Further Proof

[Kyle Potter]

... that I am a liturgical fundamentalist.

But you know the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist, right?

Terrorists negotiate.

And seriously, in the linked post, I try to find some common language between lefty baptist life and Anglo-Catholic cantankerousness. We'll see if it works...

[Bob Carlton]

what does it mean to be a liturgical fundamentalist ?

[Kyle Potter]

It means that as a Christian disciple, I insist that my life will be narrated by Jesus' own story, and that its basic meaning is found in the Eucharist. Alternative stories, especially those that smack of consumerism and empty sentimentality, will not be honored.

[Bob Carlton]

kyle, what about traditions that do not engage in the Eucharist for their core meaning making

[Kyle Potter]

You mean like Quakers and the Salvation Army? I imagine that means I ought to evangelize them.

'Liturgical fundamentalist" means that "liturgical dance" happens to be an excommunicable offense within my jurisdiction, and each praise chorus used must last less than six minutes.

I call myself a church calender fundamentalist, too. That means we don't celebrate "Mothercost" or Memorial Day in Christ's Church. And don't even get my started on how July 4 has become the new Easter down here in the "Christ haunted South."

[Patrick Hall]

This is an interesting conversation that seems to have largely been abandoned in our tradition. I also believe that following Jesus means that my story becomes submerged in Christ's story, another chapter in Jesus' proceeding world-wide revolution of love. And i also, especially as since I began celebrating it, see tremendous grace in Holy Communion. There is just something awesome about reciting before the people of God the entire history of God's kingdom, and its earthly in-breaking. At the same time, I recognize in our Anglican tradition a stream of faithful Christ-following practice which does not find its center in the Holy Communion, but rather the recitation and singing of scripture by the gathered community, and the preached word. I would be hard-pressed to claim that William Law, or John Stott, or William Wilberforce, or Phillips Brooks were diminished in their formation because of the lesser importance they attached to Communion. Also, I find many Quakers to be incredible examples of the kingdom in action: George Fox, Richard Foster, Parker Palmer, etc...

[Bob Carlton]

thanks so much for your comments, patrick

i grew up in the episcopal church here in texas (DioDallas), at a time when we swiched from MP to a greater sense of sacraments

i have gained a great deal from emerging threads of faith communities around the globe, many of whom are re-imagining outwards & visible signs of their inward & spiritual grace

with that as context, my slight push back to kyle would be:

* the fundamentals that infuse the communities I am part of tend to be centered around our faithing our practices, rather than bounded by a specific mode or doctrine
* the eucharist is one of the many sacraments that faith communities of so many stripes draw meaning from. i sometimes worry that it can become an idol, separated from the context it hold

[Kyle Potter]

Does any joy or humor remain in your tradition?

How deadly serious must everything be...?

And since when is the Celebration of the Mysteries separated from "the recitation and singing of scripture" and preaching? And who said that one must grasp the importance of the Sacrament in order to benefit from it?

You guys are having your own conversation, and I leave you to it.

[Patrick Hall]

i got and appreciate the sarcasm actually kyle. I'm sorry if you felt attacked by my musings. I find your image of being subsumed into the story of Jesus to be right on, and actually strenuously agree with everything you said in the original post about liturgy which you linked this to.

[Kyle Potter]

Cheers, Patrick - I should have taken my own advice and not read your response so starkly seriously.

[Bob Carlton]

kyle, sorry if my comments hit you as too serious