Women bishops in England…

From Reuters:

Church of England at loggerheads over women bishops

An excerpt:

The Church of England said on Monday it would go ahead with installing women as bishops, but a delay in draft legislation has left liberals and traditionalists alike uncertain about how the plan will work in practice.

From the BBC:

Church of England Synod to raise women bishops delay

An excerpt:

The Church of England’s governing body, the General Synod, is expected to hear criticism of delays in introducing women bishops.

Just an FYI.

 

Birthright

Esau Selling His Birthright - Hendrick Terbrugghen, 1625

Today’s Old Testament lesson (Daily Office) is the famous story of Esau selling his birthright (cf. Gen 25:19-34).  The customs surrounding the birthright at the center of this story are familiar enough that most of us feel like we understand them, yet foreign enough that we probably should take the time to brush up on them lest we miss an important nuance.

The birthright (Heb. ‘bekorah‘) is the practice where the eldest son receives a larger (typically double) portion of the inheritance than do the other brothers (cf. II Kings 2:9).  The practice, in this rudimentary form, was known throughout the ancient Near East with evidence of it having been discovered in Mari, Nuzi, Alalakh, Ugarit, and Assyria.  In contrast to this practice, the ancient law codes of Lipit-Ishtar (20th century BC) and Hammurabi (18th century BC) both legislate an equal sharing among male heirs.  In the Torah, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 protects the rights of the eldest son, though the sale of one’s birthright is known both in the Bible (today’s reading) and other archeological sites such as Nuzi.  Similarly, there is evidence both in the Bible (cf. Genesis 48:12-20) and elsewhere (Nuzi, Alalakh, and Ugarit) that the father may disregard his eldest son in favor of another.  But there is even more to the birthright custom than just inheritance rights.  The birthright of the eldest son also set him apart as future head of the family/clan as well as spiritual leader and proto-priest.

With all of this in mind, we can now access today’s reading.  When I checked a couple of commentaries what I discovered was that in general, the Christian commentaries were more focused on the monetary/property aspects of the birthright and the motif of reversal whereas the Jewish ones focused on the spiritual dimensions of the birthright.  Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, a twentieth century Orthodox rabbinic commentator and philosopher reads Esau’s being “famished” not merely being because of time out on the hunt, but a description of his life void of a sustaining faith in the God of his fathers.  Without the presence of God in his life, he finds his life one of weary meaninglessness.  In this vein, Jacob would have (rightly) judged his brother as unqualified for his status as future spiritual leader.  Nineteenth century Lithuanian rabbinic scholar, Israel Meir ha-Kohen (Hafetz Hayyim) reads the two brothers as exemplifying the two reactions of man to his own mortality.  Some are moved to contemplate their own lives, life thoughtfully, and invest themselves in the true stuff of life.  Others, similar to Esau, respond to life thusly, “Why need I worry about mortality and religion since I will die soon anyway?”  J. H. Hertz (d. 1946), former Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, reads this story as having nothing to do with material goods at all, but entirely spiritual.  He does not understand Esau to be stupid, but impulsive and simply not concerned with spiritual things whereas Jacob he reads to be concerned with spirituality, but fully aware that this one meal will not be the difference between life and death for his brother.  Hertz’s reading is one akin to a spiritual evaluation by one brother of another.

Babylonian Talmud

In closing, I want to refer to an interesting vision of the Judgment contained in the Babylonian Talmud.  It does not have to do with the birthright per se, but with Isaac and his being the father of Esau and Jacob, remembering that he favored Esau.  On the day God judges Israel, the sages envision that Isaac will rise to defend all of the people of Israel.  Why Isaac?  Because he is the one who can stand before God and say, “I had a wicked child and I loved him.  Can You not do the same?” (Babylonian Talmud Shab 89a).  If nothing else, may this vision of judgment be with us as we continue to read the history of the patriarchs and are tempted to judge, rather than love, the people about whom we read.

——-

Sources for further reading: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Paul Achtemeier, ed.), Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (J. H. Hertz, ed.).

 

Library additions

Last night I got a new liturgical book in the mail and I realized that I hadn’t posted about the one I received previously, so today is a double book announcement of sorts.

For Christmas I was given a copy of The Akathist Hymn. For those unfamiliar with akathists, OrthodoxWiki has a great article which I recommend here: “Akathist.”  As the Akathist to the Theotokos is an ancient liturgy described in the article I posted, I will instead describe the particulars of this edition printed by Narthex Press.  First, it is a diglot Greek-English book.  Secondly, this edition includes a great introduction to the liturgy and its place in the life of Orthodoxy, particularly Greek Orthodoxy.  For fellow liturgically minded folks who are curious, yes the rubrics are printed in red!  The Psalter employed is the renowned English translation of the Septuagint found in most English language Orthodox publications.  What is unique about this book, compared to my other Orthodox books, though, is that the psalms are numbered according to Septuagint and Masoretic numbering for the convenience of all Christians, east and west.  Lastly, included with this book was a CD of the Akathist being sung.

—

The book I got last night could not be more opposite from the Akathist, The New Century Psalter.  This is part of the most recent series of worship books (the flagship being The New Century Hymnal) published by Pilgrim Press, the publishing arm of the United Church of Christ.  This Psalter includes orders for Morning and Evening Prayer, a brief night office, a schedule for psalms, a selection of canticles, and everything required to sing the psalms, refrains/antiphons included.  What is not included is a lectionary of lessons for morning and evening.  Considering that anything akin to a full daily office book is foreign to the United/Reformed tradition whereas Psalters are their bread and butter, the absence of a lectionary is not surprising.  The schedule for the psalms is based on the seven-week cycle of the 1979 Daily Office Lectionary though the psalms themselves are based on the translation of the New Revised Standard Version.  Concerning the psalms, the foreword states:

All the psalms in this book are based on the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, but the wording has been adapted as follows:

(1)  It has been adjusted to deal with all dimensions of exclusion that are built into our language – gender, race, disability, etc., and it attempts to modify and to curtail somewhat the maleness of the language used for God in the psalms.

(2)  The verses of the psalms have been divided and, in some instances, carefully reworded to attain balanced couplets that are more easily spoken, prayed, and sung.

p. ix

From what I can tell, both principles (1) and (2) were applied to the canticles as well.  Anyone who has experience translating Hebrew poetry is aware, as I am, that having guiding principles is important since Hebrew is so completely different from English.  Beside issues of literal vs. dynamic translation, efforts fall into three camps:

1) How we used to talk, with authentic (or faux) Jacobean English still being the standard.

2) How we really do talk.  This is deceptively challenging since as soon as the element of spirituality/prayer is introduced, the way people naturally communicate tends to be altered.  Also, not all English speakers speak alike.  This camp is what produced masterful translations such as the JPS Tanakh (1985) and Robert Alter’s translation of the Psalms.  It is also what has produced travesties such as The Hip Hop Prayer Book.

3) How we believe we ought to talk.  This is what is motivating much of the liturgical energy in Mainline Protestant churches in the U.S.  The Episcopal Church’s Enriching Our Worship, the ELCA’s Evangelical Lutheran Worship, and the UCC’s The New Century Psalter are examples of this.  In general, issues of gender are at the center of this work.

—

So, what’s in my sights next?  Emmanuel Press’s The Brotherhood Prayer Book.  It’s essentially the German/Lutheran equivalent to The Anglican Breviary. It is similarly produced privately outside of any official ecclesiastical endorsement.

 

Private conformity to the BCP

About two weeks ago I posted some quotations of John Henry Newman on the River Thames Beach Party.  One of his lines which has stuck out since comes from Volume I, Sermon 12 of his Parochial and Plain Sermons:

…conforming their families to the spirit of the Prayer Book…

This, I know, is mostly void of context, but does provide an entry point for today’s post.  In what way is the Prayer Book authoritative in one’s domestic prayer life?  In Thomas Cranmer’s preface to the 1549 Prayer Book, some important points are made about the place of the BCP in the life of faithful.  In it Cranmer writes, “by this order the curates shall need none other books for their public service, but this book and the Bible.”  By this it is plain that public services in England are to be according to the standard of the Prayer Book.  But what about private spirituality of individuals/families?  To that end we have the following found near the end of the preface:

Though it be appointed in the afore written preface, that all things shall be read and sung in the church in the English tongue, to the end that the congregation may be thereby edified: yet it is not meant, but when men say Matins and Evensong privately, they may say the same in any language that they themselves do understand. Neither that any man shall be bound to the saying of them, but such as from time to time, in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, parish Churches, and Chapels to the same annexed, shall serve the congregation.

Cranmer did not have the expectation that the morning and evening offices would be recited by each and every person of the church each day.  On the contrary, the 1549 makes the assumption that the offices were to be done in public officiated by clergy as the opening rubric begins, “The Priest beeyng in the quier…”  This rubric was changed in the subsequent editions of the Prayer Book, though the assumption of it being a public liturgy remains constant: “Churches without such an offering of Morning and Evening Prayer are clearly alien to the system and principles of the Book of Common Prayer” (St. Dunstan’s Plainsong Psalter, p. 227).  It is worth pointing out, at this point, that in most provinces of the Anglican Communion, clergy are required to pray the office according to their respective province’s authorized texts.  This requirement and the expectation that each parish would offer the office are not unrelated.  The absence of Morning and Evening Prayer at the majority of parish churches is not only a sad state of affairs, but an aberration from the Anglican tradition and the expectations of the Book of Common Prayer that cannot be overstated.

The American Church, from the 1789 BCP on through the 1979 edition, has included further evidence of there being a difference in public and private conformity to the Prayer Book.  What I am referring to here is the inclusion of “Prayer to be used in families.”*  The 1789/1892 version (they are identical) provided short prayers for the beginning and ending of each day to be said kneeling after the head of household has convened everyone.  The 1928 BCP expanded this section to include an additional “shorter form” as well as “additional prayers” which cover a variety of occasions.  The 1979 re-structured the family prayers along with the Daily Office to be four-fold and provides prayers for morning, noon, evening, and the close of day.  The “additional prayers” of the 1928 have been relocated to a different part of the ‘79 (to a new, larger, section called “Prayers and Thanksgivings”).  The rubrics of the ’79’s are likewise expanded:

For convenience, appropriate Psalms, Readings, and Collects are
provided in each service. When desired, however, the Collect of the
Day, or any of the Collects appointed in the Daily Offices, may be used
instead.

The Psalms and Readings may be replaced by those appointed in

a) the Lectionary for Sundays, Holy Days, the Common of Saints, and
Various Occasions, page 888.

b) the Daily Office Lectionary, page 934

c) some other manual of devotion which provides daily selections for the
Church Year.

These make it clear that the family prayers may be made to look quite similar to the Daily Office proper if one desires, but not necessarily so.  As rubric ‘C’ make clear, other devotional sources which provide daily selections are appropriate.

So, what does this mean for the lay person desiring to conform their prayer life to that of the Book of Common Prayer?  First, if circumstances allow, they should attend the office offered at their parish church.  If, like the majority of us, they live in a place where the office is not offered, they may desire to pray the office at home.  If one would rather not pray a public liturgy privately, the BCP proffers devotions to be used at home that are quite flexible.  This flexibility includes other unspecified schema of readings and psalms as well as leaving a great deal of latitude for the selection of prayers.  To refer again to St. Dunstan’s Plainsong Psalter:

The [Prayer Books of Edward VI] and Queen Elizabeth’s Primers showed that they by no means intended to hinder, but rather to encourage those who still wished to observe  the ancient hours of Prayer: and the Devotions of Bishop Cosin, with other Manuals framed on the same model, have given many devout souls the opportunity of supplementing the public Mattins and Evensong with prayers at the other hours that equally breathed the spirit of the ancient Church.

P. 227

In this view, the offices of the Prayer Book are meant to be practical (it is common knowledge that public recitation of all the hours of the office at time of the Reformation were aggregated into two or three blocks rather than seven) and to encourage the prayer lives of the people.  The Prayer Book minimum (as repugnant a phrase as that is) seems to be that one take time at the beginning and the end of the day to read some Scripture, pray for ourselves, and pray for others.  Whether this marking of morning and evening is as simple as the form Martin Luther provides in the Small Catechism** or as complex as The Anglican Breviary is going to be largely determined by one’s own gifts from the Spirit and the circumstances of one’s daily life.

——-

*The custom of including private devotions for families occasionally bound with the BCP goes back to the reign of Elizabeth I.  The American BCP takes, for its model, the devotions published by Edmund Gibson in 1705.  As stated above, the ‘79 restructured the family prayers to be more flexible and mirror, if desired, the Daily Office.

**Because of the brevity of Luther’s form and my fond memory of it from my youth, I have included it in its entirety below:

MORNING AND EVENING PRAYERS

In the morning

. . . when you rise, make the sign of the cross and say, “In the name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Then, kneeling or standing, say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. Then you may say this prayer:

“I give you thanks, heavenly Father, through your dear Son Jesus Christ, that you have protected me through the night from all harm and danger. I beseech you to keep me this day, too, from all sin and evil, that in all my thoughts, words and deeds I may please you. Into your hands I commend my body and soul and all that is mine. Let your holy angel have charge of me, that the wicked one may have no power over me. Amen.”

After singing a hymn (possibly a hymn on the Ten Commandments) or whatever your devotion may suggest, you should go to your work joyfully.

In the evening

. . . when you retire, make the sign of the cross and say, “In the name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Then, kneeling or standing, say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. Then you may say this prayer:

“I give you thanks, heavenly Father, through your dear Son Jesus Christ, that you have graciously protected me through this day. I beseech you to forgive all my sin and wrong which I have done. Graciously protect me during the coming night. Into your hands I commend my body and soul and all that is mine. Let your holy angels have charge of me, that the wicked one may have no power over me. Amen.”

Then quickly lie down and sleep in peace

 

An FYI

You may be wondering how it is that I have managed to not post on Charles I, Brigid, or Candlemas.  I rarely post personal matters, but I am a sufferer of semi-chronic migraine headaches and have had one since Sunday afternoon.  I hope to be back to my normal health soon.

 

The Song of Moses – Cantemus Domino

“Lumen Christi” – the Light of Christ

The 1979 Book of Common Prayer greatly increased the number of canticles for use in the Daily Office.  More specifically, it added eight canticles to those included in the ‘28.  The one recommended by the BCP for use on Thursdays (also Sundays in Easter) is “The Song of Moses” (Cantemus Domino):

I will sing to the Lord, for he is lofty and uplifted; *
the horse and its rider has he hurled into the sea.
The Lord is my strength and my refuge; *
the Lord has become my Savior.
This is my God and I will praise him, *
the God of my people and I will exalt him.
The Lord is a mighty warrior; *
[The Lord] is his Name.
The chariots of Pharoah and his army has he hurled into the sea; *
the finest of those who bear armor have been
drowned in the Red Sea.
The fathomless deep has overwhelmed them; *
they sank into the depths like a stone.
Your right hand, O Lord, is glorious in might; *
your right hand, O Lord, has overthrown the enemy.
Who can be compared with you, O Lord, among the gods? *
who is like you, glorious in holiness,
awesome in renown, and worker of wonders?
You stretched forth your right hand; *
the earth swallowed them up.
With your constant love you led the people you redeemed; *
with your might you brought them in safety to
your holy dwelling.
You will bring them in and plant them *
on the mount of your possession,
The resting-place you have made for yourself, O Lord, *
the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hand has established.
The Lord shall reign *
for ever and for ever.

The restoration of this Old Testament canticle (Cf. Ex 15:1-18) is a major step forward for the Episcopal Church’s Daily Office.  Not only is this canticle used in the Eastern Church, but in the Ambrosian (Sunday Lauds), Mozarabic (Lauds of Easter Week & Sundays during the Easter season), and Roman rites (Thursday Lauds).  This canticle not only appears in Offices around the world, but was also sung after the reading from Exodus 13-14 at the Easter Vigil from almost the beginning of the Vigil rite’s creation.

Whether you were familiar with this canticle or not before now, it is apparent that it includes some violent imagery.  So much so, that certain communities have then turned around and decided not to ever read it.  On one level, I can sympathize, we do not necessarily like the idea of God throwing people into the sea and drowning them and many people have mental stumbling blocks that prevents them from describing God in militaristic terms.  I am sure this same rationale is the reason that the seven-week Psalter that the BCP employs seems to provide Psalm 137 less often than others and Prayer Books in other provinces have deleted the end of it altogether.  We do not like the idea of blessing baby smashers in church (or anywhere else for that matter).  Yet, if holy tradition has anything to say, this canticle, violence and all, contains imagery central to our celebration of Easter.

Though I do not believe it needs saying, I will say it anyway.  The references to Egypt in this canticle and elsewhere in tradition and scripture should not be applied to the modern day country negatively.  All one needs to do is look at how the Coptic Orthodox Church has read scripture and tradition to see their Egyptian heritage as a thing of pride to know that this kind of reading is erroneous.

The imagery of the Song of Moses may be jarring.  You and I may not like it and even try to avoid it.  Its place in the liturgy may be disturbing, unsettling, or seen as a relic from the past.  In response to all of these sentiments, the Prayer Book almost seems to say that this is precisely why we are to read/say/sing it.  Our relationship with God is sometimes jarring.  We may not like it and even try to avoid our Creator.  God’s activity in the liturgy may be disturbing, unsettling, or even seem like a thing of the past.*

Beyond the emotional responses the canticle generates, it provides some of the best Old Testament typological imagery for Baptism in existence.  God, a mighty warrior, has overthrown and destroyed the shackles of sin through the waters of baptism.  Or, to conflate this canticle and Paul’s imagery, in baptism we have been drowned into the death of Christ and resurrected into the safety of the resting place of the Lord.

And now, a brief story.  Don’t bother pointing out the potential heresies/errors contained therein, it’s just a story and not one I imagined myself.  :)

When the Israelites had safely passed from one side of the sea to the other, Moses held out his hand.  With his hand held high over his enemies, the waters rushed back and drowned the Israelite pursuers to the man.  In heaven there was much rejoicing at the salvation of Israel from destruction at the hands of the army of the pharaoh.  The angels sang songs of rejoicing and victory.  The sons and daughters of Abraham were safe.  One angel noticed that God was not present at the heavenly festivities.  The angel began to inquire of the other angels and even the archangels, “All of heaven is rejoicing at the salvation of Israel, but where is the Lord?”  To which another angel responded, “Yes, the courts of heaven are rightly celebrating the deliverance of Israel, but for a time God will mourn the deaths of the so many sons of Egypt who died today in order that they could be saved.”

——-

Please note, I have altered the line in the Canticle in which the Prayer Book version includes the Tetragrammaton.  Cf. “Daily Office Irony.”

*I doubt I am the only person who has run into this rationale for one’s fidelity to their faith: “it is what my family has always done.”

 

Protestant Daily Office(s)

For the past week, I have enjoyed a thought-provoking dialogue with Fr. Gregory Wassen, a priest in the Orthodox Church in America (whose blog can be found here: On First Principles).  The subject has been the Divine Office as it exists in The Anglican Breviary and the Book of Common Prayer.  To recap, I will quote from his comment on my post “Agnes, Antiphons, and the Divine Office”:

So the more inclusive nature of the Breviary makes it (paradoxically) less broad-minded. There is nothing in the Breviary that the Book of Common Prayer “necessarily” disagrees with, but the Book of Common Prayer allows a broader interpretative spectrum by being less inclusive towards Antiphons, commentaries, and legends. One can be both a Catholic minded Anglican and a Protestant minded (to a certain limit though)Anglican using the Prayer Book – the Breviary makes a more definite decision on which direction to lean into.

In using the Book of Common Prayer, one is more or less left to make up one’s own mind about what the interpretative context ought to be for Scripture. More Evangelical Protestant or more Traditional Catholic and everything in between. One could use The Institutes of Calvin as such a context, or the Summa’s of St. Thomas, or perhaps even the Expositio fidei of St. John of Damascus. It seems to be up in the air – more or less … There are of course the 39 Articles to reckon with, but they too can be interpreted one way or another.

As I have been chewing on this, I have chosen to explore how the Daily Office exists among various Protestant traditions.  It may also be a good reminder at this point to call to mind that a number of Protestant denominations are reviving the practice of (Benedictine) monasticism.*  I also wish to express my comparative ignorance on the following Protestant liturgies compared to my knowledge of the liturgies I more often refer to on O God, come to my assistance.

To my mind, the Protestant resource that comes closest to the kind of book of hours that provides an interpretive context internally is Treasury of Daily Prayer printed by Concordia Publishing House.  This is a Lutheran (printed by the Missouri Synod) book that not only has the complete daily office for each day of the year, but supplements the Scripture lessons with readings from the Book of Concord.  Thus, as far as a Lutheran is concerned, this is a completely self-contained ‘breviary’** that also provides a complete interpretive context so that one reads Scripture in light of the Lutheran confessions.  I know of no other Protestant resource akin to this one.

As is obvious by the above book, the daily office is not foreign to Lutheranism.  Lutheran worship books usually will include orders of Morning and Evening Prayer as well as Compline.  Evangelical Lutheran Worship (ELCA/ELCIC) and the Lutheran Service Book (LC-MS) both include ordos as well as complete Psalters and lectionaries.  Similar to the Daily Office in the Book of Common Prayer, there is no interpretive context inherent in the offices, but relies on the faithful being engaged in the Lutheran tradition outside of the office.***

Some Reformed churches post-Liturgical Movement, have begun to include fully developed orders for Morning and Evening Prayer as well.  In the United States, this effort has been concurrent with an effort to recast these offices in inclusive/expansive language.  The Presbyterian Church USA, in 1994, released The Book of Common Worship Daily Prayer. It was built upon the rites in the Book of Common Worship, but with some additions: Compline, a complete Psalter****, psalm collects, antiphons, and litanies.  From what I have read, this book is designed for ecumenical Protestant use with any existent lectionary.  Similarly, the United Church of Christ, in 1999, published the New Century Psalter.  The Psalter includes a liturgical revision of the Psalter of the NRSV Bible, complete orders for morning and evening, as well as simple family prayers for each time of day.  It also is designed to be flexible and used with any lectionary.  The Psalter also includes instructions on singing the psalms, which is always a huge plus in my book!  Both of these books also depend on the faithful being engaged in their own tradition in other ways (e.g. the Heidelberg Catechism) and have no internal interpretive context.

Daily prayer may be on the rise among Protestants, or, at least there are more resources than there used to be.  Regarding the original reason for this inquiry, Fr. Gregory’s comments, only the Treasury of Daily Prayer seems to engage in the same degree as The Anglican Breviary.  Again, I have written this post from a position of ignorance regarding these resources, but hope that you have learned something along with me.

—

Postscript: In case one is wondering why this post was restricted to Lutheran and Reformed traditions, it is because Protestantism has developed in vastly different ways over time and I restricted my time to investigating the historic Continental traditions and their manifestations in the U.S.

——-

*As far as I am able to ascertain, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ have monastic expressions.  I have run across mention of a monastic community within the Presbyterian Church USA, though I cannot remember where I read it nor can I prove it now.  It is also worth remembering that it is the Swiss Reformed Church which gave the world the Taizé Community.

**A Lutheran would probably not use the word ‘breviary’.

***I do not wish to underestimate the incredible value of a particular tradition’s implementation of collects of the day, especially as I have more than once used the collects of the Prayer Book to plum the depths of Anglicanism.

****Modeled on the Psalter of the 1979 BCP.

 

This week in monasticism

I will admit that the title of this post was inspired by the Daily Show’s old bit, “This Week in God” when Stephen Colbert (now of the Colbert Report) would cover religious news of the week.  It has been shaping up to be quite a week in monasticism, at least from my own perspective.

First, my dear friend posted a great reflection on his first week as a monk over on Walsingham Wanderings.  Second, I received a copy of a letter to Dominicans in formation by the former Master of the RC order.  Third, this Thursday is the festival of Thomas Aquinas,* one of the most famous of all friars in history.

On another note, the conversation over on the River Thames has picked up with a new post on loyalty to the BCP inspired by an essay of Percy Dearmer.

——-

*Traditionalists note that the old kalendar celebrated him on March 7.  The Episcopal Church celebrates his feast with Roman Catholics on 28 January.

 

Order of Corpus Christi, a covenantal order in the UCC

Last October, I posted on St. Brigid of Kildare Monastery, a Benedictine community within the United Methodist Church.*  Last week when I was doing some reading about different Mainline Protestant churches I stumbled upon another Protestant monastic order that I had not previously heard about: The Order of Corpus Christi.  This is a “covenantal order” within the United Church of Christ with both members and novices.  The community has members in the United States and in the UK with six chapters already in existence even though it was only formed as recently as 1986.  It probably sounds a bit weird to see a religious order within the Congregationalist tradition, but here is how it came to be.  It is built upon the theology of “Mercersburg theology” which is explained as:

[John] Nevin, [Phillip] Schaff and their followers sought to return to the ancient ecumenical creeds and argued that the mystical presence of Christ, mediated by word and sacrament, was the essence of the church. Reverence for creeds, catechism and liturgy, they believed, would unify the church and ward off the danger of sectarianism which already had split Protestantism in the United States into hundreds of competing denominations. In liturgy, the Mercersburg reformers restored the altar as the center of worship along with litanies, chants, prayers and vestments, while the Old Reformed pastors preferred a central pulpit towering over a small holy table, extemporaneous prayer and informal worship.

From the United Church of Christ’s “Short Course”: German Reformed Church.

The Order of Corpus Christi is a fellowship of “[faith] defined by the historic Creeds of the Church, who hold in their hearts the Church: catholic, apostolic, evangelical, and reformed; and who love the United Church of Christ.”  Membership, though, is not restricted to members of the UCC, but also open to members of churches that belong to Churches Uniting in Christ** and churchs in full communion with the UCC.***

Mountain Retreat Center of St. John’s the Baptist, where the Order goes on retreat

For more information, I encourage you to visit their website: The Order of Corpus Christi.

——-

*This post can be found HERE.

** CUIC member churches: African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Disciples of Christ, Christian Methodist Episcopal, Episcopal, Moravian, Presbyterian (PCUSA), and United Methodist.  The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is an “observer.”

***Churches in full communion: Armenian Evangelical Union, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Reformed Church in America, and Union der Evangelische Kirchen.

 

Kseniya Simonova’s Got Talent!

I am about half a year late on this, but in case you have not seen it yet (I hadn’t until this morning), you should definitely check this out.

From Youtube:

Kseniya Simonova is a Ukrainian artist who just won Ukraine’s version of “America’s Got Talent.” She uses a giant light box, dramatic music, imagination and “sand painting” skills to interpret Germany’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine during WWII.