dation shows accompanies laity with the omenoa. The 5 more fully 2s the signifi ‘orthe esteem gful sur wand so ‘power. changed >ientialy ful suf "passive, suffers ing. This givento © intere Ives the and the ring of exis caused ence, stored sible this is rental Per- elves F sness is not something esoteric but the funda- mental principle of all personal life When interdependence has been broken and affliction and alienation have resulted, the breakdown can be rernedied by someone not involved in the original breakdown, Interdependence is broken by selfcentering. Vicariousness involves self-giving, Jesus'death on the cross was vicarious, “But God shows God's love for usin that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). The vicariousness of Jesus" suffering is not something necessi- tated by the condition of a sinful world, but is characteristic of the interdepend cence of human existence. Vicarious and representational suffering is not neces- sitated by God, but a dimension of Jesus” life of seif-giving, ‘The salvific meaning of Jesus’ death is rooted in the salvific meaning of his life, im the radical dimension of his love There is no need to refer Jesus’ death to an arbitrary decision on the part of the Godhead; it has its sufficient basis in the love with which and in which Jesus identified himself with us. Through Jesus’ love the depth of interdependence in seality is revealed to us: “No human has ‘ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and God's love is perfected in us”(1 Jn 4:12). One cannot say that God required the death of Jesus 88 compensation for our sins, It is not possible to make God responsible for ‘what human injustice has done to Jesus. Jesus’ death comes asa reaction to his life ‘and ministry, as the consequence of his love, ‘The paschal mystery is Christianity’s final answer to Job's dilemma. God does ‘ot instigate our suffering, nor did God decree the sufferings of Jesus. Rather, God participated in them. Our God, esus*God, is not the executioner but the co-suffere:. During his life and his reaching Jesus proclaimed God as the God of outeasts, not as someone remote, syMaoL 1237 but as someone close 1o human reality, Jesus* God is a God for us. The cross Feveals God as a redeeming God and a compassionate God. ‘The cross cannot become the symbol of anevil that no longer needs to betaken seriously. If evil and suffering have al- ready been so definitively overcome, then history is trivialized and human responsi- bility for the future set aside. The eross cannot function as a sanctuary against the harsh realities of evil in out world. Nor ean it be set against the darkness of experience 4s an apparently thorough victory that easily explains away negation, evil, death. Suffering always remains an attack on human life. It can never be Blorified nor sought. Itcan be given some ‘meaning if ulumatelritcan be eliminated, and that is the basic meaning of the resurrection, ‘See Sleknes, 2 Chita vew of Heating (Cambadge: Caimbndge Univer Pres, 19%), Michael Taylored. The Miutrt of Safer and Deaih (Sater Island: Alba Howse, 1975, Borathy fring (Philaceiphies Fontew Pres. 1995). Andiew Elphrstone, Freedom. Salen ae ee anda eat Bras oS Gertenterge: and W. Schrage. Suffering ‘Nash vil: Abingdon. 197, Ehosbeth Motor. Sef fering inerent and Gute (Lendan: 39 <6: 19%. ‘Stanky Haucrwas, “Reteeuons on Suflering, Death, and. Medicine” Bibs in Sconce ar Mocivine 8 (999) 299-28, LUCIEN J. RICHARD. O.M SYMBOL ‘Taisessay will focus upon the following issues: (1) the emergence of symbolic elements in worship from Judaism and Hellenistic cultures; (2) the development of symbolic styles; (3) a typology of symbolic syles in Western worship; and, 4) the use of symbols in a post-modern age. For the epistemological, philosoph- ical, and general theological isues that1238 sympor {govern the contemporary understanding of symbols, see The New Dictionary of Theology, e8. Komonchak, etal, Glazier, 1987, also s. v. symbol. Introduetion ‘Aworking definition for symbol would bea complex of gestures, sounds, images, and/or words that evoke, invite, and persuade participation in that to whielt they refer ‘Symbols have multiple levels of ‘meaningand value. Unlike signs or signals (euch as a stop sign or mathematical symbols), symbols do not refer to one item or indicate a one-to-one correspon dence between the sign andthe signified. They disclose reality by makingavailable to their participants meanings and values that involve them intellectually, emo- tionally and morally, while exceedingthe physical components of the signifier Part of their emotional power is due to this multiplicity of appeals ‘Asa resull, the regions in which symbols operate are almost universal, as extensive as human life and history. They can be found in daydreams, the night~ mares of sleep, the arts and literature as well asin social rituals like the common ‘meal or ceremonics as distantly powerful as presidential inaugurations. Poets, lobbyists, preachers, advertisers, and televangelists use symbols to convince their audiences of the truth of the subject ‘matter, the speakers’ sincerity and their products" goals This ambiguity of symbols has made ‘them suspect to modern science, linguistic philosophy, and ordinary common sense. Contemporaries find it difficult to trust themselves to symbols since they cannot discern whether the polysemantic charac- ter of symbols is deception or simple radical mystery. This multidimensional character of symbols has made it imperative to limit the discussion of symbols here to the sacraments and the public worship of the churches. However, the ambiguity of symbols has also affected the experience of Christian worship, so the factors thae affect the credibility and construction of contemporary Christian symbols for worship wil be treated. ‘Early Christin Symbols Within tet lenistic Judatom. Christians forged their symbols within the molten tradition of Judaism. Hellenistic Judaism itself way hot a uniferm cultural phenomenon. It included rot only the large population of ‘ews inthe Diasporg, but many diferent groups within Palestine itself (for example, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes). Hellenistic Jews, for good or ill, had assimilated many economic, political, and cultural attitudes of the Graeco-Roman world, And since many carly converis to Christianity were Jews nd Jewish prosetes (Gentiles who par- ally followed the Torah), the overlap, even syncretism, of cultures was to be expected Inthe synagogue and in the Christian assembly hall at Dura-Furopos, in the ccatacornbain Rome, inthe desert libraries of Egypt, and in the emerging NT texts themselves, we can see communis vying for their interpretation of the founding stories, suchas Adamand Eve, Noah and the flood, Moses and the journey tothe promised land, The vine of David, the Toot of Jesse flower ia Jesus the Chis the shepherd of Isral gives authority t9 Christ the Good Shepherds the sacrifice cof Isaacby Abraham illuminates the sel- sacrifice of Jesus, Christian communities initiated thet followers into the meaning oftheir life by surrounding them with words, gesture, and images that interpreted their de- Gisions, On the wallsand in sermons, they painted images of rescue: Daniel in the Tions' den, Moses striking the rock, Elijah reviving the widow's son, David con ‘queting Goliath. Taking their eue from Jewish catechesis, they described the new ‘vay oflight and distinguished it from the way of darkness, maintaining that theyvrs that tion of Is for n Heh. 4 their ion of tt was von. It ion of erent (for aalots, ‘2004 omic, tthe many Jews ‘par sep, obe stian the aries cexts ying ding and the the “ist ito fice elf. vein ss, le ey he ah a m te x had the authentic teaching about those primal stores In effect, Jewish symbols and stories ‘gained a nev referent the preaching, life, eath,and resurrection of Jesus, The frst exodus was an anticipation of another exodus. Symbols are always embedded incultural stories. Christians re-examined the symbols by extending the story. In saifting che temporal signifieance ofthe symbols, they transformed the religion and found that the story in which they believed noionger had homein Judai itsel, The symbols of the shepherd, the teacher, even the chariot-driver or paradise as @ garden overlapped with non-Jewish motifs. The teacher of the sermon on the mount could be painted as a philosopher with his pupils; the shep- herd could be seen as the god Apollo, Piping his lock; Eljah’s fiery chariot was analogous to the golden chariot of the sun god. Images that could be extended temporally to include the past (as pro- logue) and the future (26 anticipation) could be reshaped to include the under- world and the eternal spheres. The process of developing. symbols among the early communities of believers involved seeing the polysemy of Jewish symbols oinclude the erucial instance of Jesus. This changed the historical refer= ‘ences ofthe symbols. Though Hellenistic Judaism included speculation about the ‘cosmos, the increasing analogies with non-Jewish images shifted Christian symbolic structures to emphasize spatial dimensions. The Christian story under- stood ise as encompassing all of time, from the genesis of the cosmos and its first inhabitants to the final battles between good and eviland thearrivalofa new heaven and a new earth—and-as including all of space as well. These claims to universal interpretive compe- tence would have seemed mere wishful thinking, had it aot been for the Appearance of the Christian emperors in syszot 1239 the 4th century and their successorsiin the East and the West, who made Christian ‘worship publicly legitimate and supported the order created by clergy and laity, In this context of Jewish images and stories, symbolically reinterpreted through the primary Christian story of Jesus, early Christigns participated in worship that brokeand shared bread and Wine, immersed in water, and anointed with oil, using words that invoked divine presence. Entrance into the community ‘meant learning the stories and shacing in the worship. Symbols facused the identity of the believer. By being immersed in water, neophytes died and rose with Christ; they entered the Christian pass- over. Breaking bread together shared the Last Supper of Christ with the disciples ‘and anticipated the future wedding feast. Jesus’ symbolic actions, like those of prophets before him, announced the challenging reign of God; Christians reenacted those symbols and created a tradition. Symbolic Styles, Traditions coalesce around certain symbolsand their cultural articulation. Style may be described as that interlacing network of images, ‘metaphors, and symbols that define @ particular mode of action and thought. It is style that allows the participant (o say “this” is Graham ballet, a Hemingway novel, or 2 Brahms symphoay. No one would mistake Brahms for Sun Ra or Hemingway for Trollope. Vocabulary, images, grammar and syntax characterize the rhetoric of their creators, In any particular context, itis possible ‘to describe the root metaphors and basic symbols. The apostolic witnesses that identified themselves with Alexandria (Mark), Jerusalem (James), Rome (Peter and Paul) or India (Thomas) generated styles of worship and attendant theol- ogies. Ritual differences developed as ways of recovering thestories and symbols in specifie contexts. Linguistic difference ——1240 svmpoi (Greek, Syriae, Coptic, Latin, and even- tually Slavonie) shaped the rites with their particular communicative compe- ences. By the end ofthe 4th century, the main ‘metaphoric expressions inthe Eastern empire had been determined ‘The normative ritual usage seemed to be Jerusalem, Scholars have been able to notehow doctrinal differences grew from symbolic expressions. Even in the Western empire, where Latin was eventually dominant, styles of symbolic expression developed. ‘The Ambrosian rte of the ety of Milan and the Gallican rite north of the Alps had their own symbolic particularities. Rites, developed around the cities of Toledo and Braga, But by the end of the 10th century, the major ritual metaphors had been determined in the West, where Rone’ rituals became the norm. ‘What we now knowas the Roman it, particularly incomparison withthe others inboth Easternand Western churches, Sober and somewhat severe. It made minor adaptations of Eastern ritual elements (the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus De’) But there were primacily a simplicity of movement, austerity of language, and asceticism of gesture, The choreography of processions was dignified and measured. The rites that developed to the north were more claborate, The Gallican (French) and Mozarabic (Spanish) rites sed more words, reflected the pentential piety of their communities, and stressed personal unworthiness. The soractimes apocalyptic tone of prayers reflected the precarious character oflife at the edges of, the éecaying empire. They tended to be free in their adaptations of prayers for local feasts and particular saints, Different genres of books appeared to codify these developments in worship. Lectionaries were collections of scriptural readings, rationalized on the basis of the developing church year and the feasts of saints. Asa genre of symbolicexpression, they too note the theology and sensibly of pavticular churches. This replaced the continuous reading of the sriptures that Christians had in common ‘with their Jewish ancestors. Sacramentaries ap. peared forthe use ofthe person presiding, they collected the opening. prayers, prayers over the gifts, eucharistic prayers, and. conclusions, substituting for” the earliest forms of spontaneous rhetoric (€ased no doubt on oral formulae) Songbooks (graduals) developed to pro- vide singers with appropriate psalms for ‘The coalescence of rites in the West with Rome as its norm owes as much to Carlemagne’s (768-814) convictions about religious uniformity and publie order as it does to the theology of the churchmen who served him. In 781, Charlemagne asked Pope Hadrian 1 (4 795) for an authentic copy of the Roman, liturgy to be used as @ book to be copied in his realm. The volume arrived by 790. ‘Alcuin revised the manuscript tofit usage north of the Alps with its more flowing thetorical style. All other ritual usage was forbidden. Though it took some time, ‘Alcuin's missal with some variations be- came the basis for Christian worship until the reformation inthe 16th century. ‘The theology of the sacraments that Augustine (354-430) bequeathed to the Middle Ages included a strong emphasis lapon the permanent effect of certain signs, the nourishing or assimilative dimension of the Eucharist, and the ways in which worship formed community in the present and anticipated che future reign of God. Consecratory prayers made a difference in the real world, whether in baptism (character) or in marriage or in the eucharist. His interpretation of signs (symbols), however, as indicating the past, and his realism about personal assimilation to Christ did aot always cohere. Controversies in France during the 9th and 10th centuries asied exactly “what” was presented in the eucharist as —24y and sensibity “This replaced the we scriptures Ct amon with this amentaries a person presiding Pening. prayers, icharistie prayers, stituting for the taneous rhetoric oral formulae) leyeloped to pro- Priate psalms for “tes in the West owes as much (0 14) convictions nity and public theology of the him, In 781, pe Hadrian | (6 oy ofthe Roman bok to be copied arrived by 730 seripttofit usage ts more flowing ritual usage was ‘20k some time, ve variations be- uristian worship “he 16th century. sacraments that ueathed to the strong emphasis ffect of certain co assimilative ‘stand the ways 4 community in ated the foture ry prayersmade ould, whether ia marriage or ‘tation of signs indicating the about personal {id not always France during +s asked exactly the eucharist as distinct from baptism or anointing. What ‘yas the figure (signifier) and what the yeality (signified)? The ecclesiastical t- ation settled on the side ofthe realism of signs. The symbols effected redemption fe a present reality, not simply as @ reminder of a past event, By the 1th century, the root metaphors that governed the amalgamated Roman rite were sacrificial, heratic, hierarchical, fand impersonal. Thooga the ritual of the fucharst began as table prayers over a feat, the memory of the sacrifice, of Christ dominated Roman spirituality. ‘The stual ofthe eucharist was performed by # presider with his back to the congregants. His gestures and words ‘were primarily directed to God and to the Sacred instruments. If more than one minister ‘was present, @ carefully pre- fecibed order of precedence was estab~ lished, The often illiterate and under- catachized community were spectators at t sacred act. The sacral objects of conse- crated bread and wine provided & permanent watchful presence for be- levers Thas, though we can speak of symbols inviting the baptized into the history of Christ and Christ's dominion over the ‘universe, each rite in every age has estab- lished a rhetorical style that appeals to its ‘own period and region. In 2 world in ‘which shetorie is determined by the norms of king and bishop, itis hardly surprising that Christian rituals should be estab- lished by and partake of the same hier~ archical sensibilities. Liturgical Styles in the West. The basic austerity of the Roman liturgy did not remain so. If we can speak of a “familial style” (with its house-churches and mat- ried. church leaders) that marked the Apostolic Age and a “basilical style Giter the official buildings donated by Constantine to the early church) that succeaded it upon the legitimation of Christianity, we can mark the medieval developments as “monastic.” Eeclesial sympoL 1241 architecture focused upon the develop- ment of an area for the community’ daily recitation ofthe psalms. The leratic character of sacrificial worship was distanced from a lay congregation by & Jengthier nave and an elongated choir. Roodsorcens distinguished the sanctuary of the clerics from the worid of the lay people. Tn the East, worship assumed a neo- Platonic cast! Taking a cue from the letter to the Hebrews about the way in which the high pries: Christ has entered the Holy of Holies in eternity (eb 4:14 ‘9:28, theologians in the East deseribed Christian worship as an icon of the heavenly liturgy where the angels are constantly praising their maker. Direc- tions for the service itself (rubrics) began tobe written to create thisearthly mirror ofa divine action, Tr the West, worship took a peculiarly historical cast. In the 9th century, ‘Amalarius of Metz (780-850) described the service catechetically as a mythic history of Jesus’ life, death, and resur- rection. The realism of the story shaped the symbolic gestures and objects, The profusion of liturgical directions that eveloped throughout the Miédle Ages, though often local in their adaptation, fobscured the straightforward apostolic Structure of service of readings. an offering of goods including bread and wine, prayer of thanksgiving, and Sharing of beead and wine, ‘Monastic, mendicant, and academic tneologians ried Guringihe Middle Ages to reform worship just as they tried t0 rethink theology. But litle was accom plished until the criss of the Protestant Reformers forced upon the Western churehes a rethinking of their doctrines, theology. and symbols. na very impor tant sense, the two dimensions of “Augustine's theory ebout signs (its realism ‘of conveying meaning and its secondary Signifying, quality) divided into the two main branches of Christendom. Prote-1242 syso1 stant Reformers, such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwingti, often miscalculated history and contemporary meaning as badly as the scholastic theologians they criticized. They focused upon the rememorat side of the Augustinian interpretation of igns. The Catholic revival settled on the other side: that of symbolic realism, participation, and the triumphal present. While Protestant worshippers empha- sized simplicity of dress, a minimum of gestures, images, and symbolsin favor of the word as preached, 17th and 18th- ‘century Catholic worship stressed elabo- rate ornament, decorative building, and polyphonous music. We might call it the development of an “operatic style” of symbolic expression. Worship was ac- complished by professionals for spec- taiors. ‘Tre church participated in 19th-cen- tury Romanticism by emphasizing its symbolic dimensions even more, turning worship intoan evocation of mysteryand Uncanny silence through vestments, ‘church bells, and incense. The rationalism of the 18th-century eivie culture now Past, the church shared in a sentimental Cult of nature, an emphasis upon the affective in prayer, and the revival of things medieval. Idealized notions of the unity of architecture, worship, theology, and social concern won many Christians away from the harsh realities of indus trializing economies in England, France, and the United States. The origins of the liturgical movement are in this roman- ticism of the medieval worship, Plainsong was revived; neo-gothie churches were built. A “romantic style” of symbolic worship was born Symbols in a Post-Modern Age. The world of modernity stressed subjective perspectives, historical origins relativity ‘of values, and the possibility, even proba- bility, of cultural and political change. Contemporary industrialized bureau. cracies ané their socialist cognates have ‘tow moved from the sublime heights of is: BES EEE EEE EEE Se eee romantic frenzy and the fearful despaigs that accompanied them through the act lights of modernity into its diffceiogs and even self-destructive impulses ne longer seduced by easy progress or cons sumerized productivity, citizens and be: lievers now espouse an eclectic pluratisey about the roe, history, and function of symbols (whether incultureasa whole or within Christianity), Believers have dual loyalties: to their scligious traditionsand to theintegrty of their civil eulture which develops with ts ‘own goals often unrelated to faith: This radical pluralism of allegiance has often placed believers in a postion of eclec tically choosing frora the styles of past symbolic expressions. Thus one may ove from one parish church with high monastic worship, including fo gothic vestments, elaborate plainsong. incense, and visual mystification 10.2 congregation that aggressively insists upona familial, demoticstye of worship. Communities that prefer Renaissance Polyphony and hierarchically ordered ministers face pastors whe want syinbals that are more democratically decided and executed by parish liturgical com- mittee. Cathedral liturgies, because of the very structure of the building, regularly demand a formal baslcal tye of worship, though the bishop imseit ‘ight prefer a style much less formal. Contemporary Questions. The search for a common contemporary symbolic style eludes the Christian communities, whether Catholic or Protestant. The questions: “What does it mean 1o be faithful to our tradition?” and “What docs it mean to be loyal to our world?” are olonger luxuries of the theologians ot liturgist’s workshop. Every Christian community is forced to define its own symbolic style or styles of worship to remain authentic to its (raditions, What does it mean to be faithful to ‘modernity and its postmodern sue cessors?| | \ {earful despairs {rough the de- ts difficulty leetic pluralism ad function of reasawholeor sales: to their theintegrity of svelops with its f t0 faith. This ‘ance has often ition of eclee- styles of past hus one may arch with hi Wing owing ate plainsong, ification to say insists vleof worshi Renaivante cally ordered wantsymbos cally decided he building. basilica style ‘shop himself 3s formal . The search ary symbolic testant, The mean to be ‘and “What ‘our world?” theologian’ sty Christian fine its own worship to ‘ions. 2 faithful 10 rodern suc (@) The emergence of the modern scences in the [7th and 18th centuries emystified space by making it possible to quantify the elationships of causeand dfect. God may have been 2 remote fause of physical events; but the im- fpediate causes could be isolated and measured, This permitted a control over ature, Iralso madeexperimental know! dee the eriterion forall knowing, Sym- bolic ambivalences became suspect, par feularly if they extended their meanings ‘beyond the empirical ealm. Post-modern sciences, however, pay just as much attention to the particular ‘without necessarily agrecing with the Fimitations placed upon human knowing. They recognize the metaphoric quality of models in science, the uncertainty of measurement, and the negative conse- {quences of simply trying to control nature Without respecting it, Being faithful to the insights of modern and post-moders Science requires attention to particulars, respect for the sheer materiality of sym- bole serious concern forthe inncr-worldly connections between things, and the honesty of responding with ignorance to inguiring questions to which one does not have a ready answer. (0) Romantic poetry and philosophy taught modernity that all knowledge was filtered through the affective and cogni- tive subjectivity of the inquirer. Without the intricate interiority of the subject, there would be no science, no poztry, 20 common sense. Post-modern literature has discovered the solipsisi of the ego, the overweening pride ofthe genius, and the psychological fragmentation of the subject. Post-modera philosophy has shown just how the mental acts of the subject ace shaped by the common linguistic tradition and the culture of @ people or nation. The subject has its own shadowside, its own “other,” an ever ‘unconscious that dogs any attempts (0 schematize the conscious self. It has become clear that the subject is actually @ symmot. 1243, community of subjects speaking a con- ‘ersation in which any given action ithe product of mixed motives and multiple Understandings. "Fo be responsible for such & subject requires a subtlety of approach and the feeognition of ambiguity. On the one fhand there isan attention tothe develop- rent of the interior life and a discussion of the appropriate symbols that may express and shape the inner life at any fgien stage from children to the elerly Gn the other, thereisthe recognition that symbols must challenge the subject to Change. But the invitation to shift one's hhosizons by participating inanothersym- Doleannot be accomplished brotally with- fut destroying the delicate conversation cof the heart (@) For the modern world since the revolutions ia the United States and France, change is a value. Hierarchical cniformity and stability ce destructive, “The 19th-century human ssiences Knew themselvesas radically historical shaped by the passage of time. They recognized thet the meanings of history were hbumanly constructed. And if they could be understood as made by humans, they could be unmade, Such shaping of time twas progress, leading towarda free world Teomiomy in which all who were deserving wwould enjoy a consumerist utopia, “This optinism about history was de- stroyed in the trenches of World War I, the genocides and holocaust of Wor ‘War land che nuclear destruction that ended that war and threatens the present. Few would assume without considerable presumption that history’ story is pro- pressing toward the greatest good forthe faany, Postmodern human sciences are more conscious of their imitations Yet being faithful to the values of history means to be sensitive tochange in the lives of individualsand communities. It means to be honest about the com unity’ historical past and to anticipate jadieousiy the future without trium-1244 symBot phalism. History can be seen as a freasure house of warnings or of self Congratulating confirmations. In & post modern world, itis neither. It is 8 world ‘where the heroes and heroines of the past hhave flaws, where the saints could be ‘obnoxious, and where heretics were often rnobie—because they were human. (4) Finally, being faithful to modernity means recognizing that knowledge leads toaction, Art-for-art’s sake, worship for its own sake, knowledge-in-tself are all luxuries; they ean shape and must lead 10 action. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge once remarked; “The metaphysics of one ageis thecommon ease of the next.” Risking plan of action for the present and the future, however limited, however pain- fully formed, is part of the loyalty one ‘owes modernity. ‘e) There are escapes from modernity ‘dentfication witha religious oracultural past can be one, whether in a funds mentalism of the book or of doctrines. tn effect, this option isa romanticism of tne symbolic structures, hoping that repe- tition of the past will care the pluralist ambiguities ofthe present. An alternate form ofthis problems the apocalypticism ‘that decries the present forthe sake of the foture. This can be a secular (nuclear winter; the greenhouse effect; the club of Rome) or a religious (Armageddon) apocalypse. The liberal option that tends 46 collapse all religious symbols into a creational optimism neglects the some times fearsome otherness of nature itself Hurricanes, tornadoes, and solar wind- storms are more uncontrollable than We pretend, What does it means to be faithful 10 the Christian tradition? a) The primary symbol of Christian rmeaningisthe life, death, and resurrection of Christ, Responsibility to that parabolic discourse requires the willingness to hear the dangerous memory that overturns cherished expectations, comforts the af- ficted and the poor, and commits the community toward ‘building the con- ditions for a better future. This person is the touchstone by which ll othersymbols are interpreted. (6) The Christian tradition has wealth ‘of symbols and stories that have nour- ished its present. Being faithful to that tradition means allowing all those voices, especialy those that have not had their ‘day, to speak. An antecedent willingness to iisten to the tradition can permit contemporary communities to “ry on” ‘old symbols to see if they have continuing power for change. () The same attention must be given to the deeply felt interiorty ofthe heroes land heroines of the tradition. The sanc- toral cycle of the church year is not a Ioxury. [t may require additions, sub- tractions, and contextualizations—but it tan provide icons of identification for contemporary believers. Yet rather than emphasizing behavior (whether bizarre or ordinary), the community begins see the interiority of religious ancestors (2) Emphasis upon the moral action that derives from symbolic expression makes it clear that Christian symbols are not for self comforting, fragile psyches. ‘Application is part of human under- ‘standing; if application is not includec, the siatus quo is maintained and history ig repeated. Mort of the same occurs. ‘Those faithful to the death and sesur- rection of Jesus cannot claim to espouse a return to the way things were ‘We may take David Tracy's notion of ‘an analogical imagination a3 a guide in our attempts to develop a contemporary Style of symbolic worship. It will be pluralist to recognize the many voices of the community; it wil be conversational inthe best sense, willing to listen, risking speech, and strengthening the interloc- Tors; it will be both affirming of our postmodern world and critical of its Eonfusions. If iis pluralist, it will accept difference as enriching and struggle to tolerate tmorial wien pies. I he ss vor gospel This will to Sites ors, pant Tosiea about imag the 9 world risk t expre pat Suni this Sb HaeeteSeEand commits the building the con. ure. This persons haltothersyembois ition has a wealth 5 that have nour. \g faithful co that ‘gall those vices, ‘ave not had their sedent willingness ition cam permit nities to “ry on” yhave continuing on mast be given sey ofthe heroes dition. The sane. 2h year isnot a * additions, sub- alizations butt dentficativa Tor Yet rather than whether bizare uity begins to ‘ious ancestors he mora) neton bolic expression tian symbols are fragile psyenes human under is not included, ined and history ve same occurs fath and rest laim to espouse piwer. acy’: notion of mae guide in Feontemporary hip. Te ill be many voices of conversational listen, rskies ig the foterloe Tring of o3t criicl of is “titi accept nd struggle 10 discern which differences are morally nd inelectvally compatible, but it wil sot prejudge the conclusions, Iewiliseke Darthe suppressed voices in the tradition Tit is conversational, itis unlikely to tolpate speakers who stand on cere- smonil offioe rather than competence. It til encourage people t0 speak heir pect. IF iti affirming, it will rejoice at fhe “signals of transcendence” in our world; fits critical, it willcorrectas the ospels require fis cialogical mode of imagination + will look for the overlapping common- ates between Christianity and contem- porary cultures and notice the accom- panying differences, Because it is dia Jogieal, it will be willing to converse about the dissymmetries, because it is ‘imaginative, it will risk sympathy with the other in a willingness to view the world from another's perspectives. This 15k to see the similarities inthe differing ‘expressions and to view the differences as participating in one another and cresting aunityisthe movement toward faith. But this faith is a firm convietion that the sympoL 1245, Christian God never ceases to be incar- nate in symbolic forms. See Traditions, liturgical theology of Iagination M. Blade, Imager ane Sembots(New York, 196). T. Fawost, The Sobol Language of Beigion (Landon, 18%, Gocdenough Jewish Siabois {ic the Gracco-Roman Period, oh J. Newser (hrinceton, 1589), S Happel aod James Wallen. Conversion and Displesnip: A Chraian Four. atom for Etes ane Doctine PaZade pia, 186: ASIGLC Somer, Weiwright.E Yarnol 7a, “Tae Stadt of Lrargy (Nem York, 1978) BLE. Uoverran, Method in Theology (London, 12h S159. Mallonado and D. Bower, Smal aed arn Moran (edinburgh, 1980). D” Powe:, Ghucrchebie Richest The Symbolic Narre of “Ling (Wem Yorks 1983) Rahner, The Thee ‘logy of Symbol" Mmenlogsel Imesieauons 16 (Gakirors, 1946) 221252. P. Ricoeur, erp fason Thor: Diseourse aid the Supa of Meaning (Port Worth, 1976). &. Sdulsbeece, Chet rhe Sacrament of the Encounter with God (New Vora 1965) JL Segundo, The Sacraments ‘Torday, Vol. £(New York, 1978) J, Soaughnemy, Tre Roois of Rina! (Grand Rapids. 1879. D Tey The “Anoonicel Imagination: Chron Theologt and the Celar of Pari New York, Ban. Tracy, Pharos and” Ambir Homencuicy Religion ope (San Francie, 198, rgical time, worship STEPHEN HAPPEL,