religions Article
A “Liturgical Mysticism of Open Eyes”: Johann Baptist Metz, Caryll Houselander, and Pandemic Liturgy Samantha Slaubaugh Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; sslaubau@nd.edu
Abstract: The German theologian Johann Baptist Metz (1928–2019) called for a spirituality that sees more suffering, not less, the more liberated it is; he has described this as a “mysticism of open eyes.” This theological vision involves all people, living and dead, becoming free to stand as subjects before God. Caryll Houselander (1901–1954), an English author, developed a liturgically infused mysticism focused on seeing Christ in each person. Her vision of Christ in others was rooted in creatively portraying the particularities of human life in the great “rhythm” of the Christ-life lived in the Mystical Body and expressed in the liturgy. This article proposes that juxtaposing these two authors reveals a “liturgical mysticism of open eyes,” playing off Metz’s initial phrasing. The work of Metz and Houselander together presents a fruitful liturgical theology for Christian communities during and in response to the pandemic as they engage questions of suffering, justice, and responsibility. By rooting our decisions about liturgical and social lives in a “liturgical mysticism of open eyes,” the church may remain rooted to a liturgical spirituality, while also recognizing and being open to the suffering of individuals and communities while liturgies are altered, moved online, or postponed altogether. Citation: Slaubaugh, Samantha.
Keywords: Johann Baptist Metz; Caryll Houselander; COVID-19; pandemic; social justice; suffering; oppression; liturgy; worship; ethics
2021. A “Liturgical Mysticism of Open Eyes”: Johann Baptist Metz, Caryll Houselander, and Pandemic Liturgy. Religions 12: 685. https:// doi.org/10.3390/rel12090685 Academic Editor: Edward Foley Received: 15 July 2021 Accepted: 23 August 2021 Published: 26 August 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
1. Introduction At first glance, there seems to be little in common between Johann Baptist Metz (1928–2019), the German priest and professional theologian known for political theology, and Caryll Houselander (1901–1954), the English lay theologian and artist known for liturgically infused work. However, each theologian was deeply marked by World War II, making a theology of the passion, or of compassion, a primary aspect of their work. Their experiences of mass death and suffering make both Metz and Houselander helpful sources of theology as the world reels from the loss of life and suffering caused by both the coronavirus pandemic and the oppression that flows from white supremacy and Western colonialism.1 Reading the two together, moreover, further enriches the gaps in each author’s thought. While Metz worked on political theology, he did not develop a liturgical and sacramental focus. Scholars such as (Morrill 2000) and (Eggemeier 2012) have taken up this lacuna in Metz, proposing other authors to complement Metz. Houselander, on the other hand, focused greatly on liturgy and sacramental life while saying much less on political theology. However, each author presents, through different approaches, a mystical theology of openness to the other in which the memory of Christ is brought to bear as an interpretive framework for both the present and the future. Metz’s “mysticism of open eyes” combines with Houselander’s liturgical mysticism into a “liturgical mysticism of open eyes,” that challenges us today to make choices for our communities of faith through a rootedness in liturgy that does not distort the memory of Christ’s passion. To support this claim, this essay first examines Metz’s theological vision of a mysticism of open eyes. Second, it looks at key themes in Houselander’s liturgically rooted mystical theology. Finally, the essay concludes with questions aimed to interrupt our practice of liturgy in light of both the
Religions 2021, 12, 685. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090685
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions