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?
No comments:
Post a Comment