I am behind on my book reviews as well as updates, but I’ve started a book that I can’t keep quiet about. Thanks to Stephan’s IVCF friend for the recommendation and to Stephan for ordering it. I was immediately drawn in because Chan asks good questions. The second sentence of the book is “Is the church to be seen as an instrument to accomplish God’s purpose in creation, or is the church the expression of God’s ultimate purpose itself? (p.21)”
I have to sit by my dictionary to read, but it is well worth it. This can be illustrated by his short answer to the above question: “If the church is essentially instrumental, then its basic identity can be expressed in terms of its functions: what it must do to fulfill God’s larger purpose. But if the church is God’s end in creation, then its basic identity can be expressed only in ontological rather than functional terms.” (Ontological means “the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.”)
To illustrate how the book would be gibberish to me without the dictionary I give you this sentence: “Such an ecclesiology could only be described as docetic. (p.36)” Right. Ecclesiology simply means the study of church doctrine and docetic is “an early Christian doctrine that the sufferings of Christ were apparent and not real and that after the crucifixion he appeared in a spiritual body.”
This lengthy introduction can only show you that I’m procrastinating in all my work. I came across this paragraph and it rang so true I had to share.
“. . . [B]elief and worship are so inextricably linked that separation can only undermine the integrity of both doctrine and worship. Yet this divorce is exactly what we are seeing in many evangelical churches. (bold mine)
“For the more doctrinaire evangelical, worship is only a superadditum to the service, a kind of embellishment of what should be essentially an exercise in systematic indoctrination. In these churches the entire service may consist of a song to get the congregation ready, a very long and well prepared expository sermon, and another song to round it off. In between these, some prayers are interspersed and the offering collected. In this worship format, truth is not part of living worship but is almost exclusively confined to the sermon. Truth then becomes only a matter of right belief, and the worship service is essentially a time for instruction. The operating assumption is that teaching people the right things will lead to right living. There is no understanding of the formative role of the ecclesial community through ecclesial practice. (p. 52)”
Chan gives a similar critique of “the more charismatically inclined” but it is full of difficult English words as well as Latin expressions so I’ll let those offended by this one-sided post go read the book for themselves. I’m only in chapter 2 but I look forward to seeing where he goes with all this.
Another gem I just read “Guardini also compares the liturgy to the play of a child. Like play, the liturgy has no purpose, yet it is full of meaning . . . ”
Wow, I don't know about others, but this book sounds fascinating to me! But then, of course, it's my thing, so I cannot infer that others could like the book just because I might...
If you're lucky, Cornelia, both Janet and I will have finished it by the time you're back and you can borrow it after that!
I'd love to chat with both of you about it when we've all read it.
Another quote. Please note that the definition of 'liturgy' is "a form of public worship" or "a particular arrangement of services" and is not a specific reference to the liturgy of traditional churches. Begin quote (page 106) "Initiation in the RCIA [Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults in the Roman Catholic Church] is essentially a process of liturgical, and ultimately ecclesial, formation. By contrast, catechism in Protestant churches today tends to be treated as a form of indoctrination without any clear understanding of its relationship to the liturgy. The result is that Christian nurture is separated from the church's liturgical life." I found that very much to be the case in my experience. Interestingly enough, tonight I'm going to German Bible study to hear an Indian Catholic speak of the Catholic church. I'm interested to hear what he has to say, and to eat the food he'll be preparing!
This is not the best way to write a book review, but it's what I can make time for. Another quote: "For the church fathers there was no separation between the spiritual reality and the sign. The liturgy was no dad ritual but a vibrant reality energized by the Spirit. But it is a truth that the modern mind cannot grasp. It is particularly difficult for evangelicals to appreciate sacramental realities because of an implicit nominalist philosophy which sees signs as mere names or arbitrary pointers rather than as having any necessary connection to the things they signify. As British evangelical Philip Seddon has noted, evangelicals have 'a deep-seated suspicion of references to 'mystery' or to anything that is not explicable.' Seddon sees this as 'the triumph of the Enlightenment at the heart of Evangelical readings of the sacrament.' . . . For many today, it makes better sense if spiritual realities are located within the subjective experience of the person, in the 'feelings.' If worship stimulates a particularly strong emotional upsurge, that is 'real'! It is rather ironic that the evangelicalism that claims to be the heir of the opponents of Protestant liberalism in the nineteenth century should find itself unwittingly concurring with the father of liberalism, Friedrich Schleiermacher, who understood the source of religion to be found precisely in human subjectivity: 'the feeling of absolute dependence.'" (p.121)
If the subject of liturgy interests you, here's a brief introduction to a book that might be interesting. http://prodigal.typepad.com/prodigal_kiwi/2008/05/the-wonder-and.html
"Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy"
