Fear and the Religious Right: a role for liturgical practice?

BP and I were chatting on the way home from Church this morning as I told her about Bp Gene Robinson's latest article in The Daily Beast, Even After Hobby Lobby, the Religious Right is still terrified.     Bp Gene begins with a description of attending a service at the mega church of Pastor Jim Garlow, whom we know in San Diego as one of the biggest proponents of Prop H8.

I get my latte and am assured that I am welcome to take it with me to my seat in the church. I find a seat, which is plush and comfortable, and sure enough, there’s a cup holder for my coffee. 

Latte?  Really?

I am struck by the starkness of the worship space: no windows, all black, no cross or stained glass, and not a single sign that this is a place of worship. ... It’s hard to tell, really, when the service starts; it just seems to grow organically, with additional people coming onto the stage over the course of 15 minutes, everyone dressed in jeans and comfortable clothing. The sense of expectation grows minute by minute. 

....Although there is a brief prayer early on, the service seems oddly devoid of any mention of God, much less Jesus. ....  soon, the mood turns dark. In between the uplifting songs, the message is: they’re coming to get us. One by one, the speakers lay out the parameters of the siege under which Christians live, attacked by liberal and godless forces on every side. ....Every message, action and gesture seems calculated to ratchet up the anxiety of those who are listening. And then it’s over. Just like that.

Bishop Gene goes on:

I honestly don’t know how typical such a service is among evangelicals, bent on making people fearful, but if you left that service feeling hopeful, at peace with God, and eager to help the poor and needy, then you weren’t paying attention. It is no wonder to me that many conservative, Christian people are fearful, and believe that there is a war on religion (especially Christians) in this country. After all, it is drummed into them every week. ....

Within only a day or two after the Hobby Lobby ruling, prominent evangelicals called upon President Obama to declare broad religious exemptions to his upcoming executive order banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people by federal contractors. Just stop and think about the image of religious people pleading for the “right” to discriminate against certain fellow citizens. What would Jesus do, indeed?!

One of the most striking things in his article is not just the fear-mongering-- we know that one of the biggest concerns expressed by Evangelicals is the idea that they will be forced to marry LGBT people.  (You know, the way Roman Catholics are forced to marry divorced people. Yeah, right.) But the description of that service, coming on a day when we enjoyed a full throated chanted service with clouds of incense and Latin anthems--it seemed completely foreign to us.

We're liturgical people, BP and I, born Roman Catholics, and now high Episcopalians.  I've never been to an evangelical church (heck, I found the Roman Catholic guitar mass a bit trying) and it sounds like it can be whatever the pastor wants it to be. Not the pattern of the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Table, not the rhythm of the first and second readings and then the Gospel, not the A-B-C triennial cycle of whose Gospel is read, not the commonality across mainline protestant and Roman Catholic churches all engaging the same verses.  Part of the appeal to me in attending Mass is that ancient liturgical rhythm and the structure it gives.  And the discipline that structure gives the preacher, too.

Formerly-evangelical blogger Rachel Held Evans has with some sorrow left her evangelical roots and is worshiping with Episcopalians these days.  And that means, she is not only in a liturgical community, but one that uses the daily lectionary.  It's not up to the pastor to pick and choose a verse to preach on. Again, a discipline and a  structure.  She writes 

Suddenly, I like[d] the idea of having an “assignment,” a sort of spiritual and creative challenge that kept the focus on the text and not on me.....I discovered this whole world of online collaboration happening among clergy from Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, and Lutheran churches (and more!) all working through the same few passages in preparation for their services that week. And they weren’t just thinking about their sermons. They were joining with artists and musicians and liturgists and Sunday school teachers and writers and laypeople to think about how Luke 17:5-10 might translate into art, worship, poetry, children’s messages, even bulletin designs. (Even after the sermon was finished, I loved checking the blogs and sermon podcasts of some of my favorite pastors to see their “take” on the passage.)

And it struck me: This is exactly how the Bible is meant to be engaged—collaboratively, in community, with a diversity of people and perspectives represented.

So, the question I ask here is whether the Evangelical Protestants, by abandoning that liturgical structure, have made themselves targets for fear-mongering that blocks out the message, There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear.  

You know, maybe they should try preaching on that verse.

When the perfect is the enemy of the good

As many of you know, in real life I'm a professor of science at a large university.  There aren't many of us women who have made it to the top of the academic ladder in science.   We tend to take longer to get there.  We are frequently paid less than the men, even if we have superior credentials.   We go to the full professors' meeting and find everyone else is pale (white), stale (old), and male.

 There is a positive correlation between a man's academic success, and being a parent, but for women, the correlation is negative.  Dare to have a family, and you are much more likely to be on the non-tenure track, or hover as an associate professor for your entire career.  Try finding space for pumping breast milk at a major conference, for example. 

Part of the problem is an attitude of some young women that they aren't going to engage in a deeply flawed system to try to change it.  "Fix it first," one told me once.  "THEN I'll come back." 

Well, honey, sorry but if you don't engage, you don't get to play.  Thing is, it's a big, very competitive field.  If you go stand off by yourself, and expect us to come to you hat in hand to beg you to join, that's not going to happen.  Because there are other women, equally talented, who will roll up their sleeves and dive in, not waiting. They are willing to effect change from the inside, which is the only way change will happen.  And each one of us who makes it to the top of that tenure ladder, fingernails bleeding, makes it a little bit easier for the one coming up behind.

They are not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  

I feel the same way about the people (and there are many) who are angry about the Episcopal church's liturgy for blessing of a same sex union.  It's not the BCP liturgy for a marriage.  It should be, i agree. (It's quite lovely).  But it's not there yet.  

Still, if you don't engage it, take the opportunity granted, you will not be able to make change happen. Because if you don't participate, why should they make any changes to it?  "There's no demand."  

This is one of the reasons we married prior to Prop8, knowing that with DOMA it was all very very imperfect.  Yet marrying BP was the greatest thing I have done in my life, despite the imperfections.  And look what has happened since....Prop8 fell, DOMA clause 3 is done.  In part, because of the witness of people who married even though it wasn't perfect.

And it's one of the reasons we jumped at the chance to get our marriage blessed, as soon as it was approved by our Bishop (prior to the current liturgy).  In San Diego, same sex couples have to write a letter to the Bishop explaining why they want to be blessed (or now, why they want to marry). Some of our friends are very upset by that, because straight people don't have to do it.  So what?  I did not mind being asked to articulate why it mattered to us.  If it educates people, if it gives the Bishop ammo to educate people who might be opposed, why should I object?

So, many LGBT couples will not engage TEC because it's not BCP-marriage and it's not uniform across the church.  I think that's a sad thing. Because being part of the process gives you a voice that standing alone in the hayfield never will.  

Eventually, I hope the liturgy will be available to both same- and opposite-sex couples (I mean, have you read the BCP marriage liturgy?  Talk about archaic views of women! ;-)  Eventually TEC will welcome everyone, everywhere. It takes time.  We can help it along by working from the inside and educating people on what it means.  We can show them what a married lesbian or gay couple looks like, and why it matters that we can marry.  Our witness is our greatest weapon.  

And we can't do that, if we don't engage. 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

May I sit here with you?

Over at the Lead, there is a spirited conversation going on based on this new policy by Bishop Edward Little in N. Indiana

First, the provisional liturgy entitled “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” is not authorized for use in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. There will be no exceptions to this policy.

Second, priests of the Diocese of Northern Indiana who, for pastoral reasons, wish to use “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” may travel to a neighboring diocese to do so. …

And of course, for many of us it brought to mind this recent report

[Charles] Wilson and his bride Te'Andrea were to be married at the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs [MS] on July 21. But after their rehearsal two nights before, the church's pastor sought to move the service, saying some congregants didn't want two black people to get married in the orange-brick sanctuary.

The Rev. Stan Weatherford married the Wilsons as scheduled in another sanctuary….. Weatherford says the relocation was a request meant to avoid conflict. The Wilsons say it was a demand, with Weatherford saying the congregation would fire him if he married the pair in his church.

The parallel seems obvious, doesn’t it?  I'm sure  all of us find it reprehensible that a church would deny a couple a wedding based on their race. But the wedding did occur, with the same minister, just in a different church. Does that ameliorate it? Of course not. The pain of rejection is there.  And, just so for a gay couple in N. Indiana.  That is the same thing.

(Aside:  One commenter at the Lead brought up the fact that being black is not like being gay. To which I would respond, no, it’s not like being gay. Nor is being a woman, or being a Jew. The experience of people in each of these groups is distinct from those in every other, and indeed unique. But at another level, they are the same, in their experience of being treated as “less than” in a variety of contexts. Each group may experience discrimination in a different way, but what is common is that they experience discrimination, based on who they are—whether that is classified by race, sex, orientation,  religion.....)

The conversation at the Lead is divided between two factions: those who know Bishop Little, find him to be an honorable man, and consider this a reasonable effort to accommodate (since he allows his priests to travel without sanction), and those who find this a cop-out, so “because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I spit you out”. Let it be noted that both sides include passionate supporters of marriage equality.

Bishop Little goes on (again, via the Lead )

I have attempted in this two-point policy to find a solution that will honor the conscience of all. ….. In recent years, I have been both vocal and quite public about the importance of creating a “safe space” for people of divergent theological convictions. This policy is an attempt to do just that. While the solution is far from perfect, it will – at least in the short term – provide space for everyone to exercise conscience, and will require no one to act in a way that violates the deepest convictions of heart and mind.

My initial response was “why not just let the parishes decide if they want to do it?” which is the reasonable solution in many dioceses. But is that really any different? If you are a gay person and your parish and vestry are not willing to use this liturgy, you still must travel elsewhere. The injustice, the rejection continues.

My next response is to think this is an example of via media, and while imperfect, may be inevitable if you are to maintain a big tent and really respect honorable differences. Because I am quite sure there are people (and it seems Bishop Little is one) who agonize over this issue but can’t in good conscience move forward. I happen to think they are wrong, but I can, indeed I MUST respect their conviction firmly held, as long as they do not engage in lies and hate.    I must work to educate them, not vilify them.  I must keep the conversation open.

I have also thought of this as I’ve seen responses to the Skyline Church event in San Diego, where right-wing Evangelical Jim Garlow hosted a “conversation on marriage”. By most accounts, this wasn’t really a conversation: the anti-marriage equality representatives Robert Gagnon and Jennifer Roback Morse gave the same lectures about the Bible, evil gays and sex, while the pro-equality side of John Corvino and Bishop Gene Robinson focused on real people—the reminder that “we are all beloved children of God”, not pieces on a chessboard. The initial reaction of some advocates is “this was just another opportunity for them to bash us.”

The Blog of St Paul’s Cathedral, aptly called “All Our Voices”, is running a series all week long with individual responses to the event.  And, there are strong responses taking on the theology of Robert Gagnon, and rebutting the comments of Roback Morse, as there should be.

But what’s REALLY becoming interesting to me is less what went on up there on the platform, than the fact of people being there in the chairs.  Many people have commented that it was significant to be seated in the same room, civilly listening to one another, even if disagreeing passionately. One attendee commented on the concept of hospitality and that this requires something from the host AND from the guest. Indeed, apparently Garlow received threats over the event. (I sure hope those weren’t from “our side”. ) And Bishop Gene was, as ever, gracious and loving. (I put him in the same category of Desmond Tutu – would that more Christians modeled themselves on those two Bishops!)

At the end of the event, Garlow apparently remarked that he didn’t think any minds were changed. Perhaps not. But perhaps some hearts were, simply by virtue of sitting in the same room.  And I wish that people like Bishop Little, the lukewarm bishop, could have attended.

And so, although I share the frustration with Bishop Little, I will recognize that his statement is an effort to move forward, one that opens a door where none was before.  Even it's a back door.    Even if he's lukewarm. 

Because a thoughtful host can learn something from a gracious guest.

Friday High Church Humor

As I've told you, my wife BP is one of the thurifers at the Cathedral in San Diego, leading me to make comments like "are you thurifing this weekend?"  and "I must remember, you swing the thurible and I swing the thurifer!"

Recently, she was invited to begin training as a verger.  At the choral Eucharist on Sundays, there are generally two vergers PLUS the Canon Verger, who house-manage the service, wrangle the readers, acolytes, choir,  and children, and can step into any other server role as needed.  It's a Cathedral, so they do a big service.   BP is doing great;  altar service is a wonderful ministry for her, and suits her talents well.

However, she still loves to swing smoke.  Yesterday she told me that in addition to serving twice a month at the Eucharist, in whatever capacity is needed, she's going to do a regular once-a-month gig as a thurifer at Evensong as well.

My comment?

"Just don't burn out."

Ba-da-BUM.  Happy Friday!

(As an aside related to the conversation on the Lead, by offering a traditional choral liturgy, great music, excellent preaching, and inclusive welcome, coupled with an active voice for social justice in the community, the Cathedral congregation is growing, and I see increasing numbers of young people.)

The road to GC2012 goes through New York

New York is the most populous state to legalize same sex marriage, and serves as a microcosm of the broader Episcopal Church. The Lead points us to this NY Times article on the different responses of the various New York Dioceses of TEC to the legalization of civil same sex marriage.

[G]ay and lesbian Episcopalians will be allowed on Sunday to get married by priests in Brooklyn and Queens, but not in the Bronx or Manhattan or on Staten Island; in Syracuse but not in Albany.

That is because the church has not taken a firm position nationally on same-sex marriage, leaving local bishops with wide latitude to decide what priests may do when the law takes effect in New York State. In the state, with six Episcopal dioceses, the bishops are split: two have given the green light for priests to officiate at same-sex marriages, one has said absolutely not, two are undecided and one has staked out a middle ground, allowing priests to bless, but not officiate at, weddings of gay men and lesbians.

Rather than re-hash what I've written before, I'm going to point you at a couple of previous posts. As always I have strong opinions on the subject.

A review of where TEC is and the concept of "wide pastoral latitude". In this, I agreed with those who are willing to let the process unfold--pushing it, of course, but letting the process happen.

The question of how do you bless a marriage that isn't, yet. In this post, I pointed out the problems caused by a patchwork of legal recognitions of LGBT couples, who may be married in one state, but not recognized in another; who may be recognized if they are civil unioned, but not if they are married; who may have no legal recognition whatsoever. It's why I think TEC should advocate for legal civil marriage in all states, and the overturn of DOMA, as a justice issue

In thinking about the SCLM consultation, I reflected on the argument about complementarity--and not for the first time, remarked on the REAL redefinition of marriage, which is that both partners are equal now.

I have argued quite a lot for the importance of recognizing same sex marriage as marriage, at least ecclesiastically.

A lot rides on GC2012. My continuing concern is that it will end up with what I call a "gay ghetto": a liturgy specifically for gay partnerships, regardless of whether they are marriages, or DPs, or … nothing legal. My reason for this concern is the comments to this SCLM blog, e.g.

will the same-sex blessings the SCLM are tasked with designing be added to the “list” of sacraments– becoming, as it were, the Eighth Sacrament– or will they merely exist on a lesser plane than marriage as currently understood in the Prayer Book?

Note the explicit assumption that Gay will be Different (and probably lesser).

I think it may be interesting for the task group to consider (1) whether the theology developed through this process could equally justify the creation of a liturgy for blessing non-marital life-long commitments by opposite-gender couples, and (2) whether there are life-long committed same-gender relationships for which the Commission’s to-be-completed liturgy might be inappropriate.

again, the idea of something different and lesser -- gays and not-so-committed straights can have something OTHER than marraige.  (Whether DPs should co-exist with marriage, and the idea of "marriage lite",  we discussed at length here).

Then there is this summary of table comments from the House of Bishops C056 consultation. While many comments were positive, some were negative about gay people generally. But of greater concern is this idea that marriage is something different if the partners are gay, e.g.,

• Is this an additional sacrament?
• Will straight couples be permitted to use the new rite?
• Distinction between blessings and marriage (this comes up multiple times)
• Is this the sacrament of marriage, or something else? It needs to be something else, clearly.

As the Times article says,

Some gay and lesbian Episcopalians said they were content to allow the church to proceed slowly because they believed it was moving in what they viewed as the right direction. The issue of same-sex marriage will most likely be raised again at the church’s next national conference, next summer.

Make or break? Not quite that dramatic. But expectations run high, and not just for the folks in New York.

Thoughts on the SCLM, marriage, and blessings.

As the reports on the SCLM conference seep out, I join with others who find their initial enthusiasm is tempered. It seems to me there is an obvious problem brewing: the possibility, or even likelihood, that same sex blessings in the church will be treated as a stand alone item, separate from marriage.

I fear very much that there will be a compromise position: “okay you can develop a liturgy for gay couples, as long as it’s not marriage." And that way the requirements and expectations will be different, and that is not only separate, but not at all equal. That seems to be an undertone in the comments from the 2010 Bishop’s meeting, separating marriage as a sacramental union from a blessing, which is somehow lesser.

Let me be clear. If you don’t call it marriage, it’s not going to be treated as a marriage. (And I don't mean by the couple, for whom it IS marriage, but by others.) Our word for a faithful, monogamous, lifelong commitment is marriage. To call it something else is to say it is less than, not equal to, and therefore, not as important to the community. Do you really want the message to be that the church blesses dogs and boats and, oh, gay couples, but only straight couples are worthy of marriage?

I certainly understand that if you call same sex marriages as, well, marriages, that you open up a whole can of worms because of the patchwork of civil laws affecting LGBT couples. Same sex couples can get legally married in 6 jurisdictions, with various levels of domestic partnerships in 12 more. 29 states forbid same sex marriages in their constitution; 19 states outlaw recognition of civil unions. Just in California, 18,000 couples were married pre-Prop8, while others can have domestic partnerships. The mess is even more apparent for transgendered couples, where the transgendered person’s legal gender can change simply by crossing a state line! (To me this points out the lunacy of any of the arguments against SSM).

How do you evaluate a relationship where the legality is so entangled? One way is to do what my employer does. They provide domestic partner benefits and with few exceptions, you are expected to be a registered DP (RDP in California; or married) to get benefits. So, if the couple CAN get recognition in their jurisdiction, they should. But because of the legal limbo, I know this has negative consequences. Our accountant probably can pay his kid’s tuition sorting out the mess that is our married same sex couple’s taxes, thanks to discontinuities between state law and DOMA. So that's one problem: what sort of civil, legal relationship must be required?

Here's another. How can you face a couple that is legally married, as BP and I are? How can you tell us that our legal civil marriage is not worthy of recognition as a marriage?

And what is the role of the church in the civil, legal relationship? I think this makes a case to eliminate the church from functioning as an agent of the state. As Elizabeth Kaeton wrote this week,

The church must begin to challenge herself about this 'unholy' alliance between church and state. We don't allow the state to dictate to us on any other sacrament or sacramental rite of the church. Why do that with marriage?

Exactly. Let the state be the state, and the church be the church.

As I told you a few weeks ago, our legal civil marriage (2008), was recognized by a church blessing a few weeks ago. I think this separation worked very well, making the religious component very intentional, and thus central, without the Big Party and all that entailed. On the other hand, another couple who received a blessing had just DP’d one another, and for them, the blessing was their wedding. That worked for them. In neither case was the church acting as a state agent, but in a separate capacity. There are already liturgies for both of these: the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, and the Marriage. If you explicitly separate church marriage from civil marriage, as in many parts of Europe, those would be the same thing. (Although both were off-limits, at least in their complete form,for us.)

And they should be treated the same in the process. We faced generally the same requirements of any married couple seeking a blessing, including obligatory pre-blessing counseling (in my opinion, you can just change a few words in any standard couple's counseling program and it will work fine). In the eagerness of some to bless gay couples, I worry that the process hasn’t got all the ponderous weight that it needs. The survey at the conference suggests that many congregations don’t put same sex couples through the same counseling as straight couples, and perhaps some don’t do any counseling at all. I strongly believe that every requirement made of a straight couple should be made of a same sex couple in the request for the church’s blessing.

Of course, we are fortunate that the community of which we are a part, recognizes and celebrates us as a married couple. For example on our wedding anniversary last fall, we donated the Sunday flowers and were asked to be the oblation bearers, all duly noted in the bulletin. There was no asterisk denoting us as somehow LESS than any other couple celebrating their wedding anniversary. We certainly have never felt anything but fully respected, which is a big part of why we’re there.

We're fortunate, as many couples in other places don't experience that affirmation. For them, blessings, even if separate-and-unequal, are a step forward.

Obviously the church in a transitional period right now. But I am concerned that the movement is towards something distinct. I fear the message that is sent to LGBT couples if there is a SEPARATE liturgy, or different requirements, is one that their relationship is “not quite real”.

And that's not the case.

Comments?

SCLM consultation on same sex blessings

As you may know, our friend Susan Russell is part of a subcommittee gathering resources on same sex blessings for the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music. Susan comments on her blog here:

Our task will be to consult with representative deputies (two from each diocese; one lay/one clergy) on the resources we (the task forces charged with the task by the SCLM) have been gathering and developing in response to Resolution C056 ... passed in 2009 by General Convention and calling for "an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships."....
....
I think we have a chance to break new ground in Atlanta by modeling a transparent collaborative process involving the whole church in creating these resources in response to the church's request for them via C056.

The plenary sessions can be watched live here. The SCLM committee has a blog here.

A couple in a jurisdiction that allows SSM, and whose Bishop allows marriages (e.g., Massachusetts)-- why can't they use the BCP? Or a couple married in a civil jurisdiction who wants a blessing. There's already a BCP liturgy for "Blessing of a Civil Marriage". If the result of the consultation is a separate liturgy based on the gender identity of the couples, I think many will consider it a failure. The goal to be treated equally, and called to exactly the same standards and responsibilities as any straight couple.

If you read the comments following the first post on the SCLM blog, you'll find a number of very angry conservatives saying over and over again that our relationships can't be marriage and shouldn't be blessed. And what's really apparent is that they define our relationships as just one thing: a sexual act. That's all they think we have. They think we have nothing outside of the bedroom.

Now, it's clear marriage ≠ procreation. There's no test for fecundity, and there are many married couples who do not want, or cannot have, children. So, then, what defines marriage to the conservatives?

When they talk about straight marriage, they will invoke "complementarity" but what they really mean is --- sex! All they have to distinguish themselves is who puts what part where.

But what this is really all about is the proper role of women and men. One of the great revolutions in marriage is not just the ability to choose one's partner, but the equal division of labor between partners. (More here). The feminist movement made marriages much more likely to be partnerships, than rigidly defined roles (he as head of house, she faithfully serving him). As PJ Myers at Pharyngula wrote recently,

If we strip marriage of the asymmetry of power, as we must if we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, then we also strip away the man and wife, dominant and submissive, owner and owned, master and servant relationship that characterizes the conservative view of marriage. This is what they want to preserve, and this is what they are talking about when people like Gingrich echo those tired phrases about "Judeo-Christian values" and complain that their "civilization is under attack". And it is, when we challenge their right to treat one partner, so-called, as chattel.

And once you look at it that way, you see no abuse of their values when Gingrich goes tomcatting around—he's simply asserting his traditional privilege as the Man.

Paradoxically, though, it turns marriage into a brittle business where women are stressed by subservience and oppression (believe it or not, women are human beings who might resent being treated as servants), and men feel it is their right possess any woman willing to surrender to them. It's not surprising that their relationships break up in courtroom battles.

Now,if you ignore Myers' reflexive kneejerk religion bash elsewhere in the post, he's absolutely right here. And perhaps helps explain why the divorce rates are lowest in blue states like MA, where there are liberal feminists and gay married people, than in the traditional red states in the South.

But back to the SLCM. I hope that they will move towards realizing that we LGBT couples are in no way different in our calling or our desires from our straight brethren, and lay the groundwork for actual marriage.

In the meantime, in one of those little ironies, I'm in Atlanta right now on the final leg of my East coast business trip. Later today, I'll be zooming past the Atlanta Airport Hilton, where the meeting is, on my way to catch my flight home to my beloved.

Task force on liturgy--your comments sought

So, ENS tells us:

The Episcopal Church Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music June 28 announced the names of task force leaders charged with leading the development of theological resources and liturgies for same-sex blessings, according to a news release.....SCLM has established three task groups: a liturgical resources group; a pastoral/teaching resources group; and a theological resources group, according to the release.

Our own Susan Russell is a member.

The SCLM has set up a blog, with an essay called "The Nature of Blessing". You are asked to read and comment on it!

Or feel free to comment here. What should a liturgy look like? Do you really need to build something new?

H/T The Lead and comments therein.....