At General Convention in 2009, the
church passed a large number of additions to Lesser Feasts and Fasts, our
commemoration calendar. Even though some of the names suggested met
with serious objections, the resolution passed overwhelmingly. On June 30th, the year trial usage
ended, although the resource will continue to be used with its passage in 2012
nearly assured. I voted against it, and
the more that I have thought about this, the stronger I feel about this
issue.
Until recently, the Church’s
commemoration calendar has been a slowly evolving item. It took time for a consensus to emerge for a
particular person to be added to the commemorations of the whole church. Take the failed efforts of some quite well-meaning
church members to place King Charles the alleged martyr to our corporate
prayers.
Then the Standing Liturgical
Commission came up with a long list of new names for us to remember. Intuitively, my radar when up. Here is what I concluded. Only a church led by baby-boomers would be
audacious and self-centered enough to believe that we are entitled to add to
our commemorations so many people at one time.
Past generations exercised restrain and modesty in adding people (and
removing them.)
As a boomer, I have known for some
time that my generation believes itself the most enlighten that has ever lived
on the planet. I would contend that Holy
Women, Holy Men says more about our generation than the people we
intend to honor. It has been said that
tradition is the living vote of those who have gone before us. Most boomers consider those who have gone
before us as not worthy of a vote. No
wonder we find such blatant inflation of the list by those believing ourselves
most worthy of choosing.
In addition, the criterion seemed
to be one of the ever invasive “inclusiveness” that now dominates the thinking
of current church leaders. Not only are
many of these persons not Christians, but several were openly hostile to the
Christian Church. Why should we commemorate
them? No other organization would make
its honor roll of those who wished their own organization cease to exist. This
is not a list of “Holy” women or men. Holiness
in any classical sense of the term was never a serious criterion. The better title should have been “Women and
Men of Good Intentions and Deeds.”
The historic commemorations
include people who were saints in the very sense of the word. They are martyrs, witnesses and servants of
extraordinary sacrifice. When we think of
Francis, or Anthony, or Hilda, or Constance, we are thinking of people through
whom the light of Christ, their savior, shone brightly. They did not just do
good things that should be appreciated by other humans. They led holy lives that pointed to something,
or rather someone, beyond themselves.
Lastly, I would point to the
consequence of this sudden inflation of names.
In a very real sense, the saints are the most valuable commodity of
God’s reign on earth in every generation.
They are the examples that point all of us to a further life of service
and holiness in God’s Kingdom, as the old hymn says, “And I want to be one
too.” They tell us, to paraphrase G. K.
Chesterton, that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been
found hard and therefore not tried. The
saints and those we commemorate in the old Lesser Feasts and Fasts, give us a
glimpse of what can happen if Christianity, true discipleship, is found hard
yet lived. These folks are in a very
real sense the currency of the Kingdom.
As we all know, when a nation or community decides to simply print more
currency, it does no spread the wealth.
The consequence is exactly the opposite, it devalues the currency.
This is my most serious objection
to the well-intended Holy Women, Holy Men. Its consequence is not to inspire the kind of
holiness of life that our former commemorations did for us. Its true consequence is to make the term holy
almost meaningless.
I draw one last consolation in all
this. History has taught me that a
future generation, perhaps not very long from now, will simply look at our
actions in this matter and ask, “Who did these people think they were?” That may be the most important question
raised by this action. Not who were
these people we added in so great a number, but who were we to act in such a
self-centered and self-absorbed way?
They will only need to look at how few saints our generation has
produced to grasp the answer.
