Comments on: the Great Iconoclast, or why would you write such things?

By: ellenharoutunian

ellenharoutunian — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:32:22 +0000

Then you get the point. There is no false dichotomy. And I happen to love theology (from which doctrine flows). But I disagree that without doctrine we are just shouting slogans (though often, even with doctrines and theology we often speak more rhetoric than anything else). Do you need doctrine or a Mercy-ology to understand your wife? Or do you know her personally & intimately so that you can speak of who she *truly* is? (I know that answer to that! Congrats on your anniversary!) My point is merely that we often mix up the form for the Formless. We use our theology (and/or doctrines) and in some traditions, tradition itself to speak of God, but ultimately, those things reduce God. As Augustine once said, once we believe we have understood God, it is no longer God.
As for Fr. Ferriera, it really helps to know his internal struggle before he did what the Japanese forced him to do, which included stepping on an cherished icon (and all that it meant to this devout man), announcing apostasy to all and being stripped of the priesthood, then being forever exiled in Japan. But he realized that he gave up all that, but especially the anointing of the church and respect of the church (internally can anyone really change what we believe?) and became as Christ was to them. So it seems he didn’t truly apostatize at all. Would you like me to send you a copy of the novel? I think you’d like it.

By: Gregg Tucker

Gregg Tucker — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:31:56 +0000

Ellen, I hear what you are saying (they are NOT binary opposites), which I agree with. But I think you actually illustrated my point well when you said, “Doctrine is useful but Christ is all.” You see, the statement “Christ is all” IS doctrine. That’s why I’m saying I think it’s a false dichotomy. It’s more like “Doctrine is useful, especially the doctrine that says Christ is all.” And don’t get me wrong. I am not elevating doctrine above Jesus, it is using doctrine to give meaning to the life of Jesus. We can tell people about Jesus every day until He returns again, but without some doctrinal content filling up what we mean by Jesus and why He matters, we are just shouting slogans, not proclaiming any kind of intelligible gospel. Does that make sense?

And a couple questions regarding the other comments … I’d be interested to read the whole story of Fr. Ferriera, but when you say “he apostatized”, what does that mean? Like, what did he do? Did he “lay down doctrinal truths”, as you said? If so, which doctrines did he lay down? Or did he just deny the Church? Or did he deny Christ (as Michael said above)?

-Gregg

By: ellenharoutunian

ellenharoutunian — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:27:59 +0000

I wondered that too, David. But it seemed that he didn’t truly apostatize in that he become more identified with Christ in his choice, not less. But he lost everything to do it.

By: ellenharoutunian

ellenharoutunian — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:26:55 +0000

He seemed like a type of Christ to me while reading the novel. Wow, can we imagine that kind of call upon our lives?

By: ellenharoutunian

ellenharoutunian — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:15:38 +0000

A binary would mean something like setting up preaching doctrine as all bad and in contrast preaching Christ is all good. But my point is, preaching doctrine is useful, but we can follow Christ with or without it. Doctrine is useful but Christ is all. Fr. Ferriera lay down doctrinal truths (more evident in the novel) and much more – to become as Christ. It doesn’t work the other way around. (Giving up Jesus to keep true to church tradition or orthodoxy? I don’t think so.)

By: Gregg Tucker

Gregg Tucker — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:03:58 +0000

Ellen,

Good stuff. I came across this section of John Calvin today that also speaks to the primacy of Christ:

“We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him.” If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth…If we see redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in his Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgment, in the power given him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other.” (Institutes, II.xvi.19)

Also good stuff.

One thing though (sorry): You seem to set up a false dichotomy between “teaching doctrine” and “preaching Christ”. In fact, I think you called them “binary opposites”. You did mention that doctrine shouldn’t be “thrown out” and that there is a “time and purpose for such things”, but I guess I don’t see it as an “either-or” (so modernistic ), but rather, an “and”. How is “preaching Jesus” – like who He is (“the wild man”) and what He did on earth (“the Great Iconoclast Himself”) – different than doctrine (A principle, or body of principles, presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group)? I don’t know that this distinction is necessary. If you are referring to (and criticizing) the impulse some of us have to dissect the Bible into doctrinal statements but miss the stories and, worse, not be transformed by it, I’m totally with you. But I believe “doctrine” AND “Christ” can, and should, go hand-in-hand. What do you think?

-Gregg

By: Michael Morkve

Michael Morkve — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:33:13 +0000

Doesn’t this then also argue that we should physically, even violently defend the other that we might purchase their freedom with our blood and in so doing re-present the selfless righteousness and love of the One who becomes sin on our behalf, dying to Himself and His own need to maintain sinless purity or even oneness with the Godhead? ‘My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?!’ The Father turned His face away. God has forsaken Himself, that which defines His very being; His Oneness, in order that others may enter into relationship with Him; the greatest ‘evil’, bringing about the penultimate ‘good’. This is the way of God which seems utter foolishness to mankind and goes much deeper than what has been discussed here.

By: David Murdoch

David Murdoch — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:29:41 +0000

I think Fr Ferreira should have let the prisoners be killed rather than apostasy.

Although this post brings up good points and I think a much better example would be pointing out St Francis of Assisi who led a life of humble poverty in a church that was growing increasingly worldly. Our faith is about a face, about a man, about Jesus Christ and the essence of our identity as Christians is to love as He loved us.

God Bless,

By: Michael Morkve

Michael Morkve — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:00:57 +0000

Amen! In denying Christ he actually affirmed Christ. Thus, many times it may be that the one who professes Christ, even unto death, is the real apostate. Of course doing the will of God is never static but ever situationally subjective, even as it comes to the actor. We are to do nothing of our own will or inclination but, as Christ did, only what the father tells us; which lay beyond the subjective terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

Isn’t this, in fact, what it means to act AS Christ and BECOME sin on behalf of the other. Is it more Re-presentational, RIGHTeous and LOVing to refuse to deny Christ and in so doing consign others to untold tortures or to deny Christ and in so doing purchase their pardon?

By: Alice Yadon

Alice Yadon — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:22:20 +0000

wow, this goes right along with what Bobby preached on this morning

By: Skip

Skip — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:53:52 +0000

Doggone it Ellen,
why WOULD you write such things?
“But what would it look like and what would we need to lay down in order to become as Christ even now?”

Just stick with the theoretical will ya! Quit being so iconoclastic, like the Master.

Peace

By: ellenharoutunian

ellenharoutunian — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:44:55 +0000

Blessed are us pea brains, for we shall see God (eventually) LOL!

By: lindy

lindy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:34:00 +0000

I know that I keep having to dump my beliefs out of the box again and again and again and again and teach myself to cling to the robes of Jesus instead of what my human pea brain can grasp. *wink*