Holy Women, Holy Men, a different definition of sanctity?

By Derek Olsen

The first half of Ephesians 4 clearly lays out the purpose of the institutional Church: that we may all come “to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph 4:13). Appropriately, then, we find it in our baptismal liturgy where parents and godparents solemnly promise that they will “help this child to grow into the full stature of Christ” (p. 302).
But what does this mean? What does this look like? If this is a central purpose of the Church, what guidance does the Church give us for what this may be?

In my doctoral dissertation on how early medieval monks read Scripture, I spent a large portion of chapter 2 looking at how the monks talked about saints. The monastic hagiographies—the accounts read in the liturgical Offices—gave communities a picture of sanctity, a glimpse of how the full stature of Christ looked, incarnate in different places and different times. Now, the history that I found in these could sometimes be…a little questionable, and I discovered that (for my purposes, at least) the less the monks knew historically, the better off I was. The least historical accounts were the most ideal: these texts sketched mostly clearly the idealized holy goals of monastic living.

Now—the Episcopal Church doesn’t talk about saints so much. In fact, within our prayer book only the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles, Evangelists, Mary Magdalene, and Stephen the Protomartyr are so honored. However, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have them… Even before the authorization of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal Church envisioned a supplementary volume that would include Days of Optional Observance to liturgically commemorate heroes of the faith. With the authorization of the Prayer Book, General Convention also authorized this volume known as Lesser Feasts and Fasts (1979-A056) which commemorates Christians East and West from the earliest times down to the twentieth century.

Striving for clarity, 1994’s General Convention passed a set of criteria for subsequent additions to the book. The 1994 General Convention Resolution (A074a) can be found in full here. The money section is contained in the 8 bullets under Guidelines; the contents of these bullets describe qualities held by suitable candidates for inclusion:

1. Heroic Faith. This means bearing witness to God in Christ "against the odds." Historically, the greatest exemplars of such faith have been martyrs, who have suffered death for the cause of Christ, and confessors, who have endured imprisonment, torture, or exile for the sake of Christ. Following this precedent, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America has been very specific and has restricted the designation of martyrdom to persons who have chosen to die rather than give up the Christian faith, and has not applied it to persons whose death may have resulted from their heroic faith but who did not consciously choose martyrdom. There are other situations where choosing and persisting in a Christian manner of life involves confessing Christ "against the odds," even to the point of risking one's life. For this reason the Anglican Communion traditionally has honored monks and nuns like Antony, Benedict, Hilda, Constance and her companions, missionaries like George Augustus Selwyn, and people as diverse as Monnica, Richard of Chichester, and Nicholas Ferrar. More recently the Church has learned to honor social reformers like William Wilberforce and Jonathan Daniels for the same reason. Heroic faith is, therefore, a quality manifested in many different situations.

2. Love. "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all that I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing...So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor. 13:2b-3, 13).

3. Goodness of life. People worthy of commemoration will have worked for the good of others. It is important to recognize that the Church looks not only for goodness but also for growth in goodness. A scandalous life prior to conversion does not disqualify one from consideration for the Calendar; rather, the witness of perseverance to the end will confirm holiness of life and the transforming power of Christ.

4. Joyousness. As faith is incomplete without love, so does love involve "rejoicing in the Spirit"--whether in the midst of extraordinary trials, or in the midst of the ordinary rounds of daily life. A Christian may not fail in the works of love, but still lack the joy of it--thereby falling short of true Christian sanctity. Such joy, however, is as much a discipline of life as an emotion. It need not lie on the surface of a person's life, but may run deeply and be discerned by others only gradually.

5. Service to others for Christ's sake. "There are varieties of gifts...and there are varieties of service" (1 Cor. 12:4-5). There is no true holiness without service to others in their needfulness. The Church recognizes that just as human needs are diverse, so also are forms of Christian service--both within the Church and in the world.

6. Devotion. People who are worthy of commemoration have shown evidence of seeking God through the means of grace which the Church recognizes, having "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). We look both for regularity and for growth in the discipline of prayer and meditation upon God's Word; and we look for this devotion to be manifested not only in a person's private life but also in visible company and communion with his or her fellow Christians.

7. Recognition by the faithful. Initiating the commemoration of particular saints is the privilege of those who knew, loved, and discerned the special grace of Christ in a member of their community, and who desire to continue in the communion of prayer with that member now departed. Such instinctive recognition by the faithful begins naturally at the local and regional levels. Evidence of both (a) such commemoration growing locally and (b) such recognition of sanctity spreading beyond the immediate community is essential before the national Church has an obligation to take heed. It may, in fact, decide that the commemoration in question is best left to local observance.

8. Historical perspective. In a resolution on the Calendar, the 1958 Lambeth Conference of Bishops stated, "The addition of a new name should normally result from a widespread desire expressed in the region concerned over a reasonable period of time." Generally this has been two generations or fifty years after death.

Clearly items seven and eight are particular to the sanctoral process—otherwise, these criteria are a solid start towards what we’re looking for. This gives us a set of qualities that are specific enough to ground one’s character, yet broad enough to envision myriad ways in which they can be implemented.

This past year, General Convention authorized a new book. This text supersedes Lesser Feasts and Fasts and is entitled Holy Women, Holy Men. While it took some twenty years for guidelines to be placed in LFF, this new book has criteria in it from the start. Even at first glance it’s clear that something has changed, though. Here are the principles of revision from Holy Women, Holy Men which begin on pg 131 of the PDF from the Blue Book:


1. Historicity: Christianity is a radically historical religion, so in almost every instance it is not theological realities or spiritual movements but exemplary witness to the Gospel of Christ in lives actually lived that is commemorated in the Calendar.

2. Christian Discipleship: The death of the saints, precious in God’s sight, is the ultimate witness to the power of the Resurrection. What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism. Baptism is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the Calendar.

3. Significance: Those commemorated should have been in their lifetime extraordinary, even heroic servants of God and God’s people for the sake, and after the example, of Jesus Christ. In this way they have testified to the Lordship of Christ over all of history, and continue to inspire us as we carry forward God’s mission in the world.

4. Memorability: The Calendar should include those who, through their devotion to Christ and their joyful and loving participation in the community of the faithful, deserve to be remembered by The Episcopal Church today. However, in order to celebrate the whole history of salvation, it is important also to include those “whose memory may have faded in the shifting fashions of public concern, but whose witness is deemed important to the life and mission of the Church” (Thomas Talley).

5. Range of Inclusion: Particular attention should be paid to Episcopalians and other members of the Anglican Communion. Attention should also be paid to gender and race, to the inclusion of lay people (witnessing in this way to our baptismal understanding of the Church), and to ecumenical representation. In this way the Calendar will reflect the reality of our time: that instant communication and extensive travel are leading to an ever deeper international and ecumenical consciousness among Christian people.

6. Local Observance: Similarly, it should normatively be the case that significant commemoration of a particular person already exists at the local and regional levels before that person is included in the Calendar of the Episcopal Church as a whole.

7. Perspective: It should normatively be the case that a person be included in the Calendar only after two generations or fifty years have elapsed since that person’s death.

8. Levels of Commemoration: Principal Feasts, Sundays and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).

9. Combined Commemorations: Not all those included in the Calendar need to be commemorated “in isolation.” Where there are close and natural links between persons to be remembered, a joint commemoration would make excellent sense (e.g., the Reformation martyrs—Latimer and Ridley; bishops of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste and Hugh).

The first thing that jumps to mind is that we have a genre change. This is not, as the list before it was, a list of criteria that gives us that snapshot of Christian maturity; this is very much a process for selecting historical personages for commemoration. Thus, these lists don't function in the same way, either rhetorically or catechetically. The new principles focus on process rather than qualities of life. As a result, the explicit naming of components of the mature Christian life have been curtailed. In their place we have business notes.

Naming sanctoral qualities is neither an abstract task, nor simply a liturgical one: it is a fundamentally theological and ultimately Christological task. The people the Church identifies as models—whether we call them saints or not—say something important about how we construct our understanding of the Christian life. How we construct the Christian life, in turn, speaks volumes about how we understand Christ. Just as we strive to see Christ in all persons, it is in the composite image of the saints that we find Christ at work in our own time, place, and station.

It’s not that I’m against the new criteria (although I’m not convinced that “memorability” is a theological category…), it’s just that I feel we’ve lost something. The guidelines of 1994 were like a few quick brushstrokes, or like the charcoal wisps on a sketch-pad that suggest a scene, a figure, leaving the rest to the imagination. They weren’t a full picture of Christian maturity—but they gave us at least a few key dots that suggest a shape. Leaning on Ephesians, looking back at the monks, I have to wonder: do we have anything like this now in our church—a clear sense of the goal; a useful, sufficient, and functional picture of Christian maturity? Have the new principles moved us forward or back?

Dr. Derek Olsen recently finished his Ph.D. in New Testament at Emory University. He has taught seminary courses in biblical studies, preaching, and liturgics; he currently resides in Maryland. His reflections on life, liturgical spirituality, and being a Gen-X/Y dad appear at Haligweorc.

Comments (12)

Good questions - I am encouraged by the greater diversity of HWHM but it does seem like we may float off into space on the number included. Is is too much or too little?

Two things: actually Lesser Feasts and Fasts goes back to the 1960s, at least, although the book has gotten thicker and thicker with added commemorations and seasonal enrichments. Also, I don't expect that folk will observe ALL of these commemorations, but choose which are most appropriate on a local level. We simply have more choices.

Ron Miiller

The 8 points of LF&F appeal to me much more strongly than do the 9 points of HWHM. Perhaps it is because I am disappointed somewhat in HWHM. I understood that its purpose was greater diversity and yet it seems to me that white males still far outnumber any other group. And that women are the least represented group.

I'm with Derek about "memorability". Seems to me that would include just about anyone who in a moment of crisis did the right thing. If we were to start honoring people for their "memorability" we would find it difficult to exclude anyone.

The other issue about memorability" is that it cuts both ways. One can be just or perhaps even more memorable for doing wrong.

I appreciate Derek's points; maybe the two sets of bullet items ought to be combined.

But to Ann's question: as a Daily Office guy with a large online congregation, I'm inclined to think we have way too many saints now, but I'm willing to experiment with having almost every day of the year filled. My worry is that a strict observance of the calendar works against local commemorations and the needs of "today." We're always looking back and not looking around us; we're never looking to the future.

People have a need to pray about what we see in front of us: wars, persecutions, poverty, homelessness, hunger, global warming, breakdowns in community, oppression, recession, illness, birth, death, creativity, destruction, torture, slavery, liberation, mourning, thanksgiving.

We have optional prayers for many of these, but a mandate (hard or soft) to remember a bunch of holy dead people. It's hard to strike a balance that helps us sanctify now, today, the next few hours.

I have no problem with the saints we choose, only with the sheer volume of them.

I do know by daily statistics that people vote with their clicks for saints they find most meaningful in their lives. The most popular saints on dailyoffice.org are Florence Nightingale and Thurgood Marshall. When Haiti started shaking, attendance spiked. No one attends the Feast of the Holy Name, but it's standing room only on New Year's Day.

I pray for discernment to balance competing needs.

Derek raises a key point when he observes: "The new principles focus on process rather than qualities of life. As a result, the explicit naming of components of the mature Christian life have been curtailed. In their place we have business notes."

What is the use of a church without imagination? Is HWHM a way to tell our story and activate holy imagination, or is it a process--a mechanism--to make sure "our person"--or the "right" person or the "right balance" of people-- gets their "due".

The words that define the categories in the 1994 criteria (in particular 1 through 6) appeal to the imagination.

The categories in the 2009 version are meant to guide committees in making decisions rather than hearts and imaginations in knowing Christ through the stories of the people remembered.

Thank you, Derek. "Genre change" is a good way to describe this, as far as the broad strokes go. But the details are even odder, in my book.

For example, Juan Bosco, founder of the Society of Francis de Sales, is added, with a note that the English calendar includes him. But we haven't added Francis de Sales himself, who is also included on the English calendar, and who is, by all accounts, a more heroic and important figure. We could at least, in light of the final point in the New Kriteria, include Francis de Sales on the same day as Bosco, no?

I wonder what the purpose of Holy Women, Holy Men is. In my experience as a lay person and as a priest, LFF served largely as content for "homilies" during weekday Eucharists in parish churches. Priests I knew either simply read the biography of the commemorated figure during the liturgy, or read from Portaro's (or some other) devotions. In either case, there was no serious engagement with the life or witness of the person in question.

Given the proliferation of commemorations in Holy Women, Holy Men, the chances of serious engagement is even less likely. And frankly, given all of the other commitments in parish ministry, the possibility of doing serious reflection on some obscure figure is highly unlikely.

On the other hand, thinking about the Wesleys last week allowed me to revisit work on them I had done, and more importantly, to sing under my breath "Love Divine, All loves Excelling" for the rest of the day.

Jonathan Grieser

I have to wonder: do we have anything like this now in our church—a clear sense of the goal; a useful, sufficient, and functional picture of Christian maturity?

A compelling question - one which I think speaks to the heart of discomfort with HWHM and contemporary run-of-the-mill life in our church.

A visitor in our Lenten forum raised his hand towards the end of an hour-long presentation on christology and Christian history to ask me: "Where is sanctification in all of this?"

I pointed to baptism and communion and the sacraments more generally, but felt caught flat-footed. We so rarely explore the qualities of mature Christianity and adore process so much more.

I know now, in part, what we're discussing next week now!

Thanks for the thoughts, all!

My personal nickname for this calendar is "no feria left behind" as it seems the goal is to entirely populate every single day of the year.

Despite that long-time perennial Anglican favorites like King Charles the Martyr have been left off for no reason that I can understand...

Josh--I note in your comment that you seem to be saying that folks have a need to pray for *issues* rather than commemorating dead people. I agree if we're stopping at the level of "dead people". What I'd rather suggest, though, is that in the lives of these people we see them living through a host of these issues and their lives give us models of what Christ-centered living in the very midst of these issues lives with.

It's impossible to honor someone like St Peter Claver or William Wilberforce without considering the issue of slavery. Or Janani Luwum without considering the issues of totalitarianism, poverty, and imperialism. So I'd say it's not an either/or but a both/and.

My bishop was on the Liturgy Committee, and heavily involved in producing HWHM. When before Convention we observed in our deputation that some (myself included) felt this was too much, his response was an exasperated, "No one is expected or required to use them all. You just have more resources for those you might want to use."

The different sets of categories are really addressing two different questions, and represent, I think, different issues in the life of the Episcopal Church. Prior to the 1979 Prayer Book, there were still significant regional differences in liturgical practice - especially, there were still large areas along the Atlantic Coast with evangelical sentiments and non-Eucharistic or minimally Eucharistic practice. I can well imagine that in that environment it took some argument to justify whom one might commend to commemorate, so as not to look like medieval Catholocism to the Low Church wing of the Church. Since the triumph of Anglo-Catholocism in the 1979 Prayer Book, and the education of a generation and more of clergy to Eucharistic focus and use of all sacramental rites, the issue is not justifying who might be worth commending, but describing a clear process for what has become a common part of General Convention.

Notwithstanding the category of "Memorability," I find myself wondering if the Committee didn't think the categories largely complementary. Surely still the number of Christian luminaries qualified under the first categories exceeds those who could be considered through the latter process; and that's without such ancient favorites as Christopher of poor historicity, or the Orthodox practice of days of commemoration for Old Testament figures.

As for the specifics of King Charles: I have been present at a number of Convention committee meetings when his name has come up. At one I heard Bishop C. Fitzsimmons Allison (a man with whom I passionately disagree, but whom I recognize as a qualified scholar) discuss King Charles' history in terms that I can only say were largely uncomplementary. Let's just say that he was convincing in arguing that Charles died for reasons other than efforts to preserve Anglican breadth in the face of Puritan pressure.

Marshall Scott

I also have a concern with the proliferation of people (or issues as stated above) on the calendar. While it may be true that people may and will choose which ones they commemorate on a daily basis, we move thereby further and further away from a church egaged in Common Prayer. Cranmer greatly reduced the number of saints commemorated on a daily basis because the large number of saints days interrupted the flow of the daily reading of the scriptures. Finally, I am also concerned with doing away with the "ffty year rule." By commemorating contemporaries, we may fall prey to the hot issues of the present day. We need, I think, at least fifty years after a person's homegoing, to determine whether that person's life begins to stand the test of time. The Church would do well to reflect more and react less.

I happened on this article and series of posts while reading and commenting on the "Holy Women, Holy Men" blog which recently started. It's very helpful as one reads about the newly added "saints"--thanks to all who contributed. Hoping that there will be more contributions now that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music is providing an opportunity to express one's thoughts on the new calendar.

Celinda Scott

Add your comments
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Advertising Space