The Liturgical Turn

One of the most exciting things, to me, about the postmodern and emergent conversations is the turn towards worship.  Not that the Church hasn’t always thought about its worship, but these days, worship is all the rage. Even the word ‘worship’ has become a buzzword. It seems that every time I open some Christian magazine there’s another ad for a newly opened school of worship studies and new resources for reinventing or recreating your church’s worship.  To me this turn towards worship is exciting because it opens up space for creative evaluation and rethinking of the theory and practice of Christian worship.

It also creates space for tradition. And for a tradition-starved evangelical like myself, this conversation has been like a feast fit for a glutton. Particularly because of the main course – this really cool thing called Liturgy!  I’m convinced that that the reason for the turn towards liturgy (or at least the incorporation of liturgical elements within the Sunday morning gatherings) is the renewed sense of community and that our worship really is a “work of the people” standing together before our God. But more on that later.

In the days ahead, I will offer up a series of posts that discuss the interaction of liturgy with postmodernity.   I’m a philosopher / theologian by degree and a church musician (some people prefer the term worship-leader) by trade who serves in a missional Anglican church in North Carolina. As such, I’m continually evaluating whether our worship is, first and foremost, creating space for people to encounter God while also being faithful to our inherited liturgical traditions, yet adapting them to the context in which we find ourselves.  Not that there’s a dichotomy there.  If it is to be incarnational and even pentecostal then liturgy will adapt in order to embrace and speak to various cultural contexts.  If it doesn’t then it erects barriers to encountering God. 

If God is not encountered then worship is mute.  Everything that a worshipping community is, does, thinks, etc. flows from its continued encounter with the living, Trinitarian God.  This is why liturgical theologians such as Aiden Kavanagh understand worship to be “primary theology”.  Theological discourse is then “secondary theology”, which is discourse on the experience of God and everything else that flows from out of that encounter. In a sense, worship must be prior to prolegomena. 

Perhaps this is why liturgy and postmodernism make great conversation partners.  Many of the issues that are raised within continental philosophy of religion such as language, alterity, hermeneutics, human subjectivity and aesthetics can all begin to be answered by a consideration of Christian worship.  

Take for example the father of liturgical theology, Alexander Schmemann who once clamed that in contrast to modernity’s understanding of the human subject as an autonomous interior entity, the human person actually exists as “homo adorans” – a worshipping subject whose humanity is both constituted and fulfilled in the act of worship.  In the language of Catherine Pickstock, the subject participates in the object of its praise and is defined by it.  The subject, therefore, is always defined by its relation to the Other, in this case God who is wholly Other.  It is an identity which is always received from the outside and cannot lay claim to self-possession. Worship teaches us that subjectivity is received and we are “defined by doxology”. 

Anyway, these are some of the topics that I hope to discuss with you all in the days ahead. I also want to create conversations around concrete liturgical practices that involve music, art, dance, symbolism as well as liturgical rites from within various contexts.   

Comments

[Tracy Shier]

Great post, and a topic well worth the attention because all the statistics say there are as many believers, if not more, than there ever was, they just aren't attending worship services. Nice.

[Nico-Dirk van]

great topic! looking forward to the discussion! @tracy, indeed most religious people don't attend worship services: They redesigned their liturgies outside the context of church. Which opens an entire new discussion

[Ric]

I come to this blog frequently. Thank you for your contributions

This is great. As an inquirer into (Eastern) Orthodoxy, I'm excited about the kind of charitable dialogue between the Orthodox and the Evangelical community when it comes with the question of worship.

Eric, if you don't mind, can you recommend a good book (or two) on the relationship between contemporary philosophy ("Continental" philosophy) and Christian liturgical worship?

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

[Sue]

The question remains as to who is now turning to liturgy, whereas they may have previously spent a lot of time in strip-joints.

What is the nature of experience altogether.

Is the liturgical experience just another form of consumer consolation, and one of a literally never ending supply of countless possible experiences, from the most degraded and degrading, to the most (seemingly) exalted? - all of which arise spontaneously in the never-ending universal light show, and regardless of what anyone intends.

And does, or can, the liturgical experience really change anything about the person having the experience?

[geoffrey holsclaw]

eric, I'll follow Ric and ask if you now of a book integrating continental philosophy and liturgical theology (besides Chauvet's "Symbol and Sacrament" which is totally huge and a bit dated).

also, I totally agree with the direction of Sue's questions, but without cynicism (but, Sue, I'm not claiming that you are asking them cynically, just that many do). What is the minimal difference between a captivating liturgical experience and an exhilarating pop performance (often U2 comes up right here...)? What is the status of liturgical performance/enactment/participation after the society of the spectacle?

Often people attempt to turn the tables and speak of liturgy as something other than an 'experience' (a la the experiential-expressivism of Lindbeck), but this frequently reduces liturgy to an ex opere opera on behalf of the recipients which negates the hope of full participation.

anyway, these isn't necessarily a new questions, but we still need to work them out.

[Eric Speece]

Ric - I would point you to "Meeting Mystery" by Nathan Mitchell. Probably the best place start and it's an altogether excellent work.

Geoff - I know the Chauvet book, but have not read it yet. I placed it my Amazon.com cart after our conversation a week or so ago. Hopefully, I'll order it soon (the book budget is not what it used to be!)

Sue and Geoff - I do think the questions are absolutely appropriate questions, and I admit ignorance as to the best way to answer them - if I did I'd write a book! Sue I can't answer what the exact nature of experience per se is. I would love to hear someone's else's take on that.

I do hope that liturgy or even worship in general would be able to resist being one more commodity offered on the capitalist market, but we all know that it doesn't always. Too often churches, perhaps trying to "grow" or be "relevant" to the culture, stop being a gathering in which the Trinitarian God is encountered and instead become a 'dispenser of religion goods and services.'

Perhaps this starts to get at the difference between liturgy and a spectacle (U2 concert - yeah!! or a strip club - boo!). I would have to locate the minimal difference, at least initially, in the object of the spectacle. Within a Christian liturgy we are coming before God and all of our participation (emotions, movements, thoughts, etc.) is directed toward some kind of encounter of God. At a concert or some other spectacle, the liturgical participation is usually not directed toward encountering God. Not that God can't be encountered at a U2 concert or that all aesthetic experience must necessarily be religious in nature or even is religious in nature - though I might debate that- but it does mean that Christians should be discerning about such matters. For example, I remember seeing Live in concert a couple years ago and during one of the songs that I was really into I found myself singing along with both hands raised - a posture that should be reserved for worship. I can guarantee that the band was not trying to create space for worshipping the Christian God. Also, the 'liturgy' of the strip club is intended to direct participation in something other than the Christian virtues.

The word spectacle is a great word and of course makes me think of Tertuallian's writing entitle "Spectacle". Now he would be quick to say that Christians shouldn't even go see U2 in concert - I think he's wrong! But he does make the point that Christians should be discering about the object of the spectacle and realize that certain things don't direct us towards God or Christian virtue. He says it would be difficult at a place "where there is nothing of God, at that moment think of God". In strip club no one is going to think about sexual purity, monogamy, or the virtues of marriage. At a fight, no is going to think about peacemaking or loving one's enemy or turning the other cheek. So again, where is our attention being directed? My participation is going to bring me into contact with what? These are the questions that need to be asked, I think, when thinking about the difference.

Yes, the liturgy does effect those who participate in them. Soon I hope to start a discussion about this based off of Aiden Kavanagh's claim in "On Liturgical Theology" that liturgy affect a "deep change" in the worshipping community even if the change is subtle and happens over time.

Sue, you're question of 'who' - I'm thinking of a number of people. Within the emergent and reformed and evangelical camps, who want a deeper connextion with history or are just tired of the standard "non-liturgical" worship service (the 5 song set followed by the hour-long sermon). I'm also thinking about those who are well accustomed to 'high-church" liturgy and wondering if there is any merit left in it. Dan Kimball has raised the observation that just as many Christians are turing towards liturgy as there are who are discarding it. That's something I find interesting. That doesn't mean that these issues don't apply in broader perspective - I, for one, hope they do!

[chad]

I think Sue does have a valid point, and it fits into what I was curious too before I even read the comments. About 5 years ago I started to become fascinated with more liturgical expressions of worship. After plunging headlong into the European idea of "alt.worship" and designing services at the college ministry I worked at, I felt that I knew a good bit about the idea of liturgical worship.

I then found out that I had offended several friends who were parts of more traditional churches (RCC, various forms of orthodoxy and anglican churches), because they felt that many evangelicals who were discovering these expressions were just "cherry picking" and were getting the action without the tradition. Looking back now, I know plenty of people that have become consumers of this newer culture, instead of actually steeping themselves in it.

Comments aside, I do think that liturgical expressions of worship are an important part of the forgotten elements of ecclesiology that many people are reacting against. I have spent the last 3 years of my M.div learning about the depths of the tradition and the importance of an ecclesial grounding.

This should be a great series and I too am looking forward to it.

[Tracy Shier]

I think Alexander Schmemann's little book entitled "For the Life of the World" makes points as valid today as they were in the 60's and 70's. Keep in mind Schmemann writes from an Eastern Orthodox tradition, which at times can approach (but never reach) pantheism. I also like "The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body." by Louis-Marie Chauvet, though I do not entirely agree with its "symbolic exchange" formulation of sacrament.

On the question raised by Sue, "What is the nature of experience altogether.[sic]" I wonder if this isn't one of those questions that should not be asked because we humans just don't have the language for it as yet.

Finally, does it make a difference if we are taking about a tradition that observes the sacraments or one that doesn't? What is the relationship between sacrament and liturgy? I would say that if there is no acknowlegement of the existence of sacraments, then we need a new reading list.

[Michael]

Best book on 'contiental philosophy' and 'liturgy' in my mind would be 'Experience and the Absolute' by Jean Yves LaCoste.

Also, 'The Spirit of the Liturgy' by Romano Guardini (available online here http://www.fdlc.org/Liturgy_Resources/Guardini/Chapter1.htm).

[Eric Speece]

Michael - yes. those are great suggestions. thank you.

tracy - I would say that yes is does make a difference depending on a communities view of the sacraments. How a community views especially the eucharist and baptism has direct effect on that community's liturgy, which in turn directly effects that community's understanding of reality in general. Schmemann's book is a great example of that. Notice how there is a direct correlation between how he understands the world as an "ephiphany" of God and his sacramental theology and his understanding of human subjectivity as a worshipping subject.

Chad - You raise a great issue about "cherry picking" the liturgy. I do worry about that sometimes myself. There are theological reasons why the "passing of the peace" should come before the eucharist or why the creed is said in connection with the liturgy of the Word. But then again, one can fall very quickly into a liturgical hubris or even a legalism which can be dangerous. I hope to write about this in the future because I think that there is a tradition that is beautiful and can be progressed because it is a living tradition that needs room to breath, so to speak.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

Michael, I would agree that "Experience and the Absolute" is fundamental for the convergence of continential philosophy and liturgical theology, but if you haven't studied much of Hiedegger or Hegel...what out!

Tracy, what is discomforting about Chauvet's "symbolic exchange"? Is it too anthropoloigical, overriding the theological aspects of the sacraments? If he has been overcome by the anthropological (which I tend to think he has), it is a spectacular (!) mistake, full of suggestions.

[Zwingli 2.0]

Some quick thoughts on liturgy and community.

I've found that the liturgical turn isn't so much a product of a renewed sense of community, as it is an attempt to create that sense of community in the first place. There's a difference.

Sociologically, I'm skeptical about introducing liturgical elements because, in my experience as a former Catholic, liturgy works precisely because there's no choice about it, much like growing up with a native tongue. The lack of consciousness is what creates a strong sense of community within the group.

Self-made liturgies always seem futile to me; rather than community, they usually engender an acute sense of self-consciousness.

Theologically, I question the value of trying to create a sense of community within a church, apart from small groups prayerfully discussing the Bible. I don't say that as a fundamentalist; I'm inspired in this by Kanzo Uchimura and his Non-Church movement.

I agree (philosophically and theologically) that we receive our subjectivity from and that we're defined by others. For those reasons, I can't think of a better way for Christians to encounter God's Word (Logos) than through the medium of the Scriptures.

In reading the Scriptures with other believers, we're compelled to grapple with first-hand testimonies to the facts of revelation, as well as with the present-day testimonies of Spirit-filled friends. You may not feel like you're sitting in Fenway Park when the Sox are playing the Yankees, but the sense of community is real.

I think that large-scale efforts at creating a sense of community in churches are generally futile, if only because they're self-made.

Our model for creating community should be more like an Oprah book group and less like Red Sox Nation.

[Eric Speece]

Zwingli - Before I post a few thoughts in response to your comment, will you do me a favor? Can you say a little more about what you mean about self-consciousness? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly.

[Zwingli 2.0]

I'll give an example. I grew up in a thoroughly Catholic milieu. My week was built around mass, as were important milestones in the lives of family and friends (baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc.).

For me, one of the great things about formal Catholic liturgy was that it functioned much like etiquette – once you’ve internalized the rules, you’re able to interact with others (whether it’s your mother-in-law or God) without thinking too hard about it. You’re able to focus on the persons at hand, without dwelling on details, e.g., correctly identifying the salad fork, or knowing when to kneel. Also, the “rules” were pretty universal, whether in Boston or Chicago or Rome.

When I’ve visited churches that experiment with liturgy (Catholic and Protestant), I find myself acutely self-conscious, the way a working class kid might feel if he were thrown into a black-tie affair. Some of these churches clearly operate according to “house-rules”, where everybody but outsiders knows what’s going on. Others, however, are so experimental that the congregation doesn’t even know what to do but watch the liturgical “performance”.

[Tracy Shier]

Geoff,

I would love to explore Chauvet with you and others, it is complicated and my objections are from the Catholic seat in the round table. Suffice it to say that it has to do with what Catholics believe about "real presence" and the Eucharist. Also, I think Chauvet's market exchange handles his idea of symbolic exchange if you simply introduce the notion of "psychic value." Finally,from a Thomist point of view, there is a real issue with causation, which, I might add, Chauvet argues his ideas do not disturb.

On Zwingli's comments, I add the anecdote that while participating in some liturgy, a fellow student (recently escaped from Catholic Seminary) responded to my comment that since I was a new Catholic I haven't memorized all the little prayers, responses, sayings, etc. in the liturgy by saying that I had to because then I could go to the next level of participation. There is something there I think.

Also, it has given me great comfort to know that I can go to any Mass, anywhere in the world and said in any language and still know what is going on. This fact reinforces community I think. However, I must honestly admit that this is not always true in some of the so-called Vatican II Masses I have attended.

Finally, on prior posts alluding to the entertainment value of liturgy, one of the things I never hesitated to express in my conversion process was that I wanted to become Catholic for the entertainment value of the Mass. You haven't lived until you have actually participated in Mozart's Requiem Mass in a sacred place. Some people understood the comment, some didn't.

[Zwingli 2.0]

Tracy, would you agree that the "so-called Vatican II masses" you mentioned, with their improvisation and sui generis elements, made you (and the other participants) feel more self-conscious, not less?

In retrospect, I'm not sure I'd say that Catholic liturgy builds community -- I think it's more accurate to say it creates a strong group identity. That seems like an important distinction for the conversation.

For me, though, the question is whether churches should have group identity or 'community' as a goal.

Can't it be argued that "holding" worship at special places and times runs against the trajectory of the New Testament (John 4:21-24, Acts 17:24, Revelation 21:22) and that instead the purpose of church is to equip Christians to be "living sacrifices" at all times and places?

Or more radically, that the church should be so stripped down that it really just prepares Christians to be 'salt', and not the main course, as so many churches seek to be with their churchly "witness" vis-a-vis the world?

[Eric Speece]

Tracy - Thanks for sharing that. I'm one that also believes that there is an 'entertainment' value to liturgy even though I would be hesitant to use that specific word. There is an aesthetic quality to a beautifully performed worship service that is compelling and draws one into worship. I become Anglican for similar reasons to your becoming Catholic.

Zwingli - I see what you mean. I completely understand and agree that experienmenting with new forms of liturgy can be make someone self-conscious and be itself a barrier to worship. I've experienced this in both liturgical and non-liturgical Churches. It's why one of the major rules of worship leaders is not to change things to quickly or even just introduce too many new songs within a short time period.

But as with anything, we can live into these changes and after awhile the new liturgical elements that were once foreign become part of the life of the church. These things are really that foreign because they are part of a long tradition that is living and progressing.

I agree that liturgy and language are analogous. But here's where I want to push you. Worship in general just like language in general is something that is not foreign to humans. So even though there may be different expressions of worship, those expressions can be appropriated cross-denominationally. Just like language - people can learn and appropriate multiple languages fairly easily. Even if at first, the leaning of a language (and all the cultural aspects that go along with it) seems foreign and awkward at first. I once lived in Budapest, Hungary and as an American, the Hungarian language seems like the most foreign thing to me, but over time I was able to live into it (although I didn't stay long enough to become completely fluent).

And I would say that really, unless you truly become part of the community and all that that community does, then however they worship is going to make someone self-conscious. In this sense, no matter whether it's a 'liturgical' or non-liturgical church or even a home bible study, there are always "house rules" that one has to learn as they are welcomed in.

Also, I agree with your emphasis on the Scriptures and especially on reading them within a community. But I wonder if you would say that simple reading Scriptures apart from the worshipping context is enough? If all you're doing is reading the Scriptures apart from the prayer and table fellowship, and even singing, than what would be the difference between that and a classroom?

I'm not sure about your scripture references either. Especially since we see Christians gathering on the first day of the week, the writer of Hebrews warns against "forsaking the assembly", Paul's epistles (with the exception of Philemon) were all writing to congregations, and the koinonia passages in Acts all suggest that what Christians do is gather together. So no, I don't think that "holding" worship services at special places is at all against the trajectory of the NT.

[Zwingli 2.0]

Thanks for the reply. First, let me say that I'm not trying to be a contrarian here. I attend traditional church services and know first-hand the value of liturgy and the “space” it creates for encountering God.

On a personal note, I'm interested in envisioning Christianity in a digital age, so I’m pushing the limits of traditional, organized Christianity in my own thinking. A lot of what follows is more of a thought experiment than anything else.

I'll shut up afterwards about some of these ideas because I don't want my hobby horse to sidetrack your discussion on liturgy.

I’m not against Christians getting together to pray, sing, etc. But I’m not entirely comfortable with describing that as “worship”, as if worship were a distinct activity, like eating breakfast or going to work. Christianity, it seems to me, proposes a new way of envisioning worship. That’s what I glean from the scriptural references above, with their anti-temple theme.

Following Pentecost, it’s as if worship has been recast in ethical terms; it now concerns how we lead our everyday lives. That’s how I understand being a “living sacrifice” and “salt” and “leaven”. Worship is no longer a distinct activity; it’s a life.

I’m not suggesting that the Scriptures should be read apart from a “worshipping context”, if by that you mean apart from other believers. In fact, I’m insisting that the Scriptures be read with other believers, though perhaps virtually and not necessarily in the same room together. I am suggesting that Scriptures read in a cultic or liturgical setting shouldn't be privileged over a mere Bible study.

If worship is simply Christian living (and that’s arguable, I know), then church meetings would be a preparation for, rather than the climax of worship. (That would indeed make "church" more like a classroom, as you noted.)

[Tracy Shier]

Zwingli,

Just so you know, I spent a fair amount of time this morning constructing a brilliant reply to your otherwise brilliant post. My post got lost somewhere in the ether. Now, the literariness (is that a word?) is gone and only the bare bones remain.

I experience self-awareness in the sense that the difference between what I expect and what I experience makes me acutely present, but without any spirituality. I cannot say what others experience. I do not agree with your characterization of new masses or worship services as improvised, and certainly not sui generis.

I question your abstraction from the proof-texts cited as to "living sacrifice." If what you are trying to say is that Christian life is worship, I agree. What is the liturgy of life?

As for your "radical" statement, it is to vague for me to respond to and I think there is something you want to say, between the lines, and trying politely to say it.

[Eric Speece]

Zwingli - There's a specter of disembodied Cartesianism lurking in your ecclesiology. Ok, yes worship is the way of life for the christian, but that way of life is to be a communal way of life. Though I can get on board with certain "'expressions" of virtual community - this blog is certainly an example of that - but it should never replace a full-bodied encounter with other Christians. In Acts 2 they devoted themselves to the "Apostles teaching" but it was within the context of "fellowship and the breaking of bread and prayer" so I would disagree with you. We must privilege Scriptures read in a worship setting over mere bible study even if that study is done with others. Encountering God is more than study. It must be about prayer and communion as well and since I can't share a communion meal with you over the internet, we cannot claim this site or any website to ever be a full expression of church as the Body of Christ.

[Zwingli 2.0]

I like to think of it as anti-Cartesian Berkeleyan idealism. :-)

[Eric Speece]

Ahh... yes! my bad!