It is amazing what difference an O makes.
Forget the RC church - I know WYD made a big splash but I don't think that RC is really the future of the Western World. No, Orthodoxy (with a capital 'O') is the new black. I haven't noticed the trend so much in Australia but it is certainly catching on in the UK. In the past the Orthodox have kept to themselves, largely in ethnic groupings - e.g. Greek. My hunch is that, while that cultural isolation will continue, some Orthodox ideas will become increasingly popular.
Here are a few reasons ... and I might come up with more in future posts:
1. Orthodoxy is old. Note that the Orthodox don't like to be called Eastern Orthodox anymore - that geographically marginalises their claim to be universal. In our rootless post-modern world, ancient traditions are cool... especially when they are somehow 'new' and exciting while still being old (!?)
2. Protestants are trying to shed their 'modern' past (doesn't that sound weird) and Orthodoxy has all the pictures and smells they could wish for ... plus it is a step forward from where they are, as opposed to a step backwards to nassssty old Rome.
3. Orthodoxy is (well sort of) anti-authoritarian. There is plenty there that appeals to a western pluralistic world view.
4. Orthodoxy places a much greater stress on being rather than doing. It is not a very strident prosleytising religion and therefore it won't spread rapidly, but I think it's influence over western Christianity is going to increase.
I could go on. In fact I might later.
The bottom line is that Protestants have spent so many centuries fighting with the RCC that I'm not sure if we are ready to engage with this very different form of Christianity. Do we even know what the questions are to ask?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I must admit that i am woefully ignorant when it comes to the orthodox church.
One thing i just don't get is the iconography. Is it synonymous with praying to saints?
Are people in Britain simultaneously changing their position on the double procession of the holy Spirit :oP ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
Me too Andrew.
That's why I'm currently reading "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware. I bought it back in 1988 when I went to Russia but haven't read it for years.
Icons - as you say, this is a biggie for the Orthodox. They have a very high view of the incarnation and therefore see Jesus himself as a walking endorsement of 'image bearing'. Likewise the Orthodox have a strong sense of the church stretching across time and so 'saints' of the past are very much part of their experience now. That said, we'd find all the kissing of icons etc. very strange.
Glad you know some Latin Andrew - and thanks for giving the wiki reference in case I didn't know what it was!?
The doctrine of the trinity is at the heart of what the Orthodox believe, although most would admit that the Papal Bull left by Cardinal Humbert in 1054 reflected much wider tensions than just an inserted clause into the creed.
I doubt if many Brits would know much or care much about the filioque. Neither am I suggesting that there is a wholesale exodus to the Orthodox church ... just that a lot of Orthodox ideas (e.g. on the Trinity) are very popular among Protestants these days.
For example, did you know that the Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas is very popular at Willow Creek?
Perhaps one thing we can do to reinvigorate thinking in this area is to investigate the roots of iconography in the Church, as well as a genealogy of protestant iconoclasm.
I can sympathise with the desire for the 'embodiment' of the Christian narrative in time + space, as well as the desire to converse with 'tradition'.
Within the reformed tradition I think there are two directions with regards to icons and tradition:
(a) a wholesale rejection of aesthetics or at best, as only secondary to "what we are really on about", PLUS the denial of the role of tradition in our doctrinal praxis. This seems to lead to a discourse-centric emphasis and a privileging of the [Western] Supra-cultural-historical present;
or
(b) a notion of the 're-enchantment' of materiality by God the creator who longs to redeem his creation, which leads to an appreciation of icons and materiality not as gods in themselves, but as signifiers that point to the reality behind them. (a la Hans Rookmaaker and presently the work of young reformed theo-philosopher James K.A. Smith).
This second (b) approach gives much more room for flexibility with materiality as well as dialogue with Christians from cultures where certain geographies and icons are circulated - i'm thinking here of Indigenous 'Rainbow' theology and other postcolonial contextual theologies where 'prayer poles' and spiritual sites are part of the their Christian discourse.
I haven't really thought much about the O church with regards to this, but sitting with someone with a mental or intellectual disability in church, one really gets the sense of how much modern evangelicalism is wedded to a didactic, individualised lecture format perfectly suited to good schoolkids or university graduates.
Perhaps we have to think about the collective, relational, aesthetic and kinesthetic dimensions of 'knowing'?
PS: you were a teacher weren't you John? remember that "learning-styles" stuff?
Crumbs Remy - you've raised about ten different issues all at once!
I'm naturally inclined to Rookmaaker (I read Modern Art and the death of a culture as a student) but there are lots of things going on here.
The whole 'different teaching styles' issue is one that I constantly struggle with. The following different components interact with each other:
1. doctrine of scripture - what difference should it make that God left us words as our primary referent to The Word?
2. To what degree is our job to communicate in more accessible ways to others? Or should we, like the Puritans, see our job to teach people how to learn through words?
3. And then I have coffee with one of the boarding house guys this afternoon and ... !?
We need to think a lot more about this!
soz! i was a little tired when i wrote the last post, so apologies if it did bring up 10 things but no-thing related :-o
i agree with you re: words... though these seem to be supplements in the bible for the actions of YHWH/Jesus; e.g. "I am the LORD God who brought you out of Egypt", "by what authority do you do these things?" etc etc.
words supplement and signify the reality that is The Word, which suggests that perhaps there is thought to be done on what symoblic actions (certain art forms? breaking bread? icons? helping the poor?) the Church can do that will incite the present corrupt social order to question the source of our authority.
for me personally, i've been thinking a lot about the uses of the liturgical calendar + 'station of the cross' and how it be a narratival counter-formation of identity to the dominant "capitalist time-space".
Remy,
How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you use sentences like a narratival counter-formation of identity to the dominant "capitalist time-space" ?
Now write out I must not be such a deconstructing post-modernist smarty-pants a hundred times!
when do i start?
:-p
[sorry, in the middle of writing a post-smarty-poo thesis proposal]
Hmmm, I realise that this discussion has gone a long way from when i first dipped my toe in the water and expended my entire working knowledge of latin.
A couple of points/questions
Remy said, "Perhaps one thing we can do to reinvigorate thinking in this area is to investigate the roots of iconography in the Church, as well as a genealogy of protestant iconoclasm. I can sympathise with the desire for the 'embodiment' of the Christian narrative in time + space, as well as the desire to converse with 'tradition'."
Given that the people who are arguing for this are obviously aware of the 2nd commandment (no idols), how does one differentiate between what is an idol and what is an embodiment of the "chirstian narrative in space and time". I am interested, particularly since an idol is not only a false God, but a false representation of the true God (ie Exodus 32, btw i love Aarons excuse - i just chucked the gold in the fire and out came this calf - sadly funny).
I will raise my second question/point in the next post
Secondly, when Remy says that words supplement the reality, i am not convinced. For exmaple, Genesis 1 would suggest that words, God speaking, creates the reality.
Part of what i am asking is for you to flesh out what you mean by "words supplement and signify the reality". I don't think i have understood this completely.
Having said that, you are right in (what i think you might be inferring) that we do need to distinguish between the truth that God reveals himself to us in scripture and our particular way of representing that in our society.
I would be interested to hear you flesh out your thoughts on ministering to people such as the mentally disabled more.
Andrew
Andrew said:
"Given that the people who are arguing for this are obviously aware of the 2nd commandment (no idols), how does one differentiate between what is an idol and what is an embodiment of the "chirstian narrative in space and time". I am interested, particularly since an idol is not only a false God, but a false representation of the true God"
I agree entirely on this point, and acknowledge the ambiguity - in fact i would probably take it one step further: that the propensity to idolatry is so present in human nature that sitting someone in a church built like a concrete box with whitewashed walls can be idolatrous inasfar as humans 'worth-ship' the creation rather than the creator.
(Idolatry primarily defined as the rejection of God's kingship and thus the worship of something subordinate/created - therefore, Paul in ROM1 says that idolatry = beginning of disobedience - far preceeding the physical idols of the patriarchs)
The same logic of idolatry can be extended to doctrines (as 'word systems') and discrete words as temporal representations of the reality (God). e.g. "God never changes" is a device used to understand the nature of God, not necessarily the nature of God himself.
God abhors images of the true God because humans are themselves supposed to be images of the true God.
However, creation (trees, flowers, birds, doctrines, practices, icons, 'steps to discipleship programs'...etc) can be appreciated if seen as signposts/tools for identity formation for Christian image-bearing - IF understood as such.
Should fear of misuse/misunderstanding dissuade us from using something (anything) 'redemptively'?
***the second point follows in the next post***
"Secondly, when Remy says that words supplement the reality, i am not convinced. For exmaple, Genesis 1 would suggest that words, God speaking, creates the reality."
I agree [even more] with this point; my wording was a bit cumbersome re: my division between words-reality. My apologies...
In fact, I personally do not hold that there is any "reality" outside of words/discourse because we only make meaning of reality through words and word-systems.
So would it be accurate to say that in the GEN1 reference, the words of God 'enacted' the creation (a speech-act?).
I think what I was getting at was that, say, Jesus did not merely "teach truths", but enacted behaviours that were themselves constitutive of the truth (he was The Word, not a person who had the Word). i.e. the reality of Christ cannot be reduced to written or spoken 'words' (language fonts).
His actions too can be taken to be "words" insofar as they were symbolic (and therefore operated within a system of 1st C Jewish meaning-making).
So in short, i was against the reduction of "word(s)" to mere written/spoken form, but rather an expansive view of "words/discourse" as all-encompassing (including practices, art forms... etc).
PS: JS and AM, I'm finding this very fruitful to work through, pls keep the comments coming.
Hey guys, I think it'd take more than a couple of strong coffees for me to get the drift of your ravings! Might wait till heaven for the explanation. Do we get better brain functioning then?!
Enjoying the blog.
Cathy
Hi all,
So as not to clutter up the PBC blog, Remy has kindly offered to continue discussion at his blog,
orthodoxy-icons-andor-idolatryies
If anyone is interested in following the discussion, we will continue it there.
Andrew
sorry, that is meant to hyper link. it didn't work for some reason. I noticed the link in the latest post doesn't work either. Is there a problem?
try copying to your browser:
http://remylow.blogspot.com/2008/08/orthodoxy-icons-andor-idolatryies-where.html
Post a Comment