we should not misunderstand “lex orandi, lex credendi” as reflecting any causal or directional relationship. the very lack of a conjunction nods at the ubiquity of the via media. the phrase does not indicate a strict ritualism in which the orthoprax performance of the liturgy is identical with piety. but neither does it reflect a purely expressive mode of worship as we see epitomized in the charismatic evangelical traditions. the lex orandi does not create the lex credendi any more than the lex credendi precedes the lex orandi. the relationship, as i understand it, is one of embodiment. the orthopraxy of the liturgy and the orthodoxy of the creed stand together mutually constituting each other, the one manifesting the other in its complementary realm. this resonates with the catechismal definition of a sacrament: “an outward and physical sign [and would add ‘conduit’] of an inward and spiritual grace.” as such, while a common liturgy necessitates some interpretive work to make the liturgy intelligible to a given context, extreme care should be taken in altering the substance of the lex orandi, because it cannot be altered without also impacting its inward manifestation in the creeds.
lex orandi, lex credendi
“Fundamentalism is not taught in the [Anglican] liturgy. The function of the Church as the interpreter of Scripture is set forth, both in words in the ordination rites and in liturgical action in the way the Bible is used and preached in the Sunday liturgies. The statements of the catechism go further than the lex orandi, but they are consonant with it and form the basis for the Episcopal Church’s position outlined there. God did not dictate the Bible, but inspired its human authors without overruling their human limitations. The Bible is not self-explanatory; it is interpreted by the Church.” – p. 292
“But this volume is not a work of systematic theology. It is a reflection on theology prima, and it will leave many ambiguities. The ambiguities exist, not because the liturgy and its theology are confused—although a good case can be made that its theology of confirmation in confused at present and has been for centuries—but because the theology of the liturgy is not really a system and therefore cannot be systematized in different ways by different schools of academic theologians without being betrayed.” – p. 302
from the final chapter of the late Leonel L. Mitchell’s Praying Shapes Believing: A Theological Commentary on The Book of Common Prayer
Mysticism & Marx, II
Following up on the threads of my previous argument, laying out a critique of Marx’s humanism that approaches the problem from mystic spirituality rather than poststructuralist theory, I want to explore how an understanding of mysticism might help us generate a new kind of political ethic. An ethic that decenters humanity, particularly the rational and autonomous/sovereign humanity that modernity naturalizes. An ethic that provides for the undoing of the Heading of capital(ism), not by providing Another Heading, but by providing the Other of the Heading. An ethic that dissolves the fundamental logic of capitalism.
Mysticism & Marx, I
Note as of November 2020: This essay and its sequel were written around the time I started a PhD at the University of Minnesota. I was Muslim at the time and wrestling with the shortcomings in Marxist thought that I was coming up against. It doesn’t reflect my current thought very well, but these ideas were important in my intellectual formation.
#MeToo
hashtags never sit well with me. i always feel the urge to sand them furiously, to wear down the jagged edges until they fit neatly in my palm and don’t cut so deeply. but i recognize their power within the sphere of social media, especially as a tool to weave together experiences that would otherwise have sat isolated. typing out #MeToo, as much as it hurts to lance the wound(s) i’ve let fester quietly so long (too long?), connects my experience, my pain, to others’ stories.