Depicting the Father

A very common and popular topic of discussion is whether icons of the Holy Trinity in which the Son is depicted next to an Old Man, or the Father, under a Dove, Which is the Holy Spirit, is a result of Westernization in Orthodox iconography or whether it is a legitimate and fully orthodox representation. Can the Father be depicted as such?

                                 

In reading about this topic, I often came across offhand remarks condemning the depictions though with little explanation of why (other than we are not to depict the Father).  Then, I came across other Orthodox sources which scoffed at such condemnations, declaring that such commentators were themselves captive to Western theological frameworks and that the true Tradition of the Church was to sanction and venerate such images.  Well, I was happy to come across this article which, I believe, settles my mind on the issue.  I hope you find it as enlightening as I did...

The Ancient of Days in Orthodox Iconography

Enjoy!

Reading Chrysostom...

Way back, just before my seminary days, I remember how excited I was to begin reading St. John Chrysostom. I had heard so much about the Golden-mouthed and was only just learning how much of the Fathers' writings were actually in English.  I had been informed that I needed to be careful, though, as some translations made him far more readable than others.  I knew, then, that the Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers set was considered by most to be a bit archaic and stilted in its language.  I was too eager, however, to wait to purchase the CUA Press version of his Homilies on the Gospel of John when I had the other version at my fingertips, so I cracked open the book and began to read.  

The language didn't much bother me; the content, however, did.  This is not to say in any way that I found what St. John said to be at all objectionable.  Instead, I had gone in expected one thing and ended up getting another.  I suppose what I expected was something more like Fr. Lawrence Farley's current commentaries (which I generally find to be excellent) in The Orthodox Bible Study Companion series.  With each verse or chunk of verses, he gives succinct and insightful commentary.  Every page contains a plethora of facts, insights, and interpretation, often providing me with multiple ideas for sermon topics.  Of course, his commentary is based on various commentaries of the Fathers along with a large deal of historical/critical features, so he had a wealth of source material that St. John Chrysostom did not have, but St. John was and is a God-bearing Saint, illumined by the Holy Spirit.  His commentary was certainly something magnificent, but I couldn't yet understand why.

It turns out that I was not alone in this thought.  When I went to seminary, many of my fellow seminarians mentioned similar things.  This confusion was not limited to Chrysostom.  I remember a class in which everybody read St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation.  C S Lewis, in his introduction to the text in the SVS Press version, comments that, when he first read the work, he knew he held in his hands a masterpiece.  Many of us read it and thought, "That's it?"  

This wasn't a confusion based in pride, mind you.  We were genuinely confused in that we expected one thing and got something else.  For some, however, including myself, this "something else" was known to be higher and beyond our own comprehension.  We didn't understand the greatness not because it fell short of our expectations but because it exceeded them beyond our ability.  Sometimes, you must be quite brilliant (or very filled with the Holy Spirit yourself) to see something as complex even if it appears simple, to see it as multi-layered and full when you see it as straightforward and simple.

With St. John Chrysostom, this confusion was doubled, as he seemed able to spend many minutes on a single point that could be related in one sentence.  He was verbose to such an extent that, after 10 minutes of reading, one felt like only one or two insights had been gained, at best.  Eventually, however, a few things changed.

First, I took a class on St. John Chrysostom in my last year at seminary.  The professor would read a sentence or two of Chrysostom's commentary (mostly his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles) and would fawn over them for many minutes, praising Chryostom's brilliance and explaining the wisdom of his words.  I heard one student comment that this class should have been called "a professor's commentary on St. John Chrysostom's commentary on Acts."  This wasn't, however, an insult.  It was a brilliant class.  It left me desiring more, every week.  With this class, I began to see that, the reason I hadn't fully appreciate Chrysostom was because I was attempting to read him like I would any modern author.  Over time, I developed a few principles which I follow when reading St. John:

1) One of the key's to reading Chrysostom is to read him slowly and carefully.  I once read his homilies concerning the incomprehensible nature of God.  I read one of the homilies at a regular reading pace and thought, about 2/3 of the way through, that there wasn't much as far as content went.  Then, at the end of the homily, he recounted, point by point, all of the arguments he had made.  I was astounded.  He had said so much, and I took it as so little.  Now, I read him as if listening to him, trying to take in each word at a methodical and steady pace.

2) Don't go into a text of St. John Chrysostom with a question or questions you are hoping he answers.  I do this with homilies sometimes.  I come upon a difficult passage of a Gospel or Epistle or am asked a question by a parishioner (or, more often, a challenge by a non-Orthodox) and I open a commentary of St. John's hoping for a specific answer.  Most of the time, I find that he was looking at the text from a completely different angle... and a more beneficial one, at that.  It's not that we should not have questions, but we need to read trying to find out what St. John wanted to say, not hoping that he addressed our specific concerns.

3) Learn to appreciate his approach to Scripture.  St. John asks questions that I wouldn't have asked and answers questions in ways that I wouldn't answer them... and he always has the upper hand.  His ability to bring out the proper interpretation of Scripture by using other verses or his tendency to explain the minds of the subjects of Scripture with such confidence is something that only the truly experienced and holy among us could - and should - do.  We should read St. John trying to truly discover what he already has.  If we read a homily through and are unable to answer the questions he posits, we've missed the heart of his talk.

4) Learn to ask the questions that he is answering, even when he doesn't provide the question explicitly.  This is very difficult to do.  To explain what I mean, let me go back to St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation.  When I read contemporary theology concerning salvation and the many questions pertaining to it from Catholic and Protestant theologians, I am frequently shocked at how often St. Athanasius' work corrects their misconceptions and false interpretations.  But he wasn't speaking to them directly.  If we constantly ask, however, "What are the alternatives to this thought?" we begin to see that the Patristic text teaches far more than it seems.  St. John Chrysostom may say something that doesn't seem all that profound until we realize that there are endless other ideas out there today in conflict with his thought.  What may be clear and obvious to us may not be to others; further, it may only be clear and obvious to us because we don't see the alternatives.  When we learn to see Chrysostom in the light of so many false teachings around us, we begin to understand and appreciate his orthodoxy to a much greater extent.

5) St. John's approach to Scripture and the Faith reveals the Mind of the Church.  We too often today hope to walk away from a text with a list of facts to memorize.  Very often, Chrysostom does not offer us those facts.  What he does offer, however, is far more significant and far more valuable.  When we delve into his God-illumined heart and mind, we learn to think the way he thinks and (hopefully) live the Faith the way he lived it.  He reveals to us the Mind of the Church.  When we truly learn the Mind of the Church, when questions arise that a particular Father may not have answered, we will still know what their answer would be, even if not in their exact words.

6) Finally, we ought to read Chrysostom always with the practical in mind, just as he always provides practical guidance, even in the most theological of his homilies.  Chrysostom was a brilliant teacher, to be sure, but he was also a brilliant shepherd.  He is able to go from an obscure theological point to an admonish against the passion of anger seamlessly so that, in the end, we don't know how he got to where he is.  If we read St. John Chrysostom without asking, "How ought this affect my life?" we are missing a great deal, including his central hope for our salvation.  As a pastor, Chrysostom has much to give, if only we will receive it.  

These are the general principles I try to follow when reading Chrysostom, and they have helped me tremendously to not only admire this great Saint but to truly love him.  In truth, one can't simply read Chrysostom; one must breathe him.  We must make his mind our mind, his heart our heart, seeing with his eyes and hearing with his ears.  When we immerse ourselves in his Spirit-filled words rather than simply looking for facts and answers to specific questions, we learn so much more and benefit far beyond our expectations.  I pray that, for the readers of this, you will learn from my mistakes and recognize the depth of this Saint, so that you too will fall in love with reading Chrysostom...

Challenging Premises: Extremism

One of the ongoing themes of this blog will be that we must learn to question premises if we are going to be a truly thinking culture.  We often argue political and religious subjects based on terms given to us... but these very terms are very often problematic at the least.  If I ask, for instance, which is the best tasting meat of all, steak or chicken, you may challenge the terms by stating that there are many other types of meat which one might consider "best."

In politics, one of the key terms that always seems to pique my interest is the word "extreme."  We are often asked asked to debate - and more often told - whether particular politicians or political opinions or movements are "extreme."  The problem is, something can only be considered extreme left or right depending on where your political "center" is.

Take, for example, the Tea Party.  The Tea Party movement has been based more than anything upon the themes and beliefs of the Founding Fathers of this country.  Though certain Tea Party adherents have deviated with their own ideas here and there, the main thrust of the movement has been for lower taxes, smaller government, greater State, local, and individual liberties, a move toward greater personal responsibility, and the preference of local charities and social apparatuses over government welfare.  None of these would have been challenged by any of the Founding Fathers.  They are the very principles of the Constitution of this country, either directly or indirectly.  And yet, the movement was labelled as "extreme" throughout the media.  How can this be?  To the Tea Party members, their views were "middle of the road."  They weren't unreasonable in any way.  Their vision of the political spectrum could be seen as such:

<Left (large fed gov't) -------- Center (Federalism w/ limtd centrl gov't) -------- Right (libertarianism) >

For the Tea Party activist, extreme right would be libertarianism or (further to the right) anarchy, or lack of any governing body.  This is a fairly simple diagram also of how the Founding Fathers viewed their political views.  The Articles of Confederation were a bit too far to the right; the Constitution created a Republic that fit properly and comfortably in the middle of the spectrum.  For the media, however, (and most Americans today) their center has shifted very far to the left.  Their spectrum would look more like this:

<Left (Communism) -------- Center (Large federal gov't / semi-Socialism) ----- Right (Federalism) >

Thus, when someone claims political "extremism," more often than not this is telling you more about their politics than their subject's.  The term, in fact, is mostly used to discredit a position so that one does not have to engage it... It keeps one from being exposed to the criticisms of one's opponents.  It is amazing how, with the phenomenon of the Tea Party, very few made the point that the vast majority of the charges of "extremism" could have been equally levied against the Founders of the country, for they were proposing identical positions.

Interestingly enough, this same sort of thinking could be applied to the theology of the Church.  Today, so many modern theologian challenge "extremism" of ultra-conservative Orthodox Christians (I don't like the use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in speaking of Orthodox theology, but for ease of use, they will be utilized here).  There are, to be sure, some whose positions as "defenders of Orthodoxy" are indeed extreme...  But when the path that is represented by the vast majority of the Saints is deemed "too conservative," this shows that the spectrum being taken for granted is the real problem.  The Fathers always took the "royal, middle path," neither being too loose nor too strict.  As such, they ought to be placed at the center of our theological spectrum, with the mind of the Fathers being viewed neither as too "liberal" nor too "conservative."  If they fall off to either side of our theological thought, then we know we have a problem either with our understanding of their thought or with our own theological spectrum.

If we are to speak of a "center," either politically or theologically, and extremes at either side, we first must recognize that our "center" is relative.  There are, after all, many political commentators, philosophers, and theologians who would consider my views "extreme."  For me, this is not a problem; if some such figures considered me "middle of the road," only then would I start to worry...

St. Gabriel, Intercede for Us!

 Quite a few years ago, I was reading Youth of the Apocalypse: And the Last True Rebellion (found here).  Of the stories of modern holy figures that take up the latter part of this book, one story stuck with me, even until today.  It was the story of a monk in the country of Georgia who, during the height of Communism, committed an act that was shocking in its brazenness and inspiring in the zeal from which it came.  The monk, seeing a banner of the Lenin streaming down the side of a building in the town's square, sneaked into the structure, scaled the stairs, and poured kerosene (or gasoline or some other flammable substance...) down the banner.  He yelled down to the townspeople who had gathered for a rally that they once venerated true icons and worshiped their true Lord, Jesus Christ.  Now, their worship had fallen upon false idols of atheism and worldly power.  Then, before all the people and the authorities, he set the banner on fire.  

Such a story always caused me to wonder about this hieromonk and the rest of his life.  Well, as it turns out, this monk, Father Gabriel Urgebadze, was recently glorified in the Church as a Saint.  

A declaration of this glorification in which he is called "St. Gabriel: Confessor and Fool for Christ" can be found here.  His life, well worth one's time, can be found here.  

St. Gabriel, intercede for us!

Darkness without Discernment: A Book Review

Of the many types of Christian books I enjoy reading, I suppose that the types dealing with the demonic are the ones about which I am the most circumspect, both because they require the most discernment and caution and because they provide such a mixed bag of quality and understanding from the author.  As an Orthodox Christian, I read such figures as Elder Paisios (among many other modern Orthodox Elders) or St. Anthony on the topic of the demonic, and I find a great deal of understanding of the nature and tactics of Satan and the demons... an understanding far beyond my own knowledge.  Their expertise is twofold: firstly, they have learned from the experience of their encounters with the demonic, and secondly, they are spiritually advanced Saints, so much so that they view spiritual warfare and all things concerning man and God through Divinely-illumined eyes.  They are spiritual warriors of an elite class whose holiness was gained through years of struggle in prayer, fasting, and worshiping in the Divine Services of the Church.

In the case of Michael Leehan's Ascent from Darkness, I think that we unfortunately get the account of someone who has experience with the demonic but without the understanding needed to fully understanding his own experiences or to express them in a way beneficial to other Christians.  In fact, I found this book to be far more disconcerting than uplifting.  

Whenever speaking of the demonic and experiences with them, one needs a great deal of discernment in when and how to express those experiences to others.  Personally, I have had a few experiences of demonic activity; it is very rare that I speak of these experiences, however, because a focus on Christ and explaining experiences of the Divine are so much more inspiring and encouraging. Further, stories of the Saints and of Christ's Light don't have the possibility of leaving a personal feeling unsettled, unlike stories of the demonic.  In cases dealing with darkness and evil, it becomes very easy to cause the focus to shift off of Christ and for these stories - while they are intended to be inspiring - to become unpleasant and even dangerous.  

In the case of Leehan's book, nearly 200 of the 250 pages deal with the author's days in satanism and spiritual darkness.  He leaps from one story to another about the rituals in which he participated, the control the demons took over him, the actions his dark worship led him to take... The darkness included self-mutilation, voices, visions, depression, hatred, anger, confusion, thoughts of murder, and other results of his participation in the worship of Satan.  Despite the many years in this dark delusion, I've read other accounts that didn't go into nearly as much detail or take nearly as many pages which showed a greater depth of understanding of the demonic worship in which the authors had participated and more "advancement," if I can put it this way, in the ranks of demonic "powers" and "spirituality."  

Part of the problem is Leehan's very poor writing style.  He moves from one scene to another, often disconnected, with little explanation of what was happening "behind the scenes" (i.e in his understanding of the demonic in his life).  I am unsure of whether he did not understand his own actions and thoughts enough to describe them or if he simply didn't want to write about them deeply, but there seems to be so little introspection in his book.  There is little if any deep explanation of why, on one page, he is depressed and confused, while on another he is angry and driven by demonic forces while on yet another he is attending a Christian church but not participating.  There is no real attempt to try to explain the life he was living.  This becomes tiresome for the reader, as Leehan tells stories without any clear point and describes confusing actions without explanation.  

When his conversion occurs, it is again without introspection.  It is all so much on the surface.  His explanation of the grace and peace of Christ are sentimental and vague.  There is little here that is deep or profound compared to what one can get elsewhere (such as in the writings of Orthodox Saints), and unlike many reviews I've read, I found the book too scattered, too focussed on the demonic and evil without introspection, too ready to tell fantastical stories for the shock factor and reading pleasure without caution of the dangers of such stories to be inspiring.  

While I wouldn't dare to question the sincerity of the author or the transformation he feels, I found one last thing troubling.  I have read and listened to many others who have dabble or dove into demonic worship and eventually scrambled out, and none of their conversions seemed as... dare I say "easy"... as this one.  I am not suggesting that Leehan did not struggle, but when he did decide to accept Christ, everything seemed to end.  The spiritual struggle seemed to end without even a modest protest from the demons.  He admits that he still struggles with sin and falls, but there is something that seems too simple.  I recall an Orthodox Christian who, when he was baptized, felt the demons actually leaving him... and it was physically painful until they completely left.  I am not spiritually advanced enough to offer a real appraisal of Leehan's experience, but I can at least compare his to many others that I've read and confidently state that his account stands apart in lacking many of the struggles and features that were common to all the others.  This, in itself, was curious, at the very least.  

Ultimately, I think that, while some books in this small genre ought to be read with great discernment, others ought not be read at all.  This is one of those books.  I pray all the best of Leehan, but this book left me feeling too invaded by his own darkness to cause me to recommend it.  

An Interesting... and Somewhat Disappointing... Debate

I watched (well, listened to, mostly) this entire debate today.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-loses-debate-against-former-anglican-head-rowan-williams-at-cambridge-university-full-video-89364/

The actual debate can be viewed here:

http://gnli.christianpost.com/video/richard-dawkins-andrew-copson-amp-arif-ahmed-debate-rowan-williams-tariq-ramadan-amp-douglas-murray-8404

I could really write a lot about the debate, but I really only want to comment on two things.  First, I found the questions from the audience extremely disappointing.  I suppose I was quite hopeful that they would be more thoughtful and critical.  Instead, many of them were based on false premises and wouldn't have been asked if a bit more thought were put into them.

I must confess that, one of my greatest concerns for this blog is that it come off as being very negative.  In truth, I am and have always been a very positive and optimistic person.  However, I think we have to be realistic about the state of our culture.  And one of the things I will likely post about frequently is that I believe, as a people, that we have lost the ability to think.  Thinking is a skill, and it is a skill that requires a lot of work.  To be able to spot logical fallacies, to have the mental acuity to not only pick out the premises behind one's arguments but to point out their falsity is an incredibly rare ability today.  I certainly do not believe that I am a skilled thinker in any way, but I do attempt to practice this skill.  We are, unfortunately, a highly unreflective people.  When we do reflect, we often only think as far as, "How can I object to argument 'x' because I believe 'y'?"  This is the source of most of the questions asked.  They didn't engage the material presented in a thoughtful way but sought to simply rebuff arguments before they even had to consider what was being said.

Second, I was (as I often am) extremely disappointed first in Richard Dawkin's presentation and more so in his warm reception.  He is welcomed by so many as a true intellectual, but he hardly has an original or (as he is so fond of demanding of others) an "open-minded" thought.  The monks at St. Gregory Palamas in Etna had a wonderful article in Orthodox Tradition essentially challenging him as a pseudo-intellectual and, for lack of a better term, a hack.  (That article can be found in this collection: http://www.ctosonline.org/new/DD.html)

So to have someone who is so intellectually dishonest and, frankly, unscholarly (not to mention intolerant and sadly shallow) so welcomed in our culture as a stalwart of scientific thought and icon of brilliance says either something very terrible about the intellectual state of our culture or the sad state of atheism.  Either way, I find it incredible how very far his presentation of Christianity is from the Orthodox understanding of things.  I doubt, however, that becoming aware of the depth and differences of Orthodoxy would change his mind, much... It's just unfortunate that so many people accept his criticism of a Christianity I don't know.

With all that considered, it was still an interesting debate.

The Quietest Moment of the Super Bowl

Yesterday, as so many did around the country, I went to someone's house in order to attend a Super Bowl party.  This party, in particular, was sponsored by my parish's high school youth, though it has become a family affair over the years.  Throughout the first half of the game, I travelled back and forth between the two televisions in the home: the one, in front of which were all the adults, and the other, in front of which were the youth.  No matter what was happening on the screen - whether it was the game or the commercials - light to heavy talking occurred without pause.  Based on past experiences, I knew that this was not out of disinterest in a (so far) lopsided game: the constant comments and conversation was part of the party.  It wasn't until the halftime show that things went quiet... in front of both tv sets.

The adults were divided by gender: the males on the couches before the tv and their wives standing off to the side. The kids were gathered together upstairs. I spend a few minutes with the youth but quickly became uncomfortable. I don't know if I was any more comfortable when I went down to visit with their parents.

Beyonce performed various songs from her musical career, though the focus was not greatly on her music. Her performance began with her wearing a very tiny outfit, parts of which she ripped off as she walked across the stage. Her clothing, however, was only a small part of the provocative nature of the show. The sexual nature of her performance was in no way understated, in no way subtle. It was intentional and in-your-face. Quite literally, every pose, every step, every facial expression was sexually-charged.

When I went downstairs and joined the parents, I mentioned to an aunt of one of the youth's that I couldn't understand what the appeal of someone like Beyonce was. To me, she seems self-invovled to an extreme, sings uninteresting music (it can be described as "catchy," but certainly nothing beyond that), composes laughably terrible lyrics, and is incredibly overexposed in popular media. My comment was met, however, with seeming shock and almost offense. I was informed that Beyonce was beautiful, talented, and entertaining. How could I not understand this?

To me, entertainment has become so shallow and so obvious. Do we want to make things more exciting? Make the sounds louder and the songs catchier. Make the sights flashier with more people, larger screens, and more abundant flashing lights. Make the sexuality everything but mysterious. Leave nothing to the imagination. Just make everything such an intense feast for the eyes and ears, make it louder and brighter than anything heard or seen before, that the audience can't help but sit and take it all in, like gluttons at an entertainment feast.

And here, in this performance, we had Beyonce surrounded with people dancing like she danced, singing her songs with her lyrics, flanked on the left, right, below, and above with images of herself, images multiplied a thousand times over and blown up to 10 times her size. Every step she made was surging with sexual and self-obsessed swagger. And we all loved it. People in the crowds screamed and reached for her, even when she was 30 feet away, just to be a little closer.

The sexuality of the performance was my first concern and is perhaps the most obvious subject for comment.  To see a room full of the Church's youth viewing something I found embarrassing (yes, I should have found a reason to turn the channel, at the very least...) was disheartening; to then see all of their fathers glued to the set with their wives not in the least surprised or upset was far more so.  We have become so desensitized to something that would have been considered borderline pornography not very long ago.  And we desire to be entertained by such things.

There is more to comment on here, though.  Our attention has been so transformed over the years by technology.  Who hasn't watched a video on YouTube labelled "part 1" and been delayed for minutes or hours or even days before watching "part 2" because the thumbnails down the right side of the screen of recommended videos grabs our attention.  TV, computers, internet, cell phones, and various other things have transformed our brains so that we are constantly taking in every pixel for a fraction of a moment before moving onto the next.  Halftime shows as I witnessed yesterday would have given me a headache 10 years ago; today, they are the very definition of entertaining.

I was thinking the other day about interviews with actors and actresses.  In the 1950s and '60s, if you watch interviews with the Hollywood elite, they are slow and methodical, discussing the craft of acting with interesting questions and somewhat insightful answers.  These answers can go on and on, but no audience member falls asleep or has to pull out a book to pass the time.  Today, on late night shows, the "interviews" are shallow, quick, and full of pre-planned stories and jokes.  We aren't interested in the person but in being entertained.

The Super Bowl halftime show is a symptom of our short attention span and need for visual and audible instant gratification on a massive scale.  Is it any wonder, when we can stare at such spectacles without blinking, without considering what it is that we're watching, with no introspection, that we priests are told not to speak for more than 10 minutes in a homily for fear of "losing" the entire congregation?
But there is a third and perhaps even more serious issue at play.  The halftime show was an overblown exposition of a woman not only being an entertainer but being an idol.  The fan excitement over Beyonce bordered on worship, and nobody - including these Orthodox parishioners - seemed to care.  Their response was, "How could someone not respond to Beyonce in this way?"  To me, I found it all uninteresting except in that it was a terrible commentary on where we are as a people.

I wonder how we got here, but more so, I wonder how we can turn things back around.  That halftime show should have come on and caused both the youth and their parents to scatter, to take the time to speak with one another in fellowship and complete disinterest at what was occurring on the screen... if not that, then outright disgust and fear.  Unfortunately, when became the quietest moment of the Super Bowl was not a time for reflection, but a time for our passions to be satisfied.  Thinking back to St. John Chrysostom's condemnation of those who went to the gladiator games, I wonder what he would have to say about what we consider entertainment today... something perhaps far less bloody but just as... if not more... harmful.

Unexpected hiatus...

Well, my goal in starting this blog was to regularly post... if not daily, then at least 2 or 3 times a week.  However, I understood that parish life would cause periods in which posts would be unlikely or near-impossible.  I did NOT expect such a time to come so quickly.  Either way, here's to hoping that we're back for more than just a couple of days...