Some reflections...

-----------

'Presiders and other worship leaders, especially the clergy, must see themselves first as members of the Sunday assembly.' (Hovda, p. 137)

I found this statement to be particularly meaningful, as it comes very close to forming my sense of my own calling in the church, and my primary argument with the hierarchy of my previous denomination. In the decade of my active attendance at the local parish (for the majority of that time, daily attendance) only twice did I see any clergy person participate in a service without vesting and assuming some leadership role, despite the fact there were a number of clergy already present. They would never have taken Hovda’s advice: ‘…I recommend that we participate in the Sunday liturgy without portfolio, divested of our specialised functions, as often as we can.’ (Hovda, p. 136)

It is only through doing things like this that one can become aware of aspects of the liturgy that are being received by members of the congregation. By not taking a step back and examining what they’re doing, clergy members cannot engage in critical liturgy.

The concept of “critical liturgy” really involves two things. First, it means that we need to be critical about how the liturgy itself operates as a medium of socialization: that is, critical reflection upon the liturgy itself. Second, it means that the liturgy could be conceived as a form of consciousness-raising, hence as an exercise in critical praxis. (Searle, p. 349)

It is almost as if one is content to do things by rote, to paint-by-the-numbers, rather than take the risk and add an element of creativity and inspiration; likewise, it becomes difficult to see what is working, and succeeding in being meaningful, worshipful, and community-building. Too many clergy/presiders see their simple actions alone as being important. ‘Not all action, all practice, is “praxis”: only that which is undertaken with critical consciousness.’ (Searle, p. 354)

This is where education is important – not simply the classroom or book-based education of formal seminary programmes, but the ongoing education of the whole congregation, clergy, congregation leaders, and all the other participants. ‘The preoccupation of catechesis is not the condition of the community’s understanding of the Christian message, but rather the condition of the community’s practice of that understanding.’ (Warren, p. 14) How are the people understanding what is happening? Are they misinterpreting the symbols? Are they resigning themselves to not understanding? Could this be part of why the mainline churches are losing members?

We need to take care to be comfortable and confident in the liturgy, its meaning, structure, and intention, so that we are able to impart the worshipful and community-building aspects with precision and love, not being bogged down by unimportant aspects or things that have lost meaning:

We don’t need more words in liturgy. Frequently, we have too many now. What we need desperately is to do the liturgy with such love and appreciation of its symbol language that it cannot help being an experience for all participants. (Hovda, p. 141)

The importance of involving all members of the congregation as much as possible cannot be overstressed. This participation requires an understanding on their part, and a willingness and ability to teach on the part of ministers and leaders charged by the community with care and direction of the community.

These are some reflections I had as I studied the connections between liturgy and learning styles in seminary. The primary source material for these reflections are the following articles:

Robert Hovda, 'Liturgy forming us in the Christian Life' in Eleanor Bernstein, ed. Liturgy and Spirituality in Context, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990), pp. 136-151

Mark Searle, 'The Pedagogical Function of the Liturgy', Worship 55 (July 1981), 332-359

Michael Warren, 'The Worshipping Assembly: Possible Zone of Cultural Contestation', Worship 63 (January 1989): 2-16