14 September 2009

Cultus as Commodity

I was at Mass the other day. (You see, I'm in the Liturgical Choir, and thus am required at Sunday morning masses, vespers, and the occasional feast day.) While the rest of the choir went down for Eucharist, I stayed up in the loft, as Canon Law prevents me from partaking. One of my fellow choir members asked me, "Are you Catholic?" After responding in the negative, I was asked, "What's your brand?" "Lutheran", I curtly responded; I had no desire to continue such a conversation. It is interesting, this identification of sect as brand. Has it come to this?— is one's denomination simply another choice we make as consumers? I will grant that the average American could care less about the nature of the Eucharist, or apostolic succession, or the Filioque clause. The great majority of professed Christians, if pressed, will claim to agree with the tenets of whichever church they happen to find themselves members of. Those who do not belong to the church of their parents (or of whichever parent was more insistent) are usually drawn to another sect by its form of worship and social message, more than anything else.

There is something amiss, here. I won't launch, again, into a diatribe against the materialism of modern culture; you've already heard that one, I suppose. What I'd like to examine is the basis of community: is it a shared doctrine, or culture, or worldview... or even, musical taste? (Certainly all of these have proved cause for union or disharmony. Churchgoers can be remarkably petty, as you may know.) Is any one of these worthy cause for joining or leaving a congregation? Yes, probably. But is any cause for leaving or joining a denomination? There, the matter becomes murkier.

Protestants are accustomed, rightly or wrongly, to some fluidity here. A Methodist can swap places with a Disciple of Christ without much cognitive dissonance. Rare is the Presbyterian who hesitates to marry an Episcopalian. And the various evangelicals are indistinguishable. It is different for Roman Catholics, whose church makes a claim to universality: those who've been paying attention have heard that there is no salvation outside the(ir) Church. We thus have a great many Roman Catholics who profess membership in a Church whose doctrines they routinely ignore (for various reasons, which I neither condone nor condemn).

This is more of an essay topick than a web-log post, innit? The hour being late, I shall continue it at another time. Suffice it to say that I miss, as I have never missed before, Lutheran worship. Even among the Anglicans (both in Vienna and Rock Island), there were enough similarities to sustain me, enough good Lutheran hymns slipped in. Here at Notre Dame I feel alienated among the teeming masses of Catholics, and I wonder whether I am truly justified in my longing for the church of my forefathers. There's a groan-inducing pun here: am I missing the Lutherans for the right reasons? Or for the rite reasons?

4 comments:

  1. Regarding the choirister's comment, my sense is that "brand" was to mean something like, "There's Catholicism and there's infidelity. Since infidelity is infidelity, what "unique" group do belong to?" I don't think that what that person said was underwritten by a commodified notion of faith, but by the rather more insulting notion that it doesn't matter what sort of non-Catholicism you are. This, I think, is why she was able to refer to your particular flavor as a "brand."

    In more philosophical terms, this person sees a genus-species relationship between Protestantism and Lutheranism, Methodism, et al. Her (or his, I guess, but for some reason this d-bag just strikes me as a her) issue is that Protestantism and Catholicism share a genus, but that she sees Protestantism as a perversion of the genus. Thus, the species of Protestantism are perverted tu cour (I think that's how you spell it), and it makes no sense to refer to them with individualized iterations of respect.

    This is Aaron, if you didn't know already. What do you think? (Not about this being Aaron, but the other thing.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aaron?! Whaa?

    You know, it hadn't even occurred to me to take umbrage. Certainly that sort of Catholic chauvinism is alive and well — especially on an overwhelmingly R.C. campus like Notre Dame. But I cannot say whether that was his (sorry, 'twas a he) intent.

    Frankly, I'm tempted to apply such a broad brush to a good many protestants, which I'm sure isn't particularly fair. (I suspect Lutherans and Anglicans would prefer to be seen by R.C.s more as schismatics than heretics; "at least we're not Pentecostals, right?")

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a great thought. I can appreciate this quandary even though I might be seen as a prime example and representative of the "average American."
    I grew up attending a Catholic church as well as Wednesday night CCD classes with my family. I was confirmed, baptized, and had my "first communion" event at a Catholic church. In high school I attended a non-denominational church. In college I attended a mixture of Lutheran, Methodist, and non-denominational services. Currently I attend services with the Church of Christ denomination.
    Today, I can no longer dictate how the Catholic beliefs are different from other denominations. Additionally, during all the years of attending various churches I never once bothered myself to learn about each church's specific doctrine of beliefs.
    Despite my own actions, I do agree with your statement that "people are drawn to different sects by their form of worship or social message more than anything else." It is very interesting that you relate choosing denominations to consumerism; I am sorely tempted to support that point of view.
    Anyway, this was more information than you needed to hear. In the end, the furthest my thoughts have ever gone on this subject has only ever lead me into general annoyance that people put so much stake into distinguishing between various denominations. My simple thought for the day is: the ideas and things that are important in being a Christian will not vary between denominations, and until we manage to truly follow those overlapping lessons, we needn't worry ourselves over the differences.

    I know that probably disagree with me, but I'm okay with that. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, it does seem silly, all the effort various denominations put into distinguishing themselves, especially when the minor theological issues that divided them are largely forgotten today. It's a terrible waste of energy, I think.

    It'll be interesting to see how the denominations re-align themselves in the future: certainly, ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians are closer in outlook than ELCA and LCMS Lutherans, or than Episcopalians and the Anglican Church in North America. Will increasing apathy to thorny minor issues result in more union? I don't know.

    ReplyDelete