I’ve recently been musing about candles. A couple of reasons, I think. One is the increasing use of LED candles (mainly because of concerns about setting things alight and also they work outdoors in a breeze) and the other reason for me is noting that they are being used with particular cultural significances attached or implied. The former is probably dependent on the latter. That is, no-one would bother with LED candles unless there was something about candles and candle-light that made them worth imitating.

I suggest that the value of candles is aesthetic and connotative. Aesthetic in that many people feel that they are attractive. Probably this is about the warm light, the smell and the appearance of the candles along with their possibilities in terms of table arrangements and playing a part in decorative ensembles. Then there are their associations, arguably, in popular culture with meditative contexts, prayer and chilled settings. So they have connotations of spirituality and restfulness.

We should note also that the meaning of candles in contemporary cultures is affected also by the fact that we have alternative and better (for the purposes of reading or working by and even ease of use) means of lighting. So candles don’t ‘mean’ lighting in the sense of enabling reading, work or navigation but in terms of mood and aesthetic. They are decorative rather than practical.

Then I compare or contrast contemporary usage with their use in Christian liturgies. I’m interested in this comparison because in Christian worship, candles show their origins in another age and technological regime. The way that candles are used in catholic liturgies shows, for the most part, the origins in practical concerns to do with readers and liturgical ‘actors’ being able to see to perform their roles. It is only once those practical concerns have been properly attended to that spiritual and religious meanings can be considered and played with: the light of Christ can be considered to be symbolised, for example. In the ages before gas and then electric lighting, candles were both necessary and then symbolic. In the electric age, they are no longer necessary but only symbolic. We do not use candles nowadays with the same meaning as our forebears. We cannot of necessity do so.

So this prompts the question for me of how we respond to the changed connotative reality in our culture. Clearly, for the most part, most have opted to continue as previously. So continuing to use candles now that their necessity has elapsed requires justification not previously needed. Previously, you had to have a source of light to read by and see where you were stepping and to see the equipment you were using. This meant that you had to have candles (or lamps) near enough to be helpful. So a couple of candles held near the gospel book, several candles around and on the altar-table were almost unarguable -they had to be there to see by. And note that this was the case even in daylight given that most buildings used had dim interiors.

Therefore justifications for using candles in the electric age have had to shift. One of the justifications has simply been ‘tradition’. However, this one is not especially convincing on its own. Various things have changed and tradition has not been evoked to argue for their retention or things have been kept as tradition but a comparison with other lands and cultures demonstrates the mutability and contingency of tradition which therefore requires other justifications.

Mostly for the continued use of candles, I hear aesthetic reasons coupled with symbolic considerations. And that is fine, though clearly not binding. But that then offers the possibility of not simply continuing with something because, in effect, it is pretty and we can assign it a Christological symbolism. We could think about reimagining usage. We could go back to asking ourselves what we want to do when we work together in prayer, why we want to do it and what aesthetics and technological aids best help us (by technological, I mean anything from candles and cruets to sound systems and lighting rigs).

And indeed can newer technologies help us to overcome symbolic problems? In this regard I have in mind the kindling of lights ceremonies on Easter Eve or Easter pre-dawn services. The written liturgies for these occasions tend to mean that we lose the drama of light and darkness to some degree because, in order to read the words, the celebrants have to read. This means some kind of light (flame or electronic) is kindled before the Paschal candle light. Symbolically this is a fail.The Paschal candle really ought to be the first and for a time, the only light. I argue that to preserve the symbolic integrity of this act we need to make it so that no other light is kindled beforehand.

There are a handful of ways that it occurs to me that we could do this. One is simply to have the liturgical leaders memorise their lines or at least be able to say the gist of them elegantly. Maybe in an age where memorising feels like it could be too big an ask, we could bring memory-prosthetics to bear: an earpiece with the lines fed into it (this raise a few practical questions about the equipment and method -live feed from somewhere out of earshot? Recorded?).  Or perhaps a set of eye-pieces projecting the written words so only the leader can see (but would this be too light-bearing), or perhaps the appropriate words could be recorded and replayed, or perhaps they could be relayed by another voice situated out of sight. Of course, each of these potential solutions has its practical and symbolic issues in turn: is it okay for the presider to be speaking line by line with (from the point of view of other participants) pauses? Is it okay to have the very small amount of light on an eye-piece display? Do we think it is okay for a bit of the said liturgy to be pre-recorded or to be said by someone hidden away elsewhere? What if the recorded voice is that of the person leading the action at that moment?

Let’s stick with the Easter kindling scenario a bit longer. One of the technological solutions I haven’t mentioned yet is to use an LED candle as the Paschal Candle. This is only a part-solution because it doesn’t address the issue of seeing to read liturgy. However, it could make it that the Paschal candle was indeed the only and first light lit. There would be no need to kindle a fire in order then to bring a taper in or to use a lighter to light the candle. Both of these actions detract, arguably, from the dramatic symbolic potential of the paschal candle being the first and (for a short time) only light. We could rework the liturgy around that idea.

One possible downside to that idea because there is at least one further thing to think about. This is one scenario where the use of real candles might actually be justified. One of the lovely pieces of dramatic and aesthetic symbolism on this occasion is the lighting of the congregation’s candles from the Paschal candle; the expansion of lights and light is a beautiful and moving sight with deeply symbolic-metaphorical resonances. This might justify real candles for this liturgical act. But we should recognise that there is a cost to it aswell. Most congregations want to protect their flooring and furnishings from candle wax and there are concerns about hair or clothing catching light (don’t laugh; I’ve seen it happen). Candle safety is a concern of a previous age which we don’t ‘get’ in the same visceral way nowadays.

So I do wonder … in an age with mobile phone lights. In an age where such things are often used in concerts as a celebratory-participatory tool, could we not do that? Could we not devise a practical liturgy to achieve a similar aesthetic to that produced by the candle-flame sharing? Perhaps touching devices with the words “the Light of Christ” to prompt the next device to be lit and so on. Those without mobile phones that have a light capability could be offered LED tealight candles in order to participate. I’m aware also of LED candles which have a radio switch so they can be turned on or off at a slight distance. This offers possibilities too -of passing the remote control round to light an widening circle of LED candles.

Now that’s a bit of thinking about a special occasion for light symbolism. What about the everyday?

Well, if we value the way that candles tend in today’s cultural milieu to draw visual focus, perhaps we might want to use electronic lighting to do that -spotlights or even hand-held lighting -it could even be held by acolytes (if we’re comfortable with the master-servant symbolism this almost inevitably conjures for many: can we find a way to mitigate or transform that?). But it is now really easy to light different places (and even to control the colour and intensity of that lighting) so why not use that properly. At least as an experiment, do away with candles completely and think about other ways to do things that still have aesthetic appeal and liturgical drama.

A random further thought or two. Perhaps by using mobile phone lights, we can implicitly consecrate them by usage? By using LED candles perhaps we can further democratise liturgical lighting safely? What are the possibility when we can even throw lights or hold them in our hands and then reveal them or put them behind partly transparent cloth or papers?