What Went Wrong?

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.

In his essay "On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches," Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin) makes some interesting observations regarding at least the view of the Moscow Patriarchate that bear on the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Fr Ambrosius writes that

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.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Missional Theology for a Missional Church « Missional Church Network

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

Patriarch at the Synod: Unexpected Impact: Interview With Fraternal Delegate From Orthodox Church

By Jesús Colina

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.

Dialectical, Dialogical and Reconciliatory: The Evangelical Imperative

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.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Catholics and Orthodox Are Being Reconciled

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.

We can be, we are being, reconciled.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Congratulations

This morning I am in Elmsford, NY (just north of Manhattan). In about 20 minutes my wife Mary and I will leave for Liturgy at St Vladimir's Seminary. We are here this weekend to celebrate the wedding of our friend Robyn Alexander to her fiancé  Reader Gregory Hatrak this afternoon at 3.00PM. I'll be serving with His Grace Bishop Tikhon of Eastern Pennsylvania and Gregory's father Fr Michael from Millersburg, PA. Near as I can tell most, if not all, of the seminary community (faculty, staff and students will be in attendance as well).

May God grant His servants Gregory and Robyn many years!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

(I'll post pictures of the wedding when we have them.)

Unity, Witness and Ecumenicism: the Unity of the Church-Part II

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.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unity, Witness and Ecumenicism: the Unity of the Church-Part I

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):

1. The Context of the Church's Ministry (¶'s 1-4)
   
   1. The Contemporary Context of the Church's Ministry (¶'s 1-2)
      
   2. The Pauline Context (¶'s 3-4)
      
2. St Paul and the Unity of the Church (¶ 5)
   
3. Directions for Future Ministry (¶ 6)
   
4. Recapitulation and an Ecclesiology of Unity (¶'s 7-8)
   
   1. Unity and Witness (¶ 7)
      
   2. Overcoming Ethnophyletism and Nationalism (¶ 8)
      
   3. Concrete Questions for Future Discussion (¶ 8)
      

I hope to examine the text of His All Holiness speech more fully next week (I'm off the New York this afternoon to serve a wedding for a spiritual daughter and her fiancé, so I won't be blogging again until next week some time). What I want to look at now, however, is the Patriarch's brief (but theologically rich) discussion of unity. As I've reflected on the comments in response to Fr Ignatios's words it seem to me that there much misunderstanding about the nature, and importance, of unity in the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

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.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

 

 

 

 

Orthodox Delegate Sees Pope's Mission as Duty of Unity

Orthodox Delegate Sees Pope's Mission as Duty of Unity

Says Tired Society Demands United Christian Voice

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- A representative of the Orthodox Church who addressed the world Synod of Bishops spoke of the Bishop of Rome as a sign of unity among Christians.

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!'"

Hazen on Religulous « News & Events « Biola University

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.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Religion Makes People Helpful And Generous -- Under Certain Conditions

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.\"

More Thoughts on the Parish, Marriage, and the Family

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.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Related articles by Zemanta

• Stewardship & the Human Vocation to Work
• The Parish is for the Family

Catechesis and Evangelism are not Enough

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

the Church.

To read the rest click here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Benefits of a Familial/Cultural Basis of Faith
• Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
• Theology Isn't Enough, We Need Spiritual Formation

The Parish is for the Family

Recent comments in response to the post on the use of authority, and especially in response to the upcoming "Called & Gifted" Workshop my parish is hosting has got me thinking. It seems to me that the theme that underlies our discussion here (and really more generally in the Church) is a question: What is the purpose of the parish as that institution has come to exist in the Church?

The parish is about, I would suggest, fostering and sustaining marriage and family life.

Granted not every Orthodox Christian is, or will be, married. And not every married couple will be blessed with children. But it seems to me that we could do more to encourage healthy marriages and families. To take only one example, I find it worrisome that, unless there are canonical grounds, almost any couple who wants to be married in the Church is married. Among us, pre-marital preparation is often hit or miss at best. Granted not all priests have the time or talent to prepare couples for marriage, but this doesn't absolve us from providing more adequate preparation. Given the divorce rate in America, I find it hard to believe that everyone who wants to be married in the Church is called by Christ to be married or that all those who are called are fit for marriage.

What also got me thinking along these lines is a post on one of the blogs I follow, Pseudo-Polymath. The author of the blog quotes an essay by Wendell Barry in his "book (and eponymous essay) Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community: Eight Essays Wendell Barry," in which Barry makes "impassioned" argument for "the importance of community." To illustrate the importance of community, and the harm down by its absence, "Barry notes the inability of public discourse to deal with sex and other issues is due to the failure of community":

Once it [a society or culture] has shrugged off the interests and claims of the community, the public language of sexuality comes directly under the influence of private lust, ambition, and greed and becomes inadequate to deal with the real issues and problems of sexuality. The public dialogue degenerates into a stupefying and useless contest between so-called liberation and so-called morality. The real issues and problems, as they are experienced and suffered in people's lives, cannot be talked about. The public language can deal, however awkwardly and perhaps uselessly, with pornography, sexual harassment, rape, and so on. But it cannot talk about respect, responsibility, sexual discipline, fidelity, or the practice of love. "Sexual education" carried on in this public language, is and can only be, a dispirited description of the working of a sort of anatomical machinery — and this is a sexuality that is neither erotic nor social nor sacramental but rather a cold-blooded, abstract procedure which is finally not even imaginable.

[…]

The public discussion of sexual issues has thus degenerated into a poor attempt to equivocate between private lusts and public emergencies. Nowhere in public life (that is, in the public life that counts: the discussions of political and corporate leaders) is there an attempt to respond to community needs in the language of community interest.

While are Catholic brothers and sisters (and especially the late Pope John Paul II) are often accused of being obsessed with matter of sexual morality and intruding into the bedrooms of married people and consenting adults, such criticism reflect precisely the rhetorical lack that Berry highlights. 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.

But the rhetoric of Christian community, whether biblical or patristic, parochial or monastic, liturgical or administrative, is by and large rhetoric about the family and so necessarily assumes a certain, public, sexual ethic that most be taught, and defended, publically. We are, for example, brothers and sisters in Christ, with a common Father in Heaven. The parish and the monastery are under the presidency of a father (or in the case of women's monastery, mother). The clergy are all called father whether he is a patriarch, a bishop, a priest or deacon.

But for this rhetoric to be effective, it must be more than simply formal—it is not enough to use the rhetoric of the family, we must actually be a family and here's where our practice fall short of our ideals.

Reading through the various responses to the use of authority in the Church, it seems to me that there is a fair amount of distrust in the Church for those in positions of authority. My own view (admitted idiosyncratic and unsubstantiated by rigorous research in either the social sciences or the Church fathers), is that the response to this distrust is not administrative reform (though that is no doubt needed) but an explicit commitment in our parishes to the good of the family.

I do not think that we can foster trust among us apart from repentance. The character of that repentance, I would argue, is a shared commitment to supporting and defending marriage and family life according to the tradition of the Church. As I alluded to above, marriage and family life are not the only concern of the parish. As a practical matter though, I think we can begin to renew our communities by focusing, among other things, on the needs of the married couples and families in our parishes.

The question become now this, how can our parishes foster marriage and family life even as our monasteries foster a commitment to a life of public prayer and private repentance?

Your thoughts are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Caring For the Community: Stewardship of Our Treasure

Sunday, September 28, 2008: 15th SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST (1st of Luke)—Tone 6. Ven. Chariton the Confessor, Abbot of Palestine (ca. 350). Synaxis of the Saints of the Kiev Caves (Near Caves). Ven. Kharitón of Syanzhémsk (Vologdá—1509). Ven. Herodion, Abbot, of Iloezérsk (1541). Prophet Baruch (6th c. B.C.). Martyrs Alexander, Alphius, Zosimas, Mark, Nicon, Neon, Heliodorus, and 24 others in Pisidia and Phrygia (4th c.). Martyrdom of St. Wenceslaus (Viacheslav), Prince of the Czechs (935). Schema-monk Kirill and Schema-nun Maria (parents of Ven. Sergius of Rádonezh).

So it was, as the multitude pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the Lake of Gennesaret, and saw two boats standing by the lake; but the fishermen had gone from them and were washing their nets. Then He got into one of the boats, which was Simon's, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And He sat down and taught the multitudes from the boat. When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, "Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch." But Simon answered and said to Him, "Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net." And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. So they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, "Do not be afraid. From now on you will catch men." So when they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all and followed Him.

(Luke 5:1-11)

We come now to the third and final element of our consideration of Christian stewardship, treasure or the financial aspect of stewardship. By way of introduction to what is often the most challenging part of stewardship, let me quickly summarize what’s been said to this point.

Christian stewardship is part of the general human vocation to work. We are all of us called to cooperate with God in making the creation a fit and beautiful home for the whole human family. As Christians we are called not only to work, but in Christ to freely and creatively use our time, talent and treasure to redeem human ingenuity, creativity and effort that have all been marred by Adam’s transgression in the Garden. Put another way, we are called not simply to cooperate with God in the work of creation but also the work of redemption. A Christian steward is one who puts his or her time, talent and treasure to the service of caring for the physical, social,
educational and spiritual needs of the human family.

The exact form this stewardship will take in the life of a particular Christian is determined by many factors. Our life circumstances, the needs of those around them, and must fundamentally of all their own personal vocation all shape what it means for each of us to be a steward. It is this last one, the vocational, that we most typically neglect in challenging people to be stewards.

So the first question to ask when discerning my own stewardship commitment is not how much money will I give, but what is my calling? What is my vocation? It is out of these questions that our stewardship emerges.

Unfortunately, and here let me turn to a consideration of the financial aspect of stewardship, we rarely ask these questions either of ourselves or of those in our parishes when we ask people to commit financially to the work of the Church. What we typically do instead is talk to, really at, people about numbers.

Let me explain how we typically have approached stewardship and then contrast that with what I think is a more holistic approach ground in the human and Christian vocations.

In an early time—and for me “earlier” means a parishes I served within the last 10 or 15 years—we asked people to participate in the financial life of the parish by paying dues. For all practical purposes, if one wished to a member of the parish, one paid a set annual amount. While sometimes membership included participation in the sacramental life of the Church, that is, the at least occasional reception of Holy Communion and yearly Confession, the sacraments often fell by the wayside. What mattered instead was that people paid their dues.

(I should add that while the dues system was common, it was neither a universal practice nor was it always practiced a heavy hand way that was indifferent to the spiritual life of the parishioners. But even at its best, the dues system tended to leave people with the impression that the Church was a fraternal organization not unlike the Masons or Shiners rather than the Body of Christ.)

Recently there has been a move away from dues and toward tithing, or giving 10% of your income to the parish. Unlike dues, tithing is usually presented in a way that is sensitive to the spiritual aspects of how we use our money. But, and forgive me if I offend here, tithing is often presented as if it were the biblical model of giving. It isn’t.

As it is usually presented today, tithing is a modern rather than New Testament or patristic practice. The New Testament does not recommend the practice of tithing as. And while there were some Church fathers who preached in favor of tithing, they generally focused neither on giving simply 10% nor on giving what one gave to the parish. St John Chrysostom, for example, argued that since we have received so great a gift from Christ as eternal salvation we ought to give more than 10%. We should give, 20%, 30%, 40% or more—having received all, we should give all. And, he concludes, we should give it to the poor without consideration for how they would use what they are given.

Both the dues system and tithing have their merits. And both are often well-intentioned attempts to meet a real concern, the financial health and stability of the local parish. But both approaches, it seems to me, rely on coercision to do so. In the first case, the dues system, one often found oneself or family members threatened by a lay board with a denial of the sacraments. An infant would not be baptized, a young couple would not married, the dead not buried, because you were not a member. (Even today one finds parishes where one must “join” the parish via a financial commitment in order to be married for example.)

Our practice of tithing is can also often be manipulative. Granted it isn’t coercive in the way the dues system is. But it is no less often an affront to the vocational basis of Christian stewardship for all that it is more gently taught. As I said above, while there is some support for tithing in the Scriptures and the Fathers, there is nothing in either that suggests that one must give 10% of one’s income to the parish. If anything, tithing is offered as the standard for one’s support not of the parish but the poor. This isn’t to say giving a tithe of your income to the parish is wrong. It certainly is not wrong. But, and this is the important part, it is not an obligation. The most one can say about tithing is that it is a rough and ready guideline. It is not a standard.

So what is the standard?

In his second epistle to the Corinthians Saint Paul tells us this:

But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you always having all sufficiency in all things may have in abundance for every good work. (9. 6-9).

When I first heard this passage in St. Paul, the thought I had was that I was supposed to give what God wanted me to give. And do so with a great big smile on my face. In other words, I thought I had to make myself cheerful, whenever I was called upon to make a sacrifice.

But thinking, I have since come to realize, is exactly backwards.

We are not asked to be cheerful about what we give, but rather to give only that which we can give freely and cheerfully. The emphasis here then is not on the giving but on being cheerful.
And so again, God loves a cheerful giver.

So what are we to do if we wish to be wise stewards of our treasure? How do we make use of our money in a manner that honors our own personal vocations?

What I will often tell people is this: Decide how much you can set aside for charitable giving. As a practical matter, 10% is a good base amount—but you are not limited to that amount if your circumstances suggest something different. The important thing here is that you set aside an amount even as you set aside regular times for prayer and hold to a fasting rule based on the tradition of the Church and the circumstances of your own life.

When it comes time to dividing up what you set aside, I usually suggest that half go to the parish and half go for other charitable needs. Let me say right up front, I’m not saying give half to the parish this because I think the parish is more important. Rather, it reflects the fact that we usually can do more as a community than as individuals. Add to this that, as practical matter, outside of the family, the parish is the community with which we are most involved and so it is the community through which we most actively participate in and do the most good.

Money given to Orthodox organizations such as the International Orthodox Christian Charities, The Orthodox Christian Mission Center or non-sectarian agencies such as the Red Cross (and I would encourage you to support one or more of these) is usually spent according to someone else’s idea of what is important. Contributions to the parish are local and are usually spent in a manner that is closest to what God would have from us in our own lives.

Finally, we must keep in reserve at least a small amount for unanticipated charitable giving. It might be a special appeal from the parish, or the Red Cross. It might just as easily be a need within our own family or circle of friends. If, thank God, that need doesn’t arise, well, give the money to the parish or IOCC—but as wise stewards of our treasure, we need to prepare for what we cannot anticipate.

Our charitable giving is giving to help met the needs in the different communities of which we are members. It is important that we not limit our giving to only the parish.

Let me make that stronger: No ethical priest will ask you to simply support the parish with your time, talent and treasure. As I said, we are all of us members of many different communities—our family, the parish, the diocese, the Church, our country, and the human community. The needs of different communities do not the same immediacy for us. But this doesn’t mean that, for example, our commitment to the human family should be less important than our commitment to our own family.

The commitments are different to be sure—but this reflects our ability to more directly influence for good one community rather than another. I can more easily work for the good of my family than I can, say, the Orthodox Church throughout the world.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, our stewardship commitment, our use of time, treasure and talent, is not something that can ever be limited to only one area of our lives or remain as a static percentage of our income. By its very nature, and St Paul alludes to this in the passage I quoted a moment ago, stewardship means that we grow and develop in the use of our gifts. We must not simply do good passively, in response to events and then only when asked. Instead if we are faithful to our own vocations and our call to be stewards of all the good things which God has given us, we will find ourselves increasingly seeking out ways we which we can be of service personally and directly.

May God in His grace and love for mankind make it so for each of us today and forever until we stand before Him in that Kingdom which is to come.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Monastic Vocation and Witness

A recent post seems to have generated a great deal on interest—not all of it appreciative—on lay spiritual formation in the Orthodox Church. Reading through the comments I find much with which I agree, but rather more with which I must disagree not only in substance but in tone.

There seems to be no disagreement with the theological assertion that the Christian life is grounded in Holy Baptism. Indeed, one of the most critical voices in the comments section offers us a series of patristic quotes that in fact argue this very point. Indeed, one cannot claim to be an Orthodox Christian (or Catholic Christian for that matter) and deny this. "Baptism," writes Nicholas Cabasilas, "is nothing else but to be born according to Christ and to receive our very being and nature."

The sacramental foundation of the Christian life does not negate the importance of our free assent to Divine Grace. Far from it. Without repentance the grace of Baptism lays dormant in the soul. Metropolitan Spyridion (GOA, retired) once expressed the matter this way: To be a Christian requires two things, repentance the Holy Baptism. While God is indifferent to the historical order, we are us converts or we are Christians in name only. Or, if I may borrow from St Ignatius of Antioch on his way to martyrdom, "I do not wish only to be called a Christian; I wish to be a Christian!"

Within the Tradition of the Church, monastic life holds a pride of place for the clarity, and intensity, with which the monk lives the life of repentance that flows from our New Life in Baptism. Bishop-elect Jonah (himself a monk of the Valaam Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior in Russia), the former abbot of the Monastery of St John of San Francisco, summarizes monastic life in a brief essay that appeared several years ago in Again magazine: "Five Good Reasons NOT to Visit a Monastery The temptations of monastic maximalism." I think this essay might help clarify the matter under consideration here.

Fr Jonah writers that

A monastery, among other things, is a place which practices the liturgical and spiritual life in a maximalist way. This maximalism is expressed in a number of ways, including long, full services, strict ascetic discipline, and very conservative attitudes in everything from language, style, and dress to how one conducts one's personal life. . . . The monasteries incarnate Orthodox culture, regardless of what ethnic flavor it may have. It is the timeless, universal (Catholic) culture passed on by the holy fathers and mothers of the Orthodox Church, through personal discipleship and obedience. The monastic culture is nothing other than obedience to the Gospel, through discipleship to our spiritual fathers, who convey the tradition of how to live out the Gospel in its fullness. To visit an Orthodox monastery is not just to visit that particular community in that place at that time. It is to enter into that living Christian culture which has been handed over from generation to generation by the holy fathers.

But, we need to exercise great care—a care that appears to me absent in some of the comments—that we confuse the monastic witness with the monastic vocation. Again, Fr Jonah:

Monasticism, the way of repentance, is a radically different way of life from living in the world, with a family, a job, and in a parish. Parishes are the front lines of where the Church meets the world, where a culture is sanctified and transformed by the Gospel. People lead busy lives in the world, and are not able to lead as active a liturgical life as in a monastery. Parish life seldom is and often cannot be maximalist in ethos. Yet a parish is not a compromise, a second-class way of being a Christian.

The importance of lay spiritual formation is that it focuses on what Fr Jonah calls the "very high calling" of being "a Christian in the world" and being called by Christ to take "the Gospel to the world." To be faithful to our calling requires that we be both a "living and witnessing to Christ" and do so precisely in and through our "participating fully and actively in the culture." Monastics, lay Christian men and women living in the monastery,

have a different calling: to be "not of this world," and to structure their lives solely by the Gospel, and by the traditions of the Church, especially the liturgical cycles. It is very important to remember that there is no difference between the services prescribed for a parish and those of a monastery. There is no difference in the rules of fasting, prayer, or piety. The main difference is that people in parishes are engaged in the world, and monks are not. The monasteries are critically important to the life of the parishes: they constitute the reservoir of the living Tradition, in its purity, where people can experience the Gospel lived out in a radical way. Monasticism can inform their lives, inspire faithful laity to greater dedication of their lives to Christ and the Gospel, and provide a place of healing and spiritual consolation.

That the monastery and the parish follow the same rules of fasting and prayer does not mean that monks and lay people fast and pray the same way anymore that all monastics—even in the same monastery—follow these rules in the same manner. "Fasting, and all the other rules of the Church, are a means and not an end. If we fast, and feel proud about it, and condemn another for not being so strict, it would have been better for us if we had not fasted at all (Romans 14:3 ff)."

While the maximalist witness of monasticism is a great blessing to the Church, and really to world as well, it is a witness not (as has been pointed out in the comment section) without its own risks. Specifically, there is a temptation "to think that the monasteries are doing it 'right,' while the parish is doing it 'wrong.'" Following from this is a "second temptation." We might find ourselves—consciously or unconsciously—thinking "that there is not as much grace in the parish services, and that the services and liturgical/spiritual life are not being taken seriously." Subtlety, but no less really, Fr Jonah points out,

This inevitably leads to judging the parish priest as less 'spiritual' and lazy because he cuts the services. Little do we remember that at our first monastic services we were the first to sit down when we had a chance, and glance at our watches every five minutes, wondering if and when it was ever going to end! Parishes abbreviate out of pastoral necessity, and at the discretion of the pastor. One must not judge a priest or parish when they are doing all they can!

Informing this judgment though is invariable our own lack of appreciation for the gift of our own life and vocation as Christians living in the world. It is this fundamental lack of gratitude for our own vocation given to us in Holy Baptism, and sealed in Chrismation and nourished in Holy Communion. For many, I would argue that most Orthodox Christians (and I suspect Catholics, but I will leave this to Sherry) who are indifferent to daily prayer, fasting, Confession of sins and good works because they have never been taught that they have a vocation that is every bit as valuable and God-pleasing as monastic life.

The Church, as Fr Jonah points out, is "a spiritual hospital." Within this hospital, "the monasteries are the intensive care wards, with the specialists." When we try and generalize the monastic vocation to the whole Church, when we try to impose monasticism on the parish (or ourselves), we fundamentally dishonor not only the monastic life, but also reveal our own lack of gratitude to God for the gift of our own life. We can never lose sight of St Paul's teaching that the Church is a Body with many members and that each member has his or her own function. The eye cannot not pretend to be a foot; a lay person in a parish cannot pretend to be a monk. Each order in the Church has its own vocation and just as "You don't go to a family doctor for cancer . . . you also don't go to a neurosurgeon for a cold." Without a doubt one finds in the monastery

The great elders are those specialists who through years of ascetic purification and experience know how to deal with many of the big questions in life that people bring. Many have great spiritual gifts. Many do not. Most monastics are not elders by any stretch of the imagination. This does not compromise their ability to serve as confessor, consoler, and spiritual father. Whether it is a parish priest, a priestmonk, an eldress, or a great elder, the source of the advice and consolation is ultimately the same: God.

The hallmark, Fr Jonah argues, of a "true elder" is that he "always leaves a person with a profound sense of freedom, even when he reveals to a person the will of God. There is never any manipulation or personal agenda. The elder simply wants the salvation of the person, and is a vessel for him of God's love and forgiveness." It is the absence of this sense of freedom that I think most characterizes the tendency of some to monasticized the Church. The witness of monasticism, to return to my initial distinction, is to challenge us to live our own vocation with the same intensity and purity of heart that we see in the monks. The fruit of my fidelity to my personal call is not only my own personal inner freedom, but also that there is absent in my dealing with others any manipulation or personal agenda on my part. If this is not manifested in my life to the degree it is in an elder, this fruit should at least be relatively present.

Along the way to this life of freedom "The great temptation is to idolize the elder, and even substitute him/her for Christ. A personality cult leads to the destruction of both the elder and the disciples." Likewise, we our also we may be tempted to substitute the monastery and monastic life for the more ordinary, though no less important, life of a Christian called to sanctify the world. In either case we cannot substitute the monastic vocation for our own personal vocation. And this is precisely what happens when we forget that monastics is the fruit of baptism but that it does not exhaust the meaning of baptism.

In the final analysis, the goal of both monastic life and the vocation of the Christian in the world is the same: "obedience to God." But this obedience is not found in either the monastery or the parish as institutions, but rather only and "always within the Church" as together in mutual respect and support for each other's unique vocation we move "always toward a more profound level of communion, both ecclesially and personally."

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory