turned my study of the Orthodox Church into a more general quest for depth in my own spirituality. As I read and study the history of the church, I feel the need to read more, sort of working my way through a maze – a turn here, a turn there, a dead end here, an outlet there. And oftentimes I find myself at the same place I was earlier. Yes, very much like a maze.
One of the more interesting things was reading the history of Icons, their symbolism, the arguments for and against. John of Damascus argued and for the most part won the argument for Icons in the early 700’s, although there would still be a period of about a hundred years before the issue was settled in the Orthodox Church. As a good Southern Baptist boy, it is strange to me that these symbols could assist a person’s faith but they surely must given the conflicts regarding them. And I like his argument about being able to represent Jesus in a material way since God chose to become flesh and dwell among us. Interesting. And I like the “principle of clarity set forth in Canon 82 of the Trullan Council (692) which declares that Christian art, in the light of the Incarnation, should eschew obscure symbolism and pursue instead the unambiguous clarity of representing the person or incident itself.” (from Icons as Christian Art by Robert M. Yule) In other words, don’t picture Jesus as a lamb, picture Him as a man. I like that.
Father Stephen has an interesting blurb on “givenness” and I enjoyed thinking about it. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with his take on the Reformation being a constant change but understand his point. One of my thoughts is to wonder why they think that they are emulating the “early church” but their model is one that started in the 3rd or 4th century and not the first. The first century church was nothing at all (at least in my estimation) like the third century – so why stop there? Why not go all the way back? Jesus came to free us but by the third century the church had incorporated many of the same rules that the Pharisees and Sadducees forced upon their flocks. I don’t understand why we would willingly accept these bindings.
So, that’s where I am today. Skipped visitation last night, just didn’t want to go again. And I’ll skip church tonight, JM’s coming over to play around on the guitars. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that I picked up Koontz’s latest Odd Thomas novel, Brother Odd. Odd is living in a monastery, so that fit in a weird sorta way. Late.
Big Jolly,
Orthodoxy would not idealize any particular centuries, though some have been more faithful than others. The first century had plenty of problems, occasioning the writing of most of the Epistles.
Phariseeism can come in any shape or form (thinking of burdens laid on people). There is Protestant as well as Catholic as well as Orthodox. I grew up in a Baptist part of the world where “good Christian” literally meant “he didn’t drink or smoke.” So no one has a corner on sin – much less sinlessness.
We simply maintain that the Orthodox Church, like it or not, is the continuous Church founded by Christ. The same Church that defended the doctrine of his Divinity, and declared what books constituted the canon of Scripture, etc. And we’ve had good and bad centuries like anyone else.
But, we believe we have faithfully preserved what has been handed down to us. Does that mean that everyone in the Church is a model of what they should be. Of course not. On in a cult would that be true.
We are what we are because Christ founded us, the Apostles taught and spread us and made provision for the ministry of the Church. Those are historical facts. We don’t think we have the authority to just up and start again – we don’t have a commandment for that.
But we do not bind our people. If you’re thinking of the fact that we fast – we do, but we don’t treat it like it’s kosher or something. It’s simply the discipline we keep as Christians. It’s even mentioned in Scripture.
What other burdens do we place? That you can’t commit adultery, etc. That we have traditional names for the priest, etc., or that we have an order for our services. These are not contrary to the gospel. They’re just not manifestations of the individualized do-it-yourself culture of America, that did not invent the gospel. Oddly, Orthodox Christians do what most Christians throughout most of Christian history have done, and have produced more martyrs than eveyone else put together in doing so.
The givenness of which I’m thinking about is that most of our lives are given (and given by God). And that it is an illusion and delusion to think we can remake ourselves into anything we want. My argument is that much of our modern world teaches a spirituality at home in consumerism where you get to be in charge of everything.
I think God’s in charge and thus there is a “givenness”. I think this is not contrary to Protestantism (not necessarily).
By the way,
Lest I sound so ornery and contrary – I heartily commend your reading and expanding of spirituality (in obvious healthy directions). Reading about icons is not like studying the Kabbalah!
All of us as Christians share deeply so much from the same well that it is good to see how deep the well is, and just how great a gift our God has given us. God bless!
Fr. Stephen, you’ve said several times that Orthodoxy has produced more martyrs throughout history than everyone else combined. I would ask you humbly which part of the faith is yielding more martyrs today, as we speak?
Fr Stephen, by binding I do not mean fasting in and of itself. I do not know much about your practice of fasting but if you are telling your followers that they “must” fast in order to obtain favor from God, then yes, I would include that in what I refer to as binding.
When I talk of binding, it is more of an attitude. You must interpret scripture this way only. You must pray 5 times a day looking to the east. You must eat certain foods on certain days. You must……..
I would submit that “you must” only look towards the cross and the resurrection.
Bigjolly,
No Orthodox “rules” whether of fasting, etc., are of the “must” category in order to win favor from God. That would be contrary to Scripture. As a community and a tradition, we have a “norm” for fasting, for instance, which individuals in most case adapt in consultation with their priest for their own spiritual formation, but not because there is a law that prescribes it. We are free, as St. Paul taught us. And we do not deviate from that. The practices of the modern Orthodox Church are no different than those of the 1st century, where writings of the Didache already reveal a practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, for instance.
But we are free. What would be wrong would be if someone decided that they didn’t need to fast at all (for instance). Why not? There are medical reasons not to and we immediate recognize these.
We interpret Scripture not just one way, but in a way that takes into account the traditional interpretation it has enjoyed over the centuries in the Church. This would exclude novel interpretations by interlopers or those who are just making it up themselves and have no training or authority. But we recognize a range of interpretation.
We continue to produce martyrs within the Muslim world. And though things have become quiet in the former Communist realm, we have many “confessors” who have endured that persecution and remained faithful.
We have missionaries all across the world – Africa, Asia, etc. These include women by the way who share in teaching in all our churches, as well as many other activities (at least as much as in a Baptist Church).
You are seeing “must” where we would only say “should” in the sense of “this is the tradition we have been given” not “it is a sin if you don’t.” Orthodoxy is not a legalistic faith.
The Didache is an interesting example. Amongst other teachings, it clearly contradicts the teaching of St. Paul regarding the use of meat which has been sacrificed to idols. At what point would the Orthodox Tradition value St. Paul’s writings are superior?
As to bindings, I think that once again, you see theory, I see practice. Even in your own words, it is obvious that something is “wrong” or “missing” from the person that does not fast as “tradition” suggests. Is this not in and of itself a form of legalism? Would not the average lay person treat it as such?
Why does Orthodoxy continue to produce martyrs, either in the Muslim world or elsewhere, if the official teaching of the church is that Christianity is not the exclusive path to God? It makes no sense to sacrifice one’s life if other avenues avail themselves. Would the Muslim homocide bombers blow themselves up if they thought that there was another way? Are Christian martyrs incapable of thinking through this theory to its logical conclusion?
I apologize if this seems harsh or disrespectful, that is not my intent, I’m just tyring to understand these issues.