Seem to have read a
run of books about worship and mission recently – which have been
interesting as much for the points when I disagree with them as when
I agree.
One of the questions
prompted (as opposed to asked) by Lomax, and a lot of what is
sometimes call “Alternative” worship, is whether there is a
difference between a “ritual” and a one-off “symbolic”
action. Lomax, like many, uses the term “ritual” to cover one-off
actions that add “colour” to times of worship, but places them in
the same bracket as actions repeated over years, even generations.
The power and potential of a one-off symbolic action and an
oft-repeated, time-honoured, action can not be taken as being
equivalent.
When Lomax gives
examples of “contextual” worship/mission these seem to all
involve a resource rich middle-class Church providing some form of
supportive activity to a needy “other”. I would not want to
appear to question the need for the Church to be active in the
support of the “poor” or others who are disadvantaged and / or
marginalised within society – but I worry about the assumed power
dynamics of “us” doing things for “them” which might actually
work against their empowerment. I also worry that we might act as if
the middle class, the comfortable, have no needs of their own –
maybe the Church finds it is easier to address the material needs of
the “other” than address, or even acknowledge, the spiritual
needs of its own?
In considering
tradition, Lomax is helpful in pointing out that you need to
understand the “why” of a tradition if you are go to perpetuate
it with integrity – sometimes the “what” will in fact have to
change in order for you to be faithful to the “why”. Lomax
claims that tradition used to be contextual, but I am not quiet sure
I agree – isn't the definition of tradition the point when it has
migrated from the context of origin – that we continue to hold
something dear beyond its direct response to the world around us? To
define tradition as Lomax does appears to leave it at risk of
becoming a feather blown endlessly in the wind.
Lomax is probably in
direct opposition to Pridmore's conclusion when he decides that
“traditional liturgical texts may be an unhelpful barrier to many
in worship” - noting as many as 5 million adults in England are
“functionally illiterate”. Lomax feels that we need to provide
simple and short texts. But even his quote from the National
Literacy Trust points to the fact that it is obtaining information
from “unfamiliar sources” that can cause problems. There might
be a need for simple texts, but there is a greater need for familiar
texts – while we think about the needs of those will limited
literacy too often, I feel, writers of liturgy assume that means
these people are also unintelligent. I am not sure it is literacy
that makes are inherited texts inaccessible – illiteracy in England
when Crammer complied the Prayer Book was far great than it is today,
and yet Crammer's words were lived and breathed by generations – so
there is something else going on.
Lomax asks “Have
you ever left an act of worship feeling that you weren't allowed to
be yourself...?” and suggests giving worshippers the opportunity to
express “what is in their hearts and minds in their own way?” My
problem is that in most of the times when I have felt worship was
most limiting myself expression were the times when we were told to
“share with your neighbour” - most contemporary worship is
unrelentingly upbeat, where to admit you are miserable can feel like
a serious transgression, while it is hardly fair to “dump” the
rage in your heart on the unsuspecting stranger sat next to you. Our
liturgical tradition at its best, like the psalms, gives us words of
joy and of sorrow, speaking of our delight in the Lord but also our
anger at him too.
This is one of those
books where its heart is in the right place, but it is just on a
different wavelength from me.
No comments:
Post a Comment