Scriptures and the common man

[Sean Kealey]

I am currently reading Jordan Bajis' "Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian," a book I find very informative, and in it he says, "The Eastern Church does not make a distinction between hierarchy and 'normal Church people' in their respective abilities to understand the Biblical revelation." This provoked a question: The Roman Church went to great lengths to keep the scripture out of the hands of the common man; supposedly out of fear that it was above his head, but I believe it was just another means of control. They went so far as to kill people for having a copy of the scriptures, especially if it was in the people's native tongue (if that happened to be anything other than latin). I do not know much of the Eastern Church's history and was curious if anything similar took place. Was there ever an overt campaign to keep the scripture from the common man? I understand literacy and availability could have been a problem, but was there ever the same kind of animosity towards regular people having copies of the scripture and was there a time when it mattered what language it was in?

Sean

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is a myth. There WAS a campaign against the Bible published by Luther, most notably Archbishop Berthold of Mainz, who issued a prohibition of all unauthorized printing of sacred and learned books, especially the German Bible, within his diocese in 1486, giving as a reason that the German language was incapable of correctly rendering the profound sense of Greek and Latin works, and that laymen and women could not understand the Bible.

Other than Protestant propoganda, I have found little documented evidence of people being killed for having Bibles.

In the Christian Eastern Empire, literacy was at an all time high, even amongst the "common" folk. Trinitarian doctrine was often debated vigorously in the marketplaces of Constantinople. It is worth mentioning that there was considerable controversy when Holy Scripure was translated into Slavic for use by Sts Cyrill and Methodios. Many thought that the only languages fit for Holy Scripture were the three used on Christ's cross: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But evidently we got beyond that...

[Justin]

There are actually some explicit passages and practices in the Fathers which refute this. First, Chrysostom chastised his flock more than once for caring more about actors and celebrities (not just a modern phenomenon) than reading the Scripture, or for complaining that Scripture was boring when the people complaining don't even try to read it themselves. Also, I believe in the monasteries of Pachomius, one of the first things that they would do was either have someone memorize some scriptural passages, of if they were illiterate they would teach them to read so that they could memorize passages.

[John Charmley]

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,



I am currently reading Jordan Bajis' "Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian," a book I find very informative, and in it he says, "The Eastern Church does not make a distinction between hierarchy and 'normal Church people' in their respective abilities to understand the Biblical revelation."


I would welcome enlightenment on this point. It seems to my very imperfect knowledge of this from a position outside the Church that Orthodoxy has had this very healthy attitude, and that certainly in Constantinople before its conquest, and in Holy Mother Russia, the existence of a literate and theologically informed aristocracy in particular played an important part in the life of the Church, which is viewed as an organism, rather than an institution, and where 'belonging to the Church' is to live its life and to share in its life.

Alexei Khomiakov's expression of this seems sublime:

Wherefore it must be understood that creeds and prayers and works are nothing of themselves, but are only a manifestation of the inward spirit.

In this sense, living the life of the Church is much more of a communal and collective organic effort, not marked by the western distinction between laity and clergy; but this may well be incorrect, and I should welcome correction if it is so.

In Christ,

John

[Father David Moser]

I haven't talked to Jordan in years, nor have I read his stuff, so I can only take the remark you posted out of its full context. However, I don't agree with the remark as written, that the Orthodox Church "makes no distinction between hierarchy and 'normal Church people'" in the interpretation and understanding of scripture. In fact we quite clearly teach that it is the hierarch who has the responsiblity and charism of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". Like I said, I do not know the full context of the remark, but I can't agree with it on the surface.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

I agree with Father David, in so far as my opinion has any value.

I always find a cringing clericalism to be as deficient as the view that says that a bishop and priest are just a layman with funny clothes.

For myself, I appreciate the sense of synergy in ministering as a subdeacon with my priest and bishop and with the layfolk. Each has their appropriate part to play in the life of the Church - as of course the Bible teaches us.

Each member of the Church has an input into the direction of the Church, but we all realise that in the end it is the charism of our bishop to form us into the Body of Christ. We are neither a democracy nor a dictatorship. Rather we are a family.

When this works well then all are fulfilled in their own service and ministry. No one person is 'more important', but the role of the bishop and priest is different and may be more important. The Church would be diminished by my absence, but without a bishop it could not come into being. So we definitely do distinguish between ministries and orders, while each person, as a person made in the image of God, is valued as being of equal worth.

The hand cannot say I do not need the foot, but the hand and the foot are not the same.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Each member of the Church has an input into the direction of the Church, but we all realise that in the end it is the charism of our bishop to form us into the Body of Christ. We are neither a democracy nor a dictatorship. Rather we are a family.

When this works well then all are fulfilled in their own service and ministry. No one person is 'more important', but the role of the bishop and priest is different and may be more important. The Church would be diminished by my absence, but without a bishop it could not come into being. So we definitely do distinguish between ministries and orders, while each person, as a person made in the image of God, is valued as being of equal worth.

The hand cannot say I do not need the foot, but the hand and the foot are not the same.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Most interesting. I think what the original post was getting at was whether there was a different way of thinking about these things in the Orthodox Church from in, say the Roman Catholic Church. Your answer and that of Fr. David are helpful pointers along this road.

The question of authority has always loomed large for the Roman Church - hence the whole emphasis on the Pope. Orthodoxy has done these things differently, or so it seems.

The emphasis on the family is a good analogy, and of course the functions of the Priest and the Bishop are of a different order than that of the layman, as Fr. David so helpfully explains.

But I recall reading something recently (and I wish I could recall its source) by an Orthodox scholar in which he lamented the absence in the modern Church of the equivalent of the old Byzantine aristocracy. The Emperor, after all, although a layman, played rather an important role, and in his absence, so the argument went, something was lost. I shall retrace my steps and see if I can find the piece and reconstruct its argument - but as a reader of history I am struck by what the author said about the importance for the Church of an educated and active laity.

That said, the head will always be the head - but a good strong pair of feet can also be useful when on a journey.

In Christ,


John


John

[Peter Farrington]

Hi John

I agree entirely about the need and desirability of an educated, intelligent and spiritual laity. Indeed many great theologians have been lay people or minor clergy.

I am always less comfortable about the necessity for a sympathetic ruling class. This seems to me to have always introduced as many problems as benefits in every case where it applied - both Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant.

For myself I think that the Church really does do best when there is a certain distance between Church and State, otherwise it has been shown in history over and over again, in a great many contexts, that the Church-State can easily become a tyrannical monster.

The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church....seems a more lasting foundation for the Church.

Peter