Revision of our Contemporary Liturgical Resources

[Richard Geoffrey Leggett]

Dear Colleagues,

As a member of Faith, Worship and Ministry, I am part of the Working Group charged with developing principles and an agenda for the revision of our contemporary liturgical resources, i.e., the BAS. I would value any and all comments you may have as to what you see as needed for our future.

Richard

[andrew stephens-rennie]

One of the things I'm working through is how to provide liturgical resources for young people as they enter different ages and stages of life. We have liturgy specifically for ordinations, baptisms, etc (and this is all good), but I think it important to find ways to celebrate and commission our young people as they graduate high school, enter the workforce for the first time, etc.

If it is becoming more important to acknowledge that we are called in some way to minister (with collar or without) then it might become more important to find ways within our tradition to send our young people out into their field of ministry, whether that be pumping gas, entering business school, or whatever.

[Richard Geoffrey Leggett]

Dear Andrew,

I apologize for my delay in responding. I've been having some trouble logging in to Anglimergent.

The key to the task you are describing is the training of liturgical leadership that knows how to craft liturgical rites rather than production of a book of rites, I think. We need leaders who understand how liturgical rites work and who have the knowledge, skill and imagination to undertake the local development of such rites as you describe.

These folks will need to answer the 'who, what, where, when, how and why' questions of liturgical rites. For example,

Who should participate in and preside at rites celebrating young people's entry into the workforce?

What should be the central focus of the rite, i.e., what scriptural passages should be proclaimed, what prayers and/or actions should be part of the celebration, what should should we say and do as we leave the rite to enter into the public exercise of what we have prayed for and celebrated?

Where should such a rite take place? In the church? At the workplace?

When should such a rite take place? At the Sunday eucharist? On the eve of the first day?

How shall the young people participate?

Why are we undertaking this rite, i.e., the rationale (which I think exists) for such a celebration?

Answering these questions and others help us plan the rite, perhaps modifying an existing commissioning rite or blessing rite or even developing an entirely new one appropriate to our context and community.

This is a long way of saying that my hope would be that we could provide people with a guide to help them develop local rites rather than prepare an extensive book of rites.

What do you think?

Richard

[andrew stephens-rennie]

Richard - I think that this is what I'm looking for - resources that local parishes can use to develop local rites. By approaching from this angle, we will perhaps also help to empower congregations in development of liturgy that is meaningful to their particular community circumstances.

In many ways, this is how the Wine Before Breakfast community functions at TST - tho that is a group of rather keen community members. I wonder what kind of effort it would take in parishes and church communities where participation in worship is less integrative...

[Malcolm French+]

This isn't a fully formed thought, but . . .

It has been said that Confirmation is a sacrament in search of a theology. Sociologically, it mirrors coming of age rites of other religions - ie, a bar mitzvah.

Could a rethinking of Confirmation (and perhaps a retiming) go some way to answering Andrew's issue?

[Richard Geoffrey Leggett]

Dear Malcolm,

I would personally prefer a rite that is intentionally a 'coming of age' rather than use confirmation. My own desire is to see the re-unification of the rites of Christian initiation, i.e., water, anointing, laying on of hands and eucharist. This was proposed in the Episcopal Church in the early 1970's but the bishops balked at the idea.

If we were to re-unite the rites, then we could move towards a practice of various occasions when we affirm our baptismal covenant rather than the present practice of confirmation, re-affirmation and reception.

In the meantime, we could celebrate children moving from elementary school to high school, the taking on of adult responsibilities such as earning a driving license or reaching the voting age.

Richard

[Malcolm French+]

That does make infinitely more sense. Reuniting confirmation and baptism is the logical course. But I recall my then bishop getting quite indignant when I asked if baptismal records should indicate if the candidates had been chrismated.

[Richard Geoffrey Leggett]

Dear Malcolm,

From 1992 to 1995 I chaired a task force of the House of Bishops, the Committee on Ministry and the Doctrine and Worship Committee charged with soliciting the responses of the bishops to the Principles for Christian Initiation prepared by the 1991 Toronto meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation. What fascinated me was the even split: one-third wanted the current practice retained; one-third was prepared to unite the rites and give presbyters permission to confirm and one-third weren't sure what should be done. My informal inquiries since then indicate that things have not changed significantly since then.

Archbishop Hambidge of New Westminster allowed the use of chrism in the Diocese but would not consecrate it.

It may be that as we re-vision our understanding of the role of congregations in the life of the diocese and the role of the neighbourhood church, we may be on the brink of a willingness to re-think our practice.

Richard

[Malcolm French+]

The effective practice in Qu'Appelle is that the bishop consecrates chrism, but that chrismation is a) not recorded and b) deemed not to constitute confirmation.

[Richard Geoffrey Leggett]

Dear Malcolm,

When the rite for Christian initiation appeared in 1970 that was the precursor of the rite that eventually the Canadian church adapted for The Book of Alternative Services, the baptismal rite consisted of water, laying on of hands and chrismation. The American bishops rejected the re-unification of the rites. As a consequence the rite for confirmation was inserted in the BCP 1979 and rites for re-affirmation and reception included.

Some years later the story is told that one of the bishops cornered one of the revisers and said that the revision committee had made a mess of Christian initiation. "No, sir," the liturgist responded, "we showed you how to get out of a mess."

Richard

[Malcolm French+]

I have always found it curious that the "conservative" position on so many issues, both in the church and in the world, is actually a defence of a relatively recent innovation. This isn't always the case, certainly, but as often as not, it seems.

Arguably, both the western practice and the eastern practice constitute an innovation. The west maintained the minister of the laying on of hands, but separated it from the rest of the rite of Chriatian initiation. The east maintained the unity of the rite, but separated the episcopal act from the episcopal person.

But, back to Andrew's original question, the confirmation rite makes sense sociologically, whatever it's problems theologically. It still seems to me the logical starting point for a discussion of how we ritually acknowledge the next step in a young person's (or and old person's) journey.

[Richard Geoffrey Leggett]

Dear Malcolm,

I do not agree that confirmation should bear this burden. If confirmation is the affirmation that one is undertaking the obligations of adult baptismal faith, then I believe that it is not the appropriate rite for someone entering adolescence.

I believe that we need a rite that encourages our young people to explore their questions rather than accept the church's answers. What we should ask of them is a commitment to ask their questions within the community, to give us the opportunity to share with them the faith that we have, rather than ask them to commit themselves to the adult community's faith. It should be a rite that celebrates the asking of questions, even uncomfortable ones, about the so-called 'faith once delivered to the saints'.

Richard

[Malcolm French+]

OKay. So what do these rites look like? And how do we get there?