jump to navigation

I believe in Christian Unity October 4, 2009

Posted by Damian in Eastern Orthodoxy, Living Christianity, Roman Catholicism.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
10 comments

Jeff and Joel both linked to this ridiculously short Christianity Today article regarding an ecumenical meeting hoping to bring unity among the churches. An excerpt:

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I will open the meeting to be attended by 120 members of the commission in Kolympari, Crete from October 7 to 14.

The meeting will not only address issues that have traditionally divided Christian denominations, but also matters that have become divisive in more recent times, such as questions of moral discernment.

This new approach will be rooted in a reflection on how churches relate to their sources of theological authority.

Jeff thought this was a foolish idea; for myself, I’m a great believer in Christian unity. I’m not a proud protestant. I honestly believe, whilst Protestantism had an honorable (and perhaps necessary) foundation, it has, in its multitude of disagreeing denominations, become a joke on Christianity. I think that Paul at least (from his letters to the Corinthians) was a great believer in a church united and visible, whereas Protestantism has been forced (in order to accept itself for what it is) to believe in a solely invisible and spiritual church (which I don’t think scripture supports in the absence of a united and visible one).

I know that Orthodox and Catholic leaders have been in discussion for the past few years, trying to reconcile the differences between their churches; the main barrier, of course is Papal authority (incidentally the main reason I’m not Catholic). But if they can reconcile, then I most certainly will join that Catholic Orthodox church, because I believe that a united and visible church is a testimony to Christ, and the splintered and bickering Protestant church is not.

This is why I think that this is worth spending time on.

The smashing of images October 2, 2009

Posted by Damian in Eastern Orthodoxy, Relating to God.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I enjoyed Father Stephen’s post on iconoclasm. Father Stephen is Eastern Orthodox, so his goal here is the defense of Icons; but I certainly feel that much Protestantism has gone a little overboard in its fear of idolatry:

There is a restraint that is inherently involved in offering honor. Orthodox Christian living requires that we know how to worship God with what is due to Him alone, but at the same time to know how to honor those things that are honorable without giving them what belong to God alone. It is easy to say “give honor to God alone,” but this is contrary to the Scriptures in which we are told to “give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7 and also see Romans 12:10). We cannot honor God by destroying the very images He has created (and here I include the saints who could not be what they are but by God’s grace).
There is within iconoclasm, a spirit of hate and anger. Without them destruction would not be so easy. But it is also the case that such spirits are not of God – though they are easily attributed to zeal or excused as exuberance. Iconoclasm is not the narrow way, but the wide path of destruction. It is easy to declare that all days are the same and that no days should be considered holier than others. It is easy to check out the historical pedigree of every feast of the Church and declare that some had pagan predecessors. Of course some had pagan predecessors – as did every last human being. If the Church has blessed a day and made it to be a day on which an action of Christ or an event in His life, or a saint of the Church is to be honored and remembered, then it is acting well within the Divine authority given it in Scripture (Matt. 18:18).
More importantly, we will grow more surely into the image of Christ by imitating his actions and learning to build up rather than to smash. Giving place to anger and the spirit of iconoclasm, in all its various guises, has never produced saints – but only destruction that has to eventually give way to something more sane. The legacy of our culture’s image smashing (a powerful part of the Puritan world) is secularization – though now replete with its own images. If we fail to give a proper account of the role that images play in Christianity – the result will not be no images – but simply the dominance of culture images and a subtle conformity to the world. The only image that needs to be discarded is the one we have of ourselves as God. We are not Him. Worship God. Give honor to whom honor is due.

There is a restraint that is inherently involved in offering honor. Orthodox Christian living requires that we know how to worship God with what is due to Him alone, but at the same time to know how to honor those things that are honorable without giving them what belong to God alone. It is easy to say “give honor to God alone,” but this is contrary to the Scriptures in which we are told to “give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7 and also see Romans 12:10). We cannot honor God by destroying the very images He has created (and here I include the saints who could not be what they are but by God’s grace).

There is within iconoclasm, a spirit of hate and anger. Without them destruction would not be so easy. But it is also the case that such spirits are not of God – though they are easily attributed to zeal or excused as exuberance. Iconoclasm is not the narrow way, but the wide path of destruction. It is easy to declare that all days are the same and that no days should be considered holier than others. It is easy to check out the historical pedigree of every feast of the Church and declare that some had pagan predecessors. Of course some had pagan predecessors – as did every last human being. If the Church has blessed a day and made it to be a day on which an action of Christ or an event in His life, or a saint of the Church is to be honored and remembered, then it is acting well within the Divine authority given it in Scripture (Matt. 18:18).

More importantly, we will grow more surely into the image of Christ by imitating his actions and learning to build up rather than to smash. Giving place to anger and the spirit of iconoclasm, in all its various guises, has never produced saints – but only destruction that has to eventually give way to something more sane. The legacy of our culture’s image smashing (a powerful part of the Puritan world) is secularization – though now replete with its own images. If we fail to give a proper account of the role that images play in Christianity – the result will not be no images – but simply the dominance of culture images and a subtle conformity to the world. The only image that needs to be discarded is the one we have of ourselves as God. We are not Him. Worship God. Give honor to whom honor is due.

These last two sentences in particular are poignant, and bear repeating:

If we fail to give a proper account of the role that images play in Christianity – the result will not be no images – but simply the dominance of culture images and a subtle conformity to the world. The only image that needs to be discarded is the one we have of ourselves as God. We are not Him. Worship God.

Quote of the Day June 25, 2009

Posted by Damian in Eastern Orthodoxy, Living Christianity.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

“The world is a theophany; Humanity a liturgy.”

A loose translation of the words of Justin Popovic (Thanks Father Katanic). It’s a sentiment that I agree with strongly. Both that the world is a true revelation of God – a theophany – and that humanity is a service of worship to Him. I’m not sure what the original language was, but I really like it.

Apprentices, not graduates June 5, 2009

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Eastern Orthodoxy.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In a discussion about evangelism in the Eastern Orthodox church (thanks Steve):

Jesus himself was not seeker sensitive; he did not encourage volunteers. He called the fishermen from their nets, but the rich young man who came volunteering went away sorrowing. The lawyer never did get an answer to his earnest question “Who is my neighbour”. All he got was “Go thou and do likewise.”

I’ve never heard it put exactly this way before: Jesus didn’t accept volunteers, he took people away from their lives. Jesus didn’t answer questions, preferring instead to send people out to learn the answers themselves.  He demanded people who were willing to go out on a limb, and people who were willing to learn on the go. For want of a better analogy – he wanted apprentices, not graduates.

Something about that is both comforting and dismaying.

In a discussion about evangelism in the Eastern Orthodox church (thanks Steve!) http://khanya.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/the-difficulty-of-orthodox-evangelism/ :

Jesus himself was not seeker sensitive; he did not encourage volunteers. He called the fishermen from their nets, but the rich young man who came volunteering went away sorrowing. The lawyer never did get an answer to his earnest question “Who is my neighbour”. All he got was “Go thou and do likewise.”

I’ve never heard it put exactly this way before: Jesus didn’t accept volunteers, he took people away from their lives.

Jesus didn’t answer questions, prefering instead to send people out to learn the answers themselves.

He demanded people who were willing to go out on a limb, and people who were willing to learn on the go.

For want of a better analogy – he wanted apprentices, not graduates.

Something about that is both comforting and dismaying.In a discussion about evangelism in the Eastern Orthodox church (thanks Steve!) http://khanya.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/the-difficulty-of-orthodox-evangelism/ :

Jesus himself was not seeker sensitive; he did not encourage volunteers. He called the fishermen from their nets, but the rich young man who came volunteering went away sorrowing. The lawyer never did get an answer to his earnest question “Who is my neighbour”. All he got was “Go thou and do likewise.”

I’ve never heard it put exactly this way before: Jesus didn’t accept volunteers, he took people away from their lives.

Jesus didn’t answer questions, prefering instead to send people out to learn the answers themselves.

He demanded people who were willing to go out on a limb, and people who were willing to learn on the go.

For want of a better analogy – he wanted apprentices, not graduates.

Something about that is both comforting and dismaying.

‘God of three πρόσωπον, blessed trinity’ May 29, 2009

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Eastern Orthodoxy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5 comments

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, courtesy of Orroglion:

Now, we speak of God as a person. The word ‘person’ indicates a sense of limitation, at least as it is used in modern languages. Nevertheless, the Greek word prosopon, which was used from early times to speak of the three persons of the Trinity, did not mean a person in the modern sense. Rather, prosopon meant a face. It meant that God could be met face to face, that we can be face to face with the living God. [Note: I've corrected the misspelling of the Greek in the original post].

Now, I know I’m missing the point, but I find that many people struggle with the concept of God’s personhood, especially with respect to the trinity. In fact, I tend to agree to an extend with the Islamic concept that it’s a little blasphemous to think of God as a mere person. As Metropolitan Bloom says, it indicates a sense of limitation.

The use of the word ‘face’, however, is different. Many things have faces: Clocks, cubes, the moon. It isn’t limited to people. It makes a little more sense, to be honest, than a God of Three Persons. In fact, its lack of paradox is likely the reason it wasn’t chosen as the normal translation. A God with three faces is awfully similar to a great many pagan gods and goddesses. But all of these little gods’ faces had their own agendas, roles, and personalities. Such as ours Gods.

Now there is a lot of semantic juggling that comes when trying to sidestep heresy in understanding the trinity. The major reasons are that Christ must remain both wholly divine, and wholly human, and that each person must remain distinct and eternal. My major difficulty with God’s ‘faces’, is that it seems that Christ’s humanity was simply a mask. But I wonder that this is simply a semantic association that I have with the word ‘faces’ – in that a face can also be a mask in English.

Unfortunately, as the doctrine of the Trinity is inherently paradoxical, it is difficult to find an analogy that is correct. And hence, as God in three Persons is incorrect (in that God is not a person, or three for that matter), as is a God with three faces (because Christ’s humanity is total, as is his divinity). But both can shed unique light on the doctrine.

It seems to me that it would be best to coin a term – a God of three prosopon- and then define it by analogy: The prosopon are like faces, in that they are all belong to the one God. But they are like persons, in that each is distinct. And they are all God, because they are all eternal.

I think doing it like this might make it a little easier to understand to those new to the concept. Although I often wonder, do I understand the concept myself?