From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Words and Confession
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:31:02 GMT

masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas) writes:
> Well, it appears to be unanimous doesn't it. I agree the phrasing with 
> "thought, word and deed" is probably a better choice of words than  
> "resisting your will in our lives."  Perhaps it was the newness of the
> language alone that caused me to perk up and be more responsive to it.

This effect is not valueless, I might point out.  Liturgy cannot be only
tradition without vitality, after all.  I encourage the kind of
self-examination we are engaged in, and that produced the current BCP.  New
variations and perspectives often cast valuable light on the status quo, even
if they are not ultimately adopted.

For example, this discussion about the SLT confession probably made me think
more carefully about this part of the liturgy than I have since confirmation.
Being able to compare the current text with the SLT version has broadened my
appreciation for the former, while also pointing out aspects of the latter
that I also like.  This, to me, is exactly why the SLT is valuable, and why
new pieces of liturgy *should* be "field tested" before being cast into
canon.

> However, I think it should be pointed out that the phrase "We have not 
> honored you in ourselves," need not be read in the sense in which mib 
> reads it.

This is true, but I don't think that "honor" alone cuts it.  "Love and honor"
would be better, for example.  Also, I think that the phrase captures an
important concept, I think it does so in a way that is quite open to
misinterpretation or confusion.

> While I again agree with the sentiments expressed by Michael and Amanda
> I must assert that one must be in a repentant mood to ask God to "Reach
> out..."

Yes and no.  Once again, while I see your point, I think the phrase could be
easily misinterpreted.  In this case, someone could see it as glossing over
individual responsibility for their actions, and making redemption into an
external process that God undertakes without our participation.  Even a change
to something along the lines of "Reach within us..." would help to clarify
our immediate involvement in the process.

> In fact I find the active mood of the newer language very 
> attractive in its own way.  Indeed, both sentences might profitably be
> used together.

Indeed.  As I said in my earlier article, I certainly don't find the new text
without merit; I just don't see it as a good replacement.

> Michael, first, lets leave the Trinitarian issues to the Nicene Creed where
> they belong and which is repeated every Eucharist.  Secondly, the
> recognition of the sonship of Jesus is implicit in the words "our savior."

Grin.  I agree with you here ...

> Ultimately I doubt that our language, trinitarian or not, can ever
> adequately express the reality it seeks to when it comes to describing God
> and God's love for us especially as it is revealed in Jesus Christ.

Indeed.

> What I see us moving toward in making changes like those suggested above 
> is an affirmation (whoops there's that word, Charlie :<) ) of ourselves 
> as loved by God that has been sadly lacking in much of our worship for
> far too long.

Hmm.  This I'm not so sure of.  I agree that the use of active imagery is
nice.  On the other hand, I haven't noticed such a lack as you describe,
either in the liturgy or the Church itself.  On the other hand, this can
depend a great deal upon where and with whom you worship, as every
congregation and parish is different.

> There is a danger in minimalizing our propensity for sin, but there is also
> a danger in concentrating so much on our sinfulness that we begin to lose
> all hope for salvation for now and for the future.

On the other hand, it is sin that makes salvation necessary.  They are two
sides of the same coin, I think.  It's certainly possible to concentrate too
much on sin--in fact, I think it's all too common in some circles--but it's
also a mistake to gloss over it.

cw>The conflation of the images invites a sort of panentheism in which
cw>salvation ceases to be a human need, and in which the eucharist becomes a
cw>sort of self-worship.  

> While your objection may be true for you and for others it need not be.
> It is not for me.  The anthem in combination with the prayer below form
> an image of the church, the body of Christ taking, blessing, breaking and
> finally giving itself as a consecrated body to the service of Christ in the
> world.

I agree.  I think that the idea of the Body of Christ has for some time been
given rather short schrift in Anglican liturgy, and I'm glad to see it being
revived, *especially* regarding the Eucharist.  Far from self-worship, I see
the anthems in question as reinforcing this.  It is we who form the Body of
Christ; it is through us that He works; and it is we who are broken and poured
out as a sacrifice of salvation.

> I would simply say that the emphasis is different.  No single prayer is
> going to comprehend the meaning of the eucharist for everyone (or probably
> even for any one).

Indeed.  Even as a child, I found that having (and using!) several different
Eucharistic Prayers, for example, enhanced my understanding and perception of
the Eucharist.  I view continuing this process as a good thing.

cw>What's going on here goes far beyond gender imagery, which is itself
cw>problematic.  There is a line of argument, of which my rector is an
cw>exponent, which claims that feminine imagery for God has theological
cw>implications which are against orthodoxy and which should be rejected as
cw>being against scripture.

I won't open this can of words right now, except to say that I suspect that
Charley and I disagree on this issue :)...

cw>There is a more general pattern of theological change here which I think is
cw>questionable; the changes I've discussed "fix" problems which, in my
cw>opinion, weren't broken.

I understand your concern, and I join you in looking closely at any proposed
changes or additions to the liturgy.  On the other hand, neither do I think
that what we have is perfect and should never be changed.  I think that the
development of the liturgy is an ongoing process, and should be incorporate
new renditions.  I also think that older traditions should be revived,
including such things as the latin service, evensong, the Daily Office,
monastic traditions, and so on.  Liturgy and paraliturgical material should
not be a palette of just one color...

Peace,

Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.				    ...!uupsi!visix.com!amanda
-- 
"Seek him who made the Pleiades and Orion, and turns deep darkness into the
 morning, and darkens the day into night; who calls for the waters of the
 sea and pours them out upon the surface of the earth: The Lord is his name."
        --Amos 5:8