Sometimes we look at the wrong end of the telescope

Philosophers and theologians enjoy debating the fine points of various issues. After all, it is important that we have neither invalid, nor illogical, nor inconsequent thinking in our formulations. In other words, we are trying to make sure that we are believing the right things for the right reasons. As a result, both philosophers and theologians can be quite intolerant of what they see as mistaken presuppositions, mistaken propositional statements, etc. In other words, both groups insist that it is not sufficient to believe the right things. We must also believe the right things for the right reasons.

The comic above reminds me of that. As it says, “[First character] It’s an imperfect world. [Second character] Or, is it a perfect world and our own imperfection makes it imperfect? [First character] Either way, we’re hosed. [Second character] Or …” The second character is the typical philosopher. Regardless of what the first character says, the second character is so interested in getting the wording right that she misses the point that regardless of the option picked, “… we’re hosed.” Meanwhile the first character has gotten down to the real world implications of both statements and has tried to point out that the bottom line is the same in either scenario.

I look at some of the arguments that we have in the Church and see that at work within us. Recently, Fr. John Whiteford published a blog post in which he points out that too many Orthodox are over-emphasizing the difference between the East and the West on the subject of the atonement. – Fr. Whiteford is an excellent writer on most theological subjects. But, we strongly disagree on sociopolitical subjects. [He is wrong, of course. ] – I would say that he points out in the linked blog post that in many instances, all of us need to recognize that we are saying the same thing. We are simply arguing about how it was accomplished.

Arguing about how it was accomplished, whether concerning the atonement or concerning some other subject, is often important. Think of the arguments about the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Jesus Christ, etc. For some issues, it is paramount to argue through to completion. But, there are many other subjects in which it is only important to agree on the right things to believe or to do without agreeing on the reasons. We all agree that God is ultimately unknowable. We all agree that he communicates and touches us. We do not all agree with some of Saint Gregory Palamas’ followers about the distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies. But, we do agree on his communication and his touching us.

The point is that all of us need to be able to differentiate between what must be argued to the bitter end and on what theological issues it is permitted to agree on the conclusion without agreeing on the reasoning. The difficulty is in deciding which issue belongs in which category. One simple way is to see how world Orthodoxy treats the issue. Let’s take a couple of simple issues. Should Orthodox clergy always wear a cassock, or can they wear a simple Western clergy tab shirt? Must Orthodox clergy wear a beard? Well, in the USA, both the Greek jurisdiction and the Antiochian jurisdictions do not tend to use the either the cassock in public wear (outside the parish) and they are free to not grow a beard. So, how does world Orthodoxy respond? Well, other than a few individual bishops, there is no response, no declarations of cessation of communion, no synodical statements condemning the practice.

What can we deduce from this lack of synodical response? We can deduce that these practices are not essential to the faith. What about those who keep protesting? On the one hand, they may keep trying to convince others of their viewpoint, that these practices are more essential to the faith than our patriarchates believe. On the other hand, they need to be careful of their language. I have read all too many bloggers who imply that these allowances are not simply wrong, but that the hierarchs who “fail” to oppose these “innovations” are somehow not true hierarchs. It is at this point that they have crossed a line. They have gone from disagreement to judgment in an inappropriate way. They have decided that the Church is not truly guided by the Holy Spirit otherwise the Church would agree with them. At this point they are on the edge of heresy. [Note: please do not cite Athanasius or some of the holy monks. Most bloggers are nowhere near that level, including myself.]

But, back to the main point. Let us all be careful that we differentiate between our opinions and the pronouncements of God. Let us also have the humility to realize that we are not Saint Athanasius. And, let us further realize that if we are truly obedient to our leaders and if our leaders (worldwide) do not object to a practice, then there is a very good probability that we are wrong and we need to stop our protests and blog posts.