Tag Archives: Orthodoxy

Abortion as a Political, Philosophical, and Theological Issue: Connecting a New Society at an Orthodox Seminary with Orthodox Christians in North Dakota

Posted on by
Reply

North Dakota has recently passed legislation restricting abortion.  Although, in part, it draws a line at a “heartbeat,” which does not define when conception occurs and allows for “the morning after pill,” and certainly does not eliminate any and all(early) abortions, quite a few have reacted against it.  Likewise, there have been objections to the bill requiring an abortion doctor to have admission privileges at a local hospital.  Finally, there has been outrage even over the bill prohibiting genetic selection as a reason for abortion.  Such bills are at least consistent with Orthodox Christianity (though Orthodox do debate how and when to legislate on moral issues, including abortion).  Certainly, Orthodoxy’s canon law prohibits abortion or even causing abortion.

Interestingly, it is not just here in North Dakota where abortion has risen as a hot issue.  I have recently learned that at one of our Orthodox seminaries, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, a pro-life society has begun.  I provide a link to their blog here, which I’ll likewise include in the “Related Orthodox Sites” widget:

http://www.stambrosesociety.com/blog/

The work of Dr. Jeff Bishop (at SLU, from which I earned my Ph.D.) is very fascinating in this regard.  This society did not exist while I was a student at SVS, but it has encouraged and enabled some thoughtful discussions concerning this issue.  One talk may be found here:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices

Scroll down for the podcast entitled “St. Ambrose Society” for a talk given by Ian Jones, also an SVS alum, who is a doctoral candidate at Fordham.  It is a talk worth listening to and may be worth remembering as this issue continues to be debated and discussed in North Dakota, which will almost certainly happen in full force next year when voters decide on a “right to life” amendment.

Archaeology, History, Tourism, and Ideology

Posted on by
Reply

Past Horizons has a fascinating article discussing the employment of archaeology for ideology promotion (by Chemi Schiff):

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/02/2013/building-with-the-past-archaeologys-ideological-role-in-israel

Although the focus is on a site in the Negev, I think Mr. (soon to be Dr.) Schiff raises some very good points that hold across the spectrum of archaeology and history, not only regarding that of Israel’s history but history more generally.  Of course, noting that archaeology is used ideologically when interpreting Israel’s history is nothing new.  There are “minimalists” and “maximalists” with regard to whether we can accept much of the biblical witness surrounding ancient Israel and the United Kingdom.  You know, was David a chieftan more than a king–that sort of thing.  What I find the most helpful about this article, however, is not simply raising the question of to what degree can archaeology be “neutral,” but the reminder that history and archaeology are not strictly “neutral” at tourism sites.  I think this is a very salient point in an era characterized by a popular view of “history” that tends toward “entertainment” (as one may see on the History Channel).  I, for one, think archaeology faces the same challenge history does (even, perhaps especially, church history)–achieving a “neutral” view is an ongoing process rather than an objective reality.  That is, when one reads church history and the fathers, one needs to engage in an ascetic discipline.  One must struggle against one’s presuppositions and desires.  It doesn’t mean one will necessarily change all of one’s presuppositions, but it does mean one must honestly admit what they are and realize how it shapes one’s interpretation.  One must also struggle against one’s desires, just as one is to struggle against one’s passions.  We might WANT St. Justin Martyr’s description of the liturgy to be exactly what we think it is and might WANT to fill in gaps, but a more realistic stance would be to acknowledge that all he provides is a general pattern, or shape, and that for his parish in Rome.  Is it consistent with other liturgical patterns in the early church?  Well, that’s a question to be explored in that case, not presumed.  Struggling against our desires and presumptions might not be fun and certainly won’t be entertaining in the sense of yuk-yuk, nudge-nudge versions of “history” we can find on television, but it is something we must do.  Not to do it, means doing something even worse than what one can find in the Negev–like the museum of creationism or the publication of narratives of Orthodox “histories” that are purposely one-sided, one-dimensional, and omitting of any complexities and weaknesses (and if you haven’t seen those, you haven’t been reading).

Fr. Michael Plekon and Re-evaluating How Orthodox Canonize Saints

Posted on by
Reply

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

 

 

American Orthodox Christianity Series 2: Engaging the Other as a Path Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

In this post, I thought I’d combine a couple of angles into one.  First, of course, continuing with this series, I wanted to explore some minor ways in which Orthodoxy is significant for the American Religious scene.  Second, I want to pick up on a recent joint-reconciliation statement from the Russian Orthodox Church and Polish Catholic Church.  Believe it or not, there is thematic overlap here.  The overlap is that the best sort of future for Orthodox Christianity lies in engaging the other, rather than merely renouncing the other or (worse yet) withdrawing into our own communities and completely ignoring the other.

At the start of the twentieth century, the Eastern Catholic landscape in America changed significantly.  I realize this was a small segment of the population but, nonetheless, Eastern Catholics numbered in the tens of thousands.  Orthodox Christianity proved very significant for them.  In short, America provided Orthodox Christianity with a context in which a pan-Slavic approach to evangelization could bear fruit.  Orthodox pan-Slavicism generally sought the unification of all Slavic peoples around Russian Orthodoxy.  This idea had wide-ranging effects in Europe, going beyond the borders of the Russian Empire.  In America, the Russian Mission was able to act out of this approach.  St. Alexis Toth converted from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy and then proceeded to evangelize fellow Eastern Catholics.  Moreover, Eastern Catholics became the central focus of evangelism to non-Orthodox in America.  Sure, there were exceptions to this in the early twentieth century, but by and large, Orthodox missionaries ministered to Orthodox first and Eastern Catholics second.

Tens of thousands of Eastern Catholics, in fact, became Orthodox during the early 20th century.  The Toth movement even spread back to the Carpathian mountains in Europe.  The future of Orthodoxy was greatly enhanced through this engagement with non-Orthodox.

Fast forward to today.  We live in an America that is increasingly growing secularized.  The numbers of people claiming to be agnostic or atheist increases, as does the number of those who are “spiritual but not religious.”  Europe is farther along this secular path than America.  In the midst of this, the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches have begun some discussions concerning Europe.  Into this context, one should probably plug the recent statement on reconciliation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Polish Catholic Church:

http://www.pravmir.com/russian-polish-churches-in-joint-reconciliation-call/

Although this is a different kind of engaging of the non-Orthodox other, it is a healthy engagement and not all engagements need be evangelism.  Yet, whether evangelism or reconciliation, engaging other faith groups, especially other Christian groups, is a sign of a healthy church.  To whatever degree Orthodoxy has a healthy path forward in America and Europe, it seems to me it must continue to be based on fruitful engagement.  Moreover, I believe it needs both healthy poles from our history–evangelism and reconciliation/appreciation.  They both belong together.  We must hold to our truth claims while simultaneously doing so in peace, love, and hope.

American Orthodox Christianity Series 1, the Insignificance of Orthodox Christianity to America, Post 5: The Ghettoization of American Orthodoxy

Posted on by
Reply

In this post, I thought I’d highlight the main reason for the insignificance of Orthodoxy that is often given: ethnic ghettos.  Indeed, this is the standard sociological narrative and, indeed, a narrative given by many Orthodox themselves.[1]  Now, there is a fair amount of  truth to this.  The new immigrants often formed brotherhoods, or mutual aid societies, which created life insurance and other social support systems for the new immigrant communities.  Also, there was real, legitimate discrimination against the new immigrants.  For example, new Orthodox immigrants might be given low wages or sometimes not paid at all or even run out of town!  [Perhaps I'll post on some of these specific examples in the future.]  My own work in American Orthodox historical theology has been, in large part, to show that such ghettoization is not the entire story.  Yet, it has been a very important, ongoing part of the story.  Even to this day, one may still find parishes in America that are heavily identified by their attachment to a particular Eastern European or Middle Eastern ethnicity.

Some aspects of American culture reinforced this “refuge-seeking” aspect of American Orthodox Church life, even beyond the need to respond to American Nativism.  Or, perhaps stated more accurately, American Nativism affected more than simply hiring practices and whether a group might be run out of town on rare occasion.  For example, when Orthodox did make the newspapers for their services and such, it was presented as something “exotic,” as something “other,” sometime not quite typically American but weird and strange, even if the journalist happened to like the music or service itself.  Or, as I believe I’ve mentioned on here before, Orthodox Christianity wasn’t something the Selective Service formally recognized.  Relatedly, when there were public, ecumenical prayer events, one might find a Catholic priest, a Protestant pastor, and a Jewish rabbi, but not an Orthodox priest.  All of these additional cultural factors reinforced the “ethnic ghetto” aspect of Orthodox religion.

So, although I would contend such does not summarize all of earlier American Orthodox history, it did play an important role.  This is especially true when one considers that  ethnic ghettos meant Serbs, Greeks, Russians, and Ukrainians would each go to their own church in their own neighborhood.  This has had consequences for Orthodox.  This ethnic division has slowed Orthodox cooperation and unification in America.  What the future will bring on this, is hard to say, but certainly, this ethnic ghetto approach has helped make Orthodox Christianity insignificant for American religion and culture in many ways.

[As a programming note, this ends the first American Orthodox Christianity Series.  In my second series, I'll note some ways in which American Orthodoxy has worked to be significant for American religion and culture.]

[1] See, for example, Peter Berger, who claimed Orthodoxy has responded “defensively.”  Peter L. Berger, “Orthodoxy and the Pluralistic Challenge,” in the Orthodox Parish in America: Faithfulness to the Past and Responsibility for the Future, edited by Anton C. Vrame (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003), 39.

American Orthodox Christianity Series 1: Exploring the Insignificance of Orthodoxy for American Religion, Post 3

Posted on by
Reply

In this this post, I wish to start exploring the historical angles.  Again, the point to this first American Orthodox Christianity Series is not to make all Orthodox feel bad or to show us as pathetic, but to explore a reality–we are largely insignificant to American society and religion.  The second series will explore some areas of importance and some ways in which we can possibly expand our influence, but for now, I turn to the first “historical” post for this series.

Early on in Orthodoxy’s engagement with American society, there was little effort to promote Orthodoxy to the broader American populace except as Orthodoxy might relate to Anglicanism.  Initially, this was as an underground    response to the situation in the Anglican Church.  Following the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, which deposed King James II and installed William and Mary, many Anglican clergy and laity refused to go along and the clergy became known as “non-jurors” for refusing allegiance to William and Mary.  One early Virginian, Philip Ludwell III, an early aristocrat in the British colonies (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Philip_Ludwell_III), converted to the Russian Orthodox Church and kept Orthodoxy alive within in own house in Virginia.  He taught his family the Orthodox faith and brought pre-sancitified gifts across the sea for communion, all of which is commendable, but did not, to my knowledge, establish or even back serious efforts to engage Virginia publicly on matters of faith and religion that would have given Orthodoxy a serious voice.

If one fast forwards to the nineteenth century, we find Orthodoxy primarily ensconced in Alaska and, to a much lesser degree, the coastal fringes of California.    In what we now consider the Lower 48, the only visible presence was the missionary chapel of Nicholas Bjerring (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicholas_Bjerring) in New York.  Bjerring did make the newspapers and briefly established the first Orthodox journal, but in doing this, he was “ecumenical” to the extreme, seeking merely to inform and the chapel, under the auspices of the Metropolitan in St. Petersburg, existed as a show chapel to the Protestant Episcopal Church, the American wing of the Anglican Communion.  The chapel lasted from 1870-1883.  Bjerring had been a convert from Roman Catholicism (and before that, from Lutheranism to Catholicism).  He became Presbyterian before reverting to Catholicism shortly before his death.  The impetus for going from Orthodoxy to Presbyterianism was that Russia closed his chapel.  Although offered a teaching position at the St. Petersburg Academy, he preferred to remain in America and so became a Presbyterian pastor.  There is more to his story, and much that is venerable, but for my purposes here, I think I’ve given us what we need.

These  two examples serve to show that prior to immigration, Orthodoxy had not made any efforts, outside of the Natives in Alaska, to influence and shape the American religious landscape.

A Series on American Orthodoxy: The Insignificance of Orthodox Christianity to the Rest of America, Post 2

Posted on by
Reply

This morning I am posting the second post in a series exploring how and why it is that Orthodox Christianity does not have much significance for the rest of American Christianity, much less the rest of American religion and culture.  As noted in the first post, I will turn to some important characteristics and ways in which Orthodoxy may have significance later, but for now, I am trying to place American Orthodoxy into a context of historical and sociological reality.  So, I thought I’d continue by reflecting upon some aspects of Krindatch’s study mentioned in the last post.

One aspect of American Orthodoxy Krindatch noted was that in many large population states (such as California, New York, and New Jersey) regular attendance rates are less than 25%.  It’s difficult to affect the people around us with our Orthodoxy if we’re not living it and although I would not want to reduce “living the faith” to “Sunday attendance,” for it is so much much more, I do think regular Sunday attendance is a component of “living the faith.”

Krindatch also gives some interesting stats concerning ethnic identity within parishes.  Now, this is an aspect of Orthodoxy that can cut both ways.  For my purposes, here, I simply wish to note that holding onto an ethnic identity too tightly can be a hindrance for affecting those around us.  Oh, people around us may well like attending our festivals, but that alone will affect and influence very few people.  At best, it gets us a short diddy in the local paper now and then.  Now, this can be a sensitive issue and my point is not that ethnicity has no place–not at all, and I’ll address this again later–but for now, I simply thought it was worth noting that Krindatch has found there is still an emphasis upon a particular ethnicity for many parishes across America and that can serve as a barrier to shaping and influencing those around us (just as it can be a barrier to evangelization).  Of course, for us here at Holy Resurrection in Fargo, we are so diverse, that there is no way any one ethnicity could rightfully dominate the others.  We are a parish for all, open to all.

Religious Minorities Have Most to Lose if Measure 3 Fails

Posted on by
Reply

Religious minorities in North Dakota have the most to lose if Measure 3 fails.  Indeed, Measure 3 will be, in part, a test of whether North Dakota is truly resilient enough to defend the religious convictions of both majority faiths and minority faiths.  The majority faiths, such as Roman Catholics and Protestants have their convictions on the line to the degree that they may wish to continue operating various charities and organizations without undue interference from the government.  North Dakotans of minority faiths have even more on the line, however.  Take the example of Orthodox Christianity.  Orthodox Christianity, though Christian, and even demonstrating a direct lineage and connection to the Apostles themselves, is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant (both of whom split from Orthodoxy–the Roman Church first and then the Protestants from Rome).  In America, there are not very many Orthodox (though a quarter of us were formerly something else, we are still quite small).  Measure 3 could help ensure our freedom to observe our practices and holidays.  For example, on most years, Pascha (“Easter”) is on a different Sunday for us than it is for Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians.  This has to do with Orthodoxy continuing to base the date of Pascha/Easter off the Jewish lunar calendar (which is how Jews determine Passover).

This is important because it shows that we Orthodox more closely resemble the case of the Native Americans using Peyote back in 1990 than Catholics or Lutherans would.  We, too, have something “different” about our observances that might cause a work-place tension.  In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that a business could take precedent over established, legitimate religious practices of its employees.  In response to this, Congress passed the bi-partisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Of course, we then learned that applied only at the federal level.  So, now if people want religious freedom to be maintained as a fundamental legal right, we need to protect it state by state.  For anyone holding to an established, legitimate, but minority faith, Measure 3 is important.  Opponents have been using “logic” that would get them failing marks on college papers (at least in my class) in the name of protecting some people (women and children).  Women and children should be protected.  Under our laws, they are, and the government has a clear and compelling interest ALREADY WELL ESTABLISHED!  Measure 3 does not undo that.  Thinking so is the slippery slope argument to the point of sliding into red herring.  There are not problems with this at the federal level.  There are not problems with this in the 27 other states that have similar amendments.  There are potential problems for religious minorities without such protection, and history demonstrates this (from the Native Americans in Washington State in 1990 to our own Orthodox history earlier in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries).  If you want to protect a class of people, vote “yes” on Measure 3.

Filioque and the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Theology

Posted on by
2

Although Holy Week (it is Holy Week for Eastern Christians) may not seem to be the time to post on a heady theological topic, Anastasia Theodoridis over at the blog Kyrie Eleison! (Greek for Lord, have mercy!) has posted a three part series on the filioque that is worth reading and praying over this week.  Here is the link to the third part:

http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2012/04/filioque-controversy-part-3.html

Readers may scroll down to read the other two.  Here on Red River Orthodox, our Church History Series 1 also provided some discussion of the filiqoue (“and the Son”), which was added to the Creed by the Roman Church.  Readers interested in that particular post may go here:

http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/2011/11/09/church-history-series-1-post-21-the-filioque-dispute/

Otherwise, just linking to the Church History Series 1 in the categories widget below to the right will also take you there.  At times, it may seem difficult to care about theology, but as I once told an introductory class I taught, theology should be hard, it requires the logic of math and philosophy, the reading and writing skills of English, and the historical grittiness of historical disciplines.

Theophany: the Feast Celebrating Jesus’ Baptism

Posted on by
Reply

Theophany is the celebration of the Baptism of Christ.  Although many Christians in the Red River Valley will be thinking about “Epiphany” and the visit of the magi, Orthodox Christians focus on Theophany following Christmas.  A very helpful essay regarding Theophany and what it means may be found here:
http://dce.oca.org/resource/271/