Helig teater - om liturgin som drama

Abstract

I was inspired to write this article after having read a text by Owe Wikström, “The Art of Going to Church” (Konsten att gå i kyrkan), a report from a religious sociological investigation in Gothenburg (TRO & TANKE 1994:4). In the final article of this report Wikström discusses the psychology of the Holy Service. He presents a psychological theory on the individual’s experience of the service, making comparisons between liturgy and theatre: “In a sociopsychological perspective liturgy is a stylised play with fixed characters, a religiously legitimised structure of behaviour within a given fictional contract”. His comparison between liturgy and theatre has led me to explore what liturgy and theatre might have in common, and where the similarities end.  

The liturgy which I start from is the main service of the liturgic churches—The Holy Communion—which is compared with the theatrical as well as the epic drama in the sense of an exciting narrative. It is not uncommon among liturgic writers to compare liturgy with theatre. I have found comparisons like that, e.g., in Nicolas Zernov and Arne Bugge’s Russian-Orthodox Liturgy as well as in Bo Giertz’ The Lutheran Mass.  

Furthermore, several writers have called the descriptions of Jesus Christ in the Gospel a drama in the epic sense. Gustaf Aulén writes about “christological drama”. Dorothy Sayers thinks that the story of Christ is “the most exciting drama that has ever moved the fantasy of the human being”.  

It is the epic “christological drama” that is the inspiration of all the liturgies of the Church.  

Above all, liturgy and the drama of the theatre have in common that they both create texts through words and action. Liturgy creates the christological drama, while theatre creates a manuscript for a play. The rites and the symbols are the liturgy’s own language. I provide several examples on how the words of the liturgy become animated through movements and gestures in rites and symbolic actions. The corporal language of the actors has another function, namely to animate the action of the play in order to engage the audience. The world they create on the stage is, however, a world of fiction. The science of the theatre uses the words fictional con­ tract. On the one hand, the actors create a world of fiction and illusions, and the audience agrees to the contract. The participants of the liturgy, on the other hand, establish a contract of faith. The Christians trust the words of Christ: “For where two or three come together in my name, I am there with them” (St. Matthew 18:20). The service would lack sense altogether, if it were not true for the participants that the liturgy is a real meeting with the God they believe in.  

The action of the drama of the theatre takes place as the audience visualises it. It has a quality of simultaneousness. The same can he said of liturgy. It is possible to talk of “the today of liturgy”. The temporal and spatial distances between Christ and the Christians disappear in the liturgy. “The Church invites the human being to identify with the people around Jesus”, writes Anders Piltz in “Honey from out of the Rock” (Honung ur klippan). The today of liturgy resounds in many liturgic hymns. The action of the Holy Communion takes place in the actual moment of the celebration of the mass.  

My comparison continues with the help of Brockett’s description of the theatre as an institution in the history of the theatre. Before making a more detailed comparison, I present some samples of what I call “poor liturgy”. In the early Church the liturgic action was limited to the breaking of bread (= a name of the Holy Communion) as the Christians gathered in their houses at dawn of the day of the Lord. The rites and the symbolic actions that animated the readings of the scriptures were very simple. This can still be the case today.  

Later, the liturgy became something of an institution, especially in the big churches that were built during the post-Constantine period in the 4t1n century onwards. The first liturgic hooks (that correspond to the play-writing of the theatre) were written at this time. The symbolic and ritual actions (that correspond to the acting of the theatre) became more elaborated. The elements of theatre—such as costume, scenery, lighting, proper­ ties, and theatre architecture—have their correspondents in the liturgic garments, the church room, and the lighting, liturgic accessories and architecture. All these elements interact with the liturgic texts and actions in order to animate the service even more. Brockett does not mention music as a particular element. Music has, however, an even greater importance to liturgy than theatre music may have. The musical action takes part in the production of “signs” or forms through which the Church celebrates, praises, confesses and prays, continuously receiving the word of God and uniting with Christ, while waiting for the final perfection.  

“Holy theatre” is an expression that might he understood negatively as well as positively. It may he understood negatively when liturgy becomes something made by ministers for the people, not something created by the Christian people themselves, which is the true meaning of the Greek word liturgy. In a positive sense it is possible to speak of holy theatre when people act together. I refer to the most theatrical rites of the Church, namely those that appear during Holy Week and during the three holy days of Easter.  

In the final part of the article I establish that liturgy has many things in common with the theatre, hut that it differs on one point especially. Liturgy is an action of prayer, a conversation with God, whereas theatre is a dialogue between people, sometimes about God. The word drama well de- scribes the story of the life of Jesus, but it can only partially describe liturgy as a ritual action. As an art form, however, theatre is—as is all art—an emanation of the great Creator. It is therefore natural that liturgy uses theatrical elements as a means to speak to all the senses of the human being.