Dear reader(s),
I published this post on my other blog; I decided to post it here as well.
**********
It's been over a year since I have posted here. How can I best describe the past year . . . being present to and for my kids was the best part of
2014. The worst part was the stream of job applications, to which I
received either a negative respone or (in the majority of cases) no
response at all. It is nearly five years now since I held a full-time
job. The acid of steady rejection etches even a self-confidence
fashioned from solid granite.
What does granite become
when it decomposes? Clay. Interesting, isn't it, that something so
impermeable can become something so malleable?
When I
worked in the UK, I remember someone (I think it was the chaplain to the
then-Archbishop of Canterbury) who told me something very wise. He
said, "In my experience, silent prayer is the solvent that dissolves the hardness of our heart."
18 January 2015
02 July 2014
The Great and Holy Council, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism
In an earlier post I talked a little about neo-Fascism in Greece and how it is inimical to Orthodoxy. Part and parcel of Golden Dawn is an anti-Semitism in the form it assumed after the forgery and publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the end of the nineteenth century. Take a look at this article from the 7 June 2014 online edition of The Guardian. There are reports that Golden Dawn has the support of some Orthodox bishops and clergy in Greece. There have also been Greek bishops who have spoken out against Golden Dawn. Some of them have received abuse and death threats for their courage.
After the Shoah, the Catholic church repudiated its anti-Judaism, as have many Protestant churches. Although there have been statements and studies by courageous bishops and theologians, to date the Orthodox churches have not spoken unambiguously and unanimously to repudiate and repent of the anti-Judaism in Orthodox tradition. This is in part because of the nature of authority in Orthodoxy; it would take a Great and Holy Council to speak in that way, although local churches can (and should) do so before such a council is convened.
But the issue for us Orthodox has to do with more than just the nature of authority. I'm aware that when I advocate that the church "repudiate and repent of the anti-Judaism in Orthodox tradition" I am raising the question of the meaning of tradition in Orthodoxy. The church has not yet had the discussion about what tradition really is, and what its theological place in the life of the church is. Can any part of Holy Tradition be repented of? Can any part of it be repudiated? Anti-Judaism is part and parcel of the writings and sermons of the Fathers; the question is, what does the church do about it today?
With the scheduling of the long-awaited Great and Holy Council in 2016, the church has the priceless opportunity to speak authoritatively to rid our tradition of anti-Judaism. I do not know if this subject is on the agenda of the council, but if not I think we should get it on the agenda. I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of doing this, nor about the difficulty of finding a common voice against anti-Judaism. In addition, there are already questions about the composition of the council and its method of reaching agreement on issues (that is, by consensus). These factors make the task difficult but not impossible.
There is a vast literature on the history of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. (As an aside, remember that the two are not identical! Anti-Judaism is a Christian theological motif, anti-Semitism is a modern form of racism. Both can exist together, and have existed together, in the church since the emergence of anti-Semitism in the nineteenth century.) The literature on Orthodoxy and anti-Judaism is more limited. Here are a few sources to get you started. I will list more in future posts.
Hackel, Sergei. "The Relevance of Post-Holocaust Theology to the Thought and Practise of the Russian Orthodox Church." In: Natalia Pecherskaya, ed., Theology After Auschwitz and Its Correlation with Theology After the Gulag: Consequences and Conclusions (St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg School of Religion and Philosophy, 1998), pp. 63-77.
For a different perspective, see in the same volume: Benevich, Grigori, "Judaism and the Future of Orthodoxy," pp. 78-92.
Both essays appear in the second volume of a two-volume set of essays on the specific situation of Jews and Orthodox Christians in the Soviet Union, but these two contributions are addressed to wider questions than the historical situation that prompted the essays. I think the late Fr. Sergei's essay in particular is nothing short of prophetic.
The second essay comes from the 1988 collection of essays entitled Kirche und Synagoge: Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden: Darstellung mit Quellen, edited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch. In volume 2, see particularly chapters 13 (Juden und Christen in Rumänien) and 14 (Russische Christenheit und Ostjudentum). As the title of the volumes indicates, these are historical essays. They provide an excellent overview of the historical situation between Christians and Jews in both Romania and Russia.
I have resources on Orthodoxy and Judaism in Greece, and will note them in posts in the near future.
After the Shoah, the Catholic church repudiated its anti-Judaism, as have many Protestant churches. Although there have been statements and studies by courageous bishops and theologians, to date the Orthodox churches have not spoken unambiguously and unanimously to repudiate and repent of the anti-Judaism in Orthodox tradition. This is in part because of the nature of authority in Orthodoxy; it would take a Great and Holy Council to speak in that way, although local churches can (and should) do so before such a council is convened.
But the issue for us Orthodox has to do with more than just the nature of authority. I'm aware that when I advocate that the church "repudiate and repent of the anti-Judaism in Orthodox tradition" I am raising the question of the meaning of tradition in Orthodoxy. The church has not yet had the discussion about what tradition really is, and what its theological place in the life of the church is. Can any part of Holy Tradition be repented of? Can any part of it be repudiated? Anti-Judaism is part and parcel of the writings and sermons of the Fathers; the question is, what does the church do about it today?
With the scheduling of the long-awaited Great and Holy Council in 2016, the church has the priceless opportunity to speak authoritatively to rid our tradition of anti-Judaism. I do not know if this subject is on the agenda of the council, but if not I think we should get it on the agenda. I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of doing this, nor about the difficulty of finding a common voice against anti-Judaism. In addition, there are already questions about the composition of the council and its method of reaching agreement on issues (that is, by consensus). These factors make the task difficult but not impossible.
There is a vast literature on the history of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. (As an aside, remember that the two are not identical! Anti-Judaism is a Christian theological motif, anti-Semitism is a modern form of racism. Both can exist together, and have existed together, in the church since the emergence of anti-Semitism in the nineteenth century.) The literature on Orthodoxy and anti-Judaism is more limited. Here are a few sources to get you started. I will list more in future posts.
Hackel, Sergei. "The Relevance of Post-Holocaust Theology to the Thought and Practise of the Russian Orthodox Church." In: Natalia Pecherskaya, ed., Theology After Auschwitz and Its Correlation with Theology After the Gulag: Consequences and Conclusions (St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg School of Religion and Philosophy, 1998), pp. 63-77.
For a different perspective, see in the same volume: Benevich, Grigori, "Judaism and the Future of Orthodoxy," pp. 78-92.
Both essays appear in the second volume of a two-volume set of essays on the specific situation of Jews and Orthodox Christians in the Soviet Union, but these two contributions are addressed to wider questions than the historical situation that prompted the essays. I think the late Fr. Sergei's essay in particular is nothing short of prophetic.
The second essay comes from the 1988 collection of essays entitled Kirche und Synagoge: Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden: Darstellung mit Quellen, edited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch. In volume 2, see particularly chapters 13 (Juden und Christen in Rumänien) and 14 (Russische Christenheit und Ostjudentum). As the title of the volumes indicates, these are historical essays. They provide an excellent overview of the historical situation between Christians and Jews in both Romania and Russia.
I have resources on Orthodoxy and Judaism in Greece, and will note them in posts in the near future.
08 June 2014
Electric icons
In the article to which I referred in the previous post, Berger rightly notes that sacramental grace is always mediated. Mediation, she also notes, is never passive: it involves our participation, a complex act involving the whole person. She suggests that cyberspace, as a new form of mediation, raises questions about the ways in which this form of mediation might constrain and enable our participation.
Orthodox theological traditions in particular seem to me to offer many avenues for engagement with questions involving cyberspace, mediation, grace, participation, and representation. To name but one area: iconography. What follows doesn't pretend to be a discussion; I'm merely throwing initial thoughts out there.
Is it possible to create a genuine icon in cyberspace? Is it possible to create a genuine icon out of the materia of cyberspace? Is there a fundamental difference between pixels and paint? Between gesso and a computer screen, whether LED, LCD, plasma, or AMOLED? Between paint and the 1s and 0s that make up the graphics program that allows one to paint an icon on a computer? By "genuine" I mean an icon that could be blessed and used in a liturgical context. Whether such an icon would actually be used in an Orthodox liturgical context is a question for another post.
Other religious traditions have raised similar questions. For example, Orthodox rabbis have issued rulings on the possibility of writing the Name of G-d on a computer screen. One such discussion concluded that the Name written on a computer screen was impermanent due to the nature of the CRT itself (that is, the refresh rate of the screen), so the rabbinic injunctions against the destruction of something on which the Name had been written did not apply. Does an LCD, plasma, or AMOLED screen have a refresh rate? From what I read, they do have refresh rates, but much faster rates than an old-fashioned CRT display. Therefore if I read the argument correctly, the issue for at least this particular Orthodox Jewish conversation revolves around the question of permanence.
I do not know if there has been research done on the question of permanence in Orthodox iconography. Although we may think of icons as paintings on gesso applied on a wood subsurface, I know of no Orthodox theologian who limits the material of which an icon can be composed, or for that matter that they must be two-dimensional. Are pixels therefore merely another medium?
I wonder though if focusing on the computer screen itself fully gets to the heart of the issue. One issue that the rabbinic discussion I mentioned above did not discuss is the question of digital storage. In the case of a two-dimensional icon, if I understand right the gesso ground is itself the storage medium. (I don't write icons, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.) For a digital image, the medium is a file stored in some more- or less-durable format. That is, the icon is preserved even though the screen itself is turned off. Storage media are not indestructible, of course, and they all degrade over time. However, icons written with paint on a ground are also susceptible to degradation over time.
Last thought for now. One might object to writing icons on computer screens because ultimately the bits that make up the file composing the icon are not material - they are "just" 0s and 1s. Is this really the case, though? In the course of a fascinating discussion following a lecture I gave this past March at the Titanik gallery in Turku on ethics and encountering religious art, the subject of the materiality of computer programs came up. One student from the University of the Arts in Helsinki vigorously argued (and was supported by other students in the audience) that software is also physical. She argued that bits are material, in that they are composed of electrons. At the very least, her view challenges the objection that icons in digital form are somehow less material than those written in the traditional way with the traditional materials.
A joyous, peaceful feast to all!
Orthodox theological traditions in particular seem to me to offer many avenues for engagement with questions involving cyberspace, mediation, grace, participation, and representation. To name but one area: iconography. What follows doesn't pretend to be a discussion; I'm merely throwing initial thoughts out there.
Is it possible to create a genuine icon in cyberspace? Is it possible to create a genuine icon out of the materia of cyberspace? Is there a fundamental difference between pixels and paint? Between gesso and a computer screen, whether LED, LCD, plasma, or AMOLED? Between paint and the 1s and 0s that make up the graphics program that allows one to paint an icon on a computer? By "genuine" I mean an icon that could be blessed and used in a liturgical context. Whether such an icon would actually be used in an Orthodox liturgical context is a question for another post.
Other religious traditions have raised similar questions. For example, Orthodox rabbis have issued rulings on the possibility of writing the Name of G-d on a computer screen. One such discussion concluded that the Name written on a computer screen was impermanent due to the nature of the CRT itself (that is, the refresh rate of the screen), so the rabbinic injunctions against the destruction of something on which the Name had been written did not apply. Does an LCD, plasma, or AMOLED screen have a refresh rate? From what I read, they do have refresh rates, but much faster rates than an old-fashioned CRT display. Therefore if I read the argument correctly, the issue for at least this particular Orthodox Jewish conversation revolves around the question of permanence.
I do not know if there has been research done on the question of permanence in Orthodox iconography. Although we may think of icons as paintings on gesso applied on a wood subsurface, I know of no Orthodox theologian who limits the material of which an icon can be composed, or for that matter that they must be two-dimensional. Are pixels therefore merely another medium?
I wonder though if focusing on the computer screen itself fully gets to the heart of the issue. One issue that the rabbinic discussion I mentioned above did not discuss is the question of digital storage. In the case of a two-dimensional icon, if I understand right the gesso ground is itself the storage medium. (I don't write icons, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.) For a digital image, the medium is a file stored in some more- or less-durable format. That is, the icon is preserved even though the screen itself is turned off. Storage media are not indestructible, of course, and they all degrade over time. However, icons written with paint on a ground are also susceptible to degradation over time.
Last thought for now. One might object to writing icons on computer screens because ultimately the bits that make up the file composing the icon are not material - they are "just" 0s and 1s. Is this really the case, though? In the course of a fascinating discussion following a lecture I gave this past March at the Titanik gallery in Turku on ethics and encountering religious art, the subject of the materiality of computer programs came up. One student from the University of the Arts in Helsinki vigorously argued (and was supported by other students in the audience) that software is also physical. She argued that bits are material, in that they are composed of electrons. At the very least, her view challenges the objection that icons in digital form are somehow less material than those written in the traditional way with the traditional materials.
A joyous, peaceful feast to all!
06 June 2014
Liturgy and cyberspace
My readers in Finland may not be aware that last year in the United States there was discussion in one denomination (the United Methodist Church) about the practice of "online communion," which a congregation in North Carolina had proposed as part of its online ministry. The United Methodist Council of Bishops placed a moratorium on the practice, at the recommendation of an informal task force convened to discuss the issue last October. One of the arguments against the practice was the effect it would have on the ecumenical relations between the UMC and other churches.
I was happy to see that the United Methodist bishops reached the conclusion they did. At the same time, though, the larger issue of liturgical practices and cyberspace remains and will not be going away. Agree or not with the question of the possibility of receiving the eucharistic gifts online, you have to give credit to the United Methodist congregation in question for attempting to wrestle with how to reach people whose lives are increasingly spent in "augmented reality," in which life is no longer either exclusively offline or virtual, but is an increasingly interwoven combination of the two.
In the course of reading some of the debate on the issue I ran across a reference to an article by the liturgical scholar Theresa Berger published in Worship last year entitled
I was happy to see that the United Methodist bishops reached the conclusion they did. At the same time, though, the larger issue of liturgical practices and cyberspace remains and will not be going away. Agree or not with the question of the possibility of receiving the eucharistic gifts online, you have to give credit to the United Methodist congregation in question for attempting to wrestle with how to reach people whose lives are increasingly spent in "augmented reality," in which life is no longer either exclusively offline or virtual, but is an increasingly interwoven combination of the two.
In the course of reading some of the debate on the issue I ran across a reference to an article by the liturgical scholar Theresa Berger published in Worship last year entitled
"Participatio Actuosa in Cyberspace? Vatican II’s Liturgical Vision in a Digital World." Berger basically makes the point that the emergence of cyberspace has changed the Christian liturgical landscape, and that liturgical scholars and theologians are going to have to acknowledge and address the phenomena of liturgical practices in cyberspace rather than simply ignoring or dismissing them. Whether one agrees or not with every point in the article, there is plenty there to learn from in it and plenty in it to get one thinking.
Interestingly, one of the examples she cites is that involving Syrian Orthodox in Syria who participate in a celebration of the Eucharist of a Syrian Orthodox parish in the United States. Have we Orthodox been contributing to the theological discussion of this issue? I genuinely don't know. If you know of any sources, I'd be grateful if you'd send them my way.
Interestingly, one of the examples she cites is that involving Syrian Orthodox in Syria who participate in a celebration of the Eucharist of a Syrian Orthodox parish in the United States. Have we Orthodox been contributing to the theological discussion of this issue? I genuinely don't know. If you know of any sources, I'd be grateful if you'd send them my way.
04 June 2014
Fewer words, more Word
I'm not downplaying the importance of words in ecumenical dialogue. But I also think a deep, unmet need exists for something more than words in the journey to our reconciliation. Fewer words, more Word: where do we embody the reconciliation we seek? Yes, the mere fact of dialogue is itself an embodiment of the process of healing. But we need more.
27 May 2014
Homily of the Ecumenical Patriarch at the Holy Sepulchre
If you haven't yet read the Ecumenical Patriarch's homily at the Holy Sepulchre, here's a link to it as reported by the Catholic news service Zenit.
In my view, the article got it exactly right in highlighting this quote from the homily:
Lastly, this sacred Tomb invites us to shed another fear that is perhaps the most prevalent in our modern age: namely, fear of the other, fear of the different, fear of the adherent of another faith, another religion, or another confession.
Here in Finland we see these fears every day. The just-completed European parliamentary elections have shown us the power of fear of the other and the different. The Ecumenical Patriarch's homily speaks directly to us here in Finland. He challenges us as Orthodox Christians to give our society clear, courageous examples of freedom from these fears and freedom for living courageously in love towards all in our society.
In my view, the article got it exactly right in highlighting this quote from the homily:
Lastly, this sacred Tomb invites us to shed another fear that is perhaps the most prevalent in our modern age: namely, fear of the other, fear of the different, fear of the adherent of another faith, another religion, or another confession.
Here in Finland we see these fears every day. The just-completed European parliamentary elections have shown us the power of fear of the other and the different. The Ecumenical Patriarch's homily speaks directly to us here in Finland. He challenges us as Orthodox Christians to give our society clear, courageous examples of freedom from these fears and freedom for living courageously in love towards all in our society.
Acting with boldness
The conclusion of yesterday's post may have been a little opaque. ;-) What I mean is that I don't think that we must wait until God brings down the curtain on human history for the reconciliation of the churches to happen. I am convinced that God wants our reconciliation to happen now, not later. At the same time, that healing of divisions, hurts, and hatreds also has a larger meaning beyond the church. It would be a sign of God's loving work of reconciling the world to Godself in Christ.
But we must hear and act with boldness. Are we Orthodox able to do this on the macro level, so to speak? I don't think so. The local Orthodox churches, in their identity as public institutions in the world, are at this time incapable of such action. I would love to be wrong about this.
As you know, dear readers, there is more to the church's life than its functions as a public institution. I'm not talking here about some kind of ecclesiological dualism that divides the church into "visible" and "invisible." I mean simply that each of us who belong to Christ has the obligation to act for reconciliation boldly and with courage, in our own person. If it doesn't happen there, it won't happen anywhere else.
But we must hear and act with boldness. Are we Orthodox able to do this on the macro level, so to speak? I don't think so. The local Orthodox churches, in their identity as public institutions in the world, are at this time incapable of such action. I would love to be wrong about this.
As you know, dear readers, there is more to the church's life than its functions as a public institution. I'm not talking here about some kind of ecclesiological dualism that divides the church into "visible" and "invisible." I mean simply that each of us who belong to Christ has the obligation to act for reconciliation boldly and with courage, in our own person. If it doesn't happen there, it won't happen anywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)