It seems reasonable, as I introduce myself, that I should lay down exactly what it is I believe and understand.
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio |
Who am I? First, I must establish that I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I am still a Catechumen and, as such, submit my doctrinal understanding to be subservient to the doctrine of the Church. There are bound to be ways in which I have misunderstood and this blog, in part, is a way in which I can work these things out. For me, it has always been a good way to organize and standardize the cloud that my thoughts usually exist in.
Why Orthodoxy: I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, with roots in Pentecostal and Baptist (both Primitive and Southern) denominations. At some point, I lost faith. This will be explained in detail in other posts. At a certain point, I felt it necessary to come back to Christianity. This was in no small part thanks to the homilies delivered by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, in Canada, delivered via YouTube video. You way think what you want of the man. I know what I think of him. His message attracted me because he did not live in fairyland or “Dance with Unicorns”, as he most elegantly put it. He took a realistic understanding of the world and was able to add depth to his faith rather than cloister himself away in it. This is what was lacking in my own Christianity.
Furthermore, in historical context, Orthodoxy has maintained the teachings of the ecumenical councils and remained essentially unchanged in those doctrines. If there is any salvation within Christianity whatsoever, it is in the correct form. If there is any correct form, it is in the original form. Lest anyone object and maintain that Eastern Orthodoxy is corrupted, I must maintain that “the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). My meaning, if not very clear, is that the Church was One, for a millennium. If it was not correct for that millennium, then the gates of Hades has already defeated it. The rest, as they say, is history.
Am I a Creationist: In a sense, yes. If the question implies that I give credit to God for my existence as well as the beauty of the world around me, then I am most certainly a Creationist.
If, however, the question implies that I believe the universe is only 6,000 or so years old, the answer is no. God is not a Liar.
If I can see a supernova event from a star 2 billion light-years away, then I must submit that the age of the universe is very old. If a whale is sometimes born with legs, I must submit that they are indeed vestigial. Men of science are sometimes men of God and sometimes they are not. But what they are always is a group of men who, regardless of how excited by the claim, would be even more excited to discredit it. Even if Natural Selection didn’t apply to biology, it would apply to Science, as only the strongest and best supported theories will survive the test of peer review.
The atheist says (at least this atheist said), "See, nature shows us that it isn't true", and is content to believe that there must not be any truth in it. The fundamentalist says, "It is true, regardless of what nature says", and is equally content to call God a Liar. What must be remembered about Genesis and Creation is that one was inspired by God and the other was written by His own hand. It becomes less important that it took longer than seven days, was done in a different order, or that there was (possibly) never an actual Garden, when one recognizes that forbidden fruits are sampled daily. The truth of Genesis (and Scripture as a whole) is not Archeological, Geological, Biological, etc. The truth of Genesis is experiential. We discard paradise for the sake of power; we murder our brother, lust after Abraham’s wife, and whole scores of other sins and are not repentant until we are called out on them. Genesis is more correct in describing the human condition than it is incorrect in describing, well, Genesis.
All of that being said, the Orthodox Church hasn't released a dogmatic statement regarding the relationship of Genesis and science, probably for good reason. I understand very well that many have trouble accepting their physical body is descended from apes. Many more have trouble with the idea that Genesis might not be literally true. Let's proceed in all discussions on this topic with humility from both sides.
All of that being said, the Orthodox Church hasn't released a dogmatic statement regarding the relationship of Genesis and science, probably for good reason. I understand very well that many have trouble accepting their physical body is descended from apes. Many more have trouble with the idea that Genesis might not be literally true. Let's proceed in all discussions on this topic with humility from both sides.
Am I a Fundamentalist? Rabbi Tovia Singer has stated that a fundamentalist was a person who believes that society and culture should be subservient to Scripture. In the Jewish tradition, he understands himself to be a fundamentalist. I say that a person’s own heart should be subservient to Scripture. And the lenses by which Scripture should be understood are by the love of your fellow man and the Tradition of the Church. To me, this is the fundamental core of Christianity. What is common between Rabbi Singer and I is the understanding that that the words, in and of themselves, are insufficient. For him, it is the Oral Torah. For me, it is the Dogmas of Orthodoxy. The person whom we commonly term, “fundamentalist” (at least in the Christian sense), is a person without Dogma or Tradition. In Sola Scriptura, he must connect the dots on his own. He must, in essence, create his own Tradition before he comes to some “understanding”. The hardest thing for the convert is to look at that body of Patristic writings and realize that you are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Infidels? I must warn the reader that I will, on occasion discuss other religions. Mostly they will be discussed in relation to Orthodox Christianity. One need not fear that I have a greater love of any religion other than my own. If I thought there was a more pure and true religious philosophy than Christianity, then that would be the philosophy I would have. It seems rather foolish that a man should sit in a darkened cave and admire the light the folks outside are enjoying. But wisdom is wisdom and I have no fear of highlighting how others have learned to live by it.
I also feel compelled to mention that the sole criteria by which we are judged is in how we serve Christ by serving each other. I have seen Buddhists, Atheists, and Jews serve each other better than I have seen many Christians. It is not a matter of good taste or politeness that I do not continue this line of reasoning. It is that I am simply satisfied to leave it at that. The truth and beauty of Christianity is reflected in its members and the Body is often not as polished as it should be.
We know where the Spirit is, we do not know where it is not. That is the Ekonomia of Christ.
We know where the Spirit is, we do not know where it is not. That is the Ekonomia of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment