Paul writes - The title of
today’s post is also the title of a brilliant 2004 paper by Wendy Dackson – William Stringfellow’s Sacramental Vision.
I highly recommend it. Stringfellow continues to gift many of us the vocabulary
to name both our experiences and concerns. Dackson’s abstract reads:
“William Stringfellow (1929–85) was an Episcopal layman, attorney
and social activist. Although much has been written about him since his death,
most of it is in the form of personal testimony. Examinations of various
doctrinal areas of his theological writings are unusual. Therefore, this article examines Stringfellow's idea
of sacramental reality and grounds it in the worship of the Church and
Christian engagement with the world. The concluding comments offer a
justification for seeing this vision as one of enduring importance for faith
and action in a post-Christian society.”
While on the subject of
Stringfellow’s sacramental vision, I’d like to draw you attention to a four-part
(so far) post by Jason Goroncy. He’s reviewing Stringfellow’s Imposters of God.In particular Jason
opens his series by highlighting a section of Stringfellow’s preface to the
aforementioned book:
“…William Stringfellow’s Imposters
of God begins with this insight:
Nothing seems more bewildering to a person outside the
Church about those inside the Church than the contrast between how Christians
behave in society and what Christians do in the sanctuary.
This contrast is not, I suspect, just taken for granted by
outsiders as evidence of the hypocrisy of professed Christians. It is not simply that Christians do not
practice what is preached and neglect to authenticate worship by witness. The
non-churchmen is, I suggest, much more bewildered by the difficulty of
discerning either connection or consistency between social action and
liturgical event. The two apparently represent not only distinguishable but
altogether separate realms: the former deals with ethics, the latter with
aesthetics; the first is empirical, the second theatrical; the one is mundane,
the other quaint. For the stranger to
the Church, to whom the churchman appears to act in the marketplace much the
same as everybody else, the straightforward and cogent explanation is that
these peculiar sanctuary activities are sentimentally significant—as habit,
tradition or superstition—but otherwise irrelevant, superfluous and ineffectual.
More or less secretly, or at least quietly, legions of church
people suffer this same sort of bewilderment. If these people sense any relationship between practical life and
sacramental experience, it is tenuous, illusive and visceral: a felt
connection, a matter not readily elucidated, a spooky thing. On occasion, when
a priest or preacher goes forth from the sanctuary to affirm in the world what
is celebrated at the altar, he is usually ridiculed for meddling in affairs
outside his vocation. Or when, in the midst of worship, a pastor ventures to be
articulate about the relationship
between ethics and sacraments, his effort is apt to be regarded as an
intrusion defiling the congregation’s ears. (pp. xxi–xxii)…” (highlights, mine
– Paul)
Stringfellow well names a reality
anyone with any degree of discernment and the perspective of a so-called
“outsider” would pick up if they sat in the back row of a church gathering over
the course of 4-consecutive Sunday’s. There is a massive disconnect between
sanctuary and the world outside the sanctuary; between the gathered experience
of the people of God and their dispersed and diverse everyday contexts.
You can read Jason’s posts: part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.
Recent Comments