“For it is in the sacraments that the world not only looks back in historical time to the moment of creation and to the event of incarnation, but also simultaneously looks forward in sacramental time to and even anticipates the redemption and restoration of all things…” (96). This quote took me a while to digest but I think that it encompasses a lot of what the Eastern Orthodox believe. They use the commandments to see “purely mundane” things as “deeply mystical”. They use the commandments to show that everything created by God is inherently beautiful and that nothing is excluded from the sacramental principle. Therefore, Orthodox Christians have a closer relationship with the earth and God’s creation. To me, these passages were vaguely similar to Pagan religions beliefs in sun gods and moon gods in that they believed nature was sacred. This closer relationship with the earth is good in that it promotes taking care of it for future generations. If Western Christianity were more like this, there is a good chance that people would be more inclined to help the environment. The Orthodox Church believes heavily in the lastingness of all things and therefore believes in the importance of taking care of the environment.
Another interesting Eastern Orthodox belief was their perception of the cross. Unlike many other Christian denominations, which view it as a sign of suffering, they view it as a sign of transformation. The cross is not just a symbol for tolerationg the world but a symbol of change: everything in the world undergoes a similar cycle of crucifixion and resurrection.
Speaking of symbols, the Orthodox believe that the way they treat the earth around them is symbolic of the relationship they have with God. This is yet another reason that the earth is considered to be sacramental and why preserving the earth is important to them.
Ellyse
I was pleasantly surprised with today’s reading. After the Catholicism reading, I found the majority of the arguments to reflect individuals’ isolated beliefs and commentaries versus any overall position the religion innately had. However, this reading on Orthodox Christianity was able to analyze more over-arching positions as I had hoped for. I was very interested by the immediate ties between the Earth and theological truth. It seemed very clear toward the beginning of the chapter that Eastern Christianity had much more of a symbolic relationship with God, Jesus and the Bible. This seemed to facilitate the placement of values in a much wider range of places. Essentially, the stories did not have to only be taken intrinsically, but could perhaps tell about the Earth or nature and how our relationship was supposed to be with such. However, towards the beginning of the chapter, it seemed (as has become a pattern in our studies thus far) that this seemingly biocentric view is actually fueled quite anthropocentrically. “The entire world has been created for our enjoyment and admiration... What happens to the world, happens to it for the sake of dignity and human race” (98). This shows how even though the Church seems to view the Earth as very sacred and important, it is not in a parallel relationship with humans, but instead a tool or toy for our enjoyment. However, as discussed in class on Monday, I question if this is such a bad thing. Whatever the force that drives our caring for the environment, is it still not being taken care of?
ReplyDeleteI didn’t realize the vast differences between Western and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. To be honest, I still don’t feel that I completely comprehend the differences. I do, however, have great respect for the Eastern Orthodox appreciation of the mundane. There is spirituality attached to everything because “nothing is intrinsically nonsacred.” This certainly relates back to one of the earlier articles we read by Armstrong discussing the logos and mythos. I feel that the belief that everything has intrinsic sacredness everything must therefore have a religious significance to the faithful. This strengthens the mythos, because as Armstrong noted, the values and lessons of myth must not merely be studied, but practiced daily in order to fully comprehend their religious validity. Also, I feel that their sacraments compel them to be more thoughtful of the environment. Everything is both created and fallen. The third intuition emphasizes redemption. Everything must redeemed. Because redemption is a process, the faithful must be careful not to neglect the creation around them. Piety then takes on more of a pro-active role in the environment. Everyone must try to redeem a small potion of the Earth.
ReplyDelete- Alex Leeds
After I read this chapter, I started to think more about the relationship between God, Spiritual and Christ. From the bible, we know that because Adam ate the fruit which disappointed God, therefore, God break the relationship with humans. However, God sent his son who is Jesus Christ to the earth. Because of Jesus Christ, people gained connection with God again. Some people tell me that the shape of Christ actually is a connection sign. If you write God in your right side and write people in your left side and then you put cross between them. You can figure out the reconnection. From this chapter, we can know that Eschatology is teaching about the relationship of all things to the last things instead of teaching about the last things that follow everything else. I think this is interesting. It seems like that everything we have done causes what will happen in the future which means that things will not happen by themselves. People definitely will find relationship among them. After reading this chapter, I understand sacrament more. The word sacrament can signify either a result or the means of consecration. After I read these seven Christian sacraments, I have to say that religion groups really think in God’s way. Those seven things are also important in people’s life. Even though I cannot fully understand those religious things, however, I am really interested in this and I am looking forward to learning more deeply about them.
ReplyDeleteThe succinct and opposite beginning and ending of this chapter really helped to clarify the intent of the author, and also allowed me to follow the sequence more clearly. I liked the comparison between the photographer at the Grand Canyon and the eschatological thinkers of Orthodoxy who are supposed to hold "The End" always in their thoughts. This is a misconception which even I held, and the author goes on to refute this comparison as mislead and not in conjunction with orthodox beliefs. I like the clarifications made about nature, how it must remain a mystery in which God is present, and how this conception is often lost in matters of economy, and in everyday life. The author gives credit to Orthodoxy and the concept of the Earth as Sacrament, looking more cognitively into the Sacraments and into the origins of words, and sidestepping the fundamentalist view that seems to have risen in popularity and "relativity". I appreciate the intimate look into the meaning of asceticism, not as an extreme way of life only performed by the few and the brave, but as a guideline to communicating with and living in communion with the earth. I started to question the belief in the church as home, and the world as a reflection of the church, in his mention of the Hagia Sophia, however, but solely based on physical observation. This is the only part of the chapter that I felt a disconnect, because from a practical perspective churches in their beauty and grandeur look nothing like nature. A marked point of churches is how much they stand out from their surroundings. However, I do not dispute the symbolic meaning that was intended, which brings back the argument that symbols are meant to be material and actual. Overall I was taken aback by the author's connections of quantum theology and spirituality, and the human body as mainly empty space occupied by God, and it reminded me of the beauty of life and called into question my own beliefs, of whether I believe in a pantheistic or panentheistic worldview. I loved the inclusion of Nikos Kazantzakis at the end, of him stating that in each thing there is God's potential awaiting awakening and birth. I do believe that and it allowed me to feel more connected to the organized religions of Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteI, like Alex was not aware of the inherent differences between western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy but after reading this chapter they are definitely apparent. The most striking difference in relation to our class is the Eastern Orthodox approach to nature. "Human salvation and cosmic transfiguration can be achieved only through the cooperation between creator and creation, never by an imposition by one over the other." This quote is important because not only to the Eastern Orthodox think of themselves as in relation and kin to nature rather than above nature but they also see God as equal to nature. God is divine and as the creator of nature, nature must be in turn divine. I was very surprised by the importance of nature in Eastern Orthodox worship. The fact that the Earth is considered a sacrament in this faith pushes Eastern Orthodoxy far beyond Western Christianity in relation to environmental issues. This faith does not take an anthropocentric view but instead focuses on the mystery and equality of nature, God, and followers of the faith.
ReplyDeleteLike Andrea, I was most surprised with nature's importance in the Eastern Orthodox religion, and their practice of biocentrism. This distinction between the different sects of Christianity makes me wonder why Christians are constantly lumped together, as we have discussed in class. Commonly, Christianity is judged by its extremes and I know many people believe that most Christians stubbornly stick to the anthropocentric view that humans have absolute dominion over the earth. This reading, once again, further validated that this is completely false, and many different branches of Christianity exist with different opinions. The other differences between Eastern and Western Orthodoxy that are explained really further this point that we have been discussing.
ReplyDeleteEastern Orthodox is a relatively foreign religion to me. Prior to the reading I knew very little but after the reading I feel I know more and am very interested. I found it very interesting how spiritual and in tune the Eastern Orthodox are with their environment. The fact that they achieve salvation through cooperation with God is very similar to my own religion. Eastern Orthodox has man bio-centric views and practices that really surprised me. As Ellyse mentioned, I also found their symbolic elements to be very interesting. For example, Eastern Orthodox does not view the cross as a remembrance of the suffering that Jesus went through. Rather, they view it as rebirth and change. Overall, what most surprised me was, like Andrea mentioned, how different the sects of Christianity are. I guess because they all believe in Christ they should fall under the same religion, but Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox alone have vast differences.
ReplyDeleteLike Ellyse, one of the passages that particularly stood out to me was the one regarding the Eastern Orthodox perception of the cross. I thought the quote, “Yet the Eastern ascetic tradition, at least in its more authentic expressions, perceives the cross more as a way of transforming the world than as a means of tolerating it” was indicative of the manner in which Eastern Orthodoxy perceives the world. Instead of being associated with suffering, this of symbol takes an approach to the world that demands change. I think this belief is particularly evident in their outlook on the environment. It is evident that Eastern Orthodoxy sees the world and nature as being one with god and by doing so, it making it makes it difficult for humans to exploit and claim dominance over the earth. I found it particularly interesting that Eastern Orthodoxy places emphasis on the divinity of nature and cannot help but wonder what prompted such a belief considering that other sects of Christianity take the complete opposite stance of dominion.
ReplyDeleteI found this chapter to be much more interesting than the last. I, too fond it a surprising that nature plays such a crucial role in the eastern orthodox culture. Although we did discuss Catholicisms view of nature, it seems that the eastern orthodox relationship with nature is much stronger.
ReplyDeleteI also found all the symbolism interesting to read about. Before reading this passage, I don't think I fully understood the different between eastern and western orthodox. Although I am still a little foggy on the two, this chapter definitely cleared things up.
One of the thing that stood out to me the most was the eastern orthodox view of the "mundane". I guess this relates back to their love of nature because they see everything that God creates as beautiful and important. I really appreciate this outlook.
I disagree with John Chryssavgis' statement, "what is so sorely missing in today's debate is precisely a theological approach, one that sees the cosmos and hence the "environment" and the "ecological system" in theocentric terms. The world is not divine, but it is sacred, in that it is created and sustained by God and filled with His energies." I believe that people need to adopt a more biopocentric view of the earth in order improve the environment. Chryssavgis urges people to think in "theocentric terms" or having god as a central focus. Personally I believe that you can take care of the environment without god as a central focus. God made humans in his image and if we view the situation in theological terms, than humans would be able to rationalize anything they ever do to the environment, destructive or non-destructive.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to Ellyse, the quote:
ReplyDelete“For it is in the sacraments that the world not only looks back in historical time to the moment of creation and to the event of incarnation, but also simultaneously looks forward in sacramental time to and even anticipates the redemption and restoration of all things…” (96)
got my attention as well. However I did not fully understand what the author was trying say which is what I was originally going to write about, but once I read Elysses' blog post I think I understand what the author is trying to say. I think Elysse put it best when she wrote "it encompasses a lot of what the Eastern Orthodox believe". I think it is quite impressive that the author is able to capture the general ideals of Eastern Orthodox believe in only sentence.
I enjoyed this chapter very much because its ideas were very philosophical. I found myself agreeing with some of his Chryssagis opinions while be skeptical of others. I especially like the way C.S Lewis explained Gods creation as "divine words written out across the world in letters too large for us to read clearly". Compared to other religious interpretations of humans relation to the earth i find myself favoring that of the Eastern Orthodox church which sees the earth as an undeniable theological truth. Therefore, if God is manifested within everything and nothing then it is our responsibility to be the hands that nurture the world. Whether or not you are religious I still think there is a certain quintessence about the earth that is very sacred.
ReplyDeleteEastern Orthodoxy surprised me in its views of biocentricity. I had always assumed that to some extent Orthodox Christianity, regardless of being Eastern or Western Orthodox, was the same across the religion. I wonder if, in addition to being the holy trinity, incorporating the father, the son and the holy spirit, nature is part of it. If nature is one with God then nature would also be one with the son and the holy spirit. Nature is incorporated into the entire religion through the Orthodoxic view that God is one with nature.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to express my frustration with the winding language the author utilizes in this chapter. I myself get very flowery in my writing, but, in certain cases, especially when tackling such massive topics as religion, simpler is better. This, I believe, was one of those cases, because, as it were, I had great difficulty understanding the main points of this chapter (which, once I figured them out, seems like they could have been summed up in a text half the length of what we read...)
ReplyDeleteBut even in light of the above, I found I had an interest in the chapter for two reasons, the first being that my own family is Eastern Orthodox by tradition, though seldom in practice, and the second being that, despite this, I know extremely little about what is apparently my own religion. I never deeply studied Eastern Orthodoxy, and now that we are, I find myself pleasantly surprised at, as others stated, its "views of biocentricity."
In fact, now that I analyze it more, there are many outward signs of this. Eastern Orthodox churches, generally, are far more opulent than some Western ones (particularly the American churches). Gold adorns everything. I'm not sure what the color itself symbolizes, but the dome " celebrates in architecture what is accomplished by the Eucharistic Sacrament - the communion of heaven and earth."
I think it is interesting to notice the balance between the biocentric and anthropocentric views expressed in Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Asian religions promote harmony between humans and nature, while western Christianity is mostly ambiguous about the topic. It seems like Eastern Orthodoxy could be a blend between the two beliefs because of its geographical location. Perhaps both outlying cultures interacted with the peoples living in the Eastern European/West Asian region to create a blend of both.
ReplyDelete