Showing posts with label context. Show all posts
Showing posts with label context. Show all posts

Friday, May 16, 2014

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Hello all! Again, here is a short history-related post so as to expand your horizons, so to speak. This post is about Eastern Orthodoxy. For those of us in the west who have little to no experience with it, let this be a primer. I've included several sources so that you can find some other people who are more qualified than I to give you information about our Eastern Christian family.

 The Eastern Orthodox Tradition



While it may be easiest for American Christians to look back at history and reflect with the assumption in mind that events surrounding and following the Protestant Reformation were the bulk of what was relevant between the 1500’s and modern times, it must be remembered that the Church is much larger than many Western minds acknowledge. In the East – particularly Russia – there were many exciting things happening. Men like Alexis Khomyakov and St. Innocent of Alaska were leaving their mark on how the Eastern Orthodox Church understood Christian worship and community. The Church in the East was contributing to the larger Christian tradition which may have greater implications in the next stage of Christian development here in the 21st century.
Evolutions in the Orthodox Tradition
            The contributions and figures from the Eastern Orthodox tradition which are examined here all come after the fall of Constantinople and focus on Russian Orthodoxy as this was the major source of Orthodox theology for most of the period leading up to modernity. The first man of note is St. Innocent of Alaska (1797-1879) who was commissioned by the Academy of Kazan to increase missionary presence there.[1] Specifically, this married priest was sent to the Aleut people and was so enthralled with their way of life that he strove to learn the language and translate the Bible into Unagan which was the primary Aleutian dialect. In 1838 he lost his wife and after taking the vows of a monk was made Bishop of a rather large area which included the Aleutian Islands, the Kamchatka Peninsula and more. Eventually he became the head of the Moscow Synod in 1868.[2]
            The many achievements of St. Innocent, while impressive in themselves, must be seen as part of a larger movement towards a simple and grounded faith. This movement was largely catalyzed by the publication of a book entitled Philokalia, translated as “the love of beauty”. This text was essentially a compilation of Eastern mystical texts that helped bring ascetic life back into vivacity in the Orthodox tradition. In order to get a quick look at how this movement developed, one can merely observe the growth from 452 functioning Orthodox monasteries in 1812 to 1045 monasteries in 1914.[3] This movement was also heavily founded on the Hesychist tradition which, as defended by St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, is founded on a mystical notion of returning to oneself with the understanding that the Spirit of God is indwelling in the person. This largely gave theological worth back to the carnal parts of a human and made practical ministry vital to Christian living and thus Orthodox Christianity.[4]
            Along those same lines, Eastern Orthodox theology became more clearly articulated in contrast to the rival Protestant and Catholic explanations. The uniqueness of Orthodoxy is in the primary understanding that ecclesial function should begin with the Eucharist – that is, worship – and the ascetic tradition. The former of these two foundational points included traditional liturgy and the latter contained the elevation of the lay-theologian.[5] Along with the lay-theologians who were responsible for many road-side chapels which were constructed in this period, there was also an influx in ascetic spiritual leaders known as Startsi which translates as “old man”. Rarely receiving a formal education or ordination, these confessor-counselor-wise men were theologically on par with Catholicism’s ordained theologians.[6] These spiritual leaders in combination with the Hesychist influence and missions work such as that accomplished by St. Innocent all gave Eastern Orthodoxy a large measure of substantiality and longevity in practical Christian living.
A Balanced Theology
            The second man to be mentioned  is Alexis Khomyakov (1804-1860) who, as a Slavophile under Tsar Nicholas I strove alongside his companion Ivan Kireyevsky to establish Eastern Orthodox as the middle ground between Protestant and Roman Catholic extremes.[7] Part of this effort was motivated by Nicholas’ views of Russian Orthodoxy as a defense against “westernizing”. Khomyakov’s basic thesis, then, was that Orthodoxy already held within its theology the freedom which many turned to Protestantism for as well as the unity in the church which Roman Catholicism was known for.[8] This both/and position essentially set the stage for later developments in ecumenical theology which was more than a cheap truce among traditions and more than a mere defining of lines which are not to be crossed.[9] Instead, the work of Khomyakov and company was to reread history in light of the many different perspectives of Christianity and to try and renew Orthodoxy as valuable to the rest of the Christian tradition.
Concluding Thoughts
            The Eastern Orthodox tradition is often overlooked by westerners and, in light of all that has been written here, it seems that this should not be so. The church today is in the middle of evolving into whatever it will be next and as we progress in a world that is incredibly secular, it may be advantageous to look to how the Russian Orthodox tradition maintained its distinctness in the midst of a changing world. With a commitment to traditional worship and personal piety, the Orthodox Church has largely succeeded in being a good representation of Christian community in the spiritual heritage of Christianity. The next generation of leaders in the 21st century would do well to give this tradition its well-deserved attention for the sake of the future Church.



References
Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.
González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987.
Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007.
Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.
Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008.


[1] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.
[2] Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007. 219-220.
[3] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.
[4] Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.106-108.
[5] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 120-126.
[6] Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.
[7] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.
[8] González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987. 424-425.
[9] Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. 7-9.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Noah Movie - continuing the tradition

Ok, I said I wouldn't comment on the Noah movie, but I am... Don't worry, it'll be brief ;-)


I went and watched the Noah movie with my wife and was blown away...in a good way. Honestly, the sheer artistic beauty of what was done with that film was incredible. I can think of two specific points in the movie in which I was moved to tears; one out of remorse for the condition of mankind and the other out of joy for the beautiful restoration that God provides humanity with.

I don't want this post to be a spoiler, so I won't give any details here. What I will say is that I think we need to see the movie as a part of a longer tradition of story telling. What I mean is, that we need to frame the movie into a larger context; one that includes the oral tradition of primeval mankind. What I haven't seen a lot of in online commentary is a nod to the flood narrative tradition that is evident in the ancient near east. Mesopotamia, being where Abraham was from, is of particular note with the Gilgamesh epic. In that story there are striking parallels to the Genesis account of Noah:
  • Character warned by deity to build a boat to escape the impending flood which is designed to wipe out humanity.
  • Boat is built
  • Storm happens.
  • After waters retreat a little, the boat lands on top of a mountain
  • A dove and raven from the boat are used to determine if the passengers can safely return to the land
  • Story ends with a sacrificial offering and a blessing on the survivors.
To me, these are too great of parallels to simply dismiss. It should also be noted, however, that there are marked differences as well:
  • Where the boat landed
  • The kind of boat built
  • The duration of the flood
  • who, exactly, was saved
  • The eventual outcome for the main character
  •  And - most vitally - the role of the deities involved
Utnapishtim

In the Gilgamesh epic, none were meant to be saved and it is by the betrayal of one of the gods that Utnapishtim (the hero) discovers the plan and builds his boat. Also, in the Gilgamesh epic, Utnapishtim saves artisans and historians in order to preserve human culture whereas in the Genesis account, human culture is largely the problem that the flood is to solve. Another parallel flood narrative from ancient Mesopotamia is the Atrahasis Epic which also has close parallels with some marked differences such as the flood being planned because humanity was too loud and numerous. Truthfully, the connection between these stories is something that is hard to nail down. What can be said with the most certainty is that it was more likely the case that all of these flood narratives were derived from a single source -- likely the event itself -- and it is not likely the case that any one borrowed too heavily directly from the other stories.

In all of these parallels, we must remember that the importance of the flood narrative is not in its detail, but in its meaning. "The ancient storyteller did not let variations in the traditions he received deter him from his purpose of weaving these materials together to say what he wanted to say about God."[1]
The most important thing to do when watching the movie is to watch it through to the end; here is where we see the true meaning of the events of the story.When we frame the history and tradition of the flood narrative accurately, we can see the work of Darren Arnofsky as a continuation of this tradition of story telling for the purpose of theology and not history or science; we realize that the details are not the primary point of concern, but the picture of God that is portrayed and, to that end, I commend Arnofsky.
I think that it's best put this way:


"Genesis is the book of beginnings and contains the foundations for much of the theology of the Old Testament...An understanding of the book's content and message is essential to the study of the rest of the Bible. It is not a book of science, though scientists are right to investigate its claims. It is not a book of biographies, though much can be learned from the lives of men and women portrayed in its pages. It is not a book of history, though history is the path it follows. It is a book of theology, though its task is not accomplished systematically."[2]
 For those that would like a more in-depth analysis of the movie and its importance to the church today, read here; just make sure you have a good cup of coffee before you sit down ;-) it is truly thorough. Also, keep your eyes out for a post on this topic at my brother's website; he always has good things to say.

Above all else, remember to view things in proper context and let God's Spirit which is in you dictate how you conduct yourselves no matter what your reaction to the movie.

Peace,
C.M.

[1] Tullock, John H., and Mark Harold McEntire. "Chapter 3 Israel Looks at the Beginnings." The Old Testament Story. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. 2-51. Print

[2] Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. "Chapter 4: Genesis." A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2009. 78. Print.