It is one of the many benefits, and indeed, one of the purposes of liturgical worship that it cannot easily be manipulated to suit some passing whim. Most liturgical traditions contain the same basic elements: the singing of the Psalms, the Lord’s Prayer, the Confessions, the Creeds, the reading of the Scriptures, and the ancient hymns that have been passed down to us from the early church. The order of service can be an emotional experience, but it is not driven by emotion, nor does it seek that end. The pre-ordained texts for any particular service may speak to current events, but the service cannot be altered to cater to whatever pet political issues the clergy or congregation may have on their minds. It is oriented towards another more stable world, and does not change with the tides of this one. It is what it is. The words are spoken, the truth is heard, and you may take it or leave it.
Unless, of course, one were to rewrite the entire order of service, which is exactly what the Anglican Environmental Network, an official branch of the Anglican Communion, has done. From September 1st, to October 4th, many churches in the Anglican Communion will celebrate “creation time,” described as “a time dedicated to prayer for the protection of Creation, and the promotion of sustainable lifestyles that reverse our contribution to climate change.”
The theme of this year’s creation time is “Water Justice,” and the Anglican Environmental Network has provided parishes with a list of resources to help commemorate the season. Among them is an order of service prepared by the Student Christian Movement in India.
The order of service contains a hymn, scripture readings, and the Lord’s Prayer, although, most people who are familiar with such basic articles of the faith wouldn’t recognize them here.
For instance, in the new order of service, the Lord’s Prayer now reads:
“Our God, father and mother, from, through and to whom all lives flow, Your name is holy for you water every creature with life. May the ‘waters rolling in justice’ come down among us and dwell as in your presence. Give us water sufficient for our living, and help us to share water and other resources with those who are dying of thirst. Forgive us our insincerity, insensitivity and irresponsibility in saving and preserving water, and for our abuse of creation. And teach us to forgive one another. Lead us not into the temptation of accumulation, greed and power over water, and deliver us from avaricious life styles. For your word is like water cleansing us from evil, your reign is righteousness flowing like an ever-flowing stream dismantling the powers and principalities from generation to generation, from history to history, for ever and ever. Amen”
Incidentally, October 4th, which marks the closing day of creation time, is also the feast day of St. Francis, the Patron Saint of Ecologists. The order of service references this by rewriting the popular Hymn All Creatures of Our God and King with text that is largely borrowed from St. Francis’ Canticle of the Sun. On closer inspection, however, some important differences are revealed.
A portion of the rewritten Hymn reads, “O sister moon with silver gleam, O praise ye O praise ye, Alleluia, Alleluia.” The similar wording throughout the Hymn makes it impossible to discern if praise is being offered to God, or to some pantheistic conception of nature. In contrast, the original line from St. Francis reads, “Be praised, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars; in the heavens you have made them, precious and beautiful.” St. Francis opens every line of the Canticle with the same careful words “Be praised, my Lord, through,” and in case there remained any lingering doubt about the object of his praise, he opened the Canticle with the clarifying “All praise is yours, all glory, all honor, and all blessing. To you, alone, Most High, do they belong.”
It may seem like a small and insignificant change in wording, but it is all the difference between pantheism and Christianity. As Chesterton so wittily said:
“What is the good of words if they aren’t important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn’t any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn’t there be a quarrel about a word? If you’re not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.”
None of this is to say that conservation and care of the environment is not a worthy goal. Roger Scruton, who incidentally happens to be an Anglican, is a strong advocate of conservation. However, he is an equally strong critic of those who put religious zeal into the environmental cause so as to render “the Earth as both an object of care and of worship,” and therefore have “Mother Earth fill the place vacated by God, though in the form of a goddess wounded by our mortal carelessness.”
Scruton contends that the answer is in rejecting the modern and secular view of society as a contract between those who are merely living, and embracing the more Christian view of society as a contract between God, the living, the unborn, and the dead. He argues that “We mistreat the unborn when we take away the legacy that they are entitled to inherit, and we mistreat the dead by regarding ourselves as the sole proprietors of the things that they have left to us. In ignoring and despising the dead, we traduce the unborn.”
Scruton’s reasoning brings to mind the passage from Cicero, who in a dialogue was asked why a farmer continued to cultivate the land even though he was old in age and it was therefore doubtful if he would survive to enjoy the fruits of even the present season. He responded by quoting the words of a poet: “He plants the trees to serve another age.”
As Christians we are called to care for our neighbors and our families, and that inevitably involves being a steward of the environment that God has created and our ancestors have preserved. Such care, however, need not resort to pantheism, and can only be properly understood when we recognize our correct relation to God and to our fellow man. Such recognition does not begin by rewriting the prayer book, for such an action is revealing of the arrogant and un-Christian attitude that “we know better.”
It is a rather amusing coincidence that the fifteenth Sunday after Trinity falls right in the middle of “creation time.” If a parish were to keep the traditional order of service on this Sunday they would read the words of Christ telling us that the “heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Comment by Alan on August 28, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Brian, no surprises, “Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi”
Comment by Paul Hoskins on August 28, 2013 at 9:47 pm
For what it’s worth, there is apparently no connection whatever between orthodoxy and adherence to a traditional ritual, the Episcopagans being Exhibit A. I attended a traditional Episcopal church for a time and rather liked the inclusion in every service the lectionary readings from Psalms, the OT, the Gospels, and the epistles, also the creeds and the Bible-saturated rituals in the BCP. A few miles away there were uber-liberal Episcopal congregations doing exactly the same readings and rituals – traditional rituals and wacko theology coexisting together. Think of two unfaithful spouses who still blow each other a kiss each morning over the breakfast table.
I’m saddened to hear of the new and nutty rituals, but they are purely a matter of rituals finally conforming to what the liberal churches actually believe. The meaning went out of the BCP long ago, but the Episcopalians went right on reciting the words as they morphed into Episcopagans.
Comment by Matthew Wolf on August 30, 2013 at 11:49 am
I don’t see any evidence here of “Pantheism in the Prayer Book.” “O praise ye” is unambiguous: The congregation calls its fellow creatures to praise the creator. The adaptation of the Lord’s Prayer you cite names God as father and mother, not some Mother Earth goddess.
Comment by Greg Paley on August 31, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Aside from the fact that God is never called “Mother” in the Bible or in Christian tradition, nothing wrong at all. Since Christians think of God as a Person – the Supreme Person – it seems just plain silly (albeit Politically Correct) to call God “Mother and Father” for the obvious reason that than turns God into two gods, or a “split” God.
My own take on “Father” is that a father personifies both justice and love, while a mother only love. Mom can be “gotten around,” but Dad (traditionally, anyway) was not so easy to mollify. To think of God as female means we can throw up our hands and say, “Hey, no big deal, no matter what a rotter I am, dear old Ma will take me in.” In the parable of the prodigal son, it just wouldn’t have the same impact if it was the mother, not the father, who lovingly took the son back in. We know that a mom is, of course, going to take the kid back in. Dad might be different – he might point the son back to the road and say, “You’re not my son, and you’re not welcome here.” I side with author Eugene Genovese, who came to faith late in life and claimed that a God of love who was not also a God of wrath and judgment did not interest him at all. Obviously that is the view of the Bible – and the Christian tradition, as exemplified by Michelangelo.
So, in short, Mother-Father just doesn’t work. It’s a bone thrown to the pushy feminists and their he-hen clergy accomplices. It’s lousy theology.
Comment by Fr. John Morris on August 31, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Your observations are very good, because the feminization of God has indeed led to an image of God as the an all forgiving accepting mother who can be “gotten around.” Although I have to admit that in my own marriage it is my wife who is less likely to give into the requests of my son and daughter. My daughter can get almost anything out of me that she wants, but your analogy still is true as a sort of reminder of “wait until your father gets home.” The liberal churches have completely forgotten the concept of sin and repentance and accept almost any behavior except for adherence to traditional Christian beliefs, especially moral ones.
Comment by Justin White on September 6, 2013 at 3:21 pm
There are plenty of references equating God with Mother in scripture….
Hosea 11:3-4 God described as a mother
God: “Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I who took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with bands of love. I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks. I bent down to them and fed them.”
Hosea 13:8 God described as a mother bear
“Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and tear them asunder…”
Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God described as a mother eagle
“Like the eagle that stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young, God spreads wings to catch you, and carries you on pinions.”
Deuteronomy 32:18 God who gives birth
“You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.”
Isaiah 66:13 God as a comforting mother
God: “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Isaiah 49:15 God compared to a nursing mother
God: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.”
Isaiah 42:14 God as a woman in labor
God: “For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept myself still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant.”
Jeremiah 44:25 Queen of Heaven
“Thus says…the God of Israel: You and your wives have accomplished in deeds what you declared in words, ‘We are determined to …make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out libations to her.’ By all means, keep your vows and make your libations!”
Psalm131:2 God as a Mother
“But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.”
Psalm 123:2-3 God compared to a woman
“As the eyes of a servant looks to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to you, YHWH, until you show us your mercy!”
Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen
Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
Luke 15:8-10 God as woman looking for her lost coin
Jesus: “Or what woman having ten silver coins, is she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Comment by Ray Bannister on September 6, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Nice research. In John’s Gospel alone, Jesus calls God “Father” 102 times; in Matthew, 42 times. In Acts, the epistles, and Revelation, only male pronouns and images used of God. Only 3 John, shortest New Testament book, does not refer to God as Father.
A core belief of Christianity is that in salvation we are “adopted” as children of God the Father. It is not possible to be adopted by a Rock, a chicken, or a lioness.
Comment by Stephen Bolin on August 30, 2013 at 3:17 pm
As a new Roman Catholic, sometimes I think the rules about the liturgy and the mass can be a bit stringent. What’s the worst that could happen if some highly educated priests changed the liturgy every once in a while, right? Wrong. This is what happens.
I am learning more and more, every day that there is a reason the RCC is strict in so many ways. Praise be to God for ever, and let no man(or women) change the words of the Lord’s prayer for any reason. (Let no one change the words of St. Francis either, for that matter.)
Comment by Fr. Michael Shanbour on August 30, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Sorry Stephen, I appreciate the fact that you have moved closer to the apostolic Tradition. But, despite, an infallible Vicar of Christ, the RC Church has changed radically, liturgically and otherwise just in the last 100 years. And even though some of the changes were a return to the ancient traditions, there are still radical departures from the orthodox faith, e.g. not confirming a child right after baptism nor giving children the Eucharist.
You’ll have to go one step further back to get to the unchanging Church Tradition, i.e. the Orthodox Church.
P.S. You might be interested in viewing the following links which show that even in the presence of hundreds of bishops, RC liturgy is open to all kinds of innovations.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/liturgies-compared/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk&list=UUga31kq9G49ULhjWJBbVdJg&index=2 (Take a look at what happens at the 5:40 mark!)
Comment by David Fischler on August 31, 2013 at 6:18 pm
So here’s the question regarding the use of the hymn: why not just use a standard rendering? Here’s a comparison of the first stanza from the United Methodist Hymnal of 1989 and the liturgy Brian quotes:
All creatures of our God and king
Lift up your voice and with us sing
O praise ye Alleluia
O brother sun with golden beam
O sister moon with silver gleam
O praise ye O praise ye
Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia (eco-lit)
All creatures of our God and King,
lift up your voice with us and sing:
alleluia, alleluia!
O burning sun with golden beam,
and shining moon with silver gleam,
O praise him, O praise him,
alleluia, alleluia, alleluia! (UM)
Obviously using “O praise him” rather than the semi-archaic “O praise ye” would have avoided the ambiguity that allows for a pantheistic interpretation. If I were guessing, I’d say they recognized the ambiguity, and left it in deliberately so as to satisfy both traditional theists and the pseudo-Christian pantheists who are so prominent in the religious left.
Comment by Greg Paley on September 1, 2013 at 12:30 pm
I think the crucial change was removing “O praise Him.” They like to take the Hims from the hymns. I’d be interested in seeing the full text of the “eco” version, since the libs would surely alter “our King” in the first line. Line 3 (in the old versions) has “that givest man both warmth and light.” Verse 4 (old) had “And all he men of tender heart,” and 5 “Praise, praise the Father, praise the Son, And praise the Spirit, three in one.” LOTS of sexist language in there to excise.
Comment by smg45acp on September 3, 2013 at 12:21 am
The good news is that no Christians are being subverted by these changes. The real Christians left the Anglican church a generation ago.
I suppose a real Christian might wander in accidentally and hear this nonsense, but I doubt they will be turned into earth worshiping pagan because of it.
Comment by siouxfan on September 3, 2013 at 12:24 am
John 3:3 Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. One must repent and accept in his heart Jesus Christ as Savior. There is no other way to be born again! There are no rituals or songs or traditions or even denominations that save us only the blood of Jesus Christ.
Some say you must do this and that to be saved but look at the thief on the cross. Luke 32:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Now the thief accepted Christ on his death bed and he was not a member of a church or had he been baptised or said the Lord’s prayer.
He believed in his heart and was saved! Again you must Repent of your sins and Christ into your heart. Does anyone know when they are going to die? No! Except Christ as your Savior now before its to late!!
Comment by Durin on September 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm
The question under discussion is not “How we be saved?” but is along the lines of “How should we worship God?” with some issues around “Are they worshipping God or something else?”.
Comment by Durin on September 9, 2013 at 11:03 pm
…How can we be saved…
Comment by Gavin Reed on September 10, 2013 at 6:49 pm
My dear Wormwood,
The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is MERELY Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we [demons] want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call “Christianity And.” You know–Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians, let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.
Your affectionate uncle
Screwtape
(C. S. Lewis, THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Letter XXV)