What to do when one doesn't agree with everything the Church teaches

[A Desert Aspirant]

Few people really know all of their churches doctrine & dogma. What do you do when you don't accept every stance as outlined? (Such as believing animals have souls when a doctrine might state the opposite.) Is slight diversion on minor doctrinal issues a major problem?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear A,

As I understand Orthodoxy, it isn't like Lutheranism that has all its clear doctrines in a book by 16th century Theologians (I refer to The Book of Concord in which it is taught, among other things, that the (Romish) Papacy is the Anti-Christ. It is, again I am not a teacher of Orthodoxy but a student of it, and I welcome any correction &/or clarification the mature Orthodox including (but not limited to) the O. Clerics on the list might give, but as I was saying I think that Dogma can be found by tracing out the Tradition as taught by the various Fathers in the Church. And who is a Father is more or less discerned by having stood the test of time (like the Classics, in literature) and that because the Holy Spirit is resident in the Whole Church, not just official persons, documents or councils, and the Spirit in all of you (of the church catholic, "you" means Orthodox) recognizes the Spirit in the Teacher and the teaching. Discernment between good and evil, true and false is learned by one's own struggle against one's own (not another's BTW) sin, and so, it is analogous to learning "taste." I hope this does not offend, nor confuse, but that's the way it looks too me.

Then, one needs to be sure whether what one has found is an actual Dogma or not (asking a priest would be a good place to start, after all, one may not be mature enough to tell, or have read enough of the Fathers to know if what one is currently reading is "the real thing"). Of course, one knows one has "the real thing" in the liturgy, no one would have allowed falsehood (= crookedness) into the Orthodox (=straight) worship! But if one finds that something "rubs the wrong way" and feels like rejecting it, whatever it is or wherever it came from, the best thing I have found to do with it is "give it back to God and let him hold onto it until he grows me up enough to understand it. It may not necessarily be a matter of unbelief, it might be non-understanding. ITMT, keep reading the Fathers, prayerfully just as you do the scripture, i.e., for the Holy Spirit and His enlightenment, and God will take care of those things. I think God will accept one's willingness to beleive when convinced it is God's truth, as faith enough, but that's just my opinion, and remember I'm not Orthodox.

Oh, but I mentioned that little problem with the Book of Concord because I do have the darndest time believing the Papacy's anti-Christness is God's truth.

Not every Lutheran church in the world believed all the documents in The Book of Concord, so when Christ brought me to Himself in the Lutheran Church at the beginning of my Faith Walk in the 60's, I didn't have to believe that. The Lutheran Church Missiouri Synod OTOH...

I would be interested in learning from the Orthodox on the list if that teaching about the Roman Papacy is an Orthodox one. It would become an easier pill to swollow if it were.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Richard

P.s., May I encourage Pslamody! Canting the psalter through the weekly round on a regular basis is a Good way to "run the Spirit of God" through one's own (pardon my expression, please, I don't mean to blaspheme -- but I'm talking about living the experience of letting the Spirit "wash through" and renew the mind. Of course, paying attention makes it work. --RL

P.p.s. Also, I don't mean to be sounding so over apologetic here either but one can't be too careful when one is a bit of a stranger in someone else's house and is talking about their relatives, and their best china! ---R

[A Desert Aspirant]

RL,Your PPS is a good. The Book of Concord's statement about the Pope is a bit weightier than what I was speaking of. Declaring the Pope as Anti-Christ is pretty major. I'd disagree with that, too. Did you know Luther married an ex-nun; she'd been a contemplative Catholic.

[A Desert Aspirant]

An Orthodox rule I will respect and follow, but don't agree with, is the tradition that women cannot venerate the icons or rever the relics fully when menstruating. We are designed by God; it's His doing. Having to stay arms length is like announcing publicly you're menstruating.

[Justin]

First I think it's important to distinquish between what is definately believed/practiced by the Church, and what only certain fathers have taught (but which may generally be agreed with at this time). So, for example, it's not necessarily a sin to not affirm the belief that you should commune as frequently as you can (certainly some saints and even entire local churches have taken that position in the past); but on the other hand, it might be a sin to talk too much about it because you might cause your brother unneeded worry/hesitation/etc. You might cause him to stumble, or to be scandalized because he's not aware of the history of the issue to the same extent that you are. Of if someone believes in literal Toll Houses (as taught by Fr. Seraphim), that's perfectly fine; that's not to say that people have to believe that way either.

I think it's a matter of humility and obedience. We have to be humble enough to keep our mouth shut (or fingers still) sometimes even when we disagree (Lord, help me with this!) if it would be worse to respond, and better to say nothing at all (even if we think we are right, or at least that the other person(s) are wrong). It's even more a matter of humility and obedience when it comes to what the Church believes but we don't understand. As an example, I might not particularly like this saint or that saint: I may think he did some rotten things. Perhaps I cannot figure out for the life of me how he is considered a saint. Yet, if he has been universally received as a saint, it's not my place to question him and attack (what I perceive to be) his short-comings; instead, I should be praying to God to show me what the Church sees that I can't.

[Justin]

PS. A Desert Aspirant,

Have you ever heard any of the theological reasoning behind the menstruation issue? I don't know much of it, but if you're interested perhaps a thread could be started for it (or if you don't mind muddy waters, I could post something I recently saw about that issue here on this thread).

[Herman Blaydoe]

Orthodoxy is holistic, not legalistic. When we are baptised, we recite the Nicene Creed, because it is the "basic" reguirement. If you cannot accept everything in the Creed, you really cannot, in good Faith, call yourself an Orthodox Christian. This has been expanded upon in Councils. Beyond this, there is room for "pious opinion" and even the saints differ from each other, sometimes even vehemently. We accept the things that the Fathers agree on as Orthodox, and accept those things on which they disagree as different respected views of the same subject. If I side with Palamos as opposed to Dialogos, I do not err, but if I take issue with both, I do well to reconsider my position. When I do not follow the sage advice of a spiritual doctor, my spiritual health suffers, but I am not thrown out of the hospital, it is I who choose to leave. It is not the Church that casts me out, it is I who step beyond the boundaries. Does any of this make sense?

[A Desert Aspirant]

Yes, Herman, you make sense. Should one not join a church because they don't agree with minor issues, like women having to refrain from revering the relics & icons while menstruating? Are they really out of grace at this time? Menstruation is no sin; it's God-created.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Justin,
It would be interesting to hear that explanation. I don't know what you mean here by "muddy waters." I'll trust it isn't anything embarrassing or personal. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Justin]

A man can't approach the chalice when he has an open wound. That doesn't me that he has sinned. Being "unclean" does not necessarily imply sin, it's about a state of purity and health, which we sometimes have no control over. Maybe God "made women that way" so that they could learn discipline and humility? Maybe he made guys differently and they learn discipline and humility another way?

[A Desert Aspirant]

Justin, Maybe that is like people now having to keep their shoes on when they get weighed at the doctor's office -- it is considered more sanitary. (But we vain women don't like the extra half-pound they add. Ha Ha.)

[Justin]

I just meant that threads tend to go off in different directions as it is, which sort of makes clear waters (talking about a single topic) become very muddy (it's hard to pay attention to the original topic because two or three different topics might be being discussed). In relation to the above post I made though, and since you asked, here's something Fr. George Lardas was asked and responded to recently:


Q: Father, someone told me that it is all right for women to receive Communion during their period. Is this correct? My mother always taught me otherwise. I wanted to commune on Pascha, but I did not. I felt bad about that.

A: Your mother is absolutely right. It is in the Canons or Laws of the Church, and just as a woman would not approach Communion with her head uncovered, so also should she not show disregard for the other laws and customs of the Church. It is not so much a matter of being unclean as it is that when we receive Communion we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. And when we receive His Blood, it becomes our blood. Therefore, if we have a running sore we should abstain from Communion until it heals, and if we accidentally cut ourselves on the day we receive Communion, we should take the bandage and burn it. This rule applies to men as well. You did well to abstain on Pascha, but you should take heart and remember that Pascha lasts for forty days, and that you will also have another opportunity next year.

There is also the idea that "holy things are for the holy," which doesn't mean that we ourselves can work our way into holiness, but certainly it does necessitate (in the Orthodox view) certain standards in preperation. Certain things, some of which we have no control over, can hinder this preperation and ability to participate fully in the life of the Church. This isn't a punishment for sin, but a way in which we can learn a lesson (much like the blind man, who was not blind because of his or his parent's sin, but so that God's glory could be shown... maybe we think that "it's not fair" that he was blind, but that's not our job to question how he was created, we only need to seek the benefit from his apparent handicapp).

So what is the benefit here? Again, perhaps humility and discipline. In the decades that she was out in the desert, how many times did St. Mary of Egypt take communion? And though it was few, did that make her less holy? Certainly she must have wanted communion desperately, but she made a sacrifice that did not allow her to partake of communion, and she participated in the uncreated divine grace through that sacrifice. Most of us aren't called to go out into the desert as St. Mary did, but if we are sometimes called to go out into the desert right in the middle of the world and abstain: if this is divinely instituted (even if we don't understand it), then isn't it beneficial to follow along with the sacrifice asked of us? Which rules us: 1) humility, or 2) humility according to our understanding (ie. will be humble and obedient if we understand the reason?) I'm unfortunately more of the second type most of the time, though I do think our goal should be the first... ?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Should one not join a church because they don't agree with minor issues

I honestly have no idea, I go where God is, and try not to count the cost. I did not "join a church," I encountered God. I want to be where He is. This simple mind finds God in the Holy Liturgy, so I am Orthodox. I am slowly learning to accept God on His terms, not on mine. "Disagreement" of what Orthodoxy teaches, to me, means simply that I do not fully understand what is being taught. But regardless, Orthodoxy is not about rules and regulations, it is about encounter with God, it is about accepting the healing of the Spiritual Hospital that is the Church, in the care of the Divine Physician, from the sickness of sin. The Good News is that the cancer of sin is no longer terminal....

Herman the simple

[Thomas Davidson]

Just an aside -

'A man cannot approach the chalice with an open wound'

Does this include battlefield casualties (or even civilian casualties) - I am thinking of those who are in immanent danger of dying and visited by a priest on the battlefield, etc.

What of the hospitalised?

Do we not all carry the wound of our fallen nature?

Could this be a case of cleaving too close to the letter, and not the spirit?

[Justin]

Thomas,

I think it's a guideline, not a strictly enforced law. There are exceptions to most rules, and indeed the examples you bring up (hospital, war) are exceptional situations.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear A,

Yes, most of us know that Luther married a nun.
Western monastacism was considered "dead."

R.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Herman Blaydoe recently wrote:
"Orthodoxy is holistic, not legalistic."

There is an aspect of truth in the above, but it also communicates an error because of the way the answer is framed.

Never is keeping the commandments legalism. Or to word it another way, "legalism is actually a mis-application of the commandments. That is, it is applying the commandments in a manner which they were never intended.

The most notable examples from which we can correct our understanding are the confrontations between the Pharisees and Scribes and Jesus concening Sabboth observance. Of these we are most helped by the story of Jesus and His disciples plucking ears of corn on the Sabboth.

The Pharisees seeing this confronted Jesus saying, "Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabboth day."

Their complaint sets forth their understanding and application of the Sabboth as it applied to Jesus and His disciple's situation. Their reasoning is an example of legalism. But what is it that make their reasoning and application there of legalism? Is it because they were strictly observing the commandment? No! For in fact how they were applying the commandment was actually a breaking of the commandment.

How so? Because by their reasoning and application they were prohibiting mercy, and they were condemning the guiltless. What actually is meant by showing mercy is further elaborated in the next story (Matt. 12:10-13)where our Lord heals a man's withered hand.

These Pharisees wanted a further expostion of how it is that Jesus was keeping the Sabboth and so they asked, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabboth day? These Pharisees were certain they could trap Jesus by his answer because they reasoned their understanding of the commandment as orthodox. But Jesus exposes the fallacy of their reasoning when he showed that even they would show mercy to a dumb animal (sheep). He then appeals to their own reasoning which ought to have recognized that man is of greater importance than even sheep, who were used in Levitical Liturgical Worship.

We sometimes use the term Legalism to describe those who keep only the letter of the Law, but ignore its spirit. This is only partially true, for keeping the Spirit is also about keeping the letter, but keeping it in the spirit of which it was given. That is to say, the Sabboth commandment was given to teach the Israelites to trust God for their needs, most particularily their daily bread.

The commandment was given as pedagogical lesson to instruct the Jews not to worry about "what they shall eat, what they shall wear, or where they shall sleep." However, the commandment was not intended to prohibit man from meeting his needs or from relieving the needs of others.

In the story of the plucking of the corn Jesus and his disciples meet their need, "and his disciples were an hungred." The second story was to alleviate the suffering of a man with a withered hand.

Legalism never keeps the commandment legally.

But, Orthodoxy is something more than "holistic," it is about holiness. The Sabboth commandment was about instructing the Israelites about holiness. Indeed, all the commandments are about holiness, even our Orthodox commandments. When we live in the world, we are tempted to live relative holiness. By that I mean we approach all things as common, and when something is perceived as common, we assume entitlement to it.

The Orthodox commandments concerning how and when we may or may not receive communion aims to instruct us in the holiness of the Body and Blood of Christ. This holiness is much more than something we simply confess to believe, something we assent to in our thoughts, and so these rules instruct us that we must approach the Mysteries holding the holiness of the Body and Blood of Christ in our daily experiences.

We are forbidden from spitting after receiving the Mysteries, lest we spew out the body and blood of Christ. Perhaps many of us who receive the Mysteries have cut ourselves at sometimes, how do you treat you blood. Do you simply wipe and discard the material which you used, do you simply cast the bandage into the trash?

There is a proper way to dispose of such things, and this is to help us to correct our thinking so that we may differentiate between holiness and common.

A women is prohibited from receiving Communion during her menastration to help her apprehend the holiness of the Body and Blood of Christ, not just with her mental assent, but in the whole of her daily living. This is also true about her entrance into the Church during such times.

There are many such rules, a Priest who driving an auto becomes involved in an accident in which a person dies from the accident can no longer serve as a Priest (serving the alter).

This is not a punishment or an accusation of sin, but to differentiate between holiness and common.

It is never legalism to observe the commandments.

[Richard McBride]

In John Curtis Dunn summed up part of his careful argument on Legalisms with:

"The most notable examples from which we can correct our understanding are the confrontations between the Pharisees and Scribes and Jesus concening Sabboth observance. Of these we are most helped by the story of Jesus and His disciples plucking ears of corn on the Sabboth... The Pharisees seeing this confronted Jesus saying, "Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabboth day."
...That is to say, the Sabboth commandment was given to teach the Israelites to trust God for their needs, most particularily their daily bread."

Since we seldom see the reverse side of this coin, let me offer an argument from Trypho the Jew, in his dialogue with Justin Martyr:

"This is what we are amazed at," said Trypho, "but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations." [Ch.X]