searchjobs

Both Father Ernesto and Father Orthoduck have been assigned to a new place by their bishop. They are in the process of moving to Alabama. Posting is suspended for this day and maybe the next. Do pray for our move, especially for the pastora (khourie, presbitera, matushka) who bears so much of the brunt of a move.

On a blog called Internetmonk, I am part of a group called the Liturgical Gangstas. The idea is that periodically the moderator of the blog asks a question of people from different Christian backgrounds who have an interest in liturgy to see how they would respond. Most of us are pastors, but not all. Today is one of the days when our “feature” is posted. Below is the question that we were asked and my answer. I would highly encourage you to go to the blog and look at the answers from the other people involved and the discussion that ensues. I guarantee that you will find it interesting. If the discussion is not posted at the time you go to that blog, just return later and it will be.

Question—The Gospel: On Internet Monk, we try to make the point that the Gospel is not simply a message we proclaim to non-believers but a message that Christians also need every day. In your tradition and church, how do you make sure the Gospel remains central in your preaching and practice?

My answer: In order to “make sure the Gospel remains central in your preaching and practice,” I must have an inner idea of what the Gospel is in order to know what it is that I wish to maintain central. For me the key Scripture verses that keep my preaching and teaching centered are from the Gospel according to Saint Luke:

The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

We are called to obey Our Lord who said, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” So, I too must “proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,” which includes preaching the Gospel (to the poor), healing the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty to captives, sight to the blind, and liberty to those who are oppressed. But, how do I keep myself centered? There are several things I do. The ones familiar to most of us are prayer and Scripture reading. For us Orthodox, it is a helpful aid that we have daily and Sunday lectionaries that take us through vast parts of Scripture. Many churches and para-church groups have developed reading patterns to try to ensure that we do not just read what pleases us and makes us feel good and encourages us, but also read what displeases us, what frightens us, what calls us to account, and what leaves us in the dirt in broken repentance for our many sins and offenses.

But, we Orthodox also have patterns of prayers. These morning and evening prayers tend to keep us focused on God’s goodness, our repentance, our duty to him, and our love relationship with him. But, more than that each day we have a saint (or saints) that we remember and a couple of prayers that remind us of why that person was great. Along with that there is usually a short one paragraph reading that gives us an overview of the saint(s)’s life. This is especially important because it shows us how people in history have interpreted Scripture and Holy Tradition in order to live out their lives in practical obedience to God. The great stream of the Church, properly appraised, gives us the guidance that keeps us from odd or tendentious interpretations and behaviors. A priest is required to maintain the reading and prayer disciplines.

But, let me talk a bit about myself. The previous paragraphs are standard Christian thought. I also read a lot, and I mean a lot. I read Church Fathers; I read people like John Bunyan; I read C.S. Lewis. The more I am willing to read the great Christian writers, the more that I catch a glimpse of that great stream of the Church that helps keep me centered and able to respond appropriately to God. I am more convinced than ever that writers such as G.K Chesterton (Roman Catholic), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Orthodox), C.S. Lewis (Anglican), etc., are correct when they encourage us to read fiction, fantasy, etc., whether or not it is overtly Christian, for I have many times seen the solution to a theological conundrum more clearly in a fiction story than in reading many theological tomes. Sometimes, I have understood more clearly the complaints about Christians by reading secular fiction than by any other mean. I urge you all to read and to read broadly.

Finally, there is something we must all do in order to keep ourselves centered on the Gospel, and I do mean must do. We get too caught up in worrying about whether works will earn our way to Heaven. Please drop that argument. I find that without works I lose my way in realms of theological speculation or in the depths of fictional worlds which have little connection to making sure that I keep the centrality of the Gospel in my preaching and practice. Our Lord came to the poor, the brokenhearted, the captives, the blind, the oppressed. I need to keep my hands dirty if I really wish to keep Gospel centered in my preaching and practice. Some of my fondest memories are some of my most difficult memories. My work overseas and my work in the inner city kept my hands dirty. I buried toddlers who would have never died in the USA. I worked with indigenous people (in missions) who could barely speak Spanish. I buried teenagers in the USA who were shot in drug violence. I watched teenaged girls in the inner city refuse sound advice and get pregnant. But, I also watched churches grow, a school get started, an orphanage begin, a new indigenous work (and a bishop who rode a mule in blue jeans) with new church plants, teenaged girls who did listen and are now sound married mothers, teenaged boys who grew up and now have sound jobs. People have been baptized, chrismated, and brought into Life. You see, my hands are dirty and my nails are broken, but it is those works that, along with Scripture, lives of the saints, readings from great Christian writers, and even secular readings, help to keep me centered on the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

tools

content

I like the cartoon above. It is one of the best examples of the concept of freedom of speech that I have seen in cartoon form. Freedom of speech really does not mean that the people who hear you speak have to agree with you or even to respect you or even to refrain from criticizing you. Freedom of speech does mean that other people have to respect your right to speak, and allow you the room to do so. We make a mistake when we try to equate freedom of speech with personal respect for another. Let me repeat, freedom of speech is simply the right for you to speak and not be silenced.

This freedom is not a unilateral freedom. Reasonable exceptions to freedom of speech have been carved out and widely upheld by the courts. The most famous example is that you do not have the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. But, for instance, we have also limited certain types of talk in front of minors in various venues, though not all venues, or it would be easy to limit freedom of speech by simply having minors present in the crowd. You do not have the unilateral right to spill state secrets, although most courts will refuse prior censorship. You talk; you leak; you take a chance on going to jail. But maybe not, because courts have ruled that legitimate whistle blowers have the freedom of speech right to even spill state secrets. This is all to say that freedom of speech is not an unlimited right and there are grey areas in it.

But, in this country there must be extremely good reasons in order for freedom of speech to be limited, and preserving the public order is not sufficient. Thus when the neo-Nazis wanted to march through Skokie, IL in 1977, they won their case in the Supreme Court (the lower state courts split in their decisions). It was ruled that freedom of assembly gave them the right to march. They also won a secondary ruling that allowed them to wave swastika banners during the march. It was ruled that freedom of speech gave them that right. What made this ruling so shocking to many people is that Skokie, at that time, was a town with a high Jewish population, many of whom had lived through the Holocaust. In 1978 the neo-Nazis held three marches in Illinois.

The point is that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are such fundamental rights that even views that the majority believe to be obnoxious and repellent may not be completely silenced. Thus both neo-Nazis on the extreme right, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association on some sick extreme, have the right to try to convince you of their views, though they do not have the right to carry their views out. In passing, NAMBLA’s rejection by virtually everyone has pretty much wiped out the organization. For all intents and purposes it no longer really exists, but notice that it was not shut down by police action or by regulatory law but by a rejection of their advocated positions. And, remember what the cartoon points out. I may support their freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom of speech to say that they are sickos whom I do not respect. Ain’t freedom of speech wonderful?

Forty-six years ago yesterday, Martin Luther King was one of the speakers at a massive civil rights assembly. It was then that he gave his famous, “I Have A Dream” speech. It was freedom of assembly and freedom of speech that gave the organizers the right to gather, to invite participants, and to pressure the USA Congress for a change in the laws. Yesterday, Glenn Beck held his “Restoring Honor” rally. It is freedom of assembly and freedom of speech that gave him the right to gather, to invite participants, and to encourage voters to “take back America.” Those two rallies exemplify once again our Constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. It is what our Founding Fathers wanted for this country.

This does not mean that you have to agree with either man. In fact, you may virulently disagree with both men, disagree with one of them, or fully agree with both of them. But, you see, that is your freedom of speech at work, just like my freedom of speech lets me write this blog post. And, that’s our Constitution.

terms

Those of you who now have grown daughters may very well remember facing a moment similar to this sometime in their early teenage years. I say early teenage years because by the time they are in their late teenage years, they are normally horrified at the thought of asking their father anything that has to do with their bodily development. Now, you may not remember such a moment in your little girl’s life, but that is probably because you have blocked it out of your conscious mind.

Just the other day, I was talking to one of our grown daughters and she reminded me of one such episode in our life. Yes, I remember that episode. Actually, I remember more than one episode since we had more than one daughter. And, I can remember praying internally in a panic asking God to help me to give an answer that would not damage them for life or cause my wife to damage me for life! I think that I even asked for it to be a sound godly answer, but I had enough adrenaline flowing inside of me that my memories of that very first question may be skewed. I did not call for my wife though it may be that she was not in the house at that time. I knew that I needed to answer honestly and in such a way that I did not shut any doors for our daughters to return in the future to ask questions. Well, for years I did not know how I had done.

But, as I commented, recently one of our daughters reminded me of one of those incidents. And she remembers it as a moment in which I quietly answered her question and left the door open for her to ask more in the future. She even said that should her daughter wish to ask me a question someday that I should feel free to answer our granddaughter as I answered our daughter. It was a wonderful moment for me. Of course, I may now need to look for hiding places as our granddaughter approaches the time of questions! (I think I am just kidding.)

I write this as an encouragement to fathers who have daughters approaching the age of questions. They may not always go to mom, sometimes they will come to you. You may feel as though you do not know what to say. But, pray for wisdom, bite the bullet, and take a good tranquilizer after you answer the question. (I think I am just kidding about the tranquilizer.) Trust that God will give you a godly and wise answer. (Maybe even trust that God will shut your daughter’s ears to any mistakes you make in your answer.) Answer gently and make sure to keep that door open to further questions. You may not know how you have done for years. But, that’s OK. Being a parent is learning to live with fear and trembling while giving out love and wisdom.

Here is a quote for you from Redemptoris Custos:

. . . How much the family of today can learn from this! “The essence and role of the family are in the final analysis specified by love. Hence the family has the mission to guard, reveal and communicate love, and this is a living reflection of and a real sharing in God’s love for humanity and the love of Christ the Lord for the Church his bride.” This being the case, it is in the Holy Family, the original “Church in miniature (Ecclesia domestica),” that every Christian family must be reflected. “Through God’s mysterious design, it was in that family that the Son of God spent long years of a hidden life. It is therefore the prototype and example for all Christian families.” . . .

The growth of Jesus “in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man” (Lk 2:52) took place within the Holy Family under the eyes of Joseph, who had the important task of “raising” Jesus, that is, feeding, clothing and educating him in the Law and in a trade, in keeping with the duties of a father.

In the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Church venerates the memory of Mary the ever Virgin Mother of God and the memory of St. Joseph, because “he fed him whom the faithful must eat as the bread of eternal life.”

For his part, Jesus “was obedient to them” (Lk 2:51), respectfully returning the affection of his “parents.” In this way he wished to sanctify the obligations of the family and of work, which he performed at the side of Joseph.

May Saint Joseph intercede for us with Christ our God that we may have the help of the Holy Spirit in learning to be good fathers.

notice

This non-English language is one of the top five non-English languages used in the USA. I am not talking about any computer languages or mathematical symbology, etc. This non-English language is used by regular people. Use of this language has the full and unequivocal support of the Congress of the United States by members of both parties. No demonstrations have ever been held against this language. No users of this language in the modern era of the USA have been told to stop using it in a public venue. No parents have complained if their children are taught this language in the schools. Bills that have been passed by the Congress of the United States regarding this language have all been positive and supportive. Of which non-English language am I talking?  Why American Sign Language.

American Sign Language (or ASL, Ameslan) is the dominant sign language of deaf Americans (which include the deaf communities in the United States, in the English-speaking parts of Canada, and in some regions of Mexico. Although the United Kingdom and the United States share English as a spoken and written language, British Sign Language (BSL) is quite different from ASL, and the two sign languages are not mutually intelligible.

ASL is a language distinct from spoken English; while it borrows many elements of English (e.g., spelled words, “initialized” signs (for example the signs for group and team are the same motion but the hand are held with the sign for the letters “G” and “T” respectively to denote meaning), and direct translations of English idioms, it nonetheless possesses its own syntax and grammar and supports its own culture.

How did ASL get started?

In 1815, a Protestant minister, Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, left his home in Hartford, Connecticut to visit Europe. Dr. Mason Cogswell had asked Gallaudet to investigate methods of teaching his deaf daughter, Alice Cogswell. While in England, Gallaudet hit a roadblock when directors of the Braidwood Schools, who taught the oral method, refused to share their methods of teaching. Nevertheless, while in London, Gallaudet met with Abbé Sicard, director of the Royal Institution for the Deaf in Paris, and two of his students, one of whom was Laurent Clerc. Sicard invited Gallaudet to visit the school in Paris. He did not go immediately, but instead traveled to Edinburgh, Scotland where he again met the methods of Braidwood. They again refused to teach him their methods. Gallaudet then traveled to Paris and learned the educational methods of the Royal Institution for the Deaf with sign language, a combination of Old French Sign Language and the signs developed by Abbé Charles Michel de l’Épée. Gallaudet persuaded Clerc to return with him to Connecticut and become a teacher for the deaf. Gallaudet and Clerc opened the Connecticut Asylum for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons (now called American School for the Deaf) in April 1817. Deaf students were taught French signs and brought in signs of their own, such as those from Martha’s Vineyard. Thus, it was at this school that all these influences would intermingle and become what is now known as American Sign Language.

Interestingly, because of the early influence of the sign language of France upon the school, the vocabularies of ASL and modern French Sign Language are approximately 60% shared, whereas ASL and British Sign Language, for example, are almost completely dissimilar.

So, why do I bring this up? Look at the last two paragraphs. ASL comes as a result of a cooperation between an American Protestant minister and a French Catholic abbot. It is nice to read a story of cooperation that led to such good results instead of the more usual opposition of one to another.

As I have been posting on an appealing, engaging Gospel, and going into the subject of self-denial, there have been two other bloggers who have commented on these posts, but have ended up writing their own blog posts that deal with what I consider two other aspects of living the Christian life, and what it means to live out the Gospel.

One of them is Pithless Thoughts. He posts a picture and a brief comment on a post titled Asceticism I Can Live With:

The comment he makes with his picture is:

I buffet my body...  (I Corinthians 9:27)  Thank you St. Paul.

It is an obvious play of words on the idea of a buffet restaurant and buffeting our bodies. It is all too true that this is a wonderful metaphor for the American idea on what it means to engage in self-denial.

But, the other one comes from a blog named Sarx, and a blog post titled Americans Christians are Wusses. The post does a wonderfully sarcastic job in pointing out some of the many contradictions in our American Christianity. In part it says:

Increasingly, I think American Christians are weak and fearful.

In Communist countries the persecution is as bad as it ever was. In the Arab countries, where permission is needed to celebrate the Eucharist, Melkite, Orthodox, Baptist and Anglican communities fellowship freely because there is so much hatred that any priest will do – much to the scandal of Americans who want a “pure” church. Christians in Israel put up with Islamist suicide bombers on the one hand and Jewish people stealing their homes on the other, Jewish Soldiers and Islamists shoot at them. Muslims own the holy sites and adjacent land and Israelis can and do close them at will. And we worry about Christmas trees and manger scenes.

We’re distracted with what Wal*Mart employees get to say or do not say in the “holiday season”, yet we forget to feed the poor, visit the prisoner, to offer hospitality in God’s name. We’re terrified of a new mosque being built in out town or city, yet we put more import on rebuilding “touchdown Jesus” than we do on learning how to love like Jesus. We put more concern behind rebuilding a destroyed Church than evangelizing to fill our empty, but already existing Churches.

We confuse ethnic and political battles (both present, and in recent or ancient history – Byzantium, Russia, Turkey) with God’s promises that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. And while we daily relive our resentment about those secular battles, we forget to turn the tables ourselves, asking how, as Americans, we benefit from enslaved Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in China and Indonesia and India . . . [You will have to go to his blog post to read the rest.]

In America, we do not truly understand the saint who throws away his/her right to a fair trial and even seeks out martyrdom in order to bear witness to a God who loves and has himself died to save us. In America we do not truly understand that we must pray for the "king" and honor him regardless of the fact that they may be the head of an Empire, and that we must pray for peace. [We have trouble honoring a legitimately elected President.] In America we have trouble understanding that regular fasting is what is expected of us in both Old and New Testaments, for that is putting us under the Law, and we have the freedom to be obese. In America we consider it a great sacrifice when we volunteer (or let ourselves be recruited) to be present at a church event outside of Sunday, let alone considering daily twice a day prayer as a minimum.

No, the idea of self-denial is not truly present in American Christianity. And the paragraph that I just finished is certainly not the presentation of an appealing, engaging Gospel.

===MORE TO COME===

tools

I have heard so many Christians say that they desire to know God. The trouble, as I mentioned yesterday, is that we all too often want an easy way out. What we tend to want is something like a “touchy-feely” warm fuzzy (wow, a few more cliches and you will all ask me to stop it) that has little content and little committed responsibility on our part. But, what the Church Fathers, and the medieval mystics, and Protestant heroes such as John Bunyan show us is that if we truly wish to know God we must deny ourselves.

In the King James version it talks about mortifying our flesh. “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” And, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Notice that these are active verbs. We are being called to take action, to actively “mortify” our flesh. The problem is that there are two great mistakes that have been made in Church history with regards to this concept.

The one mistake is the one that the Protestants love to jump on. And that is the idea that equates self-torture of the body with the Biblical idea of mortification of the flesh. Self-denial and self-torture are two diametrically opposed concepts. But, the Protestant over-reaction equates the two. There is a reason why the Church prescribes such disciplines as fasting, etc. Their purpose is to help us to learn how to control our selves, how to resist the demands of our flesh, and in doing so, to begin to learn how to resist the greater and more evil demands of our flesh. Disciplines, such as fasting and regularly scheduled prayer, date all the way back to the Old Testament Law and Prophets.

But, the other mistake is that of medieval Roman Catholicism. And that is the mistake that equates more pain and suffering with a greater degree of dedication to Our Lord. Experiencing pain does not in and of itself lead to greater spirituality. Rather, it all too often leads to an arrogance and a spiritual pride which is the very opposite of the very result that people who partake of those practices wish to achieve.

As a result of these two extremes, most Christians have great difficulties when they read those Scriptures. Generally, most Christians ignore that part of the writings of Saint Paul and pretend that they do not exist because of the dissonance that they experience when they read them. But, over and over the great Christian writers remind us that we cannot ignore those, and other, Scriptures. We are called to be a people who deny ourselves.

And when one reads the great Christian writers and the lives of the saints it becomes obvious that their growth in holiness is proportional to their willingness to lose everything which a normal human being regards as important. Honor, a stable life, children, marriage, money, comfort, etc., are all thrown on God’s altar in order to win the crown of glory. In this the great saints imitate the God who:

. . . being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But, this brings us back again to the idea of an appealing and engaging Gospel. In the light of the idea of denying oneself, what does it mean to talk about an appealing and engaging Gospel?

===MORE TO COME===

terms

Have you ever heard someone say that they want to preach an appealing, engaging Gospel? I can remember that type of language being used many years ago. What was meant at that time was that people were reacting against what they saw as the sterile orthodoxy of the 1950′s.

This type of thinking is actually not uncommon in various times in Church history. All the way from the Old Testament through the New through Church history there have always been times when it can be made to appear that the People of God have gone “dry” and the faith has been reduced to a set of written propositions followed in a sterile obedience.

I think that one of the first cases of a reaction against dry orthodoxy in the sub-Apostolic period was the heresy of Marcion of Sinope (Marcionism). But, not all who believed that the faith had gone sterile and dry were heretics. For instance, at least one of the reasons that there was a surge in monasticism beginning in the second century was the perception that Christianity had become dry. Certainly, medieval saints such as Francis of Assisi tried to call the Church back to warmth and compassion. Among the Protestants, John and Charles Wesley are the premier examples of the desire for a warm, living, and compassionate Christianity.

In more modern times, the Jesus People were a reaction against what was seen as the dry orthodoxy of the 1950′s. I was a child of that movement. Though I had been raised Roman Catholic, I had dropped out of that Church during my teenage years. Sometimes I say that I would have dropped out of any group in those years. I definitely was a snotty teenager! Nowadays, Emergent Christianity is the new buzzword for those who wish warmth and engagement.

However, the major problem with the desire for this type of warmth is that all too often it can lead to a continuing search and desire for an emotion rather than a search or desire for God. It can also lead to one clear and undeniable mistake. This type of desire can lead one to think that one has been deserted by God if one is not experiencing “positive feelings” of joy, peace, warmth, etc. It is therefore not surprising to me that several of the ascetic classics that have been written take time to point out to the novice or the seeker that the experience of loss or of a “missing” God may actually be a beneficial part of the process of growing into the likeness of God. More and more I am wondering whether American Christianity can grow up without going through such a phase of emptiness and loss. What do I mean?

Well, did you know that there are various Christian writers who wrote about this experience of loss in a positive way? Frankly, the Desert Fathers were certainly among the first to do so, but there are others you might have heard about. One such was Saint John of the Cross who wrote about the “dark night of the soul:”

Dark Night of the Soul (Spanish: La noche oscura del alma) is the title of a poem written by 16th century Spanish poet and Roman Catholic mystic Saint John of the Cross, as well as of a treatise he wrote later, commenting on the poem. Saint John of the Cross was a Carmelite priest. His poem narrates the journey of the soul from her bodily home to its union with God. The journey occurs during the night, which represents the hardships and difficulties the soul meets in detachment from the world and reaching the light of the union with the Creator. There are several steps in this night, which are related in successive stanzas. The main idea of the poem can be seen as the painful experience that people endure as they seek to grow in spiritual maturity and union with God. The poem is divided into two books that reflect the two phases of the dark night. The first is a purification of the senses. The second and more intense of the two stages is that of the purification of the spirit, which is the less common of the two. Dark Night of the Soul further describes the ten steps on the ladder of mystical love

But, there were also Protestant writers who wrote on the same vein. Have you ever read John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress?

The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come is a Christian allegory written by John Bunyan and published in February, 1678. It is regarded as one of the most significant works of religious English literature, has been translated into more than 200 languages, and has never been out of print. Bunyan began his work while in the Bedfordshire county gaol for violations of the Conventicle Act, which prohibited the holding of religious services outside the auspices of the established Church of England.

C.S. Lewis, the beloved modern Anglican author wrote a book which very few in the USA have read called Pilgrim’s Regress. There is a similarity between the ascetical classics, such as John Climacus’ The Ladder of Divine Ascent, the medieval mystics, and modern writers such as C.S. Lewis. They all agree with Saint Paul:

. . .tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

All the truly great mystical writers, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox agree: to truly grow into the likeness of God, to truly, warmly, and personally come to know God, one will need to undertake the path of suffering. No, I am not talking about self-inflicted suffering, as in self-flagellation, etc. Rather, I am talking about the suffering that comes from the willingness to deny oneself, to “mortify” the flesh, as Saint Paul says in the King James version, in order to grow in the knowledge of God.

And in this all the great Christian writers agree, without self-denial you will not come to truly know God. This is a long way from our trite phrases that we come to know God by simply making a prayer of commitment.

But, what does this do to our appealing, engaging Gospel?

===MORE TO COME===

copyright

notice

One person who commented on my post, Something is not true simply because someone said so, wondered about the place of the Holy Spirit in my description of the Early Church Fathers:

Would you not say that they relied on the Holy Spirit then, as He did His work in that era, but they did so in humility and through their everyday dealings and practices (“Scripture, prayer, reflection, fasting, consultation with their fellow theologians, and even on the counsel of the Church”)?

I answered that I was convinced that this was true. Upon further reflection, I thought that it might be worth looking at a couple of places where the Church worked through a matter and issued a pronouncement. It is worth looking at how the introduction to the pronouncement was worded. The first place I want to go is to Acts 15:

Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. . . . And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree . . . Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them . . . .”

They wrote this letter . . . For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us . . . .

Can you see the progression? The Church came together from all the places in which Christianity was present. Then they argued their point. The decision is announced by the presiding hierarch. Scripture was cited (“with this the words of the prophets agree”) as being in agreement with the decision, and when the letter is written, they finally state, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us . . .” Notice the three-fold agreement that is present. It was in accord with the prophets (the writings); it was in accord with what they understood as the leading of the Holy Spirit; it was in accord with them as thinking, praying, fasting, practicing, worshiping, believers. This same pattern is found over and over again when the important decisions of the Councils are announced.

For instance, one can see the same pattern during the Nestorian controversy, at the time of the Council of Ephesus, Saint Cyril writes to Nestorius and says:

Following in all points the confessions of the holy fathers, which they made with the holy Spirit speaking in them, and following the direction of their opinions and going as it were in the royal way, we say that . . .

At the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Pope Leo writes to Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople and says:

The people who fall into this folly are those in whom knowledge of the truth is blocked by a kind of dimness. They do not refer to

• the sayings of the prophets, nor to
• the letters of the apostles, nor even to
• the authoritative words of the gospels,

but to themselves. By not being pupils of the truth, they turn out to be masters of error. A man who has not the most elementary understanding even of the creed itself can have learned nothing from the sacred texts of the New and Old Testaments. This old man has not yet taken to heart what is pronounced by every baptismal candidate the world over!

Can you see the pattern of Acts 15 being followed through the ages? The Fifth Ecumenical Council makes the fact that this pattern is being followed even more obvious:

In this way they unanimously reached the conclusion which they wrote to the gentiles: It has seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.

The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils, have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadows of lying.

The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbor. As Solomon says in his proverbs: A brother who helps a brother shall be exalted like a strong city; he shall be as strong as a well-established kingdom. Again in Ecclesiastes he says: Two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their toil. And the Lord himself says: Amen I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This is the Orthodox understanding of how to decide whether the Holy Spirit is truly moving or not. One works it through in consultation with the prophets, in consultation with the apostles, in consultation with the gospels, in consultation with the holy fathers, in communal discussions, in debates about questions of faith, in gatherings where Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in the midst of us. Only at the end of that process do we dare to say that we have followed the royal way. Only at the end of that process, which may last all the way up through an Ecumenical Council (if necessary) do we dare use God’s name and say that “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.”

We Orthodox most absolutely rely upon the Holy Spirit to guide us, but we do not use his name until we have the certainty that it was indeed Him guiding us and not we ourselves, lest we come all too close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit by whom we were cleansed.

Sometimes one reads two totally unrelated posts and it sparks some thinking in one’s mind. This happened to me today. Above is the latest Pithless Thought cartoon. And from another totally unrelated blog and blog post comes the following commentary:

The longer I have been a believer in and follower of Jesus, the less I have been attracted to “movements” (“fads?”) in the church. I realize this puts me at odds with those who think I am constantly missing “catching the wave of the Spirit” as he does “new and exciting” things among his people. It’s just that, the older one gets, the more one sees these movements come and go, ebb and flow, morph and get swallowed up into other waters. The relentless changes and enthusiastic voices exclaiming the arrival of the “next wave” get shrill and annoying after awhile. Count me as one who longs for continuity, roots, depth, and proven staying power with regard to matters of faith.

If that makes me an obstreperous old coot, then so be it.

When it comes to the Emerging Church movement, I’ve heard those voices calling. I’ve wandered the bookstore aisles and seen the growing number of titles filling the shelves, calling out for those weary of church as we know it to forge a new path. I’ve seen the articles describing the phenomenon. I’ve noticed the websites proliferating. I guess my contrarian streak goes deep. Or perhaps I’m just a pessimist. I figure if something is that popular and trendy, it must not be the real deal. Maybe it’s just the old hippie in me—never trust “the Man” who’s trying to sell you something.

And, I found myself pondering the cartoon and the commentary. You see, I arrived at the same point in the late 1980′s and that led me to leave the Evangelical group I was in, looking for something old and stable. I had become an Evangelical after being raised Roman Catholic and had bought into the whole idea that I had never really known Christ inside the Roman Catholic Church. Years later I realized that this was not true, but that is another story. The group I was in went from Jesus People, through almost-shepherding, through the “realization” that apostles, etc., still existed today, through a study into Early Church history and doctrine, through a split, through an association with the Word of God Community (which was funny since it was mostly Roman Catholic in outlook and connections), through John Wimber . . . . Well, you get the idea.

After all that, I found myself longing for stability, for knowing that the same God I woke up with yesterday would be the God that I woke up with today. For all our talk about God being the same “yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” this seemed like a God who certainly seemed to like frequent changes of direction, all of which we were able to discern in a very accurate fashion. The other possibility, of course, was that we had no clear idea of what God wanted which would then tend to keep invalidating all my past experience every time we learned a “new” truth. I finally started thinking that option two was the more accurate. We did not have a clear idea of what God was saying and we were simply floundering around needing a compass.

Well, I ended up Orthodox, but that is another story. What I would like you to note is that there is a danger that both Pithless Thoughts and the other blogger point out. That danger is that of using the Holy Spirit as a convenient reason to do what one wishes without regards for prior Christians or prior interpretations of Scripture or even current fellow Christians who are trying to warn one. One need only claim a move of the Holy Spirit to start doing what one wishes. The problem is that eventually one ends up not knowing which end is up when it comes to who God is. “Just because someone told you something you didn’t know doesn’t make it true.”

But, there is another side to that saying and one that we also need to look at, one which almost contradicts the saying. You see, some of my biggest joys have been in delving into the Early Church Fathers. As I read the history of that era, and read what they actually said, and read what the Ecumenical Councils said, etc., I keep noticing myself telling my wife that, “they never taught me that in seminary.” Often I have found myself wishing that I had known that the Church had already gone through a particular doctrinal argument 1500 years ago and that I did not have to relive that argument anew. For, of course, during the years in the Evangelical changeableness, we mightily worked ourselves through many arguments that might well have been quickly solved (or doctrines that might have been even more quickly dropped), if only we had known that the particular point had already been argued ever so long ago, and all its implications drawn out, and reasonable conclusions already drawn. There was no need for us to recapitulate Church history.

And so, in one sense, I am constantly being told new things by the Holy Scriptures, by the Church Fathers, by the Ecumenical Councils, by Holy Tradition, etc. But, there is a difference between the changeableness of following every “move of the Spirit” and what now guides me and lets me learn “new” things. The Church Fathers come already vetted by centuries of thought, discussion, and (yes) Holy Tradition. I can read them through the filter of the long history of the Church, through the filter of the generations of holy bishops (and even some unholy ones), through the filter of the hierarchs that are over me today. But, even back then, when they were yet to be Church Fathers and were only bishops and priests trying to explain the faith, they did not rely on “moves of the Spirit” but on Scripture, prayer, reflection, fasting, consultation with their fellow theologians, and even on the counsel of the Church as expressed in Holy Council. And so, I can also read Scripture through the same long history of the Church, and while I learn “new” things, I always seem to find out that they are very “old” things.

And perhaps that is the difference. When all too many people speak of a “new” thing that the Holy Spirit is doing, they all too often mean something for which there is little backing in prior practice (whether that practice be Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant), prior theology, or prior views of the Scriptures. When I speak of learning a “new” thing, it really almost always means that I have learned something very old, and which I did not realize was part of the great stream of the Church.