Holy Week 2014--Easter Vigil

I don't want to be a jerk and demean other forms of Christianity, but I think non-liturgical churches are really missing out on something fundamental.  Without liturgy, you are left with various forms of talking--preaching and singing.  And talking means you are left with a religion of ideas.  The problem is, I don't think Christianity is religion of ideas.  At least not at it's heart.

Instead, I see Christianity as a religion of encounter.  Ultimately, it is a story of a transcendent creator reaching down to interact with His creation, which culminates in Jesus's life, death, and resurrection.  In turn, we are invited into that encounter.  Encounters can be described, but that description is going to be a pale substitute for being drawn into the encounter to experience it for yourself.

Liturgy is, or at least can be, the gateway to that encounter.  I find that when I am the most confused intellectually about my faith, experiencing liturgy is the route out of the morass.  It doesn't make the questions go away--it's not magic.  But it puts them in context, and reminds me that these things are worth slogging through, because there is something important and beautiful waiting on the other side.

The ultimate liturgy, and thus the ultimate vehicle for encounter, is the Easter Vigil.  Easter Vigil is a multi-sensory experience that draws you into the encounter--fire and water, darkness and light.  It travels along through a history of encounters between God and His people--the creation, the establishment of children of Abraham as a chosen people, the parting of the Red Sea.  It recounts the promises of the prophets.

And then, it culminates with the empty tomb.  Even the Gospel reading speaks of an encounter.  The angel tells Mary Magdelene "He (Jesus) is not here.  He has been raised.  Come and see the place where He laid."  Come and encounter the reality of the resurrection.  That's the power of liturgy.

Happy Easter, everyone.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

Holy Sex!--Part 3.3 Getting Down to Business, Part II

Chapter 12 is about foreplay.  Most everyone acknowledges that foreplay is good, and this chapter is no exception.  Popcak makes the interesting but seemingly effective choice to break foreplay down into the various senses.  So, for example, under seeing he discusses things like wearing lingerie, under smell he suggests to use scented candles, etc.  There is nothing revolutionary or earthshaking here, but the suggestions are solid and reasonable. He also provides an unambiguous defense of oral sex.  Some might be puzzled as to why oral sex needs defending, but the traditional position of the Church opposed oral sex--hence the reason it was traditionally grouped with anal sex under the heading of "sodomy."  So, Popcak is stepping out a bit on a limb here, and he deserves his kudos for that.  He also makes clear that oral sex goes both ways, subject only to the One Rule.  Good on him for recognizing the needs of the ladies in this realm. I could see how his constant use of
Read more