Brief Response to Raj Gupta

Twitter trawling late at night is such a bad idea. Nevertheless this little number on the Sydney Anglicans Website did catch my attention and I would like to note a thought or two on the matter, and seeing as I'm quite unlikely to have much interaction with the diocese of Sydney any time soon, the hassle of registering and leaving a reply there seemed a bit much.

So the suggestion by Raj Gupta is that the traditional church liturgy feels a bit old hat and a lot of people don't really 'connect' with it as such.

He asks rhetorically, 'Is the central issue the content or form of the liturgy, or is issue the liturgical nature itself?' and the particular answer he provides is interesting to me, for he seems to offer a somewhat conflicted answer, whilst making much of his own experiences and the thoughts of others about feeling alienated from the old rituals, but when he at the same time declares:

"Do not misunderstand me. I am all for preserving good theology. I am all for teaching via our practices, and the repetition of them."

Which does rather beg the question of how such a thing could be achieved that did not resemble the form of a liturgy. Indeed his closing sentence: "Maybe our issue is particular liturgy forms" seems to indicate that the central issue as stated above would in fact be the former, if we're only going to be negotiating particulars.

Of course, it's a well-worn truism that every Church has a liturgy, some just don't realise it, or acknowledge it, and I think most can appreciate that certain phrases crop frequently in supposedly non-liturgical churches, and that there's a shape and an order to the worship more often than not.

So I suppose the real question comes from the idea that the more traditional liturgy is 'out of touch'. And I think going deeper, a bit of unpacking of this statement would be useful. I am deeply sympathetic to those who wish to encourage people to come to Church, to feel that worship is something they are really participating in, but the liturgy is...out of touch with what exactly?

Here I must offer my disagreement with Raj when he says Anglican liturgical inheritance only goes back as far as the Reformation. Liturgy is old. Specifically Christian Liturgy seems to be traceable back to the first century. In Corinthians 10 and 11 (esp 11 23-26) We see words that have a formulaic feel, indeed they have passed down to modern liturgy. I have recently embarked upon studying Liturgy as part of my degree, and frankly I regret it having spent a whole day caught in a simply fascinating discussion as to whether the earliest liturgical practice was to do Bread - Cup or Cup - Bread, or whether there were local variations and whether it started as something sacramental or eschatological[1] etc. etc.

The point I wish to make is that it's not out of touch with the Church itself, in preserving the ancient way of public worship (at least in the Eucharist) we have a connection that (not entirely untenuously, of course, but authentically all the same, I think) stretches right back to the first Christians, and even Christ himself, indeed. Formulaic prayers and certain ritual acts are part and parcel of the Jewish religious milieu that the Church emerges from, so we shouldn't be surprised.

This also goes some way into the possibility that it is out of touch with modernity, for is this really what the Church should be worried about? The Orthodox church of course has barely changed in worship style for centuries- so deeply ingrained is the style of worship that certain pockets of the Russian faithful in the 17th Century preferred to schism and die over such dramatic changes as the way one shapes their hand whilst making the sign of the cross and the spelling of 'Jesus'.

Yet I have yet to meet a person outside of the Christian spectrum...or within for that matter who has not felt something of the beauty of that (entirely liturgical) worship, and felt the holiness that seems to radiate as it goes on, myself included. Perhaps part of that unchanging feel, that weight of history and depth of theology gives an immediate sensation at the least, of something deep and authentic.

Understanding the why Liturgy is 'out of touch' I suspect, has more to do with the personal and particular expectations and desires of those who declare it so, which is somewhat problematic for a real faith cannot grow from the desires of the self, it can only grow by losing the self-will within the Divine, opening oneself to God that he may move in. I've personally found that by taking part in something with a timeless quality in unity with churches across the globe and through time, in rhythm with people immediately around me helps in many ways towards this forgetfulness of the self and to be taken up into something bigger, but as the article says, anecdotes are probably not the best way of determining policy.

I do submit myself to correction however; can anyone help further explain the felt sense of liturgy's irrelevance? and perhaps if Mr. Gupta is reading this himself (and I would consider that an honour) I would be interested to hear more about what he envisages coming under a 'different approach' even if it's only a sketchy thing currently.

For myself, I am weary of simply doing away with centuries of ancient tradition just to cater to the contemporary whims of what Chesterton calls 'the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about'. I think there's a holiness to it, and it binds us with the Church as a whole; across denominations, across the globe, and across time.

[1]Consult Luke's Last Supper narrative which has an anomalous 2 cups and a farewell discourse - a sign of two strands of ancient eucharist being clumsily plonked together?

Does Christianity have a Future?

So I sign in this afternoon to find my one and only follower is no longer with me. This I suspect represents a total collapse of my readership. Not quite sure why either- perhaps it was the wrong message I was giving, perhaps it was the exploration of heretical thoughts, maybe it was just really boring for her.

Interesting of course because those are reasons given by some within the church for the waning fortunes of certain other sections of the religion (liberalism is poisoning the water hole)- and in fact in some ways it seemed to be the opinion of Ann Widdecombe in her latest programme on the BBC from which I've taken the title. I don't really know why Ann keeps getting to do these things, I don't think as a convert from the Church of England to Roman Catholicism over the issue of women priests makes her necessarily representative of most of the religious, but more so than that, it's like she has a chronic need to argue with people she disagrees with- they can't just talk. This time it was Johann Hari, in the Newman programme it was Diarmaid MacCulloch (who did a History of Christianity), and in the 10 commandments one it was Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Who did the recent series on the Bible's Buried Secrets). And you know? It never stops being Toe Curling. Much like her appearance on Strictly actually, which naturally, I loved for precisely the same reason.

No fear, Widdy will show you the way. It's for your own good young girl...

Despite this though, if you can catch it on iplayer before Sunday I'd definitely recommend watching it. It hardly says anything explosive or unexpected but I found it quite enjoyable. It also made me realise that I'm grateful that there's a lot of Diversity in Christianity- when she looked at a Pentecostal Church which takes a strong conservative evangelical line on doctrinal and social matters, her approval of this certainty could hardly be clearer. She probably wouldn't think much of my faith, probably call it anaemic... Well, I don't think Jesus would've voted Conservative so I guess we're even. At the same time though, I undeniably felt a twinge of envy at their certainty, and their joy in their faith. I would be lying if I said faith has brought me much 'joy' recently. Mostly just 'puzzlement'.

Maybe it's because I'm an Anglican. One of the things that pricked my ears was Rowan Williams giving his definition of Anglicanism. Reacting against the accusation of being a 'woolly Church where anything goes' he replied:

"...The Chuch of England has a set of beliefs which are laid out in the book of common prayer in new prayer books too, and in the creeds which we all sign up to. What of course we have is a history of a lot of, pluralism, about the deatil, and a certain tradition of tolerance about those who challenge even some of the fundamentals. I think those who are Anglicans are anglicans for reasons, they believe that while the central facts of the faith are there, there is a place for being a bit laid back about some variations on the edges."

Well undeniably this is the Church of Don Cupitt, Nicky Gumbel, Jeffrey John, Michael Nazir-Ali, Giles Fraser, Richard Harries and Tom Wright, to name a few. The place where the Church Spire may be the only high thing about it, and where Bishops can fly. This however is the Church of England. When we look to the anglican community with it's reckless/blasphemous/prophetic/simply Christian (delete as you see fit) Liberal bits, and its reactionary/uncharitable/principled/simply Christian (again, delete as suits your tastes) conservative evangelical bits particularly, one wonders just how 'tolerant' it is. In the age of the Anglican Covenant is 'pluralism' a guiding principle? Even within the CoE of course the lines seem to be hardening between Evangelicals and liberals, whilst the Anglo-Catholics of course deal with their identity and allegiance following the Ordinariate offer. I'd like to believe, I'd like to have certainty that Rowan's articulation is in fact the case, but even if there is a strong middle-of-the-road tendency from many in the pews right now, I don't know how much longer it can last...but if we've got to communicate to a generation where belief extends as far as 'family, friends and themselves' as the programme stated, and who all seem to be very open-minded, possibly tipping on indecisive, on the matter- appearing as a bunch of squabbling factions fighting over near-incomprehensible matters for the average unchurched is likely I think, going to be a big turn off.

The other thing I don't get is why nobody ever asks about the Orthodox Church in this Country, if you want a really traditional religion Ann, try the one that's barely changed for centuries, no Vatican II for them, oh no. Here is a church with it's own beautiful and holy worship and a deep sense of spirituality and continuity. Small yes, but no reason to be overlooked In a world of rush and short termism*, which (dare I say it) even the churches here can be caught up in - blending in with modernity, finding the next scheme or way of doing church - there could well be a lot of interest around an institution which does resist that urge, just as there is around the Cathedral services?

*RW also covers this a bit in the show noting "..the old forms of community has faded away...we're a society which on the whole because of its consumerism, has shrunk its horizons. It hopes for less, it thinks less of human beings."