December Books

Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi -- "a memoir in books"; see previous post

At a café run by an Armenian in Iran -- "...forever I shall see on the glass door next to the name of the restaurant, which was in small letters, the compulsory sign in the large black letters: RELIGIOUS MINORITY.  All restaurants run by non-Muslims had to carry this sign on their doors so that good Muslims, who considered all non-Muslims dirty and did not eat from the same dishes, would be forewarned."  (pg. 180)

"'Both Yassi and I know that we have been losing our faith. We have been questioning it with every move. During the Shah's time, it was different. I felt I was in the minority and I had to guard my faith against all odds.  Now that my religion is in power, I feel more helpless than ever before, and more alienated.' She wrote about how ever since she could remember, she had been told that life in the land of infidels was pure hell. She had been promised that all would be different under a just Islamic rule. Islamic rule! It was a pageant of hypocrisy and shame. She wrote about how at work her male supervisors never look her in the eye, about how in movies even a six-year-old girl must wear a scarf and cannot play with boys. Although she wore the veil, she described the pain of being required to wear it, calling it a mask behind which women were forced to hide. She talked about all this coldly, furiously, always with a question mark after each point."  (pg. 328)



The Global Soul by Pico Iyer -- The author discusses our world of globalism and multiculturalism by visiting and reporting from airports (focus LAX), the "global marketplace" (Hong Kong), "multiculture" (Toronto), the Olympics (focus Atlanta), the Empire (focus on England) and "the alien home" (his life as a guy with Indian heritage who was born in England and grew up some there and California living in Japan with his longtime girlfriend and her two children. Oh, and his first name is after an Italian guy....so there.)

"To many I know from the New World, the Japanese response to every setback, from terrorists to burning houses to long hours, crowded trains, and sudden deaths - Shikataganai, or 'It can't be helped' - sounds fatalistic and too ready to surrender power to the heavens. But to me, coming from a California where it sometimes seems as if everyone is restlessly in search of perfection in his life, his job, his partner, and himself, it feels bracing to hear of limits that imply a sense of past as well as of future. A republic founded on the 'pursuit of happiness' seems a culture destined for disappointment, if only because it's pursuing something that, by definition, doesn't come from being sought: a culture founded, however inadvertently or subconsciously, on the First Noble Truth of Buddhism - the reality of suffering - seems better placed to deal with sorrow, and be pleasantly surprised by joy.  In a world that's overheating with the drug of choice and seeming freedom, Japan, for all its consumerist madness, suggests, in its deeper self, a postglobal order that knows what things can really be perfected (streets, habits, surfaces) and what cannot."  (pg. 284)



Two Birthdays in Baghdad by Anna Prouse -- The author is an Italian journalist and emergency medic and this book was translated from Italian. I liked reading her thoughts on people she met in Iraq - both natives and foreigners. Her thoughts on Iraqi inbreeding (pg. 38) and Iraqis' thoughts of Americans jogging for the fun of it (or health benefits pg. 48) were interesting.  Also she told how the nursing profession was looked down upon for women (pg. 90) and I questioned again why the Americans allowed the people to ransack everything. Even IVs were ripped out of people's arms! How could (1) the Americans allow this and (2) the Iraqis do this?  (pg. 94)  The story of Saba being assassinated was sad. I enjoyed her trip to visit Iranian resisters who were given sanctuary in Iraq. These were people Saddam supported because they were against their leaders. The Americans didn't send them back because they would be imprisoned or killed.  I didn't know they existed inside Iraq. I also liked the trip to Kurdish Iraq to celebrate the Persian new year festival.



My Prison, My Home by Haleh Esfandiari -- A rather interesting account of a sixty-seven year old grandmother's time in solitary confinement after the Iranian government decided she was working to overthrow the Islamic Republic.  Years prior to the revolution, she had married a Jewish man. She admitted this was an oddity even then, but not criminal as it was under the new leadership. It was interesting to me how her interrogators brought up this fact and her thoughts on this being equivalent to adultery and would she then be stoned?  This book made me see how evil the Iranian regime is.




Iran Awakening by Shirin Ebadi -- Oddly enough this lady was the lawyer of the lady in the previous book. I didn't realize that when I checked out both books. This book was great. I really really enjoyed reading of this Nobel Peace Prize winner who has fought for human rights in Iran from Iran (she didn't leave her country to fight from abroad).  I was dismayed as she reported of how she was stripped of so many rights and even her job as a judge once the Islamic Republic was founded. She was no shah-lover and was fine with his removal, but she quickly found out that the Islamists taking over was not good for women.  She has some great thoughts throughout the book. It's one of the best I've read lately.; see previous post for more on this book


Words to Live By; has no author listed just from Bethany House Publishers -- this is a book with 60 words: "reflections and insights on the most life-changing and thought-provoking words in the Bible" - I must say the one on worry was excellent and really spoke to me; I read this one to Samer - one word per day but not every day as we started this book back in May and only finished it this month!



Unveiled: Nuns Talking by Mary Louden -- the author interviews a few nuns from several different orders talking about their growing-up years, their reasons for becoming nuns, their outlooks on life and more; see previous post for a few quotes


A German Jewish lady speaks of leaving Germany for England at age 12 to escape the horrors of Hitler.  In England she learns and speaks only English because being German is suspect there during the war years. She observes later in life: "I didn't belong anywhere, and also, in terms of language, I stopped learning German by the time I was twelve and so never developed an adult vocabulary, and yet I don't feel that English is my own language."  (pg. 66)



My Guantanamo Diary: the Detainees and the Stories They Told Me by Mahvish Rukhsana Khan -- I've had this library book on my list for a few months now and I finally decided to read it. I had always thought the Gitmo prisoners were hard-core bad guys, but now I come away thinking maybe most of them are guys who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time - like at a time when turning in political enemies would give you a handsome reward!  When Mahvish told, for instance, that the per capita income of Afghanistan in 2006 was $300 or 82 cents a day and a US bounty was $5,000 to $25,000 - she said in US dollars that was like the average American household (which made in 2006 $26,036) getting a $2.17 million reward!  And she points out that tribal alliances and religious conflicts make for easy enemies in that part of the world.  One Gitmo prisoner was turned in by his own cousin because the two had been fighting the night before. So yeah, I came away wondering how many innocent folks are being kept there. Such a horrible situation and bad thing for the US to be doing.


Walking to Vermont by Christopher S. Wren - Upon retiring from the New York Times at age 65 Mr. Wren walks from Times Square in New York City to the Green Mountains of Vermont much of it along the Appalachian Trail. He has a dry sense of humor, tells tales of the people he meets - complete with trail names like Storyteller, Knute, Flash, Seven States, introduces me to trail magic and more. A good, easy, end-of-the-year read.

I also liked reading this because last year when we went to Damascus, Virginia, we saw some of those hard-core trail people getting supplies and also we stood on the Appalachian Trail as it passed through a playground near where we were staying.

I found the picture of me on the App Trail!

Tomorrow is the last day of 2011. I wish you all a joyful 2012!

"Unveiled: Nuns Talking"

Here are a few quotes from Unveiled: Nuns Talking by Mary Louden that I found worthwhile to share.



"When someone dies here the attitude is one of rejoicing: we have an extra recreation day. Yes, really!  There've been five old ones go since I've been here, and they've been really beautiful moments, with the whole community gathered around the person that's dying and the priest there as well. It really is lovely, and I don't think I've ever seen anybody shed a tear. They're all thinking, lucky thing!" (pg. 53) -- Angela Therese, Carmelite Community, Darlington, County Durham 
 

I love this attitude about death!


"Within the Church, we're going to be faced with the question: do we really exist to serve people, and to attend to them in their needs?  Or do we exist to impose ideologies?" (pg. 178)  -- Lavinia, Institute of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Hampstead, London

  
Yes, really!


"Good does not exist without evil, and you can't have dark without light, but in my own appreciation, if God's hadn't allowed evil, then we would not know it,and we would almost be puppets. If good was all that existed, then I could only choose good, and it wouldn't be a proper choice. ... We search for the light, and it is an ongoing quest of humanity to find answers to these questions. Yet ultimately I believe we cannot find them here.  In the end, I have to say, 'I believe this. It doesn't hinder my reasoning, but it is beyond my reasoning.' I have to be prepared all the time to accept that reason is great, but that it isn't infinite. There is a limit to reason." (pg. 198) --  Renate, Community of The Holy Name, Derby

 
I love that she recognizes that reason has its limits! Tell me again why we expect to fully understand God as if saying our religion is logical means it's better somehow?




"And I believe that the Christian faith is not the faith of a book or dogma: it is the acceptance of a personal invitation. It is like someone saying to you, 'You are important to me, therefore come and join my company.' It sounds very simplistic and very primitive, but I believe that that is what it is."  (pg. 204)  --  Renate, Community of The Holy Name, Derby


Relationship rather than dogma...yay.


Thoughts?

Canonization of Scripture

Last notes from The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi.  I know many will disagree, but this is the author's view of the canonization of Scripture.  It's kind of a follow-up to yesterday's post "...God is love. Love includes communication."

I wanted to share this perspective and hear your thoughts if you want your chance to be heard!  :)

I thought this might be interesting to those who claim Jesus didn't write or leave a book before he returned to heaven. 

Long before any church council met, Christ's original companions and followers in Jerusalem accepted the apostles' words as the Word of God....  How could the apostle John say to his readers that they already knew the truth and did not need anyone (not even a church council) to determine for them the word of God?  The first- and second-century church already knew which books had genuine apostolic authority behind  them.  They did not recognize canonization of the apostles' writings by a church council to begin laying down their lives for the Word of God. They had been affirming their faith in these writings, by choosing martyrdom, for more than two hundred years before Constantine.

The Old Testament canon existed before Jesus' time. Canonization of the New Testament became necessary only because spurious books began to appear claiming to have been written by the original apostles.  Canonization did not turn Paul's epistles into God's word.  The purpose of canonization was to refute the spurious works as inauthentic. ...

It is important to note that only one book in the New Testament, the Revelation (to John), claims to have been received supernaturally in visions, and this book met with the toughest scrutiny before being included in the canon.  A book with a similar title, The Revelation of Peter, was rejected. Why? Because Christianity is about public truth, not about private, subjective, unverifiable, secret, inner, "religious" experience.  Private intuition may indeed be from God, but it has to be publicly authenticated before the public can follow it. The Revelation of John was included in the canon precisely because it is not a "fax from heaven."  John "saw," "looked," and "heard" certain things and then wrote down his eyewitness account - exactly as he did in the gospel of John.  The church canonized books with known apostolic authority to undercut the deception of power-hungry "religious" prophets, apostles, and mystics. ...


The point is this: the church does not believe the Scriptures because the Council of Nicaea canonized some books.  ... The Council of Nicaea did not create the Bible.  The process of canonization of the New Testament began with a heretic, Marcion (AD 90-160), who identified a widely accepted canon in order to challenge it.  In response to such attempts, the church affirmed the New Testament canon in order to repudiate heresies.

Inclusion in the canon was not dependent on unverifiable "divine inspiration" but on verifiable matters.  The first was apostolic authority, including implied apostolic authority as in the case of the books of Mark, Luke, Acts, and the epistle to Hebrews. Equally important was theological harmony with the Old Testament canon that Jesus confirmed as the Word of God. The Gnostic forgeries did claim apostolic authorship, but they did not and could not claim harmony with the Old Testament. For example, John's Revelation is a very deliberate unpacking of the book of Daniel.  In Revelation 5, for example, the Lamb of God receives the title deed of the earth that had been promised to the Messiah in Psalm 2 and Psalm 110.  The chapters that follow become the key to explaining how Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by the Old Testament.

quotes from pg. 398-9

"...God is love. Love includes communication."

I finally finished The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi the other day and have just a few more notes to share.  Mostly this is for my benefit because I found this book helpful and wanted to record a few of the things that stood out to me. Really, there was much, much more, but I can't exactly reproduce the whole book, can I?  I'm aware that not everyone would like it as much as I did, but for me it was timely.  It gave me more assurance in the life-changing message of the Bible. And although the author is a Christian, he is not a Western one. (He is from Allahabad, India in the Uttar Pradesh state.) So I enjoyed the perspective of one not exactly like me writing about his own country in some aspects and all the historical ties he brought into the book.   Oddly enough, this month's issue of InTouch - which I shared recently often speaks to me on issues I am currently wondering about *cue spooky music* - came yesterday. The subject: the Word of God.  Coincidence?  (Usually in the June issue they speak about fathers because of Father's Day.)



Here are some of my last notes. I may do one more post with just a bit more depending on if I really want to type it. 

Private revelations cannot generally be confirmed as divinely inspired.  They may be supernaturally inspired, but how would we know if they are from God or from the devil, angels or demons?  Most books of the Bible are not revelations received in a subjective, trancelike experience.The Gospels, for example, claim to be objective public truth. They bear courageous witness to the public events of Jesus' teaching, miracles, prophecies, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension -- witnessed by five hundred people. The Gospel writers - "the evangelists" - challenged the interpretations of Jewish scholarship and a brutal Roman state.  They opened themselves to cross-examination. Matthew, Mark, and John gave eyewitness accounts as evidence for their truth. Luke described how he systematically researched the facts, carefully checking them out with eyewitnesses. This is a very human, scholarly way of writing indeed! ...

Ill-informed critics assume that Christians believe the Bible because the Roman Catholic Church councils declared it was God's Word.  The reality is that the Church believes the Bible because Jesus lived and died "in accordance to the scriptures." ...

[insert material about Jesus fulfilling Scripture and then an example from amoebas about how life and information transmission is related and reveals a God who speaks]


From the very beginning, the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) reveal a God who speaks: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."  Thus the Jewish worldview sees language as foundational to reality.  We human beings speak because we are made in the image of a Spirit who said, "Let us make man in our image."  Man became a "living soul" when God breathed his spirit ("breath") into a body of clay. Thus, human language has both spiritual and physical aspects.

The Bible teaches that God is love. Love includes communication. Both Old and New Testaments teach that God speaks to us because he loves us. He gave us the gift of language so we may know and love him and one another as his children. Love, Jesus taught, was the whole point of divine revelation, that is, communication.  In the Judeo-Christian understanding, love and language are aspects not of chemistry but of our psyche or soul.  Our chemistry is designed to facilitate love, knowledge, communication, and worship.

pg. 393-4


Have you ever had one of those timely things just happen to you?  A book or sermon or song or note from a friend that spoke to exactly what you were struggling with?  What do you think about love including communication?  Other thoughts?

The Orthodox Church -- Holy Spirit, Fulfillment, Heaven, Benches, Children, Sacraments, Death

I'm still reading The Orthodox Church. I finished the history section a few days ago and decided not to post much about the more contemporary times of the Orthodox such as its life under Communism in Russia. Now I'm in the worship section and it's not real light-and-easy reading for me.  Much of it I can relate to, but there's quite a bit more that is new to me. Like praying for the departed.  I never realized our prayers for those already dead could make a difference as I've always been taught we get our chance here. We make the right decision, instant paradise. Reject God, well, eternal separation.  Then I read the view of hell is such that it's basically having to endure God when you don't want to!  Not exactly the lake of fire stuff Jesus described, but I gather that many believe this was metaphorical speech common back then.  Heh. 

I did like the emphasis on the Holy Spirit. My preacher sometimes says we tend to be leery of those who focus too much on the Holy Spirit because we see them as a bit odd. I guess all those faith healings on TV, being "slain in the spirit" and such...they just make us raise our skeptical eyes.  But I like the Holy Spirit. I've actually come to appreciate His role much more in recent years although I'm still not a speaking in tongues kind of person.  Perhaps I don't have enough faith or Spirit for that and my doubts keep me from experiencing this.

This evening I read a few things I wanted to share.  First this which reminded me of the Psalm (16:11) that states,

"'You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever."

Timothy Ware writes:

"Orthodoxy sees human beings above all else as liturgical creatures who are most truly themselves when they glorify God, and who find their perfection and self-fulfillment in worship."

Does this statement not remind you of the verse above? The Psalmist says in God's presence is fullness of joy.  The author here says humans find self-fulfillment in worship.  I wonder if this is why Christian Scriptures view heaven as people of all nations, all tribes, all tongues gathered around God's throne praising Him?  Contrast this to Islam's view of heaven complete with wine, women and honey!  The Islamic view may see fullness of joy and human fulfillment in sex and food and drinks forbidden on earth, but God knows - at least according to the Christian view - that only HE can satisfy our souls.  He is the Creator so why not?  Is this so far fetched?

I just thought of a song we sing -- "All that thrills my soul is Jesus. He is more than life to me" one line reads.  Yes, so God is the One who thrills our souls. Yet we on earth often seek to fill the void, fill the emptiness with materialism, with good food and wine, with fun times, entertainment, sometimes promiscuity.  We are longing for something to make us satisfied when the Bible is clear that God is the Satisfier of our souls!

Do you agree?


One cute thing I read was that in recent decades Orthodox have sometimes added benches to their churches.  The author writes of this with some sadness as he feels this makes services more formal. You cannot move around or get up and leave when you are stuffed on a row where you will disturb those on either side of you if you need to move.  "[Orthodox] are at home in their church -- not troops on a parade ground, but children in their Father's house. Orthodox worship is often termed 'otherworldly,' but could more truly be described as 'homely': it is a family affair."  (pg.270)  I just found the view of informally enjoying God's house as charming and sweet.  I could picture myself at my parents' house and how I flit from room to room enjoying just being there, enjoying the fellowship with other family members.

Baptism by immersion

In speaking of the sacraments -- I've read of three so far -- the author writes that Baptism is by immersion, not sprinkling or smearing.  As a Baptist, I can relate to this myself! :-)  However they do infant baptism, unlike us.   We believe people should choose to follow Jesus for themselves and,therefore, baptism happens after one decides to follow Christ.  Immediately following Baptism, the Orthodox have Chrismation which seems to be some sealing of the Holy Spirit on the child as they are anointed with a special ointment on various parts of the body.  The author noted Chrismation is also used as a sacrament of reconciliation.  For instance, one who left the Church and came back or a Roman Catholic or Protestant who converts is often received this way.  The Eucharist is never withheld from children as the Orthodox believe "suffer the little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of God."  They want children to always have memories of taking part in communion.  (pg. 279)

Oh, I cried when I read how the Orthodox treated dead bodies with love not abhorrence.  They often have open caskets and everyone kisses the body. That visual was just so touching to me that I cried.  Also they strongly oppose cremation.



Any thoughts, comments, corrections?

The Orthodox Church -- Incarnation, Jesus Christ the Victor or Victim?

"The Incarnation is an act of God's philanthropia, of His loving-kindness towards humankind."

Orthodox belief is that God becoming human was part of His plan from the beginning and wasn't simply "an answer to the fall." 

Yet because of the fall, the Incarnation became an act of love and an act of salvation.  "Jesus Christ, by uniting humankind and God in His own person, reopened for us humans the path to union with God.  In His own person Christ showed what the true 'likeness of God' is, and through His redeeming and victorious sacrifice He set that likeness once again within our reach.  Christ, the Second Adam, came to earth and reversed the effects of the first Adam's disobedience."

You know, I've never thought of God coming to earth as something God had planned all along, but it does make sense if God wanted to fellowship with His creation. Yet doesn't Genesis 3 say God walked in the garden in the cool of the day thus implying that somehow He did fellowship with humankind even from the beginning.  Was taking human form to do so necessary prior to the fall?  Hmmm, it's an interesting thought!

"'Behind the veil of Christ's flesh, Christians behold the Triune God'" said Bishop Theopan the Recluse.  "Perhaps the most striking feature in the Orthodox approach to the Incarnate Christ [is] an overwhelming sense of His divine glory."  This divine glory was especially shown during the Transfiguration (remember when Jesus went to the mountain with a couple of disciples and was observed talking to Moses and Elijah?  Peter later recalled it as a time he was an eyewitness of Christ's majesty.)  and Resurrection (Jesus' triumph over death.)

I totally loved when the author wrote about Orthodox accounts of remembering the Resurrection with "sheer joy." I felt joyful just reading about this!

Re: The Crucifixion:  The author says the east has often focused on Christ the Victor - triumphant over evil powers and death - while the west tends to see Him as Christ the Victim - "an act of satisfaction or substitution to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father." (pg. 229)

"The western worshipper, when he meditates upon the Cross, is encouraged all too often to feel an emotional sympathy with the Man of Sorrows, rather than to adore the victorious and triumphant king."  (pg. 228)

How do you think of Christ?

The Orthodox Church -- The Trinity, Humans, Image/Likeness, Grace and Free Will

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware

SNIPPETS ON THE TRINITY

"'That there is a God is clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond our comprehension and knowledge.'"  -- John of Damascus

So obviously John wasn't even debating the fact of God's existence instead stating rather forthrightly that God's existence is clear.  What and who God is... that's another story.


"Truly our God is a God who hides Himself, yet He is also a God who acts -- the God of History, intervening directly in concrete situations."

I read this just a day after reading Sarah's comment about God being "the ultimate introvert" and had to smile at the visual I had of God hiding.   I do recall God hiding Himself in the sense that He only allowed Moses to see His back parts (whatever that symbolized!...Oh, here is a bit of commentary on that if you are interested.) But I also see clearly in the Bible that God does act, and, therefore, does not hide in the sense of an uninvolved person who just sits back and watches with bemused interest to see what those earthlings He created will do next.

"God is not simply a single person confined within His own being, but a Trinity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom 'dwells' in the other two by virtue of a perpetual movement of love. God is not only a unity but a union."  (pg. 209)

I had to stop and think about this statement. (Thus why some books I read so slowly!)


ON HUMANS

"Humans were made for fellowship with God."

"But humans, made for fellowship with God, everywhere repudiate that fellowship."

Enter story of Adam (representing humankind as a whole) falling and his "original sin" affecting all humanity. (pg.218)

Does this give us our reason for existence? Our meaning for life? Fellowship with the Almighty?



IMAGE/LIKENESS

"Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...'"  ~ Genesis 1:26

Image "indicates rationality and freedom"  -- bestowed upon us from our beginning

Likeness is "assimilation to God through virtue."  -- a goal only acquired by degrees

"However sinful we may be, we never lose the image; but the likeness depends upon our moral choice, upon our 'virtue,' and so it is destroyed by sin."

"Orthodox religious thought lays the utmost emphasis on the image of God in the human person."

"Because she or he is an icon of God, each member of the human race, even the most sinful, is infinitely precious in God's sight."  (pg. 221)

I rather liked this explanation of image and likeness and the facts of how we obtain each!



GRACE AND FREE WILL

"The Orthodox Church rejects any doctrine of grace which might seem to infringe upon human freedom."

While recognizing that "what God does is of immeasurably greater importance than what we do," Orthodox believe achieving full fellowship with God depends on us doing our part as well.   "God's gifts are always free gifts, and we humans can never have any claims upon our Maker. But while we cannot 'merit' salvation, we must certainly work for it, since 'faith without works is dead.'" 


I understand this a bit differently and have argued often here that we work because of our faith/our salvation not to earn it.  It's like a light plugged into the power source is going to shine simply because the electricity is flowing to it.  It's not that the bulb tries its hardest to shine so that the electricity will see its effort and decide to give it the power to shine.  We work because we are connected to the Source, not in an effort to earn the Source's power.   Alas, I see that I differ from the Orthodox in this measure. I could point to statements of Jesus and Paul to back up what I believe.  I understand this verse from James as important as well, but understand it as I've described and not that we must work for our salvation. 


The Orthodox view of salvation is this:  "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in."  "God knocks, but waits for us to open the door -- He doesn't break it down.  The grace of God invites all but compels none."  (pg. 222)

As a non-Calvinist, this is basically how I've always believed.  I simply do not believe God chose to eternally damn some for hell.  Maybe I am completely wrong, but I can't wrap my mind around a God like that especially in light of verses such as "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

You'll notice from his description that "the Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less somber than the Augustinian or Calvinist view."  They don't believe that a person in a "fallen and unredeemed state" can do nothing pleasing to God.  (pg. 224)

They do believe, however, that "human sin ...set up between humanity and God a barrier which blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us." (pg. 225)

And this sets the stage for God coming to earth. Next up, Jesus.

The Orthodox Church -- Peter the Great & The Synodical Period

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware


Next up was the Synodical Period which lasted from 1700 to 1917 in Russia.  Remember in the previous post that Nikon had attempted to give the Church too much power. He wanted the Church to be able to interfere with secular business.  Well, Peter the Great came on the scene and decided that would never happen again. He dismantled the Patriarch position and set up a Spiritual College or Holy Synod made up of twelve members.  Members were chosen by the Emperor as opposed to the Church and the constitution of the Synod was copied from Protestant ecclesiastical synods of Germany! While the Emperor did not attend the meetings, the Chief Procurator, a government official in a Minister of Religion type of role, observed and "wielded considerable power over Church affairs."   Peter's Spiritual Regulation had made the Church a department of the State instead of a divine entity. 

Peter the Great

At this time in Russian history monasteries were the social hub, the chief areas for social work and Peter sought to limit this drastically!  His successors, Elizabeth and Catherine II, went even further in their decrees against the monasteries' work.    Criticism and opposition to Peter's reforms were "ruthlessly silenced."

The author says people often think of this period as the Russian Church in decline.  There was much westernization of theology, Church music and art, however, it wasn't all bad.

The second part of the Synodical period was a time of great revival in the Russian Church.  St. Paissy Velichkovsky studied in Kiev and "was repelled by the secular tone of the teaching."  He later became a monk and ended up combining aspects of Nilus (Non Possessor) and Joseph's (Possessor) teachings to bring the mystical as well as social aspects to monastic life.



Already characteristic figures of Orthodoxy, nineteenth century Russia was the age of the starets, the elders who served as spiritual guides. Most famous among them was St. Seraphim of Sarov whom the author notes is "perhaps the most immediately attractive to non-Orthodox Christians."  (pg. 118)

His life was noted for his devotion to seclusion and prayer so that he could later advise and help people.  He was known as being gentle and his life "illuminated by joy."

Another great figure from the married clergy was St. John of Kronstadt. He would sometimes have such an "intense awareness of the power of prayer" and sometimes would get "carried away" while celebrating Liturgy.  "'He called out to God; he shouted; he wept in the face of the vision of Golgotha and the Resurrection which presented themselves to him with such shattering immediacy.'"

He was a proponent of frequent communion, but since he had no time to listen to every confession, he instituted "a form of public confession, with everybody shouting their sins aloud simultaneously."  Can you imagine?

The 19th century also saw a revival of missionary work with the Orthodox sharing the Scriptures and Liturgy in a variety of languages.  "In the Kazan area alone Liturgy was celebrated in twenty-two different languages and dialects." (pg. 123)  "The greatest of the nineteenth-century missionaries was St. Innocent (John Veniaminov, 1797-1879), Bishop in Alaska, honoured by millions of American Orthodox today as their chief 'Apostle.'"

Alexis Khomiakov helped the Russian Church break from its "excessive dependence on the west." He said no longer should they use Reformed positions against Roman and Roman against Reformed. Orthodoxy was distinct, unique and they shouldn't worry about the Roman and Reformed stuff.

Alexis Khomiakov

The chapter ends with the Synodic Period dissolving and a new Patriarch being chosen, St. Tikhon.  Unfortunately the Bolsheviks soon came and with them, persecution.

The Orthodox Church -- The Third Rome: Russia; The Role of the Fool

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware  -- I have questions for you at the end of this post! :)


The beginning of chapter 6 speaks of the rise of the Third Rome.  You may recall that Byzantium had just fallen to the Turks, the Muslim Sultan was the new "protector of Orthodoxy" and the Hagia Sophia had been converted into a mosque.  Russia thought Rome had fallen to barbarians and heresy; Byzantium too - by allowing the Florentine Union - had fallen into heresy and was punished by the Turks.  Now it was Russia's turn to champion the cause, to become the true protector of Orthodoxy. And they believed they were the Third Rome.  And a fourth would never be needed.

At a church council in 1503, the social and mystical sides St.Sergius brought together in his teachings, became a source of division among his followers. Two groups arose and came to be known as

The Possessors lead by St. Joseph, Abbot of Volokalamsk

vs.

The Non-Possessors lead by St. Nilus of Sora

The main issue was possession of land.  You may recall St. Sergius had founded monasteries by blazing paths through the forests.  When people followed and settlements built up, he would soon move further into the forest to find another spiritual retreat.  At the point of this conflict, monasteries owned about one third of the land.

The Possessors argued that monks were supposed to take care of the poor and sick; to teach and do good works.  The land would be used to further these causes and were not in possession for the monks' personal prosperity.  "'The riches of the Church are the riches of the poor,'" they said.  (pg.105)

The Non-Possessors argued that the laity could provide for the poor. Monks were needed to help others by praying for them.  They did not need any connection to land and the burdens this would inevitably bring.  Monks needed be detached from the world and vow themselves to "complete poverty."


A second issue between the groups: the use of torture for heretics.  Remember the close tie between Church and State in Byzantium? This had carried over to Russia, therefore, for many heresy against the Church equaled treason against the State.  (Sounds like what I've learned about early Islam and why they had harsh penalties for apostates.)  So Joseph found the use of prison and torture acceptable, whereas Nilus condemned all forms of it.  He thought of heresy as a spiritual matter in which the Church alone should involve. 

Joseph's group was very patriotic and nationalistic, whereas the followers of Nilus thought of the Church with universality in mind. They "saw that the Church on earth must always be a Church in pilgrimage." It was not the kingdom of God on earth! 

Even the two sides differed on their ideas of Christian piety with Joseph emphasizing rules and disciplines and the "place of beauty in worship" whereas Nilus stressed "the inner and personal relation between God and soul" and "feared beauty might become an idol."  Joseph liked liturgy and corporate worship. Nilus, mystical prayer.

The Russian Church liked both men and felt they both had aspects worth implementing, however, the Russian Church became "one-sided and unbalanced" and their nationalism and close alignment of Church and State lead to trouble in the next century.


The author then talks of the period of reconstruction and reform in the 1600s. Unfortunately for some, the reforms went too far. In their effort to curb drunkenness and other things of which they disapproved, additions of prayers, fasts and lengthy services were introduced in an effort to return to more righteous behavior.  The author told of seven-hour services where even little children were forced to stand and take part! It seemed the Church was losing its joy by this forced pious living. The author says the reforms made "few concessions to human weakness, and [were] too ambitious ever to be completely realized."

A new Patriarch, Nikon, admired the Greek ways of doing things so much that he wanted to change the sign-of-the-cross ritual from being performed with two fingers to three fingers such as the Greeks were now doing.  For the very ritualistic Russians this was tantamount to changing the faith!  This dispute gradually lead to a schism with the Raskolniki ("sectarians") or "Old Believers" splitting.  The reforms had gone too far for them!

Nikon also tried putting the Church over the State with the Church having power to meddle in secular affairs. Remember from a past post that the two had interdependent powers. The Church did its thing while the State enforced it and protected it.  But Nikon tried to take more power which eventually backfired.  Tsar Alexis began to resent Nikon's involvement and soon Nikon found his Greek policies, his reforms accepted,but himself rejected. He was deposed and another took his place.

One last thing in this section that I found of great interest is:

The Role of the Fool

"Particularly prominent in medieval Russia: the 'Fool' carries the ideal of self-stripping and humiliation to its furthest extent, by renouncing all intellectual gifts, all forms of earthly wisdom, and by voluntarily taking upon himself the Cross of madness.  These Fools often performed a valuable social role: simply because they were fools, they could criticize those in power with a frankness which no one else dared to employ. So it was with Basil, the 'living conscience' of the Tsar. Ivan listened to the shrewd censure of the Fool, and so far from punishing him,treated him with marked honour."  (pg.108)


QUESTIONS FOR YOU:  Do you tend to agree with the Non Possessors or Possessors or segments of both? Why?  What is your favorite parts of each? Least favorites?   How could the Russian Church have been more balanced in your view? Do you think Nikon's reforms went too far? What do you think of the reforms towards more outward piety and those seven-hour church services? Do you think they would backfire or help the people get into shape spiritually?  What do you think of the role of the Fool in Russian society?  Why would someone considered "mad" and stripped of all wisdom be taken seriously by a tsar?  What does this say about the Fool? About the Tsar?  Any other thoughts or observations?

The Orthodox Church -- Dealing With Islamic Rule & Infiltration of Western Thought

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware


"The Muslims in the fifteenth century were far more tolerant towards Christianity than western Christians were towards one another during the Reformation and the seventeenth century." 

OK, that's it!  Westerners are just brutes.  As much as I like to think we came from an enlightened, tolerant bunch...uh, nope.  Wishful thinking!

Sultan Mohammed II, prior to the fall of Byzantium was called the "precursor of Antichrist," but he proved to not be quite that bad. In fact he took over the role of the former Christian Emperor and became, oddly enough, the "protector of Orthodoxy." 

It wasn't all fantastic since Christians were second-class citizens having to pay high taxes and forced to wear distinctive clothes, forbidden to marry Muslim women and unable to undertake missionary work.  Under Rome in the years before Constantine's conversion, Christians were persecuted and the Church grew. That whole "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" thing, I reckon. But under the Turks, it was more of the "demoralizing effects of an unrelenting social pressure" and - reading between the lines - I think many Christians abandoned their faith to become Muslims.

With Muslims the line between religion and state was blurred even more; there was no distinction.  The Orthodox Church became a civil as well as religious institution. The good of the millet system was that "it made possible the survival of the Greek nation as a distinctive unit through four centuries of alien rule."  One drawback is that this lead to a confusion between Orthodoxy and nationalism.  Orthodoxy is not only for a single group or culture; it's universal. However these Greeks saw Hellenism and Orthodoxy as intertwined to the extent that the results of this linger still today.

Additionally the Church's higher administration "fell a prey to ambition and financial greed."  The positions were basically up for sale to the highest bidder and the Turks "were quick to see that it was in their financial interests to change the Patriarch as frequently as possible."  The Turks drove 105 out of 159 Patriarchs from the throne, 6 suffered violent deaths, 27 abdicated, often involuntarily, and only 21 died natural deaths while in office!  Quite the whirlwind of change!

Turkish occupation had "two opposite effects upon the intellectual life of the Church: it was the cause on the one hand of an immense conservatism and on the other of a certain westernization."  (pg. 91)  "Greek thought underwent an ossification and a hardening...[that] did in fact maintain the Orthodox tradition substantially unimpaired."

Yet also western thought infiltrated Orthodoxy mostly because Greeks who wanted higher education studied in non-Orthodox countries and learned from Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers. When Lutheran scholars visited Constantinople with hopes of introducing some sort of Reformation within Orthodoxy, Patriarch Jeremias, while kind, critiqued the Reformation from the Orthodox point of view in his Answers.

Later Patriarch Cyril Lukaris in an effort to rid any Roman Catholic influence in the Turkish Empire, turned to Protestant embassies in Constantinople for help.  His Confession show how his theology was influenced by his friendship with Protestants as it is "distinctively Calvinist in much of its teaching."  His Confession was condemned by his fellow Orthodox "by no less than six councils between 1638 and 1691."  Though heavily influenced by Roman Catholic manuals and "Latin weapons," Peter of Moghila and Dositheus of Jerusalem produced Confessions of their own with which to defend Orthodoxy against Cyril's Calvinism. 

The four areas which causes the most conflict: "the question of free will, grace, and predestination; the doctrine of the Church; the number and nature of the sacraments; and the veneration of icons." (pg.97)

Through all this, Orthodoxy realized the importance in "express[ing] its mind on these topics, and ... defin[ing] its position in relation to the new teachings which had arisen in the west."

The Kollyvades wanted to keep their fellow Greeks from falling under the influence of western Enlightenment.  They believed returning to the roots of Orthodoxy - as opposed to adopting secular ideas popular in the west - would regenerate the Greek nation.  They championed frequent communion - daily, if possible.  The Philokalia, "a vast anthology of ascetic and mystical texts...devoted especially to the theory and practice of inner prayer" made their appearance during this time and became especially popular in the late twentieth century!

One final thing:  "More than anything else it was the Holy Liturgy which kept Orthodoxy alive in these dark days." 

The Orthodox Church -- Evangelizing the Slavs & The Rise of Russia Within Orthodoxy

Unbelievably I finished a whole chapter in The Orthodox Church today!  You'll recall the past chapters where I had to divide them up in order to cover all the topics involved. I certainly have learned quite a lot from the first chapters of this book. I hope others have enjoyed the lessons and learned from them as well!  Chapter 4 dealt with the Orthodox Church and the Slavs.

Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, "Apostles of the Slavs," knew a variety of languages one of which was Slavonic.  When they went north into Moravia to share Christianity with the Slavs, they translated the Scriptures into the local tongue. The author mentions that this was different from Rome which tended to allow only Latin Scriptures and services.  Orthodox holds no such rigidity and "its normal policy is to hold services in the language of the people."  Of course I love this since I do not believe God limits Himself to speaking the best in only one language -- Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Arabic!  Not even American English with a southern drawl! 

Sadly the German and Greek missionaries clashed in Moravia and when the brothers died, the Germans expelled their followers.  So the followers moved on to Bulgaria which became the first national Church of the Slavs.   Serbia was next.

Romania's history was a bit different.  While Latin in national identity, they have the second largest Orthodox Church as of this book's writing.

The bulk of this chapter spoke of Orthodoxy in Russia especially Kiev.

Around 988 when Vladimir was converted to Christianity and married Anna, sister of the Orthodox Emperor, Orthodoxy became the national religion and remained this way until 1917.  He took his duty towards taking care of the poor seriously and "nowhere else in medieval Europe were there such highly organized 'social services' as tenth century Kiev."  (pg. 79)  Additionally "Vladimir was also deeply conscious of the Christian law of mercy, and when he introduced the Byzantine law code at Kiev, he insisted on mitigating its more savage and brutal features.  There was no death penalty in Kievan Russia, no mutilation, no torture; corporal punishment was very little used." 

Hopefully I got the right Vlad here!

Vladimir's two sons, Boris and Gleb, chose to be murdered by their older brother's emissaries than put up any political resistance to Svyatopolk's desire for their principalities.  These "Passion Bearers" took the Gospel literally and offered no resistance.  The author notes, "Russians have always laid great emphasis on the place of suffering in the Christian life."

Theodosius was born into a noble life, yet "emptied himself" as Christ did and lived a humble existence.  Even as a child he worked alongside the slaves in the field.  He founded the Monastery of the Caves at Kiev.

These four saints, Vladimir, Boris, Gleb and Theodosius,  "embody some of the most attractive features in Kievan Christianity" -- social justice, mercy, voluntary suffering and death and "self-identification with the humble." 

Kiev enjoyed good relationships with both Byzantium and Rome.

In 1237 the Mongols came and sacked Kiev.  Nearly all of Russia was overrun.  When another Russian city finally rose to leadership position, it was not Kiev, but Moscow.

A modern church in Moscow

Three saints emerged in the Russian Church during the Mongolian rule.  The author thought these deserved special attention.

1. Alexander Nevsky -- as a "warrior saint" this man preferred siding with the Tartars who did not interfere in the Russian Church rather than the Germans, Swedes and Lithuanians eager to bring the "Russian 'schismatics'" under Papal jurisdiction.  (This was not unlike the Church in Constantinople preferring Muslims to German Crusaders if you recall.  Boy, these Germans are feisty folks!  I see them mentioned often in this book and they most always are fighting!) 

2.  Stephen of Perm --  "Like many other of the early Russian missionaries, he did not follow in the wake of military and political conquest, but was ahead of it."  (pg.84) Russians liked to evangelize their pagan conquerors .. get that? not those they - the Russians - conquered, but those who conquered them.  Can you imagine the oppressed of today caring that much about those oppressing them that they share their faith? I am seriously having my image of Russians shattered here!  I grew up with Russia equaling Big Bad Communism and still don't think very highly of it due to all that childhood conditioning.  :)

3.  Sergius -- "the greatest national saint of Russia," like Theodosius of Kiev, he founded a famous monastery. He would go to the forest (the North's equivalent to the desert monasteries of Egypt, the author states) for silence and as people followed and communities formed, he would move on. In the process he push[ed] forward the boundaries of civilization and subject[ed] the forest to cultivation."
 

Sergius, called the "Builder of Russia," encouraged the rise of Moscow and the opposition to the Tartars, expanded the country through monks-through-the-forests treks and succeeded in "balancing [the] social and mystical aspects of monasticism."

Sixty-one years after Sergius died, "the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks. The new Russia...was now called to take Byzantium's place as protector of the Orthodox world."

Thoughts? Corrections?

The Orthodox Church -- Christian Mysticism, Compromise, Knowing the Unknowable God, and the Fate of "the most glorious church in Christendom"

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware

"I would rather see the Muslim turban in the midst of the city than the Latin mitre." 

Thus the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras echoed the words attributed to the sister of Emperor Michael VIII some 150 years prior when she said, "Better that my brother's Empire should perish, than the purity of Orthodox faith." 

Why the strong statements? 

In both instances reunion councils - at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1438 - were to blame. 

To blame?  Is not working for unity a good thing?

Indeed it is great, however, not at the expense of the principles you believe are from God.  We can negotiate on whether we want pink or blue carpet within the church, but for many of these people, the things of the Church - the Creeds and authority of one church (i.e.,Rome) over all the others were not up for compromise.

Yet compromise on the issues of the Filioque and Papal authority is what the leaders tried to do.  The Byzantines gave into Rome's demands and at least on paper agreed that the addition of the Filioque was fine and Rome's thoughts on Papal authority were too. Why this bowing down to Rome's wishes? 

The author notes that the two sides truly did want reconciliation between fellow Christians, however, he also recognized politics played a role.  The Byzantines were being threatened in the first case by the sovereign of Sicily,Charles of Anjou, and later by the Turks.  Help from Rome was needed and this could best be secured by attempting reconciliation.

And what better way to reconcile - at least on paper - than to agree to Rome's wishes.

Yet most of the Byzantine leaders and people did not agree to these compromises.

The author mentions that eastern and western thought continued to drift apart with westerners being influenced by Scholasticism, "new categories of thought, a new theological method, and a new terminology which the east did not understand." In the east, theology was influenced by the Hesychast Controversy where the church leaders had to make sense of God being unknowable (i.e., we cannot define Him) yet able to be known (i.e., He reveals Himself to His creation.)

How is this explained?

The Hesychasts were mystical and thought we could know God through inner stillness, through prayer.  Yet another common Greek thought, as mentioned, said God was unable to be known. "'God is infinite and incomprehensible,' wrote John of Damascus, 'and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility.'"

The controversy between the Hesychasts and Barlaam was taken up by St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica,who explained that we needed to distinguish between God's essence (unknowable) and His energies (knowable).  St. Basil once had said, "We know our God from His energies..., but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence.  For His energies come down to us, but His essence remains unapproachable."   (pg.68)

What are these energies?  I was asking this question too and then read this:

"These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon humans; they are God Himself in action and revelation to the world...[All] creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire of God's energies.  It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and immediate relationship with humankind. In relation to us humans, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the grace of God; grace is not just a 'gift' of God, not just an object which God bestows on humans, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal encounter between creature and Creator."

Hmmm, any wonder St. Gregory began his defense by reaffirming the Biblical doctrine of Incarnation?

"Palamas, therefore, preserved God's transcendence and avoided the pantheism to which an unguarded mysticism easily leads; yet he allowed for God's immanence, for His continual presence in the world.  God remains 'the Wholly Other', and yet through His energies (which are God Himself) He enters into an immediate relationship with the world." (pg. 69)

A contemporary of Palamas, lay theologian St. Nicolas Cabasilas authored a book which dealt with mysticism not becoming speculative and individualistic, but remaining "Christocentric, sacramental, ecclesial."

"Palamas and his circle did not regard mystical prayer as a means of bypassing the normal institutional life of the Church." 

Chapter three ends with the east and west unable to come together despite the reconciliation attempt at the council meeting in Florence.  In the end the Turks came and one last service - with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox united - was held at the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia).  After receiving communion, the Emperor went out and died while fighting on the walls.

"Later the same day the city fell to the Turks, and the most glorious church in Christendom became a mosque."

I suppose for the Christians living at that time it would be like what Muslims would think if the Masjid al-Haram at Mecca were converted into a church.

Wow!

The Orthodox Church -- St. Photius, Ignatius, Pope Nicolas I, Bulgaria, Humbert & More

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware

The next section of chapter three deals with the Eastern and Western Churches' estrangement becoming a full division.  It began with a new Patriarch of Constantinople being appointed, St. Photius the Great.  A dispute arose quickly between him and Pope Nicolas I.  I then read about a former Patriarch, St.Ignatius being exiled and forced to resign.  The supporters of Ignatius considered Photius "a usurper" and Nicolas decided he would not recognize Photius as the new Patriarch until he looked into the quarrel for himself.  He sent a delegation to Constantinople who came back with the report that Photius was the proper Patriarch, but Nicolas decided to not abide by their decision.    He figured he needed to retry the case himself at Rome and "a council held under his presidency in 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity."  (pg. 53)  The Byzantines never acknowledged this decision by Nicolas and never replied to his letters on this subject.

The author says "this dispute clearly involved the Papal claims."  Nicolas had already "done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west.  But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also." 

The East did not agree.

The dispute over the Filioque came to a head in Bulgaria as Greek and German missionaries clashed because of this difference in the Creed.  Patriarch Photius wrote a letter "denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy."  He called a council to Constantinople which proceeded to excommunicate Nicolas.

Suddenly things changed!

In 867, Photius was out and Ignatius reinstated as the Patriarch of Constantinople.  "Communion with Rome was restored."

Even Photius and Ignatius were reconciled and when Ignatius died, Photius once again became the Patriarch of Constantinople. 

Pope John VIII was not one for Frankish influence nor did he make the Filioque an issue.  Outwardly this was a period of reconciliation between Rome and the East, but no real solution had been made concerning these two divisive issues.

And they cropped up again.

I won't rehash all that happened next, but just note a few things that caught my eye.

Under German influence Rome reformed itself, "and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved.  The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made."  (pg.57)

(It seems Germans are often reformers, huh?)


The "severe quarrel" between Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, representing Rome and the Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 contributed more to the divide.  Among the charges against the Patriarch: "Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed!"  (Recall from past lessons that the Filioque was an addition from the Roman Church acting independently of the council of churches.)

Previously the disagreement had been between the church and government leaders, however the Crusades - sadly - "brought the schism down to the local level."  In Antioch and Jerusalem you had "two rival bishops claim[ing] the same throne and two hostile congregations exist[ing] in the same city."  (pg.60)

"'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom.'  The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege.  After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two."  (pg. 60)

I did like how the author summed up what both sides need to do.

"Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance.  Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level...The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy." (pg.61)

Thoughts? Corrections? Clarifications?  

The Orthodox Church -- The Estrangement that Lead to the Schism; Latin & Greek Thoughts; Barbarian Influence on the Church

The more I read history books and imagine the olden days, the more my mind brings up images of hordes of yelling warriors running up hills, down hills, across plains.  This tribe slaughtering that tribe.  The other tribe ravaging the other's land.  Dark haired, dark eyed, some. Blondes with blue and green eyes, others.

Oh something like these guys from Night at the Museum.  Remember all that yelling?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Isn't this post about The Orthodox Church, you ask? Most definitely,but chapter three's beginning impressed upon me how "barbarians" influenced Christianity!


For the record, I like to believe we have moved past these barbaric tendencies, but I think in reality we have those little warriors lurking just below the surface and more often than we like to admit: they surface!

Movin' on!


Chapter 3 of The Orthodox Church begins with the estrangement leading up to the great schism between eastern and western Christianity.  The author reminds us that the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire during the apostles' time was due to commonalities in politics and culture.  Many people spoke both Latin and Greek.  Over time politics and culture throughout the Empire changed.  Step by step, the crack widened. I suppose it's like a marriage where spouses develop and pursue different interests.  Before you know it, you've grown apart and then if you aren't careful, you find yourself estranged, separated and "schismed." I mean divorced.

Here are factors that I noted as contributing to the increasing estrangement.

 Political disunity happened first.

1.  Unity of the Mediterranean world declined partly when Constantine founded a "second imperial capital in the east".  Except for Rome, barbarian invasions carved up much of Europe under various chiefs.

2.  Illyricum, formerly seen as a bridge between east and west, became a barrier when Avars and Slavs invaded the Balkan peninsula.

3.  Due to the rise of Islam, the Mediterranean Sea fell largely under Arab control and contact between east and west became more difficult.

4.  The Iconclast controversy.  Some were for icons; others were not.

5.  Pope Stephen reaching out to Pepin brought increased Frankish influence to Rome.

6.  Fifty years later, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor.  He was unable to gain sought-after recognition by the Byzantines who regarded him as an "intruder."

All of this political disunity naturally lead to cultural divisions over time.  Whereas before many people were bilingual, increasingly, those in the west spoke only Latin and those in the east, Greek.   As this pertains to the church, the people stopped reading each other's books so the Latin-only people got more "Latinized" in thinking whereas the Greeks, predictably, went in the other direction.



Even from the beginning the Latins and Greeks approached theology and the Christian Mystery differently.  For example:

the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative;

Latin thought was influenced by judicial ideas, by the concept of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and the light of the Holy Liturgy.

When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons;

when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins primarily thought of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor;

Latins talked more about redemption, Greeks of deification. (pg. 48)

But when the two groups were in political unity, they would complement each other's work.  Both approaches could be melded into one.  When the disunification happened, this "blending" stopped.



The Byzantines always were more involved in councils and had a collegiality style, whereas the Latins - with those numerous, divided barbarian tribes - often looked at the Roman Church as the one unifying presence.  The western Church grew to resemble a monarchy. 

The east tended to be more educated with many "lay" theologians abounding. By contrast the commoners were illiterate in the west so the Church took on a bigger role. People were not reading the Scripture for themselves - how could they? - so they had to wait for the Church to tell them what it said. 

With all that power - no checks and balances from other churches or the common folks - I can certainly see how corruption could settle in!  Power too often breeds corruption.

Eventually the churches grew into direct conflict regarding two things:

1 -- Papal claims to more authority than the eastern churches wanted to give. The Orthodox were for primacy of Rome, but not supremacy.  (Perhaps this monarchical-type ruling in Rome among the barbarian tribes transferred to Rome thinking even the other churches should bow to their wishes.)

2 -- The Filioque -- changing the Creed from saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from not just the Father, but also the Son. While this insertion was not necessarily a bad theological position for some Orthodox, the fact that Rome decided to do this independent of the council, the Orthodox simply could not handle.


So does the individualistic nature/independent streak of many westerners go back to the Roman Church acting independently of the council of Churches?  The East even today is more community-minded, yes?

It's all rather interesting, huh? What are your thoughts?

The Orthodox Church -- Fathers, Monks, Role of the Emperor

Ah, finally I am at the last section of chapter 2 and it deals with saints, monks and emperors. 

Amber had to go and remind me that these are people we are dealing with so it's understandable that they didn't always treat people and each other as Jesus would have.  So very true.  :)

On the negative side - which the author is honest in stating (and I like that about him!) - "Cyril of Alexandria, for example, in his struggle against Nestorius, bribed the Court heavily and terrorized the city of Ephesus with a private army of monks." (pg. 36)  He notes that the Orthodox Church "recognizes that the councils were attended by imperfect humans, but it believes that these imperfect humans were guided by the Holy Spirit." 

And on the positive side - The Byzantine bishop was not simply a distant father figure, but "in many cases a true father to his people, a friend and protector to whom people confidently turned when in trouble." Social obligations and charitable work were "principal functions" of the Church in the Byzantine Empire.

I love that!



The next part discussed monasticism of which entering it has been noted as the "best way to penetrate Orthodox spirituality."   Too often we are tempted to try building God's kingdom on earth such as even the Byzantines were apt to do. Byzantium was an "image and symbol, not the reality." The life of monks "reminded Christians that the kingdom of God is not of this world." 


There are three chief forms of monasticism

hermits -- think solitary living in huts, caves, branches of trees, even tombs

community life -- monks dwelling together; whereas western monasticism gave more emphasis to works (caring for the sick and poor, maintaining hospitals and orphanages), eastern monks' primary service and purpose was prayer

semi-eremitic life -- a "middle way"

Monastic life has always been seen as a vocation for men as well as women.

The chief center of Orthodox monastic life is Athos in northern Greece.

Unlike Roman Catholicism, there are no "Orders" in Orthodox monasticism.

A "characteristic figure in Orthodox monasticism is the 'elder' or 'old man'... a monk of spiritual discernment and wisdom, whom others...adopt as their guide and spiritual director." These "spiritual mothers" and "spiritual fathers" see "in a concrete and practical way what the will of God is in relation to each person who comes to consult him; this is the elder's special gift of charisma."  (pg. 39)

While rewarding, I actually think a monk's life is difficult. Or maybe it just requires a discipline that I don't have. I read where a monk must go through a "long and rigorous preparation in solitude" in order to learn the truth about himself and God and gain the gifts of discernment so he can help others. 


Re: the role of the Emperor ...

We've already discussed the Church and State connection which was normal for those times, however, I enjoyed this bit about the bishops being the ones who "gathered in council to decide what the true faith was" while the Emperor was in charge of protecting the faith. (pg. 41) (This reminds me of the balance of power within the US system where the Legislature is in charge of deciding the laws and the Executive branch is in charge of carrying them out.)  Ideally the two should keep their powers separate in order to keep the right balance.

The Byzantines believed Christ "had redeemed every aspect of human existence" and thus their great vision was "to establish here on earth a living image of God's government in heaven."  (pg. 42)

Taboos, Superstitions, The Evil Eye: "To Dismiss or Not to Dismiss?" - That is the Question!

"Step on a crack and break your momma's back."

How many of us chanted this little jingle growing up as we deliberately stepped so as to not touch any parts of our feet on the offending cracks in sidewalks?  

Admit it...you did this too, right?

My friends and I would do it for fun, for a few minutes, and then it was back to normal walking and who really cares if we stepped on or over cracks in the sidewalk because we did not believe the ways we stepped would affect our mothers' backs in any way.

Not that this book, African Notebook, is huge or anything, but the author, Albert Schweitzer, devoted a full chapter to Taboos and Magic.  As I was reading it last night, thoughts of American Bedu's recent post concerning "Does the Evil Eye Really Exist" came to mind. I know Saudi Arabia is very cultural and sometimes the culture gets mixed up with the national religion and people fault Islam for things that are not in Islam.  They are simply cultural traditions predating Muhammad's religion.  Evil eye talk exists in even predominantly Catholic Latin American countries from what I understand.

And we all know of superstitions such as the bad luck that follows breaking a mirror, spilling salt, seeing a black cat, walking under a ladder or the number 13.  By contrast a rabbit's foot and four leaf clovers are supposed to bring good luck.


You may recall from the Old Testament that the Israelites used the Ark of the Covenant as somewhat of a good luck charm believing if they took it into battle, they were assured of victory over their foes.

How much stock do you put into such things?  Are they nonsensical or do they have some supernatural value that people who only believe what they see should note? Is there some element of the supernatural out there that we should take seriously?

In this book, Schweitzer notes how strongly taboos influenced the people of (now) Gabon, Africa.  Some were more general: men whose wives were pregnant could not drive nails, eat meat that had begun to smell (despite most of the times their eating meat that was "already almost putrid"), touch a chameleon, step over a procession of driver ants, fill a hole with dirt and have anything to do with a corpse.  

Some taboos were very specific and "at the birth of a child the special taboos affecting it as an individual [were] usually disclosed by the father."  When the child was old enough to learn to count to five, he was taught his particular taboos.  For one woman it was that she never sweep with a broom. Thus she always used her hands for this task. For a young man, it was that he never be hit on his right shoulder.  Yet another was prohibited from eating plantains or even from the same pot where plantains were cooked immediately before. (When he accidentally ate fish that had plantain remains in the pot, he immediately got a cramp and died after a few hours!)

Can you imagine having to sweep with your hands due to a taboo?

When people died, the villagers often looked for reasons. Instead of attributing death to natural causes, they were quick to consult a witchdoctor who would inform them of the person who had practiced magic or called down a curse on the one who died.  In one sad recollection, a French-American observer, du Chaillu, watched with horror and helplessness as the village gathered round and executed quick "justice" over three women who supposedly had caused a young man's untimely death.  One of the victims' brothers was forced to participate in this beheading and hacking up of the bodies and throwing them into the river to avoid suspicion.  It was not allowed to show sympathy for those accused...even if you knew they were innocent and the one being killed was a close family member!   This distraught young man "compelled not only to join in witnessing the murder of his sister, but to shout with the mob in the chorus of rage, [was full of] frightful suffering.  [du Chaillu] endeavored to comfort him. He spoke to him of God, Who loathes all cruelty.  'Oh, Chally,' said the poor African, 'when you go back to your country, tell the people there to send people to teach us poor ignorant beings the words that come from the mouth of God.'"  (pg. 77)

Apparently some of the natives did believe God freed them from these taboos.  I especially enjoyed this recollection:

Nyingone's taboo was that she "must never see her reflection either in glass or metal or water."  This was especially hard when trying to cross streams by tree trunks because when she happened to see her reflection in the water, she fainted, fell in the water and nearly drowned.  (She'd been rescued from drowning several times.)

In despair over what she had already suffered from this taboo, she came to Monsieur Lavignotte.  "This taboo," she said, "is a dreadful force. I can't help being afraid of it.  But I know too that God, Whom you know and preach, is stronger than Satan, in whom we have hitherto believed.  So with your help I hope to get rid of my taboo.  When you have prayed with me, I shall fearlessly turn round the mirror I hold in my hand and look at myself in it." 

After the prayer, she had courage to do as she had said.  She looked in the glass for a long time glowing with happiness because nothing happened.  When at last she raised her eyes, she said to Monsieur Lavignotte, "And to think I never knew how beautiful I am ...'"  (pg.62)

The truth will set you free!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to believe that Jesus would have appreciated the faith it took for this lady to overcome this strong cultural superstition.


Twins were often considered halves of the same whole.  If they were allowed to live, mothers had to treat them exactly the same, give them the exact same amount of food, dress them alike and even twins were forced to marry at the same time.  Often when one twin died, the other hid because tradition held that the other half (since s/he was not a whole person) needed to die as well.


What do you think concerning this post?   Do you take evil eyes, superstitions, taboos, magic seriously? Why or why not?  Do you believe your holy book supports your position or is it more cultural for you?  Did any of the stories above interest you?  Does the story about the young man dying after eating out of a pot with plantains prove to you that some spiritual force is behind these taboos?  What did you think of Nyingone's declaration that God is stronger than Satan when she wanted to be free of her taboo? Other thoughts or impressions?

Want to read more tidbits from this book?  Check out this post with more interesting cultural observations from African Notebook.

The Orthodox Church -- Fighting for Top Honors, Pentarchy, Icons

More from chapter 2 ...

St John Chrysostom is "perhaps the best loved in the Orthodox Church, and the one whose works are most widely read."  He's also the Bishop of Constantinople that Theodosius managed to get exiled when the churches were fighting for their rank of importance.  

*sigh*  Even the churches? 

Was this quest for supremacy not already played out and addressed in Scripture with Jesus teaching his disciples that the greatest among you is the one who serves?  Why then do we always fall into this temptation to assert ourselves as the top dog?  Why this Alexandrian challenge to Constantinople's new place as number two (knocking Alexandria down to third) even in Church history except for the fact it is further proof of man's - even so-called 'righteous' man's - attempts to raise himself above others?  The Bible teaches that GOD exalts the humble and resists the proud, however, it appears even these Church leaders gave little importance to Jesus' message!

That said, these are the top 5 - the Pentarchy - of Orthodox in order of honor

Rome -- I wrongly thought the talk against the Pope in the intro meant the Orthodox gave little importance to Rome and by extension the Pope.  They just don't give the Pope the supremacy title the Roman Catholics do nor to them does the doctrine of Papal authority apply. To the Orthodox the Pope has a primacy of honor - the first among equals - because Orthodox realize Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome and they believe Peter was the head of the church established there.  Also when the "other Patriarchates wavered during the great doctrinal disputes, ...Rome for the most part stood firm."  (pg. 28)

Constantinople -- The New Rome (Rome minus the stain of paganism)

Alexandria -- which hated it was bumped from second place when Constantinople was created as the new capital

Antioch -- like the previous three, this city was important to the Roman Empire

Jerusalem -- "added because it was the place Christ had suffered on the Cross and risen from the dead"  (pg. 26)


The next section deals with icons and its chief champion, John of Damascus. The author notes that there have been debates even within Christianity concerning their importance.  Is it idolatry?  Are icons graven images such as are forbidden by God in the Old Testament?  The author states the Orthodox position that they are not committing idolatry simply because they are not worshiping a piece of wood or a metal or art.  They are using those items as symbols.  It is "veneration towards the person depicted."

The second point in favor of icons is probably my favorite: someone who cannot read the Bible, could theoretically see the story of Jesus with the help of icons.   I saw this firsthand when we were in Syria at the chapel of St. Paul (this post). In fact we went around the chapel telling Samer the story of Paul by using these pictures hung around the chapel.

A picture I took in St. Paul's Chapel, Damascus

The third point is that while "God cannot be represented in His eternal nature" (the Bible says "no one has seen God at any time"), the "Incarnation has made a representational religious art possible: God can be depicted because He became human and took flesh."  (pg. 33)  As I read in another book explaining this topic some months back, Jesus was an icon!

(I found these from Amber's blog concerning icons.  Part 1 and  Part 2 -- They are really good!)

Due to the importance of the first seven councils, the Orthodox often refer to themselves as "the Church of the Seven Councils."  The author notes, "next to the Bible, it is the seven councils which the Orthodox Church takes as its standard and guide in seeking solutions to the new problems which arise in every generation." (pg. 35)


Thoughts?