Skip to main content

The Shape of the Liturgy: A Book Review

Allow me to begin with a clarification.  I really don't want to be that guy.  We all hate that guy--the guy who reads some book and suddenly changes everything he believes; the guy who reads one big, fat book and suddenly knows more than anyone else who ever read books, earned degrees, or practiced pastoral ministry.  

I hope and pray that I am not being that guy.  

Nevertheless, The Shape of the Liturgy is one of those books.  It is one of those books that has the potential to inspire a Copernican Revolution is one's theological universe.  This book, if one is determined enough to dig in and mine through the tedious details and footnotes, will expose the reader to historical facts, theological concepts, and liturgical practices of which the vast majority of modern Christians, Protestants especially, are completely unaware.  The author, an Anglican monk, opens up a world, strange and compelling, which most Christians don't know exists.   

The Shape of the Liturgy is primarily concerned with the Eucharist, the central act of worship in the Church.  What stood out most about Dix's approach is the way he emphasizes this centrality so clearly and effectively.  He enables the reader to understand the value Christians throughout Church history have placed upon the Eucharist, which should be compelling for any modern Christian.  The author invites, even persuades, us to fall in love with the Eucharist.

In an effort to communicate the history and theology of the Eucharist, Dix is obliged to cover a large amount of historical background.  Any student of Church history will appreciate this book for the sheer volume of quotes from original sources throughout Church history.  Not only does he expose some of the practices of the Pre-Nicene, Post-Nicene, and Medieval Church eras, but he also reveals the origins and intentions behind these practices.  Some of this data will have been updated over the years, as the author constantly acknowledges will be the case, but it still retains relevance purely on a historical basis.

His tone throughout the whole is both scholarly and devotional.  He honestly approaches the evidence available, readily admitting when the apparent facts lead somewhere less than appealing, but he also consistently calls his reader to the liturgical and devotional implications of the facts he is laying bare.  He does not hesitate to acknowledge the organic processes through which certain practices developed, but he also recognizes God's hand in the evolution of theology and practice.
 
Dix ably communicates the priorities and emphases of the Pre-Nicene Church, and how these differed from those of other eras.  Concepts that we have lost (at least in their grandeur), such as the eschatological view of the Eucharist and the Church as the Body of Christ, I found to be deeply impactful.  By understanding the views of early Christians, and how they expressed those views in worship, I felt connected to my spiritual forefathers.

There is so much more that could be said about this book.  I have not been nearly as effusive or descriptive of its excellence as I have attempted to be.  Now, I'm not going to lie--this book is long and somewhat scholarly.  The edition I linked above is over 700 pages of fine print, and some sections are pretty tedious.  I anticipate this will be prohibitive for some, but I promise that you will be blessed by it.  Your vision of the practices and beliefs of generations of Christians before you will be greatly expanded, even if you skip certain sections or just read a chapter here and there.  If you are a Christian who cares at all about the way that Christians before you worshipped, you will be blessed by this book.

This is not the last book on liturgy you should read, but it lays a good foundation.  Dix's legacy is less about technical expertise, which he did possess, and more about the way he inspired subsequent generations to care about and explore the history of the liturgy.  I look forward to reading more on the topic.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary