Praising in common

In “Ninety-five theses on the state of liturgical renewal in the Lutheran churches in North America” Frank Senn concludes with two interesting questions: one explicit and one implied.

85. In an effort to manage the proliferation of worship styles and practices, Lutheran liturgical leaders have promoted a common ordo rather than a complete common liturgy.

86. This main sections in this ordo are: gathering, word, meal, and sending.

...

91. The question needs to be raised as to whether a common order is sufficient if common content is lacking. Historically Lutherans have been concerned about the relationship between the lex orandi (rule of prayer) and the lex credendi (rule of belief). In the nineteenth century, liturgical and confessional restoration went together. Lutherans have understood that practices influence theology.

92. There is a need today to identify those elements that constitute orthodoxia—the right praise of the right God.

93. The right God who is the object of Christian worship is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is a revealed name in scripture and not a metaphor.

94. Lutheran worship has always been trinitarian and Christological. Worship is addressed to God the Holy Trinity and the content of many songs is Christ ‘‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’’ This orthodoxy is challenged today by secular ideologies such as feminism and Pentecostal praise and worship songs that focus on Jesus and me. (p. 34)

The first and explicit question, from #91, invites us to consider whether a common ordo is sufficient in the absence of common content. The second and implied question (should the answer to the first turn out to be in the negative) invites us to consider what the common content should be. Dr. Senn has made the case for the use of traditional male language for God. What common content would you suggest?

Frank C. Senn is pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church, Evanston, Illinois; Senior of the Society of the Holy Trinity; past president of The Liturgical Conference; and past president of the North American Academy of Liturgy. He is the author of many books most recently Lutheran Identity: A Classical Understanding .

Sunday, July 31, 2011

The story of Jacob’s wrestling with the stranger at the ford of Jabbok has always been one of the more evocative episodes in the Hebrew Bible. It has inspired visual artists from Rembrandt to Chagall, and is also the source material for what is arguably Charles Wesley’s greatest hymn, Come, O Thou Traveller Unknown. In the May - August 2008 issue of Homily Service, Rev. John E. Smith reflected upon its value as an illustration of the value of tenacity.

It is a constant pastoral encouragement to parishioners: “Tenacity is everything.” Are you dealing with doctors and hospitals and diagnostic tests? Tenacity is everything. Are you looking for work, getting discouraged by rejection? Tenacity is everything. Experience teaches that those who don’t give up, who won’t settle for less, who endure to the end of the race, get there. They find the job, get the diagnosis and treatment, and finish the race. Those who quit stop short of the goal.

Passing by Lorenzo’s Oil I love the example from the movie, Ordinary People. Two teens are in therapy after attempting suicide. The troubled boy, who continues therapy, who challenges his mother, who talks about his frailty, who keeps talking and confronts others with his pain, survives. The untroubled girl who is doing just great, who claims, “Everything’s fine,” who discontinues therapy, who never allows her pain to be in any way obvious, ends us succeeding on her second suicide attempt. The striving is productive: tenacity is everything.

People of faith who stop striving with God, who give up on the blessing, cease to be people of faith who have encountered the face of God.

Homily Service: an ecumenical resource for sharing the word. vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 131-132.

John E. Smith is the pastor of Bethany United Methodist Church of Ft. Wayne, Indiana.

A vital connection

In 1979, an anonymous and probably group-authored essay outlining the history of the Liturgical Conference and inviting persons to join in its work appeared. Among the many aspects of the work of the Liturgical Conference which it outlined was the mission to keep foremost the vital connection of the celebration of the church’s liturgy with the action of the church’s social mission.

[The Liturgical Conference] seeks your cooperation and that of everyone who feels the need of ritual experiences that feed our wondrous consciousness of God, that nourish a sense of our own value and the value of all others, that enable a joining of hands in faith community, that sanction (beyond dreams of immediate success) our kingdom hope and quest for human liberation, human solidarity...

Since The Liturgical Conference began as a fully ecclesial enterprise, rather than as a specialized or academic one, its members were concerned directly and primarily from the first with the relationship of worship to the total lives of people and community. Liturgy was and is the focus of this association—but never in isolation.

Social issues, justice, peace, standing up against the status quo, letting go of everything that enslaves and of every barrier that divides—these are moral imperatives of discipleship, just as surely as worship is. And they belong together. Without this sense of social mission, no wonder we have trouble celebrating! Consequently, The Liturgical Conference’s many voices have neither hid nor skirted the social justice demands of faith and worship.

Oddly, though the vital connection between the celebration of the liturgy with the church’s social mission remains obvious to those who are already in love with both there has been no issue of the journal Liturgy devoted to explorations of this connection since volume 24, issue 1 in 2008. Is it perhaps time for the authors of The Liturgical Conference to turn their attention once again toward the highlighting of this vital connection?

“The Liturgical Conference: A Forward Vision” is reprinted in the current issue of Liturgy, vol. 26, issue 4, pp. 4-14. Though the original 1979 essay was offered anonymously, it is nearly certain that two of its authors were Sr. Mary Collins, OSB, and Robert Hovda.

Sr. Mary Collins teaches at The Catholic University of America and is the author of Eucharist: Toward the Third Millennium. Rev. Robert W. Hovda was the author of Strong, Loving and Wise: Presiding in Liturgy. He died in February of 1992.

July 24, 2011 Ordinary 17

In the “Healing Word” for Ordinary 17 in 2008, Virginia S. Wendel shares a lovely meditation on the parables in the Gospel reading for this week. She speaks of ways in which the christians and congregations of today work to manifest the truth of the mustard seed, the yeast, and the treasure hidden in a field through the various ministries to which we devote ourselves.

At the end of her meditation, she reminds us of the meta-ministry in which all christians engage when they joyfully pursue their calling before the eyes of other: the ministry of inspiration

About thirteen years ago, a young man came running up to my car while I was at a stoplight. As he got closer to the car, I recognized him as a former student from the early 1980s. He obviously recognized me because he was calling my name to get my attentions. Rolling down the window, I asked what he was doing these days, Jumping up and down and very excited, he responded, “I’m going to school to study theology. I’m going to be a religion teacher just like you.” The light changed and we both continued on our separate ways. As I drove on I realized that my excitement in his message was that it was the result of my own excitement over my ministry, my own commitment to building the kingdom of heaven, and of the teaching that goes back to the ministry of my own religion teacher who was dedicated to building the kingdom of heaven.

The kingdom of heaven is like. . .The joy of seeing God’s work in us across the generations is undoubtedly a glimpse of the kingdom of heaven.

“Healing Word,” Homily Service: an ecumenical resource for sharing the word. Volume 41 no. 3 (11 May 2008 - 31 August 2008) p. 121-122.

Virginia S. Wende has twenty-eight years of experience as a teacher and counselor in secondary education. She olds a Master of Arts in Family Counseling (Northeastern Illinois University) and an M.Div. (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary ). She is currently Director of Mission Integration and Pastoral Care at St. Joseph Village of Chicago.

Embodying interreligious prayer

In the current issue of Liturgy, a great deal of our discussion of Interfaith Worship has focused upon the texts to be used. The selection of texts, the selection of persons to read those texts, and the difficulty attendant upon inviting interfaith congregations to proclaim certain texts in unison have occupied much of our attention. However, the non-verbal aspects of interfaith worship have also received some consideration.

In "A Roman Catholic Perspective on Interreligious Worship," J. Frank Henderson includes the non-verbal elements of worship such as space, posture, gensture, movement, signs, symbols and clothing" in his checklist of things which must be considered in the planning of occasions of interreligious prayer, and Susan Henry-Crowe's fine article "Emory University's Cannon Chapel as Multireligious Space," gives us a very deep look into the issue of worship space in a religiously pluralistic community.

In 2006, Dr. David A. Hogue invited readers of Liturgy to consider some exciting recent discoveries in the field of neuroscience and their applicability to our efforts to understand the effect that worship experiences have upon participants. In his article "Sensing the Other in Worship: Mirror Neurons and the Empathizing Brain." Among the new discoveries in brain science that Hogue discusses are these:

• that the human brain is designed not only to monitor the body of which it is a part, but also to attempt to empathize with other human beings and to communicate that empathy to them in non-verbal ways
• that the neurological ability to engage in this exchange of empathy continues to grow throughout the human lifespan, as we encounter more and more human beings each with their own thoughts, feelings and perspectives
• that specialized neurons in the motor cortex of the brain called "mirror neurons" participate in this exchange of empathy by causing us to imitate the movements, actions, postures and gestures of others on a muscular level below the threshold of conscious perception

These scientific discoveries have applicability to all aspects of human behavior, and in his concluding paragraphs, Hogue applies them to the human behavior called "Christian worship."

First, if there was ever any doubt, the brain sciences constantly remind us that we are profoundly embodied creatures, moving about in an often-confusing world, avoiding threats to our very survival and seeking meaning and fulfillment in both likely and unlikely places. Carefully reading recent studies of the brain, it becomes increasingly difficult for us to consider ourselves as spiritual souls that temporarily inhabit material bodies, as some religious traditions believe. Even if we believe that this world is not our ultimate home, our present physical and social world shape our souls (who we most profoundly are) from the very beginnings of life. Soul and body require each other and shape each other in unavoidable ways. Hebraic understandings of the inviolable unity of mind/soul and body therefore reemerge with an unmistakable clarity in our scientific age.

Building on this conviction, we cannot help but question many of our liturgical practices, particularly those that rely almost exclusively on abstract doctrinal concepts or on spoken and written language. Worship is a physical event, welcoming our entire selves into the incarnate word of the gospel. Liturgical leadership requires pastoral sensitivity to the profound ways in which culture, class, and gender both enrich and constrain possibilities for vital worship. We do not all worship in the same way. But in Christian worship, emotional engagement in worship reflects God's incarnation, at once blessing and transforming our created brains and bodies.

"Sensing the Other in Worship: Mirror Neurons and the Empathizing Brain," Liturgy,21:3, (2006) pp. 31-39.

The implications of this research for the practice of interreligious prayer are equally profound. We may take as much care as we like to help members of religiously diverse congregations understand that they are not expected to participate in prayers from others' traditions either verbally or mentally. However, neuroscience assures us that all present will participate physically whether they want to or not. When a Christian assumes the orans posture before leading an interreligious congregation in prayer, everyone present will imperceptibly assume that posture as well. If the person sitting next to you is shuckling, you will be shuckling as well. In the presence of Muslims praying salat non-Muslims will, all unawares, be performing the physical rhythms of standing right, takbeeratul-ihram (raising the hands to the sides of the head), ruku (bowing and placing the hands on ones knees), l’tidal (standing), sajdah (prostration), sitting, sadjah, and sitting.

When we pray together, we move together, and our brains do this in order that we might empathize with our fellows and come to understand just a little better how it is that they think and feel. Though our conscious minds might wish to perform some complex calculous to determine which parts of our neighbors' prayers we can, with integrity, participate in, on a much deeper level our brains and bodies simply pitch right in and pray.

Dr. David A. Hogue is Professor of Pastoral Theology and Counseling at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. He is the author of Remembering the Future, Imagining the Past: Story, Ritual and the Human Brain.

The peril of judgment: Matthew 13.24-30, 36-43

In every era, the church must find ways in which to speak the language of the times. Our vocation as preachers of the Good News depends absolutely upon our ability to proclaim the gospel in such a way that it engages the zeitgeist. This has always been difficult, but never more so than during those periods of time when the basic philosophical orientation of a culture is in flux. A cursory reading of history will reveal that the church has a record that could charitably be described as “uneven” during these challenging times.Today the greatest challenge facing the church is arguably the challenge to move from preaching in the spirit of modernism, with its delightfully comforting dualistic categories of good & evil, godly & worldly, gay & straight, toward preaching in a postmodern culture, where the value (and even the reality) of such hard and fast categories are increasingly called into question. In 2008, Ron Allen reminded readers of Homily Service that Jesus had addressed both the difficulty of making such hard and fast distinctions, and the wisdom of attempting to act upon them when he wrote an exegesis of this week’s Gospel lesson: Matthew 13: 24-30, 36-43.

Some folk presumed to know fully and finally whom God would condemn. Others were uncertain as to whether their interpretation of God’s purposes was really adequate. Members disagreed with one another regarding how to respond to others who were drifting away. Allegorically, the field is the world. Jesus (the Son of Man has sown the good seed of alerting the world to the realm and some have embraced it. The devil, however, has sown bad seed in the world (evil) and some have allied themselves with it. In the early stages of growth, it is almost impossible to distinguish tender wheat from young weeds. The farmer (congregation) should let them grow together, trusting that at the apocalypse, God will send angels to gather the evil ones and destroy them, while the righteous “will shine like the sun.” The parable cautions the followers of Jesus not to assume the role of judge, but to be patient in the confidence that God will make the final determination especially with regard to ambiguous situations. In our culture, so quick to judge, this message is often welcome. We need to be patient with some of the ambiguities of history. However, this text raises the issue of the limits of tolerance. Is it sometimes necessary for a congregation to draw the line? If so, what are the criteria for coming to such a conclusion? [From Homily Service, 41.3 (11 May 2008 – 31 August 2008), pp. 109-110]

Indeed, the question remains “what are the criteria?” In 1996 Fr. Robert F. Capon applied this dilemma to the question of the forgiveness of clerical sin in particular when he said, “The hardest thing is to teach a two-year-old that a long stick has two ends: the one she’s holding with a short grip to move her doll furniture around on the coffee table, and the other that’s knocking her mother’s Limoges off the mantelpiece. Fuss long enough with running sinners out of ministerial employment, and you’ll knock all the crockery of grace off the church’s shelf.” (The Romance of the Word: Eerdmans 1996, p. 7.)

Ronald J. Allen is the Nettie Sweeney and Hugh Th. Miller Professor of Preaching and New Testament at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, Indiana. He is the author of many books in the area of homiletics, most recently A Faith of Your Own: Naming What You Really Believe.

Interfaith Worship and Civic Religion

Among the many sorts of opportunities for interreligious prayer envisioned by the various authors in this volume of Liturgy is the occasion of community gatherings for civic or patriotic observances. Several of the authors mention the recently-minted observance of Patriot Day, held on 11 September each year. Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Independence Day are also often occasions when the liturgical leaders of religiously diverse communities are invited to come together to plan interfaith observances.

In 2005, D. Brent Latham invited readers of Liturgy to consider the ways in which the practices of civil religion can come into conflict with the basic faith commitments of both Jews and Christians as those commitments are enshrined in the decalogue.

To state the obvious: the first commandment presupposes the existence and identity of the community it commands. Less obviously, this community is created and identified by reception of the first commandment. That is, this command forms the very community that it informs. This reciprocal relation means that if we get the community wrong, we’ll get the commandment wrong too... Our liturgical language often manifests this confusion. On such days, the pronoun “we”gets used in praise, prayer, and proclamation in ways that exclude the brother from Canada and the sister from the Congo. Thus the first commandment is broken, not by having another god, but by not having the Christian brother and sister. That is to say, the first commandment is broken not only by polytheism, but also by patriotism—because it refuses the catholicity of Christ’s body. [From Brent Latham, "Worshiping the Decalogue's God," Liturgy 20:1 pp. 61-66]

How does this reminder of the imperative to perform the catholicity of Christian identity call into question our efforts at interreligious civic worship?

D. Brent Laytham is Professor of Theology and Ethics at North Park Theological Seminary, and is the author of iPod, YouTube, Wii Play: Theological Engagements with Entertainment, forthcoming from Cascade Books.

Fourth Sunday after Pentecost--Matthew 13.1-9, 18-23

The parable of the sower and the seed is among the most well-known, well-loved parables not only because of its sharp picture imagery, but also because Matthew’s Jesus elaborately interprets the meaning of the story. In that interpretation, Jesus describes the various fates of the seed…

Consider then, for a change, the source rather than the seed, the sower rather than the place where the seed falls. Consider the grace-full handful of seed that the sower showers upon the earth. Where in your own life, or in the life of your community, do you encounter that source of the seed being sown? Where in your own experience is Isaiah’s image of the rain and snow from heaven grace-fully falling to nurture the sown seed?

One summer years ago, our then three-year-old daughter helped us plant a small garden. Together we carefully prepared the soil with shovel and hoe. A shallow trench was fashioned for a row of carrots. Gently I poured the tiny seeds into her small hand and asked her to carefully spread the seed into the trench. The first handful of seed went in just fine—a little heavy in places, but okay. With the second handful, however, it all changed. Nearing the end of the carefully prepared row she opened up her hand and with a puff of breath blew the remaining seed off her hand and all over the place. She laughed with delight. God is just such a farmer.

The parable of the sower images God as a prodigal farmer. The sower sows the seed not in carefully dug burrows. God is like a child who gleefully scatters tiny seeds upon the wind. The grace-full handful of seed is thrown wide, to fall not only on the good soil, but to land upon the rocks, among the thistles. The grace-full handful of seed is sown to all…

…baptism is one of the places from which the Sower…throws the grace-full handful of seed into our lives. The nurturing growth of our baptismal identity is described in Jesus’ interpretation of how the seed is received, for there are times in each of our lives when we are receptive to the seed, or stonily resistant in our rejection, or shallow in our accommodation of the seed into our heart and life. Let baptism remind us of the perpetual and daily need of its gracious waters to shower upon us with forgiveness and nurture.

Then come to the altar. Listen with care…when at the breaking of the bread, a prayer will be spoken invoking imagery of scattered seed being gathered into symbolic unity in the one loaf: “Just as the bread broken was first scattered on the hills, then was gathered and became one, so let your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” Let the eucharistic feast this day remind us of another way in which the Sower throws a grace-full handful of seed into our lives. [From Stephen M. Larson, "Serving the Word," Homily Service 38.8 (July 2005): 20-22.]

Stephen M. Larson holds the DMin and DD from St. Stephen's College in Canada. He has served ecumenical appointments in Geneva, Switzerland, is former pastor of St. Luke's Lutheran Church (ELCA) in Park Ridge, IL, and currently living in Switzerland.

Guidelines for Interfaith and Intertraditional Worship-cont.

Last week, we posted the first four of eight guidelines for interfaith/intertraditional worhsip, as proposed by Susan White. The first four guidelines are significant: they require that we make no assumptions about what worship is or does; they require that we pay attention, that we watch, and that we listen; and, above all, they require our willingness to learn from those we so often label "other." The remaining four guidelines are as follows:

    5. Abide by the conventions. Some practices are simply part of religious “good manners,” even though they may have deep historical or theological roots. These conventions may be most apparent when you enter a place of worship outside your own faith. A man attending an Orthodox or Conservative synagogue will be asked to wear a yarmulke (kippah) to cover his head as a sign of respect for God. Before entering a mosque you will be expected to take off your shoes. At a Hindu festival meal you may be expected to eat with your right hand.

    6. Respect the practices reserved for “insiders. ” Clearly, there are some liturgical words, postures and observances that only faithful adherents to a religious tradition are admitted to…Here again, having an informant or talking beforehand to a leader of the community is invaluable…Among Jews, for example, the wearing of the tallith (the prayer shawl) and the tefillin (the binding, containing the commandments, which is wrapped around the head and forearm) has ritual significance and is forbidden to outsiders. Some traditions ask that outsiders sit in specially-designated sections of the building, thus exhibiting a measure of control over your behavior. Though “blending in” is more difficult in these circumstances, you may find that customs of this kind provide a certain sense of security.

    7. Expect surprises. If you are paying close attention to the proceedings, surprises will be an inevitable part of worshiping with people of another religious tradition…If you can enter into worship taking nothing for granted, you will very likely be better able to enjoy the surprises rather than be alarmed by them.

    8. Reflect theologically on your experience…Who is God for the people who worship in this way? How does this God operate? What does the action say about the nature of the human person and the created order, about revelation and salvation? In word, symbol and gesture-implicitly or explicitly-the cultic answers to these questions are being expressed. [From Susan J. White, “A new relationship: Guidelines for Intertraditional Worship,” Liturgy 10.1 (Spring 1992): 45-50.]

In what ways do these guidelines suggest a new approach to the work of interfaith worship?

Susan J. White is Emeritus Professor of Spiritual Resources and Disciplines of Brite Divinity School, Fort Worth, TX. She and her husband Kenneth Cracknell now run Sutton Books in Norwich, VT