OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 06:58:42 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My review of C. Shingledecker's book, "The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy" (draft)  (Read 1602 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« on: November 20, 2011, 03:51:17 PM »

Review on “The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy” by Charles Shingledecker (Regina Orthodox Press, Salisbury, MA, 2011, 194 pp., ISBN 978-1928653)

What do Orthodox Christians believe? This question may seem odd. Don’t we know it? Of course we believe “in one God the Father Almighty… and in one Lord, Jesus Christ… and in the Holy Spirit…” and “in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Yes, but one may ask, what about details? When we want to find out exactly, what is God, who is Christ, why is the Church Holy, Catholic and Apostolic – to what and to whom do we turn? What authority do we listen to when we need answers to these questions, or answers to questions regarding our Christian life, morality, ethos?

And again the answer may sound so simple. Of course, our source of authority is the Holy Tradition of the Church, which includes the Bible, the writings of our Holy and God-bearing Fathers, and the documents of the various Councils of the Church, especially the Seven Ecumenical Councils that took place in the 4th – 8th century A.D. The latter include the so-called Canons, from the Greek word κανών, which literally means “reed” or “cane” but is commonly used in the sense of “measure” or “rule.” So, the Canons are rules that the Church has set for us to live by. Because the Church is Holy, then all these Canons must also be Holy, God-breathed, inspired, right? And they are timeless, right? Should we really live by them? Can we?

How many of us have actually read all the Canons? Do we even know, how many of them exist? Also, the Church uses the book, called “ The Rudder” (Πηδάλιον), which is a compilation of the relatively recent interpretations of the Canons made by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in the late 1700’s. Are these interpretations also Holy, God-breathed, inspired? And then, maybe, because “The Rudder” was written much closer to our time compared to the original Canons, it makes it easier for us to understand these ancient rules and to apply them to our present-day 21-century lives?

The author of “The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy” says, “well, let’s not leap to conclusions.” If one really looks at the Canons as well as at their interpretations by St. Nicodemus, one might become literally shocked. For example, one of the Canons still “on the books” says that a woman who has miscarried must be penalized by a year-long excommunication. Another Canon, technically still valid, says that a Christian must be excommunicated from taking medicine from a Jewish doctor, and St. Nicodemus pushes it further, writing that those who eat Matzoh bread made by a Jew, or those who are even “in any way friendly with Jews,” must be excommunicated also. Yet another Canon says that we should be excommuncated for eating non-Kosher food; yet another forbids our clergy to enter a restaurant or a hotel; and yet another says that if a maiden was raped, a thorough investigation must establish whether she behaved like a whore and thus “invited” her rapist to do what he did. In short, quite a number of Canons contain commandments that either are completely ignored (like the commandment not to eat non-Kosher food), or sound completely disgusting and plain immoral (lke the comandment to blame the rape victim)!

Analyzing these numerous instances where something in the Canons apparently sounds “fishy,” the author turns to the concept of divine inspiration. What is it? When we say that this or that is inspired by God, do we mean that God literally dictated this and the men who served as scribes writing this down merely listened to God as we listen to a record or tape? Here is the author’s take:

“Christians certainly believe that the Bible is inspired, but did the early Christians really think that inspiration was akin to hitting the record button? Well, probably not when it came to the Bible, in great part because they didn't even have the Bible. The Bible as a complete text all bound in "genuine" imitation leather, with the words The Holy Bible emblazoned on the cover wasn't even an idea that remotedly crossed the minds of the early Christians…

Does anyone think that the verse "Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign" (2 Kings 21:1) is equally as inspired as the Sermon on the Mount? ... If ancient and modern Christians can see degrees of inspiration within the Holy Scriptures, why on earth can't we see Canon law in a similar light?

God certainly inspires. He inspires political and social progress, such as desegregation and women's rights. He inspires great works of art, literature, and music. Within the Christian religion itself, He inspires Chrystian hymnology, iconography, and architecture. All of these are inspired by God, but no one claims that the Holy Spirit actually built the Sistine Chapel or the Church of Hagia Sophia and that because of this all other churches must look exactly like them until the end of time. The entire world is full of God's inspiration because it is full of the Holy Spirit. True inspiration cannot be defined or put into a box because God cannot be defined and put into a box. Inspiration is far more subtle, deeper, and intuitive than that… “(Op. cit., pp. 30-33).


The mere idea that God inspires people to do right and beautiful things rather than binds them by allegedly immutable rules mouthed and penned by allegedly perfect Church luminaries makes some Othodox angry. Our Church here in the USA is being filled, on a daily basis, by those who come to Her from Heterodox confessions specifically because they are against “Modernism” or “Liberalism.” They are the so-called Traditionalists within the Orthodox Church. They want, crave some “immutable truths” and carved-in-stone authority. And they fear change. Here’s how the author replies to them:

"I love history, and I truly believe that learning from the past is one of the most important endeavors of human civilization. If that was what the world "Traditionalist" implied these days within Orthodoxy, I'd be one too! But that is not what the word means today. It means covering up the insanity of the church... If some people think that an honest look at history is scandalous or will challenge people's faith, then good: the truth is scandalous and should challenge people's faith… (Ibid., pp. 171-172)

I am a Christian who loves the Bible, the Christian Church, and my Orthodox Tradition, but I'm no longer afraid to admit that none of these are perfect; especially a collection of laws which includes forbidding people from dancing at weddings or having Jewish doctors... Sometimes the men who wrote these Canons were very wise, other times they were, - well - kind of idiotic. Usually they were both simultaneously: just like every other human being that has ever walked the earth.(Ibid. pp. 173-174)"


In other words, yes, of course the Holy Spirit inspires, sanctifies, and guides the Church so that eventually, She comes to the Truth of Christ. And yet, the Holy Spirit, Who respects our free will, does not necessarily eliminate the fallible, even corrupt, human element from every proceeding of the Church, from every documet She formulates and adopts:

“The Christian Church learns and grows in knowledge because human beings, which make up the Church, learn and grow in knowledge. Does God want His people to be stupid? There should be no shame in admitting that the Church makes mistakes, because it is we human beings who make these mistakes… Questioning is a  risk worth taking because Truth is more important than tradition. Or put it this way: do we worship a book or books if you include the Canons, or God?.. I believe it is a Christian’s moral imperative to criticize and question the Church. To refuse to do so is a great sin” (Ibid., p. 44).

“We need to look beyond the facade of centuries of Christian whims, desires, fears, and wishes, to see the harsh reality that is the Church, and life on this pale blue dot we call earth. It is simultaneously glorious and harsh; beautiful and ugly, joyful and painful, but it is worth being on this short journey we call life. And it is worth being in the Orthodox Church too. We Christians need to realize that our religion's history was never all good; that the Bible, Tradition, and everything that goes along with it is not perfect or infallible. And we Orthodox Christians need to realize that Canon law is not divine, then and only then will we be able to begin to truly focus upon the One Who is” (Ibid., pp. 179-180).


Logged

Love never fails.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,149



« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2011, 05:48:24 PM »

So, based on what I'm reading from your review and what the book is about boils down to is this:  If a particular canon may not be "in sync" with today's culture, it is therefore not divine and may be freely discarded as some remnant of idiotic people who lived before.  I made sure to note that the author you quoted used that exact word.  Right, because everyone living before us was not as enlightened as us and therefore can be safely called "idiotic." 

The lack of humility which the author and, by extension, you, Heorhij, display towards not only the canons but also to the Tradition of the Church in general is really on display here.  You forget, or you just never mentioned (and maybe the author didn't either) that the canons are not codifications of law (I made this point on the other thread when you said you were writing this review) but acknowledgments of (what were then) current practices. 

I also note that you quote how the author says that God is too big to fit into a box.  Such is true, but that does not preclude the Church from having doctrine to witness as to what has been revealed to us in the person of our Lord and God and Saviour.  Too often, talk of this sort, is used to justify one's believing in something that is clearly heterodox or schismatic or, even, heretical.

I'm not going to read this book.  Based on this review and the fact that it was published by Regina Orthodox Press makes it very suspect about being a scholarly work, otherwise I'm sure it would have been picked up by a press of better scholarly repute like St. Vladimir's or Holy Cross or St. Tikhon's.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 951


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2011, 07:53:31 PM »

I'm not going to read this book.  Based on this review and the fact that it was published by Regina Orthodox Press makes it very suspect about being a scholarly work, otherwise I'm sure it would have been picked up by a press of better scholarly repute like St. Vladimir's or Holy Cross or St. Tikhon's.

I doubt SVS Press would have touched this with a 39.5-foot pole.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2011, 01:53:51 AM »

So, based on what I'm reading from your review and what the book is about boils down to is this:  If a particular canon may not be "in sync" with today's culture,

No. It is in sync with whatever the "culture" is; it is "in sync" with your understanding of what is right and what is wrong. With your understanding, for instance, that one should not own another human being (a slave). Or with your understanding that one should not ask if a girl "invited" a barbarian to rape her. These things aren't "cultural," they are simply yes or no, good or bad, right or wrong, and you as well as anyone knows the answer. Otherwise, please tell me that slavery is OK, or a raped girl must be investigated on the matter that she asked for being raped.

it is therefore not divine and may be freely discarded as some remnant of idiotic people who lived before.  I made sure to note that the author you quoted used that exact word.  Right, because everyone living before us was not as enlightened as us and therefore can be safely called "idiotic." 

See, that's where you make an unwarranted generalization. If you read Chuck's book, you will find there examples of Canons that are beautiful. sound. reasonable and very Christ-like. And it does not take a genius or an expert in theology to make the conclusion that that's what they are. On the other hand, yes, many "canons" indeed can be called idiotic, simply because they are, and especially because Christ could never, never ever endorse them (for example, the canon that a cleric should not enter a placewhere "sinners" eat...)

The lack of humility which the author and, by extension, you, Heorhij, display towards not only the canons but also to the Tradition of the Church in general is really on display here.  You forget, or you just never mentioned (and maybe the author didn't either) that the canons are not codifications of law (I made this point on the other thread when you said you were writing this review) but acknowledgments of (what were then) current practices.

OK. Then it is merely an acknowledment of the current practice (of the 4th - 8th centuries A.D.) that my country, Ukraine, MUST (absolutely MUST!!!!!!) ask the head of the jurisdiction of Muscovy to grant her (Ukraine) autocepaly.  Right? Let's take this obsolete custom exactly like we take the obsolete custom that we should not eat non-Kosher food?

As for your other concerns, OK, let you have them and let me have them not. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2011, 01:53:52 AM »

I'm not going to read this book.  Based on this review and the fact that it was published by Regina Orthodox Press makes it very suspect about being a scholarly work, otherwise I'm sure it would have been picked up by a press of better scholarly repute like St. Vladimir's or Holy Cross or St. Tikhon's.

I doubt SVS Press would have touched this with a 39.5-foot pole.

So "scholarly" is all we need? Look, in the country of my birth (Ukraine), 99.999999999999999% of the people who call themseves Orthodox do not know whether the body will be resurrected. Or whether Christ is fully human. Etc... But they, these 99.999999999999999% of the people who call themseves Orthodox, hear pretty much every day that a woman cannot enter a church unless she has a handkerchief tied over her head, or that you cannot even utter the name of your deceased relative if he/she belonged to a "non-canonical" Orthodox jurisdiction (let alone if he.she was Heterodox or un-baptized). Well, I can imagine, of course, that you guys and gals here, in the "civilized" part of the world, regard these discussions about canons as nothing, or as some sort of entertainment...
Logged

Love never fails.
patrickofocic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Archdiocese of North America (GOA)
Posts: 1


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2012, 02:43:50 PM »

Yesterday I posted a thorough review of this blasphemous, un-Orthodox book: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review-of-the-crazy-side-of-orthodoxy.aspx.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2012, 04:27:02 PM »

Thanks for the review.  I'm morally opposed to non-canonists writing or interpreting canons, and from what I'm seeing here, I think I'm on the right track.

We have so few books on canon law, and even fewer reliable sources for those of us who would like to learn more.  Too bad this book was published.


Yesterday I posted a thorough review of this blasphemous, un-Orthodox book: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review-of-the-crazy-side-of-orthodoxy.aspx.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.06 seconds with 33 queries.