Vertical & Horizontal

Anyone who is sensitive to Church history is calmly aware that the ‘pendulum’ keeps swinging – ever so slowly – from one ‘side’ of the Church to the other. It would seem that this pendulum spends precious little time inhabiting our treasured ‘Via Media’. It only seems to be in the sum of all of us together that we get a view of the collective forest of this desired ‘middle way’. On the one side there are those who stress the “mission” of the Church. On the other side we have those who put the accent on the divine liturgy (albeit rare at present).

The “old school” of Theology viewed this delicate balance in terms of the vertical and the horizontal – pious as it sounds, like a cross. Firstly, the vertical represents our transcendental, “super-natural”, connection with God, and His with us. The horizontal represents our relationship with each other. There are so many examples of this model – which should pervade every facet of the Church:

Christ commanded us to have Love of neighbor (horizontal) and Love of God (vertical);

At Baptism we become members of a Christian community (horizontal) and we each are made, by God at human hands, into an “alter-Christus” (vertical).

In the Marriage rite the couple are joined together (horizontal), but they are joined together with the Almighty (vertical).

At the Eucharist we gather as a family around a table for a meal (horizontal) and we physically receive Christ (vertical).

On a Sunday morning we come together (horizontal) to adore the God-head (vertical).

In all of these examples, do not Scripture, Tradition, and Reason tell us that there should be a clear preference for the vertical?

I am mindful of chapter 10 of St Luke’s gospel. At the risk of sermonizing, suffice it to say, Martha was told by Our Lord that “Mary has chosen the better part and it shall not be taken away from her”. Mary was sat at our Lord’s feet in adoration. Martha, on the other hand, was getting her priorities wrong; she was working hard at the wrong thing. No one can doubt her good intentions. Most people would have probably said Martha was doing the better part. She wanted to be hospitable and friendly.

Perhaps even the word “balance” is ill-chosen. Important as the horizontal is, “Mary has chosen the better part” would suggest that the scales should tip toward the vertical rather than the horizontal. Yet, more and more often, it would seem we are more interested in emulating Martha. This problem goes far beyond the old tension between “high church” and “low church”.

Is it not conceivable that our Episcopal Church is falling into Martha’s old mistake? We work so hard in our efforts of mission, evangelism, doubling our memberships, to be welcoming. We put an heroic effort into fellowship, coffee, doughnuts, ushers, greeters, socials, and the like. We are right to do this. It would be a horrible thing to have a Church where no-one welcomed a visitor. But, what about holiness? What about people saying their prayers and building their relationship with the Almighty? What about Grace? Are not these pursuits “the better part”? Surely, the whole point of the Church’s mission is to help those around us be drawn into that vertical relationship with the Almighty – and from that experience be empowered to love – and find Christ in - our neighbor.

For example, look at many modern hymns, not even considering the musical merits or quality. At the risk of being accused of “chronological snobbery”, the “old” template use to be: “We (horizontal) adore Thee (vertical)” Such is a fine model - after all, that is what we all came into the church to do. Yet, now many of the modern hymns seem to follow a more narcissistic model: “The ‘Holy One’ adores me”. That is not an hymn – that is a song. The direction has been reversed from an up-ward, vertical, direction to an horizontal (and sometimes down-ward) one of navel-gazing and mutual adoration. Popular though it be, look at the texts of “Let Us Break Bread Together” or “Here I Am, Lord” – who are they about? To whom are they directed? How many times do they mention ‘I’ and how many do they mention ‘You’ (or, ‘Thee’)?

The same seems to be the trend with the Eucharist. Which is more important, that the Eucharist be a Meal or that it is a transhistorical sharing in the sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood? Alas, the accent often seems to be on the social/fellowship dimension of the service. Many clergy seem to focus more on the congregation (or, God forbid, on themselves) than on the more transcendental mysteries of God. If you want to have a bit of fun, suggest at a clergy conference that you and your parish are considering pushing the altar back up against the East wall so you and your congregation can face God (vertical) together (horizontal) and you will find yourself enjoying the delectable conference buffet alone for the rest of the weekend (not to mention finding oneself soon-after serving his/her future title as the Vicar of Siberia).

It seems obvious that “contemporary”, more horizontal, services do not appeal to everyone. How else can we explain so many people turning to Tarot cards, television psychics, and the like? Are these ‘supernaturalists’ offering something we (who should be the true ‘super-naturalists’) have dropped?

All too often, these trends are being further augmented by the “Baby-Boomer” generation of clerics justifying their own preferences by claiming they are appealing to “Generation X” people. Yet, I am from the “X” generation and I find the majority of my peers crave something deeper.

All generations of people are desperately seeking to fill a spiritual vacuum in their lives and they are turning (in great droves) to “pet psychics”, Wiccan spirituality, smatterings of Eastern religions, yoga, etc… A headline in the Church Times (London) [14 June 2002] recently stated that a survey had shown “More believe in ghosts than in God”! The Church is divinely charged to fill this need so many obviously have. We cannot entrust them to the whims of charlatans.

St Thomas Aquinas (mention him and you might end up in worse than Siberia!) taught that, in religious orders, there is an hierarchy of types: Thirdly, the purely active (horizontal), secondly, the purely contemplative (vertical), and highest, the contemplatives who are active (vertical and horizontal, but with a slightly higher priority on the vertical). Perhaps that would be our best model.

There can be no question that our fellowship, our efforts at social justice, and our Martha-like spirit of hospitality are all very important to our drive of evangelism and mission. The horizontal is very important – and it is vital that we retain our non-judgmental stance. However, most people will not come to the Church primarily for social reasons. They will come because we place the vertical, transcendental, adoration of Our Lord above all else. If we seek a doubling of our earthly Church membership by 2020, we need to get our priorities right. Let us be known for our prayerfulness and our gentle quest for holiness. Martha meant well, but she did get it wrong – “one thing is needful” - one dish is sufficient for hospitality. Of course, Our Lord is our best model of our imitation – but perhaps we could also learn from Mary and Martha. We must regain our “vertical hold”.

Respectfully submitted,

The Rev’d Shane Scott-Hamblen

Rector of St Mary’s-in-the-Highlands,

Cold Spring, New York