Saturday, June 10, 2006

Eastern Orthodoxy I: Why I am Attracted To It (This is a long one)


Orthodoxy is attractive because it is so holistic, and Eucharistic, and they preserve the mystery of God.

As you learn and grow in the tradition of your faith, and realize your protestant tradition goes back 100, maybe a few hundred years at the most, you find yourself trapped in modernity. You might find your communities limited by modern, inward, psychological, western, rationalistic faith. One should not have to work hard to make their "faith" relevant to the business of the 'real world'; of eating and drinking, art, music, sex, economics, work, architecture, bodies, cities, politics, and creation.

There are general, popular generic-protestant axioms like "worship is with your whole life", and "love God 24-7". These most often fail to draw upon 2000 years of disciples doing this very thing, and handing these practices down to the next generations. (So far, I have not said anything to exclude Roman Catholicism, which is also cool). (Also, most protestant culture and art sucks. We have the lamest music, creativity is rare, and yet we worship the Creator?)

The very idea of 'religion' as a universal, interior, human impulse was not created until the 16 century, and only at first in the west. Before that, 'religio' (the Latin word) referred to communaly embedded bodily practices and disciplines of Christians directing their lives toward God in every day life. ("religions", in the plural did not exist until the so-called "religious wars" - I will write a future post on this).

Western philosophy - with its roots in Neo-Platonism, Augustine and others (not ALL bad) - developed the idea of "individuals". The individual person became the locus of authority. Rene Descartes championed modern thought when he decided to fight don't with doubt, and concluded that at least he was doubting. His conclusion was "I think, therefore I am". He also was a dualist: the human souls and body were a "Ghost in a machine". (Individuals are a myth, anyway)

Confidence was in human reason, that is INDIVIDUAL human reason. Individuals began to interpret the Bible, and were the final authority on faith matters.

You have this supreme confidence in human rationality, explaining away Christian history (resurrection, miracles, powers and principalities), societies becoming fragmented, and the rise of the sovereign nation-state. Science and technology were deemed saviors, along with nation-states who guarantee individuals their "rights". With all of these individuals out there as the final authority on everything, the Church split umpteen different ways.

Western Christendom reacted by evacuating the realms of art, music, sex, economics, work, architecture, bodies, cities, politics; retreating to some inward 'spiritual space'. The idea of 'secular' was created, not discovered. For example: The western church's failure to recognize sexuality as a good gift, left it to pagans. 'Secularism' invested heavily in sex, politics, art, etc. It is no wonder that secularism looks attractive. If Christians have not joy, as Nietzche said, we will look elsewhere.

Without community passing on the virtues and practices of holistic Christianity, you have whakos who come up with interpretations and abuses of the Bible. They came up with the idea of the "rapture" (this idea has been around less than 100 years), and the idea that our souls are going to some place called heaven (as opposed to it COMING to us, like in Revelation) allowed people to think of the earth and its resources as disposable. This makes no sense if there is a resurrection of the BODY. If bodies don't matter, then why was Jesus' body raised, and why does scripture speak of new creation? The Spirit will makes all things new, not all new things.

And so we have this popular idea that Christianity is a religion, in which I believe in 'my heart' that Jesus died, and went through suffering so I don't have to, and I will go to heaven someday. Our churches are chaplains to our towns and cities. The Church governs souls, while we hand bodies over to the state, or the market, or 'the secular'. What I believe does not have to affect the rest of the world, unless I am really, really passionate, and then I might ask how to "integrate my faith into my life."

This is wrong!

For the Orthodox sin is thinking of God religiously; the problem is not preferring the world over God, but making it into mere material, instead of gift/blessing for communion purpose. Previously the life was full of spirit. God sent Jesus not to rescue, but to show humans what humans hunger for, to show them what God is really like. In him humans are restored to their priestly, Eucharistic role.

The Church is the continuation of the incarnation, but is also so much more. Our Orthodox friends help us by pointing to Pentecost as the birthday of the Church. The Church is the new epiphany of God; the most recent move in the economy of God. The Church must be wrapped up in the outgoing life of the Trinity; otherwise we have an unbaptized God -– a God who is not identified with humanity. The Spirit incarnated d the Son in the Virgin Mary, and "‘Christened"’ Jesus life and ministry. Jesus then died to "give up the Ghost"’ to all, even to the depths of hell. In this Spirit-Christology we see that Jesus came to give the Spirit, and at Pentecost the Spirit is given to continue this incarnation.

This incarnation is the real Body and Blood of Jesus, to be broken and given for the life of the world. Christ, the New Adam, instituted not a new religion, but new life. This new life is the restoration of the Eucharistic function of humanity. This function is the assumption of all creation – all of life is taken up, "judged, redeemed, transformed", and used for the kingdom. This happen in the Eucharist. They teach that when the invoking of the Spirit (the epiclesis) happens, the bread and wine are not the only materials turned into the Body of Christ, but WE TOO then become the Body. it is almost like double-transubstantiation. (it is ironic that protestants will think we are the body of Christ, but some bread can't be it????)

There is no dualism between souls and bodies, material and spiritual. Secularism is the illegitimate stepchild of Christianity, but is not real for Christians. There is no secular, God creates all, and all is to be redeemed by God. There is no realm outside the mission of the Church - the Orthodox realize this. They also have been living it. They offer a whole life, a culture. That is why I am attracted to it...

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

thomas ...

I agree with Tim in his question of whether these thoughts are actually common within Orthodoxy, or if this position is held by a few "intellectuals" of the sect. If someone read Karl Barth or Stanley Haurwas and assumed that all Evangelicals were this way, then they'd be gravely mistaken. But, none of this is to say that I didn't enjoy what you wrote or hope that this might be "how it is."

I think the only thing I could take further with what you said are the implications about Salvation. It seems that the last few posts on here have been dealing with this issue, and I wonder what you said about Orthodoxy has to say about our questions on "Christianity" and "Salvation."

I wonder what a Holistic view of Salvation might be when life is viewed as Holistic and not Dualistic. The Salvation proclaimed by much of Modern Christianity seems to stem from this Enlightenment Dualism ... what's an "alternative" to this (if any) ?

be peace, brothers and sisters
curtis

9:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anthony Paul Smith ...

We've never met. My name is Curtis and I'm a friend of Thomas. I went to Olivet last year but have now transferred schools. Are you in Undergrad? Grad? If so, what are you studying and where?

Maybe you outdate me on CSR, but if not, welcome.

be peace, brother
curtis

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anthony ...

You seem very "advanced" for someone just out of Undergrad. Do you just so happen to "know a lot" about Orthodoxy and, therefore, seem very knowledgeable about all things theological?

If you actually do "know as much" about more things than Orthodoxy, who did you learn under? Or who found you and influenced you?

Maybe this is more of an email thing, if so: habitofhinder@gmail.com

be peace, brother
curtis

9:37 PM  
Blogger Thomas (Murphy) Bridges said...

Thanks Anthony, for making some clarifications. I forgot to fix my version of the post, which left out the sources of my quotes - they were from Alexander Schmemann. Also, I was making SOME generalizations to make the post more reader-friendly for some folks. I was not representing Orthodoxy as a whole, for even as they say, no one theologian does (they dont have as centralized a theology as the Vatican does, due to different power structures). I read Timothy Ware, John Zizioulas, David Bentely Hart, Schmemann, Nikolas Nissiotis, John Meyendorf, and some others including early stuff by the Cappadocians, Clement, Palamas,etc. I have not read the Russian Sophiologists, I am in the middle of Milbank's paper on Theurgy and Sophiology though.

To answer 5 questions at once: No, the Orthodox do not as a whole live out what I wrote (which is why I have not 'joined' them - this includes their sexism, by not ordaining women). In fact, one of the EO churches I went to was amazing (in inner KC, ministering to the street people), and the other was a typical suburban chaplain to the American Dream. They DO have problems with imperialism, politics, AND EVEN GENOCIDE in their history (this is very unhappy).

But as Timothy Ware says, the Byzantine Empire, for all of its mistakes, was simply the Church trying to live out the doctrine of the incarnation to its fullest extent. I think that that empires, as any Christian empire (or nation-state, if that exists) is an over-realized eschatology. I apologize for my generalization, but for Schmemann and Ware, there is nothing outside the mission of the Church (Schmemann is REALLY critical of his tradition, and I am not sure he would concede to the type of monarchy you speak of. Besides, Aquinas was all about monarchy, and I don't throw his stuff out the window; we just have to think his stuff a bit differently). I guess you could say that I am selectively attracted to EO? Well, I have liked all I have read so far.

In order for this stuff to work for me, I have to mix it with anabaptist life and lots of early church history (which may not be totally accurate, not that any "history" is).

The statement about 'religions' before the religious wars - tis is coming from William Cavanaugh's article, "A Fire Strong Enough to Consume the House: The Wars of Religion and the Rise of the State". I have not done the research he has, but he claims that we mean something different by this term than others before Bodin, etc.

I think we may have the same point here though. Christianity was the religion of the Empire, and there was no room for pluralism. {Now here we may differ] Cavanaugh argues that the idea that there can be coexisting religions is a later invention, since before such re-definition of religion, religion took up space, and encompassed all of life. There was not room for two religions. I (and he) do not advocate a return to Christendom, or imperialism, which was the form this took. But I am also not for the handing over of bodies to the nation-state, as the Church cares for souls. The positive about pr-modern "religion", is that at least one thought that it takes up social and political space.

As for the problems modernity tried to solve... yeah, there are issues. I think this is why I might tend to romanticize the Church before Constantine's days.

But... I am learning a lot from our Eastern brothers (and hopefully soon I can say sisters).

Peace~Thomas

PS-Anthony, if you want to elaborate on Bergson or Benjamin, feel free. Craig told me to read Bergson if I want to understand Milbank, but... I am a finite person, with little time these days (Craig does not even like Milbank anymore for the most part, as I am sure you know)

11:03 PM  
Blogger Thomas (Murphy) Bridges said...

Oh - I just posted my post, and Anthony had another one with the link to the Milbank paper I was speaking of. Sweet. Read it!

Peace~Thomas

11:06 PM  
Blogger Thomas (Murphy) Bridges said...

One more thing...

I could have written a similar post to my original one, only sayign why I am attracted to Radical Orthodoxy. I am uncertain about there conclusions, or my comprehension of them, but they are looking into what I am interested in. I thought you hated RadOrth, Anthony? I thought you were all about Goodchild, and did not like Milbank? Maybe I was wrong...

11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since we all seem to be talking about "religion" and Craig, I'll bring the two, kind of, together. He recommended a book for me to read (and I did) titled, "The Meaning and End of Religion" by William Cantwell Smith. This might be a kind of juvenile book for you guys to read, since you've probably done more "religious studies" than I have, but I found it helpful and insightful ... especially in light of Kierkegaard for some reason. It's just a pretty hopeful book, I think.

And I think it's safe to say that we ALL have ideals and idealism ... if there is a fact, this seems to be it. And I would say that we need to "face this idealism", but that statement seems ridiculous. "The Sickness Unto Death" comes to mind.

Does anyone else feel like there's so much in the world (theology, philosophy, literature, poetry, emotion ... life!) that you'll NEVER "catch up" or be a part of any conversation because you'll always be too immature? Yeah ... neither do I ... haha.

Thomas, I hope you sent your wedding invitation to me, because I really hope to be there. Starting next week I'll be in Ohio and out of this crazy state they call California ... then on to summer ... then on to Senior year ... then on to ... retirement and death?

be peace, brothers and sisters
curtis

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, Anthony ... I left Olivet because I kind of felt like I was going to kill it or it was going to kill me. I came to California, under Thomas' recommendation, to study under Craig and other wonderful people. It's been a great move. I got to Olivet at the beginning of their transition from a "Religion Department" to a "Pastoral Studies" department and was blind-sided by it. Thomas kind of kept me alive.

11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

my AIM is: habitofhinder

11:33 PM  
Blogger Thomas (Murphy) Bridges said...

Anthony - yeah, I am getting married. I dont know if you would remember Jeanne Smith; she worked in the coffee shop at Olivet. She is amazing! She is open to living wherever, and being poor with me. Sounds like I found a match.

Curtis - you should have gotten your invitation by now - maybe we got the wrong addy? WIll you be coming? July 15, bro.

Anthony again - Craig still loves Cavanaugh, and he likes Ward, and Pickstock some. It is Milbank that dissapoints him. He says he doesnt like the way Milbank goes about borrowing other people's stuff, and not telling the reader (he says that last section of "Theology and Social Theory" is straight up Bergson, but Milbank does not give him credit there). He also seems to think that for Milbank, the church has some type of authority over God (I dont know, but I thought that in theurgy the Neo-Platonists thought they had a handle on the gods, a way of manipulating divinity - maybe this is what is going on???). I will check someof my e-mails from him about this - not that he is the end-all judge of this stuff. I am terribly interested in Rad Orth too.

Peace~Thomas

6:15 AM  
Blogger Thomas (Murphy) Bridges said...

If anyone wants to read that Milbank essay on Sophiology and Theurgy, maybe we could have a discussion...which has no citations (that French thing? I dont know how they work that)

Also - I am assuming, Anthony, that you dislike James K.A Smith? (A 'Cavlin-type').

And...more to come on Orthodoxy...

7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll try to read the artical in the next week or two ... then we can talk more.

1:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home