'My heart was strangely warmed'. Worship and the 'religious affections'.
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
As promised on the 'Messy Church' thread - 'What Is This?' - here is a thread about the emotions or 'religious affections' in worship to use an 18th century phrase.
I'm interested in exploring this in an eirenic and Ecclesiantics way rather than a Purgatorial one, so will watch my step.
My starting point is that however we worship and in whatever 'style' the ideal is to balance 'head and heart' and engage all our faculties - with the end that we both love the Lord our God and our neighbours as ourselves.
It's not about getting ourselves worked up emotionally - or aesthetically - although as creaturely creatures there is scope and room for both emotion and aesthetics within bounds determined by our respective faith communities.
At the same time, I recognise that what might inspire or 'move' some of us won't have the same effect on all of us. I don't want to get into the realm of value judgement here.
On the 'What is this?' Thread @Climacus gave an example of being moved by songs and sermons from a different tradition than their own.
I get that.
Indeed, I would celebrate that. Even if it were a tradition I find unconducive for whatever reason.
All Christian traditions seem to apply some form of checks and balances. Those exist even within those which encourage 'free expression' as it were. Lines are drawn.
My own Tradition has very prescriptive 'rules' on iconography, on the use of the human voice in worship, on posture and gesture etc etc. At the same time there is an aesthetic designed to cultivate particular responses such as awe, reverence and so on.
Other traditions will have their own written or unwritten rubrics.
How are these things applied, managed, encouraged or regulated where you are?
I'm interested in exploring this in an eirenic and Ecclesiantics way rather than a Purgatorial one, so will watch my step.
My starting point is that however we worship and in whatever 'style' the ideal is to balance 'head and heart' and engage all our faculties - with the end that we both love the Lord our God and our neighbours as ourselves.
It's not about getting ourselves worked up emotionally - or aesthetically - although as creaturely creatures there is scope and room for both emotion and aesthetics within bounds determined by our respective faith communities.
At the same time, I recognise that what might inspire or 'move' some of us won't have the same effect on all of us. I don't want to get into the realm of value judgement here.
On the 'What is this?' Thread @Climacus gave an example of being moved by songs and sermons from a different tradition than their own.
I get that.
Indeed, I would celebrate that. Even if it were a tradition I find unconducive for whatever reason.
All Christian traditions seem to apply some form of checks and balances. Those exist even within those which encourage 'free expression' as it were. Lines are drawn.
My own Tradition has very prescriptive 'rules' on iconography, on the use of the human voice in worship, on posture and gesture etc etc. At the same time there is an aesthetic designed to cultivate particular responses such as awe, reverence and so on.
Other traditions will have their own written or unwritten rubrics.
How are these things applied, managed, encouraged or regulated where you are?
Comments
The subject of the thread, and the post by @Climacus that prompted it, reminded me of a different quote from William Cowper:
Sometimes a light surprises the child of God who sings;
It is the Lord who rises with healing in his wings.
I’m pondering the questions presented in the OP.
I was using it more loosely as it's a phrase I like and which can be applied I think to religious emotions - if that's the right term - of any kind.
I'm not sure whether it was a Moravian meeting or one of the various 'religious societies' that were active at that time. There were around 40 in London before Wesley set up his first.
He'd certainly encountered Moravian missionaries on his ill-fated trip to the Colonies and they significantly influenced his thinking.
But it's the essence of it all I'm reaching towards - the heart and head in unison and the emotions and will combined in pursuit of the Divine as it were.
“I preached at B. I really admired the exquisite stupidity of the people. They gaped and stared while I was speaking of death and judgement as if they had never heard of such things before. And they were not helped by two surly ill-mannered clergymen who seemed to be just as wise as themselves”. !
[ Seen this morning in a display at a local heritage exhibition held in the Methodist church of the town where I live. ]
Like all of us a mass of contradictions. He contradicts himself in his Journals all the time.
A bit like the Bible really ... 😉
But what I love about 'Pope John' is his energy and vigour and how he appeals to both evangelicals and 'High Church' types alike.
He'd have been a difficult bloke to have around though. His brother Charles would have been a lot easier.
Anyhow... my use of a Wesley quote seems to have sent this thread in a tangential direction even before it's got underway.
I'm not sure whether the following anecdote will get it back on track.
I recently met an American Episcopalian priest who had 'been raised' as they day in a Southern US Pentecostal setting. He had a party piece which amused his colleagues by giving an extremely accurate impersonation of a Southern US Pentecostal preacher.
The inflections were note-perfect and I can't do justice to them here.
'Ah've been Born Again and Baptised, Washed in The Bloo-od and Sanctified ... Ah've been Baptised in The Holy Ghost ... a-and pray for me brothers and sisters that I'll keep holding on right to the e-end.'
That 'e-end' is crucial. The cadence of it.
'They talk like that to get people all worked up ' he explained but that's not how it sounded to my ears. It wasn't shouty or ranty but has a soft and winsome cadence, yes, somewhat 'mannered' but certainly not manipulative in any forceful way.
It sounded quite sweet and 'down home' to me and made me think how there are particular 'parsonical' tones in some sections of the CofE and how none of us can avoid a 'performative' element to some extent or other in public speaking.
I remember a Baptist preacher who would crack a gag or make an allusion during a sermon only to rather dramatically bring things back to seriousness as he resumed his text by drawing himself up with a deep breath over the open Bible as if he was about to plunge his head into a bucket of cold water.
It was an affectation but it did give you a jolt - hold on, we are about to get into the serious stuff. Must pay attention.
The Orthodox equivalent would be 'Wisdom! Let us attend!'
Both are equally ritualised. Whether they 'work' or not depends on our response I suppose.
I think the same has happened over time with the ancient liturgies. They have found a balance between song, speech and silence. And between active participation and listening. And between standing, sitting and kneeling. They all evoke a rise and fall in emotional intensity.
In some unfamiliar situations I feel I might be almost hostile to any possibility of being moved in any positive way by what I see and hear though I know God can break through that.
Today’s congregation might not “gape and stare” as in my John Wesley account above, if something totally new or unfamiliar were presented, but might just switch off or walk out. I am capable of doing either. I would not wish to cause offence by giving examples of the likely circumstances.
Jesus’ parable of the sower and the different soils may be relevant here.
I come from a tradition and denomination that does not have a set liturgy, but that also attempts to set structures and avoid an “anything goes” approach. For that purpose, we have what American Presbyterians (following from the Westminster Assembly) call a Directory for Worship. From the PCUSA’s Directory: It has been said that the goal is to balance order with ardor. It has also been said, and with good reason, that Presbyterians are much better at order than ardor.
There is a Presbyterian church near me that for years had electric candles on the retable behind the Communion table. The stated reason was fire safety. I always thought it could be viewed as symbolic of a desire to control the activity of the Spirit in worship. “Come, Holy Spirit—but only on our terms, please.” (They have since renovated their sanctuary, and the candles, which now stand on the floor, are no longer electric.)
For a time I thought, 'Ha! I've arrived! I am anointed with the Holy Spirit's power! All I have to do is lay my hand on people and they fall over ...'
To this day, though, there were a few instances I cannot account for so easily but by and large in that context it was easy enough to create a kind of 'Toronto liturgy' and expectation that this sort of thing would happen.
It shook me, to be honest as I realised how it could lead to spiritual pride and recklessness.
It was one of the reasons - along with the rise of dial-up Internet connection - why I began to explore older and more liturgical Christian traditions.
At any right, I think that the Reformed aim to balance 'order and ardour' which @Nick Tamen outlines is a laudable one - with or without the extra 'u' (in 'ardour/ardor') not 'laudable' ... 😉
In its own and different way, Orthodox worship sets out to do the same. It's one reason why we have strict rules on iconography and why we intone prayers and Bible readings rather than declaiming them dramatically.
But like Nick I think we could also loosen up a bit in that regard.
It can be easy to 'switch-off' when a passage of scripture is intoned.
Interestingly, perhaps, I have come across Orthodox who describe quite 'intense' moments and feelings when encountering an icon, say, when that particular icon has no apparently 'affective' quality in terms of drama or 'oomph' in the way that a High Renaissance or Baroque image might.
I know a monk who says he was converted from atheism by encountering a particular icon of the Virgin Mary and Christ Child in a Russian art gallery.
He said he was literally rooted to the spot and couldn't move.
These things can happen in secular contexts too of course. I remember a very profound encounter with a Goya in Madrid.
I have also come across MoTR Anglican clergy who are certainly not avowedly charismatic who can relate instances of 'promptings' both within or outside church services which led to their taking some action or making an intervention that was timely or which had positive results in someone's life.
I have no 'set' menu or prescription for such things. 'The wind bloweth where it listeth ...'
I'm not sure where the line lies between the 'confection' as it were of a conducive atmosphere and manipulation. It can be obvious in some quarters. More subtle in others.
Our milages may vary as they say here on the Ship.
Sometimes it’s a personal connection specific to you. There’s one hymn I know one of our organists finds it difficult to get through as she had it for both her parents’ funerals.
About a month ago I decided to do a dramatic monologue based on the gospel reading in place of the sermon, as it seemed to be the most effective way of getting across some interesting bits of background without detracting from the impact of the event described. I was slightly taken aback when around half a dozen people told me afterwards they’d been moved to shed a tear or two. I wasn’t aiming for that sort of response.
Almost invariably many of the English parishioners would say to him afterwards, 'Oh, that was so moving, Father..."
Whereas the Irish ones would say, 'What the bloody hell was that?'