Once again – so many different
beliefs; so many different views of what worship or sacraments are and how we
should relate to them. And again, Baptists and others must choose to agree to
disagree with our Catholic and other sacramental friends. I like Gordon Lathrop’s
definition of the essentials of
Christian worship: “A community gathers
in prayer around the scriptures read and proclaimed. This community of the
word then tastes the meaning of that word by keeping the meal of Christ, giving thanks over bread and cup and eating and drinking.” He goes on to note
that the community gathered together will receive teaching of the mercy and mystery of God, and be washed in the name of that same God (74).1 Wasn’t
this the original idea in Acts??
Every day they
continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their
homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying
the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who
were being saved (NIV, Acts 2:46-47).
It wasn’t rocket science. They didn’t
write volumes about where the temple was, or whose house was more appropriate
to meet in. No mention was made of who made the salad and whether it was from
the Galilee area or Judea. They didn’t talk politics or try to figure out which
temple was best to go to because the rabbi was better. So what did they do that
was so inviting to others? They met together. They ate together. And they had
glad and sincere hearts praising God. They were involved with each other and with
God! And they gave up two things that are so valuable today that even
pastors and priests are hesitant to speak on it = independence and time. It
takes time to meet together; to prepare a meal together; to eat together. It is
difficult for Americans to give up our independence and just be with other
people. Not expressing our own ideas or listening to ourselves. They ate. They
praised. And yes, I am aware that some regard these original ‘Christians’ as
different because they expected Christ to return at any moment. My answer to
that – Shouldn’t we expect the same thing??? Our church lives are too
complicated. I want to return to the basics. I want to have a glad and sincere
heart. And I want God to add to our numbers daily those who are being saved.
1Johnson,
Maxwell E., ed. Sacraments and Worship. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2012. Print.
Nathan D. Mitchell , The Amen Corner
ReplyDelete"SACRAMENT: MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE”
Mitchell’s article provided me a new focus and understanding of the traditional seven liturgical sacraments. I have never considered the “sacramental language” of the liturgy having the primary functions of “affective, constitutive and presentational” (363). At first I understood the phrase “sacramental language” to encompass all symbols/expression in the liturgy. Mitchell limits his “Rule 9” of sacramental language to performative language or just speech/ utterances, “a dense thicket of exhortations, confessions, wishes, commands, imperatives, and repetitions” (363). So, what does sacramental language do?
The affectivity has “power to create receptivity in the community that uses it” (363). I believe that the power comes from “the prevenient grace of God” present in the liturgy or “created medium,” which mediates God’s presence (Herbert Vorgrimler, Sacramental Theology, 10). The liturgy offers an opportunity to those present “a turning toward” the medium and “a self-opening of the human person for God’s self-communication” (Vorgrimler, 10-11). Vorgrimler explains that humans receive knowledge of God, His revelation, only through mediation through persons or events because of “the complete disparity between God and the human” (8, 10). Vorgrimler concludes, “it is in the turn to this medium that the person becomes conscious of the most intimate nearness of God; it is here that revelation occurs” (11).
Mitchell addresses this “opening” as “a conversation between the community and the Holy One” springing from the liturgy that raises the opportunity of the community to “adjust itself” to the “sacred reality in its variety of manifestations” (363).
The sacramental language is also constitutive because it “creates” a new community each time a liturgy is celebrated (364). I am a bit perplexed with Mitchell’s discussion of the presentational function of sacramental language. Is he writing that each and every Eucharistic liturgy indicates that “something that has never been done before” is being done now? Since every sacrament is “a memorial of the Christ event” (354), every sacrament or at least the big seven offers an “involuntary memory that opens space for a new reality to appear”? (356, 359).
Would there be examples of other sacramental language being presentational? I wish Mitchell had given other examples.
“The language of worship creates a receptive environment for parable and sacrament, for the narrative symbol that renders present a new vision of reality ("the revolutionary language of the future") that "subsumes" human practices (eating, drinking, and washing) and thereby joins the human community to the Holy One. It is precisely in sacrament that "human community" becomes "holy rite” (363-64).
There is so much prose in the writing of Mitchell and others; but does it have to be so complicated? How can we; how can any church possibly get this to the people?
Vorgrimler writes that “according to the will of the creator God, it is possible to encounter God in encountering other human beings, to love God in loving other humans, and to honor God in honoring other human persons. Here the sacramental principle emerges: the representation of God does not mean the substitution for one who is absent (or, still more, a replacement), but indicates the real, and not only the imaginary or the intellectual, making present of the one who in and of himself cannot be visible in our human dimension” (13). My intellect prevents me from not using my imagination to embrace the will of God. I’ve got a long way to go.