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
Comments
Post a Comment