Category: Orthodoxy

Church history (according to the Mormons)

Thanks to fellow-Orthodox blogger John, I discovered this Mormon version of Church history, for which I explicitly claim “fair use” and provide the obligatory link to the original.

The basic storyline is this: “Regardless of the valiant efforts of Christ’s apostles and their faithful followers, the original church that Christ restored began to fade away.” Then along came Joseph Smith. Woohoo. (Italics are in the original. My comments are not italicized.) Continue reading “Church history (according to the Mormons)” →

G.K. Chesterton on Biblicism

Catholic writer/blogger Mark Shea today delivered up this Chestertonian gem, in response to a question about the Dan Brown-ish sort of “lost gospels” nonsense, and how Evangelicals who get a lot of book larnin’ are apt to throw over the Bible, as has pop scholar Bart Ehrsman:

Every great heretic had always exhibit three remarkable characteristics in combination. First, he picked out some mystical idea from the Church’s bundle or balance of mystical ideas. Second, he used that one mystical idea against all the other mystical ideas. Third (and most singular), he seems generally to have had no notion that his own favourite mystical idea was a mystical idea, at least in the sense of a mysterious or dubious or dogmatic idea. With a queer uncanny innocence, he seems always to have taken this one thing for granted. He assumed it to be unassailable, even when he was using it to assail all sorts of similar things. The most popular and obvious example is the Bible. To an impartial pagan or sceptical observer, it must always seem the strangest story in the world; that men rushing in to wreck a temple, overturning the altar and driving out the priest, found there certain sacred volumes inscribed “Psalms” or “Gospels”; and (instead of throwing them on the fire with the rest) began to use them as infallible oracles rebuking all the other arrangements. If the sacred high altar was all wrong, why were the secondary sacred documents necessarily all right? If the priest had faked his Sacraments, why could he not have faked his Scriptures? Yet it was long before it even occurred to those who brandished this one piece of Church furniture to break up all the other Church furniture that anybody could be so profane as to examine this one fragment of furniture itself. People were quite surprised, and in some parts of the world are still surprised, that anybody should dare to do so.

This is one of many issues on which Catholic and Orthodox traditions (which were unified for the first millennium) are in substantial agreement. We would differ in emphasis if not in substance from Shea’s oversimplified version how the canon of Scripture came to be the canon (from which Protestant Bibles omit a number of books, by the way), but we agree on this:

  • The early Church had no canon other that the Old Testament, with lots of evidence that the Septuagint was favored.
  • The early Church had a vital Christianity before the first book of the New Testament had been written.
  • Gnosticism beset the Church early on, and many gnostic pseudo-Christian documents were written.
  • The Church rejected those writings in practice and eventually in precept.

I’m not foolish enough to try to top Chesterton’s colorful fable of how today’s “conservative Evangelicals” treat the Church which gave them the Bible they misuse to abuse the Church.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”

* * * * *

View this in a browser instead of an RSS feeder to see Tweets at upper right, or subscribe on Twitter.

Standing advice on enduring themes.

Radical Monogamy

Father Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, has a fresh podcast with as clear, powerful, and convicting account as I can ever recall hearing on the Christian view of marriage. My outline, in tabular form, follows:

0:00 God’s fidelity toward Israel, the Church and humanity generally is likened to a human marriage.
3:30 “Marriage” other than as between a man and a woman is nonsensical.
4:15 Marriage between a man and a woman must be completely and totally faithful forever. There’s no bigamy, polygamy or extramarital relations allowed.
4:50 This is like God’s fidelity to mankind. One of the titles of Jesus is Bridegroom and the Church is His bride.
8:00 The Bride and Groom imagery for God’s relationship to humanity runs through the who Old Testament, most pervasively in Hosea, but also in Isaiah 54. Often the Bride is faithless; the Bridegroom never.
12:00 Jeremiah 31:31-34
13:20 Ezekiel 16
15:50 Hosea is all about God’s faithfulness and his Bride’s unfaithfulness.
18:50 The Christian teaching about marriage is radical, unconditional monogamy.
19:10 Sexual intercourse belongs only within the committed conjugal relationship of one man and one woman. No sexual, genital, erotic relationship is to take place outside the community of marriage.
19:30 True union, of bodies made for that purpose, cannot take place except between a man and a woman. Otherwise, it’s anal or oral – not a true “one flesh” union, which tends toward the creation of children.
20:20 The Song of Songs foreshadows the Christian union. Husband and wife must first be brothers and sisters in the faith.
22:40 We Christians mustn’t have affairs and such because we’re modeling God’s love for humanity.
24:20 Celibate virginity and fully committed conjugal marriage are the two Christian options.
26:30 The Old Testament allowance of divorce was for hardness of heart. It was not so in the beginning.
28:00 The Sermon on the Mount on marriage.
30:30 Joseph may be the only truly monogamous Old Testament figure.
34:00 Father Hopko’s personal opinion [shared with C.S. Lewis] is that it’s not realistic for Christians to expect non-Christians or heretical Christians to follow this standard.
35:30 Sexual relations between unmarried persons are not allowed, so sexual relations between members of the same sex are not allowed.
36:20 Sexuality is good, but is for use in the right context.
37:00 The strict Christian teaching is that one does not remarry even after the death of a spouse.
38:15 Even the New Testament, though, permits remarriage of, for instance, widows who can’t control themselves, which is precedent for the Church’s pastoral leniency at times.
39:30 St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 20 on the Letter to the Ephesians, Homily 12 on Colossians, Homily 10 on I Timothy.
41:30 Fr. Hopko thinks sexual fidelity is an important test of character.
42:00 No erotic sexual contact for unmarried persons does not mean absence of intimate friendships. You love everyone equally and have sex with nobody.
42:35 John Chrysostom’s letter to a young widow encourages the widow not to remarry even though it might be allowed. The Rite for second marriage in the Orthodox Church is penitential.
44:20 There is no “till death do we part” in Orthodox marriage.
45:00 Leniency is not allowed among Orthodox clergy, who are held to the strict standard.
49:20 When Fr. Hopko gave a talk on Christian marriage at Vassar 40 years ago, he was asked if he really believed it, and when he said he did, the questioner said “it would take a miracle to pull that off.” Fr. Hopko replied “I’m very happy to let you all know that at least one person in the auditorium really understood my talk.”
51:00 With human beings, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.

That no sexual, genital, erotic relationship is to take place outside the community of marriage is setting a standard higher than “no penetration” or “no vaginal ejaculation” before marriage. It is setting the more demanding standard of chastity.

It may be tempting to say “Those standards are impossible. It would take a miracle to pull them off,” and then, “How little can I get by with?”

But remember, asking “How little can I get by with?,” when it comes to God, is pretty conclusive proof that you’re not doing enough to “get by.” The first and greatest commandment requires that we love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. The “how little” question comes from despondency or rebellion, not from love.

* * * * *

View this in a browser instead of an RSS feeder to see Tweets at upper right, or subscribe on Twitter.

Standing advice on enduring themes.

Holy Friday thoughts

First, repeated from last Holy Week, some excerpts from the Orthodox services of Great and Holy Friday (from Fordham University), with apologies for formatting and with an inserted video of the beloved, now reposed, Bishop Job singing the 15th Antiphon.

TODAY JUDAS FORSAKES THE MASTER
AND TAKES THE DEVIL AS HIS FRIEND.
HE IS BLINDED BY THE PASSION OF AVARICE.
DARKENED, HE FALLS FROM THE LIGHT.
HE SOLD THE SUN FOR THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER.
HOW THEN, IS HE ABLE TO SEE?
BUT HE WHO SUFFERS FOR THE WORLD HAS RISEN AS THE DAWN FOR US!
TO HIM LET US CRY ALOUD:
YOU SUFFER FOR US AND WITH US: GLORY TO YOU!

TODAY JUDAS COUNTERFEITS PIETY
AND DEPRIVES HIMSELF OF THE GIFT OF GRACE.
THE DISCIPLE BECOMES A BETRAYER.
IN A GESTURE OF FRIENDSHIP HE CONCEALS DECEIT.
HE FOOLISHLY PREFERS THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE MASTER’S LOVE
AND BECOMES A GUIDE FOR THE LAWLESS ASSEMBLY.
BUT LET US GLORIFY CHRIST, OUR SALVATION!

…

HE WHO CLOTHES HIMSELF WITH LIGHT AS WITH A GARMENT
STOOD NAKED FOR TRIAL.
HE WAS STRUCK ON THE CHEEK BY HANDS THAT HE HIMSELF HAD FORMED.
A PEOPLE THAT TRANSGRESSED THE LAW
NAILED THE LORD OF GLORY TO THE CROSS.
THEN THE CURTAIN OF THE TEMPLE WAS TORN IN TWO.
THEN THE SUN WAS DARKENED,
UNABLE TO BEAR THE SIGHT OF GOD OUTRAGED,
BEFORE WHOM ALL THINGS TREMBLE.
LET US WORSHIP HIM.

…

THUS SAYS THE LORD TO THE JEWS:
MY PEOPLE, WHAT HAVE I DONE TO YOU,
OR HOW HAVE I OFFENDED YOU?
TO YOUR BLIND, I GAVE SIGHT, YOUR LEPERS I CLEANSED,
THE PARALYTIC I RAISED FROM HIS BED.
MY PEOPLE, WHAT HAVE I DONE TO YOU,
AND HOW HAVE YOU REPAID ME?
INSTEAD OF MANNA, GALL; INSTEAD OF WATER, VINEGAR;
INSTEAD OF LOVING ME, YOU NAIL ME TO THE CROSS.
I CAN BEAR NO MORE.
I SHALL CALL THE GENTILES MINE.
THEY WILL GLORIFY ME WITH THE FATHER AND THE SPIRIT,
AND I SHALL GIVE THEM LIFE ETERNAL.

TODAY THE CURTAIN OF THE TEMPLE IS TORN IN TWO
TO CONVICT THE TRANSGRESSORS,
AND EVEN THE SUN HIDES HIS RAYS,
SEEING THE MASTER CRUCIFIED.

THE CHOIR OF THE APOSTLES CRIES OUT TO YOU,
O LAWGIVERS OF ISRAEL, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES:
BEHOLD THE TEMPLE WHICH YOU DESTROYED!
BEHOLD THE LAMB WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED!
YOU DELIVERED HIM TO THE TOMB, BUT BY HIS OWN POWER HE AROSE.
DO NOT BE DECEIVED, O JEWS.
HE IT IS THAT SAVED YOU IN THE SEA AND FED YOU IN THE WILDERNESS.
HE IS THE LIFE, THE LIGHT AND THE PEACE OF THE WORLD.

…

TODAY HE WHO HUNG THE EARTH UPON THE WATERS IS HUNG ON THE TREE.
THE KING OF THE ANGELS IS DECKED WITH A CROWN OF THORNS.
HE WHO WRAPS THE HEAVENS IN CLOUDS IS WRAPPED IN THE PURPLE OF MOCKERY.
HE WHO FREED ADAM IN THE JORDAN IS SLAPPED ON THE FACE.
THE BRIDEGROOM OF THE CHURCH IS AFFIXED TO THE CROSS WITH NAILS.
THE SON OF THE VIRGIN IS PIERCED BY A SPEAR.
WE WORSHIP YOUR PASSION, O CHRIST.
WE WORSHIP YOUR PASSION, O CHRIST.
WE WORSHIP YOUR PASSION, O CHRIST.
SHOW US ALSO YOUR GLORIOUS RESURRECTION.

…

Beholding her own lamb led to the slaughter, Mary followed with the other women, in distress and crying out: Where do You go, my child?
Why do You run so swift a course? Surely there is not another wedding in Cana to which You now hasten to change water into wine? Shall I
come with You, my child, or shall I wait for You? Give me a word, for You are the Word. Do not pass me by in silence, for You kept me
pure.
…

Second, an excerpt from another old post that reflects my 20 years as a Calvinist after nearly 30 years as an Evangelical and before I became Orthodox:

Will Campbell, formerly a hero of mine (I’ve not kept up with him), was taunted by a skeptical friend to summarize his “simple Gospel” in ten words or less.Will got tired of the taunts after a while (or maybe he just had to think a while to boil it down) and shot back “We’re all bastards, but God loves us anyway!”

…

But I recently encountered a school of theology, the leading proponent of which boiled the Gospel down by another 50%: “The Word became flesh.”

The theologian was John Williamson Nevin, a mid-19th century theologian, who together with his better-known colleague, Philip Schaff (whose name is associated with public domain English translations of the Early Church Fathers), considered himself a true Reformed theologian, in opposition to both Puritanism and Revivalism, then respectively the emeritzed and regnant errors pretending to the “Reformed” title.

…

But Campbell’s formulation is a relatively revivalist version compared to Nevin’s incarnational version. And the spirit of those two versions is vastly different.

In the revivalist version, The Fall really ticked God off, and the incarnation was merely a set-up; God the Son couldn’t be crucified for our sins, to cure God’s anger problem, until he became human and grew up. The center, the big deal, the only part that matters, is the atonement — viewed as the assuaging of God’s anger — at Calvary.

To Nevin, though, the incarnation is inseparable from the atonement, the “at-one-ment,” of God and humanity, as God the Son even took our glorified human flesh back to heaven with Him at His ascension. We are, in a real sense, united with Christ in His humanity, not just in His divinity — and that union is cemented again and again in the Eucharist, where we partake of His Body and Blood, not merely being reminded, in a heightened sense, of His divinity and His joining us for just long enough to die for us.

…

There’s little doubt that Nevin was much closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy than are the Puritan and Revivalist counterfeit Calvinists ….

It would be disingenuous as well as speculative to say that “I would still be Reformed if Nevin had prevailed over [Revivalist Zwinglian Charles] Hodge.” The way I came to Orthodox Christianity doesn’t allow that kind of speculation readily, quite apart from it being based on an imaginary world. I would be more inclined to speculate that “if Nevin had prevailed, Reformed theology would be part of a ‘big tent’ Catholicism/Orthodoxy today.” If that had happened, I think I’d still prefer “Orthodox Orthodoxy” over “Reformed Catholicity.” But a Reformed Catholicity would be nothing to scoff at.

My older brother, by the way, holds to a Lutheran Catholicity that, although I don’t understand it, also is nothing to scoff at.

Finally, a mere link to yet another blog that reflects my Calvinist years: Calvinist Concessions Galore: Why Not Orthodoxy?

* * * * *

Today holds three services for me: Royal Hours at 7 am, Unnailing Vespers at 3 pm, and Lamentations at the Tomb at 6:30 pm. I’ve had a lousy Lent, distracted by many, many things, but despite continuing juggling of responsibilities, Holy Week has been a very great blessing. I’m looking forward to St. John Chrysostom’s Pachal Homily which says, in effect, “even if you’ve had a lousy Lent, it’s now to to celebrate Christ’s glorious Resurrection.”

* * * * *

View this in a browser instead of an RSS feeder to see Tweets at upper right, or subscribe on Twitter.

Standing advice on enduring themes.

“Let us make man ….”

Father John Behr, Dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, makes “a really interesting and often overlooked distinction” in a Lenten reflection:

… {T]he opening chapter of Genesis … begins, of course, with God issuing all sorts of commands:

“Let there be light.” There was light.

“Let there be a firmament. Let the waters under the heavens be gathered. Let the earth put forth vegetation. Let there be light in the firmament. Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Let the earth bring forth living creatures.

This is simply a divine fiat. “Let it be.” And this divine fiat is sufficient to bring all these things into existence. “Let it be. It was. It was good.”

Then having declared everything into existence by a word alone, God then announces His project. Not with an injunction – “Let it be” – but in the subjunctive – “Let us make a human being. Let us make a human being in our image, after our likeness.”

The express intention and the work of God Himself, therefore, is fashioning a human being in His image and likeness. This is the work of God. This is what He sets His mind to do. This is what He specifically deliberates about. This is the divine purpose and the divine resolve.

And this is the only thing which is not followed by the words “And it was so.”

In fact, only at the end – after Pilate unwittingly says “Behold the man,” or more literally, “Behold the human being” (… anthropos) – only then do we hear Christ say “It is finished.”

So the work of God, His intention from all eternity, is to make a human being. This is a project He announces at the very beginning, and this is what He completes in His Pascha.

When we come to the end of Great Lent, and our journey with Christ to Jerusalem, standing by the cross and burying His body, then we will hear at the Doxasticon for Vespers on Holy Saturday, we’ll hear a confirmation of exactly this point. We’ll sing “Moses the Great mystically prefigured this present day, saying “And God blessed the seventh day, for this is the blessed sabbath, this is the day of rest, on which the only-begotten Son of God rested from all His works. Through the economy of death,” it continues, “He kept the sabbath in the flesh, and returning again through the resurrection He granted us eternal life, for He alone is good and loves mankind,” or more literally, loves anthropos, loves the human being.

With the Passion of Christ, the work of God is complete, and the Lord of creation now rests from His works in the virgin tomb on the blessed sabbath, to be the firstborn of the virgin, the firstborn of the dead, whose bretheren we are called to become.

So the project – the work of God Himself – announced at the beginning, is completed at the end by one who is God and man. For every other aspect of creation, all that was needed was a simple divine fiat – “Let it be” – but for the human being to come into existence requires one amongst us who is able to say “Let it be.”

If this is the case, then we have yet to become human.  And as St. Ignatius testifies so resoundingly, we only and finally do so by following Christ to our own martyria, our own witness, and our confession of Him. Giving our own fiat. So only in the future then, are we finally created, being born into life as a human being.

I have formerly echoed Fr. Stephen Freeman in saying I despair of sainthood, but I’m working on becoming a real human being.  Maybe that’s not such a small thing after all. Maybe it’s even a distinction without a difference.