Sky posted a few questions and challenges in response to my March 24th entry. Sky asked: “Can you explain how the statement that the Protestant Reformation gave the bible ‘back to the people’ applies to the vast communities in the Eastern church?”
This is a great question and you brought to light for me again quickly I go to a “Roman/Protestant” place in my thinking and inadvertently forget my Orthodox sisters and brothers. Sky, you have read, studied and thought more deeply on the relationship between Orthodoxy and Protestantism than I, please continue to sharpen my thinking as time allows. From my perspective, it seems this is at least in part, a power and authority question.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that great East/West schism was less about filioque and more the will to power.
The Eastern church seems to look to the Holy Spirit living through Holy Scripture, through church tradition (especially the first seven councils), with an emphasis on living into the ongoing unfolding drama that is the living church, which honors difference by encouraging the multiplicity of leaders within the church. The impetus for constructive Biblical scholarship and theological reflection appears less important in this tradition in part because of view of theology which is more or less non-progressive.
The Church of Rome seems to look Holy Scripture and church tradition with an emphasis on the church’s need and responsibility to lead people where they don’t want to go, (which fits with the Roman Church’s role in the 4-7th centuries). The Roman church seems to emphasize an ecclesial form of “all roads lead to Rome” thus centralized leadership with one Pope, reflects the Roman church’s relationship with the Caesars. When Rome was sacked the Church of Rome thought of itself as holding the “authority bag” – not just for the religious West, but the Roman church saw itself as the authority for the entire Western world, religious, political, social, etc.
I often wonder what kind of world we would have if the West had not excommunicated the East (as if it had the ability to do so) or if the Roman church had entered into the multiplicity of church leadership as was being lived and invited by the East.
What we now look back on as the Protestant Reformation was largely an attempt to reform or deconstruct the indulgences and abuses of power being exercised by the Roman church. The reformers’ primary strategy was to do an end-run around church tradition by going back to Holy Scripture, but in so doing they deconstructed more than they had intended. The Reformers introduced a new way of thinking that essentially argued: one person together with the Holy Spirit and Scripture can stand in protest against any perceived injustice, poor doctrine, ecclesial structure, carpet color, personality difference, etc.
It is in this way the Protestant turn gave the Bible back to the people. People no longer needed the church to tell them what the Holy Narrative said but they could read it for themselves, in their own vernacular. Of course the Bible we got through the Protestant Reformation was virtually a contextless text. And this was more of a response to the Western Church than to the Eastern Church.
The Protestant church is largely responsible for furthering the development of Biblical studies. In fact about two years ago at Holy Cross (Greek Orthodox) seminary in Boston a mini Orthodox council-like-event was held to consider Orthodox Biblical scholarship. Part of the stated reason for the gathering was a sense among Orthodox leaders that the Orthodox voice was being drowned out in Biblical studies. Orthodox studies have tended to focus more on patristics than on Biblical studies.
One of the things I appreciate about the emerging church for those in the Western tradition is that Scripture is being given a context, a location, a people, a history, a tradition, etc. in a way that was lost during the height of modern epistemological project.
Part of the gift that the Orthodox tradition offers to the Roman, Protestant and especially the emerging church is a theo-praxis of an incarnational ecclesiology which renders cultural relevance irrelevant. Sometimes the Orthodox church is criticized for not being more socially active but such criticism fails to appreciate yeast-like function the church has within the world; the Western church (Roman and Protestant) tries to make the church the loaf.
I don’t understand what appears as a virtually non-developmental methodology which seems to undergird Orthodox theology and praxis, while at the same time such an emphasis on the Spirit’s work in creation. At times there is a sense that God ceased working within the church after the early church councils. By contrast the emerging church appears willing to drop almost everything on a dime. And the emerging church is quick to commodify faith traditions and practices which, in its desire to recover certain practices, often strip those practices of their meanings.
The jury is still out on what the ultramodern church (which is I would say is the emerging church) has to offer our Roman and Eastern brothers and sisters, my hunch is that that the emerging church is a conversational move reforming the Protestant church from protesting to conversing, or relating. I take the “emerging” movement in direction of a more robust pneumatology, incarnation, narrative, mystery, holistic/sensory worship to be encouraging signs. In many ways the emerging church seems to be moving the Western church East. But I will not likely be converting to Orthodoxy anytime soon. Possibly the most “Orthodox” thing Westerners could do is discourage easy conversions while encouraging owning one’s own traditions, and tracing those traditions way back; to live life and quit trying to sell our hipper versions of the church.
I meant to offer a quick response to some really thoughtful questions, I see I have neither answered the questions nor offered a quick response. I don’t know if this made any sense but I’ll post it anyway.
Peace, dwight
hey dwight, thanks for a very thoughtful response. i am no real authority per se, do dont take my response as authoratative, also per se… but i do want to comment on a few things. i think ill make each comment a separate reply.
you say: "I think its pretty safe to say that great East/West schism was less about filioque and more the will to power."
perhaps… but i do think it is important to add that the Schism had a context to it greater than just political power, and the filioque change fits into that context. even by the 800s there was an increasingly imnmense cultural separation in place, not to mention that it seems to be the case that during this time many in the West did not speak Greek, and many in the East did not speak Latin. nevertheless, from the Eastern perspective, one of the strongest issues of contention is not merely the two issues most commonly referenced: that of the filioque and the assertion of Papal Supremecy, but that in changing the Creed and asserting Papal Supremecy, the West subverted the entire *conciliar* process and thus the conciliar nature of the Church at large. so i suppose perhaps you can oversimplify that into the lens of will-to-power, but its important to take into consideration the historical nature of *how* the Church came to points of concensus, created the Canon of scripture, articlated doctrines we now take for granted (such as the Trinity), and so on: that process was conciliar… through community dialogue and debate and prayer. and it is important to note that the conciliar process wasnt just a bunch of old dudes being swayed by the political pressures of the day to articulate something that created a larger political coherence in the Emnpire. as i understand it, a council wouldnt be ratified until the next council… where the generation of the previous council would mostly have died.
so back to your will to power theme: bishop kallistos ware has written:
"From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation – Rome – so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope. is initial divergence in outlook was made more acute by political developments. As was only natural, the barbarian invasions and the consequent breakdown of the Empire in the west served greatly to strengthen the autocratic structure of the western Church. In the east there was a strong secular head, the Emperor, to uphold the civilized order and to enforce law. In the west, after the advent of the barbarians, there was only a plurality of warring chiefs, all more or less usurpers. For the most part it was the Papacy alone which could act as a centre of unity, as an element of continuity and stability in the spiritual and political life of western Europe. By force of circumstances, the Pope assumed a part which the Greek Patriarchs were not called to play, issuing commands not only to his ecclesiastical subordinates but to secular rulers as well. The western Church gradually became centralized to a degree unknown anywhere in the four Patriarchates of the east (except possibly in Egypt). Monarchy in the west; in the east collegiality."
a good summary is here:
http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm
truth be told, i read the history and can only grieve.
but i just want to emphasize the Eastern understanding of the equality, collegiality, and conciliar nature of the Church. and that in fact, it is THIS structure whereby the Canon itself was determined.
so as we approach the question of Scripture, i think we have to first emphasize that what we call the Canon was created by the Church herself… through the Councils. of course we would assert that it was the Holy Spirit working through the councils, but the councils were instrumental nevertheless.
i highlight this because this creates the context for why i would challenge your assertion that "the people" (at least in the East) somehow "lost" scripture and it had to therefore be "returned" to them.
now let me help define what we call Holy Tradition. you said that we have a "view of theology which is more or more non-progressive".
first, let me clarify that Holy Tradition is the entire body of Christian revelation… this includes first and in some ways foremost Scripture, and it also includes the Nicene Creed, the Councils, the Church Fathers, the Sacraments, the lives of the Saints, Icons, Art & Architechture, the Divine Liturgy, etc… these elements for a holistic whole, interpreting one another in, as you rightly said, a "living" context. to quote one of my favorite quotes, from Fr Georges Florovsky:
"Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present. Such a conception of tradition is rejected by history itself and by the consciousness of the Orthodox Church… Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical event" ("The Catholicity of the Church" in Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 47).
given this definition of Tradition as the abiding of the Spirit, it must be said that Scripture is at the heart of what we call Holy Tradition, and is given a very revered place of prominence. but Scripture is used, read, interpreted within a context, and that context is NOT the interpretation/hermeneutic of the individual, but the greater whole of the Church.
so to cut to the chase, isnt there a reason why the Reformation spawned 30,000 different denominations? as each local community took Scipture, removed it from the larger charismatic whole of Tradition, and sought to interpret it based on a hermeneutic of individual perspective? AND, sought to interpret it within a movement of critique and reformulation?
the reason why what happened in the Reformation is so alien to the eastern Christian is because Scripture wasnt lost… it was an integral part of all of worship, in every service and liturgy, in the writings of all the Fathers, written on Icons, used in hymnography, preached in the Divine Liturgy, etc… and perhaps most importantly, it was prayed.
of course, we now must distinguish between communal and personal use of scripture, because in the East, the emphasis is always on the community vs. the individual. in terms of regular use, Scripture is integrated in everything the community does in worship. its use IS communal. in terms of personal use, there are two primary uses, the first being perhaps the most important: prayer. scripture is PRAYED by the invidual. i cant tell you how many of our prayers come straight from scripture. the second is through a daily time of reading. each month the orthodox church publishes a guide of daily readings… reading that we are all engaged in worldwide.
but let me go back to this notion of scripture being prayed.
you said that for us theology is non-progressive. i perhaps might not know what you mean by that… but let me say that if it means that theology for us is static, then i suppose we have to clarify terms even more.
im sure youve heard the saying that for the Eastern Christian, theology is theoria. ie, the theologians are not those immersed in books and discourse, but are those who pray.
at the heart of our faith is an emphasis on both a personal and communal encounter with God, through the Mysteries of His church, through Eucharist, through prayer… an encounter that is transfiguring, and salvific. mere intellectual or sytematic discourse is important, but never enough. it is not enough to wax eloquent and ideological. you must bring your whole life before God, and allow God to transform you into His likeness. this is paramount. therefore the role of theology in the church is to not to create greater systems of thought "about" God. but to enter into deeper relatedness WITH God.
so while our theology may seem static and non-progressive to you, that is perhaps because theology is not first ideological. it is prayer, it is encounter. and as Christ said, the Kingdom of God is within.
now this is NOT to say that we dont have libraries of books and dont discourse at length. at all… of course we do. but the progressive nature of our theology is not to keep re-articulating more and more bodies of ideological thought about God… but to transform the person into the likeness of Christ. and so theology is a way of life, which is QUITE dynamic!
now in terms of study, analysis, research… i do think there is a movement in Orthodox Seminaries, from an academic standpoint, to create a greater dialogue with Protestant theologians… i think that is helpful. ive heard encouraging things in this regard. but believe me… the orthodox church will cease to be the orthodox church is ALL theology becomes is intellectual discourse "about" God.
you said: \"one person together with the Holy Spirit and Scripture can stand in protest against any perceived injustice, poor doctrine, ecclesial structure, carpet color, personality difference, etc.\"
well, i suppose the emphasis must be on \"with the Holy Spirit…\" because 1 person and scripture can also create 30,000 conflicting schisms.
last comment!
you said: "I dont understand virtually non-developmental methodology which seems to undergrid Orthodox theology and praxis. At times there is a sense that God ceased working within the church after the early church councils."
alas… i have to run. to Church (vespers)!
let me just say that this is NOT the case. at all. but the development that we most emphasize is interior. Holy Tradition is not about creating new culturally relevant movements… it is about transforming persons into the likeness of Christ. there is a deep interior journey that we undertake in the Church. the development is profoundly interior…
in a way that must manifest itself as self-emptying love for the Other. these are not fancy programs, it is not a flashy new way of doing church… it is the real hard daily journey of surrender, repentance, prayer, and love. so for an emergent Christian to join the eastern church – would mean that they could then take all the analysis and angst and ambivalence and energy into defining and reinventing "church" – and take that energy into a personal and communal Return to God. ie, there is a freedom to rest in the arms of the Church, and to trust be faith that you are now free to give up your critiques of the church "out there", and to more seriously address that status of your relationship to the Kingdom of God within you: repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!
i know that is probably not very helpful. i also know that were not getting to what i think may be the larger question beneath your question: mission… evangelism… and contextualization of the Good News.
more to follow, im sure!
> i know that is probably not very helpful
Au Contraire, this discussion is wonderful. And, I can\t think of a better place. The Dwight\s wisdom is only exceeded by his grace.
Please can we continue this discussion. I am fascinated by the cross fertilisation that can come in our discussions between emergent and Orthodox. I know so little and want to learn. Sky your questions and response were great, keep up the refelctions and please continue to pursue this conversation.
Today is very full for me, but I want to continuue this conversation. I\ll have time to post something tomorrow morning.
ok, then lets continue! i would love to. will wait for dwights post.
also, you may see some related conversations at my blog http://www.nowandever.be, and at the catholic/orthodox blog http://www.blogodoxy.com
)( s
> When Rome was sacked the Church of Rome thought of itself as holding the \"authority bag\" not just for the religious West, but the Roman church saw itself as the authority for the entire Western world, religious, political, social, etc.
It\s often been said, \"The history of Protestantism is the history of Prussia.\" Many times, people living under totalitarianism view the solution to be a different tyrant, as opposed to a more democratic form of leadership.
In a sense, Protestantism tried to replace the authority of Rome with the authority of Prussia. That effort failed in detail, but succeeded in concept. The 30,000 denominations retained a Germanic authoritarianism, with the prevalent leadership style being a heavy-handed top-down style.
The ultra-modern (emergent) recognizes a more distributed model of leadership. \"Fellowships\" of churches recognize a wisdom of both other leaders (not their own) and a collective wisdom of all their leaders. Sounds Orthodox to me!