OrthoAnalyika Shownotes: 4 October 2009
Note: be sure to subscribe to the podcast.
Mail Call:
What did you mean about crucifixes, stigmata and stations of the cross?
Basic point was that the Orthodox tend to focus on the transformative effects of the Resurrection. There is a trajectory, even in the East, that reveled in defeating sin through physical hardship (stylites, wearing chains, living in destitution in caves); I like Dr. Bradley Nassif’s point (Ancient Faith Radio: Simply Orthodox) that these examples are not really helpful for most people. In Ukraine, you can see this dichotomy in the lives of the founders of monasticism, Sts. Anthony and Theosodosius. We love, venerate, and emulate both of their lives in Christ, but their lives in Christ followed two different traditions: St. Anthony followed the Syrian model of strict and solitary asceticism. St. Theodosius followed the communal tradition. Both were ascetics; both were perfected in Christ. But it was St. Theodosius’ model that dominated in the Kyivan tradition.
Roman Catholicism also has different trajectories. Not all of them would be healthy for everyone. I am uncomfortable with witness of the stigmata because it suggests that God rewards those who are closest to him with visible signs of pain and suffering. I understand that God can use our pain to transform us, but most theologians avoid blaming the pain itself on God. I worry that the stigmata blurs this necessary distinction. I reckon that Roman Catholics who grow up with the simultaneous knowledge of God’s goodness and the discipline of the Stations of the Cross will not be deceived by the stigmata. For them, it may well be just the kind of witness they need – charity demands agnosticism from me on this. But for most people, the Stigmata (and even the Stations of the Cross) would lead to both an unhealthy preoccupation with suffering and a misattribution of that suffering to God. I see some evidence for this in the secular and anti-Catholic film, “Stigmata”, where a man who was supposed to be saintly inflicts tremendous pain on someone so that the truth of a hidden gospel might be revealed. Yuck! But they are only exaggerating a trajectory that is already apparent.
There is more than one useful and sanctifying cultural approach to living a life in Christ. The main Eastern approach is to focus primarily on the Resurrection (without losing sight of the place of the Passion and the Cross); with its crucifixes, Stations of the Cross, and stigmata, the dominant Western approach seems to focus on the Passion and the Cross (without losing sight of the Resurrection). [Protestants wear bare crosses; some focus on the atonement through the Cross, others on deification in/through Christ-Who-Transforms.]. Some Orthodox theologians completely discount the Western witness: I don’t. And I think that as we continue to heal the rift between East and West we will not even need charity to recognize the value in the other’s witness.
What is the 40 day memorial for?
In general, it is a definite time set aside for the commemoration of the departed. After 40 days, the main commemoration is annual. There are many events within the 40 days – and at 40 days we begin to transition our preoccupation with the departed away from the sense of loss to one that is lived primarily through prayer. 40 days is generally the time given for transitions from one thing to another. The theology of the 40 days is often tied to the Ascension. This reinforces the folk belief (superstition) that the departed walks the earth for the 40 days between physical death and spiritual repose. There are saints and fathers who wrote on such things, but I think it is best to retain the sense of awe and mystery regarding such things: over-explaining them can lead to unhealthy habits and attitudes. Some of the resulting pious superstitions can be found in the anthology Letters from Heaven: Popular Religion in Russia and Ukraine. I have heard people talk as if they took great store in this folk wisdom – i.e. “what baba told me”. Everything – even what “baba said” – must be evaluated in the light of Christ. Babas preserved Orthodoxy in Russia and Ukraine during a time when priests were persecuted (and poorly trained), but that does not mean that all that they preserved is true or useful! Some people are so eager to embrace the “True Faith” of their roots that they forget to exercise discernment in picking what to preserve. Not everything our ancestors did was useful! We need to intentionally weed and prune; and only Christ can teach us to tell weed from flower [reference to Shack?].
What is the big deal about saying “The Ukraine”?
Hearkens to “Little Russians” and imperialism. Ukraine is not “the border”, but “the homeland”. FWIW, this is how I hear and understand “Bojhe Veliki”
What is up with the Crescent under the Cross?
See this for a summary. Remember that the Crescent was a Greek symbol of purity and virginity (Artimis), among other things. It became part of the Greek Orthodox symbology. This makes its incorporation by the proponents of Russia as the “Third Rome” natural. But it does not seem as though it was really brought to Russia and Ukraine until the defeat of the Muslims in Kazan in 1486. This was a pregnant time; not only were the Russians further removing the remnants of the Tatar Yoke – Constantinople had fallen to the Turks in 1463. PC revisionists would have us believe that neither the Muslims nor the Orthodox used the Crescent as propaganda of victory. They point to the symbol’s use before the 15th century; but I daresay that the symbol became popular as a way to celebrate victory over the enemy. (although it does surely mean other things, like continuity; Christ as an anchor; purity; etc.).
Kudos and thanks from various listeners.
Comment on nostalgia and music: need to focus on the present and building a future.
Yup. Segue to music, the ambiguity of time and place, and the harmony of the spheres. Upcoming Reader and Subdeacon Conference. Suggestions? I was going to talk about the merging of two beautiful traditions: the beauty of the poetic prophecy given through (the Prophet-King) David; and the beauty of the philosophic prophecy given (and later sanctified) through the pagan Greeks. The content and meaning of the prophecy (and of Christ!) is carried by the theological vessel created by the Greeks (i.e. the theology of music). One soon learns that the Greek philosophers (and the Christian ones who Baptized their work) were not concerned AT ALL with music as it is really performed and experienced, but with the significance of its physical structure. As Christians, we cannot stop at loving the beauty and purity of the “Harmony of the Spheres”: our understanding of everything is INCARNATIONAL. This means that we also embrace the way that this purity is expressed here among us. This does not mean embracing all music any more than it means embracing everything “human”! We must (again) exercise discernment. Some things are not kosher (e.g. things that go against the underlying structure of Real Music); but we need to be explicit in saying why (and in finding the right definition and balance of what is “cultural” and what is “dogmatic”). Some early Christians did not want music at all (hinted at in St. Augustine). Now some Orthodox want to have instruments. Is the response cultural, pastoral, or dogmatic?
I digress. In the talk I plan on describing how these two trajectories converge in the Prokemin. This means looking at the content of the verses (from the Psalms) and teaching them how to sing them (according to the Kyivan tradition).
[BTW, my favorite theological application of the Harmony of the Spheres is found in the first chapter of JRR Tolkein’s compilation, The Simirillian. Also reading Boethius, Cassiadoras, Stapert, Begbie, Hart, and listening to compilations from Mars Hill Audio]
Local News
Wedding. Roofers. Electrician. Deacon. New toy: iTouch. Applications – my favorites (iCal, diet, yahtzee, pdf reader) – suggestions? What do you think of the idea of electronic gadgets in church? I am revolted by the idea, but that doesn’t mean that I am right. New opportunities for charity (and temptation).
Bigger News (will be covered next week)
Moving toward the formation of the Ecclesiastical Body called for by the Patriarchs. I still think this is a good thing (folks who who want us to do it on our own are a bit upset – it takes special humility on the part of the OCA!). This movement forward is necessary for Orthodoxy’s growth. Amazing things happen as you progress towards Unity and perfection. (of course we are already united, just as we are already experiencing salvation… but growth is ALWAYS required). I want you to contrast what is going on here with what is going on in Ukraine. The Russian Church still claims Ukraine as part of its territory: claims that “Rus’” of “Patriarch of all Russia” includes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova… authority of Russian Patriarch extends even into China! They make the same claim for unity over other nations (a witness of Christ’s essential unity) that we make for our own independence and internal unity here. Are they implying that they are the Pope of all who were once under the imperial rule of the Romanovs? Of the Communists? Constantinople tried this with regard to its old empirical holdings. It didn’t work (so we have a Greek Church, a Bulgarian Church, etc.). What really is the best witness to Christ’s unity? The problem is that there is no single answer: the Orthodox have always sought balance between in extremes in this regard: it isn’t as pretty as having a single Vicar on Earth (as the Roman Church has offered); or as logical as complete self-identification (the logic of Protestant congregationalism); but it is the right way. But the pastoral answer requires more work and does not always look as clean as fundamentalists would like. For instance, we may need to have two recognizable local Orthodox jurisdictions (one under Moscow and the other under Constantinople) in Ukraine before moving to one. This seems like a step backwards but may not be; just as the refusal to validate the OCA’s claim for autocephaly seems like a step backwards here in the USA. As long as we celebrate and focus on the Unity of Christ in the Eucharist, the secondary and tertiary details of administration will fail to distract us (and eventually work out). If one thinks that there is nothing more important than autocephaly (or continuity of historical patterns of rule), then humility is not possible. Earthly ideas and power crowd out eternal ones.
Interview on the Pani Matka Conference
Vol’ya (Andy Rooney) Moment
Learned just how shallow my relationship with peace is. Over-scheduled at the end of a long and trying time. [describe the weeks leading up to the event, then the events of the day, then the fact of being both lost and late]. Came to my wits end. Peace only comes if we make room for it. Stress is a sign that our relationship with time is perverted. For me, part of the answer is technical: better planning of my time (and ensure working GPS!). But the more important part of it is identifying and rooting out the newly revealed indicator of sin! I am too attached to something or I would not have reacted in such a way. We have so little vision of our own most deeply rooted sins: really need the help of honest friends (and husbands/wives!) and a discerning and pastoral spiritual father/mother (need both discernment and pastoral wisdom, BTW). This is part of my problem: more important (and difficult) than fixing the GPS or getting a better calendar. In the meantime, I have become more intentional about my relationship with time and more realistic about my limits. I really can spread myself too thin! I teased my friend Fr. Dn. Borislav last week about forgetting the fundamentals – he’s not the only one!
