|
« 2007 July | Main | 2007 May »
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Theology There are certain blogs that I need to be careful
with, that I don't simply link to everything in it. Fr. Freeman's blog
is one of those. So, I may now go to the other extreme and not highlight enough
of his stuff. This one , however, I cannot pass
up.
God's providence often allows for a convergence of a number of things. This topic is hot on the mind of a number of bloggers, podcasters, and friends. This morning, I was listening to Fr. Huneycutt's podcast, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Phronema ", while shortly before that I was listening to an interview of an author who has written much on Athonite Monasticism, and today's interview spent a lot of time on the subject of spiritual growth. The other day, I was speaking with a friend about how my reading list has changed quite a bit since we converted. For me, what I'm reading reflects a lot about me. I suspect that is true for anyone who is an avid reader - just as what movies an avid movie goer is watching, or what shows and avid TV viewer is watching would reflect on them. Before we converted, and even right after we've converted, I read mostly books on theology the way the West would understand it. I would read philosophical and doctrinal definitions and arguments about who God is, and what we believe about Him. I usually have several books in process at the same time. So, if you exclude a couple of books on Chess (that haven't been given enough time, to be sure), or novels (such as the Brothers Karamazov which I'm currently reading), all of my "Christian" reading is mostly focused on praxis. I'm reading a book on the Divine LIturgy, which is a series of sermons that is mostly focused on our engaging the Liturgy more fully. I'm also intermittently reading a book on Orthodox Psychotherapy , which while seeming theological, really is focused on the healing of our heart/soul. Finally, I'm reading the Spiritual Counsels of St. John of Kronstadt. While at the Monastery for Family Camp , I bought one book on the life of a 20th century elder, and one on healing the person. I was reading a layman's version of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, a very significant Praxis book, but I had to give it back and I've committed to not buying any more books until I read everything I own. I think this change in reading reflects, at a fundamental level, the difference in Theology between East and West. Especially with the rise of Scholasticism, although not fully worked out until the era of the Palamite controversy, we see a dichotomy between knowing with the intellect and knowing with the nous, or (imperfectly stated) the heart. The West has become predominantly, but not exclusively, focused on intellectual knowledge of God, while the East has remained focused on experiencing God. I strongly recommend reading Fr. Freeman's article, because he spends a great deal of time elaborating on what it means to experience God. First and foremost, one needs to purify one's self in order to experience God. So-called spiritual experiences absent purification are generally understood to be delusion. This helps us avoid falling into the trap of the Episcopal Church where one's experiences, without regard to state of spiritual development, takes precedence over all. At the same time, the Eastern focus on drawing closer to God through purification helps manage the risk of pride that comes with intellectual knowledge. This isn't, however, to detract from intellectual knowledge and dogma. We focus our praxis in areas consistent with knowledge/doctrine and dogma, so as to avoid being drawn into delusion, just as we purify ourselves to avoid the same. There is a balance here, to be sure. Satan is perfectly happy if we either succumb to intellectual delusion or spiritual delusion, intellectual pride or spiritual pride (think for this one of those churches who insist on praying in tongues as being the only sign of a spirit-filled Christian). God is about truth and humility (and humility itself reflects a true understanding of things), Satan is about delusion and pride. I think this approach best explains one of the biggest challenges we would see in the Episcopal Church with regard to the Gospels. Jesus never seemed much focused on theology in a Western sense. He kept talking about love, taking care of the poor and sick, following him. When certain groups within modern Christianity look at the often loveless world of "orthodox" theologians, they don't see Christ. The whole debate has grown rather tired, but even ignoring folks like the Rev. Fred Phelps, your average person in the homosexual lifestyle does not see, coming from the "orthodox" theologian (Western style), a concern about them, but rather a concern about being right. Looking back through the archives of this blog, I'm guilty of precisely that on a number of topics. So, to generalize more, the "modernist" abandons so-called orthodoxy, because there appears to be no love, and like a child raised in an abusive household, falls for that church/group that makes them feel good, instead. I think the Orthodox approach is more one of, I know that x is a sin, but so is y, which is my personal one. So, why don't we work out our salvation together, in the Church, with all of the other sinners. So, I spend less time learning dogma, as I know more than I probably should, and instead I spend more time reading books that challenge me to actually be an Orthodox Christian. Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Drawn to Islam Elements of the blogosphere have been quite lit
up over the recent story of an Episcopal priest who is also a
practicing Muslim. I'll let other folks run the debate over whether its
accurate for someone to consider themselves both Christian and Muslim, or
whether the Episcopal heirarchy should do anything about this
situation.
What struck me was the description of those things that drew Redding to Islam. It's important to note that Mohammed's wife's uncle was a Christian Monk (although an Arian , which explains how Islam ended up so staunchly anti-Trinitarian), because all of the things that Redding noted drew her to Islam appear to have been lifted from Christianity in the first place. Let's take them one by one. As he dropped to his knees and stretched forward against the floor, it seemed to her that his whole body was involved in surrendering to God. This is what's known as a prostration . It is as significant of an experience as she indicates. When we were recently at a kneeling vespers, I did the best prostration I could - with my bad knees, and it was very fulfilling to do so. another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer and led a meditation on opening one's heart. The chanting appealed to the singer in Redding I'm not familiar with modern day Islamic Chant, but chanting has always been a significant part of Orthodox worship. Were the prayer services of Islam influenced by the prayer services of the Orthodox Christian world that surrounded Mohammed? I don't know, but I have my suspicions. Regardless, the chanting in the Orthodox tradition is extremely beautiful and rich, and as a singer (and pre-novice chanter), it does speak to me - regardless of whether you're discussing Byzantine or Russian (though I admit to a preference for Byzantine). In Seattle's Episcopal circles, Redding had mixed largely with white people. "To walk into Al-Islam and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief," That the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is going to predominantly be populated by whites is hardly a surprise, given that it has historically been a principally English Church. Of course, we now see a growing number of African congregations in the U.S., as Anglicanism is, at least numerically, a predominantly African denomination (or at least I think we're at that point). At any rate, within the wider world of Christianity, and especially Orthodoxy is very much multi-ethnic. She found the discipline of praying five times a day — one of the five pillars of Islam that all Muslims are supposed to follow — gave her the deep sense of connection with God that she yearned for. Its interesting that historically, Christianity had 5 prayer hours, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers, as well as two other prayer times, Compline and Matins/Lauds, taking you to 7 times a day for prayer (as the Psalmist said , seven times a day do I praise you). Today, in at least the Orthodox monasteries I know of in the U.S., prayer hours are grouped together, and the Liturgy is celebrated every day, so you end up with fewer, but much longer prayer periods. For the laity, Orthodox prayer books have prayers for the hours of the day (here's one I have in my office). Now I grant you that people don't assemble at the Church any more for these hours, which is unfortunate, but the practice still exists. The reason I find all this interesting, then, is that all of her reasons for becoming Muslim, or at least most of her reasons, center on practices that indicate both the seriousness with which Islam takes worship, and the beauty and richness of that worship. I understand that appeal, for my wife has made the comment several times about how Orthodoxy just makes sense - how all of the time spent in worship, how the beauty of that worship all just makes sense when you are talking about your relationship with the Creator. So, while Redding does state that she has had difficulty accepting Jesus' divinity, her real issues are a lack of depth and beauty in the Christianity she had come to know. I would not be surprised to learn that growing up she never experienced chanting in an Anglican service. At the risk of offending one blogger I know, I do have to say that even if she had, Anglican chant pales in comparison to well done Byzantine. However, it is quite beautiful, and would have spoken to the singer in her. I would also not be surprised if she knew of no other service than Sunday Morning Prayer beyond the Eucharist. Daily services, or the notion of frequent daily prayer is relatively unknown as a spiritual discipline in modern, especially non-AngloCatholic, Anglicanism. The practice is hardly gone, but it is practiced by precious few. There's even a wonderful Breviary that has everything you need to pray the seven hours. However, as the Episcopal Church continued its drift from the ancient traditions, this practice, too has been lost. I don't think Redding felt drawn to Islam strictly because of these externals, but rather the externals spoke to her of a faith with some depth to it. If you survey the field of modern spirituality you find many attempts at introducing non-Christian spiritual activities to Christianity. The reason these activities are added is because most modern Christianity has little spiritual depth. You show up for Church on Sunday, go to coffee hour, then go home. All done. When people seek more depth, they feel that it needs to be invented. From John Ortberg's "invention" of sleep as a spiritual discipline, to transcendental meditation, soaking prayer, and various other modern phenomena, we can perceive a hunger on the part of many Christians. At the least, these people are reinventing the wheel, at worst they leave Christianity for something else. What the bloggers, especially the Orthodox ones, need to do, is realize the opportunity here. When people like Redding feel drawn to a more extensive prayer life, or to a deeper expression of worship, they shouldn't have to go looking at other religions. They need to understand that all of that is, and always has been, part of Christianity. When Redding (who appears to be single) feels the need to surrender her life, the answer isn't Islam, but perhaps monasticism. We need to realize that evangelism shouldn't always focus on theological arguments, but should focus on presenting the whole faith - and especially its practice. I think that this will resonate with a great many people, and perhaps help them to avoid making the mistake that Redding has. Sunday, June 10, 2007 First Contact I just finished watching Star Trek: First Contact
for the second time or so. I was struck by the comment that Captain Picard made
that, in the future, mankind is no longer driven by the desire to accumulate
material wealth, but rather by the desire to better themselves and humanity.
This is none other than the mission of the Church, of course, to seek the
theosis of mankind. As such, this Xanadu created by Gene Roddenberry reflects
quite a Christian theme. Perhaps he realized it, perhaps not.
The fatal flaw in the Star Trek series is the assumption that man can achieve this entirely on his own. However, as Christians, we understand the fallen nature of mankind. This fallen nature utterly precludes our ability to pull ourselves up into some sort of higher existence. History has proven this, time and again. In fact, its quite interesting to note that the enemy in this Star Trek movie was the Borg - a metaphor for communism, if ever I've seen one. The Borg, however, are utterly evil, and thus we are to understand (and know from history), that communism is also utterly evil - despite it once being heralded as the next step in social evolution. In fact, the ideals of communism really are the ideals of the Star Trek universe. Everyone takes only what they need, and everyone works for the common good. However, the movie ends up indicting itself, perhaps without knowing that it does. As I pondered this world, where everyone works for the betterment of humanity and themselves, it dawned on me that we have that world already, at least in some small sense. That world is the world of the Monastery. There we see the ideal of Christianity. Every monk or nun is working for their betterment, while at the same time working for the betterment of the rest of the faithful. Thus, I suppose, first contact has really been made. I'll leave with a brief thought, that perhaps I'll endeavor to flesh out later. Communism really is nothing other than a secular attempt at Christianity. Perhaps that is why it worked so hard to destroy Christianity, it didn't like the competition. However, communism lacked the most important element - the grace of God. God's grace provides us with the ability to sacrifice of our selves in order to achieve the betterment of those around us. This is done freely, and that is the other key difference between Communism and Christianity. Saturday, June 02, 2007 Rome or Orthodoxy One of my favorite bloggers, Christopher Orr,
posted an excerpt from another blog(this makes this sort
of chain blogging, I suppose), that was written by a soon to be former member of
the LCMS, and Professor of Philosophy, who is departing the Lutheran Church for
Rome. He provides a brief synopsis of his reasons for not choosing Orthodoxy,
which I hope is merely reflective of the fact that this was a response within
the comments area of a post, and not the amount of thought he actually gave the
matter.
His first reason for going to Rome vs. to the Orthodox rings a familiar bell. Much of what I liked about being an AngloCatholic is that I had the freedom to be somewhat "Orthodox", while still enjoying the familiarity of Anglican Worship. He then goes on to note that he leans toward the Roman position on theological questions, and he finds the filioque eminently reasonable and closer to Scripture than the Orthodox position (forgetting for a moment that the one place in Scripture which addressed the Procession of the Holy Spirit specifically states that He proceeds from the Father). He acknowledges that "The Eastern churches have, one must admit, an impressive two-thousand year history of eucharistic unity and orthodoxy." He proposes historically weak suppositions for how this was accomplished, and then has to throw in the canard of the jurisdictional problem in the U.S. While the jurisdictional issue is of concern, it hardly represents as much of a problem as he supposes (the fact of reunification of effectively warring jurisdictions - ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate bodes well for unity in the U.S.). Similar to Philip Jenkins, he looks at the future of the Church in a very secular way. The reality is that Orthodoxy and Eucharistic unity has been maintained in spite of a myriad of challenges. The fact of the matter is that Rome has changed the teaching and doctrine of the Church, and there is no honest argument against that. John Henry Newman put forth a somewhat compelling rationale for this under the guise of development of doctrine, but whether you call it development or not, it is change, and significant change. When you step back for a minute, what directs Dr. Koons to Rome and not to Orthodoxy are his comfort with worship style, his opinion of weighty theological matters discussed by men of great holiness, his need for supreme singular authority. In other words, it is really about him. This is a critical statement for me to make, but I make it against myself as well. The primary besetting sin of humanity, the sin of the garden, is the sin of me. Orthodoxy proposes, in its stead, a theology of us and you. This theology of communion, as I would casually call it, is the answer to the question Mr. Orr proposes. It is making it clear that Orthodoxy offers a cure for the malady of me, by replacing it with you and us. In fact, this is the big difference - the big point. Orthodoxy does not offer a philosophy class. It does not offer a set of logical propositions to be held on to - it does not attempt to save by virtue of the intellect. Rather, as did the Great Healer who founded it, Orthodoxy offers a therapeutic method. I think that when people become truly aware of their need to be healed, then they will heed the call of Orthodoxy. As a final note, a children's book was recently translated into English, which holds much of value to adults. I heartily recommend it. It is called, "From I-ville to You-ville." That is precisely what Orthodoxy is all about. I should add one more thing that I think should be of some concern to people concerning Rome. Dr. Koons cites a total of 2 theologians who describe his beliefs. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. A friend of mine and I have, for a very long time, noted that most modern Roman Catholic theology can be summed up by Augustine and Aquinas, with perhaps a smidge of Anselm plus the writings of the latest Pope. In fact, most books, and most apologetics sites seem to predominantly quote this group. On the contrary, when reading Orthodox sources, while you may see a preference for St. Gregory Palamas and St. John Chrysostom, you will also see references and quotes of everyone from St. John of Shanghai (20th Century) back to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I think this reflects a lack of willingness on the part of Orthodox to look to one person to summarize their beliefs. Instead, they always look to the community - in this case the community of Church fathers. Again, I think Rome has long since left this communal view behind. |