An interesting blog post out the Fresh Expressions movement in the Church of England and British Methodist Church raises some questions about the use of non-authorized forms of liturgy in worship. In the Church of England this is a much bigger issue than it is in United Methodism, but the post and the following comments are still interesting for United Methodists thinking about how we worship and why we do.
Part of one of the comments by the original blog offer raised some questions for me:
Our starting point in our stance towards God in the authorized liturgy is usually that we are sinners and God in his mercy has saved us. Factually of course this is always true – but the people journeying here start from below that place, in that we are not so much sinners as sinned against first. Some have been abused, raised by addictive parents, grown up in religious cults, put into care at an early age, have formed no stable attachments in early life, suffered mental distress and ongoing psychosis, suffer PTSD, wrestling with a weight of debt, be addicted themselves, have had no education and be illiterate etc.
I found this an interesting comment, perhaps because I am not deeply steeped in liberation theology, which the writer references in the original post.
This hierarchy causes me lots of question. We are not sinners but those sinned against, and this somehow means dealing with our own sins needs to take a back seat to dealing with the oppression. And our liturgies should reflect that new order of things.
I am deeply troubled by this reformulation of the faith. We live in a world in which everyone is sinned against. But my trouble, of course, may not be a sign of error. Perhaps it should be a prod to me. I am unsettled on these matters.
Later in the comment, the author offers this helpful example of a specific case that helped me see a little better what was at work:
One example I had recently was a minister who was obviously well to do himself (from his signet ring, watch and cufflinks anyway) praying a prayer asking God to ensure a fair re-distribution of wealth and the worlds resources, and to help ‘us’ to help the poor. We had five people with us at the service who were desperately poor, several on their way to the local Foodbank after the service. The liturgy seemed to assume that it would be prayed by wealthy people. Should it have challenged further the wealthy people praying to be the answer to their own prayer and begin to re-distribute their excess?
Yes. A brilliant critique. One worthy of John Wesley, another person often criticized for running rough shod over good order in the Church of England.
All in all, the post is a rich starting point for conversation about important matters.