up at one location at a certain time once a week with hearing aid in place?

Because, one may respond, the Church is Ecclesia, “the gathering.” We aren’t like Hindus, for example, who can show up at a temple, any convenient temple, at any convenient time, or even use the one we’ve set up in our home for that matter, to offer our sacrifice to the deity. We say our private prayers, of course, but they are just that—they are not liturgy, not worship, which is something the gathered community does together. We need our private prayers, but we need Common Prayer, as well.

These are two ships passing in the night, I fear. They are heading opposite directions, and they have no means of communicating with one another. It is no good telling a prevailing culture, which does not understand our quaint language, and which is not listening anyway, how it ought to be. If anyone is to adapt, it must be the one who actually desires to be heard and understood. That would be us, since we do hope to continue to proclaim Good News to a world which continues to suffer brokenness.

Try to get that world to sit down with us on a hard pew and sing unfamiliar songs just because it’s 11:00 Sunday morning!

We’ll never get around to “worship on demand,” not in my lifetime. We need to think of ways we can accommodate worship at more accessible times, though—not so the same handful can be guilted into attending more services, but so that more of the church—and people not yet of the church-- can be gathered for worship sometime. Why not consider a Saturday evening alternative, or Sunday late afternoon? God is awake then, too.

Volley # 63

THOSE PESKY RUBRICS

We have a quandary. On the one hand, we want our worship to be contemporary, flexible, responsive, interesting, and relevant to people’s lives. We want to be inclusive of lay people of all ages, to all manner and condition of people, and affirming to their gifts and ministries. We certainly do not want to be stodgy, formal in the stilted sense, clergy-centered, rote, or archaic.

At the same time, we hear from those who travel how important it is to them that Episcopal worship the world over has a certain Anglican predictability about it. When we visit, we feel at home somehow, because we can slip right into the worship of a congregation-- certainly when we hear the old Cranmerian cadences of the Book of Common Prayer, but sometimes even when it is non-English-speaking-- and recognize the familiar patterns of the liturgy.

I am discovering in my travels that ALL Episcopal clergy consider themselves to be experts at liturgical innovation. We think that we have brilliant, creative, inspired ideas to enliven and deepen our congregations’ worship. How can I put this delicately: most of us are deluding ourselves. Often, the result is just quirky. We’d be far better off to pick a liturgical style, of which there are several normative ones out there, and stick with it.

My suggestions for liturgical creativity are, that before beginning, we ask ourselves seriously what our aim is, and be very clear about that. Second, that we rehearse the congregation carefully, making sure it is clear to them what we are doing, and that all are prepared for their own role in the liturgy. Third, it is important to evaluate the activity: did it accomplish the desired effect, and were there any unexpected, troublesome side effects? Should it be considered a permanent or occasional worship innovation for the congregation? Can a guest priest easily pick up on it? Is it meaningful to most, or simply eccentric?

One more consideration should overshadow all of the above, however. Is the practice being considered in accordance with the prayer book rubrics and the diocesan policy for public worship? Those traditions have a purpose, and they are not mere suggestions. They set up reasonable norms that apply to all. They keep us Episcopal.

Volley # 62

JARGON

Every profession and every human interest has jargon, a specialized vocabulary that separates the insiders from the outsiders, with resulting ego nudges in one direction or the other. Church groups are no exception, Protestant, Catholic, or in- between. Charismatics have jargon (“slain in the Spirit,” “speaking in tongues,”). Evangelicals have it (“born-again,” “walk the aisle,” “Christ-centered”). How odd that we Episcopalians, who began with the radical reformist principle of using the vernacular for “common” prayer, should be among the worst offenders when it comes to exclusionary terminology, much of it Latin!

All our Psalms continue to be identified by their Latin first lines, as do our service music selections. Parts of the church are referred to in Latin terms (Narthex, Sacristy, Ambo), and service on the Altar Guild is first of all a language class (corporal, chasuble, thurible, etc.). Surprise: I’m not going to criticize those uses of terminology. They serve as markers of our identity. They help give us group cohesion. We feel a sense of belonging and accomplishment as we master them.

It is when we use those terms blatantly in the presence of non-members, without translation, that we err. We are setting ourselves up as superior, as insiders, and emphasizing the ignorance and alienation of the other when we sling such terms around as if everyone ought to know them. That means that for church bulletins and announcements, jargon is verboten. We need to use the ordinary language, the vernacular, instead. There is time enough to indoctrinate new members once they become actual members.

Anyone seen my biretta?

Volley #61,

THE CHURCH AD PROJECT

Since I brought up advertising a few weeks ago, perhaps it is well to mention one source of ad material relevant to The Episcopal Church, http://www.churchad.com/ads.cfm The Church Ad Project. They’ve been around a while, and their work is known to many around the church, but they deserve an occasional reminder. In fact, if you haven’t checked their site lately, they continue to do fresh and innovative work, and they deserve another look. Their ads still have the old zing, but generally without some of the early causticity that made some of them less than universally appealing.

Church Ad Project not only offers media spots and copy for billboards and print, but also very nice posters for use around the church. They can be excellent reinforcement for church members, and gentle nudges to church visitors, but they would also work well posted in outdoor locations in protected signs or on moveable “sandwich boards” for occasional use. There are plenty of good choices for variety and for seasonal emphasis.

“Always preach the Good News,” says Francis. “If necessary, use words!” In today’s setting, it is necessary to use images, too.