Thank you for the way you spell out this twofold diffidence with respect to art, because it is exactly what I struggle with in so much theology and liturgy, but I had never thought to put it quite that way. Whether you go for rite I, rite II, or (if you must) EOW, there's no point at all if you don't approach it with a fundamental love and respect, or at least openness to what could emerge through it. And I've seen (and, I think, even performed) some wonderful subversions of it, and heard (and proffered) some great explanations. But the latter only afterward. Like art, as you say, it works on a different level than other discourse. "more than an ordering of words, the conscious occupations of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying," to quote somebody.
And speaking of which: "has the meaning, but manages to miss the experience." If that's not a mic drop way to end a post about an adaptation of T.S. Elliot, then such a thing is not possible.
Great final line!
Thank you for the way you spell out this twofold diffidence with respect to art, because it is exactly what I struggle with in so much theology and liturgy, but I had never thought to put it quite that way. Whether you go for rite I, rite II, or (if you must) EOW, there's no point at all if you don't approach it with a fundamental love and respect, or at least openness to what could emerge through it. And I've seen (and, I think, even performed) some wonderful subversions of it, and heard (and proffered) some great explanations. But the latter only afterward. Like art, as you say, it works on a different level than other discourse. "more than an ordering of words, the conscious occupations of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying," to quote somebody.
And speaking of which: "has the meaning, but manages to miss the experience." If that's not a mic drop way to end a post about an adaptation of T.S. Elliot, then such a thing is not possible.