Let
us begin with the issue on everyone’s mind: why we say ‘we’
instead of ‘I’. Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary says
about ‘we, pronoun’ (quotations by the OED giving usage omitted):
…
2.
Used
by a single person to denote himself:
a.
by
a sovereign or ruler. Often defined by the name or title added.
b.
by
a speaker or writer, in order to secure an impersonal style and tone,
or to avoid the obtrusive repetition of ‘I’. (The OED notes about
this usage: ‘Regularly so used in editorials and unsigned articles
in newspapers and other periodicals, where the writer is understood
to be supported in his opinions by the editorial staff
collectively.’)
We
do not suffer from multiple personality disorder. There is only one
of us. Of course we are not a king—unless king of the blog, which
is a far cry from King of some country. Of course we are not on
the editorial staff of some collective periodical, nor do we speak on
behalf of anyone but ourselves. Now we find Jennifer’s email
charming; and we prefer to say that ‘we’ find her email charming,
speaking as an Orthodox monk, than ‘I’ find her email charming,
speaking as a man who one day might meet Jennifer. For us, the ‘I’
is far too personal, being suitable for a blog in which the author
discusses how he felt when he got up in the morning, what he ate for
breakfast and what he did over the weekend. So it’s ‘we’ on the
blog.
Jennifer’s
email is quite apt, pointing out a very serious problem within the
Orthodox Church. But writing a post explaining the problem and the
solution is difficult, very difficult. If it were easy, Jennifer
would already have found a solution: one would be already waiting for
her somewhere.
Let’s
start of with the self-identity of the Church. For the Orthodox
Church, the core statement of belief is the Nicene Creed. It is the
Nicene Creed that a person must ultimately confess in order to become
a catechumen in the Orthodox Church; today the service of the
catechumen is usually done just before the actual baptism so one
might think it is part of the actual service of baptism. It isn’t.
Anciently there could be years between the two services. In the
service of the catechumen the person, facing west, renounces the
Devil and spits on the Devil, and then turning to the east and facing
the icon of Christ formally joins himself to Christ. In infant
baptism this is done on the child’s behalf by the godparent. The
person then recites the Nicene Creed as their profession of faith;
the godparent does so in the case of an infant. Then the priest—saint
or sinner; it doesn’t matter for the efficacy of the prayers—reads
certain prayers over the person. So if Jennifer or Tess or anyone
else wants to become Orthodox, the Nicene Creed is the bottom line on
what they have to believe.
Now
the classical belief of the Orthodox Church is that it itself is in
whole and not in part the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church’ confessed in the Nicene Creed. The classical belief of the
Orthodox Church is not that it is a part
of
the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ but that it is
the
‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Moreover, the
Orthodox Church is largely silent theologically on the status of
professed Christians outside the Orthodox Church.
This
Orthodox belief is the same belief that the Roman Catholic Church has
about itself. The Roman Catholic Church believes (Vatican II) that
the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ subsists
in
the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church also believes
that
non-Roman
Catholic Christians are joined in some fashion to the Roman Catholic
Church whether they know it or not. The Pope is the ‘Vicar of
Christ’ for all Christians whether they know it or not. This of
course makes for a collision with the Orthodox belief: there can’t
be two ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches’.
The
Anglican view is that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church’ subsists in various co-equal branches, among which branches
are the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Anglican
or Episcopal national churches. According to this view (called the
‘Branch Theory’ by its detractors), there is a spiritual unity
among these branches so that the sum of them is the ‘One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church’, even though they co-exist in
visible disunity.
The
Calvinist view is that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church’ is comprised of all believers who have been
‘born again’ through accepting salvation by faith in Jesus
Christ, something given to them by an eternal personal predestination
to salvation. Hence, according to the Calvinist view the ‘One,
Holy, Catholic
and
Apostolic Church’ picks and chooses among the members of the
various Protestant denominations, selecting those who are born again.
It might also pick and choose among Catholics and Orthodox if they
too
have
been ‘born again’ according to Calvinist criteria (not just
baptized—some Calvinists even give greater spiritual weight to the ‘born again’
experience over the actual practice of baptism, treating
baptism
as mere confirmation of the born-again experience). This would
explain, among those Calvinists that believe in the Rapture (a belief
dating from the 19th
Century
that entails
a
two-part Second Coming), why they believe that among all the
Christian denominations some persons
will
be raptured up when Christ comes back
the
first time and some won’t: the born-again will be raptured up and
the non-born-again whether baptized or not won’t. It also explains
why the Rapturists
are
so sure that they themselves will be
raptured
up: they know they have been ‘born again’.
The
various beliefs above are matters in what is called ‘ecclesiology’,
the theology of the nature of the Church. It is clear that these
various ecclesiological beliefs are incompatible. What to do? More
conservative Orthodox theologians gravitate to the traditional view
that the Orthodox Church is the ‘One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church.’ However, there is a tendency among Orthodox theologians
who are more ecumenically minded to gravitate to either the ‘Branch
Theory’ or the Roman Catholic understanding of the nature of the
Church. But of course this is not something that can be stated out
loud. Moreover, it should be understood that the ecumenical movement
is really a Protestant movement in its historical origins, so that it
would tend either to a ‘Branch Theory’ ecclesiology or even to a
Calvinist ecclesiology.
One
of the issues underlying the problem Jennifer is addressing is that
compared to the Roman Catholic Church, or even the Lutheran Church in
its various forms, Orthodoxy is not as centrally organized. There is
no central authority that imposes a uniformity of opinion either on
theologians or on the various jurisdictions. This results in an
openness to outside influences, usually Western Christian influences
(we are speaking descriptively and historically here). Hence, we find
a multiplicity of theological currents and ecclesiastical practices
within the Orthodox Church.
Now
the point at which the ecclesiological theories
sketched
above collide in a practical way
is
in
the
reception of Christian converts. Everyone agrees that non-Christians
are to be received by baptism. However, the Nicene Creed professes
‘one baptism for the remission of sins’. So we can be baptized
only once. But what happens when a Roman Catholic wishes to join the
Orthodox Church (or vice
versa),
or an Anglican wishes to join the Orthodox Church, or a Mormon (where
the Mormons have a supplementary book of revelation not accepted by
traditional Christians)? In ancient times, Orthodox Christians
received non-orthodox believers from other Christian groups either by
baptism or by chrismation, or even by confession of faith, the method
used depending on the particular group being received. St Basil the
Great occupied himself with rules on this.
The
Roman Catholic Church treats all Christian baptisms (with some
exceptions) as valid baptisms. Indeed, according to the Roman
Catholic Church a non-Christian can baptize a non-Christian in a
valid baptism if intent is there and water is used. In our own
experience, we know of a case where as a prank a non-Christian
contemptuous of Christians
baptized
another non-Christian
who
wished to become Christian using water from a mud puddle. Voila!
Newly baptized Christian.
Now,
today the more conservative Orthodox prefer to receive converts from
other Christian denominations by Orthodox baptism in accordance with
a strict interpretation of the canons and in accordance with
the
view that the Orthodox Church is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church’, there being
no
divine grace in sacraments outside the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church’. Less conservative Orthodox prefer to receive
Christian converts to the Orthodox Church by chrismation or
even
by confession of faith either because the Church supplies what is
lacking in the original baptism or because the original baptism is
actually valid. The first view supporting chrismation or confession,
that the Church supplies what is lacking, while theologically
arguable at least has the merit of being consistent with the
classical self-identity of the Orthodox Church as the ‘One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church’. The second view supporting
chrismation or confession, that the original baptism is valid,
indicates that the theologian tends either to the ‘Branch Theory’
or to a Roman Catholic understanding of the Church.
From
the discussion above we can now see the background of
disputes
in the Orthodox Church concerning ecumenism. They have to do with
issues of
the
Orthodox Church’s self-identity. They also have to do with the
doctrinal and moral liberalism and relativism found among the largely
Protestant ecumenists. In other words, there is an issue both about
how the Orthodox Church defines itself and about how the Orthodox
Church responds to theologically fashionable currents within the
ecumenical movement, most notably homosexuality and related moral
issues, although there are also doctrinal issues concerning whether
for example one actually believes in the Resurrection—some
professed Christians who are ecumenists don’t.
However,
it should be understand that issues of doctrinal and moral liberalism
arise outside specifically ecumenist settings, so that they are an
issue in some Orthodox jurisdictions even beyond the matter of
formal
ecumenism.
We
can also see that connected with these broader issues is the very
specific issue of how Jennifer is to be received into the Orthodox
Church.
Moreover,
because the Orthodox Church emphasizes tradition over reason, where
tradition is correctly defined (by Vladimir Lossky) as the presence
of the Holy Spirit in the Church, there is a tendency in the Orthodox
Church for heresies or deviations to develop from an overemphasis on
the external forms of tradition, most notable in our view being the
Old-Calendarist schism in the Greek Church (20th Century) and the Old
Believer schism in the Russian Church (17th Century). This would be
different from tendencies to over-emphasize human reason, something
that characterizes the West. Reactions in the West to the
over-emphasis on reason led to the pietist movement in Lutheranism
and also to the various Pentecostalist and fundamentalist sects.
So
not only are there issues that arise from legitimate questions about
how the self-identity of the Orthodox Church is viewed and how issues
of doctrinal and moral liberalism or relativism are viewed but there
are also issues that arise from an excessive adherence to the
external shell of traditional practice in the Orthodox Church.
To
clear up a small point in Jennifer’s letter before we go on,
Jennifer says that she is considering being baptized again in order
to become Orthodox. She does not state whether her first baptism was
Orthodox but if so she is already Orthodox—unless she has in the
meantime denied Christ or joined another religion—and it is a
matter of being taught the beliefs of the Church and
getting
herself sorted out with the mystery of confession of sins. Of course
if Jennifer
has
denied Christ or joined another religion, then the canons of the
Church provide that she be re-chrismated. Denial of Christ is a
formal renunciation of Christ; if one has the thought that they might
have done this it should be discussed with a priest empowered to hear
confessions before any weight is assigned to this possibility. If
in
fact there has been a formal renunciation of Christ,
it
is better for the ministering priest to explain why re-chrismation is
necessary.
However,
if Jennifer was baptized originally with a non-Orthodox baptism, then
we are back to the issue of how she is to be received into the
Orthodox Church, and here we pick up the thread of her email.
In
our view the best thing to do for someone joining the Orthodox Church
is to receive a canonical baptism in the Orthodox Church even if they
have previously been baptized as a Christian. By ‘canonical
baptism’ we mean the full service of baptism, including the service of the catechumen, as found in the
priest’s book of prayers. Then the person should concentrate on the
inner spiritual transformation that begins with baptism, as lived
within a healthy canonical parish. By ‘canonical parish’ we mean
a parish whose Bishop is in communion with the various Patriarchs and
Hierarchs of the national churches of the Orthodox Church.
It
is ultimately the conscious contact with the Holy Spirit received in
the heart in Orthodox baptism that forms the Orthodox conscience of
the believer and this Orthodox conscience solves all the problems of
jurisdiction and belief and hatred that Jennifer refers to. In the
particular case of Jennifer’s situation, she might wish to look at
the Russian Church Outside of Russia as a possible entry point into
Orthodoxy—assuming that the parish is in communion with the
Patriarch of Moscow.
Now
let us look at particular issues raised by Jennifer’s email.
The
first issue is that Jennifer lives in a country where there is only a
sprinkling of Orthodox parishes. We don’t know details.
Jennifer
remarks on the lack of aggressive missionary work by the Orthodox Church. Speaking humanly,
not preaching the Gospel is a weakness of the Orthodox Church. The
charge to preach the Gospel ‘to all Creation’ is given by Christ
himself. The Orthodox Church is weak on this, and especially on inner
preaching—to those who are nominally Orthodox but who really do not
believe. However, this preaching whether on the institutional or
individual level is quite different from the proselytization that
Jennifer refers to (hard core knocking on doors to make converts).
Jennifer
writes:
I
interpreted this (correct me if I’m wrong) as the Orthodox Church
being satisfied with co-existing with other religious movements,
acknowledging that other people have other beliefs, and that—even
though they may not agree that their beliefs lead to salvation the
way the Orthodox Church sees it, they certainly have the capacity to
guide people spiritually into living more fulfilled and righteous
lives.
Here
we enter into the dynamic of Jennifer’s own conversion or not to
Orthodoxy. The norm in Orthodoxy is the teaching of the Fathers of
the Church, a loosely defined group of authors over the centuries who
among themselves define good Orthodox dogma, thus interpreting the
Gospel, which ultimately is itself the criterion of sound belief.
What Jennifer is going to have to do—perhaps for the rest of her
life—is to study how the Fathers of the Church handled this very
issue of non-Orthodox and non-Christian believers who may indeed be
pious in the context of their own belief system and from at least a
human point of view virtuous. On a more practical level it is
something she will have to discuss with the parish priest who
catechizes her. On a more theological level we would recommend St.
Silouan the Athonite
by
Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) where both in Archimandrite
Sophrony’s extended introduction and in St. Silouan’s own
writings this issue is touched upon. We think that Jennifer will
appreciate St. Silouan’s attitude.
Jennifer
continues:
It has come
to my attention that quite a severe schism has been going on for
quite some time between the more conservative parts of the Orthodox
Church and the Ecumenical Movement (as well as that about the
calendars), and one of the largest ‘counter-ecumenical’ movements
is the largest Orthodox parish in my country. I am confused. Is it
not the teaching of the Orthodox Church that love for another should
be extended, whether or not we are of the same opinion, and that
forgiveness should be given whether asked for or not? I understand
why you might not want to admit their teachings to be the way of
salvation, but is there a need to proclaim half the world to be
heretics and blasphemers?
St
Paul the Apostle remarks to the Corinthians concerning schisms among
them that to a certain extent he can believe it because that way it
can be seen who is authentic. However, he certainly doesn’t
encourage schism. And writing to the Corinthians he says that we
should make love our aim. In practical terms, Jennifer should first
of all only have to do with canonical non-schismatic jurisdictions in
communion with the Patriarchs and Hierarchs of the various national
Orthodox churches. She should have nothing to do with schismatic or
‘fly-by-night’ self-erected ‘Orthodox’ churches, of which
unfortunately there are a number. However, even if a parish is
canonical, Jennifer should be ‘cunning as a snake and innocent as a
dove’, sizing up the parish using the criterion of the Gospel: ‘By
their fruits you shall know them.’ If a parish is characterized by
hatred and anger, it is not acting under the impulsion of the Holy
Spirit and Jennifer should go elsewhere.
Is there
not a fundamental difference here between learning about the ways of
the other and adopting them yourself? Enough strength in one’s own
belief should make it possible to meet others without fear of losing
oneself. I was taken aback when seeing some very harsh comments on
the subject and, not having found my place in the Church yet, I fear
I will discover the whole Church to be like this. Should I make
inquiries here on the political opinions of the priests and of the
Bishop of the parish I hope to enter, to make sure we see
‘eye-to-eye’? I had rather hoped I could avoid such a political
mix into my stumbling attempts at spiritual advancement. (Wow, that
sounded bitter!)
…
I believe
good advice is good advice wherever it comes from (now we are
obviously not talking Gospel, but simple humility, aid and comfort of
a purely humanitarian nature). This basic view is, I fear, rather
well established in me by now (I am 33) so how can I see and believe
in the wisdom of priests who seem so full of anger and are so
hell-bent on their way as being the right one that they will not even
talk to some fellow priest who has chosen another path? I mean, these
guys are fellow Christians, granted maybe not of the same kind. But
at least they’re not of some weird cult from New Guinea that wants
to shrink your head. One could think they could find SOMETHING to
talk about over dinner...
The
answer to the preceding should now be clear. While the Orthodox
Church bears witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it
does so under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit
of Truth and Love, and not under the impulsion of other spirits of
anger and hatred.
Jennifer
continues:
Problem is:
am I too open-minded? Have I lived too long in a world of multiple
ways of the mind to be welcome and able to stay on the road I want to
follow? Does Orthodoxy imply not only that I choose to believe in the
path of Orthodoxy but also that I must reject those others who for
their own reasons may have chosen another path? Am I on the wrong
path in searching Orthodoxy with this mind-set?
We
think that Jennifer is going to have to search for sound teachers to
catechize her. She is going to have to hear the Gospel presented in
its entirety and either accept or reject it. Some of what she now
believes she will have to discard; some she will have to purify; some
she will have to retain. This is a matter of a year or more.
… The
crux is that I fear I will enter the Orthodox Church retaining the
feeling that my view of the world is ‘better’ and that I need to
convince these people to change, or at least to give them a new
perspective. But I came to get a new perspective myself! In the
secular world I have the
‘I-know-what-the-problem-here-is-and-I-am-going-to-fix-it’
mentality, and I am currently struggling to get out of that business.
Changing that was (is?) one of the steps down the road to change.
While
no one is going to make a serious change to Jennifer’s character at
the age of 33 without doing her serious psychological damage of a
very nasty kind (cults, brainwashing and all that), still as Jennifer
well realizes we join the Orthodox Church to change ourselves, not to
change the Church. There is a dynamic here between learning humbly
and then later serving God in various ways given our own human
capacity and character.
… So now
we have arrived at the interesting conclusion that the problem is not
that of Orthodox priests arguing but of me believing I know better.
Ergo, solution will be to grab the first priest I come across and
start listening, without concern for his political background.
Not
at all, unless Jennifer is intent on self-destruction. ‘Cunning as
a snake; innocent as a dove.’ ‘By their fruits you shall know
them.’
Great!
See—you can even get good advice from a silent computer screen. Now
I don’t even have to bother sending the letter. But I will anyway
(tomorrow) for three, no four, reasons:
...
3. In
diagnosing myself I may be back to my well-known original sin again.
(The reasoning is circular—will this ever end? Does this mean I
have to doubt every time I think I understand something; otherwise
I’m just full of pride?)
We
are not so convinced that this is pride. Moreover, as Jennifer will
learn when she begins to practise the Jesus Prayer, we are more than
the flow or stream of our intellectual ideation. Part of coming into
contact with the Holy Spirit in the heart through the practice of the
Jesus Prayer is learning to go beyond our thoughts to our heart
(which is not our emotions but our spiritual centre). St Diadochos of
Photiki discusses this progression (click on the Diadochos label in
the right-hand margin).
4. Most
importantly—I am very curious to hear why you refer to yourself in
plural.
We’re
curious why it’s important.
Sorry about
the ranting. I will stop now. Do whatever you want with this (as long
as you answer question number 4).
Cheers,
Jennifer
Thanks.
It’s been a pleasure. Answer with your thoughts. –Orthodox Monk
