Awenydd

Liturgists throughout the ages have long recognized the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer becomes the law of belief. So if you want to reform the theology of the church, first reform its worship. Belief will follow. The same holds true of the reverse. A little superfluous drama or symbolism, a little unwarranted addition to the service of worship, can have far reaching negative consequences. In this short article I want to address the question of how children came to be barred from participation in the Lord’s Supper.

In the early church, the newly baptized were admitted immediately to the table. There is a great deal of evidence from the writings of the church fathers that this was the case even for infants.

At some point in the first couple centuries of the Church, someone had the slick idea to add a little oil to the waters of baptism. More precisely, a small element was added to the rite of baptism in which the newly baptized was anointed with oil to symbolize the anointing of the Holy Spirit. This anointing, called chrismation, was originally viewed as simply a part of the baptismal rite. It is an extra-biblical addition to the sacrament. It must have been a fairly early tradition, since it is found everywhere in the ancient churches, and also in denominations today that hold claim to the ancient church. So the alien element of oil was interposed between water and supper.

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, we can see something similar to what this rite might have looked like in the ancient church. Baptism is immediately followed by anointing with oil, and the newly baptized and chrismed is immediately admitted to the Eucharist. This immediacy in administration of the sacraments is maintained in the East because any priest could both baptize and chrismate, and then administer the elements. In the West, the story is quite different.

Conscious to guard the hierarchy of the bishopric, which it considered to be essential to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Roman church ruled in the West that while the priesthood could baptize and administer the Eucharist, chrismation required the services of a bishop. Without the anointing, the baptism was deemed incomplete. As the church spread throughout the empire into more rural areas, it became hard to come by a bishop. Priests could administer baptism, but without the authority to perform the rite of chrismation, they could not complete the initiation of converts or their children into the new faith.

More and more, chrismation had to be delayed until a bishop passed through the area. Because chrismation was technically a part of the baptismal ritual, the baptism was not complete until this anointing of oil had been given. The result was that administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was also withheld from those who had been baptized but whose baptism had not been “confirmed” by a bishop in chrismation.

Often it could be years before the services of a bishop were available. A traveling bishop would pass through, chrismate all those who had been baptized but not confirmed, and then admit them to the table of the Eucharist. By then, those who had been baptized as infants but had never been chrismated would be old enough to be aware of what was taking place. In order to prepare these children for the anointing of oil and the partaking of the Supper, a system of catechism was introduced. The baptized would be instructed in the doctrines of the church and so made ready for chrismation and communion.

And so the Western rite of Confirmation was born. As chrismation was increasingly separated from baptism in the greater part of the Western church, confirmation came to be seen as a separate sacramental rite—one that drove a man-made wedge between baptism and communion. If you consider that chrismation with oil, whether in baptism or years afterward, is an extra-biblical practice, then the fact becomes unavoidable that this later development amounts to the unnatural and unlawful excommunication (barring from the table) of baptized Christians.

It is a curious thing that this rite continues even in Reformed churches today, albeit without the oil. Granted, they don’t consider it a sacrament, and Confirmation as such is sometimes optional or simply called something else. But the essential idea continues that there must exist a period of instruction between baptism and communion, at least for those who are baptized as infants, and a “credible confession” must thereafter be made in order to gain access to the table.

By introducing catechism as a prerequisite for chrismation, the Western Roman church placed an emphasis on understanding as a requirement for confirmation (of baptism), and thus for communion in the Eucharist. When the Reformed church rightly did away with the oil of chrismation, they nevertheless retained the rite and all its implications for the sacraments. I find it ironic that a controversy regarding the communication of children today in Reformed churches has its roots in two erroneous Roman practices: the chrismation of oil in baptism and the safeguarding of apostolic succession in the hierarchy of the church by requiring that a bishop must confirm a baptism administered by a priest.

The lex orandi of the Roman church has become the de facto lex credendi of of Western Christianity, including many Reformed Christians.

Bibliographic Sources:

Read the rest of this entry »

One’s opinion of Prince Caspian will depend greatly on what one is expecting. If you are hoping for a line-for-line book to screen translation of C.S. Lewis’s original material, go watch the Wonderworks version. You’ll enjoy it a lot more (that’s no slight; I enjoyed those as a kid). If, on the other hand, you’d like to see a masterful expansion of the core ideas in Lewis’s book that begins to approach epic, this is a film to watch. SPOILERS follow. If you continue reading, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Director Andrew Adamson has gotten the hang of things. While The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe strays less from the source material, Prince Caspian is a much better movie.

Adamson and his cowriters have taken many things that Lewis only hinted at and fleshed them out a great deal. Layers have been added to the political struggle between Miraz and his councilmen, as well as to the relationship between Caspian and his uncle. Also fleshed out is the ambivalence of the Narnians about backing a Telmarine prince, descendant of the Conquerer that tried to wipe them out.

Possible (or even probable) character conflicts that were not explored by Lewis are also found here. The friction between Peter and Caspian is a good example. In the book Peter comes right out and assures Caspian that he has no wish to make a play for the throne, and Caspian glibly goes through the story with no unease about four ancient monarchs jumping out of legend just when he is trying to claim his place as king.

While Lewis probably thought these attitudes and actions would serve as good role models for children, a deeper and more mature characterization has benefited the film greatly, and in the end actually emphasizes the desperate need that the Narnians have for Aslan. Because these sons of Adam just can’t seem to get anything right.

Peter is having coming-of-age issues and is understandably troubled by seeing what he considers a foreign invader claiming right to lead the Narnians. Caspian, the rightful king by Telmarine descent understandably feels slighted when he’s shunted to second place when the four Pevensies arrive, and he’s filled with a spirit of vengeance when he finds that Miraz is responsible for his father’s death. This conflict between Peter and Caspian leads to what such conflicts often do: separate agendas resulting in spoiled plans and unnecessary bloodshed.

The cinematography and pacing of the film is far superior to its predecessor. This feels like a film, and not like a random collection of scenes haphazardly strung together. The battles are more convincing, and, as I said before, approaching epic proportions. The effects are more polished. More importantly, I felt that I could connect with the characters better. They are more human and less like cardboard cutout. And not all the characters are so wayward. Lucy serves as the shining light of faith that Aslan is near, and Edmund keeps Peter from veering too far off course.

The only thing that I thought perhaps was overplayed was the attraction between Susan and Caspian. I can understand why they did it (apart from marketing value), and why it works. I was always puzzled about the asexuality of the Pevensies. It is very odd that in all of their years as adults in Narnia, none of them ever marry. If they had produced heirs like other responsible monarchs maybe their kingdom wouldn’t have been overrun by Spanish pirates when they left Narnia.

Now, for the most part, I think the relationship between Susan and Caspian is tastefully done. They are young attractive people, and so the chemistry between them isn’t exactly out of place. Also it makes for a couple great lines (like Lucy to Susan: “What was that? ‘Maybe you’ll need to call me‘?”). But then sometimes it veers off on into a celebration of Hollywood glitz and kitsch. Caspian’s rescue of Susan, while cool, does feel kind of staged.

So what about the message of the film? Is Lewis’s original vision intact? Well, while I think probably Lewis might object to a few things (such as Susan’s active involvement in the battle, though I think he would be happy with Peter and Caspian’s chivalry), the picture of Aslan as savior still shines brightly. As I mentioned earlier, the deeply human flaws we see in the characters only serve to emphasize the need for Aslan. This is no more apparent than at the How (the stone table) where the White Witch is almost brought back from the dead. It becomes very clear. These people are lost without him. Also, Aslan’s absence is felt so sharply that the film very effectively avoids a deus ex machina (the “Dude, where’d the lion come from?” effect) at the conclusion when Aslan finally appears.

Overall, Prince Caspian is a very good effort, and a satisfying film experience. Again, if you’re looking for slavish adherence to the book, you will be disappointed. But if you are open to seeing C.S. Lewis’s story enriched with a complexity not found in the book, this is a film to see. I am no longer worried about Adam Adamson at the helm of Lewis’s classic books. The director has finally figured out how to make a movie, and the series is now in good hands. If the remaining installments show the same level of improvement in movie-making quality, they will become classic films in their own right.

When Andrea sings . . . my heart melts. How could it not?

I discovered Andrea Ross rather by accident. I believe Amazon recommended her album to me several months ago after I had viewed something by Hayley Westenra. Andrea’s album had just been released exclusively in the UK, and the Amazon price tag was $45. I took a pass on it in spite of the intriguing samples I heard on her website. I saved a link, however.

Last week I was cleaning out my computer and ran across the link. Who is Andrea Ross? I wondered, and why had I bookmarked her link? That took me to her website for the second time, where I rediscovered her. This time, with the price of the album half of what it used to be, I couldn’t pass it up.

I found her voice entirely captivating, and she has a great story to go along with her sparkling persona. Andrea played the title role in Annie at age 11; at age 14 she was “16 going on 17” in The Sound of Music. When she was 13 she sent a karaoke demo tape to Andrew Lloyd Webber. That led directly to her first record contract with Universal at age 15 and a starring role in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s latest musical, Whistle Down the Wind.

Listening to her sing, one can hear immediately what Andrew Lloyd Webber recognized in her. She has a very mature vocal style for her age (or any age). Her diction is perfect, her voice has depth and richness, while losing none of its innocence. She draws on her stage acting experience, giving her delivery a varied spectrum of emotion and expression.

That would be more than enough to seal the deal as a singer, but beyond all that, Andrea also happens to be a remarkably beautiful girl. Visually, her performance absolutely glows with a tender and effortless grace. It’s a stunning combination that one doesn’t often find. I could go on about it, but I won’t. See for yourself. Check out my sidebar media player (I have 9 of her songs on the playlist) and the linked YouTube videos.

Unfortunately, Andrea’s album Moon River suffers from inconsistent recording quality and lackluster mixing and mastering. It ranges from “quite good” to “what were they thinking?”

Andrea’s voice sometimes gets lost in the mix, with the orchestra or the background choir drowning her out—not because her voice is too quiet or weak, but because the levels on her track have been inexplicably dropped relative to the other tracks. This is especially apparent in “You Raise Me Up.”

Sometimes the processing on her vocal track is tastefully subtle, allowing the listener to hear her voice as it really is (as in “Learn To Be Lonely”), and at other times a rather ugly and artificial-sounding reverb plate DSP has been applied (as in “You Raise Me Up”), which is a shame, since her voice does not need to be covered by any processing. The most I would apply to it is perhaps a very light convolution reverb DSP just to add some “real” space.

Despite its many flaws, Moon River is a more-than-worthwhile album simply because of Andrea. It is still a UK exclusive album (even though Andrea is a Boston resident), but hopefully she’ll be brought to the attention US audiences soon, especially after her US tour with Whistle Down the Wind, which finished last September.

I’ll comment on what I think about this later, and what exactly might be the implications of such a reading, but just wanted to throw the material out for preliminary reference:

Eurepides’ Medea:

“Ah, me! a wretched suffering woman I! O would that I could die!”

“Oh, oh! Would that Heaven’s levin bolt would cleave this head in twain! What gain is life to me? Woe, woe is me! O, to die and win release, quitting this loathed existence!”

“This one brief day forget thy children dear, and after that lament; for though thou wilt slay them yet they were thy darlings still, and I am a lady of sorrows.”

Seneca’s Medea:

“Why, soul, dost hesitate? Why are my cheeks wet with tears? Why do anger and love now hither, now thither draw my changeful heart? A double tide tosses me, uncertain of my course; as when rushing winds wage mad warfare, and from both sides conflicting floods lash the seas and the fluctuating waters boil, even so is my heart tossed. Anger puts love to flight, and love, anger. O wrath, yield thee to love.”

“Why dost thou delay now, O soul? Why hesitate, though thou canst do it? Now has my wrath died within me. I am sorry for my act, ashamed.”

“What, wretched woman, have I done? wretched, say I? Though I repent, yet have I done it!”

Romans 7

“For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate . . . So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

“For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.”

“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

I have been rediscovering an old favorite of mine, the first epic film I can remember watching. And I mean REALLY epic. How The West Was Won was filmed and released in Cinerama format in 1962. I first watched it when it was on TV. It has been years since I last saw it, but I’m eagerly awaiting a completely remastered and restored release later this year. And that one just might push me over to get Blu-Ray . . . just as soon as Sony finalizes the format.

But enough of that. I am rediscovering the film through its magnificent score by Alfred Newman. From the opening titles, the score conveys powerfully, over the course of the film running the emotional gammut of fun, adventure, struggle, loss, grief, and sorrow. It is truly an overlooked classic. It was my first favorite film score, even before I knew what a film score was.

Listening through the score and remembering scenes from the film reminds me of the incredible scope that the film had, tracing the saga of an American family through three generations. While the song featured in the film bears echoes of manifest destiny, I think the film is careful not to stereo-type the struggle between the Native American and the pioneer of the move West, portraying both sides rather fairly, if a little idealistically.

HOW THE WEST WAS WON
Lyrics by Ken Darby

Promised land the land of plenty rich with gold
Here came dreamers with Bible fist and gun
Bound for land across the plains their wagons rolled
Hell bent for leather that’s how the West was won

Stride by stride they tamed the savage prairie land
Nothing stopped them no wind nor rain nor sun
Side by side these pioneers from every land
All pulled together that’s how the West was won

And they sang of the day when they would rest their boots
In a land where the still waters flow
Where the dreams of a man and wife could put down roots
And their love and the seeds of love would grow
(And grow and grow)

Dream by dream they built a nation from this land
Forged in freedom for every mother’s son
Here it is the beautiful the promised land
We won’t forget them and how the West was won

Please sample a few tracks from the score in my player and then go buy the 2-Disc set if you’re impressed with it as I have always been. If you’ve already listened, check the player again. I’ve added a new track.

Some additional notes on the score:

How The West Was Won was awarded an Academy Award for “Best Recording,” which had a great deal to do with how Alfred Newman produced the score. It was apparently one of the first (if not the first) score recorded by close-mic’ing each individual section of the orchestra, which gives the orchestra that sense of presence, increases the scope of the recording, and allows the listener to easily distinguish between the various parts of the orchestra. Since 1962 this recording method has become commonplace for film score recording, it was very innovative at the time.