Bože!

One thing that is very interesting to me working on our community’s calendar reform project is the messy-ness of the liturgical cycle. There is neither rhyme nor reason to the order of most of the commemorations and feast days. Sometimes – and the feast of St. Catherine of Alexandria is an example – the feast is moved for convenience. I’ve wondered if it would not be so much more sensible to radically reform the calendar so that each segment X commemorated a category of saints: confessors in April, martyrs in August, holy-men in February, scholars in June etc. . . . or something similar. The “mess” that is the calendar needs to be tidied up!

But wait . . . .When you stop and think about it for a moment – the ekklesia is messy – as much as we would like it to be otherwise, and as much as we have, over the centuries created an idealised image of what the ekklesia is, it is still, on the ground, in real time, a very messy affair indeed. We have different schools of theology, different methods of praxis, different communal emphasis, varied liturgical forms, and oh, lets not forget that each individual member of the body is unique, different, and oh so terribly quirky! How cool is that!

So the dis-order of the calendar, reflects in a strangely “ordered” fashion the quirky, messy, non-uniform nature of the ekklesia itself. It becomes a celebration of the un-ordinary, it punctuates each day of the year with something surprising, and unexpected.

So, if it is the case that the idealised image of the “church” that has been cultivated over the centuries as a “perfect” society is false. What makes this thing we call the “ekklesia” work? What makes many of our assemblies (regardless of tradition) “not work”? Over the years I’ve observed how various communities (including my own) in our OC/IC tradition struggle to stand on the knife’s edge of being a functioning ekklesia without tumbling into the precipice on either side. On the one hand there has to be just enough structure and conformity to maintain cohesion, community identity, and the protection of both individual members, and the community as a whole. On the other hand, there also needs to be room for that sense of messy-ness, quirkiness to ensure a vital, lively, engaged community. On one side of the knife’s edge is chaos, on the other is oppressive uniformity and authoritarianism. Both extremes, as Epiphanius observed of late antique Marian devotional developments, are wrong – even heretical.

Maybe the answer can be found in the calendar itself. Each individual day, each collection of days and commemorations, is held together in a whole, each one has its time, its role if you will. No individual moment or commemoration is ignored, or side-stepped. The “whole” from a few paces away demonstrates an organic rhythm, and a centred-ness that compliments, and encourages each individual commemoration.

Saint Marutha was Bishop of Tagrith (Martyropolis), a city which he founded between the Byzantine Empire and Persia. He was famed for his knowledge and his piety, he wrote about the martyrs, and he suffered for his faith in Christ under the Persian emperor Sapor. He also left behind other works in the Syrian language, among which the most famous are: “Commentary on the Gospel,” “Verses of Marutha,” “Liturgy of Marutha” and “The 73 Canons of the Ecumenical Council at Nicea” (325) with an account of the acts of the Council.

In the year 381 St Marutha participated in the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, and later in 383 the Council of Antioch.

At the beginning of the fifth century he became an envoy between the courts of Constantinople and Persia, successfully securing peace between the two empires. In 410 (some sources say 414) he persuaded King Yezdgerd to issue an edict of toleration securing the freedom of worship for the Christian community in the empire. The powerful Magi were intensely jealous of Marutha’s intimacy with Yezdgerd, and made numerous attempts to have him shamed, even killed. Each time however, Marutha cleverly uncovered their schemes before the King. Marutha rebuilt Christian churches razed during the persecution by the Persian ruler Sapor. He also located relics of saints who had suffered martyrdom and transferred them to Martyropolis. He died there in 422.

Traditionally his commemoration is on 16 February, however, that is the day we commemorate Francis Hudor so Marutha had to be moved. Given that yesterday was the feast of James the Persian – whose own experiences were affected by Marutha’s earlier activities – it seemed logical to place him here.

Otherwise todays commemorations are: Stephen the New – an 8th century monk who suffered, and was stoned to death by the iconoclasts; and Irenarchus a martyr of the Diocletian persecution. It is said that while ministering to confessors in prison, he witnessed the fortitude of a group of women being tortured. This compelled him to confess his faith in Christ and resulted in his own turture and martyrdom.

A nobleman, and Christian from birth, James was an intimate of King Yazdegerd I (reigned 399-425). Under influence from the King James renounced Christianity and became a Zorastrian. James’ family was so upset they threatened to cut off all relations with him because he “ had preferred a glory that is temporal to the love of Christ”. James reverted to his Christian faith, and was martyred by Yazdegerd’s son Varahran V in AD 421 – the first year of his reign.

This story is not as straightforward as it first appears. Yazdegerd I for example was known for his religious toleration of Christians and Jews during the first half of his reign. Indeed under the influence/freindhsip of Bishop Marutha he issued an edict of toleration in  AD 410. Thus it is likely that James’ Christianity was not an “issue” for the King. It has even been thought that Yazdgerd was seriously considering converting to Christianity himself.

Things changed however, when Abdaas, bishop of Ctesiphon burned down a Zorastrian fire temple and refused to re-build it. This sparked a backlash from the Magi and Yazdegerd had to take action.

Then there is the reaction of James’ family to his conversion. Was this truly the response of a Christian family? Was it right that they refused to associate with him if he remained Zorastrian? True we’re looking at this 1500 years later, with a different world view than they had, but . . . .

What we can take away from this very interesting commemoration is the idea that having abandoned the faith, and then later coming back – James (we can only hope) was openly welcomed back into the community. I would like to think that we each deserve the space to find our own way. And that the community, the network of freinds and fellow travellers that we build along the way will look out for our best interests, while at the same time not overwhelm us, imposing a set of ideas that we are not ready to accept, or do not ascent to in good faith.

Three curious but very interesting essays on “thanksgiving” and its affect or relationship to theology & praxis. First is this from Religion Dispatches an Indian perspective, with what I think is a very positive ending:

“Without a major shift in the way humans thinks about the earth, humans are not only causing the extinction of the biodiversity of the natural world, but also our own descendents. Facing the future must be more than driving a hybrid and recycling aluminum.

We must recognize that tribalism is the most successful human social institution in the world. Tribes have survived the longest war in human history, the war against aboriginal people—and millions of people are turning to those traditions for spiritual sustenance in the modern world.

Preservation of native languages, the key to understanding our philosophy, should be paramount to all universities and museums. While academics are assisting living traditions to preserve our languages and cultures, they need to release the dead and their last offerings they now hold captive. If the Pilgrims could do it in order to learn native agricultural practices, so too can modern society.”

Next, we have an essay from Catholicanarchy.org which effectively reflects on the surreal perverseness of “thanksgiving”.

“. . .[I]t should concern conscientious Christians that the way we “celebrate” “our” “blessings” on this day is to slaughter millions of turkeys in a gluttonous, perverse “sacrament.” But how fitting, isn’t it, that we would ritualize a celebration of american life and culture—a “culture of death” through and through from its founding until today—by treating millions of God’s creatures as if they were mere objects.”

While at the same time acknowledging that to abstain altogether from the feast is more or less just as bad as celebrating it in the first place (grin).

For these two (above) offerings I must “give thanks” to Huw over at Sarx for bringing them to light.

Finally and this also comes from Religion Dispatches, The Sacramental American Day is directly related to the above offerings, describing the idea of the American Civil Religion of which “Thanksgiving” is a major . . . . “holiday”.

So what does this have to do with things OC/IC? Well . . . first these essays raise some interesting questions about the theology of feast days. The real ones. The other day I wondered out loud about the quality and character of the prayers we use (sometimes without thinking) in our liturgies. Now – extending that a bit – I’m wondering are there any feasts, or commemorations in our existing liturgical cycles that are equally “un-christian”?

My community for example is currently 1/2 way through a project to reform the cycle of commemorations one of the things we are looking out for is individuals or events commemorated for a reason “other” than exemplifying the teachings of the Gospel z.b. zealous loyalty to the Bishop of Rome, or being caught up in a political controversey. Its not easy – I’ll grant you that – but it is worth considering what we are commemorating, when we read the dyptichs so to speak.

Johnny Flynn’s comment (quoted above) at the end of his essay No Turkey for Me, about the value of tribalism is also interesting in our indie context. Why? Simple, too often our folks are “tribal” for all the wrong reasons! Indeed I would go so far as to argue that indie folks tend to be vehemently “anti-tribal” in the name of inclusivity, but viscerally “tribal” in the name of preserving priviledge, and a false sense of independence.

Coming from an ethnic background I have a great sense of pride in, and appreciation for the “pros” of tribalism, while at the same time understanding that there are a few real “cons” – I’ve always wondered though if our indie movement has lost a great deal of its “umph”, cohesion, and continuity, precisely because it has reacted negatively against the intstitutionalism of other traditions (mistakenly associating it with “tribalism”)? Maybe we would benefit from a re-evaluation of the differences between institutionalism, and tribalism? It might breath a bit of fresh air over an otherwise stagnant pond.

A monk – a simple holy man – it’s that simple. In a way, that’s rather refreshing.

After his death there were numerous miracles associated with his presence, and he has become known as the protector of orphans.

Faithlab has this interesting snippet about a fundamentalist in California who is openly “praying” for the death of President Obama. They observe (I think correctly) that this is contrary to Jesus’ own example.

What is “prayer”? If we accept that it is that dialogue we have with God throughout the day – then is it not reasonable to expect that the lanuage of our prayer best reflects our aspiration to faithfulness to the teaching of the Gospel?

Paul reminds us to pray for what we need – rather than what we desire. There is I think wisdom here – sometimes we want something, it has caught our attention, or captivated our interest, but rather than contributing to our well being, it is a distraction, even destructive. Our sense of “desire” can be fuelled by ill concieved ideas, half formed thoughts, envy, competition with others . . . you get the idea. If we prayed for what we “desired” and found that those desires were fulfilled – we might later regret having asked for it! In this light then – can any faithful Christian truly believe that praying for the death of another human being (or any being for that matter) does not fall into this category?

But it got me thinking – are there instances of prayers in our liturgies that do not best reflect the gospel ethos? I’m not talking here of instituting a campaign of political correctness – as many regulars already know I find PC language to more often than not be more offensive and distorting than the original texts – rather I’m wondering out-loud if some of the historic “traditional” prayers might need a bit of editing for the sake of faithfulness to the teaching of the Gospel.

A wealthy, articulate, scholarly woman, Catherine while still a Pagan vowed to marry only the man who could outshine her in wisdom and knowledge. Her mother, a Christian, sent her to an ascetic for advice. He suggested that there was such a man – Christ. Catherine converted, and became a virgin.

At that time the Emperor Maximinus was in Alexandria for a Pagan festival. During the festival a number of Christians were to be executed for refusing to offer sacrifice to the gods. Moved to try and do something for those poor victims of oppression – Catherine introduced herself to the emperor, confessed her faith in Christ, and eloquently refuted paganism.

Maximinus was captivated by her beauty, and articulate skill, and summoned 50 of the best Pagan scholars of the day to demonstrate the superiority of Paganism over Christianity. Unfortunately for them – Catherine converted all 50 of them, and they were executed on the spot.

Next Maximinus attempted to bribe her with wealth, and fame, not being able to bear the thought of murdering someone as beautfiul and eloquent as Catherine. She rejected his enticements. He had her tortured and cast into prison.

The Augusta having heard of Catherine’s plight decided to see this marvelous woman for herself. Given the fate of the Pagan scholars – perhaps not the best plan of action – as she herself converted because of her interview with Catherine. Oh, and yes – the following day Maximinus had her beheaded as well.

Catherine too died (AD 305) the next day – having been threatened, enticed, and interrogated some more.

According to Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. 7.32; 8.11, 13 and 9.6) Peter was an illustrius example of the episcopacy. He served well for 12 years, before becoming the last bishop of Alexandria to be executed by a Pagan authority.

Peter was responsible for excommunicating Arius for sympathising with the Melitians. In custody awaiting his martyrdom Arius’ friends tried desperately to encourage Peter to restore Arius. It is said that Peter had earlier had a vision of the impending chaos and schism caused by Arius and his teaching. He refused the many entreaties of the envoys sharing with them the details of his vision.

He was martyred in AD 312.
Yesterday we commemorated the feast of Amphilochius who stood up to “power”. Today we commemorate Peter who stood up to “peer pressure”. While we indie folk don’t often have the following or influence to “stand up to power” (which is frankly re-assuring) we do often suffer from the consequences of “peer pressure” both real and percieved.

Firstly, my apologies for not consistently posting over the past two weeks I’ve been enduring an intensive French course.

The feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos in the Temple began on Saturday (21 November). It’s a great feast in so far as it openly celebrates the role of legend in our tradition. The presentation of Mary in the Temple at age 3, where she danced on the steps of the Holy of Holies, and lived there being fed and entertained by angels for the next 9 years is all from the Protoevangelion of James. An apocryphal text that like the Didache was given “unofficial” canonical status very early on in the Christian tradition.

St. Amphilochius was a theologian, a stalwart defender of orthdoxy against the Arians, and according to tradition, encouraged St. Basil to write his defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Amphilochius, like many saintly bishops is also known for successfully standing up to “power” risking his life before the Emperor Theodosius to make a theological point.

Today is a major feast for OC/IC folk – St. Wilibrord born in England, became the “Apostle to the Frisians” in the Netherlands, and first bishop of Utrecht.

Wilibrord’s shrine is in Luxemburgh where he died, and on his feast day every year there takes place the last known processional dance in Western Europe.

Happy Feast Day & Happy Dancing!