Good Taste, Bad Taste
December 8, 2009Jon 6 Comments »
I’ve been watching (via YouTube) the investiture of Robert Duncan as first Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America—the “new Anglican province” set up by conservative Episcopalians in 2009.
Duncan, nicknamed “Plus-Bob-Pittsburgh” for his aristocratic signature, is a pleasant enough man, at least by way of impression. He reminds me of some of the Franciscans I used to play for in Chicago. A sense of humor seems to sparkle in his eyes. He’s a sprightly, elfin fellow.
That said, he’s also incredibly selective in his theology. While clinging to Leviticus 18:22 as to a life raft, he manages to ignore 1 Timothy 2-3 in toto. Curious, to say the least. If you want to be so biblically literal, and construe the Scripture so as to find an iron-clad case against “being gay” in its pages, then perforce you also have to accept the plain-sense reading of a Pauline epistle!
It should be obvious that, if you find one sentence, and one sentence alone, in the Book of Leviticus that is still binding under the New Law; then, how much more is the entire Pauline corpus binding!
And never mind our Lord’s express prohibition of divorce!
In fact, the only solid basis of anti-gay theology is social prejudice, rooted in the dirty imaginations of too many heterosexual persons.
Hence, the ten-minute-long procession into Christ Church Plano included a large number of female clergy, tottering along on high heels, ringlets flowing proud and free. What happened to biblical standards of ordination?
Also, especially at the start of the procession, a good number of clergy took holy water and blessed themselves—with the left hand. What kind of ninny does that?
The other dreadful part of the procession—besides the pathetic spectacle of anti-gay biblical literalists tottering along in tippet and high heels—and left-hand blessings—was the god-awful musical selection.
The procession had a fake-African feel, with ominous drumtaps and triangle dings here and there. The music built like the soundtrack of a movie, till we lurched irrelevantly into “Praise, my soul, the King of heaven.”
During the investiture of the Archbishop, I was stunned to hear the drumtaps and ding-dings starting up again. The entire rite of investiture was done with a cheesy “soundtrack.” Disgusting. Ugly. A mockery of good liturgy. The music built to its twaddlesome climax just as Plus-Bob-Pittsburgh was introduced as the new…what?…Plus-Bob-North-America, I guess.
It’s this kind of global cluelessness that convinces me, all over again, that the only real point to ACNA is gay-bashing. Music apparently doesn’t matter; biblical standards of ordination apparently don’t matter; historic Christian symbolism apparently doesn’t matter (that left hand!)—what remains? Only the One Big Thing that they’re really pissed off about.
Lest the remaining Episcopal community grow smug, I’ll hasten to add: liturgics in the official Anglican province in the US are equally bad, or worse.
The rate of decline in the Episcopal Church amounts to steady single-digit percentages year after year; not quite arterial bleeding, but certainly fatal if not stopped soon.
Liturgical immaturity is high on the list of causes, and I submit that most of the clergy are in deep denial over this.
Re goofy liturgical ideas, I’m tired of hearing, à la Bullwinkle, “This time for sure!” My standing reply, à la Rocky the Flying Squirrel, is “But that trick never works!” And so it doesn’t, ever.
Above all, how can a church that is willing to condemn “the great western heresy of individualism” affirm the politics of personal grievance, personal rights, personal entitlement, personal anything, in its worship? How can a narcissistic, sacrilegious exercise like “U-2-Charist” even be imagined?
That’s not religion, but an unhealthy mix of pop culture and tort law. Quintessentially “great western heretical.” A token edit of the Nicene Creed to say “we” instead of the historic “I” doesn’t suffice to cover the enormous fundamental option for self that has been made.
Can things be set upon a happier footing? I certainly hope so. I’m trying to do my part. Meanwhile, a liturgical parable, suitable for any foot it fits:
Posted on December 10th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I have been paying little attention to this and associated issues owing to my usual season schedule.
Regrettable our “separated brethren” conduct themselves this way, but on a certain level I have to respect their right to disagree and worship as they choose. People do have a right to engage in tastelessness, both secular and non. We can’t all be haute, n’est ce pas?
It seems as if Anglicans in the UK take the issue in hand in a more civilized way. Though it seems they deal with the issue still in the closet, just with the door open rather than, say, shut.
Posted on December 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
You’re entirely right, of course: people have the right to conduct their religious life more or less as they choose. (Excluding such things as Jonestown, of course!) If churches say one thing and do another, well, what else is new?
It doesn’t follow, though, that I must be silent or affirmative of the folly done. I am truly put off by the cluelessness and double standards of the group that seeks to save Anglicanism from itself. I’m not going to pay the “morality tax” on behalf of divorced and/or female priests…nor do I care to sit through liturgy that’s been “evangelicalized,” ie, hokied up.
You and I have talked about vainglorious organ “experts” who seem to know everything except the basics. It’s that kind of spirit (hauteur without the haute) that gets my goat (or gaute?)
It’s troubling, also, because I suspect that soon enough (once the Glasspool debacle goes through, May 2010), ACNA will be recognized as the Anglican body in communion with Canterbury, and TEC cut off to follow its own increasingly leftist, paradoxically personalistic, tort-driven path. The recent Duncan enthronement leaves me with shaky confidence in the probable successor body.
I’d hold up Pope Benedict as a great example of non-haute liturgy. Take away the Swiss Guards and 100,000 square feet of baroque floor space, and his personal deportment would bless any parish in the Church universal. He is priestly, serious, not addicted to himself, humble. His mind is on his rites, not his rights.
But as you point out, it’s their business.
Posted on December 10th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I’m not following the issues as closely as I could, but my recollection is that ACNA recognition does not meet the TEC will be cut off. And within TEC, our mileage will vary.
My little country church has its quirks, but there are many of us who cling to the finer parts of our worship and eschew the “hippy-dippy” stuff. If the TEC is to hold true to the message of Christ, we must remain a welcoming church and maintain tolerance for things we personally distasteful.
Posted on December 11th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Perhaps my last comments were bleaker than absolutely necessary. My own church manages to hold together a surprising diversity of belief and practice. I shake hands every Sunday with conservatives and liberals alike, and that’s as it should be.
The good news is that people tend to like people–a great counterbalance to theological passion.
Posted on December 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I have to wonder where all this will leave the Anglo-Catholics, especially the more liberal congregations. WIll they remain with TEC, go the ecumenical route (now that B16 has opened the door, so to speak) or align with ACNA?
I, along with others, will be watching.
Loved the bit about vainglorious experts, btw. Nice one.
Posted on December 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Vainglorious experts: they’re not just for breakfast anymore.
Conservatives: they are probably going to be regarded as hostile combatants, which is going to suck.