Preserving and transforming the ritual

Abstract

In this article, we analyse how Communion as a religious ritual is perceived in rapidly changing circumstances. As a case study, we examine the views of Finnish Lutheran ministers and parishioners regarding online Communion and use empirical data (N = 333) collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of focusing on the pandemic period per se, we treat Communion as a religious ritual that is under renegotiation during a time of change. We ask whether there are differences in the stances of pastors and lay people, and in what ways do similarities and differences occur among the respondents. We identified two main stances towards online Communion – preservers and transformers. For preservers, adherence to canonized ritual was most important, whereas transformers were keen to create new ritual practices and consider ritual objects anew. However, the majority of respondents held quite a negative stance regarding online Communion. Ministers and lay respondents had similar arguments about online Communion regarding practical, church ordinal, and doctrinal perspectives, while divergent views emerged on authority and lay agency. It seems that for the vast majority, preserving a key religious ritual serves as a means of maintaining stability in unstable times.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The discussion on online Communion took place not only in Finland, but all over the Christian world. See, e.g., Dirk G. Lange’s 24 March 2020 blog post, “Digital Worship and Sacramental Life in a Time of Pandemic” (https://www.lutheranworld.org/blog/digital-worship-and-sacramental-life-time-pandemic); Berger, “@ Worship in the Epicenter,” 118–9; Johnson, “Online Communion, Christian Community,” 188–210; Foley, “Spiritual Communion,” 245; Turnbull, “Clarifying the Grammar,” 40–57.

2 Salomäki, “Seurakunnat ja koronakriisi,” 1.

3 Each bishop published a pastoral letter at the website of their dioceses. These letters were rather uniform in content, but also contained personal emphases. See, e.g., Häkkinen, “Hyvät kirkkoherrat”. See also Ahonen et al., “'Sacrament of (Be)longing',”42–3.

4 Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko, “Jäsentilasto 2023.”

5 Cranston, “Habitual Sustainability,” 101; Orsi, “Madonna of 115th Street,” xxxix, xxxvii. See also, e.g. McGuire, “Lived Religion”.

6 Avishai, “‘Doing Religion’,” 413, 428–9.

7 Burkitt, “Relational Agency,” 322; Chandler-Olcott and Hinchman, “Agency,” 361.

8 Bandura, “Social Cognitive Theory,” 1–26; Hallamaa and Kalliokoski, “How AI Systems Challenge,” 57.

9 Hüsken and Neubert, “Negotiating Rites,” 1–2.

10 Bell, “Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice,” 19.

11 McClure, “Divining the Sacred,” 727–42; Klocová and Geertz, “Ritual and Embodied Cognition,” 82.

12 See Klocová and Geertz, “Ritual and Embodied Cognition,” 83; Schjoedt et al., “Highly Religious Participants,” 199–207.

13 Ramshaw, “The Personalization,” 171–8.

14 See, e.g. Adeel et al., “The Impact of Spirituality,” 400–24; Seryczynska et al., “Religious Capital,” 67–82.

15 Hüsken and Neubert, “Negotiating Rites,” 3.

16 Danbolt and Stifoss-Hanssen, “Ritual and Recovery,” 352–60.

17 Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko, Katekismus, 37§. For an overview on Martin Luther’s eucharistic theology, see, e.g., Jensen, “Luther,” 322–32.

18 Cranston, “Habitual Sustainability,” 110–11, 114.

19 Ann-Maarit Joenperä, “Jumalan lapset isän sylissä,” 91, 98–101.

20 Niemelä, “Female Clergy as Agents,” 358–71.

21 Salomäki et al., “Religion in Daily Life.”

22 See, e.g., McGuire, “Lived Religion,” 12.

23 For physicality, materiality, and the opposition between virtual and real, see, e.g., Berger, “@ Worship,” 56–7, 69–70, 84–8 et passim; Thompson, “Christ is Really Present.”

24 Kotila, “Liturgian lähteillä,” 233.

25 Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko, Palvelkaa Herraa iloiten, 25.

26 Danbolt and Stifoss-Hanssen, “Ritual and Recovery,” 355–6.

27 Johnson, “Online Communion,” 209.

28 Bell, “Ritual Theory,” 197.

29 However, ministers were more independent and critical towards bishops’ instructions regarding the overall arrangements of worship and other activities of the congregation not relating to questions concerning online Communion. Kallatsa and Sini, “‘Kaipuun sakramentista’,” 8–9.

30 Cf. Danbolt and Stifoss-Hanssen, “Ritual and Recovery,” 356.

31 Cf. Baker et al., “Religion,” 357–70; Rafoss, “Enemies of Freedom,” 297–314; Rafoss, “Å føle fellesskap,” 225–40.

32 Cf. Bell, “Ritual Theory,” 130.

33 Cf. Danbolt and Stifoss-Hanssen, “Ritual and Recovery,” 358.