On Russia and Death

I recently went to a book warehouse in the county and bought a book about Russia for ninety-nine cents plus tax -- Night of Stone by Catherine Merridale.  For that cheap of a price I didn't care too much what it was about. It seemed interesting from my brief look at it, but I didn't realize until later that it was almost entirely about death***. You know Russians = death culture, right?

Each chapter has interesting tidbits. Like I didn't realize Russians thought animals didn't have souls. Well, I don't know that I do either, but the author mentioned BEARS being an exception.  As in they might have souls.  The first chapter deals with peasant life and I noted how important being buried on home turf was.  How some took cup fulls of dirt with them in case they died while away from home. Everyone wanted to be buried near home because Russians visit the graves of relatives - regularly. Take food (eggs, honey), picnic in cemeteries, and commune with the dead. Or they did traditionally. I'm still reading the book so I'm not sure if this is still practiced, but pre-Communism, this was the tradition.

Since this book is quite lengthy, yet has pretty neat facts, I decided to jot down a few tidbits about each chapter. I hate when I get to the end of a book and realize, while I found some interesting stuff along the way, I didn't note any of it (which translates to I will probably forget about it.) When I write stuff down such as I'm doing now, I tend to recall it better. Who knows when information about Russian deaths will come in handy.

Chapter 2 began with the low life expectancy. Such as even in the mid-1990s, it was 58 for Russian men.  Wow.  The chapter discussed the high suicide rate, public executions, and children with playground games of "death penalty" inspired by the prevailing culture. One five year old "accidentally strangled her three-year old brother after condemning him to death in a mock trial in their nursery."  (pg. 67)

The third chapter mentioned the Immortalization Committee which had the thought "preserve the mortal body using science, and one day science, too, will resurrect it."  (pg. 93).    Also the differences in "Red" and traditional funerals, and the way the Russians "neglected" their history in World War I were mentioned at some length.

Chapter 4 dealt with the trauma of civil war and how mentally ill patients were treated. Also children would play civil war: Reds vs. Whites. (One daughter of an Old Bolshevik noted that the girls always had to be the Whites.) (pg. 117)  Suicides were mentioned again.  They were deemed too individualistic for Soviet society.

E.M. Yaroslavskii, the "Communist Party's ideological spokesman" said "suicides were 'weak-willed, weak of character' and lacking in faith in 'the power and strength of the Party.' A Russian historian of the issue recently added that suicide, by the late 1920s, appeared to some to be 'a witness to the free right of an individual to choose its own fate. And that did not suit Soviet power at all.'"  (pg. 120)

I read most of chapter 5 today and who ever knew learning about the backlog of funerals could be so interesting? No really, there were so many bodies to be buried, yet the workers only did 7 burials per day so some bodies were in storage for over a month!  Some were shipped by train to other places. The Communists finally decided to cremate bodies (which was highly frowned upon in Orthodox Christianity, but who cares about them at this point). But their crematory was terrible and after many hours of building it, it burned to the ground after cremating only a small percentage of what was needed. The leaders finally decided to take over the cemeteries. They took down the monuments and made them parks.  This chapter also mentions the plundering of church icons and buildings and taking gold and silver for state use (some villagers fought this unsuccessfully).  The death and preservation of Lenin was amusing to me.  He was refrigerated, displayed, rotting so they decided finally to embalm him and then display him so the adoring masses could visit and commune with the departed leader.  An atheist approach to death mentioned: skip the coffins and rituals; my body "should be sent to a factory without any ritual, and in the factory the fat should be used for technical purposes and the rest for fertilizer," wrote M.S. Ol'minskii in July 1924.  (pg. 142)

I'm on chapter 6 now so I won't bother with any more notes, but I'll go ahead and post these in case anyone is interested in these Russian death tidbits.  What did you find most interesting?




*** (Er, I suppose the subtitled should have tipped me off: Death and Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia) 

June Books & I fought temptation and won!

Another month has gone, and we are half a year away from 2012, people!  Half a year away from making new year's resolutions and posting lists of books we read in 2011 and putting away the Christmas decorations after yet another busy holiday season. Time sure does move quickly.

So in my May post I told y'all I read a book about a road (from Damascus) and this month I read about another road (Eastern Orthodoxy).    Last month I read a book by an Indian (from Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh) who said very positive things about Christianity and the Bible. This month I read a book by an Indian (Native American) who didn't much care for most of the Christians he'd encountered. (I think he was OK with Jesus.)   I finished my journey through America with Akbar Ahmed and his team.  That book was rather long (500ish pages) and detailed, but kept my attention throughout.  I read a book about two "promised lands" - Israel and the United States. The latter dealt with Moses' impact in inspiring the settlers here.

Have you read any good books lately? 


Journey Into America by Akbar Ahmed -- fantastic book about American identity and culture and the ways minority groups have been treated here; see posts from late May and early June for many more details

"Through discussion and dialogue with my Jewish friends, I have learned about Jewish history and culture and how these shape Jewish identity -- the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the trauma of the Diaspora, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, which remains a dark and troubling cloud over the history of all humankind. I also learned of the deep attachment that Jews feel toward the city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel, which is more than just a country to the Jewish people. It is an expression of their religious and cultural identity.  Becoming friends with Jews allowed me to view the Israeli narrative from their perspective. In this way, while they saw and hopefully understood my Muslim narrative, I tried to understand theirs." (pg. 395)


The chapter on Mormons and Muslims showed me how similar the two faiths are. In fact the Mormon university has a geography class where one professor gives handouts showing 21 similarities between the two faiths. Granted, they also have huge differences, but the team said Mormons they met seemed to be the most accepting of Muslims in America.  When breaking down stats, Mormons over any other group put religion as number one in their lives (96%; Muslims were at 85%),  When asked about the biggest threats to America, Mormons were more likely to say the "breakdown of the family," "ourselves," "immorality," and "the economy." One student "named pornography as the greatest threat to America, calling it 'the root of a lot of evil.'"  "More Mormons saw America as a Christian country than did either Protestants or Catholics." (pg. 420-1)

When discussing the rise of Mormonism during what he calls "the Great White American Century" the author noted "Mormonism provided an optimistic theology in an era of hope and promise. Unlike the austere and puritanical preachings of Calvinism, Mormonism offered what scholar Fawn Brodie called an 'ingenious blend of supernaturalism and materialism, which promised in heaven a continuation of all earthly pleasures - work, wealth, sex and power.'"  (pg. 405)



The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann  --  I shared much more about this book here.


"In the record of Orthodoxy, as in the story of Christianity in general, there is no lack of defects and human sins. ... The true Orthodox way of thought has always been historical, has always included the past, but has never been enslaved by it. Christ is 'yesterday and today and forever the same,' and the strength of the Church is not in the past, present, or future, but in Christ."  (pg. 341)



Speaking of Jesus by Carl Medearis -- after having read a book filled with Christian Church stuff, this book was almost simplistic by contrast.  The author basically tells us to just talk about Jesus.  He reminded us that the complicated doctrines, explanations, egg illustration of God and often horrid Christian history are not what people need. They just need Jesus. And he shares what a joy it is for him to talk about one he loves so dearly. I like too that he stressed discipleship - a commitment of relationship - rather than evangelism which is often a one-moment deal (e.g., one altar call, one revival meeting, one door-to-door soul winning evening).  ; also see previous post

"We can't simply pull in our church boundaries, tell the rest of the world to drop dead, and then bomb the sand out of the Middle East. At least not if we are trying to follow Jesus.  The conservative movement here in the West often tries to embrace the moral code of Christianity without the self-sacrificial teachings of Jesus."  (pg. 148)

Here is an article of Carl's published at Huffington Post just yesterday.



Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto by Vine Deloria, Jr. -- Andrew asked why I got this book and I think it was in the footnotes of a book I read earlier this year. I decided I wanted to read a book about Indians from an American Indian rather than a white author so I found this one on Amazon and received it for my birthday.   Read more about my thoughts on this book here. 

And see my pictures from the Cherokee Indian Reservation here if you'd like.  We were there last Saturday.




The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace by Aaron David Miller -- My brother found this book somewhere and gave it to me for my birthday. He said he saw the word "Arab" and knew how much I like them so he got this.   About halfway through this nearly 400 page book I was ready to toss it aside because I was exasperated with how much time and money and energy has been used in trying to bring peace to this region! (Not to mention all the trees killed to write all those drafts and official treaties!)  To read more go here.




America's Prophet: How the Story of Moses Shaped America by Bruce Feiler --  I saw this on Amazon.com and decided to buy it. It was inexpensive and I like Bruce Feiler. I've read at least three of his other books.  See the previous post for some of the American Moseses (or Mosii per Amber's suggestion) discussed in this book.  Also I'll probably add a bit more from this book in an upcoming post.  I finished it just in time to add to June books! 



If you want to see most of these books because you are a visual person and maybe like to see that people actually are nerdy enough to take photos of their stacks of books, go here. From my stack of 18 books pictured there, I have only one left to read!  I actually went to the library once, had 3 books in my arms to check out and ...


(try not to faint when you read this)

PUT THEM BACK ON THE SHELVES!!!

I yielded not to temptation because I remembered I still had books at home that needed to be read.  Just a few more to go now and then Helloooooo, Library!  :)

Eastern Orthodox Stuff: Constantine, Pagan Influence in the Church, Obliged to Believe, Christ

You may recall that I started off this year reading Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church which had been recommended by two friends.  It was a great overview of this faith so when Amazon recommended The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann, I put it on my Wishlist. And a dear friend sent it to me for my birthday!  *feels the love*  So I just finished reading it and must admit the first book was better, more complete in explaining (so, Amber, your recommendation was better than Amazon's), but this one had many interesting aspects not covered in the first.  So I feel a bit more well-rounded after having read both!

Here are a few things that took my attention enough to jot down the page numbers with intent to share. There was other stuff that I just decided not to post although I found it educational as well.



This bit about Constantine was good.  I'll let you guess which side I fall under in the East/West divide.  I was especially surprised when I read that the Eastern Church puts Constantine up there with the disciples of Jesus! 


"For Eastern Christianity, Constantine still remains the holy initiator of the Christian world, the instrument for the victory of light over darkness that crowned the heroic feats of the martyrs. The West, on the other hand, often regards the era of Constantine as the beginning of an enslavement of the Church by the state, or even as the first falling away on the part of the Church from the height of primitive Christian freedom."  (pg. 62)


For some reason I found this incredibly interesting although I'm not exactly sure why. Is "becoming a Christian" being baptized, saying a 'sinner's prayer,' following Jesus or what?  Reminds me of becoming Muslim being as simple as saying the shahada. For the record, Constantine really wanted to be baptized in the Jordan River so that may be why he waited so long to be baptized. 


Constantine did not receive baptism "the only symbol the Church accepts of becoming a Christian" until his deathbed.  Thus the "primary, initial paradox" is "that the first Christian emperor was a Christian outside of the Church, and the Church silently but with full sincerity and faith accepted and recognized him." In Constantine's mind his faith in Christ "had been bestowed personally and directly for his victory over the enemy - in other words, as he was fulfilling his imperial duty. Consequently the victory he had won with the help of the Christian God had placed the emperor - and thereby the empire as well - under the protection of the Cross and in direct dependence upon Christ."  (pg. 66)



Ever heard how Christianity has a lot of pagan aspects to it? Like Christmas, for instance, isn't talked about in the Bible as being December 25. Easter eggs? Not there.  Christmas trees?  Nope.  Animal sacrifice and circumcision starting with the Jews as something new God gave only to them?  No again.


The author talked a bit about paganism and how people back then felt about their religions and in a section speaking of reverence for saints and their relics and the "increasing complexity of worship" and interest in holy places and such, the author notes that many have directly attributed this to "pagan influence in the Church and regarded [it] as a compromise with the world for the sake of a mass victory."  Yet the author states that the Christian does not need to apologize for this or try to explain it. "On the contrary, he may boldly accept the charge....Christianity adopted and assimilated many forms of pagan religion, not only because they were the eternal forms of religion in general, but also because the intention of Christianity itself was not to replace all forms in this world by new ones, but to fill them with new and true meaning." Instead of thinking of Christianity borrowing from and being influenced by pagan things, think in reverse. All things were initially good, but due to the fall, it has been distorted.  "The Church in its own mind has returned to God what rightly belongs to Him, always and in every way restoring the fallen image."  (pg. 98)  So in a sense, the pagan rites have been redeemed by Christ!


Even if you come to church for the wrong reasons, it's OK!  You can hear about Christ and - who knows? - your life may be changed because of it!

Speaking of the "cult of saints" even when their deeds were distorted greatly, the author says when people came to the Church and learned of the saints, they could see how lives were transformed by Christ.  "However much men may have brought into the Church what they had seen and sought in pagan temples, when they entered it they now heard those eternal and immutable words about the Savior crucified for our sins - about the perfect love that God has shown us - and about His kingdom as the final goal of all living beings."  (pg. 101)


Notice that last phrase and tell me if that won't make a HUGE difference in your "Christianity." Christian-in-name-only, anyone?

About a "Christian theocracy" -- "State sanctions gave the Church unprecedented strength, and perhaps brought many to faith and new life, but after Theodosius the Great it was no longer a community of believers; it was also a community of those obliged to believe."  (pg. 111, emphasis mine)


Well, hey, if many in your community were "obliged to believe," why would you not have this problem? What is our excuse today? This is how John Chrysostom saw the Church


"His central concern was the Christian life of his flock and its variety and everyday reality.  Before him was a world that had accepted Christianity but was still so close to paganism, so deeply poisoned by sin and ignorance, that it did not take the faith itself too seriously. People crowded into the churches, but outside church walls - and indeed, sometimes within them - were moral irresponsibility, hatred, and injustice."  (pg. 112)


This was the last bit of the whole book, the last sentence is included below.  I love the last three words.

"In the record of Orthodoxy, as in the story of Christianity in general, there is no lack of defects and human sins. ... The true Orthodox way of thought has always been historical, has always included the past, but has never been enslaved by it. Christ is 'yesterday and today and forever the same,' and the strength of the Church is not in the past, present, or future, but in Christ."  (pg. 341)

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

Extinction as Our Goal & A Bit about Heaven

So the other week when I was visiting ye ol' county library, I checked out a tall, rather slim Time Life volume (published 1968) on Historic India by Lucille Schulberg.  I've become increasingly fascinated by this country. Maybe The Amazing Race has something to do with it since it seems they make a stop in India during most seasons.  Sidenote: I thought it was the sweetest thing when the deaf contestant Luke was struggling in a task to the point of tears. The Indians overseeing this particular tea-tasting task looked on this touching moment as Margie encouraged her son to not give up. And when he was done, my goodness, I had tears running down my face as those sweet men clapped for Luke like he was their hero!

That's not the point of this post which is actually about heaven.  See in this book about India, there is a chapter on Buddhism since Siddhartha Gautama came out of this region.  So Gautama was the son of a lord and his father was fearful that if his son saw suffering people, he would become an ascetic.

1.  a person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons.

2.  a person who leads an austerely simple life, especially one who abstains from the normal pleasures of life or denies himself or herself material satisfaction.

Right.  Since everyone loves denying himself pleasures to live in solidarity with those suffering.

Or maybe people back then and there were this way? It seems not Gautama's father however, if he was willing to remove any suffering person from his midst so his son wouldn't happen to realize some people are poor, some are sick, some are physically challenged by blindness and deafness and distorted limbs.

I just don't see it now. But I am from the United States in a society where most people are more concerned that the transmission went out on their car or their harddrive crashed than the fact some people in the world listen to their children cry themselves to sleep at night because they are starving.

Maybe Indians in those years before Christ were more intune with the suffering of mankind?  *shrug*

Ah, heaven.  Let me get back on track. So from the talk about Buddhism in this book I get the idea that we were born to suffer or rather "to live was to suffer."  I guess this means suffering is common to humankind and that makes some sense.  I know no one immune from suffering to some degree or another. 

But then I read about the ultimate goal - nirvana - which the author says literally means "extinction."  You are completely released from all desires never to be reborn again. Therefore: you are extinct.

Ah, sorry, but that does not sound good to me.  Yes, if I were starving to death, a really long sleep might sound good. But to be utterly extinct?  Does that not go against the natural longing* of humanity who wants to live forever?  Why do we take vitamins and eat rice cakes and exercise and use anti-wrinkle cream?  Why do we undergo face lifts and search for that proverbial fountain of youth? 

I guess it's because we aren't Buddhists. But still.

We put animals on endangered species lists. We speak of extinct things with some melancholy.  We procreate!  (Well, not me, but I am abnormal in this regard..ha!  My contradictory life amuses me!)

Extinction as our goal seems so, so not-human to me! 

Maybe I have found the "otherness" that I cannot abide. Extinction as my goal for eternity. No thank you.

How about you?  And while we are on the subject of heaven -- well, sort of.  What do you think of it?  Islam describes it in very earthly-sensual terms: fine wine, fine food and fine women. Revelation in the New Testament shows it more worshipful: all nations, tribes and tongues surrounding God's throne in praise and worship.  Eastern Orthodoxy gives me the impression it's being in God's presence and "one" with Him (whatever that means).  My preacher firmly believes heaven will be far grander than anything on earth and not the boring place some imagine where we will sit around on clouds eating grapes.  I wonder how it really is. 


*  Yes, I speak as one who believes God has put eternity in our hearts so we desire to live, we struggle for it!  And this fact makes me so not a Buddhist where my goal is to rid my heart of desires including the desire to live.





Aaaaaand I must say for those of you who have heard me say (or write) sometimes I wish I were never born (hey, to live is to suffer!), you might wonder why I think this way. Well, since I'm already born, it doesn't mean I want to now die. Especially if I believe what I do about the eternality of the soul.  C.S. Lewis says we are souls with bodies...not the other way around.  So where will my soul be a thousand years from now?  Extinct?





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 -- Updating Tradition?

"'Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle; it is, primarily, the principle of growth and regeneration ... Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words.'"

"'When the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth.'"  ~ Jesus in John 16:13

And after saying this, Timothy Ware, in The Orthodox Church states :  "It is this divine promise that forms the basis of the Orthodox devotion to Tradition."

If you are like me the word "tradition" conjures up images of rules and customs and "we've always done it this way" conversations that leave people doing things the same ol' way all.the.time. despite progress happenin' all around them.

Don't hold me back!

Maybe it's my American revolutionary heritage mixed in with a healthy dose of Southern rebelliousness, but it makes me think of being chained down, being given a bag full of rocks and then told "Go now...be on your way."  As if I will make a lot of progress with all that stuff weighing me down!

So reading these words -- growth, regeneration -- in regards to Tradition was somehow strange...yet refreshing!

Hey, isn't this what many of those progressive Muslims want when they say the Quran laid down basic principles for treating people justly, but we must apply them to our times and not think we must do the exact same things in the 21st century that they did during Muhammad's time?  We don't have to brush our teeth with miswaks just because the Prophet did.

Miswak used for cleaning teeth

We can ... *drumroll*  use electric toothbrushes if we please!  We don't have to ride camels.  Cars are legit!  And then there are of course all those other little tidbits we can feel free to update as well. Like demolish slavery completely and greatly curb the practice of polygyny since most men don't seem to practice it like Muhammad declared they should anyway.

But I digress.  This is a post about the Orthodox Church.

So, see how I felt about tradition. Well, this is Tradition and it sounds open to change.  In fact Ware writes, "It is absolutely essential to question the past." 


Granted this doesn't mean you have a free for all and can change things to suit your individual wants.  You want robbing banks to be legitimate because it's fast and easy money for you? Probably notta gonna happen.

The author explains it like this when talking of creative fidelity:

Loyalty to Tradition, properly understood, is not something mechanical, a passive and automatic process of transmitting the accepted wisdom of an era in the distant past.  An Orthodox thinker must see Tradition from within, he must enter into its inner spirit, he must re-experience the meaning of Tradition in a manner that is exploratory, courageous, and full of imaginative creativity.  .. It is not enough simply to give intellectual assent to a system of doctrine; for Tradition is far more than a set of abstract propositions -- it is a life, a personal encounter with Christ in the Holy Spirit....Tradition, while inwardly changeless (for God does not change), is constantly assuming new forms, which supplement the old without superseding them.  (pg. 198)

"Christianity, if true, has nothing to fear from honest inquiry."

Should this not be true of all faiths? If they are true, questioning them should never be frowned upon.  Never should we tell our children and wondering adults that "they just have to accept this as fact" as if their questions are wrong. It's important to know why we believe something especially if we are speaking of things that potentially have eternal consequences.


What do you think... is "Updating Tradition?" too misleading a title for this post?  What do you think about Timothy Ware's views of Tradition - while inwardly changeless - as something that constantly assumes new forms?  Do you agree?  Do you agree with the parallel to progressive Muslims who believe the Quran lays down basic principles for living in any century, but not set-in-stone rules (e.g. using camels) that must be used today?  Why or why not?  What do you think about "honest inquiry" of religions? Why are questions often discouraged? Why are questions important? Any other thoughts or impressions?

The Orthodox Church -- Tradition, The Bible, The Fathers

The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware

Some Notes:

Orthodox reverence their "inheritance from the past" while realizing that "not everything received from the past is of equal value." For example John's gospel is held at a different level than Athanasius' writings.  (pg. 197)

 

Additionally not everything received from the past is necessarily true.  Some things are mere man-made tradition rather than Tradition.

 

 

 

The primary elements that make up Tradition of the Orthodox Church are as follows:

 

Scripture -- notice this is not separate from Tradition since the Bible came out of Tradition; how do you think those books got canonized?

Councils 

 

Fathers

 

Liturgy

 

Canons

 

Icons

 

 

 

The Bible "is the supreme expression of God's revelation to the human race...[and] is understood within the Church."  The author gives the example of Philip who asked the Ethiopian if he knew what he was reading.  The Ethiopian said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"  (Acts 8:30,31)  The Orthodox Church says that "it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority." 

 

People, though sincere, are prone to errors. This is why you have so many people in the world doing their own things and justifying it with Scripture!  And this is why contradictory views abound.  One person says this, another says that. 

 

The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.  Any discrepancies from the original Hebrew, in their thinking, "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God's continuing revelation."  The example given is Isaiah 7:14 in which the Hebrew says "A young woman shall conceive" whereas the Septuagint states "A virgin shall conceive." (pg. 200)

 

Also mentioned are the Deutero-Canonical Books which are often referred to as The Apocrypha.  Most Orthodox consider these parts of the Bible, but on a "lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament."  (pg. 200)

 

The Orthodox realize the Fathers as individuals have sometimes "fallen into error and at times contradicted one another."  Therefore it is necessarily to distinguish the "Patristic wheat" from the "Patristic chaff" and "not simply know and quote the Fathers, [but] .. enter more deeply into the inner spirit of the Fathers and acquire a 'Patristic mind.'"  Do not "treat the Fathers as relics from the past, but as living witnesses and contemporaries."  (pg. 204)

 

"All true Orthodox theology is mystical; just as mysticism divorced from theology becomes subjective and heretical, so theology, when it is not mystical, degenerates into an arid scholasticism, 'academic' in the bad sense of the word."  (pg. 207)


Coming next:  Can you update Tradition?

Thoughts?

Can Nationalism and Unity Co-Exist?

"As economic fortunes rise, so does nationalism.  This is understandable. Imagine that you lived in a country that had been poor and unstable for centuries.  And then, finally, things turn around and your nation is on the rise. You would be proud and anxious to be seen. This desire for recognition and respect is surging throughout the world. It may seem paradoxical that globalization and economic modernization are breeding political nationalism, but that is only if we view nationalism as a backward ideology, certain to be erased by the onward march of progress."

Jews refer to themselves a M.O.T., member of the tribe. Of course the Bible speaks of the twelve tribes of Israel quite a lot.  There are tribes in Arabia, Africa and this morning I read about the Rise of the Hans, the "dominant cohesive ethnic group in the world."  Then I read the above-mentioned quote in a new book, The Post-American World, by Fareed Zakaria.  His book brings up interesting points mostly about the rise of emerging markets and other powers such as Brazil, China and India that aren't necessarily choosing to go the "western" route nor are they choosing to be "rogue states." They are forging a middle path. 

Yet the talk about nationalism intrigued me.  As you know I've been reading about the Orthodox Church.  One problem the author mentioned is how when the Church was dispersed into other lands - say into the USA - many of the groups wanted to keep their own languages for the services. Greeks in America would ask for a priest from Greece and the services would be in Greek, a welcome tie to the home country.  The same with Russians and Serbians and others.  All of this just today and without my looking for related topics: a very nationalistic impression of Orthodoxy abroad, an article on the Hans of China that I just happened to come across when reading another article and then this rise of nationalism talk from Zakaria's book!  What are the odds?

Nationalism carving up the world

So what do you think of nationalism? Is it simply patriotism such as we often believe should be the default mode of any true-blooded American who hasn't fallen off the deep end into being one of those haters?  Is it disguised racism or bigotry; what with all that thinking that your race/tribe/culture is better than all the rest?  Is it just a genuine healthy pride in the things that set your group apart from others?  Your contribution to the world as a whole? Is there a healthy balance so that we don't get to Nazi extremes of thinking the best people must look a certain way and come from a "superior" bloodline?

Zakaria continues with, "Nationalism has always perplexed Americans.  When the United States involves itself abroad, it always believes that it is genuinely trying to help other countries better themselves.  From the Philippines and Haiti to Vietnam and Iraq, the natives' reaction to U.S. efforts has taken Americans by surprise. Americans take justified pride in their own country -- we call it patriotism -- and yet are genuinely startled when other people are proud and possessive of theirs."  (pg. 33)


So do you think of nationalism (or patriotism in America's case) as a "backward ideology" that should be exiting the world as the world gets more "flat" and global? Or is it, as Zakaria suggests, understandable as formerly poor countries want their time in the spotlight? 

From a spiritual point of view, do you believe nationalism (or tribalism) is a positive thing showcasing the goodness of the variety of people God created? Or is it negative because it erects walls and divides people according to physical or cultural traits when we should be trying to bring people together?  I recall when I was reading about Islam last year, Muhammad set out to create a new tribe - the ummah - which would welcome people from all backgrounds, all races, all cultures.  

Christianity also speaks of its universality and most Christians are proponents of making the Scripture available in the variety of languages of the world.  One of my favorite biblical passages about heaven speaks of people from all tribes, all nations, all tongues gathered around God's throne praising Him together!

Is nationalism/tribalism divisive and something that needs to be erased so that we can come together as equals? Or is there a place for nationalism?

How can we balance these things? Can we have both unity and nationalism?  Individually can we be both nationalistic and unifying in our outlook? If so, how?  What are your thoughts?

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 -- 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?