Liturgical Theology
2005 Louisville, Kentucky
2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002
Convener 2005
Judith M. Kubicki (assistant professor of theology, Department of Theology, Fordham University, Bronx, New York)
Seminar Participants 2005
Lorraine Brugh, Jill Crainshaw, David Fagerberg, Christopher Grundy, Martin Jean, Judith M. Kubicki, Gordon Lathrop, Jack McKenna, Mary Pope, Don Saliers, Philip J. Sandstrom, Rhoda Schuler, Thomas Scirghi, Kevin Seasoltz, Teresa Stricklen, Dwight W. Vogel
Visitors: Karl-Gunnar Ellverson, Jim Farwell, Slobhan Garrigan, Martin Modeus, Melanie Ross, Larry Sibley, Ben Stewart, Thomas Trinidad, Andrew Wright
Seminar Report 2005
The seminar devoted itself to the book Worship As Meaning: A Liturgical Theology for Late Modernity by Graham Hughes. Response papers and additional papers distributed beforehand by e-mail were presented and discussed.
Papers
Discussion of Graham Hughes’ book, Worship As Meaning: A Liturgical Theology for Late Modernity opened the first day. Teresa Lockhart Stricklen’s paper entitled “Apprehending the Other Apprehending Us: A Response to Graham Hughes’ Worship as Meaning” questioned whether the philosophy Hughes draws upon might perpetuate an interpretation of Christian tradition as nothing more than mere human construction. Meaning is not about making and finding as much as it is about being made and found. Discussion focused on the contextual nature of all meaning and the question of power. Whose meanings prevail and on what basis? And finally, is the quest for meaning itself a modernist desire to understand and control what is ultimately the Mystery under which we stand?
Mary Pope’s response, entitled “Worship as Meaning—and Mystery,” applauded Hughes’ emphasis on liturgy as an interdisciplinary study and his challenge (borrowed from Aidan Kavanagh) that worshipers be led to the edge of chaos and back again. However, Pope raised two questions for the text: Where is the sense of mystery in worship? How can Hughes’ sense of meaning in worship be used in pragmatic, weekly evaluation of worship experiences? Some commented on Hughes’ dense writing style. Significant discussion was given to the adequacy of Peirceian semiotics for evaluating meaning in worship.
The second day began with Tom Trinidad’s presentation of dissertation work in progress comparing Karl Barth’s and Louis-Marie Chauvet’s theology of word and ecclesial rite. His presentation, entitled “The Move from Calvinist to Zwinglian Sacramental Theology in Karl Barth,” outlined Barth’s foundational methodological principles and how they led him to a “neo-Zwinglian” theology of the sacraments. Members of the seminar raised questions regarding how Barth’s sacramental theology related to his Christology and eschatology. Some suggested Mr. Trinidad continue to look at sources outside of Barth’s Church Dogmatics for additional voices pertaining to Barth’s sacramental theology.
Gordon Lathrop led a discussion of his paper, “Reflections on Doing the Liturgical Ordo Amid Postmodern Challenges.” After summarizing postmodern criticisms, Lathrop proposed that the “ordo” is best seen as made up of local realities critically juxtaposed to Jesus Christ and inviting into the meanings of the Christian gospel. Discussion focused around these questions: What is the gospel? How are congregations to be encouraged in this practice? Is formation in liturgical practice always invitational? Is the invitation also an invitation “to come and die?” And does this proposal adequately represent the central categories of creed, cult, and code needed by a founded religion?
Larry Sibley presented a chapter, entitled “Worshiping with the Gifts of the Nations,” from his work in progress, Baptizing the Nations: Mission, Culture, and Liturgy in the Gospel of Matthew. The project explores mission, culture, and liturgy as they are expressed in Matthew 28:16-20. Sibley observed that underlying the work of Calvin and such contemporary scholars as Anscar J. Chupungco, Harvie M. Conn, and Aylward Shorter is the biblical record of God accommodating himself to human capacity in his works and word. Contextualization, in the end, is not the invention of either the sixteenth or twentieth centuries. Discussion ensued, with several seminar members suggesting further sources and lines of investigation.
Christopher Grundy presented a work-in-process on the violent embodied logic of Eucharistic practices. The paper suggests that if there is indeed a systematicity of action in the rite that colludes with broader cultural patterns of violence, then current attempts to redress issues of Eucharistic violence and sacrifice through theological explanation will be insufficient. The seminar discussed Grundy’s critique of the limitations of the theories of René Girard. Also discussed were the promising aspects of trauma theory in relation to issues of the Eucharist and violence and the problems of a methodology which relies heavily on logic as a central concept. The seminar expressed interest in a longer, more developed paper on this topic for next year.
Plans for next year
Several proposals were offered for next year’s meeting, including a follow-up to some of this year’s discussion and possibly an invitation to a guest speaker. Decisions will be made in the spring via e-mail.