Embodying interreligious prayer

In the current issue of Liturgy, a great deal of our discussion of Interfaith Worship has focused upon the texts to be used. The selection of texts, the selection of persons to read those texts, and the difficulty attendant upon inviting interfaith congregations to proclaim certain texts in unison have occupied much of our attention. However, the non-verbal aspects of interfaith worship have also received some consideration.

In "A Roman Catholic Perspective on Interreligious Worship," J. Frank Henderson includes the non-verbal elements of worship such as space, posture, gensture, movement, signs, symbols and clothing" in his checklist of things which must be considered in the planning of occasions of interreligious prayer, and Susan Henry-Crowe's fine article "Emory University's Cannon Chapel as Multireligious Space," gives us a very deep look into the issue of worship space in a religiously pluralistic community.

In 2006, Dr. David A. Hogue invited readers of Liturgy to consider some exciting recent discoveries in the field of neuroscience and their applicability to our efforts to understand the effect that worship experiences have upon participants. In his article "Sensing the Other in Worship: Mirror Neurons and the Empathizing Brain." Among the new discoveries in brain science that Hogue discusses are these:

• that the human brain is designed not only to monitor the body of which it is a part, but also to attempt to empathize with other human beings and to communicate that empathy to them in non-verbal ways
• that the neurological ability to engage in this exchange of empathy continues to grow throughout the human lifespan, as we encounter more and more human beings each with their own thoughts, feelings and perspectives
• that specialized neurons in the motor cortex of the brain called "mirror neurons" participate in this exchange of empathy by causing us to imitate the movements, actions, postures and gestures of others on a muscular level below the threshold of conscious perception

These scientific discoveries have applicability to all aspects of human behavior, and in his concluding paragraphs, Hogue applies them to the human behavior called "Christian worship."

First, if there was ever any doubt, the brain sciences constantly remind us that we are profoundly embodied creatures, moving about in an often-confusing world, avoiding threats to our very survival and seeking meaning and fulfillment in both likely and unlikely places. Carefully reading recent studies of the brain, it becomes increasingly difficult for us to consider ourselves as spiritual souls that temporarily inhabit material bodies, as some religious traditions believe. Even if we believe that this world is not our ultimate home, our present physical and social world shape our souls (who we most profoundly are) from the very beginnings of life. Soul and body require each other and shape each other in unavoidable ways. Hebraic understandings of the inviolable unity of mind/soul and body therefore reemerge with an unmistakable clarity in our scientific age.

Building on this conviction, we cannot help but question many of our liturgical practices, particularly those that rely almost exclusively on abstract doctrinal concepts or on spoken and written language. Worship is a physical event, welcoming our entire selves into the incarnate word of the gospel. Liturgical leadership requires pastoral sensitivity to the profound ways in which culture, class, and gender both enrich and constrain possibilities for vital worship. We do not all worship in the same way. But in Christian worship, emotional engagement in worship reflects God's incarnation, at once blessing and transforming our created brains and bodies.

"Sensing the Other in Worship: Mirror Neurons and the Empathizing Brain," Liturgy,21:3, (2006) pp. 31-39.

The implications of this research for the practice of interreligious prayer are equally profound. We may take as much care as we like to help members of religiously diverse congregations understand that they are not expected to participate in prayers from others' traditions either verbally or mentally. However, neuroscience assures us that all present will participate physically whether they want to or not. When a Christian assumes the orans posture before leading an interreligious congregation in prayer, everyone present will imperceptibly assume that posture as well. If the person sitting next to you is shuckling, you will be shuckling as well. In the presence of Muslims praying salat non-Muslims will, all unawares, be performing the physical rhythms of standing right, takbeeratul-ihram (raising the hands to the sides of the head), ruku (bowing and placing the hands on ones knees), l’tidal (standing), sajdah (prostration), sitting, sadjah, and sitting.

When we pray together, we move together, and our brains do this in order that we might empathize with our fellows and come to understand just a little better how it is that they think and feel. Though our conscious minds might wish to perform some complex calculous to determine which parts of our neighbors' prayers we can, with integrity, participate in, on a much deeper level our brains and bodies simply pitch right in and pray.

Dr. David A. Hogue is Professor of Pastoral Theology and Counseling at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. He is the author of Remembering the Future, Imagining the Past: Story, Ritual and the Human Brain.

Interfaith Worship and Civic Religion

Among the many sorts of opportunities for interreligious prayer envisioned by the various authors in this volume of Liturgy is the occasion of community gatherings for civic or patriotic observances. Several of the authors mention the recently-minted observance of Patriot Day, held on 11 September each year. Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Independence Day are also often occasions when the liturgical leaders of religiously diverse communities are invited to come together to plan interfaith observances.

In 2005, D. Brent Latham invited readers of Liturgy to consider the ways in which the practices of civil religion can come into conflict with the basic faith commitments of both Jews and Christians as those commitments are enshrined in the decalogue.

To state the obvious: the first commandment presupposes the existence and identity of the community it commands. Less obviously, this community is created and identified by reception of the first commandment. That is, this command forms the very community that it informs. This reciprocal relation means that if we get the community wrong, we’ll get the commandment wrong too... Our liturgical language often manifests this confusion. On such days, the pronoun “we”gets used in praise, prayer, and proclamation in ways that exclude the brother from Canada and the sister from the Congo. Thus the first commandment is broken, not by having another god, but by not having the Christian brother and sister. That is to say, the first commandment is broken not only by polytheism, but also by patriotism—because it refuses the catholicity of Christ’s body. [From Brent Latham, "Worshiping the Decalogue's God," Liturgy 20:1 pp. 61-66]

How does this reminder of the imperative to perform the catholicity of Christian identity call into question our efforts at interreligious civic worship?

D. Brent Laytham is Professor of Theology and Ethics at North Park Theological Seminary, and is the author of iPod, YouTube, Wii Play: Theological Engagements with Entertainment, forthcoming from Cascade Books.

Guidelines for Interfaith and Intertraditional Worship-cont.

Last week, we posted the first four of eight guidelines for interfaith/intertraditional worhsip, as proposed by Susan White. The first four guidelines are significant: they require that we make no assumptions about what worship is or does; they require that we pay attention, that we watch, and that we listen; and, above all, they require our willingness to learn from those we so often label "other." The remaining four guidelines are as follows:

    5. Abide by the conventions. Some practices are simply part of religious “good manners,” even though they may have deep historical or theological roots. These conventions may be most apparent when you enter a place of worship outside your own faith. A man attending an Orthodox or Conservative synagogue will be asked to wear a yarmulke (kippah) to cover his head as a sign of respect for God. Before entering a mosque you will be expected to take off your shoes. At a Hindu festival meal you may be expected to eat with your right hand.

    6. Respect the practices reserved for “insiders. ” Clearly, there are some liturgical words, postures and observances that only faithful adherents to a religious tradition are admitted to…Here again, having an informant or talking beforehand to a leader of the community is invaluable…Among Jews, for example, the wearing of the tallith (the prayer shawl) and the tefillin (the binding, containing the commandments, which is wrapped around the head and forearm) has ritual significance and is forbidden to outsiders. Some traditions ask that outsiders sit in specially-designated sections of the building, thus exhibiting a measure of control over your behavior. Though “blending in” is more difficult in these circumstances, you may find that customs of this kind provide a certain sense of security.

    7. Expect surprises. If you are paying close attention to the proceedings, surprises will be an inevitable part of worshiping with people of another religious tradition…If you can enter into worship taking nothing for granted, you will very likely be better able to enjoy the surprises rather than be alarmed by them.

    8. Reflect theologically on your experience…Who is God for the people who worship in this way? How does this God operate? What does the action say about the nature of the human person and the created order, about revelation and salvation? In word, symbol and gesture-implicitly or explicitly-the cultic answers to these questions are being expressed. [From Susan J. White, “A new relationship: Guidelines for Intertraditional Worship,” Liturgy 10.1 (Spring 1992): 45-50.]

In what ways do these guidelines suggest a new approach to the work of interfaith worship?

Susan J. White is Emeritus Professor of Spiritual Resources and Disciplines of Brite Divinity School, Fort Worth, TX. She and her husband Kenneth Cracknell now run Sutton Books in Norwich, VT

Guidelines for Interfaith/Intertraditional Worship

Some years ago, The Liturgical Conference published an issue of Liturgy that focused on ecumenical (meaning "inter-Christian" rather than "interfaith") concerns. In that issue, Susan J. White provided a set of guidelines for what the author called "intertraditional worship" that would serve us well in thinking about interfaith worship.

Perceptive appreciation for liturgical diversity has various implications for liturgists involved in ecumenical relations. First, it implies an obligation to avoid embracing a false liturgical ecumenism based on a superficial assessment of similarities and differences in worship and doctrine. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it implies a willingness to enter into the worship of Christians and those of other faith with openness and the vulnerability that that involves.

A host of questions now arise. Can we put aside our own particular liturgical agenda long enough to worship with Christians of other denominations and with people of other faith without the element of prejudice? Can we allow the worship of others to speak to us freely and with an independent voice? Are we willing to look, listen and enter into a liturgical world different from our own with due respect for its integrity and value? And are we able to move into genuine dialogue, in which each liturgical voice is truly heard? 

White proposed eight guidelines for “intertraditional” worship. We provide guidelines 1-4 this week, and will provide 5-8 next week.

    1. Learn to appreciate the worldview of which worship is a part…The first step… in appreciating a particular liturgical tradition is to gain some knowledge of its underlying structures. 

    2. Learn the names of things. In liturgy as in other worlds, naming things correctly is a first step toward understanding things correctly…Accurate naming not only helps us to disengage from our liturgical presuppositions but also lowers our chances of offending those with whom we wish to pray. 

    3. Find an interpreter. Anthropologists tell us that a “native informant” is one of their most valuable tools; so with liturgists and others engaging in ecumenical exploration... You might choose to make contact with the community before you attend a worship service by speaking with the leader and discovering something about the community’s ethos and liturgical practice. In some cases that step is essential, since not all places of worship are open to outsiders.

    4. Learn to observe and to listen…Learning to detach ourselves from our own theological and liturgical presuppositions is a necessary first step toward useful observation; asking the right questions is essential…By close observation and by attempting to abandon theological and liturgical bias, we can uncover perspectives on God and on the world, on human beings and on the nature of the community, that might resist detection by other means. [From Susan J. White, “A new relationship: Guidelines for Intertraditional Worship,” Liturgy 10.1 (Spring 1992): 45-50.]

These first four guidelines are significant: they require that we make no assumptions about what worship is or does; they require that we pay attention, that we watch, and that we listen; and, above all, they require our willingness to learn from those we so often label "other."

Susan J. White is Emeritus Professor of Spiritual Resources and Disciplines of Brite Divinity School, Fort Worth, TX. She and her husband Kenneth Cracknell now run Sutton Books in Norwich, VT.

Interreligious Worship--Finding a Faithful Way

As we continue our exploration of interreligious/interfaith worship, we turn to David Gambrell's reflections on the response developed by the Presbyterian Church USA to some of these questions, published as Respectful Presence: An Understanding of Interfaith Prayer and Celebration from a Reformed Christian Perspective (the link takes you to the full document and an accompanying study guide).

Gambrell sets up his reflections with the following questions: 

From questions about prayer in public places … to the dynamics of diverse neighborhoods … we live in a religiously complex and changing society. How do people of faith find faithful ways to navigate this strange and shifting land? Specifically, from a liturgical perspective, how do people of faith practice their faith in religiously plural contexts? Is it better to adopt a via negativa, wrapping our religious belief and identity in the comfortable ambiguity of “silent prayer or silent reflection”? Or should we boldly pour out our prayer and praise, even at the risk of flooding an already “oversaturated” religious landscape? If some combination of strategies is called for, how do we discern which approach might be appropriate for a given situation?

He then provides the following summary of the document, beginning with its definition of "respectful presence":

Respectful presence is ... “authentic attentiveness to the symbolic expressions of other religious communities” and “Christian willingness to offer witness in our liturgical expressions of the presence of God.” [It] “goes beyond mere tolerance,” and ... it “engages Christians in receiving as well as giving testimony to deep religious convictions and actions.” Within this carefully nuanced approach, there is room for participants to worship out of the integrity of their own tradition, simply to observe others engaged in worship, or perhaps even both, within the same event. (Quotes from Respectful Presence, 8.)

As Gambrell notes, 

the second part of the paper … delineates three broad scenarios in which interfaith prayer and celebration might take place:

when people of other faiths are present in Christian worship;

when Christians are present in worship activities of other faith communities;

when people of different faiths are together for interfaith prayer,          celebration, or worship. (Respectful Presence, 12.)

In each of these scenarios, Respectful Presence provides helpful and practical guidelines for ... (1) extending hospitality to people of other faith traditions, (2) being a respectful guest and an authentically Christian participant/observer, and (3) planning events with people of other religious traditions in the spirit of openness and mutuality. [From David Gambrell, "Finding a Faithful Way: Respectful Presence in Interfaith Celebration and Prayer," Liturgy 26.3 (July-September 2011): 46, 48-49.]

These last points are suggestive of a range of questions for every faith community: What does "hospitality" look like in our communities? What does it mean to be a "respectful guest" and "an authentically Christian participant/observer"? What does a "spirit of openness and mutuality" look like from the perspective of our Christian communities? Does it look the same from the perspective of other (non-Christian) faith communities? David Gambrell is an associate for worship in the Office of Theology and Worship of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and a candidate for the PhD in liturgical studies at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.

Interfaith Worship—Continuing a Christian-Jewish Conversation

As we continue our series on interfaith worship, we continue the Christian-Jewish conversation begun last week. In that posting we looked at the "vision statement" that has guided Rabbi Samuel Gordon and Rev. Stephanie Perdew VanSlyke in their work. Such a vision led them to a pulpit "swap," an invitation to the Christian congregation to join the Jewish congregation in a celebration of a Passover seder, a shared service of prayer after 9/11, as well as joint celebrations of the installation of Rev. Perdew VanSlyke as pastor and of the departure of the synagogue's cantor. Their work together also helped them discover some of the limits of interreligious worship, which is the focus of the excerpt below.

Along the way we were very clear that our congregations were not the same, that we each had our own called or appointed leadership, that we were engaged in a relationship of interreligious sharing and education, but not an effort of syncretism. Nevertheless...congregation life cycle moments led to the poignant and clear realizations that our lives had become intertwined….

During these years of space-sharing partnership, we did reach and recognize limits to our interreligious sharing in worship. Visiting one another's worship did raise theological questions for our congregants, which we explored in our own educational programs in synagogue and church, and in shared interfaith dialogues.

For members of First Congregational, visits to Jewish worship and the observation of the limits of Jewish participation in Christian ritual led members of a theologically liberal church to grapple more whole-heartedly with their Christology and their understanding of the Trinity than they might have otherwise.

For members of Congregation Sukkat Shalom, many of whom are intermarried, visits to Christian worship helped to clarify, in many instances, why they were raising their children Jewish, or how they could honor a parent's Christian tradition even if their Jewish family identity was primary.

Together as rabbi and pastor we were asked to articulate limits to those in the wider community who mistakenly thought we were a messianic congregation or engaged in some kind of syncretistic observances. Although we both have co-officiated at weddings of intermarried couples, we also said no to a few weddings if we did not perceive the couples to be serious about either of their religious traditions or about thinking through the difficulty in honoring both traditions in a marriage. We said no to a couple who wanted us to preside at a combined baptism/bris, attempting to educate the couple in understanding that from both of our perspectives, we believed such dual theological “citizenship” was untenable and that the birth of a child in an intermarried family did present a choice about the tradition in which the parents would raise the child. And we at times said no to members of our own congregations, often well-meaning in their own spiritual seeking, who wanted to worship together more often than we thought appropriate, or who were clearly having trouble distinguishing the limits of our two traditions.

When we reached these limits, we turned to those efforts in which we can always share: learning and study, and social justice and service.

Stephanie Perdew VanSlyke was guest editor of this issue of Liturgy. She is senior pastor of First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ, in Wilmette, Illinois. Samuel Gordon is founding rabbi of Congregation Sukkat Shalom in Wilmette, Illinois.