The author is a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute and a Doctor of Divinity of London University.

A former member of the Old ic !ompany" he has spent many years performing in" and also writing about" #ha$espeare. !urrently he is professor in Theology at %orth &est University" #outh Africa and a #enior Research 'ellow in (ealth #tudies at Roehampton University.

'or Doreen" without whose patient support and encouragement this would never have been written.

Roger Grainger

RITUAL AND THEATRE

!opyright Roger )rainger The right of Roger )rainger to be identified as author of this wor$ has been asserted by him in accordance with section ** and *+ of the !opyright" Designs and ,atents Act -.++. All rights reserved. %o part of this publication may be reproduced" stored in a retrieval system" or transmitted in any form or by any means" electronic" mechanical" photocopying" recording" or otherwise" without the prior permission of the publishers. Any person who commits any unauthori/ed act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. A !I, catalogue record for this title is available from the 0ritish Library. I#0% .*+ -+12.3 14+ www.austinmacauley.com 'irst ,ublished 546-17 Austin 8acauley ,ublishers Ltd. 49 !anada #:uare !anary &harf London ;-1 9L0

,rinted and bound in )reat 0ritain

Ac$nowledgments I would li$e to ac$nowledge the invaluable help and advice given me by <ohn and 8uriel Rowbottom" and Robert #haw.

Preface

This boo$ concerns the relationship between corporate ritual and theatre. This is a sub=ect which is often mentioned but rarely e>amined in any depth. The author is an anthropologist whose wor$ in liturgy and theatrical e>perience has become well?$nown in academic circles" without losing touch with the ordinary reader to whom it is addressed. In particular" his name is associated with the spiritual identity of various $inds of therapeutic theatre" and the anthropological significance that dramatic ritual possesses for human beings everywhere. I shall be pointing out that both theatre and ritual are commonly regarded as peripheral to the real state of affairs concerning human living and dying@ Aoptional e>trasB to the serious business of trying to understand who and what we are. &hile drawing attention to the cultural factors encouraging this" I shall relate it to deeper issues concerning human vulnerability and the impulse to discount the value of realities which defy reduction to the literal. I shall argue phenomenologically" being concerned with the e>amination of e>perience Afrom the inside.B In order to do this" I shall draw supportive evidence from a range of directions C !hristian theology" depth psychology" acting theory" the personal testimony of those involved in theatre and religious ritual" anthropological research" e>istential philosophy C all of which contribute to an understanding of the underlying nature of the ritual impulse and its $inship with theatre. The resulting synthesis is place for a spiritually aware dramaturgy and a theology which is genuinely embodied. The final part of the boo$ concentrates on the narrative significance of the ritual drama and the part this plays in the e>pression of religious awareness by channelling the fundamental psychological yearning for the relationship of

persons within the conte>t of human vulnerability. The role of theatre in overcoming this and opening the way to the meeting of persons is e>amined in depth in the following three chapters" which revolve around the pivotal action of theatre in providing a safe space for encounter in the form of an actual interpersonal happening" a Areal presenceB rather than simply an aspiration. In theatre and ritual the human body turns out to be crucial for overcoming the barriers which divide us from one another and from )od. This theme forms the basis for the remainder of the boo$" in which the spiritual identity of the healing which is intrinsic to the action of theatre and religious ritual comes into clearer focus as notes towards the development of a theology of spiritual re?embodiment which ac$nowledges the centrality of human impulse which gives birth to theatre. I would li$e to than$ three people in particular for their part in preparing this boo$ for publication@ <ohn and 8uriel Rowbottom and Robert #haw. It was <ohn 'enton who first turned my thoughts in this direction and Robert Lambourne who inspired me to set about writing@ ADouBre an actor and priestE so you must concentrate on ritual.B &ithout 0obBs inspirational teaching about human relationships" I would never have started on a =ourney which has lasted for half a century. I dedicate this boo$ to his memory.

Chapter 1
Myth and Meaning: Acting the Story

8yths"- and the dramatic rites which embody them" are essays in the relationship between sameness and difference. They employ narrative in order to direct our attention towards a transcendent story" or in other words a story about transcendence. It is hard to say what this story is and our attempts to do so only succeed in identifying it with the narrative spelt out by the particular story we are considering C which is rather li$e trying to understand a forest by e>amining individual trees growing in it. !ertainly" we can learn a good deal about this tree by measuring" penetrating" comparingE particularly the latter" because there are so many other trees to compare this one with. In fact" there are too many trees" and each one different either by species or individual variation" so that our idea of Aa treeB re:uires perpetual ad=ustment. Only when we perform the mental =ump of considering Aforest"B are we set free from this tas$ of comparing and categorising. 8yth" and its dramatic representation" depends on this $ind of epistemic =ump" and can never really be understood by those who" for one reason or another" decline the opportunity to ma$e it. It originates in the need to e>plain in another way" from a different standpoint. It is a $ind of theorising used to e>plain the e>istence of differences which defy e>planation. As such it constitutes a meta?cultural factor which corresponds to the way in which the mind organises its meanings. 8yth is not a story" but a $ind of evidence about story C its ability to point beyond itself" and to spea$ about the un$nown in language which can be recognised. It is the narrative which
1

This chapter has been reproduced from )rainger 546617.

cries out for e>planationE hence the range of functionalist theories which attempt to ma$e the differences between myth and myth seem reasonable" whereas in fact myths possess their own $ind of logic" one which is concerned with structural principles" not ideas" events" or even personages ta$ing part in the story itself. &hat" then" is this Arecognisable language about the un$nowableFB !an we in fact call it a languageF It certainly deals with the articulation of similarity and difference" as language itself does. Its central organising principle depends upon the perception of similarity within the conte>t of difference C the primal communicatory gesture" both to self and other" in which things as yet une>pressed are included within grammatical structures which are already familiar. At its most basic level" language aims at elucidation" bringing things Aout of dar$ness into lightB C which of course is the purpose of the code of communication identified as myth. 8yth uses ordinary" recogni/able things to underline the significance of something so e>traordinary that it can only be understood in terms of itself. The myth is there to promote understanding of a transcendent truthfulness" one which cannot be compared with anything else. In other words" myth defies understanding by any analysis of its constituent parts" none of which can possibly mean enough by itself" so that ta$en in isolation" apart from Athe whole story"B every stage in it serves to increase our confusion C a fact which stands out most clearly when myths ta$e the form of dramatic ritual" and narrative is acted out as a demonstration of the principles organising any codification of ideas once it is enfleshed in the human e>perience from which it originally emerged. AThe playBs the thingB says (amlet C the entire play" not simply part of it. <ust as the meaning of a sentence subsists in its grammatical structure of articulated similarities and oppositions rather than in the sense of individual words and phrases" so the meaning of the mythic scenario is recognised in its embodiment in the happening itself" the event as this Acomes acrossB in terms of a unified" indivisible" symbol of meaning.

Religious myth and the ritual action which transmits its significance present a relatedness and coordination to which human relationship aspires. The argument is certainly not a new one@ LGvi?#trauss" in particular" has shown how the form of myth reproduces a cognitive structure related to personal and community life by being e>pressed in ways of thin$ing and acting which differ from culture to culture but nevertheless reveal a universal way of AshapingB meaning" thus constituting an ordering which corresponds to the mindBs own C what #chneider refers to as Aa chronological modality of organisationB 5-..2" .67" one which transcends and at the same time validates history by using a temporal se:uence to communicate eternal truth. The impulse to do this proceeds" not from a particular meaning" but from the idea or awareness of meaning itself@ the possibility of meaning. 8yth is the e>pression of a supraliminal truthfulness which ta$es precedence over other $inds of truth at the same time as finding e>pression and historical location in them" substituting its own narrative contingency for that of ordinary events and appearances. It is truth delivered from the contingency which limits ordinary understanding. In this way myth enables us to ma$e contact with the ideal" using our own time?bound e>perience to point beyond itself. The action of dramatising events necessarily sets them at a distance from the literal. ;ven more than ordinary ApracticalB discourse" drama depends on the logic of dissimilarity" in the sense that li$elihood is used to draw attention to the unli$ely. In drama and ritual C as of course in myth C ama/ing things happen to ordinary people. &hat is really ama/ing" however" is the communicability of the ama/ement. The myth continues to awa$e a sense of awe in inverse proportion to our ability to see how it has been put together" the care ta$en by the story?teller to lull our suspicions until the moment of optimal surpriseE the theatrical performance sei/es our imagination afresh however many times we have actually seen the play. Art of all $inds demonstrates the inability of craftsmanship to point us to what lies beyond s$illE it does more than this" because our sense of having made contact with the ine>pressible is actually

increased by being made conscious of the distance between the truth e>pressed and the means of e>pression . . . It appears that the human imagination is able to entertain this transcendent truth as a presence" because the dramatic imagination is in a sense real. &riting about the theatre" <. 0. ,riestley says@ A'ully to appreciate a play we have to maintain a delicate balance between what is ta$ing place apparently on two different levels of the mind. On one level we are involved in the drama" are living imaginatively with its characters. On the other level we are en=oying a performance by actors on a stage" being fully aware that we are in a theatreB 5-.31" --37. Thus the e>perience" of identifying with a person or a situation 5or a person in a situation7 directs our awareness to the circumstances in which this identification is ta$ing place" which are obviously contrived. In fact" as Aristotle originally pointed out" it is the theatricality of the playBs presentation which allows us to entertain the reality of the feelings it portrays" to ta$e them personally C so personally" in fact" as to be changed by them. <ust as theatre gets under our s$in by disguising its emotional reality as fiction" so religious rituals disarm us for our encounter with )od. This perhaps is what LGvi?#trauss means by saying that" A8yths get thought in man unbe$nown to himB 5-.*." 27. If their cognitive function is to clear a space for the eternal they must be able to draw on the authority of eternity" its transcendent perfection of meaning" in order to do so. AOrdinaryB meaning is liberated from the conditions associated with the struggle to ma$e satisfactory sense of lifeE instead we are presented with an an>iety?free e>perience couched in the language of symmetry and balance" so that contrast and concordance" opposition and engagement" arrival and departure" victory and defeat" order and chaos" life and death in fact" chime together through the mirroring of ideas and matching of events C an awareness which is an>iety free because of the assurance of a final meaning. 'rom such a viewpoint individual myths are revealed as variations on the

single theme of the triumph of wholeness perceived as an over? arching Ameta?storyB or Astory about stories.B The oddness of the separate stories constituting the world? wide heritage of mythology" with its bi/arre combinations of logic and absurdity" obvious sense and palpable non?sense" plus the inscrutability which characterises the genre as a whole" serves to distract attention from the formal logic and reasonableness of a story?ma$ing in which the presence of each character and every event is authenticated by their arrangement around the central unifying narrative matri>" namely the =ourney into and out of chaos which for human beings constitutes wholeness. #o far as individual human narratives are concerned" this will necessitate a certain amount of arrangement of detail. Our own story?ma$ing" if it is going to carry any $ind of weight" will have to conform to this outline. (erein lies the main s$ill in storytelling. The pro=ect of constructing narrative always re:uires the rearrangement of material" if only because of the necessity to Aget to the pointB of what is being recounted" and having arrived there" ma$e sure that it is well and truly made. The story itself ta$es time" but its point is timeless. As such it must be led into and out of with considerable care" for what happens at the centre concerns more than the particular people presentE it is" in fact" addressed to every listener everywhere. #torytellers wor$ hard to maintain and to preserve the AtruthfulnessB which Aristotle claimed is the hallmar$ of a genuinely artistic structure" ta$ing care to e>clude things which would be reasonable in ordinary life" but detract from the world created by the storyteller" a world where Apossible impossibilitiesB actually ma$e more sense than Aimpossible possibilitiesB 50utcher" -.9-7. This is the artistic principle which underlies all genuine storytelling" however ad hoc the circumstances" or trivial the sub=ect matter. Discrimination and imagination march together to preserve the transpersonal relevance of stories worth the telling" so that storyteller and audience are brought at the same time to the pivotal clima>" the place where time stops.

This way of clearing a space for the Atruth within the taleB is a cognitive techni:ue available for a wide range of uses" from telling =o$es to tal$ing to psychotherapists and lulling children to sleep 8ost characteristically of all" we use it to e>plain ourselves to ourselves C not by inventing the past but re?writing it in the light of new conclusions we have arrived at with regard to its significance" new ways of interpreting situations which are starting to loo$ different. This is storytelling as discovery rather than invention 5#arbin" -.+37E and" even when the stories we tell are not meant to be about ourselves and are told Afor their own sa$e"B we are liable to recognise our presence in them in ways we had not intended. As with myth" so with less ambitious stories@ meanings told at an angle may be slanted in all directions. The diversified nature of myth?ma$ing 5public or private7 corresponds to the inventiveness of the stories we tell about life. They are all different" and yet at a deeper level they are the same. This is because they are anchored in the central truthfulness to which all their structuring tends. They are impossible to describe in any literal wayE in fact they demonstrate the limits of description. <ust as the point of a story is only understood non?thetically C so that to e>plain it is always to blur its outline and detract from its force C so the myth lives in and through its integrity as revelatory narrative" an event rather than a proposition. 0ecause of its non? discursive" obli:ue" nature" mythology confounds attempts at understanding by analysis. Its purpose is to initiate rather than argueE to lead us to the mysteryBs edge and leave us there. %arratives describe what happenedE they leave us to draw our own conclusions. This is the basic form of the story" which is never a lecture or a sermonE its message is communicated through artistic e>perience rather than literal e>planation. ;ven if a story is believed Abecause it is trueB 5i.e. historically accurate7 the s$ill of the storyteller is always on hand to help us ma$e the $ind of sense for which our mythic awareness reaches out. There is a mythic dimension to personal stories which serves to bring unity out of disorder and meaning out of chaos.

This is brought out in a stri$ing way by certain $inds of therapeutic theatre. The drama?therapy scenario" which corresponds to the characteristic shape of a play" carries with it a clear message about consummation to which our individual story?ma$ing aspires 5)rainger" -..97. &hen the group of patients defined as suffering from Apsychiatric thought disorderB who were members of my drama therapy group at the local day hospital learned to ma$e closer connections in the way they construed the things which happened to them and the people they came into contact with" it was at a deeper level than the ability to organi/e ideas and ma$e logical connections within the parameters set by a psychometric test. &hat actually began to happen was in fact a gradual process of becoming more engaged with" and involved in" meaning itself C or our psychic archetype of it. It appeared to be the case that drama?therapy processes which had been deliberately aimed at producing an environment in which the association of ideas" events and persons could be systematically monitored merely added to peopleBs confusion and sense of being manipulated" whereas allowing scenarios to evolve in their own way" Aat their own speedB" fre:uently produced :uite startling e>amples of insight" described as Amoments when things suddenly fell into placeB" ma$ing their own $ind of sense without benefit of theory. At such =unctures understanding was e>perienced as gift" without any necessity to interpret events in terms of specific factors within the interpersonal situation 5)rainger" -..67. If art itself involves us in this $ind of psychological process of perceptual transformation" then its implicitly narrative AshapeB will result in this non?thetic" ideographic" understanding in other settings as well. Drawing on twenty? seven independent studies of the active ingredient in psychotherapy" Ahn and &ampold 5466-7 demonstrated that Atreatment pac$agesB contain components considered to be theoretically important for producing positive psychological change were not actually more effective than ones which had no such theoretical underpinning. &hatever happened in these cases" it was not something Atheory dependentBE any

understanding had to be arrived at on its own terms C that is in terms of each specific event as it happened. 8ight it not have been the e>perience of being personally involved in a narrative which carried within itself immediate recognition of a superior $ind of senseHF The best e>ample of such narrative involvement is afforded by ritual" which is drama devoted to the e>pression of an awareness that is e>plicitly religious. (ere more than anywhere else" image replaces e>planation and theory proclaims its inability to mediate e>perience" in ways that are really convincing. The =ourney into Awhat lies beyond thoughtB cannot be underta$en in the language of ideas because it sets out to transcend ideation. Instead" it must be completely re? translated into another code of human communication C a use of word and gesture to e>press a yearning that is spiritual rather than intellectual" abandoning the arrogance of argument to immerse itself in a story told by the soul.

Chapter 2
Ritual and Religious Awareness

There is an empirical element in our understanding of religion that consists in the response that men and women ma$e to religious rituals that concern and involve them. This empirical element consists of the e>perience of those ta$ing part" as distinct from the ob=ects or persons which give rise to themE e>periences of a religious $ind which are human and open to analysis" even though they involve ideas about realities defying ob=ectification. )erardus van der Leeuw 5-.2+7 demonstrated that it was possible to regard religion as a human response to elements within our natural environment" natural here being ta$en to mean Aas part of"B rather than simply Ain relation to"B nature. The relational mode 5AthouB7 is understood as a way of being which stands apart from the ob=ective mode 5AitB7@ both I? Thou and I?It are the terms of our natural identity. AThe world"B says 8aurice 8erleau?,onty" Ais always Ialready thereJ before reflection beginsB@ the tas$ of human understanding is to achieve the $ind of belonging which we spend so much time trying to thin$ ourselves out of" thereby Are?achieving a direct and primitive contact with the world and endowing that contact with a philosophical statusB 5-.347. &hat follows is addressed to those who are concerned about much of present day !hristian belonging" seeing it as suffering from a general reduction of force" over?secularised" over?individualised" brought down to earth by homogenisation with the ordinary and everyday@ on the one hand" lac$ing any suggestion of the miracle consciousness that infuses the ancient te>tsE on the other" obsessed with spontaneity and blind to sacredness that wor$s through the unspectacular and the formal. ;ven ta$ing into account our natural tendencies to find

fault with the present and" in line with a fundamental characteristic of religious consciousness" to loo$ bac$ with longing to our own Agolden ages"B there does seem to have been a change in the way many people actually e>perience the celebration of their religious consciousness in the !hristian liturgy. &here there is less shape there is less meaning C more discursive detail" less definition of impact" less propositional force. As I shall attempt to demonstrate later on" less shape also means a reduced capacity to communicate symbolically" because the language of symbolism depends for its semantic power upon the clarity with which one pole of the symbol" the immediate or naturalistic" suggests the other" the ine>pressibly divine. &hen a liturgical act brea$s through the ritual frame so that homology and analogy" music and silence" spontaneity and order become confused and people play different roles at different times" its ability to function as a locus of 5or focus for7 religious e>perience may be greatly reduced. &e shall see that this is a technical matter" concerned with the relationship between cognitive clarity and emotional effect. Once the outline of a liturgical event becomes distorted" its message is necessarily more confused than it was formerly" and this is particularly so when the message is one that is communicated $inetically by means of the relation of bodies within a defined area. In the new liturgies of the Anglican Alternative #ervice 0oo$ the number of alternatives provided for the ordering of each service allows a degree of choice on the part of 8inister and congregation which is liturgically dangerous. On the one hand decisions may be clung onto whether or not they ma$e overall liturgical senseE on the other" the service may be $ept fle>ible and fluid to provide ma>imum spontaneity" with the result that nobody $nows e>actly where they are from one monthBs end to the ne>t. In contrast to the -334 ,rayer 0oo$ and the Latin 8ass" there are very few rubrics. There are many things you can decide to say" but nobody is told how to do anything. The ritual movements and gestures" the musical inflections" are different in every place in which the rite is performed and fre:uently within the same place on different

occasions. As much of the psychological power of the rite is that of focused recognition" this ma$es for a lessening of intensity. The desire to provide as much freedom of interpretation within the service while retaining its overall significance has the effect of blurring the edges of the event and ma$ing it that much less than it is intended to be. The refusal to suggest movement or gesture e>pressive of the riteBs meaning" and the decision to leave such things entirely to the individualBs own liturgical instincts" or lac$ of them" have absurd effects" as in those Anglican parish churches with nave altars" where the celebrant" having invited us to Adraw near with faith and receive"B immediately transfers the consecrated bread and wine to the high altar" wal$ing ceremoniously away from the congregation. Roman !atholic commentators ma$e much the same criticisms of the Roman Rite since the #econd atican !ouncil. This is not surprising" perhaps" seeing that the Anglican version is so greatly influenced by the Roman one. AOne of the complaints most often heard"B says &. <ardine )risbroo$e" Ais that it lac$s a sense of the numinousB 5-..-7. Other words used are Aordinary"B Aflat"B Adepressing"B instead of Auplifting.B 8uch of this has to do with the substitution of a familiar linguistic code for one which was unfamiliar" but whose strangeness was treasured. Roman !atholics" li$e Anglicans" loo$ bac$ nostalgically on the days when the priest spo$e in a strange" special language. It is not only nostalgia that prompts such a response@ the use of Latin and #tuart ;nglish contributed a powerful aesthetic distance to the event" lifting it out of the common flu> of things" giving it a clear outline as something to be understood and grasped. This is the basic human mechanism of ritual and of all the drama that stems from it. To interfere with it by bringing it closer to home is to confuse the issue" to distance it in the wrong way" by ma$ing it less distinguishable. It is not mere nostalgia that ma$es us regret the change but the memory of e>periences of identification and involvement when we leapt the gap and were transformed. A psychological account of how such things came about will form part of this study of the phenomena of

ritual e>perience. The point to be made here is that the heightened predictability distinguishing ritual from ordinary social behaviour allows it to communicate at a different level from that of argument" one that corresponds to 8aritainBs Aintuition of e>istenceB 5-.91" !h. -7" that is" the $nowledge of e>perience which precedes that of analysis or description" the natural philosophic $nowledge implied in the act of being. &e are drawn into relation with the other the more easily because the levels of awareness involved in ordinary understandings are not immediately engaged. The use of words and actions that clearly and unmista$ably signify a religious event" one which by definition ta$es place at a distance from ordinary day?to?day preoccupations" suggests a movement of the human spirit according to which we find ourselves reaching out in order to ma$e contact with the spiritual reality which confronts us. 0y ma$ing things harder" the act of worship is made easier C because it is harder to confuse with anything else that might get in the way. 0y regarding ritual phenomenologically" we try to understand what it Afeels li$eB to ta$e part in the rite. #uch an approach is not primarily concerned with religious doctrines" viewed theologically" but with the psychological" sociological and anthropological significance of such doctrines in their ritual embodiment. Description is more revealing than e>planation" because the e>planation will in many cases be implicit within the description" as the meaning of the rite subsists in its actions" gestures and words. Ritual itself is a way of ma$ing sense of life by means of the shape created by bodily movement. In this boo$" ritual is ta$en to refer to the $ind of social behaviour that is specifically religious" e>pressing the intention of worship and symbolising the awareness of )od. Ritual is the embodiment of the religious vision" a way of disposing human attitudes" intentions and actions" which images forth the precise nature of a relationship with infinityE it is what such a relationship re:uires in symbolic form" the only form in which it can be represented. Rites can be mobile or static" unitary or multiple" noisy or silent" protracted or short. Indeed" although the universal intention to

draw close to )od dictates an underlying ritual shape which occurs universally" the specific sub=ect matter of the rite differs according to the particular culture it e>presses. #hape and occasion contribute to meaningE because rituals are occasions of personal involvement and communicate e>perientially" the propositional content of the rite is ine>tricably fused with the psychological effect it has upon the individual ta$ing part in it. Doctrine and e>perience are mutually significantE ritual is concerned with the way we feel the teachings of religion. If it does not always appear to be very emotional itself" this is because it is a way of organising emotion" of giving form to feelings" reuniting them creatively with the perceptions that give rise to them. Ritual" then" is concerned to give significant form to an intuition about e>istence that is the primal case or condition of our awareness of )od. To call it a AlanguageB is to claim too much of the scientific for itE in itself it is a moving picture rather than a paragraph" a visual story rather than a sentence forming part of a developed C or developable C argument. ,recisely because it functions at the level of pre?formulated awareness" it demands form in order to communicate its meaning and share its e>perience. It seems to me that this natural $nowledge of )od always assumes some ritual e>pression in order to understand itself" some definite mental action or organisation of feeling" which becomes recognisable as an actual rite only when it comes into contact with the e>pressed intuitions of other people. Actual corporate rituals assume an almost infinite range of structures" from the tacit agreement to remain silent" spea$ing only when prompted by the #pirit 5and to do so at the same time and in the same places each LordBs Day7" to the immense religious psychodramas of 0ali or the Liturgy of the Russian Orthodo> !hurch. The preaching tradition of !hristianity" most developed with ,rotestantism" is certainly a form of ritual insofar as it is an attempt to find e>pression for the pre?literate awareness of )od" to which the rite gives a communicable form. (ere communication is e>plicitly propositional" effectively tying in idea and feeling so that the official C or an official C way of

dealing with religious intuition can be commended to those present C and yet the convention according to which it is done has a ritualising effect on the proceedings. ;ven here the transmission of ideas is heavily biased by the weight of impressions. The official interpretation of the significance of the proceedings is communicated as effectively by symbolism as by argument. The bible prominently displayed on the pulpit" the religious insignia on the pulpit fall" the academic gown of the minister" are all reminders of the nature of the event ta$ing place" its e>periential significance as a specifically religious happening which is more personally important" carries more emotional weight than the content of e>hortation and instruction. %on?ritual factors are heavily biased by ritual ones" pre?empting any interpretation offered by biblical readings and ministerial pronouncement and preparing the way for its acceptance. In worship anything can be ritualised" and usually is. !harismatic !hristians manage to ritualise the singing of hymns" thus following in the 8ethodist tradition" but without the theological rigour of &esleyBs poetry. The more immediate and intense" the more personal religious e>perience is" the more it reaches out for embodiment in order to transform the vulnerability of e>istential surrender into definite acts of worship and celebration which can be shared with others and en=oyed as a corporate event. The sense of ta$ing part in religious ritual which is aroused by a charismatic service is somewhat lessened by an obstinate refusal to pay attention to the design of services. The studied arrangement of events" upon which ritual depends" is offensive to people who set great store upon freedom of action and confuse responsiveness with spontaneity. 'or people li$e this" an individual who shouts AAlleluiaKB half way through a prayer acts in a more fitting way than the choir who sing AAmenB at the end of it" because the latter have rehearsed their response and the former has not. The emotional impact of charismatic services is a cumulative effect" of hymn upon hymn" chorus upon chorus" rather than the conscious attempt to symbolise our e>perience of )od by means of an arrangement of gesture" song" poetry and

movement" the world of contrast and balance" e>pansion and contraction" wea$ness and power" light and shade" which together add up to some $ind of picture of divine perfection. #urely" it is argued" we should avoid this $ind of contrivance" which only gets in the way of our unforced response to )od. #trangely enough" spontaneity and freedom show no inclination to shun our efforts to e>press our sense of the divine" no matter how much we try to enshrine it in beautiful and e>pressive rituals. It is not only our aesthetic sense that is moved by these events but our awareness of personal involvement" which is awa$ened by the dramatic shape of the rite. This is not a case of two separate operations ta$ing place at the same time. The riteBs identity as art C as drama C encourages our identification with the characters it embodies. ,henomenologically spea$ing" we have a sense of being ta$en out of ourselves" of losing or forgetting ourselves in order to find ourselves with that shoc$ of recognition of self and other which is e>perienced as a spontaneous access of being. &e are distracted and involved@ the structure of drama produces the freedom of relationship. As ,annenburg says@ Ato the e>tent that human beings e>ist e>ocentrically in a presence to what is other than themselves" precisely as other" and e>periencing themselves from that vantage point" the life?giving power of the #pirit" which raises them above their own infiniteness" manifests itself in an intensified form.B 5-.*6" 9417 Ritual e>ists to provide a means whereby we may Ae>ist e>ocentricallyB and so be open to encounter with what is not ourselves" but reaches out to us" communing with us in shared personhood. &e may say that corporate ritual is human relationship at its best because it sets strangers free to welcome one another as friends" substituting the inclusive structure of the drama for the e>clusive one of personal defensiveness. It sets them free not

in spite of its artificial or contrived nature but because of it. Role and function are systematically distinguished to constitute the riteBs structure" each component dependent upon the others for its meaning and significance" none confused with anything else to the e>tent of losing its own identity. &hat is represented here is not divinity C nothing as crude as this could be mista$en for )od C but that aspect of humanity which is in harmony with )od" the aspect of individuals?in?relationE the personhood which mediates )od for us. The rite proclaims its identity as rite" an agreement to behave in certain ways specially chosen because of their metaphysical implications. The more naturalistic such behaviour is" the greater the chance of its being mista$en for ordinary life" in which case the intention to provide a meeting place with )od will turn out to be a failure. #pecial intentions re:uire special circumstances. It is not people and things that are to be avoided in the rite" but ordinary non?significant everyday living. This presents us with something of a problem. To regard )od as part of the furniture suggests blasphemy but to confuse him with even the most beautiful of our constructions is idolatry. !hristian re=ection of ritual as idolatrous" an attempt to capture )od in an artefact" stretches bac$ to the earliest years of the church. 0ut genuine religious ritual avoids any suggestion that the living scenario it inhabits is a picture of divinity in any but a strictly sacramental sense. The artificial nature of the proceedings is always clearE there is no way in which our ideas about )od are to be identified with )od himself. &hat we have here is a play about )od in which he is e>perienced as somehow being present" located in but not confused with whatever ta$es place. The obviously contrived nature of the proceedings serves to underline their humanity. &e are not dealing primarily with thoughts but with persons" places and events. In the event we are led into an e>perience before we grasp an idea" and it is in the e>perience that the encounter ta$es place" not as something we can grasp but as someone we can meet. In regarding ritual as a defence against the intellectualisation of religion" we must be careful not to imply

that the aesthetic nature of ritual is anything other than a natural e>pression of humanness. <ust as drama is inherent in self?presentation so far as our social life goes" ritual is a natural presentation of self and others before )od. Ritual" li$e drama" is not any $ind of imitation of life" crude or sophisticated" but a focused encounter with the personal processes involved in living. Rather than being AonlyB a metaphor or symbolic substitute for life" it is the way that life wor$s within a particular setting. The idea of focusing attention is crucial to an understanding of the fundamental humanity or naturalness of what is ta$ing place. #ocial psychologists point out that there is a process of selection at wor$ in every $ind of social actionE we are able to confine our attention to specific situations within our current personal reality 50urns" -.*47. <ust as we find it natural to limit our awareness of the world to the circumstances involved in solving a mathematical problem" so we can" and do" decide to be aware only of what is happening to the members of our species represented in a secular drama" or the religious movements of ritual. At such times the power of human attentiveness creates a $ind of reality ta$ing precedence over other $inds of social awareness. There is no deception involvedE limiting the terms of recognition is something that we do :uite naturally. &or$s of art" visual" aural" $inetic" are the tools of our trade which we use to narrow our ga/e and widen our awareness. They are certainly things" but they help us to e>press and e>ert our humanity. To return to our empirical element. Things that are familiar yet strange" beautiful yet rooted in imperfection" essential but inade:uateE words that are not elo:uent enough" movements not e>pressive enough" music not harmonious enough 5whoever wrote it7" vestments that are half dignified" half clownish" all things that operate in the gap between actuality and perfection" acceptable appro>imations that )od alone can realise" these things both proclaim their own inade:uacy and point us to )od. This is the innocent certitude described by 8aritain" the purely natural $nowledge which is ours before we reach the stage of Anormalisation"B and must ma$e sense of things. This is something we can only ma$e real sense of when

we ac$nowledge its primal claim upon our awareness and allow it to ma$e sense of us. It is a relational awareness" awareness about relationship originating in and referring to an original encounter which is the terms of our personhood C original in a sense that includes time rather than being included in it. AIn the beginning"B says 8artin 0uber" Ais relation.B Ritual sets the scene for a self? conscious re?enactment of the primal event in which the self is made manifest in and through its relationship to the Other. The enactment is self?conscious because it is specially contrived@ at this time and place men and women set about e>pressing an intention to draw close to the source of life. The harder they wor$ away at defining their position in a wor$ of e>pressive art" the more they contribute to the relational nature of the event" the Apolar unity of feelingB 50uber" -.9*" 3*7 which characterises real encounter. In the rite" I present myself as one who draws no conclusions" ma$es no claims" using my artistry to present truth not fiction" to reveal myself as I amE as" without wor$ing it out or meditating upon it" I $now myself to be. In ritual we proclaim our limitation" by reducing our commenting and comparing humanness to the strict outline of a wor$ of art" our natural way of achieving immediacy in the perception of what is not ourselves. A%o system of ideas" no fore$nowledge" and no fancy intervene between I and Thou.B 50uber" -.9+" --7 The function of the rite is to do all that is humanly possible that this shall be the case. It is important to realise that the rite contributes to the sense we have of turning away from ourselves towards the other person" and conse:uently towards the Otherness of )od. The sheer AfacticityB of ritual" its nature as a human arrangement" wor$s in the direction of countering the confusion of identities that inhibits the meeting of otherness" which is the primal fact of relationship. Ritual resembles the $ind of drama that proclaims its own theatricality and" without attempting to seduce the spectator" draws him or her imaginatively into the playBs actionE it is precisely by avoiding seduction that a free meeting is achieved" for we identify without any feeling of manipulation. &e $now it is Aonly a

playB C we can see the curtains" the lights" the stage or the arena C but the truth it enshrines is human truth. In the rite it is divine truth" and not a whit less true by being Aonly a rite.B The obviously human movements" gestures and sounds distance all the actors" clerical and lay" from transcendence that bec$ons them" demonstrating their need to be transformed. The separation of theatron from skene is not so obvious as in the theatre" in that it is not always a visible line of demarcation between two groups of human beings. In ritual the line is between people and )odE but it wor$s =ust the same way" turning us to (im and to one another. This is not to demote )od by presenting (im as some $ind of e>alted artistic creation" or to claim a specifically religious identity for drama as a human activity. (uman beings naturally e>press themselves in ways that can be presented theatrically. As )rossvogel says" AAt the beginning of theatre there is merely the act of the human being whose gesture binds him to another beingB 5-.34" -+67. 'or a person to order his or her actions and words" or to act spontaneously in a dramatic way" is for that person to e>press her or himself Anaturally.B 'or someone to be Adrawn into the actionB as a result of observing what is going on is e:ually authentic unspecialised human behaviour. 0ecause this is the way we encounter one another" it must have some bearing on the way we regard our relationship with a personal )od. To act in other ways is not to present ourselves as we are. Thus the dramatic nature of ritual helps us relive the innocence and wholeheartedness that characterised relationships Ain illo tempore"B the eternity recalled and re? presented within the rite. This being the case" we must agree with Ronald )rimes when he says@ AThere is a sense in which the e>ercise is the hierophany. Ritual symbols and gestures bear the sacred. 0read does bear the ,resence. Dogs do have 0uddha nature. If either dogs or bread is incapable of bearing the sacred load" so is everything else.B 5-.+4" 117