Militant Moderation

I happened to overhear a bit of conversation concerning the perpetual wrangling that happens over how and in what form church services should take place. The current battle lines tend to be over "traditional" music and versus "praise music" - and how that music affects the order of the service: put more crudely, it is "guitars versus organs." I have my own ideas about how that battle should be conducted. Still, this note is more about how eternal this battle is (at least within Christianity).

Paul the Apostle was already dealing with a form of this quarreling in the Epistle to the Romans: "Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarrelling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. . . Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds." (From Romans 14, NRSV). If a quarrel is as ancient as that, it probably can't be easily resolved.

What brought this clearly to my mind, however, was re-reading parts of the prefatory matters from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Keep in mind what had happened just prior to the revision of the Book of Common Prayer in 1662 - i.e. the long battle of the English Civil War, the execution of Charles I in 1649, Cromwells' Interregnum period from 1649-1660, and restoration of Charles II in 1660. So when 1662 rolled around, the English state (and the English Church) were settling back from the violent disorders of the past two decades.

The Puritans were violently opposed to any sort of a written liturgy - feeling that pre-writing prayers and such was a form of heathen "vain repetition." The Catholics in England, on the other hand, wanted a full restoration of the pre-Reformation English latin rites and liturgies. After the violent upheaval (where the Puritans were temporarily ascendant, and basically suppressed the written liturgies of the land), the Church of England was answering both groups in the Preface. It states:

"IT hath been the wisdom of the Church of England, ever since the first compiling of her Publick Liturgy, to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation from it. For, as on the one side common experience sheweth, that where a change hath been made of things advisedly established (no evident necessity so requiring) sundry inconveniences have thereupon ensued; and those many times more and greater than the evils, that were intended to be remedied by such change: So on the other side, the particular Forms of Divine worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent, and alterable, and so acknowledged; it is but reasonable, that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to those that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient."

In the time and place where this was written, this was a clarion call for moderation at the end of a bloody conflict. In modern English, I would paraphrase what they are saying sort of as follows: "We are in favor of moderation, when writing the public liturgy of the church. We think one side innovates too much, and thereby causes greater confusion than it attempted to cure. We think the other side is attached to ceremonial that is nice, but not absolutely required - it's not like God has set forth an unalterable way to worship him. Therefore, we are setting out a cautious revision of the public liturgy, making a few changes, but generally sticking with what's been used in the past, except where we have been convinced that the change proposed is really necessary and useful."

Later, when explaining the changes to the ceremonies used, the writers again addressed both parties who wanted them to go further than they did: "whereas in this our time, the minds of men are so diverse, that some think it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the least of their Ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs; and again on the other side, some be so new-fangled, that they would innovate all things, and so despise the old, that nothing can like them, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not so much to have respect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, as how to please God, and profit them both." In other words - "we believe in militant moderation!"

I like the approach these mid-17th century writers used - and I wish we used it as a model today. In words Paul used from Romans 14: "Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another. . . Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual edification." If we can't resolve the quarrel (and it looks like, after almost 2000 years, we can't), then the only solution is to follow Paul's advice.