I
don’t normally write up Grove Booklets but this one rang some bells
the felt particularly worthy of comment (or maybe an excuse to go
off, simultaneously, on a tangent and on a rant).
I
got the sense that Read and Tovey might be coming at the issue from
the other end of the candle from me, but I think we reach similar
conclusions on the issue of use of oil and anointing. Basically, in
the words of the great liturgical thinker Len Goodman, “too much
messing about”.
How
times have, suddenly, changed –this was published in May 2020 so
written, I assume, pre-COVID, but what will be the liturgical role of
touch be now Bishops have to anti-bac their hands before, and after,
laying them on anyone?
To
paraphrase - the argument Read and Tovey advance is: 1) there is no
clear Biblical or Patristic precedent for anointing with oil, and
even when there is evidence that it happened the meaning attached to
it is not articulated. 2) Medieval practice institutionalised the
practice but within the context of wider muddling of what was
important – what I might characterise as liturgy as “magic spell”
rather than “mystery”. 3) Anointing went at the Reformation in
the general cull of all but the “essential” – although unlike
some practices it went without much debate about what was either good
or bad about it. 4) It was then absence from Church of England
practice for centuries until seeming to come from nowhere in the
second half of Twentieth Century, and we now busily anoint anyone who
moves, as well as anyone who stands still (or lies on sick bed) too
long.
A
lot of this links to questions about the purpose of Maundy Thursday
Chrism Masses – which seem to somehow have become focal point for
some of the worse tendencies towards egotistical clericalism within
the Church of England (the Vicar goes to be reaffirmed that
ordination did actually make them special, and to collect the magic
oils blessed by the most holy Bishop, which they will administer to
their wretched Parishioners as and when they determine them
deserving) but lets unpack that gross simplification another time...
The
most telling comment comes in an anecdote about new Vicar questioning
being anointed during their induction as an echo of the anointing
they had received at their ordination, because they had not, in fact,
been anointed at ordination so how could there be an echo. The Rural
Dean’s response was “that it did not matter if it was lacking in
meaning as it was, in any case, a nice thing to do.”
I
think this is indicative of a wider malaise we often encounter within
the CofE, especially among its Clergy, that involves going through
the motions because it is a “nice thing to do” rather than
engaging with the sacraments as life changing, world changing,
actions. The Church of England lives under the tyranny of being
“nice”, but also has a problem with not really believing in God.
During
COVID the way restrictions have been applied to the Church shows us
that within the thinking of Government, and the Civil Service, the
Church is seen as a very useful charitable body with a great track
record of delivering community support, especially in hard to reach
places, while Church Services are essentially just entertainment. I
don’t think those are actually unreasonable lens secular decision
makers to view the Church through, but it does worry me that the
Church’s own response might suggest our Bishops see the Church in
much the same way.
I
characterise myself as a Charismatic Catholic – and the key reason
for that is the belief that our actions have meaning, and have
consequence – we live in a world where there are signs and wonders,
and they have power. To do something meaningless because it is “nice”
doesn’t make at lot of sense to me – this is not just about
theology, it is also learning styles / personality types and which
ever test it is I am always in the bit of the grid / circle that
tends towards telling the people the truth rather than telling them
what tell would like to hear, Benthamite Calculus that prefers a nice
falsehood over an uncomfortable truth has never been for me…
I
have no dogmatic objection to anointing, and I think it has the
potential to be used powerfully, but if done it needs to be done with
purpose and intention – there must be some sort of answer to the
question “what difference did that just make?” As I get older I
worry less about doctrinal precision, and it has never exactly been
my greatest worry, we don’t have to be certain about the mechanics
of the Grace received in a sacramental action but we need to believe
that something happened, or what is the point?
