While western liturgical scholarship is deeply indebted to the pioneering work of Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann, eastern liturgical theologians have been slower to embrace and incorporate western thought and discourse into their own. Brian Butcher’s book constitutes an important step forward in the conversation between the east and the west. Liturgical Theology after Schmemann: An Orthodox Reading of Paul Ricoeur offers a thorough synthesis of Ricoeurian thought presented in light of common themes in liturgical theology: the relationship between praying and believing, the grounding of the liturgical event in either text or performance, attention to the liturgical subject both human and divine, and the role of history and memory in liturgical transmission and interpretation. The text is bookended by conversations with two Eastern liturgical theologians: Alexander Schmemann in the first chapter and Nicholas Denysenko in the last. This framing orients this book well to an audience who is chiefly versed in eastern liturgical scholarship.
In the first part of his book, Butcher introduces two key features in Schmenann’s liturgical theology. He begins with Schmemann’s assertion that the liturgical text is the bearer of the authentic and unchanged tradition of the church that gives rise to a singular, normative theological interpretation. Butcher echoes common western critiques of Schmemann’s assumption of a largely ahistorical and static rite that, if properly interpreted, will yield its definitive theology. Butcher nods to the contributions of recent historical scholarship in addressing this limitation, but his primary concern is with the liturgical theologian’s interpretive task. While many western scholars have moved beyond Schmemann by employing liturgical analyses that privilege the ritual celebration of the rite, Butcher is not yet ready to cede the priority of the liturgical text. Given the significance of the written word for the Christian tradition, Butcher maintains the priority of the liturgical text in the work of liturgical theology even in the context of the liturgical performance. Butcher finds Schmemann’s corresponding theological anthropology of homo adorans (humanity at prayer before God), to be less problematic although still in need of development. Whether the theological concern is with the object or subject of the liturgy, Butcher argues that moving beyond Schmemann requires that the theologian recognize the liturgy itself invites and even requires interpretation. Butcher finds in Ricoeur a philosophy that can rise productively to this hermeneutical task.
The bulk of the book explores and explicates Ricoeurian themes relevant to the concerns of liturgical theology. Part 2 takes up the function of metaphor in poetic discourse and explores this theme in light of the biblical and liturgical practices of naming God. Ricoeur’s contention that metaphor contains a surplus of meaning leads Butcher to explore the expansive and inclusive polyphony of naming in the Christian tradition, as well as the productive tension between kataphatic and apophatic names for the divine in Byzantine liturgies. In part 3, Butcher takes up the question of the liturgical subject, Schmemann’s homo adorans, through Ricoeur’s themes of human subjectivity, historiography, and the generation of memory. For Butcher, attention to liturgical subjectivity leads quickly to questions about truth. Thus, these chapters also include a sustained conversation about truth as attestation and the importance of fiction and imagination for the transmission and recognition of truth. While Butcher is attentive to tying his exploration of Ricoeur to contemporary liturgical themes and questions, he does this most often by referring to the work of western liturgical theologians. With few exceptions, the reader must wait until the end of the book to find a sustained hermeneutical analysis of a Byzantine liturgy.
In his final chapter, Butcher allies himself with the prior work of Nicholas Denysenko on the liturgy of the Great Blessing of Water, celebrated on the orthodox feast of the Theophany. Whereas Denysenko takes a historical-critical approach in his analysis, Butcher offers a hermeneutical analysis of this liturgical rite. Butcher’s careful and systematic explanation of Ricoeur throughout his book presumably could have opened into an analysis of any Byzantine rite; however, his choice of the Great Blessing of Water allows him to unfold his hermeneutic interpretation in conversation with Denysenko’s historical scholarship in a way that helps the reader see the clear value added by Butcher’s approach. For example, where Denysenko attributes the ambiguity of divine naming in the liturgical prayers to a process of historical redaction, Butcher rejoices in the surplus of meaning which ultimately tries and fails to circumscribe the divine. The ambiguity of the symbol of the divine name in the liturgical rite is offered to the reader as a substantive theological insight of the rite.
Butcher is well aware of the scholarly shoulders he stands on in this book. The book is well oriented within current orthodox liturgical scholarship and offers a helpful presentation of western liturgical theology, especially for audiences unfamiliar with these thinkers and conversations. At the same time, Butcher’s book is firmly rooted in both the primary texts and secondary literature on Ricoeur. Scholars of both the eastern and western traditions will find an engaging discussion between Ricoeur’s hermeneutical philosophy and ongoing liturgical conversations. If the book disappoints in any way, it is in the limited attention given to Byzantine liturgy and scholarship throughout the lengthy sections treating Ricoeur’s themes and thought. While Butcher’s presentation of western thinkers can occasionally overwhelm his own constructive contributions to the scholarly conversation in the east, the book well fulfills the author’s goal of inviting orthodox liturgical theologians into conversation with contemporary western philosophy.
Layla A. Karst is assistant professor of theological studies at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles.
Layla A. Karst
Date Of Review:
October 5, 2021