Negative Rituals
16 Apr 2007
I was thinking about how consumer culture seems to favour cultivatiing the sense of the ’sacred’ by asserting our agency and freedom to enter into spaces, use any stories we want to, pick and mix narrations, synthesize and and use any symbols and aesthetics freely, or maybe if I can use Émile Durkheim’s terminology, it favours ‘Positive Rituals’, that anything it wants is available by choice.
Except for an admission fee, is there any iconostasis, or veiling of the sacred, the notion that there is the need for time, and process in experiencing the sacred, a negative aspect to rituals, that consumerism seems to know nothing about? This is a question Vincent Miller asks in “Consuming Religion”.
When everything can be reduced to a consumable commodity, are there Christian traditions that are more like negative rituals, that consumerism is unable to use? Whereas Christian have unnecessarily excluded people with their beliefs and practices (I am not arguing for witholding access for the sake of it), are there aspects of the Christian faith, that should not be immediately accessable?
If that premise is true (and I’m not sure it is, I’m just mulling it over), how might it be applied? Maybe we see it in communion, where we examine ourselves and if we aren’t in a good place with God and others, we withold receiving it? Maybe fasting, penance, and other disciplines, have there place, that speak against the purchase of shallow immediacy.
Then with the statistics that show that despite church attendance being at 7% in the UK (yet as low as 1-2% in major towns and cities, including people who attend only at Christmas and Easter or by their own liturgical calendar), 97% of people undertake a religious funeral service (almost all Christian in rite), and over 20% of children are baptised/Christened (in fact Christenings are increasing signifcantly), whilst church marriages are around 40% of the people who marry (figures are from the UK 2001 National Census).
Is there the case for Churches to withhold funerals for people, christenings and marriages? I became a Christian in an evangelical background where Christian rites of funerals, marriages and christenings were seen as soley for Christians, yet over time I have moved to see them as significant spaces and times for the church to connect to non christians, and have conducted several funerals for non christian families or example.
Yet for the reasons above, I am now questioning whether they should be freely available? If they are purely acts of civil religion and culture, they have surely lost their true meaning, but if on the other hand they are indeed rites of Christian practice and belief is that a reason to withhold them?
I’m not drawing lines, just mulling over this issue and trying to consider how it might relate to practicing Christian faith in a post-christian culture, like the UK. Anyone have any thoughts?
Tagged: Baptism, Christening, Funerals, Marriage, Rites-of-Passage, Rituals
13 comments
Trackback
Comment by Lyn
9.32 pm on 16 Apr 2007
I think the fact that most funerals are held in church, as are 40% of weddings plus baptisms would suggest that people are wanting to do things before God, or put the other way they want God to be involved somehow. I think it would be wrong for churches to deny these things to people who they perceive to be “non christian”. God can work in any situation. It’s sad that more people don’t marry in church any more, but I wonder if that is more to do with the impression church has had on people, rather than them not wanting God involved. Just my $0.02!
Comment by Lyn
9.36 pm on 16 Apr 2007
Just wanted to add that so many out there are searching. It would be wrong to push them away – effectively slamming the door in their face. The God I believe in never turns people away.
Maybe the wording to baptisms etc could be altered so that people are not making too many promises they cannot keep.
Comment by Paul
11.45 pm on 16 Apr 2007
well i think you add giving money to your list of practices or service and the rites of communion and baptism – not that historically these have not been abused by christians but that they are symbols and practices which shape us and show us.
I know in part what you are saying is heh people are just using the church as another service – christenings are fashionable so lets have the church thang and a party afterwards [aren't they becoming surragate marriage ceremonies now where having your child christened replaces being married in church?]. Or we’re just the burying service who give people compassion, hope and something that is beyond their comprehension.
But then again I am also challenged by your words on sunday about christians caring for plague victims in the roman empire – maybe it is a Q of cost – that doing these acts of service stop ourselves from just turning it into a social transaction where we demand commitment as the price of the good. What if this it and of itself is an act the decomodifies, that there is no price tag attached and is weaning us off this transaction mentality.
Instead of the persecution in the roman empire that was experience and christians still cared we live with the opposite of that, the apathy, being ignnored, people aren’t bothered until it comes to those big life events when they want the church involved. what happens if we not only continue to care but to care enough to do more so that children who are christened, the people who are married, the families of those who mourn live in a better world as a result of us being there. That regardless of whether we receive their money, time, commitment we will give our own? we will love them and serve them because we know of no other way to be other than like that?
If we are going to wean ourselves off our own indivual consumer expressed lives maybe we need not only to look at the cost but ask ourselves what price are we prepared to pay?
Comment by marc
12.49 pm on 17 Apr 2007
Interesting points Jason.
Part of the problem appears to be that no one is quite sure what is sacred anymore.
If we don’t explain and practice the sacred within church how can we expect anyone outside to understand it. My experience is that the modern church has tended to shy away from the sacred
At a good friday service (which is a sacred time) someone mentioned that they had been to an anglican stations of the cross and it had been too morbid!!
I explained that was as it should be but they were convinced that it should of been positive, cheery and hopeful. I thought not but found it very difficult to put that across without being seen as negative.
We must understand and explain the sacred, try to impress that taking communion is a solemn undertaking, a time for reflection and forgiveness…we can start small.
Comment by marc
12.50 pm on 17 Apr 2007
sorry if that doesn’t make sense, it did when I was writing it:)
Comment by jason77
1.21 pm on 17 Apr 2007
More good food for thought. As for the funerals I would like to add something that just now came to mind. If we are going to withhold them from non-christians how far do we draw the line? Are we going to stop for not having them for non-christian families? What about the non-christian relatives of church members? Could they come to the services of church members? Not trying to spark any debate here for I am not sure where I stand on the topic, just thinking aloud sort to speak…linking to this post as I feel it should get more reading…
Comment by brett jordan
1.54 pm on 17 Apr 2007
Communication/relationship/discernment have to be recruited to make sure that non-believers understand that it is not merely the ‘church’s job’ to hatch/match/despatch, and to decide on whether it is appropriate for your fellowship to be involved on a case-by-case basis
if a non-believer wants to have, for instance, their child dedicated, surely this is a good, non-manipulative opportunity for a minister to spend some time explaining what dedication means… and then to make a decision as to whether it is appropriate to perform the service
Re. Lyn’s comment (1.), the God of the Bible is loving, forgiving and accepting way beyond my comprehension… but he does turn people away, the Bible is full of examples of him doing it, however he makes the rules, and is perfect, so it is left to us to trust him
as failible, sinful humans we have to be far more careful about turning people away, however, letting ourselves become ‘doormats’ is daft as well… wise as serpents, blameless as lambs would seem to be a good maxim
Comment by Lyn
4.51 pm on 17 Apr 2007
Yep, Brett, you are right, God has turned people away in the bible. I think what I was meaning to get at was that I don’t think God turns people away who come to him. Are people who want baptisms, church weddings etc trying to come to God in their own way? I really agree with Jason 77’s point – where would churches draw the line?
Comment by D.G. Hollums
3.41 pm on 17 Apr 2007
Well it is the back of my mind somewhere that this is not too far off from the early church when it comes to baptism. It was a several year ordeal before someone could be deemed by the “elders” if someone else is worthy of joining in the community called Christians. great thoughts Jason. Thanks!
Comment by Jason
4.10 pm on 18 Apr 2007
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Comment by JJ
9.03 pm on 18 Apr 2007
I thought most churches have a premarriage study course and counseling before a pastor will perform a marriage. Is this not the case? I guess to do the study course or counseling doesn’t always make one turn to religion.
I remember my mom always telling me when she and my dad got married in the Catholic church back in 1955 and the church wouldn’t allow her to have her best friend be her maid of honor because she belonged to some other Christian religion. I think they no longer practice that now.
Comment by Simon S
8.47 pm on 19 Apr 2007
I think the ideas of monasteries and closed communities gets close – the vow of poverty and chastity takes this away from two pillars of consumer culture.
It might go against the traditional evangelical grain that christians should be ’salt and light’ ie involved in their community, but it certainly means that people are handing over their money and their sexual freedom (!) – in some cases also control over their own lives
The TV programs recently about people becoming monks / nuns for a few weeks certainly was interesting to see how people coped (or didn’t) with not being in control of their own routines
Comment by James Prescott
10.57 am on 24 Apr 2007
This is a very challenging topic, and something I’d not thought about till recently. There are issues either way.
Say as a church we refuse to do baptisms, marriages or funerals for non-Christians. Then some will say ‘those Christians say they love everyone, then exclude us becuase we’re not part of the group. I don’t want to know a God like that’, and that message perpetuates throughout society. It gives the impression to some the Christians are eliteist,insensitive (especially in the case of funerals, which the majority of people like to have in a church), inward-looking and unwelcolming. That is not what Jesus teaches at all. Grace, mercy, love are what He preaches. Holding these services in a church setting allows us a chance to be a witness, to talk about the real meaning of these ceremonies in God’s eyes, and get people talking about God, which they are more likely to be open to. It’s an opportunity for evangelism.
On the other hand one of my cousins who is not a Christian or religous at all is getting married this year, in a hotel. They are doing this becuase they will feel like hypocrytes getting married in a church, which I totally respect. They are likely to more impressed that the church is standing up for its truths if we refuse weddings and baptisms to non-Christians and maybe re-consider the merits of Christianity as a result.
If however someone of a different religion who reguarly worships a specific god who is not Jesus or the God of the Bible, then we have a case in standing up and saying no. I suppose it could be said we all worship something, but if someone worships a foreign God and always has, then we should make a stand in that instance. Or is that another opportunity to show grace?
Its a very challenging issue for sure and there are no simple or easy answers. Thanks for getting us thinking about this Jase.
Comments are now closed.