Image via WikipediaImage via WikipediaImage via WikipediaOver at NeoChalcedonianI've been involved in a spirited discussion on ecumenism. Not all of the conversation, I should point out, has been particularly edifying.
Thinking about the content of the conversation, I wanted to share here for your consideration and comment some of my thought there about online theological conversations.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Dearest All,
Reading through the thread, I am increasingly concerned by what I read here. There seems to be a desire on the part of some to make all council ecumenical. It appears to me that (and again, only for some) any suggestion that a council is not ecumenical calls into question either (a) the integrity of the teaching or, and this is much worse, (b) the integrity of the speaker who points out that the council is not ecumenical.
Reading through the comments, and again so it appears to me, there seems to be a desire on the part of some to claim for their own positions an ecumenical authority and to object when that authority is denied to them. A council need not be ecumenical for its teaching to be true. And the true teaching of true council, whether that council is ecumenical or not, does not exhaust the Mysteries of the Faith.
A council, indeed the dogmatic tradition of the Church, has primarily a negative function–it tells us the limits beyond which we cannot go with the surety of faith. The Church, and here I paraphrase the late Fr Georges Florvoksy, does not offer us a map to the Kingdom of God. Rather what we are offered in Holy Tradition–one important element of which are the teachings of the councils, ecumenical and local–are the Keys to the Kingdom.
It is up to each of us to personally take up those Keys and open the Gates to the Kingdom. And once the Gates are open, it is again up to each of us personally to enter in. We take up the Keys and enter in by way of the Sacraments, the life of prayer and our own asceticism.
Dogmatic definitions, no matter how well we understand them intellectually, or of no value unless we are men and women of prayer and humility.
It is worth noting, at least for my own spiritual life, that on the second to last Sunday before the Great and Holy Fast, when the Church asks us to reflect on the Last Judgment and She does so by calling to mind Our Lord's teaching not about dogma, but what in the West are the corporal works of mercy (Mt25.31-46).
While we must not push this too far, it is worth noting what absent is from our Lord's teaching about how I will be judged and what rather more typically consumes our attention when in internet forums when Orthodox Christians gather to comment about the faith.
It is only after we have gone through all this preparation embodied for us in the Triodion that we are able, and again with prayer and fasting, in a spirit of humility, mutual forgiveness, and a committed to the tangible care of our sick, naked, imprisoned the sick and forgotten of this world that we are now able to profess the Orthodox faith.
But, and here I return to Fr Georges, if we take up the Keys to the Kingdom, open the Gates and enter in as we sing during the Great Fast, what do we see but the Glory of God unmediated. This Glory consumes the creation without destroying it or us. In the Divine Light we see God and see creation and ourselves with His Vision.
No council, local or ecumenical, will ever exhaust the Truth Who is Jesus Christ. This does not mean that the councils are of no value–God forbid we any of us think that, much less that we teach this. But their teaching, and our reflections on their teaching, is never received in an absolute manner but only within the context of the whole of the Tradition.
Too often our conversations about the Faith are marked by an absence of those qualities described above. And these qualities are absent in my conversations because they are absent in my life. The sacraments, repentance prayer, humility, and care for the poor are the proper foundation for theological discussion. Absent these, the fathers tell us, education and intellectual acumen will do us no good. Our theological knowledge, especially apart from the care of the poor, will not save us.
How rarely we are concerned in our conversations with the feeding of the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned. How much we speak of Orthodoxy, how little we speak of love, mercy and forgiveness and sadly we seem to speak of Jesus and His love for each of us not at all.
By John Baden, Chairman of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE), based in Bozeman, MT.
In response to my recent column, "What Went Wrong," several people emailed me this question: What's next? The answer is easy; America will attempt to emulate Europe's welfare state. Our perceived crisis is inimical to sound policy and provides a good seedbed for political opportunism.
First, though, a positive note. America can congratulate itself on successfully overcoming racial prejudice. Consider Obama's enthusiastic reception at the University of Mississippi, a school where, in 1962, federal marshals were required to protect James Meredith when he was admitted to the Law School. Riots followed, and it took several regiments of U.S. Army troops to restore order and protect Meredith from harm. This election is a benchmark, genuine progress to celebrate. It's as though we cured or, at the least, arrested a debilitating if not quite lethal cancer.
However significant this progress, and progress it surely is, 2008 may also mark the end of the great American experiment in individual liberty and responsibility. Attempts to activate the European welfare state in America will dominate politics for the foreseeable future. Here's why.
Those who created the American experiment recognized the problem of constraining two kinds of bandits: the stationary and the mobile. Mobile bandits include highwaymen, pirates, common thieves, and muggers. These are conceptually easy to constrain; enlist honest police.
Stationary bandits are more difficult, and were a focus of America's founders. Their challenge was to create a constitution to generate and maintain laws that foster progress-while constraining those making the laws.
How might those in power be kept from rigging the game to the advantage of themselves and their most politically powerful constituents?
Over the long run this may be impossible in a large democracy comprised of numerous factions, interest groups, and ethnic and racial identities. No such nation has successfully dealt with this challenge. It is easier in a small, relatively homogenous country, not one like ours.
The current worldwide financial crisis gives license to our stationary bandits to advantage themselves and powerful constituents. Franklin Raines, White House Budget Director under Clinton, became CEO of Fannie Mae and received $90 million in salary and bonuses. Of course Fannie Mae had made large and strategic concessions and donations to politicians. That's how politics works.
America's automakers, protected for years by tariffs from foreign competitors, are but one of numerous corporate examples of powerful firms, and unions, shaping the rules and seeking to loot taxpayers. Such pleading is bound to increase; the political tide is with those who see and seize opportunities for advantage, always, of course, in the "public interest." The results are ominous and the causes clear.
First, there is diminishing support for institutions that generate wealth rather than redistribute it. Who still advocates small government, low taxes, private property, and the market process? It's not a null, but surely a small, set of citizens-and few are among America's opinion leaders and political decision makers. We elect those who promise us our share. This does not augur well for the survival of a wholesome America.
A second factor is the huge increase in the disparity in income between the top one-tenth of one percent of the population and the remainder. While Americans have been more tolerant of substantial wage and salary differences than Europeans, there is a cultural threshold that we've long since passed.
Who thinks a CEO is really worth $25 or $50 million or more per year? Few voters do and resentment builds. And consider our reactions to $10 million dollar vacation homes.
Third, both positive and negative values increasingly converge and agglutinate. This promotes substantial class differences. If one is blessed with responsible parents, intelligence, favorable genetics, health, presentable appearance, and the ability to defer gratification, she is exceeding likely to prosper-and to marry one with similar characteristics.
However, everyone has one vote. The political calculus is obvious and on bold display; promising voters public largess brings victory and dependency.
What's next? A new and different America, one that will increasingly resemble the European welfare state. Some friends celebrate this anticipated change. Few however heed ecologists' admonition and ask: "And then what?
What are predictable consequences of the proposed changes?" That's a future column.
As I have thought about the current economic world situation as well as some of the struggles facing the Orthodox Church in the United States, I have begun to wonder if there are not certain parallels. Specifically, a shared lack of awareness of, or maybe indifference to, the human vocation to be wise stewards of the gifts we have been given by a loving and merciful God.
One thing that has helped me understand somewhat the struggles I see in the Church are the findings of a relatively new branch of the social sciences, the economic study of religion. Applying economic theory, scholars in this discipline work to understand the different choices made in the area religion.
Now one of the different groups I am associated with is Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE), based in Bozeman, MT and chaired by the author of the essay I have posted here today, John Baden.
In some John's earlier scholarship, he looked at how different religious political groups manage the stewardship of shared goods (the "tragedy of the commons"). I thought I word re-post some of Dr Baden's columns here to stimulate some conversation especially on the life of the Church.
As always, your comments, thoughts, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
This column was prompted by the question: "Doesn¹t today's economic distress demolish the case for capitalism and free markets?"
Some, who inquired gleefully, anticipated my discomfort; others were genuinely curious and concerned. All were confused about the complex causes of our economic chaos.
I hope this helps clarify their thinking, but first a disclaimer: I'm not a general economist who knows macroeconomics, money and banking, and international trade. Rather, I'm a retired professor and farmer who has studied and written academic articles and books on political economy for 40 years. I focus on the ways in which institutions, that is culture, ethical norms, and law, influence wealth, opportunities, and strategic behavior.
Let's dismiss the claim that the greed of Wall Street and investment bankers caused our distress. Greed is ubiquitous, perhaps for evolutionary reasons. Jewish theologians have wrestled with this character flaw for three thousand years. Yet, Israeli politics remain plagued with pathological greed.
Blaming greed is like condemning gravity; both endure. Responsible people recognize and utilize these forces rather than deny them. It's most constructive to design institutions that contain and direct greed into productive channels, just as engineers put gravity to use in building arches. Obviously, our institutions are flawed, greed has run amuck, and innocent as well as complicit folks are hurt.
Let's first consider the basic function of capitalism. Its success lies in efficiently allocating capital toward profit, the difference between costs and returns. When the system works, market prices provide the information and the incentives to invest where legal returns are greatest.
But this is perhaps not capitalism's greatest asset. In addition to being an engine of prosperity, only free markets spontaneously and peacefully organize the daily, voluntary interactions of millions of primarily self-interested individuals.
Socialism works poorly because it is unable to efficiently coordinate and allocate resources. Hence, it never generates wealth for the masses but socialist elites enjoy privilege and plenty. Their greed rigs the game to their advantage. Likewise, America's investment bankers have rented and bribed politicians to rig the game to socialize risks and privatize profits. Fannie and Freddie's failures and rich rewards to former managers, $100 million to one, are prime examples.
Our current problems flow largely from Wall Street bankers' financial innovations. They discovered ways to profit by misallocating capital, and in the process they decoupled risk from their returns. Under legislation for which they lobbied, they were rewarded for pumping evermore capital into overvalued housing. Viewing their houses as ATMs, people bought consumer goods far beyond their means. (Expect massive credit card default next.)
Investment bankers arranged highly arcane financial instruments covering their loans with understated risks. Loans were bundled, sold internationally, and insured by American International Group (just bailed out with nearly $125 billion from the federal government) among others. This process endured as poor risk management was fostered by profits from capital misallocation.
Further, Wall Street adults who should have been in charge and responsible, didn't understand the complex, mathematical models directing investment decisions. Senior management ignored the admonition to loan money only to those likely to pay it back.
While some bankers knew better, the net result of bad loans is the erosion of capital. Assuming recovery, we need institutional reforms that inhibit capital misallocation. For example, removing legal requirements to make loans when risks are not reflected in interest rates. This generates loss while stressing people, especially the poor.
When politicians allocate capital, we can't expect efficiency, but corruption by special interests is certain. Investment banks benefited from this political arrangement. With the Bush Administration encouraging sub-prime lending (the "Ownership Society"), these home loans grew from 2 percent in 2002 to 30 percent in 2006. In October of 2004, President Bush said, "We're creating...an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property."
Sub-prime loans were bundled into Collateralized Debt Obligations and rated AAA. With this high rating, investment-banking firms neglected due diligence and sold the bundles worldwide. Defaults and massive write-offs naturally followed, banks collapsed, and we suffer.
That's what went wrong.
John Baden is Chairman of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE), based in Bozeman, MT.
Following the Second Vatican Council an agreement was worked out between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Church that, in the case of extreme need and in the complete absence of their clergy, members of the Roman Church could receive the Holy Mysteries in Russian Churches and likewise, the Orthodox in Roman Catholic Churches. We have no knowledge whether this agreement was realized in practice or whether it only remains on paper. Not a single Orthodox Church, with the exception of the Russian Church Abroad, reproached the Patriarch of Moscow for this decision which was called forth by the terrible times and persecutions of Christians under godless regimes. Nonetheless this decision has not been rescinded even now, and the recently printed catechism of the Roman Church published with the blessing of Pope John Paul II speaks of the full recognition of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. However, there is no doubt that as the result of the proselytism among the traditionally Orthodox population — by Roman Catholics and by Protestants — to which the Orthodox Church reacts with great distress, as well as on the repression against the Orthodox in Western Ukraine and even in Poland — there is no longer that warmth and cordiality towards the Orthodox as there was during the Second Vatican Council and for some time afterwards. However, the incisive question today is this: Has there been any change in the practice of the Roman Catholic or Lutheran Churches with respect to their sacrament of baptism? And the answer is this: Nothing has changed. Thus, our Churches (with the exception of the Russian Church Abroad), recognize the sacrament of baptism performed by Roman Catholics and Lutherans as valid.
(A side note, Fr Ambrosius attended the Vatican II as an official observer from the Russian Church Abroad.)
Contrary to what we some times imagine the divisions between East and West--at least as it pertains to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches--are not as wide as some would imagine.
The church does not do mission, it is mission. By its very calling and nature, it exists as God’s ’sent’ people (missio = sending). Its worship, its proclamation, its life as a distinctive community, and its concrete demonstration of God’s love in acts of prophetic and sacrificial service are all witness to the good news whose sign and foretaste it is to be.
Such is the consensus of missio Dei theology — but it is hard to translate into the deeply rooted and long since defined classical patterns of western theology. It is equally difficult to translate into the structures of churches which are still shaped by the mindset of Christendom and which have not come to terms with the paradigm shift that surrounds them.
No area of theological work or churchly practice is untouched by the theological agenda of the Missio Dei. This is demonstrated by the ways in which the study of missiology has evolved in this century. From a rather narrow focus upon the expansion of western Christianity and it implications, the discipline today intrudes into every area of theological discourse.
It is still possible to find seminary courses on “the theology of mission.” But the global paradigm shift requires now that we do “missionary theology.” This is the missional challenge that confronts the biblical scholar, the church historian, the systematic theologian, and the practical theologian.
Darrell Guder is Princeton Theological Seminary's Dean of Academic Affairs and the Henry Winters Luce Professor of Missional and Ecumenical Theology
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The intervention from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople at the synod of bishops marked an ecumenical milestone, says a representative of the Orthodox Church of Greece.
Archimandrite Ignatios Sotiriadis is a fraternal delegate at the world Synod of Bishops on the Word of God, which ends Sunday.
The Church of Greece representative spoke with ZENIT about the intervention from Bartholomew I, given as a homily Oct. 18 in a celebration of vespers together with Benedict XVI.
Q: You have been participating in the entire synod. What have you heard from the synod fathers about Bartholomew I\'s homily?
Archimandrite Ignatios: First of all, I feel proud to see His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in the Sistine Chapel, where popes are elected, also famous worldwide for its artistic value, because I consider the invitation from Pope Benedict to the \"primus inter pares\" of the Orthodox Church a most great honor.
The event was welcomed by the synod fathers -- all of them were present -- as a true moment of \"grace\" and in the same way, the Vatican daily L\'Osservatore Romano has presented it in a headline on the front page.
The patriarch made reference in his homily to the interpretation of the Word of God-Divine Word, according to the teaching and the writings of the fathers of the Church. It was a magisterial homily, since it presented the position of the Orthodox Church on the discussion, inspired in the richness of Eastern and Orthodox spirituality.
It was a historical event, in which a Pope celebrates vespers before the representatives of the entire Catholic episcopate and on this occasion, doesn\'t exercise his ministry as teacher, but concedes it to the second bishop of the Church when it was not yet divided.
What most impressed me was what the Pope said when the patriarch\'s homily, received with long applause, was over: \"If we have common fathers, how can we not be brothers?\"
Q: The synod fathers have commented on the mediation of the patriarch. In particular, they were impressed by the passage in which he explained how to \"see\" the Word of God through icons, expression of the incarnation of God, and in creation, highlighting the importance of protecting it, as respect for the divine Logos.
Archimandrite Ignatios: The ecumenical patriarch is known for his passion and his tireless commitment at the ecological level and the synod fathers have much appreciated his contribution to a discussion of maximum importance and current value, in which the Church should be a protagonist.
Q: But the great novelty, perhaps, has not been the patriarch\'s intervention, but rather the desire of the Pope, expressed at the end of vespers, to include the patriarch\'s proposals in the synodal proposals. This is an initiative that appears to have been welcomed by the synod fathers. In this way, for the first time in history, the magisterium of an ecumenical patriarch could be taken up by the official magisterium of the Catholic Church in the postsynodal apostolic exhortation.
Archimandrite Ignatios: When we are united in the Word of God, our path inevitably leads us toward a second stage, which is full unity, that is, a common celebration of the Eucharist. But this will not be reached as much with human efforts as with the breath and will of the Holy Spirit.
Q: Yet those who hope for this unity sometimes see it as something far off …
Archimandrite Ignatios: The separation of the Eastern and Western Church occurred over various centuries; it was not an isolated event in the year 1054, but a long cultural, linguistic process. … I think that the re-encounter will happen in the same way, following a gradual path. We separated slowly, and slowly we will unite. But it is not for us to talk of dates.
What is certain is the desire of the Orthodox Church that the Church of Rome parts with its temporal power and dedicates itself totally to its spiritual mission for the transformation of the world.
In his speech opening the recent gathering in Constantinople of Orthodox bishops His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stress at one point the importance of evangelizing not only those outside the Church but also those who are baptized.
My first though on reading this was, well, thank God!
The need to evangelize our own faithful is something that Orthodox priests often discuss privately when we gather together, but we are sometime less forthright about publicly. Add to this that it is not at all unheard of for Orthodox Christian clergy and laity to minimize the need for the evangelism of the faithful (including the clergy). Sometimes this argument takes the form not of dismissing evangelism out of hand. More often though it is argued (at least by example) that participation in the service of the Church is sufficient.
His All Holiness points out in response to the neglect of the evangelism of the faithful "that in contemporary societies, especially in the context of western civilization, faith in Christ can in no way be taken at all for granted." Our evangelism whether it involves us with ministering to those outside or inside the Church can only "be developed or expounded [in] dialogue with modern currents of philosophical thought and social dynamics, as well as with various forms of art and culture of our times." At least in my better moments as a priest, I have taken to heart the primacy of dialog as the means of bring the Good News to others and have found it to be the most fruitful and joyful part of my ministry.
That said, there remains a central and ongoing struggle in me: Remembering that the proclamation of the Gospel "cannot be aggressive." When it is, "as it often unfortunately is; [it is] is of no benefit at all." To avoid aggression in the proclamation of the Gospel requires from me a real ascetical effort. Respecting the freedom of others, trying to find the points of commonality and convergence between us, can only proceed by an act of self-emptying (kenosis) that seems absent in much of what passes for Orthodox outreach and evangelism.
At least within the American context, Orthodox Christians seem to have often adopted a triumphalistic style of evangelism. Much of the material that we publish and much of what we say publicly seems specifically directed at convincing Western Christians (and specifically Evangelical Christians) to become Orthodox. Add to this that we produce very little that is directed to the non-Christian and it seems hard to deny that we are more concerned with proselytizing than evangelism. His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew challenges us who are more inclined to proselytize Western to undertake instead the much more difficult task of entering into a conversation with those without any religious faith, or indeed even those among us who are only marginally committed baptized Orthodox Christians.
Unlike proselytizing (which begins not with proclaiming the Gospel but by undermining the faith of those we speak with) evangelism (whether internal or external in focus) requires that we "first understand other people and discern their deeper concerns." As Bartholomew points out "even behind disbelief, there lies concealed the search for the true God." Entering into the disbelief of others, seeing it sympathetically and with compassion as a search for God, is personally challenging and to many threatening.
The empathic approach to evangelism requires that I find in my own heart the strains of disbelief, doubt and despair that are the seed bed of what the late Pope John Paul II called in Evangelium vitae
the "culture of death" or what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) called in his 2005 homily the "dictatorship of relativism." Triumphalism, and all forms of intellectual and emotional manipulation of others, is itself a fleeing from the hard work of dialog grounded in accurate self-knowledge. Ironically, these and other forms of religious aggression (what His All Holiness calls "fanaticism") are themselves also symptoms of the very culture of death that the Church condemns.
What then are we to do? How are we to proceed in our evangelism in a way that avoids aggression and take seriously the concerns of those with whom we speak? Our evangelism, as with all of the Church's ministries must (and again I'm borrowing from His All Holiness) "dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory."
Especially given the use of the intellectually loaded term "dialectical" is tempting to read the concerns of contemporary philosophy into the above. Given the openness toward modern thought that informs His All Holiness speech, this is not by any means an unwarranted approach. While it is certainly would be worthwhile to engage the different meanings possible in the term dialectical, I think it would be more profitable to understand the dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory character of the Church's ministry in general, and evangelism in particular, by taking my cue from the text of the Patriarch's speech.
The vision of the Church's ministry outlined in the speech is one that reflects "the connection between the unity of the Church and the unity of the world, on which the Apostle to the Gentiles insist." This dual unity "imposes on us the need to assume the role of peacemaker within a world torn by conflicts." Precisely because we are called to be peacemakers, we "cannot—indeed, it must not—in any way nurture religious fanaticism, whether consciously or subconsciously." Certainly, "When zeal becomes fanaticism, it deviates from the nature of the Church," and so "we must develop initiatives of reconciliation wherever conflicts among people either loom or erupt." While I agree that "Inter-Christian and inter-religious dialogue is the very least of our obligations; and it is one that we must surely fulfill," I find myself wondering what such a dialog might look like. This is especially important, at least to me, when I wonder what such a dialog might look like pastorally.
In tomorrow's post I wish to offer one suggestion by returning to a idea I presented earlier. I would argue that we look to the Mystery of Confession as a model for a form of evangelism and ministry that is, as His All Holiness argues, is dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory.
As always, I not only welcome your thoughts, questions and comments, but actively solicit them.
Two commentators, Michael and Fr Christian (that isn't them at left!), have asked questions in response to the recent speech by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Rather than respond to them in the comment box, I thought I would do so here in the hopes of generating a more general conversation.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Dear Michael and Fr Christian,
Thank you both for your comments and questions. Let me please me answer you both in turn.
Michael, I read through the comments on Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's most excellent blog "What Does the Prayer Really Say." (For those interested in reading through them they are posted on 21 June and offered in response to an in accurate news report that the Ecumenical Patriarch was suggesting "dual communion" with Rome and Constantinople for Ukrainian Catholics.) To be honest, I found the comments from a number of the Catholic commentators to be harsh. While I appreciate their desire to defend the Catholic faith, both in content, and more importantly tone, the words seem likely not to foster reconciliation but rather lead only to a further estrangement between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. As I have argued before, I believe that ecumenical conversations, especially on the grassroots level, should be limited to the sphere of influence of the participants.
In other words, if I'm not in a position to change the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, I ought not to have a conversation about how the Catholic Church needs to change her own dogmatic teaching. Too often, and the comments both on Fr John's blog as well as on this one, have reflected the delusional conviction that the commentator was in himself (and why is it almost always a man?) to pass dogmatic judgment on what is, and is not, the authentic teaching of one Church relative to the other. We need to limit, or so it seems to me, to the areas of the Christian life entrusted to our care.
For those well versed in Catholic social teaching, or for that matter conservative political philosophy, this is a variation on the principle of subsidiarity. David A. Bosnich on the Acton Institute's blog describes subsidiarity as arguing "that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be." The resolution of dogmatic differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Church (or between either of this communities and the communities that arose with and after the Reformation) is an profoundly complex undertaken and well beyond what can be done by individual Catholic or Orthodox Christians in private conversations (whether they are face to face or electronic).
As I said a moment ago, I found the some of the comments on Fr Z's blog, as I have some comments here and on other electronic forums, uncharitable and more likely to foster a grassroots spirit of distrust and estrangement rather than a grassroots spirit of trust and reconciliation. From my own experience, I fear this happens even when the comments are themselves are initially charitable. Part of this is a reflection of the limits of the internet. But more importantly I think it reflects the imprudence of engaging in theological conversations across traditions—too often we engage each other in ways that are simply irresponsible. At its core this reflects a willingness (including on more than one occasion, my own willingness I must confess) to take to ourselves a degree of responsibility that belongs to our respective bishops meeting together in council. The conversations so often degenerate into mere polemics because we are irresponsible in our conversations.
I am not a bishop and I need to limit my conversation with Catholics to matters appropriate to my office as a presbyter that is as a teacher, an administrator and a counselor. Likewise, when Catholic and Orthodox laypeople sit down to take across traditions they must limit themselves to their own office as members of the laity. One challenge here is that, though the Orthodox Church has a long history of active lay participation in the life of the Church, that tradition has largely been neglected in recent years. For many Orthodox laypeople, their understanding of their ministry is limited to parish council, teaching church school, or singing in the choir.
The ministry of the laity, and now I want to respond to Fr Christian's comments, is one area where I think both communities can profit by grassroots conversations. In my own ministry, conversations with Sherry Anne Weddell and Fr Mike Fones, OP, have deepened my understanding and appreciated of the role of the laity to sanctify the world. For example, and again I've said this here before, there are no Orthodox parishes in the United States that weren't founded by laypeople. This is especially true of the often unappreciated and unjustly criticized "ethnic" parishes. Among the Orthodox laity there are many very gifted and energetic evangelists whose ministry is often overlooked and under supported.
My own view as a priest who has spent the whole of my ministry working either as a missionary and/or with parishes in crisis and transition is that what is most needed is conversations between Catholic and Orthodox Christians that focus on what we can learn from each other to foster the ministries of our respective Churches. What, for example, can Catholics teach Orthodox Christians about the ministry of the laity? Likewise, what might Orthodox Christian have to offer to Catholic Christians about liturgy and spirituality?
Let me offer some examples from my own life.
I am generally considered a good preacher and spiritual director. Without presuming against divine grace, "that which always heals what is infirm and completes what is lacking" skills I learned how to do both from my Roman Catholic professors at Duquesne University and the University of Dallas. So too my ministry with college students and young adults is the fruit of my conversations with Roman Catholics, Protestant and Jewish campus ministers and clergy who served the students at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
Fr Christian, your own interest in painting icons, as with Michael's interest in how the Orthodox Church ministers to marriages in crisis, both reflect outstanding beginnings in fostering grassroots reconciliation between our two Churches. We do not, in the main, trust each other because, in the main, we do not see any profit in learning from the other. And because we see no profit in learning from each other, we do not trust each other.
But, in the final analysis, what is really a miss is my own heart. Too often I substitute polemics against the other for a commitment to Christ and the Gospel. The more I commit myself to Christ, to the preaching of the Gospel and the demands of my own office as a priest, the more I find a hunger not only for the riches and wisdom of the Orthodox Tradition, but also an openness to the riches and wisdom of the Catholic Tradition (and I would add, the Protestant and Evangelical tradition, to say nothing of other religious traditions and the findings of the natural, social and human sciences as well as philosophy, politics, economics, and law to name only a few).
Michael and Fr Christian, thank you again for your comments and questions. I would invite not only your thoughts, but also the thoughts of the others who read this essay. In our small way, we are all of us creating here a community that demonstrates that, while not without its challenges, Catholics and Orthodox Christians can be reconciled. We can learn from each other, we can trust each others, we can support and sustain each other in our spiritual lives, our parishes and our ministry.
In His All Holiness understanding of the matter: "for St. Paul, Church unity is not merely an internal matter of the Church. If he insists so strongly on maintaining unity, it is because Church unity is inextricably linked with the unity of all humanity. The Church does not exist for itself but for all humankind and, still more broadly, for the whole of creation." (¶ 7)
He continues by tracing out the Christological foundations of the Church's anthropological and soteriological vocation:
St. Paul describes Christ as the "second" or "final" Adam, namely as humanity in its entirety (cf. 1 Cor. 15.14 and Rom. 5.14). And "just as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ." (1 Cor. 15.22; cf. Rom. 5.19) Just as the human race is united in Adam, so also "all things are gathered up in [Christ], both things in heaven and things on earth." (Eph. 1.10) As St. John Chrysostom remarks, this "gathering up" (or recapitulation, anakephalaiosis) signifies that "one head had been established for all, namely the incarnate Christ, for both humans and angels, the human and divine Word. And he gathered them under one head so that there may be complete union and contiguity." (PG 62.16)
Nevertheless, this "recapitulation" of the entire world in Christ is not conceived by St. Paul outside the Church. As he explains in his letter to the Colossians (1.16-18), in Christ "all things in heaven and on earth were created and ... in him all things hold together" precisely because "he is the head of the body, the Church." "[God] has made him the head over all things for the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." (Eph. 1.22-3) For St. Paul, then, Christ is the head of all -- of all people and all creation -- because He is at the same time head of the Church. The Church as the body of Christ is not fulfilled unless it assumes in itself the whole world. (¶ 7)
With the Christological, anthropological and soteriological foundation of Church unity secure, the Ecumenical Patriarch returns to his earlier observation that unity is foundational to the Church's evangelical mission. Surprisingly, to me at least, His All Holiness reminds his listeners that the Church's evangelistic work encompasses not only "those who do not believe in Christ," but also "God's people," that is, those already baptized and so members of the Church.
Thinking of the exchange of essays on the American Orthodox Institute blog, it is noteworthy that in the view of his All Holiness this evangelical mission is "the supreme obligation of the Church" must be fulfilled "with love, humility and respect for the cultural particularity of each person. Further, "the message and overall word of Orthodoxy cannot be aggressive, as it often unfortunately is; for this is of no benefit at all. Rather, it must be dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory. We must first understand other people and discern their deeper concerns; for, even behind disbelief, there lies concealed the search for the true God." (¶ 7)
Called as we are to be "the role peacemaker within a world torn by conflicts," the Church (again guided by the bishops as the guardians and sustainers of the bonds of charity in the Church)
cannot –indeed, it must not—in any way nurture religious fanaticism, whether consciously or subconsciously. When zeal becomes fanaticism, it deviates from the nature of the Church, particularly the Orthodox Church. By contrast, we must develop initiatives of reconciliation wherever conflicts among people either loom or erupt. Inter-Christian and inter-religious dialogue is the very least of our obligations; and it is one that we must surely fulfill. (¶ 7)
Without reference to any of those who commented either here or at the AOI blog, it seems to me that in the American context, and whether we were baptized as infants or became Orthodox Christians latter in life, too often our internal and external relationships are characterized by aggression and a noticeable lack of the dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory qualities that His All Holiness calls for.
In my next post, I want to look with you at the broader implications of the dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory character of the Church's evangelistic mission.
As always, your thoughts, comments and questions are not only welcome, but actively sought.
There has been the American Orthodox Institute blog a series of essays that debate whether or not the Church ought to lend its voice to the different cultural and political debates current in the American context. Those posts, together with a series recent comments here on Archimandrite Ignatios Sotiriadis presentation at the world Synod of Bishops of the Catholic Church illustrate what I think are some of the most tensions in the contemporary pastoral situation of the Orthodox Church. A summary of at least some of these points of tension figure prominently in the address offered by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on Friday, October 10, 2008 at the official opening of the Synaxis of the Heads of the Orthodox Churches and Pauline Symposium held at the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George in Istanbul, Turkey. What I would like to do, beginning with this post and continuing over the next several posts, is look with you at the address by His All Holiness with an eye to foster a discussion that touches on the pastoral situation of the Church especially (though not exclusively) here in America.
In his address the Ecumenical Patriarch touches on the following points (these are my formulations based in the online English translation of the text):
The Context of the Church's Ministry (¶'s 1-4)
The Contemporary Context of the Church's Ministry (¶'s 1-2)
The Pauline Context (¶'s 3-4)
St Paul and the Unity of the Church (¶ 5)
Directions for Future Ministry (¶ 6)
Recapitulation and an Ecclesiology of Unity (¶'s 7-8)
Bartholomew situates the question of unity with the broader context of the life of the Most Holy Trinity and what he calls the Church's "mission within the contemporary world." (¶ 1) Within this twin context, it belongs above all the episcopate—singularly and as a body—who "have been assigned [by Christ to be the] guardians, keepers and guarantors by divine grace. . . . the bonds of love and unity" that are the both foundation of the Church and the content of the Gospel. (¶ 2)
In this light, His All Holiness looks the Apostle Paul as the model of episcopal ministry. The "entire Apostolic ministry of this 'chosen vessel of Christ'" provides us with the third context within which the Church is called by Christ to fulfill her own vocation to preach and teach. And what does the Church preach and teach except "'the exceptional character of the revelations' (2 Cor 12.7), of which St Paul was counted worth by the grace of the Lord"? It is this Pauline ministry which "the foundation of the doctrines of our faith" and which serves as the "inviolate rule of faith and life for all Orthodox Christians."(¶ 3) We "cannot properly honor St. Paul," His All Holiness says, unless we "simultaneously labor for the unity of the Church."
What is immediately apparent is that the unity of the Church is not (as a commentators on this blog have pointed out) an end in itself. Rather taking our cue from Paul (and the rest of the New Testament) the unity of the Church is itself in the service of the Church's philanthropic, evangelical, and catechetical ministry. Is support of this, Bartholomew looks back to his own predecessor on the Ecumenical Throne, St John Chrysostom. Speaking of St Paul, Chrysostom says that "He bore responsibility not only for a home but for cities, provinces, nations and the whole oikoumene; indeed, he was anxious about so many and so diverse important matters, for which he suffered alone and cared even more than a father for his children." (¶ 5)
Leaving aside for another time, the Patriarch's comments on schism, in my next post I will look at what I find to be one of the most welcome, if provocative, on unity in his speech. Specifically, that Church unity is not simply an matter of ecclesiology, but also anthropology and soteriology. In His All Holiness understanding of the matter: "for St. Paul, Church unity is not merely an internal matter of the Church. If he insists so strongly on maintaining unity, it is because Church unity is inextricably linked with the unity of all humanity. The Church does not exist for itself but for all humankind and, still more broadly, for the whole of creation." (¶ 7)
He continues by tracing out the Christological foundations of the Church's anthropological and soteriological vocation:
St. Paul describes Christ as the "second" or "final" Adam, namely as humanity in its entirety (cf. 1 Cor. 15.14 and Rom. 5.14). And "just as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ." (1 Cor. 15.22; cf. Rom. 5.19) Just as the human race is united in Adam, so also "all things are gathered up in [Christ], both things in heaven and things on earth." (Eph. 1.10) As St. John Chrysostom remarks, this "gathering up" (or recapitulation, anakephalaiosis) signifies that "one head had been established for all, namely the incarnate Christ, for both humans and angels, the human and divine Word. And he gathered them under one head so that there may be complete union and contiguity." (PG 62.16)
Nevertheless, this "recapitulation" of the entire world in Christ is not conceived by St. Paul outside the Church. As he explains in his letter to the Colossians (1.16-18), in Christ "all things in heaven and on earth were created and ... in him all things hold together" precisely because "he is the head of the body, the Church." "[God] has made him the head over all things for the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." (Eph. 1.22-3) For St. Paul, then, Christ is the head of all -- of all people and all creation -- because He is at the same time head of the Church. The Church as the body of Christ is not fulfilled unless it assumes in itself the whole world. (¶ 7)
With the Christological, anthropological and soteriological foundation of Church unity secure, the Ecumenical Patriarch returns to his earlier observation that unity is foundational to the Church's evangelical mission. Surprisingly, to me at least, His All Holiness reminds his listeners that the Church's evangelistic work encompasses not only "those who do not believe in Christ," but also "God's people," that is, those already baptized and so members of the Church.
Thinking of the exchange of essays on the American Orthodox Institute blog, it is noteworthy that in the view of his All Holiness this evangelical mission is "the supreme obligation of the Church" must be fulfilled "with love, humility and respect for the cultural particularity of each person. Further, "the message and overall word of Orthodoxy cannot be aggressive, as it often unfortunately is; for this is of no benefit at all. Rather, it must be dialectical, dialogical and reconciliatory. We must first understand other people and discern their deeper concerns; for, even behind disbelief, there lies concealed the search for the true God." (¶ 7)
Called as we are to be "the role peacemaker within a world torn by conflicts," the Church (again guided by the bishops as the guardians and sustainers of the bonds of charity in the Church)
cannot –indeed, it must not—in any way nurture religious fanaticism, whether consciously or subconsciously. When zeal becomes fanaticism, it deviates from the nature of the Church, particularly the Orthodox Church. By contrast, we must develop initiatives of reconciliation wherever conflicts among people either loom or erupt. Inter-Christian and inter-religious dialogue is the very least of our obligations; and it is one that we must surely fulfill. (¶ 7)
In my next post, I want to look with you at the broader implications of the unity of the Church.
As always, your thoughts, comments and questions are not only welcome, but actively sought.
Archimandrite Ignatios Sotiriadis, fraternal delegate from the Orthodox Church of Greece, spoke Saturday to the synod, which is focusing on the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church.
His address brought more applause than any other intervention in the first week of the synod.
"Your Holiness," he said, "our society is tired and sick. It seeks but does not find! It drinks but its thirst is not quenched. Our society demands of us Christians -- Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans -- a common witness, a unified voice. Here lies our responsibility as pastors of the Churches in the 21st Century."
"Here," the Orthodox pastor continued, "is the primary mission of the First Bishop of Christianity, of him who presides in charity, and, above all, of a Pope who is Magister Theologiae: to be the visible and paternal sign of unity and to lead under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and according to Sacred Tradition, with wisdom, humility and dynamism, together with all the bishops of the world, fellow successors of the apostles, all humanity to Christ the redeemer."
"This is the profound desire of those who have the painful longing in their heart for the undivided Church, 'Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica,'" he concluded. "But it is also the desire of those who, again today, in a world without Christ, fervently, but also with filial trust and faith, repeat the words of the apostles: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!'"
Image via WikipediaAn interesting observation from the director of Biola University's Graduate Program in Christian Apologetics, Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D. in his review of Bill Maher's new film Religulous. While I might want to tweek his language a little here and there, I think Dr Hazen is on the right track. He writes:
If there is one important lesson for Christians of all sorts to learn from this movie it is this: we have got to start talking differently about “faith.” Unfortunately, we have let the secular world and antagonists like Bill Maher define the term for us. What they mean by “faith” is blind leaping. That is what they think our commitment to Christ and the Christian view of the world is all about. They think we have simply disengaged our minds and leapt blindly into the religious abyss.
The biblical view of saving Christian faith has never had anything to do with blind leaping. Jesus himself was fixed on the idea that we can know the truth—and not just in some spiritual or mystical way. Rather, he taught that we can know the truth about God, humans, and salvation objectively. That is, the very best forms of investigation, evidence, and careful reasoning will inevitably point to God and His great plans for us. The early church learned well from the Master because they too were fixed on the idea that they knew that Jesus was raised from the dead and that we could know it too. The Apostles never made any room for interpreting their experiences of the risen Christ in some mystical or fictional fashion. As the Apostle Peter put it, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).
What we mean by “faith” is not blind leaping that is oblivious to the evidence, especially evidence to the contrary. Rather faith in it’s biblical context is trust grounded in objective knowledge. Faith is trusting that which we can know to be objectively true. I run a graduate program in Christian Apologetics at Biola University in which we train students at the highest levels to give compelling reasons for their faith. Maher did not knock on our door. But unfortunately, I think many of the Christians he interviewed would be surprised to learn that there is a robust knowledge tradition in Christianity. I long for the day when a guy like Maher would never consider making a film like this because it would be so difficult to find Christians that he could hound and hoodwink.
Maher and Charles successfully put some of the goofiest strands of the Christian movement on public display for cinematic ridicule. Great skill, intellect, or cleverness, that did not require. The greater feat would be for the two documentarians to jump out of their own shallow presuppositions and prejudices to get a fresh look at what has made Christianity attractive to some of the greatest minds in human history. But I think it’s a good bet that they don’t have a sequel like that on the drawing board.
Too often I think Orthodox Christians, especially those of us who seem allegeric to all things Western, retreat from a rational presentation of the faith. Specifically, we seem often to fall into some polemic variation that begins with something along the lines of "Trust us, we're old" or "We're not [insert strawman of choice: Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Liberals, etc.]."
In my own explaination of the faith and practice of the Church, I have found that a more anthropological or natural law approach is usually best. I try to root my explaination of Holy Tradition in how it illumines for me the truth of what it means to be human.
Anyway, hadn't posted for a while and though Hazen had an idea worth offering for consideration.
Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/ 081002172013.htm Religion Makes People Helpful And Generous -- Under Certain Conditions
ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2008) — Belief in God encourages people to be helpful, honest and generous, but only under certain psychological conditions, according to University of British Columbia researchers who analyzed the past three decades of social science research.
Religious people are more likely than the non-religious to engage in prosocial behaviour – acts that benefit others at a personal cost – when it enhances the individual\'s reputation or when religious thoughts are freshly activated in the person\'s mind, say UBC social psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff
Their paper \"The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality\" appears in the October 3, 2008 issue of the journal Science.
The two-part paper first reviews data from anthropology, sociology, psychology and economics. Norenzayan and Shariff then go on to explore how religion, by encouraging cooperation, became a factor in making possible the rise of large and stable societies made of genetically unrelated individuals.
To date, says Norenzayan, the public debate whether religion fosters cooperation and trust has largely been driven by opinion and anecdote.
\"We wanted to look at the hard scientific evidence,\" says Norenzayan, an associate professor in the Dept. of Psychology.
The investigators found complementary results across the disciplines:
* Empirical data within anthropology suggests there is more cooperation among religious societies than the non-religious, especially when group survival is under threat * Economic experiments indicate that religiosity increases levels of trust among participants * Psychology experiments show that thoughts of an omniscient, morally concerned God reduce levels of cheating and selfish behaviour
\"This type of religiously-motivated \'virtuous\' behaviour has likely played a vital social role throughout history,\" says Shariff, a Psychology PhD student.
Shariff adds, \"One reason we now have large, cooperative societies may be that some aspects of religion – such as outsourcing costly social policing duties to all-powerful Gods – made societies work more cooperatively in the past.\"
Across cultures and through time, observe the authors, the notion of an all-powerful, morally concerned \"Big God\" usually begat \"Big groups\" –large-scale, stable societies that successfully passed on their cultural beliefs.
The study also points out that in today\'s world religion has no monopoly on kind and generous behaviour. In many findings, non-believers acted as prosocially as believers. The last several hundred years has seen the rise of non-religious institutional mechanisms that include effective policing, courts and social surveillance.
\"Some of the most cooperative modern societies are also the most secular,\" says Norenzayan. \"People have found other ways to be cooperative – without God.\"
Yesterday's post on the parish, marriage and family life inspired (if I may use that term) a number of very interesting and though provoking comments. Before I respond to the substance of at least some of those comments, let me first say that I am thankful to everyone who posted but especially to Chris and Matushka Mary. Both of them, each in their own way, brought home to me the lack of precision in my language. For this, and for any offense or confusion that I may have caused, I ask your pardon.
I think Chris is correct when he says that "It is one thing to say that we could do more to encourage healthy marriages and families but it is quite another to say that the purpose of the parish is fostering and sustaining marriage and family life." This is one place where my lack of linguistic precision has caused on necessary confusion. I do not mean that the sole purpose of the parish is to foster marriage and family life. Again as Chris rightly points out, these are vocations within the Church, but they do not exhaust the vocational possibilities for Christians. I would add, and here I speak as a married priest, marriage and family life do not even exhaust the vocational possibilities for those so called.
Whether or not a secular service organization can foster marriage and family life, and here I would gently disagree with Chris, is a debatable proposition. What social service agencies do best, I think, is respond to crisis, as well helping people overcome the negative effects of chronic deprivation of one kind or another. It is not at all clear that secular social service agencies as such are particularly good at fostering healthy marriage and families and this for no reason more profound that we do not have a societal consensus on these matters.
But even granting for the sake of discussion that secular social service organizations can foster marriage and family life, this does not exempt the Church from pursuing this as a central part her own vocation to care for those entrusted to her by Christ. And this is actually my central point in the earlier post: It is not all together clear to me that the Church is fulfilling her mission to prepare, foster and sustain the Christian vocation to marriage and family. With W. Berry's comments in the back of my mind, I wondered out loud (a very bad habit that gets me in a great deal of trouble!) if in fact there is this lacunae in the Orthodox Church's pastoral ministry, might not this be a symptom of a more basic problem. As I said yesterday,
Much like the larger society, Orthodox Christians have retreated from a public discourse about sexuality. If Berry is right in his analysis, this retreat points to an underlying deficiency in our own community life. Or, more on point, a lack of community in our parishes. More often than not, and again as with the larger society, we have privatized conversations about sexuality even while we formally affirm the sacramental nature of marriage and family life.
This at least perceived lack of community in the parish is, I would suggest, one possible explanation for the attempt by some Orthodox Christians to replicate monastic life in the parish. I would add to this what (to me at least) seems to be a fair amount of distrust in the Church for those in positions of authority, and I wonder if we a ore sustained conversation and commitment to fostering, in a holistic manner, marriage and family life might not offer a means to restore the trust that ought to underlie our shared life in Christ.
Again, whatever good might emerge from the more intentional commitment of parishes to marriage and family cannot, and must not, come at the expense of those Christians who are not married or who do not have children. Chris's experience is an essential cautionary note here. We worship the Most Holy Trinity, not the marriage or the family.
Matushka Mary's comments do a better job than I did of highlighting the centrality of the family in human life. Rightly she points out that
Everyone is part of a family, regardless of their state of life. Single people are still adult children and often siblings, aunts & uncles, grandchildren, nephews & nieces, cousins, etc. All of these are "family" relationships that affect our emotional and spiritual growth to varying degrees.
She then adds what I think is a critical point (at least for Orthodox pastoral ministry): the "'family' is not merely a biological creation, but has a spiritual component as well. I have God-children and/or spiritual friends who are as close or closer to me than my blood relations. Surely a healthy parish should strengthen these relationships as well." Orthodox spirituality rather consistently broadens the family beyond the limits of biology. Indeed, and I pointed this out with less the stellar clarity yesterday, we make of familial imagery and language to express our relationship not only with God the Father, but also with one another.
I would argue that even a cursory reading of the Scriptures highlights for us the centrality of the family in salvation. Beginning with our First Parents in the Garden, the Gospel is often (though not exclusively by any means) announced to, and through, marriage and family. The logical conclusion of this, for the Orthodox at least, is the evangelistic (and so necessarily, prophetic) character of marriage in Christ that St Paul articulates for us in Ephesians:
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (5.15-33)
Christian marriage is not only a prophetic and evangelistic vocation, it is also one (if I read the above correctly), eschatological. The concrete relationship in Christ of this man and woman, points beyond itself. It points "backwards" to the foundation of the world and the creation of our First Parents. It also points "forward" to the eschatological consummation when, in the words of the Apostle John, there is ushered in a new heaven and a new earth:
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (21.1-8)
John use language that is not only geographical, but also cosmological and liturgical. In using liturgical language, and in emphasizing the gathering of a new, "holy city," his language is also ecclesiological and, I would argue, conjugal. Indeed, like the Apostle Paul (and the Old Testament before them both), for John the relationship between Christ and the Church is expressed in conjugal language.
Even if our neglect is a rather benignly intended imitation of the culture's ceding of these to the private sphere, all of this means, or at least I would suggest for purposes of discussion, that in neglecting marriage and family life the Church fails to attend to her own identity. If this forgetfulness becomes habitual, we risk losing the ability not only to care pastorally to those called to marriage and family life, but indeed to the vocational needs of ALL in the Church whether young or old, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, married, single, celibate, divorced or widowed, with children or without, clergy, monastic or laity living in the world.
Reading through the comments offered by Any Mary, Chrys and Ben, and thinking about things a bit more, I wonder if the monastic emphasis in some parts of the Church is not an attempt to recapture the self-identity of the Church in the parish.
And if we have become forgetful of who we are in Christ, how can we proclaim the Gospel? What do we have to offer except the testimony of our own lives?
Again, and as always, thank you for your comments and questions. They are not only appreciated by me, they are actively sought.
American Orthodox Institute (AOI) has published a short piece I wrote on the Pew Charitable Trust's US Religious Landscape Survey, "Catechesis and Evangelism are not Enough." I have included the first three paragraphs here. Please take a moment and read what I've written at AOI. While there, take a look at the many other, excellent and though provoking articles that are posted there.
In Christ, +Fr. Gregory
In recent years, Orthodox Christians in the United States have become very mission minded. We see as a community the importance of bringing the Orthodox faith to what the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey published by the Pew Charitable Trust calls "the American religious marketplace." Ours is a religious age characterized by "constant movement."
Given the ease with which Americans change religious affiliations making new members is not the primary challenge. The real challenge, the Survey suggests, is retention, of actually keeping the members that we have. Our witness to the Gospel is undermined by the general lack of commitment to the life of the Church by a plurality of Orthodox Christians. And this is true whether we are talking about those baptized as infants or those who join the Church as adults. If anything, the empirical data highlights the pastoral importance of stressing not simply catechesis (religious education) evangelism (making new Orthodox Christians).
The survey data gives us an overview of religious life in American and the place of the Orthodox Church in this broader con text. Filled with charts, graphs, and statistics the report is not something that most of us are likely just to pick and read. In what follows, rather than a rigorous statistical analysis of the Church's life, I offer some points for reflection based on the survey. My goal is to help laity and clergy understand that catechesis and evangelism must be combined with a pastoral commitment to the personal discipleship of all members of
Image via WikipediaImage via WikipediaImage via WikipediaOver at NeoChalcedonian I've been involved in a spirited discussion on ecumenism. Not all of the conversation, I should point out, has been particularly edifying. ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f2822988-be0c-4120-be41-36cf04d96a0c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1a5f8c5a-092f-4055-aaca-d5c4201462cc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7ee86398-2ae4-4fc5-a9fc-0b1cd7c05f39)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7b96098f-138a-41ad-91e0-583b6e8f0cc7)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=512d8f06-86fd-46ba-a539-294f69a42df2)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1be7b873-48da-420a-9a66-7e901060c133)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=790ff290-ef07-4388-8537-0f42be8ca6b0)
