I found myself thinking about Liturgy and technology, and how technology can alter the way that we view items and practices in our Church, and can do it without our ever really noticing it. I am a geek and a nerd. This means that I am not against technology, I am for technology. Yet, at the same time, I have begun to notice how technology affects the way in which we look at traditions and, most important, how we interpret them. Let me give you a couple of examples.
We have candles on our altars. Frankly, almost every type of Christian used to put candles on the table when they celebrated communion. Even many Baptists–decades ago now–would periodically put two candles on the communion table (not every time and not every community, but it was there). But, we forget that candles used to serve a double function, both liturgical and practical. Technology has driven the practical reason away from us.
There are many symbolic reasons to use candles and why they should either be of beeswax or bleached. There are excellent symbolic reasons to have a menorah at the back (or behind) the altar. But, we forget that candles used to have a practical reason. They provided the light needed to be able to perform the Liturgy. St. Paul speaking to the Ephesians on his way to Jerusalem would never have been able to preach until midnight if there had not been oil lamps and candles. (In fact, there are Orthodox who argue that we should not use candles, but only oil lamps.)
The practical has been divorced from the symbolic. The Early Christian would not only know about the symbolism of the candles, but he would also have received a very physical example of the need to have those candles present in order to be able to celebrate the Liturgy. [Note: at the very beginning, Liturgies were celebrated in the evening, keeping the supper pattern, so lighting was important.] Every week he would have it reinforced that if you have not the light, you are not able to see. “I once was blind, but now I see.” The candles were not simply symbolism, but also a living lesson of what the symbolism of light and darkness meant in his life.
Early Christians did not expect to hear every word of the Liturgy, to understand every sound uttered out of the priest’s mouth. There was no sound amplification system. In fact, much of early church/temple design was with a view toward trying to amplify the human voice, and priests (and any oratorical speaker) had to develop a strong and clear voice if they wished to be understood. The half circle alcove in the back of the church, and the basilica dome in the middle of the congregation were architectural means to try and amplify a voice. But, the early Christian did not expect to hear or understand the quieter prayers being said by the bishop or priest.
But, this also meant that there was both a symbolic and a practical reason why the deacon chanted his prayers from the middle of the congregation. We know the symbolic; the deacon is leading the prayers of the people. But, we forget the practical. The Church wanted those prayers to be clearly heard so that the people could join in and understand and agree with those prayers. Those are the prayers of the Body of Christ, and it was crucial that they be understood.
So, the deacon in the middle of the Church was not only symbolism, it was a practical lesson on the high importance of the prayers in which he was leading them. Today, the symbolic has been divorced from the practical. Because of the technology of sound amplification, the modern Christian is frustrated if they cannot understand every word that is being uttered, and so miss the practical importance of the prayers which are led by the deacon, the prayers of the congregation that join with the prayers of the bishop and priest to rise to God as holy incense.
I am not against technology. I use a modern mike that goes over my ear because it is so practical and handy. We have light the brightly light up the altar area, not only so that I may see, but that the congregation may also see what is happening.
But, in the divorce of the symbolic from the practical, the practical lessons are being lost. And, as a result, I see good Orthodox people getting into arguments over the minutiae of candles, or over the clarity of the sound system, or over the necessity of hearing each and every word with such clarity that sometimes I think that they may even be hearing my breathing and my heartbeat over the mike. And, something is being lost and being replaced with something that is not good. By losing the practical lesson, we are deforming our understanding of symbolism.
I do not have a good solution to this. It needs better minds than mine. I merely give a little warning mixed with a bit of concern. And, I ask the question, “how do we keep the practical and symbolic from being divorced from each other?”
Leave a Reply