In this essay I have tried ways to understand the meaning of the symbolic act that took place in the morning service on November 24, 2019 in Mariakyrkan, Gävle. I have first tried how the symbolic act can be understood within the dominant tradition of worship in the Church of Sweden, and its historical background in Lutheran Orthodoxy. It is a tradition with a strong emphasis on preaching and teaching, where hearing is the main task of worship. The verbal communication has over the last 50 years had to make way for more sensual communication in worship life. Although the sensuous is more present in today's worship celebrations, it has been difficult to find an understanding of meaning in the symbolic act that has been tried, as it is neither accompanied by any explanation for how it should be interpreted nor be teaching. Then I tested the example against the understanding of symbols that have come from greater liturgical awareness in the Church of Sweden's services. Nor does the result of it provide an understanding of meaning for the example of the intercession stones. What I find after trying the symbol act against the liturgical symbolism that has been resurrected within the Church of Sweden is not a sentence, but rather it is a resistance by being new and has no roots backwards that give it interpretation and/or meaning. To test whether it is possible to find meaning of the symbolic act of newer liturgical theology, I have turned to first Gordon Lathrop and his thinking about ordo, symbols and juxtapositions. Lathrop gave human life space throughout its joy and noise, but it was still not possible to find an understanding of a meaning in the symbolism. At Lathrop there is too strong an emphasis on the sacred things that he brings up as the word, table, bath, prayer. How these sacred things, in different combinations juxtaposition, are crucial to how Lathrop sees a sense of meaning. My example with the intercession stones never ends up in a juxtaposition of the kind necessary to create a voltage field for interpretation according to Lathrop. Nor does the intercession stones have the "depth" of Lathrop's sacred things or allude to them. The result is that it is not possible to find an understanding of a meaning in the symbolic act by Lathrops liturgical theology. I turn to the Liturgical theologians Lena Sjöstrand. Through her dissertation, I find that understanding of a meaning in the symbolic act. Sjöstrand believes that there is a possible meaning, but it cannot be described in words, it is at a level where verbalization or character interpretation is not possible, because at the atmospheric level it is not about intellect but about having confidence that what is happening actually is happening. In the example of the symbolic act of the intercession stones, we need to have a confidence that something is happening, together the worshippers pray Kyrkans förbön; With the help of bodies, stones, music, light, visible, and at the atmospheric level something that is not visible. This is not possible to explain, nor is it necessary to find a common understanding of what is happening.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-402832 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | Hedin, Christina |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Kyrko- och missionsstudier |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds