As many, if not all of the readers of our parish blog already know, I have been commissioned as a chaplain in the Air National Guard. I include a picture of that here:
My date is easy to remember: Valentine’s Day.
The OCA has recently posted some deployments by Orthodox chaplains serving the army and Marines (Navy chaplains serve Marines). We shall keep these priests in our prayers and we ask others to do so as well.
http://oca.org/news/headline-news/oca-chaplains-deployed-to-middle-east1
Here is a link to the statement from the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in America:
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2013/jan-22-roe-vs-wade-anniversary
Normally at this time of year, if the Red River Valley hears of anything regarding Orthodox Christianity and blessing water, it is a report from some faraway place like Russia or Greece. What many might not know is that right here in Fargo, our small community has been blessing the Red River for the past few years. Here is are a few photos from this event. We blessing near the dike, where the current runs quickly enough that there is open water even in sub-zero temperatures. No jumps in after the cross here, though, both because of temperatures and because of the current. I toss and retrieve the cross myself. Here are a few photos, courtesy Erik Hjelle:
The celebration of Theophany, together with the blessing of waters is a uniquely Eastern Christian tradition. The Western Christian tradition celebrates the visitation of the Magi to the young Jesus. These two traditions are not at odds with one another, though. In our Christmas hymnography, we Orthodox sing of the wise men, who were taught by a star to adore Jesus, the Sun of Righteousness ["sun of righteousness" being a reference to Malachi 4:2]. Jesus is the light of the wisdom unto the world. Indeed, Jesus is the Wisdom of God [e.g. Proverbs 8:22 ff]. This is also what we see at Theophany, for being the Wisdom of God, he has always been present with and to God, and thus is fully God himself as well. At Theophany, the Father calls Jesus his “beloved Son,” as a way of describing their relationship to one another. This same Jesus, or Son of God, is also the “Light of the world” [see John 8:12]. Light, Wisdom, Son, all are applied to the one and same Lord Jesus, the Christ. At Theophany, this all comes together in a special way, and we encounter God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This revelation of God, this Theophany, is also linked directly to the re-establishment of creation’s intended end–to radiate the divine goodness of God and serve as a vehicle for giving him thanks. At Theophany, we celebrate this with the blessing of waters. Through our prayers and the grace of the Holy Spirit, we ask God to make the water, and by extension, all that is blessed with it, holy water, done not so as to be a polar opposite of “secular water” (if you will) but as the fulfillment of what water is to be, what it was to be in Paradise and what it will be again in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Those interested in learning more about this blessing of waters and the history behind it should check this out:
http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2012/10/nicholas-denysenko-on-theophanic-water.html
It is no secret to those who have followed my online work over the years that the question of canonization has been important at times. I have argued that it would be imprudent and unwise to canonize Bishop Arsenius of Winnipeg at this time.(here are some links along this line: http://orthodoxhistory.org/tag/arseny-chagovtsov/). I have also expressed public doubt that there was ever a martyr-saint known as “Peter the Aleut” (allowing for the possibility that one of the Aleuts captured in battle might have been named Peter. I received the most criticisms for this argument, but that comes with the territory of historical investigation. You may find some discussions of that here: http://orthodoxhistory.org/2011/01/31/is-the-st-peter-the-aleut-story-true/
I no longer run the personal blog “Frontier Orthodoxy,” so you’ll have to rely on Matthew’s posts on the SOCHA site, but he handled the whole situation quite well and with an even hand (at least from my vantage point).
While my interest has focused on history and the role historical investigation ought to play during the early discussions and considerations of the question, Fr. Michael Plekon’s work has taken a different approach. He has written extensively on sanctity and how we define it. He has emphasized lived spirituality over miracles (though I can tell you he most certainly believes in miracles). I think his approach needs to be read and considered by Orthodox (and even non-Orthodox, but certainly by Orthodox). Here are some of his thoughts on this matter:
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2012/novdec/solus-christianus.html?paging=off
This past weekend, theologians from across the country gathered at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (www.svots.edu) for the annual Orthodox Theological Society of America (OTSA) conference. This was only the second I had attended. My first had been in Chicago in 2008. Although attendance was much lower this time around, something I noted in the business meeting, those who were there were actively engaged in presenting and discussing Orthodox Christian history and theology and each of the papers were worth listening to. For a list of papers given, go to the site, scroll down the page a bit, and see the pdf schedule:
As I said, each paper was intriguing but a few stood out to me because of their content and my own interests. Dn. Nicholas Denysenko (Loyola Marymount in LA)’s paper on Ukraine was quite illuminating. I hadn’t kept up with everything going on over there, so I found his paper quite fascinating. I enjoyed the topic of Dn. Pavel Gavrilyuk (St. Thomas Univeristy in St. Paul, MN)’s paper as well–trends in the American academy amongst Orthodox. My friend Fr. John Strickland (newly founded St. Katherine’s College)’s paper on “Holy Rus” as an important concept for clergy attempting to “convert” Russian nationalists in late imperial Russia was of interest as well. Yet, there were papers that also will develop into works useful for educated parishioners. In particular, we should keep an eye out for Dr. Edith Humphrey (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary)’s book on Scripture and Tradition. It is forthcoming from Baker Academic Press and once it’s out, I’ll try to get it mentioned on here. From what I can tell, I expect it to be useful for anyone who discusses the relationship between tradition and the Bible (whether with family or friends). Also, regarding books, please check out the latest post by Adam DeVille over at Eastern Christian Books:
http://www.easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2012/09/extra-extra-world-scoop-on-new-orthodox.html
Adam was also at OTSA and I had several wonderful chats with the man. He is doing great work not only reviewing Eastern Christian books, but also with his journal, LOGOS: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. LOGOS will soon have full text articles available on a religion database known as ATLA, which will be very helpful for graduate students and researchers but is also a sign of Eastern Christianity’s ongoing vitality, which should be good news for any of us.
Finally, I should note that the annual Florovsky lecture was given on Friday night and it was an intriguing talk by Fr. John Behr (St. Vladimir’s Seminary) concerning “theology” and reading the fathers today. In his talk, he engaged the philosophy of Jean-Luc Marion. I am no expert in Marion, so I’m still mulling over the paper. Perhaps that is precisely what conferences should do, inspire ongoing thinking and reflecting! I would say several papers did that for me this time around.
In this second series, I want to highlight just a few ways in which we are significant to American religion and society. Obviously, we are not as large and powerful as mainline Protestant denominations, or Evangelical churches or the Roman Catholic Church. We don’t shape major policy decisions in America–just look to how often Eastern Christianity is ignored in foreign policy–not every single time (Clinton did meet with the Patriarch in Syria recently, for whatever that gesture is worth), but nearly all the time.
One way we are significant, though, is that we do sometimes follow trends in American religion in general. This is not the only way, but the way I want to highlight here. Now, I know that is hardly “significant” in the way we might like, but bear with me through this series. For today, what I want to highlight is the book I mentioned a couple posts back by Amy Slagle. She notes how for many converts to Orthodox Christianity, the language of the “spiritual marketplace” and “novelty creation” that is so prevalent in American religion generally, is present. This is important. She does not deny real theological reasons for conversion, but that’s not her approach. She uses ethnography and sociology to show how a sociological trend in America is also a trend among Orthodox converts. Not every convert fits that, but quite a few to whom Amy spoke do. Many converts trusted their own individual judgment to know what to read and when and how and what to see and when and how and were operating as individual choice-makers.
So, this is one way we are significant. We’re significant inasmuch as we are part of an ongoing trend within America. To what degree we’re shaping that trend at all remains to be seen but given our numbers, only minimally. Largely, we’re Americans swimming in American waters. Many Orthodox converts are part of a large American religious trend, a trend itself that has significance.
This is a continuation of a short series of pastoral reflections looking at Matthew 12:30-7. This week, we’re on verse 31:
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
The first half of the verse seems rather straight-forward. God will forgive people any sin or blasphemy. Seems simple enough. Makes sense in light of a loving God. Ok, But then we’re hit with the second part. Wow! Wait a minute! There’s something he WON’T forgive??? How is THAT loving???
Well, before we react too strongly, we should ask just what this means. What does it mean to blaspheme the Spirit? Well, a most helpful patristic interpretation comes from St. Cyprian of Carthage (bishop from 248-58), who said it is a denial of the Christian faith. That is, it is a willful turning from God as present in His Son, Jesus the Christ. That is unforgivable in the sense that no real healthy relationship can be established so long as a person continues to deny Christ and what he has done for us.
So, let us not be overly troubled about some particular “thing” we might do, but whether we are baptized and chrismated (annointed) into the Body of Christ and given the gifts and seal of the Spirit. That must be our concern. Are we living out our baptism? Are we always leaning on our Lord? So long as we rely on him, we need not worry about this sin, and when we reach out and love and evangelize others, we need not worry about whether there is something terribly unforgivable within their lives. What matters is whether they will turn and love Christ, if they do not already.
Last Saturday’s Gospel reading in our lectionary was Matthew 12:30-7. Each verse is a challenging statement by our Lord. None of these are easy to process. So, I thought I would offer, by way of weekend edifications, a series looking at these verses, starting with verse 30. I am not going to offer exhaustive reflections, and my intention is not to provide “critical scholastic” analysis, but rather what I hope will be helpful, pastorally informed, Orthodox Christian starting points when thinking about these verses. On Monday, I’ll post the next post in the American Orthodox Christianity Series.
Here is the Gospel reading:
So, let’s start with 30. What makes this tough from the outset is the very idea that simply not being with Christ is to be against him. This may well sound quite unfair, especially if one considers all the world’s populations and cultures throughout history. Is it really the fault of people who had never heard of Jesus to be considered against him? Such is a normal reaction but also a reaction that is not based on an accurate reading of this verse. Keep in mind that according to St. Peter, Jesus preaches to the dead in Hell, so this verse is not saying that all those who have never heard the message will be counted as against God and be damned forever and ever ad infinitum, Amen. Remember, we are co-workers with God, not replacement workers for God.
So, what the first part of verse 30 is getting at is that when encountering the Gospel and Christianity, someone who is not on the side of the Gospel, but not actively opposing it, is, nonetheless, in the way, and by being in the way, is against Christ’s message. The Gospel is not something about which one can be neutral. Neutrality is certainly a reality for much of the created order. Apple pie is “neutrally good,” we might say, but if we eat too much, it becomes bad for us or, if we’re helping someone who is malnourished, it becomes a real blessed dessert. Not so when faced with the Gospel, for the Gospel is not a created thing, but uncreated. It is the Son of God, who is fully God, deriving all that it means to be God from the Father, who takes on humanity and heals it. The Gospel is divine healing–the divine energies of God at work in humanity, and that is not created. When facing God, one is either on his side, or one is in the way (whether actively as an opponent, or inactively, as a stumbling block trying to be neutral). To put it in more personal terms, God wants to be in a relationship with you, but relationships are not neutral. If I am loving you and doing kind things to you, but you just ignore it all, there’s not much of a relationship, even if I continue to love you.
The second part of the verse shows exactly how this is to play itself out. We are to be co-workers, to help Jesus “gather” in the harvest. That is, to spread the Gospel and bring people to Christ. If, however, we seek to gather people around us based on some other message, it is like scattering seeds abroad. The harvest will not be. One cannot just go around throwing seeds here, there, and anywhere, and then expecting a field to exist. Goodness, even today, were I to fill up my grandpa’s old drill with seed, fire up the Massey (tractor), and run it up and down the roads wherever I desired, I’d have no harvest. It just doesn’t work.
It can be challenging to learn to that we can’t just sit back and be neutral. This can be all the more challenging when learning of evangelism. You mean I need to share my faith in Christ?? I need to proclaim the Gospel and inform them about the Church that Christ founded, the one over which the Gates of Hades shall never prevail?? Yep. No ifs, ands, or buts. Jesus loves you and will love you even if you prefer to ignore him and his calling, but why be in the way? Why become a stumbling block? There is much more open to us he says. ”Paradise,” he called it when speaking to St. Dismas (the repentant thief who died on the cross to Jesus’ right).
In continuing this series, I thought I’d mention another factor that has kept Orthodox Christianity to the margins of American religion–our immigration numbers. It was common for priests and parishes without priests, to exaggerate their numbers when writing back home to their bishops. This exaggeration has had an ongoing effect. I remember reading a pamphlet while still a Lutheran that claimed Orthodoxy had 5-7 million members in America. I had also encountered more realistic numbers by then, however, and so I was skeptical. As it turns out, there is good reason to be skeptical and, indeed, downright critical of such exaggeration. For example, if we look here, we see a claim of 2-3 million Carpatho-Rusyns alone (!):
Greek Catholic Union, Opportunity Realized: The Greek Catholic Union’s First One Hundred Years, 1892-1992 (Beaver, PA: Greek Catholic Union of the U.S.A., 1994), 5.
In reality, there were about 200,000:
Bohdan P. Procko, “The Establishment of the Ruthenian Church in the United States, 1884-1907,” Pennsylvania History 42 (1975), 139, 143 n26, 149 n48, 150, and 152.
I do not mean to pick on Carpatho-Rusyns, here. I just happen to have these sources handy due to my research work on St. Alexis Toth, but this example could be repeated for the other ethnic groups. In the case of the Carpatho-Rusyns, it’s easy to see as well that the more conservative number is more accurate, for many of the Carpatho-Rusyns became Orthodox (under St. Alexis’ guidance) and led to what we now know as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), of which our parish is a part. Were there 2-3 million, his conversions would have numbered in the millions and the OCA would be much bigger than it is today.
So, one of the reasons we have had a negligible impact is because our numbers were never very large to begin with. Next Monday, I’ll have the next post in this series. My goal is to make these American Orthodoxy series a Monday series. Other days will then be open for other posts.
