By “Ancient”
McGowan refers to the period up until, give or take a bit, 400 AD.
Christian Worship in this early era is not without study but one of
the important aspects of McGowan consideration is that he looks at it
on its own merits when most others have really only been using the
worship of this period as a way of explaining later practice.
This lens of later
worship has tended to distort the analysis, those pieces of evidence
that supported narratives of continuity with later practice were
privileged, evidence that didn't fit marginalised. But by trying to
avoid this process of reading backwards into the evidence McGowan
shows a much more varied and at times surprising range of worship
within the early Church.
He reinforces the
need to demolish the appeal to the early Church as the basis for
modern practice. There was never a singular “pure” worship. We
have to establish our practice on its own merits not
quasi-archaeological foundations. Given the diversity of worship that
seems to have been present in the early church it is remarkable the
extent of homogeneity that has prevailed in later centuries – even
when we are revelling in contemporary Fresh Expressions they are
actually all within a relatively limited ball park.
The other message,
not unique to this work but worth recalling, is the relationship
between Jewish and Christian worship in this period. The idea that
Christian worship is an evolution from Jewish worship is not really
supported by the evidence, given the very significant changes that occurred within the Jewish tradition in this period. McGowan concludes that “the developing
Christian and Jewish liturgical traditions and their uses of Sabbath
and Sunday are better seen as taking their bearings from one another;
the Jewish tradition in later does not preceded or explain Christian
practice."
For example many
like to explore the Seder meal as a way of engaging with the origins
of the Eucharist. Even if you accept that the Eucharist has its
primary origin in the Last Supper, and the Last Supper was a Passover
meal (both of which are contestable assertions), the Passover meal of
Jesus' day was not the Seder meal as it is now received. The Seder
meal took on much of its current shape after the destruction of the
Temple, and so its development occurred alongside that of the
Eucharist. When we see similarities between the two, it is as likely
that the Jews “borrowed” it from their Christian neighbours, as
it is Jewish Christians carried their past practice into the life of
the Church. The same can be said about other practices as well.
I would definitely
recommend this well written and readable study.
No comments:
Post a Comment