In Chapter 1 of “Material Christianity”, Colleen McDannell asserts that the physical expression of Christian faith and tradition, through use of religious images, artifacts, relics, art and statuary, (material representation), has continuously existed throughout the American historical experience. The physical manifestation of material Christian symbolism has been transformed over time, and, as McDannell asserts, “it is not static; it is constantly changing”(3), and by extrapolation, it continues today. McDannell positions the material Christian phenomena within the construct of the sacred and the profane. The sacred is comprised of the formal, institutionalized, concepts of space, ritual and doctrinal idealization. The profane, by contrast, is utilitarian; the home and everyday life experience. It is within this framework, McDannell asserts, that Christians attempt to manifest their connection to the more abstract construct of the sacred through utilization of material (profane) objects symbolic and representative of their religious lives and convictions.
Nonetheless, theologians, sociologists and other scholars have debated (although not in significant depth according to McDannell), the division of the sacred and the profane model in conjunction with the subsequent nature and appropriateness or inappropriateness of material Christianity. Both Catholic and Protestant traditions have expressed various and diverse opinions and directives regarding the expression of material Christianty. Both traditions acknowledge the existense of material manifestation of belief systems, and, not suprisingly, both faith groups have sought to shape and reshape such expression. As McDannell asserts, “Material Christianity is a means by which both elite and non-elite Christians express their relationship to God and the supernatural, articulate ideas about life after death, and form religious communities”(13).
Along that vein, McDannell in Chapter 2, focuses on the meanings the faithful both imbue and extract from religious material objects. She explores the elements of Catholic sacramental religious expression, Protestant biblical imagery and representation, and Mormon material identification with garments and symbolism. McDannell compares and contrasts the denominational expression and impact of religious materiality. In each regard, McDannell relates that the components of material Christianity are comprised of devotion, sanctity, intercession or simply a desire to “bridge” the divide between the sacred and the profane. Additionally, material Christianity is used to define identity or association with a denominational belief system. Despite either positive or negative sanctions placed on religious materiality by diverse Christian denominations, many of the faithful have attempted, and continue, to express identification and devotion though material Christianity.
1. Has McDannell, in your opinion, established a credible or convincing argument concerning the dearth of exploration into or evaluation of material Christianity?
2. Describe the manifestation of material Christianity from both the Protestant and Catholic denominational viewpoint.
I think that, in general, this is a subject that not too many scholars have examined. While religious artifacts are obviously a very important part of many peoples’ faith, it is an area that doesn’t usually come to the forefront of discussion like scripture interpretation or public worship. Maybe it’s because this aspect of faith has a very personal, but quiet interpretation for it’s owners. Whatever the reason, McDannell does a good job in exploring this aspect of faith, especially considering the lack of available sources in the field.
Tom
November 5th, 2007
I tend to agree with McDannell more when she is elucidating the history of some particular devotional item than when she is trying to articulate the meanings which the original believers found in it. It seems that one of the reasons why there is so little research in this field is the difficulty of coming up with an analysis of popular, material devotion which isn’t simply conjecture. Certainly, writing a book of this nature entails more challenges than, say, writing a history of the Salvation Army, since there are few archives except those which have been brought under the custody of more established religion, as with the letters on Lourdes water preserved in the Notre Dame Archives. Still, it is hard to think of a different model for this kind of study. One aspect of McDannell’s work I have a problem with is her inclusion of religiously-themed art in her discussion of laypeople’s shrine-building. I don’t see how the artist’s creation, a deliberate assembly intended for display, can be equated with a home shrine, which would most likely be put together haphazardly over time for the believer’s personal comfort and enjoyment. There are certain parallels–both the home shrine and the work of art probably reveal much about the creator’s background and values, for example, but it seems that in many ways the perspective of an artist would be far removed from that of an unempowered, perhaps uneducated lay person’s viewpoint. The one thing McDannell did prove is that, for someone who views certain objects within a relgious and sacramental context, an artist’s repurposing of those objects is unlikely to remove their original meaning. Rather, some believers found Frank McEntire’s ‘Reassemblages’ offensive, even though his intent was to add to the meaning of traditional religious objects, not to mock them (36-38).
Patricia_Murphy
November 5th, 2007
1) During my theological studies in a non-Catholic Christian university, I found that the entire theology faculty accepted the idea of sacramentality, the use of material means in ordinary life as a sacred expression of an unseen truth. It is probably true that from a history of religion perspective there is not much material about it, but I could not imagine non-Catholic Christianity without its material element.
2) In my opinion McDannell is quite write in his observation that Protestants do not practice an isolation from material or sacramental Christianity. He is also right that while not all Protestants explicitly accept the use of physical manifestations of faith and implicitly use them, Catholics make such use explicit.
However, I would argue that the concept of “Protestant” does not adequately describe non-Catholic Christians in the Western Christian tradition. Not all “Protestants” have the kind of iconoclastic goals or commitments found in the traditions represented by Zwingli and Calvin. McDannell likes to discuss Methodist ideas concerning material Christianity, as though they are in some way diverging from official teaching. He seems to forget that the Anglican tradition (which is the root of Methodist, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal denominations) did not separate from the Catholic church due to a protest concerning teaching, but rather from a jurisdictional issue.
As such, this entire branch of Christianity is much closer to Catholicism–Methodist churches have reliqueries, some Pentecostal’s use relic-based healing methods, not to say anything about an Anglican high mass along with candles and incense! There is even a discussion right now in Anglican circles about modifying a certain liturgical formulation because the Vatican has changed the original–so as to maintain a standardized liturgical tradition (this similarity pervades these traditions in many other aspects as well).
So, it seems to me that McDannell is happy believing that “Protestants” want to protest Catholic teaching and so turns a blind eye to non-Catholics who have little problem with Cathlic ideas concerning material Christianity.
Ben
November 5th, 2007