The practice of Ashes-To-Go is a recent
addition to efforts by the Church to ‘meet people where they are’. The premise
of this practice is straightforward: sometimes, the best church rituals ought
be taken from behind the walls of the church and delivered to people in their
daily life and work. Some proponents see Ashes-To-Go as an evangelism tool,
others, a way to spread Episcopal hospitality (and presumably, identity). Those
who see a problem with this practice are asked not to worry: this is a matter
of individual conviction, not of church polity. If nothing else, it is the
Episcopal Church getting ‘out there’. What possible argument can there be
against that?
Along with evangelism and
hospitality, proponents of Ashes-To-Go list the proclamation of God’s grace,
the sharing of religious ritual, and the witness such an action provides as
added benefits. Presumably, like the Good Friday processions that occur in some
towns and cities, the public witness of Ashes-To-Go contributes to the
recognition that Church isn’t just about buildings and preaching: being public is part of the mission and
purpose of a people ‘called out from among the nations’ to be God’s people.
Under the heading ‘challenges’, a
flyer announcing the Ashes-To-Go program listed a number of concerns,
presumably by those who take issue with the practice. One such ‘challenge’ is
the effect on what the ashes mean when
taken out of the context of an Ash Wednesday liturgy. To take the ashes out
into the street without the proper framing of song and sacrament, the argument
might go, is to strip the action of its significance. We might call this the
‘meaningful context’ argument. I imagine that proponents of Ashes-To-Go might
reference the consecrated bread and wine used by Eucharistic ministers, or the
oil of healing by clergy, as examples of other significant items and rituals
that are taken into public, non-Church settings. Like these, Ashes-To-Go is an
instance where the ministry of the Church extends from the heart of her worship
into ‘the world’.
My interest in Ashes-To-Go has to
do with the ‘challenge’ just listed, that of the concern for the loss of
meaning when the ashes are distributed outside the context of the liturgy. There
is merit to this concern, especially in considering the other symbols included
in an Ash Wednesday liturgy, in particular the prayers of contrition and the
Eucharist that are absent in the user-friendly manner of Ashes-To-Go. However, my interest is more specific than context;
it has to do with the imposition of ashes as a meaningful activity, an action
that is symbolic. In other words, I am interested in what the imposition of
ashes communicates.
I wish to approach this inquiry
first by saying a few things about communication before considering the how
Ashes-To-Go compares to other significant and meaningful activities of the
church.
I want to begin with the
suggestion that we belong to the world of communication, of culture, of
language. We are linked with each other not only by what we do to others or
have done to ourselves by others but also by our communication with others, by
means of words and symbols, or, to sum this communication in one word, by signs. By ‘sign’, I do not mean the
vehicle upon which I trundle a thought out of my head and into yours. A verbal
or symbolic sign is not a means of delivery of a meaning, I do not load some
meaning into a sign at my end and send it off to you in the hope that you will
unload it and receive the meaning at the other. Communication happens when we share a sign, when we both simultaneously
have it as meaningful. A simple example of this is our use of everyday words.
If I am talking about my cat, the way this becomes communication is that you and I both know what we are talking about
when we use the noun, ‘cat’. If the word ‘cat’ was not already part of the
English language, and a common word at that, we would not be communicating; we
would probably be in a state of confusion about the topic of discussion. If,
for instance, I said, ‘my cat Wellington likes to drives buses’, it would be clear
to any language user who knows what a cat is, that I am either employing
language like that in a fairy tale, or better yet, I have no clear sense of
what kind of thing a cat is. I would, in other words, be confused.
A sign (verbal, symbolic or
otherwise) is a piece of communication when it is already meaningful as part of
our language and therefore, our world. The process of education is important to
introduce here, for signs don’t become meaningful without the benefit of
learning a language (e.g. English), and through this, learning how to use words
and concepts. Such learning shapes not only how we speak, but also how we
interpret our world. This is where the role of symbolism comes to the fore.
When we consider actions or items
that we deem ‘symbolic’ (i.e. everything from a national flag to consecrated
bread and wine), we are referring to words or actions that have layers of
meaning, only some of which are going to be evident at any one time, and in any
one context. Consider the sacrament of the Eucharist. It would be odd if the
words, items and actions associated with the Eucharist didn’t include food and
a meal. The Eucharist is a symbolic meal, but it would be lose any coherence if
instead of bread and wine, we used motor oil and a slap of concrete. Whatever
the Eucharist signified, it wouldn’t be a meal if what was used didn’t already
have significance as items used for eating and drinking. Now, when the priest says,
“this is my body” when holding the bread, the meaning of this one meal shifts
dramatically. This shift is towards the very substance of Christ being present,
while the substance of bread (i.e. what we answer when asked: what is it?)
falls away. Yet, even the most ornate sacramental theology maintains that
consecrated bread is for eating (principally), and not, for example, for simply
parading around. The meaning of a meal provides the significance of the
Eucharist as a particular kind of meal. Take the food away, and we are left
with an interesting, but meaningless, set of words and actions.
So far I have talked (ever so
briefly) about how communication can be understood as the sharing of a sign,
and then, how this communication deepens to become symbolic through words,
actions and items being associated with a particular understanding of our
world. By ‘a certain understanding of our world’ I mean, an understanding that
is shaped and formed through the teaching, prayer and activity of the Christian
church. The Eucharist is one and perhaps, the central symbolic event in the
Church, mainly because it is the one occasion where Christ is directly
encountered (“this is my body”), while other sacraments and actions – baptism,
for example – is about sharing in the benefits
of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Given all of this, what kind of
action is the ‘imposition of ashes’? What is being communicated, and how?
Consider the distinction and
relationship between a word and a statement, as in the sentence, “The cat was
extremely hungry”. In a basic grammatical sense, ‘the cat’ is the subject, and
‘was extremely hungry’ is the predicate. The subject stands for or refers to
what is being talked about, while the predicate was something meaningful about
the subject. By itself, ‘was extremely hungry’ does not refer to anything. To
say what something is, is to define it. Definitions delimit the area within
which descriptive statements may be made. In other words, the subject of a
sentence sets some boundaries about what can and cannot be said (or described)
about the subject. My cat example earlier is trying to demonstrate this very
idea. It is meaningful to speak of a cat being hungry given the kind of thing a
cat is (i.e. an animal) and the kind of activity eating is (i.e. an activity
proper to cats), but it is nonsense to say that a cat drives buses (this isn’t
the kind of action associated with cats, at least, outside of a Disney movie).
The point I wish to stress is that definitions and descriptions are both an
ordinary part of how we speak, but also, how we understand and interpret our
world. And this can be done well, or poorly, depending on how we use
definitions and descriptions.
Now consider Ashes-To-Go. On the
surface, it is the same action replicated a thousand times over on Ash
Wednesday in countless churches. No doubt, something like “remember that you
are dust, and to dust you shall return” is recited, much like what takes place
in a formal liturgy. The particular action of pressing the ashes onto the
foreheads of people is again, identical to a church service. Proponents of
Ashes-To-Go assume that this action is also a meaningful activity in that the
person receiving the ashes shares in the activity as a piece of communication
(i.e. the sharing of a sign). The only difference is that the activity takes
place in front of Starbucks rather than an altar. Proponents also assume that
this difference is not significant enough to render the action as somehow ‘less
than’ what a person would experience in a liturgy. It is evangelism,
hospitality, the grace of Jesus at work, and a public action of the church. So
far, so good.
I want to suggest, however, that
the imposition of ashes alone is similar to saying a word without adding a
description. If I was to say, “The cat”, or simple “cat”, you might wonder,
‘yes, what about the cat?’ A subject without a predicate is not a proper statement;
in fact, it’s not a sentence at all. The word ‘cat’ is a meaningful word that
refers to something in our world, so we are not entirely left in the dark by
its use. But without a description, without, that is, something meaningful to
add to the subject, we don’t have anything except the possibility of a
definition (i.e. what kind of thing is it?). Now definitions are essential in
order that a description be considered accurate or not. Without a description,
all we have is a subject. Ashes-To-Go is like this word. Alone, the imposition of ashes is not enough
to be a sign that can be a piece of communication because alone, ashes and
their use are not significant, like that of food and eating together, or water
and the act of bathing or cleansing. Yes, ashes have a place in our world in
reference to fires and even death; the question is: on the street corner, does
the act of giving ashes communicate?
I am not confident it does.
The folk who are concerned to
keep the ashes within the context of a liturgy are correct, I believe, because
the act of giving ashes (like a standalone word) is in need of describing, that
is, the need for further words, items and actions to help explain and situate
the activity as a meaningful piece of communication (the sharing of a sign).
Proponents may argue that what matters in the realm of communication is what
happens in the ‘mind’ or ‘heart’ of the person receiving the ashes (on the side
of the street, or elsewhere), yet I would contend that such an understanding
confuses the truly public character of sacral acts for a private experience. I
would be pleased to hear that someone felt better after receiving the ashes on
the sidewalk; I’m just not sure what this has to do with the ashes of Ash
Wednesday.
Ashes-To-Go is an incomplete
activity if the goal is to perform a meaningful activity in relation to what
the ashes are for. Moreover, this practice fails to be a sign of contrition or
sorrow. As a piece of public witness, it is hard to imagine how the purposes of
evangelism are carried forth in the act of smudging ashes onto the foreheads of
strangers, especially given that no reference is made to how this act fits
within a description about the call to repentance and new life in Christ that
is demonstrated in the celebration of the Eucharist that generally frames the
giving of ashes. Ashes-To-Go can be defined like a word can be defined, but
without the framing of other signs that can be shared as moments of
communication (e.g. repentance and absolution, bread/wine and Eucharist), this one
activity remains isolated and potentially confusing even to those who would
usually receive ashes in a church, but, for some reason, prefer ashes to go.
In what I have argued, I have not
suggested that the answer to making Ashes-to-go more meaningful is to provide
more and deeper explanations. Education is one way to help clarify the symbolism
of the ashes of Ash Wednesday as shared signs of something significant. The
primary concern is that, unlike the Eucharist, ashes alone lack the depth of
meaning outside the actual Christian practices of worship. It might be argued
that the same goes true for the anointing of the sick, but even in this action,
the subject in question is the human
body and the oil and prayers for healing are practiced in light of the obvious
benefit a healthy body is for human wellbeing. The same cannot be said for the
ashes, and this is not because ashes are not sacraments. It is simply because
ashes are not strong enough signs that communicate anything; in other words,
they require a greater framework of meaningful activity and words to become a
coherent expression of the church’s proclamation of divine grace and joy.
The point of raising a question
around the practice of Ashes-to-Go is not to try and discredit the activity of
getting the church ‘out there’, beyond the walls of the parish. When I think of
churches that hold a prayer vigil at the site of a murder, or Eucharist in the
park, I think we have a much clearer demonstration of public witness. Getting
‘out there’ is an insignificant reason for Ashes-to-go even if proponents argue
that such action is better than hiding our ashes behind church walls. Feeding
the hungry is a benefit and is significant, both as a practice of hospitality
and as it refers to the meal of the Eucharist which is the gift of Christ
himself in the graced bread and wine. Getting Ashes-to-go is not on par with
such practices, and while it will be done with fervor, it will always be an
incomplete and potentially confusing activity.
* thanks to Gary, Elizabeth and Seth who provided helpful comments and critique.
