Well, I knew this was coming, but the critics of The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy are starting to get a bit louder in the last day or two. What really amazes me is that most of these critics freely admit that they have not, and in fact will not read the book. Yet they feel 100% qualified to pontificate about a number of issues which they cannot possibly be qualified to comment on.
A.) The first issue many critics seem to find annoying are the chapter titles. People claim that they are terribly offended by them and in fact are even blasphemous! Now wait a second. Are people so dense that when they read a chapter titled "What do Orthodox Traditionalists and Star Trek fans have in common?" they actually don't "get" that the book is a freaking satire? My God. What more could I have done? Insisted that the publisher put "for all the people with no sense of humor -- this is a SATIRE!" on the cover? Yes, it deals with serious issues, but come on? Star Trek?
B.) Of course that's not all. Critics of the book also feel 100% qualified to comment, quite negatively, on my personal spiritual life. Of course they somehow know, (by reading the blurb on the publisher's website no less) that my spiritual life is quite poor, that I'm a raving madman and am out to destroy the "truth" of Orthodoxy!
C.) Other people claim that I have no idea what it is that I'm actually talking about. I'm not a priest or a monk and so I couldn't possibly know anything about Canon law or Orthodox Christian theology. Yet of course all these critics are not priests either but are somehow perfectly qualified to explain the "real" meaning of Orthodoxy and the Church Canons. Interesting.
D.) They dredge up the "historical context" argument to "defend" the Canons of the Church. They could simply save themselves the trouble of using this argument to criticize the book since I address it at length in the book. What's worse (as I point out in the book) is that these historical contexts, as true as they are, don't get the Canons or the Church "off the hook." Just because "everyone" 200 years ago was a racist, doesn't make racism right. Yes indeed, "everyone" in the Middle Ages thought miscarriages were caused by sins -- and everyone was WRONG!
E.) Some people actually pretend that "no one" believes that Canon law is divine or inspired by the Holy Spirit! Well, the first Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council claims the Canons are inspired -- case closed. (See chapter 3 of The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy.)
F.) Others actually claim (just as I predict in the book) that only people who have the "mind of the Fathers" and those who are humble and tuned in with the will of God can "truly" understand the Canons. That rules out those of us who use the critical historical method -- and turns Canons into a matter of faith. Correction -- it turns them into a matter of Gnostic faith.
Oh yes, the most bizarre statement I've read is that people might be turned off of Orthodoxy based on this book. Hmmm. Somehow this is MY fault and not the Church which wrote the laws to begin with.Talk about shooting the messenger.
If you acknowledge the historical context, then why do make so much of the canon regarding Jewish doctors? They did not have secular medicine at the time. Jewish healers mixed their faith with their medicine, and so for Christians to go to non-Christian Jewish gave the Jews reason to claim superiority over the Christian faith. Obviously, that has no application to a doctor practicing secular medicine, and yet you pretend as it does... so why is that?
ReplyDeleteAlso, is it not true that your book does not contain a single footnote?
Also, on what basis do you claim that it was believed that all miscarriages were the result of personal sin?
ReplyDeleteThere is a canon of St. Basil regarding soldiers who kill during a war, and though it explicitly states that this is not a sin, it nonetheless suggests that it would be good for them to refrain from communion for 3 years... quite a bit longer than after a miscarriage.
Thus refraining from communion is obviously not always due to a personal sin. Rather than mocking the Tradition of the Church, you would do well to humbly try to understand it.
Father, have you read the book yet? Because I think I clearly address the issue you raise on the Jewish doctor question. If you would kindly read the book before addressing it, that would be quite helpful.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I have decided to not discuss the substance of the book with people who have never read. Invariably people raise issues which the book already addresses.
I can and will continue to answer straight forward questions like what the book contains, what to expect, etc as I have done already.
Re: The footnote issue. I incorporated what would have been footnotes into the body of the text in attempt to make it less "scary" to the average reader.
I have read sections of it, and in those sections I did not see any evidence that you were familiar with the great canonists of the Church, or had read any scholarly literature on the subject. I noted that you quoted from a podcast on Ancient Faith Radio. That doesn't look like you have done your homework.
ReplyDeleteNow you have made the attack on the canons regarding the whole Jewish doctor's issue in things that you have posted on the internet. If you understand the historical context, then there is no basis for your attack. You are comparing apples and oranges, and you present a cartoon version of what the canons say, and then attack them with cartoon arguments.
Father, I am fully aware that the Jewish doctor thing was written because of the believe BACK THEN that if Christians went to a Jewish doctor and got better they would have thought that Judaism was a more powerful religion than Christianity, and their faith would have been damaged.
ReplyDeleteClearly reading "sections" of a book doesn't constitute reading a book. If you had read it, you would have seen that I address the very historical context to which you are referring on page 57. I may not address it in a manner in which you agree with (satire and humor) but I do address it. The historical context which explains the Canon is simply an ancient superstition -- it may be what people thought "back then," which is completely understandable (which I say); however, we cannot and do not believe such things today because they are untrue -- in the ancient world if a doctor (including St. Luke) had healed someone they did it by what actual medical knowledge that was available to them, or by sheer luck. (Unless one actually believes that the devil/demons/gods heal people to trick Christians into de-converting from Christianity!)
On page 59 I even explain WHY it's important that the Canons and their historical contexts of which you speak needs to be made perfectly clear: "The problem is the irrational fringe which might read this Canon, connect it with the claim that Canon law is divine, and then assume that they now have proof that it's just fine for them to hate Jews and Judaism "because the Church Fathers and Canons say so!"" (Pg 59)
In fact, one of the major themes of the book is that one cannot remove the Canons from their ancient contexts as though they were changeless and eternal laws written for all time. THIS is the interpretation of the Canons which I'm attacking, and surely, you are aware that many Orthodox Christians think that the Canons are changeless and eternal laws which can be enforced today. And please don't tell me that there are only 5 or 6 guys in the mid-west with this view. True, most people think the Canons are merely Liturgical in nature (robes, beards etc) and THAT'S why I've written the book. Again, if you have read it you'd understand this. This is the understanding (misunderstanding) of the Canons that I'm confronting along with the idea that the some people within the Church cannot admit that the Church may have have gotten some things wrong, like the belief that Jewish doctors used their "faith" to heal. Surely, this was nothing more than a "belief" the Canonists had and not a part of reality. Yes, this is what they believed -- and what they believed was wrong.
One cannot get the "thrust" of any book without reading the entire thing. This book is laid out with a theme from beginning to end. I do not paint the Canons with a broad brush, nor do I paint Traditionalists with a broad brush. Chapters, 1, 2, 16, and 17 makes this perfectly clear. The chapters are even laid out in an order of procession chosen quite deliberately. If all you're doing is reading a few pages here or a few pages there you'll never be able to fully understand the "theme" of the book, which is not what so many people assume it is simply by the title of the book, or the chapter titles.
Everything I have read has been so sweeping that "broad brush" doesn't quite convey the superficiality of your arguments. You don't seem to get the idea that there was no such thing as secular medicine in those days. If some Orthodox Christian today wanted to go to a witch doctor, would you not think this was a problem? Witch Doctors have some authentic herbal remedies, but I would not go to a witch doctor under any circumstances, even if no other doctor was available, because I would not want to endorse the religion of the Witch Doctor and encourage his followers.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if the things you posted on the internet were not so blatantly anti-Orthodox more people might be inspired to read your book. I haven't seen anything you have written that would inspire me to purchase a copy.
You could write a similar "expose" of the Scriptures, if you were willing to blaspheme, and ignore historical context.
And by the way, even the most slug nutty Old Calendarists do not say that you cannot go to a modern doctor who happens to be Jewish, and so your concern about "the fringe" is a straw man. Have you ran across anyone who actually advocated such a thing?
ReplyDeleteIn reply to your last post, the answer is yes I have.
ReplyDeleteWho, in what context, and how long had they been Orthodox?
ReplyDeleteI find it very hard to believe. I have had a lot of interaction over the years with Greek Old Calendarists, and while there are many things that I think they should be criticized for, even the nuttiest ones I have encountered have not made such a suggestion.
But obviously if someone was ignorant enough to have such an interpretation, the fault is not with the canon, the fault is with the person who jump to such a conclusion without studying the issue or consulting with someone who knew what they were talking about.
Father, if you had bothered to read the book before criticizing it you would have clearly seen that I'm not really talking about Greek Old Calendarists, or most other "Old Calendarists" Churches at all. I'm very careful to differentiate and explain "who" it is I'm talking about -- it's not the pious Old Calendarist Russian communities -- again, if you read the book. . . .
ReplyDeleteAs for the Witch doctor thing (and I'm breaking my own rule here about not replying to substance issues with those who've not read the book one final time) -- thanks for proving my point about the superstitious beliefs of many within ancient Church and how they were simply wrong. Much appreciated! :)
Obviously no one should go to a "witch doctor" for medical treatment, yet by your own admission "secular medicine" did not exist. So even if one had went to a Christian doctor, they were still going to a "witch doctor", just a "Christian one" which I would not think you should go to either. They're both quacks! (Though even secular doctors can be quacks to!)
Obviously the reason the Canonists forbid this was because these were JEWISH doctors -- or "witch doctors" as you say. They didn't recognize the difference between quackery and non quackery -- this was a religious prohibition -- Jewish vs Christian. Yes, yes...contexts...again, in the book! The point is they didn't see this as you or I would: "Those witch doctors are nuts but secular doctors are not lets stick with the secular ones!" Again, by your own words, you claim there were no secular doctors.
No Canon forbids us from going to a Christian "witch doctor" -- only Jewish ones. The only reason we don't go to such people today is because we now recognize such things as quackery -- whether the "witch doctor" was a Christian or not -- they're quacks so we don't go. All you've shown is that -- at best -- the Canons need to be updated and rewritten or as I explain in chapter 16, our spiritual medical techniques need to be updated. The Canons are but tools for the Church, not ends to themselves.
Christian physicians in the early Church were not witch doctors. They knew what remedies were known at the time, and they prayed. To call them quacks only further demonstrates the non-Orthodox point of view you are coming from. Some of the great saints of the Church were unmercenary healers who combined the medicine of the day with prayer, and healed many.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason why this canon needs to be updated... it simply needs to be understood. The principle that you should not do things that compromise your faith by participating in the things of other religions is still valid... it just takes different forms in our time.
As for spiritual "medical" techniques, the human soul has not changed since the days of the early Church. How the Church approaches the matters of the soul has not substantively changed either, and we need to learn form the Tradition of the Church, not correct or reinvent it.
And who says that the canons are an end in and of themselves?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I will simply note that you provide no specifics of anyone who actually interpreted the canon in question in the way you are criticizing. That is what is known as a straw-man argument.