What is a theologian?
There are a lot of definitions out there, mostly like “person thinking about God” or “someone who studies the nature of God, religion, and religious beliefs” and the like. This is a profoundly NON-Christian view of theology, and I will come back to it later (in a future vignette)
Imagine you are one of those modern wannabe “theologians” and you think about God and religion a lot. Now let’s make a thought experiment. You, as a budding “theologian” can chose any one of these topics to write a book on:
- A discussion of angels based on the writings of Saint Dionysios
- A history of the Antiochian Church in the 8th century
- A biography of Christ’s newfound (you did) sister (!!!)
Which one would you pick? Option A requires a lot of brainpower, time and study of the Church Fathers (to ascertain what the consensus patrum on this topic is). Besides, angels are a myth, right? Invented to make little children happy, but nobody believes in them or cares anyway, so why bother? Angels are like “Easter” eggs and bunnies – simply myths for simple people: in our times of “enlightened” positivism discussing angels is only acceptable in a joke or in a metaphor (how many fit on a pin?). So not option A.
Option B is probably fine, but nobody cares (or even knows!) about Antioch, so why bother? In both case A and case B you will sell a few books here, maybe for libraries, and there and it will all be quickly forgotten. So option B is no good for anybody wanting to be noticed or in any way “original”.
Simply put, modern “theologians” are like journos – they have to chose between speaking truthfully and going bankrupt or lying (aka “presenting an original thesis”) and sells lots of books. What do you think most of them chose?
Now compare that with option C! Here is the full title of the book “Christ’s forgotten sister – the full truth about Christ’s hidden sister!!!!!“. Woah! That might be utter nonsense (it is, of course!), but it is hard to prove a negative and, besides, nonsense or not, that will sell! That, for sure, is “original”, no?
First, all the anti-religious folks will love it just because it contradicts the Scripture and Fathers. Second, while some will call your thesis utterly stupid, most reviewers will call you “daring” and “original” and commend you for your “courage” to take on “the Church”. Do you also see the proceeds of that book suddenly rising far higher than in any of the other two options?
Next, if Christ had a sister, it begs the question of who the father of that sister? Was it also God? Or maybe Saint Joseph? Or even somebody else? I would not put it past modern theologians to suggest that Christ’s sister probably had descendants. If not, maybe she was “gay” (modernspeak for homosexual)? And maybe she rejected Christ and sided with the Pharisees?
Now ain’t that really “cool” topics, maybe for a good summer read on the beach or by a swimming pool?
Do you see all the possibilities?!
One more “advantage” of the option C: to propose it you do NOT need to know anything about Church history, you do NOT need to have read Patristics and you even do NOT need even a cursory familiarity with the New Testament. In other words, zero effort and very nice return on investment ($$$).
Does that happen in reality?
Yes, sure, I will two perfect which are mind blowing in their stupidity AND popularity.
Example one – “Paulism” or how Saint Paul “created modern Christianity“. It goes something like that: Christ was a peaceful, kind-hearted quasi-hippie who loved everybody and everything. Then came the nasty “Paul” (these folks will not use proper the “Saint Paul” expression) who brought a ton of nasty and intolerant restrictions, “Paul” was either a “notorious homophobe” or, coming from the same corner, a crypto-gay in love for Saint Peter (to those offended, I apologize, but modern homos do really spew that kind of toxic nonsense I have seen that one very often in the past)) organized what was originally in informal hippie commune -type of society and replaced it with modern Christianity aka “organized religion”!
LOL!
The sheer mendacious audacity of that thesis always blows my mind!
Let’s use only our common sense next. Here is what we know for a fact:
- Saint Paul used to be a vicious persecutor of the Church until his conversion on the road to Damascus
- Some Christians initially feared and distrusted Saint Paul
- Saint Paul never meet Christ face to face, he only had a vision on the road to Damascus
- Saint Paul was surrounded by all the other Apostles all if which new Christ personally and all of whom were martyred with the sole exception of Saint John. In other words, they really cared about Christ’s truth!
Now just use your common sense.
You are part of a group of people willing to die for their beliefs and for their Master whom you and the rest of the group personally know really well. In fact, 4 members of your group even put down in writing their full testimony. Now a former persecutor whom you used to really fear suddenly shows up and declares himself converted and wants to join.
Would you let him? Most of us would never. But then, the Apostles were real saints and they accepted him with an open and loving heart!
Okay, but we can assume that Saint Paul was sill under A LOT of scrutiny (even saints are “only human” and, besides, we are all weak sinners anyway) not only at the moment of formal admission, but even later.
But if that is true, how could this “relative newcomer” suddenly start preaching a radically different kind of message than the one taught to all by Christ Himself? Saint Paul he also wrote a lot of letters which gradually perverts what the real Christianity, at least so say the adherents to the “Paulinian Christianity” sect.
Let me repeat, the “Paulinians” are claiming that Saint Paul perverted teachings which all Christians had access to, which all Christians knew (mostly by heart at that time!) and all Christians agreed upon. These early Christians were taught by personally by Christ Himself, and they were more than willing to die for these teachings!
Last, but not least, some early Christians, (including Saint Peter himself) openly polemicized with some of what that newcomer said!
And, suddenly, voila, in spite of it all, the newcomer somehow mysteriously conned everybody and created the “Pauline religion”. How that would have been possible in the first place is never specified or even asked. Hey, if the thesis is “daring” who cares about boring stuff like facts or logic?
Seriously, how utterly stupid and lacking basic common sense must one be to buy that self-evidence idiocy?!
Oh, but it gets better! After all the original Apostles (12+70) were all gone, their successors, the bishops and presbyters and laity all get together and (among other issues) decide which books should or should not be part of the Church-approved list of books to be included in the official New (and even Old!) Testaments.
NOTE: If you are not aware of this, please stop reading and immediately read this before continuing:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/whichcamefirst.aspx
Anyway, these multitudes of early Christians got together and decided to… …include a lot of Saint Paul’s letters into the New Testament (originally be reading Saint Paul’s letters, recognized as authoritative, in official assemblies and religious ceremonies). That is a historical fact.
So the evil “Paul” must have conned them all, including “lightweights” as Saint John the Evangelist and Theologian and even The Virgin Mary!
Right? Wrong, of course, and self-evidently absurd!
So, here is what we can conclude about this canard:
- The early Christians would NEVER have allowed anybody, nevermind a former persecutor of the Church, to pervert a message which they all heard directly from Christ Himself.
- If Saint Paul had deviated only by one iota (the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet, literally!) from Christ’s message, he would have been immediately condemned just like the heretics who tried to replace a letter “o” by a letter “i” to the word “consubstantiatial” (homoousios) and turn it into “of a similar/like substance” (homoiousios). No need for us to get further bogged down on this telling, but complex, example.
- For centuries since, council after council, saint after saint, have not only reaffirmed every word written by Saint Paul (truly a giant of Christianity) but the absolute best Christians theologians in history based their writings on Saint Paul and later, on each other. They include: Saint Dionysios the Areopagite (who knew Saint Paul and the Virgin Mary personally, and lived in the 1st century, modern “theologians” often deny his existence and/or the authorship of his writings), Saint Maximos the Confessor (7th century), Saint Photios the Great (9th century) and Saint Gregory Palamas (14th century).
[Sidebar: please remember those five names and roughly when they lived as these saints are the “nec plus ultra” of Christian dogmatic theologian-saints. I also consider them the among the most important philosophers in history. Any discussion of early, true, original Christianity which does not at least mention them is extremely hard for me to imagine. The problem is that they are also not easy to read, to put it mildly. Hence why Saint John Chrysostomos or Saint Basil the Great are more typically recommended for beginners. And, of course, these saints all said/wrote the “same stuff”, just expressed differently. But, with this caveat in mind, please keep those “Big Five” (incl. Saint Paul, of course!) in mind as I will very often either quote or refer to them]
Rhetorical question: what do we call a wannabe “Christian” “theologian” who sincerely believes that he/she knows more, and understand the original Christianity better, than Saint Paul, Saint Dionysios, Saint Maximos, Saint Photios and Saint Gregory?
I personally would be quick to call such a person a ignorant and delusional fool. But that’s the usual sinful me speaking. The technical term for the state these people are in is known in Greek as “plani” and in Slavonic “prelest’” and roughly translates to “spiritual delusion” (“a wounding of human nature by falsehood” according to St. Ignatius Brianchaninov).
Furthermore, not only because “The Big Five” and many thousands other saints know better, but also because even a small dose of common sense allows me to reject that thesis prima facie.
If after reading the above you still believe in the “Pauline myth” please contact me ASAP, I have several beautiful bridges to sell you, and at a great price too (say $10k only a pop)!
Now let’s deal with the second canard:
Example two – How “Christ brought us love, not an organized religion!“.
Let’s begin with a small reminder. First, in the Heavens, God created angels and arranged them hierarchically. (we know that from many sources, including Saint Dionysios’ text on “The Celestial Hierarchy“. Then God also gave a single command to Adam and Eve, which presupposes that He saw Himself as hierarchically superior to them both. So far so good? Then God gave commandments (not suggestions!) to His chosen people who then organized in several ways (prophets, kinds and judges)!
Then, following His Incarnation into the flesh, Christ created a core managerial/officer group he called “Apostles” and then He organized another 70 aides/NCOs to assist them.
This all sure looks very well hierarchical and even organized to me!!!
Next, Christ’s Apostles organized the first (Apostolic) Council in which they reaffirmed their infallible authority (“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” Acts 15:28). Next, they proceeded to organize what we now call dioceses, run by a bishop aided by presbyters (both of them are priests, of course). In other words, the Apostles were very much “into organized religion”, unlike our modern wannabe “theologians”.
But this goes even much deeper. Christianity has dogmas. Let me explain.
You can think of dogmas as established beliefs or doctrines which are authoritative and cannot not to be disputed or doubted by any person calling himself/herself a “Christian”. Actually, there are not that many real dogmas out there for a simple reason: the early Christians and their followers never saw any need to put it all down in writing and proclaim dogmas left and right just for the heck of it. They wrote letters, true. But dogmas are the product of three things: a consensus of the Church Fathers, a re-affirmation of that consensus by an authorized/competent Church Council and the need to denounce a false teaching!
In other words, in its categorical affirmation of some truths Christianity is the most theologically intolerant religion out there! Again, I need to clarify what I mean by that.
While Christians are taught not to judge, use the Golden Rule and show compassion, mercy and love to their personal enemies and for all those who do not know the Truth of Christ, on a theological level I would argue that original Christianity is the single most intolerant religion out there: it dares to proclaim One Single (“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5-6)) and Absolute (the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)) and Eternal Truth (“the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matt 16:18)) and says that those who disagree cannot call themselves Christians anymore (vide supra). This is why the notion of “Christians sects” or even “denominations” makes no sense when discussing Christianity. Well, okay, you can, but only in the sense of “they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:19). Those who publicly teach anything contradicting those Christian dogmas are called “heretics”, this is not an insult, it just means those who made a different choice.
By the way, the one who breaches the Church hierarchy established by Christ Himself is called either a “schismatic” or a “parasynagogue”. Don’t worry about these terms now, just remember that they are not insults and that original Christianity very much had organization and authority. If not, why even have categories as “heretic” or “schismatic” anyway???
I don’t want to discuss dogmatics here, that is also for a future vignette, all you need to know or the time being is that the Church has the authority to reaffirm/proclaim dogmas and that authority, or the dogmas, cannot be disputed by anybody calling himself ‘Christian’ in the early Christian sense. Hence Saint Athanasios of Alexandria’s (4th century) famous words about the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian” (St. Athanasius).
Conversely, when the Church declares “anathema” on a teaching or a person (different cases!) this is not a “curse” or an active excommunication. It is simply a public statement, by the competent Church authorities, that teaching X and/or person Y has been declared as “outside the Church” and, to quote Wipikedia (which got only this one paragraph right, the rest of it is useless for us), “For the Orthodox, anathema is not final damnation. God alone is the judge of the living and the dead, and up until the moment of death repentance is always possible. The purpose of public anathema is twofold: to warn the one condemned and bring about his repentance, and to warn others away from his error. Everything is done for the purpose of the salvation of souls.” (stress added by me).
You can, for our purposes only, think of the Church as a “truth reaffirmation entity” or a “clarifier of what could be ambiguous to some“. This is, by necessity, a highly organized entity and a highly hierarchical one. You can also say that “Christian dogmatics are reactive” in the sense that they are formally proclaimed only if and when someone/something is misleading the faithful.
[Sidebar: careful with this one, the Latins absolutely love to pervert the original meaning of this by saying “we never proclaimed anything new, we just *clarified* or *elucidated* what which was always believed in, and by, the Church”. Simply put: this is a blatant and easy to disprove lie: the Latins have innovated for 1000 years, contradicting now only the Church and the Fathers, but even themselves!!! If anybody reads the past sentence and disagrees, I urge you to not sign up for the vignettes and, if you have, sign out. I will not demonstrate such truisms anymore, nor will I bother arguing with Latins about anything anyway for if the Latins “had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us” but they did not. They are still totally unrepentant. Why should I even bother with them anymore? And if they are sincere and not lying, then they failed to realized that “the Church” (not the Papacy!) and any “dogma proclamation/explanation/clarification” has to be upward compatible with everything the Church ever taught. In the words of Saint Vincent of Lérins, 5th century, who said that true Christianity is that “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all”. But then, since the self-declared infallible Popes even condemned and contradicted each other, why even waste any attention on this theological kindergarten?]
By the way, to those Reformed and who did not read the piece by Father Bernstein above, and who say “I believe in the Bible as the Revealed Word of God” I always reply “which Bible” and inform them that the collection of books they are holding in their hands and whom they treat as if it was written by a single author, that it was the Church which decided what does, or does not, belong in this collection of books. Yes, the Church whose authority the Reformed deny (and the Latins terminally disfigured and perverted) decided which books you now will consider “The Revealed Word of God” :-) Furthermore, by declaring the Bible the Revealed Word of God our Reformed friends don’t even realize that they are logically recognizing the authority of the Church and place it clearly above them. So sola scriptura is not only factual false, it is also contains an internal logical contradiction (who decides which scriptura gets to be called “sola“?!).
Conclusions:
Before we even begin our trip into the world of early/original/Orthodox (from now on I will consider these as synonyms) Christianity we will have to get a lot of bad weeds out of our mental garden. To use that, I will use both empirical evidence and basic logic. My goal, by the way, is NOT, repeat, NOT to convince or, even less so, “convert” anybody.
One of my goals is to convince you and others (with some exceptions, of course!) of the fact that almost everything you think you know about early Christianity is wrong, false, or otherwise misinterpreted. Early Christians, Fathers and saints would never have recognized 99% of what is called “Christianity” out there as even remotely Christian. In theologica terms, in a theological context, the word “Christian” only has one meaning and that could be expressed as “participant in the Theandric Body of Christ by His Grace and through His Uncreated Energies”. That’s not very convenient. So Christ also gave His Church the Eucharist and the other Mysteries (mistakenly called “Sacraments” in the West) which reveal the ultimate sign of true unity “in Christ”: partaking from the same Cup.
Yes, in the original Christianity, a total and full agreement on faith/dogmatics was a necessary prerequisite to be allowed to partake of the Cup. Modern pseudo-Christianity flipped this (and everything else Christ taught!) on its head and declared that “first we pray and commune together since we are all baptized in the same way (which is false, by the way, but let’s ignore this now) and we worship the same God Christ anyway”.
For early Christians a true union in faith was “crowed” by sharing the Cup while for modern “Christians” any discussion about “Christian unity” must begin with what they call “inter-communion”. What folly indeed!
Next, I want to prove to you, over time, that The One And Only True Church Of Christ (all in caps) not only still exists, but that Christ Himself said so. That is a true no-brainer as soon as you reach for early Christian writings.
Finally, I want to make myself available for questions. I mean real, sincerely expressed, questions, of course, not post-Christian Latin Pope-worshipping teenyboppers who don’t even believe in (or even know about) their own, Latin, theology, even when it contradicts itself, and who don’t care at all about The Truth (in the real Greek/Slavonic sense of the word).
After that, what each person does with what I share is none of my business :-)
Please remember that I have now banned any Latin propaganda in the rules of moderation (rule #21). This also goes for anybody attempted to hijack the topic, force upon us some agenda, or just using a smart-ass snarky tone. They will all be ejected by me personally. Please have no doubts on this account.
However, I want to remind you of two more rules:
Rule #5 says: Criticism of religion. Fundamentally, the religion we profess is the result of a personal choice. As such, I consider religions as legitimate targets for scrutiny and criticism. However, I also think of this blog as my “virtual home” and of commentators as guests in my home. My guests need to know that I, their host, am a traditionalist Orthodox Christian and that I consider traditionalist Muslims (i.e. non-Takfiris) as my friends. You want to think long and hard before insulting my faith or my friends in my home. Atheists and agnostics are welcome here as long as they know where they are and what I expect from my guests. If you can offer a well-informed and logical criticism of Christianity or Islam, that is absolutely fine. But please aware that the minimum to qualify as “well-informed” is to understand the differences between the main Christian and Muslim branches/denominations/sects. Also, here is a rule of thumb: avoid quoting authors, (even if they fancy themselves as “theologians”) who were born after 1900.
There are some superb theologians born after 1900, but unless you are pretty darn sure that your authors deserves to be quoted in discussing the Christian Vignettes, please avoid it as much as possible. If you want to quote Father George Florovsky or Vladimir Lossky – by all means! We would be grateful. But some pretend theologian selling on Amazon – please not, really!
Let’s say that my rule of thumb will keep you out of trouble :-)
Okay, I will stop here and hope for a lively discussion including ways to make this project better, including: how we organized it, the goals of the project, any ideas or suggestions are all welcome.
Unless my plans changes, maybe in response to this first vignette, I plan “what is a “real theologian” according to real/traditional/original/true Christianity?” as my next topic.
Kindest regards
Andrei
PS: also, on form. I would be grateful if you could follow these rules of proper theological discourse: call any person glorified as a saint by the Church as “Saint X” not just his/her first name. The proper way to refer to a priest is “Father X”, no Bill, Frank Joe or Igor. You refer to a deacon as “Father-deacon X”. Next, the words “in Christ” should only be used by those who partake from the same Cup! Otherwise, we are only “brothers in Adam” (which is still a BIG deal!). Furthermore, when referring to the One God you write it with a capital “God” while the lower case “god” should be used only for non-Christian god(s). When writing about God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, always used capitals, not only to show courtesy and respect, but also to make it clear what you mean by “God” or “Spirit”. Christ’s name was Jesus, but Orthodox Christians prefer to call Him “Christ” (so as to avoid any semblance of familiarity), the same goes for the Mary, who we formally refer to as “the Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin and Mother of God”, whom we normally refer to as to the “Theotokos“/”Bogoroditsa” (Mother of God), but never just as “Mary”. This is better writing, shows better manners/character and is respectful of that others hold for sacred.
If you really have profound principles which categorically prevent you from doing as I request (say you misunderstood what Christ truly meant when He said “do not call anyone on earth father” (Matt 23:9) and, in what you mistakenly believe is obedience to Christ’s words, you refuse to call any priest “father”. Or, who knows, if you are a hardcore anthropomorphize literalist, you might even refuse to call your own dad “father”! If that is really the case, then, by all means stick to your choice of words as long as it is if not positive, then at least respectfully neutral.
I, Andrei Raevsky, aka The Saker, have absolutely no authority whatsoever to teach anything to anyone. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada! The “Christian Vignettes” are NOT a catechism, or a course in dogmatics or anything else formal. These vignettes are only one guy’s strictly personal musings on various topics. Nothing more.
Fantastic start! I am excited about this.
I remember one time when a few friends and I (all Orthodox) went to swim at a YMCA (originally “Young Men’s Christian Association”, founded back before all this modernism). There was a picture in the lobby of a nice-looking guy with long wavy brown hair. When someone asked “who is that?”, someone nearby said “that’s Christ”. Whereupon one of us said, “That is not an icon of the Pantocrator! How could someone who looks weak and pleasant like that actually be our Savior?” We Orthodox are evidently in the minority in terms of general understanding.
You are quite welcome, I will try hard not to disappoint you!
Cheers
“In early times there was no organic separation between Bible and Church, as we so often find today. The Body without the Word is without message, but the Word without the Body is without foundation.”
from Fr. James Bernstein article you referenced
I’ll be thinking about this for a while. Really enjoyed both your vignette and Fr Bernstein’s essay. I can see that the history of the Church in the first 1000 years is critically important for an appreciation of “what is Christianity”. I think C.S. Lewis might have benefited from a more thorough study of this matter. Early days though.
Oh CS Lewis was a real theologian in so many ways! I will return to his superb “Mere Christianity” more than once. His “Screwtape letters” are also a masterpiece. Yes, alas, Lewis, and many others (Tolkien), CORRECTLY saw the problems in what they thought of as “contemporary Christianity” but for all sorts of reasons, including the western sense of superiority over the East, they FAILED found the correct “solution”. All they needed was to “rewind” Christianity by about 1000 years and they would have found what they were looking for.
Sadly, they did not, but I admire them nonetheless!
But yes, the West needs to cut its false roots in the Middle-Ages are return to 1000 years of true western Christianity!
Couldn’t agree more about CS Lewis, in fact when I was catechized, Father James Paris (recently deceased)* instructed me to read “Mere Christianity”. I recall in particular, Lewis’ description of the Church as a map to salvation. The Church and its mysteries provide no guarantees, but much like a nautical map, it can provide directions and warn against reefs and dangerous tides.
*As an example of Orthodox hymnology for the unaware, here is “With the Saints”, the traditional hymn for those who have passed on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aqgmbDcqj4
I agree that common sense can be a useful tool of faith.
I have a question.
In the paragraph beginning, “If Saint Paul had deviated only by one iota…”, were the heretics who tried to replace consubstantiatial with of a similar/like substance expunged from Christianity as it developed, or did they and their thought linger?
I ask because the first sounds definite, while the second sounds tentative.
I ask also because the politics of Christianity interests me as much as the theology.
Very good questions!
But a complex one too :-)
From the very early years, Christians knew that non-Christians were non-Christians for different reasons. Therefore, they needed to be “treated” (by spiritual medicine if you wish) differently. This gets very complicated very fast, so I will simplify. Some, which the Church sees are true enemies of God, Christ and His Church are denounced as such and banned from the Christian community. This is the “max” case. Others are SINCERELY mislead. Those need to be summoned, no less than three times, to a council in which the summoned people 1) they will clarify and explain what they truly believe (you cannot give a medicine based on rumors, you need to examine the patient and, in this case, hear him/her out. If it becomes clear that the person has deviated from the Christian Truth, 2) the other members of the council will then try to convince them of their mistake. If that works, the lost sheep are welcomed back to the fold of the Church with great joy and gratitude to God! But if that fails, then, assuming the correct, authoritative, 3) local council (or even ecumenical council) will then issue a stern and last warning. When that does not work, the council can decide to remove from communion (excommunicate in western terminology) a (group of) person(s) until either that this/these person(s) repents or a higher council takes control of the matter.
Then there are those non-Christians who never personally were exposed to true Christianity and Christ, how could anybody condemn them in the first place? On this topic (proselytizing) here is how I personally see this:
1) we were taught by Christ “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?”
2) Christ ALSO said “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
I interpret that as follows: no need to preach or run after others, but if sincerely asked for bread, then give it!
By the way, Christians believe that the best way to save others is to save oneself, that is how one can save “thousands” – by being a faithful “icon” of Christ, or what some Fathers called a “small-Christ”. But that gets very complicated very fast, so let’s leave that for a future vignette, ok?
And, of course, there were instances when the Church persecuted the innocent!
Why?
Because while the Church if filled with the Holy Spirit and infallible, the HUMANS in it are all sinners, even the very top ones, even the saints! There were plenty of evil/greedy/violent patriarchs, bishops, priests and lay people. That is *NORMAL*.
===>>The Church is not a club of saints, but a hospital for sinners.
Some of the local “doctors” are ALSO patients with their own spiritual struggles and failures.
Not only that,
But the state authorities in Orthodox civilizations like the East Roman Empire (aka Byzantium) or Russia did sometimes not hesitate to use the full power of the state against perceived “heretics” because the latter also presented a social threat (at least in the minds of these secular rulers).
In other words, the real reality is, alas, often different from the lofty models and theories…
Is the answer above adequate or do you have any follow up questions?
(I barely touched the surface of this very complex and important issue!).
Kind regards
Andrei
the politics of Christianity interests me as much as the theology.
Yes, they are interesting (often quite horrible too), but you need to really keep the two separated.
The short thing is this: Christians are only humans, all of them. With their own passions, sins, weaknesses, etc.
As for state rulers, they rarely truly care about theology, what they want is power.
So they use religion for their own purposes, but in truth they often use and even abuse religion.
I can think of, say, both Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great who both used religion for their own state purposes.
Also, there are bishops who very much cozy up to secular powers, and those are often the worst.
So
One topic is: Christian theology
and another is: what humans did in the name of Christ
These are DIFFERENT, but obviously linked, topics.
I hope that this is helpful!
Andrei
It was, thnx!
Thank you, and, yes, it was helpful.
I am looking forward to your future vignettes. I agree that there are two streams here – the theology of Christianity and the politics of Christians. I hope you will explore and explain both as we go forward.
Sorry that i do not have much to contribute right now, i just wanted to thank you for an amazing start.
I had not heard about The Shepherd of Hermas before, i think i might read it tonight.
Not to forget all the other “homework” you left above.
Thank you Andrei.
Per
No worries!
This is going to be a very laid-back group of people and many are not too sure where this is all heading.
Just read the vignettes, then the comments, and if you have a question, ask it.
Or not.
It is fine to just lurk :-)
Cheers
Andrei
Takk👍
I do see signs that my eyes will be blood shut and dry from reading tho 😁 But that i do not mind.
Have a good day.
Per
Wow. I agree. I read a lot about Orthodoxy from the Bernstein resource site since the Vignette opened. The articles I read over the holiday weekend were not “light reading.” Not, at least, for me.
Walking into a new theological perspective is not an easy task, if only from the same perspectives that appear to be also found in Orthodox tradition: One ought not just quickly drop or throw away where they’ve been (or what they’ve gained) because something new, or different, or interesting shows up in the church world. In the financial world, that seems a pathway for going broke. And yes, that was intentionally suggestive.
I have deep concerns about (at least) American cultural Christianity. I also have concerns about my ability to make a proper diagnosis. Bias is real, at least in my world. That made an interesting connection in the weekend reading with the thread about the problems with every person acting on their own authority and interpretation as they feel “led by God.”
Summary so far: it’s a good kind of discomfort, and I appreciate the agitation is is causing.
I think my “inch deep and a mile wide” working knowledge on early Church history just grew a little bit deeper. Vignette #1 and comments were a refreshing round of new ideas. Reading Fr. James Bernstein was too.
One question set, since it seems to fit in the Bernstein context:
There’s a big gap from the “earliest” time reference covered by Bernstein to the time when the (western sponsored ~1604) KJV officially adopted the Textus Receptus for the KJV… instead of the Alexandrian text. Now, however, there are versions that prefer and argue for the Alexandrian text. [Aside: I have no skin in this game, but also very little knowledge of Orthodoxy.]
Bernstein made the point that the earliest Church used multiple sources/multiple texts/oral traditions. I think that this very clearly must be so. More recently however, in at least some of the preacher factories, there was and maybe still is a kind of polarization between what I understand are the two main sources (T.R. vs. A.T.).
How does the Orthodox Church frame their perspective on texts like the T.R., A.T., and beyond, if there are now any others in use?
okay, first things first: the Orthodox Church only recognizes ONE text as the authoritative Old Testament, that is the Septuagint (LXX). The differences between the LXX and the other major text, the Masoretic Text (MT) are substantial and are not limited to differences in style.
Since I read the Scripture only in Church Slavonic, I never really looked into this purely Greek New testament issue. If I remember correctly, versin used by the Orthodox Church is the “Patriarchal Text” which is a variant of the “Byzantine text” which is closer to the Textus Receptus than other version.
Please keep this in mind: as Oscar Cullmann one stated, the textual variants of the NT do not amount to a single doctrinal change
But, please, don’t trust me on this, hopefully somebody else, who read Greek, can explain that in more details!
They depths of my own ignorance on many matters will often be revealed in these vignettes.
So I also hope to learn a lot from others here.
Kind regards
I’ve been watching some alt sites and ran across information that exposes supposed Jewish infiltration within the elite and hierarchy of the Orthodox church (and of course Western churches). This manipulation influenced church dogma and supposedly has gone on for hundreds of years to favor Jewish outcomes. Do you see any truth to these accusations where dogma or church teachings were effected? I know it is controversial, however will you be talking at some point about such supposed influences.
Woah!!! That is both a very interesting topic and a deliciously politically INcorrect one at that :-)
The problem is that a reply deserves several PhD theses at least.
Also, terms need to be defined. Who/what is a Jew? Which period EXACTLY in the history of the Church are we talking about?
I will see this: in the past 2000 yeas, Christians and Judaics (think rabbinical Judaism here, or of the sect of the Pharisees from which almost all modern version of “Judaism” come from) have fought each other and persecuted each other. Both sides spilled lots of innocent blood. And yes, there were periods in history where Judaics did attempt to infiltrate both the Papacy and the Church. On the former, I refer you to the superb research on this topic by Michael Hoffman. I cannot comment on what took place in the East Roman Empire (aka “Byzantium”) but I can confirm that there was at least one attempt by Judaics to take over the Russian Orthodox Church (early 16th century), and that one failed. You could argue that the Reform movement and later the Masonic loges were also quickly filled with anti-Christian Judaics, there is some truth to that, but that is only one part of a much more complex reality.
So, forgive me, but I will cowardly bow out from a real reply and leave that for a future vignette maybe discussing one specific case?
Kind regards
Andrei
I find this site refreshing. During my seminary days (over 40 years ago), I studied about the Western Church from the early church to the modern-day. I would have learned almost nothing about the Eastern Church had it not been for a friend who was transferring to an Orthodox Seminary and an old Greek, Greek Orthodox Church from Greek. We found it quite refreshing to have a Priest, wearing his robe, etc. through the streets of Oklahoma. Although his English was not great, he gave us some basic understanding of his background. As he talked with such passion about the Early Church, I fell in love with that period. Over the years I have not had time to really spent time reading, studying this critical time in church history. So I feel I have a direction. I thank you for this. Although I knew most of what Fr. James Bernstein wrote, I also realized how much I had forgotten. So I have gone through my digital library (sorry, easier to move and keep in a small area) and started reading. Thanks, I look forward to continuing too learn more.
I have been contemplating a move to the Church for some time.
To me it requires reading, much reading, and freeing ‘ballast’ (Roman Catholic by birth, German and French philosophy by early choice)
As a South American, we do accept contradictions in our views, since we lack the stubborn discipline of say Germans, we do believe that perceived chaos is part of nature and our literature loves ‘magic realism’, partly as a denial of cruel reality.
But truth and faith should be a product of guided good reasoning and thorough meditation.
Bishop Alexander Mileant talks about the yardstick of truth by which our choices of Christianity need to be measured, which is solely the beliefs espoused and instituted by the Apostles.
I see Andrei’s writing as a clear and strong guide to take us out of the ‘forest’.
Cheers from France.
Which books wld you recommend to start with?
I have Timothy Ware “The Orthodox Church” to learn the history of the Church.
Further, as an extensive introduction, I have “Orthodox Christianity” from Bishop Alexander Mileant”.
Somewhere else I read that Orthodox Christianity rests on “Orthodox phronema” (mindset/outlook/right faith and right practice) which some have naturally (Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc) but Westerners lack or never had.
Is this ‘rationality’ (and their excess) versus ‘spirituality’?
Cheers from France.
Both excellent advice!!
Here are also a few decent websites:
http://orthodoxhistory.info/
http://orthodoxinfo.com/
https://www.fatheralexander.org/
However, the phronema you are referring is not “Orthodox” but “Patristic”, that is why it is called phronema ton pateron or “spirit/mindset of the Fathers”.
This is also pretty good: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ph_holytrad.aspx
Bottom line, this is not a national or cultural or civilizational category. It is a purely spiritual one, in which the “old man” sheds is “old mental skin” and gradually changes, becomes more Christ-like, and that is something which ALL humans are called to irrespective of their nationality, culture or language.
Cheers!
A few other recommendations; “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, and “Orthodox Theology” by Vladimir Lossky. As you have a philosophic bent and undoubtedly read French I think the Lossky book would be right up your alley.
Agreed on both of these recommendations, with one caveat Lossky is probably too complex for beginners.
And there are superb translations of Lossy into French, I have many of them at home :-)
Following from Thomas’ suggestion, here’s a webpage in French dedicated to Vladimir Lossky: http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/theologiens/lossky/lossky-intro.htm
Lossky is one of the best theologians of XX century. Unfortunately under some influence of Berdyaev’s personalism, but otherwise greatly explains the Orthodox theology. One of his best works is “Essai sur la théologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient” (unfortunately I think not freely available on internet, but should be on Amazon etc.)
It’s available from St. Vladimir’s, https://svspress.com/mystical-theology-of-the-eastern-church-the/.
I wish to echo the Saker and thank you Дмитрий for your contributions.
I like your “Big Five”. Each of them is indeed a Church teacher of a crucial importance, which is hard to overestimate.
But I think this concept is unfair to the Church teachers of the “Golden patristic age” i.e. IV-V centuries, – it was them who developed and polished the basic distinction – which is at the core of any Orthodox theology – between hypostasis and substance. As St. John Damascene (VIII c.) very rightly said, what all heretics do is confuse hypostasis with substance; this was true of Arians, Nestorians, monophysites, monothelites, iconoclasts, Latins (aka “Roman Catholics”), Varlaamites (basically, eastern Thomists) etc.
I believe the most important theologian of those was St. Gregory the Theologian (not for nothing was he given this name!) St.Maximus has written numerous Q&As on difficult places from St. Dionysius *and St. Gregory*. Along with him, St.Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostome were deemed by the Church the three most impeccable teachers (although the latter two have written few purely dogmatic works). Then, on Christology we have such great authors as St. Cyril of Alexandria, St.Leo of Rome, and Theodoret of Cyrus, who were not as impeccable but they formulated the dogmats of III and IV Ecumenical Councils, which are theological masterpieces.
Also, St. John Damascene is himself one of the most crucial theologians; I think his “Exposure of Orthodox Faith” is, to this day, the best textbook to study theology. He may not have been as original – a lot of his work was summarising his predecessors, particularly St. Maximus, – but he definitely understood theology very deeply, and he produced a great body of work.
Dear Дмитрий
Thanks for a very interesting comment. And, yes, my “Big Five” are only a personal love, but in no way did I mean to imply that others, including Saint Basil, Saint John Chrysostome, Saint Cyril or Saint Leo are somehow “lesser” in any way. And, of course, agreed on St John Damascene. If I gave that impression then I was wrong and I am sorry about that.
I think that you and I would agree that The Real And Authoritative Truth is the consensus of all the Fathers from which this consensus was derived, agreed?
And yes, of course, the Latins simply could not understand the essence/energy distinction
Dear Дмитрий, thanks for joining our group and thanks for your comments!
Thanks a lot Saker. I fully agree that the consensus of the Fathers throughout different ages is very real; in fact it is mind-boggling to think of: nothing of the kind can be found in, say, philosophy or sciences, where one theory replaces another, over and over again. Whereas with the Fathers, the concepts are the same though explained sometimes in different words, and different aspects are stressed depending on the needs of the epoch.
The essense(substance)/energy distinction is indeed also at the very foundation of the Orthodox theology, ie all three (substance, hypostasis and energy) should be clearly distinguished from each other. The Latins didn’t understand the essense/energy distinction (hence their dislike for Palamas) but neither did they properly understand the essense/hypostasis distinction, which is why they made the Filioque error.
Hello everybody,
Although in late, just want to thank for this first “vignette”. I had occasion to discuss with people sustaining this “paulism” theory, but unfortunately I could not reply in a convincing way. Now I have some more arguments.
Concerning the main topic, i.e. demonstrate that “everything you think you know about early Christianity is wrong, false, or otherwise misinterpreted”, do you think it is related to the Christ question [Luke 18:1-8] “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
I always wondered if the answer to this dubitative question should read “Of course He will find faith, but most people will have a wrong/misinterpreted one”.
I think the question of what constitutes a theologian is truly essential to any discussion regarding the Christian faith in this modern world of ours. The three potential book topics for budding ‘wannabe’ theologians strikes a chord with me, as I was for a while in the pseudo-religious world of academia in the religious studies of a major secular university, and yes, this is exactly the issue with academic theology spanning back at least a century if not more.
I wish I could give a good answer, but a while back I came across this quote in the section entitled ‘The Prayer of the Heart’ in the Newrome Press prayer book, itself quoting the recently reposed Archimandrite Aimilianos’ work titled ‘The Way of the Spirit: Reflections on Life in God.’ In part:
‘Many theologians ask themselves: “Am I truly a theologian? Am I worth of being a theologian? . . . St. Neilos tells them: “If you pray truly, you are a theologian.” . . . It is prayer, then, and the Jesus Prayer in particular, that makes us theologians. St. Basil says that “the soul, through its ardent contemplation and love of God, is made worthy of the gift of theology by the power of God Himself, who enables the eyes of the soul to see all that they desire.” . . . Theology, then, is a living experience of the uncreated energies of God.
I can’t add anymore to this. All I can say is that centuries of western writers speaking on theology for the most part repeat one another, following certain standards that have mistaken or rather exchanged the true Substance of which the description speaks, with the description itself.
I think this is a natural tendency of the modern mindset, which the vast majority of us suffer from, often without even realizing it. It would be worth our time to shed our modern mindset, which is something I have just embarked on, and didn’t even realize I needed to do until a few years ago. For me, I would recommend reading three books, and doing so in the following order: “The Way of the Pilgrim” which needs no introduction; “The Archbishop” by Hieromonk Tihon; and “Laurus” by Eugene Vodolazkin. Those who enjoy the western classics might throw in C.S. Lewis’ “The Discarded Image.”
I know this has certainly helped understand all of this on a much deeper level.
Apologies for my tardiness! It’s going to take me time to digest this, as it is all new to me, and I’ll have to check out the references. This is fascinating, however, and these are good times for focusing on the spiritual. I love Russia and the other Slavic nations and this is the heart of your culture. A Catholic relative has also invited me into a similar conversation. Thank you for the lesson on how to proceed respectfully. in this venue. What is sacred to others is sacred to me, and I do my best to avoid offense.