rusmeister
A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
- Dec 9, 2005
- 10,530
- 5,288
- Country
- Montenegro
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Just so it remains clear - the relevance of anything about Archbishop Elpidophoros (not my hierarch) is his letter regarding vaccines, and the question of his authority to say anything at all to us in the face of the public statement of out-and-out heresy confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt, as well as the question of why the Greek Church is not condemning his words against our Tradition and deposing him as they should; this is no doubt connected to the break led by the very Patriarch (the EP, HH Patriarch Bartholomew) who should have been working towards a stronger union of the Orthodox world, but like American presidents Obama and Biden, actively work to divide the bodies they lead. Perhaps this should necessitate a separate thread, though it is coming out in the issue of the Church’s response to COVID.
As to the Archbishop’s address, which I will address here, rather than in a separate thread, because the expression of heresy is not isolated in a few sentences, but rather part of the warp and woof of the text as a whole. Furthermore, the Archbishop is not wrong about everything. I would even agree that the manner of “symphony” of the Church and the State in Russia today does raise real concerns, and that for some, at any rate, it does get linked to nationalism. Thus, I personally know serious churched Christians here who support Stalin, the Soviet Union as such, or both and they see no conflict. I had hoped that my very presence would work against such tendencies (it’s kinda hard to pretend that Orthodoxy is a Russian - or American- thing if you have foreign nationals standing in your midst at Liturgy), but I guess not. Also, he is not wrong in that it is not a chief function of Orthodoxy to rule civil government, but to transform people’s lives, so that any ruler, politician, or voter, would, in their particular position, strive to form and shape the law of the land to the glory of God because they themselves are striving to be more godly. (And I would note in advance that the Archbishop seems to be even against the latter.)
That said, he says, “Should such a tide rise to an undue influence – either in the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of government, it would challenge the very idea of the First Amendment, and the non-establishment clause concerning religion.” Here it seems that the priority in his eyes is to hold the Jeffersonian idea of non-establishment of religion as higher than the mission of the Orthodox Church to assert that there is only one ultimate Truth, that that Truth is a Person, and that all other attempts to define truth in other religions and world views are amartia, missing the mark. It is in that context that he states his fatal heresy, expressed above.
It is a basic philosophical truth that you cannot have law and government run by multiple and contradictory world views. For this reason America had a civil war 160 years ago. As Abraham Lincoln said, “It must become all one thing or all the other.” You cannot have laws both permitting and forbidding abortion. The law must embrace one view or the other. Yet the Archbishop places “diversity” as a vital value, in an attempt to say that yes, man can serve multiple masters.
He says, “we must confess that such monoliths are not consistent with a modern, pluralistic, and emergent world. Democracy still finds a way in the imagination of peoples who yearn for liberty. That is why the cultivation of indigenous democratic forms of government – not the imposition from without – is an answer for both the state and the religious culture.”. He says we should desire specifically a modern, pluralistic, and “emergent” world (emerging from what into what?) so that man may be free to choose. But that is not the function even of government, to let people choose to do whatever they want, either in a nation or the rule of a family. Some behaviors must be forbidden, and others encouraged, under the aegis of a coherent world view that we should desire to be aligned with the truth, even though it does not demand acceptance of that truth in one’s personal life. Either you are going to have rule that seeks to form a godly nation and people (without direct imposition of the religion itself as such!) or you are going to have rule that forms an ungodly nation falling willfully away from God and truth. There is no third alternative in this Fallen world, there is no “golden mean” of diversity and pluralism that can be desirable. The laws should be Christian, even if the state does not impose the religion itself (as it shouldn’t, the one thing he is right on).
It burned me when he said, regarding the Hagia Sophia, “The end of the Roman Empire in 1453”, in a clear effort to avoid saying what exactly ended it, and what religion drove the force that occupied Byzantium.
Then he says “it was deemed that such a unique and potent symbol should emanate an inclusive message, one that served the interests of all the citizens. Thus, the Hagia Sophia became a museum.” Again, the appeal to inclusivity, the minimization of the horror and tragedy of the fall of Constantinople and the desecration of the holy temple, and speaking about it “serving the interests of all citizens”. Not all interests of all citizens are good or desirable, and many are downright pestilent to the survival of a civilization. But who is he speaking to, anyway? Ah, to senator, congressmen, and ambassadors in Washington, saying what their itching ears are happy to hear. It’s ironic how he rightly challenges the relationship of Church and state in Russia, and then he himself does the very thing he condemned in Russia.
And in his wrap-up, he states democracy as such as the thing to be desired, when we desire a Kingdom which is not of this world. A democracy is only any good as long as it’s people are in the main oriented toward Christ. When they lose that, democracy becomes devilish, and ultimately ceases to be democratic, anyway, as the lust for power causes those in power to chip away at the essence of popular rule until only the forms of democracy, voting and elections, etc, are maintained, without any actual power wielded by the people, who would demand the legalization of their lusts and passions, in any event. If a people will not strive towards Christ, they will find themselves, sooner or later, in Sodom, and the good Archbishop utterly fails to see this, and in his embrace of pluralism, himself falls away. Lord, have mercy on us all!
As to the Archbishop’s address, which I will address here, rather than in a separate thread, because the expression of heresy is not isolated in a few sentences, but rather part of the warp and woof of the text as a whole. Furthermore, the Archbishop is not wrong about everything. I would even agree that the manner of “symphony” of the Church and the State in Russia today does raise real concerns, and that for some, at any rate, it does get linked to nationalism. Thus, I personally know serious churched Christians here who support Stalin, the Soviet Union as such, or both and they see no conflict. I had hoped that my very presence would work against such tendencies (it’s kinda hard to pretend that Orthodoxy is a Russian - or American- thing if you have foreign nationals standing in your midst at Liturgy), but I guess not. Also, he is not wrong in that it is not a chief function of Orthodoxy to rule civil government, but to transform people’s lives, so that any ruler, politician, or voter, would, in their particular position, strive to form and shape the law of the land to the glory of God because they themselves are striving to be more godly. (And I would note in advance that the Archbishop seems to be even against the latter.)
That said, he says, “Should such a tide rise to an undue influence – either in the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of government, it would challenge the very idea of the First Amendment, and the non-establishment clause concerning religion.” Here it seems that the priority in his eyes is to hold the Jeffersonian idea of non-establishment of religion as higher than the mission of the Orthodox Church to assert that there is only one ultimate Truth, that that Truth is a Person, and that all other attempts to define truth in other religions and world views are amartia, missing the mark. It is in that context that he states his fatal heresy, expressed above.
It is a basic philosophical truth that you cannot have law and government run by multiple and contradictory world views. For this reason America had a civil war 160 years ago. As Abraham Lincoln said, “It must become all one thing or all the other.” You cannot have laws both permitting and forbidding abortion. The law must embrace one view or the other. Yet the Archbishop places “diversity” as a vital value, in an attempt to say that yes, man can serve multiple masters.
He says, “we must confess that such monoliths are not consistent with a modern, pluralistic, and emergent world. Democracy still finds a way in the imagination of peoples who yearn for liberty. That is why the cultivation of indigenous democratic forms of government – not the imposition from without – is an answer for both the state and the religious culture.”. He says we should desire specifically a modern, pluralistic, and “emergent” world (emerging from what into what?) so that man may be free to choose. But that is not the function even of government, to let people choose to do whatever they want, either in a nation or the rule of a family. Some behaviors must be forbidden, and others encouraged, under the aegis of a coherent world view that we should desire to be aligned with the truth, even though it does not demand acceptance of that truth in one’s personal life. Either you are going to have rule that seeks to form a godly nation and people (without direct imposition of the religion itself as such!) or you are going to have rule that forms an ungodly nation falling willfully away from God and truth. There is no third alternative in this Fallen world, there is no “golden mean” of diversity and pluralism that can be desirable. The laws should be Christian, even if the state does not impose the religion itself (as it shouldn’t, the one thing he is right on).
It burned me when he said, regarding the Hagia Sophia, “The end of the Roman Empire in 1453”, in a clear effort to avoid saying what exactly ended it, and what religion drove the force that occupied Byzantium.
Then he says “it was deemed that such a unique and potent symbol should emanate an inclusive message, one that served the interests of all the citizens. Thus, the Hagia Sophia became a museum.” Again, the appeal to inclusivity, the minimization of the horror and tragedy of the fall of Constantinople and the desecration of the holy temple, and speaking about it “serving the interests of all citizens”. Not all interests of all citizens are good or desirable, and many are downright pestilent to the survival of a civilization. But who is he speaking to, anyway? Ah, to senator, congressmen, and ambassadors in Washington, saying what their itching ears are happy to hear. It’s ironic how he rightly challenges the relationship of Church and state in Russia, and then he himself does the very thing he condemned in Russia.
And in his wrap-up, he states democracy as such as the thing to be desired, when we desire a Kingdom which is not of this world. A democracy is only any good as long as it’s people are in the main oriented toward Christ. When they lose that, democracy becomes devilish, and ultimately ceases to be democratic, anyway, as the lust for power causes those in power to chip away at the essence of popular rule until only the forms of democracy, voting and elections, etc, are maintained, without any actual power wielded by the people, who would demand the legalization of their lusts and passions, in any event. If a people will not strive towards Christ, they will find themselves, sooner or later, in Sodom, and the good Archbishop utterly fails to see this, and in his embrace of pluralism, himself falls away. Lord, have mercy on us all!
Upvote
0
