Why I Do Not Profess the Filioque: Part 1

I came across this article the other day via my friend Chuck's blog (here).

In this article Ben Myers defends Protestant use of the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Over the next few posts I will attempt to defend my position as to why I do not profess the filioque as a Christian.

Although I'm sure I'll address some of Myers concerns I don't think I'll spend much time picking apart his arguments. Rather, I intend to spend time discussion the development and the potential ramifications of this doctrine and why I find it to be erroneous.

From the outset I should note that much of my thoughts will be adapted from my paper "The Filioque Controversy: An Historical and Theological Analysis" written in 2007. I will try to condense things but will still strive to be true to my sources and cite them when necessary (even though I don't know how to do footnotes on a blog).

To start off the discussion let me just briefly define what is meant by "filioque."

In the 325 the Nicene Creed was birthed as the primary definitive statement of belief for the Christian at the council of Nicea. Since this time, the Nicene Creed (slightly clarified at the council of Constantinople) has remained the chief confession for Christians (even more popular than the apostles creed until the rise of various protestant usage).

In the Nicene Creed is a statement: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father..."

There is however, a much later western tradition (which we will analyze later) that professes the Nicene Creed as follows: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father and the Son..." This phrase "and the Son" is what is meant by "filioque."

While it may seem like this small phrase is something inconsequential we must realize that the theological implications of this phrase are huge. The Great Schism between the Eastern and the Western Church in 1054 was, after all, mostly due to this tiny little phrase.

- Ben

The Ark, the Ethiopians, and the Monophysites

I just read an article from WND again and it goes into more elaborate explanation and actually talks about some "experts" in the field. It's worth a read. You can find it here.

Honestly I feel like I'm one of those trashy newspapers you see at the grocery store check-out because I keep posting all of this. In fact, until it hits real news I think I'm gonna lay off of it. It's great and interesting, but when this last article started quoting bible prophecy "experts" from TBN and the like I decided that I'm not going to pass anything else along.

However, I should address the questions I raised about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. One of my good Orthodox friends pointed me a page I missed on the Ethiopian Church website. In these pages (here and here) it explains how and why the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not in communion with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. I would suggest reading both the articles, but the first is much more explanatory.

To give you a quick summary (for those of you who don't want to read the articles) the Ethiopians are non-Chalcedonian in their creedal heritage. What this means is that while all of Christianity embraces the 7 major ecumenical councils the Ethiopian Orthodox do not embrace the council of Chalcedon.

The council of Chalcedon (451 and the 4th council) declared that Christ had two distinct natures (Divine and Human) united in one person (hypostasis). Traditionally the Ethiopians would be referred to as monophysites which were condemned as heretics at the council. The monophysites taught that Christ had only one nature (divine and human combined together like a milkshake) and one person. If you read the article you will realize that the Ethiopians really don't like to be called monophysites and prefer the term "miaphysite." While their description is much closer to the orthodox Christian description given at the council and they are correct in rejecting monophysite teaching they are still, as a result of this disagreement still not in full communion with the Christian churches that hold to the 7 ecumenical councils.

I hope that brief description helps and doesn't confuse anyone. This discussion is heavy and sometimes I confuse myself. So if any of you all are more educated in this than I am please feel free to provide input.

All that to say that the Ethiopians are not in communion with the Orthodox and the Catholics and as such it is a huge step that the Ethiopian patriarch is talking to Rome and is willing to show the pope what the Ethiopians believe to be the true Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant!

If you grew up in the church, read the Old Testament, or even seen the Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Ark you know about the Ark of the Covenant. The container of Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments (not the movie), and some manna is said to have disappeared a long long time ago.

There have always been rumors that the Ark made its way to Africa in the time of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba and then somehow (the rumors aren't too clear) found its way into an Ethiopian church much later in history. The legends and even some discovery channel specials have alluded that the Ethiopian church has closely guarded and kept secret the official place of the ark. Over the years the Ethiopian church has refused to allow anyone except for a few choice monks and patriarchs to see the ark but has confirmed reports that they are in possession of it. Well, apparently all of this is about to change.

According to "World Net Daily" (here: hat-tip to Laura Hubel via facebook) the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is going to allow the bishop of Rome (read: Pope) and the rest of the world to view the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, I'm not sure how reputable "World Net Daily" is. For all I know this could be a fake news site like the Onion, but it doesn't seem to read like one. I will continue to search for info on this and pass it along as I find it. But if this is indeed a credible story think about how amazing it is that the Ark, if this is the true Ark, is finally being allowed to be seen. Making this even more awesome is that the unveiling of this will be an ecumenical event and will help to mend the strains dividing the Catholic and Orthodox churches (providing the Ethiopian church is not in schism... could one of my Orthodox friends help me with this?).

While this is a great event and I rejoice in it, it also raises some pretty big questions, especially if this really is the true Ark of the Covenant.

• Given the New Covenant given to us by Jesus does the Ark still need to be handled in the same manner as the OT prescribed and if so who will fulfill this priestly duty?
• If the Ark does need to still be handled with in the same manner does the fact that the Ethiopian church can transport it validate their claim on being the true apostolic church?
• Will they allow anyone who is not special Ethiopian clergy to touch the Ark thus testing to see if if it validates their church?
• Will the church allow the Ark to be tested and historically dated?
• What will be the Jewish reaction to this claim? (I'm guessing complete rejection of the validity)
• Will they open the Ark?
  
• Will this produce a multitude of converts? To Christianity in general? To Orthodoxy? To Catholicism?

The questions are really endless and my mind is consumed by the multiple scenarios that this has to offer and thus my productivity at work has screeched to a halt even though I'm not 100% certain of the validity of this story. But think about it, either this is the true Ark of the covenant or it isn't.

I just found another story online that provides the report from INN (I think that stands for Israeli National News). Click Here.

Hopefully I'm not just posting a bogus story, but I was too excited by this not to put it on here. I'll post updates as I find them.

Blessings,

- Ben

Eccumenical Awesomeness!!!

His Eminence Bartholomew, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, delivered the linked address to the synod of Catholic bishops at the Sistine Chapel on October 18, 2008. I love how the Catholics and Orthodox continue to dialogue about unification. Remember that they have been separated from each other since 1054 AD. (Some scholars debate the dating of this schism but we'll allow it to stand since it is fairly accepted.) This is very significant since it is, as Bishop Bartholomew states, "the first time in history that an Ecumenical Patriarch is offered the opportunity to address a Synod of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus be part of the life of this sister Church at such a high level."

It warms my heart that these two churches continue to seek unification after so many years and so many divergent issues. Let us continue to pray that one day all of the Christians may be unified under one banner.

Read the address here.

Thanks for Greg Sigountos who passed it along to me.


Some of my favorite quotes from the address:

We regard this as a manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit leading our Churches to a closer and deeper relationship with each other, an important step towards the restoration of our full communion.

Mission and evangelization remain a permanent duty of the Church at all times and places; indeed they form part of the Church’s nature, since she is called “Apostolic” both in the sense of her faithfulness to the original teaching of the Apostles and in that of proclaiming the Word of God in every cultural context every time. The Church needs, therefore, to rediscover the Word of God in every generation and make it head with a renewed vigour and persuation also in our contemporary world, which deep in its heart thirsts for God’s message of peace, hope and charity.

This duty of evangelization would have been, of course, greatly enhanced and strengthened, if all Christians were in a position to perform it with one voice and as a fully united Church. In his prayer to the Father little before His passion our Lord has made it clear that the unity of the Church is unbreakably related with her mission “so that the world may believe” (John 17, 21)

For “hearing, beholding and handling the Word of life” (1 Jn 1.1) are not first and foremost our entitlement or birthright as human beings; they are our privilege and gift as children of the living God. The Christian Church is, above all, a scriptural Church. Although methods of interpretation may have varied from Church Father to Church Father, from “school” to “school,” and from East to West, nevertheless, Scripture was always received as a living reality and not a dead book.

In the context of a living faith, then, Scripture is the living testimony of a lived history about the relationship of a living God with a living people. The Word, “who spoke through the prophets” (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), spoke in order to be heard and take effect. It is primarily an oral and direct communication intended for human beneficiaries. The scriptural text is, therefore, derivative and secondary; the scriptural text always serves the spoken word. It is not conveyed mechanically, but communicated from generation to generation as a living word.

The entire world is a prologue to the Gospel of John. And when the Church fails to recognize the broader, cosmic dimensions of God’s Word, narrowing its concerns to purely spiritual matters, then it neglects its mission to implore God for the transformation – always and everywhere, “in all places of His dominion” – of the whole polluted cosmos.

Within the life of the Church, the unfathomable self-emptying (kénosis) and generous sharing (koinonía) of the divine Logos is reflected in the lives of the saints as the tangible experience and human expression of God’s Word in our community.

And within the communion of saints, each of us is called to “become like fire” (Sayings of the Desert Fathers), to touch the world with the mystical force of God’s Word, so that – as the extended Body of Christ – the world, too, might say: “Someone touched me!” (cf. Mt 9.20) Evil is only eradicated by holiness, not by harshness. And holiness introduces into society a seed that heals and transforms. Imbued with the life of the sacraments and the purity of prayer, we are able to enter the innermost mystery of God’s Word.

When the world does not share the joy of Christ’s Resurrection, this is an indictment of our own integrity and commitment to the living Word of God.

As we struggle – in ourselves and in our world – to recognize the power of the Cross, we begin to appreciate how every act of justice, every spark of beauty, every word of truth can gradually wear away the crust of evil. However, beyond our own frail efforts, we have the assurance of the Spirit, who “helps us in our weakness” (Rom. 8.26) and stands beside us as advocate and “comforter” (Jn 14-6), penetrating all things and “transforming us – as St. Symeon the New Theologian says – into everything that the Word of God says about the heavenly kingdom: pearl, grain of mustard seed, leaven, water, fire, bread, life and mystical wedding chamber.” Such is the power and grace of the Holy Spirit...

Glory to God! Amen.

Why Protestants Should Celebrate All Saints Day

This may be a day or two late, but I figured it was probably still something worth posting. Many protestant churches have their harvest parties, chili cook-offs, and other fun gatherings this time of year and yet ignore the explicitly Christian feast of All Saints Day. The reason for ignoring this holiday probably has many reasons including the extremes of mere ignorance and anti-Catholic bias. It is my contention that even within a Protestant theological structure All Saints can and should serve as a life-giving feast of the Church that edifies believes and draws them closer to God.

Here are a few reason why I think Protestants should celebrate All Saints Day.

- The great cloud of witnesses listed in Hebrews does not end with the closing of the Canon. There have been holy men and women through the centuries that are examples of how one can and should live in faith, holiness, and love for God. In fact All Saints Day is a celebration of the Saints of Scripture as well as those that have lived after.

- The Faith is passed from one generation of faithful Christians to another generation of faithful Christians. While we Protestants may think that we are a "bible only" people, we are not. Without the faithful witness of the Church preserving the teaching and the scriptures we would be lost.

- God has chosen to reveal himself and to pass down the Faith through these faithful witnesses and it is surely good that we remember them and thank him for the faithful that have lived before us.

- Many Protestant congregations and individuals act like the Christian calendar consists of Christmas and Easter while a few others would include Advent and Lent. The Christian calendar provides a life-giving standard of living for the whole year and Protestantism needs to grab a hold of this. We desperately need to orient our lives to God and we need to approach this holistically. In order to orient ourselves in both body and soul we need to take upon ourselves the practice of fasting and feasting with the Church. We need to allow the church to dictate our calendars, meals, and practices. Recapturing All Saints Day is just a part of this larger issue.

- Just as Paul exhorts his readers to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) so we too should be imitators of the holy saints that have gone before us, for in their martyrdom and testimony they have shown us how to imitate Christ.

- It's part of the tradition of the Church. Yes, I know this statement strikes at the very heart of Protestantism, but it is nevertheless true. The faithful of the church saw it fitting to include the remembrance of the saints through a feast for our spiritual edification. We cannot be so arrogant to ignore this exhortation. I realize that this sounds odd coming from a Protestant but as Christians we cannot believe whatever we want. We must remember that Christ said the gates of hell would not overcome the Church and as such we must believe what the Church hands to us. We are separated by ages and Holy Spirit has chosen to use the Church as his method for handing the faith from generation to generation.



Those are just a few reasons why we as Protestants must celebrate All Saints Day. We need to remember the Saints, Martyrs, and Ascetics that have gone before us. We should celebrate the feast of All Saints and thank the Father for faithfully handing down the gospel of his Son through these faithful men and women by the power of the Spirit. We should allow their holy lives to inspire us and as we celebrate this feast we should beg the Father to help us live in such a way that all of our life we will inspire future generations into holiness.

"Liturgical" Dancing

Today in chapel there was what people like to call "liturgical dancing." By this I mean 4 people wearing white went on stage and danced to a song with the intention of conveying theological meaning.

As we were gearing up for chapel my friend Chad and I were wondering about the development of dance in the liturgy. I confess that I haven't really researched it but it seems to me that this must (save for probably some isolated instances) be a very very late development in the worshiping life of the Church.

As Chad and i pondered this we thought that maybe there was some use of dance, though not in the liturgy proper, in some of the early Christian meetings as sort of a hold-over from Judaism. But we figured that the current form of dancing probably comes from late, post-reformation roots - maybe around German pietism or later Celtic Christianity. If this is a correct assertion (which has yet to be proven) I wonder if this use of interpretive dance comes from syncretism with Druidic (which is was today's dance looked like) and other folk groups in those areas.

All wondering about development aside, what purpose does "liturgical" dance serve? First off the name is a complete misnomer. Sure it may be technically part of the "work of the people" and whatnot, but it seems to me that it really doesn't fit with the liturgical history of the Church as a whole.

It almost seems that the Protestant church is trying to harness dance and the other arts but that they really have no foundation for how to use art and/or convey theology through art because when they reacted against Rome they stripped the church of art, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.

I'm not really sure what point I'm making here. In fact, I find this post to be very scattered and incoherent. My excuse is that I'm tired and that I'm trying to read through David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom today.

All that to say that I struggled with liturgical dance when I first encountered it in high school, I mildly accepted it out of a generous attitude in college and now that I understand the development and purpose of liturgy and the church service I find that it doesn't really fit. I would appreciate some thoughts and some suggestions on this issue. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, or maybe I'm just overlooking something. Shoot, maybe I'm right and you can help me articulate why.

- Ben

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.

In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.

Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.

If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.

So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.

As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"

Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:

He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.

Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople

Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.

If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.

I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Reading the Fathers

There has been a lot of talk lately about protestants embracing their roots and turning to the Fathers of the Church for wisdom and guidance. If you need some evidence of this pick up the latest issue of Christianity Today or any one of magazines/journals that deal with the theological trends within protestantism. This marked interest in patristic reading (reading of the Fathers) is especially obvious when one looks around Asbury. There are a good number of students here that continue to express interest in patristic studies. Maybe I'm more aware of these individuals because this is my pet area of interest, maybe part of the trend on campus is fueled by the recent readers, or maybe it is just a part of this macrocosmic event happening in protestantism. Either way, the reason for this trend is unimportant to this post.

The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.

I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.

What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.

In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.

Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.

My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.

Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.

Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.

Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.

I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.

May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!

- Ben

Flippancy with Orthodoxy

I'm writing a paper this semester on the addition of the "Filioque" clause (for a more detailed explanation click here) in the Nicene Creed. While this may seem like a really nerdy project, and indeed it probably is, the reason I've elected to write on it is because this is a topic that is historically important but also one that I find to be very important for personal piety - especially if I am going to lead a congregation in saying the creed some day.

One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.

Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.

The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.

I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.

I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.

I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?


Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!

St. Valentine'(s) Day

This is not one of those "hey i'm lonely and single so I'll rant against Valentine's Day" posts. I just started wondering who exactly St. Valentine was and so I thought I'd share my research here. Note this is not a defense for or argument against the celebration of St. Valentine's Day, it is merely a short post on who St. Valentine was.

Since most of us follow the western church calendar and most of our holidays are based on this it seems to me that the logical place to start would be New Advent as they are the Catholic online encyclopedia. New Advent seems to assert that traditionally there were three saint Valentines that were venerated on the 14th of February. These saints were:
- a Priest in Rome,
- Bishop of Interamna (modern Terni, in Italy I think)
- one from Africa with not much else known about him.

According to New Advent these three men were all martyrs with the first two suffering for the cross in the third century and the third suffered with friends but we dont' know when.


After pursuing the western tradition I decided to turn my attention to the eastern church. Although the eastern church does not celebrate (to my knowledge) St. Valentine on the 14th of Februrary most of the saints (especially the early ones) are celebrated by both East and West and often just have different dates.

I started my search on the Orthodox Wiki site and then continued my search on the Orthodox Church in America site. Orthodox Wiki turned up next to nothing but the OCA website had quite an interesting take on St. Valentine. The St. Valentine that they reference is the one that was the Bishop of Interammna.

Here is a quick synopsis of his story:

St. Valentine had the gift of healing and cured many "maladies." As St. Valentine's name spread through the city he began to convert many people. One such person was the son of a prefect in the city. Since the city was pagan (as was much of the world) the prefect was angered and demaned that St. Valentine reject his faith and worship idols. Refusing to reject his faith landed St. Valentine in prison where his disciples visited him daily. Upon hearing of these visits the prefect ordered St. Valentine to be beheaded. After the beheading St. Valentine's disciples buried his body in Interammna converting many on their way. Hearing the news of these most recent conversions the prefect ordered the three main disciples of St. Valentine to be beheaded as well. St. Valentine is celebrated on July 30th of the eastern calendar.


I continued to do some research to see if I could find any more about the other Valentines and using Orthodox Search I turned up a result form the Antiochean Orthodox Church website that related the story of St. Valentine a Priest in Rome (our first Valentine).


Here is a synopsis of the story of this St. Valentine:

In the third century Emporer Claudius, thinking that marriage was bad for the armies, decreed that no more marriages should take place. St. Valentine ignored this decree because of it's unjustness and continued to marry people. St. Valentine was caught marrying people and was sentenced to death.


I was unable to find anything on St. Valentine of Africa. But I didn't really spend a ton of time on this short project.


So there you have the matrydom of two St. Valentines. Both of them are cannonized by the Church and both died in love of Christ and love for his people. It seems to me that knowing the saint-story behind two of the three Valentines commemorated today in the western calendar puts a new spin on Valentines Day. I'm not saying that the holiday as now celebrated is a Christian one and I'm not saying that there isn't history in the celebration of February 14th as a pagan holiday. I am, however, asserting that our memory of these men, our forefathers and our brothers in Christ who were martyred should shape our thinking about Valentine's Day. It should at least make us think what it means to be somebody's "Valentine."


Lord, let the memory of these saints of the church encourage us in holy love for You and for Your Church. If you so call us may our blood be spilled like these men for the sake of the faith. Amen.


Blessings to you all in Christ,

Ben


Sources:
New Advent
Antiochian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America Search Valentine in the search box and then click on the "life of the saint" when you see "Hieromartyr Valentine the Bishop of Interamna, Terni in Italy"