Understanding the Christian faith in a deeper manner means exploring its history and understanding its practices, not just in its current form but across its heritage. That history shows a living community that changed with not only its practices but its understanding of its core beliefs. That is not to say its core tenants have changed, but certainly the two thousand years of a community working through those concepts has developed a more sophisticated framework of understanding.
As I have been looking at the historical development of church worship practices, especially the sacraments, I have been drawn to consider carefully what has developed. In reading James White's "Introduction to Christian Worship", it would seem that a prevalent opinion is that the ages of learning have brought us practices (in the sacraments) that are worthy and even essential to a complete Christian faith. Conversely, another "technology" of the Christian faith that has been developing over the centuries has been the methodological learning of Christ through the Christian yearly calendar. I have, heretofore, not practiced the Christian calendar year to any extent at all- aside from the obvious Christmas and Easter celebratory aspects. I have celebrated communion and baptism as sacramental practice, believing it both God ordained and instructed. Before beginning investigation of Robert E. Webber's "Ancient-Future Time", I had not desire or foundational conviction that a Christian calendar was anything more than a religious overlay of thoughts meant to fill up my already busy life.
At this point, however, I have made near a 180degree reversal on my thoughts on both the sacraments and the Christian calendar. Let me deal first with the sacraments. My primary reading in James White's book has led me to believe that we largely have gained much of man's religious systematization in a practice meant to speak to people communally, prophetically, memorably, historically viscerally, and personally. That is- God had something in mind by enacting the practices of baptism and the Eucharist (communion). God did- not man. I think White does an admirable job at describing the communication mechanisms (in slightly different terms) that sacraments are capable of (IE. I gave six aforementioned, but broke them down slightly differently). However, White fails at properly grasping the importance of Christ as the foundational impetus of the sacraments. He says of Christ-
"It is not nearly so clear just what Jesus intended for his followers to do. It can be debated whether we have in scripture express commands in the actual words of Jesus to baptize... or to eat and drink as a memorial of him"(1)
His statements make more sense when you read what he goes on to say-
"The church's acts of obedience to Christ, then are our chief evidence of the foundation of the sacraments rather than the words of institution [Jesus]"(2)
This kind of logic runs into all sorts of trouble, since it takes the testimony of Jesus and his words and lays them at a lower standard than the actions of the church which Christ was instructing. What White does well is move effortlessly across a breadth of time and culture to engage the reader in a vast picture of excellent historical research. Where he fails repeatedly is that this feels far too much like a "personal commentary" rather than a historical synopsis, especially when he brings a stream of practice up to the current. He comments regularly on practices of current churches, which leave him sounding brooding and critical of practices which don't match his particular "worship style", which is sad because most of his historical renderings provide excellent unobstructed vantage points. As he talks of the languages of space, art and music he becomes particularly personal with his opinions, making the base information less appealing.
But aside from the problem of the White's authorship, the book has made a point (which I conversely doubt he intended) that the layering of theo-philosophical applications to the sacraments (especially the ones not attributed specifically to Christ) have given the current church a sense of "entitlement" about the authority of the sacramental. How can we say that church history itself is a more authoritative witness than Christ? This is what White does. The other issue I find is that building of the sacraments out of church history is remarkably similar to the Jewish customs, teachings and later Talmud that developed. Christ dealt harshly with the Pharisee's on such topics. Whenever the Jewish leaders had developed teachings that went beyond the instructions given them through the Tanakh, Jesus blasted them for their zealous religiosity, since it bound up the common people. Even the misuse of the law and scriptures to bring sacrifices and offerings without the brokenness and contrition of the heart was taken to task by Christ.
The Torah clearly outlined many detailed practices and prescriptions for the obedient life of a Jew, and Jesus example in life exemplified that above all else the relational quality of the principles were to reign supreme. It wasn't about minutia- no, it was all a prophetic pointing to a true kind of life that was lived with the law "written on our hearts".
The great question of the sacraments is not "are they valuable" for helping us grasp some truth. The greater question is this- do they draw us into a free and foundationally love-centered relationship with God (as opposed to duty-centered)? We know what Christ commanded clearly (found arguably in just the Eucharist and baptism) will always lead us to the Father. We don't know that any "articulating" of the love-filled life into sacraments, requiring centuries of preponderance, is what Christ truly meant. Making the practice an authorized "rite" of the church makes it no more a concern of Christ's heart than the philactories worn by the Jewish Rabbi's (which turned the words of God to an illicitly insulting hyperbole). We need to be careful of not being guilty of developing our own systems of religious self-righteousness that Jesus would have abhorred as greatly as he did(3).
Conversely, Webber's book "Ancient-Future Time" takes the "low road" at expressing the Christian calendar year. As I said, I was not one who was initially interested in the premise of the Christian time line for a year. But Webber does not approach this as a system "authorized by God", unlike the claimants of most sacraments. Instead, he simply allows you to believe or not believe the power of the scheduled life which affirms Christ in every breath. Could this become a rote, dead, law? Webber says as much, and warns against it. But the mere fact that he doesn't try to proof text any part of it gains validity to its approach, at least for me. He simply presents that history has shown the church has been powerfully matured and nurtured by living in the Christian calendar year. The most primoidal icon of the calendar is the Easter event. The power of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ that is encapsulated in the Easter season is a "nuclear matter" for almost every other event in the Christian calendar year. Images are plentiful and fruitful in this book, but none struck me more powerfully than this-
"The church is the sign of Christ in the world... I am the church; you are the church."(4)
and, in speaking of the epiphany,
"This manifestation, this epiphany, was not to be a thing of the past... but was to be an appearance now in the body of Christ assembled, an epiphany in me."(5)
Webber uses personal story and church history to make a persuasive assertion that the calendar year is an enabling context into which real Christian maturity has fertile ground to grow. It is this approach of history and personal story that seem a much more authentic tool suite for growth than White presents in his view of the sacramental authority he attributes in "Introduction to Christian Worship".
"for: The Institute of Contemporary and Emerging Worship Studies, St. Stephen's University, Essentials Red Online Worship Theology Course with Dan Wilt"
(1) James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000), Page 179
(2) Ibid, Page 179
(3) Bible, Mark 12. This entire chapter is a record of several encounters in which Jesus confronted several religious leaders and systems. His response each time was to root out the system, and validate the contrite heart (where it existed)
(4) Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Time, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), Page 79
(5) Ibid, 79