Sunday, January 20, 2008 (Luke 18:35-43): The Healing of the Blind man

Then it happened, as He was coming near Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the road begging. And hearing a multitude passing by, he asked what it meant. So they told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he cried out, saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" Then those who went before warned him that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!" So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be brought to Him. And when he had come near, He asked him, saying, "What do you want Me to do for you?" He said, "Lord, that I may receive my sight." Then Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has made you well." And immediately he received his sight, and followed Him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God (Luke 18:35-43).

The more I try and ground my preaching in the words of the fathers, the more I come to appreciate the fathers as preachers, as pastors whose main concern is the healing of souls and bodies of the consequences of Adam's transgression. And what I am most struck by is not simply the reverence, but the fearless and even playfulness, with which the fathers approach the text of Holy Scripture.

Take for example St Ambrose in his Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (8.80). It does not concern him that, while St Matthew relates that Jesus heals two blind men, "Luke depicts one." He then proceeds to bring to the fore the other differences between the two Gospels: Where "Matthew depicts [the miracle] as Jesus was leaving Jericho (Mt 20.30), but Luke [depicts it] as he was approaching the city." Ambrose then says something that, to the contemporary reader at least, is nonsensical: "Otherwise there was no difference" between the two writers. For most of us the question of whether or not there were two blind men or one, and whether the healing happened as Jesus was leaving or entering Jericho is of great importance. If the Gospel writers can't agree on these rather simply facts, how can we trust them on the weightier matters that pertain to our salvation?

But these differences don't matter to Ambrose. Why?

Or maybe, a better question is why do they matter to me? What did Ambrose see that I'm missing? I'll tell you unlike me, Ambrose read the Scriptures with faith.

Contemporary readers want the Scriptures to be a newspaper, a history or science textbook. We want this because we fancy our "objective view" of history and current events. But what is it that we mean when we imagine that what we are saying is "objective"?

There is a curious pride in our attempt at a journalistic reading of Scripture. The contemporary notion of the objective observer whose view of the world is one not influenced by outside facts, is a view of the human person divorced from community and tradition. To say that I am "objective observer" is fundamentally different from saying that I am telling the truth. Objectivity (in the modern sense) is based on my separation from others—really my intentional isolation from them. It is only a consequence of my isolation from the human community, or so the thinking goes, that I am able to understand reality better then my neighbor.

And the sin is that I allow myself to believe that it is this insight born of separation that best serves the common good.

In other words, for the modern mind we are most fully human not through love and communion, but through separation and isolation. It is alienation not fellowship that is the defining characteristic of the contemporary view of the human person. This anthropological model holds that I know you best not when I draw close to you in love, but stand far from you. This is does not place dispassion (apatheia) at the center of human life, but indifference.

These notions are utter foreign to Ambrose and the Tradition of the Church East and West. The goal of human life is not objectivity modeled on the scientist in the laboratory, but our willingness to "proclaim the truth in love" (compare, Eph 4:15). This demands from me not simply an what I say be objectively valid, but also, and primarily, my subjective commitment to be for others as Jesus is for me and for the whole human community.

Think of this in terms of the Apostle Paul. His commitment is not simply to the truth of the Gospel, but also for the salvation of the Jewish people, of his people. So what does he say?

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen (Rom 9:1-5).

No for Ambrose and for the fathers in general, we read Scripture not simply within the Church, as if the tradition of the Church existed objectively like a mathematical rule, but within the matrix formed by Christ's love for us and our own love for Him and each other. This is a love that, in its purest form, would forgo even my own salvation for the salvation of others.

It is the absence of this commitment that blinds me to the
truth of Scripture, the Gospel, and the life of the Church. And it is this blindness that keeps me from acting as I ought when called upon by Christ to do.

But if we, to borrow one of the petitions from the various litanies we hear in the services, remember "our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary," and "with all the saints, let us commit (or, "commend," or "entrust") ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God" well then things can be different.

Whether intentionally or not, when we try and rationalize or justify the differences in the Gospels, we do so because we have fallen into a trap—we have allowed ourselves to act as if human reason were separate from divine grace. Faith and reason are not separate; they mutual presuppose each other as the two wings by which we ascend to God in response to His invitation.

And through the exercise of a faith-filled reason and a reasonable faith, we begin to see that whether Jesus healed two men or one, whether He did so while he was on His way out of Jericho or His way out, or whether Matthew is recounting one event and Luke another, is simply not the point. Rather what matters is that "the Gentiles," those of us born outside God's covenant with Israel, have through "the divine blessing received the clarity" of faith. So Ambrose continues:

It makes no difference whether the Gentile people received the healing through one or two blind men since, taking the origin from Ham and Japheth, sons of Noah, they set out the two others of their race in two blind men.

St Cyril of Alexandria reminds us that the healing of our spiritual blindness, like the healing of physical blindness, "cannot be . . . by human means but requires, . . . a divine power and an authority such as God only possesses" (Commentary on Luke, Homily 126).

When we read the Scriptures we are like the blind man in the Gospel. When Jesus approaches him the blind man cried out and said, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me." Meditating on this St Ephrem the Syrian (Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, 15.22) says that "The beggar's hand was stretched out to receive a penny from human beings and found himself receiving the gift of God!" We receive from God more than we can imagine, but because of our, my, lack of faith I do not know what it is that I have already in Christ.

According to Ephrem, "Christ did not say to him, 'It is your faith that has caused you to see,' in order to show that faith had given him life and then bodily sight." Faith is not what we see, but is a way of seeing. Faith is not objective (in the sense I used that word a moment ago) as much as it transformative. Faith does not show us new things, but renews our understanding of God, of self, of neighbor and the creation. Faith shows us that all that is, is held together in God and that it is divine love which unites creation.

And it is our love of God and neighbor that brings us into the great all encompassing communion.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Spiegel Online: Metropolitian KYRIL on Orthodox/Catholic Relations

SPIEGEL: Could you envision a reunification of the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, which have now been separated for close to 1,000 years?

Kyrill: The division is a consequence of human sin. In this respect it resembles a divorce. The Christian West and the Christian East parted ways because they believed that they didn't need each other anymore. Reunification can only achieved through spiritual rapprochement. It doesn't matter how many documents we sign. Unless we have the feeling that we love each other, that we are one family, and that each member needs the other, it will not materialize.

SPIEGEL: When will the long-awaited meeting between Pope Benedict and the head of your church, Patriarch Alexei, take place?

Kyrill: Our relations have improved since Benedict became pope. He has stricken the issue of a visit to Moscow from the agenda. This sort of visit would not have solved any problems, but it would have provoked new ones. Many of the faithful in Russia mistrust Catholics. This is a legacy of the wars and of proselytization efforts in the 17th and 18th centuries.

SPIEGEL: Could you imagine the pope and the patriarch meeting in a third country, essentially on neutral ground?

Kyrill: It's certainly possible. The entire development in bilateral relations is moving in the direction of such a meeting coming about.

SPIEGEL: The fact that the pope is no longer Polish ought to make him more palatable to the Russians.

Kyrill: In this case, I would like to give you an official response: Nationality is unimportant.

SPIEGEL: Your Eminence, thank you for this interview.

Why the Orthodox Need Augustine and Augustanism (Part II)

For Augustine, and the theological tradition that is heir to his work,

justification is an event that recurs many times in life, beginning with baptism and repeated every time we truly repent of our sins and are forgiven—in contrast to the classic Protestant doctrine of a single event of justification that is closely connected with, if not identical to, a once-in-a-lifetime conversion.

Cary argues that, Luther, like Aquinas, understands justification as a "repeated event in which the righteousness of God [to quote Luther] 'is given to men in baptism and whenever they are truly repentant' (from his famous sermon "On Two Kinds of Righteousness," LW 31:297)." One this score, at least, Cary argues "that Luther is, . . . , not quite Protestant (cf. Pro Ecclesia, Fall 2005)," and I would suggest compatible with Orthodox anthropology. Like Aquinas, Luther teaches that

the first time one is justified is in baptism (which is itself a form of repentance) and then all subsequent events of justification are also results of repentance . . . consists of nothing other than a "return to baptism."

As I have alluded to in the past, I think that one of the great shortcomings of Orthodox Christian scholarship is our neglect of what David Tracy calls fundamental theology, or that area of theology that "deals with the most basic questions. How is God revealed in nature and human experience? Is the reality and nature of God, which Christian faith claims has been revealed, true?" Especially important here is comparative work in theological anthropology.

For reasons which are not clear to me, there is a curious indifference, and at times open hostility, to conversations about anthropology and psychology. Combine this with a generally lack of a sound intellectual formation in philosophy, and it not surprising at all that, like many contemporary readers of Augustine, Orthodox Christians are often blind to our own "hidden assumptions." Cary's observation about justification in Augustine and later Western theology is, I suspect, new information for many Orthodox Christians:

So when someone asks whether justification is an event or a process, the first thing to notice is what the question implicitly leaves out. Typically the hidden assumption is that "event" means a once-in-a-lifetime conversion, not repeated events of repentance and forgiveness. Indeed, typically the default position is assumed to be that justification is a one-time event, and the person asking the question wants to know whether justification might also involve a process stretching beyond the one-time event. So the first thing to say to such a question is that it takes for granted the novel Protestant view that justification is a one-time event, which is not even shared by Luther, much less by Aquinas or Augustine or any previous Christian theologian.

If Cary's essay on Augustine is any indication, while there are difference between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, and between Orthodox and Protestant and Evangelical Christians, the differences are not as absolute as we often assume. Again Cary:

Having clarified that point, you can say: yes, justification is an event, but one that happens many times in life, just like Aquinas and Luther teach. But it's best to leave Augustine out of this discussion. If you asked him whether justification was a process or an event, he'd be utterly baffled, since he shares none of the key assumptions lurking behind the question. If you wanted to give him a sense of what the 16th-century questions mean, you'd need to take a different approach. You could ask, for instance: when you pray for grace or forgiveness of sins, how do you know God will give it to you? Do you know? These are not the kind of questions Augustine actually asked, but they make good sense in an Augustinian context, and it was such questions that drove Luther to the doctrine of justification and the promises of the Gospel, which he first found in sacramental absolution.

Often I am told by my Greek friends that there are things in the liturgical tradition that can only be expressed in Greek. For this reason translation of the liturgical texts is not possible since translation would means losing some its theological richness. This is no doubt true, but it leaves examined the possibility that, as with the introduction of the term homousian, translation also brings with it the possibility of discovering a new richness in the tradition. Yes, there are some things that can only be expressed in Greek, but there are also some things which we may only be able to express in English. Likewise I think we must entertain the possibility that there are some things which only Augustine and his theological heirs, we able to give expression.

A vision of justification and sanctification ground in the sacraments, but sensitive to human psychology and our response to grace, is one of those things, or so it seems to me.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Why the Orthodox Need Augustine and Augustanism (Part I)

One of the areas of favorite themes of Orthodox anti-Catholics polemics is Western Christianity's dependence upon the thought of St Augustine and West's subsequent deviation from sound theological anthropology. Having first read Augustine in college some 30 years ago (where has the time gone?), I have always had trouble recognizing the Augustine I encountered in his Confessions, On Free Choice of Will, the City of God, On the Trinity, the First Catechetical Instruction and myriad sermons with the "other" Augustine who figures so prominently in Orthodox polemics.

What brought all this to mind was a post this morning on Pontificator of Eastern University philosophy professor Phillip Cary's essay on "Augustine and Justification." Cary is a well regarded Augustine scholar who has done much to help me come to appreciate ever more fully Augustine genius. In response to the charge that Augustine is the "father" of Western legalism, Cary (rightly I think) observes that:

To ask about Augustine's view of justification is already something of an anachronism. To begin with, Augustine does not make a distinction between justification and sanctification. Of course he speaks a great deal about righteousness (i.e. justitia) and holiness (i.e. sanctitas) but these terms are not related to each other the way the later Protestant tradition relates justification and sanctification. That distinction comes much later. Indeed, it's only beginning to emerge in Calvin himself (e.g. Inst. 3:14.9). What later Calvinists call sanctification, Calvin himself will often call regeneration or repentance (ibid. 3:3 passim), which can get rather confusing.

Unlike later authors, Augustine does not "distinguish between an event of justification and a process of sanctification." Rather in Augustine's mind, what would later be called "justification, so far as he discusses it at all, is not a particular event but the activity of God throughout our lives." While not exempt from criticism on other points, he articulates a catholic (i.e., "wholistic") anthropology that envisions the Christian life as "a journey, pilgrimage or road to God . . . , in which we grow closer to God by growing in charity." Righteousness (justitia) for him "consists in obeying the twofold law of love" of God and neighbor as ourselves.

Cary does an admirable and economic job of tracing out Augustine's view of conversion, justification and sanctification; he also distinguishes them from later medieval and Reformation era speculation on these themes. For Orthodox readers of Augustine, what is especially interesting is Cary's argument that, for example, Calvin's emphasis on conversion flows out of his "rejection of the Catholic side of Augustine" work. For Augustine, "justification is not an event but a process." It is only later, during the "middle ages [that] the term 'justification' came to be used to describe the outcome of penance—especially sacramental penance (cf. e.g. Aquinas, Summa Theologica III 85.6 ad 3 and I-II 113.1)." Again, while not exempt from Orthodox criticism, it is important to bear in that during the medieval era justification was understood in sacramental terms.

Yes, it is certainly the case today, that justification is understood primarily psychological terms, but it is only because it has become detached from its sacramental mooring. Augustine, Aquinas, and even Luther, or so I hope to show in my next post, had a much more holistic view of justification then what we find in much of contemporary theology. And I think that Orthodox thought would profit by taking seriously the insights of Augustine's sacramental spiritual psychology.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Christ is Born!

Christ is Born!

Apolytikion for the Feast
Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, hath shined the light of knowledge upon the world; for thereby they that worshipped the stars were instructed by a star to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Dayspring from on high. O Lord, glory be to Thee.

Kontakion for the Feast
Today, the Virgin bears Him who is transcendent, and the earth presents the cave to Him who is beyond reach. Angels, along with shepherds glorify Him. The Magi make their way to Him by a star. For a new child has been born for us, the God before all ages.

Thank you to all who have spent time here.

I will resume blogging after the New Year.

Wishing you and yours a Very Blessed and Merry Christmas!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

SUNDAY BEFORE THE NATIVITY (Mt 1.1-25): Joseph Listens

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins. So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is translated, "God with us." Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS (Matthew 1:1-25).

Down in the bottom left corner of the Nativity icon, his face turned from Christ and the Theotokos and toward an old man, we see St Joseph. The old man that Joseph is listening to is Satan. The devil is tempting him, trying to convince Joseph that Mary has been unfaithful and that the Child to whom she has just given birth is another man's son.

And Joseph listens.

Satan taunts him. And Joseph entertains the possibility that the word spoken to him by "an angel Lord" is a lie and that the Child which Mary "conceived" is not "of the Holy Spirit" but another man.

And Joseph listens.

According to the Church's liturgical tradition Joseph is called the Betrothed. He is given this title to remind us that though his marriage to the Virgin is a real marriage, it is unconsummated. As a matter of law, Joseph is Mary's husband and the Child's father. But because the marriage is unconsummated, Joseph knows that he is not the Child's biological father; he did not conceive Jesus with Mary. And it is, ironically, the very obedience of the Betrothed to God's command that Satan uses to tempt him. Past faithfulness is twisted to tempt Joseph to disobey God and turn away, if only momentarily, from Jesus and Mary.

And Joseph listens.

And in so doing, Joseph risks being deceived by an "angel of light," one of the "false apostles, deceitful workers," who transform "themselves into apostles of Christ" (see 2 Cor 11:12-15). I remind my own spiritual children that it is the work of Satan to corrupt us from within. He tells us the truth untruthfully, he twists strength into weak, and poisons virtue so it becomes vice. The father of lies is himself the arch-heretic, the one who follows his own will and tempts us to do likewise tricking us into doing his will and not God's.

And Joseph listens.

He struggles with his own doubts, his own suspicions. That master psychologist of the spiritual life, St John Chrysostom, looks with great compassion on the struggling Joseph of Christmas morning.

What an explosive thing jealous is, . . . [We] know of many who have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in [Joseph's] case it was not a matter of simple suspicion, as the burden of Mary's own womb entirely convicted her. Nevertheless, Joseph was so free from the passion of jealousy as to be unwilling to cause distress to the Virgin, even in the slightest way. To keep Mary in his house appeared to be a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trail would cause him to deliver her to die. He would do nothing of the sort. So Joseph determined to conduct himself now by a higher rule than the law. For now . . . grace had appeared . . . like the sun, not yet risen. (Homily on the Gospel of Matthew IV)

And Joseph listens.

Taking Chrysostom as my guide in the matter, I cannot judge Joseph harshly, or even at all. What choice did he have but to listen to the conflict messages of sin and grace?

Joseph lived at the very end of Satan's reign. Yes, as Chrysostom reminds us, even before His birth, "when about to rise from the womb" Christ casts "light upon the world." But for Joseph at the Cave on that first Christmas, the world is still shrouded in darkness. To be sure it is the fleeting darkness of dawn and no longer the deep darkness of night. But still Joseph lives in darkness.

In this way, Joseph is more a saint of the Old Testament then New. Joseph is like the Prophet Moses who stood in the last moments of his own life and looked at the Promise Land he was never to enter. But Joseph is not Moses. However the saints of Old, he is still a saint of the Church and, when the righteous arise at Pascha, Joseph will rise with them as a faithful follower of Christ. But on Christmas morning, this remains in Joseph's personal future.

And Joseph listens.

In his essay, "Christmas," G. K. Chesterton writes:

It is the very essence of a festival that it breaks upon one brilliantly and abruptly, that at one moment the great day is not and the next moment the great day is. Up to a certain specific instant you are feeling ordinary and sad; for it is only Wednesday. At the next moment your heart leaps up and your soul and body dance together like lovers; for in one burst and blaze it has become Thursday. I am assuming (of course) that you are a worshipper of Thor, and that you celebrate his day once a week, possibly with human sacrifice. If, on the other hand, you are a modern Christian Englishman, you hail (of course) with the same explosion of gaiety the appearance of the English Sunday. But I say that whatever the day is that is to you festive or symbolic, it is essential that there should be a quite clear black line between it and the time going before.

Of all the saints of the New Testament, even more than John the Baptist, it is Joseph who has the task of being that "quite clear black line" to which Chesterton refers.

And Joseph listens.

Though on that first Christmas morning Satan's rule is passing away, it has not quite ended. Even more than the Baptist, Joseph belongs more to Wednesday than Thursday, to Advent more than Christmas, to the Promise more than its Fulfillment; he is more a slave to sin and death than a slave righteousness (see Rom 6:17-18). And yet for all that Joseph is less in some ways then the other saints of the New Testament, he is greater in others because he believed in Christ before belief was really possible.

While Mary had the Gabriel's word, and the growing Christ Child, and John the revelation in the womb, and the disciples and apostles the words of Jesus' sermons and his miracles, Joseph had only the passing shadows of the old law that bore witness to the glory that was to come (see Col 2: 17).

And Joseph listens.

Mindful of his adopted father's struggle not simply at His birth, but throughout his life, Jesus reminds His disciples:

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mt 24:23-24).

And, at this moment, at the birth of the Son Who honors him by calling him father, finally Joseph hears in his heart the Voice of his Infant Son.

Though he will be tempted throughout his life, Joseph will also throughout his life imitate his adopted Son, and remains faithful to what God asks of him. Through his fidelity Joseph bear witness to us that no matter how powerful Satan's hold on us, no matter how deep the darkness of sin, the grace of God is never wholly absent; no matter how hard, faith is never impossible, hope never really extinguished, and love and forgiveness are always possible for us.

A Blessed and Merry Christmas to all!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The Truth (Vertigo)

This is well worth watching, but you must watch it until the end.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

(Hat tip: David at Think Christian).

Do We Wish To Be Reconciled?

We come now to the end of our consideration of "Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions." Having spent some time with the document, and the insightful comments and questions from those who read this blog, I find an uncomfortable question rising in my heart: Are we, Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical Christians willing to take seriously the task of reconciliation not simply with one and other, but with Christ? And, as a more basic question, are we willing to answer this question truthfully?

The bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate remind us that as, Orthodox Christians, we must tell the Truth. And the truth is that

The Orthodox Church is the true Church in which the Holy Tradition and the fullness of God's saving grace are preserved intact. She has preserved the heritage of the apostles and holy fathers in its integrity and purity. She is aware that her teaching, liturgical structures and spiritual practice are the same as those of the apostolic proclamation and the Tradition of the Early Church. (1.18)

As part of our affirmation of faith, we must also work for "the restoration of that unity among Christians which is required of us by God (Jn. 17:21). Unity is part of God's design and belongs to the very essence of Christianity. It is a task of the highest priority for the Orthodox Church at every level of her life." (2.1) But,

The restoration of Christian unity in faith and love can come only from above as a gift of Almighty God. The source of unity is in God, and therefore merely human efforts to restore it will be in vain, for "except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it" (Ps. 127:1). Only our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has commanded us to be one, can give us the power to fulfill his commandment, for He is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6). The task of Orthodox Christians is to be co-workers with God in the task of salvation in Christ. As the holy fathers have said: God saves us, but not without us. (2.13)

To repeat what I said above, in baptism, God has Himself already given us all—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant—a pledge or down payment of that restored unity. I find in this section of BPA a profound warning to those of us zealous for the reunion of divide Christendom; reunion is not a human work. No matter how prayerful or well educated and articulate, unity among Christians is God's work and His gift to us.

Our work, as I remind my own spiritual children, is not to create this union, but to receive it with a resounding "Amen!"

There is likewise a warning for those who see the restoration of divided Christendom to unity as proceeding along the way of the conversion of individuals and communities. There is in this attitude a subtle, but real, temptation to imagine that we can reason people into the faith. No less than those who rush to celebrate a sacramental union that does not yet exist, this approach also reduces union to a human work.

But reconciliation is a gift of God—it comes on His terms or not at all. If I am committed to telling the Truth about the Gospel, about the Church, then I must likewise be committed to telling the truth about myself. Thinking about this human truth, I cannot help wondering whether or not polemic voices, on all sides of divided Christendom, real desire the gift of reconciliation.

While I value my friendships and working relationships with Catholic, Protestants and Evangelical Christians, I'm not sure that I am ready to accept what the gift of reconciliation with them might mean. What would it mean if tomorrow, for example, 1+ billion Catholics suddenly entered into communion with the Orthodox Church? What would it mean for me as a priest to suddenly find my tiny of some 50 families to grow to 200 or more families composed of my newly reconciled Roman Catholic brethren?

What would it mean for my Catholic priest friends to suddenly find in their own parishes among the new reconciled Orthodox Christian divorced and remarried communicants?

What would my Evangelical Christian ministerial colleagues do with an influx of Christians who brought with them icons, relics, and devotional services to the Virgin Mary?

However much we bemoan the fact, as in any estrangement, a part of us that not only accepts, but even welcomes, the separation.

While I can't speak for Catholics and Protestants, at least among the Orthodox (myself included I am ashamed to say), there are many who prefer a divided Christendom. It is simply easier not to have to deal with the many questions that seem to be tearing western Christian confessions apart. We happily exist in splendid isolation.

Alas, this isolation is, as Fr Alexander Schmemann points out, is only possible if we stay in our grace proof chancelleries and rectories. Yes, we can keep "alive"—like some spiritual Disneyland—the glories of Byzantium and Holy Rus and our separation from Western culture and Christendom, but at what cost?

How much of Orthodox resistance to a reconciled Christendom reflects a commitment to the Gospel and how much narcissism? How much of our talk about "conversion," is simply in the service of requiring that "you" change and conform yourself to "me." How much of our profession of faith is simply a way to excuses us from any real self-examination.

To speak of reconciliation means not simply that "you" change, but that "we" change, that "I" change together with "you." Even if that change is not dogmatic, it does mean making room in my parish for new people with their own problems and struggles. But oh, how this disturbs the "peace."

Aware of the human heart's resistance to change the bishops call us to mutual dialog and self-criticism in our conversation with non-Orthodox confessions:

The essential goal of relations between the Orthodox Church and other Christian confessions is the restoration of that unity among Christians which is required of us by God (Jn. 17:21). Unity is part of God's design and belongs to the very essence of Christianity. It is a task of the highest priority for the Orthodox Church at every level of her life. Indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God's commandment of unity. (2.1-2)

So I ask myself again: Are we, Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical Christians willing to take seriously the task of reconciliation not simply with one and other, but with Christ? If the answer is "No" how can we then claim to be faithful to Christ? As St Basil reminds us, fidelity to Christ demands of us above all this "one aim—to bring back into union [those] Churches [and Christians] that have been severed from one another." (Letter, 114).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Transcending Relativism & Triumphalism

Obviously, the position I've outlined in my last post requires further systematic and historical research and elaboration. But it makes, to my mind at least, an intuitive sense. Whether Orthodox or not, our communion with the Church is grounded in our communion with Christ. And this primordial communion is characterized not simply by the objective presence of grace, but subjectively by our freedom in response to the divine initiative. In their refusal to offer an evaluation of the ecclesial status of non-Orthodox confessions, the council fathers in BPA are trying to remain faithful to both the operation of divine grace and human. Granted we can debate the degree to which they succeed in this, and even if this is their intent, but this does allow us a way out of the impasse of what to many (both outside and inside the Orthodox Church) seems to be an ecclesiological agnosticism.

The differences between the Orthodox and, for example, Roman Catholic Churches on a given issue are often not simply theological, but also psychological. We can, I think, get at the psychological difference by considering statements by the Roman Catholic Church such as Dominus Iesus, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" and the recently released "Doctrinal Notes on Some Aspects of Evangelism." While there are some points of disagreement, in the main these are documents articulate a position that the Orthodox Church would also hold about herself. While I hope to offer a fuller treatment later, for now I would say this: Taken together, these documents are a prudential, pastoral response to aberrations that have arisen of emphasizing too much the commonality between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic confessions and non-Christian religions (For example see the American Catholic bishops' "Clarification" of some problems with Fr. Peter C. Phan's Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue and earlier corrections on the work of Fr. Hans Kung. A good summary of the bishops' concerns about Phan's work can be found on Touchstone's
Mere Comments.). The lesson as an Orthodox Christian that I draw from these documents is that good intentions to find common ground out not to be carried out to such a degree that we lose our zeal for evangelism and for the reconciliation of divided Christendom.

Overemphasize our similarities and you fall into a relativism that denies any real difference between Christian confessions and, indeed, between Christians and non-Christians. Overemphasize our differences, however, and you fall into a triumphalism that makes the Church a sectarian group radically divorced from the very human family that Christ joins Himself to and for which He suffers and dies. In both cases, the catholic (kata + holos, or wholeness) nature of the Church is lost.

The necessity of balancing of similarity and difference, of continuity and discontinuity, I should emphasis, emerges not from a divided Christendom, or even a religious divided humanity. Certainly the divisions in the human and Christian communities, flowing as they do from our personal sinfulness, serve to complicate these tensions, but it is not the cause. The deep structure of these tension are found in God's creative actions—there is between humanity and God a similarity and a difference, a continuity and discontinuity, that can never be dissolved. But it is a tension that can be transcended. (When I have time, I hope to look at the implications for evangelism and ecumenicism of some contemporary research in the psychology of human development that discussion the "post-formal" stages of human growth and development. This research can help us understand psychological how we can overcome some of the human obstacles to holding the tensions that are intrinsic to not only to human development, evangelism and ecumenicism, but the enormous challenges of parish ministry.)

It is through love, that is to say, in Christ, that we are able to embrace similarity and difference, continuity and discontinuity. This raises a question, and in fact, this is the last question of this series: "Do we want to be reconciled with each other?" Or, more directly, "Are Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical Christians willing to love one another, and the whole creation, as Jesus loves us?" (With a hat tip to Fr John Steffaro of St John Orthodox Church (OCA) in Campbell, OH, for the second question.)

To be continued, and concluded. . .

An Incomplete Communion: Ecclesiology or Anthropology?

One of the most frustrating conversations for many is the question is how the Church views the ecclesial status of Christians in non-Orthodox confessions. This frustration, by the way, is not limited to Roman Catholics or Protestants, but shared by many Orthodox Christians. It would seem that BPA is arguing that Christians in non-Orthodox communities both are, and are not, part of the Church. How does this statement arise from the Church's tradition?

For Orthodox theology, it is "only through relationship with a particular community that each member of the Church realises his communion with the whole Church." Likewise, a particular community of persons is only a "local Church" through its communion with the whole Church. And yet, even though separated from the whole Church, neither the individual Christian nor the particular separated Christian community is "not cut him off from her altogether" from the Body of Christ. Yes, any estrangement "damages [the] grace-filled unity" of the person or community "with the whole Church body, . . . [and necessarily] distances a person [or community] from the Church to a greater or lesser degree." (see 1.10) But as the "various rites of reception . . . shows . . . the Orthodox Church relates to the different non-Orthodox confessions in different ways" according to "the degree to which the faith and order of the Church, as well as the norms of Christian spiritual life, are preserved in a particular confession." (see 1.17)

Having acknowledge degrees of communion or fellowship, the council fathers are just as adamant in their position that these "various rites of reception" are not meant to "assess the extent to which grace-filled life has been either preserved intact or distorted in a non-Orthodox confession." Instead because such a determination is "a mystery of God's providence and judgement" the Church remains silent on the question (see 1.17). What the Church does say is that, on the one hand, that the "ecclesial status of those who have separated themselves from the Church does not lend itself to simple definition" and on the other even in "a divided Christendom, there are still certain characteristics which make it one: the Word of God, faith in Christ as God and Saviour come in the flesh (1 Jn. 1:1-2; 4, 2, 9), and sincere devotion." (1.16)

The key to understanding what is being said here is their observation that "Any sin distances a person from the Church to a greater or lesser degree, but it does not cut him off from her altogether." (1.10) Our communion with Christ and His Body the Church is not secured simply by our profession of faith, or sacramental life. Much less do canonical norms secure this communion for us. We are all of us only more or less a member of the Body of Christ. This a reference, I would suggest, not simply to Christians in non-Orthodox confessions, but first and foremost to Orthodox Christians and then, only secondarily, to Christians in non-Orthodox confessions.

 

While at first blush this might seem scandalous (I find myself taken aback by my own words), on further reflection, the history and practice of the Church—East and West—has long acknowledged a relative communion. For example those enrolled among the catechumens (those preparing for baptism) and the penitents (those who had fallen into serious sin and were doing public penance in anticipation of being reconciled with the Church, typically at Pascha) were allowed to remain in the Divine Liturgy through the sermon, but were dismissed immediately afterwards. Why? Because, unlike unbelievers (who were not to be in the services at all), their communion with the Church, while real, was incomplete, and so they were unable fully participate in the sacrifice that was offered in the second part of the Liturgy. The sign of this inability was that they were not, albeit for different reasons, unable to receive Holy Communion.

 

In the early Church, it is worth noting, this acknowledgement of a limited communion is never taken to be a rejection of the catholic nature of the Church as such. Nor did it turn the grace of God into something "free floating" and divorced from the Body of Christ. The emphasis, I would suggest, in a partial or incomplete communion is not on a rarified view of the Church, but an attempt to take seriously human freedom in response to divine grace. Though they have implications for ecclesiology, statements about an incomplete communion, or so it seems to me, are fundamentally statements about anthropology. I would suggest that, in speaking about incomplete fellowships, the bishops are making statements about the human person, and even concrete human communities, in whom they can recognize at least a partial communion with Christ and His Body the Church. They pass over in silence the ecclesiological status of these communities because their concern is anthropological and not about ecclesiology as such. The tension they are trying to maintain is between God free bestowal of His grace and human freedom to respond to that grace. Though in varying degrees, both of these are essential to communion with Christ and His Body the Church.

 

To be continued. . .

 

Dialog and Self-Criticism

For the council fathers, ecumenicism and evangelism, far from being secondary or tangential to the life of the Church, have deep Christological and biblical roots, and are two hallmarks of a committed Orthodox Christian spiritual life. But, and the fathers are also clear about this, neither of these can

be a monologue, since [both] assumes the existence of listeners and therefore of communication. Dialogue implies two sides, a mutual openness to communication, a willingness to understand, not only an "open mouth", but also a "heart enlarged" (cf. 2 Cor. 6:11). That is why the problem of theological language, comprehension and interpretation should become one of the most important issues in the dialogue of the Orthodox theology with other confessions" (4.5).

Enlarging our heart, what in another context I have called empathy, is the central instrument of Orthodox witness. Writing as they do at the close of the 20^th century, the council fathers were painfully aware that recent human history

has been marked by the tragedy of divisions, enmity and alienation, but in it divided Christians have shown a desire to achieve unity in the Church of Christ. The Russian Orthodox Church has responded to this desire with a readiness to conduct a dialogue of truth and love with non-Orthodox Christians, inspired by the call of Christ and by the goal of Christian unity as ordained by God. And today, on the threshold of the third millennium after the Nativity according to the Flesh of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Orthodox Church again lovingly and persistently calls all those for whom the name of Jesus Christ is above all other names under heaven (cf. Acts 4:12) to seek blessed unity in the Church: "Our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged" (2 Cor. 6:12).

It is tempting to assume that we can create that unity through our own efforts. In BPA the bishops identify theological relativism and triumphalism as the ways in which we often succumb to the desire to a man made union. In sections 2.4-2.10 they address the dimension of relativism. While not denying the role of human sinfulness and cultural misunderstanding the bishops rightly root relativism that reduces the Gospel to a purely human reality.

Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially tragic misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because of a lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realise that, in spite of all the differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in "what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human passions, to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances which are secondary from the Church's point of view. Also unacceptable is the argument that the Orthodox Church differs from other Christian communities with which she does not have communion only in secondary matters. The divisions and differences cannot all be reduced to various non-theological factors (2.8).

If relativism is ruled out, this is not meant to suggest that Orthodox Christians are without our own failings. Directly and forcefully the fathers rule out any hint of triumphalism. As wise pastors they remind the faithful and clergy that

One should not yield to the temptation to idealize the past or to ignore the tragic shortcomings and failures which marked the history of the Church. Above all the great fathers of the Church themselves give an example of spiritual self-criticism. The history of the Church in the IV-VII centuries knew of not a few cases when a significant proportion of believers fell into heresy. But history also reveals that the Church struggled on principled terms with the heresies that were infecting her children and that there were cases where those who had gone astray were healed of heresy, experienced repentance and returned to the bosom of the Church. This tragic experience of misunderstanding emerging from within the Church herself and of the struggle with it during the period of the ecumenical councils has taught the children of the Orthodox Church to be vigilant. The Orthodox Church, while humbly bearing witness to her preservation of the truth, at the same time remembers all the temptations which arose during her history (1.9).

The remedies for relativism and triumphalism are the same: not only knowledge of the faith of the Church, but also a commitment to dialog that is rooted in both an openness to others and a spirit of self-criticism ground in Christ's call to His Church to always empty herself of any pretention and self-confidence.

In my own pastoral experience I have found, for example, that an acknowledge both of the fullness of the Church's faith, and a willingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of her members, is very positive thing not only for those interested in the Orthodox Church, but also for those who were raised in the Church.

Taking our cue from BPA, it seems that both our ecumenical activities and evangelical outreach, are grounded in our profession of the Orthodox faith. And in both cases, mutual dialog and self-criticism, vivified by our personal kenosis, are the means by which our profession of faith is lived out. This is certainly what the Apostle Paul counsels when he writes to the Church at Philippi

Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (2.1-11).

To be continued. . .

The Mangling Grasp of Relativism

I thought the following article posted by Gabriel on Going Along makes several good points that might be of interest. The author argues that since 1920 or so Orthodox theology has been working with one arm tied behind its back while hopping on one foot. What I mean is that, especially among English speaking Orthodox, we have more or less intentionally limited ourselves to "Cappadocians, Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas." While these are all luminaries in the Church, they do not exhaust our theological tradition.

He quotes Fr Patrick Reardon, an Orthodox priest and editor of Touchstone, to the effect that: "What almost always passes for 'Orthodox theology' among English-speaking Orthodox these days is actually just a branch of the larger Orthodox picture. Indeed, it tends sometimes to be rather sectarian." For example,

one will look in vain in that theology for any significant contribution from the Alexandrians, chiefly Cyril, and that major Antiochian, Chrysostom. When these are quoted, it is usually some incidental point on which they can afford to be quoted. Now I submit that any 'Orthodox' theology that has so little use for the two major figures from Antioch and Alexandria is giving something less than the whole picture.

He notes as well, that contemporary Orthodox theology, for all its appeal to being traditional and following the theological methodology of the Fathers, glosses over how some of the Fathers did theology. For example, there is

[St John] Damascene's manifestly 'Scholastic' approach to theology. Much less does it have any use for the other early Scholastic theologians, such as Theodore the Studite and Euthymus Zygabenus. There is no recognition that Scholasticism was born in the East, not the West, and that only the rise of the Turk kept it from flourishing in the East.

This resonant with my own thoughts when I read St John Damascene; he struck me as writing in a manner that was markedly similar in style and method to what I had read in Aquinas. Frankly, this is also why, though like the Prodigal Son I drifted for a time, I use an analytical methodology in my pastoral work and in my writing both in psychology and theology (I am often mistaken for a philosopher, thank you very muc).

And this brings us to Gabriel's second point, the increasingly anti-Western sectarian orientation of much Orthodox theology and popular piety. He writes:

There is also no explicit recognition that the defining pattern of Orthodox Christology was formulated in the West before Chalcedon. Pope Leo's distinctions are already very clear in Augustine decades before Chalcedon. Yet, Orthodox treatises on the history of Christology regularly ignore Augustine. Augustine tends to be classified as a 'Scholastic,' which he most certainly was not. But Western and Scholastic are bad words with these folks.

Why should I as an Orthodox Christian care? Well, "Augustine and the Scholastics represent . . . rooms in the larger castle" of Orthodox tradition and theology. And so,

This problem—if it is indeed a problem—is analogous to the problem Strauss identified in philosophy: If [insert modern philosopher here] is taken as the culmination of philosophy, then the entire history of philosophy is but a series of building blocks on the way to the great pyramid whose apex in said philosophers work. It's the problem of the modern conception of "progress" (subtle as it oftentimes is) becoming the lens through which history is examined. This may be no less true of theological history as well.

Gabriel's conclusion?

I believe it does a grave disservice to the Church to not have the whole of the Tradition available. When the gaps are identified and the Orthodox response is to either deny relevancy to those gaps (a useful but ultimately self-degrading "trick") or claim all is answered in Palamas (which may very well be true, though confirmation can only be achieved by eliminating the gaps), the Church leaves itself open to charges of being reactionary, stubborn, and unfaithful to its own mission. None of this is to say all is lost, Orthodox thought is plunged into crisis, and there is no hope. Clarification is underway, but the process is slow and in the meantime there is still a deeply entrenched prejudice not simply against all things allegedly "Western" (which, to be sure, is not an unfounded prejudice if those "Western" elements are shown to be false), but anything that remotely smells "Scholastic" (in the broadest possible sense). What this has come to mean in the hands of some inept minds is that Orthodoxy begins and ends with experience, that anything cerebral is anathema and to say one thing and stick to it is to be "definitional," "confining," and---you guessed it---"Western." It is not hard to see where this line can slide (and perhaps has already slid) certain elements of the Church: straight into the mangling grasp of relativism.

My pastoral experience would suggest that Gabriel's concern about relativism is well founded. For example, I have met people attached to non-canonical or pseudo-dox (a term I use for those who are almost Orthodox) groups who would argue that because they keep the tradition of the Church, they are Orthodox. They've not been baptized or chrismated by any Orthodox bishop or priest. Often they would deny the importance of actually being received into Church by a canonical bishop. Again and again, these folks were simply deluded—they didn't even keep the externals of the Church's life—only those elements that they thought were "really" Orthodox.

What Gabriel is point to is the unfortunate tendency among some Orthodox—laity and clergy I hasten to add—is not simply to relativism, sectarianism and an anti-Western bias, but borderline Gnosticism.

Your thoughts are most welcome.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Conversion or Reconciliation?

Especially in the last 20 years or so, it has become common for Orthodox Christians to refer to those of us who become Orthodox later in life as "converts." While the term has a certain pastoral and existential value, I believe that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate bringing to light another, often overlooked dimension of becoming entering the Orthodox Church as an adult. When baptized Christians from a Catholic or Protestant background enter the Orthodox Church, the bishops seem to argue, they are being reconciled to the Church from which they are in some way already a member, even if through no fault of their own, their fellowship is incomplete and they are estranged from her.

At the end of the last installment, I suggested that the August 2000 document by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, "Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions" offers us a vision of ecumenical dialog and activity that I would describe as therapeutic rather than the more typically apologetic that is common especially among Americans. If, as the bishops argue, Christians outside the Orthodox Church, by virtue of their baptism, have a real, if "incomplete" communion with the Church, then becoming Orthodox is more accurately described as a reconciliation or the healing of an incomplete communion.

This therapeutic approach to ecumenicism is rooted, I would argue, in the more general, therapeutic approach of Eastern Church to the spiritual life. In my experience, the Orthodox tendency to see Christian faith and morality in therapeutic terms is very powerful. For many Roman Catholics and Protestants however, the therapeutic emphasis of Orthodoxy is one of the most attractive and life-giving aspects of Holy Tradition. It is with some irony then that when the topic turns to ecumenicism many Orthodox Christians, especially in America, eschew any language that suggests that reconciliation or healing is what is called for in our conversation and witness to Christians in other confessions.

The bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate however take the high road and refuse to acquiesce to those strident and sectarian voices that would counsel a simplistic reduction of ecumenical work to "us" vs. "them" or "Orthodox" vs. "heterodox." Instead, BPA challenges Orthodox Christians to foster the reconciliation of non-Orthodox Christians with the Church. Speaking of reconciliation is more appropriate because, as we have seen, the bishops argue that the grace of Christ is not absent from non-Orthodox confessions. Indeed central to any Orthodox ecumenical witness is the conviction that "In spite of the rupture of unity, there remains a certain incomplete fellowship which serves as the pledge of a return to unity in the Church, to catholic fullness and oneness." (1.15)

Speaking or reconciliation rather than the conversion of Catholics and Protestants does not, in the view of the council fathers, undermined Church's self-understanding. While the "ecclesial status of those who have separated themselves from the Church does not lend itself to simple definition," there nevertheless exist in these communities "certain characteristics" which are shared with the Orthodox Church "the Word of God, faith in Christ as God and Saviour come in the flesh (1 Jn. 1:1-2; 4, 2, 9), and sincere devotion." (1.16) Through our use of "various rites of reception (through Baptism, through Chrismation, through Repentance)" we affirm as Orthodox Christians that there are varying degrees to which non-Orthodox communities embody "the faith and order of the Church, as well as the norms of Christian spiritual life, are preserved in a particular confession." While I will address this more fully later, it is important that, while we can speak of reconciliation and varying degrees of communion with the Church, we cannot "assess the extent to which grace-filled life has either been preserved intact or distorted in a non-Orthodox confession, considering this to be a mystery of God's providence and judgement" (1.18)

To be continued. . .

Answering Critics

Continuing my earlier post, I would argue that the document, "Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions" (BPA) is offered at least in part as an answer to those in the Orthodox Church who would reject ecumenical dialog either whole or in part. The legitimacy and urgency of ecumenical discussion needs to be affirmed and articulated because support for it is absent in many quarters of the Orthodox Church. Unlike our Western Christians brothers and sisters, many Eastern Christians have not yet put behind us the "intolerance and suspicious[ness]" that have for too long characterized our relationships with Catholics and Protestants. Many in the Church are actively hostile not simply to ecumenical activity but or even of an ecumenical attitude or disposition.

While there certainly are abuses, much of the opposition to ecumenism is the result of bad will and misinformation. And so: "The Church condemns those who, by using inauthentic information, deliberately distort the task of the Orthodox Church in her witness before the non-Orthodox world and consciously slander the Church authorities, accusing them of the 'betrayal' of Orthodoxy. (7.3) Quoting the pan-Orthodox meeting in Thessaloniki in 1998 (7.3) BPA calls those who reject ecumenical discussions and encounters "schismatics," and members of "extremist groups" within the Church who "deliberately distort . . . and consciously slander" the Church. Speaking in a pastoral voice, they say that these anti-ecumenical voices are sowing "seeds of temptation" among the rank and file faithful and are "subject to canonical sanctions" (suspension or defrocking for the clergy, excommunication for the laity).

To repeat what I said yesterday, in BPA, ecumenical dialog is seen as an imperative. Again quoting from Thessaloniki 1998, the bishops' argue that Orthodox participation in ecumenical dialog "has always been based on Orthodox tradition, on the decisions of the Holy Synods of the local Orthodox Churches, and on Pan-Orthodox meetings." Indeed it is not optional, but part of "the mission laid upon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, the mission of witnessing the Truth before the non-Orthodox world. We must not interrupt relations with Christians of other confessions who are prepared to work together with us." Responding to Orthodox critics of ecumenical dialog, the bishops affirm that during the Church's "'many decades in the ecumenical movement, Orthodoxy has never been betrayed by any representative of a Local Orthodox Church. On the contrary, these representatives have always been completely faithful and obedient to their respective Church authorities, and acted in complete agreement with the canonical rules, the Teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers and the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.'" (7.3)

This is not to say however that the bishops' are wholly supportive of everything done in the name of ecumenicism. The characterize as a "threat to the Church . . . those who participate in inter-Christian contacts, speaking on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church without the blessing of the Church authorities, as well as by those who bring temptation into the midst of Orthodoxy by entering into canonically inadmissible sacramental communion with non-Orthodox communities." (7.3) It is the very seriousness and necessity of ecumenical work that makes these actions unacceptable. It is worth noting that BPA's criticism is not simply for those on the "liberal" or "progressive" side of the issue. Yes, there are those who rush to celebrate sacramentally a communion that does not exist. I doing so they presume to speak for the Church. But, there is also a threat to be found in those self-appointed defenders of Orthodoxy on the "conservative" or "traditionalist" who in their own way also distort the teaching of the Church in their rejection of any common ground between Orthodox and Western Christians.

Ecumenical work is not something that can be engaged in simply out of a personal interest—one needs to have the blessing of the Church in order to represent her in ecumenical contacts. It is, I would suggest, a vocation, a ministry to which one is called by Christ and which must be confirmed by the Church. There are those in the Church who Christ calls to help heal the wounds on the Body of Christ. Much like the priest in confession, ecumenical healing requires that we examine ourselves and our respective communities carefully. This is done not simply to root out sin but also to uncover God's hidden mercy in the midst of human failings and shortcomings. As presented in BPA, ecumenical work participates in the larger therapeutic work of Christ and His Church.

But this raises for us a question: If ecumenical dialog and encounters are therapeutic, at least in part, how then are we to proceed in our witness to Christians in other confessions?

To be continued. . .

A New Blog

I created a new blog today, Other Voices About Orthodoxy. This, together with a Google discussion group by the same name, is sort of a theological experiment. The point is to try and develop a collaborative writing project in which different people come together to write what I someday hope will be a book about Orthodoxy Christianity in an American Context.

If I've got your attention, go over and take a look at what I wrote there and consider participating. Thanks!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

An Ecumenical Imperative

The Catholic News Agency, among other sources, reports that the recent meeting between His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and His Eminence Metropolitan KYRILL of the Moscow Patriarchate. In published reports, His Eminence describes the meetings as "very positive" and told L'Osservatore Romano, that he left his conversation with His Holiness "with great sentiments of hope."

Given this most recent meeting, as well as what seems to be, in the words of Walter Cardinal Kasper, the general thaw in the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I thought I would take this as opportunity to have a very brief conversation about how Orthodox Christians should witness to our faith to those outside the Orthodox Church. As the basis of that conversation, I would like to look a document published in August 2000 by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. In this post and subsequent posts, I want to examine the document, "Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions" (hereafter, BPA). In this document we find articulated for us, and with great clarity, how the Orthodox Church understand her relationship with those Christians outside here visible boundaries. From this we are also able to draw, as I will in subsequent post, concrete directives about how as Orthodox Christians we are to witness our faith to those outside the Church.

Central to BPA is the assertion that the divisions caused by schism are "an open and bleeding wound on the Body of Christ . . . . [that] has become a serious visible distortion of Christian universality, an obstacle in the way of her witness to Christ before the world." This wound effects all of Christendom and especially the Orthodox Church since, as the council fathers write, "the reality of this witness of the Church of Christ depends to a considerable degree on her ability to live up to the truths preached by her in the life and practice of Christian communities." (1.20)

Given the ease with which many Orthodox Christians give themselves over to polemic statements about Roman Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical Christians this statement by the Moscow Patriarchate is extraordinary. For many Orthodox Christians, whose views on these matters boarders on an ecclesiological positivism, the acknowledgement that a divided Christendom is a wound upon the Body of Christ, is tantamount to heresy. Indeed, the text of BPA anticipates this charge when it quotes the Third Pre-Conciliar Panorthodox Conference that met in 1986:

The Orthodox Church, in her profound conviction and ecclesiastical consciousness of being the bearer of and the witness to the faith and tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, firmly believes that she occupies a central place in matters relating to the promotion of Christian unity within the contemporary world …It is the mission and duty of the Orthodox Church to transmit, in all its fullness, the truth contained in the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, the truth which gives to the Church her universal character. The responsibility of the Orthodox Church, as well as her ecumenical mission regarding Church unity, were expressed by the Ecumenical Councils. These, in particular, stressed the indissoluble link existing between true faith and sacramental communion. The Orthodox Church has always sought to draw the different Christian Churches and confessions into a joint search for the lost unity of Christians, so that all might reach the unity of faith.

The Orthodox Church has carried out dialog with Christian communities separated from her for over 200 years. The 1903 statement "Response to the Letter of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate," affirms the necessity of theological dialogue with non-Orthodox confessions and BPA makes its own the central principle of that document that for Orthodox Christians—hiearchs, clergy and laity—"there must be fraternal readiness to help" Christians outside the Orthodox Church. Especially "given the age-old division," that we suffer, we must offer not only "explanations" for what we believe, but also "normal consideration for their best wishes, all possible forbearance towards their natural perplexities, . . . [and] at the same time the firm confession of the truth of our Universal Church as a sole guardian of Christ's heritage and a sole saving ark of divine grace. While bearing in my our "task with regard to them should be. . . to interpret for them our faith and unchangeable conviction that it is only our Eastern Orthodox Church, which has preserved intact the entire pledge of Christ," we must do so "without putting before them unnecessary obstacle for union by being inappropriately intolerant and suspicious." It is only in this way that "the Universal Church," can help our Christian brothers and sisters outside the Church them to "consider and decide upon if they really believe that salvation is bound up with life in the Church and sincerely wish to be united with her."

To be continued....

Catholic Biblical Supersite Now Available

From Teófilo de Jesús at Vivificat! A Catholic Blog of News, Opinion, Commentary and Spirituality this just in:

Folks, the Congregation for the Clergy has opened a new website dedicated to biblical interpretation. The site, Biblia Clerus offers offers "Sacred Scripture, its interpretation in light of Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium, with appropriate theological commentary and exegesis." A downloadable version allows the user "to connect Sacred Scripture to the complete works of many Doctors of the Church, Councils, Encyclicals, teachings of the Popes, Catechisms, as well as commentaries from secular literature, etc."

Wow. And then again, wow. This site must be part of our armor of faith. Please access it and add it to your bookmarks. This is the URL: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerus/index_eng.html

What is most exciting, for me at least, is that the entire site can be downloaded. This includes not only a wealth of resources in English, but also Hebrew, Greek, and Latin as well as French, German, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese.

This site is a great blessing for those interested in biblical studies as well as spiritual ecumenism. Understanding how we understand Scripture--and especially seeing our common sources for our different understandings--is an important part of fostering reconciliation in divided Christendom.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

P.S., I've added FoxyTunes, Now Playing Signature, for those interested in the music I listen to. Yes, I like the Pogues.

----------------
Now playing: The Pogues - Dirty Old Town
via FoxyTunes

Top Russian ecumenical official to meet with Pope

Vatican, Dec. 6, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI will meet on December 7 with the top ecumenical-affairs official of the Russian Orthodox Church, L'Osservatore Romano reports.

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk-- who is in Rome this week for festivities marking the feast of St. Catherine of Alexandria, the patron of Rome's Russian Orthodox Church-- met on December 6 with Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Informed sources said that Cardinal Kasper would convey an invitation for Patriarch Alexei II to attend the next meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, which is scheduled to take place in 2009.

Metropolitan Kirill-- who is regarded as a likely eventual successor to Patriarch Alexei as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church-- has praised Pope Benedict for his commitment to ecumenism. But earlier this week he criticized the Catholic Church for establishing new dioceses in Russia. The Orthodox prelate said that the four Catholic dioceses of Russia, established in 2002, should be downgraded to their previous status as apostolic administrations. Catholic dioceses in Russia are an affront to the Orthodox claim that the country is the "canonical territory" of the Orthodox Church, he said, and "we shall never recognize them." The Vatican does not accept the Russian argument regarding "canonical territory."

In related news, in an interview with the KAI news agency, the general secretary of the Russian Bishops Conference, Father Igor Kowalewski, said the country's Catholic bishops are ready to discuss the Moscow patriarchate's claims to special canonical status in Russia. He said that the recent remarks by Metropolitan Kirill upset many Russian Catholics, and the country's bishops will bring up the subject at a meeting with Orthodox leaders in January.

If R2D2 Were an Orthodox Christian. . .

Thanks to R2D2 Translator I have provided for you some translations of traditional Orthodox Christian greetings into the the blips and beeps of R2D2.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

It's About the Cross

"It's About the Cross" is by the band Go Fish set to images from the Passion, the Jesus Film, the Gospel of John, The Nativity Story, It's a Wonderful Life, The Chronicles of Narnia, and other productions. The thing I like best about this video is that in reminds us that if "Jesus is the Reason for the Season," God's mercy and love in the response to my sin is reason for Jesus.

Anyway, please take 3 minutes and 43 seconds and watch the video.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory