hermionesviolin: (anime night)
Elizabeth (the delinquent, ecumenical) ([personal profile] hermionesviolin) wrote2006-12-10 09:40 pm

The Second Sunday of Advent

Today I went to service at St. James Episcopal.  I purposely included some Episcopal churches in my church-hopping during the Advent season because I actually enjoy high church stuff during Advent.  This morning, though, I found myself trying to recall what I had meant by that because I am so not Episcopalian.

When I went to Emmanuel Episcopal, I noted that Episcopal liturgy immediately indicates to me that I don't belong, and [livejournal.com profile] mari4212 commented that being raised Episcopalian her experience is the opposite.  I was thinking of this during the service this morning when I was feeling so at sea trying to follow along.  It's not particularly newbie-unfriendly, but all the standing and sitting and congregational response is so much less clearly delineated than I'm used to (in large part I'm not used to using the Book of Common Prayer).

Mari said, "I feel very left out in the low-church services where there's no set places for the laity to respond," whereas I would much rather focus on listening and taking notes and processing and responding internally, instead of slipping between books always thinking about what I'm actually willing to say.  (This is of course not so much a function of my low-church-ness as it is a function of my problematic relationship to Christianity and my hardcore intentionality issues.)

It hadn't occurred to me before, for all my calling Anglicanism/Episcopalianism "Catholic Lite," that they probably use the Apocrypha.  The First Reading today as Baruch 5:1-9.  The Second Reading was Philippians 1:3-11, and the Gospel Reading was Luke 3:1-6.  (I continue to prize Scripture over tradition, though I've come to respect [the value of] tradition much more in the past year or so, but the processing of the Bible and all -- and dude, the reverend kissed it after the reading! -- makes me so uncomfortable.)

The homily focused on "preparing the way" (cf. the Luke reading, which of course after Joel's OT class always makes me think of how it's misquoting Isaiah, though I recognize that's not the main point).  He compared it to the work of getting land ready for the construction of a house, and said that one one way of preparing for a great event is living into the dream -- from whence he talked about y'know being good people, though it was the construction metaphors that actually stuck in my mind.

I recited the Nicene Creed mostly unproblematically, which surprised me as I'm used to thinking of myself as having such an antagonistic relationship to the Creed.  It's the Apostles Creed that really throws me, with its Harrowing of Hell bit.

The Lighting of the Advent Wreath didn't say which candle we were lighting, which bothered me.  (Hope was last week, which leaves us with Peace and Joy since I think Love is the pink one.)

The back of the program says:
Though this service of Holy Communion is Anglican (Episcopal) in liturgy and tradition, we are mindful that it is the Lord's table and not ours.  If you wish to receive the sacrament, you are most welcome.  Your participation would enrich our community and make us more fully the Body of Christ.
The reverend said that while it looks like they own the table, they don't, God does, so, "Wherever you are on your spiritual journey, know that God invites you to God's table."  I hadn't been planning to take Communion but decided to.

They tear real bread, which I wasn't expecting, and which made me almost expect grape juice, so the wine startled me a bit.

The back of the program at the bottom says:
Preach the Gospel at all times;
    When necessary, use words.
St. Francis of Assisi
I greeted the reverend in the receiving line after the service and he thought I'd been here before.  "Your twin was here last week."  (Mom, did you go to church in Somerville last week? ;) )  They're having a pot luck on Wednesday, which I think I'm gonna go to, even though I'll probably end up having to explain that I'm not actually Episcopalian (nor am I interested in becoming so) since I never actually said that to any of the people I talked to today (in part because I was feeling really negative toward the service and didn't trust myself to be appropriate in any discussion about denominationality).

I had yummy coffee cake and talked with a few people, and each conversation was awkward, with people wanting to be friendly but not really having anything to say (there were literally moments of just looking at each other in silence) which I wasn't used to.

The guy I talked to the longest, his mother and sister are both Smithies (graduating 35 years apart), and he's a Harvard B.A. and said he thought taking a few years off before grad school was a very good idea, which was comforting to me since I'm currently feeling so incapable of doing upper-level coursework.

*

I went to a 1:30pm performance of the Urban Nutcracker

It opens with a dance-off (flamenco and tap), which was pretty cool.  The background, who also had their own dance segments, were dressed in sweats and included a number of heavyset women which made me happy.  There was also a breakdancing segment, which was very cool to watch, especially the astonishing little boy (he not only did that thing where you fold your body in half, but he also spun on his head).  There was a cluster of older black guys in bright blue blazers whose style reminded me of the minions dancing with Dawn in OMWF (this is not a diss).  I was impressed they included older people in the cast.  The cast was mostly black and white, though there were some Hispanics and a couple Asians.

I read the program beforehand and thus knew what was going on, but some stuff I think I would have missed otherwise.  Like, Clarice's first encounter with Drosselmeyer went too quickly for me to really feel her enchantment with him.  Also, the program says, "Omar, her brother, receives from Drosselmeyer a stuffed toy mouse and uses it to scare the girls.  Omar chases Clarice with the mouse.  When Clarice tries to fend off the toy mouse with her Nutcracker soldier, Omar grabs it and breaks it."  I saw Drosselmeyer and Minimeyer handing out stuffed animals, but I didn't see Omar get one, and I saw him and Clarice chasing each other around one of the adults and then playing tug-of-war with the Nutcracker, but apparently blinked and missed the actual catalyst -- which seems to me an important foundational piece given the fantasy battle.  I did notice how Omar was specifically shown (subtly) as kind of fighting with Clarice for attention.  Also, Clarice hitting the Mouse King with her slipper; I don't know if I blinked or something, but I just saw her pulling at her slipper on her foot and then the Mouse King and the Nutcracker both falling down; it was slightly more clear when she was telling the story to the Sugar Plum Fairy.

I was impressed by how many different backdrops they had, and the costumes in the second half (the dancers from around the world) were great, though I could have done without a passel of girls in red bras and harem pants, and the Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe also bothered me.

*

P.S. Mom, one of the ads in the program was for Alvin Ailey at the Wang Center: April 26-29.

[identity profile] mari4212.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
I haven't heard those names for the candles before. I've heard them refered to as Angel candle (first week), Sheppard candle (second week), Mary candle (third week, pink one if you're doing the purple and pink candles), and Kings candle (last week) instead.

I think one of the differences in our reaction to the differnt services is that I'm focused on worship as a community, whereas you seem to focus more on the internal headspace and introspection, and you seem to want that time in the service to do that introspective aspect.

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 03:32 am (UTC)(link)
Wow, I have NEVER heard those names for the candles. I was actually thinking recently that if churches were gonna refrain from doing the real Christmas carols during Advent as part of the preparation aspect, they could at least come up with some sort of narrative structure for the preparation, and it sounds like. (P.S. It's spelled "Shepherd" -- one who herds sheps, I mean sheep ;) )

In the church I grew up in, a family did the Advent candle lighting each week, doing a short reading from the Gospel and also reading some pre-printed bit about that week's candle's theme (Hope, Peace, Love, Joy), so to me that's always how Advent candle lightings "should" be done, though I've been to other Advent services that didn't do it exactly that way but which I still enjoyed.


Yeah, I am very intellectually/academically oriented, and while I do very much believe in God, the idea of worship is actually uncomfortable to me, and my approach to everything religious is very me-oriented. I want to be fed intellectually (this is in part a function of growing up low church where the bulk of the Sunday service is the sermon; I've LJed on a number of occasions about how Communion isn't usually a particular resonant thing for me and functions mostly as a statement about my relationship to the particular community I am sitting with at that moment rather than anything about me and God). I'm slowly coming to understand/respect the value of community worship more, but my default is still that going to Sunday service is about the sermon and about building relationship with a particular community.

There's also just the fact that we grew up with different formats. I feel much more able to get into... if not exactly a worshipful frame of mind, at least more spiritually inclined, when I'm not feeling like the service setup is so foreign.

[identity profile] glacierscout.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 11:19 am (UTC)(link)
[livejournal.com profile] mari4212's dad here. You're welcome to stop by my page for a visit or two. I post notes from the adult Sunday School classes on my page, so that [livejournal.com profile] mari4212 can keep up-to-date while she's off to school.

I can appreciate the "Catholic Light" aspects of the Episcopal Church, since I grew up catholic, discovered my own faith in college, and ended up a Protestant. I discovered the Episcopal Church while in grad school, and never left.

The whole point of the Episcopal Church today is that it isn't a community that has to believe in the same things, it's a community that worships together, and the common experience of worship, as well as the socializing that takes place before, after and even during the service helps bond the community together. In that respect, the eucharist can be seen as re-enacting our meals together. I always check on the health of an Episcopal community by how long sharing the peace takes, and how hard the priest has to work to get the people back to the pews to continue the service.

This community-mindednesss allows for a remarkable amount of freedom of belief and toleration of diversity within a community. There were two people in the first Episcopal church I attended who exemplified this. One was a recovering alcoholic, who held to a very rigid moral code, and as a result, was a mamber of the Moral Majority. The second distrusted Ted Kennedy, because he was too conservative. The two of them could never agree on moral issues, politics or social concerns. nevertheless, they could be best of friends because they were members of the same church and worshiped together.

Sadly, there are destructive forces working in the Episcopal Church from both without and within who seem to be trying to tear apart the church, by demolishing that tolerant philosophy and insisting that we all have to believe and act the same. That intention alone makes me want to reject the conservatives who oppose women's ordination, the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Church, and the rejection of our new (female) presiding bishop.

[identity profile] sk8eeyore.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 03:49 pm (UTC)(link)
I hope [livejournal.com profile] hermionesviolin doesn't mind me butting into her comments, and that you wouldn't mind a couple of questions from a confused seminarian :)

I just started attending an Episcopal parish (low-church, evangelical) last year, and I really love it, but I'm very uncertain as to whether Anglicanism/the Episcopal Church would be right for me. I definitely like that there is diversity in worship -- ranging from Anglo-Catholics to charismatics -- and I like that there's a range of theological emphases (with some people leaning more Catholic, others more Reformed, etc.). But the idea that we don't need to believe the same things gives me pause. Certainly with regard to "inessentials" that's a good thing. But when it comes to the Creed, for example, is it really a good thing if we're allowed to hold a range of views on, say, the divinity of Jesus Christ? What does it mean to worship together if we don't agree Who is it that we're worshiping? I think there's a big difference between being inflexibly dogmatic and saying that there are certain core convictions that ground who we are as the Body of Christ...

I keep saying that I'm going to spend time studying the English Reformers to try to better understand the rationale underlying Anglicanism. Maybe that will help... For now, I remain confused about how common worship can hold together a community that encompasses wildly different beliefs. I'd like to understand it, because there are many things I love: the Eucharist, mainly, and the sense of being connected to the ancient tradition of the Church (something other Protestant bodies often lack), and the sense of membership in a worldwide Communion. However, sometimes I wonder if my doctrinal leanings make me better suited for a more conservative Protestant church, or even Eastern Orthodoxy...

Do you have any insights for me? They'd be greatly appreciated :)

[identity profile] glacierscout.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 05:42 pm (UTC)(link)
While the Episcopal church does enfold a wide variety of theological positions, we aren't so broad or inclusive that we'd be confused with a more liturgical Unitarian Universalist church. The vast majority of Episcopalians are reasonably comfortable within the main Protestant traditions, while a significant minority are comfortable with the more Catholic worship habits. As a former Roman, I jokingly claim that the Episcopal church is one place where you can think like a Protestant and act like a Catholic - except that it's really not that much of a joke.

A few of the things that unite us - the Creeds and the sacraments.

The Apostle's Creed is our baptismal covenant, and we recite the Nicene Creed on Sundays when we don't have a baptism. The main points about reciting and believing in the creeds is that they are part of our corporate worship ("we", not "I"), and that there really is a lot of room for a diversity of positions about what each of the creedal statements means.

The sacraments and to a lesser extent the liturgical year help center us into life and the rhythms of our life. We celebrate God's grace in the significant passages of life, birth (Baptism), maturity (Confirmation), marriage (Matrimony), vocation (Ordination), sickness and death (Anointing). Eucharist is the reminder of how we need the ongoing grace and nourishment of God with us, and helps sanctify the common table. Reconciliation puts a human face on the once-and done forgiveness of the sins we commit daily.

Within those traditions and practices, there's room for a wide range of theological and political positions. There's also real recognition of growth and change in our life and belief. One of the criticisms I have of the most hard-core evangelical churches is that there's little to do after going forward at an altar call, other than avoiding the sins that made us need to repent in the first place. An exaggeration perhaps, but when sermons keep harping on the initial salvation message and altar calls, it's easy to see how that can happen. Episcopal worship seriously recognizes the process of sanctification, the ongoing growth and development of a Christian over time. It also frees me to be more tolerant of people that I might not think have a deep enough or genuine enough faith right now. At least they're in church, they're hearing the message, and their faith will grow and change with time.

Finally, when done well, Episcopal worship and tolerance reinforces the belief that we are all part of a single community, and that our neighbor's welfare matters to us. As I'm sure you know, Episcopal harmony is being sorely tested by disputes over issues like acceptance of homosexuality. In our parish, it was less of an issue than elsewhere, because we have more than one same-sex couple in our parish, and where some people might have been upset if some anonymous "Them" at another parish wanted their relationship blessed, when Patti and Lisa wanted to celebrate their 25th anniversary as a couple, everyone wanted to be there for the party.

Feel free to stop by my page - I post on religion reasonably often - less eloquently than [livejournal.com profile] hermionesviolin to be sure, but the information is there nonetheless.

[identity profile] sk8eeyore.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 11:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for the response. I've heard very similar things from many of the Episcopalians who go to my seminary. As much as I love my parish, it's a fairly unusual one from what I've heard, and I'm still far from convinced that I'm called to identify as an Anglican... I'm rather disenchanted with the consumerist ethos that says I should choose a community according to what resonates with me, and yet, I feel compelled to hold out until I find the place where I'll be challenged both ethically and doctrinally, drawn beyond myself into maturity in Christ. Right now it's St. John's, maybe it'll continue to happen in Episcopal churches after I leave here, or maybe someplace entirely different. God has taken me to all kinds of unexpected places in the past and undoubtedly will again.

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 05:06 am (UTC)(link)
I post on religion reasonably often - less eloquently than [livejournal.com profile] hermionesviolin to be sure, but the information is there nonetheless.

::blushes::

[identity profile] glacierscout.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 05:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Check my writings, and I'm sure you'd agree.

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 05:02 am (UTC)(link)
I hope [livejournal.com profile] hermionesviolin doesn't mind me butting into her comments

Darling, haven't you learned yet? I always welcome discussion in my LJ, whether I'm directly involved or not.

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 05:00 am (UTC)(link)
I always check on the health of an Episcopal community by how long sharing the peace takes, and how hard the priest has to work to get the people back to the pews to continue the service.

:) Interesting. I actually get annoyed with the Passing of the Peace as a meet-and-greet -- intentionality issues are huge with me, so when something's billed as passing the peace of Christ I don't want it to be a lot of "good morning's" and chatting; also, despite my frequent comments about how I'm very much not worship-oriented, I have come to really value shifting myself into a... if not exactly a worshipful frame of mind, at least more spiritually inclined mindset for a space of time, and I like the idea of being in a space where that's everyone's mindset.

Sadly, there are destructive forces working in the Episcopal Church from both without and within who seem to be trying to tear apart the church, by demolishing that tolerant philosophy and insisting that we all have to believe and act the same. That intention alone makes me want to reject the conservatives who oppose women's ordination, the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Church, and the rejection of our new (female) presiding bishop.

But aren't the liberals equally at fault for insisting everyone be okay with queer people and ordained women? I mean, personally I self-identify as queer and believe that to be a part of the blessing of how I was created by God, and I think women (and trans/intersexed/genderqueer/etc. persons) have just as much place in all parts of the life of the church as men, but if one is going to praise toleration one has to recognize that both sides are insisting that the other side accept their position. I think mutually respectful dialogue is hugely crucial, but a lot of these issues are ones where the community has to decide one way or another (though yes a lot of work can be done so that these issues don't rip apart communities).

[identity profile] glacierscout.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)
I think that those of us who are "liberal" have been tolerant, by both including the previously outcast members of our community, and by being tolerant of those that disagree. We're actually getting to the point where the conservatives are asking for the "heckler's veto", instead of trying to work for some sort of accomodation.

The Episcopal Church started ordaining women thirty years ago. The vast majority of the church went along with that, but several diocese opposed this, and to this day, women cannot be ordained in those areas. Nevertheless, the wider church has made accomodations to them, going so far as to approve bishops who oppose women's ordination for those diocese, because that is the will of those people. We have yet to make recognition of women's ministries and vocations mandatory.

Now comes the issue of recognition of gays and lesbians. New Hampshire is actually a fairly conservative diocese, but they freely chose Gene Robinson, knowing he was gay, divorced and living with his long-time partner. They chose him because they know an like him. The wider church community approved his consecration as a bishop (the choice of a diocesan bishop CAN be vetoed by the wider church, although this is rare). However, he holds authority only within his own diocese, and has no authority whatsoever in the more conservative diocese.

The response of the conservatives has been to break fellowship with the larger church, insisting that the only way that unity can be restored is if Gene Robinson renounces his orders, and that the WHOLE church repent of ever ordaining him, and presumably, our new (female) presiding bishop.

The wider church HAS decided in which direction we wish to go, but it has not forced any of the more conservative diocese to ordain either women or gays. We've shown the tolerance that way. In the Diocese of Virginia, where several parishes have stopped contributing to the financial support of the diocese, the bushop has kept the members of the dissenting parishes on diocesan boards and commissions, so their voices can be heard. The minority of conservatives want us to return to the model and practices of over thirty years ago. Simple honesty would be for any who don't like the way the church is going, and fail to change us through democratic action or debate to leave. Instead, the minority want to kick the majority out of the Anglican communion, and have themselves recognized as the "true" Episcopal Church. I don't see much tolerance on their side, but a whole lot more on ours.

BTW - I'm a 52 year old, white male, self-identified heterosexual, and I'm reasonably evangelical in outlook. If I can study the issue and come to an understanding of how God is at work in the lives of those who do not share my social advantages of race, gender and orientation, then anyone else can.

[identity profile] sk8eeyore.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 09:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I thought of another question that is at least somewhat related to what you're discussing here. In light of all the inter-ECUSA conflict that's been happening in recent years, there's been a lot of talk about what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion. I, personally, am glad that my conservative parish has so far chosen to stay loyal to the (predominantly liberal) diocese, rather than realigning itself as others are doing. But, nevertheless, being a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion is practically the main thing that draws me to the Episcopal Church. It's frankly much more important to me than identifying with ECUSA; if I wanted to be part of just another mainline American denomination, I would probably choose a church where I would feel more at home liturgically, Presbyterian maybe. So I feel kind of uncomfortable with the fact that lots of Episcopalians seem to be primarily loyal to the denomination and secondarily to the worldwide Communion. Is that a fair observation to make?--As I've said, I'm something of an outsider, so I could be well off the mark. I just don't quite understand the importance of having national churches... I would be content to be just Anglican, kind of like Roman Catholics are just Catholic...you know?

[identity profile] glacierscout.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 10:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Much of the fight actually IS about being part of the worldwide Anglican community. We Episcopalians were part of the Church of England throughout the colonial period, and two of the churches in Virginia that just voted to leave were actually founded back then.

The relationship between the American Anglican churches and England were strained by the Revolutionary War, because the King (now the Queen) was and is still regarded as the head of the Church. This made worship in Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary War times interesting to say the least. Some Loyalist ministers actually held guns on their separatist congregations when they recited the prayers for the King, other separatist ministers ripped the offending pages from their prayer books.

In addition, there were no American bishops; all churches were members of English diocese. That meant that there could be no new American priests without a bishop to ordain them. The problem was solved by sending over three American priests to be consecrated bishops, and the American Episcopal Church was born, with no need to acknowledge the King in daily services.

This led to the de-colonization of the Anglican Church. The English ultimately saw the wisdom of the American model, and set free the remainder of the colonial churches, so that a large number of national Anglican churches were established, each in communion with England, and part of a worldwide fellowship. There are a number of independent provinces, each a national or transnational church, covering non-overlapping geographic areas. Each church is independent within its boundaries, but is part of the same worldwide community, with Canterbury as "first among equals" during decennial Lambeth Conferences.

As part of the current disputes, the conservatives first attempted to set up an alternative network within the United States, and tried to have that group recognized as the "official" USA church within the Anglican communion. This would effectively remove ECUSA from the worldwide Anglican communion. Canterbury refused to do this. The rebel churches are now seeking to leave the ECUSA and join either the Nigerian or the Ugandan Anglican churches. At the same time, the Primate of Nigeria is trying to dictate who can be part of the upcoming Lambeth Conference, and at this time, he's not inclined to let the USA, Canada or England in, because all of us are considered too liberal for his taste.

So as it stands now, it's the liberals who are doing the most to stay within the bounds of the worldwide Anglican Community, and the conservatives who are trying to break the fellowship, in order to kick us out.

[identity profile] sk8eeyore.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 10:49 pm (UTC)(link)
If nothing else, this whole situation is teaching me how VERY different things can look depending on what 'side' one's on (or at least which blogs one reads)!!!

Thanks for the interesting history. I guess, for my part, all I can do is keep praying for God's healing in the Church...

[identity profile] glacierscout.livejournal.com 2006-12-18 06:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Here's a link to some interesting background materials on the current controversies, and how it ties in to other religious, political and scientific controversies. The link is from the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, which includes D. C. and several Maryland counties.

http://www.edow.org/follow/index.html

[identity profile] mari4212.livejournal.com 2006-12-16 01:08 pm (UTC)(link)
See, I have a church with a very active adult education process, so I get fed intellectually before the service. So while I appreciate the sermon, and love it when our priest has a good one that challenges and stimulates me, it's not as essential for me to have a good experience at the service.

And yes, I think in the end it does come down to different formats. The Episcopal service is comfortable for me and pulls me in, while low-church sometimes makes me feel pushed out of the experience. But if low-church works more easily for you, then that's good. I'm glad other people can get a lot out of it, even if it doesn't work for me.

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 05:09 am (UTC)(link)
See, I have a church with a very active adult education process, so I get fed intellectually before the service. So while I appreciate the sermon, and love it when our priest has a good one that challenges and stimulates me, it's not as essential for me to have a good experience at the service.

::nods::

Last spring, when I was thinking ahead to seeking a church community after my impending move into the city, I only half-jokingly started saying that I didn't really care what a church's Sunday service was like [since I'm so not worship-oriented] but wanted a good Bible Study (or something similar, since I'm so academically/intellectually-oriented). I haven't yet found that, so I'm very glad for you that you have a church you love that has a strong adult education component.

[identity profile] sk8eeyore.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 03:30 am (UTC)(link)
I was totally zoning during the Baruch reading this morning, and it amused me later to think that maybe it was because my Protestant brain was rebelling: "That's not really Scripture!"

Yeah, our Gospel Book definitely gets kissed before and after the reading. That actually makes me less uncomfortable than reverencing the altar (genuflecting and such) because I'm always like, "But who/what are you bowing to? God doesn't live up there...!"

Our Advent wreath is lit before the service and nobody even mentions it during. It's not a custom I particularly care about (I don't think it's a particularly old tradition, is it?), so I don't think much about it.

An open-table policy definitely wouldn't fly at my church!

Re: the St. Francis quote, an evangelical friend remarked recently that when people say that, what they usually tend to mean is "never use words" -- that is, they use it to support doing good deeds for people without talking about your beliefs, because the latter would be proselytizing and uncool. I realized that's why I'm inclined to react to the quote in a twitchy way.

I should visit more Episcopal churches so I can gain a better sense of what Episcopal really looks like. People have told me that I'm going to feel adrift after leaving St. John's because there really aren't many churches like it in terms of ecumenical atmosphere, down-to-earthness, etc.

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 03:56 am (UTC)(link)
I actually quite liked the Baruch reading. (I really appreciate that they printed the readings on a bulletin insert, though, 'cause I have been finding recently that I totally zone on spoken readings.)

I'm not sure I've seen reverencing the altar before. I feel like I *should* be okay with the reverencing of the Gospel since I'm sure plenty of people would consider me to be essentially making an idol out of Scripture in the way I approach theology -- so text-oriented and so not about tradition, but it still seriously squicks me. Oh, wait, I have seen the genuflecting at the altar. I'm okay with that as a symbolic thing since I've always seen it accompanied by looking up at the cross.

At Emmanuel Lutheran last year (http://hermionesviolin.livejournal.com/592565.html) that I noticed the Advent wreath was pre-lit, so I wouldn't have been so bothered if that had been how this was, but to light it and not really talk about it bothers me a lot. I grew up with the lighting of the Advent wreath, so it's one of the things I expect in a church -- and I like anything that makes people focus and think for a moment.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_wreath) says, "The first Advent wreath was invented by Johann Hinrich Wichern, a Protestant parson in Hamburg, Germany (sources differ about the year: 1839 or 1848). [...] It took about 100 years until home decoration with advent wreaths became a custom in Germany. It has now spread to other countries as well."

I was surprised by the open table policy, but I like it a lot. It's one of the inclusive things that actually doesn't make me twitch about wishy-washyness; I'm all, "Hey, if taking some bread and wine from a person in a robe with some words recited is important to you, go for it; I'm far more concerned with not feeling pressured to go take the stupid bread and wine." [The times I do get uncomfortable -- other than the really exclusive tables when I'm feeling like I wanna see how they do Communion -- are when they're so vehemently welcoming that I feel like it would be interpreted as a diss to *not* take Communion; this especially pings when I'm feeling not into taking it at all.]

I am a huge fan of living one's Christianity in one's actions and am uncomfortable around proselytizing, even though I vigorously defend the Scriptural basis for it to anyone who disses it. This of course is linked to my own ambivalence as to whether I actually believe in the Truth of Christianity.

I feel like I should have a sense of what Episcopalian looks like, having been to a few, but it's so foreign (and not especially appealing) to me that I just get stuck on "Weird! And not for me!"

[identity profile] theatre-pixie.livejournal.com 2006-12-11 06:00 am (UTC)(link)
Advent wreaths can be confusing. Do ya'll only have four candles on your wreath? We have five. One for each Sunday of Advent and one for Christmas Eve/Christmas Day (depending upon when our church holds the service that year). My dad changes the colors almost every year (we've done three purple, a pink, and a white; three purple, a red, and a white; three red, a blue, and a white or gold; three green, a red, and a white; and this year is three blue, a red, and a white). And the meanings/names are often different as well--it sometimes ties into his sermon series, which it occurs to me you might enjoy. Sometimes it is Hope/Anticipation, Peace, Joy, Love, and Jesus (although it occurs to me that I would consider Love and Jesus to be represented by the same candle because of the whole "Jesus was God's gift of Love to men"). Sometimes it is Prophets, Angels, Mary, Shepherds, and Jesus. Sometimes it is Angels, Shepherds, Mary, Kings, and Jesus. This year it is Prophets, Bethlehem, Mary, either Kings or Shepherds (sorry, I forgot to ask him what week four of this year will be so it might be something else entirely), and Jesus.
You mentioned something recently about how the season of Advent used to be very solemn, like Lent is (for those who observe it). I learned recently that the reason the third week's candle is traditionally pink is because the pope used to hand out pink roses on the third Sunday of advent. A sort of... lightening of the levity as it were. Therefore I would expect that the third week's candle (whatever its color) would represent Joy or Expectation or, as most churches I know call it, "the Mary candle." And in many ways Mary could be seen as an embodiment of Joy as she is expecting the arrival of the Son of God.
Being a Baptist the idea of high and low church are *completely* foreign to me (although I have attended some Lutheran services that totally freaked me out. Funny how I find Catholics not half as scary as the super-strict Lutherans who seem to *want* to be Catholic... but not). I would much rather listen to a sermon than repeat words and gestures over and over every Sunday that might not truly mean anything to me. Although I've heard some pretty lousy sermons (all I remember about one minister's sermon was his emphasis on how quickly the book of Mark was written. How it's a "fast-paced" book. What has that to do with feeding one's soul?).

I understand the urge to want an experience to be about you. But the entire point of worship is the exact opposite. Worship isn't about us, it's about Him. It's about acknowledging God's right to our praise and adoration. It's about kneeling at the foot of His throne, thanking Him for His incomprehensible love and desire for us. Worship is not an easy thing. And it cannot be merely an intellectual exercise. Otherwise it's just all in your head and can be explained away as easily as a dream. Worship is a part of "[Loving] the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your soul, and with all your strength." If it's just about your mind, you're only a quarter of the way there--and that's assuming that all four are equal within you. I tend to think that they are not.
I remember hearing an illustration once that went something like this: If people think of worship as going to the theatre, they would expect that God is the prompter, the minister is the performer, and the congregation is the audience. In reality God is the audience, the minister is the prompter, and the congregation are the performers. *steps off of her soap box and tries to remember where on earth she found it as she knows she has no right to own one*

[identity profile] hermionesviolin.livejournal.com 2006-12-17 04:56 am (UTC)(link)
I would much rather listen to a sermon than repeat words and gestures over and over every Sunday that might not truly mean anything to me.

I have come to understand and respect more than I used to the value of ritual. I think anything that becomes routine (singing hymns, the passing of the peace, whatever) can become rote and meaningless, but I've also come to recognize the value of habit -- of participating even when your heart isn't really in it so as to form the habit and have it become second nature so it's there for you when you really need it, to Pavlovianly trigger yourself into a more spiritual mindset, etc.

I understand the urge to want an experience to be about you. But the entire point of worship is the exact opposite. [...]

Yeah, reasons why I'm hesitant to call myself a "believer" at all :)