Self consciousness and how to avoid it
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
It seems axiomatic to me that those who adopt a 'distinctive' line on something liturgically or ecclesiastically can run the risk of becoming very self-conscious about the whole thing.
I'm thinking about some converts to Orthodoxy who attempt to 'out-Orthodox' everyone else.
Or 'disco vicars'. Those that try to be down wiv da kidz.
Or vicars who act like talk-show hosts as @Bishops Finger mentions on the "Modern Catholic" thread.
It's a terrible generalisation I know but it's long struck me how non-Anglican evangelicals can appear more 'naturally' and organically evangelical than some - but by no means all - of their Anglican counterparts.
When I became Orthodox a number of people, both clergy and laity expressed relief that I retained my name and didn't choose the name of a Greek, Slavic, Celtic or Anglo-Saxon Saint.
After all, 'Gamaliel' is already a biblical name of course ... 😉
We find this tendency across the board in different ways, I think.
In addition to not taking ourselves too seriously, how can we become more comfortable in our own skins in whatever setting we are in?
I'm thinking about some converts to Orthodoxy who attempt to 'out-Orthodox' everyone else.
Or 'disco vicars'. Those that try to be down wiv da kidz.
Or vicars who act like talk-show hosts as @Bishops Finger mentions on the "Modern Catholic" thread.
It's a terrible generalisation I know but it's long struck me how non-Anglican evangelicals can appear more 'naturally' and organically evangelical than some - but by no means all - of their Anglican counterparts.
When I became Orthodox a number of people, both clergy and laity expressed relief that I retained my name and didn't choose the name of a Greek, Slavic, Celtic or Anglo-Saxon Saint.
After all, 'Gamaliel' is already a biblical name of course ... 😉
We find this tendency across the board in different ways, I think.
In addition to not taking ourselves too seriously, how can we become more comfortable in our own skins in whatever setting we are in?
Comments
RCs sometimes describe new members as being more Catholic that the Pope.
As to your last question, time brings familiarity, and familiarity brings comfort in your own skin.
Disco vicar that try to be down wiv da kidz.
< / tangent snort >
@Gamma Gamaliel , that was splendid.
She was at least well-instructed. I’m tempted to ask whether she kept kosher and wore a sheitel…
@cgichard- your newly ordained deacon used to be Anglo-Catholic I take it? 😉
Thinking about it, perhaps it's no bad thing providing he's not doing it self-consciously or to be 'seen' as it were. 'Look how holy I am. I pause before the doors ...'
'Visibly' may be the operative word.
@Lamb Chopped - it's not just newbies who do this sort of thing but I agree, it does tend to gradually wear off.
The raw realities of parish or congregational life have that effect.
I may get into trouble for saying this but if they are going to change their names I'd rather British converts to Orthodoxy adopted names like Chad or Teilo or Aidan or Werberga or Ethelberta or ...
It sounds odd to me for a bloke from Bognor calling themselves 'Seraphim' or 'Pantakratos' or something like that.
Orthodox monastic don't get to chose. The late Timothy Ware had a perfectly acceptable Christian name but had to accept 'Kallistos' when he was tonsured.
I've heard several stories of how, after he became a Bishop and was still living with his Mum, visitors would gingerly knock at their door in Oxford to ask her whether they could speak to 'Bishop Kallistos.'
'Kallistos? Kallistos?' the formidable old lady would snort. 'It's Timothy! Timothy!' Then she would shout up the stairs. 'TIM-OTH-EEE! Visitors!'
(a) The "Royal Doors" are, properly speaking, the doors from the Narthex into the Nave. When that is understood correctly a lot of the rubrics for processions make much more sense, but are difficult to execute in a church with no Narthex.
(b) Perhaps the Deacon is just checking mentally that he is going through the correct door, i.e. should he be going through the Holy Doors in the centre or should he be going through the side ("Deacon's") door.
@Ex_Organist Thanks for the correction. I too after 14 years have a lot to learn.
I think self-consciousness tends to wane somewhat when the practical realities begin to grow. When the temptations faced by a new Christian begin to become a real struggle, and the same sins are confessed week by week, or when some signficant life event has to be faced from a Christian perspective and poses real challenges, scrutinising the lists of ingredients on tins of food in Asda during Lent, lest there be any trace of buttermilk, seems to be less of a pressing matter. Similarly, I'm finding that, as the practical and pastoral elements of priestly life come to the fore, other things similarly occupy less space in my mind than they once did. I'm no less careful about them but they're now just part of what I do rather than being something novel.
I do take your point about learning that Barsanuphius and Adamantini are actually Bill and Kirsty from Stoke. Still, I'm happy for people to take the name of whatever saint's life or legacy appeals to them, wherever that saint happens to be from. Personally, I would be lying if I were to say that I do not have a preference for people taking the name of a saint of these islands but, having taken the name Cyprian, I can hardly be a purist in this matter when it comes to others. At my parish, apart from me, the only people who have not taken the names of British saints have adopted biblical saints, with the exception of one person, who is actually Russian and so was given a Russian saint's name from the cradle.
Where it becomes problematic is when people eschew their own local Orthodox heritage because it isn't Greek or Russian enough. I once heard an English Russian Orthodox priest tell someone point blank that Jeremy is not an Orthodox name, presumably because, although it is a thoroughly biblical saint's name, it was a little too anglicised for his liking. My godfather (may he rest in peace) was received through the Greek church and was told by the Greek priest that his name, Alan, was not Orthodox. So he became Dimitri. It was only years laer that he learnt that there were any of a number of Orthodox saints he could have chosen, who were called some version of Alan.
I can relate to this. Being able to go through he Holy Doors (or "beautiful doors", I believe a more literal translation has it), takes some getting used to aftr years of it being something only certain other people may do. Subdeacons may, but only when attending the bishop at certain points, and in the parishes, most subdeacons don't do that very often. So it's really only after diaconal ordination that this becomes a reality.
That said, as the rubrics direct the deacon to use different doors at different times, it may well be as Ex_Organist ha ssuggested: that he's still new to this and he might just be working out if he's using the right door at that particular moment.
I suspect American Presbyterians, at least those in the PC(USA), aren’t quite as scandalized by such things as they might have been 50 or 75 years ago, or as their cousins in the Kirk might be. Making the sign of the cross on the forehead of those being baptized has become quite common, and every now and then I encounter a PC(USA) minister who’ll make the sign of the cross over the congregation. Our Book of Common Worship even recommends it at certain times—always in the context of remembrance of/thanksgiving for baptism.
I’ve learned to scratch my liturgical itches without (I think) drawing much attention to myself about it. A simple bow of the head doesn’t attract much attention. And when it comes to the sign of the cross, I tend to follow the advice of Harold Daniels, who led the Office of Worship of what is now the PC(USA) for many years, and did much to enrich the PC(USA)’s liturgical life. In advocating recovery of the use of the sign of the cross among American Presbyterians, he advised “The ancient form of signing the forehead with the thumb is preferable.” (This is an article, “The Sign of the Cross,” that appeared in Reformed Liturgy & Music sometime in the 1980s, but I’m afraid I no longer have that issue, and my pdf of the article doesn’t show which volume or the date.)
I suspect he advised this at least in part because making the sign in this manner is less noticeable. He also wrote “Even though few may feel comfortable in using this ancient sign, freedom ought to be given to those among us for whom the sign of the cross promises a deepening life of discipleship. Conversely, in offering the sign of the cross for use by the faithful, freedom must also be given to those who for whatever reason are not comfortable in its use. No one should ever feel coerced.” There’s at least on other in our congregation who makes the sign of the cross, and he does it the traditional (Western) way.
In fairness to the zealous converts, it is a significant enough undertaking to adopt a new branch of Christianity that most people wouldn't undertake it unless they were very firmly convinced of the correctness of their choice. So I think a more than average amount of zeal and scrupulousness might be to be expected.
Forgive my ignorance, but shouldn't this be 'from the Nave to the altar' rather than 'Narthex'?
Or am I still thinking of 'Narthex' in Anglican terms?
@Leorning Cniht - yes, I think that's right. It explains but does not excuse some of the more over-zealous behaviour.
@Nick Tamen - typical Reformed / Presbyterian 😉. They want to revive ancient custom and practice but want to do so by 'reforming' it at the same time.
The way RCs, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox cross themselves (and it differs of course) isn't good enough. They have to find something they think adheres more closely to 'ancient practice'. 😉
Is Outrage!
As Tertullian wrote: “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.” He also wrote “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross.”
But in this instance, I think Daniels’ recommendation of the “ancient practice” was intended to accomplish three things: (1) clearly linking the sign to baptism (given that he was writing with a regard to a group of people who had no history of making the sign and no context for it other than “what some other churches do”), (2) allowing those who did adopt the practice to make the sign relatively unobtrusively (given that he knew most Presbyterians likely wouldn’t adopt the gesture), and (3) it would get around reflexive fears of doing anything “too Catholic” (given history and people). In other words, he knew his audience and knew the best way to get a foot in the door.
(And as I said, when ministers make the sign of the cross over the congregation, they do do so in the way RC, Anglican and Lutheran clergy would. So, once again,
I think your understanding of narthex is perhaps correct. In the Byzantine rubrics, the Royal Doors are the doors that lead from the narthex to the nave - they were the doors through which the emperor entered the great church at Constantinople. The central doors of the iconostas are sometimes referred to rubrically as the "Beautiful Gates", but in English I've more commonly heard them called the "Holy Doors".
Childhood is sometimes the habit-forming environment and that is often where practices are passed down through generations and deep attachments formed. When I was very young, my sisters and I would spend much of the school term staying with a Catholic friend. Each night, we would get ready for bed, the lamp would be turned down and our friend's mother would come in to sit with us while we knelt at the bedside and said our prayers aloud. Then she would say the Lord's prayer with us and make the sign of the cross on our foreheads; after kissing us goodnight and turning out the light, she would stand at the door, make the sign of the cross and sprinkle holy water into the room with flicking motions. The memory of that loving protective ritual was comforting in later years when I was alone or afraid in strange places.
Once when travelling in Mozambique, I fell ill with malaria and the local priest was called. He saw my alarm (was I about to die?) and assured me he wasn't giving me the last rites (Extreme Unction) just a sacrament of healing to help me get better, the Sacrament of Anointing. He was a kind, quiet man and made the sign of the cross on my forehead with olive oil, talking to me and reassuring me. It was beautiful and calming, the murmured prayers and sense of being blessed and cared for: I fell asleep before he finished his prayers and felt better when I woke up. I do sometimes think this sacrament should be more widely shared in Christian churches (James 5:14–15: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him"). Oil and water are associated with such powerful sacraments and anointing.
I also believe that sacramentals (gestures and rituals) are very ancient and there's an acquired intuitive body wisdom that gradually or incrementally shapes understanding. It's second nature now, going into a church and pausing at the door to dip fingers in holy water to cross oneself, kneeling or bowing, exchanging the Kiss of Peace with handshakes or hugs, all the simple daily gestures of reverence or supplication. For weeks or months I do them without even being aware, an unthinking habit, then awareness comes back, little reminders of the Divine presence among us and within us.
There and then.
I remember weeping with the relief of it.
I'd have baulked at all if that at one time but we are 'creaturely' creatures and bodily beings.
@ThunderBunk - yes, I think that is the case, and I mean bo disrespect to Anglicans when I concur on this. There are Anglicans out there, though, who wear their particular 'churchmanship' or brand-identity lightly but yes, in any 'broad church' - be it an ecclesiastical one or a political one - there is inevitably going to be a tendency to wear one's particular label on one's sleeve.
If I believe anything at all, it is that we are given grace through bodily actions, eating and drinking, anointing, pouring water, laying on hands, marital sex. To my mind that is what sacraments are about. They work with and sanctify the whole human being, not just the mind/spirit.
@ThunderBunk - yes, I'm not sure it's a 'terrible' thing either, but as you say it can become 'obsessive' at an individual or parish / congregational level.