As Huw comments on his blog, the first sentence of the book says that Christianity’s beginnings are Oriental and mystical. It is crucial to understand that in order to have a proper view of Christianity’s beginnings. At the same time, I wish to explore mysticism as it relates to my Latino background. I claim that no other Western culture is as thoroughly mystical as the Spanish and Spanish-descended cultures.
So, it is time to reveal some of my pre-thinking as I head into this book club. Christianity was not, and should not be allowed to become, simply a Greek philosophical religion or a Roman juridical religion. At the same time, I do not wish to fall into the dual traps of either making Christianity a culturally dependent phenomenon or of so sundering Christianity from its Oriental and mystical beginnings that it no longer resembles its origins.
First, I am convinced that Christianity must adapt itself to each culture to which it is taken. It is not, and has never been, appropriate to insist that Christianity must speak a particular language or sing with particular melodies. This is a general statement, and I recognize that, for various sound reasons, the Church may choose to limit what linguistic expressions and what melodies are used in Church. I do feel that Eastern Orthodoxy in the USA is yet too Arab, Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian, etc., in its language and melodic expression within the tonal framework.
Second, I am convinced that our Lord Jesus Christ was born in a particular place and a particular time because that was God’s best judgement. Furthermore, I believe that part of the challenge of the Incarnation is not simply that God became man, but also that God became man in a particular culture and that God desired elements of that particular culture to become universal for us in worship and in living our lives out as Christians. In other words, I am convinced that it was God’s intention for Christianity to have an unchangeable skeleton. Christianity was not meant to be an “amoeba” that has no fixed shape and no restrictions. The change in Christianity is constrained to a certain structural underpinning.
Third, and most daringly on my part, I am convinced that if Protestantism is willing to “break bones” in order to force Christianity into the shape they want, at the other end Orthodoxy is prone to confuse how the Body “combs its hair” with the unchangeable skeleton. To follow this metaphor, Roman Catholicism has engaged in inappropriate “body modification” that has distorted the image of the Body.
Finally, I am convinced that Orthodoxy has the fullness of the Church within it in a way that no other expression of Christianity does, and this in spite of her faults. Our call to the rest of our brothers and sisters is to, “come and taste that the Lord is good.” I believe that elements of that fullness are found within other Churches, and, yes, sufficiently that people are able to be “saved.” Nevertheless, there also exists the very real danger that the fragment of the fullness that is expressed by some groups may lead you down a very wrong path of self-righteousness.
I will try to make my next posts less technical and more reflective.
Fr E – I’m with you on the Hispanic/Latino comment. I hope I explained myself well enough in the comments to my post: I think Santeria and the other Yoruban traditions are some of the most Oriental traditions out there (in the way I understood the writer to mean). I think, by another counterpunch, that the Easttern Rite folks who are the most virulent members of the Orthodox Taliban are, themselves, some of the most Occidental folks I’ve ever met. (I include myself in that OT list.)
In some ways the both/and of Orthodoxy is not at all welcomed in the Anglo-West. But it is, at least traditionally, in the Celtic West.
I think the Gospel should be at home in all cultures – not needing to change Jews into Greeks or vice versa. But, for example, draw a dividing line between the Deification of the Roman Emperor and making the Emperor a Saint. This isn’t a political statement!!!! But we offer many pinches of incense to many emperors every week now. We have reformed that culture, made it something more, taken some good things and lost other, bad things.
So… where is the line? What parts of East and West are cultural Wealth and what parts are cultural Illth, to use a neologism?
I don’t think Oriental culture is inherently more Christian than Occidental culture, but I do think some of the spiritual/mystical assumptions of Christianity (as we will be discussing in this bookclub) are more in line with Orientalism. Others are more in line with Occidentalism…
I think that would be an interesting conversation to continue through the book.
I do feel that Eastern Orthodoxy in the USA is yet too Arab, Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian, etc., in its language and melodic expression within the tonal framework.
This is the opinion of my hubby, who just cannot bring himself to convert due to this very issue. He still needs doses of ‘western’ religion every so often.
I very interesting post. I would agree, each culture must hear the gospel in ways they can identify and relate. Sometimes, I think the EO’s insistance that nothing change is a bit arrogant. People may walk into an EO and be impressed with the old-world beauty, but they must be able to understand, join in and feel they have something to offer. Surely there must be a way to do “body modification” without damaging the structural integrity? But I confess, I’ve not yet seen it.
Yes, we do have our foibles, don’t we? On the one side we have some of the hardcore ethnic folk, who insist that preservation of the culture they came from is of prime importance. I do quite understand that attitude, since expatriates around the world do want to keep their culture. But,it is being driven too hard and too far by some.
On the other side we have the converts who do not simply convert to Orthodoxy, but also convert to a particular cultural expression of Orthodoxy or even to a subculture of Othodoxy. They are often reacting against Western culture, and thus do not wish to see anything of Western culture in their church. In some ways, I see this as akin to the anti-Christianity rants of some feminists or the anti-Western rants of some ecologists, etc. Orthodoxy to them is as much a sign of rebellion as it is the True Faith.
But, there are good recorded writings and talks from personages as diverse as Fr. Schmemann to Archbishop Dmitri to Metropolitan Philip that point out that there is much consideration being given to how Orthodoxy may adjust itself to this culture. Our adjustment is slow–some feel too slow–in part because the “adjustments” of the Vatican Council II era and the liturgical renewal folk was so fast and sudden that it produced some significant dislocation among the members of the respective Churches. We would like to avoid that.