Be careful, things fall apart

I am running out to get this book!

"... not only in its architecture, but in its liturgy and its theology... the one place that should be a rock of stability and changelessness should be the house of the eternal God"... it's obvious that church architecture always has been changing over 2000 years... and also liturgy... and also theology... because... as referred to at the beginning of the blog: "too much reality"... as the wonder of new knowledge and understanding of the world unfolds... the biblical opinions are found to be unstable... so theology that rejects the unstable supernatural biblical opinions is then constructed to better match reality... and the theologies that are a mismatch with reality are torn down... if anything, "cathedrals" are constructions representative of theologies that are mismatches with reality... bring on the modern construction... "older" church architecture is just an appeal to outer appearances... not to reality... ... faith hope love joy peace to all...

The other thing one can do -- and must do -- is transcend the static/dynamic divide and see in Holy Tradition the dynamic unfolding of truth. That is, instead of seeing Tradition something as given at the beginning to be repristinated without deviation endlessly, to see Tradition (including church architecture) as an organic development, wherein the later is in fundamental touch with and derived from the earlier. Earlier churches, it could be argued, were worship in stone. They communicated something about the transcendence and holiness of God and the uniqueness of the Gospel. Modern churches often reflect desacralization, the secularization of space. So, everything changes, but any given church building, to a greater or lesser degree, points either to God or the world.

Rod, Does your parish have pews? Just curious.

"the house of the eternal God." WE are the house of the eternal God! Rod, you really need to go back and read scriptures about God's indwelling more carefully. If the ugly modern church prevents another generation from being raised thinking that God has a building made of stone that he lives in and we visit on Sundays, then we should all be grateful that God still moves in these days! Here's to another 50 years of the ugliest, most uncomfortable churches the human mind can conceive! Let's do whatever we must to invite God out of his stone houses and into the world we live in. Tradition is great, but when tradition is at war against our spiritual growth, tradition be damned!

Rod: Two thoughts on an interesting post. First, I'm struck by your phrase "darkness, disorder, violence and sensuality". Which one of these is not like the other? St. Gregory of Palamas: "Tell me not that the body is the cause of sin. ... The soul sins through the body. The body is an instrument, and is as it were a garment and robe of the soul. ... Be tender therefore to they body, as being a temple of the Holy Ghost." Obviously there are multiple meanings of "sensuality," but it is just these that are the source of much that we need to ponder. I think we'd all agree that none of your first three terms are anything but negative. The temptation to lump "sensuality" in with them - rhetorically, but even more so conceptually - is a great danger. Second, I'd say based on my own dozen years as an Orthodox Christian and full-time work in Orthodox outreach and publishing, that you're right about the lack of an Orthodox "war footing" in matters of worship and theology - thank God! But, as I expect you've already discovered, there are others forms of "war footing" that can be equally destructive. The bitter Orthodox divisions over right order and leadership, on the very role of the Church in society, have been destructive beyond measure and show no real signs of relenting. Debates over ecclesialogy can be as harmful to the Gospel as debates over theology, and it does seem that this is an area in which any Orthodox criticism of the Catholic Church is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. So, to mix many metaphors, in the realm of "war footing" and "controversy" I'm very careful as an Orthodox to not throw stones from within my own glass house. We all need to remember that there are only 1.5 million Orthodox in America, and that there are many problems. If the Orthodox Church in this nation were as big and as wealthy as the Catholic Church, would it be home to as many public struggles as the Catholic Church? I wouldn't bet against it. Linking these two points, the neo-traditionalist puritan condemnation of a sacramental joy in physical existence is already the camel's nose for serious theological struggles in the Orthodox Church. Just wait until this flashpoint within Orthodoxy begins to really bang heads with biotechnological advancements that impact individual "quality of life." That's when the fur will really fly. I had to smile at Iain Murray's comment on The Corner the other day: "I suspect there s a case to be made that modern Anglo-American society embodies traditional values of freedom seen in Chaucerian and Elizabethan bawdiness and that the sort of Puritanism Dinesh and supposedly the Wahhabis would approve of is actually distinctly untraditional. I ve posted before about the historical record of drunkenness in London. The 18th century is actually far more representative of our culture than the 19th." Bless, Doug

RB, "If there is no inward holiness, if there is no correct teaching, and most of all, if there is no Love, any value in the building itself is lost. The beauty of the grand cathedral pales when compared to the beauty of the Smoky Mountains, or the Gulf Coast, or the Boundary Lakes, or a child's bedside prayer, or.... You get the idea." That's all true, but I don't think it proves what you seem to think it proves. What if there IS inward holiness, correct teaching and Love? Wouldn't you prefer to contemplate the stunning intellectual beauty of the doctrines of grace in a physical setting that's beautiful too? Does the fact that a building for worship cannot equal the beauty of God's handiwork in nature mean that we should worship in a place that looks like a big new university lecture hall?

Hi Matt! Sorry to be cryptic; I'm no theologian, but I do speak with theologians and publish their work. It does seem that there will be some serious theological struggles within the Orthodox Church over the coming years. It's not that uncommon. There have been serious theological struggles, from those that led to the Ecumenical Councils through those that accompanied the split between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believer sect, throughout the history of the Church. Having a day to reflect, my language isn't the best. Here's a second attempt at what I think might be afoot. I think it is quite possible that there will be a clash within Orthodoxy that will result in, on the one hand, a "puritan" faction of zealous converts and hardline cradle Orthodox, and on the other a faction of moderate believers much more willing to make accommodations with different elements of modern life. Both can go too far, and almost all of the public critique of these two developing factions is directed towards the latter. They are accused of being "nominal" in their faith, of not allowing their faith to sufficiently influence their daily choices regarding work, childrearing, entertainment, dress - or their politics or scientific beliefs. For some, this criticism is justified. Thus the widely varying demographics that are reported. Are there just over a million Orthodox in America, or 4-6 million? Should everyone who's been baptized Orthodox, but hasn't set foot in a church for 30 years, be counted? Of course not; nominalism does exist. But the "puritan" faction doesn't, in my own opinion, receive enough public critique. This is practically becoming a red/blue, conservative/liberal split. The "puritan" vs. "liberal" split lines up very strongly with the "intelligent design" vs. "evolution" split, although of course there's a lot of complexities to that whole debate not worth getting in to here. "Puritan" Orthodox condemnation - or at least distaste - of everything from couples choosing a Hawaiian vacation to letting their kids play video games to women working outside of the home and wearing short skirts is, I believe, on the rise. The more "puritan" cradle community has always been a part of the mosaic of Orthodoxy. But it does seem like there's something new in the mix now that this group has been augmented by a large influx of converts from very conservative, often Evangelical, backgrounds. There's a "flavor" to this new "faction" (forgive, but all the quote marks are because I'm thinking on the fly with this language and consider a lot of it conditional) that one priest summed up for me as "Evangelical Protestantism with Orthodoxy sauce". Some of this has congealed around an almost cultish allegiance to certain figures, such as the deceased monk Fr. Seraphim Rose. As often is the case, Rose was wonderful but "Rose-ism" is a problem. At it's heart Orthodoxy has always maintained the potential transfiguration of joyful physical existence, elevating it in marriage to the level of sacrament. The very term "sacrament" speaks of the unifying of the physical and the spiritual realities, of reclaiming their essential unity. This plays itself out very differently in different contexts - the monastic context, the Sodom and Gomorrah context. But in general, the average person's every day life is something to be celebrated. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", for all it's silliness and flaws, does a good job of communicating this. There's certainly things worth condemning in modern American/Western life. But there's also a lot worth celebrating. I think Orthodoxy is beginning to play out the "culture war" though, and that with this will come genuine theological debates and divisions. Is Orthodox theology, without some genuine re-evaluation of certain teachings that have been passed down, compatible with a creed of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? With a reverence for "quality of life"? With a multicultural melting pot that celebrates equally different lifestyle choices, particularly those that are bound up with the role of women in society? With public discussion of ways to improve the sex life of married couples? With marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox? With a society that treats mental health as having a strongly physical component treatable through medicine? With anti-depressants? With, potentially down the road, genome manipulation for the sake of "improving" the lives of people? These are hard, hard questions, and I think there is a beauty and strength to Orthodox theology that will in the end enable it to guide the faithful through these times. But it won't come without a lot of sincere struggle, a lot of which I expect will be driven by the "neo traditionalist puritans" who seem to have a subconscious aversion to any and all modern development that are primarily manifestations of an individual desire to increase the physical/sensual/emotional joy in their lives through any means other than increased time spent in prayer and worship. Sorry for the length. Bless, Doug