Reflection on All Saints Day

Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell Johnson devote a chapter of their book The Origins of Feasts, Fasts, and Seasons in Early Christianity to the sanctoral cycle — a kind of liturgical calendar of its own (199ff) — which celebrates feast days of individual saints. The authors point out that the sanctoral cycle developed out of popular pietestic veneration of early Christian martyrs, generally on the anniversaries of their martyrdoms. Martyrdom was, for early Christians, “in all likelihood … understood as both a repetition of baptism or a substitute for it, and a sacrifice parallel and similar to Christ’s passion and the Eucharist, that is to say, as a redemptive sacrifice” (179). This manner of dying for the cause (as it were) sanctified the sacrifice and martyrdom became essentially synonymous with sainthood.

Bradshaw and Johnson state that, by the fourth century, several other categories of “saints” began to appear on lists of the Church’s annual celebrations: ascetics and monks, people who were confessors (and therefore “witnesses”), but who were not killed on account of their witness, per se, were nevertheless included as “martyrs by extension” (189). Bishops also began to make the list in the fourth century and, as the authors quote Pierre Jounel, “the difference between these two types of anniversaries must have been rather vague in practice” (190). Throughout that century, the categories continued to expand, and feasts for figures like Mary Theotokos, Emperor Constantine, and Theodosius I were added to the cycle, and so the sanctorum continued to grow, with localized variations, over time.

Laurence Hull Stookey (Calendar: Christ’s Time for the Church), along with much of contemporary Protestantism (in spite of continued anti-Catholic grumbling), embraces a much more expansive definition of a saint, citing the New Testament’s synonymous use of “saint” with “Christian” and “believer” (142). He points out that being a saint actually has nothing to do with being one of the “greats of History,” or indeed with any merit or effort on the part of humans, but rather, sanctity is necessarily intimately connected with and dependent upon identification with the holiness of Christ. We are ALL saints “because God’s [that is, Christ’s] sanctity is at work in us” (143).

Contemporary practice of commemorating a particular saint’s feast day still generally corresponds with that person’s death date (as it had been for the martyrs of the early church), unless some other festival or celebration (e.g. the Lord’s Day) takes precedence, or if the death date is not known, as is the case for biblical saints. Instead, those feast days are placed into the cycle largely according to convenience or in order to make a special comment on that saint’s “specialness” (e.g. Stephen, the protomartyr, who is considered noteworthy enough for his feast day to fall on the day after Christmas) (145).

In any case, the large number of saints whose lives are commemorated in the sanctoral cycle gives rise to a predicament: each day of the calendar year memorializes one or more saint’s lives. Stookey states: “Eventually a crisis developed, and a solution arose: Designate one day each year as a kind of omnibus occasion, a day on which to commemorate all the saints who cannot be accorded their own specific dates, and whose names have been forgotten” (148). The date of this commemoration, which we call All Saints Day, varies in the West (where it is often celebrated on November 1) and the East (where some rites celebrate it on May 13 and some on the Sunday following Pentecost) (148). And even in the West, there remains a disparity between Roman Catholics on the one hand, who celebrate only canonized saints on November 1, leaving “all other faithful departed” to be remembered the following day (the Feast of All Souls), and Protestants on the other, who celebrate All Saints Day, collapsing RC practices into one day: either November 1 or the first Sunday in November (148).

Protestant practice also makes no distinction between “recognized” saints (i.e. great historical figures) and the biblical “great cloud of witnesses,” including people who died in the previous year, many of whom belonged to our parishes and whose names we read aloud as part of our ritual celebration of the saints (148).

In our expansive definition of sanctity and in our ritual observance, we emphasize the catholicity of the church in all times and all places. We give thanks for the departed ones and for their faithful witness to the promise of God in Jesus Christ. Stookey writes: “[T]hese persons [, though departed, continue to] bear testimony to us concerning the One of whom it is written, ‘Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows’ (Isaiah 53:4 RSV). Their stories point us to his story. And it is his story that enables us to bear all sorrow …. [It is] the sole source and focus of the entire liturgical calendar” (150).

The rites particular to All Saints Day manifest in the church’s use of time in the proclamation that all the saints across all times and places are sanctified in the holiness of Christ, which he shares with us as part of what Luther called “the happy exchange,” or what Orthodox Christians might refer to as theosis or deification. In other words, Christ takes on OUR sins which die with him on the cross. With us he shares, by his grace, the righteousness which belongs to HIM as the Son of God.

This Good News interacts with the faithful in our time in spite of the larger cultural orientation toward despair and the fear of death. As believers, we still grieve death — our own and that of those we love — but because God’s promise proves trustworthy, we can rest in the assurance that death does not have the final word. Instead, the final word belongs to God, whose promise IS life in Christ.

I think that All Saints Day aims, as a ritual event, to put us in mind, not only of all the saints who have gone before us, but also to remember that WE are the saints. Here and Now. We are examples in the world in real time. Our faith will also have impact on the generations that follow. Our understanding and way of being run counter to Culture (the “powers and principalities” of the kosmos, “the prince of this world”, “the patterns of this world,” etc.), and this gives us hope in the face of death and decay, in the face of every kind of darkness. It falls to US SAINTS to share this Good News, which we ourselves have already received — to share it with a world that desperately needs to hear it, aches to hear it.

 

 

Congregational Identity

There’s a really good book that came out of the Alban Institute in 2004. It’s called The Hidden Lives of Congregations: Discerning Church Dynamics. Israel Galindo is the author. Chapter 7 has to do with “The Hidden Life of Congregational Identity.” I want to give you a run-down of that chapter.

Galindo believes that a congregation’s identity is one of the most important dynamics in the corporate life of an assembly. He states that there are 3 major components of that identity: Spirituality, something he calls “Stance,” and Style.

Spirituality strongly influences things like how a congregation approaches worship – how the people understand the reason we gather. It also influences the rest of mission and ministry, including it’s “stance.” It may influence Style, too, but Stance is mainly what I want to address here today.

Galindo writes, “A church’s stance has to do with how it views its mission and ministry and how it relates to the world around it” (117). Geographical context may well play into a church’s stance: Is the setting urban? Suburban? Rural? That makes a difference. So does the composition of the congregation. Are the people primarily Latino? Black? White? Asian-Pacific? That’s also a determining factor.

Galindo states, though, that membership/participation usually determines a congregation’s viability (ability to sustain itself and it’s ministries) LESS than whether a congregation is involved in the life of the neighborhood where it’s planted. This is something that’s VERY worth considering!

“Doctrinal or mission task emphasis” can also determine a congregation’s stance. Galindo points out that a stance can and often does shift over time; however, “imprinting” by founding members (even, let’s hypothetically say, 105 year ago) sometimes so strongly shapes an assembly’s stance that the congregation has trouble adjusting when demographic shifts in the neighborhood take place. “For many congregations, it’s easier to pull up stakes and move to a different geographical location when the neighborhood changes than it is to change their stance” (118).

Incidentally – or not incidentally! – FELC has stayed put in this particular neighborhood for 60 years, demographic shifts notwithstanding. I don’t know whether that has to do with stubbornness, with determination, with the fact that there are numerous other congregations within a 15-mile radius that individual members/families can choose from instead of uprooting the current congregation … or whether it has more to do with a real sense that THIS congregation is ROOTED in THIS PLACE, planted here by God for a purpose. Another thing worth pondering …. You tell me. And if the latter is the case, then what do we have to do in order to make our ministries more viable in this place where God has put us?

Back to Galindo!

Galindo lists 9 common congregational stances (118 – 123). Let’s see whether any of these (or any combination of them) sounds like FELC. Here they are, along with brief descriptions:

1. The Urban Ministry-stance Congregation
* “This congregation’s stance is informed and shaped by its geographical location in the urban setting.”
* “Commitment to the welfare of the city” is a major value.
*As such they are active in community ministries: aftercare programs, ESL courses, tutoring/training ministries, AA, NA, single-parenting groups are hosted here. There may also be secular agencies stationed in these churches (clinics, counseling centers, etc.)
* These folks likely intentionally remained grounded in place rather than moving to the suburbs.
*People in this congregation “seek to impact the lives of those in their neighborhood, which is made up of a broad spectrum of ethnic and socioeconomic groups.”
* The membership reflects the demographics of the neighborhood.
* It’s not uncommon to find congregations like this in large buildings that also house several separate (ethnic) churches (or schools) in the facility.

2. The University-stance Congregation
* Geographic context is in close proximity to a university or college.
* Membership includes a large number of people from that school (students, administrators, professors, etc.)
* Education and learning are strong values.
* Sermons (and overall approach to matters of faith) tend to be critical/scholarly.
* Book studies and lecture series make up much of the educational programming.
* This congregation has a good sized endowment but often struggles with finances beyond the bare essentials.
* The membership is well educated, but often transient; therefore, membership loyalty and program/ministry continuity is a challenge.

3. The Country Club-stance Congregation
* Members tend to be financially affluent.
* To outsiders, this congregation seems aloof, exclusive, disconnected from the real world.
* The exclusive nature of the membership creates intense closeness. (I added this aspect. It’s not in Galindo.)
* Members may resist direct ministry, but are generous financial supporters of various ministries.

4. The Community-stance Congregation
* Values inclusivity, belongingness, diversity, and tries to “welcome all”
* Tends to downplay denominational affiliations (because those can be obstacles for new people)
* Celebrates the wider culture insofar as it aligns with the congregation’s faith values
* Sermons include pop culture references, and congregation tends to “get it”
* Educational offerings tend to be “creative” (e.g. Bible studies along pop culture themes, such as “A Spirituality of The Matrix,” a “Survivor-themed” youth lock-in)
* Tends to provide a “cafeteria plan of ministry opportunities” – “everything from day care for toddlers to art classes for seniors” – which provide multiple entry points into congregational life.
* Outreach tends to echo the “If you build it, they will come” concept
* Drawbacks:
– Requires major investment in competent staff.
– Gets trapped in a consumerist mindset (“Market analysis” approach to outreach;                   attractional model for certain constituencies (e.g. parents with young children, young           thirty-somethings, etc.)) which creates pseudo-community of like-minded people                 instead of creating community “around building [an authentically] inclusive, multi-
generational faith community”

5. The Mission-stance Congregation
* Intentionally outward-focused.
* Values service to the world.
* Faithfulness as a church includes work “to transform the world through active engagement”
* Committed to the ministry of all believers.
– “As such it is effective in organizing, structuring, and providing processes that
facilitate its members’ quick and effective engagement in personal or corporate
ministries” beyond the four walls of the building.
* Values a theology of “call” (vocation) and service through ministry to others (discipleship)
* Has difficulty maintaining multigenerational membership
– is primarily an “adult” church
* Has difficulty maintaining programs to provide for more dependent members (older adults, children, youth)
– Sees faith formation of youth/children as primarily the responsibility of the family

6. The Pillar-stance Congregation
* Enjoys prestige (if not always influence, or if so, may no longer have much affluence)
* Enjoying a rich history and reputation, often caught in the bureaucracy stage.
* Leadership strongly supports denominational structures and orthodox theology (if not always orthodox practice)
* Places high value on professionalism of staff and pastor.

7. The Shepherd-stance Congregation
* Values affirmation of persons and care-giving
– sees self as “family of faith”
* Sermons tend to focus on reconciliation, healing, peace, justice.
* Members welcome the broken and hurt, offering comfort, healing & restoration
* Danger: potential addiction to pain (little room for healthy, mature members who need a challenge rather than affirmation)

8. The Outreach-stance Congregation
* “Outreach” tends to mean “evangelism” to the “lost”
* Highly values the conversion experience and some outward sign thereof
– As such, every practice of the congregation is geared toward that goal or toward reinforcing that value
* Every gathering is a chance to preach repentance (and to offer an altar call)
* Heavy stress on sin and the need to be rescued from it
* Social activism (if present) seen as “bearing fruit” and as outward manifestation of the indwelling of the Spirit

9. The Crusader-stance Church
* Holds a strong “Kingdom of God” theology
– As such, participates actively in the public square, engage in public debates, provides prophetic stance, ensures that the voice of God is heard
(Exists on both sides of the political and theological spectrum)

Take a look at all of these stances, what congregations who fall into these categories tend to value, what the pitfalls are (if they’re stated or if you can see them), and try to determine whether our congregation fits one stance more than another, or whether we might have more of an Old McDonald approach (here a value, there a value…). Armed with the insights you come away with, let’s determine what we want to DO with that info. How does this affect how we choose and negotiate our own values and the principles that guide us?

I hope you enjoy this discussion. I find it all very fascinating!

Keep on chooglin’,

Pr. Rob