Chrismation Photos

On Palm Sunday (according to the Eastern dating) I was received into the Orthodox Church!

I have now uploaded photos from my Chrismation to my online gallery.

You can visit this by clicking here.

Happy News!

On April 20th 2008, Eastern Palm Sunday, I will be received into the Orthodox Church!

I had a phone call from Father Raphael this morning inviting me to be received into the Church.

All I need now is:

1) A Neck Cross

2) To give a life confession (gulp!)

3) A Sponsor/Godfather (hmmmm....will need to think)

4) A 'Christian/Church' name....apparently 'Richard' is a Saint but I may choose another name

My wife is happy for me which is a huge blessing.

I would appreciate your prayers as I'm sure this time will prove to be a 'testing' period when my passions are tested to the utmost.

Iconoclasm

Well, if you're still reading this blog I guess it means you're interested in what I have to say about Orthodox Christianity!

In which case, I would like to post the text of my recent essay!

Hope it's not too long a read...

‘A man may look on glass; on it may rest his eye:
Or if he pleaseth through it pass and then the heaven espy’ (George Herbert)

Introduction

The word iconoclast means image breaker and is used generically of anyone opposed to the notion that Spiritual realities can be depicted in artistic, and thus physical, forms. However, within the memory of the Orthodox Church, the term more commonly evokes a specific period of theological and civil controversy arising within the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and 9th Centuries AD. However, as often with religious disputes, the controversy was not merely a war of words and ideas but a conflict that spilt over in to violence and bloodshed.

The controversy is determined to have begun in 726 AD following a decree by Emperor Leo III ordering the destruction of icons throughout his Empire. Apart from an interlude between 786-815 AD, the controversy did not end until 843 AD when the veneration of images was restored within the Empire. This victory is still celebrated within the life of the Orthodox Church, on the first Sunday in Lent, as the ‘Triumph of Orthodoxy’.

But what led to the initial decree by Leo III, and what was the significance of icons within the life and theology of the Church? Within this essay I propose to briefly survey the origins of icons themselves as well as the rise of iconoclasm. Then we will examine the major arguments made during the controversy ending in a brief review of the 7th Ecumenical Council. Following this we shall then be in a position to discuss the specific issues at stake in the controversy.

Origins of The Icon

Christianity took root in the fertile soil of Jewish thinking and Greco-Roman society. Although differing in many respects, Jewish culture had lived alongside that of the Greco-Roman world and shared influences with it. One such influence was the use of figurative art within sacred settings and although later rabbinic Judaism would move away from figurative art, archaeological discoveries at synagogues such as at Dura-Europos (Syria, 3rd century AD) confirm the use of images. Of course the pagan culture in which the early Church moved and grew demonstrated particular anthropomorphism in sacred art.

Because of the paucity of archaeological evidence (not least because the Church was, during its early centuries, a persecuted minority within the Empire restricted in its ability to build and decorate its sacred spaces) we have little knowledge concerning the specific development of human figurative art within early Christianity. The Catacomb evidence in Rome allows us to deduce that, in some places at least, a tradition of figurative art existed in the early Church. Yet it wasn’t until the Constantinian settlement in the early 4th century that - with the unprecedented fusion between Christian and Greco-Roman culture – we see the widespread development of images. This development was not without its critics, however such opposition was limited and sporadic and, until the controversy under review, remained part of the accepted popular piety of the Church even if theologically unexamined.

The Rise of Iconoclasm

At the start of the 7th century the Byzantine Empire was one of the major world powers. However within several decades civil conflicts within, as well as conflict with Persia, led to an exhaustion of military force. Into this power vacuum stepped the Islamic armies resulting in the loss of key territories (e.g. Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt).

The previously self-sure Empire was on the back foot and starting to ask searching questions of itself: Why had this happened? Why had God allowed such defeat? These questions were felt most starkly in those regions closest to the Islamic aggressors and by those most charged with the responsibility for defending the Empire – the military. Probably influenced by the iconoclasm of Islam, as well as afraid that the loss of territory was a divine retribution on an Empire that had descended into idolatry, the iconoclastic movement eventually gained the support of the emperor – which led to Leo’s decree in 726 AD. As Andrew Louth describes:

‘Iconoclasm was probably, from one point of view, part of the Byzantine Empire’s response to this catastrophic situation, along with administrative changes, as a result of which the Byzantine Empire lost it’s provincial structure and was organised into regions called ‘themes’, administered by a military commander and a standing army. Both the administrative changes and iconoclasm facilitated the centralisation of power on the military leadership of the Emperor’ (Introduction by Andrew Louth to Treatises on the Divine Images by St. John of Damascus 2003 SVS Press. Trans by Andrew Louth)

The Iconoclastic justification

Initially without philosophical support, once the controversy developed so did the theological arguments, and central to the iconoclast’s theological justification were two key points:

· God had forbidden the making of ‘Graven Images’

· God forbade the veneration or worship of such Images

Eventually the ‘seal’ of the Church was seemingly given to the iconoclastic movement by a Council meeting at Hieria in 754 AD. They condemned the making and veneration of icons a fact that, along with military success by iconoclastic emperors, reinforced the justification for banning icons.

St John of Damascus

In the defence of icons the supreme voice during the 1st phase of the controversy (726 – 780 AD) was a monk from Damascus known by his monastic name, John. It is ironic that, by this time, Damascus was under the control of the iconoclastic Caliphate – a situation that meant John was out of reach of the Byzantine Emperor and able to critique the imperial view in safety. He wrote three treatises against the Iconoclasts in which he critiques their objections to the presence and veneration of Holy images. Essentially he counters both of their assumptions (as detailed above) and it is worth examining his arguments in more detail.

Justification for the making of Images

John acknowledged, along with the iconoclasts, that the Decalogue included a ban on the manufacture of Images, however he responded by highlighting:

1) God, in the same book of the law, commanded Moses to make the Ark of the Covenant upon which were images of two Cherubim, as well as the curtain within the Tabernacle upon which images of Cherubim were woven

2) That we struggle, because of our physical nature, to comprehend Spiritual realities. Thus God communicates to us through all manner of images designed to explain and illuminate. In this way the ‘artwork’ of the nation of Israel (The Ark, the Tabernacle/Temple itself, the Temple curtain etc…) was a form of icon towards which the Jews showed respect and honour

3) However, because the primitive nation of Israel was prone to idolatry (exemplified in their worship of the golden calf whilst Moses was receiving the Law) the ‘prescription’ given to them by God forbade the making and veneration of ‘creational images’ as a command suitable to their level of understanding – they had not seen God and so were unable to depict him

4) Since we now live in the era following the revealing of God in human form this means that we have ‘seen God’ who is united to physical (and created) matter, thus divinising and elevating it:

'But now, since the divinity has been united to our nature, as a kind of life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified and its very elements changed into incorruption.'

5) God has so elevated matter that we may depict and venerate the grounds of our salvation – we can do this in many ways with Icons being to Sight what the reading of the Holy Gospel is to hearing

Against the interference of the Emperor, John rebuked:

6) The making of sacred images is a received part of the Churches Tradition which is a finely balanced, interdependent structure – the Emperor is behaving like a Pirate, usurping the proper order and authority within the Church and attempting to remove a brick from the structure of Tradition which risks upsetting the whole building!

Justification for veneration

John was the first to make a clear distinction between two terms that had previously shared similar usage: Prokenesis (literally: To bow down) and Latreia (worship offered to God(s)). The iconoclasts were certain that any physical act of respect offered towards images was an offering of worship due to God alone, and thus explicit idolatry. However, John distinguished between the worship of God and the honour shown towards other things:

'Veneration is a symbol of submission and honour. And we know different forms of this. The first is as a form of worship, which we offer to God, alone by nature worthy of veneration. Then there is the veneration offered, on account of God who is naturally venerated, to his friends and servants, as Jesus the son of Nave and Daniel venerated the angel; or to the places of God, as David said, "Let us venerate in the place, where his feet stood"'

1) Because God, to whom all Worship is due, became matter in the physical person of Jesus of Nazareth we can worship God through matter

2) Yet, it is not any quality within matter itself that is deserving of honour (although, being a creation of God declared ‘good’, it is not undeserving of respect) but it’s association with God:

'Therefore I reverence the rest of matter and hold in respect that through which my salvation came, because it is filled with divine energy and grace. Is not the thrice-precious and thrice-blessed wood of the cross matter?…Is not the ink and the all-holy book of the Gospels matter?…And, before all these things, is not the body and blood of my Lord matter? (John means the Eucharisitc elements of bread and wine) Either do away with reverence and veneration for all these or submit to the tradition of the Church and allow the veneration of images of God and friends of God, sanctified by name and therefore overshadowed by the grace of the divine Spirit.'

3) In the same way the ancient nation of Israel venerated the physical objects of the Temple – to deny this reality is to become an anti-materialist, something which the Church has condemned

The 7th Ecumenical Council

Ultimately John’s arguments won the day and the 7th Great Church council of 787 AD declared:

'Together with the emblem of the precious and life-giving Cross, it is legitimate for holy icons, whether painted or made from mosaic or from any other appropriate material, to be displayed in churches, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and streets….To these icons should be given reverence and veneration, but not the worship of faith that is due only to the divine nature.'

Despite a further period of iconoclasm between 815 – 843 AD the theological battle had been won with the Church gaining a renewed and strengthened understanding of the place of icons in it’s life and worship.

What was at stake?

Politically, the key issue was that of the interaction between the state and the Church. The Byzantine Empire had prided itself on achieving a form of ‘symphony’ between state and Church, each having it’s own sphere but being dependant on the other. Since Constantine the Great, it had been the Emperors privilege to convene, and preside over, the great Church councils. However with Leo’s decree this symphony became unbalanced and the military concerns of the state usurped the Churches authority. This interference resulted in the key theological issue of the controversy, that of the role of ‘matter’ - and most specifically figurative images - in the life and worship of the Church.

As Kallistos Ware points out:

Is it essential to have icons? The Iconodules (supporters of icons) held that it is, because icons safeguard a full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation'

At stake wasn’t just an issue of aesthetics or preserving popular piety, but the Churches understanding – and expression of – the Incarnation, the ‘nature’ of Christ, and thus the very concept of salvation itself.

When viewed from the perspective of later western Christian tradition, the 7th ecumenical council, and the controversy that led up to it, appears out of place with the Christological concerns of the previous six councils. However the controversy was no less Christological with John Damascene’s debate being conducted on the carefully prepared ground of the previous councils. What the controversy ultimately resulted in (quite apart from the violence and strife) was a focussing of the Churches theological spotlight onto the longstanding pious practice of making and venerating images – an examination which not only led to the vindication of icons, but to the centrality of their presence within the life and worship of the Orthodox Church to this day.

Essay Update

Well, I finally got my first essay back from the IOCS (see below) and I passed! Lots of helpful comments from my tutor and I'm encouraged to continue the modules. Unfortunately due to various family events over the next couple of months I won't be able to get to the next module, however I'll be okay for the May/June Module on 'The Church' and I'm hoping to get to the Summer School in July which is a week long course.

At this rate it'll take me about 4 years to complete the certificate course, but academic achievement is only really a 'means' for learning more about Orthodoxy which will certainly take many, many years to sink in.

Taking Time

I'm sorry that I haven't posted much on here over the past couple of months. The truth is that life has been very chaotic and we've been going through a major trauma at work. The doctors who ran the surgery where I work had a 'parting of the ways' (aka 'a falling out') and have dissolved their partnership. This means that the surgery is being advertised for all comers who feel like they could run a GP practice. I'm not joking, recently the government allowed for a new contract called 'APMS' (alternative providers of medical services) which means that any one (and not just doctors) can run a GP practice (and hold a contract with the local PCT for the provision of various medical services). Of course those services must still be provided by approriately trained practitioners (e.g. doctors and nurses), but General Practice aint a supermarket and the advent of these 'APMS' contracts (which PCTs are being actively encouraged to use in preference to the more traditional contract) represents a huge threat to the very nature of core of traditional General Practice.

I'm going to a meeting tonight, along with patients, to hear what the PCT have to say about it all....

In other news! Life continues at a plod for me in Orthodoxy. I completed the first IOCS module (see post below) on the Icon and Liturgy and submitted an essay on the Iconoclastic controversy. I've yet to hear back about whether I passed this or not, but it was great to dust down by brain and apply it to something non-medical!

We attended Theopany at the Cambridge parish earlier this month and got a good soaking (the priest merrily flings water here and there - it's the festival of Christ's Baptism in the Eastern Church). We had to leave asap afterwards since our littlest one needed to sleep and feed (both at the same time which makes for some frantic juggling!) but we plan to return as a family again soon.

I haven't had much of a chance to hook up with Father Raphael much recently, due to the chaos at work but I always look forward to our brief chats. In early February I'm going to Manchester to sing in a choir organised by an Orthodox internet friend (Michael, for those of you who know him) and will hopefully meet a few other internet 'buddies' (inc. Father Gregory Hallam). I'll hopefully post a bit more on how that goes.

Otherwise I'm just trying to plod along in the faith and find time to pray a little everyday - I certainly need the Spiritual stability at this turbulent time.

33 today!

Today is my 33rd Birthday.

My wonderful wife gifted me with an iPod Touch (8GB version). It was a total surprise and I'm having a lot of fun getting to play with it! My little girls made me a card and gave me chocolate - I'm still trying to decide which was the better of the two gifts (chocolate is ontologically divine!).

A strange thought occured to me - Jesus was 33 when he was crucified (and raised from the dead). I've always 'pictured' him being older than whichever age I've happened to be (well, technically speaking he was, but I mean in terms of his being wiser and better as a human than myself), yet to imagine a man of my age, walking and talking and doing the things he did is quite strange to me - I still feel so young! I wonder, in the ancient 'honour culture' in which he moved, how 'elders' felt about him? He taught with such authority, was his young age a stumbling block to some?

Oh hum - such are my idle thoughts from time to time!

Tonight Ruth is taking me out for a birthday meal. I'm coming down with a stinking cold, but am planning to go whatever - it's just great to get time together (with young kids, such moments are few and far between!).

I hope all of you and yours are well.

Pax

Richard

Welcome!

If you are new to my blog then I want to wish you a very heart felt 'Welcome'!

Several new people have been viewing this site (partly as a result of increasing facebook friends, but also has a result of being linked to by other blogs), so I wanted to take a few minutes to briefly explain this blog.

I started blogging in early 2006, partly as a means to develop my theology. I had just recently left a particular church denomination and was trying out new ways of thinking. As the posts have progressed, so my own thinking has developed and - recently - I changed the blog to reflect my catechumenate into the Orthodox church.

If you are interested in this theological journey then you can read about it linked to on the right hand side bar.

Otherwise there are one or two photos of my family (although not too many since I'm still not 100% sure about displaying family stuff on the WWW) and some videos from my short 'experiment' with YouTube (nothing to do with theology, but related to another passion of mine - German language study).

Enjoy - and feel free to leave a comment, it's always nice to know who popped by!

Richard

Art and the Soul

I promised that I would post something about the recent theology course I attended. The topic of the weekend was 'The Icon' and the majority of the talks were given by Aidan Hart, one of the UK's foremost iconographers. You can view his work here.

His lectures were broad and diverse and it would be impossible to summarise the whole scope of what he covered in a simple blog post, however one concept he discussed is worth discussing.

This is the 'effect' of Art on the human soul. Let me explain further....

Following the patristic understanding, humans are a fusion of Spirit, Soul and Body. Each of these overlaps and contributes to the other making precise distinctions difficult to identify, yet we can talk - in broad terms - of various 'capacities' of the human.

Firstly, we have the 'physical' capacity - that which engages with the material world and which tastes, touches, sees, hears and smells. This is the 'flesh' which connects us to the physical creation around us.

Secondly, we have the 'rational' capacity - the application of our logical minds. We process, deduce and generate hypotheses drawn from the sensory data our 'flesh' detects. This faculty is very much connected to the physical world but is also the 'border point' between the body and soul of the human, hence the use of the word 'psyche' (Greek for 'soul') when describing those sciences which explore human thinking (psychiatry, psychology).

Finally, we have the 'spiritual' capacity - the 'eyes of the heart'. In patristic thinking this is termed the 'nous' (often unhelpfully translated as 'mind' in the New Testament). This is purely located with the human 'soul', but is different from our rational capacity. This centre participates in union with the divine (if we allow it) and is the basis of our 'experience' of God.

Now, as I said, the human 'whole' is a fusion of these capacities and they can interact in various ways.

Let me illustrate. When we listen to music in a minor key our ears are 'hearing' certain acoustic elements, our brains tell us (if we are educated in music) that we are hearing a minor key, yet it is in the 'nous' that we feel sad or mournful. Likewise, when we look at Art - shapes, colours, arrangements - we 'see' it via photons hitting our retinas, our rational centre informs us that this colour is red, that one is blue, the topic is such-and-such etc... but we are also 'affected' in our Spiritual core by what we are seeing.

In just this way, the Icon is 'designed' in such a way as to 'communicate' with the nous within us. It is not just a representation of what makes 'logical sense' (often the perspective, colours and topic defy rational understanding) but an 'image' (greek - Eikon) of the divine reality both behind and within physical 'events'.

In this way, when we view or engage with an icon, the purpose is to have an experience of God not just to satisfy our brains or eyes.

Once this 'framework' is embraced, it's possible to understand that everything which is physical around us can 'speak to the nous'. The building we worship in, the clothes we wear, the pictures of the wall, the music we sing etc...

This is why Orthodoxy is maximalist in every possible physical way - a sensory deluge of Spiritiual communication with God. Of course, bad music can 'jar' the soul, ugly buildings can confuse this communication and many things might distract the nous, so we need to listen to the wisdom of the fathers in how we go about this, but the challenge is in whether our experience and worship of God works with the physical world around us or in denial of the way in which matter meets with our souls.

Theology - Orthodox style

For quite some time now I've been trying to find a theology course which I can fit into my busy and chaotic life. A while ago I tried distance learning with the Open Theological College, attempting to work through an Introduction to the Old Testament module with the London School of Theology, but I found it impossible to discipline myself to sit down and work through the course material by myself at home.

However, I have little time for regular attendance on any course and can't spare the time to make regular weekends and evenings in any sort of 'evening school'. So for a long while I was stumped.

But now I've discovered a modular theology course, run by the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, which takes up about 5 weekends a year along with one week-long residential course every couple of years and which contributes to a certificate, diploma and ultimately a degree in Christian theology.

This course is simply 'made' for me and the situation in which I live. Also, interestingly, I became aware of it during my 'drift' towards the Orthodox church and now the Institute is very closely linked to my 'local' Orthodox parish in Cambridge. During the weekend courses, I should be able to spend quite some time in and amongst my parish and taking part in the various weekend services (especially Saturday Vespers which is a lovely service).

I can't help but feel the hand of God guiding me through all of this, so I'm quite excited about where this study will lead and what I will learn.

The first module starts tonight and is part of a 2 module series exploring The Icon and the Liturgy of the Orthodox church. Hopefully I'll find time to blog a little on what I learn as I go along.

Prayer and Fasting

One of the central aspects of Orthodox life is ascesis, aquiring the discipline of self control and self denial.

Humanity in its fallen state is a beautiful and wonderful thing, yet contaminated by Sin and Evil. Basic needs and desires such as food and drink, sleep and rest and physical intimacy are poisoned at their source to become twisted traits such as greed, gluttony, laziness and lust. In short, traits which so easily 'snare' and 'entangle' us and drag us away from our vocation to become like Christ.

In following the path to Christlikeness it is necessary to put these traits to death. To overcome that which seeks to distort and disorientate us. To tame our passions and nature so that they become obedient to God.

That which needs to be mortified is variously termed, in the bible, as 'the flesh' or 'adam', the 'old creation'. However the denial of this 'old' nature is NOT a denial of the gift of human physicality given us by God. The body is intrinsically good, yet in order for it to be fully submitted to the energy of God the 'new flesh' needs to overcome the old.

This is the process of ascesis. Often this term is used in a negative sense as we imagine a fictional monk flagellating himself with a knotted cord. However ascesis is much deeper and much broader than this perverse image (which is actually anti-body masochism), in short it is the 'way of the Cross' the vocation of each and every follower of Christ. If we are to acquire the image of God, then we need to engage with this path.

Knowing what humans are like, and the way in which Sin and Evil distorts our functioning, the Church has long divised 'Spiritual Exercises', methods of taming and mortifying that which wars against our vocation in Christ.

Fasting tames our appetite, refuses to place our stomach ahead of God and is a denial of greed. Almsgiving overcomes the snare of 'mammon', doing with wealth/possessions the very opposite of what they tempt us to do - to 'hoard'. Celibacy (for those called to this vocation) proves that 'man does not live by sex alone' to a world obsessed by lust. Prayer trains our thoughts and words (prayer is most helpful when it's 'spoken out') to meditate on God and on life-giving Truth, it disciplines us to overcome sloth and actively engage our hearts, minds and bodies (Orthodox prayer is very physical - Prostrations, Crossings, Kissing, Bowing etc...) in the service of God rather than the service of Evil.

Altogether, this 'athletic program' is geared towards the acquisition of the virtues, the development of the fruit of the Spirit, without which our actions within the world will be stunted at point of origin. It has been said, 'Save yourself and thousands around you will be saved', without first learning to crucify our own passions, how can we hope to inspire others to follow the same path?

Finally, as with any set of exercises, the particular ones we most need will vary from person to person. Although almsgiving, control of appetite and prayer are 'universal' disciplines for all Christians, there will be those who may need to most concentrate on one of these in particular, 'go sell all you have, give to the poor and then come follow me', said Jesus - not necessarily advice for every Christian, but that which his particular listener needed to hear, '...he became sad because he had many possessions...'. Within the life of the Church there is much wisdom and advice which we would be sensible to heed.

Thus I'm trying to 'heed'. As of yet, it's an uphill battle...Lord have mercy!