30 December 2010

The Orthodox Church and the modern world

Recently I came across a paper by Pantelis Kalaitzidis, the Director of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies. I don't have the time or inclination to address the entire paper. I would like to address, briefly, the interrelationship between Church and world that Kalaitzidis discusses. One brief quote may suffice:

"
the Church and its theology cannot move forward in the world while ignoring or devaluing the world that surrounds them, just because this world is not ‘Christian,’ or because it is not as they would like it. Similarly, the Church and its theology cannot motivate the people of today, the people of modernity and late modernity, so long as the modern world continues to be scorned and disparaged by the Church, and ignored as revelatory material and flesh to be assumed."


In the Holy Scriptures and the rest of the Church's tradition, "world" has two sense. In one of those senses, "world" is the object of God's creation, redemption and sanctification--e.g. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." But in the other sense, it is the fallen system whose head is the devil and whose internal ally is our sinful flesh (another word with two main senses). Thus, St. John says, "Do not love the world, or the things in the world. Whoever loves the world is at enmity with God."

The real contrast that Orthodox theologians have to address is not the contrast between the ancient and modern worlds. The real contrast is that between the world in the two biblical senses.

In which of those two senses does the world "function as revelatory material and flesh to be assumed?"

28 November 2010

Homily on the Rich Ruler

I was struck, when reflecting on our Gospel for today, with its connection to what comes immediately before. Some people brought little babies to Jesus, that he might touch them, but the disciples tried to prevent it. The Lord responds by saying, "Let the little children come to me, and don't forbid them, for of such is the Kingdom of God." And then he adds, "Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

Then follows our text, at the end of which the Lord says "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" There's a common thread here, between these two: entering the Kingdom of God. And what do we learn? Little ones, babies, get it. Rich people have lots of trouble.

You see, beloved, the Lord Jesus stands all the values of this world on their head. Elsewhere he says, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and hast revealed them to babies. Yes, O Father, for such was your gracious will."

From the time we are small, we want to grow, to gain: in wisdom...in strength...in popularity...in financial security. We work out in the gym. We go to school. We friend others on facebook. We try to increase our bottom line. We do all that we can to stop being babies.

And in a certain sense, that's good. It's ok to work out...to learn and study...to be sociable...even to have a healthy bank balance. Wealth is not morally wrong. It's better to be Solomon than a fool...to be strong...to have friends. The trouble comes when we hold those things with a clenched fist, instead of in an open hand...when we try to make them ours...when they enter our inmost heart. Then the things that are relatively good, become absolutely bad. For they come between us and Christ.

In our text, the Lord tells this ruler, "You lack one thing." But that one thing was everything. This rich ruler's heart had grown attached to his wealth. It is not the wealth, but the attachment, that the Lord rejects. I cannot open my hands to receive from Christ, when they clutch my wealth, my wisdom and strength. I cannot be justified by God when I try to justify myself. I cannot receive the Kingdom as a gift, when I think it's something owed to me.

Nor can I be saved without works. The Lord does not condemn the ruler for his striving to keep the commandments. Christ does not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Real faith shows itself in action. St. James says, "Faith without works...is dead." And St. Mark the Ascetic says, "Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfil the commandments and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken."

The Lord Jesus stands all the values of this world on their head. Nowhere is that seen more clearly than at his cross, where he dies weak, and friendless, looking foolish, utterly bereft of anything good. If you would see true wealth, see the Lord of heaven and earth suspended on the tree, giving himself completely for those who hated him. If you would know wisdom, see God himself hanging there, becoming a curse for us, that we might be blessed. If you would know strength, you must know it in his broken body--as he later told St. Paul, "My power is perfected in weakness."

We understand the Lord's words rightly only when we can say, with Christ's disciples, "Who, then, can be saved?"...when we take with complete seriousness his reply:"the things that are impossible with men are possible with God." He doesn't say "necessary'; he doesn't say "certain"; he doesn't say "actual." He says "possible." I cannot presume on salvation, because it is impossible for me. I do not despair of salvation, because it is possible with God.

So in this life, I must be content to plead for mercy, like the publican...to detach myself from following after wealth, and wisdom and strength that I might follow after Christ...to be a little child, a nursing baby, who entrusts himself completely to the goodness of the crucified God and risen man. He who led his people Israel through the Red Sea as on dry land...he who passed through the womb of his mother without disturbing her virginity...who rose from the dead without breaking the seal of the tomb...is able also to bring me through the eye of a needle to the joys of his heavenly Kingdom: to which may we all attain, through his grace and love for mankind, always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

05 October 2010

Nicholas Cabasilas on the ancestral sin

"...each man's soul inherited the wickedness of the first Adam. It spread from his soul to his body, and from his body to the bodies which derived from his, and from those bodies to the souls.

This, then, is the old man whom we have received as a seed of evil from our ancestors as we came into existence. We have not seen even one day pure from sin, nor have we ever breathed apart from wickedness, but, as the psalmist says, 'we have gone astray from the womb, we err from our birth.' We did not even stand still in this unhappy lot of the sin of our ancestors, nor were we content with the evils which we had inherited. So greatly have we added to the wickedness and increased the abundance of evil that the primal sin has been covered over by that which came later and the imitators have shown themselves to be worse by far than the examples."

The Life in Christ, Bk. 2 section 7 (English translation pp.76-77)

29 September 2010

Subterranean Scribble: I'm glad to see he finally recognizes it

Title of a post on Rev. McCain's blog:

Leading Sheep Out of Danger is Not Sheep Stealing

20 September 2010

A cracked quia?

The "semper virgo" issue is, once again, making the rounds on Lutheran blogdom; the chief post is found on Gottesdienst Online. Written by my friend and former colleague, John Stephenson, it incisively shows the problem inherent for someone wishing to maintain a "quia" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions and, at the same time, to reject the teaching that Mary is perpetually virgin.

What is at stake in this issue, for Lutherans? Nothing less than the continued existence of Lutheranism itself, as Lutheranism! In order to see that, we have to understand the notion of what I call an "organizing principle."

Each of the western confessions of faith has an organizing principle--a fixed point around which everything else revolves, the loss of which would mean the implosion of the confession itself.

For Rome, this principle is the papacy. This explains why Rome allows the Byzantine Catholics not to use the filioque in the Creed, and even, as some tell me, not to have to assent to it (or the Immaculate Conception) as dogma. All that is necessary to be Catholic is that one yield supremacy to the Pope. Ideally one also subscribes to the views of the pope, and not to do so may make one a "bad Catholic"--but the operating word is the noun, not the adjective.

For the Pentecostals, this principle is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking with tongues. While I still taught in Canada, word got out of a high-level delegation of the Assemblies of God paying a visit to the Toronto Vineyard church (home of the so-called "Toronto blessing"). Those leaders wanted to see what was happening in Toronto because over half of the AoG young people could not claim the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" or "speaking with tongues." The problem was critical, because when the organizing principle of a body is broken, its death is inevitable.

For Lutherans, this organizing principle is a "quia" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. That means that Lutherans, especially pastors, are to subscribe to the entire doctrinal content of the Lutheran confessional writings because (Latin "quia") those writings agree with the Scriptures. It is contrasted to a "quatenus" (Latin for "insofar as") subscription to those texts.

Issues like the semper Virgo strike at the heart of this organizing principle. Although many early Lutherans, like Luther himself and Johann Gerhard, believed in the semper Virgo, Lutherans on the whole since Gerhard's time have rejected it as dogma. (There are, of course, many exceptions to this rule. But the Lutheranism of the ordinary pastor and layperson has no room for it.)

Here is the problem: The Lutheran confessions assume and teach the semper Virgo. Stephenson documents well the fact that the formulators of the Formula of Concord, including Chemnitz himself, held to this dogma. Even Herman Sasse recognized that they teach it, although he himself rejected it.

Writing forty or fifty years after the Lutheran confessional writings were drafted, Johann Gerhard formulated the so-called 'sola Scriptura' principle--the notion that all dogmas must be traced from clear passages of Scripture. Because Gerhard's exegetical method allowed for typological exegesis, he had no trouble affirming both the "sola Scriptura" principle AND the semper Virgo.

But many Lutheran theologians after Gerhard reject the typological approach to the Sciptures. This puts otherwise faithful Lutherans in the unenviable position of admitting that the Confessions teach, as dogma, something that to them seems to have no biblical foundation. What to do?

Some of them deny that the Confessions teach it as dogma. But articles such as Stephenson's certainly seem to shut that door.

Others return to Gerhard's typological approach to the Scriptures. But this approach seems deeply suspicious to many, who wonder how far the interpreter's cleverness can be allowed to go. Certainly as a Lutheran one cannot use the Church or her teachers as a check, because all that the Church and her teachers say and do must be normed by the Scriptures. To allow those teachers to guide authoritatively on what the Scriptures mean is to reverse the roles of the Scripture and traditon.

Still others stare at the problem "like a cow at a new gate," to use Luther's expression.

Pr. Weedon proposes a solution to the dilemma: a "cracked quia" subscription to the Confessional writings. He comments:

"The discomfort that arises for those who hold a quia subscription to the Symbols is not eased by lying to one's conscience that the Symbol cannot say what it plainly does simply because I do not believe it. One can take the Sasse route and have a bit of a cracked quia but at least honestly admit that it says what it does."

But a "cracked quia" is, eo ipso, an admission of failure with regard to the organizing principle of Lutheranism. When that which serves as organizing principle is, in principle, broken, disorganization and decay must inevitably follow. If Rev'd Weedon and his ilk can remain in communion fellowship with those who hold a different notion of the dogmas to which they are committed, then in principle the LCMS has become the unionistic fellowship that Franz Pieper warned about.

The recent election of Matthew Harrison as President of the LCMS has brought a lot of hope to those who subscribe to the Lutheran confessional writings. Confessional Lutherans got nearly everything they wanted, from the presidency on down, as well as greater centralization of authority in the president's office.

The institutional crisis, however, will trump any personal good will that Rev'd. Harrison is able to bring to bear on the problems facing the LCMS and confessional Lutheranism in general. Time will tell whether Rev. Weedon's crack is in fact the breakdown of the dyke which held Lutheranism together.

27 August 2010

Recent developments

Not a little electronic ink has been spilled over recent developments in the Antiochian Archdiocese—first by Orthodox, and now also by Lutherans of the Missouri stripe.

The recent LC-MS convention went the “confessional” way. Up and down the ticket, those aligned with traditional Lutheran worship and doctrine were elected to office. The Antiochian Archdiocese, on the other hand, appears to be going through some serious difficulties. It now seems that the Holy Synod in Antioch has designated all diocesan bishops as mere auxiliaries, and further that the much-vaunted self-rule of the North American archdiocese no longer applies.

In other words, things appear to be as good as they can get for confessional Lutherans, and (apparently) not too good at all for Antiochians.

Maybe this is the best time, then, to note:

1. The nature of the problem.
The least well-functioning family is better than the best corporate governance. The problems that face Orthodoxy are, as always, personal in nature; the problems that face Lutherans and other Protestants are structural.

2. The infallibility of the Church
When we teach that the Church is perfect and infallible, we do not teach that each individual in it—be he leader or follower—is perfect and infallible. We are in the midst of something here, and we do well to remember that God writes straight with crooked lines. If he were to remove all imperfect people from the Church, I would be the first to go.

3. The continuity of the liturgy
The liturgy we celebrate—apart, perhaps, from a change in the commemorations—will still be the same next Sunday, and next century.

4. To whom the Church belongs
Some well-meaning Orthodox blogs are calling for action and condemning priests for remaining silent. I remain convinced of two things: a) the Church is the body of Christ; b) the Orthodox Church is the Church. Christ will heal his body with gentleness, and in the proper time. My task is to pray for my leaders, to honor them, to follow them as they follow Christ. Even when Christians were put to the sword by pagan emperors, they did not cease respecting the emperors’ legitimate authority. How much more should we respect our fathers in Christ!

10 August 2010

Subterranean scribbling

Any argument against the intercession of the saints is founded on a pagan notion of death and, at its root, is an argument against all intercessory prayer.