Good Friday Group Service - Professors Response

P635 Easter Cycle Worship Response from ACF

Good Friday Group (Oct 3, 2019)

Ófe Abreu Rosario, Gina Brown, Jin Kyung Ko, Macy Ruple, Natalie Wolf

In my comments, I’m borrowing from the language and ideas of our course readings, thinking about how these Easter Cycle services might follow the “Isaian Pattern” of worship, or create a “Third Space” for us to reflect on the Christian Year—and the intersections of our lives.

n  Following the “Isaian Pattern” of Worship (Lathrop)

            Ancient texts are made, in assembly, to say a new thing;

Borrowing the old (texts, symbols, images) to speak of the new;

            Using old structures to speak a new grace (through juxtaposition and metaphor);

            Critiquing and plumbing, deconstructing and reconstructing.

n  Creating a “Third Space” for worship (Kwok)

Locally rooted and globally conscious;

            Acknowledging “heteroglossia” (many overlapping identities, perspectives and voices);

            Contrapuntal readings (to challenge old “common sense” that serves the status quo);

            Deconstructing and reconstructing (for new ways of being).

Christian Year Themes and Intersections (of Time and Eternity). Your Good Friday service really lifted up theological themes and emphases of the Triduum: passion and thanksgiving, eschatological hope and waiting, and a sense of “telling the story backwards.” At the same time, you didn’t rush us through Friday’s abandonment and grief. You gave us space to sit in the event, to really contemplate it and experience it, which is crucial: without Friday as the crux, the pivot day, the rest of the Triduum is empty. Your service allowed us to see and speak truth, in our grieving for the terrible sin of the world, and our terrible part in it. Thank you.  

Space. You created a spare, achingly beautiful space for us. As we entered the chapel, we recognized familiar things: the table with the elements of the previous service, including the cloth covering; a circle of chairs; faces we knew and recognized. These helped to orient us through the disorientation of the day, and what was soon to be unfamiliar, in the liturgy. I felt how necessary that was: because we knew and trusted you, and the space itself, we could accommodate more disequilibrium and disorientation than we might have been able to do, in a setting that wasn’t ours. The fact that the worship leaders were sitting, as we entered, invited us to follow suit: Good Friday isn’t a day to stand (as a symbol of the resurrection, at least!). I think you heard from the class discussion how powerful your “worship leader rotation” was; for several of us, it evoked the inescapable passage of time, the fact that we were going to have to walk through the hours of this day. Each rotation also provided another dimension of disorientation, as if the room itself were spinning. The pulpit provided a “due north” compass point, to guide us. The table provided the fulcrum around which all else rotated/spun. It was a very effective and evocative use of space—and the climax of the service, the moment in which we all gathered around the table for the unsupper as you tipped over the cup—was as devastating a symbolic gesture as any I’ve experienced. You not only reimagined familiar space, for this service; you reimagined the symbols and even ourselves, in it.

Flow. The service had good flow, and your careful attention to detail (and the time you took to rehearse the rotation movements) ensured that all ran smoothly. Several of you noted how much time it can take to rehearse; what I hope you experienced was how meaningful it is, for worshipers, to be drawn into a smooth and even flow of liturgy. We don’t notice the transitions at all—and that’s the point! And because you also had such strong content, we weren’t left with a sense of style, only (as in, “style over substance”); you had great depth to ground and back it up. The quiet beginning and ending of the service were especially well thought-out. To begin with the familiar hymn (“Were You There?”), sung first by one unaccompanied voice, and then the congregation joining in. Singing all five verses was also very effective: we could settle into the mood of the service, slow ourselves down and be fully present.

Movement. Your service had spare, carefully-rehearsed movements; this was very appropriate for the tone of the day and the service, and fit theologically, as well. Good Friday can be a day of dwelling in complete stillness. We were allowed and invited to be so, with this service. Thank you for taking the risk to offer us this opportunity.

Placement. The elements of the service were all strong and well thought-out. I thought your homilies were in the right order (or a good order, anyway), and I was especially struck by how each addressed a particular moment of the life cycle—our own moments in time. I do have 2 placement suggestions, which are (1) to give more of a beat between movements (the beginnings and endings of homilies, in particular; we need extra beats of silence to take it all in, particularly on Good Friday) and (2) to rethink the placement and presentation of the three poems. They were beautiful pieces, but moved quite quickly, too quickly for us to fully absorb. When poetry is part of a worship service, we often need to see and read the words ourselves, either as a meditative piece at the beginning of worship (we’d read it for ourselves) or as a clearly-set apart moment of the liturgy. The Weems poem, for instance, seems to lend itself to pre-service silent meditation. The poetic prayer for illumination seems to lend itself to multiple voices, and a clear, set-apart place in the liturgy (with silence on either side) that doesn’t flow right into the homilies. In other words, it’s less a prayer of illumination than a prayer of focus. It will be very effective with a little care to give it air and room.

            One additional, non-service related idea I’ve been turning over is how to give the congregation a chance to really enter the “Unsupper” image/narrative. I think this might be done during Lent with a series of educational opportunities or meditations (even online) so that we become familiar with the language and the idea. For instance: maybe you could read and discuss Lewis Carroll’s Alice books, or show clips of the Disney film to children, so the original scene is before you, for contemplation. You might also think about how other artists do “un” versions of things – inversions, negations, rewrites, even physical turning-upside-down of objects or images or narratives or rituals. The idea is to help us really participate in the Unsupper, so we can unpack the “is” and “is not” of the metaphor. Plus, it could be a highly intergenerational and lively way to spend Lent!

Words and Liturgy. (Note: I’ll write individual comments to each of you about your homily on Moodle, when I read your Post-Service Reflection.) As a group and as individual pieces, your homilies were exceptional. You are five strong preachers and you offered remarkably different angles on the day and the text. You had good links and common threads through each piece (closing with “Lord, have mercy,” e.g.); the only thing we needed was a bit more space, one or two beats more, to begin and close each homily. You might also begin each homily with a question or statement for the listeners that sets a clear tone and direction for what the preacher is going to do. It will help us see the connections and trajectory even more clearly. I’d encourage each of you not to break the mood of the day by following the homiletical rules (as it were) of “typical” sermons (warmly engaging the congregation, for example): this day is different from all other days, and we need to feel that, consistently. You don’t have to be pastoral in the same way and tone! You can be a preacher who is grieving, and allows us to see and experience the grief. I’m still thinking about what might have happened if each of your homilies had had an image or movement taking place (or placed) in the center, before or during or after your piece; I think that would be a good discussion for next time. The issue would be how to create careful balance, so the image or movement doesn’t become the subject (or change the subject!), but actually enhances and illuminates the homily. Professor Watkins is encouraging us all to pay closer attention to visuals; perhaps some of this could be accomplished by a carefully selected image for the screen. But in any case, your service worked powerfully as it was. Part of the beauty of worship planning is the invitation to continue to mull and imagine and reinvent for next time….

ACF