Abstract
The theological community owes a great debt to David Jasper for his unique contribution to scholarship. Standing within the ‘borderlands’ between the professional study of English literature and theological research, Jasper offers a rich, albeit on occasion challenging, slant within the broader compass of theology and religious studies. This volume is no exception, and, additionally, he engages with his pedigree, which is second to none: Ronald Jasper, his father, was a prolific and pioneering liturgical reformer and the chief architect of the Church of England’s 1980 Alternative Service Book. However, this pedigree does not prohibit him from an occasional stringent critique of contemporary liturgical reforms, including those directed by his father.
Jasper sets out his critique in four main sections: the poetics of language; language and performance in the liturgy of the early Church; liturgy in mediaeval and Reformation England; and, finally, the Alternative Service Book and Common Worship. In all this, he focuses on ‘the power of liturgical language’. Such language carries the theology, and poetics plays a crucial part. Throughout his analysis, Jasper criticizes the tendency to seek out simplicity as a key criterion in developing new and revised liturgical material. He also points to the fracture between liturgy and performance. Earlier in the tradition, he notes a clear element of spontaneity, adjuring a pattern rooted in inflexible approaches to common prayer. Another recurring theme within Jasper’s analysis is the ineluctable use of metaphor in liturgical language, which abhors a crude literalism. He demonstrates the common ground between Cranmer, Tyndale and Coverdale in relation to Shakespeare, Lancelot Andrewes and the broader literary tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Pointing to the general shift from an oral to a largely written culture, Jasper pleads for a rediscovery of a ‘lingering orality’. Clarity and simplicity are not the necessary conditions for effective liturgical language, and he argues that comparative approaches to the liturgy, notably ecumenical, have had a negative effect on liturgical revision. His engagement with both the ASB and Common Worship is spirited, and his analysis of the revision of collects instructive.
This should be a compulsory text for liturgists and liturgical reformers, but Jasper is not an easy read. His impressively wide reading – frequently offering brief snatches of condensed arguments from a variety of sources – often makes the reader wish he might have rested and stayed awhile at various points throughout the books. He notes, however, that this critique does not offer a blueprint. That is clear throughout. Indeed, one might have asked for a few more signposts for the road ahead – avoiding some of the potholes and wrong turnings of the past 50 years. There were one or too curious omissions: some reference to Austin Farrer’s work on images would have been interesting, especially as he was a member of the Liturgical Commission early on. Also, a note of Cathy Hammond’s recent work in this area would have been useful. For all that, there are essential lessons to be learned here.