The idolatry of the Holy Screen

Last month I attended a blended service that uses the ACNA liturgy, Hymnal 1982 hymns and praise songs. As blended services go, it was probably the most tastefully done that I’ve seen — either because of the sensibilities of the music director, or because he (and the rector) don’t think hymns should be second class citizens.

So with blended worship done well, what was jarring was the projection screen. I’ve seen plenty of them (alas even in churches), but I’ve never been a member of a church that uses them every week.

One of the limitations is the one that I remarked previously: hymnal-free is harmony free. I knew one of the hymns well enough from memory to (more or less) sing the harmony without music, but otherwise I felt cheated of a chance to sing praise to God utilizing the gifts He has given me (and also staying within my vocal range).

The other limitation is one that I’d only briefly noticed before. As the Gospel reading was processed to the center of the church, it is customary for the congregation to turn and face the Gospel and the deacon (or in this case, the priest). However, as at home, everyone’s attention was firmly fixed on the screen for the duration of the gradual. (As it turns out, they were also fixed on the screen for the text of the Gospel reading — I didn’t notice because I tend to focus on the reader and not on reading the text).

So to our 21st century sanctuaries we have brought the key cultural artifact of  online culture. Instead of the Word or the Cross, we now turn our attention and adoration to the Holy Screen. This might seem harsh — but just watch how the H.S. changes the worship experience.

The screen was supplemented with a four page (two sides of one piece of paper) handout that included the text and music for the Gloria (H82: S280), the gradual hymn, and the four-part offertory. People could have used the handout to face the Gospel book, but only some of the congregation picked it up beforehand.

I talked to the music director afterwards, and have a little more empathy for his difficult choices — both on distributing the text and (someday) the music. The handout doesn’t include everything to save money, and those who don’t read music probably won’t pick up the handout (so he needs to provide lyrics some other way).

Long term, they use too many praise hymns to get by with just a hymnal. He would like to put together a booklet of hymns and praise songs, but the musical canon of this young church is still (at least somewhat) evolving.

I am used to the hymnal + prayer book fumbling and find it strangely comforting. However, it really only works if you’ve memorized the service music as fumbling for three (or four hymns) is different from going back and forth between the prayer and the sanctus etc.

As Anglican churches continue to attract both non-Christians and non-liturgical Christians, I understand the need to make the service more approachable to visitors. I would argue that having a regular member help the confused visitor next to them is a better solution than any paper or technology.

That said, I do think my church (and other similar churches) have come up with the most reasonable compromise:

• Fixed service booklets (perhaps different ones for Ordinary Time, penitential and festal seasons) that include both the prayers and the service music (words and notes)
• A weekly insert of 4-8 pp. that includes the collect, Scripture readings and the hymn numbers — and a copy of any hymns not in the hymnal
• A hymnal for most (or all) of the hymns

If a church had a booklet instead of a hymnal, it could substitute for the latter. Personally, I hope to continue at a hymnal church for another 30-40 years, but we will see.

Longer term, some have suggested we should have e-books instead of paper books, booklets or inserts. It might work with a 6-10" screen, but the 4" screen of the typical cellphone is not very practical for this purpose. There is also the question of whether we want to further privilege the Holy Screen in our worship, or to say to newcomers without phones that they are not welcome.

So today’s use of screens for music and liturgy seems to be a short-term expedient, particularly for churches who can’t buy a set of books, don’t want to drag them each week to a temporary rented space, or are unwilling to commit to singing the same music two years in a row.

We will have a more elegant technical solution by the end of this century, but for now I think this compromise is a reasonable one.

Liturgical choices for new parishes

In visiting various Schism I and Schism II parishes this year, I have gotten a clearer idea of what the various alternatives are for those planting new Anglican churches. For today’s Anglo-Catholic church planting session at ICCA 2015, I thought I’d write down these alternatives for prospective church planters.

Some important choices are front and center, such as which diocese (or province) to affiliate with, stances on key theological issues (e.g. women’s ordination) and calling your first rector (vicar); these are beyond the scope of today’s effort. Instead, let me lay out a few less obvious ones, particularly those that apply to new Anglo-Catholic leaning parishes.

1. Physical Infrastructure

New churches have to make basic choices related to the physical infrastructure:

• Permanent or weekly setup. The proverbial school gym is available in any community, but requires weekly setup; an existing church will already be setup, but not available at prime time on Sunday morning (unless you find an abandoned church). Later on, parishes can have permanent setup on Sunday morning if they can afford to build or rent their own dedicated facilities.
• Altar and linens. Is there an existing altar setup or do you bring your own? Do you have colors to cover all the seasons? Do the color shades match your vestments?
• Kneeling. Will your service include kneeling — either for every prayer (ala 28 BCP) or at key points (confession, thanksgiving, before communion). If so, will there be permanent kneelers or temporary prayer cushions? (There’s the related issue of pews or chairs, but in my experience this is decided once you choose the site).
• Public address. Do you want to amplify the spoken liturgy? If so, is there a public address system (e.g. at a school or church) for the clergy or lay readers – with wireless mics – or do you bring your own?
• Musical infrastructure. Is there a mechanical piano, traditional organ, or electronic piano or organ? How does this tie into the PA? Does its placement allow conducting of (or by) the choir?
• Liturgy distribution. Prayer book, service booklet, or weekly printed order of service?
• Music distribution. Similarly is there a printed hymnal, hymns printed in the weekly bulletin, or projected on a screen? (By 2020, I expect some churches will be using real-time transmission to smartphones and tablets).

This does not count the infrastructure for the other six days per week: where do the rector (vicar) and parish staff hang out when there’s no worship service?

2. Liturgical Choices

The other key choices relate to worship and liturgy:

• Preferred Bible translation. The churches I visit tend towards ESV or RSV, but there may be some KJV, ASV, NIV, NRSV or other translations being used instead. (The CoE has listed 7 translations as being suitable). Are there printed books in the pews? (A good sign) Are they used? Do you need the Apocrypha — if so, it’s not available for the NIV or NKJV.
• Prayer Book. For US readers, I’m assuming the choices are the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or Rite I of the 1979 prayer book (the latter so flawed it prompted Schism I); to these two I’d add the 2003 REC prayer book which combines elements of the 1662 and US prayer books†. Some may consider the 1662 CoE BCP or — at the other extreme — the recent ACNA trial use liturgy, and some parishes will use a mixture of services.
• Alternate Variants of Key Prayers. In some liturgies, there are choices to include or omit passages, such as the General Confession vs. Confession Lite. Some congregations insist on reciting “we believe” in the Nicene Creed while others adhere to centuries of tradition and shared theological understanding.
• Lectionary. ACNA does not yet have its own lectionary, so the most likely choices seem to be Cranmer’s one-year lectionary (as embodied in 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662, 1896 and 1928 BCP), or the three year lectionary of the 1979 prayer book or the RCL.
• Hymnal. For US Anglicans, the choices seem to be Hymnal 1940, Hymnal 1982 or none. (I have seen parishes that use third party hymnals such as the Celebration Hymnal). The Anglo-Catholic parishes (with 1928 or Rite I) choose H40, while the parishes that split Rite I/Rite II (50/50, 60/40 or 40/60) parishes go with H82, and the rock band churches don’t need one at all.  To date, there is no service music exactly aligned to the ACNA liturgy, although in principle the changes for the contemporary H82 service music should be minor.
• Chanting (Service Music). Holy Communion potentially includes sung versions of the Kyrie (English or Latin) or Trisagion, Gloria, Psalm, Nicene Creed, Sanctus/Benedictus, Lord’s Prayer and Agnus Dei (not counting the Sursum Corda and other responsorial sentences). Which ones will be spoken, which ones chanted — and for those, what setting do you use? H40 has four (later eight) settings of the Kyrie+Gloria+Sanctus+Agnus Dei while H82 has four for Rite I and many more for Rite II. However, more important than matching the hymnal is having a familiar and stable set of choices (probably no more than 3 different liturgies in 12 months).

Of course, these have implications for the paid and volunteer staffing: priest(s), deacon(s), acolyte(s), lay readers, musicians, and others involved in the liturgy. My experience has been it’s virtually impossible to put on a traditional high mass (sung service) without a pianist or organist. (The Substitute Organ Service is designed for vacation relief and is not cost-effective for weekly use).

Defining Your Vision

When I spoke to veteran Anglo-Catholic church planter Fr. Chris Culpepper, he says he wish he had this list when he started his first parish in January 2008. IMHO, any church founder (lay, clerical) needs to decide personally which of these choices are essential, which are desirable and which are open. For example, in my own mind — and many that whose counsel I respect — the availability and use of kneeling is essential for creating a church that is contemplative, reverent and prayerful.

Once you have your own list, the planting team needs to bring their ideas together to discuss their corresponding hopes and vision. It is impossible to move forward unless this team can come to a common position on the nature of the church they are planting — and not only agree, but fully support the vision rather seek to undermine it or re-open key choices.

In talking with church planters, this part of an articulated vision going forward as the church grows and evolves. (That’s not to say that such choices are the entire vision, only key practicalities of defining what sort of church is being planted — and what will be needed to implement that church.)

At the same time, there is an important constituency not at the table: the future members who make the parish a success. WW II Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple (1881-1944) said: “The Church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members.” The vision should allow for flexibility, modification and extension to meet the needs and desires of the future members. For example, a H40 parish will use hymns from H82 (such as Amazing Grace or  Bread of Life) and many 28BCP or Rite I parishes offer a modern language service.

Conclusion

I don’t know that these are all the questions, but this list seems to cover most of the alternatives facing the teams that are launching a new parish from scratch.

The case of new TEC exiles is slightly different. In my travels, it appears that congregations that have lost their building tend to carry over #2 from their TEC days, while making new choices for #1 based on their budget (and sometimes an attempt to re-create what they once had).

† Note: corrected per feedback from Rev. Daniel Sparks.

The challenges and opportunities of post-Christian America

Despite the reputation of many Anglicans — especially Anglo-Catholics — of being inwardly focused (“sacristy rats”), the reality is that we need to be reaching out to reach new members, bring more people to (or back to) Christ, and fulfill the great commission of Matthew 28:18-20.

According to the headlines, the 2014 Pew “Religious Landscape Study” says Christianity is declining in America. But after listening to a May 13 interview with veteran religious journalist Terry Mattingly on Issues Etc. (especially the last half), I think the story is that the nominal Christians are no longer nominal and instead becoming vaguely spiritual or not religious at all. (Rod Dreher and Ed StetzerEd Stetzer have the same opinion).

On the one hand, this is a shame, because in my experience the raised-but-no-longer-Christian are the easiest to bring to church: they know of the faith, they often know it’s important, and they’ve just been (without knowing it) waiting for an point in their life when they realized that knowing and worshipping God is the most important thing we can do in this life. To some degree that’s my own journey. Still, Stetzer has advice on how to reach both audiences with the Christian message.

Mattingly's interview talks about his own (latest) denomination, the Eastern Orthodox, and how successful Orthodox parishes are those that can reach visitors who are “looking for a beautiful, stable, creedal version of the faith.” This seems like a goal ready-made for Anglo-Catholic Anglicans.

Finally, the headline version of survey results lists Episcopalian/Anglican as 1.2% of the country: 0.9% for TEC and 0.3% for the non-TEC Anglicans. By comparison, ELCA is 1.4%, and more evangelical Lutherans (such as LCMS and WELS) total 1.5%.

The age and education distribution seem similar (with TEC having more graduate degrees and the Anglicans having more college graduates overall). The one notable difference is that 5% of the TEC are shacking up (“living with a partner”) vs. 1% of the Anglicans. The proportion of never-married (unmarried + living together) is about the same — 20% for Anglicans and 21% for TEC — so our need to minister to those seeking to marry (and hopefully raise kids) in the church is more urgent than ever.