The

What is a 21st century Anglican to make of George Herbert's words in The Country Parson ? They bring to mind an old, staid order, thankfully overthrown by the Parish Communion movement and 20th century liturgical reform, restoring the dynamism of the Lord's people at the Lord's Table on the Lord's Day.However, a generation after the triumph of the Parish Communion movement, it is a time to challenge the narrative around the movement. Parish Communion and liturgical reform have redefined the norm in Anglican worship, but this has coincided with a significant decline in attendance. Is this decline related to the success of the Parish Communion movement? The question is worth asking not least in light of the growing congregations attracted to Choral Evensong - a liturgy very far removed from the emphasis and concerns of both the Parish Communion movement and the 20th century liturgical reform. Choral Evensong is resonating in a way that Parish Communion is not.It is also very difficult indeed to see greater reverence for the Sacrament having emerged from Parish Communion now being the norm. In fact, the warning of Article 28 seems particularly relevant:The devotional practice (shared by High Church and evangelicals) of preparing to receive the Sacrament has disappeared, with 'table fellowship' rather than the Lord's saving sacrifice now central to much ecclesial discourse regarding the Eucharist.The triumph of the Parish Communion movement has also - in most places - brought an end to the tradition of Choral Mattins . Parish Communion has displaced the liturgy by which the parish was nurtured week by week by weighty readings from Scripture and an emphasis on preaching, in the context of Psalms and canticles setting forth the saving work of God, with a confession and absolution possessing infinitely greater theological and devotional depth than is the case in contemporary Eucharistic rites.As Michael Ramsey warned (in 'The Parish Communion', Durham Essays and Addresses , 1956), there are "weaknesses which haunt the wide and rapid growth of the 'Parish Communion' in our parishes". It is because of those weaknesses that we should re-examine that older Anglican practice, the Eucharistic practice outlined by. Three aspects of this practice are particularly worth highlighting.Firstly, we need to remind ourselves that weekly reception of the Eucharist has not been the norm throughout the Church's history. Exercising humility, we should wonder if there has been good reason for so many other Christians across time not receiving the Sacrament weekly. To again quote Ramsey, this devotional practice "has an honourable place in Christian history".Secondly, it is this practice which allows for self-examination and penitence before receiving the Sacrament. Asstates:[he]The fact that the Exhortations in the BCP Holy Communion sound so utterly foreign within contemporary Anglicanism is a warning that we have forgotten what it is to "truly and earnestly repent" before approaching the Sacrament. Likewise, we have little sense of why we might avail of "the benefit of absolution" in order to receive the Sacrament "with a quiet conscience". Less frequent reception of the Sacrament, in other words, built into the Christian life the exercise of self-examination and penitence in a way undermined and negated by the presuppositions of the Parish Communion movement.Thirdly, the monthly reception recommended byprovided a rhythm which enabled such self-examination and penitence. The suggested alternative - "at least five or six times in the year" - should not be easily dismissed as an inferior practice: Taylor described it as "devout and periodical Communion". Receiving the Sacrament on the feast of the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery powerfully proclaims the Eucharist as the means of the Church sharing in these saving mysteries. To receive "afore and after Harvest" also roots the community's labour and well-being in the grace and charity of the Sacrament, sanctifying communal relationships and activities, "in love and charity with your neighbours".Now, obviously, this Eucharistic practice is open to a number of critiques, not the least of which is that it was not patristic practice. But then again, it is very difficult indeed to regard the outcome of the Parish Communion movement as patristic practice - short, vague homilies; the absence of any meaningful penitential discipline; a lack of catechesis; reception without an emphasis on faith. In other words, the Parish Communion movement has restored one aspect of patristic practice - more frequent reception - but at the cost of other significant aspects of patristic practice.By contrast, whilerecommends less frequent reception than was patristic practice, he does maintain other significant aspects of patristic practice. Considering the weaknesses in contemporary Anglican eucharistic practice and devotion, we should heed the voice of the Country Parson and the sacramental practice he recommends. We should do so because of the weaknesses in the Parish Communion movement identified by Ramsey, weaknesses now all too evident in the life of contemporary Anglicanism.Ramsey went on to say:Surveying the consequences of the triumph of the Parish Communion movement, we should reconsider those "older usages" - monthly Communion, regular Choral Mattins, the devotional practice of self-examination before reception.In other words, and contrary to the advice offered by some , if you meet George Herbert on the road, listen humbly and attentively.