From this perspective, the book proved to be very useful. What makes this book difficult to discuss -- although I'm not yet ready to go into a great deal of detail on the blog -- is that it proved to be the nudge I needed to push me off the cusp of just being interested to being seriously interested in Orthodox Christianity.
For a quick summary, I loved the straightforward approach that the author takes. There is no hint of self-righteousness; there is no sense of superiority. There is simply a straightforward presentation of information: this is what Orthodox Christians believe, and this is what others believe. Now I have to suspect that in some cases there is a measure of generalization. I was quite shocked to find some of the positions that the Reformed Church claims to hold, at least officially. (Many of these beliefs were nothing short of repellent to me, although that might be the result of the distance I've developed from Reformed beliefs over the last few years.) But I have to assume that there is a difference between these beliefs on paper and these beliefs as practiced by the individual. The author takes care to point this out as well; Christians "on the ground," so to speak, might have much more in common with one another than their official theological affiliations suggest.
Generalizations aside, there's a hefty amount of information in here, packed into a fairly short book. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a great read, regardless of whether or not you are looking into the Orthodox Church all that seriously. You will probably find out things you didn't know about Orthodoxy (and, in my case, things that kept making me ask, "How did I not know all of this?"), and there's a good chance you'll also find out things about your own belief system -- whatever that may be -- that you didn't know. It's a quick, refreshing book that won't take up much time to complete, but, if you're anything like me, will leave you with a lot to think about for many weeks.
Year of publication: 2011
Number of pages: 214
7 comments:
One wonders, though, how Christians of any church can be united (1 Cor 1:10), if they do not share the same belief system because they are not aware of what their church teaches. It is a conundrum.
I feel as if I haven't been listening, I had no idea you were so interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. I've done a fair bit of reading, oddly enough, on it, over the last year, but from a historical rather than a theological perspective. I think the underlying idea of a rule by episcopal council is interesting (oddly modern in a way, considering how old it is), but the conflation of religious and secular power in the (generally loathsomely corrupt) Emperor in Constantinople for so long is difficult - Constantinople has to be the most backstabbingly corrupt city in history, but for a tie with papal Rome. I struggle with that idea - why would God create a church and then allow it to be run by such disgusting people at times?
I also found the idea of iconoclasm interesting, and would love to do more research into why it came and went. Are you considering joining an Orthodox comunity? Do you have it in your family at any point in the past?
@Jason: My background, which is largely Spanish and French, is pretty solidly Catholic. Orthodoxy is entirely new for me, but I am looking into attending an Orthodox church.
Honestly, apart from an occasional comment here and there, I haven't spent much time discussing this on the blog. It's a little too personal still.
Greetings! Thank you for the kind review. I appreciate it.
I just wanted to leave a couple of comments responding to the other remarks above.
Regarding how Christians can be in a church whose beliefs they do not share, it is sadly quite common. What I think makes it possible (and even sustainable for many) is pietism, the idea that doctrine doesn't really matter that much.
As for the bad history of Orthodoxy with the state, it is worth pointing out that the Orthodox Church has no doctrine of Caesaro-papism (i.e., that Caesar must rule the Church), and indeed there is no Caesar any more, and most Orthodox churches are fairly free from state interference these days, especially with the lifting of Communism.
That said, how could God ever let bad people run the Church? Alas, He seems to let sinners into the Church all the time. And in case anyone is of the opinion that the popes of Rome were always independent of outside influence (even state influence), I need only refer them to the time of the Saeculum obscurum, when the papacy was largely controlled by a concubine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum And of course the papacy has had numerous other periods of being dominated by secular rulers, and it is well-known that to this day, the Vatican remains a secular state (which once commanded armies).
Orthodoxy's relations with the state have never been consistently good, which is perhaps why we've never thought it a good idea either to invest the state with religious powers nor to invest the clergy with secular powers.
In short, though, if you're looking for bad people within a religion, you'll always find them. Chances are also good that they'll try to get put in charge, too.
Fr. Andrew - I do hope I didn't sound uniformly negative about orthodoxy! If its any comfort, if I didn't find aspects of it beautiful, it wouldn't be worth investing the energy of grappling with some of its more troubling historical aspects. And I don't mean to imply in ANY way that the Roman Catholic church was morally superior in its history! The list of depraved popes has been noticed by far better scholars than !!
In the church's defense (either church) I imagine any church with such a regional hegemony and a long history would of course end up having some bad marks on its history. My family growing up was Mormon, and the politics of its overpowering influence in Utah, even in such a short small microcosm, have some pretty ugly moments. In a sense, though, I suppose that's just sad to me. I would want to believe that an idea - any idea - if good would make men better at large, and unfortunately, when an ideal becomes the basis of power, it inevitably corrupts into something more sinister.
I will look out for your book though, I do think Orthodoxy is deeply interesting. Thanks.
The key thing to remember when examining any religion is to judge it by its doctrines and its saints—what it actually teaches and the people whom it holds up as the true exemplars of the community. The distortions and the sinners do nothing to delegitimize a faith.
There is also the very earthy question of connecting with an actual religious community. A given group may not be the best examples of what such a community could be, but they may well also be one's only option. For me, I am so convinced of the truth of Orthodoxy that I would endure a bad Orthodox community because the truth is still there in its purity and fullness (while of course working to help bring that community more firmly into Orthodoxy). But I know that not everyone can take that sort of thing, nor should they have to.
What's critical is to pursue the truth no matter where it takes you, whether you like where that is or not.
@Fr. Andrew: Thank you so much for your comments. I felt singularly ill-equipped to answer questions/offer responses, so I can't tell you how much I appreciate the information you've provided.
Post a Comment