The problem of course is that the Traditionalist movement believes these Canons are simply Liturgical in nature, like telling priests to grow long beards, or how many candles should be set upon an altar. They don't realize Canon law also declares that suffering a miscarriage, being raped, and having a Jewish doctor are “crimes” worthy of excommunication. Yes, the Christian Church really was (is?) that stupid. While most of Christendom has grown up and realized such laws are crazy and therefore have written them off the books, they actually remain on the books in Eastern Orthodoxy. That's right, technically speaking, Orthodox Christians in the 21st century could get excommunicated for the “crime” of having a Jewish doctor – but not for the immoral act of owning slaves.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and a former Orthodox (as well as Protestant) Fundamentalist myself, I believe that these laws are crazy. Yet I also believe that such Fundamentalism can be refuted by illustrating the ridiculous implications involved with excommunicating people who eat Matzo bread, dance at weddings, or become “whoremasters” – okay that last one isn’t so ridiculous, but the rest are quite insane.
My basic argument is that the Christian Church, with all its varieties, both ancient and modern, is simply an imperfect human institution, and that Christians must move beyond blind Fundamentalist appeals to ancient authorities (which unwittingly calls for the excommunication of Jesus, the Matzo bread eating Jew!) and into a new kind of faith, which focuses more on God and neighbor, rather than sacred texts, traditions, and beliefs. I don't think Christians should be afraid to ask questions, question authority, and yes even your own Church. By the way, non-Orthodox Christians shouldn't feel too cocky because for the first 1000 years of Church history these laws were universal within Christendom. So just be thankful you weren't born during a time when it was illegal for a Christian to attend a Bar Mitvah – or you could just be thankful you're not part of a denomination where it is still illegal! And if you're not a Christian or not a believer at all I think you'll get a kick out of this book too – after all, some aspects of religion really are crazy – and Canon law is certainly one of them.
The book is being published by Regina Orthodox Press (Salisbury MA), though it's not up on their website yet, but I will continue to keep you posted. When I know more, so will you.
To be Frank, I really did not like what you said here.
ReplyDelete"When you say Christians must move beyond blind Fundamentalist appeals to ancient authorities and into a new kind of faith, which focuses more on God and neighbor, rather than sacred texts, traditions, and beliefs. I don't think Christians should be afraid to ask questions, question authority, and yes even your own Church."
We do not need to enter into a "new kind of Faith" for this is the Faith which established the universe, it cannot be altered. Not all the Canons can be followed by our generation and this is understandable, but we must not reject the Holy Synods and 7 Ecumenical Councils and Teachers. Certain of the canons may sound strange, but you must understand that the times were much different then.
That's okay -- there is room for a difference of opinion, I'm glad you have expressed it. Let me say that your statement that "Certain of the canons may sound strange, but you must understand that the times were much different then" is precisely why I wrote this book in the first place.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I once used that same argument to defend the Canons -- I would have agreed with you at one time, that is until I actually began to study the Canons and saw that they were more than Liturgically based guidelines.
True, those were different times, and I certainly acknowledge that in the book; however, I also acknowledge that Canons calling for the excommunication of women for the biological act of having a miscarriage is, well, crazy. :) Of course it was based on an ancient cultural context, which is actually one of the main points I make in the book. Yet I also ask why are supposedly "eternal" laws subject to an historical context at all?
I obviously disagree with the idea that rejecting such Canons as plain immoral is a rejection of the Faith. The Church, I believe, simply got some things wrong. It makes mistakes, sometimes terrible mistakes and it did so in many different ways, including the Canons. This doesn't make the Church evil, it just makes it human.
I'm glad to have your alternative view point, and in actuality I don't think what you said is that far off from what I argue in the book. Hopefully you'll pick up a copy -- and if you do, I think you'll ultimately find my arguments sound, even if you don't agree with them.
Mikhail,
ReplyDeleteThe more I've thought about your post, the more I realized I disagree with your premise and felt I needed to comment on your statement that:
"We do not need to enter into a "new kind of Faith" for this is the Faith which established the universe, it cannot be altered."
You know, I thought God established the universe. When you say "the faith which established the universe" do you also mean Canon law? Laws which call for the excommunication of women who have had a miscarriage? Laws which condone slavery?
This is the very reason I wrote the book. Most people are vastly ignorant (as I once was, because I used to say the same sort of things) of what it is they are saying when they claim that "The Faith" created the universe. God created the universe and we are to have faith in God -- not faith itself. As Orthodox Christians we believe that the core message of Christianity is unalterable, but surely Canon law, and even holy tradition is not. If it is, why do we no longer excommunicate people for dancing at weddings? Why do allow more than one confession per lifetime? Why do no longer have 5 hour Liturgies?
I'm not trying to be "disagreeable" but I feel there is something not quite kosher about your statement. Do we have faith in Christ, or Tradition and Canon law?
I make all of these points in the book. Again, not trying to just be pain for the sake of being a pain, but I'd really like you to clear up your statement about "the faith" establishing the universe. To me this makes no sense -- God establishes the universe, and we have faith in God. However, I do think we may simply be saying the same thing (or close to it) but using vastly different terms. My goal is not to divide, but to open this topic up for discussion, because it seems to be closed for so many.
No hard feelings,
In Peace, Charles Shingledecker