Thursday, March 26, 2009
More veneration (or not)
So, thanks to everyone who responded to yesterday's post: I really appreciate the thought that people have clearly put into the comments. I've done some more thinking since yesterday, and the best way to explain some of that thought is to respond to some of your comments.
- James wrote: "When you did so [kneeling to lead prayers], you did it in front of the Altar, not because you were worshipping the wooden table, but because it was an appropriate focus for your worship of God."
- I find this interesting, because it's not why I did it at all. I knelt because I thought it was important to lead the congregation from a kneeling position, and I did it in front of the altar not because I saw it as an appropriate focus for my worship of God, but because if I'd knelt anywhere else, I would have been either hidden from view (by the altar) or separated physically from the congregation.
- I can see why you thought I knelt there, and I wonder whether other people thought the same. It doesn't bother me that they might, but it's not why I did it.
- Gary wrote: "Since the holy sacrament is the body and blood of our Lord, by definition we can (and should) pay reverence to it."
- I disagree. I think that we should treat it with respect, and possibly lean towards showing reverence towards it (to employ James' original definition at face value), but I think that they word "pay" is a give-away here. Reverence, in practice, isn't as clear-cut as the definition seems to suggest. The cross is an object to which we do not owe anything. We only owe anything to God, not to physical objects.
- The only exception might be the physical body of Christ, incarnated as a man, though he seems to have been pretty cagey about being treated specially, with the exception of washing and baptism, which are both actions which are extended to other people, too.
- That said, I realise that I'm somewhat conflicted about this: I treat the physical book which comprises Bible, at least within a worship setting, with great respect - almost as much as the sacrament. I think this, however, is because or the importance I attach to the Word (which is contained within the Bible and which the Lord's Body in the sacrament is, of course). This is a pretty protestant position, I'd argue.
- The only exception might be the physical body of Christ, incarnated as a man, though he seems to have been pretty cagey about being treated specially, with the exception of washing and baptism, which are both actions which are extended to other people, too.
- Sam talked about using icons as an aid to worship, and pointed to a useful blog entry about Corpus Christi.
- I agree on this: and we have a set of Stations of the Cross in our church. My father's very attached to various sets that he knows or has, and I find some of the images helpful for meditation and prayer. I'm not, however, attached to the Stations of the Cross as a specific thing, in the same way that I've used prayer beads in the past, but am not attached to them as a specific process or requirement.
- I genearally agree with the post about Corpus Christi, and I like the way Sam discussed the shift in emphasis of the phrase "corpus verum".
- Sally bemoaned the lack of symbol in her tradition.
- I find symbology very useful, too, and wouldn't want to lose it. It's when the symbols are used as more than that that I get unhappy, because I see this as a move to sacramentalism: moving beyond the sacraments to regarding objects as having a sacramental power. The reason, I think, that the bread and wine are special is that, as part of a sacrament, they are the body and blood our Our Lord. The Bible is special (and I still find it difficult to see people writing on a Bible!) because it's the Word: God's working in this world through the agency of the Holy Spirit.
- KT suggested talking to the PCC.
- I don't think this is needed, to be honest. I'm not worried about the legality of the service at all, and have already discussed my concerns about confession and absolution to my training incumbent (I'm in the first year of my title post, and not yet priested!), who was very supportive.
- Neither am I worried about the service itself for general consumption (James has dealt very helpfully with the particular phrase that I picked up, and I acknowledge that his introduction is a good piece of guidance to the congregation), but what I'm trying to explore is how elements of the service - and, in many ways, the core assumption (now, _there's_ a word to reflect on...!) behind the service just doesn't fit with my theology. (I'd be interested to hear your situation, by the way, KT, if you'd like to share).
I rather hope that this isn't the end of it. I'm really enjoying this discussion with you all, and making myself think. This, for me, is Reflective Theology (cue Gary turning up in a day-glo jacket), and is a Good Thing[tm]. I'm not trying to inflict my theology on other people (yet...), but I'm interested to see where I'm being led with this, and it's to a re-affirmation of the protestant underpinnings of my theology and my faith. May the Holy Spirit guide us all.
Labels: liturgy, protestantism, theology, worship
Comments:
<< Home
"though he seems to have been pretty cagey about being treated specially, with the exception of washing and baptism" - and having his feet covered with perfume and washed with a woman's kisses and tears?
With respect to the Sacrament (as opposed to the cross) it depends upon your view of what happens in the Mass of course. If you believe there is something about the elements that are truly the body and blood of Christ, then they're worth taking extremely seriously. I'd be less concerned about the Bible, which is a book that talks about God, and more concerned with the elements, which are the Lamb of God, in some incomprehensible way, incarnate in earth as well as (now) in heaven. That's a direct presence as opposed to a secondary presence, which only becomes immediate as it is mediated to us by the Spirit.
With respect to the Sacrament (as opposed to the cross) it depends upon your view of what happens in the Mass of course. If you believe there is something about the elements that are truly the body and blood of Christ, then they're worth taking extremely seriously. I'd be less concerned about the Bible, which is a book that talks about God, and more concerned with the elements, which are the Lamb of God, in some incomprehensible way, incarnate in earth as well as (now) in heaven. That's a direct presence as opposed to a secondary presence, which only becomes immediate as it is mediated to us by the Spirit.
Goodness Gary, it seems that we agree again (worrying am I turning closet anglo catholic with a hint of charismatic evangelical thrown in?).
Mike you know that I scribble on my Bible, as for the elemnts in Mass ( not a Methodist word but hey), I do believe in a theology of real presence, that for the time of the Mass itself they become something for us, and Christ is made especially present, having said that as a good Methodist I do not believe that this transformation is permnanent ( hence heated discussion about disposal at an ERMC weekend).
We do practice reserved sacrament but only for extended communion and not for veneration.
Our Good Friday Services tend not to include communion, but they could, although it does seem somehow inappropriate....
Symbols should remain symbols however, and I believe we are on dodgy ground if we attribute power to them, or see them as important in and of themselves.
Mike you know that I scribble on my Bible, as for the elemnts in Mass ( not a Methodist word but hey), I do believe in a theology of real presence, that for the time of the Mass itself they become something for us, and Christ is made especially present, having said that as a good Methodist I do not believe that this transformation is permnanent ( hence heated discussion about disposal at an ERMC weekend).
We do practice reserved sacrament but only for extended communion and not for veneration.
Our Good Friday Services tend not to include communion, but they could, although it does seem somehow inappropriate....
Symbols should remain symbols however, and I believe we are on dodgy ground if we attribute power to them, or see them as important in and of themselves.
"It's when the symbols are used as more than that that I get unhappy, because I see this as a move to sacramentalism: moving beyond the sacraments to regarding objects as having a sacramental power."
Hmm. I think there's a big argument about what the incarnation means, and how it links to the sacraments (and a sacramental understanding) that needs to be explored here. For want of a long comment from me, can I recommend John Colwell's 'Promise and Presence' as an excellent primer, not least because he comes from a Free Church context (he's a tutor at Spurgeon's) and so what he says might be more digestible for a 'Protestant Reformer' such as yourself (grin) rather than something coming from an Anglo-Catholic like me!
Hmm. I think there's a big argument about what the incarnation means, and how it links to the sacraments (and a sacramental understanding) that needs to be explored here. For want of a long comment from me, can I recommend John Colwell's 'Promise and Presence' as an excellent primer, not least because he comes from a Free Church context (he's a tutor at Spurgeon's) and so what he says might be more digestible for a 'Protestant Reformer' such as yourself (grin) rather than something coming from an Anglo-Catholic like me!
I can see how some people can be confused by how "Easter works" like these two Jesus & Mo
"Which bit?" is a good question!
Is there an "Idiots guide to Easter?"
"Which bit?" is a good question!
Is there an "Idiots guide to Easter?"
# posted by 
: 12:44 pm
: 12:44 pm
I guess Methodisms response to the debate would be Share this Feast, not really meant to be a deep theological discussion, but certainly the result of one.
"When you did so [kneeling to lead prayers], you did it in front of the Altar, not because you were worshipping the wooden table, but because it was an appropriate focus for your worship of God." - if this isn't why you do that, then why do you bow towards it on your way out? There's some kind of recognition that something about the altar focusses your attention/reverence?
OK, so why did you kneel with your back to the congregation? I agree it was not really possible to kneel facing them, but it would have perfectly possible to kneel side on. If it was important to be facing the same way as them, then what was it you were facing? (Or if you _really_ are a fundie evo, then perhaps you were actually venerating the projector screen, which was rolled up behind the high altar at the time?) ;-)
LOL at the projector screen suggestion there James, but I think that for Mike ( and I don't presume to speak for him) that it may well have been more an identification with the congregation than anything to do with the focus on the table. or even a desire to turn towards God in some tangiable sense, but the table again had nothing to do with it.
As for bowing towards objects of furniture on the way out, this has always bemused/ amused the true Prim Methodist in me... ( says she looking at a desk/ wall covered in icons)... on my people watching days at ERMC , it seemed that some were bowing/ showing reverence for God, and it did not seem to me that the altar/ table was the focus, if it is/ was then I am mistaken.
Post a Comment
As for bowing towards objects of furniture on the way out, this has always bemused/ amused the true Prim Methodist in me... ( says she looking at a desk/ wall covered in icons)... on my people watching days at ERMC , it seemed that some were bowing/ showing reverence for God, and it did not seem to me that the altar/ table was the focus, if it is/ was then I am mistaken.
<< Home
blogs4god
