Is the Future Catholic?

Pete Rollins' How (Not) To Speak of God hovers in that strange space between the academy and the church--between the conversations of the scholarly guild and the lived practice of faith.  It's not trying to be a "scholarly" book (e.g., it doesn't tend to the boring, tedious matters of secondary literature, etc.), but it is very much a learned book.  It's kind of a riff on high level theory (Derrida, Marion) but always with an eye on the practice of faith (and doubt!) in community.  So it seems to me that the "money" section of the book is Part 2, where Pete shares with us how liturgy looks different after working through some of the tough questions articulated in Part 1.  Indeed, he names the task of Part 2 as one of "bringing theory to church"--a crucial task, I think, and exactly the desire that animates the "Church and Postmodern Culture" Series. 

So I would like to briefly engage a theme or two from Part 2 of the book.  Of course, there's much that could be discussed regarding Pete's "Heretical Orthodoxy" in Part 1.  And I share alot of interest in the core questions that Pete is grappling with there (in fact, I wrote an article on "How (Not) To Speak of God" a while back, and my earlier book Speech and Theology takes up the same themes, though with very different conclusions).   If we were in a more academic setting, I'd want to take up the thematics of the "secret" and consider why I think this organizing metaphor is still locked into a Kantian problematic (or what Etienne Gilson described as a "negative" concept of "mystery") and thus, rather than exhibiting an "incarnational logic," tends to a "logic of determination" we find in Derrida.  I tried to articulate a brief critique of this in chapter 5 of Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?.

But that's the sort of thing we can talk about when all we tenured radicals gather at a conference.  Here I'd like to consider a theme related to Part 2.  I very much appreciate the creativity and liturgical imagination that we find in Part 2.  There is an intentionality about worship here that is revolutionary and laudable.  However... (you knew that was coming right?)

I had the opportunity to "experience" a version of one of these services in Geneva (Service 10, "Queer").  This was going to be my first "emerging" worship experience, so I came with much anticipation.  And I was not disappointed (I still have the shard of broken tile I took from the service).  However, I was struck by one thing: the service was remarkably Protestant.  By that I don't just mean to toss out an epithet or a label.  I mean it as a shorthand.  By describing the service as "Protestant," I only mean to say that I was surprised at how "heady" the service was, and how text-driven and text-centered the worship was.  (Granted, we were just a few yards from John Calvin's church, so maybe the sermon-centric vibes of the Reformation had wafted over.)  While the service included key affective elements (the man's body being marked by epithets, the very tangible pieces of broken rocks and tiles we could touch), this was happening around a very textual, cognitive, rather sermonic center.  Granted, this wasn't your grandpa's "three point" sermon or anything, but it still required the sorts of cognitive processing that characterizes text-centered Protestant worship.

Now, why does this matter?  Why focus on this point?  Well, I think one of the key paradigm shifts that took place in modernity (particularly after Descartes) was the adoption of a new model of the human person that considered the human to be primarily and essentially a "thinking thing"--primarily a cognitive mind that, regrettably and contingently, inhabits a meaty body.  As a result, the primary and most important activity that thinking things can undertake is, you guessed it, thinking.  This shift manifests itself in the life of the church with the Reformation, which displaced the centrality of the Eucharist (a very tactile, affective, sensual mode of worship) and put the sermon (the Word) at the center.  The heart of worship becomes "teaching," and the shape of worship becomes driven by very cognitive, basically rationalist tendencies.  This develops to the point of caricature in the evangelical worship service centered around bullet points on the PowerPoint presentation. 

Despite the "postmodern" critiques of religion offered by Derrida, Caputo, et. al., I find that they continue to exhibit this modernist paradigm insofar as they still think that religion comes down to a matter of knowledge (or rather, not knowing).  And I wonder if we don't see the lingering effects of this in the liturgies sketched in Part 2 of How (Not) to Speak of God.  Granted, this isn't a pure rationalism--there are aspects of affective embodiment, and they are 'liturgies,' after all; but I do wonder whether they're still not primarily "driven" by quite heady, cognitive, didactic concerns.  In this way, they tend to reflect the kinds of wrestlings and wranglings of a certain class who have had the opportunity to get to have such doubts. 

Perhaps I can put a point on this: for me, one of the tests of whether worship is properly "holistic" (and thus animated by a holistic, non-rationalist model of the human person) is the extent to which my children can enter in to worship.  (Because of a certain worshiping community I've been a part of, I'm also attentive to the degree to which mentally-challenged adults can participate in worship as a criterion.)  In the "Queer" service, my kids--who are, I think, pretty sharp--would have had a hard time 'keeping up,' had a hard time understanding what was going on.  They would have been intrigued by the curiosities of the "marked man," etc., but there was ALOT of words to process and they would have been lost in a sea of ideas. 

I would contrast this to the affective simplicity of a traditional Tenebrae service on Good Friday (a "service of shadows").  While the service is organized by Christ's seven sayings from the cross, there is not much else text or commentary.  Instead, there is the simple amalgam of words, candles being gradually snuffed, sounds and silence.  My children, from when they were little, sit enraptured by this service.  Its affective simplicity testifies, I think, to a pre-modern understanding of the person as an affective, embodied creature--rational, sure, but not primarily rational. 

This is why I wonder whether, for the future of the church, we really need to invent something new, or rather creatively retrieve premodern sources.  While some are trying to imagine a new future for the church "after" modernity, I'm betting that the future is Catholic.

Comments

[rodney neill]

I have to agree with JKA Smith about the wordy nature of IKON sevices.

Long meditations/reflections couched in fairly academic language are part and parcel of IKON sevices I have been at in the past. I went with 3 friends who found these sections over their head and therefore not worth trying to understand( describing them as pretentious and boring). However in those days you could sup on a pint, relax in the congenial pub atmosphere and let them drift over your head!! The ritual parts were more interesting as they were much easier to engage with. I do not think children would have any chance following an IKON service.

This is only my personal view athough echoed by a number who have gone to the services. Others could well have a different perspective.

Rodney

[adrian]

Dear James,

Although I suspect you don't mean Catholic in a confessional sense, as a card-carrying Romanist I am delighted by your beautifully written post laying out the question as to whether the future might be Catholic after all. I wouldn't be a Roman if I didn't think that there isn't a profound connection between catholicity of the great tradition and the apparently all too human reality known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Anyway, I would just like to underscore my agreement with your understanding of liturgy as something so fleshed out that it can include and fascinate children and the mentally handicapped. That said, I would like to add a couple of qualifiers.

First of all, it seems to me that it's still too Protestant to talk about creatively retrieving the liturgical. There are already millennial liturgical traditions in the Catholic East and West.

Second, I think is important to stress that the preaching of the word is an important part of liturgy itself, albeit one intrinsically connected with, and transcending itself into, the celebration of the Eucharist per se.

Third, I think there's actually an intrinsic connection, to repeat that phrase, between the headiness of the liturgy that you describe and the negative sense of mystery that you---rightly in my judgment---lay at Peter's door. The trappings of the discussion of part one of the book may be academic, but the issue at stake isn't.

Fourth, I will cement my reputation around here as a one-note Charlie by repeating that it's not enough simply to say that we need to find a path back from Cartesian rationalism to the body. You're right, of course, that it's totally inadequate to oppose Cartesian rationalism with a negative sense of mystery. But the answer is not just the body, but the integrity of body and intellect. You see where I'm going with this: it seems to me that the very sense of incarnation that you are rightly highlighting, and in which you find expressed in the liturgy, goes hand-in-hand with the defense of the possibility of inscribing the incarnate one in human language--- though in the Holy Spirit, who differentiates that inscription from accessibility to fleshly grasping on the level of the letter that killeth.

Cordially,
Adrian

[rodney neill]

I must admit unless you are a theologically literate with a third level education IKON services are hard to follow - those outside this bracket would be lost.

Rodney

[rodney neill]

oops

I would say that 'those outside this bracket MIGHT rather than would be lost'

[adrian]

Dear James---

Oops: I see that point 2 is not so directly relevant to your post, tho' it is important to bring into the discusssion.

I also want to stress, in case it isn't clear, that I think the retrieval of the pre-modern is crucial. Otherwise we risk reinterpreting Christianity as a symbol for postmodern consciousness. This would be bad for Christianity, but also unfair to Derrida and co., who want first to be read as philosophers, and not as helps for getting beyond fundamentalism.

Cheers,
Adrian

[Jason Hesiak]

Thanks Mr. Smith,

I feel like you brought a lot of questions together in my mind into more of a coherent picture of what is happening here (by "here" I mean in this discussion on Pete's book).

And Adrian,

Thank you for highlighting the need for a wholeness of body and intellect. From what I got, it was in fact a highlight of something that wasn't necessarily missing in Smith's post. I think you are trying to prescribe preventative medicine, which I guess can be good...at the same time, though, I wonder/think: if God gave us an intellect, I think it'll be difficult, in the long run, to run from or leave behind but so far. Besides that, I don't think anyone is suggesting or even considering as much. I wonder, in consideration of our actual worship, where the practical aspects of these concerns of yours come in. Are you concerned, in folks' talk of less sermon-centric worship, that the worship will become less sermon centric? "I think [it] is important to stress that the preaching of the word is an important part of liturgy itself..."

Peace,

Jason

[adrian]

Dear Jason,

Thanks a lot---and sorry for not responding to your last comments on the previous thread.

No, I am not worried about liturgy being less sermon-centric. That's one of the reasons I'm Catholic and not Evangelical.

Practically, what I have in mind is Sunday Mass in one of the approved Catholic litrugies: preaching is part of the Whole of the liturgy, and is understood as an event of the Word becoming present in a dynamic way. Preaching is not the Whole, but it is a part of the Whole---and no Protestant would have to repudiate it if he/she were to become Catholic.

I guess what I am worried about is being one-sided, being less "catholic" with a small "c" by so emphasizing one or the other true aspect of the Whole that we end up wrongly downplaying other true ones. Heresy is the absolutization of a partial truth, the tearing it away from the Whole.

You are right---that is preventive medicine that I am so presumptuous to offer (who the hell am I, right?), and I am not accusing anyone of anything. Certainly not J.K. Smith, who seems to maintain a good balance.

BUT: even if no one is considering getting away from the intellect, isn't that one of the dangers of emphasizing the apophatic/impossibility of revelation in the way Peter seems to do? Danger: not that he actually does it, etc.

Of course, no one is really going to get away from the intellect, because that is part of what we are. Nature is, thank God, harder to get rid of than we like to thing. My only point is: rather than advocating this or that, we need to accept, become comfortable in, the many-sided Wholeness of our nature: body and reason; preaching and communion; creed and silent adoration, chastity and desire, etc., etc., etc.

For me the holding together of these things in a graceful unity is what puts the "c" in catholicity, so to speak.

Cordially,
Adrian

p.s Virginia is more beautiful than LA, no?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Thanks Jamie,

When looking at the liturgical aspect of Pete's book, and the theological project in general, I too was thinking about the kids.  Specifically I was thinking about how our community is trying to pass on the faith to the next generation, and needing to form a "program" for disciplining our youth (we baptize around the age of 10 where it is expected that they join the adult worship service).  As we as a community of parents (as well as adopted uncles and aunts who are single) struggle through this, I was asking myself, what might Pete's perspective add to this?  and to be honest, i'm not sure what it adds beyond helping us remember not to fall into an overly modernist certainty toward faith. 

Now that might sound pedantic, but it really is not.  I think Pete's book has a specific audience with a specific need (and I think that is great) and I think it is mostly to do with those who have either been harmed by a fundamentalist/authoritarian church. 

But what if there were churches who were not fundamentalist, who didn't reveal in Enlightenment certainty, and strived for a holistic appreciation of mind, body, emotions, and aesthetics?  What would these churches need to do to raise up there child?  Too be honest, I'm not sure.  But I feel that they wouldn't be nourished by an apophatic "mysticism".  What I want for the youth of my church is an embodied, sacramental spirituality that can follow in the footsteps of Brother Lawerence and practice the prescence of god in our lives, rather than contemplating God's conceptual absence. 

I bring this up along with jamie b/c I'm very involved with the emerging church conversation, just as Pete is. and while Pete might be articulating resources for one segment of the conversation, another part, the one having to do with intergenerational worship and the dissintegration of youth ministry as understood for the last 40 years, of the conversation might feel pretty lost.

[adrian]

Geoff---

amen.

a.

[Jason Hesiak]

Adrian,

I'm commentless on your last comment. It's OK that you never responded to my other stuff. I might comment later on your recent stuff. For now I'm just going to email you about VA and LA. Don't want to take up too much space here on that stuff.

Jason

[adrian]

Jason---

Looking forward to hearing from you. I guess I have a Northern Californian's prejudice against the south of the state. Plus I lived in DC for 11 years and always loved the VA countryside (not Annandale, which is acutally a lot like San Fernando Valley).

A.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

This also has nothing to do with the post, but I also have a Norther Californian prejudice against the South, being from th South Bay and going to U.C. Santa Cruz. good to know you adrian.

[adrian]

Geoff---

I'm from Palo Alto---how about you?

a.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

"do you know the way to San Jose?"...

[Jason Hesiak]

You guys aren't going to form a mophia-like gang against the hapless S. Cal. folks like myself, are you? If so, not to worry, I have connections to some weaponry and ammunition...it'll be ON..."I know a guy".

:)

[byron]

Speaking of alien anthropologies influencing understandings of worship, I wonder whether a consideration of Neoplatonic conceptions of the soul and knowledge vs vision mightn't also throw some light on this discussion. It seems to me that in Augustine, some of the centrality of the eucharist as the centre of worship derives from an understanding of soul in which body is almost reduced to sight, and even bodily sight is secondary to intellectual vision of the eternal realities. There is a fascinating passsage towards the end of City of God (see here) where he begins to move beyond this through the realisation that perhaps the eschatological vision of God will be bodily, not simply intellectual - we will see God in one another and all redeemed creation.

[Jason Hesiak]

Byron,

Good "point". And "25 points" to the one who can FIGURE (out) the difference between Plato and Plotinus. "50 points" if they lived after 1600 A.D. (i.e. - now). "75" points if they can FIGURE (out) how that (in) forms an anthropology of the homeland. And "500 points" not obtained by Jason if someone can figure out how that might properly effect a youth ministry...after 1950 A.D. (i.e. - now). "1000 points", obtained by no one (including folk who claim not to care about philosophy/thinking), if you don't really care and you simply ARE a "youth ministry" because you are "like one of these" (as hinted at by Geoff earlier, I think in the comments to the last post).

:)

Jason

[cheryl]

Geoff, I don't think this is an issue of whether you come from a fundamentalist background, or from one which strives to embrace a holistic approach to faith - i come from the latter, and i recognise my faith in these liturgies in a way i rarely have in any other context before.

These are rough thoughts, but i'll throw them out there. I think of it in terms of Fowler’s stages of faith. I think the liturgies in HNTSOG speak directly into the experience of the transition between stages as Fowler describes it. The theory behind Fowler’s stages of faith, of course, is that regardless of what your faith tradition is, the transitions will look like each other in as much as they will involve dislocation, grief, anxiety and fear. [Of course, it’s time someone gave Fowler’s stages a healthy critique from a postmodernist perspective, but i’d still want to give credence to his analysis of transitions.]

Interestingly, i’ve discovered in the worship I’m involved with (in a completely different country and context to Ikon) that people come to a service recognising the similar feelings of grief, anxiety, dislocation and ‘lostness’, but if they’re transitioning from a different stage, they won’t recognise the content as easily. Those who are transitioning from stage 3 to 4 (moving from synthetic-conventional to individuative-reflective faith) will need a theology that is expressed very differently to those who are transitioning from stage 4 to 5 (individuative-reflective to conjunctive).

i haven’t thought this through at all (i only just thought of it) but i wonder if Pete’s stuff is actually speaking to the transition between stages 4 to 5… which is why it resonates with many of the people i’m in contact with every day who are from the holistic background that you describe, as well as those who are from a fundamentalist background. And while those who are making the transition between stages 3 and 4 will recognise and be drawn to the expression of grief, desolation and confusion, the outcome of pete’s theology will be too ‘out there’, because they’ve missed the space in the middle.

I’m also interested in what you and Jamie have to say about involving children and young people in worship. I am a youth worker, i worked with my denomination for 6 years as its synod children’s ministry consultant. I remember speaking very similar words to you – and i still hold to them. But while i wouldn’t take a child to an Ikon service, i need something like what ikon has. It’s the closest i’ve ever come to home. i agree we need to keep looking for ways to explore mystery and wonder with children and young people – but we also need to not do that at the expense of those of us who can find no other place to express our dislocation, grief, anger and fear…

[Pete R]

Hey all

Thanks Jamie for an insightful critique of Ikon. I think you are right about Ikon’s frequent emphasis upon words, although I think that this may be more to do with me than others in the group. In Ikon we are frequently wrestling with the problem and I am often being challenged by the various artists and musicians to encourage a less wordy ikon.

I wonder if the problem may however be compared to a city-centre street. The church I used to be involved in (one of the biggest charismatic communities in the UK) was like Tescos (I think Wall-mart might be the US equivalent). The idea was to have everything under one roof. Ikon is more like a little store which specialises in certain things but which isn’t attempting to get the balance right. Depending upon what the people in the shop seem to need we try to be flexible, but we are not seeking to hit upon the perfect formula.

Now let me say from the start that we fail at even our modest aim, but the point may still stand. Namely, that I am a little sceptical that we can create a gathering which reflects the rich and complex anthropology of humanity. I think Jamie’s critique is one we must listen to and he will find avid supporters of it within ikon, however I think that his underlying point is more serious and problematic than this – namely, that ikon (and groups like it) will always get the mix wrong (whether an overemphasis or underemphasis on some aspect) because only the catholic approach reflects the depth and width of human ontology.

For me ikon offers an alternative approach which reflects the idea that we will always be in flux, always getting the balance wrong, and that that might actually be the right balance! What we do at ikon is not, hopefully the way we will be doing things in five years time (we have already been minimising the word level in ikon in the last six months). Indeed the ikon web site has recently gone wiki to symbolise this idea of flux and motion.

So in short, I agree with Jamie’s critique of ikon but not, perhaps, the ground from which it arises. I have no head for working out what the right balance is… philosophy has sadly made me less clear about that than more clear. Perhaps the balance of ikon can only be judged when it has died and someone with no life decides to look over the totality of what we did. Indeed, perhaps the balance will only be seen when ikon is seen as a small, insignificant part, in the whole body of Christ.

To finish, the point about kids is a perfect example of the fluid nature of ikon… recently families with young children have started to come to ikon and asked how we would integrate them in what we do, so we are currently looking seriously at this issue. In short, when an issue or critique arises we attempt to address it in the exigency of the moment. There is thus no balance in ikon (we are a very unbalanced group), I just hope that it adds to the overall balance of the body!

[josh burns]

A traditional service involving liturgy/ sacraments etc can tend to be boring, does not make you think and can seem pretty irrelevant compared to modern culture - a critique many young people have of traditional church services. People these days like to thing for themselves and not just be spoonfed official church doctrine in creeds.

[rodney neill]

Cheryl,

Thanks for you post about fowlers stages of faith.
If stage 5 of Fowlers faith stages is the 'second naivete' reconnention to the Christain faith after a deconstuctive period I am not sure if IKON liturgies with the major emphasis on doubt, darkness and uncertainity with an implicit critique of more conservative Christianity particularly appeals. Liturgies that nourish,sustain and inspire/challenge ones faith journey in the Christian tradition together with the sharing of real life stories rather than ones that only provoke/cause doubt to me are more attractive to people at this stage. Having spent over 10 years out of the church as a disillusioned ex-believer the IKON liturgies have more affinity to the deconstuctive stage of ones faith journey ( imho) ie for those who are burnt out particularly after spending time within the Christian mainstream. Also for many it is a forerunner to abandoning the Christian faith for a more individualistic postmodern spirituality /secular humanism or a liberal 'God is dead but keep the idea of love' brand of Christianity

[rodney neill]

Cheryl,

My above post on relection is far too onesided as IKON liturgies have inspired people drawn from many of Fowlers stages of faith - it only reflects some of my own concerns

Rodney

[Andy]

JKAS wrote "This is why I wonder whether, for the future of the church, we really need to invent something new, or rather creatively retrieve premodern sources. While some are trying to imagine a new future for the church "after" modernity, I'm betting that the future is Catholic."

James,

A few questions...how or where do you see people inventing something new? And, perhaps using one example as an illustration, how is that invention un-catholic?

I've heard this kind of critique of emergent fairly frequently...but, frankly, I haven't seen much evidence that corroborates the claim (based on my understanding of catholic). So these are questions that I'm currently wrestling through for myself.

Andy

[cheryl]

Rodney, i don't want to hold tightly to Fowler's theory, but i want to reiterate that i was talking about the liturgies working in the transition between stages, not within the actual stages.

Interestingly, the work done on how communities of faith reflect Fowler’s stages indicates that most churches are at stage 3, a few reach stage 4, virtually none are at stage 5 [in fact, most churches would say that's a stage they wouldn’t want to get to]. The stages aren't a graduation process - stage 5 isn't better or more fulfilled than stage 4 [which, Fowler himself rued, is a concept that has never fully been understood]. Very few people move to stage 5, and few of those would still call themselves Christian…some would use the language of post-Christian, many don’t recognise themselves in any of the labels. Fowler’s research indicated that they struggled within churches. In my knowledge of Fowler, and without wanting to categorise Pete (which seems a spectacularly arrogant thing to do), if Fowler had been describing stage 5 within a postmodern context we’d probably recognise Pete’s theology in there.

but let's not get hung up there. i’m hypothesising, using a theory i’d want to critique. i just don’t want to dismiss it as quickly as you do!

i also don't want to personalise this as a conversation about Ikon. my glimpse of ikon is very brief - your comments can only be, as you say, from your perspective. i’m not sure it’s helpful to critique Ikon in this forum.

The thing that the book can’t offer is the response of people after the services. The liturgies create a rupture – did God happen in the aftermath? That’s the stuff you can’t write about… but it’s also the faith with which Pete is working with when creating the liturgies (if we take the first half of the book seriously).

When i curate worship in that way, it always takes far more faith on my behalf. I have to believe God will happen if we create the rupture. It’s risky. as an example, we did worship on Easter Saturday this year. the liturgy was posted on my website and picked up by a number of conservative groups who said that it was unfaithful because it didn’t preach the resurrection – it was nihilistic, defeatist, etc. Interestingly, the comments of people who participated were that somehow, unexpectedly, they were left with an inexplicable sense of hope – not of human making. That’s the kind of story that we don’t hear in the book, and necessarily so, but it’s needed to make the story complete.

The other thing i’d want to say about children’s participation is that in my experience children will enter into a service on a very different level to adults. they’ll run with the mystery far more readily, and simply skip over the cognitive. If we’re curating worship that has ‘layers’, they’ll be absorbing one layer even if they don’t ‘get’ another one. My concern with taking a child to Ikon wouldn’t be the cognitive factor (as long as there’s other stuff happening alongside), it would be that it is responding to life themes that are out of a child’s current experience.

[Braun Ludavich]

Please excuse me for not knowing this, but what is an "IKON service"?

(I have to admit, it's hard to keep up with the trends [dare I say fads?] in the ever changing world of evangelicalism)

[Jason Hesiak]

Bruan,

Ikon is Peter Rollins' church community. An Icon service is one of their gatherings.

Jason

[rodney neill]

An Ikon service are the liturgies mentioned in the second half of Petes book. When I was talking about IKON liturgies I meant the ones recorded in his book. I should have been much more clear.

Cheryl,

Thank you for your idea about rupture/aftermath of God (I had not thought of it in those terms)- I probably have a different understanding of Fowlers stages of faith.

Rodney

[adrian walker]

Dear everyone,

I would like to suggest that we move the discussion away from the specific case of Peter's community to the general issue of liturgy. I make this suggestion because differing conceptions of liturgy have begun to emerge in the conversation on this thread and because the question of liturgy is actually important theological issue.

One question that James Smith’s raises is this: is there a normative understanding and practice of liturgy? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and others would say yes. Other Christians would say no. Part of this difference has to do with differing understandings of the nature and importance of the Lord's Supper.

It seems to me that the Catholics and Orthodox are right. Now more is at stake here than just confessional polemics. For one of the things that the Catholic and Orthodox theology and practice imply is that liturgy is not just a man-made ceremony that can be adjusted for this or that particular audience. Of course there is a large man-made element in liturgies, although it tends to be the work of generations rather than simply of one person or a committee improvising. But the idea is that the core of the liturgy has some continuity with the Last Supper, and that the celebration of the Eucharist in some sense makes the church. Let me say something about this latter point.

Again, in the classical Catholic and Orthodox understanding and practice, liturgy is not just any old celebration geared to this or that audience, but stands in continuity with the Lord's Supper as a real re-presentation of the Paschal mystery of his death and resurrection. For the same reason, there can only be one liturgy in one place that is meant to gather all
believers living in it no matter their condition. One liturgy for all, period. In this sense, liturgy expresses and brings about the unity of the church as a church.

Of course, this fact is harder to see once Christianity splits up and non- or less liturgical confessions spring up alongside of those that remain more in continuity with the pre-split understanding and practice of liturgy---thus giving the impression that the "liturgical churches" are there to supply the needs of some niche or other, whereas other niches will be supplied by other confessions or communities.

Lying behind this discussion of liturgy, then, is the larger question of whether there is a normative form of Christianity that is a one-size-fits-all phenomenon. Personally, it seems to me that the only alternative to a yes answer here is, at least logically, the idea that Christianity is like a big market with many market niches.

I realize that what I have said is provocative and is likely to be strongly disagreed with. I'm also not claiming to have provided arguments for the position I have laid out. My point has been simply to expresses clearly as possible what I take to be the issues that are at stake in our conversation on this thread and that it would be useful to thrash out together. Hence my pointed and provocative way of talking here.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Ali Campbell]

All I want to know is am I being transformed? Am I taking responsibility for my faith journey and looking for God? I kind of get what Pete R is talking about in his book - but I think it matters more to "be" with God in the right way, rather than think about how I "speak" of Him (or don't) . . .

[rodneyneill]

hello Adrian,

I appreciate the honesty of your post even though I would disagree with it. It is good to hear a person speaking up for their beliefs even though they might be unpopular!!

Rodney

PS it is good to get the discussion back to liturgy in general

[adrian walker]

Thanks, Rodney. I laid out my position mainly in order to get discussion going, provided people are interested in discussing the topic. I expect people will disagree with my position insofar as to disagree with Catholicism. But I do hope people will agree that the issues I attempted to formulate are important ones. It seems to me that what one thinks of the liturgy depends on what one thinks of the Eucharist, that what one thinks of Eucharist depends on what one thinks of Christianity, and that what one thinks of Christianity depends on what one thinks of God. That is why, despite my questions about Peter's approach, I think he puts his finger on the core issue behind the discussions we've been having here: what is God? Who is God? What sort of God is he? Is God the kind of God that has a reality independent of us, does he enter into history to reveal himself? Needless to say, these are hardly academic issues, but are absolutely decisive for how we structure our lives, what we prioritize in them, etc.
Cordially, Adrian

[Geoff Holsclaw]

it seems this conversation on worship and word has caught on a bit at reformedcatholicism and adversaria.  Also, over at the First Things blog, Peter Leithart talks about "courtly" and "barbarous" liturgical divides, stemming from, you guessed it, around the Reformation. 

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Adrian,

I very much resonate with your concern about niche marketting and lituryg.  This mentality prevails here in N. America.  But it is difficult when it feels like it is "niche marketting churches vs. universal liturgy" b/c for many this will push the imperialist button (you are just pushing you culture on other people!!!). But I don't think this is what you are getting at. 

For me the question is whether or not Liturgy "consitutes" our beliefs or merely "expresses" them.  The "constitutive" perspective sees the worship of the Church as transformative, as an essential part of bringing the Church into existence in the World, of becoming the actual Body of Christ for the World.  And without this there won't even be a Church to talk about.  and Adrian links this to the original celebration of the Lord's Supper and our continued practice of it.  The "expressive" perspective sees worship/litrugy as proclaiming what we already know, or are aware of, or can articulate apart from the worship of the Church.  Of course there is always a feedback loop between "constitute" and "expressive", but there is usually a matter of emphasis on one over the other.  Typical protestant worship, focused on the Word, sees worship as either a dress rehearsal or mere post-script to the preaching (un/preaching) of the Word, and is therefore "expressive" in orientation. 

But what if 'passing the peace' (instead of just saying 'hi' to others in the pew) actually brought about peace among the congregation?  What if 'preaching' was a type of teaching, but was the Word of God flowing in/around the People of God by the Spirit of God?  What if the Lord's Table weren't a mere reflection on the Life/Death/Resurrection of Jesus, but was actually how we were formed into His Body as we partake of His Body (which is the Body of Christ? in the wafer? in the People?)

so to bring it back around, if we understand worship/liturgy as consitutive then we can both see it as an essential place for Comm/Union with God (in the ways that I think Pete rightly wants to stress), as well as the esseantial place of reflection on God, a reflection using both 2nd and 3rd person language, using words like "true" and "knowledge," even forming into creedal statements, building up from (but not superceding) the liturgy (a move I don't think Pete would stress). 

[adrian walker]

Dear Geoff,

Yes and yes again. This is one of the best posts that has appeared during this whole discussion.

I realized when I was writing my post that I would be pushing some buttons---"here comes the Catholic imperialist." But, as I think you're hinting, what I in fact mean by universal liturgy, or one-size-fits-all, is precisely that the Eucharist constitutes church as church, and so is an experience of unity in Christ that suffers no division, and is an anticipation, veiled but real, in the unity of the heavenly Jerusalem. I do think that in spite of everything the Roman Catholic Church has done a better job of remembering this than Protestantism, but that is a further point that we could leave aside for the moment.

Eucharist is where the church is born as church. Of course, as you point out, this is precisely why Eucharist is the primary context in which Scripture is read and interpreted---not in some heady way, but precisely as an event of the word (which is why I think there is no need to oppose word and sacrament). And, for the same reason, the liturgy is also the primary locus of the creed: lex orandi, lex credendi.

And that really would be the point about heresy. Heresy means tearing away a partial truth of the whole. But the Eucharist is the experience of this whole. So the Eucharist is orthodoxy, and heresy is a sin against Eucharistic unity. It is an exaggeration of a partial truth ripped out of the communion of all with all in God the sacramentally anticipated in the Eucharist.

I think you display precisely this kind of catholic thinking when you use the Eucharist as a way of holding together what is true of the various emphases that have been expressed in these discussions, rather than defending to the death some partial truth, which becomes problematic as soon as it's ripped out of the context of the whole.

Thus, I think that you hit the nail on the head in identifying Eucharist as the place where communion with God and speech about God, creed and transforming event, etc. are one. That is one of the things that makes the Eucharist catholic---it is an experience of how things that we normally oppose to each other in all kinds of dualisms get reconciled and are held together.

Of course, there is truth in the expressive view, too. This is why Vatican II says that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, implying that we come to it and go from it. Thus, there is an education to faith, criteria of worthy reception, etc. that precede the celebration of the Eucharist. Yet that is all part of the loop that goes from Eucharist to Eucharist In this sense, the constitutive view includes everything that is true in the expressive view. The question would be whether the reverse is true. I doubt it.

Cordially and gratefully,
Adrian

[rodney neill]

Adrian,

Are non-liturgical Protestants who do not share your theology about the nature of the Eucharist part of Christs church in your view or outside of it?

Rodney

[Geoff Holsclaw]

rodney, I can't speak for Adrian, but i don't think there is such a thing as 'non-liturgical'. every christian gathering has a liturgy, no matter how informal or 'low' church it might be. the only thing that is 'non-liturgical' would be to not gather together. Liturgy merely means 'work of the people'.

but concerning your question, i would say that there are all sorts of people who don't share my liturgical theology (or a bunch of other of my theological positions) who are of course IN the church.

The question for me is does the worship of the community reflect the articulated theology of the community, or do they conflict.

[adrian walker]

Dear Rod,

Let me begin by noting that the theology of the Eucharist that I outlined is more or less an expression of the position of non-Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and many Anglicans, as well as liturgically-conscious Protestants like Geoff, who beautifully articulated an account of the Eucharist that all of the above could sign on to. So I do not take myself to be stipulating personal opinion as the criterion of membership in the Lord's Church---God forbid!

That having been said, it is the position of these churches, with which I agree---which is why I became a member of one of them having before that been a nonbeliever---that the Eucharist, as described, is a central piece of Christianity left us by Jesus himself. This does not mean that non-liturgical Protestants are outside of the Church. What it does mean is that, though they are inside of the Church, they are not being fully consistent with themselves to the extent that they don't participate in the Eucharist in a visible way (as for the invisible side, I would want to say that for all I know---and only God knows---they benefit from the Eucharist without knowing it). This is why I like the approach of Newman: in moving from Protestantism to Catholicism, he felt that he was bringing fulfillment the experience of personal encounter with Jesus Christ that he had on becoming evangelical at the age of 16.

So I would turn the question around and say that the issue is not whether non-liturgical Protestants are inside the Church or not---we can take for granted that they are---but whether or not they have fully grasped the implications of being inside the Church.

(I just read Geoff's response: yes, everyone has a liturgy, so the question is really whether or not the liturgy is a Eucharist and what that entails. In fact, that is a good place to start: the question to ask is "what does it mean for Christians to get together and worship in common"?---and from there show that the Eucharist is not just another version of that, but somehow a fulfillment of that).

This is the tragedy of Christian division. Not everything Christians disagree about is secondary. I think the Eucharist is one of those non-secondary things. To put it crudely, then: liturgical and nonliturgical churches cannot both be right about liturgy. So the question is: which account of liturgy is true?

I would hasten to add though, that my approach here is not to say that liturgy is what we Catholics or Orthodox or Anglicans happen to do, therefore we’re right. It's rather to say that the centrality of the Eucharist to the church makes sense on its own terms as a theological proposition. So we can keep the discussion focused on this issue in its own right, while leaving other questions aside.

Obviously, as a Catholic, I believe that the centrality of the Eucharist to the church is an argument in favor of the idea that, say, the Catholic Church is not just a denomination, but the incarnation of the fullness of Eucharistic Christianity. But this is a further issue that I think is best left aside so that we can focus on the question of the Eucharist, liturgy, etc. on its own terms.

I know this is not going to satisfy you, in that it will sound arrogant, despite my attempts to explain things carefully. Believe, though, that it is offered in the spirit of brotherly love from one believer to another.

Cordially,
Adrian

[adrian walker]

Perhaps a further clarification. Every Christian body has a liturgy---even the Quakers. We are social beings, no less when we worship in common, and that means that there will be an organization to the worship, however loose.

The first and basic question is thus: is there a normative and central form of Christian worship in which the unity of the Church is constituted/expressed in a special way?

Cordially,
a.

[rodney neill]

Geoff and Adrian

Thank you for your responses. To be honest I know only a little about sacramental/Eucharist theology so I cannot discuss it in any depth.

Living in Northern Ireland in a troubled land and seeing at first hand the hatred,bigotry and violence of a religiously divided society along Catholic and Protestant lines I suppose I am very sensitive to any theology that seems to lead to one side being a 'superior' version of the Christian truth than the other. This is a burning practical issue in reconciliation work. I worry that such a stress on the centrality of the Eucharist and its practical outworking in church life seems to make Protestants( in Northern Ireland they are 'low church') into second class religious citizens in the church.

However Adrian I really do appreciate your honesty and the generous spirit in your posts. You have stood up for your point of view in a very courteous manner.

I appreciate that all this is against my own local cultural context but it is embarrassing to be part of a culture that has brought such shame to the Christian witness.

Rodney

Ps - I obviously need to read more about sacramental theology!!

[Jason Hesiak]

Ali,

You said: "All I want to know is am I being transformed? Am I taking responsibility for my faith journey and looking for God? I kind of get what Pete R is talking about in his book - but I think it matters more to "be" with God in the right way, rather than think about how I "speak" of Him (or don't) . . ." I THINK (?) that part of the Pete's idea is that how/what we speak is part of or participates in who we "BE". (related to the "points" given below, I think)

And Geoff/Adrian,

Although I really have no authority to hand them out (but am really just being goofy and participating in the conversation while borrowing a game from Byron), 125 points to you both (50 to whoever can figure out the difference between Plato and Plotinus, plus 75 for letting it inform us now). That's what I was getting at earlier:

"But what if 'passing the peace' (instead of just saying 'hi' to others in the pew) actually brought about peace among the congregation? What if 'preaching' was a type of teaching, but was the Word of God flowing in/around the People of God by the Spirit of God? What if the Lord's Table weren't a mere reflection on the Life/Death/Resurrection of Jesus, but was actually how we were formed into His Body as we partake of His Body (which is the Body of Christ? in the wafer? in the People?)"

Adrian, I predumed that your "yes and yes" gave you your "points"

I REALLY like that. Makes me giddy excited. I can be human! And God can be God (of course)!

:)

Jason

[Dan Brennan]

Geoff wrote,

"Typical protestant worship, focused on the Word, sees worship as either a dress rehearsal or mere post-script to the preaching (un/preaching) of the Word, and is therefore "expressive" in orientation.

But what if 'passing the peace' (instead of just saying 'hi' to others in the pew) actually brought about peace among the congregation? What if 'preaching' was a type of teaching, but was the Word of God flowing in/around the People of God by the Spirit of God? What if the Lord's Table weren't a mere reflection on the Life/Death/Resurrection of Jesus, but was actually how we were formed into His Body as we partake of His Body (which is the Body of Christ? in the wafer? in the People?)"

I say, yes, yes, and yes. Having worshipped in word-centered evangelical communites for 20 years before tasting the richness of Anglican liturgy, I say, a thousand times yes.

There was a tremendous difference between the two when it came to the Eucharist. In the "Word-centered" liturgies, there was almost this morbid introspection when it came to the Table. In the Anglican community, I was a part of, there was this vision of life, of feasting with thanksgiving at the table, of joy (not flippant or manipulative) entering into the Eucharist. Tremendosu difference.

I also agree about passing the peace. Language matters.

[josh burns]

This is a post from Maggi Dawns ( Church of England priest) blog from a recent
discussion

'We talked then about
sacrament, and how one of the problems with young people and the Eucharist is either that they do not participate in it at all, and therefore need some other means of entering into an understanding of sacrament'

Retrieving musty old creeds even in new settings is a real turn off for many young people who want to make up their own minds about what is truth rather than just blindly following what tradition tells them what to believe. You cannot go bact to the premodern days when bishops/priests dictated what to believe - this is an idle pipedream. !! People to-day are educated, literate and taught to make up their own minds.

Christian tradition and history is filled with patriarchal attitudes, anti-semitic views, a lack of concern for poor until recently and guilty of many crimes against humanity(eg the Inquisition) - no wonder Western young people are leaving in droves. Trying to return to premodern times will NOT halt this.

What is needed is an intellegent christianity that understands the modern period - authors such as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan
and Stephen Donaldson are paving a new direction which rescues Christianity in an emerging fresh new paradigm. I hope they will have a major following in the church.

[adrian]

Dear Rodney,

Thanks for your response. I agree that Christian division, especially division such as exists in Northern Ireland, is a painful scandal. In its essence, though, the Eucharist is a sacrament of unity and reconciliation---and not a marker of ethnic-religious turf. Of course, this is sometimes hard to see, not only because people make it into such a marker, but also because there are prior conditions for being able to partake of the sacrament---for example, faith that one is truly receiving the body and blood of Christ, etc. Paul talks about conditions of worthy participation in 1 Corinthians 11. In a way, it's the same problem of Christianity in general. On the one hand, Christianity is good news for everyone; on the other hand, partaking of this good news means joining what is so empirically speaking looks like a particular group among others. Ultimately, this has to do with the scandal of the incarnation: Jesus is universal savior, yet he is also a particular human being living at a particular time.

Dear Geoff,

It does seem to me on reflection that we need to say both that the Eucharist makes the church and at the church makes the Eucharist, in the sense that there are appointed ministers, criteria of worthy participation, and the like. So questions like apostolic succession will lurk in the background.

Dear Josh,

If Christianity is a divinely revealed religion, and if the Eucharist is part of that revelation, then what young people want---even supposing that your description of the attitudes of the young is correct, which I'm not sure is the case in---is irrelevant. Of course, you may reject the proposition that Christianity is a divinely revealed religion and/or that the Eucharist is an important part of that revelation---but then you would have to present arguments against that proposition. It seems to me that statements about what people are or are not willing to accept, or about the mistakes Christians have made in the past, do not yet count as the sorts of arguments that would be needed to show that the proposition in question is false. Why on intrinsic grounds---apart from appeals to modern contemporary consciousness or to past Christian mistakes---is the idea that Christianity is a divinely revealed religion false or absurd?

Cordially to all,
Adrian

[adrian]

If anyone is still reading, here is a nice passage from a book I am translating that brings together some of the threads of this discussion:

I would like to conclude these remarks with a statement that is bound to seem unacceptable to a certain puritanism: Christianity is the glorification of the senses. For Jesus says "blessed are the eyes that see what you see and the ears to hear what you hear" (see Lk 10:23-24). This glorification comes about through a journey involving the whole person--- recall what was said about the liturgy---and through a purification of the mind and heart.
God has made us human and he has saved us. Salvation has to do with man in his totality: the whole man is called to encounter Christ. We know God visibly, as a prayer of the Church puts it. The purpose of the senses is the knowledge of Christ and of everything that leads to him. The knowledge of Christ is the fullness of the senses. It is essentially important that our relationship with him not be intellectualistic; otherwise our desire for affection will seek elsewhere. It has to be an experience of the entire person.
Our senses must therefore be educated. Reading, imagination, listening, the spoken word must be educated in order to become filled with Christ. Jesus says that it is impossible to serve two masters (see Lk 16:13). We cannot fill our eyes and ears with Christ and with what contradicts him. Everyone of us knows what is the biggest obstacle on his path to education. Especially when it comes to something as delicate as the education of our sexuality, we can never afford to lose sight of what life's happiness is. Only a clear judgment about this enables us to embrace the toil of the journey, of asceticism.

[Existential Punk]

James,

We can't and should not expect kids to get everything. I think it is good to have kids in our worship services participating as best they can given their ages, and then it's up to the parents to live out their faith as best they can as examples. Also, conversations with their kids is paramount.

We cannot rely entirely on our intellect/rational thought, but it is a part of us.

i totally resonate with your idea of a holistic worship time.

As for the mentally challenged being able to participate, i don't have any answers. It's a great point you bring up. My question would be how this plays out in your faith community? Doesn't God meet us wherever we are at?

Also, Jesus used a lot of words in His parables. So, what do you say to that?

Just curious. Thanks for your post. Interesting things to chew on!

Adele