Category: Christianity generally

Church unity

This started as a “share” with an Orthodox group on Facebook, but outgrew it.

Frederica Mathewes-Green’s podcast thoughts on ecumenical Church unity, though gentle and irenic, amplify my own skepticism on the topic. Her primary focus is the desired unity between Roman Catholicism (the 800 pound gorilla) and Orthodoxy (America’s best-kept religious secret) — or at least the mutual recognition that disunity is a scandal.

So far, so good: disunity is a scandal; real unity would remove that scandal.

But the proposed terms of unity coming from Rome provoke not so much hostility – “Take this Olive branch and shove it!” – as indifference because Rome seems to desire a “unity” that’s strained, synthetic, and in many ways superficial compared to the unity of Orthodoxy.

Frederica nailed that one when she noted that we’re much more comfortable with the Oriental Orthodox than we are with Rome, which went into schism much more recently. The Oriental Orthodox could not agree with the Council of Chalcedon’s verbal formulation of how the two natures of Christ are united.

The Council of Chalcedon issued the ‘Chalcedonian Definition,’ which repudiated the notion of a single nature in Christ, and declared that he has two natures in one person and hypostasis; it also insisted on the completeness of his two natures: Godhead and manhood.
…
The Oriental Orthodox teach ‘one nature’ in Christ, “Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in one nature: divine.”

(Wikipedia) But the Oriental Orthodox seem nonetheless to have “kept the same faith,” and I understand they feel the same toward us. It’s fair to say we long for a solution to the Chalcedonian conundrum.

Not so Rome. Their schism was more recent, but their drift after schism much greater. The Roman Catholic reflex seems to be that,

well, of course, being in communion with the Bishop of Rome is essential, and of course it must be on essentially Roman terms. After all, everyone knows you other guys are at fault. But we’re magnanimous, and we’ll let you keep your signature theological perspectives. That’s what “catholic” means: big tent.

That just leaves us cold. On the one hand, we don’t think we, the heirs of four of five pentarchs who remained in communion, are the schismatics. We think the fifth pentarch went into schism when, after we ignored his pretensions and affectation, he started getting too pushy to ignore.

Of course unity will bring us all into communion with one another, but it’s unlikely to happen on terms that signal even tacitly Orthodoxy’s admission of error on the filioque, universal direct jurisdiction of the Pope, infallibility and the other illicit dogmas of the West.

This is not for lack of considerable affection, at least on my own part. Rome has had a great run of Popes lately. John Paul II will be in my thoughts again today, as he was “dying on NPR” as we returned eastward across I74 from a visit to some friends Mrs. Tipsy and I are visiting again.

But even when John Paul II tried to reach out, he proved tone-deaf to a very fundamental matter, our different views of what salvation is:

The teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers on divinization passed into the tradition of all the Eastern Churches and is part of their common heritage. This can be summarized in the thought already expressed by Saint Irenaeus at the end of the second century: God passed into man so that man might pass over to God. This theology of divinization remains one of the achievements particularly dear to Eastern Christian thought.

(Orientale Lumen, italics added) That is a bad misquote, a demotion of the doctrine’s importance in the East, and as tone-deaf as a Protestant, courting Catholics or Orthodox, saying:

The teaching of the Early Fathers on communion passed into the tradition of all the “traditional” Churches as part of their common heritage. This can be summarized in the words of Jesus in the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat bread symbolizing the flesh of the Son of man, and drink wine symbolizing his blood, ye have lowered your odds of having life in you.” This theology of transubstantiation remains one of the achievements particularly dear to “traditional” Christian thought.

The dogmatic differences are deep and perhaps intractable. But suppose we achieve agreement in principle. Having cleared away those stone cold deal killers, how would the rest of the deal look? It would be an awfully big tent that would accommodate the remaining, non-dogmatic differences.

But the Roman Catholic Church already looks to me (and I think to many other Orthodox) like multiple Christian traditions synthetically united though communion with the Pope.

Maybe I misunderstand “catholicity.” I mean that. I lived nearly 50 years where we didn’t give a hoot about that idea, and even now my view is colored by the seemingly intractable dogmatic differences. It’s hard to see clearly. Perhaps with the dogmatic differences out of the way, I could see a path to one big happy family.

But I’m not holding my breath.

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

 

Health, Education — and Welfare?

If you want to give your mind a workout today, pour a cup of coffee and read Patrick Deneen’s Health, Education—and Welfare?

His launching point is that

the twin crises of health care and higher education are extraordinary in their similarities. Both are regarded as necessary goods for human flourishing whose costs are spiraling out of control. Both rely on a professional class that is becoming more specialized, losing the generalist who once cared for the “whole person.” Both have seen expanding intervention by the central government which has sought to provide access to the lower and middle classes. Both are believed by many conservatives to be properly reformed by means of market-based solutions. Both are the subject of intense contemporary political debate.

And both were once almost exclusively the province of the Church, and, indeed, can trace their institutional origins—hospitals and universities—as part of the Church’s charitable ministry.

The “intense political debate” falls into fairly predictable patterns, with one side arguing for free market solutions and the other arguing for regulation and price control/subsidy combinations to assure equal access. Deneen questions both effectively, though his questioning of The Right seems more devastating to me (maybe because I’ve tended to invest in that side). Summary introduction:

[T]here is something fundamentally amiss with making provision of health and higher education contingent on market models and profit calculus, as both seem to be goods that are not subject to the same kind of calculus as automobiles and bubble gum. The very idea that doctors and teachers are or ought to act out of the motivations of self-interest, and provide services to their “consumers,” seems fundamentally contradictory to the kind of work and social role performed by each. The decline of the “generalist” in each sphere is indicative of a deeper crisis of the willingness to act on behalf of a broader conception of the good intrinsic to each profession and on behalf of the person being served, in favor of the specialization encouraged by modern canons of efficiency, productivity, profit, and rationalization.

Summary introduction to his critique of The Left view:

At the same time, the State is rightly suspected of being unable to fundamentally improve or even maintain the quality of either sphere. It is doubtless the case that it can assure access by the heavy hand of threats, but many rightly worry that, as a consequence, the quality of care and education will deteriorate as a result. The State takes on the ersatz role of “generalist,” seemingly concerned for the good of the whole. It can only pursue that good by seeking to control pricing and access while influencing the ways “care” is provided, but it fails necessarily in caring for the vision of the whole that the actors of the professions are no longer willing or able to perform.

Segue:

The debate as currently constituted represents a pincer movement aimed ultimately at the re-definition of each area—as we have seen in so many areas of contemporary life. While superficially opposites, proponents of each position in fact share a fundamental hostility to the original presuppositions that had informed the foundation of both institutions—the corporal works of charity central to the Church’s earthly mission.

I wish I could say “Yeah, that’s what I’ve been thinking; Deneen just had the time to think it through and to say it better.” But that would be a big ole lie. I wasn’t thinking in these terms at all. They go to my head and make me kind of, well, Tipsy.

I don’t know where to stop quoting. In my own re-reading, I didn’t know where to stop highlighting. Deneen could have the makings of a serious book on his hands as he fleshes out this dense piece. That one would surely go on my wish list.

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

Nativity of the Theotokos, September 8, 2013

1

We commemorate today the Nativity of Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, daughter of the righteous Joachim and Anna.

The Nativity of the Theotokos is one of the Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church, celebrated onSeptember 8 ….

The Holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary was born to elderly and previously barren parents by the names of Joachim and Anna, in answer to their prayers. Orthodox Christians do not hold to the Roman Catholicdoctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, in which it is supposed that Mary was preserved from the ancestral sin that befalls us all as descendants of Adam and Eve, in anticipation of her giving birth to the sinless Christ. The Orthodox believe that Mary indeed received the ancestral sin, having been conceived in the normal way of humanity, and thus needed salvation like all mankind. Orthodox thought does vary on whether Mary actually ever sinned, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.

(Orthodoxwiki) If you wonder why we commemorate such a thing and give Mary such an over-the-top title – and there are many in the world today, even among those calling themselves Christian, who do wonder, and even are scandalized – consider that she was prepared by God for her role, that she consented to becoming pregnant outside wedlock, and that without her consent – dixit autem Maria ecce ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum, Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ would not have taken human flesh from her, and we would not be saved. (Yeah, I suppose there could be a “Plan B” but there didn’t need to be.)

And that doesn’t even touch on little things like her gestating God for 9 months, her womb containing the uncontainable one (“your womb he made more spacious than the heavens,” we sing), the creature giving birth to her creator.

Truth is, I wonder and am scandalized at those who refuse to venerate her, and who mutter “okay, dammit, she’s blessed,” thus performing what they think they biblically must, but with an attitude like an adolescent mad at being forced to apologize to another kid.

2

Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred.

(Epistle to Diognetus) I suppose the Krustian response to this quote, from somewhere between AD 130 and the end of the century, would be a triumphalist “We’ve come a long way, baby!” But have we? Really?

They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country.

How are we doing on that “only passing through” thingy? It seems to me that a lot of Christians are very much at home in the America of, say, 25 years ago – any 25 years ago measured from now.

Our Christian Nation

(Epistle to the world from pickup truck window)

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh.

When was the last time you fasted – skipped or deeply scrimped even one meal – to devote yourself to nourishment of the spirit?

But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

(Luke 5:35) Are you addicted to any smutty TV shows?

And how’s your brotherly love doing?

Christians love all men, but all men persecute them … A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life.

When were you last persecuted? How loving was your response? When they come to take you away to the gallows (assuming you don’t deny Christ in order to live) will you welcome them and feed them a nice warm meal?

Mathetes wrote epistle to Diognetus when Christian numbers were probably increasing about 40% per decade, and Christendom was emerging from both their numbers and their influence.

We – cozy, warm, well fed, and feeling at home in America – are seeing the calamitous and undeniable collapse of Christendom, from absolutely pervasive dissembling and outright lies from our elected leaders, to a country intent on using terrorism as the pretext for building a police state, to a certainly Supreme Court Justice now thrice anathematizing traditional Christians as irrational haters.

And why shouldn’t it collapse? What credibility does it have left now that we’re lived it so indifferently?

There’s a point to my rant.

I’ve been to a number of Orthodox Evangelism conferences where people sought the magic formula for evangelizing our little American corner of the world. Maybe resuming the countercultural lifestyle Mathetes described to Diognetus would restore the good name of our Lord in the nostrils of out countrymen, where we’ve made Him a stench. And if not, at least it prepares us for the night that’s fast descending.

Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.

(Dean William R. Inge)

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.