Slate's Bizbox
faith-based: Religion, spirituality, and sacrilege.

Changing StationsWhat's wrong with tweaking the Good Friday tradition to make room for child mortality, the environment, and other global problems?

By Andrew Santella
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 7:01 AM ET

Also in Slate: Larry Hurtado investigated how early Christians wrestled with the idea of resurrection, and James Martin discovered why Easter never became as commercialized as that "Santa" holiday.

(Continued from page 1)

The people at Episcopal Relief and Development who distributed the new liturgy insist that their alternative version was intended to complement, not replace, the traditional stations. They say the service would not be a good choice for Good Friday. And, they add, their cause is a good one: Meeting the Millennium Development Goals is an institutional priority of the Episcopal Church.

Certainly some of the criticism of the liturgy can be written off as more of the usual sniping by liturgical traditionalists at social activists, part of the ongoing division among Anglicans. And—also as usual—there was plenty of more-pious-than-thou posturing on display. One of the perils of defending old-style "smells and bells" worship is that you may find yourself on the same team with the kind of blog posters who take it upon themselves to accuse others of mortal sin.

But even allowing for these stipulations and noting the worthiness of the Millennium Development Goals themselves, the liturgy strikes a disconcerting note.

Part of the problem is the suggested activities, some of which smack of grade-school art assignments. (Finger paints?) Then there's the language, which too often slides into the bland agreeability of the corporate mission statement. ("Clean water, sanitation, and development can work together to save lives and create productive, thriving societies and safeguard our planet.")

The value of liturgy lies in its ability to unite people around powerful ritual moments. But the Stations of the Millennium Development Goals appropriate the form of the old-school Stations of the Cross service without retaining the sense of sacred mystery that makes it so powerful. That's no sin—but it is a bit of a shame.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Andrew Santella's essays and reviews have appeared in the New York Times Book Review and GQ.
Photograph of the church front from Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Comments from the Fray

The history of Christianity is chock full of changing events and celebrations to win over the local people, so really how is this much different? What would be horrible about changing something to impart a new lesson that is in keeping with the values of the church? Either it's changeable or it's not and from what has been shown and done in the past it's clearly up for modification so why not?

--Uncle Spike

(To reply, click here)

(3/25)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon