The growth of doctrine?

[Scott Pierson]

Is the Churches understanding growing or is it simply formulating a better language to explain the old understanding in more precise terms so as to protect the Church from the various misunderstandings and heresies that have arisen. I don’t think one could say that the Christians of today have a better understanding of God or theological Truth then St Paul had for example. We simple have more precise terminology that leaves less room for a heretical interpretation of what the Church expresses in regards to its unchanging understanding. Take the precise theological language of the trinity that developed ( Hypostasis, ousia, etc..) does that imply that before that people didn’t have the exact same gnosis of the trinity or only that they couldn’t express the same experience in such precise terms because it took a while for the language to evolve and because the various heresies that challenged the faith and demanded a more strict verbal expression hadn’t yet arisen..

The above is something I posted elsewhere does it make sense. What do you all think about the subject of the devolpment of doctrine ?

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

I think your comment has a lot going for it.

But I would suggest that there is also a shift in language such that even precise terminology needs defining in those terms which are meaningful to people.

Terms like hypostasis and physis do not necessarily bring additional clarity today. They are not terms that many of use in daily conversation (OK, I admit I do) and when someone says 'What should I believe about Christ?' we should surely be able to explain with the necessary level of precision (and of course not everything or many things can be entirely precise because we are humans) and also with the necessary level of simplicity.

Is it the same, for instance, to say "that Christ is one individual, the Word of God, who is both human and Divine" and "that Christ is the incarnate hypostasis/nature of the Word in/of two natures". That is a question. I do know that the people I am engaging with in the world need to know what to believe about Christ but should not need a variety of degrees to be able to hear and understand what is true.

So I am suggesting that not only has Christian language become more precise to deal with particular challenges, but it also needs to be aware of the changes in the use of language if it is to retain its precision.

What do you think?

Peter

[John Charmley]

The above is something I posted elsewhere does it make sense. What do you all think about the subject of the devolpment of doctrine ?

Dear Scott,

This is an interesting idea, and like you, I am unsure quite what to make of it. As I understand it the faith which the Orthodox Church teaches is that 'faith which was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3) and that it is full and complete as the revelation of Christ. However, this is not (or is it??) the same as saying the revelation was 'complete' and full.

The relationship between the unchanging deposit of the Faith (given by Our Lord to His apostles, and preserved by the apostolic succession of bishops, and explained through the Fathers and the Councils) and the needs of the faithful to have it explained over time and space, is surely a dynamic one?

How this relates to your statement that:


I don’t think one could say that the Christians of today have a better understanding of God or theological Truth then St Paul had for example. We simple have more precise terminology that leaves less room for a heretical interpretation of what the Church expresses in regards to its unchanging understanding.

might be problematic. Part of the purpose of 'more precise terminology' is to arrive at a 'better' understanding. There is, however, a danger in 'more precise terminology'.

Nestorius was fond of using the phrase 'strictly speaking', and his need to nail things down eventually got him into a great deal of trouble. As Matthew has pointed out elsewhere, St. Cyril of Alexandria has been criticised for allowing words such a 'hypostasis' and 'physis' and 'ousia' to become, at times, synonyms, when, in fact, his dynamic use of language enabled him to avoid the pitfalls of Nestorius.

It seems to me presumptuous to suppose we have a 'better understanding' than St. Paul, but we could be getting to a similar understanding in ways appropriate to our situation. Here, something like the development of the doctrine of the Trinity might be relevant to this dialogue.

INXC


John

[Herman Blaydoe]

Knowledge OF Christ and KNOWING CHRIST are not necessarily the same thing. We can come up with all sorts of "precise language" ABOUT Christ, but it can be precisely wrong. Just like for modern engineers where computers give us the ability to come up with the wrong answer "accurate" to six decimal places.

The Jesus Seminar has an "understanding" of Christ. What they fail to UNDERSTAND, however, is that KNOWING CHRIST is more than an empirical analysis, it is a relationship and identification with Christ, built through asceticism, prayer, and most importantly, love and trust.

Therefore, someone today can certainly have as deep a relationship with Christ as did St. Paul and that person's knowledge of Christ can be as deep. But what the Protestants forget is that this relationship is within the context of the Church, it is not strictly "one-on-one". The Church provides the context so that a "healthy" relationship with Christ is nurtured.

Anyway, some random thoughts from a simple mind.

DISCLAIMER
The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[Tanya Hoadley]

Terms like hypostasis and physis do not necessarily bring additional clarity today. They are not terms that many of use in daily conversation (OK, I admit I do) and when someone says 'What should I believe about Christ?' we should surely be able to explain with the necessary level of precision (and of course not everything or many things can be entirely precise because we are humans) and also with the necessary level of simplicity.

[Tanya Hoadley]

Terms like hypostasis and physis do not necessarily bring additional clarity today. They are not terms that many of use in daily conversation (OK, I admit I do) and when someone says 'What should I believe about Christ?' we should surely be able to explain with the necessary level of precision (and of course not everything or many things can be entirely precise because we are humans) and also with the necessary level of simplicity.

Hi Peter,

I agree that both precision and simplicity are necessary, but all the words in the world are of no benefit without the "ears to hear".

It seems to me that the Ecumenical Councils brought definition and clarity at a necessary time to combat heresy. What is our necessity today? We have more access to more ideas and concepts from a wider spectrum of differing ideologies than at any other time in history. Do we need more precise definition to proclaim the Faith? Or do we already have all that is needed? Wasn't St. Mary of Egypt taught all needful things by the Holy Spirit in the desert?

I sometimes wonder if I get too caught up in trying to understand with my own limited intellect. Am I truly listening with ears to hear, or am I missing the message by picking at the words?

In Christ,
Tanya

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Tanya

I guess my concern is not to produce new terminologies for the sake of it, but because the fact that there are so many competing ideologies demands that we explain our faith a whole lot better than we often do.

Just a glance round my circle of friends, family and colleagues shows very, very few for whom the classic theological terms have any meaning - even Protestant or Roman Catholic ones.

If we are only going to discuss things among ourselves then the historic terms may be sufficient, but even there the major communions of EO - OO and ACE do not use the terms in the same way and exhibit confusion about how the others use them.

I suppose I am wanting to see a theological language that can be used in the 21st century in mission, and even in pastoral contexts. We do not need greater precision - if that means more terms for the sake of it, but do you not think that we always need to be concerned if our faith is not being communicated by the language we use?

St Mary of Egypt was certainly taught in a miraculous way, but our Lord seems clear that it is WE who must go into all the world and make disciples, TEACHING them. That seems to me to place a responsibility on me and all Christians to communicate, and that requires using language and concepts that can be understood.

What do you think?

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

might be problematic. Part of the purpose of 'more precise terminology' is to arrive at a 'better' understanding. There is, however, a danger in 'more precise terminology'.

Nestorius was fond of using the phrase 'strictly speaking', and his need to nail things down eventually got him into a great deal of trouble.

I see what your saying. I guess I should have said what I meant by “precise” because its probably not the best word I could have used to say what I was trying to say. I wasn’t trying to imply that the language evolved so as to be equal to the task of expressing the reality of the infinite God (in the finite and limited medium of concepts and language how could it ?). I tend to view the theological doctrines of the Church as signs that point our heart and spirit in a Godward direction and help us to participate in the wordless/silent, concept less, and superational truth of which the verbal expression is merely a symbol (isn’t the creed called the "symbol of faith"?). The problem with a heretical doctrine is not so much that it doesn’t perfectly conceptualize and express the reality of God ( something we cant ask of language and human logic to begin with) but that it doesn’t point people towards God and in fact leads in the opposite direction and therefore prevents one from fully participating in the Truth. The Orthodox symbol points towards God and the heterodox symbol of faith points away. When new heretical doctrines are expressed and people are lead away the Church responds by expressing its doctrines in a way that protects people from falling into the new heresy. The Church rises to the challenge with new ways of expressing the same Truths that are more able to speak to the current situation of the people and the current milieu of false understandings. Those who have divine gnosis give new expressions to doctrines as a spiritual medicine to cure our mis perceptions and get us pointed in the right direction. When Saint Symeon had a direct vision of the Trinity he experienced the Truth of the trinity beyond language and concepts just as I'm sure those before him who lived in the time of less defined or precise Trinitarian theology had the exact same knowledge of the Trinity. You don’t need concepts about God when you actually have His unmediated presence.. ie the real Truth

It does seem that God has progressively revealed Himself over time though. That’s something some of the fathers talk about ( I think St Athanasius?) that the Father was revealed and then during the incarnation the Son and finally the Holy Spirit when the Spirit was poured out upon the Church after Christ resurrection. But after the coming of the Holy Spirit hasn’t God revealed Himself to the full extent possible at least this side of heaven? Maybe not . Kind of a confusing topic.



So I am suggesting that not only has Christian language become more precise to deal with particular challenges, but it also needs to be aware of the changes in the use of language if it is to retain its precision.

That makes sense to me. I do think the Church should try to preserve and propagate the language used in the councils however even if the Church also makes use of new terminology and concepts from other sources (modern philosophy, psychology, other religions, etc…). I would assume it can be a very tricky thing to make sure the same thing is always being expressed. Words like “hypostasis” and such are so important to the Church that they deserve to be drilled into the head of every new generation as something to keep alive.


It seems to me that the Ecumenical Councils brought definition and clarity at a necessary time to combat heresy. What is our necessity today? We have more access to more ideas and concepts from a wider spectrum of differing ideologies than at any other time in history. Do we need more precise definition to proclaim the Faith? Or do we already have all that is needed? Wasn't St. Mary of Egypt taught all needful things by the Holy Spirit in the desert?

I sometimes wonder if I get too caught up in trying to understand with my own limited intellect. Am I truly listening with ears to hear, or am I missing the message by picking at the words?

That’s a good question to ask I think. Its easy to get wrapped up in words and concepts.
.


Knowledge OF Christ and KNOWING CHRIST are not necessarily the same thing. We can come up with all sorts of "precise language" ABOUT Christ, but it can be precisely wrong. Just like for modern engineers where computers give us the ability to come up with the wrong answer "accurate" to six decimal places.

Good point !

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

For those who are finding this question interesting, do be sure to read a very involved discussion on the same theme that was had here some time ago, in its own thread: 'Development' of doctrine and preserving Orthodoxy (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1655).

Some related themes also crop up in the thread simply called Tradition (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1652).

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Just piecing through some of the comments above:


The relationship between the unchanging deposit of the Faith (given by Our Lord to His apostles, and preserved by the apostolic succession of bishops, and explained through the Fathers and the Councils) and the needs of the faithful to have it explained over time and space, is surely a dynamic one?

This is certainly a valid and important point. Though it's worth noting that what is normally meant by 'development of doctrine', especially when it raises the hairs on some, is a 'developing understanding' or -- more problematic yet -- 'developing exposure to / experience of the truth', rather than simply a need to develop always means of presenting what is known to a changing society. The latter seems rather a question of practical / pastoral approaches to teaching, which I think bothers few (at least within certain constraints). But the idea that doctrine itself, inasmuch as 'doctrine' in this sense is taken to mean 'what is known of God', develops as the Church grows. This was of course Newman's great thought -- or perhaps better, this is how people tend to read Newman.

It's not quite the same thing as, for example:


Nestorius was fond of using the phrase 'strictly speaking', and his need to nail things down eventually got him into a great deal of trouble. As Matthew has pointed out elsewhere, St. Cyril of Alexandria has been criticised for allowing words such a 'hypostasis' and 'physis' and 'ousia' to become, at times, synonyms, when, in fact, his dynamic use of language enabled him to avoid the pitfalls of Nestorius.

For the sake of accuracy, I also said that Cyril's fluidity with terminology was as problematic as Nestorious penchant for semantic exactitude. But here I don't think one is speaking of 'doctrinal development' in the sense that most often bothers people. Cyril would have abhorred any suggestion that he was 'developing' what the Church knew of God; and, to be fair, Nestorius felt that not articulating the incarnation the way he was, was to go against the ancient confession of the Church.

I find it helpful to think in terms of the developing articulation of doctrine. If 'doctrine' is the expression of the encountered truth of God, which in Christ was fully revealed to the world, it is natural that such expression will become more articulate as the Church has time to contemplate that expression. This is not to suggest that the truth expressed changes, or that God reveals 'more' of himself / truth as the Church advances (this would clearly go against the scriptural proclamations on the faith delivered once for all, and as Christ as the fullness of Truth incarnate); but that how the Church speaks of the truth does change and develop.

Again, I would refer people to the lengthy discussion we had on this theme some time ago elsewhere in the forum (though certainly we can continue it here).

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

There have been attempts to come up with a non-dogmatic or existential vocabulary to state Christian truths. Kierkegaard comes to mind. Eric Voegelin also. Because of the degraded state of philosophical and theological language. The idea is to kind of peal away centuries of dogmatic accretions that have been detached from the engendering experiences. People like to say that they are existentialists, or admire existentialism, but that is such an inexact term that it includes people like , and, frankly, people like Kierkegaard and Voegelin are just too difficult for 99.9% of people to understand. And while I think it is fair to say that Voegelin and others have contributed significantly to the development of philosophy in the 20th Century, and swept away a lot of dogmatic accretions in philosophy, the jury is out as to whether or not there is anything new there regarding theology. Voegelin, for example, argued that the Chalcedonian definition suffered from a philosophical deficit and that no self-respecting philosopher would use those terms today, but he hardly offers an alternative. (They were Greek philosophyical terms being employed, by the way).

I think it is important for the Church to not take anything for granted regarding what we know, what we should know, or the meaning of words, but most importantly, the meaning of experiences. The Church should assume that we are all like the Ethiopian eunich.

Theology is not a closed system. It relies on a certain degree of clarity of language, of cultural clarity, and in an era in which none of that exists, it becomes both a challenge and an opportunity to re-examine the experiential foundations of our faith and tradition. This does not necessarily imply that theology today is still developing. But the connection between language and experience is something that must be re-learned in every generation.

How better to do that than to become a monastic and devote the rest of one's life in prayer and meditation on Scripture.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew S wrote:



This is certainly a valid and important point. Though it's worth noting that what is normally meant by 'development of doctrine', especially when it raises the hairs on some, is a 'developing understanding' or -- more problematic yet -- 'developing exposure to / experience of the truth', rather than simply a need to develop always means of presenting what is known to a changing society. The latter seems rather a question of practical / pastoral approaches to teaching, which I think bothers few (at least within certain constraints). But the idea that doctrine itself, inasmuch as 'doctrine' in this sense is taken to mean 'what is known of God', develops as the Church grows. This was of course Newman's great thought -- or perhaps better, this is how people tend to read Newman.

Yes, this is so I believe. If I could just add that much of what 'raises the hair' is the idea of evolution or Hegel's theory of history which lies behind so many expressions of 'development' nowadays. I would say that in more recent times this idea of necessary evolution even has come to define what theology in itself is: an expression of how humanity is being irresistably driven to see the truth more and more in its essence.

A lot could be said about this but probably what would be of greatest concern for us in the Church is that the 'necessary evolution' model implies that those in the past saw truth less clearly than we do & related to this truth in a more cluttered and 'baroque' way than us.



I find it helpful to think in terms of the developing articulation of doctrine. If 'doctrine' is the expression of the encountered truth of God, which in Christ was fully revealed to the world, it is natural that such expression will become more articulate as the Church has time to contemplate that expression. This is not to suggest that the truth expressed changes, or that God reveals 'more' of himself / truth as the Church advances (this would clearly go against the scriptural proclamations on the faith delivered once for all, and as Christ as the fullness of Truth incarnate); but that how the Church speaks of the truth does change and develop.

I also like this explanation pastorally. Even in classes for catechumens we receive questions about the development of doctrine & we do need good answers to this. Of course there is continuity- that's very important. But also there is some sort of development- obvious things like the theological language of the Church but also in the services & our piety and in the entire life of the Church we see obvious changes over time. We need to be able to explain this balance & tension properly to our people.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Tanya Hoadley]

I suppose I am wanting to see a theological language that can be used in the 21st century in mission, and even in pastoral contexts. We do not need greater precision - if that means more terms for the sake of it, but do you not think that we always need to be concerned if our faith is not being communicated by the language we use?

Hi Peter,

Now I see more clearly your concern. Yes, I agree that we need to be concerned how our faith is being communicated and to be mindful of theological language barriers among people of different backgrounds. (And within our own as well!)

It is good and necessary to be mindful of the words that we use and, regardless of their denotation, to keep abreast of their connotation to others.

Maybe it would be beneficial to explore the "language" of the non-orthodox
so that we may witness to our Faith in the language of the people?

Of course I am referring to the tradition of proclaiming the Gospel to people in their native tongue. Perhaps we can apply the same principle to theological language?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

In Christ,
Tanya

[John Charmley]

Hi Peter,

Now I see more clearly your concern. Yes, I agree that we need to be concerned how our faith is being communicated and to be mindful of theological language barriers among people of different backgrounds. (And within our own as well!)

It is good and necessary to be mindful of the words that we use and, regardless of their denotation, to keep abreast of their connotation to others.

Maybe it would be beneficial to explore the "language" of the non-orthodox
so that we may witness to our Faith in the language of the people?

Of course I am referring to the tradition of proclaiming the Gospel to people in their native tongue. Perhaps we can apply the same principle to theological language?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

In Christ,
Tanya

Dear Tanya/Peter,

There is much to think about here.

From the very first Council as recorded in Acts 15, Christians have grappled with the question of whether and how the Faith should be spread. At that Council

Peter rose up and said to them: Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. [Acts 15:7]
This, as it always would, raised problems for those of a very Orthodox persuasion, whose Faith was already bound up with a very considerable deposit of ethnic practices, but again, the Holy Apostle spoke truth so that we could all hear and be blessed:

15: 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law--to whom we gave no such commandment--
15:25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.
15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
15:29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
[Acts 15: 24-29]

Likewise, surely, must we take care to heed the Apostolic injunction: [Acts 15:10]
Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

To speak to women and men in a language which they can understand, and not to lay upon them a 'yoke' that no one could bear, is part of mission. It is not ours to question the ways of God, but we should recall that at the first Pentecost the Holy Ghost gave the Apostles the gift of tongues; we too must pray for that.

Our Faith was 'once delivered' and in fulness, but as sinful women and men our reception of it can be improved, and that is one reason we have the Church. The Church acts as the standard of Orthodoxy, to ensure that a developing understanding of the Faith is just that, and not an invention of a new Faith.

But how the Church interacts with the laity is a complex and difficult question. Where, and when, educational standards are low, and literacy rare, the Church's authority is more easily asserted. Here, I suspect, there has been a great change over time.

Time was when in the West, education and literacy were very restricted, and this was one of the ways in which the Papacy assumed its position of primacy there; in the East, where things were very different, a more conciliar style developed, and Christianity was supported in places such as Constantinople and Alexandria by a large and educated laity.

After the fall of the Roman Empire in 1453, things changed. Already the ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches, from which such wisdom and teachings had come, from Alexandria and Antioch, were bound in captivity, in the former even forbidden to use its ancient language; these were not circumstances in which education and teaching could flourish. The same became true in the Chalcedonian east. It was true that in Holy Mother Russia the Faith was free from persecution, and that from there came much wisdom, but Russia was more like the old west, in that cities were few and far between, and literacy very confined.

Meanwhile, in the old west, literacy spread, and with the breaking of the old undivided Church, a multiplicity of heresies spread. The source from which that might have been challenged was still in captivity, and would remain so until the nineteenth century in the case of Greece. In the twentieth century, the horrors of Godless communism would force the Church into survival mode.

Only now, in our times, can we face up to something the Orthodox Church has not known for a millennium - how it interacts with an educated laity. How it acts here will be crucial to the spread of the Faith.

Those traditional Churches which have had to engage with the forces of secularism and modernity earlier, the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans, have shown some of the pitfalls that await. Because it does carry the full and unadulterated deposit of the Faith, Holy Orthodoxy can show us how, in these times, our understanding of the Faith can be developed.

It is a major task - but then God does not hand His Church minor ones.


INXC

John

[Elena]

The question of the language used by the Church and it’s members is an interesting one. On one hand the formulation of a special vocabulary or type of language necessarily excludes people who have no knowledge of it. It is a form of self imposed exclusion and censorship.

On the other hand when we engage with a new society we have to use their language and the equivalent words in that new language are already loaded with great meaning for those people. Unless we introduce new vocabulary we find ourselves forced to choose between words none of which convey exactly what we want them to, and often enable people to leap to the wrong conclusions.