An element of Protestant reserve toward all things cultic or theocratic seems apparent here, and it prevents Wolff from seeing that Joel is really rather well
disposed to the cult, whose temporary interruption he mourns. A theology that
incorporates in sights from Joel will have to be much more hospitable than Wolff
is to including a liturgical perspective. It is perfectly possible to do this without selling out to a kind of ex opere operato attitude in which liturgy is simply
a matter of “correct” performance. Consider the wise comments of Alexander Schmemann:
To some—the “liturgically minded”—of all the activities of the Church, liturgy
is the most important, if not the only one. To others, liturgy is esthetic and spiritual deviation from the real task of the Church. There exist today “liturgical” and “non-liturgical” churches and Christians. But this controversy is unnecessary for it has its roots in one basic misunderstanding—the “liturgical” understanding of the liturgy. This is the reduction of the liturgy to “cultic” categories, its definition as a sacred act of worship, different as such not only from the “profane” area of life, but even from all other activities of the Church itself. But this is not the original meaning of the Greek word leitourgia [or, we may add, of Hebrew ‘0bôdâ]. It meant an action by which a group of people became something corporately
which they had not been as a mere collection of individuals—a whole greater than the sum of its parts. It meant also a function or “ministry” of a man or a group on behalf of and in the interest of the whole community. Thus the leitourgia of ancient Israel was the corporate work of a chosen few to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah.
Источник: J. Barton. Joel and Obadiah. А Commentary. Lousville, 2001. P. 65-66.
#Иоиль@antisigmas
#читаемое@antisigmas