How the Church retained me in my 20s, and how I grew disaffected by my 30s (Part 3)

This post was outlined in September 2010, but written up in October 2011.  The outline was hopeful; I will have to add a coda, looking at where I am now.

I believe I left off my last post somewhere in San Francisco.  I had detailed reasons why I stayed in the Church; now I will write about how it began to lose me.

I eventually returned to the parish church.  Part of what made this possible was a retired Lebanese priest who just had a good heart and whose sermons would sometimes wander off in completely unexpected directions.  Still, I seemed to have no connexion to the parish, and I was constantly asked, even after nearly five years of fairly regular attendance, if I was Greek.  (Granted, sometimes this question was posed to me in Greek.)  I suppose I wouldn’t have minded, except that this is the very first question one is asked by Greeks when first meeting someone (unless one is in Greece, in which case the question becomes, “Apo pou eise?”  “Where are you from?”.)

I recall one Pan Orthodox Vespers I attended, somewhat hopeful that this might be an interesting or cordial event, except that afterwards, I was left somewhat lonely in the reception hall, the Palestinian priest glancing at me with daggers in his eyes.  I happened to be wearing a keffiyah that was a gift from a Yemeni student of mine, and I wondered if that prompted his looks.  Regardless of the reason, he did not approach me directly, and I was already feeling apart.  His expression did nothing to make me feel welcome — not that it was his parish in which to offer hospitality; he was, after all, a guest.  As if that were not enough, I did engage a fellow parishioner in conversation, but he merely repeated some old and simplistic polemic championing Photios, and condemning Augustine for his Platonism.  He did not seem to want to hear my position, which took into account Augustine’s rhetorical exigence and the particular audience for his Confessions.  (Simply put, Augustine had to portray himself as a Neoplantonist philosopher to his interlocuter, and purposely chose what aspects of his life he would recount to that individual, and framed them with an eye to convincing this fellow philosopher of the beauty of Christianity.  In other words, Augustine was much less a Platonist than he made himself out to be, and in fact is no more Neoplatonist than some of the Greek Fathers, St Gregory of Nyssa, for example (or even more to the point, Evagrios Pontikos).)

In contrast to my somewhat liminal experience, whenever my partner, a tall dark haired Jewish man would visit, he was immediately welcomed.  People would come up and talk to him, often asking if he was one of the <insert your choice of several typical Greek surnames> sons.  Years later, he once turned to me and said he was sorry that I had that experience; he knew it must have hurt me.  It did.

When I turned to devotional magazines for consolation, or even some translated Patristic works for consolation, in the hope that I could find something that would keep my attachment to the Byzantine faith alive, I was inevitably confronted with a ubiquitous and simplistic polemic, a polemic which far from spurring my faith, spurned my experience and turned me away.

I retreated even further, relying on private devotions.  For me, that meant the regular recitation of  matins from the Mozarabic rite (interestingly facilitated by a study on the shape of Daily Prayer in Christian Spain executed by a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in England).    While that helped, I stopped going to the Greek parish.  I sometimes attended the Russian service on Geary Boulevard, but not understanding Old Slavonic, and not quite knowing if any post-liturgy reception was held, I didn’t attend that frequently. On the other hand, I would keep Shabbat on Friday night and Saturdays with my partner, and study the history and roots of Jewish mysticism with him.  I would sometimes go to Temple on Saturdays and then go to Divine Liturgy on Sundays, lending a different significance to fourth meal, celebrated after the close of the Sabbath and called ‘the feast of the Messiah King’.  I enjoyed the home-based aspects of Judaism, the study that could be done during long Shabbat mornings, the festivity of the meal, the imagery of the Sabbath Queen.  I did not see a complete contradiction between the two traditions calling themselves Orthodox.

At some point, another priest, whose captivating sermons I always enjoyed and whose personal focus on social justice I always admired, returned to the Greek parish.  He set up a ministry in which those community members who could not come to the church would be visited.  That ministry met about once a month, and involved the Eritrean members of the parish as well.  We would typically cook some meals and then bring them, in small groups, to various people throughout San Francisco.  In this way, I got to know some of the older Greek women in the parish, and they began to forget at times that I was not Greek (and they would sometimes speak to me in Greek and vice versa).

Another aspect of parish life I participated in was the Bible study group which met midweek.  My experiences there were mixed.  I suppose I was wanting to go even more in depth than we had time for — or than some participants were academically trained for.  That, I suppose is my own fault; it was a pastoral group, not a scholastic one.  At the same time, though, some academic argument did take place, notably with the same fellow I met at Pan Orthodox vespers.  Unfortunately, that friction never quite smoothed itself out, and I was often disappointed that this interlocuter was not as critical of his sources as a historical theologian could be.  (Subsequently, I came to learn just how much of a dearth of historical perspective many theologians in America seem to have.)  My partner and one or two friends also began to note that I was coming home from church in bad mood.  Not irritable so much as melancholy.  It was obviously not the best place for me to go.

I would note that some persons in that group knew about my partner, and some did not.  Those who did not, did not because they were expressive of their attitudes towards (for example) Gavin Newsom’s politics when it came to gay marriage.  Other conservative elements emerged when discussing certain psalms, an inquirer adding to the verse at hand punitive implications not present in the text before us.  That sort of scriptural interpretation seemed unwarranted and uncoordinated.  It is one thing to link several verses because of similar language; quite another to add to or detract from the verse to make it say something other than a meaning which could be drawn forth from it, and which would lead to a deeper relationship with God or a deeper appreciation of the text itself.

Although I was feeling more integrated with the community via the outreach ministry, it really began to pick up steam at about the same time my partner and I decided to move back to the East Coast.  After we moved to Vermont, I went to church only once or twice.  I was welcomed by the priest, immediately put on a mailing list — but I was still dealing with the fallout from the previous parish and my time on Athos.  (Aside from that, the music was a mix of Russian and Greek and English, and did not really appeal to me; at least my former parish had an excellent choir — one I would have joined had we stayed on the West Coast.)

My parents are Latin-rite Catholics, and when i would visit them, often at Christmas, I would sometimes go midnight mass with them (usually held at 9pm or some hour far removed from midnight).  The service held little appeal.  Not only did the semi-circular modern church design not appeal to me, the sermons were spiritually impoverished.  I would listen to the prayers recited during the Christmas liturgy, impressed at their theological depth, pinpointed references to Athanasios of Alexandria, Gregory the Great, and others — themes of theosis and Incarnational theology that could have been developed or explained in greater detail to the audience — but those themes never were so much as alluded to.  I would come away from this church to which some Athonites claimed I was too attached feeling like it was a complete stranger and lacked appeal to me.  I was clearly not Latin-rite Catholic; I felt much more at home in Byzantine liturgies.

Theology school helped in some ways, though.  I applied so that I could pursue higher studies in Rome, Navarra, or Thessaloniki afterwards; in order to be accepted to schools in Rome, I needed a prior degree in theology.  So I decided to get such a degree, initially thinking of combining it with the MA in Classics at UVM.  While that latter idea did not pan out, in theology school I was brought into contact with the texts I loved.  I was able to work on projects and put my experiences into writing.  I learned more about Vatican II, Judaeo-Christian apocalypses, North African patristics, and Jewish patterns of exegesis.  I enjoyed my classes in medical ethics and ecclesiology; I brought the Greek text of the gospel along with me to my classes in Scriptural studies.  I had some rough spots — one class during the summer stands out — but that class also saw me produce one of the papers I was most happy with (and which I have posted to this blog).  That instructor also encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D. in theology by the end of the course; for that, I remain grateful to her.  Yet when it came to asking of my various professors about what sort of jobs theologians had, I was left with few answers apart from teaching.  For some reason, that did not appeal to me.  Nor did I have much success when I asked what was the edge of theological knowledge and what were the current questions being generated in the field — in other words, what is the ‘cutting edge’ of the theological project?

From Vermont we moved to Massachusetts.  I had applied to two schools at the same time — theology school and acupuncture school.  Being accepted to both, I decided to pursue both and saw that in terms of time constraints, I could actually pursue both.  the acupuncture school was in the Boston metro area; hence our move.  Living in East Boston, I attended the divine liturgy only once, in an Armenian church in Watertown, on January 6.  I was curious to see how the Armenians celebrated the collected commemorations of the Nativity and Epiphany, Circumcision and Presentation of Christ.  But I had little incentive to try a new church on any regular basis.

I had one more formal class in Vermont to complete.  That class left a very bad taste in my mouth, and nearly turned me off from spiritual practice altogether.  It was little better than an undergraduate intro to world religions but with the added benefit of a spiritual voyeur teaching.  I recall one class, towards the end, when people were discussion how we had formed a community.  Some also talked about recent suicides they had experienced.  I found that community to be a prison for me, and had thought as I drove up to it on more than one occasion that if it were the only community I was in, I would be one of those suicides.  Luckily, it was a brief class, although it had an impact on me which lasted some years.

On the other hand, my partner and I frequented the Chabad house at Harvard on a nearly weekly basis.  There I found a community which shared not only food but intellectual discussion on many topics.  I could attend services, wrapped in a tallis and not worry about whether I’d receive communion that day (since obviously Jews do not celebrate a commemoration of the Last Supper) as I would wonder each Sunday in an Orthodox church; nor would I need to worry about being called up to the bimah to witness the correct canting of the Torah.

The experience was good, mostly, except for the rabbi who wasn’t sure what to make of us. He sometimes seemed like my partner and I were something he ate and he wasn’t sure it agreed with him or not.  His wife seemed fine with us, and another rabbi was was usually there (and last I heard was at MIT) would ask after my partner if I went without him, and about me, if my partner went without me.  I was treated well also — I recall one time when we were nine men total at the service, eight who could be counted for minyan.  When another man joined the group, making to all appearances ten Jewish men, one of the three rabbis would leave the room, leaving us with nine persons in the room.  The rabbis would not single me out as the non-countable member.  This happened several times, and later, at lunch aroused a wondering comment at how long it took to form a minyan that day, and how we’d have nine men, and then a new person would come, but someone would disappear leaving us still at nine.  That simple consideration touched me deeply and left a positive impression on me.

Overall, then, we were accepted, the community was fairly engaging (despite the typical Harvard business school students who sometimes appeared), and I encountered little polemic (even against reform Judaism).  Then again, this was Chabad.  The whole point of Chabad is the belief that in every Jewish person is a spark of the divine which is indeed redeemable, and the role of Chabad is to encourage the person to nourish it.  It also had the side effect of breaking down whatever prejudice I held against ‘elite’ universities.  As a result, when the opportunity to apply to Oxford came, I followed it.

Later, when our landlords sold our apartment without telling us they had split the house up so that apartments could be bought singly, we moved to Watertown, to the street on which I had parked the year before when I went to the Armenian church.  I was only a block or two away from a Greek church, and I went a few times to the services.  I encountered polemic every time I went and the service was conducted by the younger priest.  It seemed he could not celebrate the Byzantine heritage without castigating other ‘Western’ churches.  Sometimes this polemic took the seemingly superficial matter of steeples, others the more thorny question of the late Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.  The positive result seems to be that I began posting to this blog, having become fed up with ignorance and a lack of nuance and historicity (not to mention geographic experience of the Orthodox world) in the Orthodox church.

At least there I was accepted as Greek, people addressed me first in Greek, did not ask if I was Greek, and in fact, didn’t really ask me much at all.  I did not see much opportunity to socialise with or to get to know the people.  When the young priest served, I would come home in bad mood.  The worst was during the Akathistos hymn, when i had had a long day, was looking forward to hearing the full hymn, enjoyed the singing, and found myself content at being in the church — until his sermon.  After that point, I stopped altogether going to church.

That was the state of things until this past year (2009 — 2010).  During that time, two people got back in touch to speak with me about spiritual topics and ask for historically oriented advice.  Those two friends really helped restore my confidence in all that I had trained myself for in life, but found that I could not actually put into practice in a place where such knowledge and experience was deemed respectable.  They came at a time when I felt I was dying — I had begun experiencing atypical migraines, my physical strength was drying up, and I rarely experienced a day of respite from the ongoing migraine.  (MDs were no help.)  I decided to start this blog primarily to speak up about these problems I saw in the Church, and to record my historical perspective on theological matters.  I wanted to write something worthwhile before what I thought could have been an approaching death.  (Of course, for a time, the blog went the way of Buffy and Angel…)

Also, not long after these two friends got back in touch with me, so did another old friend, who also happened to be my former boss in San Francisco.  He offered me some work as an Associate produce for a film.  Working on the script with him, I encountered interviews with people who described how they came to the Episcopalian church.  I learned that I am not alone in looking for something deeper, and something to do which uses my training and background.  A certain sense of hope was restored to me.

As I was working on the film, I was also looking forward to Oxford.  I particularly interested in meeting some people at the theology school in Oxford, with its Orthodox scholars.  I hoped to be reintegrated into the church, to find a community I could relate to, to find companionship among other scholars in the field of theology — despite the fact that I would be in the anthropology department.

***

That was where I was a year ago, right before I left for Oxford.  What has happened since?  Well, I came to Linacre college and in the first week met a fellow student, also from Northern California, doing a course in Syriac studies.  I went a couple times to the Orthodox church here, a few talks by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and attended Holy Week services.  But it didn’t quite gel.  Some students and monks were friendly enough, one student was a typical Magdalen undergrad who turned me off quite quickly, but overall, I didn’t feel a connexion.  I don’t think it had to do with the distance of the church from my college, or the mixture of Russian and Greek music during the service.  No one was particularly mean to me (aside from the contemptuous Magdalen student whose father was a consultant).  The food was good.  But something wasn’t quite connecting.

So I went to Chabad.  My first encounter with Chabad here in Oxford was for the menorah lighting in December.  I was happy to be present outside Balliol college as the public menorah was lit.  Then I went to the second night Seder, and had lively discussions with the rabbi and his wife.  During the summer — at which point my partner of the previous eight years and I had (unexpectedly for me) broken up/ divorced — I was invited to a Shabbat dinner by a coursemate, and I showed up.  Again I experienced the warm atmosphere I’ve come to associate with the Lubavitcher Hasidim.  Recently, I attended the High Holiday services, and met other people who invited me to celebrate a Sukkoth meal at their friends’ home.  I make challah on Fridays and have once again placed myself in a shomer Shabbat ‘home’ here, in my own college room and kitchen.

Am I now counted for minyan?  No.  Do I intend to officially convert?  No.  In some ways, I do not find it necessary.  What then is my faith?  That may be complex to answer, and not something I easily share with others — especially given my past experiences.  The blog posts as a whole may go some way to demonstrating where my faith may lie, though they are more examples of practice than belief per se.

What then is my practice?  My observable practice is simple:  I try to keep the Sabbath and Festivals, and to write posts regularly on topics of Christian theology.  Last Friday, I found myself running to the Bodleian to do some research on the place of angels in Medieval scholastic (Catholic) theology, having two hours to spare while challot rose in the oven.   Today, Sunday, I completed this post, and am writing the third post in the Francis, Stigmata, and Polemic series.  I still say I am canonically Greek Orthodox; though I make a better observant Jew than observant Christian.

What is my hope?  That I continue to write on theological topics, and experience the time and space that is ‘inscribed and constant throughout the Universe, fashioned by He of Most Ancient of Days.’  If I find a community with whom I can share my faith, my spirituality, the knowledge I’ve acquired, great.  Until then, I will try to bring forth what is within me, lest it destroy me.

Jason Scott Johnson

2011, October 23.

Linacre College, Oxford

Intro to North African Patristics

The North African Church gave Latin Christianity some of its most influential writers during the late antique period.  The most famous of these writers is Augustine of Hippo.  After his death in 432, the North African church falls into obscurity, harassed by Vandal overlords.

This at least, is the perspective of modern writers.  For the early medieval Christian, however, North Africa continued to produce prolific and influential writers such as  Fulgentius of Ruspe and Victor of Vite.  Eventually, the province was reincorporated into the Roman Empire by Justinian’s general Belisarius, and its bishops were able to participate in the great debates shaping theology in the East during the three chapters controversy.  It is from this province that the Heraclian dynasty, which recaptured Syria and Palestine from Persia, originated.  During their rule, several writers later revered by Byzantine Christianity were exiled to North Africa for a time, among them Maximos the Confessor and Sophronios of Jerusalem.  Sophronios eventually gave the keys of Jerusalem over to Muslim conquerors, and in a few short years, the Muslim empire encompassed North Africa to the Atlantic ocean.  After this time, our information on North African Christianity becomes scant.  Those who were able emigrated to Sicily and Sardinia, Southern Gaul, and Spain.

Spain, in fact, becomes the primary heir of the spirit of North African Christianity.  Although writers in Southern Gaul fought over the merits of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and Augustinian predestination, it was Spanish writers who refused to be drawn into such particularised debates.  They managed to keep the theology of the province in a more or less balanced fashion.

Because my interest lays in the theology of the Visigothic and Mozarabic Spaniards, a passing knowledge of the themes taken up by the North African fathers is helpful.  One current of thought which may have passed to Toledo from Carthage concerns the matter of the Filioque clause (although this is more likely to have come from Africa via Southern Gaul); another concerns the unity of the Body of Christ with the Word.  With this in mind, then, we can focus our chronological examination of North African writers, and survey their positions regarding the relationship of individual, church and Trinity, particularly as this relates to communion or the achievement of unity between them.  How is the individual incorporated into the Church?  How are the individual churches of Africa, Rome, Asia to be considered one?  What secures their unity?  How are the persons of the Trinity One God?

Although i do not attempt a synthesis of a single North African school of thought on these issues, I can point to certain recurring themes.  The role of the Holy Spirit in effecting the communion of the individual with God and in vivifying the Church is paramount.  The Holy Spirit is also responsible for providing god’s gift of grace to the individual through the Church, and in so doing incorporates the believer into the Church.  Chief among these gifts is charity, and it is charity, safeguarded by the bond of peace, which allows the various local Churches to enter into communion with one another.  The Holy Spirit is also allowed to act in the world as a result of the charity manifested by the church in her individual members.  On these topics, a broad consensus exists between all North African Fathers, and through them these ideas percolate to the rest of the Latin speaking Christian world.

This is not to say these ideas are uniquely North African.  Because the writers constantly refer to writings which tradition had handed down to them, most of which became Scripture to us, the themes and images they take up are shared by other Christians both inside the Empire and outside it (in Persia, Armenia, and Ethiopia, for example).  However, their manner of synthesis remained influential on Western writers until the Central Middle Ages.

The place of the Holy Spirit within Trinitarian life, however, is more complex.  It is this vexing question which still occupies theologians concerned with the divergence between Eastern and Western approaches to Trinitarian theology.  In some times, all blame has come down on Augustine for misleading Latins into their Filioquian ideology.  Yet we must keep in mind that Augustine was not novel in his claims, and he partook of a tradition which existed already, both in his province of Africa, and in Southern Gaul.

In taking up the question, we must confront a certain ambiguity.  The term “Spirit” can refer either to the entire Godhead, or to the third person of that Godhead.  This is especially true in the case of earlier writers.  By the time of Augustine, it seems an analogy is drawn between the mission which the Holy Spirit fulfills in the Church and in the individual soul on the one hand, with the function of the Paraclete within the Divine Life itself.

Subsequent to Augustine, the implications of this analogy are traced out into a unified movement from God the Father to the individual:  The Holy Spirit, as the gift of the Father to the Son, is sent by Jesus to the Church, in order to enliven the Church by the provision of grace, which is itself a divine thing, and by which that love with which we love God is poured into the heart of the individual Christian.  The Spanish Church Fathers will take up the question of the movement of the Holy Spirit from the Word to the Body of Christ more fully.

Finally, as the twilight of Christian North Africa approaches, Maximos the Confessor relates this development to the image of the Church as the body of Christ, who is now defined as possessing two energia, human and divine.  This contrasts with the Spanish approach of the Church as body of Christ because she is the bride of Christ, and a bride bonded by a bond of love, manifested by peace within the Church.  The two approaches are not irreconcilable, as the later Eastern development and incorporation of Maximos’ thought into the doctrine of theosis reveals.

Such then, are the broad outlines I have been able to distill from the writers we will present in subsequent posts.  The manner in which the Church Fathers “did” theology was holisitic.  theology was one indivisible whole, oriented towards the communion of God and humanity via the medium of Divine revelation.  (Peter Brown makes a nice case of this shift in emphasis from philosophical dialectic to revelation in his essay on The World of Late Antiquity, Chapter 2, section iv).  The theologians of the ancient world were aware of this, so that even in works which would appear to fall into a neat category (e.g. “On the Holy Spirit”), we find very clear connexions to other fields of (modern) theology, such as ecclesiology.

I have tried to parse out these themes into the three broad topics I mentioned at the outset, namely Trinity, Church, and Individual, without doing too much violence to the integrity or coherence of the author’s thought.  the order in which I examine these topics, however, varies from author to author, depending on the priorities which concern him during his tenure or lifetime.

Moral Emphasis and the Christian Life

After watching the film Brideshead Revisited and reading comments on Cardinal O’Malley’s blog regarding the withdrawal from parochial school of a student who is being raised by two women, I was prompted to reflect on the unbalanced emphasis morality — or rather, certain aspects of morality — plays in forming the perception of what Catholicism is today, particularly in its public role.  This isn’t a reflection on the decision to disenroll the student; that decision may well have been made with an eye to questions the student might raise at a later date.   I suppose another post examining the asking of difficult questions should be added, but for now, I am more concerned with the reduction of Christianity to hollow moral forms, and the continued emphasis, since the Counter Reformation at least, of certain authority figures (including not simply clergy, but parents as well) to forcing individuals into narrowly and shallowly understood, compulsory morality.

Christianity, however, is more than morality.  Catholicism is more than a simple moral code held together by liturgical rubrics.  Indeed, morality may be the least part of it — and this, I believe, may be what sets my views so far apart from my more vocal contemporaries in the world of religion and public life.

Although to be sure, “spirituality” — that popular and resultingly anomalous term — is in some regards religion and religious experience apart form its derivative (some may say its sustaining) morality, I am not proposing that we focus on the “spirituality” of Christianity at the expense of moral theology per se.    From the point of view of “spirituals”, morality is seen as external, imposed from without in order to compel and control individuals under the authority of others:  compel those who are thirsty for divine experience within the context of their religions, control those who are not.

This idea is not without its merits, and the evidence must certainly be acknowledged by those within the Church (which means parents and teachers, and not necessarily clergy).  However, the idea that morality can be internally derivative of religious or spiritual experience is rarely broached, and is perhaps one of the more profound oversights of both this position or philosophical lifestyle (that is, of the “I’m spiritual, but not religious” outlook), and the more conventional “outer forms only” order.

What for me is essential or central in Christianity — that ancient and medieval Mediterranean Christianity, both western and eastern, in which I am steeped, concerns revelation: the (mystical) contemplation of dogma, if you will, the experience of contemplation and prayer, the inculcation of an interior life, more than any morality derived from the decontextualised rabbinic debates in which Jesus participated or the literal and selective application of Pauline (itself part of Rabbinic debate) or Petrine argumentation and instruction.  It is, in a word, morality derived from internal experience.  The inculcation and internalisation of morality need not go hand in hand with externally imposed forms, with hawkish oversight, well meaning but guilt-inducing instruction and reflection (which, in reality, often results more in confusion-inducing alienation).  Such actions betray trust, no matter whether they preserve respect or outward, public conformity.  And without trust, where is faith?  Without trust, what love can be borne?  And without love, and without faith, how can one dare be called or assume the name of Christian?

Yet perhaps I now fall into the same trap — speaking of love while condemning zeal?  I cannot condemn the zealous.  What I can do, however, is frankly declare it to be misplaced, misoriginated, uncentred.  Zeal must spring from the interior life and must express itself in personal reflection, silent or spoken, as one is called — but not so subjectively one fails to realise the unique lives others experience within divinity.  This sort of zeal asks others what they perceive — or don’t perceive — what they choose to do — or not — in order to cultivate a subjective, uniquely personal life.  It seeks nothing from the other person and in not seeking perhaps raises them to a wisdom borne of presence when present, and reflection when reflective — a state formerly called self-recollection.   In short, it allows others to take the chance of making difficult moral choices and living interiorly with the consequences.

This state of recollection transcends any existentialist dichotomy postulated between engagement in lived experience and melancholy introspection, for it moves fluidly, with an integrity rooted in confidence and developed (or even attenuated) by refined perception.  It is a palpable and moving silence, a speech imbued with power because it seeks to control none; the body is not made a prison for divine life.

Of course, if one sees Christianity as salvation form sin — which I do not — this moral emphasis makes the utmost sense.  What do I see Christianity as promising?  What is the life question is answers?  If Christianity isn’t about salvation from sin, what does Christianity save us from?

Theologically, I think one can make the case that Christianity’s appeal in the ancient world was that it promised salvation from death.  This is why the Resurrection is such an important even in the life of Christianity.  “By death you trampled on death and bestowed life to those in the tombs” runs the Paschal anthem.  Without death, Adam, humanity, is returned to its primordial state, and provides a path to silence and stillness, to wonder and peace.  Without fear of death, union with the divine life, integrity, firmness, and action result.  And action characterises the works of mercy which, incidentally, are posited as the social criteria by which nations — not individuals in themselves — will be judged.

But action also entails risk.  If you believe that risk to be the possibility of making a moral mistake and running afoul of a hard and severe taskmaster, you have become the third servant who was ultimately thrown out of the master’s house, the money with which he was entrusted distributed to those servants who, in silent union with and wonder at their master, risked the money they had been given, because they knew their master had entrusted them with such gifts for just that purpose.  The parable about talents is a parable about how one sees God, just as much as it is about how one takes up the challenge of making difficult choices.

This isn’t to deny the importance of morality, nor to disparage the practice of those precepts contained in the Scriptures.  Divine experience can certainly come from the study of God’s law.  But that experience of the divine is derived exactly from immersing oneself in the study of Torah, derived from asking the difficult questions about how a law is to be prescribed, what is its extent, what are the mysteries enfolded within its grammatical particles.  Such study seeks to discover what is unsaid but contained within the verse.  Through this probing of the hidden depths of God’s ineffable name, this sort of study, we enter into the Divine life.

True, we live the moral insights which come from this reflection, and through the practice of that life we arrive at yet new depths of communion from our lived experience of moral precepts.  But this is not morality for morality’s sake.  It is morality for the sake of ongoing communion with Divinity — which is a religious experience born form the interior life, not a hollow compulsion potentially, and ultimately, filled with bitterness and regret.

Belief

Once, in Ulaan Bataar, after interviewing a doctor, I was asked about my meditation practice, or about my religion; the two weren’t clearly distinguished in the question. I happened to be sporting both a shaved head and a Syrian keffiyah at the time, and had earlier commented to my translator that as a result people think I’m either Buddhist or Muslim (or, interestingly enough, some people relate the keffiyah to Judaism, perhaps confusing it with a tallis), even though I identify as an Orthodox Christian. Orthodox Christianity was of course not unknown in UB due to the small Russian community there. In any event, the doctor had thought I was Buddhist like her, and was curious to know what my spiritual practice was. When I said I was actually Orthodox, she asked, somewhat rhetorically and definitely incredulously, “You believe (in) that?”

I have to confess that I hesitated; the context did not seem appropriate to engage in a theological debate. While I said yes, I was somewhat uncomfortable with my response (and my hesitation, to be honest).

Belief seemed then, and seems even now too static a term to describe what I do in life. This, rather, is what I contemplate, what I move in and through, not stopping to “believe” at a certain point so much as to be drawn through and experience by means of these things. It is almost as if whether these things are true or not is beside the point. Rather, it is through these structures that I come to my experience of the world.
As a result, however, I don’t hold dogma to be utterly rigid. I don’t believe doctrine to be unchanging — because if either were unchanging and static it would prevent one from entering more deeply into them, erect a barrier to asking questions which push the boundaries of meaning and understanding — and thus living — the revelation they seek to imbue through a person’s life and lived experience.

Unfortunately, this also has the effect of distancing other Christians from me. Why am I hesitating to affirm the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament when displayed in a monstrance? Do I not believe in the Real Presence? Or is it rather that I feel more is embodied in that doctrine than the mere presence or reality of the mystery of Incarnation? Certainly both Byzantine and Latin theology would affirm this mystery (which is actually the preferred term for sacrament among the Byzantines, both Melkite (in communion with Constantinople) and Papal (in communion with Old Rome)) is more than simply the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus the Word. For the Byzantines, the Eucharist exists within the context of the liturgical celebration, which includes a communion of persons living and departed, and a setting which evokes the celestial life. For the Latin, as Pope Benedict points out, the Eucharist is the reception of what one is — the body of Christ — through which one becomes that which one receives. Not in the sense of a circular logic, but in the sense of a mystery to contemplate and through which one may enter more deeply into the divine life.

Which, after all, is what Christians believe about Jesus — that he came not to give us moral teachings (those were already given in the Torah of Moses and continually being drawn forth through Rabbinic debate both before and after the time of Jesus), but the revelation of divine life. Participation in Divinity is what is meant when John writes “grace and truth came through Jesus”. This is not a replacement of the Torah (usually translated as “Law”, because the Greek writers translated the Hebrew word “Torah” into Greek, perhaps realising the negative and restrictive connotations “law” would have in their rhetoric), and certainly not a new moral teaching, per se. Jesus did elaborate upon moral and “legal” (in the sense of interpreting the Torah) questions in the context of other Rabbinic debates at that time and in subsequent centuries, but I would contend the primary appeal was of a revelation and a new way to experience the Divine life. That Divine life is not entered into once and for all by humans. Unlike the angels who are assigned their stations before their Creator and who do not move from them, we are given the gift, or at least the ability, to progress and deepen our experience. Belief, if it is static, refuses that gift.

The Problem with the Greek Orthodox Problem with Church Steeples

It is shameful when a sermon at the end of a Lenten service destroys the stillness that service was intended to inculcate in the faithful.

At the end of the Akathist service on the first Friday of Lent this year the priest at my local church gave a sermon in which he touched on two differences the Orthodox share with Roman Catholics:  The first difference articulated was the Orthodox rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.   Although it repeated the typical worn out tropes and was obviously unschooled in what the Catholics themselves say and how the Latins arrived at their position, was at least applicable to the service at hand, a hymn to the Theotokos for saving the City (of Constantinople) from an Avar attack in the sixth century.   I have no problem with arguments revolving around a doctrine controversial even within the Latin Church (controversial at least during the twelfth and nineteenth centuries), and opposed by the likes of the Catholic St Thomas Aquinas, the foremost of the scholastic theologians, and St Bernard of Clairvaux, the “last of the Fathers,” and who is generally portrayed as opposing the rise of scholasticism in Church theology.  The second part of the semon, however, I stronger dispute.

The second difference the priest articulated, using the Immaculate Conception as a springboard for an attack on “Western churches” entered the realm of architecture.  The priest contrasted the steeple of the “Western churches” which figures the “finger of God” with the dome which was representative of the Orthodox ethos.  This is not only historically debateable, it also ignores the simple fact that those Orthodox churches in snowy countries also have steeples, and Latin churches in the Mediterranean often do not.

Although I am Orthodox, I was raised in the Catholic province of Rheinland Pfalz in western Germany, in a town founded by the Romans to guard their frontier.  Maintaining its position as a crossroads of commerce through the medieval period, Mainz contains architecture representing nearly all the artistic periods of Northwest European history.  Growing up around these monuments and being taught the history of the city and its architecture, we (my classmates and I) naturally absorbed an understanding of the symbolism decorating its churches and cathedral.  Never was the steeple described as the “finger of God.”

What was taught, however, was the history and symbolism of the Gothic arch.   Seeming to appear in Europe only after the crusaders came back from the Middle East and North Africa, where double-centred arches became common in the ninth century, the classic pointed Gothic arch was incorporated into the architecture of the Roman basillica.  This latter building, the basillica, being the principle Roman governmental building of the northern frontiers, had become the template from which “Latin” churches based their architectural plans.  The pointed arch was fitting to incorporate into the church building because it pointed to heaven, reminding its viewers to elevate their hearts to God.   Everything about the Gothic period was designed to raise the consciousness of the viewer to the heavenly realms.  Interestingly, scenes of Jesus as Christos Pantocrator can be seen carved in relief within the arched entrance to the church building, reminding the devout that although the arches point towards heaven, the kingdom of heaven is within you; just as the cathedral is in the heart of the town, so also must you, the devout one, elevate your heart to remembrance of the one who dwells within you.

But this is Latin Catholic symbolism.  Perhaps the finger-pointing postdates the Reformation.  But this approach would then be reading something into an architectural motif clearly designed in an earlier period with other intentions in mind.

The steeple originated as the campinile, the bell-tower, in the Mediterranean.  Most of these bell-towers have flat roofs, and are often not attached to the church to which they belong.  (The leaning tower of Pisa is a perfect example.)  They can be found in Greece, Italy, Spain, Sicily, and Lebanon.  Eventually, the belltower was attached to the church building, either out of a desire to support the tower or the church strcture, or to conserve space in the crowded inner city.  Often a second tower woudl be added to “balance” the facade — but the second tower was not infrequently differentiated from the first.  The cathedral in Strasbourg comes immediately to mind.  Sometimes this distinction was made by the covering chosen for the belltower.  In time, the belltower evolved into the steeple, and was rarely (before the sixteenth century) to be found in the centre of the facade of the church.

This priest is not the first Orthodox, speaker or writer, to describe steeples as either fingers of God judging humanity or spears thrust by humans to take down heaven by force.  But I must wonder — have these writers never travleed?  never seen pictures of St Basil’s in Moscow (which is what, a bundle of fasces?), never seen photos of churches in Armenia or Georgia in the Caucasus, never paid a visit to Rossiko on the Holy Mountain?  All these have steeples.  Why?  The simple reason is snow.  The Mediterranean has no need for slanted roofs.  it does not, and did not, snow so heavily there.  It is northen churches which have steeples, so that the weight of snow does not collapse the roof.  Finnish and Scandanavian churches have several tiers of roofs for just this reason.  And since when can practicalities of architecture not be turned into decoration, and decoration not be given positive symbolism?

Interpretation, however, can go both ways.  The dome, which covers all can be interpreted as the canopy over the Colliseum, the Circus, the hippodrome, the theatre, the public baths.  None of those embody an Orthodox ethos, per se, and in fact, many of them are blatantly rejected by the Fathers and writers of the Church.  In any event, the dome was not perfected for the church building — that is, it did not become the ideal, until the reign of Justinian, when it was used for the Church of Holy Wisdom (the Hagia Sophia) in Constantinople.  And then it had to be rebuilt twice, the first time having collapsed during an earthquake.

Justinian, however, did not reconquer the whole empire:  not even all the Spains, Belisarios’ genius notwithstanding.  This left the northwest provinces to rely on more widespread forms of Roman architecture to develop into their church buildings.  As I noted above, this building was the basillica.  The dome was really only popularised within Justinian’s empire.

The sort of polemic this priest used in his sermon was improperly placed.  It does not edify the faithful.  It disintegrated us by showing ourselves divided into several orthodox churches (with Greek architecture being the only and singular ideal) rather than a single Church with a common theology manifested in a myriad forms.  It provides fodder for ignorant babble and hardly promotes understanding through the clarification of true differences.  It certainly betrays an uncultured mind unacquainted with both simple practicalities and a sense of the history of art and architecture — a history any schoolboy in Europe can recite.

Ethnocentric ignorance so easily disproven by simple visual examination should not be prattled out at the end of a liturgical service as if it builds up the faithful.  speak of what upbuilds, as the apostle exhorts us, lst we cause scandal and put stumbling blocks in the path of those who would walk with us.  It is stillness and wonder we are to impart to our people.  Simplicity of vision draws us to divine contemplation.  Let us leave the service gathered into ourselves and in peace, and not with words of discord and scorn.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers