I think that Hammond
is essentially arguing form my default position, many of her
assumptions about the way different aspects of Worship impact on the
Worshipper seem to tie in to certain learning styles / personality
types – those of us who like to think slowly and value the familiar
with the opportunity to go deeper into the meaning with each repletion.
Therefore I am not
sure overall how persuasive her arguments are, to me as reader she is
preaching to the converted – but I am well aware that many (most)
people don't actually think like me, and I am learning to accept that
doesn't automatically make them wrong.
But what is it that
she has to say?
One stream of
thought is very much about “words”.
The push for
“plain-English” creates poor liturgy – she dares to admit
that “I risked the loss of an immediately clear meaning for the
sake of giving more depth and nuance...”
This is a trend not
limited to the Church, as an aside I have noticed that South West
Trains have reworded their “security announcement” so that we are
no longer urged to report things we find “suspicious” but instead
things that “don't look/feel right”... clearly somebody somewhere
has determined that the average passenger does not have the vocabulary
to understand the word “suspicious”!
Linked to this is
the point is that the liturgy needs to be made up of “words worth
repeating often” - one of the dangers of the specially printed
service sheet is that the “words” become as disposable as the
paper they are printed on – single use liturgy by its very nature
probably needs to engage you with the surface meanings of the words.
Sometimes you can
say something new by using new words, sometimes you can say something
new by using the same words in a different context. There are
strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.
But then for a book
about “words” a significant chapter is given over to posture, and
to be honest I found this the most engaging part.
One key statement is
her assertion that “the most authentic liturgical practice is not
the equivalent of the oldest, or best attested, or 'original'.”
This rejects the liturgical “archaeology” of the twentieth
century – that the primitive Church did such and such practice does
not justify our doing it. But this does not, for me, mean that we
have complete licence to liturgical innovation – the authentic
should be rooted in its community, we need to learn and inhabit
liturgy. We might renew our liturgy, but it is good for us to make
body of habits that hold collective meaning for us.
Taking one
liturgical practice which often causes lively debate. Hammond points
to a difficulty in westward facing Eucharistic celebrations – while
it brings priest and people face to face, it can cloud the fact that
both priest and people are addressing God (and not each other). I
realise that the message of the priest with his or her back to the
people is not easy to interpret – but the alternative is perhaps
easy to misinterpret as a human dialogue rather than divine worship,
or that the priest is the centre of attention, when everyone should
be “looking” beyond to God.
Without wanting to
tell tales, at St Michael's, Southampton City Centre, a couple of
years ago we moved the weekday communion from a side chapel (where
the altar is against the wall) to the nave (where the priest can face
the people). In the chapel the 10 or so folk in the congregation
were gathered closely together, now we are scattered around the nave.
And for me the sense of community of the service as been lost for
the slim advantage of see the priest face as he intercedes on our
behalf (also they are now much further away – the first pew in the
nave is a greater distance from the altar than the back row in the
chapel).
We have largely lost
a sense of posture as powerful, and Hammond makes good arguments for
its recovery – for example that kneeling to confess gives the whole
body, along with the mind, a humble aspect – and as I have said
before the movement from my knees in confession to standing and proudly
singing the Gloria is a great reminder of the sacramental
transformation – kneeling is not about grovelling but about
acknowledging that we stand before the Lord by grace alone.
Finally, in a
comment on the content of liturgy (and critique of those who over
indulge in “Jesus is my Boyfriend” choruses) she quotes Bruce
Willis, in Die Hard, “She's heard me say 'I love you' a thousand
times. She never heard my say 'I'm sorry'” - anyone who can make a
valid theological point by quoting Bruce Willis is definitely a
friend of my.
No comments:
Post a Comment