Culture

New Book: Greece’s Dostoevsky

2 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

From the publisher:

Herman A. Middleton is author of Precious Vessels of the Holy Spirit: The Lives and Counsels of Contemporary Elders of Greece (featuring eight Greek Orthodox monastic elders).

He translated the recently released Greece’s Dostoevsky: The Theological Vision of Alexandros Papadiamandis (a study of one of modern Greek literature’s finest writers). It is about his new book that he now writes. (The second, third, and fourth posts will be posted elsewhere, for which see below.)

I have been working on a translation of Dr. Anestis Keselopoulos’s book, Greece’s Dostoevsky: The Theological Vision of Alexandros Papadiamandis for quite some time now. The book is a study of the living (lived/experiential) theology found in the short stories and novels of one of Greece’s greatest fiction writers of the past 2+ hundred years.

I was first introduced to Papadiamandis through Dr. Keselopoulos’s pastoral theology class while a student at Aristotle University in Thessalonica, Greece. It is often the case at Greek universities that the professor uses one of his own books for the course, and in this case we read Greece’s Dostoevsky. I was attracted to the book initially because, unlike many theological books, it both provides profound insights while being an engaging and enjoyable read.

Too often, theological books discuss theology in the abstract. Church doctrines, which were developed through the vibrant spiritual and liturgical life of the Church and Her faithful, are often presented as abstract teachings based on Biblical passages. Greece’s Dostoevsky is unusual in this regard. Dr. Keselopoulos discusses doctrines and theological concepts within the framework of lived theology, connecting often seemingly abstract concepts to everyday life.

Keselopoulos addresses issues that are at the heart of Church life, issues that are of particular concern to the Church in America and in the West, more generally (I will discuss the contents of the book in a later post). Rather than addressing these issues detached from actual life, Keselopoulos bases his ideas on examples taken from Papadiamandis’s stories. This is the ideal book for a class in pastoral theology, as it provides concrete and living examples of spiritual and theological truths. PapadiamandisÕs characters, the clergy and faithful in his stories, were based on the many priests and parishioners he knew from his childhood on the island of Skiathos and from his time in Athens.

What this means is that, while providing significant theological insight, Keselopoulos’s book is a lot of fun to read. The text is punctuated with excerpts and examples from Papadiamandis’s stories, and one gets the sense that Papadiamandis’s characters are very much based on real people. One of the things Papadiamandis shares with Dostoevsky is that he is a Realist. Papadiamandis does not romanticize the Church, the clergy, or the monastics. While he personally knew many shining examples of clerical and monastic virtue (St. Nectarios and St. Nicholas Planas, in particular), he was also aware that there are unscrupulous clerics and monastics as well. He presents the good and the bad, but he is always optimistic and slow to judge. He was a churchman in the truest sense of the term, a real lover of the Church.

What this also means is that the reader gets introduced, in a very intimate way, to a world, a culture, a society that is profoundly Orthodox. One of the difficulties with being an Orthodox Christian in the West is that our society forces us into a situation where our faith is simply one aspect of who we are. The culture in which we live does not understand our faith, so it prefers that we keep it private. Even though we struggle to live lives worthy of Christ, lives of Orthodox witness, it is easy to feel very much alone in this struggle. Orthodox countries do not always live up to the high calling of Christ either, but there is no doubt that the life of faith in these countries is more organic, more rooted, more connected with the other aspects of one’s life. Greece’s Dostoevsky invites us into that world and shows us what we might otherwise not see, and that is one of its best qualities.

In my next post, I’ll go into more depth regarding who Alexandros Papadiamandis was, and why it matters.

Learn more about Greece’s Dostoevsky: The Theological Vision of Alexandros Papadiamandis.

Posting Schedule:

Blog Post #2: October 4^th, Eighth Day Books Blog
Blog Post #3: October 6^th, Bombaxo
Blog Post #4: October 11^th, Mystagogy

Why Pastors Must Be Free To Preach On Politics

8 Comments

Source: Town Hall | John Sears | HT: OrthodoxNex.com Blog

On Sunday, October 2, hundreds of pastors all over the country did something an astonishingly large number of their fellow Americans had forgotten they had the God-given right to do: namely, address political issues and candidates during a worship service.

Across the nearly 60 years since then U.S. Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed through an amendment to the IRS code threatening any church or pastor who gets involved in politics with IRS reprisals – specifically, the loss of the church’s tax-exempt status – conventional wisdom has congealed around the idea that pastors must stay out of politics. As extraordinary as that assertion is to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of our nation’s history, it’s a theme that’s been hammered home unrelentingly for decades by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

As a result, pastors have been tacitly forbidden from saying in their pulpit what they’d be perfectly within their rights to say 50 feet away, in a church aisle or out on the sidewalk. What’s worse, they’ve been banned from expressing their opinion specifically because they are pastors.

Consider what happens when an issue such as, say, abortion, comes up for community debate, as the voting public considers a bill or assesses a candidate whose feelings on the subject are well known. Doctors will address their local medical gatherings, lawyers will argue at their bar associations, social workers will write op-eds, politicians will give speeches, and the news media will interview representatives of each of those professions, since some aspect of the abortion question impacts each of those professional areas.

In each case, the qualified professional is legally allowed, and even publicly encouraged, to address specifics of the issue, urge his peers to share his point of view, and advocate for or against a given candidate and his views.

And yet, while no sane person could suggest that abortion is an issue without a profound spiritual dimension, any effort by a local pastor to shine a biblical or theological spotlight on the issue in his professional setting, before an audience interested in that specific dimension, is met with outrage, tax threats, and the assertion that the Constitution forbids preachers from talking “politics.”

The same Constitution, mind you, whose First Amendment states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”

You’ll note the Founders did not bar Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise thereof (except in churches),” or “abridging the freedom of speech (except in the case of pastors),” or “of the press (unless it’s a printing or mailout distributed to church members to help them analyze candidates and issues).”

No one would be more astonished to hear the Constitution used as a legal muzzle to silence pastors on political issues than the men who wrote the Constitution. Most of them understood implicitly that the primary raison d’etre for settling this continent was to secure religious freedom, and that no group was more responsible for inspiring the colonists to join a revolution in defense of that liberty than pastors who addressed from their pulpits our “political issues” with England.

Nor would the Founding Fathers have stood for the notion that a church could be threatened with taxes. Tax exemption is not a privilege our government extends to cooperative congregations and ministries; it is the fundamental right of those churches, before God and the Constitution. What would be a more effective prohibition on the free exercise of religion than taxation? If the party in power holds the financial life of a church in its hands, how can that church ever stand against the party on a moral issue?

And make no mistake: every political question is, at root, a moral issue.

That, of course, is the underlying reason for every legal effort to silence and sabotage the participation of churches and pastors in the political process – the recognition that, on moral issues, those who take their faith seriously, and commit themselves as groups and individuals to the truth of Scripture, inevitably carry a different and often more substantial moral authority than the government and its elected leaders. And thank heaven they do. The moral admonitions of outspoken pastors have played a critical role at every critical juncture in our history – spearheading among other things the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights movement.

If, to assert that moral authority, pastors must make a united stand through events like last Sunday’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” they’re doing nothing more than what their own forefathers did 200-plus years ago. They’re throwing off not only the illegitimate legal shackles that would chain them to an unreasonable and ungodly silence, but the popular misconceptions that have for too long intimidated Christian leaders from sharing the enduring wisdom of a thoughtful, biblical perspective on the issues that most impact us as a nation.

Whatever your religious beliefs and convictions – or even your views about pastors talking politics – I hope you stood with the pastors of your community who dared to make bold and constructive use of our richest, and most endangered freedom: the right to hear and speak the truth.

CNS News: More than 2,000 Evangelical, Orthodox Chaplains Join Catholics in Opposing Pentagon Directive on Same-Sex Marriage

4 Comments

Dr. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. (AP Photo.)

Here’s one way for the Orthodox to get noticed: do what is right.

Source: CNSNews

(CNSNews.com) – A national group representing more than 2,000 military chaplains from evangelical Christian and Orthodox backgrounds said on Wednesday that the Pentagon has launched a “direct assault” on marriage, and the chaplains they endorse will not be allowed to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies under any circumstances.

Dr. Ron Crews, executive director of the newly formed Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said his 2,000-plus membership is concerned about a Sept. 30 Pentagon memorandum that authorizes chaplains and military chapel facilities to be used for “any private ceremony,” a move that contradicts current federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“By dishonestly sanctioning the use of federal facilities for ‘marriage counterfeits’ that federal law and the vast majority of Americans have rejected, the Pentagon has launched a direct assault on the fundamental unit of society – husband and wife,” Crews said.

President Barack Obama signs the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Crews further said his Evangelical membership is in accord with the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Service, headed by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, which said on Tuesday that no Catholic chaplain in the military will be allowed to perform same-sex “marriages” and that same-sex weddings would not be allowed in the Catholic chapel on the grounds of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

“While the memorandum acknowledges a chaplain’s right to not participate in same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremonies – a right not given by the Pentagon, but rather given by the Creator and protected by the chaplain’s faith group,” said Crews, “the new policy makes it clear that the Pentagon has placed the military in the midst of a deeply controversial issue during a time of ongoing war.”

Crews also said his group is calling on Congress to affirm that the federal definition of marriage – one man and one woman for federal purposes — applies to the Department of Defense and that no federal facilities may be used to circumvent federal law.

“In addition, we call on Congress to enact a ‘Right of Conscience’ clause in the Revised Title 10 code to ensure that no American, and especially not our service members, be forced to deny their religious beliefs,” Crews said.

Crews is a former Army chaplain, who served with the 82 Airborne and with other divisions for 28 years.

La Stampa: Divisions in Orthodox Church Hinder Pope’s Meeting with Patriarch of Moscow

2 Comments

We are getting more news from the Catholic/Italian press than we are from Orthodox sources. This report appears reliable; the author has a good grasp of the ecclessiological disagreements between Constantinople and Moscow, particularly the conflict about what constitutes primacy in Orthodoxy. This question must be settled before a Pan-Orthodox Council can take place and before dialogue with Rome can proceed with any seriousness.

Both Constantinople and Moscow have different interests at stake. Moscow sees a working alliance with Rome (not unity) as a practical necessity to re-Christianize Europe in order to roll back the hedonism, moral relativism, lowered value of human life and other afflictions associated with secularism. Constantinople has expressed little interest in Moscow’s (and Rome’s) agenda and prefers instead to focus on global warming and other boutique issues.

Highlights from the article:

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

Full article follows.

Source: La Stampa (Vatican Insider) | October 3, 2011

The Orthodox Church has become convinced that together with the primacy, synodality buttresses the government and the Church’s organisation

Giacomo Galeazzi, vatican city

After metropolitan Hilarion’s visit to Castel Gandolfo had brought the meeting between Benedict XVI and Moscow’s Patriarch, Kyril, closer, the primacy dispute between the Eastern Orthodox Churches, has re-emerged as an obstacle. Internal divisions between Orthodoxy seem capable of slowing the Pope’s path towards his historic face to face meeting with the Russian Patriarch, which would probably take place on “neutral ground”, Bari for example.

One of the main sore points, are the principles for the declaration of the Orthodox Churches’ autonomy (an autocephalous proclamation). This has caused the most friction between the, especially between the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. The latter holds the majority in Orthodoxy, as it has been autocephalous since 1488. Still, now, more than ever, significant steps are being taken towards advancing dialogue between the Holy See and the Orthodox faith, on the relationship between primacy and synodality in the Church and on the importance of spiritual ecumenism, in view of a complete and clear unity between all Christians. Even Vatican Radio wrote that Hilarion’s arrival in Castel Gandolfo opened the way for new hope.

Between Rome and Moscow, the situation already seems clear, particularly the question of the “prótos-kephalé” ministry – the “supreme head” of the Church – on a local level (the Bishop), on a regional level (the Patriarch) and on a universal level (the Bishop of Rome), applying Canon 34 of the Apostles (a fundamental text for Eastern ecclesiology) to all three levels, in a similar way. In this sense, under Benedict XVI’s pontificate, a fundamental agreement was reached between Catholics and the Orthodox Church made on a common theological, ecclesiological platform, on which the two denominations based the discussion regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox Church reached the conclusion that, just like primacy, synodality constitutes the government and the Church organisation’s supporting framework. An encouraging move towards mutual understanding and the identification of common elements between them. The only problems that remain are essentially related to hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of the word of God, as it is testified in the Holy Scriptures and in the living tradition of the Church. There are also urgent questions related to anthropology and ecclesiology.

Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, President of the Department for External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow acknowledged Benedict XVI in light of the new situation between the Catholic Church and the Patriarchate of Moscow: “We have overcome all the tensions that have existed over the years and our relations are now normal, peaceful and even positive and constructive.” Hilarion expressed the high esteem he felt towards Benedict XVI, who is thought very highly of within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Archbishop reflected on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church’s communion during the first millennium, when the Great Schism of 1054 had not yet taken place.

The focus is on how the content of the primacy of St. Peter’s successor, evolved during the second millennium, after the split between the two confessions, particularly after the First and Second Vatican Council. The subject had already been discussed in depth on occasion of the tenth Plenary Assembly of the mixed Commission which met in the Italian city of Ravenna, between 8 and 14 October 2007. Thirty Catholic delegates and 30 Orthodox representatives gathered to reflect on the topic: “The ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature the Church: ecclesiastic communion, conciliarity and authority in the Church.”

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” [Like Estonia?] In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

At the end of August, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I and metropolitan Hilarion, met on the Turkish Island of Imbros (not in Fanar, the Headquarters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). The visit was interpreted as a sign of détente between them. The Patriarchate of Moscow pointed out that the meeting lasted two days, 21 and 22 August. This Sunday, Patriarch Bartholomew who is originally from Imbros, wanted to show metropolitan Hilarion the places where he grew up.

After reciting the vespers together, in the Church of the Dormition of the St. Theodores, the Patriarch publicly addressed the metropolitan, thanking him for the work his Department did for relations between the two Patriarchates. “Naturally, this does not mean that no clouds will ever form over their relationship, that no problems will ever arise, but we are trying to overcome them and resolve them together, in order to carry on our harmonious collaboration,” he concluded. Thus, divisions over authority between Orthodox churches are slowing the Benedict XVI and Kyril’s reciprocal efforts to bring the Catholic and Orthodox Churches closer together.