Is worship the central act of religious community? Second of three essays

| | Comments (1)

Does Hafidha Sofia Acuay see something that many of us have been trained not to see?
She experiences our worship is "a show." In a post in which the presenting problem is an incident of "cultural appropriation" there she also shares an insight into worship, and what she says about worship is important for us to see as well. (I will write about her insights relative to cultural appropriation (and misappropriation) at another time.)
At first I found her suggestion that Unitarian Universalist worship was constructed as entertainment disturbing. I have defended the idea of congregation as "worshipping community" so many times to the skeptics and rationalists that I have the arguments down pat - we come together to give expression those values we hold in common, to aspire to that which is worthy. I have preached that sermon! I have explained that worship is shaping worth ( a usage idiomatic to Old English.)
Theology arises from embodied beings, and reflects personal perspectives and experiences. So two observations, then I will explain why I think she is seeing something that we need to look at.
1. Personally I am accustomed to the way we have done worship. I strive to create worship services that have coherence. So does my spouse, The Rev. Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley but she has different approach than I do. So when we talk about our upcoming worship services together we are challenged to explain why we use certain elements and why we arrange them as we do. We do not think of the format we use as consisting of slots to fill, but rather I see the whole service as consisting of interrelated parts. Still, after the order of service has been constructed for a particular congregation and has been used with that congregation for a long time, I know I fall into a routine. I start with the form that has become our worship format. I search for opening words, or I write them. I write my prayerful meditation. I think about readings, and how the offering fits into the whole. Those who join in worship in churches I have served have told me that it "all works together." But I am sure many young adults find my worship services somewhat old fashioned, or as one observed "contemporary content trapped in a Protestant form."
2. Hafidha's specific observations arise out of her experiences with a committee's attempt to create a ceremonial occasion in a big ugly convention hall. That space wasn't designed for the kind of worship that we do. Our worship culture was developed to be done in Protestant meeting houses, and its function was to teach a lesson. We have expanded our definition of worship to include various seasonal celebrations and community building rituals, but most people continue to see the sermon as a teaching event, framed by edifying music and readings. Most of the clergy at this point in our history will offer public prayer, and many lay people find public prayers and meditative readings meaningful, but it would be over the top to assert that Unitarian Universalists come to church to pray together. A few might do that, but most people indicate that they come to be with their community as they ponder a theme, or topic together. They want good music and they would think it is a good thing when the music works with the theme. That is our practice as "worshipping communities."
Many of our congregations meet in halls and auditoriums that facilitate performances for audiences rather than congregational engagement in shaping community worth, or praising God, or re-creating the cosmos or whatever your idea of the purpose of common worship may be. But we are not always sensitive to the space. Appropriate activity given the space is one of those lessons we learn from experience. What works in a chapel doesn't work in a cathedral, we can't do Quaker silent worship in a convention hall, nor can we do Protestant meeting house worship in one either.
For me, and for many others who plan worship, we think of worship as planned event that happens in a certain space, and at a certain time. I dare say this assumption Hafidha is questioning. She writes:

[I] personally loathe to plan worships. You must know that I have never known Muslims to "plan" worships; we got together and we prayed, basta!

and then again she describes a worship service she helped lead at an anti racist training:

I'm a strong believer in spirituality, but I hate the idea of telling people that it's time to feel holy now. My co-trainer, Toph, felt the same way I did, yet we managed to put together two very decent worships, one of which actually made me cry. But what?! We didn't do anything! The youth and the sponsors present brought their spirits into that space and made it powerful and worshipful. I was in awe that first night - of them and the community they created. I do not think we would have had the same conference without that.

The youth experienced a ritualized interaction that was personally transformative, I doubt whether the space was designed for worship, and I suppose that the time was whenever it was convenient for the participants. Our tradition has taught us to spend a lot of money to build sanctuaries designed for Protestant worship with Unitarian Universalist content that will be filled with people for an couple of hours once a week. The participants in our services are listeners, singers, and again listeners, save for silent prayers and ritualized sharing. The service that Hafidha and Toph "planned" was spatially transient and temporally ad hoc and open to facilitate participant interaction. The clergy, whether that clergy is Unitarian Universalist, mainstream Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish - because they have been narrowly trained in worship arts - experience such youth services as formless and too dependent on spontaneity. For the youth and young adults that may be a feature, rather than a fault. I often have this conversation with classically trained musicians, who argue that jazz is too free form, too ad hoc, too form less. Can an artist trained in one musical discipline appreciate an art that breaks out and defies the forms and conventions of that discipline? Can a liturgist? Yes, but it requires being comfortable with your own embodied self, and then transcending its limitations to appreciate the other point of view.
As I struggled with Hafidha's observation, it prompted me to ask these questions
First,
is the form of worship that we continue in most Unitarian Universalist congregations a product of a different time and a different social set up?
Second, has society changed in such a way that the way our spiritual ancestors organized "worshipping communities" will become increasingly irrelevant to the way that new generations will "support each other in spiritual growth" and build covenant community?
And finally, what does it mean to be a worshipping community in a networked and high tech world?
I will continue these probings in future postings. This is the second essay on this subject,
the first is here.

,

1 Comments

Let me just point out that theatre -- drama -- was understood as being a fundamentally religious thing. It was so for the Greeks--all those wonerful plays (of which we have only a handful) were written to be performed in what was understood as worship or celebration of Dionysus. You want insight into the soul of humanity, read Shakespeare, watch Shakespeare. Or Aristophanes, or Ibsen or Moliere.

It's not just the Greeks. The Etruscans (a culture which revolved around religion to the point that the Romans kept borrowing from it in regards to religion long after they were independent of it) had religious drama, too. The word "person" and "persona" derive from the Etruscan phersu, a mask. Greek and Etruscan dramas were performed by people wearing masks. Gods dropped into them (deus ex machina, the god from/of the machine).

Christianity was dubious of drama (perhaps that element of people enjoying it...), but there were passion plays and morality plays which were almost always deemed good; drama explicitly (and hamfistedly) delivering religious themes.

It's not just Western; shadow puppetry and drama in various parts of Asia is frequently about religion, about the epic tales of the gods, etc.

Religion is often theater. When a service is well planned and thought out, the various pieces of it... even down to minor things that may well not be noticed... weave together something that speaks to a person on many levels. Not just intellectually, and not just emotionally. When one leaves a service feeling uplifted and inspired... it's not only been a good message, but that message has been well delivered--well performed.

Now, is Hafidha wrong? No. If it's just a show, then it's empty. There needs to be content as well as delivery.

I think that she's speaking, at least in part, fron the perspective of a religious tradition which has a very clear, set form. I'll still argue that it's theater. People simply know almost precisely what to expect. It's like going to see your favorite play for the 57th time, having read it at least 196 times and seen seven different film versions of is 89 times. It can still move, still inspire.

Theater isn't a bad thing. But it damned well better not be the only thing....

Leave a comment

Powered by Movable Type 4.1

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Clyde Grubbs published on August 9, 2006 3:10 PM.

Cherokee Nation of Mexico! was the previous entry in this blog.

On not being convinced that we are vague Buddhists is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.