Adapted from a template prepared by Mike Angell of the Office of Young Adult and Higher Education Ministries at the Episcopal Church Center in New York, the liturgy takes the worshipper through eight stations of the MDGs, each signifying one of the goals of the 2000 UN programme to eradicate poverty in the developing world.
The service begins with an explanation of the meaning of the MDGs and the statement that “Today, we will pray and experience the MDGs as Stations as we commit ourselves to living out the Baptismal Covenant by working to achieve the MDGs. We see ourselves and the Church as on a pilgrimage in the world, journeying with each other toward the justice of the Reign of God as manifest in the goals.”
Pilgrims then recite the Baptismal covenant found in the American Book of Common Prayer and then move through each of the eight stations as leaders give reflections how the worshipper might help: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and create a global partnership for development.
If this were posted somewhere else, I’d think it satire.
As others will no doubt echo, there is nothing wrong with the MDGs as goals, but why “replace” the Stations? I can still remember an excellent Good Friday meditation from years ago where the homilist used the material elements of the Passion (sweat, the Crown of Thorns, the vinegar and others) as archetypes for contemporary Christian struggle and suffering. A good application is always something that the celebrant can introduce; you don’t need to change the form to do this.
[blockquote]Today, we will pray and experience the MDGs as Stations as we commit ourselves to living out the Baptismal Covenant by working to achieve the MDGs. We see ourselves and the Church as on a pilgrimage in the world, journeying with each other toward the justice of the Reign of God as manifest in the goals.[/blockquote]
To really “do” “stations of the MDGs” one needs to travel to a poor country (such as Uganda or Peru) and work with those in poverty. You could spend a day in the shanty towns of Lima or at a childrens’ school in Uganda. You could work with medical missionaries in Honduras or with refugees in Darfur.
The goals are laudable in themselves, but they are not a primary way to live out the Baptismal Covenant. The 1st promise (in order of promises made and in importance) is to “continue in the Apostles teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and in the prayers.” This includes recalling both our part in causing Jesus’ death on the cross through our own sins and our participation in it through our baptism. Thus it is appropriate to walk the [i]Via Dolorosa[/i] in Lent (and other times) by participating in the Stations of the Cross. The “Stations of the MDGs” liturgy is a mockery of the Stations of the Cross. Lent is a time for practicing [i]kenosis[/i] – the emptying of one’s self. We do this by recalling our own sins and the price paid for our sins by Jesus. Lent is not a time to participate in “feel good” liturgies that do nothing to bring about the goals of the MDGs.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
If as much attention were paid to the Great Litany (bloody sweat, etc.) and Stations of Christ’s Cross we wouldn’t need to kick start people’s compassion with a ludicrous exercise in affluent guilt.
It seems to me that if I were to participate in such a thing, I’d feel much more like a secular charity/aid organization volunteer than an Episcopalian, or a member of any other Christian Church. Why do we need bishops, priests, deacons, liturgy and sacraments, if all we’re doing is duplicating the efforts of the Red Cross, United Way, Amnesty International and the Peace Corps?
Anything that so closely parallels something makes the sensitive feel it somehow mocks Jesus’ passion. Yet the cause is worthy. It reminds me of a Good Friday when I as a tourist passed All Saints Pasadena and the folk there felt obliged to display a row of crosses on the lawn bearing the names of California prisoners on death row. Yes, the display brought attention to an important issue but it also was a sideshow to the serious reflection intended by the liturgy for that day. Reflecting further, that causes me to wonder if the purpose of such things may in part be to annoy those with orthodox sentiments…a sort of ‘in-your-face’ generation-gap acting out…
Critics of the emphasis on the MDGs have been accused of going to extremes by saying that the MDGs are replacing Christianity in TEC’s priorities. Possibly. But we have this, from Conger’s article:[blockquote]The liturgy “Stations of the MDGs†is “designed to be used during Lent in lieu of the traditional Stations of the Cross service,†Luke Fodor, the Network Coordinator at the Office of Church Relations at ERD said in an email.[/blockquote]
Those who want to read the liturgy in question can find it here:
http://www.er-d.org/documents/The_Millennium_Development_Goals_Liturgy.doc
Over at Stand Firm, one of the clergy from the Dio. of Central Florida helpfully provided the text of the cover e-mail that was sent out with this Stations of the MDG liturgy which makes explicit the idea of using this liturgy to replace the Lenten Stations of the Cross.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9393/#173705
Our elven comment at Stand Firm is here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9393/#173769
–elfgirl
The eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, achievement of universal primary education, promotion of gender equality and empowering women, reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and the creation of a global partnership for development — these are what got Jesus crucified? The Romans were so upset with Jesus because all He wanted to do was reduce poverty and child mortality, combat disease, etc. that they just HAD to kill Him?
Doesn’t seem fair.
What do you expect from a religion that has no concept of atonement? This is just another teaching tool like other Holy Week liturgies. Now we have a liturgy for liberal guilt.
Not surprisingly, I just adored this from Mike Angel.
Rather than focus all the energy on the slow death of institutions, responding to Christ’s call to care for the least of us seems like a worthy Lenten charge.
Phil – you honestly saw this as feel good ? Hardly.
Bob, the problem with this liturgy is not only that for many of us it seems inappropriate in Lent as a replacement for a meditation on Christ’s passion and our own sins, but also that it doesn’t actually DO anything to further the MDGs. The activities are silly. Much better, get out there and DO something to actually serve the poor, the hungry, the homeless in Jesus’ name.
–elfgirl
Bob (#11)
Not one of the suggested activities does anything to help achieve the goal in question. This liturgy strikes me as an attempt to assuage guilt by making people feel like they are doing something. “I was hungry and you lobbied your congressman. I was thirsty and you made handprints on a sheet. I was sick and you wrote names on a scroll. I was in prison and you calculated your carbon footprint. I died of marlaria and you outlawed DDT.” These are not the words of Jesus.
I support the goals outlined in the MDGs, but I feel that TECUSA is focusing on them rather than on the message of Christianity. The fact that this “liturgy” is designed to be used in Lent and in lieu of the Stations of the Cross just confirms that TECUSA (or the group that put out this questionable liturgy) has replaced any focus on the cross with focus on asuaging guilt.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Assuaging guilt – boy that is not my sense of this. Your parsing of this is quite cynical, Phil – I’d urge you to reflect on where that comes from.
Ritual can so often help spur awareness. I fear that most of America is numb to the plight of those outside our consumerist bubble.
In terms of our desire to DO, so much of our call as followers of Jesus is to BE. That comes from a soul awakened, from metanoia, from true repentance. This wonderful resource from Mike Angel should help with that !
why doesn’t ECUSA just rename itself the ‘champagne socialist middle class feminists club’ and do away with the faith altogether…oh silly me barring the name change that is precisely what they have done!!
As someone who has been doing the kind of work for more than a decade- I’m glad to see the Episcopal Church use this as a focal point to rally and reach out.
My problem with it is that the symbolic nature of 0.7% drives me bananas! In my own diocese we gave the Bishop (hidden within the “administration” budget) a raise of over $10,000. And we set aside $6000 for the MDG’s. A joke at best- and a mockery of those of us who give much more personally to this kind of work. So- i’m tired of this MDG stuff- because, Like phil said it gets a little feel goody to me.
Now, for this liturgy- it isn’t that bad and it is merely offered as a resource for parishes from the ERD folks. If you don’t want to use it don’t. If you want to use it, adapt it so that it fits better to atonement theology. It isn’t an official liturgy of the church- and so noone is required to use it.
Let’s use our time and resources to help those who will die today for our lack of attention and hording of resources.
I agree with the comment of Phillip that you need to go to one of these countries, like Peru. I lived in Mia Flores, just outside of Lima for a short time. The poverty in villages is unbelievable. But you will find some of your strongest Christian belief there as well. Those of us in the US need to remember the first and great commandment. If we keep it, we will follow through with the rest. MDG’s in themselves are not bad. When they replace the Gospel, they are. Why would God do a “new thing”? Perfection can not be improved upon. When Jesus said he was the Truth, he meant it. The Bible is the revealed Word of God, therefore the Truth, and can not be replaced by MDG’s.
rugbyplayingpriest
that’s funny – I know a lot of conservative, american car driving manly men who are committed to fighting extreme poverty
your stereotype is quite sad & untrue
As usual, Right On Phil Snyder!
I have read the posts here and at Stand Firm and am sickened by the substitution of giving for doing while making a mockery of a beautiful Liturgy of the Church. But what else should we expect from the TEC which allows Clown Masses and those masses like Bp. Bruno recently performed?
“Doctors Without Borders†and the medically equipped airplane which I used to see on the tarmac of Third World countries on which Ophthalmologists did eye surgery for free do far more good for the bodies and souls of the poor than the MDG’s will ever do.
The Episcopal hierarchy should forget the “pat me on the back feely good programs†and turn its member’s eyes toward Jesus Christ who helps each of us give of our individual talents to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and save souls.
Question: Does anybody know what percentage of all +KJS’s and DBB’s litigation is the MDG money she is trying to raise?
Blast me Bob Carlton if you want to, but I have lived near the desert, on a small island in the Philippines, and adjacent to jungles in SE Asia. My son has been on medical missions to Africa and South America. Being an evangelical he would not be thrilled at +KJS’s MDG Stations Liturgy, I can assure you.
Bob,
Yes, liturgy and ritual can spur us to action, but this doesn’t seem to do so. It doesn’t advocate doing anything other than delivering lunches the next day and writing your congressman. How about getting people to sign up for a mission trip or to pay for a mission trip? How about hearing from missionaries who have been to (or work in) places like the Sudan, Peru, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda or other places with extreme rates of poverty and child mortalilty. As opposed to writing your congressman, why not send a check to ARDF or some other place that uses the money to actually fight poverty rather than get governments to take money from people to give to kleptocrats.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I thought Chris Johnson at MCJ was kidding.
When I was in private practice clients that kept promising they were going to pay my fee seldom did. They just kept promising what they were going to do. This bit sounds like those former clients.
bob calton- I am not chastising alms giving nor committment to the poor and will happily champion that cause. What I lament is the loss of focus on sacred liturgy and the growing tendency of sixities hippies in the ascendancy of the church to SWAP Jesus for good deeds. The move is subtle yet dangerous
For it is the committed believers who are the biggest givers to charity.
We support chairty in my parish…we are also working hard to build a community centre for the underpriveledged- if you wish you can donate here http://www.sbarnabas.com
But when services begin the focus is only on Jesus and not on anything of this world/
My problem with this is that it is a trajectory of TEC away from the fundamentals of the creed in the liturgies. First they give us Enriching our Worship which talks about the aspects and functions of God, but don’t attribute the traditional language of the creed – Father Son and Holy Spirit to God. Then they give us this kind of junk. Please give me a break. Let’s get back to a tradition in the liturgy that talks about sin and redemption and I never thought I would say this – let’s get back to Rite I language.
kleptocrats ?
these are unique only to the gov’t ?
Bob – by definition, kleptocrats are those who are ruling thieves. US Aid, more often than not, goes to government or government agencies. In many cases, these governments are run by despots who take a “percentage” or use the aid as a means of consoldating or reinforcing their power by distributing the aid based on loyalty to the government rather than need. Additionally, US government “aid” can take the form of “military” aid which does nothing but reinforce the despot’s power.
UN Aid is similarly suspect as it often props up the dictator (president for life or dear leader or whatever his title is).
If you want to help the poor, then free them from economic and political systems that trap them in poverty and do not allow them to create their own wealth. Enable education, economic and political freedom and help them learn how to build wealth and you will do a lot to alleviate poverty.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Your insights are interesting, Phil – I wonder what their source.
Truth be told, faith traditions have a checkered track record themselves, both in terms of transparency and in terms of effectiveness. There are centuries of colonialism that coupled Christianity with empire.
Only serves to remind us – governments & church institutions are both made up of people.
The World Bank did a study of actual case studies of poverty reduction in partnership with World Vision – their findings:
Accelerating poverty reduction requires broad-based and inclusive growth, as the cases of China, Chile, and Poland illustrate.
Transparent rules of the game – budgets, processes, procedures – lead to increased accountability to clients and empowers them to demand what is their due.
Behind every success is a leader or a group of visionaries and champions backed by a significant interest group. Once leadership and political commitment are in place, external support can help in scaling up. External financing helped in almost all the cases, in varying degree. It was especially critical for the very poor countries. And without it, many of these experiences would have perished in infancy. For many countries, coordinating external financing with their budget cycle was particularly useful.
Phil,
Remember when the US decided it was going to end world hunger, and sent freighter loads of grain to Ethopia, Rwanda and other places where famine was raging? In Ethopia, the grain rotted on the docks because the ‘dictator in power’ refused to distribute it? In Rwanda, the call went out to come get the grain, and the dictator’s death squads killed the males and enslaved or sent to prison camps the women and children who came to get it.
The moral is: we can only do so much.
On the other hand:
Our chuch sponsors medical missions to Uganda every summer.
A friend in South Florida (a professional roofer) spends his annual vacation in Haiti building houses for the poor.
Local churches in the area sponsor a mission church in our downtown impoverished area.
the moral: We can only do so much, but we do what we can.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Question – why would anyone who is serious about their Christian faith and life be a member of TEC? I cannot think of any compelling reason, and no, the called to remain and call them to repentance part does not cut it for me. Time to shake the dust off your sandals.
The current state of TEC is an illustration of the second chapter of 2nd Peter concerning false teachers. As v. 22 states, “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.”
The really sad part is that as long as TEC’s theology and agenda is allowed to pollute the Anglican world, it will drive off faithful Anglicans to either other denominations or to no church at all based on their experience of a severely dysfunctional communion that cannot seem to heal itself with Godly discipline of its own laity, clergy, and bishops.
[i] Comment deleted. Off topic. This is a warning to refrain from off topic comments. [/i]
I’m struck by how this “liturgy” contains almost nothing from scripture. Hmmm…
Whew! I was worried bob might participate in a thread and not make any off-topic swipes at Bush.
[i] He has now been warned that he could end up in moderation. [/i]
I’d be curious to see (a) how many parishes use this liturgy and (b)how many use it “in lieu” of the traditional Stations of the Cross. I suspect, (a) few and (b) fewer. I’d be surprised if category (a) had as many as dozen churches in it and category (b) had half that. I doubt that a single church that has an established Good Friday practice of the traditional Stations would fall into either category.
Few of these “conciousness-raising” rites produced by the national church apparatus are adopted in local parish life, simply because they are generally stilted, strained, and scolding. The merit of the underlying program or goal is often beside the point. Rank-and-file Episcopalians simply don’t like tendentious liturgies.
Even among those Episcopalians interested in the MDGs — the onstensible audience for these “Stations” — the most successful thematic liturgy is probably the “U2charist”, which is standard Rite II BCP with a modest social justice focus in the prayers of the people. Oh, and some really loud rock ‘n’ roll.
Only liberal Episcopalians need some idiotic “liturgy” to get them to do what they would be doing already if they were truly being taught the Word of God.
“I’d be curious to see (a) how many parishes use this liturgy and (b)how many use it “in lieu†of the traditional Stations of the Cross. I suspect, (a) few and (b) fewer. I’d be surprised if category (a) had as many as dozen churches in it and category (b) had half that. I doubt that a single church that has an established Good Friday practice of the traditional Stations would fall into either category.”
I agree to an extent William, but unfortunately not for the same reason. The whole wacky practice of inventing “liturgies” happens throughout the world of liberal Anglicana. However, as it is an activity that has developed from an attitude in which ritual isn’t closely associated with meaning, there’s a huge amount of divergence to be found. People do this sort of stuff all over the place, but they’ll do their own versions. Making up complicated, awkward, and inaccessible services (like this one) is something a lot of priests love to do, but only a relative handful of layfolk actually enjoy.
“Question – why would anyone who is serious about their Christian faith and life be a member of TEC? I cannot think of any compelling reason, and no, the called to remain and call them to repentance part does not cut it for me. Time to shake the dust off your sandals.”
That isn’t how the church works, you don’t sever yourself from the catholic faith because your bishop’s a heretic. There are loads of examples from the patristic period in which bishops were heretics, the procedure wasn’t to take off (the perfect example here is Athenasius, who was an island of orthodoxy in a world that had, according to Jerome, “groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”). I am an orthodox Christian within a valid and orthodox church. It is the heretical element that does not belong.
Bingo!
I think most of these things are self-congratulatory in a “look! we’re such sensitive and aware middle-class white people” kind of way.
SaintCyprian slipped in with a cogent point. I agree completely that most of this stuff is priest-driven and shows a debased understanding of liturgical practice.
#7 Katherine, I have long felt that the MDG’s have been substituted for Jesus and the Gospel. This ad for last summer’s “Bible” vacation school at my former parish (taken verbatim out of the paper) clinched it for me:
I suppose it wouldn’t be so sad if the MDGs themselves weren’t such a joke of a concept (that a minuscule .7% of one’s income is somehow going to solve the world’s problems). I’m coming from a perspective of now being in a church where everyone pretty much gives at least 10% of their income to the church, and that primarily ends up in missions or helping people.
Of course, when TEC gets finished with it, it’s always someone else’s money (like the US taxpayers’) that’s actually going to be devoted to the goals.
This short video demonstrates how ludicrous the MDGs are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtY1fj0nJ8
hmm, I just noticed that “reduce malaria” was on the list. Heck, that could be taken care of now, just a little Malathion or a milder form of DDT sprayed in mosquito prone areas, and that would reduce the problem immensely.
The real point of this “liturgy” is to take the focus off life after death and refocus the same light on this world, for this liturgy is integral to what Schori obviously believes, that this world can be made into heaven by remedying the manifest ills of this world. This is, in short, a new doctrine of good works; grace, being otherworldly, is irrelevant. We can save ourselves unaided, in short, because we are in control of this world; it will respond in proportion to the effort we put into the remedies.
Science will at last see to it that we live on and on without growing terminally old. Schori is a scientist and we should not be surprised she believes this will happen. And it may well, of course. So if the usual human sorrows – hunger and disease and the like – are remedied, then we will in effect have eaten of the tree of life. TEC’s goals are no less than this, and they re revolutionary in every sense of the word.
The problem, however, is not that science cannot extend our lives greatly, perhaps indefinitely, but that we cannot eradicate poverty and disease and all the other ills that flesh is heir to. I am not suggesting that these should not be ameliorated, but rather that Shori’s dream is a fantasy. Her dream is not immediately apparent in the MDG’s,but that they are treated as a liturgy which is a substitute for another one that speaks of death and resurrection is a too clear sign of what these goals portend. LM
No. 40 – You’re quite a mind reader.
#14, Bob the problem with this is, we here in Australia get to watch far to much American television, which leaves us with the distinct impression most Americans would have trouble finding Canada on a map, let alone Uganda. The Anglican parish nearest to the hospital I work in, regularly sends mission teams to Africa made up of medical students, nurses and doctors. They do this because of their Christian belief, not because the UN tells them its a good idea.
What really gets me is, that in the liberal church things like the MDG are being trumpeted, while the resolutions from the last Lambeth are never mentioned.
Jon R
Jim the Puritan, you’re right, that Sunday School program is so silly. How, pray tell, are 5-12 year-olds going to make a difference in the real world via the UN MDGs? Their parents can train them by example to give money and personal effort to the poor at home and abroad when they grow up, and they don’t need the UN for that.
Larry Morse #40 hits the nail on the head, and no mind reading is necessary. Michael Curry, the Episcopal bishop of North Carolina, has made “living God’s dream” the theme of the diocese. He is explicit in saying that the Christian mission is to make this world, in the here and now, the way it was in the Garden of Eden. God’s commandment to help the poor and unfortunate (and Christopher Johnson is right, above; this is basic to traditional belief) is converted into the [i]only[/i] and [i]ultimate[/i] goal of Christian belief and practice.
Larry Morse #40,
I suspect you are right – that some of the venomous comments on this stem from a difference in worldview.
I once heard a Southern Baptist I dore (Dallas Willard) describe parts of current day churchianity as “sin management and death prep”. For me and the tradition I am part of, that mindset does not match up with Jesus – God taking skin and walking among us – with the transformed lives that come from following God in a Jesus way.
Looking thru the liturgy that started this post, I can not honestly see the sense of “we are in control” that Larry Morse speaks about. I realize that you have posted before on science, but I just wonder how that plays in here.
I lurk on this site and others because I’m interested in the opinions, positions, and beliefs expressed even if I don’t always agree with them, but as the MDGs are of particular interest to me I feel obligated to post. So for those like me with an inquiring and discerning heart willing to engage in other viewpoints I’d like to share my personal take on this post, and the ensuing comments:
The MDGs are not objectives to be met by individuals or even organizations. They are a formal recognition of our shortcomings and a commitment from the global community to do better. As such an important part of the effort to achieve the MDGs is advocacy. This liturgy in and of itself does not solve the issues, but it does raise awareness and hopefully encourages new or renewed commitments. The US has consistently ranked at the bottom of [url=http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp]the list[/url] of industrialized nations, embarrassingly giving less than 0.2% of our GNI.
As was noted elsewhere this liturgy is being provided by Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD), not mandated by TEC. It is provided as a resource along with suggestions on how it can be used. This is very much in line with [url=http://www.er-d.org/aboutus_43011_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=36741]ERD’s mission[/url]. They are one of many charity organizations calling for greater awareness, advocacy and action specifically to address the MDGs. Another great resource is [url=http://www.one.org/]the ONE campaign[/url], and its partnership with TEC: [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ONE/]ONE Episcopalian[/url].
In response to the comments that a focus on “good deeds” is replacing true worship I’ll turn to last Sunday’s lectionary and the first of Jesus’ disciples. Their question of Him was not how shall we worship; it was “Where do you abide?” Jesus gathered disciples specifically by doing good deeds amongst outcasts and sinners and inviting the disciples along: “Come and see.” Time after time it was the Pharisees, or those with much to lose, who asked pointed questions about which rules to follow. They preferred to focus on how they could earn their way into salvation, not realizing salvation is already ours and can start here on earth if we will believe in Him and love others as He loves us.
I choose to focus my faith on abiding in His love over my appreciation for ritual. I am more concerned in being judged than in judging. This does not mean I question the “truth” of scripture, but rather that I value the true scripture of action as found in Jesus’ life and deeds.
I also believe there [i]is[/i] a generational-gap in play, but accusing today’s youth of being self-serving is truly disingenuous. The youth are the driving force behind global issues like the MDGs, and the liberal (tolerant and progressive) thinking they bring to current arguments have an undeniable sense of sincerity I have often found lacking in adults. Could it be that the real problem with this liturgy is that ++KJS has been so vocal in her support of the MDGs as goals of The Episcopal Church as well?
And lastly, my church participated in ONE Sabbath on Nov. 25th with a youth-led service and liturgy centered around the MDGs. It was VERY well received by all members of the church regardless of their positions on orthodoxy or their generational category. I suspect we will look in to using the “Stations of the MDGs” in addition to a traditional “Stations of the Cross” service this Lenten season.
God Bless,
-Chris Demaree
Thanks, Chris Demaree, for this response. I don’t think we’re far apart on the intent to help the poor and unfortunate. This is a basic Christian behavior in obedience to the Lord. My own very small Anglican parish gives 10% of its income to outreach of this kind. The religious conservatives’ discomfort with charity becoming more important than personal faith and repentance, rather than its accompaniment and result, has been well expressed by many posters above. In addition, many (but not all) religious conservatives also find themselves in political terms very suspicious of secular agencies, governmental, quasi-governmental, or NGO, and their ability to deliver aid without corruption and in the right efforts to the intended recipients. This is why “advocacy” and the “UN” portions of the MDGs raise so many concerns. It is definitely not because religious conservatives, whether or not politically conservative, lack charity or compassion. It’s a question of what the right means are, and whether the Church should decide that when it’s really a political issue on which devout Christians may disagree.
Chris, then le t me ask you directly. Is it the case, supported by scripture, that good deeds are sufficient for the soul’s salvation? If so, then we can indeed save ourselves because God has left us free to do so if we will? Larry
45. cddemaree wrote:
“..not realizing salvation is already ours and can start here on earth if we will believe in Him and love others as He loves us.”
Certainly one can partake of the Kingdom of God which Jesus came to inaugarate here on earth by accepting Christ as our Savior and King and becoming OBEDIENT believers. If Jesus charges us with loving our neighbor as ourselves how can one supercede that into loving others as He loves us? Quite an impossible task at least to me. We are not supposed to strive to attain the perfection of God or God’s love. We are not supposed to make this earthly existence the second Eden. The world has always been and always will be a broken and sinful place. Didn’t Jesus say the poor will always be with us? Don’t we risk missing the same point He was making then? Do we devote ourselves to the Lord or to the poor?
#47: Larry, I did not see anything in Chris Demaree’s comment that suugested a bleief that good works can save us. It seesm that whether one wants to tatoo the MDG’s on their forehead or simply keep stocking the shelves of the local food pantry, the bottom line is that we (Christians) do not “poractice radom acts of kindness”; we do what we do because we have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.
An MGD “liturgy” to take the place of the Passion of Our Lord and Savior? Why do I have visions of golden calves in my head? The false idols have taken over.
I’m halfway across the Tiber. Can’t wait to get to the other side.
Let’s get real. The Stations of the Cross, while they can be spiritually nourishing in focusing on the Passion of Our Lord, are also a collection of events, many of which are non-Scriptural and based on legend and extra-canonical records. They have become, though, over time, a meaningful way to reflect and pray upon the overarching Gospel message of the Passion and the Cross. The Stations can also be, however, a time for us to meditate upon our own complicity in the ills of the world. In that, our attention to issues of poverty, illness, and injustice is warranted.
Again, too, it is not TEC which is supporting the “Stations” referenced, but ER-D (which is, of course, an agency of TEC), not exactly the same thing.
PadreWayne,
Liturgy, whether it be the stations of the cross or the divine service of the Eucharist, is more than just a ‘meaningful way to reflect’. Even if the stations have their origins in non-scriptural records (I won’t say ‘legend’ here, as that doesn’t quite cover it), to equate them with a feel-good MDG substitute falls far short of the meaning of Lent and the practice of the stations. If the article said they would do this “in addition to” the Stations of the Cross, I don’t think there would be even a hint of controversy.
Allow me to quote Dr. Bryan Owen on Liturgy (sorry, I don’t have the citation, if someone does, please supply it for me!)
[blockquote] holding to a tradition which affirms that praying shapes believing, the liturgies we use for our worship in the Church are meant to inform, shape, and sustain not only what we believe but also how we live our lives. If we lose the connection between liturgy and life, we run the risk of promoting an escapist theology of worship in which liturgy insulates persons from the joys and sufferings of the world. And if that happens, the Church gives credence to the Marxist charge that religion serves as the opiate of the masses or to the Freudian view of religion as an infantile illusion.
In thinking about the relationship between liturgy and life, worship and ethics, Sunday morning church and the rest of the week, I’ve found the work of Charles Price and Louis Weil helpful. In their book Liturgy for Living, they distinguish between intensive liturgy and extensive liturgy.
Intensive liturgy is what happens in church, especially on Sunday morning. “By its intensive liturgies,†Price and Weil write, “the church encounters Christ as present in Word and Sacraments. Under these forms, Christians appropriate his example and the power which he makes available†[Liturgy for Living (Seabury, 1979), p. 296].
Extensive liturgy is what happens when we bring what we receive in church into the world. “One appropriates an example and its power for a purpose. One leaves the intensive liturgy to live in accordance with the model and in the strength of the grace which it supplies†[Liturgy for Living (Seabury, 1979), p. 296].
Price and Weil continue by highlighting the ways in which intensive and extensive liturgy are mutually dependent:
As our intensive liturgies drive us into the world to do our extensive liturgies, so our extensive liturgies bring us back week by week to the Christian assembly, to seek God’s presence once more under the embodied forms of Word and Sacrament. For the world is stronger than we are. By our own strength, we cannot long live up to Christ’s example, nor can we get along without renewal of spiritual power. Failures are frequent. Discouragement is always close. Need alone would return us to the unfailing source of renewal, given expression and made accessible by the liturgy of the church.
Not only need brings us back, to be sure; thanksgiving also brings us back. Our extensive liturgies are not only the story of failure, although failures are many; they are also the stories of success and triumph. To keep the record straight, and to make sure that we give God the credit due to God alone, we return to give him thanks [Liturgy for Living, (Seabury, 1979), p. 297].
I find it refreshing, and really quite powerful, to think about the things we do during the week – parenting, jobs, recreation, serving food to the homeless, grieving … you name it – as extending the liturgy we participated in when we gathered together with our brothers and sisters in Christ last Sunday. It’s all connected to the thanksgiving and praise we give to God when we gather to hear the Word read and proclaimed and to receive the holy gifts of Christ’s Body and Blood.
A bishop and scholar of the Eastern Orthodox Church nicely summarizes the mutual dependence of intensive and extensive liturgy and the need to safeguard the connections between liturgy and life:
Theology, mysticism, spirituality, moral rules, worship, art: these things must not be kept in separate compartments. Doctrine cannot be understood unless it is prayed: a theologian, said Evagrius, is one who knows how to pray, and he who prays in spirit and in truth is by that very act a theologian. And doctrine, if it is prayed, must also be lived: theology without action, as St Maximus put it, is the theology of demons. The Creed belongs only those who live it. Faith and love, theology and life, are inseparable. In the Byzantine Liturgy, the Creed is introduced with the words, ‘Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity one essence and undivided.’ If we do not love one another, we cannot love God; and if we do not love God, we cannot make a true confession of faith and cannot enter into the inner spirit of Tradition, for there is no other way of knowing God than to love Him {Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church New Edition (Penguin, 1993), p. 207}. [/blockquote]
So to bring it back to the topic at hand, if the MDG meditations were an addition to the Stations (intensive liturgy) and a call to action (extensive liturgy) then this would (probably) be more acceptable. Instead, the MDGs are replacing the Stations of the cross (that is, they are being presented as intensive liturgy). And therein lies the problem.
Peace to you!
Jim Elliott <><
addendum:
Thanks to my friend Sam who sent me the link to the original posting of the article on liturgy at the blog [url=http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/2007/12/liturgy-and-life.html]Creedal Christian[/url]. I appreciate it.
JE <><
Yeah! My post seems to have encouraged interesting and beneficial discussion!
Larry (47): I was quite careful to be clear that belief AND the commitment to good works are necessary. Thanks Will (49) for recognizing it.
roman (48): You’ve hit on an important distinction which should be clarified. Obedience is not faith; rather if you have faith then willing obedience follows. A good counter example is I am (mostly) obedient to my employer, but by no means do I truly believe in all that the company advocates, demands, pursues, or does. You also seem to have confused Jesus’ summary of the law (Matthew 22:37-39) with the actual new commandment he gave us in John 15:12 “Love one another as I have loved you.” And yes, it is an impossible task on our own. That’s the whole point; impossible or not it is still our responsibility as Christians.
Bernini (50): No worries, my golden calves will be at least 0.7% smaller than all previous versions! 😉
PadreWayne (51): You managed to say in one paragraph what took me a whole page, and your post is less confusing. Thanks!
libraryjim: I wonder if you misinterpreted your own quote. The concept of intensive and extensive liturgy is not in conflict with changes in liturgy, it simply means that ritual in and of itself is of less value when not applied outside the context of the ritual setting. The interconnectedness of liturgy to life actually demands that liturgy be a “living” thing too. If there were one perfect liturgy which always applied and provided sustenance for all aspects of our lives in every circumstance and throughout church history we would have no need of different services, denominations, or other distinctions. The real trick is balancing tradition with the present, and more importantly that you personally participate in those liturgies which provide for you. None of these ideas require, or even warrant, a backlash against the choices of others, certainly not outside the context of your local parish and its particular practices which immediately affect you. And even in those immediately personal cases we, as a communion, have “traditionally” recognized the ultimate bane and blessing of a democratic process: compromise.
In Christ,
-Chris Demaree
This is a liturgy of the worship of selves. It is a tribute to the flipping of the 1st and 2nd commandment.
Nothing more, nothing less.
CD,
However, Liturgy is not the product of a choice by an Episcopal priest or bishop in one parish/diocese or another. By introducing and allowing a ‘new’ liturgy, this church/pastor/bishop is going against the ‘doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church’, in which the only approved liturgies are those in the Book of Common Prayer, or those practiced through the ages, such as the rosary or the stations of the cross.
None the less, this MDG meditation is being mis-represented as an “intensive liturgy”, when it (that is, good works in the world) should be the RESULT of a persons response to Christ’s call in the Liturgy: “Go into all the world to love and serve the Lord”.
The MDG stations should not be held in a church, and the pastor should be inhibited for violating the canon quoted earlier (yes, that last part IS sarcasm, the first part is not). The liturgy needs to be held to a high worship standard, something received and handed down, not amended or changed on a whim.
Peace!
Jim E. <><
libraryjim: “Liturgy, whether it be the stations of the cross or the divine service of the Eucharist, is more than just a ‘meaningful way to reflect’.”
I agree. You’re interpreting my comment in an exogetical way.
“Even if the stations have their origins in non-scriptural records (I won’t say ‘legend’ here, as that doesn’t quite cover it),”
Scripture, extra-canonical, and legendary.
“…to equate them with a feel-good MDG substitute falls far short of the meaning of Lent and the practice of the stations.”
IMHO, in the context of the stations we are identifying with (being compassionate toward) the suffering of our Lord. I cannot fathom what is wrong with identifying with (being compassionate toward) the sufferings of the world…
“If the article said they would do this “in addition to†the Stations of the Cross, I don’t think there would be even a hint of controversy.”
You have [i]got[/i] to be kidding. The fringe will [i]always[/i] find a means to stir controversy into an otherwise non-controversial program, speech, sermon, or theme. Nice try.
libraryjim again: “By introducing and allowing a ‘new’ liturgy, this church/pastor/bishop is going against the ‘doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church’, in which the only approved liturgies are those in the Book of Common Prayer, or those practiced through the ages, such as the rosary or the stations of the cross.”
Neither stations nor the rosary are included in the BCP. Stations has made it into the BOS. Rosary still not. And so, since the rosary has been “practiced through the ages,” even though it is not part of the BCP nor BOS, you’re okay with it? Pretty high-church/Anglo-Catholic stuff, isn’t it?
Padre Wayne (that’s me above, as well…)
We must keep in mind: [i]All[/i] liturgy was once “innovation.” All of it. Liturgy is a living, breathing organism, and as such, needs to be nourished, prodded, tweaked from time to time so that we may more fully explore its meaning and its depth — always asking, “Does this glorify God?”
And as long as the liturgy is not the principle service of a Sunday, there is plenty of room allowed for stretching.
I AM high church anglo-Catholic. Deal with it. 🙂
And I never said they HAD made it into the BCP, but that they were of ancient practice. That DOES make a difference.
Was all liturgy once innovation? Or does it have its origin in the liturgy of old, received by the Church from the divine liturgy of the Jewish Temple and only modified by Jesus the SON OF GOD and to those whom He gave His authority?
I am reminded of the saying by the Greek Orthodox Church that if St. Paul suddenly came back today, he would feel right at home with their liturgy, as it stretched back that far without major innovation. That is one great thing I admire about the GOC. They know liturgy, liturgical theology and liturgical history and respect it. Unlike the Epsicopal Church who seems to feel that liturgy is their toy which they can modify at whim — you konw, like Tim Taylor on [i]Home Improvement[/i]’s [i]Tool Time[/i] — “All it needs is MORE POWER! arrruggh!” which, as you might recall always ended up in disaster. We need to be like Al — “I don’t think so, Tim” when it comes to these innovations that separate themselves from the Traditions and worship of the larger Church handed down, received by us in trust, not as our plaything.
Peace
Jim E <><
The part of the liturgy which gets to me the most harshly is one of the closing statements. In the 1979 BCP, a closing prayer started with “Let us commit ourselves to our God.” This new “stations” pushes in “Let us commit ourselves to the Millenium Development Goals.”
? Really ?