Support the Café

Search our Site

Preparing for Good Friday

Preparing for Good Friday


written by Frank M. Harron

The Passion according to John in the Good Friday liturgy requires more attention this year. As we approach the beginning of this Lent, we have experienced renewed anti-Semitic language and violence in our country. In 2020, which marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi camps, survivors warn about the perils of complacency. 


Steps have been taken in recent decades to address the use of the Jewsin Johns Passion Narrative. In the 1980s protests and panel discussions in Europe and the United States frequently surrounded performances of the setting of the John Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach. Beginning in the 1990s some Episcopal parishes and cathedrals began to add written statements in service booklets for the Good Friday liturgy that commented on the use of the Jewsin Johns narrative. At the General Convention of 2009, it was resolved that our Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music collect, develop and disseminate materials that assist the Church to address Christian anti-Judaism expressed in and stirred by portions of Christian scriptures and liturgical texts.It was also resolved that working with the Commission on Ecumenical and Inter-religious Relations should prepare a statement defining anti-Judaism and why it demands attention.” 


The beginning of Lent can serve as a time to begin considering what congregations will do this Good Friday. For places that already have the tradition of providing a written commentary in service booklets or leaflets, perhaps it is time to re-examine those statements. For congregations that have not included a statement in the past, perhaps this is the year to consider adding a written commentary. Whether to renew or to add a statement, this Lent is also an opportunity for additional teaching and intentional preaching and for adult study to explore honestly the churchs legacy.


I highly recommend entries which have been added to the blog of our On the blog, search for entries which discuss anti-Judaism, especially in Johns Passion Narrative, by Ruth Meyers, Louis Weill, Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkosi and Barbara Brown Taylor.


In January, I conducted a small but representative survey of current Good Friday statements in Episcopal parishes and cathedrals around the country. Some statements date back thirty years or more while many congregations still do not provide any comment. Some statements are succinct, some attempt to summarize complex, 

nuanced Biblical and theological scholarship.


I have concluded that the most effective commentary is a plain statement that includes three points: Johns Passion has been seen to blame the Jewsas whole for the execution of Jesus; that blame continued in Christian theology and preaching for centuries; today the church refutes any such interpretation and repents of the violence done.


Below is a generic statement. It is offered for those who wish to include or revise a commentary in the Good Friday service booklet/leaflet regarding the role given to the Jewsin the crucifixion of Jesus in The Passion according to John. It may be adapted freely. Or, it may be used by a parish or cathedral to write its own statement. If attribution is made, the original writer is The Rev. Frank M. Harron, II.



A Statement for the GOOD FRIDAY service booklet/leaflet


The very earliest Christian customs place The Passion according to John at the center of the Good Friday liturgy. Johns Passion is distinct in several ways, including how it assigns to the Jewsparticular responsibility for the death of Jesus. While Matthew, Mark and Luke assign some individuals and some Jewish groups to play particular roles in the events that led to the trial and death of Jesus, those gospels equally assign complicit roles to some who were most intimate with Jesus as well as Roman political and judicial leaders. But the language of Johns Passion narrative singles out the Jewsas a distinct category of people who bear unique blame. 


Over the centuries some of the most influential Christian leaders, including John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, continued and elaborated on this blame trope. An assumption that all Jews, past and present, bore special and perpetual blame for the death of Jesus seeped into Christian liturgies and preaching, particularly on Good Friday. From Medieval times into the Modern era, Jews were reluctant to go out in public in many places on Good Friday. 


After the Holocaust, Christians confronted more honestly assumptions that singled out Jewish people for the death of Jesus. Important scholarly work was done by individual Christian theologians and Biblical scholars. National and international Christian communities began to confront this heritage. In 2006, the General Convention of The Episcopal Church directed that materials that assist members of the Church to address Christian anti-Judaism expressed and stirred by portions of Christian scriptures and liturgical texts be developed.”   


Because there is unfinished work and because anti-Semitism continues, this commentary is provided. 


On this day, the Church confronts the failures in the whole human condition that result in injustice and violence. In the appointed prayers in the liturgy we pray for those who have persecuted the followers of Jesus and we also pray For those who in the name of Christ have persecuted others.



The choice we Christians face this Lent is to confront the heritage from the past and its impact or to be silent. For the faithful who have heard over many years the Passion according to John, it can be heard differently this Good Friday. To the seeker who might hear this narrative rarely or even for the first time in our church, what must we say? What will we choose to sayin writing?


In her latest major study, The Lost Art of Scripture: Rescuing the Sacred Texts, (2019, Knopf), Karen Armstrong quotes the chief Rabbi Emeritus of England, Lord Jonathan Sacks: 

Every scriptural canon has within it texts which, read literally, can be taken to endorse narrow particularism, suspicion of strangers, intolerance toward those who believe differently than we do. Each also has within it sources that emphasize kinship with the stranger, empathy with the outsider, the courage that leads people to extend a hand across boundaries of hatred and hostility. The choice is ours. (p. 229)


The Rev. Frank M. Harron, II is a retired priest who served in university chaplaincy, parish and cathedral ministry. His writings have appeared in many Episcopal publications, including Episcopal Life, The Witness, The Living Church, The Journal of the Association of Anglican Musicians, Vestry Papers, (The Church Foundation), Cathedral Age (Washington National Cathedral), and Spirituality, (Trinity Church Wall Street). He edited a four book series in ethics for Yale University Press. 



Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon Burris

While I am sympathetic to the motives behind the author’s proposal, nevertheless I am convinced that Scripture–when it is read as part of the Liturgy of the Word–should be presented with as little moderation or filtering as possible. This means, for example, that I believe that Scripture should be read to the congregation not in the ancient tongues but in a translation “well understood of the people.” I also believe that the interpretation of Scripture has its appropriate place in the homily that follows the reading of the text. In other words, I believe that–in the context of the Liturgy of the Word–we should always treat Scripture as primary, and our interpretation of Scripture as secondary.

Another reason I cannot support the author’s proposal is that there are just too many places in Scripture that can be shown to have been used by Christians (and others) as justification of violence, all the way from Constantine’s “in hoc signo” to Julia Ward Howe’s “terrible swift sword.” Has anyone come up with the body count? What if we printed in blood red all the Bible verses ever misused in this way: how many verses would be left?

(As a Classicist, I understand of course that translation necessarily involves almost constant interpretative decisions on the part of the translator. Indeed, interpretative decisions are implicit even in determining the Greek text that one intends to use as the basis of any translation. So yes, I understand that my ideal of an unfiltered delivery of Scripture to the congregation is a practical impossibility.)

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café