Traditionalism vs Moving with the times
I am not one of those who think that the people are never in the wrong. They have been so, frequently and outrageously, both in other countries and in this. But I do say, that in all disputes between them and their rulers, the presumption is at least upon a par in favour of the people.
As I did expect, there were several letters – mostly from people with an involvement in the choir decrying it’s end, and a couple from other clergy who essentially suggested that the detractors should get on with life. However, there was also an opinion piece by Chris McGillion, the Herald’s religious affairs writer. I generally find McGillon to be annoying – probably because I disagree with the views that he presents in many of his articles. However, I thought his piece today was very interesting.
The tagline given to the article was “The battle of the faithful within Anglicanism has claimed its latest victims”, so I was naturally expecting some vitriol about the death of good Anglican traditions, how Sydney Evangelicals are out of step with the rest of their church (in Sydney and around the world), and how they’re ruining things for everybody. However, the article was actually quite even-tempered and, more importantly, appears accurate in its description of evangelicals. I can’t remember the last time I read a such a succint description of what evangelicals mean when they call themselves that:
What they mean by this is two things. One is that they possess the Truth and it is that salvation is by faith alone; that unless you personally and individually commit your life to Christ you are damned, and that all other varieties of Christianity that do not teach this are by degrees either wrong, misled or confused.
More accurately, I would say that evangelicals say that the Bible contains the truth, but the rest of that statement is pretty spot on. McGillion very accurately (in my semi-educated opinion) traced the evangelical heritage back to the reformation, and through it to the early church, and tied the changes to the cathedral with the changes made by the reformers.
Overall, McGillion took a positive, or at worst neutral, stance on the abolition of the cathedral choir (to the extent that his own opinion came across). Basically, his view was that all traditions are new at some point, and we make our own traditions. And I thought that his closing line was quite appropriate:
“More generally it is further evidence that Sydney Anglicans intend to strike out on their own and to encourage a kind of nondenominational Christianity the likes of which this country has never seen.”
I find it interesting gauging public reaction to these kinds of things. There seem to be three main pressures within the church, and the rest of society either picks up on one of these or takes an alternate view that church is either irrelevant (so they don’t care) or that it should play nice with the rest of society.
The three pressures seem to be:
-
The church should move with the times and keep updating itself to stay relevant (in it’s extremem form, this is a liberal position)
The church should remain faithful to the Bible (evangelical)
The church should remain faithful to it’s background and traditions (traditionalist – although only really occurs within the Anglican or Catholic church).
The decision to remove the choir at St Andrews is a move to keep the church relevant, but is within a framework of keeping the church faithful to the Bible (it’s not a necessary thing, Biblically, so can be safely removed). But now I’m wondering what the general public reaction to the removal of the choir will be. I’m wondering if the general rection will be:
-
This is good – the church is keeping itself relevant and with the times (not that it will make me go). Or
- Who cares? They can work it out themselves – it doesn’t effect me. Or maybe What a shame – just another example of those fundamentalist Jensens destroying beautiful things – not that I ever listened to it, but it was nice to know that it was there.
I find it interesting that evangelical Christianity is in a no-win situation as far as reform is concerned. They’re damned if they reform things in order to promote biblically-based evangelism, or damned if they keep faithful to biblical ‘traditions’. I guess that just goes to show that those faithful to the Bible can always expect opposition from those who aren’t.
Sidenote: one of the funniest things in the article yesterday was a quote from a parent saying:
“It’s not like we can appeal to a higher authority. We’re completely powerless. I guess this is what the Reformation felt like.”
I’m guessing that yes – that’s what the reformation felt like to Catholic clergy, whose cathedrals were being ‘desecrated’, their traditions broken down and seeing many of the people in their congregations side against them. On the other hand, the reformers started by appealing to the pope for change, then to ‘secular’ princes and rulers and they always felt they had God on their side and could appeal directly to Him, without going through priests, Mary or any ceremony.
Hi Tim
Long time no see. Was doing a web search on my old work place and you’re blog came up. My congregation are asking all kinds of questions regarding the changes at St Andrew’s (mostly fueled by Kelly Burke’s biased reporting) and because I’m the one with connections, I get the fun job of dealing with said questions.
I’m adding your site to my favourites and look forward to hearing more from you.
Joel A
Nice to hear from you as well, Joel A. We’ll have to catch up at greater length again sometime soon.
Given that all this is linked to your old workplace, and compared to what’s been written and even how I’ve analysed it, what’s your take on these changes?
Here’s a question that I often ask myself: How does the refocusing of a church service rate an article in the SMH? And then there are the many variations: How does the moving of a table in a building rate a mention? The alteration to song orders?
And then we come to something even more interesting. How is this journalism and not editorialism? The articles by Kelly Burke are clearly opinion pieces. She doesn’t even attempt to present both sides of the story. In the article in question, at no stage does she even suggest she attempted to speak to Chris Moroney or Phillip Jensen regarding the changes. But she did speak to some people who have been very vocal about the dislike of the direction the Cathedral has been taking (people who have been vocally against Phillip Jensen even before meeting him).
Who is playing who? Is Kelly Burke using these malcontents to write articles that spark “debate”? Or are the malcontents using Kelly Burke to further their views? Congregation members have been known to contact Ms Burke and invite her to meetings when they know decisions they don’t like are going to be announced.
Generally speaking, I don’t read or watch the news. So I was surprised when I found that our 8.30 congregation were intrigued by what was happening regarding the “desecration” of the Cathedral.
Which brings us back to the original question: How does a Church’s decision to change the focus of their service become news worthy?
Makes you think, don’t it?
Hi Tim,
Reading Joel’s last comment, I felt his question about “how does the refocusing of a church service rate an article in the SMH?” needed a response.
In the Anglican church, a cathedral is regarded as being very different from a Parish Church. In very general terms, a Cathedral has two distinct functions:
1) To be the function centre of the Diocese.
Cathedrals are usually large, and can hold lots of people. They relate to the State and to various Sectors of the community through the conducting of special services. Ordinations (the making of deacons and priests) are conducted in cathedrals. They are places where the wider community gathers when something bad happens, like September 11.
All these activities are unique and important ministries. They are the reason that services in cathedrals tend to be conducted in a more formal manner to those held in Parishes.
2) To be a house of prayer
The Anglican services of Morning and Evening prayer were developed out of the monastic services of Matins and Prime (Morning Prayer), and Vespers and Compline (Evening Prayer). I think they were first in place in 1549, and a few changes were made in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. These services have remained unchanged to this day and are used in cathedrals worldwide (an updated language version was included in the Australian 1978 prayer book).
The services of Morning and Evening Prayer are about the CHURCH AT PRAYER. They are usually conducted daily, regardless of whether anyone is there or not. Attendance is not particularly relevant; prayers are offered on behalf of all in the diocese. The concept being that while the members of the church go about their daily duties; work, looking after families, etc; the Church is at prayer. This focus is reflected in the content of the services, which don’t involve a lot of congregational participation, and don’t even have a sermon.
In a cathedral context, the services involve a choir. Over 450 years of music written specifically for this purpose can be drawn upon, and music continues to be written to this day. In fact, hundreds of pieces are published internationally every year.
In particular, the service of Evening Prayer in its choral form (generally called Evensong) is widely regarded as one of the treasures of the Anglican tradition. This service is very much alive in cathedrals, and in many parishes that have choirs. This is the service that has been discontinued on Sunday nights at the Cathedral.
Of course, a cathedral does a lot more, including sharing the faith with the thousands of visitors that come through the doors; and making tourists who come to worship during their time in Sydney welcome. Plus, a cathedral also has its own congregation (usually small).
What is happening at the cathedral is not simply a refocussing of services. It is a move away from what is widely regarded as the role of the cathedral, toward that of a Parish church. Phillip Jensen has stated openly that he intends for the cathedral to become a template for parishes to follow.
If a service does not grow, it should be replaced. The focus is “bums on seats” in line with the Diocesan mission. The cathedral choir is just caught up in the middle.
Sydney is one of only two Anglican cathedrals outside the UK to possess a choir school (the other is in Christ Church, New Zealand). As a diocese and as a community, we possess something special with our cathedral choir.
A choir cannot survive unless you give it something to do. The removal of their Sunday evening duties reduces the choir’s workload by 25%, and the choir’s role in Sunday morning services has been significantly reduced (by more than half).
This is why there has been a lot of interest in the changes. It has nothing to do with the introduction of a new service in a different style without choir. It has to do with the removal of something that is unique to the Anglican church, that has the potential to threaten the existence of the choir (not, perhaps, through destructive intention, but through stagnation).
Eric Peterson
Deputy Organist, St Andrew’s Cathedral
[…] lots on hers. I used to allow it, and got some interesting discussion (check out discussion about St Andrews Cathedral), but turned it off because I was getting too much comment […]