The Study of Liturgy and Worship
Benjamin Gordon-Taylor and Juliette Day The Study of Liturgy and Worship London: SPCK, 2013 ISBN 978–0‑281–06909‑5. pp.272. £25.00 pbk.
Back in the day when ‘Liturgy’ was Dix and ‘Worship’ was Underhill, ‘Study’ tended to focus on detailed analysis of increasingly narrow topics. When those who studied liturgy had been nurtured on a Tridentine Mass or a Prayer Book Communion service, much could be taken for granted.
So a book that takes liturgical study out of its straitjacket is highly welcome. Here, in a single volume are 22 essays of roughly equal length, grouped under four headings. ‘Foundations’ opens with essays on Worship and Liturgy. The second section, ‘Elements’, looks at Time, Space, Music, Language and Ministries. The third section, ‘Event’, deals with specific occasions for liturgy, whilst the most challenging chapters are perhaps those of the fourth section of the book, described as ‘Dimensions’. Here, in the chapter on Ethics, Siobhán Garrigan notes how at times ‘liturgy has failed to change, and might even have aided, some of the world’s greatest unethical situations.’ She notes that the Old Testament prophets were only too well aware of the need for worship to be ethical. We neglect their warnings at our peril (‘I hate, I despise your festivals’ Amos 5.21 and ‘Do not trust these deceptive words “This is the temple of the Lord”’ Jeremiah 7.4). She notes how Karl Rahner, at the Second Vatican Council, argued that ‘if you do not get life right, you cannot get liturgy right.’
Ruth Meyers in the following chapter reminds us of the place of worship in forming people for Mission, and building a ‘Mission-Shaped Church’. Philip Tovey’s chapter on Culture reminds us of how slowly and grudgingly progress has been made. The Second Vatican Council had raised the issue but going beyond vernacular masses (which was a huge step), real change expressive of different cultures has been limited. He also notes that The Anglican Communion, with prayers for ‘us and for all men’ has been slow to adopt inclusive language and produce liturgies for occasions when a significant proportion of communicants are children.
‘Dimensions’ concludes with Myra Blyth’s chapter on Ecumenism. She writes as a Baptist minister who spent many years at the World Council of Churches. Churches have moved from priding themselves on fine distinctions and divisions to heeding Jesus’ prayer that all should be one. The Lima document on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry was a real milestone. But, Blyth notes, there have been setbacks. She writes, ‘For Margaret Kässmann, former Bishop of Berlin-Brandenberg, the (2003) report and especially the framework for common prayer, represents a backward step on the ecumenical journey. It is “a document of fear which takes great care to establish the boundaries that divide us”’.
The inclusion of these themes as equal has produced a well-rounded study. But this has meant that much has had to be abbreviated and the valuable list of further reading at the end of each chapter will need to be accessed in order to explore each topic in more depth. I might have looked for a longer chapter on ‘Eucharist’ but the chapters on ‘Ritual’, on ‘Prayer’ and on ‘Sign and Symbol’ and ‘Word and Sacrament’ provide valuable insights to add to what is found there.
The importance of ‘Word’ is also stressed in chapters on liturgical language, and on Proclamation, which can bring us back to noting the importance of a chapter on Ethics. These discrete essays fit together superbly. The richness and diversity of content has meant that the reviewer has found a great deal of importance beyond what might have been expected; essays on Eucharist, Services of the Word, and those which mark membership and rites of passage. The way the book is constructed means that no aspect can be treated in isolation, and the totality of what it offers will make a great contribution to enabling those responsible for worship to make it a transforming and enriching experience.
1 CommentLiturgy Matters
Does liturgy matter?
I recently participated in a ‘course’ intended for those considering for the first time questions of spirituality and religion. (I won’t name names, but it probably isn’t a course you’ve heard of.) I wasn’t able to be involved in very many of the sessions, but what struck me was that the content was about me — what I think, what I believe. Maybe that is a good way to try and approach people with little or no experience of Christianity.
But it is quite a long way from what Christianity is. Although much is made of what Christians should or should not believe, at its heart Christianity is about what we do.
In that phrase both the pronoun and the verb are important: the ‘we’ and the ‘do’.
We intend through this blog to explore the ‘we’ and the ‘do’ in the context of liturgy — not because liturgy is necessarily the most important thing that we do, but because it is part of what we do.
And we shall consider liturgy in the context of how we as Christians live our lives. That’s a collective thing, as our worship transforms the community in which we belong — and also as our community transforms our worship. We shall consider the view that we are engaged in a public theology, that is, debate and engagement in the public space with those who are inside the Church, those who are on the fringes — and those, if they care to join us, who consider themselves as outside. In taking this view we are following the example of Jesus, for whom public ministry and public theology were at the heart of all that he proclaimed. Living as a public figure, and dying the death of a public criminal, a primary form of his ministry was at the table. For Jesus, this radical table ministry became the means by which he not only preached but also lived and exemplified the kingdom of God. And ultimately — as Robert Karris wrote — ‘Jesus got himself crucified by the way he ate’.
It is perhaps paradoxical, at first sight, that the continuation of Jesus’s table ministry lies at the heart of our worship. The Eucharist is in many places an act of great miracle, great symbolism and doctrinal significance, and great personal devotion. Yet when we break bread together at the Eucharist, we are sharing that table fellowship which he began and which has been continued by his followers. Overlaid with other meanings and theologies though it may be, this is central to our liturgical life. Because when we break bread together in this way, we recognize the presence of the risen Christ among us, once again.
There are lots of subtleties and theological ideas to consider in among all that — and we intend to look at some of them in this blog — but fundamentally we intend to explore the continuing relevance of that table ministry in the Church today, how it relates to our eucharistic worship, how it relates to our mission to the world, how it meets (or doesn’t meet) people’s spiritual needs and how it relates to the proclamation of the kingdom of God, with its call for mutual reconciliation and for social justice.
In addition, liturgy should be worthy of offering to God; and it should inspire and fulfil us, refresh and enthuse us, and help form us and others to live that life in all its fullness which Jesus preached. We will look at all that too.
We shall try not to be overly concerned about doctrine and dogma. Doctrine and dogma have their place; but here we want to think about what we say and what we do, and how by saying and doing, both in worship and in life, we proclaim and live where God’s kingdom is at hand.
Yes, liturgy matters.
3 CommentsIntroducing Thinking Liturgy
A decade or so ago we began Thinking Anglicans with the express intention of proclaiming
a tolerant, progressive and compassionate Christian spirituality, in which justice is central to the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom of God. Our spirituality must engage with the world, and be consistent with the scientific and philosophical understanding on which our modern world is based. It must address the changes which science and technology have brought into our lives.
Implicit in that was a connection between what we do in Church and what we do in the world. We seek to share our food with the hungry, we seek justice for the oppressed and the captive, we seek a new start for all and recognize the wrongs that we and others have done to individuals and groups, as well as to other creatures and the physical world.
These things are intimately linked with what we do in Church. We gather around lectern and table to hear and receive the Word of God; we share forgiveness and peace with our neighbours, and eat with them, recognizing the presence of Christ as we do so. We are the body of Christ, not just in Church, but in the world. Our table fellowship is not just a symbolic table fellowship existing only within the confines of the church building; rather, all these things are one.
This close relationship was rediscovered both by the Evangelical revival and by the Oxford Movement. It was fundamental to the rise of Christian Socialism and lay at the heart of the Parish Communion movement.
And so in this new blog we shall look at the link and explore how our worship can reflect the social justice that we have proclaimed, and at the continuing relevance of this in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The title ‘Thinking Liturgy’ connects this blog to the parent ‘Thinking Anglicans’ and also indicates the intention to think about liturgy and promote liturgy that is thoughtful. We shall cover a range of liturgical topics and news, and try not to be confined to any particular theological or doctrinal stance or ‘churchmanship’, though our focus will be largely Anglican and English. We shall consider too how our worship, our liturgy, impacts on our mission. We intend to promote and share good liturgical practice, among both laity and clergy, and we shall explore liturgical presidency. We may provide sample material, and news of synodical authorization and commendation. We intend to review books and also services and buildings, and we will cover related blogs and other material on the internet. We expect to have a number of guest contributors and we welcome spirited liturgical discussion.
17 CommentsLincolnshire and Superlative
Over the last few weeks I’ve been learning two new Surprise Major methods: Lincolnshire and Superlative.
Lincolnshire was learnt first, and afer a gap of several weeks when I was unable to make Wednesday night’s practice, I finally got a chance to ring it. Naturally, we didn’t get to the end of the plain course the first time I tried — but I was still quite pleased as it hadn’t failed because of me. We tried again a little later and managed the whole plain course.
With Lincolnshire successfully rung we were challenged to learn Superlative. There’s a group of about five of us at this practice who are all learning these methods together. Fortunately there are enough other more experienced ringers (as well as others less experienced) who can already ring these methods so that we can try with just two or three learners at a time. With all five it would probably be impossible!
Having been set Superlative a couple of weeks ago we had several goes at it last week. I was reasonably confident of having learnt the blue line and the place bells — but as usual we failed first time. Another go and we failed again. Last night a few more tries, and on the second of these we managed to get through a plain course of Superlative Surprise Major. I managed to keep my place, even pretty much remembering where each place bell starts and ends right up until the last few strokes: ringing the 6 meant that in the last lead I was 2nd place bell, and having done the front work I dodged 3/4 up when another ringer called to me, ‘With me,’ and that was sufficient to make me wonder where I was meant to be, rather than just doing it! After a pull or two I realized that I should now be doing 5–6 places up, so I hung around in 5–6 trying to work out just where I should be. This was enough to get us to the end of the plain course, since the 2nd place bell stays in 5–6 until the lead end.
Try harder next time, but not bad, I guess.
0 Commentstowards spliced Surprise
Recently another tower in the area has held a monthly practice for budding Surprise ringers. We’ve been practising Cambridge and Yorkshire with the intention of eventually ringing them spliced together, but we’re not quite at that stage yet. Those attending have included a suitable mix of expert and novice Surprise ringers — it would be next to impossible with all novices!
A necessary step in splicing these methods is to learn what each place bell does, and which place bell it becomes afterwards. Fortunately the order in which place bell succeeds place bell is the same in both Cambridge and Yorkshire: 2, 6, 7, 3, 4, 8, 5, and back to 2. In addition the work of the 3rd place bell is identical in both methods, and most of the others start and finish with similar bits of work. As usual in ringing, what has to be done is to memorize completely these pieces of work so that they can be instantly recalled and interchanged, so in an attempt to do so I have set down here, from memory, what each bell has to do in each method.
| Cambridge | Yorkshire |
| 2nd place bell | |
|
|
| and become 6th place bell | |
| 3rd place bell: | |
|
|
| and become 4th place bell | |
| 4th place bell: | |
|
|
| and become 8th place bell | |
| 5th place bell: | |
|
|
| and become the 2nd place bell | |
| 6th place bell: | |
|
|
| and become 7th place bell | |
| 7th place bell: | |
|
|
| and become the 3rd place bell | |
| 8th place bell: | |
|
|
| and become the 5th place bell. | |
Calling Plain Bob
Over the last few of weeks I have been calling simple touches of Bob Major and Bob Triples.
First was Bob Major, three weeks ago. ‘Call a touch of Bob Major’, asked the captain at Wednesday practice. ‘What do I call?’ I responded, already holding the rope of the number 6 bell. He thought for a moment and replied ‘Call a bob at the end of the first lead, and then at the end of the fourth and the fifth; and then repeat.’ Okay, I thought, can I remember that at short notice? So off we went, about to dodge 7–8 down so call ‘bob!’, then 7–8 up, 5–6 up, about to dodge 3–4 up so ‘bob!’ and make the bob, next is 5–6 down and don’t forget to call ‘bob!’ first. That’s half way, now we just have to call a similar pattern of bobs. So, ‘bob!’ at 7–8 down, then 7–8 up, 5–6 up, and now I’ve lost count of how many leads there have been — is there a bob next time or not? A nudge from another ringer and I manage to call the bob at exactly the right point, and make the bob. Then ‘bob!’ again, dodge 5–6 down and ‘That’s all’.
Afterwards, at home, I look this up, and find it is the most commonly called touch of Bob Major, which when called from the Tenor is: ‘wrong’, three ‘befores’, ‘middle’ and ‘home’, but can be rung from any bell by remembering the leads: bob, plain, plain, bob, bob; repeat.
Last night the request was similar: ‘Call a touch of Bob Triples’. Again, I have to ask what to call, and this time the reply is, ‘Call plain, bob, bob, plain, and repeat.’
I am holding the rope of number 7, and off we go. 5–6 up at the end of the first lead, then about to dodge 3–4 up, so ‘bob!’ and make the bob. Then about to dodge 5–6 down, so ‘bob!’ and dodge unaffected. Next time it’s four blows behind and I see that I am simply back at my starting position, so the calls of the second half will be exactly the same as the first half, and when we get to the four blows behind then ‘that’s all’.
0 Commentsmore Stedman
Since that first success at calling a simple touch of Stedman Triples, I have called several more touches. The next touch to learn, after the initial 2 Qs is Q & S twice (or S & Q twice, depending which bell you are ringing).
An S call, is a pair of bobs, the first called when you are dodging 4–5 down and about to go in slow, and the second called 6 blows later (at the handstroke lead of the first whole turn). This contrasts with a Q call which is a pair of bobs called as you are about to go in quick, and at the handstroke in 2nds place after leading.
Stedman has a couple of other places to call pairs of bobs that leave you unaffected by the call. Each of these pairs occurs during the slow work, and they are labelled ‘H’ and ‘L’.
H is a pair of bobs called either side of the first half turn. L is a pair of bobs called during the last whole turn.
Of course, it is also possible to call bobs in 6–7 up and down, and in 4–5 up. But in this piece we will look at the bobs called during the slow work. And we will look at the way that the Stedman frontwork is constructed.
Stedman frontwork, we recall, consists of alternate ‘sixes’ of forward hunting and backward hunting. When learning Stedman we worked these sixes out then recast them into the traditional Stedman chunks of work — first whole turn, first half turn, second half turn, last whole turn. But it can also be helpful to ring it as alternate sixes of forward and backward hunting. This helps to keep the sixes distinct, and to remember which is a quick six and which a slow six (which helps you tell another bell how to come in, quick or slow, if necessary). In addition, calls of ‘bob’ (or ‘single’) are made at the penultimate stroke of each six, so remembering where the sixes are helps you know when to call the bobs, without having to overlay them on the whole and half turn structure.
–x slow six = backward hunting, so lie in 3rd place
–x
-x-
x– and lead at backstroke and handstroke
x–
-x-
x– quick six = forward hunting, so lead at hand and back
x–
-x-
–x lie in 3rd place, back and hand
–x
-x-
x– slow six = backward hunting
-x-
–x lie in 3rd place, hand and back
–x
-x-
x–
-x- quick six = forward hunting
–x lie in 3rd place, back and hand
–x
-x-
x– lead at hand and back
x–
-x- slow six = backward hunting
x– lead at back and hand
x–
-x-
–x lie in 3rd place, hand and back
–x
learning Yorkshire Surprise Major
Homework time again. This time we’ve been told to learn Yorkshire (Yorkshire Surprise Major) for next week. It’s been a while since I set out to learn a new method – perhaps it’s becoming easier. We shall see.
Yorkshire is similar in parts to Cambridge (the method, not the geography, that is). Whereas Cambridge contains ‘Cambridge places’, Yorkshire has a shorter form ‘Yorkshire places’ or ‘short places’ of dodge, make places, dodge (whereas in Cambridge it is: dodge, make places, dodge, make places, dodge). Places are made in 3–4 and in 5–6 up and down. Here for example is how you ring Yorkshire places in 3–4
up:
-x——
–x—– Yorkshire 3–4 places up
—x—-
–x—–
—x—-
—x—-
–x—–
–x—–
—x—-
–x—–
—x—-
—-x— and carry on up
The backwork is identical to that in Cambridge – and indeed, Yorkshire is identical to Cambridge if you are above the treble. This means that whenever you pass above the treble you do whatever you would have done in Cambridge if you had passed the treble at that point, and this continues until you pass below the treble. Now if only I could ring Cambridge by the treble this might be some help!
Yorkshire also includes the frontwork of Cambridge, but it is split into two separate halves, and you don’t get to dodge or make seconds over the treble in either half.
First thing is to try and remember the order of work, which looks like this, assuming we are ringing the 2.
dodge down with the treble
treble bob up
triple-dodge in 5–6 up
2 & 1 at the back (double dodge 7–8 up, lie, single dodge 7–8 down)
dodge 5–6 down
straight down to the lead
second half of frontwork (dodge down, lead, make 2nds, dodge down, dodge up)
straight up
Yorkshire places in 5–6 up
treble bob at the back (dodge 7–8 up, lie, dodge 7–8 down)
Yorkshire places 3–4 down
dodge and lead
Yorkshire places 3–4 up
dodge 5–6 up
backwork
dodge 5–6 down
Yorkshire places 3–4 down
lead and dodge
Yorkshire places 3–4 up
treble bob at the back
Yorkshire places 5–6 down
first half of the frontwork (dodge down, dodge up, make 2nds, lead, dodge up)
dodge 5–6 up
1 & 2 at the back
triple-dodge 5–6 down
treble bob down to the lead
dodge 1–2 up with the treble
make 2nds place
Armed with this information we can write out a plain course of Yorkshire, here given for the 3 …
0 Commentsa golden quarter peal
| At All Saints’, St Ives, on Sunday morning, 29 July 2007 at 9.15a.m., a quarter peal of 1260 Plain Bob Triples was rung in 45 minutes. | |||
| Weight of Tenor: 12–0‑4 in G | |||
| Adam Safford | Treble | Anne East | 5 |
| Bridget White | 2 | Sally Walker | 6 |
| Simon Kershaw | 3 | Michael V White | 7 |
| Duncan Walker | 4 | Ron East | Tenor |
| Composed and Conducted by Michael V White | |||
| Rung to celebrate the Golden Wedding anniversary of John and Sheila Rhodes, married on Saturday 28 July 1957 | |||
Calling Stedman Triples
Stedman Triples is a method for which I have a particular affection. When I began to ring it was almost the first method to which I rang the tenor behind — the double dodging of bells in 6–7 making it easier than many methods to see which bells to ring over. And a couple of years later, in 2004, I began to learn to ring an inside bell.
Now I can generally ring touches of Stedman Triples, coping with bobs (even odd bobs) and (usually) remembering all the details of the slow work.
Last week at practice at Hemingford Grey I called a touch of Grandsire Triples, and checking this touch afterwards in Coleman, I read on into the next chapter, about calling Stedman Triples. There I discovered that actually it was quite easy to call a simple touch. And so tonight when the tower captain suggested a touch of Stedman I asked if I could call it. Choosing the 6, I intended to call ‘Two Qs’, that is, to call two pairs of bobs — each pair consisting of a bob just before going in quick and then in second place after leading. So off we went, and I called the first bob a whole pull too early, and shortly thereafter asked for rounds. Off we went ago and this time I got the first two bobs right, ran through the rest of the course and called the third bob, and then it began to go wrong. The two bells in 6–7 apparently didn’t hear the call of ‘bob’, and with them awry I landed on the front and went a bit wrong too. Rounds again. Enough for that attempt, so we stood and rang something else.
Later we had another go. This time we got to the fourth bob, and on past there until I went in slow and there clearly weren’t enough bells on the front! Rounds again, and then try once more: dodge with the 7, then double dodge with the treble, ‘bob’, in quick, ‘bob’, out quick, double dodge up to the back and down again, in slow, out slow, double dodge up to the back and down again, ‘bob’, in quick, ‘bob’, out quick, double dodge up to the back and down once again, in and out slow (nearly there now), double dodge up to the back (we’re going to make it), dodge 6–7 down, and ‘that’s all’ — we’ve done it, and I have successfully called a touch of Stedman Triples. Yay! A real sense of achievement, and smiles all round.
0 Comments