Dare to Believe

Living Theology

2009-03-26T18:21:00.000+10:00

As most readers may have picked up by now, this blog has slowed down over the past couple of months, in deference to my new site (one not named for myself), Living Theology.

This blog has served well - first being where I'd put my short sermons, then where I'd put my theology essays, until it's last evolution, as a place where I would put my thoughts and ideas on the internet, all for comment.

Living Theology, the successor to this blog, attempts to do much the same thing. I did feel somewhat uncomfortable about making my name the name of the blog; but now, I think it's in a more appropriate place. As much as we talk in the Orthodox Church about a Tradition, it's a tradition that is valuable and valid precisely because it is, in a sense, alive and able to adapt to modern times, places, events and circumstances.

Recommending this blog to you, the reader, I thank you for reading this blog over the course of it's lifespan, and encourage you to update your RSS feed and bookmarks at the Living Theology blog.

In the image. For the likeness.

2009-03-25T15:00:00.000+10:00

One of the important parts of Orthodox theology that is sometimes overlooked is the idea of The Fall.

It sounds rather apocalyptic, doesn't it? 'The Fall'. Makes it sound like we've falled down a chasm, like there was no other fall quite like The Fall. In a sense, that kinda makes sense...

To read the complete article, go to In the Image, For the Likeness on the Living Theology blog.

Metaethics - Divine Command Theory

2009-03-16T12:34:00.000+10:00

Combining my enjoyment for theology with my training in ethics is a metaethical theory called 'Divine Command Theory'.

If you haven't had your coffee, that last sentence might seem a little dense. I'll try and explain...

To read the complete article, go to Divine Command Theory on the Living Theology blog.

Trust in God

2009-03-11T15:00:00.000+10:00

Living as a Christian can be very difficult sometimes. It's not without its consolations, of course, but there are difficulties.

There are a lot of ethical precepts in Scripture that sound very binding or, at least, counter-intuitive, some avenues of behaviour can't be considered...

And yet, all through this, there is a reason for all of this restriction. God made us, and so what He suggests for us is probably going to be what is best for us...

To read the complete article, go to Trust in God on the Living Theology blog.

Ministry of the Priest and of the Laity

2009-03-10T15:00:00.000+10:00

In every structure, people have roles that need filling. In a business, for example, someone needs to be the boss; someone needs to take care of the computers; someone needs to make sure that the elevators are working; someone needs to make sure that everything is done with safety in mind; all without including the employees who keep the company in the black.

The Church has a lot of similarities to this view. There are people required in local parishes for things to remain functioning - someone to open the doors; the person to organise for the bills to be paid; the person to order (or make) the candles; the person to do yardwork around the church land; all without including the people to make the services themselves happen.

From my observations, there are some who have a very distorted view of the priest...

To read the rest of this article, please go to Ministry of the Priest and of the Laity on the Living Theology blog.

Limits of Human Reason

2009-03-09T22:45:00.000+10:00

A common problem that people have with both the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Trinitarian Theology), and with the two natures of Christ (Christology) is the very simple idea of maths. Either way, trying to reconcile 1+1+1=1 or 1+1=1 doesn't work (short of trippy, funky maths which, aside from being beyond my understanding, is really rather beside the point).

But, it's not supposed to work based on our logic - if God were small enough to fit in our heads, He would not be big enough to worship.

For the rest of the article, go to Limits of Human Reason on the Living Theology blog.

The Four Impolite Topics: a guide to our humanity

2009-02-26T15:51:00.004+10:00

In polite conversation, it is said that one does not talk about four topics - sex, money, religion and politics.

Of course, that makes life very difficult if your area of interest, study or even occupation is in one of these areas - in my case, I’ve studied sociology (which covers sex and money), politics, applied theology (which covers religion).

Having studied those areas, I’ve needed to have several conversations in all four forbidden areas, which gives me a special appreciation for why these are forbidden topics. It’s axiomatic that usually people will yield to the person who works in the area (try correcting a doctor or a tradesman!), but when it comes to politics, philosophy and religion, suddenly they’re pope, Plato and president - particularly frustrating to those who have studied the areas and know that neither party is any of those!...

To read more, go to The Four Impolite Topics: A Guide to Our Humanity on the Living Theology Blog.

Loving All People - as verb, not just idea

2009-02-24T15:00:00.002+10:00

As Christians, we talk a lot about community and social inclusion and such. I fear exactly how much we mean it.

As an Orthodox Christian, I’d noticed a particular typology of people who were in my church. Among those who were devout and faithful, there were a few different characteristics that could be seen.

The exactness of those typologies is really neither here nor there for the point of this post, though: the point is that a pretty bad job is being done of welcoming into the Church those who do not come from one of these backgrounds...

To continue reading, please go to Loving All of God's Image on the Living Theology blog.

Nativity as Mystical Paradox

2009-02-20T15:00:00.000+10:00

At the end of 2008, I was invited to present a address at the carol’s night at a local parish. Because of the length of the address that I was asked to do (it was approaching 15 minutes), I have divided the address, entitled Nativity as Mystical Paradox: downplayed, peripheralised… ever-rejuvenated, into four sections, each on different aspects of the Nativity: the sheer contradiction of the birth of God; the paradoxes and mystery involved in the birth of Christ; how peripherals can take over the Feast; and, how we must put Christmas back into Christ.

To read more on this series, continue to Nativity as Mystical Paradox page on the Living Theology blog.

Adversity and Family

2009-02-17T15:00:00.000+10:00

Giving birth, even with all the safeties, niceties and drugs of modern medicine, is still a dangerous task. Aside from the months where each of us are inside the womb, where virtually anything can happen – an extreme, such as the use of undertested prescription drugs, or something as everyday and mundane as falling down the stairs, can endanger the life of both child and mother.

So why, we must ask, did God desire for humanity to continue itself by means of an inherently dangerous procedure? Why, for example, did we not spring up from the ground, like mushrooms? It would not be beyond God to do this, and it would be a far safer means – and certainly more practical...

To read more on this, continue to the Living Theology blog.

2009-02-13T15:00:00.001+10:00

In the New Testament, we read that Jesus summarised all of the Jewish laws into two: love God with all you’ve got, and, as part of that, love everyone. To help us understand those two commands, we can look at the previous summary of the over 600 edicts that made up Jewish law – the Ten Commandments – something that is long enough to be useful and forthright, yet brief enough to be remembered. The first four of these commandments relate to our conduct towards God...

To read more on this, continue to the Living Theology blog.

Rich People's Global Financial Crisis

2009-02-10T15:00:00.000+10:00

There are some times when we want to be sad and mope.

The reality is that, since you're reading this post, you have access to a computer, something that is actually a luxury - or, if you don't want to look at it like that, something not required for the sustenance of life - which indicates that you have the basics of life...

To read more, visit Rich People's Global Financial Crisis at the Living Theology blog - livingtheology.wordpress.com

Generation Orthodox - Inauguration

2009-02-06T15:00:00.000+10:00

Icon New Media Network has just put out the latest episode of Generation Orthodox, entitled Inauguration, featuring a large contingent of people on Skype, including myself. Lots of talk about Anesti, Orthodox Childrens Books, and even more talk on the Inauguration of the President of the United States and the Walk for Life.

Check it out here.

Christ, in all and through all

2009-02-03T15:00:00.005+10:00

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit, for a few weeks, an Orthodox parish that followed the Russian tradition (logically enough, since the priest and most of the congregation were from Russia).

I realise that I may have already lost some people: what's so distinctive about the Russian tradition, compared to other traditions?
In the Orthodox Church, the vast majority of parishes use what is probably best termed Eastern liturgics - the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom for most services, chanting, Byzantine vestments, lots of repetition, lots of 'Lord have mercy's, all that kind of stuff. But within Eastern liturgics, there are essentially two schools of liturgics - Byzantine, based on the Typikon of the Great Church (i.e. Hagia Sophia in Constantinople), and Slavic, based on the Typikon of St Sabbas' Monastery in Jerusalem. Between the two ethnic practises that follow one or the other exclusively (the Greek tradition being Byzantine, the Russian tradition being Slavic), there are numerous shades of grey between those who follow elements of both, to a greater or lesser extent (e.g. Arab, Romanian, Serbian).
Most of these differences would be imperceptible to those who did not know what they were looking for - the subtler differences are as simple as the substitution of one 30sec hymn for another at a particular point in the weekly cycle; but the most obvious differences are in the style of singing (Western polyphony against Byzantine chant) and in the back of the priest's phelonion (The phelonions - cape-like garments of the priest - are fitted to the shoulder in the Byzantine tradition, whereas they can rise in the Slavic tradition to look like a triangle without a peak - see this example).

Of course, a peculiarity of each national tradition is that they tend to use the language of the inhabitants - so in Greece one will hear Greek, in Serbia one will hear Serbian, in Romania one will hear Romanian. This parish, being a Russian tradition parish, predominantly used Church Slavonic. While I may pick up bits and pieces of this language, I struggled to translate more than a few phrases, and I certainly couldn't string together a sentence in the language. I did, however, know the Liturgy from having attended it so often in my own language, so this didn't pose an insurmountable problem for me.
Tangent: alongside the overwhelming theological and historical arguments, this is one of the practical arguments that can be used in support of churches using a defined Liturgy - at worst, a person from another country can obtain a translation and read along.

Being as one can remember something far quicker than it can be sung to intricate melody, I looked around at the small, rented facility that we were lent to worship in. It was the most unlikely place for a Liturgy, when you thought about it - during the week, they would conduct business; on Sunday, we would commune with Christ. I was probably standing where people would normally queue for the privilege of paying exorbitant amounts of money. I hope it was worth it.

One of the wonderful parts of Orthodox worship is that it's easy to find other things to focus on, and to learn from. Even if the service is in another language (or if it is difficult to hear, or if we don't understand the concepts spoken of), we are able to look around and be educated in other ways. The icons (and there were so many!) that surrounded the church. The relics of a wonderworking saint that were on display. The attentiveness of the people around me. The movements of the priest.

I chose to focus on the priest's vestments.

I'd been going for a few weeks to this little church, and noticed that the priest basically wore the same set of vestments each week. They were gold-coloured vestments, decorated with a pattern of interlocking circles of different diameters (one half the size of the other) with the Chi-Rho symbol (Χ superimposed by Ρ - the first two letters of Christ in Greek - XΡΙΣΤΟΣ) in the centre of the larger circles.

It's a very nice vestment pattern.

After a few weeks, I was tracing the direction of the pattern. At first, there didn't seem to be an end to the pattern, certainly not where you expected it to be, and I was expecting the lesson to be that everything is interconnected. Perhaps that's a lesson for another day.

I found that the lines that made the circles did have an end. They were very intricately woven crosses, with rounded ends, and they formed the circles that I saw.

I was very surprised to find that! But it's an equally important lesson to learn.

When you look for Christ, you will find Him.
If you don't look for Christ, He'll still be there.
Especially where you don't look, especially where you think He'd never be...He's there.
He might be there with sadness, eagerly awaiting a person's return to Him.
But He's there. He's endured the deepest parts of Hades, and He'll endure whatever we put ourselves through, in the hope that we'll return to the One Who loves us.

Christ and the two sides of DNA

2009-01-30T15:00:00.000+10:00

We have a problem whenever we look at the Incarnation of Christ. Our research into DNA tells us that we get about half of our genetic code from our mother, and about half of our genetic code from our father.

So then Jesus is born. What happened there, when He was "without father on the side of his mother" (i.e. had no human biological father) "and without mother one the side of his Father" (i.e. had no divine mother), as we claim in the texts of services?

Perhaps this will give us an understanding of why we keep referencing Adam.

Christ, being fully human (from His Birth) and fully divine (at all times, before all ages), would have had half of that DNA structure from his mother. That part is easy. And the other half of the DNA?

Adam.
God created Adam (through Word) - whole, complete, pure. In this same way, the other half of the DNA would be Adam-esque - a human before the Fall.

Christ, the New Adam, thus redeems all creation through His person - both those who lived after the Fall, and those who lived before the Fall.

How far can we take this? I'm really not sure - I don't claim to be a geneticist. But as far as this goes, it shows Christ's love for all humanity - that which has been assumed has been redeemed, as St Athanasios the Great put it, and it is all humanity - pre- and post-Fall - that has been redeemed for us to give thanks to God and enter ever more fully into a communion with Him.

Sight beyond eyesight

2009-01-27T15:00:00.001+10:00

Another in a series of inspirations from Andrew Costi's art gallery on Freedom...

We like to say 'I saw it with my own eyes'. But, how true is that, really?

I, for instance, don't have perfect vision. I am somewhat colour-blind (especially when it comes to darker greens), so if I look at a fabric and say 'it was grey, I saw it with my own eyes', that may not be the most accurate standpoint. For that, you may need someone with better eyesight who can differentiate more colours than I am able to do.

This isn't just about a visual spectrum, of course - it's bigger than that...

To continue reading, please continue to Sight Beyond Eyesight on the Living Theology blog.

So what's the difference?

2009-01-23T15:00:00.002+10:00

I'm not sure how many times I've been asked what the difference between Orthodoxy and other religions/denominations is. Fortunately, now I don't have to stumble through trying to explain 'everything' - Fr Andrew S. Damick has done the hard work in a series of lectures (as advertised on Generation Orthodox). Check them out!

At the moment, I'm trying to do quality theological posts and quality theological essays, and for better or worse, the essays have to take priority...

Those who are of the Truth

2009-01-20T15:00:00.004+10:00

There was a passage of Scripture that I was reading today that I thought was important to share. It's the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate in the Gospel of St John, after Christ had been betrayed, arrested and taken to the Roman governor.

Gospel of St John, Chapter 18, Verses 33-38. (NKJV)
Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”
Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?”
Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all..."

At some level, it's important to understand that the mere act of reading something requires interpretation - I, being a 21st century Australian of Anglo-Celtic heritage, would have no real idea of what it is like to have an absolute monarchy, to have entire nations contained within other nations, of servants, to have people being executed without so much as a criminal charge...well could we say that this is a different time in history. That much seems obvious.

In this part of the story, I can't help but feel sorry for Pilate. He has very little understanding of what's happening in the Bigger Picture, and doesn't even have the prophecies to consult (in any meaningful way, at least). We can look back now and cry 'murder', but this rings rather hollow in a time when about 14,000 infants were killed on the off chance that one of them might grow up to be king of what is, from a political standpoint, a fairly insignificant principality; and it's hard to accuse deicide when there was no intent to kill a deity - just a desperate want for peace and stability in a time when it was in fairly short supply.

Pilate is called in to kill someone, because the Jews lack the capacity to do that. He doesn't know why this person is sent to him. Pilate walks in and asks, straight out, if Jesus is the King of the Jews. Jesus sees his knowledge straight away and calls him on it, asking if he thought it up or someone else did. Pilate seems to acknowledge this. He's not a Jew, not involved in the politics of being a Jew, and being as he doesn't have any real charge to go on, asks Jesus what He's done to deserve coming to Pilate (since when should a criminal have to accuse himself?).

Jesus tangents somewhat, saying that He is King, but not on earth. Pilate hears the key word, to which Jesus expands on - including His noble Birth - and says my favourite line in the passage - 'everyone who is of the truth hears My voice'. Pilate's reply, 'What is truth?', has been the subject of poems and song ever since, and after this, he finds no fault. Jesus may be king, but He has no army and obviously poses no real threat on treasonous grounds (perhaps this is analogous to the Hutt River Principality in Western Australia).

"Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice". These are words that gives me great comfort. We have to search for the truth. That should be a part of being human - wanting to know why. There's a reason that children incessantly ask 'why' - for much the same reason that we should look at things and ask 'why'. Why are there injustices all over the world. Why are we in this world. What is our purpose. And yet, they are often stifled in this quest for truth - often until they forget that they ever had the quest to begin with. If you are of the truth - really of the truth, not just in words, not just 'on the balance of considerations' or some other weasel phrase of trying to sound considerate, but searching for truth with the same sense of urgency the search for air while being drowned...that's the time when you get a response.

And a response is possible. Pilate didn't quite get it, and that's revealed in his question, 'what is truth'. Justifications aside (and there are plenty), he didn't understand that he was living in a time when that question no longer made sense. No longer was truth a thing you could write down or quantify or pill that you could take. Truth takes on human form, Truth was betrayed that night, Truth was interrogated by Pilate (who didn't recognise Him), Truth was then crucified, Truth went into the place of the dead, Truth destroyed this place so that we could be with God, Truth came back so that we knew that the Truth was not dead, but was undying, and rose to heaven.

Our cleaving with God, who is Love, is not juxtaposed with Truth - we have Truth, we have Love, because these are one and the same.

Love and Truth are the highest pinnacle of humanity. Because the Son of God became human, we can aspire to these divine precepts.

Call for a Sideways Perspective

2009-01-16T15:00:00.004+10:00

In the second half of 2008, I went to an art show on Freedom put on by Andrew Costi. Very diverse show, with a number of different artists using different artistic mediums (from canvas paintings to photography to sculpture, even an artwork of photos based on words that meant a lot to people - very cool!).

There was one picture there that I seriously couldn't understand. I was about a foot away from it, trying to figure it out - or, at least, trying to get some sort of understanding for what the painting might have meant. After a while, I gave up, and walked to the next painting. Sometimes artists are far too difficult to understand, I thought.

So I went to the next painting, and the next, and for some reason then looked back at the one I had previously given up on - and suddenly, I saw something there...

To continue reading, please continue on to Call for a Sideways Perspective at the Living Theology blog.

Administravia - Smaller Archives

2009-01-15T19:41:00.003+10:00

Some of the more astute members of the blog may have noticed that I've taken off quite a number of my posts from 2007 - mostly short, three-minute sermons.

I've done this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they were written for a very different audience. They're not designed for blog use, and they don't have the spirit that I'm attempting to have in my writings. Secondly, I'm wanting to re-write them somewhat for a new project that I'm hoping to do. I'll let you know more details when I actually have some concrete details to share.

The posts from 2008-09 are untouched, so if you should be so inclined as to go through the archives, there's still plenty of material there to read.

Acceptance

2009-01-13T15:00:00.002+10:00

Sometimes, it's all about the little things we do.

The smallest things that we do can be the most beautiful and supportive acts that we could ever offer to others.

Last year, I was on a church youth trip to an Orthodox chapel near the beach. It's a beautiful place, with wide-open spaces for those who were more active and chairs for those who, well, weren't. While we were there, one of the people there (who had brought their kids) commented that she was very thankful for how her children had been accepted by the others, despite any differences between them (like, for example, age).

These are the kinds of things you can't plan. It's not like you can put in your diary, 'be nice to that stranger on the bus' - well, not usually, anyway. But we can decide to take a given situation and, while we're in it, be a better person in it.

If we decide to act in a better way often enough (consciously, of course), we find that this will become what we do, will become part of who we are. Acts become habits become traits become identity.

In that time when you have to decide whether to behave decently or not, perhaps consider choosing the decent behaviour - even when it may not be to your advantage right now. You may give something more valuable than the slight inconvenience you may forego - hope.

Your actions affect so much more than what you can see.

On Generation Orthodox

2009-01-09T15:00:00.003+10:00

In an exciting moment for me, I was asked to be a guest on the show Generation Orthodox, a podcast of the Icon New Media Network.

Generation Orthodox itself is a roundtable discussion with Jacob Lee and invited guests (regulars include Marina from Death to the World, Calee from Sacred and the Profane and Matt from Coffee Makers Afre and Chant Boot Camp) which talks about Orthodoxy and how that affects a person's daily life.

In this particular episode, we discussed a lot of things: after a really long intro, we do a bit about Orthodoxy in Australia (and Australia generally!) and go through the past weeks of the participant's lives and interesting things that they've come across. We talk a bit about Easterfest and the stall that Anesti is going to be setting up there - which is, as far as I know, the first Orthodox stall at a Christian music festival.

After that, we talk about Protestant churches, what the name of a church (or any entity) says about the identity of that church and the perception of that church (or not wanting to be seen as 'church'); then about the idea of going to church to get something out of it and how lacking that idea is; the spirituality of gender and of the intellectuals in Orthodoxy; the purpose (and reason) for going to church; the permeating of a Christ-centric daily life; the reason for pointing out the distinctions of Orthodoxy and other believers (it's not just for being pedantic!); then back to religious education in state schools in Australia (as opposed to America); and a final splurge from me about Christmas (it's right on time for Old Calendar Christmas, and I'll stick to that excuse :D ).

Of course, that's only a skeleton. The full show is at: Generation Orthodox Down Under.

Who we are - what we do

2009-01-06T15:00:00.002+10:00

Christ is Baptised! In the Jordan!

Perhaps the most dangerous thing we can do in the spiritual life is making a divorce between the secular and the sacred. We can make that even broader: perhaps the most dangerous thing we can do in any cohesive life is to divorce what we do from why we do it.

We must understand: we are cohesive people. We can try and tell ourselves otherwise, try to convince ourselves that we can do an action that contradicts what we aspire to - sometimes even, who we are as people - and yet that we can somehow wall that in, pretending that we can segregate our lives. This simply can't be healthy.

And it isn't. There are three things that may allow us to do this:
Firstly, we may not realise how damaging the wrong actions are. This was an idea of Plato's - if a person really understands the gravity of their unethical action, they wouldn't do it.
Secondly, we may have goals that are out of line with our character. Just having a goal doesn't mean that it's a good goal, or that it's a good goal for us - if we are unhealthy and want to be healthy, we're not going to get very far if we also think that health kicks are silly - a more comprehensive change is in order than just having a resolution.
Thirdly (which is very related to the second), our character may be out of line with the person we want to be. We may naturally act, and hope to become a better person, but that won't actually happen if we keep doing what we've always been doing.

So, how does this relate with our secular/sacred dichotomy?

Just as we can't have a personal goal that is detached from our person (which is, remember, a cohesive unit, with each 'portion' interrelated to the others), we also can't pretend to say 'this is God time' and 'this is Me time'. It just doesn't work. Even at the optimum - say, a monk in a monastery may have eight hours a day in prayer, in a church - that's still two-thirds of a life that is God-free (perhaps half with a particularly rigourous personal prayer life). It's just plain unhealthy to claim to honour a God that you ignore half the time.

So, what's the answer?

How you phrase it depends on what background you've had, of course - some talk about being connected to one's purpose and making sure that what one does isn't out of line with who one is, for instance. For the Orthodox Christian, we talk a lot about doing everything for God. A mechanic would fix cars, doing the best job possible because they could see Christ in the person they were helping by fixing the car and allowing them freedom. A teacher would teach their students, doing the best job possible because, again, they could see Christ in the people they teach truth and facts to. The list goes on.

If we are not connected to who we are - and for Orthodox Christians, that means living a life of love - then we're not going to get very far. We'll have the intellectual belief without the desire to live it, and that's like trying to fly without half a wing.

Ultimately, unless we make the decision to consciously unite what we do with who we are, the decision to make sacred the secular things we do, the decision to act in accordance with our beliefs, we're going to give ourselves a cognitive dissonance...and a frighteningly insidious one at that.

Love is a Verb

2009-01-02T15:00:00.004+10:00

Inspired by Aristidis.

When we talk about love, often we talk about this feeling that you might have about another person. Sometimes it's less meaningful than that - who hasn't heard an adolescent declare their love for the latest music superstar or brand of clothing or car? - but often we'll be referring to a feeling we have.

In our society and our culture, I think we've made a big mistake. Maybe we've gotten it through media, maybe it's just the path of least resistance; I'm not going to claim to know how it happened, merely that it did, at some point, happen.

Our big mistake: we've confused what love is. Currently, we think that it's an emotion. In reality, love is a verb - love is something we do.

When we are told 'I love you', is that believed? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Can you really say 'I love you' unless you mean it enough to back it up with actions?

When Christians are told to 'love one another', they are not told to force themselves to have a feeling about other people. They are certainly not told to do so when 'love your enemies' is stated. Rather, we are to act in a loving way towards everyone, including enemies.

Now, whether the whole 'love enemies' thing is a good idea or a bad idea, well, I let others judge for themselves what would make a better world. But when we remember that love is a verb, it becomes possible and feasible to do that. It also becomes an active choice on our part, which we can choose to, or not to, do.

To love someone, or everyone - even no one - is our choice: our choice to do, or to not do.

End of year

2008-12-30T16:27:00.002+10:00

Dear readers, Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

A lot of real life needs are taking my attention away from this blog at the moment - I apologise for this, but as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have limited hours in the day and the Australian heat brings only lethargy.

I give you this quote:

"Who should listen to discussions of theology? Those for whom it is a serious undertaking, not just another subject like any other for entertaining small-talk, after the races, the theater, songs, food, and sex: for there are people who count chatter on theology and clever deployment of arguments as one of their amusements." — St. Gregory Nazianzus (On God and Christ, Oration 27 sect. 3; St. Vladimir's Seminary Press pg. 27)

I appreciate your support through this year, and hope to continue writing edifying documents about Orthodox Christianity in the new year.

Yours in the Newborn Christ,
Andrew K. D. Smith.

Nativity as Mystical Paradox, Part 4 of 4

2008-12-26T15:00:00.004+10:00

We hear a great deal at this time of year that people should put Christ back into Christmas. Let us not restrict ourselves to this. Our attempt to put Christ ‘back into Christmas’ cannot work, because Christ is so much bigger than any earthly celebration. Rather, Christ is the reason for all of these festivities. Let us work for something bigger, brothers and sisters.

Let us put Christmas back into Christ. Let everything that we do be for the glorification of God. Let everything that we do, in all the externals of this time of year, be for the glorification of the Birth of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. When we put up our Christmas tree...

Continue reading at the Living Theology blog.

Nativity as Mystical Paradox, Part 3 of 4

2008-12-25T15:00:00.004+10:00

And these things are good and beautiful. But, they are not the purpose. These peripherals started as a method of honouring Christ, of commemorating His Birth and of extending it's celebration. Now, we must be somewhat cautious, else we find ourselves well prepared for the events that surround this time of year and wholly unprepared for the Event of this time of year. It is very easy to forget why we do certain things.

We put up a Christmas tree, because we know that the Christ was born to be crucified for us. We place a star at the top of the tree, because of the star that guided the magi. We put up Christmas lights, for the angels who sang of Him. We sing carols, joining with those angels. We give gifts to each other, to remember the wise men who gave jewels, perfume and oil.

But, the point of this time of year is not to give gifts, or to decorate our homes and businesses. The point is Christ...

Continue reading at the Living Theology blog.

Nativity as Mystical Paradox, Part 2 of 4

2008-12-24T15:00:00.005+10:00

There are a number of ideas and realities surrounding this event that have the potential to go entirely past us. Maybe we’re used to them, and take them for granted. Maybe we have normalised them, placing what was a wondrous and time-changing event into just a part of this time of year – first Halloween, then shopping, then Christmas, then New Years, and we have to make our New Year’s resolutions and ‘get on with life’ – as if what we do on any given day can ever be a suspension from this life.

And we move into the new year, the joy of Christmas having entirely missed us, and we wonder why Christmas doesn’t touch us somehow. We exhaust ourselves on the peripherals, we exhaust ourselves on the events, indiscriminately allowing each in without any filters on whether it will benefit us, and we thereby refuse to enter ourselves into any season fully.

More is the tragedy when this season is the Birth of Our Lord, a time-changing mystery of the salvation of humanity – of each and every one of us...

Continue reading at the Living Theology blog.

Nativity as Mystical Paradox, part 1 of 4

2008-12-23T15:00:00.005+10:00

It was not that long ago when we, as a society, would refer to the story about the birth of Jesus as ‘the greatest story ever told’. Not so any more. Maybe now it’s lost its lustre, its shine, its warm and fuzzy glow. Maybe that’s been buried under the shopping, the excessive consumerism surrounding it. Maybe we’ve heard too many other stories and movies that are also good, and compare the narrative on the Birth of Christ to others, such as the Harry Potter series, or Narnia, or To Kill A Mockingbird, or Batman Retires, and decide that other stories are more exciting, more entertaining and have bigger explosives or somesuch.

At some point now, we’ve got to stop, and think about the event we’re celebrating, the event we sing about, the event that external events try so desperately to have us forget under the sweeping mass of things that perpetually need doing; the shopping; the lights; the decorations; the food. And remember the reason. The gift giving of the wise men, the light of Christ, the beauty of creation, the feasting: all of this in celebration of the Birth of a baby Boy.

Continue reading at the Living Theology blog.

God is not opposed to this... life of ours, but...

2008-12-19T15:00:00.004+10:00

My last post (last real post, anyway) was about my previous dot.sig that I had on all of my outgoing e-mail for over a year, regarding the apostolic nature of Baptisms.

This post, I wanted to bring out my new signature that I'm using now, located within this article (in .pdf format):

God is not opposed to this human world and this life of ours, but, it is extremely dangerous for man to allow himself to be reduced to the level of this world and life, to the work and labor in it; even though we Christians must struggle to improve our world and life, our human relations and societies, nevertheless we must not deceive ourselves and enclose ourselves only in this world without enlightenment and orientation towards the Kingdom of God and eternal Justice and Life.
— Bishop Jovan (Mladenovic) of Western America (now of Sumadia)

I don't know that there's much that I can comment on about this - it's largely self-explanatory. But there is one premise that needs to be brought out: the idea that it is the things we do that bring us to salvation.

Church and God isn't something that we do for an hour of Sunday mornings. Rather, the Christian life is about being a Christian, for our life - which includes the way that we make a living.

Little wonder people cry 'hypocrite!' when there are so many Christians who forget this. We can never say to ourselves 'I've done enough' when our sole interaction with God is that one hour (or so) each week. In reality, we need to be conscious that we are perpetually developing ourselves.

That can be a good thing, if we are aware of this and use it correctly; otherwise, we develop ourselves into stagnation and, potentially, damnation. That's not because God doesn't love us, that's because we don't love Him - we don't appreciate what we are given, don't respond with any kind of gratitude. But that's a choice that we make.

Most workers would spend around 40 hours each week at their jobs. As far as portion of our time goes, that's a quarter of our time each week. When another third goes to sleep - not to mention the time taken in travelling - we have precious few hours that we are even able to definitively say 'this is mine to allot'. If we relegate God even to the 75 hours in a given week that aren't taken up by work or sleep, and then subtract familial responsibilities and social obligations and meals and not-in-the-mood time...that's really not a lot of time that we can devote to God - and for most people, it wouldn't make even 10% of the week.

But, in Orthodoxy, we don't have this dichotomy. There isn't the chasm between Godly Things that We Do in Church and ungodly things that we do, this necessarily excludes God from a part of our lives - something we would not even consider doing in a healthy marital relationship. Rather, we remember God in all that we do, knowing that God is omnipresent, and we ensure that what we do, we do for God. We may do repetitive tasks, and during this time, we are able to remember God, even pray (monastics do this all the time). We may do tasks that are not so repetitive, and during this time we are able to do those tasks in a Godly way - doing a task that may not be apparently religious, but the way in which we do it makes it almost sacred.

So, knowing that God is "everywhere present and filling all things", let us ensure that what we do, we do as if we were presenting it for God.

My Journey to Orthodoxy

2008-12-16T15:00:00.005+10:00

I've had a fairly exciting weekend, chanting at a new mission parish that has just started north of where I'm living. I'll post a link to the parish as soon as they have a website to link to!

There was one particularly exciting point before that, and that was when Jacob Lee, president of the Icon New Media Network, interviewed me for the 'Journeys to Orthodoxy' podcast (Orthodox Christian Network). In light of that, I'm going to let the podcast itself be my post for today.

Check it out - it's currently on top of the frontpage of the Journeys to Orthodoxy page on the MyOCN.net website (until, y'know, other podcasts take it's place); or, you can go to it directly by clicking here.

We'll be back to our scheduled posting next week...all going according to plan, that is!

Not a real post

2008-12-12T15:00:00.001+10:00

A lot of things have cropped up, and I'm not able to post something as I normally would.

I do, however, remember a lovely short story illustrating big differences between the mindsets of the ultra-scholastics and the Orthodox, and with a little searching managed to find it again, on a dormant blog named 'The Cassock and the Cotta'.

So, here's the post - The Orthodox Monk and the Dominican Friar. And, hopefully, a real post next week...

Baptism: the Gift of Apostleship

2008-12-09T15:00:00.001+10:00

For a long time - just over a year, in fact - I had a particular quotation that I used in my signature. It described my feeling at the time, and it continues to do so.

Fr Alexander is often regarded as a guiding light for theologians generally, and one of the main people the laity of the Orthodox Church in America to a frequent reception of Communion. He was also the Dean of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary for a while - y'know, to pass the time. The book that this quote is out of is called Of Water and the Spirit, and is Fr Alexander's book about Baptism, Chrismation, designed to teach people about how the services themselves shed light on the meaning of Baptism for the benefit of those (and the parents of those) undergoing the sacraments themselves.

The gift of apostleship is bestowed each member of the Church on the day of his Baptism and Chrismation... Truly it is the time for an apostolic renewal... If the first duty of the clergy is to serve the Church, the first and essential duty of the laity is to bring into the world... the Christian witness, the image of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit. -- Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit.

It's very easy to palm off all responsibility for the Church's problems onto the clergy, which is not only an abdication of responsibility, but is also a great bind to those people who feel that they want to serve the Church but don't feel that they are able.

Orthodoxy has always argued that people, when ordained, become so much more than they were - they are able to consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, able to join two people into one, able to use water to bring people into the Ark of Salvation.

But there has always been a long-standing tradition of lay theologians - people who are not clergy, but who talk on theological matters with authority. For example, prior to his ordination, Fr John Ericsson was the dean of St Vladimir's Seminary. Not only that, but there has always been clergy that have not undergone theological education, but were educated by living the Faith - educated by the same liturgical texts that are available to everyone.

There's a beauty there.
It's all available, if we want it. All of it - the ability to know more about God, the closeness to God, being adopted by God as children, telling people about the ability to be fulfilled.
We can have it all!

When one breakthrough isn't enough

2008-12-02T15:00:00.001+10:00

I had an experience today - a breakthrough of sorts.

It was something that, I realised, had been holding me back, and now, well, it's just not useful for it to be holding me back anymore, when it's patently true that it shouldn't be stopping me from doing things.

The realisation that this was holding me back was something that made me profoundly angry, to the point of fury or rage. How dare these people inculcate a belief into me that was never mine, that I never wanted, that was never true - and that was never even useful.

I was going to write a blog entry about that. I even had a snack for dinner so that I wouldn't lose the state of mind I had when I broke through the barrier and when I changed the way I thought. The horrible (and, I suspect, over-priced) taxi ride home didn't help things.
But, I'm not going to write a blog entry about what I broke through. I may possibly write it later.
This sounds like a perfect segue to talk about righteous anger (which does exist), but I'm not going to do that either.

As I was walking home from the shop where I got that snack for dinner from, I saw something that completely changed the way that I was thinking.

Fireworks.
For no apparent reason.

So, I realised that I had a choice - I could look down, block my ears and go to my apartment, or I could stop, and allow the fireworks, with the constant explosions of sound and light, to let me break through the resentment I found myself in.

I watched the fireworks. I reminded myself that I may have had this limitation on myself, but that doesn't mean that all people are horrible. Quite the opposite. We live in a beautiful world - in spite of its imperfections, in spite of all that we may have done to it - and we live surrounded by God's creatures. This limitation has served any purpose that it may have had, and it is over now.

Now, I am better equipped to live a life of love. Thank God.

What's stopping you, right now, from living a life of love? What's something that you can do, right now, to change that?

As the first-called of the Apostles...

2008-11-28T15:00:00.001+10:00

A tradition found in many parts of Orthodoxy is to have the same name as an Orthodox saint - a personal patron saint.

Often, this is done at baptism, and the baptismal name is the same as the civil name; for those who came to Orthodoxy later in life, sometimes a new name would have to be picked. Often, particularly in Western countries with long histories of Catholicism or Protestantism, the baptismal name will directly correspond with the name of an Orthodox saint.

This isn't always the case, and there are different rules and regulations that have been passed down about how best to do this. The Greek tradition is that no one can take the name of Jesus, but that one can be called Chrístos (with the accent mark on the first syllable, so as not to confuse with the title of Christós, given to Christ). The Russian tradition goes further, saying that no one can have the feastday of the Mother of God (so all those called 'Mary' are required to have a different patron saint - St Mary Magdalene, for example).. In some places, a child will be named for the saint on their date of birth - those born on March 17 may be called Patrick, for example. The Serbian tradition is different again, and the entire family celebrates the one festival (called a 'slava'), and is a direct line - passed from father to son - of the day when the first person was baptised into the Orthodox faith.

In my case, my parents gave me the name of an apostle, so I did not have to change my name on being received into the Church, but was received with that name - Andrew. It was almost the case that I was to be received into the Church on his feastday - 30 November - but for various reasons (my godparent's availability playing a large factor), this did not go ahead, and I was able to celebrate the feastday of my patron saint as a newly-illumined member of the Church, and able to ask for his heavenly prayers (some of which were answered very quickly in the affirmative).

So, you'll have to indulge me if I add in an extra post to the usual Tuesday and Friday - but the story of St Andrew is one of the more inspiring of Christian hagiography (not that I'm biased). A number of biographies of him exist, but I'm going to pick one less commonly chosen - the biography on the website of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (who have him as patron because he consecrated the first bishop of Byzantium, Stachys - which is what the icon at the top of the page is depicting).

And, to all: Blessed Feast!

New meanings to old words

2008-11-25T10:00:00.002+10:00

Sometimes Bible verses are not what they seem at first glance.

An accepted part of a daily prayer rule is reading from the Bible each day. This is a valuable thing - After all, one cannot claim to follow Christ if one doesn't know which way to go. However, sometimes the meaning of a particular text can be lost because we look at it and we think we know what it means. Maybe it seems simple enough when we're reading, but is actually deeper; maybe we miss a cultural idiom used during that time. However, sometimes we see a verse so often that our familiarity and the meanings that we have infused into that verse override what was actually meant.

[Jesus] tells them, as they travel from Galilee to Judaea for the last time, that anyone who wants to follow him must take up his cross. For us the impact of that has been weakened, but in the contemporary Roman empire people took up crosses for only one purpose — to die on them. It was a method of execution reserved by the Romans for those who challenged their power, for rebels.
(hat tip - Dcn Steve Hayes, Khanya blog)

I'd seen that verse several times before, heard it at many baptismal services...the list goes on. You can read it very easily without knowing that - 'stand, follow me with your difficulties'. It's even enshrined in a figure of speech - 'this is my cross to bear'.

The verse has an entirely different meaning in this light, however. No longer is it a warning that following Christ will be merely difficult. Difficult, yes, and moreso: perhaps we can read 'if you wish to follow after Me, arise, challenge the world, and die like me'.

No one said it would be easy, and they weren't kidding around. When we talk about the Christian struggle, that's the struggle with our temptations, with our own lack and faults, with our own failings in our attempt to live like Christ.
That's part of the story. But it's not the whole story.

Jesus tells us that we must arise. We cannot develop a relationship with God or win salvation by doing nothing.
Jesus tells us that we must take up our cross. We must be prepared to put in effort into challenging the world. Sometimes that will mean taking a stand against the powers of the world; other times, that will mean taking a stand against worldliness and challenging the social mores of the society we happen to live in. But, we cannot expect comfort in the Christian life. We can, however, expect persecution.
Jesus tells us that we must follow Him. Being an anarchist - even an ethically good person - won't win Paradise, either - the point is not the what, but the why. Following Jesus is hard. It led to His crucifixion and to the death (some by crucifixion) of 10 of the 11 faithful disciples, and exile for the remainder.

But, it's worth it. Christ is the One who completes our life, who fulfills our life, who perfects our life. Through Him, we are truly human.

The fakes don't work

2008-11-21T15:00:00.001+10:00

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology (2004), there is a sizeable proportion of people who are, at the least, trying illicit substances. Among teenagers, it seems overreported - just over 21% of 14 to 19 year olds have used an illegal drug in the past year; however, the number is significantly higher with people in their 20s - around 31% of people in their 20s have used illicit drugs in the last year.
(before people start a moral panic, the numbers do halve from then until the population reaches their 60s)

At some level, I can understand this desire for substances. These are often used by people who desire a greater experience, an experience beyond one that they can usually have. This also goes some way towards explaining why drugs can be progressive, leading from one to another.

The inherent problem here is that drugs are the response to an itch that can't be adequately scratched.
Sure, it can be scratched a little. Temporarily, it fills a need. But it's like getting a cheeseburger from a fast food joint when you really wanted kobe beef or filet mignon - it approximates the itch, but it doesn't satisfy it.

The desire that I'm describing is for something greater than what is currently available. This is a noble desire, one that stems from the - naturally human - desire to be one with the One Who created us.

These substances give an artificial experience of being able to touch the divine. It's a bit like deity - enough, perhaps, to make you think that it is - but at a really base level, it's not. It's an experience, and one that can have similarities, but the search for the ultimate high is not one that can be solved in drugs.

The only scratch for the itch is Truth; that is, the only solution is God. And there's no shortcuts there... only truth, only reality. That may be hard - and it is - but... at least it's real.

And there are no substitutes for reality.

---
As an aside, I would like to join the voices in congratulating the OCA in their election of their new primate - and of course, the primate himself: His Beatitude, the Most Blessed Jonah, Archbishop of Washington and New York, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. Many Years, Master!

The Lack of Need for Universal Jurisdiction, as found in the Orthodox Church

2008-11-18T15:00:00.001+10:00

I'm often asked what the major differences are between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There's a number that I can think of, the most prominent being the papacy, the filioque and what happened at The Fall.

These can seem like obscure theological points, invented by ivory tower theologians who needed their theology to be more complicated than their beards (or tonsure, depending on which side of the divide you're on).
But, there's a reason that these theologians (who were, contrary to popular belief, living in the real world) made such a big deal about these issues. So - why are these issues important?
In this post, I'm going to tackle the thorny issue of the Papacy, and why it's unacceptable (in its present state, at least) for Orthodox Christians.

It would be impossible to go into all of the details of the debate - there has been, on and off, church-splitting debate about this since the 800s. About mostly the same issues, too. This post will require some background in Church history...

The papacy, under one name or another, has existed since St Peter moved to Rome from Antioch to found a church there. He ordained (from memory) St Linus, and the line of bishops has continued ever since. Originally, this was the office of the first bishop of Rome, which later became the Papacy (coming from 'Papa', a word meaning 'father'). Over time, as the Church developed, the Bishop of Rome became the Patriarch of the West, effectively being the supreme bishop for western Europe. Around the 800s, the claims of the Bishop of Rome to universal jurisdiction were tested, and this seems to be the first time in documented Church history that the East knew of a solid claim to jurisdiction by Rome over the East, where it was rejected by the four Eastern Patriarchates and renounced later in the reunion council of 879-880.
I've written an essay on this topic previously: Causes of the East-West Schism.
The papacy, as it stands today, claims a worldwide jurisdiction and (some measure of, in the right circumstances, etc, etc) infallibility.

So what effect would a papacy have on the life of an Orthodox Christian? It may seem like, not a lot. But it does.
One of the beauties of the Orthodox Church is our complete lack of concern about the theological disputes that have been ripping apart most denominations. We are not unconcerned because they are unimportant - we are unconcerned because such things have either already been decided or because they are obviously outside the Church.

To have the ability to change, you must presume that there is the need (or, at least, the potential need) to effect considerable change. And Orthodoxy has no real need for this change. At a really fundamental level, humans don't change that much - we still have the same sins, the same problems, the same desire to return to our Creator, it's just that now we are greedy for newer technology (and such).

Even getting past the possible abuses of infallibility (that, while possibly legitimate, have been addressed by others), we find no support in Holy Tradition for a universal head. We have a universal head already - God is the head of the Church, and we are the body. God has not left us, so we have no need for any kind of substitute.

A papacy in the Orthodox Church would either create change, or it would create the potential for change. Once you allow for this, you allow for the possibility - perhaps even probability - for error. This is not something that is conscionable for the Orthodox Christian, who is charged to pass on the deposit of faith unaltered. Different applications for different time periods, obviously, but the same saving faith that Jesus gave to His apostles.

For further reading, I recommend Kh. Frederica Matthewes-Green's article, Orthodox Controversies, which can be found on the Antiochian.org website.

Creativity as an Act of Theosis (Divinisation)

2008-11-14T15:00:00.000+10:00

I've talked a lot about a fundamental defining point of Orthodox theology being the concept of 'theosis' (sometimes 'divinisation', the process of becoming divine) - the potential of man being able to participate in God. It's most famously summed up by St Athanasios of Alexandria, saying that 'God became man so that man might become deified', becoming by grace what He is by nature.

It's a beautiful sentiment, and it's one that tells us that we can experience God - to some extent, at least - right now, in this life.
But if a sentiment is all that theosis is, then it's not very much.

Theosis is about partaking "in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). For us to undergo theosis, then, it is essential that we are able to have some understanding of what the divine nature is and what actions spring from that.

Church history is very clear - describing God in any kind of positive way is very difficult, for the basic reason that our words aren't sufficient. God is good, for example, but beyond the way we understand 'good' - perhaps He is 'metagood', which would be accurate, but wholly without definition. For most aspects, we had to develop what is known as 'apophatic theology' - that is, using words that say what God is not - such as, God is not evil.

However, the Fathers knew one word that could be used to describe God, and it is found in Scripture: God is love (1 John 4:8). When we love in the way that God does, we are acting in a very Godly manner.

The first thing that God did was to create. He created a place and placed animals there, and then created humans in the image of God, for them to grow into the likeness of God.
There are a number of other things that God did through history, of course. But the first thing that God did (in recorded history, at least) was to create.

Humans, also, are able to create. When Adam and Even were expelled from the Garden of Eden, they had to create clothes and nurture plants.

At some level, when we humans create, we are engaged in an act of theosis. This is why we can look at some paintings or listen to some pieces of music and call them 'profound' or 'mystical', saying that they touched us.

It doesn't happen all the time. But we rejoice when it does, and when we do, let us remember that this is a gift from the God who loves us and wants us to be with Him - so that we may become by nature what He is by grace.

Living the Faith: Ethics as a means

2008-11-11T15:00:00.000+10:00

In most people of faith, there is a great tension between faith as concept and faith as action.

It's very easy to see God as the cosmic Judge, or even as a divine Ethicist - where good things done get rewarded and bad things done get punished, and the person with more good than bad goes into heaven. Or something along those lines. It's an idea that permeates most conceptions of God in Western societies (from my experience, at least).

That can cause a very different image of God from that formed in Orthodox theology - both in our concept of God, and also, our concept of the Last Judgement (which, probably due to language shifts, is now actually a bad translation of the original Greek - the original is closer to 'crisis').

We have a view of God as the One who loves humanity. Jesus didn't come from heaven to spare us from the wrath of a vengeful God the Father, who only cared about balancing the sin of Adam with the death of Jesus. Jesus came to bring us to God the Father - Who, like a father actually would, welcomes His children home, back to their spiritual fatherland.

Most fathers, in welcoming their long-lost children back home, don't care about what they did. They care that they returned, and love them unconditionally. If children were forced to return home, they have a choice - they may be grateful for the love of their father...or they may resent their father.
Our Father, in welcoming His long-lost children back home, doesn't care about what they did. He cares that we have returned, and loves us unconditionally. Because His children are forced to return (due to death), they have a choice, and may be grateful for the love of their Father, or may resent their Father.

This means more than just that our conceptual God changes, of course.
It also changes the manner that we do things in our lives.

The purpose of the Christian life has often been boiled down to rules and regulations. That's not what it's about - the life in Christ is more than an ethical system. It's about Life, it's about a relationship, it's about love.
The rules are a means to get to God. The rules are about saying 'these things are bad for you'. The rules are there to make sure that we don't hurt ourselves. The rules are not the point - loving God is the point, and the rules are designed to bring us to Him.

Our high standard of ethics and the quality of our actions won't, in and of themselves, bring us to God. Rather, the love of God will bring us to a high standard of ethics and quality of actions, and will transfigure our lives.

The Pursuit of Contemplation

2008-11-07T15:00:00.001+10:00

In a popular TV show, one episode has a character saying that the Founding Fathers of the USA fought for the pursuit of happiness, not the sit-around-and-wait-for-it of happiness.

It's an interesting idea. For Orthodox - particularly those who haven't seen the episode I'm referring to - it may bring up the debate about how much we should be in the world, but not of the world, about how much should we be contemplative rather than socially minded, that kind of thing.

All of our answers change, however, based on how we look at contemplation.

In what is sometimes known as 'Western Christianity' - that is, Catholicism and Protestantism - there is a great debate about faith against works. Are we justified by faith alone, are we justified by works, are we justified by faith confirmed by works...I'm sure that there's more definitions out there.

The Orthodox never had the same problems. Aside from all the political problems, there was an overriding theological consideration. There is no duality between the mind and the body, and we don't have a God that is up above us. Faith is a work, and above all, God came down to us.

There is a great oneness to the universe that you find in Orthodox theology.

So, back to the original point: why aren't monastics in the Orthodox tradition involved in social care in the same way as, say, monastics in the Catholic tradition? Even with the stereotypical view of monastics, in a sense, they still are: contemplation, thought and prayer are all actions, and they are actions with the point of spiritually healing the world. They point to the transfiguration of humanity (what we call theosis) and a foretaste of heaven, not just after death, but here and now.
(This is, of course, ignoring the fact that monasteries have served as a place of retreat and healing for laity since St Basil's time, around the fifth century)

Doing nothing is very rarely possible for the vast majority of people. What we call 'doing nothing' is often good time gone to waste or, at least, underused. We should know what we are trying to do, and then set about doing the things that will lead us there. That will mean a time for action, and that will mean a time for no action, of recollection. But if we want something, we have to focus on that something - or be satisfied with not getting it.

Couple of Articles

2008-11-04T15:00:00.002+10:00

A couple of articles that I thought were worthy of notice...

ROCOR urges the elderly not to scare youth away from Church, September 30, 2008.
To summarise: Fr Yaroslav tells old women that they shouldn't be reproaching children in Church, pointing out that they didn't do a good enough job with their own absent grandchildren to berate those who actually have come to church. He is happy to see children playing in church because it means that the church has a future.

I've personally experienced something like this (slightly different, but similar), and it's really sad to see it happen to others - I've been told of families who have stopped coming to church because of the ignorant.

The Church believes Goths are open to religious talks, October 24, 2008
To summarise: Goths have been identified as a sub-cultural people very interested in fundamental parts of spirituality.

Finally, Goths have been identified as people who want God, in a particularly urgent way. I'm glad that it's finally been acknowledged by people in the know. Of course, this is only in a localised area, but still.

Renowned missionary compared opponents of the sermon among rockers to Pharisees, October 31, 2008
To summarise: Fr Sergy basically tells people who are against evangelisation to countercultural youth that they are like the Pharisees and have missed the point of what Jesus was doing.

I'm very happy to see this gradual acceptance of people from non-standard backgrounds who are being accepted into the Church by key figures. I have some friends that love God, and I think that they would enjoy and resonate with the Church were it not for some very non-Christian attitudes that are unfortunately widespread in a number of communities. For those who fit that description, remember - consider how much they need church, and that its your job to be the Church, too.

Header Graphic and Renaming

2008-10-28T10:00:00.000+10:00

I've recently changed the look of this blog somewhat. Usually, I'll do this and just expect everyone to immediately understand what I've done and why, and be almost surprised when that's just not the case.
If you're not viewing this on my blog, go to smithakd.blogspot.com and you'll be able to see what I'm referring to.

So, from the bottom up...

Some time back, I put up a picture of myself on the left. Yes, that really is me - and in the uncommon state of wearing formal clothes! It was taken by a friend from high school at the wedding of a good friend of mine a bit over a year ago.

I have put in the Google Ads thing. I know, ads suck, but it'd be kinda cool if people could click on them once or twice...
I also put in some other applications down the sidebar, including a subscription box, a counter and a thing called 'Scoutle' that's basically a barely-disguised plea for people to look at my blog :) but they're rather peripheral to the point of this post, which is...

The header.
There's six images in the header. There's a priest teaching out of a book (trust me, I've seen the full picture), an instructional symbol out of Byzantine Chant, a piece of jewellery, a piece of art about Plato and Aristotle, an Orthodox cross and a university graduate.

The priest reading from a book, I'm figuring, will be fairly self-explanatory: this blog aims to be a place where theological matters are discussed.

The instructional symbol out of Byzantine Chant: in Eastern Orthodox liturgics, one finds a striking 'lex orandi, lex credendi' (we pray as we believe) principle: when the Octoechos or Parakletiki (hymns in Matins and Vespers) was being written by St John of Damascus, he basically took theological works and put them to music. Hence, our theology is in our hymnology. This is precisely why I feel that it's a crying shame that, in certain parts of the world, it can be so difficult to find worship in the language of the people - we wouldn't need so much of a basic catechism for lifelong believers if we could simply pray - with understanding - the services that the Church has provided us.

The next image is the piece of gold jewellery: this is a heart with a hole in it. It represents my belief that there is a God-shaped hole in every human heart - it's my basic philosophy for working with people, particularly those of other religious or nonreligious backgrounds. That is, I don't feel the need to shove God down anyone's throat, so to speak, because I believe that everyone needs God, and simply by being human they will come around voluntarily ask - it's not my job to be preachy, it's my job to be available when someone asks.

Plato and Aristotle: This image is a depiction of arguably two of the greatest philosophers in the world, and their fundamentally different notions of philosophy - Plato saw the world and looked for the greater truth; Aristotle saw the world and looked for how to live within it. Because I did a Philosophy and Ethics degree, I see this dynamic all the time, and attempt - at different times - to work with them both.

We'll address the cross in a moment

The final image is that of a university graduate. This, next to an image of two great philosophers, is meant to show that this is a blog of some intellectual rigour. I've seen blogs about religion that end up being mere opinions. There may be a place for that, but that's not the intent of this blog.
With the cross in between the two, I'm intending that the cross will be an illumination to studious activity.

I've also renamed the blog itself. It formerly had my name, but on reflection, I didn't think that this was terribly wise, for the simple reason that I shouldn't be the focus of a blog designed for public consumption. Rather, it's now called 'Dare to Believe'. Obviously, this is marking the blog as being a religious blog (which, at a basic level, it is), and further, that believing is actually a fairly difficult thing to do. If Christianity is not difficult at some level, it's not being done right, because Christianity will inevitably involve sacrifice at some level. It's hard, but it's worth every bit of it.

Self-Awareness, Ethics and Politics in Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

2008-10-24T15:00:00.000+10:00

This is a speech that I delivered to my Toastmasters club. I was thinking of ideas for speeches, and couldn't think of a speech that I could write that people in general - and Toastmasters are from a wide range of backgrounds - would be interested in hearing. Then I remembered that philosophy can be fun, once it's comprehensible.
So, those philosophy majors out there - this is supposed to be both fairly basic (considering time and audience) and a speech (so it's not like the audience can reread a point they didn't understand).

-------

Ancient Greek Philosophy:
Self-Awareness, Ethics and Politics in Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

by Mr A.K.D. Smith, B.A.
CC Manual IV: How to Say It (5-7mins)
SouthBank Toastmasters: District 69, Club 1989
Presented: 22nd October 2008.

Greek Philosophy is the pillar upon which Western philosophy may rest. Transferred to medieval Europe via Muslim incursions into Spain, works of those such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were then able to shape Western ideas to the present day. It has even been said that ‘Western philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Plato’.

There are a number of Greek philosophical schools, and even more philosophers – from stoicism to Epicureanism – but I’d like to address only the big three philosophers: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, and yet none were duplicates of the former – of course, in philosophy, to logically disagree with your teacher makes you a good student.

Socrates is a difficult character in history to evaluate. He didn’t write anything down, and the only things written about him are written by one of his followers – for the most part, Plato. From what we can reconstruct of Socrates, though, he was fairly ugly, had three children and was rather ambivalent towards marriage. “As to celibacy or marriage,” Socrates is quoted, “let a man take the course he will. He will be sure to repent”.

Socrates’ major gift to philosophy is the idea of the Socratic method, where Socrates would teach students by asking them questions that they obviously hadn’t thought of. Often, this would lead to the inevitable contradictions in a person’s held stance, involving a refining of a person’s belief.

His second gift to philosophy came through the Oracle at Delphi saying that he was the wisest person alive. Socrates doubted this, claiming that he had no wisdom, and challenged all of the notable men in Athens until he realised what the Oracle was saying: others, by believing that they were wise, demonstrated their own lack of wisdom; while Socrates, by believing that he was not wise, demonstrated his self-awareness.

Socrates’ third gift to philosophy was his death. Voluntarily dying at the hands of an ungrateful city, Socrates showed his belief that truth and the pursuit thereof was superior, even to death, thereby inspiring philosophers for centuries to come.

Which brings us to Plato. Socrates’ most celebrated student, Plato gave us ideas on metaphysics and political philosophy. Plato’s metaphysics is all about the idea that things are not entirely as they seem, and speaks contemptuously of those who believe that for something to be real it must also be tangible. This was given to us in the allegory of the cave – where a person looks at shadows and believes that what is seen is the entirety of reality, but is missing the truth – that what that person sees is merely the shadows of real things. To see these real things, the person must make an arduous journey out of the cave, which comes at a cost – it’s a difficult journey, and renders one unintelligible to those who have not made the journey themselves.

The other contribution by Plato was in the realm of political philosophy. Plato held that most people were incapable of governing – partly because they were still inside that cave – and that democracy was not a proper way of solving this problem. Rather, Plato held that a monarchy, held by philosophers, was the proper way to govern.

It looks fairly self-serving – a philosopher saying that only philosophers are fit to govern. However, it’s not so self-serving when one considers that Plato could have chosen to philosophise because of his high esteem for it, rather than philosophise and derive power from it.

Plato’s main opponent was his student, Aristotle. Aristotle also wrote on political philosophy, though more on what one should do when in power than on who should be in power. His major opposition to Plato was in ideology, though – while Plato metaphorically looked up for true reality, claiming that reality was bigger than what we could perceive, Aristotle looked metaphorically down, claiming that reality could only be perceived through that which could be seen. Aristotle gave us the Nicomachean Ethics, his book to his son, Nicomachus, about ethical actions, encouraging the reader to follow the Golden Mean – for example, to follow the virtue of bravery in between the vices of cowardice and foolhardiness, and from this, developing the idea of Virtue Ethics. He also gave us the book Politics, in which he claims that humans are, by their very nature, political beings – that is, they interact with others – and gives his views on the ideals of politics.

The development of Greek Philosophy as we know it ended with the ideological rise of Christianity and its establishment over the Roman Empire, the watershed moment being the closure of Plato’s Academy around 529CE. Yet, this was not the end of philosophy, nor was it the end of the influence of Greek philosophy: many of the views of Aristotle and Plato were incorporated into Christian ideology, giving us concepts - such as Natural Law - which are still being utilised to answer ethical dilemmas to this day; and both of these philosophers are bedrocks in thinking about philosophy and about politics to this day.

Your surroundings become you

2008-10-17T15:00:00.002+10:00

There's a fairly popular axiom that spans cultures, but it can be basically explained as 'show me what you surround yourself with, and I'll show you who you are'.

For better or for worse, that's so perpetually true.

That doesn't mean that we can judge books by their covers, of course, because what a person surrounds themselves with is often not apparent at first glance. To gauge the full gamut of a person's surrounds, one has to look at...

To read the full article, continue to Your Surroundings Become You on the Living Theology blog.

Democratic Elections for the Orthodox Christian

2008-10-10T15:00:00.000+10:00

Without wanting to delve into too many cliches, it can be very difficult to vote for the most God-pleasing candidate in elections.

We can romaniticise the past, of course, and say that it was a lot easier under a despotism or a monarchy - we didn't have to choose the leader or the policies, we could just live our lives and agree or disagree with the politics or political system without any complicity in it whatsoever.

Those of us in the first world - the vast majority of those who have internet access - have a vastly different system of government that doesn't allow for this. We could debate the various virtues of single-person-ruler (e.g. monarchy or despotism), single-party-rule (e.g. communism) or multi-party-rule (e.g. democracy), of course, but that's largely academic for our purposes - we currently live in a representative democracy, and that's unlikely to change in the near future.

For those of us who are Orthodox, for the most part we've only had to deal with this in the last century, and for even less time has there been an active engagement with society. Living in democratic societies requires an engagement with its political process - to go left wing, to go right wing, even to abstain from voting, all of these are responses to the political process.

One issue that we, as Orthodox, must consider is the amount of freedom that we have. There are five things in particular that I can think of that fall into this category:

That we are able to freely say 'I am an Orthodox Christian';
That we are able to build dedicated places of worship;
That the Church does not have its theology dictated to it by the state (e.g. that the Church is not forced to perform marriages that are not canonically possible);
That the state cannot compel members of the Church to perform actions that are against the Church's teachings (e.g. this hypothetical, non-factual example); and,
That we are not legally forbidden to talk about our religion to other people.

Most of these are de rigueur for most countries in the first world (and the third world, for that matter), but it is obviously a box that needs ticking.

Another issue - one that is often a greater influence in elections - is the issue of life: the whole gamut from abortion to war to euthanasia. This becomes an extremely difficult area - it's one thing to say 'abortion is wrong, so abortion will be outlawed', but this can be internally contradictory - outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion, it simply makes it less safe. Outlawing abortions, I'm sure, will make them happen less often, but the focus should be on less people (born and unborn) dying.
Euthanasia runs along the same line - life is given for a reason. Once again, the purpose mustn't be outlawing euthanasia (although, again, that would probably reduce the numbers), but on ensuring that life runs its natural course - however, that doesn't mean that life should be carried on for it's own sake, only that it should run its full and natural course.
War is harder, though. If the goal is the perservation of a full, natural life, then it seems that we could simply take the numbers, add and substract and come up with the party that supports the most life. However, war is different because war, however evil, is - for states to survive - a necessary evil, on precisely the same grounds - without some kind of military, an idyllic, warless state will be invaded by a less idyllic, more warlike state, causing more people to die than previously.
Perhaps the cruelest part of this is that, particularly in American politics, the party against the latest war is also for legalised abortion and euthanasia, and vice versa, making it very difficult to make a decision. A solution to this is to do the numbers - how many people would die in war, abortion and euthanasia under each circumstance, measure the two up and see which is better. Sounds good in theory, but without experience in international relations and sociology, it's probably about as effective as tossing a coin.

In discussions about religious people choosing ethical leaders, it's often helpful to remember two things. Firstly, unless we're directly involved, there's not a lot that we need to concern ourselves about in politics - our Lord specifically tells us to render to our rulers the things that are theirs, and to God the things that are His. To some extent, we are involved - we are responsible for our vote, and then we pray for our civil authorities.
The second thing for us to remember is what a government is all about. It is not about forcing everyone to obey God's precepts without believing those precepts - it doesn't make sense. The government is fulfilling its role if people are able to believe and follow God's precepts. In a democracy, we have the nigh-unprecedented ability to directly ensure that the government allows this to occur.

Lord, have mercy - hear us, heal us, fulfil us

2008-10-03T15:00:00.002+10:00

As Orthodox Christians, we do a lot of praying. This is born out of our desire to talk to God - just like we would in any relationship. We also go to church - just like, in any relationship, we want to do things with the other person.

In our services, we are often praying 'Lord, have mercy'. It doesn't sound like what a person says to a close friend or to a partner (of any kind) - if anything, the opposite. Because of the connotations of the word 'mercy' and it's closeness to the meaning of 'pity', it sounds like we're the defendant in a court case where God is prosecutor, judge and jury.

But, to be honest, this idea is neither Orthodox nor Christian...

Continue reading at the Living Theology blog.

Youth Education Ministry - Success Definitions

2008-09-26T14:00:00.001+10:00

Youth ministry can be very, very tough.

Oh, I'm not talking about ministering to young people who are actually going to church on any kind of regular basis. That's fantastic.

And I'm not talking about organising a youth group with young people who are barely involved in the church. I assume that's hard, too, but I have no personal experience (and the two are probably linked).

My experience is mostly in an educational ministry - teaching opt-in religious education to Orthodox high school students (with explicit parental permission). By the way, just because they're in an Orthodox religious education class, doesn't mean that they're actually Orthodox - in actual belief or practice. In fact, in what is now about four years of teaching R.E., I've had, at most, ten students who were churchgoing on any regular basis (out of about 130).

So how do you measure success in that kind of context?

Well, it's really hard. I've struggled with it for years. The simple answer is that you really don't know how successful you're being - at best, God's doing the work, and the rest of the time, well, you're planting seeds, and that's not a short-term project.

To paraphrase a wise man, sometimes it feels like we're just trying to keep the rumour of God alive.

But there are some ways of measuring. Like, you walk down the street, and you see an old student who's happy to see you and you actually have a conversation.

That student may or may not remember a single thing that I taught them. But they remember that I taught them, and maybe one day, that'll translate into something bigger.

For now, that's gonna have to be enough.

Steward of Talents

2008-09-23T15:00:00.002+10:00

There's a lot of things that really should be cherished. A lot of things that we take for granted.

That's even harder when you're immersed in ecclesiastical life - it's very easy to make light of the worship of God, very easy to go to church services because of the people that are there.

A priest was addressing a youth group and spoke about this very problem...

Continue reading at the Living Theology blog.

Act Decisively, Act Courageously, Act Voluntarily

2008-09-05T15:00:00.004+10:00

This is actually not a theological work - it's been a while since I've posted something non-theological, I know - but rather a speech that I prepared to present at my Toastmasters club. It's basically a motivational speech - saying 'this song says get off your chair and do something, even if you're not sure it's going to work out, and especially if no one else can or will do it'. Plus, it's a cool song, and it happens to be the theme song of the OCF Campus Ministry Podcast on Ancient Faith Radio (so it did have some theological tie-in!).

-------

Burn Out Bright:

Because a River Can’t be Crossed with Two Jumps

by Mr A.K.D. Smith, B.A.
CC Manual III: Get to the Point (5-7mins)
SouthBank Toastmasters: District 69, Club 1989
Presented: 27th August 2008.

I take, tonight, as my inspiration the song ‘Burn Out Bright’, by Switchfoot, a song about taking profound and meaningful action. The song begins, first question if we ‘have to start with a broken heart’ and ‘broken dreams’, that the world was clearer with youth; then moving to how ‘young ambition… disappears’ even though you ‘swore it would never come to this / the avarice, the obvious’ and that you’re ‘still discontented down here’. The song moves to how ‘the future is a question mark / of kerosene and electric sparks’ and that ‘there’s still fire in you yet’ – leading directly to the chorus: ‘if you’ve only got one try / if you’ve only got one life / if time was never on our side / well before I die / I want to burn out bright’.

There are two central themes that I wanted to explore with you tonight: firstly, the necessity of making a beginning, regardless of challenges; and secondly, the possibility that we may be responsible for something because of a lack of viable alternative.

I’m certain that most of us have had that experience in our lives, where we’ve considered doing something. We’ve thought about doing something, we’ve wondered if we could do something, but we’ve decided that since we can’t do that something, we shouldn’t do anything. Maybe it wasn’t the right time, maybe we were too immature, or too old, maybe we’re not prepared, maybe the people around us aren’t ready. If we look at something hard enough, we will always be able to rationalise our way out of committing ourselves to action.

Burn Out Bright explicitly tells us that this is just not the way that we have to live. “If you’ve only got one life / if time was never on our side”, we have to “burn out bright”, we have to make a difference. Usually we find that the motivation for a beginning to occur is through “a broken heart”, “bleeding parts” and being greatly “discontented”, but external circumstances are precisely the wrong reason to make a beginning. Rather, we must understand that there will never be the perfect opportunity for us to begin a noble task – we live in an imperfect world, and any plan will have inherent flaws and unanticipated problems.

Does the possibility that we may never be able to perform a perfect execution of a plan mean that we shouldn’t bring projects to fruition? By no means! Rather, these ‘sparks igniting’ “in time and space” will limp “through this human race”, and that’s okay, because even the imperfections will lead to more opportunities to change and exthe plan. We must accept that if a good work will come to fruition, it must become part of a greater tapestry of life – whether through being spliced onto a Plan greater than humans or taking sociological currents into account or something as simple as the involvement of other people.

But, and leading into the second aspect of the song, it is so often that this bigger picture will need someone to start it. It’s true in the world of fashion that it takes one leader and many followers, and it’s just as true in real life action. There are issues that need fixing, and I’m sure that all of us can think of that major issue that is just not good enough, but that no one else is willing to fix. History is replete with the names of those giants who would see the inadequacy, or the hypocrisy, or the foolishness that was present in the society around them – whether this was in racism, with Martin Luther King Jr, or in universal suffrage with Susan B. Anthony, or the search for truth and wisdom with Socrates. People who have seen through the injustice, who have seen through the lies against our nature, who have seen the inhumanity of humanity, and have seen a new way to be human – or, rather, the only way to be human.

Perhaps we, too, are able to make a pan-societal shift like Luther King or B. Anthony, or perhaps our change is somewhat smaller in scope. Wherever we are, our witnessing the injustices makes us, at some level, responsible for ensuring that they do not take further root. If we see an injustice, we must accept the plausibility that, in lieu of the willingness of another, it is we who are to assume the mantle; it is possible that if no one else rises to the challenge, it is we who must arise and take up this task.

We have so much possibility in what we can do. We have such talents that our “future is a question mark”, filled with what we make it, fuelled by “kerosene and electric sparks”, finding that the “spark ignites” with the “fire in you”. When the kerosene of our gifts and abilities, combines with the electric sparks of our passion or calling, we can wonder, ‘what shall this fire create?’. We can wonder, but let this wonder be brief, and our action swift, decisive and comprehensive, because, [Mister/Madam] Toastmaster, it is for our actions that the brilliance of our humanity may be set to see, and in our actions that we are able to know our selves.

My theological essays (First Year, Semester Two)

2008-08-29T12:45:00.001+10:00

Following on from my previous posting of my essays in first semester theology, I'm posting some of my essays for the second semester. I'm not posting all of them this time - there are some that I'm either not as confident about or that I really didn't think were terribly edifying - but most of them will be up.

Having already done Fundamentals, Church History I and Liturgical Theology I, this semester was in Church History II and Scriptures I (on the Old Testament), as well as a directed project. This will be the final subject explicitly on Church History, but next semester I get onto Patristics, and I think there's two of those, so certainly not the end of the road for my learning about the Fathers! The other subject this semester was the first of three Directed Projects, which sets this program apart - part of the requirements for the program is actually applying one's new-found knowledge, particularly in an area one is good at and/or where the parish lacks. Some did Sunday School curricula, others did catechism courses, that kind of thing.

Aside from Patristics I, the other subjects for next semester are Liturgical Theology II (about the non-Liturgy Sacraments) and Scriptures II (about the Gospels, I think) - the exams come out around January, so they can be expected to be posted in February or so (due date pending).

Church History II: On the causes of the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christianity.
Church History II: On the Iconoclastic controversy in the Eighth Century in Constantinople.
Scriptures I: On the message expounded in the Book of Jonah.
Scriptures I: On the idea of the Old Testament Prophet, seen through the Book of Jeremiah.
Directed Project I: Design a parish website.

Relationships of the Old Testament Prophet

2008-07-25T14:14:00.000+10:00

This essay was about the Prophet Jeremiah - and through him, to paint a picture of the Old Testament prophet. This was one that I wasn't sure whether I should post online, but I (obviously) eventually decided in favour.

-------

Jesus, speaking of Himself, was saddened that a prophet was honoured, except by His own kinfolk¹. Centuries earlier, the Prophet Jeremiah embodied this very principle. The Prophet Jeremiah was God-chosen to deliver a message to the people of Jerusalem, and was vilified by them. With God’s help, however, his words came to pass, and his writing entered as a Book of the Old Testament, the first prophet to mark a new covenant between God and humanity.

1: Gospel of Mark, 6:4; in St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianty Speaks to Today's World (hence 'SAAS'), 1338.

This essay intends to use the Book of Jeremiah to discuss the relationship of the Old Testament prophet to God, to the message that God gives him, to his fellow man, and to himself. First, the relationship established between God and prophet is brought forward, with its definite sense of plan and purpose, and the definite sense of God’s protection for those who follow Him. Next, the impact of the message itself is examined, with its effects on the prophet, including the prophet’s ability to proclaim the message without official sanctions. After this, the relationship between the prophet and the community is developed, with the prevalent view of God or theology often challenged by the ones that God calls to deliver His message. Lastly, the relationship between prophets and themselves is gone into, with the varied responses of many prophets brought to the fore, including how this appears to be a rule not exclusive to the prophets.

Through the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, we can see a definite relationship between God and prophet as being akin to master and servant. Formed before his birth as a prophet², and constrained during his life to be a prophet³, God makes abundantly clear to Prophet Jeremiah that he has been chosen to be a prophet⁴, and that he shall speak the words that God places into his mouth⁵ – in essence, that he is the means by which God will communicate with Judah.

2: Book of Jeremiah, 1:5; SAAS, 1112.
3: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 133.
4: Book of Jeremiah, 1:5; SAAS, 1112.
5: Book of Jeremiah, 1:7; SAAS, 1112.

It is clear that the Prophet Jeremiah would have refused this, had he been given the choice⁶; however, he lacks even the opportunity to debate this with God, as the Prophet Amos did before him⁷. Rather, God tells the Prophet Jeremiah that He intends to speak through him, with the Prophet Jeremiah using the precise words that God gives to him⁸.

6: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 133.
7: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 134.
8: Book of Jeremiah, 1:9; SAAS, 1112.

In return for this, the Prophet Jeremiah is assured upfront of God’s protection⁹, thereby pre-empting any objections that the Prophet Jeremiah would be sure to have and to pose¹⁰. However, God offers His protection, not simply for the sake of offering protection, but because it is necessary – God commands the Prophet Jeremiah to tell of Judah and Jerusalem’s end, and it’s rebuilding¹¹, a message sure to be extremely unpopular.

9: Book of Jeremiah, 1:8; SAAS, 1112
10: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 133.
11: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 134.

In fact, God goes further in his interaction with the Prophet Jeremiah – He changes the new Jerusalem from being the city to being the Prophet himself¹². This gives a number of advantages – while the torah can be destroyed, the Prophet Jeremiah’s words, once uttered, can not be taken back¹³. The Prophet Jeremiah might be prohibited from entering the temple – indeed, later in life, he would be – but his words can still enter in the temple via Baruch, his disciple¹⁴.

12: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 135.
13: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 135.
14: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 135-136.

The message that God gives the Prophet Jeremiah to Judah is one that is not only uncomfortable¹⁵, but diametrically opposed to the official theology of the day¹⁶. This official deism – that is, God was basically absent from his creation – conveyed that so long as Judahites worshipped in the temple, they could have their own code of ethics, rather than the code that God gave to them¹⁷. However, the Prophet Jeremiah is very clear that this is not the case: God saw what His disobedient children did, and He was displeased by their actions, and this displeasure would destroy Jerusalem, just like it had destroyed Shiloh, an idolatrous city in the Northern Kingdom of Israel¹⁸. In response to what was perceived as blasphemous – the equation of the city of God with the city of idols – he was seen as a traitor¹⁹.

15: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 134.
16: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 137.
17: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 136.
18: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 136-137.
19: Tarazi, An Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 137.

The relationship of prophets with themselves was varied. The Prophet Jeremiah appears to have accepted his mission, even his lack of say within it. However, this was not universal among the prophets: Jonah ran from the word of the Lord²⁰, and various prophets wished for death for one reason or another²¹. These prophets found, like St Paul was to find, that “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”²²; however, God would consistently prove Himself to be faithful to those despairing prophets. What is clear, however, is that any role that requires a person to proclaim the current society to be dysfunctional and opposed to God²³ – that is, the message that God gave them to proclaim – would generally have a small amount of followers and a large proportion of society that would denounce that person – arguably a phenomenon that continues to this day.

20: Book of Jonah, 1:3; SAAS, 1021.
21: e.g. Elijah, in Third Book of Kingdoms, 19:4; SAAS, 415
22: Epistle to the Hebrews, 10:31; SAAS, 1666.
23: "The Prophets", in SAAS, 1113.

This essay has engaged with a number of areas. Firstly, the relationship between God and prophet was brought forward, and its similarity to ‘master and servant’ brought forward, and explained through the Book of Jeremiah. The protection necessary for prophets was also brought forward, with God providing His sanctuary for those who are persecuted for saying His words. The prophet’s relationship with the community – perhaps, even, the relationship between the community and the prophet’s message – was also brought to the fore, particularly in how prophets would contradict and dispute with popular theology of the day. Lastly, the prophet’s relationship with themselves was discussed, starting with the Prophet Jeremiah’s reaction of reluctant acceptance, then going into other prophets and, sometimes, their despair in the burden of their message.

The willingness of the prophets to accept and proclaim the message of God, even to despair and to martyrdom, is both a testimony to their love and faith, and a signpost of how Christians today can be strengthened by those who predated even Christ’s incarnation. We, too, must consider how our acceptance and attempted embodiment of Christ’s teachings impacts on our relationship with God, with others and with our self, so that we can show others how they may be able to embody Christ’s teachings.

List of References
St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World. United States of America: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Tarazi, Paul Nadim, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994.

Icons - Worth Fighting For since the Eighth Century

2008-07-15T11:59:00.000+10:00

This is an essay about Iconoclasm, and the key points in the rise and fall of iconoclasm in Constantinople in the eighth century. Nowadays, iconography is very closely tied to Orthodoxy itself - turns out, it was something that we had to fight for.

-------

On the first Sunday of Great Lent, the Orthodox Church celebrates the Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843, usually with a procession of icons, indicating a direct link between iconography and Orthodoxy. However, this was not always the case: in the eighth century, after centuries of Christological conflict and six ecumenical councils, the Church was called to decide whether iconographic images of Christ and the saints were forbidden under the second commandment, or whether they were the windows to heaven that we see them as today.

The purpose of this essay is to bring out the causes of development in eighth century Byzantine iconoclasm, and to do so, a historical approach will be used, starting with the 726 removal of the icon from the palace complex, and moving from there through other imperial edicts concerning icons and veneration and the imperial motivation for these laws. After this, his successors actions shall be brought to light, along with the increase in theological rigour used in the struggle between the Emperor and St John of Damascus, including new Christological arguments and the Council of Hieria. The transition from imperial iconoclasm in 775 will be looked at next, followed by St Irene being made regent in 780 and the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s decision to promote the veneration of icons and to accept repentant, nominally-iconoclast clergy back into the fold of the Church; lastly, a brief look at the repercussions of, and foretastes seen through, eighth century iconoclasm will be brought to light.

The first direct move of the eighth century iconoclastic movement was in 726 with Emperor Leo the Isaurian¹ ordering the removal of the icon of Jesus’ face from the Chalce entrance of the imperial palace complex, to replace it with a cross, and in 730, in what can be seen as a successive move, the Emperor banned the worship of religious images (and, one might construe, anything that looked like worship). The reasoning given behind these moves is an enduring reasoning: the second commandment prohibits graven images, the cult of icons and the concept of the worship of saints; and as a justification of his Chalce move, Jesus was able to be represented by the cross. In a viewpoint that bears striking resemblance to caesaropapism (an argument can be made for similarities with ultramontanism), Emperor Leo did not see his rule as being limited to the temporal realm, but saw himself as the Viceroy of Christ, devoted to the good conduct of his people in whatever sphere his people were in.

1: 'Isaurian' appears to be a synonym for 'North Syrian'; cf. Hussey.

The emperor’s iconoclastic laws were to have immediate and mid-ranging effects: more immediately, it caused the resignation of the Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople, who was an iconodule and could not accept these iconoclastic laws, which led to a supporter of Leo, Anastasius, to be his successor as Patriarch of Constantinople.

These laws continued to Emperor Leo’s repose, after which his son Constantine became emperor. Under Emperor Constantine V, the struggle was not only intensified, but it was theorised – in a defence against St John of Damascus, the Emperor was compelled to add a Christological argument to his defence of iconoclasm, and to call a synod of bishops, rather than merely stamping this with imperial authority. In terms of authority, regardless of the intent (or, indeed, the euphemistic ‘terms of reference’ given), calling a synod of bishops to make ecclesial beliefs and canons must be seen as a more positive action than the previous emperor’s.

The Synod of Hieria, 754, was somewhat unique in that there was no patriarch present until the last session: legates from the Eastern Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were in Muslim territory; legates from Rome were unavailable because the Pope was fleeing to Frankish territory; and the throne of Constantinople was vacant following Patriarch Anastasius’ repose. Nevertheless, 338 bishops were present, which can be said to be substantial; however, there is little reason to suspect that many of these were actually iconoclastic. The Synod of Hieria, acclaiming itself as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, formulated a number of arguments for iconoclasm, including that icons either circumscribed the uncircumscribable and confused the two natures of Christ, which was Monophysitism, or it divided the human nature of Christ from the divine, or Nestorianism. The true icon of Christ was the Eucharist, and the only true icons of saints are the re-enactment of their virtue. The Council did temper the imperial views on the Mother of God, saints and relics, and brought these beliefs in line with the six Ecumenical Councils that had taken place .

This period of iconoclasm lasted until 775, when Emperor Constantine V reposed. He was succeeded by Leo IV, who was far more moderate, and with these views being the imperial policy iconoclasm seems to have died down somewhat – it appears that the strength of iconoclasm was imperial edict rather than popular sentiment. Five years later, in 780, Leo IV reposes, and was succeeded by Constantine VI. However, being as Constantine VI was 10 years old – and thus, below the age or maturity required to govern in his own right – St Irene was made regent for him.

Soon after, in 784, Patriarch Paul IV of Constantinople, having urged a calling of a general council in a bid to reconcile Constantinople with the rest of Christianity, resigned his see and retired to a monastery (citing remorse over supporting iconoclasm). He was succeeded by St Tarasius, a layman who was ordained and elevated to Patriarch in a short space of time, who accepted this position on the condition that a general council would be convened to annul the Council of Hieria. St Tarasius sent a letter to Pope Hadrian I, giving the customary news of his election and profession of faith, along with an explanation for his rapid ascent from layperson to patriarch and an invitation to a general council. Pope Hadrian’s response was one critical of the quick elevation, but in support of the proposed council and the sending of two papal legates.

This general council was convened in Constantinople; while there was limited public support for iconoclasm, there is evidence for some within the army (who had obtained greater military success under Emperors Leo III and Constantine V), as evinced by the dispersion of this council by imperial guards, and among some of the bishops, evinced by St Tarasius forbidding iconoclast bishops having meetings together. Imperial orders transferred the imperial guards, while reliable guards were transferred in and the council was reconvened in Nicaea in 787. While presidency belong to Rome (whether Pope or legate) by right, the legates sent asked St Tarasius to open. The decision of the council was one in favour of icons and iconography, but it took a position of lenience in regard to those bishops and priests that had accepted iconoclasm – that is, those clergy that repented from their acceptance, and that had not actively persecuted iconophiles, were to be accepted back into the Church. Indeed, most penitents were received at this Council .

Throughout the iconoclast controversy, the reaction of the monastics was generally an iconodulic position, but this was not always the case. Many monasteries were iconodulic, but some were iconoclastic – this seemed to depend on their proximity to Constantinople. At the Council in Nicaea, there was support from the monastics for icons, but there was very little support for the leniency shown towards nominally-iconoclastic clergy .

The Council in Nicaea, which both history and the Church calls the Seventh Ecumenical Council, did not limit itself to good arguments for icons, but it did contain several, including Pope Hadrian’s letter in support and the clarification that icons were to be venerated but not to be worshipped. The proceedings were then sent to the Pope, and the Pope supported the Council (although whether he was asked to ratify the Council appears to have been lost in history). The papal legates, however, took back a faulty translation of the Council’s proceedings, so faulty that the Council could have been interpreted as supporting what it condemned, which caused Charlemagne to reject them, in council, and put forward a midpoint between the iconoclast and the iconodule positions, along with an attack on the place of Constantinople and its imperial authority. Pope Hadrian, however, rejected this midpoint, expressing to Charlemagne his support of icons.

The repercussions of the iconoclast dispute, and the events subsequent to the dispute, can be seen in a number of areas. The monastic ‘party’ grew in some strength around and after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as shown by the influence of St Theodore the Studite, and was opposed to ecclesiastical moderation (i.e. what we might term ‘economia’) or imperial intervention in ecclesiastical matters, in contrast to the powerful imperial authority utilised by Emperors Leo and Constantine. In addition, the rise of Charlemagne and the Franks would prove to pose a challenge to Byzantine supremacy in Christendom as a temporal power.

This essay moved through a variety of topics, starting from the replacement of an icon with a cross by Leo at the palace complex, foreshadowing imperial edicts against icons and veneration and Constantine’s persecution of iconodules. The Christological arguments on both sides were brought to the fore, including accusations of monophysitism and nestorianism against denying the Incarnation, with the Council of Hieria being the crowning point of iconoclasm and overturned, under St Irene’s rule, through the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787. Lastly, a look at things brought out by the controversy, including the rise of the monastic party (who preferred akriveia over economia).

The iconoclastic controversy indicates that temporal authority can be seen in the formulation of Church teaching. However, it can also be seen that it is the catholicity of the Church – both geographically and through various levels of clergy-laity – that ensures correct doctrine; and that, although this may take some time, eventually the correct, Orthodox teaching will be the one upheld by Christ’s Bride, the Church.

List of References
Hussey, Joan Mervyn, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
nb. Hussey's book was used as the primary reference for this essay - every paragraph should reference this invaluable tome.

OCCG Presentation on the Great Schism

2008-07-11T20:00:00.006+10:00

A week ago, I presented on The Great Schism - that is, the schism between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This was based on an essay that I had previously done, that I then cut down and somewhat rewrote to present to a group of approximately 10 other converts to Orthodox Christianity - I'll post the original essay in due time. Enjoy!

-------

Presentation: The Great Schism

Mr Andrew K. D. Smith, B.A.
Orthodox Christian Convert Group,
Presented: 5^th July, 2008.

Flashpoint 858: Abdication of St Ignatios, start of St Photios’ reign. Pope Nicholas responded, surprised that he had not been consulted in the changeover. Pope sent two legates to confirm/reject deposition.
o First direct claim to universal jurisdiction.
o Pope seen by East as primus inter pares, not with ability to intervene.

Flashpoint 863: Council held in Rome in 863 laicising St Photios and restoring St Ignatios, making clear Rome’s right to final judgement. Restoration probably done to get Bulgaria into Roman jurisdiction.
o Seemingly Unrelated Intensifier: Bulgarian Jurisdiction.

Constantinople refused Rome’s ideas on primacy. Attacked Bulgaria, gaining jurisdiction thereby. Rome’s letter in reply declared that only it could summon a council. Bulgaria was lost to Rome during transit of that letter, and in response, St Photios vigourously defended Byzantine disciplines and, having detected the filioque, declared it heretical (one principle in the Godhead).
o First appearance of Filioque (‘And the Son’, what the Holy Spirit proceeds from as well as the Father)

A number of Roman errors were identified, culminating in the anathematisation of Pope Nicholas (who reposed before knowing about this). St Photios was deposed (due to politics) and replaced with St Ignatios, who followed a similar line to St Photios in relations with the Pope, reconciling with St Photios. He reposed, with St Photios succeeding him.
o One of the first occurrences of the protagonists in both sides of a debate being considered saints.

Flashpoint c.878: St Photios sent a letter to Pope John VIII to take part in council to annul anti-Photian decrees. Pope offers to release him from penalties via universal headship and to recognise his patriarchate in exchange for an apology and jurisdiction over Bulgaria. St Photios rejects need for papal recognition and made clear that patriarchates chose their own patriarch.

Flashpoint 879-880: Fourth Council in Constantinople (aka Eighth Ecumenical Council), in presence of papal legates. Filioque banned (along with any other changes).
o Note that Patriarch refuses universal headship in spite of being the easiest method of solving a problem.

St Photios reposes in communion with Rome. Bulgaria is autocephalous. Over time, language and culture become even less shared.

After a heated exchange of letters, including censure of Roman practises in favour of Byzantine and claim of Rome as head and mother church, Cardinal Humbert leads legates to Constantinople. Received well by Emperor, boycotted by Patriarch.
o First time (of many) that Church and State are not united on East-West relations.

Non-event 1054: Humbert lays bull of excommunication on altar, excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cerularius; as a response, Cardinal Humbert is excommunicated by Patriarch Michael. These were personal excommunications, and there was no consciousness of a schism between Rome and the East – if the pentarchy was upheld, the filioque removed and leaven in Communion, there would be no problems, and even the last was held to be of a secondary importance.

There was no one event that could be pointed at and say, ‘the Great Schism happened at that point’, but we can say that it happened at or before the sacking of Constantinople, where the popular conception was that the crusaders (and, by extension, where they came from) couldn’t be Christians like the Easterners were.

There was an attempt at reunion at 1274 (2nd Council of Lyons), that was proclaimed and promoted by the Emperor, but failed; similarly in 1438-39 (Council of Florence). Both times, the emperor, the patriarchs and (in general) the bishops supported the union, with universal headship, but failed to gain support from secular clergy, monastics and laity.
o Perhaps papal headship meant that the pope didn’t realise that there were some areas that imperial authority couldn’t go.
o Emperors and bishops might submit, but that just didn’t matter when opposed by majority of secular clergy, monastics and laity.

Additional obstacles have arisen over the years, including the Immaculate Conception (which the Orthodox neither have nor need, due different beliefs about Original/Ancestral Sin), Papal infallibility, Purgatory.

• Characterisations of East-West relations, 1000-1450:
o Universal papal primacy (esp. appeals)
o Universal papal jurisdiction
o Filioque clause
o Minor differences between Roman and Byzantine practises
o After 1000, lack of symphony between emperor and EP
o After 1000, lack of shared linguistics or culture
o After 1200, emperor capitulating to Roman demands

Now, go to Nineveh...

2008-07-11T12:13:00.000+10:00

This essay is one about the Book of Jonah - from a four-chapter book, I try to figure out the main messages that we can learn from it. The Book of Jonah is one of my favourite Old Testament Books, because I know that I've certainly had my 'actually, I'd rather not go to Nineveh' moments, and it's encouraging to know that even if we run away, God will still use this running to form us.

-------

The Book of Jonah is a common biblical allusion in contemporary writing, mainly for the ability of one person to bring ‘bad luck’ onto a ship¹. However, even a cursory reading of the Book will show that the bad luck portion is not even a chapter of the story of Jonah’s travel to Nineveh, but it is one that elucidates greatly on the love of God for all people, the insistence of God’s call on a person’s life, and on the ability of people to, so to speak, change God’s mind.

1: cf. Master and Commander.

This essay will attempt to expand on the Book of Jonah, beginning with the call of God to Jonah to go to Nineveh and Jonah’s retreat from this, and then setting forth the effect of Jonah’s sacrifice on the crew of the boat. After this, the song of Jonah will be set forward, outlining the similarities between this ode and some of the psalms and Jonah’s own third-day deliverance from the whale, and God’s second call to Jonah to go to Nineveh. Following this, Jonah’s prophetic call to Nineveh shall be put forward and examined, with the response of the Ninevites and the effect that this had on God. Finally, Jonah’s response to these events will be put forward with comparisons to other events in Scripture, leading to a more comprehensive view of what the Book of Jonah is attempting to portray.

In the first chapter of the Book of Jonah, we find the “word of the Lord” coming to Jonah, telling him to go to Nineveh, a wicked city, and preach there². Being part of his culture, which disdained foreigners and saw Nineveh as enemy³, he fled from the “presence of the Lord”⁴ rather than accept the mission. This retreat from God, reminiscent of Adam and Eve’s response to God after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge⁵, is done by sea, attempting to go to Tarshish, away from “the presence of the Lord”⁶ – indicating a belief that the presence of the Lord was only to be found in Israel or Judah. In reality, God is more universal than that, as Jonah was to discover⁷.

2: Book of Jonah, 1:1-2, in the St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology translation of the Septuagint (henceforth 'SAAS')
3: Tarazi, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 193
4: Book of Jonah, 1:3; SAAS, p1021
5: Book of Genesis, 3:8; SAAS, p8
6: Book of Jonah, 1:3; SAAS, p1021
7: Tarazi, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 194

En route to Tarshish, the ship that Jonah was travelling in was caught in a great storm, raised up by God, threatening the structural integrity of the ship⁸, which made the shipmen afraid and they responded by praying to their deities and by throwing superfluous cargo overboard⁹. Jonah was asleep at this time, and he was woken and asked to pray, like the other shipmen, to the deity that he worshipped¹⁰. The shipmen’s actions indicate a belief that other ancient religions were not exclusive – while those in contemporary society are used to a Judeo-Christian concept of an exclusive truth, where one religion may claim absolute and full correctness, general society at the time held to a multiplicity of deities, depending on location, and the ship’s captain is, doubtless, acting out of this belief and hoping that the Hebrew deity might be the one to protect the ship, since none of the other deities have worked.

8: Book of Jonah, 1:4; in SAAS, p1021
9: Book of Jonah, 1:5; in SAAS, p1021
10: Book of Jonah, 1:5; in SAAS, p1021

The shipmen drew lots in a bid to find the reason for the storm, under a belief that luck or chance would be divinely guided, and the lots fell on Jonah; on being asked who he was, he responded that he was a servant of the Lord, i.e. God, who is worshipped by the Hebrews¹¹. This is another affirmation that there is one God, rather than the multiplicity that the other inhabitants of the ship worshipped. Jonah offered to have himself thrown from the ship as a sacrifice to save the ship, and after struggling for a short while against the elements, the shipmen prayed to the Lord and accepted his offer¹². After this sacrifice, the sea was calm, and the shipmen sacrificed to the Lord and vowed vows and feared the Lord¹³ – we can say with some confidence that the shipmen, by a combination of a demonstration of God’s power and the witness of Jonah, were converted to worship the Lord God¹⁴.

11: Book of Jonah, 1:7-9; SAAS, p1021
12: Book of Jonah, 1:13-15; SAAS, p1021
13: Book of Jonah, 1:15-16; SAAS, p1021
14: Footnote in SAAS, p1021, for Book of Jonah, 1:14-16

After Jonah was thrown overboard, he was swallowed by some kind of creature of the sea and stayed within this creature for three days and nights¹⁵, where Jonah prayed to “his God”, praying what would later become the sixth ode in the Matins service, and the basis for the Hiermos for the sixth ode of canons. His prayer speaks of hope in his affliction, of God being always present to assist those who call on Him, and of Jonah’s yearning to return to God¹⁶. After three days, the sea creature cast up Jonah on land¹⁷. We can see no shortage of similarity between Jonah’s sojourn in the sea creature and Christ’s sojourn in hades¹⁸: Jonah plunged into the depths of the sea, a certain death via drowning, was contained within in a creature that, through divine intervention, was not able to hold him; in the same way, Christ was crucified, also certain death, and was contained within a place that was not able to hold him.

15: Book of Jonah, 2:1; in SAAS, 1021
16: Book of Jonah, 2:3-10; in SAAS, 1022
17: Book of Jonah, 2:11; in SAAS, 1022
18: Gospel of Matthew, 12:39-41; Gospel of Matthew, 16:4; Gospel of Luke, 11:29-30; in SAAS, p1290, p1299 and p1389, respectively.

Jonah may have rejected God’s direction previously, but after his delivery on land and God’s second presence, telling him to “go to Nineveh…and preach there according to the message I previously spoke to you”, Jonah did precisely as he was told¹⁹, preaching that in “three days…Nineveh shall be overthrown”²⁰. In response to this, the Ninevites began a total fast, putting on sackcloth as a sign of mourning; this immense response began with the people, and when the king heard of it, he put on sackcloth and exchanged his throne for ashes, making a general proclamation that neither humans nor animals shall eat or drink, but shall put on sackcloth and devote themselves to prayer, turning away from their wrongdoing²¹. In doing this, they hoped to avert God’s righteous judgement²² – that is, they hoped that God’s mercy would allow Him to change His mind. They were proved to be vindicated in their hope as God, indeed, “had a change of heart” and did not destroy the city²³. Looking back on this, we can see in this a precedent for the Orthodox belief in the ability of prayers or intercessions to alter God’s decision – in the same way that the Ninevites were able, en masse, to ask and supplicate for God not to destroy the city, we are able to ask, and to ask other to ask, for a different route or direction for ourselves and for those around us.

19: Book of Jonah, 3:1-3; SAAS, 1022
20: Book of Jonah, 3:4; SAAS, 1022
21: Book of Jonah, 3:5-8; SAAS, 1022
22: Book of Jonah, 3:9; SAAS, 1022
23: Book of Jonah, 3:10; SAAS, 1022-1023

In a twist sounding rather similar to the Prodigal Son’s older brother²⁴, Jonah was greatly grieved by God’s change of heart, complaining that he knew that this was what God was going to do in the beginning, and questioned why it was really necessary for he, a Jew, to go to Nineveh, capital of Assyria, to preach if God was going to forgive them anyway, and in what appears to be a fit of nationalistic pride, asked for God to take away his life²⁵. God’s response, which was one of rebuke and indignation²⁶, led Jonah to set up a tent and observe Nineveh²⁷. God made a climbing plant grow, causing Jonah great joy, but the next day a worm was commanded to eat it and a burning wind commanded to spring up on a hot day, and Jonah again wished for death²⁸.

24: Gospel of St Luke, 15:25-32; SAAS, 1398
25: Book of Jonah, 4:1-3; SAAS, 1023
26: Footnote in SAAS, p1023, for Jonah 4:4
27: Book of Jonah, 4:4-5; SAAS, 1023
28: Book of Jonah, 4:6-8; SAAS, 1023

God then speaks to Jonah again, asking if he was grieved because of the plant, to which Jonah responded in the affirmative, “even unto death”²⁹. God then uses this as the time that He would explain what was actually a parable: Jonah experienced grief for the plant, even though it lasted for a single day and in which he didn’t have any emotional involvement whatsoever³⁰; based on this, a God “abundant in mercy”³¹ should have much more grief over, and pity for, a city of over 120,000 people, all ignorant of God and without the benefits and personal experience that go with being the chosen of God, together with their livestock³², expressing once again that God is far larger than merely Israel or Judah, but is the God of all people³³. This particular passage is also unique in the Old Testament Prophets, in that the prophet, in his dejection over Nineveh’s reprieve, is chastised rather than the one (or ones) to whom the prophet is sent, in this case an entire city of people, clearly indicating that God desires repentance for sin above all else³⁴ and that the appropriate offering is “a broken spirit, a broken and humbled heart…a sacrifice of righteousness”³⁵ rather than ritual solely for the sake of such. The Book ends, rather abruptly, with God’s admonition of concern for those outside the Chosen Race, which leads the reader to agree with Tarazi’s perspective, that “The book of Jonah represents one example of this [inclusivistic] tendency to interpret Yahweh’s universality in an inclusivistic light”³⁶.

29: Book of Jonah, 4:9; SAAS, 1023
30: Book of Jonah, 4:10; SAAS, 1023
31: Book of Jonah, 4:2; SAAS, 1023
32: Book of Jonah, 4:11; SAAS, 1023
33: Tarazi, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 194
34: Tarazi, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 194; cf. Book of Psalms, 50:21
35: Book of Psalms, Psalm 50 (51):19,21; SAAS, p716
36: Tarazi, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions, 193

In this essay, multiple facets have been brought to light, beginning with God’s call to Jonah, telling him to go to Nineveh, and his nationalistic reaction to going to Assyria. Next was talked about Jonah’s failed retreat, about the universality of God and about how Jonah, through his belated confidence in God and his obedience, was able to calm the seas and convert his shipmates from a pluralistic view of religion to a belief in God the Lord. After this, Jonah’s time in the sea creature was examined, with similes found between this and Christ’s time in hades between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. God’s second call and Jonah’s acceptance of this was then brought forward, including the preaching at Nineveh, the immediate repentance of its inhabitants and the precedent for prayer making for a change of heart. Next, Jonah’s reaction to Nineveh’s survival was brought to the fore, with an allusion to the brother of the Prodigal Son, and God’s education of Jonah through a parable based on a one-day vine. It was shown that the Book of Jonah ending on God’s concern, love and emotional attachment to the gentiles emphasises this point, a point that is made stronger after the time of Christ, who was incarnated and rose from the dead for us.

The Book of Jonah provides us with an example of how the Old Testament is best understood in light of the New Testament, and gives us to see how, at some level, humans stay rather the same. It is also a book that gives us hope that even the most unlikely of people may, throwing to the side all forms of lesser pleasures, turn to God, their Creator.

List of References
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Directed by Peter Weir. United States of America: 20th Century Fox, 2003. DVD.
St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World. United States of America: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Tarazi, Paul Nadim, The Old Testament Introduction: Prophetic Traditions. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994.

My theological essays (First Year, Semester One)

2008-07-03T16:00:00.002+10:00

I've taken to posting some of my essays for the first semester of my theological studies. So far, I've finished the Fundamentals subject, plus the first subjects in Church History and Liturgical Theology. Both have been a lot of fun to read, a little less fun to write (lets be honest!), but with some very valuable information that I've learnt as a result of researching - hopefully, that's translated into the essays themselves.

Liturgical Theology I: On the interrelatedness of Baptism and Communion.
Church History I: On the influence of Judaism on the New Testament.
Liturgical Theology I: On the interpretations and development of the Great Entrance.
Church History I: Monasticism in St Anthony's Egypt, the Stylites' Syria, St Basil's Asia Minor, St John Cassian's France and St Columbanus' Ireland.
Fundamentals of Orthodoxy: Confession: The Orthodox Teaching on Humanity's Return to God.
Fundamentals of Orthodoxy: Communers of the Divine Nature - Why and How.
Church History I: Alexandrene and Antiochene Schools of Theology.
These have been taken offline temporarily.

Causes of the East-West Schism

2008-06-27T09:00:00.000+10:00

This was the first essay that I wrote for the second semester of my theological program - the second subject on Church history or, more specifically, Byzantine Church history between 600-1453. This one is about the East-West Schism (aka the Great Schism), particularly about what caused it, and was the basis for a presentation given to the Orthodox Christian Convert Group.

-------

There are a number of dialogues between the Orthodox and external bodies, but few are so long-standing and of such great effect on the Church as that between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. Formerly the Eastern and Western parts of the Christian Church, it is commonly marked in history that a split occurred in July, 1054; however, the basis for the divide went further back and, even to this day, the date of the final divide cannot be definitively stated.

This essay will aim to bring forward the chief element in the Great Schism through an abridged retelling of history. Starting at the abdication of St Ignatios and the first term of office of St Photios, the dialogue between Pope and Patriarch will be brought to light with the ramifications of what this meant for the relationship between the two churches. St Photios’ defences of the conciliar tradition, Byzantine practises and attack on the filioque clause will be brought to the fore, concluding with a discussion of the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. After this, the fateful encounter in the eleventh century will be brought to the fore, where once again the same issues bring a divide between the churches, with the mutual antagonism between Patriarch and papal legate being discussed and drawing out who was actually excommunicated in the papal bull. Finally, the essay will conclude by touching on the 1204 sacking of Constantinople, the reunion councils in Lyons II and Florence, with a focus on the expanse that is involved in conciliarity – including the bishops, clergy and laity.

In 858, St Ignatios, Patriarch of Constantinople, was euphemistically asked to tender his resignation, which he gave conditionally; following this, the head of the imperial chancery, St Photios the Great, was elected, tonsured, ordained, consecrated and, finally, enthroned as the Patriarch of Constantinople by Christmas Day, 858. The Ignatians believed that St Photios was there conditionally on following the Ignatian line, and when he did not, protests were made that culminated in a meeting where St Photios was declared deposed and St Ignatios restored as Patriarch¹. St Photios responded in much the same way, and sent the customary letters, including the announcement of his enthronement and his profession of faith, to Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These letters mentioned that St Ignatios had left office, and St Photios replaced him with a degree of duty.²

1: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 72.
2: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 73.

It is in the responses that we find the contrasting viewpoints on the prerogatives of the see of Rome. Where St Photios had been following procedure, informing the respective patriarchates, Pope Nicholas sent a reply back expressing surprise that he had not been consulted in the changeover, with the declaration of sending two legates to, after enquiry, report back to the Pope and he would, then, confirm or reject the deposition and St Photios’ rapid ascendancy through ecclesiastical positions³. This showcases the first element in the Great Schism, the primacy and authority of the pope. Up to this time, Rome was seen as the primus inter pares, the first among equals, by the Eastern Patriarchates; however, this marked a change in how the Western Patriarchate interacted with the Eastern counterparts, now claiming the authority to intervene in the affairs of another patriarchate⁴.

3: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 73.
4: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 74.

After some acrimonious exchange of letters, a council was held in Rome in 863, declaring the papal legates to have overextended their authority, laicising St Photios and restoring St Ignatios (doubtless with an eye towards Bulgaria), making clear that Rome saw itself has having the right to final judgement⁵. The Byzantine response, from the Emperor of the time, was twofold – an attack on Bulgaria led to the khan, Boris, accepting Eastern jurisdiction, and a letter to the Pope bluntly refused any papal right to interfere in the Church of Constantinople, declared the retrial of Sts Ignatios and Photios to be out of courtesy rather than deference, and attacked Latin as being barbarian and Scythian. Pope Nicholas responded with a defence of papal primacy, declaring that only the Pope could summon a council, and offered to reconsider the rival claims of Sts Ignatios and Photios if they, or their proxies, would come to Rome⁶.

5: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 76.
6: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 77.

Between the sending from Rome and the receipt in Constantinople, Boris had turned to the West to gain a patriarch, causing an enraged defence from Constantinople. St Photios defended Byzantine disciplines, and – in a move that has sent repercussions through Church history to this day – detected the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, declaring it heretical on the basis that there can be only one principle in the Godhead. St Photios detailed his position in an encyclical to his fellow Eastern patriarchs, inviting them to Constantinople to deal with this situation, detailing points from the more practical, regarding fasting on Saturdays, to the theological, first regarding the celebrant for Chrismation, and the second (and bulk of the essay) on the Filioque, going so far as to name it semi-Sabellianism⁷.

7: Photios the Great, St, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs.

The Eastern patriarchs were invited by St Photios to Constantinople for further discussion. A synod was then held, deposing and anathematising Pope Nicholas (who reposed before receiving the news), leading directly to St Photios’ deposition⁸. St Ignatios returned to the seat of Constantinople, made peace with St Photios and his second term in office was marked by a similar relationship with Rome that St Photios had⁹. After St Ignatios’ repose, St Photios was recalled to the throne, and asked the Pope, John VIII, to take part in a council to annul the anti-Photian decrees; John VIII’s response was, via universal headship, to claim the authority to release St Photios from penalties previously imposed, and offered to recognise St Photios in exchange for apologising for previous offences and withdrawing jurisdiction in Bulgaria (and, by extension, accepting the universal headship of the Pope of Rome).¹⁰

8: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 78-79.
9: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 82.
10: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 83.

In his response to the legates that brought this letter, St Photios maintained that he had never been rightfully deposed, and made it thoroughly clear that the patriarchates chose their own patriarch without interference from other patriarchates (including the Papacy). He opened the council in Hagia Sophia which has been recognised by some as the Eighth Ecumenical Council¹¹, and produced a symbol of faith that agreed that there should be no change in the tradition of the Fathers or in the Creed – which includes the refusal of the Filioque clause. This council concluded, and with it many of the conflicts between Constantinople and Rome were adjourned, with St Photios later retiring and reposing in communion with Rome; while Walker declares these conflicts to have led Rome and Constantinople one step closer to schism¹², the evidence now available suggests that the issues here would simply resurface.

11: cf. Photios the Great, St, Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs; also Dragas, The Eighth Ecumenical Council.
12: Walker, et al, A History of the Christian Church, 251.

Two centuries would pass before there was, once again, an issue; yet, the same two arguments of papal primacy and the filioque were to arise. Rather than the complicating factor being jurisdiction over the Bulgarian Church – this was resolved in favour of Constantinople – the complication in the eleventh century was the increased reality of a lack of shared language or culture, best seen in the confusion over οικουμένη – while the translation of universalis was technically correct, and rightly obtained the ire of the Pope, colloquial usage (of which the Latins were, obviously, entirely unaware) defined the term as ‘empire-wide’, a far less confronting claim¹³.

13: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 112-113.

Patriarch Michael Cerularius, with diplomatic skills best described as belligerent, was a central figure in the eleventh century clash between Old and New Rome. Pope Leo IX received a letter from Archbishop Leo of Ochrid and, purportedly, Ecumenical Patriarch Michael of Constantinople, attacking minor differences between Latin and Byzantine practise and charging Bishop John of Trani to correct Frankish bishops up to the Pope himself. This letter reached by the Pope by means of Cardinal Humbert, who history remembers has having a similar diplomatic disposition to Patriarch Michael. Replies were drafted by the Pope, helped by Cardinal Humbert, where Rome was placed as the head and mother church, not simply the primus inter pares ideology that had been seen as the method of Church governance since the Acts Council in Jerusalem. Cardinal Humbert was sent to Constantinople as papal legate¹⁴.

14: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 132-133.

In this event, there was not the working-together that had characterised Byzantine politics in previous times – while the Patriarch boycotted, the Emperor received the papal legates well. Exasperation with this untenable situation caused the moment that is incorrectly described as the moment of the Great Schism – when Humbert left the bull of excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his associates on the altar. The legates left two days later, leaving the Patriarch to convoke a council declaring that the legates were imposters, the papal letters forgeries and the seals tampered. While evidence of much anger and resentment on both sides, a study of the event could not consider a break to have occurred – these were personal excommunications, leaving both Churches still in communion with the other¹⁵. In the correspondence between Patriarchs Michael Cerularius and Peter of Antioch, it is clear that, from the perspective of the Easterns, many of the ‘faults’ seen by Patriarch Michael were relatively unimportant – of all the points, pentarchy, the filioque and the leaven in bread were of importance, and even the leaven was of secondary import.¹⁶

15: Admittedly, Walker’s A History of the Christian Church claimed that the bull had “formally initiated” the Schism (271). This is adequately refuted in Hussey, ibid., and Ware’s The Orthodox Church; perhaps Walker’s negligence can be excused by his audience (i.e. American Protestants in the early 20th century) and the lack of personal contact between Western and Orthodox scholars at the time.
16: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 133-135.

At some point, however, there was a split. Perhaps a better watershed would be the Fourth Crusade, bringing “the sword to sever Christendom”¹⁷ at the 1204 sacking of Constantinople; irrespective, at 1274, the Second Council of Lyons was to declare the Church reunified, as the Council of Florence did in 1438-1439, vigorously promoted by the Emperor, which lasted until the bishops returned and both of these were to of no effect. Perhaps the idea of papal headship obfuscated the papacy from realising:

…that there were limits beyond which imperial authority could not effectively intervene or command in the Orthodox Church… [emperors and bishops] might submit…but this was of no effect when adamantly opposed in Byzantium by the majority of the secular clergy, the monastic world, and the laity.¹⁸

17: S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 101.
18: J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, 170-171.

This essay has gone through a brief history of the Church to demonstrate the chief elements in the Great Schism: who was the head of the Church, and what did that mean; and the question of the filioque. These were, and still are today, the central contentious issues that divide Orthodox and Catholic, and it thus behoves Orthodox to have an understanding of these issues to respond to those who claim that all religions are essentially the same when they patently are not.

List of References:
Dragas, Protopr. George Dion, The Eighth Ecumencial Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine, on http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html (Accessed 26 June 2008)
Hussey, Joan Mervyn, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
Photios the Great, Saint, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, on http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/photius_encyclical.html (Accessed 26 June 2008)
Runciman, Steven, The Eastern Schism, Oxford, 1955.
Walker, Williston, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz and Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church, fourth edn. New York, NY: Scribner, 1985.
Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church, England: Penguin, 1963.

Scholastic Community

2007-04-20T23:12:00.000+10:00

Religious Feast of the Day: Saint Caedwalla (Peter), King of Wessex
Current Book: Seeds of the Word: Orthodox Thinking on Other Religions, by Fr John Garvey, p70/130.
Mood of the Hour: Happy
Quote of the Day: "Beauty will save the world" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Having completed my first week in my position, I was struck by a number of things, but I suppose that these could be summarised in what I found to be a scholastic community.

An e-mail was circulated, essentially appealing for old furniture. Thanks to this e-mail, people have - with very little notice - willingly contributed desks, tables, crockery - even down to a bed, a fridge and a microwave. Things easily taken for granted, but not things that I had, or could easily take with me when I moved to the Gold Coast.

Everywhere I've walked, I've been greeted with greetings, 'Good morning Sir''s, smiles - it's been a very welcoming week.

I've noticed a real sense of community about T.S.S., one that I haven't experienced before; but I'm told that it's a similar kind of community that can be experienced when people live on campus anywhere - school, college, university, and presumably non-academic environments as well.

But it's the scholasticism in the community that has impressed me most. One can have a community, but it takes something to have an atmosphere of academia - walkways, well-worn buildings, a respect for tradition and for those who have achieved success, beautiful grounds. While Oxford or Cambridge would be considered the epitome of this ideal, I have a fair approximation by experiencing the school that I am at.

It's an academic immersion that I didn't get during my time in high school, and certainly not one I got at university. It is one that I'm grateful for, however - while I'm not doing academic study at the moment, the environment is one that I can see doing wonders for those students who are.

Academia is an interesting experience, particularly now that I'm working on a knowledge of both sides of the desk. I'm currently teaching (under supervision) in ethics classes, and I'm amazed at how easy it is to completely lose an entire section of students, simply because the class went in such a way that I thought it prudent to bring forward an idea or a concept. Yet, at the same time that I lose that section, I also bring a completely different section - bored out of their brains at my teaching of philosophy through actions - to attention.

Teachers have a great deal of control over how well their students do. I'm not sure how this is beneficial or otherwise, but often a student, otherwise unmotivated, seems to get marks in reaction to how they perceive their teacher. So: how does a teacher best motivate their students? Perhaps my readers may be able to give ways in which their teachers were able to adapt what was taught to the personality of the student?

in Christ,
Andrew.