There’s been lots of really great discussion that’s arisen from my recent post on the (in)ability of liturgical practices as such to produce transformation in Christian ecclesial life. I’ve appreciated it all very much. But one question I’ve had as a result of some comments around the blogosphere concern statements like the following:
“The real issue is not whether we have a liturgy or not, but whether or not our liturgy good or bad. It’s really a question of whose liturgy, which liturgy. After all nothing is non-liturgical, for as well all know, everything is thoroughly liturgical.”
My question: What exactly does “liturgical” mean in this sort of question? Because I have no idea and I suspect the posers of such question don’t either. This sort of rhetorical trope seems to me to function as a way of avoiding arguments rather than engaging in them and I don’t really know what to do with it.
Recent Comments