In my previous vignette, I tried to explain why I mostly avoid modern theologians like the plague. I also mentioned the “Fathers” in many of my posts and comments. So, today, I will make a small introduction to one such “Father” and even recommend what I see as a *perfect* introductory booklet to this entire topic.
First things first – in spite of the (often misunderstood) words from Christ “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matt 23:9) it so happens that Christians call a lot of people “Father”. First, we refer to the God “Father”. We also call of male parents “father” (for the literalists, that could be construed as a violation of Christ’s commandment). We also refer to our priests (deacons, presbyters) as Father A or Father-Deacon B. As for our bishops, we refer to them as “Master” (despota, vladyka). And on top of this structure, we have the so-called “Church Fathers”.
But who are these Church Fathers anyway?!?!
The point here is not the interpretation of the words of Christ, but the fact that early Christians were never literalists. In fact, many Church Fathers have made fun of literalists. For example Saint Basil the great made fun of those who believe that “God has legs” since He was “walking in the Garden of Eden”, see for yourself: “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden” (Gen 3:8). By the way, this passage would imply, for the literalists, that God could not see behind tree branches!
Here is another perfect example of how literalism is deeply alien to the original Christianity:
We cannot, as mad people do, profanely visualize these heavenly and godlike intelligence as actually having numerous feet and faces. They are not shaped to resemble the brutishness of oxen or to display the wildness of lions. They do not have the curved beak of the eagle or the wings and feathers of birds. We must not have pictures of flaming wheels whirling in the skies, of material thrones made ready to provide a reception for the Deity, of multicolored horses or of spar-carrying lieutenants or any of those shapes handed on to us amid all the variety of revealing symbols of scripture.
These words were written by 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 in an attempt to discredit him and paint Christians are neo-Platonists (which is garbage, to put it mildly).
So for early/original Christians literalism is “out” (or we would have to believe that Christ was a “stone” or even a “door”). As is any form of sola scriptura.
So how do we interpret the Scripture?
Early Christians soon found out that on some issues they were totally united. But on others, they had differences of opinion, which is both good and healthy as Saint Paul himself told us to “test every spirit”. Last, but sure not least, Christ Himself told us that we are “friends” of God, created in His image and likeness, and that we shall know the truth and that truth will make us free. So while we call ourselves “servants/slaves of God”, this is a voluntary servitude given out of love. But we are all absolutely free to investigate, question, doubt, and otherwise seek the truth.
Anyway, over the years it became clear that there was a corpus of teachings, written AND oral, upon which all the Christians agreed upon and with time this became known as the “consensus of the Fathers“. We will deal with that issue many times again, but my point here is very simple, the idea was given to me by a Buddhist friend who told me this: I can very exactly describe a papaya to you, its weight, structure, parts, chemical composition, etc. etc. etc. I can even write a full book on papayas and give it to you. But none of that will never convey the real and full taste of a papaya to you – you need to taste one for yourself“. I agree 1000% with him.
So, rather than making a list of “Church Fathers” or discussing this concept ad nauseam, I will do something else here: I will “plug” what is, in my opinion, THE best way to “get a taste” of the Fathers – recommend a small booklet to you.
Here it is: “On Marriage and Family Life: St. John Chrysostom”
Here are two Amazon links for this booklet:
These small booklets are cheap, nicely printed, short and truly priceless so that is a good deal.
However, all this small volume contains are the following homilies of Saint John Chrysostome:
- Homily XIX: 1 Cor 7:1,2
- Homily XX: Ephesians 5:22-24
- Homily XXI: Ephesians 6:1-3
You can, of course, find them elsewhere, and even online. But 16-18 bucks is a steal, so get it, especially if you have never really read any of the original writings of the Fathers.
Here are my reasons for this recommendation:
- By reading these three homilies you will “taste” the “Patristic papaya” BEFORE you hear me droning on about it for for pages and pages about how awesome these “Fathers” were (and still are!)
- These homilies are very down to earth and written in a simple language everybody can understand (some Fathers, like Saint Maximos the Confessor, are hard, very hard, to read, whether in the original language or in translations) .
- These homilies are also a true “gem” showing you what both a Christian marriage and Christian family ought to look like and how a Christian family ought to operate. In our sad days of Bible-thumping crooks and gender-fluid wokes, this might well be the most needed text to read for any person trying to become a real Christian or have a truly Christian family.
- These homilies also debunk (preemptively, since they were written down in the 4th century!) all the modern feminist/woke myths about “the patriarchy” and how “women must obey their husbands” (true, but completely misinterpreted AND missing a crucial part of the full quote!)
- I have personally seen at least two marriages saved by the reading of this small text (true, I promise), so if you are in any kind of loving relationship (even outside marriage and if you a secular or non Christian!) which is in crisis (for whatever reason) – get the booklet like your life depends on it (because it does!).
- Saint John Chrysostome was called the “Golden Mouthed” for a reason: he was a truly phenomenal speaker whose words were simple, yet they correctly conveyed even very subtle and complex nuances.
Yes, I promise, I will come back to the issues of “the Fathers” and their “consensus” in the near future, but if you could “taste” what Saint John Chrysostome wrote (well, actually, said in public, and then was written down) you will have a HUGE advantage over those who will not follow my advice. I also promise you that if you read these homilies you will quickly grasp why reading modern theologians is almost always a total waste of time (at best) and actually detrimental to the correct understanding of Christianity. It will feel like first tasting a delicious papaya (or any other succulent tropical fruit) only to be then offered say, a plate of melted, cold and moldy Velveeta “cheese”. The contrast will be huge, to say the least.
The choice is, of course, entirely yours :-)
Andrei
PS: we know have 84 registered members, and you still can sign up if you want!
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.
I am very happy to have been allowed to register for, and to read your vignettes. I am reluctant to comment on your writings though. The reason is simple: these vignettes are very potent, and require a lot of homework/reading to even begin to have an opinion. And for that I am very happy to rediscover the Fathers of the Church. The vignettes have served as a “kick in the pants” to work on my faith.
I wonder if others reading the vignette have similar opinions.
These vignettes are providing me with a sense of urgency to study the faith. That is a great thing to have.
Hi Randy
Welcome!
Okay, first you can lurk for as long as you want. There is no obligation to comment ;-)
You can also ask a question to me or any other commentator.
My hope that, with time, there will be some useful conversations DIRECTLY between participants (as some of them are very new to the topics, others already know a lot, probably a lot more than I do!).
Either way, you are very welcome!
Andrei
PS: how about this – read the booklet and come back to share your reactions with us?
Hi Randy,
I feel the same way brother. Andrei is putting a large amount of work and effort into this. I want to comment but need to do my homework first. I have been very busy recently with moving and work so I am currently behind on my homework. I am going to buy a copy of On Marriage and Family life.
Best Regards,
Bill
Hi Andrei – I ordered the book right away – can’t wait to read it – I don’t know anything by this Church Father, although I have heard his name, from you and from other reading I have done – not even sure which century he is from…Its like the dark ages of my mind – that period – perhaps after Justinian but not long after ?
Hi Ann, he’s lived shortly after Constantine and before Justinian; c.347-407 AD. He was a preacher in Antioch but is best known for being the Archbishop of Constantinople from 397-404. He is the author of the most commonly used Liturgy in the Eastern Christianity, as well as of a great multitude of beautiful sermons. For some of his preachings he suffered persecutions at the hands of the emperor and empress (and some bishops); he died in exile with his last words reportedly being “Glory be to God for everything!”
…and there were no “dark ages” in the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantium) – even if there were some dark pages ;)
there were no “dark ages” in the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantium) – even if there were some dark pages ;)
Very, VERY true and very nicely put!
Thanks Dmitrii!
Andrei
HI Dimitri – I only know your name from Saker – haha – because its written in Russian
but thank you for very interesting and informed reply – so Father John Chrysostom was possibly alive during Julian the Apostate’s reign, possibly a child I guess maybe he lived his adult life after Julian’s assassination. Was Julian a problem for the Fathers of the Eastern Church ? My understanding is that he was mostly active further west….but I do think he was in Constantinople just before the expedition to Persia on which he was assassinated…by a Christian so they say.
Hi Ann, I probably made a mistake when registering, entering my name in Russian. I really wanted to go by my handle “Layman”, but it is now what it is :)
Julian the Apostate actually studied in the Athens Academy at the same time as St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian, so they met him personally. Though once emperor he started persecuting Christianity, his reign was short, and he did not significantly affect the work of the Fathers. The Fathers’ adversaries were rather influential heretics such as an Arian emperor Valens (364-378).
And you’re right St. John was only a child (or a teenager – his year of birth is known only approximately) at the time when the Apostate ruled (and visited Antioch).
Julian was killed in a battle with Persians in 363. That he was killed by a Christian was only an allegation made in an obituary by Libanius, a famous pagan rhethorics teacher, based on the Persians not claiming the glory of killing Julian. (By the way Libanius also taught rhetorics to St. John, regretting the latter’s adherence to Christianity but still considering him his best student).
Hi Layman
Thank you so much for wonderful reply – that really is the time period that is of most interest to me. I’m not sure if I was there back then, but I surely love reading about it.
You seem very educated on the time period – is that from a Russian Orthodox position or just reading academic books about it ?
Ann
Thanks a lot Ann. I’m just interested in the Orthodox theology, which requires some knowledge of Church history as well. And that period, IV-V AD, – “Golden Age” of patristics, – is one of the most important and exciting in that respect; four out of seven (some Greeks count nine, but seven is the most commonly accepted number) Ecumenical Councils, which formulated the key dogmats of Orthodox faith, were held then.
Dear Ann
Dmitrii gave you a very good answer but I suggest a weird thought experiment: try reading it AS IF it was written today and see what you make of it :-)
Besides, reading about marriage from a monastic might sounds weird (it sure ain’t – but that is for a future vignette discussing what “monasticism” even is in reality).
Or enjoy reading a text which was written 17 centuries ago.
Either way, it is both a blast and a huge eye opener.
Hugs
Andrei
Thanks Andrei – yes I dearly want to read it about marriage and love…great topic as I have just fallen in love !!
But will always be here too
and Dimitri’s answer was fabulous
Dimitri’s answer was fabulous
Indeed. Thank you Layman!
Andrei
I managed to find the suggested homilies in Italian, hope translation is good. I’ll take some time to read them in detail.
Meanwhile, I can sadly agree that many feminists blame Christian religion for women “oppression” in the past. In reality, in no other religion women have so much importance and relevance as in Christianity, not only for our Most Holy Lady Theotokos, but also for the female figures in the Gospel and the numerous women saints in the history.
Concerning the “submission” of wives in Saint Paul, Ephesians 5:22-24, an interpretation I heard is the following: the word submission comes from the Latin word submittere, that means literally “be under”, in the same sense that foundations are under a building. Thus, in this sense, the wife should be submitted in the sense to be the foundations of her husband. Do you agree with this? Thanks.
I found the book at adlibris. no for just 96NOK will order it asap.
Dear Andrei
Wow! Already the second vignette, and such interesting topics. I agree with Randy, and I am also shy to comment because I have the feeling I did not do enough homework. But this time I am lucky because I read the book.
As with the majority of readings in orthodoxy, this one is no exception, what most impresses me in the transparent logic they transmit. When before reading this excellent book, everything seemed confusing and difficult, after the book everxthing makes sense and is logical and natural.
Dear Andrei
Wow! Already the second vignette, and such interesting topics. I agree with Randy, and I am also shy to comment because I have the feeling I did not do enough homework. But this time I am lucky because I read the book.
As with the majority of readings in orthodoxy, this one is no exception, what most impresses me in the transparent logic they transmit. When before reading this excellent book, everything seemed confusing and difficult, after the book everything makes sense and is logical and natural. The teachings in the book are not bound to a specific age or time, and so it seems written for us, at this time. This again is natural, because the human nature has not changed much in this 17 centuries, we are still man and woman, trying to live in faith and love.
This book changed my life, and saved my family. I bought copies for all my kids, so that they are prepared to married life and hopefully avoid so many mistakes modern life traps us into without the right knowledge. I want them to be able to choose a spose wisely and prepare for married so that they can find true happiness.
Thank you Andrei.
Hugs
Ana
Dear Ana
Thanks for your comment! Hopefully, that will encourage more readers to either get the book or, alternatively, find the homilies online.
Love to you and the family!
Hugs
Andrei
I bought the” Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians ” in German (1100 pages – uh!).
This is a lot of reading material and yet only a small part of the whole St. Chrysostom.
I first read the 19. Homily – refreshingly clear to read, content very well brought to the essentials. And nothing to disagrgree with ( good for me!).
Thanks Andrei for the suggestion!
You are very welcome!
Dear Saker,
Thank you for addressing theology in a day and time where there is so much theological confusion! And thank you for allowing a Lutheran to join the conversation.
As a Lutheran, I think that it is very important that the Church Fathers are read. They represent a deep knowledge of Christ, not because they are closer to Christ in time, they were, and I am sure it was beneficial to them, but because they were anointed Teachers. Teachers of an immutable truth. And they shaped the teachings of the Church, not as authors of the teachings, but rather like painters who draw what they have been given to see, so that others may see it as well.
And I understand your frustration with those “Bible-thumpers” who have so completely misunderstood what “sola scriptura” means. -Because in its Lutheran origin it did not mean that we hacked away 1500 year of Church experience.
Did you know that the Book of Concord, the authoritative collection of Lutheran confessional documents published in 1580, the following church fathers are quoted: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Anthony of Egypt, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo I, Gregory I, Bede, and John of Damascus. That is, in the document that described the theology where Sola Scriptura is a foundation, the Church Fathers are used to explain our confession. -So I would have to say that Sola Scriptura is not necessary out, except perhaps as it is presented by Bible-thumpers of questionable education and limited ability to reason.
Sola Scriptura is a slogan that was used against the Roman bishop and his usurpation of ecclesiastical and theological power. Scriptures, the Old and the New Testament, is the written source of our teachings, it was explained by the Church Fathers and the doctrines were defined by Church Councils, not one bishop alone. No one have the power to alter the Revelation, only to explain it, as the Church Fathers and Councils did. Luther’s fight was with a line of rouge bishops that hat taken upon themselves to invent introduce doctrine unfounded in Scriptures, such as indulgence, the purgatory, and the pope’s supremacy and inerrancy. (All very transparently favourable to a certain see.)
The problem with the slogan Sola Scriptura is that it is so misunderstood by those who are using it. And very often does it end up becoming “Sola Ego”, “Me alone”, and my personal interpretation of the translation of the text taken completely out of context. These Bible-Thumpers, at least those who have misunderstood Sola Scriptura (among other things), and the liberals have that in common, they detach themselves from the Church to invent their own theology (or lack thereof). They do it for opposite reasons, reach totally different conclusion, but with the same result: they fail in grasping the Teachings given to us, once and for all, and then they fail in what the Apostolic Creed expresses as: “The communion of the Saints”.
That is why we need to hear about the Church Fathers.
Svein Kjetil,
You aptly mention some problems with sola scriptura and claim most proponents of it mis-use it, but did not clarify how it can be correct.
I’m curious to learn where you are coming from. The Scripture isn’t precisely revelation in of itself, but rather is about God revealing Himself to us—-revelation is a Person, usually Jesus. It has always seemed to me that the focus under “sola scriptura” (which isn’t in scripture) is the books not the person.
I’m also concerned for the phrase where you describe revelation as “once for all time.” The incarnation of Christ and his death and resurrection are historical events that did happen once for all time. However, I’ve seen people use that phrase in a way that functionally limits God (in their minds anyway, in reality God is not limited!), as if Saints and miracles aren’t happening now, in contravention to the experience of the church.
There once was a Lutheran/Eastern Orthodox dialog, by mailing letters, a generation or two after Luther. What little reading I’ve done on it left me with the impression that the Lutherans were trying to convert the Orthodox into Protestants and receiving patient replies from Constantinople trying to get the Lutherans to understand their positions but eventually the Orthodox realized this was fruitless and gently broke off the dialog.
My friend impression of most Lutherans today is that most are ignorant of the great fathers or only use them selectively and are very uncomfortable with the Theotokos and sacramental grace generally, and the idea that the locus of authority in the church after the ascension is in the Episcopacy and them acting in councils as led by the Holy Spirit of God. Like the Romans they also either pay no attention to the essence/energy distinction or reject it too, despite it being all over scripture and patristic writing (see the next vignette!)
I think this arises from Papal abuses.
Khomiakov in an essay translated by Schmemman says that by first supplanting the councils with the pope the Romans made one error which was taken to its logical conclusion by the Protestants who made everyone the authority. Khomiakov goes so far (in the late 1800’s) as to say that, in the abandonment of proper authority, both the Papacy and the Protestants are essentially the same thing!
So, now that you know a little about my position as an Orthodox Christian priest, I hope you will clarify yours.
I suppose I can’t claim all the “I have no authority to teach” etc of our host, since I am ordained clergy, but I don’t want you all in Internet land to think I’m appointed to preach in this forum, I’m a parish priest, not a professor and my pre-theology background was/is in medicinal chemistry research, three years of seminary, 11 years of ministry and ~30 years of reading as an adult only take you so far. Holiness and prayer are probably the most important qualities for teaching and I have a long way to go where that’s concerned.
Hi Svein,
I believe Sola Scriptura contains a kernel of truth as well as a big logical fallacy.
What is true is that the Scripture is unique. If we take New Testament for example, what it contains is are the only confirmed apostolic writings, i.e. there is no doubt that this teaching comes directly from the apostles and ultimately from the Lord Himself. Other writings, even those of the Fathers enlightened by the Holy Spirit, may contain some mistakes. (NB: dogmats of the faith expressed by the Councils, as well as those issues on which the Fathers teach consistently with each other, represent an expression of the apostolic tradition of the Church and are therefore undoubtedly true, but all these are also Scripture-based).
The fallacy is failure to recognise that it is impossible to read any text without interpretation. This includes the problem of personal interpretation you’re referring to (whereby each reader of Scripture becomes a “mini-pope”), but the problem is wider. Not only is the Scripture an apostolic teaching, but it must also be *interpreted* in the context of the true apostolic tradition; every heresy in the history was referring to the Scripture, – the problem in each case was its interpretation not consistent with the Tradition of the Church. This is why the Church established, in the 19th canon of the Council or Trullo (692 AD), that any sermon *must* be consistent with the interpretation of the Scripture by the Fathers.
Therefore, on one hand, I’m glad that you, and I guess other followers of the older Protestant traditions, recognise the great importance of the Fathers. On the other hand, it is important to recognise that all the Fathers represent The One Tradition of interpreting the Scripture, and that any interpretation outside this Tradition is prone to error. In other words, Sola Scriptura requires also Sola Traditio Interpretetationis; not only “personal traditions” are problematic, but also the different denominational traditions, to the extent that they have strayed from the One Tradition in any of the key aspects.
I think the Protestants had a noble goal to return the Western Church to the true apostolic tradition after the deviations introduced by Rome (hence, interest to the Fathers by Luther, Melanchton and their followers, as well as Calvin and others). Unfortunately, they did not succeed; while removing the glaring deviations, they also got rid of some parts of the true tradition (thus, throwing away the baby with the water), while at the same time keeping some of the less obvious errors introduced by Rome (e.g. the Filioque).
Dear Svein
Thanks for your comment! And yes, you are 100% correct, the modern Bible-thumpers are nothing like the original Lutherans. I was born in Zurich and lived in Geneva, and I had a wonderful Lutheran pastor teaching catechism in my school (I attended both the Protestant and the Latin catechism – the former was truly wonderful as our pastor loved the Scripture with all his heart and it showed. The Latin was the usual disaster and I ditched that after a few months).
Thanks for setting the record strait and if you ever see me lumping the different Reformed/Lutheran/Protestant denomination into one category, please reprimand me with no hesitation :-)
It’s great to have you here!
Andrei