Skip to main content

"An enemy hath done this": the need for serious liturgy in a serious time

We beseech thee, Almighty God, look upon the hearty desires of thy humble servants, and stretch forth the right hand of thy Majesty, to be our defence against all our enemies; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Cranmer's collect for the Third Sunday in Lent is based on that provided for the same Sunday in the Gregorian Sacramentary.  In other words, it is has deep roots in the prayer offered on this Sunday by Western Christians over centuries.  It has, however, no place in the contemporary Anglican liturgies, even those which provide traditional language rites. Thus, neither TEC 1979 or Ireland 2004 have Cranmer's collect in their provision for Lent III.

The alternatives provided by both are interesting.  Here is the TEC 1979 alternative:

Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies and inwardly in our souls, that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord ...

And Ireland 2004:

We beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Both of these collects, of course, are taken from elsewhere in the 1662 corpus. Both also clearly imply that in the midst of our earthly pilgrimage we are beset by forces which threaten us in body and soul, forces from which we need to be delivered the mercy and grace of God.

But notice what happens when Cranmer's collect for Lent III is dropped: we avoid naming these forces as "our enemies".  It is almost as if contemporary liturgies are embarrassed by the truth that we do indeed have enemies confronting us in body and soul.  This is despite the fact that there are numerous - in fact 112 - references to enemy or enemies in the Psalter prayed by the Church in the daily office, that the Apostle declares "that the last enemy to be destroyed is death", and that the Lord Himself declares "an enemy hath done this".

This year the Third Sunday in Lent fell in the amidst of the global crisis caused by the spread of Covid-19.  Here is an enemy in the service of death, an enemy in league with fear.  The WHO tells us that we must "fight this virus".  The BBC has referred to "the UK's plan to fight coronavirus".  In other words, there is a widespread recognition that this is an enemy.  Contemporary liturgies, however, because of their squeamishness about explicit references to 'enemy' or 'enemies', fail to connect with some of our gravest experiences - and this despite the language of 'enemy' being resolutely Scriptural, recognising that we do have enemies which seek to wreak destruction upon us in body and soul.

Which brings us back to the profound weakness in much contemporary liturgy: that it reflects the verities of a short era which has now passed, an era which took for granted liberal, progressive assumptions about the universality of peace and prosperity, in which the idea of enemies, whether in body or soul, seemed archaic and passé.  Then 9/11 unleashed demons without and within; the economic crash exposed the destructiveness of greed; climate change became an emergency; the persecution of the Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa became pronounced; and now a virus has brought fear and death.  "An enemy hath done this" ... but contemporary Anglican liturgies are incapable of praying for deliverance from "our enemies".

A serious time needs serious liturgy.  And serious liturgy needs to confront the reality of "enemies" to body and soul.  It is a time, then, to pray Cranmer's collect for the Third Sunday in Lent.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

Pride, progressive sectarianism, and TEC on Facebook

Let me begin this post with an assumption that will be rejected by some readers of laudable Practice , but affirmed by other readers. Observing Pride is an understandable aspect of the public ministry of TEC.  On previous occasions , I have rather robustly called for TEC to be much more aware and respectful of the social conservatism of the Red states and regions in which it ministers. A failure to do so risks TEC declining yet further into the irrelevance of progressive sectarianism.  At the same time, TEC also obviously ministers in deep Blue states and metropolitan areas - and is the only Mainline Protestant tradition in which a majority of its members vote Democrat .* With Pride now an established civic commemoration, particularly in such contexts, there is a case for TEC affirming those aspects of Pride - the dignity of gay men and lesbian women, their contribution to civic life, and their place in the church's life - which cohere with a Christian moral vision. (I will n...