I found myself intrigued by the
discussion of post-modern liturgical experience in the last portion of this
article. Searle writes, “Indeed it may
be that anthropological studies could better help us understand how our liturgy
used to work than how it works today” (15). I agree with the author that
liturgy still fulfills functionalist and symbolic purposes, but that it still
bears further examination. For example,
the rituals demarcating various transitions in life (marriage, funerals, etc)
serve important functions in our social environment and the ritual actions
contained in these reenactments serve to mark the passing of time from one
thing to another (11). However, a need
for group solidarity (11) might be less important when the church is no longer the
primary social center for a group.
Granted, this is impacted by such demographics as age, social strata,
and geographic location as well.
I believe that a popular thing to argue
is that ritual is outdated and in order to “meet people where they are” we must
never impose ritual, in particular such things as confession and forgiveness,
passing the offering plate, and so on, for fear of alienating them from the
church. This probably stems from bad
experiences in churches who idolize ritual itself. This attitude has lead to an epidemic of
blasé pseudo-emergent congregations that attempt to stand for everything and be
all things to all people, and in the process, actually stand for nothing. Neither extreme is helpful. Humans need
ritual more than ever in a time of absolute anomie.
No comments:
Post a Comment