The other reasons, have been difficult for me to digest and express. Then along comes Dr. Derek Olsen from The Living Church, who gives expression to my thoughts.
First on the pattern of the Collects in HWHM.
And on the other issue.
The pattern inherent here can be described — perhaps a bit reductionistically — as follows: “O God, we thank you for A. and B. who were great Xs. Help us to be great Xs too.” The action and the relationship described in the prayer are strictly between “us” and God; we thank God, and ask God to motivate us in particular ways. The saint or saints serve only as historical illustrations. They are neither engaged nor beseesched: within the scope of the collect, they have lost both their agency and personhood. They are historical, not eschatological.Also troubling is the relationship between the “X” for which the prayer asks and the Christian life. In these collects, the saints are exemplars, but what we ask to imitate is their professionalism, their success at “X-ness.” The problem is that we are not trying to form professionals; we are trying to form Christians. Whether the saints were good at their jobs — however holy those jobs might have been — is not the point. Rather, the point should be that these specific people displayed the incarnate presence of Christ in their lives and were thus participants within the sacramental conversion of all creation into the life of God.
Alternatively, several individuals are recognized as being the first at achieving or accomplishing something. Firstness is a historical category, not an eschatological or spiritual one. What if some unknown archive were rediscovered and their “firstness” were overturned? If they became the second at their achievement would they still be remembered on the strength of their witness to the risen Christ ahead of the deserving alternatives? These questions and more lead me to ask if Holy Women, Holy Men has met the mandate asked of it in 2003: Is it truly complete, or would it benefit from further thought and revision?
Holy Women, Holy Men had the opportunity to serve as an extended parish directory for the Episcopal Church to give names, addresses, and snapshots of those who even now participate within our larger community. What we received instead is a history book filled with facts and past dates. Our eschatological partners have been reduced to historical examples. The theology of our prayer book requests more, expects more. Good work has been done here — but better work awaits.
The above are from his article "So Great a Cloud of Memories" in the May 6, 2012 edition of The Living Church.
Dr. Olsen also blogs at haligweorc.
Well said friend. As you know, I'm a fan of Atwell's Celebrating the Saints. Although it does have a saint a day, or sometimes more, the readings are generally drawn from primary source documents connected with the life of the person being discussed. I tend to use it as a resource book rather than a set of manditory commemorations. My guess is that calendars have always been motivated by rather questionable agendas. Consider the arguments over whether King Charles should be included, or among our Russian friends over whether the Romanov's should be listed (I have their icon in my chapel.) And certainly Archbishop Laud for all his principles could be questioned for his willingness to allow and even encourage the rather crude surgical removal of noses and ears from Puritan hardheads. No wonder there were those among his peers who were willing to return the favor by executing him and his boss. Even the much venerated Thomas More was not without his detractors over his lack of commitment to other people's freedom of religion. I think the best we can do is to guide our people aright the best we can, and the comments you post are helpful in making those decisions.
ReplyDelete