varied thoughts… liturgy, rituals, church, grace

Various musings that have crossed my mind in the last few weeks:

1. Liturgy. Paralleling the liturgical development of the early Church is the liturgical development of the Hebrew people. Beginning with Abraham, a “relationship with God” was itself somewhat “nomadic,” being detached as it was from permanent sacred places, etc. (though even the early patriarchs built altars and gave various places sacred names that lasted through ages). Abraham the friend of God, who heard God’s voice on numerous occasions and had a strong faith in God, would have been somewhat surprised at the later liturgical shape that would develop as his ancestors became “Israel.”

Likewise, the early Christians might be surprised to sit in on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom today (though, in fact, we believe that they do). Their spiritual children have, like Israel, been blessed with the ability and often the freedom to worship God in degrees of beauty not always afforded to the early martyrs.

Christians today who balk at the beauty or complexity of Liturgy should recall that, as our Israelite forbears gained size and ability, they also built (or rather it simply evolved naturally) a liturgical richness appropriate to the grandeur of the God they served. Their God was not a pragmatic deity who disdained beauty or saw it as opposed to “faith” and “personal relationship,” nor to “radical discipleship.” A golden temple did not stand opposed to charity. And, neither did liturgical richness (and necessity) lessen the role of personal faith: would anyone argue that Abraham was more “personal” with God than King David — a “man after God’s own heart” — the latter who wrote much of the Psalter used in the Jewish temple liturgy?

2. Rituals and attention to detail. Recently, one of our priests who travelled to our city to give us the Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy found that he had forgotten a small item used in the Liturgy. I could sense that he was somewhat concerned over this, though he was still able to proceed with the Liturgy. Most American Christians would likely laugh at such concern over details, thinking it “Pharisaical” or “legalistic” (Bonhoeffer, though, said that the real legalism was when people use “freedom” to get out of obeying Christ).

However, I’ve noticed something. The more a church waters down its liturgy, the more it scoffs at the idea of correctness in worship… the more likely it is to lose the importance of faith and practice. I’ve seen “church plants” where a younger generation breaks off from the parents, wanting a “more free worship style.” You can find casual approaches, peppy songs, “communion” (with what?) in dixie cups, and — oh yes — don’t forget the raising of hands at the peaks of emotion-stirring. Chalice and stole are replaced with a grinning and insipid iconoclasm. And — would you believe it? — in such places it matters less and less what is believed. At first, this is denied: “we only are rejecting the traditions of men!” But, and usually inevitably, the Creed is simplified to “I believe in Jesus. Love each other.”, a nice sounding sentiment that unfortunately, outside of a Tradition that both explains and enables, can be understood in as many ways as there are degrees of “un-formation” in such tradition-less groups.

I believe it was Stanley Hauerwas at Duke who once said, “You start out singing ‘worship songs’ and you end up murdering your neighbor.” There is a link between attention to liturgical detail and belief, and a link between belief and life. The chalice really does lead to conduct.

3. Church. Is the Church just the “invisible Church”? Orthodoxy holds that the Church is, for us, visible, though it certainly has an invisible aspect (the part visible only to God). St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and that through the Church is made known the wisdom of God. A purely (or primarily) invisible entity cannot uphold anything. If the Church is merely invisible, comprised of any “sincere believer” regardless of denominational affiliation, what truth does it uphold? Is it any wonder that truth must constantly be whittled down into less and less, the holding up of the least common denominator that this “invisible church” might happen to still share? How does an invisible church speak authoritatively on Christ? Salvation? Ethics?

There must be a Visible Church that is ONE, for only then can it be the pillar and ground of truth.

4. Grace. From this morning’s Psalter readings (the 7th kathisma):

There be some that trust in their strength, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches.

A brother cannot redeem; can a man redeem?

He shall not give to God a ransom for himself, nor the price of redemption of his own soul, though he hath laboured for ever, and shall live to the end.

This is from Psalm 48 (49), a psalm that is stark in its portrayal of death’s reality, but that to Christians provides a rich looking forward to of a time when men would not longer need give a ransom for themselves, or the price of redemption for their own souls. Though we labour forever, we could not do this. Can a man redeem? No. But, the Son of Man can, and has. Glory be to God!