I briefly attended a Lutheran church that had an altar rail for kneeling to receive the Eucharist that was continuous; it had a hinged section with a latch. I’ve occasionally pondered the symbolism, since no one ever went through that ‘gate’ during worship; the priest/pastor entered the altar area through a side door just behind the pulpit, and the pulpit entrance was behind the altar rail. When the offering was collected the ushers brought the offering plates to the rail and passed them to the pastor, who set them on the altar.
I finally saw it opened during worship when a baby was baptized: the pastor came into the sanctuary through a side door near the baptismal font and performed the baptism, then right after the pastor, the parents with baby, and the godparents all went in through that gate and knelt at the altar step, presenting the newly baptized before the altar where the pastor annointed the baby with oil. There was a prayer something like, “As you have marked with the waters of Baptism this child as your own, remember him as he grows and guard him until he comes to fulness of faith…”, then the parents with baby and the godparents went out through the rail gate, which a deacon closed behind them (from outside the rail).
There was something during the presentation about “as Isaac was brought by Abraham his father to you” and learning to examine himself, but my attention was a tiny bit distracted by the symbolism of the rail and its gate.
Also Lutheran, Methodist, and Orthodox.
The lives of all of us (in the secular realm and the religious realm) are steeped in ritual and tradition and that’s okay. On a personal level, we celebrate birthdays (cards, cake, candles, a special song, balloons, etc.), graduations (caps and gowns, a speech, the Pomp and Circumstance march, parties, etc.) and so on. In public life we have music and rituals to celebrate things like inaugurations. Even individual sporting events (like the Kentucky Derby) can have special food, music, and rituals associated with them… The examples are endless. Nothing is as steeped in ritual and tradition as a wedding.
But rituals are cultural, largely (but not exclusively) practiced by humans.
There are differences in the services and the theology.
The lectionary is wonderful. It coordinates scripture with other scripture and with the church season. There are 4 readings every Sunday, usually Old Testament, Psalm, Epistle, and Gospel. It runs over 3 years (A, B, C) and then repeats. It ensures that most of the Bible is read, not just what a pastor wants. It is flexible in some churches, where the readings can be changed.
There are plenty of other Bible reading plans for personal use. Probably developed by Catholic subversives.
I remember Lewis writing somewhere about this that he found much comfort in the repetition of the Anglican Prayer book and in the liturgies performed. For him, the learned mechanics of it all then frees up the mind to be able to focus on higher things rather than having to divert so much of one’s focus to learning new words to new songs or follow along with new or creative variation. To him, all the diversion to introduce new stuff just meant that now the mind had to preoccupy itself with that instead of what (who) it might more properly be focusing on. Not that Lewis would have begrudged some necessary learning of new things in life - we all have to learn it at some point. He just took a dim view of people always pushing change for the sake of change.
When traditions are centuries long, symbols start to get layers of meaning. I assume that centuries ago, the railing showed the line between the area of ‘ordinary’ participants and the area where the priests served. Maybe a symbol of the line between the holy and the less holy. For practical reasons, the railing needed to have gates, it would have been difficult and disturbing if the priests would have to jump over the railing. The places of the gates were probably planned according to the needs at that time.
As ‘ordinary’ participants did not usually go to the area where the priests served, for them the railing was the closest place to be close to the ‘holiest’. It was also the contact line between the serving priests and participants. In the lutheran churches, it still often serves as the place where people receive the Eucharist. Kneeling shows respect but may also be preserved as a habit if the railing is relatively low. If the bread and wine are on the railing, the receiver needs to get lower to be at the same level.
During the centuries, the railing sucked symbolic meanings from the tasks performed at the railing. Kneeling at the railing was a proper way to show respect and at the same time a proper place to be in contact with the priests or the others serving. The cultural stamp was so strong that even some church buildings of ‘free’ denominations were built with a railing. In these, the railing did not anymore separate the holy and the less holy because the building is not holy - participants are not within a holy place, the participants (believers) are the holy within the building. Yet, people came to kneel at the railing when they needed prayer. For some old people, seeing repenting and needy people kneeling at the railing for prayer made the possibility to kneel at the railing a meaningful thing (symbol). If there were repenting people kneeling at the railing, that was a sign of the Holy Spirit doing work in the hearts and also an indirect sign that things were progressing well in the congregation.
For me, this kind of thinking shows how our eyes and brains are often attached to the visible when we aim towards the invisible. That is not necessarily a bad thing but may become a problem if the visible becomes too important or holy for us.
Why is a rail such a big deal to you? The truth is, Christianity is centuries old, and encompasses many different traditions. In a Society of Friends meeting house (the old-fashioned ones), the people sit in silence and wait for the Holy Spirit to speak. Other Christians have convulsions and babble in worship services. And look at Julian of Norwich. There is no one-size-fits-all. I assume you have found a church that is a very good fit for you. More power to you.
There are rituals and rituals. And there are people and people. I don’t think we can assume that one size fits all.
However, I think there are some basic problems caused by imposing a Christian “calendar” on the appropriation of Christian scriptures. The Christian calendar typically addresses scripture through the observance of a table of readings known as the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL). For some dubious reason, the calendar observes a three-year cycle. How does one accommodate the fact that we have four Gospels into a three-year cycle? What happens is that bits and pieces of the Gospel of John get interspersed amongst the other Gospel readings. As a result we have “The Year of Matthew” and the “Year of Mark” and the “Year of Luke”. We do not have the “Year of John”.
The problem gets worse. Each of the Gospels (including John) is a literary work of art. Their authors have spent years forming their respective Gospels into works that have overarching themes. The scatter-gun approach to Gospel readings in the Church’s seasons and rituals, means that worshipping congregations never get to appreciate these themes or even be aware of them. A passage from here and a passage from there - you just can’t put it together!
Another problem with ritual is that it can become tokenism. One may observe Lent as a time for repentance; but will anything change with respect to economic justice in society as a result of one’s “repentance”? Is there even a correlation between an increased amount of ritual observance and a growing economic divide in society?
So, these are my opening thoughts.
The common message (gospel) needs to be contextualized, which leads to different kinds of services in different kind of cultures - no one-size-fits-all as you write. As populations become less uniform, there is a need for many different contextualizations within a single city or town. This also leads to heterogeneity of services - a need for many different kinds of congregations within one area.
Contextualization is a necessity but it is good to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of our ways to practice Christianity. Much harm has been done in the past when missionaries coming from western cultures tried to spread their culture to where it does not fit well. They had a good purpose to spread the gospel but in reality, they were as much missionaries of their own culture.
I have told rather freely about the cultural habits within my country and church because I live at one distant edge of the world. It is like explorers reporting the peculiar habits of indigenous people in a distant, exotic country. Far enough to be a ‘safe’ topic but at the same time a possibility to use the ‘peculiar exotic habits’ within the distant culture as a mirror, through which it is possible to realize the strengths and weaknesses of our own culture.
About your last throw: I am a lazy person and it would suit me extremely well to be just a consumer of the services within a church. I do not anymore have great ambitions and my former ambitions were related to science, not religion or faith. It is just that I want to follow Jesus and as his follower speaking about the matters of faith and serving is a natural part of my current life. In a small congregation, there are more needs and possibilities to serve than there is time, so it is also natural that I am active there. It is not about having power - I do not have more power than anybody that can justify his/her opinion with the biblical teachings.
-
Ingredients of ‘rituals’ and their cognitive underpinnings
- “Ritual is not a proper scientific object, as the term is used to denote disparate forms of behaviour, on the basis of a faint family resemblance. Indeed, a variety of distinct cognitive mechanisms are engaged, in various combinations, in the diverse interactions called ‘rituals’ – and each of these mechanisms deserves study, in terms of its evolutionary underpinnings and cultural consequences. We identify four such mechanisms that each appear in some ‘rituals’, namely (i) the normative scripting of actions; (ii) the use of interactions to signal coalitional identity, affiliation, cohesiveness; (iii) magical claims based on intuitive expectations of contagion; and (iv) ritualized behaviour based on a specific handling of the flow of behaviour. We describe the cognitive and evolutionary background to each of these potential components of ‘rituals’, and their effects on cultural transmission.”
- “This article is part of the theme issue ‘Ritual renaissance: new insights into the most human of behaviours’.”
- Questions:
- Do all “tribes” engage in some kind of ritualized behavior?
- Is there any “tribe” that does not engage in any kind of ritualized behavior?
- Are all ritualized behaviors religious?
- Do atheists engage in any ritualized behaviors?
- Who does not engage in any ritualized behavor?
Another response after another cup of coffee.
If it reveals nothing else, I think “Mindfulness” shows the extent to which we live in our heads and need to make contact with external reality. Some rituals help us to do that. For example, in the event of a death, people often linger in a limbo between the time of death and the funeral. The funeral reflects what is going on in our heads and makes it external and communal. I think a funeral helps people to acknowledge a death and move on.
However, some church rituals are problematic for me. Associated with rituals like Ash Wednesday, we have the “Stations of the Cross”. In the past, I have often joined with other Christians across denominational lines to observe this ritual. It does nothing for me.
I think my problems with some church rituals is that they are approached as chronological realities. For example, Easter is observed as a progression of days. This may be true about the historical sequence, but we do not encounter the spiritual realities today in chronological sequence. We cannot fake the feelings of despair that Good Friday brought to the disciples and the joy that followed on Easter Sunday. The reason is that we know how the story ends, and we have known how the story ends all our lives. I think what I am getting at is known as the dialectical understanding of Easter. The death of Jesus and his resurrection are superimposed on each other. In the words of St Francis, “It is in dying that we are born to eternal life”.
However, I know that people will disagree with me. I remember coming away from reflection about the life of the church, feeling that the church had alienated so many people by its rituals and all the culture which goes with them. I was coming out of a large store when a friend of mine, who is a deacon in the Catholic Church, was also walking through the parking lot. He called out to me that it was great the Covid-19 lockdowns had finished and now they could get back to the rituals of the church. I was lost for words.
I found this very thoughtful post that is relevant to the overall discussion. I provide a portion as a quote:
"When we think of fasting in the Orthodox Church today, our mind almost immediately goes to certain rules relating to what we can and cannot eat. Moreover, this practice is especially associated with Great and Holy Lent. And so, when it comes to this “forty-day” fast, there are some who will almost exclusively focus all their attention on familiarizing themselves with all of the Church’s prescriptions regarding when they need to abstain from particular foods. Then, there are some who might go to great lengths, meticulously checking all ingredients of certain food items in supermarkets for example, in order to ensure that there are no traces of foods which they know are not permitted during fasting periods, also rejoicing with delight when they happen to find substitutes to their favorite food. What necessarily results from such an understanding of fasting, amongst its practitioners, is a belief that if they have been “successful” in this effort, they are then prepared to receive the risen Lord on Easter night.
A question which justifiably arises, however, is whether this in fact is what fasting is all about. If Great Lent is a preparatory time within the Church’s liturgical year meant as a means for preparing the faithful to encounter the risen Christ on the day of Easter, how does such an understanding of fasting assist in this “spiritual” journey? Is this the true meaning of fasting? Or, have we reduced it merely to rules about what foods are permitted and what are not?"
The True Meaning of Fasting in the Orthodox Church - Public Orthodoxy
I guess then that you don’t read the Nativity narratives at Christmas! The only “problem” is that we get to hear a lot of scripture, coordinated with other scripture, throughout the year. Have you ever seen a study bible with footnotes? It does much the same thing. For example, in the Temptation narratives, when Jesus answers the devil by quoting the Hebrew Bible, a study Bible with provide the reference.
I don’t see that as a problem…
So what? There are three synoptic gospels. The readings from John are not any more bits and pieces than the other readings. They are solid passages. Obviously you have only glanced at the lectionary.
It’s Evangelical churches that tend to be racist.
Great post! And I found a wonderful video from the Patristix YouTube channel
Great Lent (Eastern Orthodox)
What sort of lectionary does the Eastern Orthodox church use?
btw, I resent this thread, which puts the holy season of Lent in the crosshairs of fundamentalism. According to Karl Giberson, Francis Collins wanted a site where Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would feel welcome. I am neither, but we have much in common.
He probably meant the Eucharist (Holy Communion). Horrible.
The Greek Orthodox Lectionary can be downloaded at:
I do not have a problem with this site and have found the wide range of views interesting and at times informative.
This claim sounds a bit racist.
I think there is naturally a little racist in most (all?) of us. I have noted it in all of the cultures I have visited. It is probably a genetically inherited trait that favors the spread of shared genes. It may as well be manifested in our relationship with those who share the same memes/culture vs. do not share.
Our environment and culture either damp this little racist or allows or even encourages it to become visible. The denomination is not a key factor in it, it is the type of people that accumulate to a particular congregation or group. Mixing of people coming from different backgrounds helps in fighting against racism because we tend to have more trust and a friendlier attitude towards the people we know. This does not work just with different genetical backgrounds, it works also with different ideologies, cultures and denominational affiliations.
That is very interesting. I was just watching a youtube by Bishop Barron on the Eucharist and when it ended it went to an episode of his with Shia LaBeouf and the idea of repetition and the rosary came up and the idea was about the tactile feel and that it actually helps you focus and shut down everything else. Speaking from experience its the same for me. And yes, I like learning as did Lewis but agree that if it aint broke, don’t fix it.
I agree the lectionary is wonderful and useful and does not restrict the Holy Spirit. I personally wouldn’t claim preachers not following it are preaching “whatever they want” but God did leave us a canon so I can see how a lectionary might open up new avenues and maybe prevent always focusing on Pauline grace and the new covenant 99% of the time.
Vinnie