Irenaeus asks if I’m ever going to post again.  Good question!  I certainly hope so, but right now, I need to make some serious progress on my dissertation.  The subject of this blog is tangentially related to my thesis, so I hope to come back to it.  I’ve found that when I focus on this blog, I don’t get much work on my dissertation.  Our family life is also quite busy right now, not to mention work responsibilities. 

I would like to thank all those who have left comments and linked to this blog.  I’ve been encouraged and edified.  I think I’ve learned more from the comments than others have learned from my posts  

Ut unam sint!

I’m reading Gregory of Nyssa for my dissertation, and I found his view of Scripture and Tradition quite intriguing.  Admittedly, I’ve only read a couple of his short, dogmatic treatises so far, but I’ve been struck by how often he appeals to Scripture, rather than to Tradition.  But, he also appeals to Apostolic Tradition, and not to Scripture alone. 

From On the Holy Spirit: “We shall answer nothing new, nothing of our own invention, though they challenge us to it; we shall fall back upon the testimony in Holy Scripture about the Spirit, whence we learn that the Holy Spirit is Divine, and is to be called so … We say nothing different from that which Scripture says” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 316).

From On the Holy Trinity, And of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit: “Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:–They allege that while we confess three Persons we say there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead.  And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so.  But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it.  What then is our reply?  We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine.  For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs.  Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 326-27).

But, he also appeals to Tradition: “on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith:  and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably” (On “Not Three Gods” in NPNF, vol. 5, pg. 331).

He continues, later:  “We, on the other hand, following the suggestions of Scripture, have learnt that that nature is unnameable and unspeakable, and we say that every term either invented by the custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our conceptions of the Divine Nature, but does not include the signification of that nature itself” (ibid., pg. 332).

This last quote is interesting, because it shows what seems to be distinctive of Eastern theology:  theology explains God, but can never capture God’s true nature.  The East seems to preserve the mystery of Who God Is more than the West.  Of course, the West has its mystics and a tradition of apophatic theology, but the East seems to stress the inadequacy of theological language.

To summarize my reading of Gregory of Nyssa:  he stresses the supremacy of Scripture, but also appeals to faithful Tradition.  Could part of his situation be that the Deity of the Spirit had not been defined clearly by a Council, and thus he did not have clear conciliar authority to appeal to? 

Last Sunday, I was able to visit a parish of the Orthodox Church of America.  It was wonderful to hear all the Slavic languages afterwards during the fellowship time, a reminder that the Church encompasses all nations.  But, it was also a reminder of the “ethnic problem” in some Orthodox churches.  I’m no expert, but it seems that the Orthodox churches are still tied up too much with ethnic heritage.  One source I read said there was tension between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church because the Russians “validated” the OCA, without consulting the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Another reminder that not even the “catholic” churches are completely unified.  May the Lord bring increasing unity to All His Church!

On a more practical note, this was the first Divine Liturgy I’ve participated in.  I like the standing (a Biblical posture for prayer), the incense (it’s in Revelation, so why not use it?), and all the vestments.  Sometimes Anglican and Roman Catholic vestments just look gay.  (My apologies to any RC or Anglican readers, but what’s with the lace, anyway???).  The Orthodox vestments were royal and priestly (kinda like 1 Pt. 2:9), and I liked the icon of Christ on the back of the priest’s robe.  It was a visual reminder that the priest represents Christ to us.  The priest prayed for long stretches of time with his hands raised to heaven (also Biblical).  But, I don’t know why they closed up the iconostasis while the priest and clergy partook of the Eucharist.  Can anyone enlighten me? 

The singing was a bit lacking.  As a Protestant who has been taught the “priesthood of all believers,” I think everyone in the congregation should sing.  I couldn’t quite figure out who was singing and who wasn’t, since it wasn’t very vigorous.  I also didn’t hear many men singing.  Is this normal in Orthodox churches?

Of course, we couldn’t receive the Eucharist, but it was a profoundly moving experience, nonetheless.  Although I’m not at all sure about the propriety of the spoon thing, it was a moving picture of our total dependence on Christ for our spiritual nourishment.  We are like babies, coming to him for our food.  I was also moved, almost to tears, by a little girl and the elderly ladies bringing the Blessed Bread (Antidoron?) to us.  It was a wonderful experience of the Church as a family, each serving the other.  The clinking of the spoon and the chalice also made it sound like a meal. 

There’s definitely much we can learn from the Orthodox, and I’m thankful for the opportunity we had to participate in that service. 

In Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, he commends the letters of Ignatius of Antioch: “The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them ye may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord,” (chap. 13).

In his “Preface to the 2nd Edition,” Zizioulas states part of his objective in republishing his dissertation–he wants to help restore the ancient authority of the bishop in the Eucharistic assembly.  He writes:

“Unfortunately, many Orthodox have it firmly entrenched in their mind that the bishop is in essence an administrator, and that in his liturgical function, including indeed the Divine Eucharist, he is not a person constitutive of the Mystery but more or less decorative someone who is invited to ‘embellish’ the whole service by his presence and his vestments.  Precisely because of the weakening of the ancient conception which this work demonstrates in such detail, namely, that the bishop is in essence the only president of the Divine Eucharist and that no Divine Liturgy is thinkable without reference to the bishop in whose name it is celebrated, ordination as priest has come to be regarded by many as sufficient for someone to celebrate the Divine Eucharist and transmit grace to the people without any clear dependence on his bishop.  This idea can be seen at its ultimate extreme in cases where the Divine Liturgy is celebrated without the commemoration of a bishop!  When this ‘presbyterianism’ is permitted (a ‘presbyterianism’ which, thanks to the influence of Orthodox theology, is starting to be questioned even by Protestants today), it threatens the doctrinal foundations of the Church as they were laid down during the first centuries.  In her attempt to avoid the Scylla of ‘despotism’, the Church is in danger of falling into the Charybdis of a sort of ‘presbyterianism’ if the proper place of the bishop in the Church is not brought to the people’s awareness,” (Eucharist, Bishop, Church, 6).

I quote this at length in order to highlight Zizioulas’s overall argument.  Many Orthodox, according to him, are losing sight of the ancient importance of the bishop in presiding over the Eucharist.  For Zizioulas, recovering the ancient church’s understanding of the bishop is essential to recovering the true meaning of Eucharist, Unity, and Catholicity. 

Zizioulas concludes his Preface:  “The scholarly grounding of its [his study's] conclusions seeks to persuade any sincere reader, Orthodox or not, that Orthodoxy, not as ideology but as Church, as founded upon the teaching and the blood of a St. Ignatius of Antioch, an Irenaeus or a Cyprian, is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because it possesses the truth not only in its teaching but also in its structure,” (7).

In the introduction, Zizioulas states his broad project:  “… our theology can no longer fall back on the sources of its own confessional riches.  The gradual abandonment of the confessional mentality of past generations and the recognition of the need for our theology to be an expression not of one confession but of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church herself, now directs the course of theological study towards the sources of the ancient undivided Church (1).”

This is something Protestants should be able to agree with.  The first generation of Reformers constantly appealed to the church fathers and early councils as authoritative sources.  Only the most ingrown and cloistered Reformed fundamentalists would say that the Reformed tradition is sufficient by itself.  In fact, we cannot do this when the majority of major Reformed confessions all appeal to the 3 Creeds (Apostles’, Nicea, and Athanasian) either explicitly and implicitly.  (The Westminster Confession is a notable departure from this Reformed consensus.)

Zizioulas continues: “A Church which, in spite of all the disputes and conflicts by which she was often shaken, was always well aware of what is meant by the catholic consciousness of the Church.  This holds true, most especially for the study of the unity of the Church which aims to provide our divided Christian world with that supra-confessional thread which will help it to rediscover and actualize its unity through the midst of its various divisions” (1).

Zizioulas hopes that his study will provide a fragmented Christian world with a vision of ancient catholicity.  [I'll give the ending away here and say that this unity is found in the role of the bishop as the representative of Christ in the Eucharist.  You may have guessed as much from the title of the book ... Also, there are quite a few sentence fragments in this work--probably the work of the translator.]

Zizioulas is an Greek Orthodox Bishop, and so he obviously thinks that his tradition has preserved this ancient catholicty faithfully:  “For those coming from the Orthodox position, a reliable method of turning towards the sources of the ancient undivided Church is through study of the liturgical life of our Church.  The reproach leveled at our Church that she has remained through the centuries a ‘community of worship’ today, proves to be the best guarantee of a sure route back to the consciousness of the ancient undivided Church.  For the liturgical life of our Church which is characterized by its conservatism and traditional character has not succumbed to overloading with non-essential later elements, but continues to reflect in a changing world the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of every age, worshipping in one body” (1-2, emphasis mine).

Here’s the million dollar question–who defines these “non-essential later elements”?  Alexander Schmemann, in his Introduction to Liturgical Theology, certainly disagrees.  His whole thesis seems to be that the ancient Ordo was obscured by the all the elements added later.  I know Schmemann is too “Westernized” for many Orthodox, but it is undeniable that the Divine Liturgy has changed over the years.  For instance, a full iconostasis (the screen which hides the altar from the laity), was added only gradually.  And, as far as I know, we don’t find prayers to Mary or the saints in the earliest liturgies.

What is an essential element, and what is an un-essential element?   

What really prompted me to start this blog was reading John D. Zizioulas’s Eucharist, Bishop, Church:  The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries.  This book was originally Zizioulas’s doctoral dissertation, done in the sixties, but recently translated and published.  In order to give some structure to my meanderings, I want to go through this book slowly, posting relevant portions and asking questions of the book.  I’m also reading through the Church Fathers, and hope to post sections from the Fathers which challenge my Protestant worldview. 

For the past decade, I’ve been working, worshipping, and thinking through what various people label “Reformed Catholicism,” “Protesting Catholicism,” or “High Church Calvinism.”  I love this world, and have almost joined the Anglican Church on a few occasions.  Eastern Orthodoxy holds quite a bit of attraction, but I can’t get over the icons and veneration of the saints.  I’m too much of a Protestant to even think about joining the Roman Catholic church, though I read Roman Catholic authors without discrimination. 

As Thomas Kuhn noted in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, every piece of information that challenges a paradigm must either be integrated into the current paradigm.  Alternatively, if enough pieces accumulate which don’t fit into the paradigm, it collapses.  It seems to me that this is intuitively true about human thinking in general.  At the least, it describes how my mind works.  So, this blog is a record of the information that is accumulating in my “Reformed Catholic” worldview.  I don’t really have an agenda other than to learn as much as I can, and to worship God as faithfully as I can.  It would be wonderful if I could fit everything into my current paradigm.  Maybe others can help me do that. 

Please feel free to answer my questions or suggest other sources.  But, please go elsewhere to heckle and proselytize.