Dr. Michael Hjälm. Liberation of the Ecclesia The Unfinished Project of Liturgical Theology (2011)

« Liberation of the Ecclesia 1 2 Liberation of the Ecclesia The Unfinished Project of Liturgical Theology Michael Hjälm Uppsala University 3 Abstract Doctoral dissertation presented at the Department of Theology, Uppsala University, 2011 Hjälm, Michael.

2011.

Liberation of the Ecclesia.

The Unfinished Project of Liturgical Theology.

Södertälje: Anastasis Media + 336 pp This dissertation is a critical study of the paradigm of Liturgical Theology.

Focus in this systematic inquiry has been on the Russian school with the focal point in the works of Alexander Schmemann, who was active in the late 20th century.

The main question of the thesis concerns the relation between theory and practice in Liturgical Theology. It is claimed that the relation between theory and practice corresponds to the relation between ritual action and communicative action.

The former concerns the identity founded on the unavoidable alterity immanent in life, but also transcending life through a holistic encounter with life, which enables us to express a holistic attitude to life and the entire world.

The latter concerns the equally unavoidable rationalization of life which gives rise to a continuous atomization of life through science and the process of acquiring facts and data. The thesis makes use of different theories for the reaching of an explanatory theory in connection to theory and practice.

Foremost the Theory of Communicative Action in the works of Jürgen Habermas and the re-interpretation of disclosure by Nikolas Kompridis is used.

It is claimed tthat ritual action is connected to a primary disclosure attached to otherness with the intention of revealing the identity of the Ecclesia.

Without identity, we are left with a never-ending debate and a continuous atomization where every answer exponentially provokes more questions.

Communicative action then is connected with a secondary co-disclosure with the intention for the reaching of mutual understanding, making subjects accountable and responsible.

Without communicative action we are bound on a long walk into the never ending sea of being.

The missionary imperative in the Ecclesia is dependent on the co-existence of ritual action and communicative action. Keywords: communicative action, disclosure, ecclesia, emancipation, identity, lifeworld, liturgical theology, ordo, ortho, otherness, rationalization, ritual action, theory and practice. Michael Hjälm, Department of Theology, Church and Mission studies, Box 511, Uppsala University, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden © Michael Hjälm 2011 ISBN 978-91-978719-2-1 Printed by ScandBook AB, Sweden 2011 4 To Nonna, Makrina and Xenia 5 6 Content Preface 9 Introduction 13 PART ONE: Rationalization of Theology 1.

The theological calling within the Church A.

The Spiritual Vision of the Coming Kingdom B.

The Eucharistic Ecclesiology C.

Catholicity and Ecumenicity D.

Khomiakov, the Slavophiles and the Principle of Sobornost’ 2.

Liturgical Theology A.

The Paradigm of Liturgical Theology B.

Liturgical Theology as an Instrument for Emancipation. C.

Emancipation as Understanding D.

Shifting from Private Piety to Common Participation in the Kingdom 3.

The Ambiguity of Liturgical Theology A.

The Theological Calling from within the Church B.

The Ordo Localized C.

A Genetic Vision of the Present D.

Proletarian, communitarian and quotidian E.

The Double Ambiguity of Liturgical Theology 25 33 35 40 51 59 69 69 78 81 PART TWO: Rationalization of the Ecclesia 4.

Beyond the Classical Subject A.

The End of the Classical Subject and the Way forward B.

Neo-Palamist Tradition C.

Neo-Palamist Ecclesiology D.

Liturgical Theology and Neo-Palamist Ecclesiology 5.

Communicative Action and Inter-subjective Theory A.

Habermas’s Inter-subjective Theory and Emancipational Understanding of Reality B.

Ritual Action C.

Theology and Philosophy D.

Ecclesia and Lifeworld.

Communicative Action and Liturgical Theology 84 92 92 99 103 106 111 115 117 119 120 128 145 148 149 161 171 179 7 6.

Ecclesia as Lifeworld A.

Ecclesia as Lifeworld B.

Passing from Ritual Action to Communicative Action C.

Rationalization: Passing from Existence to Experience D.

Colonization of the Ecclesia E.

Actions for Reversing the Colonization of the Ecclesia F.

The Unfulfilled Process of Rationalization 7.

The Reification of the Ecclesia A.

Theory and Practice B.

Discourse and Practice in Habermas’ Later Reasoning C.

Reification and Colonization D.

Reification in the Works of Schmemann E.

The Ambiguity of Liturgical Theology PART THREE: Reconstruction of Liturgical Theology 8.

Disclosure and Intersubjectivity A.

Habermas and World Disclosure B.

Overcoming the Opposition between World Disclosure and Reason C.

A Comprehensive Conception of Reason and World Disclosure D.

Identity as similarity and dissimilarity 9.

Liturgical Theology, World Disclosure and Intersubjectivity A.

The Birth of the Church B.

The Calling of Conscience from Within C.

The Transformative Agency of the Ecclesia D.

A Renewed Understanding of the Inter-Subjective Dimension of the Ecclesia E.

Overcoming the Dichotomy 8 189 190 195 203 210 215 216 219 219 227 234 237 243 259 262 262 266 272 278 284 284 293 297 299 305 Summary and Conclusions 311 Bibliography 315 Preface Science cannot offer us anything that makes our existence meaningful or bearable.1 Peter Nilson, Star Tracks, 1991. This dissertation is the end of a long journey.

Due to private reasons I was supposed to take one year off from my research but instead it turned out to be almost nine years in effect.

During these nine years I was serving the Church working in a Study Association with the purpose of educating the laity.

My focus was not in establishing mere facts but connecting these facts with meaning.

I remembered reading a quotation from Peter Nilson, an Associate Professor of Astronomy, stating that science is not capable of offering us anything that makes our existence meaningful or bearable.

During these years outside the academe I realized that there is an inherent difference between meaning and learning as well as a dialectical relation between them.

Serving the Church I realized that there is simply no meaning without the Church, for those engaged in and with the Church. My interest of the relation between meaning and learning was further developed when I took part in the discussion on the difference between Ecclesiology and Ecclesiality, which my professor, SvenErik Brodd, developed in his article ‘Ecclesiology and Ecclesiality [in Swedish]’.2All this intrigued me and when I reentered the academe taking up my old dissertation on Liturgical Theology in the works of Alexander Schmemann I slowly began to realize that his persistence on moving theology from the academe to the People of God, assembled for prayer, challenged the academical curriculum, but at the same time he made himself dependent on the same academe for making this move.

I also realized that he was unable to complete this move and my initial interest began as a search for a viable explanation to this unfinished process. The result turned out to be a complex network of relations between meaning and learning, theory and praxis, as well as knowledge and interests.

The next step in my research was to find an intelligible structure to organize these relations, enabling me to complete the unfinished 1 2 The quotation is originally in Swedish, see Nilson 1991, Stjärnvägar. Brodd 1996, ‘Ecklesiologi och ecklesialitet’. 9 project of Liturgical Theology in the works of Schmemann.

Eventually I ended up proposing a theory of a two-fold axis in theology.

The first axis consists of ritual action for establishing solidarity and identity in the Church, which I identified as a lifeworld, a concept clarified by the works of Jürgen Habermas, and the other axis consists of communicative action for establishing mutual understanding and consensus.

Together these two axes ensure that ecclesial life develops and progresses, as well as making it possible to combine the academe with the Church, but also differentiating the academe from the Church and at the same offering an intelligible structure for vivifying academic theology. Working out a theory for comprehending these two axes has not been an easy task since I have been forced to draw theories from different scholarly fields and even different paradigms, simply because one of the major findings in my research is the importunate insistence on separating these two axes from each other.

Therefore I have been forced to reconstruct as well Habermas as Schmemann to make my thesis workable.

This has meant an increased complexity but something I hope my readers will find to be a challenge and not only a discouragement. § Instead of relating to the original German or Russian texts I have tried to make my references to the English translations, but whenever my arguments depends on reading the original text or if the translation is inadequate in sustaining a proper understanding I have made my references to the original text together with the English translations. Sometimes, of course, there are simply no translations and therefore no English references.

I have also transcribed all Russian and Greek texts into Latin script except when it occurs in a quotation; this counts also for the bibliography.

Furthermore I have used the author-date system for my documentation but complemented with title concerning the notes to make it easier to connect the notes with the text. § There are so many whom I wish to thank, but first of all I wish to express my gratitude.... »