Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Especially those of us who came from a Western backgroundI think something hard for us Americans to keep in mind is that illumination and discernment come from Him, and not our own intellect or speculation
Especially those of us who came from a Western background
It's also a struggle to accept that we may not be able to understand everything perfectly and that we don't need to understand everything perfectly.
Trust...obedience...humility...
Tough things to do sometimes!
Ahhhhhh ..... especially me, old habits die hard. I've spent my whole life studying this or that.I think something hard for us Americans to keep in mind is that illumination and discernment come from Him, and not our own intellect or speculation
Ahhhhhh ..... especially me, old habits die hard. I've spent my whole life studying this or that.
Though I admit, often what comes from the faith is an "aha" moment, or something you just KNOW deeply, or else feel uneasy about and can't accept.
But yeah ... it's too easy for me to rely on studying.
Thanks for the reminder.
Origen is a heretic...
Which, by the grace of God, will no longer be true in the not too distant future.
It is interesting to me what you said about "when in doubt, ask God for discernment", ArmyMatt, since you made it sound so easy. My question is now, is it really that easy? The thought that I am not good enough or holy enough for God to talk to me and tell me what is right or wrong in an issue always comes to my mind.
I don't know the ends and out of this but I have read from some top level Christian thinkers that I admire and trust who believe that Origen's teachings & beliefs morphed into something he would not recognize and it is those teachings that were (maybe) condemned.I doubt it. he was anathematized at an Ecumenical Council, and that anathema was upheld at subsequent councils.
There are also things some of us have to accept, but will suspect, like the emperor Justinian as a saint. Sometimes one must bite their tongue for the greater good but it is also ok to question.
I think if you take a look at his theological writings it's pretty clear he is a saint
I think you found a group online that you should avoid. Seriously. Shake the dust off your feet.
It is very easy, in a capacity as an authoritative teacher in the Church, to come close to or even cross lines into wrong teaching, which is what heresy is.
There are legitimate criticisms, and they must be assessed in degree. Not everything is black and white. Shmemann is flat-out a model of gratitude, the key to joy, for us. Hopko is a model of speaking to modern pluralist Americans who swallow truths more easily if they think the speaker doesn't sound dogmatically sure of them. (His mannerisms ("I don't know", "It seems to me", etc when speaking about definitive dogma) drive me crazy, but I get their effectiveness in the environment we live in today.)
It is possible to go too far in something. And usually, in my experience, it is in the direction of one of two equal and opposite errors. A person can, for example, say that "only Orthodox can be saved". Or they can take the opposite tack of ecumenism and say that it doesn't matter whether you are in the Orthodox Church or not.
Or they might teach that every word in the Bible has to be taken literally, that there is no metaphor or allegory, or the opposite error of saying that many or most miraculous events described are only metaphor or allegory.
Hopko was a thoroughgoing evolutionist. He believed that modern science, a result of modern education, produces truth about our origins that must be reconciled with patristic teaching, even to the point of belittling the latter. I still hope to write a criticism of his podcast on "the Slippery Slope", in which he was right about the specific case he defended, and wrong in denying and deriding the concept in general.
Shmemann was an ecumenist. He did believe in the Orthodox Church, but swung too far in the direction of "it doesn't matter".
Heck, I even found hints in Met Antony Bloom that he might have supported women's ordination, and more than hints in Met Kallistos Ware.
Such tend to be linchpins for "liberal" folk in the Church, and while they themselves did/do not teach such things as teachers like Fr Robert Arida have been trying to introduce (the legitimacy of homosexuality in the Church), their tendencies were influential in such directions.
I would stress the vital role Shmemann played in revitalizing the Orthodox Church in America, of turning it from a moribund club of isolationist immigrants to a thing that reaches out to Americans and fulfills "the Great Commission", and Hopko's continuation of that, combined with his down-to-earth relatability that Americans so desperately need, and let's face it, we really couldn't perceive Shmemann as American.
So there's no simple verdict. But overall, there is definitely much more good than bad, but you need to understand that they were "only human", and what exactly they went wrong in, even while being incredibly and deeply right about so many other things.
I want to be careful and not derail the thread. It is just my intent to mention an example that some individuals can reasonably question but must accept. It is some delicate balance of his theology & cruelty but we still must accept that the church calls him a saint.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?