Yes, Father Orthoduck is a huge Mythbusters fan! There are several sayings that have come from that show that are favorites of Father Orthoduck:
- Failure is always an option.
- I reject your reality and substitute my own.
- Jamie wants big boom.
- Am I missing a eye brow?
- Well there’s your problem!
- If I had any dignity, that would have been humiliating.
- When in doubt C4.
- Here comes chaos!
- This is starting to feel like a bad idea.
Father Orthoduck’s favorite is the one at the top of the list, “failure is always an option.” It is a good statement for any human activity. And, it is a statement that will certainly help, not only as we do science, but also as we do theology and as we make choices in how we will live out our lives. [I think that our youngest daughter goes for the saying, “when in doubt use C4.”]
Mythbusters regularly demonstrates that the results of a scientific experiment are not fully predictable. Time after time, when experiments go wrong, their attitude is that failure simply shows them that either they have not controlled the various options in their experiment or that their original assumption was wrong. They do not treat failures as depressing examples of their inability to think correctly. Rather, every experiment that they perform, whether is goes as expected or not, teaches them more about what we all call “reality.” The staff at Mythbusters learns as much from their failures as from their successes.
But, we often do not wish to admit that the same it true when it comes to theology. No, Father Orthoduck is not talking about the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Eventually, one must decide that something is true and that which disagrees with it is not. And, no, Father Orthoduck does not believe it is a purely individual decision. There is a reason why over 95% of Christianity overtly agrees with the first four Ecumenical Councils, and in practice agrees with the first six Ecumenical Councils. Father Orthoduck does not buy the “conspiracy theorists” who claim the agreement is merely the result of persecution. Here is where Father Orthoduck is convinced that the post-modernists are wrong. But, that is for another post. [In passing the seventh council is also true and to be believed.]
Nevertheless, what Father Orthoduck is talking about is the reality that the changing nature of the canons of the Orthodox Church point to two realities. The first reality is that the practice of the Church needs to be continually adjusted to the changing reality of the world in which the Church lives. [Note: Notice that Father Orthoduck did NOT use the word “theology” but rather used the word “practice.”] The second reality is that, regardless of how saintly the person, there is always the possibility of failure in someone’s theology. It is that possibility of failure that quite a few people need to acknowledge. Having said that, there are many many Christians who need to acknowledge that the Church can speak truth and be successful in communicating the reality of God and his expectations for us.
Oddly enough, Father Orthoduck would argue that the Orthodox argument that God is unknowable would also be a recognition that our theologies can be quite wrong. But, there are all too many Orthodox who argue that the presence of the Holy Spirit within the Church guarantees that no theology will ever be wrong. However, that is a contradictory statement given the several Ecumenical Councils. That is, obviously many people must have been wrong if it was necessary to call an Ecumenical Council. What Father Orthoduck is willing to argue is twofold. On the one hand, on necessary theologies, the Holy Spirit is our guarantee that our Ecumenical Councils have reached correct decisions. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit has ensured that no theology is stated within the Orthodox Church that would so lead believers that they would fall into irredeemable heresy.
Fr. Ernesto,
I’m *very* interested in these ideas. I’m studying for a bachelor’s (and hopefully master’s) in theology from an academic program in my local diocese. I am a Roman Catholic amongst many Protestant friends and family. I constantly struggle with the idea that the Roman Church teaches that its teachings are infallible, since I also believe that failure is always an option, and I use myself as the prime example.
I call myself post-modern in that I consider truth to be more relative (especially in our pluralistic and confused world) than it is clearly objective. As such, I have a hard time reconciling the divine infallible teachings of the Church (which I believe are directed by the Holy Spirit) with some of my own personal experiences (which I also believe are directed by the Holy Spirit) that might contradict such teachings. In that way I guess I’m the typical post-modern-as-extreme-modernity type; i.e., subjective AND relativistic.
For example – the doctrine of mortal sin (though I don’t know if the Orthodox churches are aligned with Rome on this doctrine?)
If the Church teaches that skipping Mass is a “grave or serious” matter, does that mean all lapsed Catholics are guilty of mortal sin, and therefore going to Hell? Or that I’m going to Hell if I skip mass this weekend? I happen to know quite a few lapsed Catholics, some of whom are now Protestant, whose faith and being are especially Christ-like. It just doesn’t ring true to me that they are destined for eternal separation from God when they are clearly spiritually close to Him.
Now, even if my knowledge of doctrine(s) is incomplete, or unrefined, or whatever … another aspect of this doctrine is the “full knowledge and will” thing which implies that it’s “safer” NOT to seek or study theology so as to live with “invincible ignorance.” It furthermore implies that a deathbed “Baptism of Constantine” is the “safest” Christian life. This also doesn’t jive with my experience. When I started studying theology, I felt myself growing closer to God for it; when I started learning about mortal sin, I felt myself growing farther away from Him. I stopped praying my daily office, I stopped loving others as I should, I stopped studying, I stopped blogging; I only attended Mass every week out of the fear of Hell, and one week when I skipped Mass it sent me into an episode of depression.
I’ve recovered from depression, but I can’t believe that infallible doctrines of the Church would lead to that kind of Christian living. But therein again lies a problem – is it a mortal sin to not believe everything the Church teaches? Or is there some shade of grey or middle-ground – maybe the “unknowable nature of God” – wherein my individual judgement, even if contrary to Church canon, is an acceptable portion of the sensus fidelium? Or am I simply trying to rationalize my American hyper-individuality over and above the Church (hopefully not over and above God!)?