PAGE 4 AUTUMN 1990 SEA OF FAITH MAGAZINE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANNE ASHWORTH AND ME AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND GRAHAM SHAW by Ronald Pearse Anne's al de wear (SOF Magazine, Summer 1990) drew a ready sympathy from me. She expressed her agony, as a word woman, about the use in worship of words which she no longer found meaningful. I too am, in part, a word person, but I am an Anglican. I have come to find the fixed words of liturgies increasingly difficult to sustain. To my surprise, retirement from parish ministry has increased that difficulty. When responsible for saying or leading these words I was able to articulate publicly a framework that made clear that I, with others, was free to interpret them symbolically while worshipping with those who wished to take them literally.
Now, attending services conducted (however sympathetically) by others I no longer have that privilege.
Graham Shaw's freedom not to concern himself with the meaning of liturgical words does not extend to me, a fellow priest. I see no justification for it. But, with Anne, I see no point in changing denominational allegiance. Quaker silence, for example, is in itself of great value but it does not, on its own, satisfy my need of meaningful word and sacrament. And if Anne has a words problem in the URC, other and more authoritarian churches are unlikely to solve the problem for either of us.
Perhaps it is the way in which words are used that is at the heart of the problem. Biblical readings (so long as they are not tagged with "This is the word of the Lord" !) have never been a problem for me. They are quotations from a rich anthology and I can read or hear them as such. Theoretically one could say something similar about fixed liturgical words because I know (or can look up) the dates of writing and the then current circumstances. Hymns lend themselves to this anthology approach because they have (except in Methodism) no official status, and because the author's name and dates are often shown with each one.
But both fixed liturgical words and hymns suffer from the presumption and appearance of their being the agreed expression of the church's corporate mind.
Some such impression and indeed expectation may also apply to words chosen and used by leaders of URC services. Even led meditations (unless led with a very light touch) can feel as manipulative as liturgical words.
So what is to be done for (by ?) Anne and me - and probably others ? I would greatly benefit from my vicar's equivalent of sermons in the first part of the eucharist, and I feel the need to take part in the offering in the service, in the breaking of bread and sharing the cup of wine (whose religious history is longer than Christianity's) and in the sharing of greetings within the congregation (although I query whether the uniform use of the word "peace" is always needed there). At present the fixed words so depress me that I cut myself off from them, and from the things I experience as good, by staying away from the service and turning up in time for the subsequent sacrament of coffee and talk.
I suggest the need to look afresh at the function of the traditional components of Christian liturgy - words and actions. From the time the "Acts of the Apostles" was written ( and perhaps by the writing of it) words have been used to encourage a uniformity of Christian ideas. The varied and various groupings of people inspired by the life and ideas of Jesus of Nazareth were gradually moulded into a uniform structure. The first moves towards this must have come from those within the Christian movement who sought power in it.
As uniformity was increasingly achieved (by the catholics' victory over the gnostics) civil authority was ready to exploit the increasingly uniform church to support imperial unity.
Subsequent Christian history tells of a largely unequal struggle about uniformity. Uniformity has been maintained (particularly in catholicism) by corporate recital of the words of creeds and liturgies, and (particularly in protestantism) in the corporate endorsement by "Amen" of ministers' words. But it has been opposed (overtly or otherwise) by individual mystics, prophets and others who have kept alive a spirit of individual freedom. The Reformation changed the balance in this struggle but slightly.
All societies need a balance between an agreed purpose for their existence and individual freedom within them. Words are useful in articulating purpose, but they can be coercive. (Even SOF has been aware of this in our own short history.) Words used in church services with corporate intention (whether the congregation says them, sings them or endorses them with "Amen") are bound to be coercive or to strain individual integrity. What is to be done ? We can explore the possibility of removing the coercive element of the words in worship - and perhaps reduce the quantity of them as well.
AUTUMN 1990 PAGE 5 SEA OF FAITH MAGAZINE Let us pause to think of attendance at musical concerts and art galleries. Audiences can be inspired or moved by great or beautiful music without having to subscribe to the political or philosophical ideas of the composer or of his time. In an art gallery we can glance at paintings of various periods, perhaps appreciating objectively how they came about, but then spend time on one that is particularly meaningful to us at that moment.
I suggest a discipline for words and a policy for actions in connection with religious services.
The policy for actions should have priority. It should continue the strongly symbolic actions which have been valued over a long time and which can sustain innumerable interpretations. Sacramental actions of the Christian eucharist, of baptism, of weddings and so on can have a life independent of words. Let there be a Quaker element of silence as a setting for them and for valued actions from other religions. Thus they could express the purpose of a congregation corporately but with infinite potential for individual interpretation.
Within a framework shaped by this policy we need a discipline for set words to heard as items from anthologies rather than as doctrinal compulsions.
Each person could be an attentive participant in hearing them, rather than a dutiful subscriber. Each could meditate on the value items had for him or her - or could mentally stand back from them with a wholly good conscience.
Early in the event (I avoid the word "service") there could be readings from Hebrew, Christian and other scriptures - perhaps with a Jewish-type discursive commentary on them. Music would find its place in the course of the happening, as resources allowed and at the discretion of the president (to use an ancient and now also modern eucharistic term).
A very great deal would depend on the skill and sensitivity of the president in collecting and coordinating people and material for all the 'anthological' input, and in leading or delegating the corporate expressions of concern (I avoid the term "intercessions") for people, happenings and the environment.
The need of professionally skilled presidents (full or part-time) to oversee the large amount of work in creating each occasion would be important. At the same time, a pastorally well-informed president would enable skills of many contributors to be brought into these events.
What should we call these events ? One possibility is a "celebration (or act) of worth-ship". The purpose should be that of giving value (or worth) to people, to spirituality, to the environment and so on. (As we face the Void we need to create meaning and value where none exists.) This seems to accord with Anne's update of the functions of public worship.
This is an article of raw ideas. They need modifying or refining, but they may carry the debate further.
RONALD PEARSE is a retired priest. He administers the Network's mailing list from his home in Loughborough and is on the SOF Steering Committee.