Beyond Smells & Bells: A Review

Today is the first Sunday of Advent and I’m missing my Anglican church (St. James in Newport Beach, CA). Had I been there this morning, I might have played a role in lighting the Candle of Hope. I’ve been worshiping with the Baptists since I returned home. It’s an incredibly loving congregation right now, which is how it began 30+ years ago. Then there was a church split and then another and another. Anyway, these Baptists love my family and our roots with them are as deep as human roots go. And yet. And yet, I deeply miss the Anglican liturgy. 

My “low” church friends sometimes ask me what it is about the “high” church liturgy that I love and miss. I find it difficult to explain, which is where Mark Galli’s latest book, Beyond Smells & Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy comes in. Galli, whose writing I’ve always appreciated for its provocative honesty, gives shape to my thoughts. In describing the mystery that I long for, he writes:

Worship that doesn’t in some way leave a large space for transcendence and mystery is not fully worship of the God of the Bible, who when asked to name himself—to explain his essence—said rather truculently, I am who I am.”

The liturgy shines in the shadowy place called mystery. But to leave matters here, at the threshold of incomprehensibility, would also be leaving out something. For mystery is both more complicated and understandable than we imagine.

He then compares the Eucharist to the handshake of a couple major league baseball players that occurred after a game stopping brawl. He says the handshake “conveyed a story—with characters, conflict and resolution.” Every time those two players shake hands, it will always be more than a ritual; it will be a remembrance. Likewise,

The liturgy contains a similar “handshake” at its climax, an outward action that conveys a deeper drama. To some this moment looks like routine ritual, like that handshake might have looked to those who had not heard what had happened a few days earlier. But those with eyes of faith see a mystery opening before them in the liturgy.

We call this moment in the liturgy a sacrament, an outward sign of an invisible reality. But it has also been traditionally called a mystery, though not because it is something that baffles us or eludes our understanding. Benedictine writer Jerry Driscoll puts it this way:

“The word mystery preserves the tension between the concrete and the divine. Something is definitely present, but what is present exceeds and overflows the limits of the concrete, even if it is present only by means of it. This is mysterious in a way unique to Christian understanding.”

Galli concludes:

The liturgical handshake—that is, the sharing of bread and wine at the climax of the service—not only recalls something that happened, but re-presents it in a way that makes it a present reality.

A minister says words and performs actions, but at a deeper level, it is Christ who is presiding. We share in bread and wine, but the reality is that we are taking Christ into us. It looks like this is all occurring in time and space, when in fact the boundaries of time and space are being shattered, when for a few moments “heaven and earth are full of God’s glory.”

When all is said and done, though it may look like we’ve done nothing more than re-enact a routine religious meal, in fact, as the concluding prayer notes, something terribly significant has occurred: “You have graciously accepted us as living members of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and you have fed us with spiritual food in the sacrament of his body and blood.”

Beyond Smells & Bells is a short book that breezes along combining Galli’s meditations and metaphors with pieces of the liturgy itself and with the work of theologians. It is not a book for experts, but instead is one for people like me who have returned to the liturgy of their youth and can’t quite explain why. Or, perhaps, for those seeking to understand a family member’s decision to do the same. It could also benefit the spiritually dry, confused or curious.

The Anglican liturgy healed me after years of broken church life, even though my Anglican church and the larger Anglican body was itself broken. For this reason, I especially appreciate and miss the corporate confession of sin that precedes the Eucharist. Even when one has always done their best to act rightly, there is guilt in living through so much failure and more guilt from failure’s inevitable consequences.

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges talks about this type of moral ambiguity in a recent interview with The Sun. Discussing topics as diverse (or connected) as war, Fundamentalism and the New Atheists, this son of a Presbyterian minister says:

The world rarely offers us a choice between the moral and the immoral. It’s usually a choice between the immoral and the more immoral. That’s why moral decision making is so tough. Who was more moral in the Warsaw ghetto uprising during World War ii: those people who didn’t join the uprising, because they had children and feared for their safety, or those who led the suicidal fight against the Nazis? You can’t say one was more moral than the other. It depended on who you were. …

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said, “You make a moral choice, you act, and then you ask for forgiveness.” That’s a wise statement. You make the choice, because you can’t sit around hemming and hawing forever. You ask forgiveness, because, to quote Paul, “We look through a glass darkly.” What appears moral and good in our eyes may not appear good and moral in the eyes of others, even our friends. No act is absolutely moral or good, because we don’t live in a utopia where we have those absolutes.

Hedges found healing from his battlefield memories in being a dad. I found it in the liturgy. Affirming the Creed, praying with the Saints and the saints, confessing both sins and ambiguities, passing the peace and being cleansed by the blood of the lamb each week was a powerful, worshipful remedy for me.

Another aspect of the liturgy that I am drawn to and that Galli touches on is its timelessness. He writes:

We have to pay attention to cultural context, no question. The history of the liturgy has been in part about finding words and ritual that help people in a given culture to express their thoughts and feelings to God in ways that makes sense. The liturgy has always had freedom and variety within its basic structure.

But it has steadfastly refused to let the culture determine its shape or meaning. Liturgical churches know that as profound a reality as is the surrounding culture, there is an even more profound reality waiting to be discovered. Like Mrs. Haller [an elementary school teacher] did for me, the liturgy gently and calmly gets us to open our eyes to the new reality, showing us the value of the “necessary separation” from the old. Suddenly, in the blink of an eye, we find our gaze directed away from ourselves and toward God and his kingdom. When we return to our homes, we are never the same.

When there is little difference between going to church and going to the mall or the movies, God’s holiness and majesty can be diminished in our minds. Familiarity can lull us into complacency. Galli writes that this can happen too with the liturgy, if we’re not careful.

In regard to church buildings, both ordinary and extraordinary, he reminds us:

To be sure, we can worship God anywhere, and the church is not the building but the people. Yet this does not take into account how God normally works in our lives—that is, by revealing himself to us in places, places that become sacred and holy.

This is precisely why parishioners become feisty when someone wants to remodel the sanctuary in the least little way. … And why they will fight to the death (or, more precisely, to the debt) to keep their property out of the hands of their wayward denomination. This behavior, which is sometimes described as “worldly,” is ultimately grounded in a biblical understanding of the world—that this planet contains spaces where God meets people.

Liturgical churches understand this reality. Thus their healthy addiction to magnificent worship spaces, whose very architecture evokes the reality of God’s presence.

This very reality is why we eschewed funeral parlors when planning services for our son. They are devoid of meaning, divorced as they are from ordinary life. Our last Christmas worshiping together as a family was at St. James Church. The first service took place there. Trinity Bible Church holds more memories and meaning for our family than most other places on this earth. A service was held there as well. The fact that people have fought over and in these spaces speaks less to me about our corporate failures than it does about the love that transcends failure.

Which brings me to my final point about the liturgy. I’ve met God in churches both “high” and “low.” I’ve met him in nature and elsewhere. The services in “low” churches that I’ve attended generally build up to the preaching of the Word. A man stands at the center of the hour. I’ve benefited from this style … and witnessed the attendant destruction when the man falters or begins “inhaling his own fragrance,” as a friend so aptly put it. Preaching is an integral part of the “high” church liturgy. It is not the climax. When the man fails, the liturgy goes on. There’s humility to this style. So much of preaching is designed to perfect us. It will never be, in this life. Traditional liturgy engages our frail humanity. That’s probably what I love about it most. It is not a spectator sport; it’s a contact sport for sinners.

Galli examines all these issues and more. I commend his book to you as a primer. In the acknowledgements, he thanks those contributors to his blog who helped shape his thought. He’s a sporadic blogger. Just when I think he’s going to begin posting regularly, he goes silent for months on end. Demanding day job, I guess, what with being senior managing editor of Christianity Today and all. Check out this recent post on The Blessings of Everyday Hate. Nobody dared respond. I liked it for the reasons I like this book. It’s provocative, thoughtful and down to earth.

Some Thoughts on Substance at Saddleback

My thoughts on the Saddleback Forum on the Presidency? Overall, I thought John McCain looked and sounded really old. I thought he spoke in sound bites. I thought it was absurd that he had to reach back some forty years for a story about his faith. I agreed with young Brian and Lauren in that he reminded me of a grandpa reliving (and relying on) his glory days rather than a future-focused leader. In short, I thought Obama was the more thoughtful, engaging candidate.

It may surprise some readers that I was not particularly bothered by Obama’s answers on abortion and stem cell research since I’ve been a vocal opponent of both. Life is certainly more precious to me now than ever in light of my son’s death earlier this year. However, like other evangelicals and post-evangelicals, I’m much less likely to base my vote on these issues than I might have been in previous elections. 

The reasons are myriad, but I’ll start with this: there are moments when I feel like a statistic—just another mother of a young, black man who died a tragic, senseless death in the context of a racialized society. Whether I look at his death from a psycho-social perspective or a purely medical one, issues that relate to the quality of life for African Americans are viscerally important to me in this election cycle.

Given my interview focus for this event, I was struck by the disconnect between the predominantly white evangelical audience’s responses and the concerns of their African American brethren, which, in my interviews, centered on the economy and health care. Jobs and good health go together, in case anyone was wondering.

I wish I could write about a particular health insurance nightmare that my family is currently dealing with, but I am not at liberty to do so. The situation is akin to one I blogged about some time ago in regard to a black mother whose teenage son had died from a heart defect. The boy’s brother had the same defect and had already suffered two heart attacks. He could not work and thus could not afford the medication that would keep him alive. He had been repeatedly turned down for Social Security benefits. This situation is unconscionable. It’s also a pro-life issue that hits me where I live.

I’ve wanted to publicly say for a long time that my goal as a pro-life writer is less about legislation and more about letting women know that having their baby will not ruin their life; doing so will enrich life in challenging, wonderful ways. I believe this more now than ever. I have often wondered why we get so upset about the fate of embryos if we really believe their souls, if they have them, go to be with God. My concern in regard to hESC research has, for some time, centered on who we are as human beings and as a society when we view life, even nascient life, as disposable. These issues are, of course, important matters of law about which I come firmly down on the pro-life side. I just no longer buy the argument that this should be the foundational issue upon which one should base their vote.

As an opponent of hESC research and as a patient advocate, I object to science being pursued and politicized because of the abortion debate. Both candidates were wrong on this issue Saturday night. As I reported here in March, hESC researchers themselves are beginning to declare hESCs a dead end in terms of cures. Why then the excessive investment of limited resources? Why is this still even a question worthy of presidential debate? How about instead asking if the candidates favor regulation of the IVF industry? Even some hESC researchers and IVF doctors are asking for this.

Warren asked two unique questions in my view, the one about making adoption easier and the one about human trafficking. I was glad to hear Obama commit to making adoption easier, particularly if it prioritizes children lingering in foster care here in the United States.

On the human trafficking question, I’m a bit more cynical. As a person acquainted with a SoCal mega-church culture that covers up the sexual abuse of minors and punishes those who speak out, this topic sounds like a feel good way to oppose something far away. Sex slaves in Asia. It costs little for the average American to oppose that from an armchair in suburbia. Not so easy to turn in Uncle Ted when he’s providing financial support to a struggling single parent family, or to risk one’s livelihood when Uncle Ted is a well-connected pastor. If I’ve learned three things about sexual abuse of minors when it’s up close and personal, they are 1) people generally won’t talk, 2) when they do, they will be socially punished, and 3) perpetrators are rarely prosecuted. I wonder, also, how many Orange County evangelicals include in their definition of victims of human trafficking, the undocumented migrants who’ve unwittingly sold themselves into slavery to get across the Mexican/US border? 

As to the question of evil, I found both men’s answers frightening for reasons articulated well by Crunchy Con columnist Rod Dreher. Earlier today, he wrote:

Obama’s nuance, it seems to me, is another word for vagueness. Quinn, a liberal, thinks Obama’s taking a pass on answering Warren’s query about when an unborn child (or, if you prefer, the fetus) acquires human rights is a sign of a supple mind. In fact, by refusing to explain his views, Obama was either being purely political, or revealing that he is not a careful or inquisitive thinker about one of the most critical moral and political issues of our time. “Above my pay grade” is a pure dodge. There is a pro-choice answer to that question, one that I happen to disagree with, but that’s at least philosophically valid. Obama chose not to give it. Why? And why is it considered intellectually respectable by the likes of Quinn that Obama declined to give a straight answer to this question? There is a certain kind of intellectual that sees muddleheadedness as a virtue. It’s the classic liberal weakness: to find, or to seem to find, reasons to excuse evil, or to avoid a confrontation for disreputable reasons.

On the other hand, Kristol views McCain’s utter clarity as a sign of virtue. How anybody can emerge from the Bush years and the Iraq experience with the same Manichaean view of the world and America’s role in it is flabbergasting. But there it is. If Obama was too abstracted — and he was — then McCain was too concrete, and his concreteness was itself a form of ideological abstraction. In other words, by seeming to refuse to recognize complexity in the world and the tragic sense at work in our affairs, McCain evidences living in a world of unreality as well.

Nevertheless, as a political matter, McCain’s approach plays much better with Americans. We like a good story, and we like to understand complex matters of morality and policy in terms of story. When Obama made the perfectly reasonable and necessary point that we have inadvertently done evil in the name of good, he should have brought up Abu Ghraib and torture as examples. He should also have spoken of the unplanned and inadvertent evil of getting our soldiers bound up in wars that seemingly have no end, for no compelling national interest. He might have spoken about how our good intentions about expanding home ownership to more Americans led us to foolishly overextend our financial system.

There are many stories Obama could have told about the cost of imprudence, and he could have — and should have — planted doubts among voters about where the high-minded, crusading verities regarding the nature of Evil and the proper response to it has gotten the country. But he missed that opportunity.

Well those are my thoughts about the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. Whoops. I forgot to mention gay marriage and the war. Tough issues about which I’ll take a pass for now. Last point: I was glad to hear both men prioritize the energy crisis. As to whether or not journalists should be worried that Warren is going to put them out of a job, I do believe the whole “Cone of Silence” non-debacle speaks for itself, in both substance and silliness.

Editorial or Christian Bashing? by Gabriel G. Scheller

In Gabriel’s only semester at Corona del Mar High School in Newport Beach, CA, he quickly made his prescence known. When his response to an offensive and irresponsible editorial in the school newspaper was rejected for publication, Gabe printed 100 or so flyers and handed them out to students … until he was stopped by school administrators and, if I recall correctly, instructed to collect the ones he had already distributed. His reasoning matured with age and experience, but the incubation of an activist with high ideals and the ability to articulate them is evident here. I proudly introduce Editorial or Christian Bashing? by Gabriel G. Scheller

 Birth of an Activist

I opened the paper this morning in first period. I flipped through the pages looking for something that would grab my interest. There was a headline in bold block lettering that stated simply “Evangelical Christians.” This interested me so I decided to read on. I would first off like to say that if I was to write something that put down any religion other than Christianity the way Ms. Y did, it would never make it to the final issue. R seems to have an utter resentment and hostility towards a whole group of people that she is not afraid to hide. Now, on the mistakes she made in her effort to turn our campus against my faith.

Finally I come to the part that angered me the most. Ms. Y refers to one man’s ridiculous view that “it has always been Christians and Jews on one side and Muslims on the other” and places that idea on the entire “crazy Christian group” to which I belong. This is by far one of the most unfair statements that R made. It is the equivalent of me saying that all Muslims are crazy and “absurd” because a select few flew some planes into the WTC. I would never make such a statement. I have known many Muslims and they have all proven to be extremely kind and accepting. I would not dare do anything so ignorant as to discount a whole group of people because of one man’s bad choice.

We will start with the first sentence of the first paragraph. R states that “the evangelicals are hard-core Christians who interpret the Bible word for word.” She also states towards the end that “the Bible should not be interpreted literally. If it were, where would all other religions fit in?” To start off, I think that if you live your life by a certain book, or law, why wouldn’t you take it literally? If you belong to a religion, you don’t pick and choose which parts sound nice to you. You take it for all it is, the whole thing. Imagine if we ignored certain laws and only obeyed the ones that we agreed with. “Well, I’m sorry officer. I know it is illegal to speed in a school zone with pot in my car, but I don’t really like that law. The one that prohibits murder is nice, but I shouldn’t have to follow that MIP one because I don’t like it.” If you agree to be part of a country or a religion, you also take on the responsibility of the laws laid out.

In reaction to her second statement, no one said religion had to be “PC.” I can believe what I want without worrying if it is going to offend someone. This skewed logic reminds me of a certain book written by Ray Bradbury. In this story, the government gets rid of all the books, religious or not, because anything that is written will upset at least some people. So the government burns all books so no one will be upset. I wonder if in R’s quest for people to compromise their religious convictions to make other people happy, she considered what such a mindset could lead to. It seems that Ms. Y believes that we should have tolerance for all religions, give them all equal consideration. I do not dispute that point. But R seems to have no tolerance for Christianity as she unwittingly tears it apart.

As for her statement about most of our senators and presidents being Christian, why is that even an issue? Is it even relative? I’m not positive R knows this, but almost all our founding fathers had religious beliefs. It seems that R wants our political leaders to have no religion at all. But would that be a true representation of our country? I don’t think so. Most Americans claim to be Christian. Just ask your history teacher. I am sure he would not dispute that fact. Furthermore it would be nearly impossible to find men for every political position who believed in nothing. R says it is sad that religion will always play a part in politics. I disagree. How do you think our first moral laws were established? Can you tell me why it is bad to cheat on your girlfriend? Can you tell me why it isn’t legal to have more than one wife? These things had to come from somewhere.

R seems to focus her article on Christians disliking Jews. She says that we believe Jews are going to be destroyed when the Armageddon comes. I looked in my Bible and I couldn’t find a spot where it said that. In the book of Revelation in chapter 14, John writes that 144,000 Jews will be sent to heaven during the end times. If we flip back a little to the book of Romans, it talks about how the Jews will see that the Antichrist is terrorizing the earth and they will realize that Jesus was the Messiah they have been waiting for. The Bible also states in Genesis 12:3 that God will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse them. As a Christian, I worship a JEW! Jesus Christ was a Jew! I don’t know, maybe that episode of 60 Minutes slanted the truth in some way, but I think if a journalist is going to state someone else’s beliefs, she should at least do it knowing all the facts.

[© GGS 2002, all rights reserved.]