Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
This phrase is sometimes used by liturgists to explain the priority of worship in the formation of theology. I have certainly argued that people learn more theology from worship than from any other source; I absolutely believe that to be true. This phrase is different. This phrase argues that worship is an authoritative source of theology. Granted, the liturgists don't mean just any act of worship (any prayer, any song) but rather an official written liturgy of some official church or another. These liturgies stand above theological critique, they would say. A key component of their argument is the difference between primary theology and secondary theology. Primary theology is an act of theology itself - people speaking of or to God. Secondary theology is any reflection on primary theology - people discussing what was spoken of or to God. Some liturgists, Aidan Kavanagh included, believe that primary theology cannot be corrected by secondary theology (in other words, it is meaningless for someone to try to point out a theological flaw in an act of worship because that act is its own theology). I said that very clunkily, so it sounds a bit worse than what he means. I referenced his On Liturgical Theology in my last post, and here is what he says about primary and secondary theology in worship:
Buuuuuuuut . . . According to Kavanagh and other liturgists, the authoritative experiences of worship are conditioned by the written liturgies. Again, we're not talking about just any act of worship, but the "official" acts handed down through the church for centuries. That worship is true theology. (I want to make that clear so that someone doesn't try to use this argument to validate any and every private experience of worship; such an approach would envelope mutually exclusive experiences.) And here's where I'm going - "The Lex" - Lex orandi, lex credendi; The rule of prayer is the rule of faith. That is the phrase used to justify that approach. The theology that is produced/understood within the worship experience is not just more real, it is more right. Sadly, that phrase is a poor summary and gross misunderstanding of the man who first coined it. One day I'll figure out how to write this clearly and concisely in book form, but for now let's just establish the facts. The original author of this idea is Prosper of Aquitaine; the source is his Defense of Augustine, specifically in his summary of Roman pronouncements on the matter of divine sovereignty and free will (Praeteritorum Sedis Apostolicae Episcoporum Auctoritates). The background of the discourse is actually quite simple. People are arguing (and this is loosely in the context of the ongoing debate between followers of Augustine and Pelagius) whether people are saved by virtue of an act of free will or solely by the sovereignty of God. Obviously, they didn't settle the matter. Prosper, an apologist for Augustine, points out that churches everywhere pray for God to save lost sinners. That means that the people believe God is sovereign in salvation because that is how they pray, and that is tacit proof that Augustine must be right. From a modern free church perspective, I might say along those lines, "So many people of God, guided by the same Spirit of God, say and believe this to be true that it must be true - God's Spirit would not allow so many of us to go astray." Now, that's not how Prosper is arguing, but I'm not dismissing his conclusion out of hand. What exactly did he say?
0 Comments
|
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|