Gordon Lathrop, Holy Things IV

The beginning of chapter two continues the idea of juxtaposition begun in the latter parts of chapter one. This juxtaposition, or things set beside each other (parabolein), or thrown together (symballein), Lathrop sees has happening in three ordines: the cycle of daily prayer, the weekly cycle, and within the Sunday morning service.

In the cycle of daily prayer, Lathrop notes that the times of prayer seem to suggest honoring the sun, but the content relativizes the role of the sun, and honors them by honoring their Creator.

In the weekly cycle, Lathrop notes that the main service of the week for Christians happens after the Sabbath, and thus, on the first day of the week, which is the first work day. Thus the new day of worship is not a day of rest. Furthermore, the first day is also the eighth day, and thus simultaneously the beginning of the week, outside the week, and the beginning of something beyond the week.

Within the Sunday service, Lathrop notes that the service of readings and prayers, which is derived in concept (if not in form) from synagogue services, is joined to a meal which was the particular service of Christian groups. Furthermore, this juncture seems to have happened because of concerns for the poor, who were (on the evidence of Paul) being neglected by the full, separate meals. Instead of a full meal with neglected or only ritual help of the poor, there is a ritual meal with a real donation to the poor.

The next main point that Lathrop makes, building on 19th century Lutheran scholars (especially Löhe), is that the liturgy on Sunday is double peaked, with both the word and the table as peaks. (This idea is one I've had, under a different metaphor, of "climaxes", drawing in my case not on mountain ranges but on drama.) Lathrop argues that each of these peaks is itself double peaked. The reading of scripture is not superior to the sermon, nor is the sermon over the reading. Likewise, in the liturgy of the table, the thanksgiving is not superior to the reception, nor the reception to the thanksgiving.

Gordon Lathrop, Holy Things, III

The next section of Gordon Lathrop's work Holy Things (which ends chapter 1) introduces his concept of the broken. In his usage, being broken involves using old material in a way that subverts conventional meaning. He compares this usage to Jesus' use of parables (and thus another term for the broken might be the parabolic). In both, old words, old stories, old images, and old acts are used to illustrate a significant point through juxtaposing them in a way that radically undercuts conventional expectations. Just as a fundamentally unclean Samaritan can be "good" while a priest and a Levite are not, so top can a Byzantine court ritual be used to pay homage to a book, even when it surrounds the reading of a passage emphasizing humility. Thus, even though liturgical words and acts can be themselves quite dated and conventional, they can speak anew to people today, and speak powerfully, most especially when they go against convention. To reduce them to convention, however, is to render them powerless.

The Whirlwind Follows

“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong - faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thoughts of obstacles and forget the precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's to late.”

Frank Herbert, Dune

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

Abraham Lincoln

Well within living memory is a time when Republicans and Democrats would work together in Washington DC to get bills through Congress and signed into law by the President. Both sides were sure that their approaches to any given issue were correct, but when these approaches differed, they argued and eventually worked out a compromise that neither side may have loved, but both sides would accept and vote for. Both Republicans and Democrats could see in the compromise bill a way of moving forward at least partially toward their chosen solution. Each side could say to their supporters that the compromise was the best that could happen at the time, but as more people became persuaded by their arguments, more could be done toward implementing their chosen solution.

Those days are past, and seem unlikely to return in the near future. A new kind of certainty has come into politics which sees the opposing side as not merely wrong but as actually being a threat. This kind of certainty has long been found in Christianity (and other religions too, most likely -- but I speak now only of the one I know well and therefore can speak about with some authority), and it is no coincidence that, as Christian groups have entered fully into the American political ring with a kind of theological politics, that this new kind of certainty has moved from religion to politics.

This kind of certainty, where disagreement represents a threat, has two main supports in theology: an argument and a commitment. The commitment comes about because many Christians stake their souls on a proposition. The argument is grounded in the omniscience and benevolence of God.

The commitment support arises because, instead of staking their souls on the saving acts of Jesus Christ, many Christians have staked their souls on the truth of the statement that Jesus Christ died for their sins. Therefore anything which may call into question the truth of that statement is seen as a spiritual threat. Since the support for the truth of that statement is seen in the Bible as it has been interpreted and explained to these Christians, anything which seems to contradict what they have been told that the Bible says is ultimately seen as undermining the truth on which they have staked their souls, and is seen as being a spiritual threat by extension.

The argument supporting this kind of certainty runs in this way. God is all knowing, and good, and therefore always tells the truth. The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore is also true. Therefore what the Bible says (and how I read the Bible, though that is often not made explicit) must be true and anything which appears to contradict it must be false. This argument starts out acceptable, but goes astray. It is true that God is all knowing, and good, and therefore tells the truth. Furthermore, it is true that God is certain about both political and theological positions. The Bible is God's revelation (although the supreme revelation of God, and indeed Word of God, is not the Bible but Jesus Christ), and therefore what it says is also true. However, the readers of the Bible are not themselves gods, and therefore are not perfect, and can misinterpret the Bible. What the Bible says is true; but the Bible does not necessarily say what each and every reader thinks it says. When we read the Bible, we interpret it; whether we intend to or not, we bring our own ideas, our own context, our own past to Scripture. The Bible is the certain and infallible expression of God, but we are fallible readers of the Bible.

This flaw in the argument supporting the kind of certainty we see moving from theology to politics suggests a remedy: humility. What we need are politicians and voters (especially those claiming to be Christians) willing to say, at least to themselves, that while they are sure they are right, they are also sure they are not perfect, and therefore they can be wrong. Acknowledging this truth would not require anyone to change a single position on any political issue, including the highly controversial ones. What it would require is a change of tone. Rather than seeing your opponents as opponents of the truth who thereby threaten you, you now have to see them as people like yourselves, who seem to be wrong on a given issue, but because you may be wrong too, you are not better than them. You now have to respect your political opponents as people who may be wrong, just as you may be wrong.

Gordon Lathrop, Holy Things, II

Lathrop starts with the Bible, which he describes as the source of both texts (such as readings and prayers) and of imagery. Its enacted meaning, however, comes from being used in the assembly, and from the resulting juxtaposition of old text and contemporary people. This pattern itself is biblical.

Nothing in worship arises de novo. Everything has some sort of precedent, even as it changes. No matter how significant the change or important the one making the change, the resulting form uses preexisting material. Thus for the sacraments, we cannot look to their institution as the moment they spring into existence. They have a prehistory, even if scholarship cannot reconstruct it and no documents exist to attest to this prehistory. (Consider, and this is my own comparison, the Goths, who were Arian. Surely they had worship texts, as they are contemporary to written orthodox texts, and furthermore we known they had literacy, even in their vernacular, Gothic, because Wulfila translated the Bible into it. But we do not know anything about the content of their liturgy.) This prehistory does not dictate the meaning of the ritual, however.

Gordon Lathrop, Holy Things I: Introduction

All this represents my understanding of Lathrop's ideas. Regrettably my Kindle copy does not include page numbers. As I am doing this post while reading the book these ideas are found in order. Don't quote me, read the book yourself!). The first main contribution of Lathrop is his distinction between "primary liturgical theology", which is theology expressed in the liturgy, and "secondary liturgical theology", which is theology expressed in reflecting on the liturgy. Just as the primary liturgical theology is the feedstock for the secondary, so in some sense is the primary as embodied in the practice of the community more fundamental than any reflections of theologians.

Methodologically speaking, start with simple, "non-theological" words (e.g., book, table, meal) and let the meaning of the acts arise from the acting, before using the jargon (e.g., Bible, altar, Eucharist), which can prejudge their meanings and become obstacles in themselves.

He notes the tension between the assertion of the existence of holy things and holy people, on the one hand, and its frequent companion in the liturgy, the assertion that God alone is holy.

Relaunching

Hello, everyone. Since I got no comments from my last post I have decided to change the focus of this blog. I'm preparing for my comps and I don't have time to spend on something that doesn't seem to be of much interest or use to people. So coming to this space will be reflections, hopefully daily, on what I'm reading for comps.

Hello Everyone!

I know, it's been a while since I blogged. Things have been busy in real life. Beyond that, however, one idea for a blog post hasn't worked out. So what I'm asking for is feedback. I can tell from Blogger that my posts have a few readers. However, without comments or other feedback, I have no idea if anyone is finding my posts interesting, stimulating, or anything else. So I invite your comments, either here or on the previous posts. I especially invite comments on the whole blog or issues you would like me to address in the future here. I invite disagreement and criticism, but keep in mind that I wish it to be civil, and anyone claiming that ecumenism is a heresy of satanic will be ignored, and their comments deleted: such statements are not useful.