Holy Women, Holy Men Trial Use Evaluation Survey

Updated December 14, 2010

In response to Resolution A096 of the 2009 General Convention, the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music is encouraging trial use of the commemorations in Holy Women, Holy Men. Our friends in the Church Pension Group’s Office of Research have created an online survey to help us gather responses from around the church.

In December 2010, the survey format was revised. The new survey is available here. At the top of the page, you’ll enter the name of the person(s) being commemorated, then respond to a few questions about the commemoration. A box for your comments  is at the bottom of the page. Click “continue to next page,” and you’re done!

Official trial use extends from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. You may begin the survey at any time during this year, and you may comment on any commemoration at any time. You do not need to comment on all of the commemorations in order to participate.

If you have questions or comments on the content of this survey, please contact Dr. Matthew Price, Director of Analytical Research, or Susan Erdey, Data and Research Products Specialist, at the Church Pension Group. If you have technical questions, please contact the Rev. Joseph Stewart-Sicking, Ed.D., or Rochelle Pereira, MS, at Loyola University Maryland.

The old survey worked this way: You’ll sign in to the survey using your e-mail address and a password you create. When you start the survey, we’ll ask you some demographic information, which will be kept confidential and used only in aggregate. Then the survey will lead you through the calendar day by day, asking you to respond to a few questions and giving you opportunity to add your own comments about each commemoration. After you enter your responses about a commemoration, save your survey and return the next day to respond to the next commemoration.

49 thoughts on “Holy Women, Holy Men Trial Use Evaluation Survey

  1. Is the list of Holy Women & Holy Men available or do you have to buy the book?

    Due especially to the recent media attention given Thurgood Marshall and Elena Kagan, it might be a good idea to prominently display the list (and bios) on the ECUSA website.

    • Currently you would need to purchase the book, but we will be posting each day’s commemoration on this blog for a year, so you could gather the information that way. Posting on the ECUSA website and the like would be up to Church Publishing and the folks at the Episcopal Church Center.

  2. First comment: It may sound trivial, but since the error is made twice within the July 2 entry, let me ask right away: please edit these articles with an eye to having phrases that modify nouns actually correspond to the nouns. For example, in July 2, we have
    1) “Born the son of a German preacher in upstate New York” modifying “Walter Rauschenbusch’s childhood.” The noun that follows this phrase is “childhood.” Rauschenbusch’s childhood was born in New York?
    2) “Though not a pastor like Rauschenbusch and Gladden, Jacob Ruis’ ‘muckraker’ journalism did much to awaken the nation. . . ” The noun that follows the phrase is “journalism.” His journalism was not a pastor?
    I can tell what you mean, but correct syntax would prevent the setting-on-edge of many teeth!

    Second comment:
    In the collect, you have us praying that we may “be ever mindful of the suffering of those who are poor and work diligently for the reform of our communities.” Could we change the second half of that to specify what kind of reform we’re talking about? I assume it’s a just and kind society we want – how about saying that?

    • >> Jacob Ruis’ ‘muckraker’ journalism <<

      Please tell me that "Holy Women, Holy Men" renders this accurately as "Jacob Riis."

  3. Every year on the Feast of Saint Matthias the Church rightfully honors and gives thanks for this divinely chosen replacement for Judas Iscariot. As Scripture attests, and as the remaining eleven proclaimed, God knew “everyone’s heart”, and by means of the lots chose Matthias to fill out the chosen number of 12 disciples. Matthias was a man who had “accompanied us (the 12) during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us…” (Acts 1:21). Matthias became a “witness to the resurrection.” Yet, annually we honor him for his selection, and not for his witness. We know nothing about his life following his selection by the casting of lots to be an Apostle. Matthias’ witness, its content and its effect, will ever be lost in the centuries.

    Yet another man was also singled out as one “who had been with us (the 12) curing all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us….” Joseph, surnamed Barsabbas, called Justus. He too was affirmed as a worthy replacement for Judas. Like Matthias, we know nothing more about this good and faithful follower of the Lord Jesus. But what about Joseph? Why does the Church not recognized him?

    For years I have believed that there should be church-wide recognition of, and thanksgiving for, those dedicated and faithful souls who regularly “stand for office” (be that “office” Vestry, Rector, Bishop or Presiding Bishop), and are “not chosen”. It has been my experience that no matter how deep is one’s humility and love, how un-invested is one’s expectation, or how steeled is one’s ego, the reality of “not being chosen” has significant emotional cost. I have always been grateful, deeply impressed, with high respect for the courage and faith of those who offer themselves, sometimes repeatedly, for consideration, examination, and decision by the Church, yet must experience the disappointment of rejection. This is no easy thing. Rejection is painful, yet the Church has no official way to sooth that pain. A day (perhaps the day following the Feast of St. Matthias) should be designated and annually remembered as the “Feast of Joseph, surnamed Barsabbas, called Justus”! Persons like Joseph are the loving examples of truly “giving oneself for Jesus sake” to be chosen by God, selected by His people, or to be denied by both. It is a risky offering. Such courage and faithfulness needs honor and gratitude. I for one, give thanks for them every St. Matthias Day.

    In hopes….

  4. These are great, a very needed expansion of Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Please isssue a kindle edition! Thanks.

    • A Kindle edition is in process. It will be available both as a stand-alone version and bundled with the Book of Occasional Services and the BCP.

      Ruth Meyers
      SCLM Chair

  5. Dailyoffice.org, which offers Morning and Evening Prayer online for nearly 900,000 cumulative visitors worldwide and diligently observes the lesser feasts approved by the General Convention, will NOT conduct any proposed feast of John Calvin, whose bad news of “total depravity” runs counter to our evangelical and catholic purposes; and respectfully opposes the ratification of any such day at GC 2012.

    Let the Presbyterians try to explain him, folks; we are Episcopalians.

    • Hi Josh,

      We need both your first and last name in order to approve a comment for posting. If you could resubmit your comment with that information, we’ll make sure to display it.


      Beau Surratt

      • I’m Josh Thomas, the founder of dailyoffice.org, which also has an Office blog here on WordPress. That’s why the name came out that way.

  6. In filling out the questionnaire prior to doing the survey, we’re asked to say whether we’re high, broad, low, or emerging’ church. Is there a reason why the terms “Anglo-Catholic,” “Evangelical,” and
    “liberal” weren’t used? Granted, no one likes to be put in a box and there are many overlappings. But I would have been able to pick a label from the latter three terms, whereas I couldn’t from the first three.

  7. I’ve tried to use the survey and after the first few days it took me to a page labeled July 11th – Harriet Beacher Stowe. THEN it took me back to all the pages between July 1 and 6th again before the cycle repeated itself. So, I wonder if the time I put into my comments for those first few days are lost? After July 6th, when I press next page I get July 1th H B Stowe every time. What to do?

    • Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Mary. As you know, this problem has been taken care of.

      Everyone, if you’ve had this problem, see below for some information from the folks who’ve put together the survey about why this happened:

      “…you had gotten through all the entries that had been set up so far, and so you landed on a test page we were using for looking at formatting, etc… We were trying to stay ~8 days ahead on the calendar when first rolling things out so that we could quickly catch any systematic glitches and fix them before we had put up too many entries. Since it looks like folks are likely to “read ahead”, I am having my grad assistant go much further afield so that people don’t catch up.

      As for your comments, from the data set, it looks like they were preserved from the first go through (i.e., I don’t think we set up a loop that overwrote them). If you want to be on the safe side, you can use a different email address and just comment on the first few entries. You could then continue using your original email address–clicking through the pages until you go the the next new one that Rochelle set up today.”

  8. I’ve thought of “Total Depravity” as Calvin’s way of expressing the idea that humans, no matter how “virtuous,” can NEVER be so good as to (literally) earn, or merit, God’s gift of salvation, eternal life, and that forgiveness is not a frill but an integral part of the New Covenant because that’s the nature of being creature (not creator). , finite (limited), and fallible.

    Then, there’s the difference in ethos, in which Anglicans come out generally on the side that sees grace and the goodness of creation more in the foreground than some other traditions. The Anglican impression I end up with then is, “anyone who really appreciates the doctrine of total depravity can’t be all bad!”

  9. Thanks, Fr. LaVoe. I think that’s partly why I hope we keep both Rite I and Rite II– Rite I (am I right that it’s closer to Cranmer, who predated Calvin by about 20 years?) seems more honest about who we are, “limited and fallible.” And it makes the fact that God cares about us more precious. We don’t deserve it. But we don’t go on and on about our “total depravity,” as Calvinists tend(ed) to do. –I’m reading Mark Noll’s volume in a history of evangelicism series–he says the Moravian influence on John Wesley was pretty strong. The Moravians Wesley met on the way to Georgia in the mid 1700s and afterwards emphasized God’s grace, the fact that conversion could be quick and not a long, painful process, etc. and pre-dated Episcopalian John Wesley’s eventual acceptance that he was saved, “when his heart was strangely warmed.” –Thanks to the SCLM for putting John Hus in “Holy Women, Holy Men”–as Dr. Mitchell pointed out, he had to do with the Moravians, with
    whom we are now in communion (or some other term, not sure what it is).

  10. THis is a very tiny comment. In Bishop Soderblom’s material please note that ‘Episcopal’ is an adjective and ‘Episcopalian’ is a noun. So the sentence should read : “Episcopal/Anglican” NOT “Episcopalian/Anglican.

  11. I’m not sure where else I might voice this opinion, but my main concern (one I know others share as well) with HWHM is that so many feast dates no longer have any correspondence with the date of the saint’s death, which is the tradition. There are several dates that are shared by more than one saint (meaning that churches must choose one or the other to commemorate)—so I would suggest instead of moving “older” feasts to make room for new ones, we just add new ones, if necessary, to the same date, and let the churches choose. Ideally, all the saints we commemorate in common with the Roman church and others, we would commemorate on the same dates they do; and those we alone recognize, we would commemorate in the traditional way: on the date of their death (if known). This would keep us in the same ecumenical spirit that adopting the RCL meant to promote.

  12. Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, Mary 10th: I wondered as I used this celebration of life why it would be included in the Episcopal Calendar. Although this was a worthy person, it seems more appropriate to be in the Moravian Calendar, rather than the Episcopal one. The write-up doesn’t make the connection to the Episcopal Church. He does not connect us back to Peter and there there is no indication that any of his hymns are in our hymnal. As presented, he is in a parallel tradition. The basic questions that came out of yesterday’s trial use were these: What are the requirements to be a Saint in the Episciopal Church? What is the Standard? Why this person? If Zinzendorf is a local saint at a particular parish that has been touched by his life, why are we celebrating him in the national church? In watching the Roman Church struggle with making Mother Teresa and Pope John-Paul II Saints on their church, I wonder if we are using a standard too.

    • On two occasions I have quoted from Price and Weil (Liturgy for Living) where they attempted to describe our (Episcopal Church, BCP, and LFF) usage regarding “saint” as it was used in our 1979 calendar. This I regard as our “careful” usage. In addition to that, I readily admit we have a “not-so-careful” set of habits, seen readily in the way we name churches and guilds, etc. (We often name a church or a guild “Saint Someone’s,” even though, with reference to the same personage, LFF or the BCP, in naming them, will (on principle) refrain from adding the title “saint.”)
      What matters, about the “careful” approach, and the approach of other churches (especially Roman Catholic canonizations) is not just fussiness or propriety or party rivalry, but a real and justified difference between OUR (“careful”) theological assumptions when we create and observe commemorations, as distinct from those of the Roman Curia when they beatify and canonize.
      We don’t “MAKE” saints (at least not at this stage of things). We thank God for them, we admire the outstanding service of Christians in the wide panorama of God’s work in the world, we seek to be strengthened in the ways we grasp as possible for people with certain gifts and opportunities to live out and embody the Baptismal Covenant, individually and corporately. We bring these Christians to God in Eucharist and to Scriptures liturgically, and we ask for grace from God, in ways variously inspired or resonant with them, in our own lives and in our churches and communities. The one thing we DON’T do is “make” them saints! God does that. Doing so is neither the end result of a supernatural investigation of them nor an honorary upgrade! We DON’T declare that so-and-so died without mortal sin, met our criteria of scrutiny for holiness, and is now authoritatively pronounces as officially at rest and peace with God — eternally — in heaven! We most certainly DON’T decide they have demonstrated such status by validated miracles scrupulously reviewed by the hierarchy and duly accepted as saintly interventions from beyond. We COMMEMORATE outstanding Christians in the light of the gospel.
      I don’t know how anybody else will react to this – or if I’m just the most officious and sanctimonious fuddy duddy of the year – but I don’t think we should change that “CAREFUL” pattern. The people we list in HWHM are not there because WE’RE deciding THEY “made it” – as “saints” — in any sense other than the sense in which every baptized person who lives the Baptismal Covenant faithfully, in communion with God’s grace and forgiveness (which is not to say flawlessly, perfectly, or free of sin), as part of the church gathered and as part of the church scattered, is also a saint – regardless of being listed in HWHM, or any other kind of ”Blue Book.” I urge that we even do away with the sub-title of “Holy Women, Holy Men: Celebrating the Saints.” (“Celebrating the People of God,” “Celebrating the Faithful,” “Celebrating the Gospel Community” “Celebrating the Service of God,” or any number of other possibilities would be fine. “Celebrating the Saints” encourages the CARELESS use of the word, and the worst impression of what the church does when it includes people in its calendar.)
      As for those wonderfully sharp wordings of questions previously posted, these are my thoughts. “In the interest of full disclosure,” as they say on certain news programs, I solemnly declare that I know I have no particular authority. I feel these are important and widely asked questions, and they deserve some response (and subsequent action!). Agree or disagree, it’s my sense of what we do when we commemorate Christians worth remembering:
      Q: Why it would be included in the Episcopal Calendar.
      A: Because we’re not a business in competition with other churches like McDonald’s versus Burger King, which only has reason to care about its own success and product: our concern is God’s Kingdom and the fruit of the gospel. Other branches of Christianity that serve God well are worth our celebrating because we ultimately are focused on GOD’s agenda, not just our own.
      Q: The write-up doesn’t make the connection to the Episcopal Church.
      A: Curiously, in Zinzendorf’s case (or at least the Moravian Church’s case) there is a connection with the Episcopal Church (which wasn’t mentioned, but I think should be). Nevertheless, as said above, if God is well served by Christians in other churches, we rejoice in GOD’s being honored by anyone – it’s about God’s purposes, not just ours! (Mark 9:40, Jesus says, “Whoever is not against us is for us.”)
      Q: He does not connect us back to Peter….
      A: I believe this alludes to the apostolic succession of bishops, and I agree with that observation, but we’re not adding Zinzendorf to a list of Anglican Bishops, just commemorating him for his contributions as a baptized Christian. Historically, the “bishop” title was part of his story. Make of it what you will, and don’t make of it what it wasn’t.
      Q: and there there is no indication that any of his hymns are in our hymnal.
      A: Judging from the one cited in the commemoration, you want one in the hymnal? Not all devotional music is suitable for corporate worship, and I believe the emphasis of the pietist movement exhibits more of an individualistic (“me and Jesus” bent) than ecclesial scope, and is more focused on saving one’s own soul than carrying out God’s eschatological goals for the renewal and resurrection of the whole creation and all its original created goodness. I get the impression this viewpoint extended even to the point of seeing missionary work as simply being about “saving souls” rather than taking part in sanctifying a sin-distorted world’s addiction to self, greed, injustices, etc. I’m not musical spokesperson nor am I familiar (at all!) with Zinzendorf’s devotional style, but in any case the fact of not having one’s hymns in our hymnal is completely irrelevant to living up to one’s Baptismal Covenant as faithfully as possible. (There’s no baptismal promise, “Will you compose hymns that make it into the Episcopal Hymnal? I will with God’s help.”)
      Q: As presented, he is in a parallel tradition.
      A: Parallel but Christian. Are we not allowed to celebrate the lives of those outside our Anglican in-group?
      Q: What are the requirements to be a Saint in the Episciopal Church?
      A: Living your Baptismal promises as a Christian.
      Q: What is the Standard?
      A: Christ is the standard, but as incarnated in the church, the community, the person and the creation — as intended and seen as possible in God’s eye, with God’s grace, including God’s forgiveness WHEN we “fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord.”
      Q: Why this person? If Zinzendorf is a local saint at a particular parish that has been touched by his life, why are we celebrating him in the national church?
      A: No fair! That’s what the blog is asking from its participants! Don’t you see any reason to do so? What, as a matter of GOD’S agenda with creation, do you think is worth celebrating and remembering as on a church-wide calendar? (That’s not the same as “What, as a matter of OUR SUCCESS STORIES” will serve us well as self congratulations?”)
      Remembering an outstanding Christian’s godly life is not at all the same as authoritatively declaring sainthood. From the way “saints” and “saint-making” are referred to by many, I expect I’m out on this branch without much company. If I’m kicking a dead horse, I apologize to the horse. Personally, I think it needs to be said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s