Month: July 2012

Get Religion: Covering Warfare in a Byzantine Maze – Literally

3 Comments

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Terry Mattingly’s advice for journalists about the coup in the OCA. A key quote:

Of course, it is “politics” when an Orthodox leader defends the church’s doctrines in public. It is not “politics” when liberal activists inside the church work to silence the voice of the church, while quietly lobbying in seminaries and elsewhere to redefine those same doctrines.

H/T FrJohnPeck.org

Source: Get Religion | By Terry Mattingly

It goes without saying that I have received quite a bit of email from GetReligion readers, and others, wanting to know my take on last Friday’s resignation, and now the ongoing humiliation, of Metropolitan JONAH of the Orthodox Church in America. In a way, this news was rather shocking, yet not all that shocking because the bitter infighting between the OCA’s old guard and its idealistic young leader has been building for more than a year.

If you need a refresher course on the borders of this truly Byzantine scandal, then click here for the large Washington Post Sunday Magazine feature on the early stages of the fighting.

For journalists, I would also recommend the following essay, “Same Sex Marriage and the Revolt Against Metropolitan Jonah,” published by Father Johannes Jacobse at the doctrinally-conservative American Orthodox Institute…

[…]

Read the entire article on the Get Religion website.

Russian Warns on Demonic Roots of Socialism

7 Comments

Source: Acton Institute | By John Couretas

In Rome to address a conference sponsored by the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (Institute for Human Dignity) on June 29, Russian pro-life campaigner Alexey Komov expressed amazement for the support that socialism gets in some quarters in the West even though it has “never worked in world history.” In an interview with the Zenit news service, Komov pointed to how this ideology had caused such great pain and suffering “all in the name of social reform, progress and improvement.” His criticism was also leveled at the “softer version of socialism” of administrations in the West led by President Barack Obama and recently José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the former prime minister of Spain.

Komov believes that if you “dig deep enough into the ideological roots of these socialist movements, you end up finding satanic roots in them.” And although only a softer version is prevalent now, “it is still very dangerous,” he says. “I would warn all those people fascinated by socialist ideas that they have never worked in human history — never worked.”

The traditional nuclear family is a particular enemy of socialism, he says, because it is the basic institution that preserves values and passes them on to the next generation. “The state, if it wants to dominate life and the individual from birth to death, needs to destroy the family, because the family is independent of the state,” he argues. “As Marx and Engels said, the family is a repressive, bourgeois institution that needs to be destroyed; they need to get rid of its patriarchal power and that of Christianity because they are the main obstacles of the social revolution.”

Komov’s witness against socialism is all the more timely because of a growing fascination with Marxism in the West. That’s especially true of young people who seem not to have heard a thing about the gulags and the oceans of blood shed by communist regimes (their parents may be willfully ignorant). Of course, few schools teach lessons about the Gulag or add writers such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to required reading lists, which should also include selections from The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. The Guardian, a UK paper, examines this new enthusiasm in an article titled, “Why Marxism is on the rise again.” The article links to the Marxism Festival 2012, now underway in London.

The Zenit article also quotes Rocco Buttiglione, recipient of the 2004 Acton Institute Faith & Freedom Award, on “the importance of truth and authentic tolerance in politics.” Buttiglione …

… noted that the meaning of tolerance has subtly changed over the years, so subtly, in fact, that it has escaped people’ s notice. “‘Don’t be judgemental,’ people say, but you can translate that as ‘Don’t think’ because to think means to pass judgement,” he said.

He said that to think means to create hierarchies, to put things in order, to make distinctions between good and bad, truth and falsehood. “If you do this, you are considered intolerant,” he said, “That’s bad, because it destroys real participation.”

Read “Dangerous Flirting: Russian Wonders Why West Is Enamored With Socialism — What Christians Should Do in the Public Square” on Zenit.

Download the AU 2012 lecture “The Unknown Solzhenitsyn” by Dr. Edward Ericson (Day two; only 99 cents).

Dangerous Flirting: Russia Wonders Why West Is Enamoured With Socialism

14 Comments

Highlights:

Alexey Komov – Russia’s representative to the World Congress of Families

The traditional nuclear family is a particular enemy of socialism…because it is the basic institution that preserves values and passes them on to the next generation. “The state, if it wants to dominate life and the individual from birth to death, needs to destroy the family, because the family is independent of the state,” he argues. “As Marx and Engels said, the family is a repressive, bourgeois institution that needs to be destroyed; they need to get rid of its patriarchal power and that of Christianity because they are the main obstacles of the social revolution.”

Rocco Buttiglione — Italian politician

[The] meaning of tolerance has subtly changed over the years, so subtly, in fact, that it has escaped people’ s notice. “‘Don’t be judgemental,’ people say, but you can translate that as ‘Don’t think’ because to think means to pass judgement,”…

[To] think means to create hierarchies, to put things in order, to make distinctions between good and bad, truth and falsehood. “If you do this, you are considered intolerant,”…

Source: ZENIT News

By Edward Pentin

ROME, JULY 5, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Like a fair number of citizens from former Soviet-ruled countries, Russian pro-life campaigner Alexey Komov is surprised and disheartened to see the West flirting once again with socialism as a consequence of the global financial situation.

Whether it be in the form of support for the Obama administration, or the backing of other socialist-leaning policies and political parties, he sees the trend as disturbing and irrational.

In Rome to address a conference to launch the Rome office of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (Institute for Human Dignity) June 29, Komov stressed that socialism has “never worked in world history” and that he found it “really amazing” to see such support when, in the 20th century, the ideology had caused such great pain and suffering “all in the name of social reform, progress and improvement.”

Speaking with ZENIT after giving his address, Komov recalled the estimated 100 million people who died in the Soviet Union “in the name of social reform or revolution.” He alludes to the hounding of the nobility who were killed or forced to emigrate, the 200,000 clergy and religious who lost their lives or were sent to gulags, the tens of thousands of Kazakhs who were murdered, and the “one hundred percent” destruction of social classes.

What disturbs him now is that many countries have a “softer version” of socialism. “We’re witnessing this in the policies of Obama in the United States, recently those of Zapatero in Spain and others,” he says. “Each has been inspired basically by the same socialist ideas, a softer form but still from the same source.”

A marketing manager by profession and a former adviser to Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department of External Church Relations for the Russian Orthodox Church, Komov now serves as Russia’s representative to the World Congress of Families, said to be the world’s largest association of organizations defending the traditional family.

He explains that he finds the Obama administration’s socialist leanings particularly disturbing, and draws attention to a hero of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Saul Alinsky, a neo-Marxist writer who dedicated his first book to none other than the Devil, whom he saw as the first successful revolutionary to overthrow the “oppressive regime of God.” (Alinsky’s exact words were: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”).

Komov believes that if you “dig deep enough into the ideological roots of these socialist movements, you end up finding satanic roots in them.” And although only a softer version is prevalent now, “it is still very dangerous,” he says. “I would warn all those people fascinated by socialist ideas that they have never worked in human history — never worked.”

The traditional nuclear family is a particular enemy of socialism, he says, because it is the basic institution that preserves values and passes them on to the next generation. “The state, if it wants to dominate life and the individual from birth to death, needs to destroy the family, because the family is independent of the state,” he argues. “As Marx and Engels said, the family is a repressive, bourgeois institution that needs to be destroyed; they need to get rid of its patriarchal power and that of Christianity because they are the main obstacles of the social revolution.”

He further believes that the merging of Freudianism with Marxism led to the sex and drugs revolutions of the 1960s, resulting in such ideologies as radical feminism and environmentalism.

During his speech, Komov noted the population of Russia has decreased by almost 10 million in 20 years, partly due to high abortion rates and an increasingly hedonistic culture. But can this be blamed on socialism when communism fell over 20 years ago? “It’s a world phenomenon,” he says, but adds it is “inevitably linked to a moving away from Christianity” and the embracing of a popular culture which stresses self-fulfilment and no personal self-sacrifice.

Komov, who is also trying to raise awareness of these issues through the “Family and Demography Foundation,” a body led by two Russian Orthodox priests well-known in Russia, Dmitry Smirnov and Maxim Obukhov, says he is also working closely with the Catholic Church.

“We should be closer together,” he says, “given that we’re facing the same secular attacks on things we hold dear to our hearts.”

The Dignitatis Humanae Institute’s conference on “The Role of Christians in the Public Square” drew a wide range of speakers including the Italian politician and patron of the Institute, Professor Rocco Buttiglione, and the Slovakian MEP, Anna Záborská.

Záborská highlighted the importance of the Vatican’s 2002 ten-page doctrinal note “On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” as a document that contains “all what a Christian politician or policy maker should know.”

She then noted upcoming challenges to human dignity in Europe legislatures. These included “The Horizon 2020 program,” which threatens to authorize millions of dollars in spending on human embryonic stem cell research, and a proposed EU Commission regulation establishing the Rights and Citizenship program from 2014 to 2020.

“I am very concerned about this program because it contains the potential attacks against the natural family founded on the marriage between a men and a woman,” Záborská said, adding that the initiative focuses on the fight against all forms of discrimination. “Discrimination based on sex, gender and sexual orientation is misused by powerful lobbyists to force EU Member States into legalizing same-sex partnerships,” she warned.

Záborská also drew attention to continued pressure to enforce sexual and reproductive health and rights. “We all know that this is a code for abortion,” she said, adding that the current Danish presidency of the EU accepted EU financing for abortion in developing countries as part of sexual and reproductive health.

But the Slovakian MEP also highlighted some encouraging developments: firstly, the final declaration of the UN Rio+20 International Conference on Sustainable Development failed to include sexual and reproductive health and rights, representing “a major pro-life victory for the pro-life coalition at the UN”; preparations toward the International Year of the Family in 2014 appear likely to contain “a coherent vision of marriage and the family respecting the dignity of the human person”; and the European Parliament’s plenary session next week will address forced abortions in China. Záborská said the issue “now figures on the European Parliament agenda for breaches of human rights.”

Rocco Buttiglione spoke at the conference on the importance of truth and authentic tolerance in politics.

The Italian politician stressed that as a loving father will occasionally say no to his child, so a politician “who loves his people must tell the truth, and must sometimes say ‘no’ to his people, but explain why what the people want is wrong.” He must “run risk of being ousted and lose an election,” Buttiglione said, “but better to lose the election than to win by selling people false merchandise.”

“I respect very much politicians who’ve shown considerable courage to lose elections in order to tell the truth,” he said.

Recalling the famous quote on free speech by Voltaire, the Italian philosopher professor stressed the importance of people being free to voice their opinions, and for others to freely and openly disagree with them. “I may not respect the error someone is saying, but I respect them as a person,” Buttiglione said.

But he noted that the meaning of tolerance has subtly changed over the years, so subtly, in fact, that it has escaped people’ s notice. “‘Don’t be judgemental,’ people say, but you can translate that as ‘Don’t think’ because to think means to pass judgement,” he said.

He said that to think means to create hierarchies, to put things in order, to make distinctions between good and bad, truth and falsehood. “If you do this, you are considered intolerant,” he said, “That’s bad, because it destroys real participation.”

Why is Jerry Sandusky Guilty?

7 Comments

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything.

Source: Catholic World Report | By Benjamin Wiker

There is no doubt that Jerry Sandusky is guilty, the real question is why? Why is it that we, here and now, would send a man to prison for molesting boys? Why is the public reaction one of both deep disgust and quite visceral anger? Just canvass a few opinions about what people would like to be done to punish Sandusky if they were the judge.

But why? What is the cause of this deep disgust? This seething anger?

There is only one cause: Christianity. We still have minds, consciences, and hearts, and hence a legal system, historically formed by Christian moral principles. There is no other reason. Allow me to explain, beginning first with the “that” of his guilt.

Jerry Sandusky has been declared guilty of 45 of 48 counts of child sexual molestation. The coaching hero of Penn State used his status to draw in young boys through his Second Mile charity, “a statewide, nonprofit organization for children who need additional support and who would benefit from positive human contact” (so the website maintains). The “positive human contact” Sandusky had in mind occurred in locker rooms, motel rooms, his basement, and who knows where else. He molested (at least) one of his adopted sons.

This is 2012. Turn the historical clock back 2000 years, and find yourself in the pagan Roman Empire before Christianity arose, i.e., before the Christianization of the West. In Rome, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was completely acceptable. To be more exact, homosexual activity was frowned on (but not very diligently) when it occurred between two free-born men, but it was cheerfully affirmed between a master and his slave, and even more, a man and a boy between the ripe ages of about 12 to 17—just the target age of Sandusky. The man generally presented himself as a kindly benefactor to the boy, taking him under his wing, so to speak, and (in return for sexual favors) helping him up the social ladder. Just like Sandusky.

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He would not even have been noticed. His actions would have been entirely unremarkable. There would have been no disgust, no anger. The verdict would have been innocent, and in fact, the notion that he was guilty of anything would have been unintelligible.

There is one and only one reason, 2000 years later, that Sandusky is guilty now. Unlike everyone else around them, Judaism rejected homosexuality, including man-boy sex. Christianity came from Judaism, and carried that moral rejection forth amidst the pagan Roman Empire, the Greek East, and everywhere else its missionaries roamed in search of converts. Today, there are about 13.5 million Jews, but over 2 billion Christians. Christians are demographically responsible for carrying forth the Judeo-Christian moral view, and with it, the moral disgust and anger—and guilty verdict—at what Sandusky did.

That is the why of Sandusky’s guilt. Our consciences, our minds, our hearts, our legal system in America have been formed by Christian moral teaching about sexuality. Subtract Christianity from history, and we would be back in Rome. In pagan Rome, Sandusky would be innocent.

To make the point even more pointed, no other attempted modern substitute for Christianity could find Sandusky guilty without surreptitiously borrowing from Christianity.

Thomas Hobbes’s invention of modern natural rights, set forth in the mid-17^th century, declared that by nature there was no right and wrong, just or unjust; all moral and hence legal rules were artificial.

Utilitarianism declares that morality must be reduced to what provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest number—not exactly a strong defense against pedophilia.

Darwinian evolutionary ethics doesn’t distinguish between right and wrong; notions of right and wrong are simply effects of ingrained responses that are somehow calibrated to the survival of a particular human population. As long as that population continues to breed successfully, particular sexual actions are not “condemned” by natural selection.

Democracy itself can’t rescue us. The notion that the majority determines the moral outlines of the legal system doesn’t help much, given that the majority of Greeks and Romans affirmed Sandusky-like behavior, and since we ourselves are in a period of secularization with the Christian moral hold on society becoming ever-weaker, it is unclear how long our majority will continue to feel either anger or disgust. Many things used to fill us with moral disgust—e.g., abortion—which we now regard with a live-and-let-live attitude, or even affirm as a right.

Freud thought that the desire for incest was natural, so there’s little help there either. Contemporary psychologists following Freud, don’t talk about something being wrong, but about the ill-effects of repressed desires. Sandusky’s defense was toying with the possibility of getting him declared not guilty through claiming he had a mental disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder.

Even the stern philosopher Kant would be of no service. He tried to root morality in the so-called categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Here’s the problem: if I’m an ancient Greek or Roman, I want everyone to affirm pedophilia. I want it to be universally accepted. A modern pedophiliac wants the same thing—just ask the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

So we’re back to—or backed into—the conclusion that the only reason Sandusky is guilty, the reason we feel anger and disgust, is the historical influence of Christianity in forming our consciences, our minds, our passions, our laws. Christianity is “guilty,” we might say, of finding Sandusky guilty.

But again, here’s the problem. Our society is being successively and successfully de-Christianized. The moral formation is wearing off rapidly. Now that we’ve answered the why of Sandusky’s guilt, we’ve got one more question to ask: How long will we continue to feel guilty?

Here’s the solution. We must recognize that Christianity was and is right. There is something fundamentally, morally disgusting about a man who would sexually molest boys, whether anyone happens to feel moral outrage or not. It is not just disgusting, but evil, wherever and whenever it occurs. It was evil in Greece, whatever the Greeks felt about it. It was evil in Rome, whatever the Romans believed. It was evil when Catholic priests did it, who had every reason to know it was evil.

And it was evil for Sandusky. Christianity is right. Sandusky is guilty.

Fr. John Whiteford Responds to Dr. David Dunn: On Tradition

15 Comments

Source: Fr. John Whiteford’s News, Comments, & Reflections

– Dr. David J. Dunn has begun a series of blog posts that continue issues related to our discussion about Same-Sex Marriage on Ancient Faith Radio. His first post is Ancient Faith Continued: Theology and Symphony. I will post his comments and then my response (emphases mine):

Dr. David J. Dunn:

I have met a lot of Orthodox Christians who see the Tradition as an unchanging deposit. They basically apply a naive fundamentalist biblical literalism to the Tradition of the Orthodox Church (“Tradition” with a “big-T” in the Orthodox Church refers to the Bible, creeds, rituals, dogmas, and diverse opinions of ancient theologians). For them, “the Truth” was delivered once in history, its meaning is clear, and thus our theology is unchanging and unambiguous.

Fr. John Whiteford:

We consider the Tradition to be an unchanging deposit, because as a matter of fact, this is what the Church believes it to be. St. Vincent of Lerins, who is famous for his definition of “Catholicity,” wrote, commenting on 1 Timothy 6:20:

But it is worth while to expound the whole of that passage of the apostle more fully, “O Timothy, keep the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words.” “O!” The exclamation implies foreknowledge as well as charity. For he mourned in anticipation over the errors which he foresaw. Who is the Timothy of today, but either generally the Universal Church, or in particular, the whole body of The Prelacy, whom it behoves either themselves to possess or to communicate to others a complete knowledge of religion? What is “Keep the deposit”? “Keep it,” because of thieves, because of adversaries, lest, while men sleep, they sow tares over that good wheat which the Son of Man had sown in his field. “Keep the deposit.”

What is “The deposit”? That which has been intrusted to thee, not that which thou hast thyself devised: a matter not of wit, but of learning; not of private adoption, but of public tradition; a matter brought to thee, not put forth by thee, wherein thou art bound to be not an author but a keeper, not a teacher but a disciple, not a leader but a follower. “Keep the deposit.” Preserve the talent of Catholic Faith inviolate, unadulterate.

That which has been intrusted to thee, let it continue in thy possession, let it be handed on by thee. Thou hast received gold; give gold in turn. Do not substitute one thing for another. Do not for gold impudently substitute lead or brass. Give real gold, not counterfeit. O Timothy! O Priest! O Expositor! O Doctor! if the divine gift hath qualified thee by wit, by skill, by learning, be thou a Bazaleel of the spiritual tabernacle, engrave the precious gems of divine doctrine, fit them in accurately, adorn them skilfully, add splendor, grace, beauty.

Let that which formerly was believed, though imperfectly apprehended, as expounded by thee be clearly understood. Let posterity welcome, understood through thy exposition, what antiquity venerated without understanding. Yet teach still the same truths which thou hast learnt, so that though thou speakest after a new fashion, what thou speakest may not be new (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch. XXII, NPNF2, 5:147).

And commenting on Galatians 1:8, but also alluding to Jude 1:3 (“…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints), St. Vincent says:

Why does he say “Though we”? why not rather “though I”? He means, “though Peter, though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered.

Nay, this is not all. He goes on “Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. “Though we,” he says, “or an angel from heaven.” Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen,—if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch. VIII, NPNF2, 5:136-137).

This of course does not mean that Tradition does not grow in the sense that it expands through history, as the Church confronts heresy, and as saints arise and add to the writings which guide and inform the Church. But as St. Vincent says in Chapter 23 of his Commentary, this is natural growth, not alteration.

Dr. David J. Dunn:

I disagree with this view. That does not mean I am a “liberal” theologian. I do not think that Tradition and culture are two “texts” with more or less equal weight. The Tradition is not fixed, but neither is it in constant, ambiguous flux. I see the Tradition more like a life-giving stream. It maneuvers through history, swinging sometimes this way and sometimes that in response to its place in the world at a particular point and time.

For me, the Tradition is not nebulous, but it is nimble. We are caught up in that stream right now. We have a pretty good sense of where we have been, which gives us some indication of where we are going, but the exact “shape” of our destination and when we will get there are not entirely clear. I think that is why Fr. John Meyendorff said we have a “living tradition.” The Tradition is not an artifact of the past because it is where we live. The church is its tradition.

Fr. John Whiteford:

We have a living Tradition in that this Tradition is not just found in books, but is alive in the Church. There are still aspects of our Tradition that are not found in books, and require training within the Church… as anyone who has ever read liturgical rubrics can attest. The book may say “the priest stands in the usual place, and does the usual thing”, but only by being instructed by a priest who knows what that means can another priest really understand the rubric. We do know what the Tradition will be in essence, because it cannot be other than what it always has been.

Dr. David J. Dunn:

To see Tradition as a fixed and fully knowable “thing” is to live in intellectual dishonesty, for it requires pretending that the way we view tradition is not informed by our moment in history. It is to pretend that we look at doctrine in the exact same way as our spiritual ancestors.

Fr. John Whiteford:

If Dr. Dunn had said that we always have to be aware that our understanding of the Tradition as individuals is imperfect, then I would have no argument with him, however, the Church as a whole does have a full understanding of its Tradition, and if we remain in that Church and allow ourselves to be guided by that Church we will not stray.

But rather than speak in abstractions, let’s take a concrete example. Dr. Dunn is not sure that the Church will always condemn homosexuality, and does not think we should oppose gay marriage in the wider culture. The Church has a very clear Tradition that homosexuality is a sin, and it has a clear Tradition that marriage can only be between a man and woman who are eligible to be lawfully married to one another.

The contemporary Church has also issued numerous statements at the level of the local Church and also on the pan-Orthodox level that gay marriage is unacceptable, and that Orthodox Christians should actively oppose it in the wider culture. So the question for Dr. Dunn is, why are you rejecting the instruction of the Church?

Dr. David J. Dunn:

It is also not very Orthodox. The Tradition is about God, and the ideal way of knowing God in the Orthodox Church is to unknow God. We strive for apophasis, which is the experience of God as mystery. This does not mean God is irrational or that we should be irrational. It means God is mystery. Therefore the Orthodox Christian must always destroy her own intellectual idols. That is why I think fundamentalist views of the Tradition are unOrthodox.

Fr. John Whiteford:

Dr. Dunn asserts that this in not very Orthodox, but has yet to cite any evidence from Tradition to back up that assertion. Apophatic theology is an approach to theology, but it does not negate God’s self revelation, which we find recorded in Scripture and Tradition.

Also, introducing the word “fundamentalist” is not helpful, because basically when the word is used outside of its historic meaning (in reference to Protestant Fundamentalists) it is simply used as a synonym for “stupid”. When I have asked people who use the term in reference to Orthodox Christians, and have asked them to define what they mean by the term, I have yet to get a coherent definition that would not also condemn the Fathers and Saints of the Church.

Dr. David J. Dunn:

To put it another way, for me, I cannot think of the Tradition as a deposit because I do not think I have faith in a set of assertions. I think faith means to trust in that for which I hope, which means it is a kind of love.

Fr. John Whiteford:

Dr. Dunn is equivocating here. Faith certainly means trust, but when we speak of “The Faith”, it necessarily is a Faith that has actual content, that is either Orthodox or is not.

The Orthodox ideal is apophasis because theology is nothing more than to love God with the intellect. Truth is that which we do not understand but love anyway. That is why I think we should never treat the Tradition as if it is something everyone can understand if they only think about it rationally. The way we think about the Tradition must always unthink itself because God is love, and love is infinite. God is always an undiscovered country.

I think Dr. Dunn will be hard pressed to produce a single Father or Saint of the Church who would say that the Truth of the Orthodox Faith is something that “we do not understand, but love anyway,” or that “The way we think about the Tradition must always unthink itself because God is love…” This may fly in a liberal Protestant seminary, but it is completely foreign to the Tradition of the Church.

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58