Canons

by modestinus

Patrick Barnes, editor of the Orthodox Information Center, has posted a critical review of Charles Singledecker’s The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy (Regina Orthodox Press, 2011). Setting aside my strong feelings that the “crazy side of Orthodoxy” is that confession’s most interesting side, Barnes’ review provides enough information concerning Singledecker’s book to dissuade me from reading it. Singledecker, it seems, is out to “expose” the canons of the Orthodox Church as self-contradictory, incoherent, and, at times, “crazy.” He’ll get no argument from me there. The most (in)famous collection of Orthodox canons available, The Rudder of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (first published in 1800), is a wreck. Canonical decree upon canonical decree are mashed together in a single dense tome with scant editorial attention applied. Those inclined to snicker at the alleged mishmash that is Justinian’s Digest haven’t seen anything yet. For despite its apparent imperfections, the Digest was shaped by Byzantium’s greatest living jurist, Tribonian. The Rudder, on the other hand, was the byproduct of a zealous Athonite monk who today is heaved under the bus by some traditionalist Orthodox for being too sympathetic toward “Latin learning” and “Catholic spirituality.”

Barnes’ defense of the Canons and, from there, the infallibility of the Orthodox Church is serviceable, though it depends, in part, on pleading ignorance in the face of Singledecker’s various assaults on not only their content, but their casual interpretation by traditionalist Orthodox. Barnes, for instance, lists a number of charges from Singledecker’s book and then claims he’s never run into anyone who has ever espoused such ridiculous views. Well, I have—and not just from barking mad Old Calendarists living in the hills of Colorado. But such examples, I admit, are few and far between. Where I have been more likely to find the Canons being invoked (in an often haphazard and superficial manner) is on various Orthodox web-logs. But since these minor enterprises are of almost no importance to the Orthodox Church as a whole (which, I should add, consists of 240 fold more members worldwide than what one finds in the U.S.), I won’t dwell on them. Still, there are more than a few priests inhabiting the American Orthodox landscape who will use the C-word, either in the confessional or during a sermon; never once, in my limited overall experience, did I hear them applied in an entirely consistent way. Nor, for that matter, did I hear the word “oikonomia” deployed in a substantive manner. I always took it as Greek shorthand for, “Yeah so you’re/we’re not following the rules, but who gives a rip?”

But getting back to Barnes’ defense, he adopts, in remarkable fashion, a view which appears to run like this: The Orthodox Church is a divine institution (though, of course, it is also, like Christ, human); because of that divinity, the Orthodox Church is also infallible; ergo, the Canons which emanate from the Church are divinely inspired. Maybe, but Barnes is quick to draw distinctions (or, rather, use other authors to draw distinctions) between apparently “immutable” canons and those which are purely “historical”; they can, in other words, change with the times. Both, it would seem, are rooted in the same divinity of the Church; both are divinely inspired; but only one, the so-called “immutable” canons, are fixed for all time. So, which are which? Barnes seems to believe, following Archbishop Gregory Afonsky, that canons which express dogma and morals (sic [cf., contraception]) are “immutable,” but those which are “disciplinary” are not. But as old Thomas Hobbes was fond of asking, “Who interprets? Who decides?”

I fear that the answer, according to Barnes, are those quasi-Gnostic sorts who have acquired the oft-repeated but ill-defined “Patristic Mindset”—the same one which told Seraphim Rose that the earth is approximately 7,500 years old. And since we’re never entirely sure who has this “Patristic Mindset” or “the mind of the [Orthodox] Church,” we can never be entirely sure who is qualified to furnish an answer to Hobbes’ quoted query. All that we know for sure is that such an individual could exist, not that they actually do or actually ever will again. And once enough individuals have made up their mind concerning those they believe to have held that “Patristic mindset,” the chances are that this “illumined” person is now rejoicing in Heaven with the Angels. Shoot.

I don’t want to come across as poking too much fun at Barnes. Shingledecker’s book sounds dreadful, even if he did the world a favor by identifying some rather amusing Canons. What worries me is that Barnes’ simpleminded solution to Shingledecker’s invective reeks of pedestrian theosophy. I agree with Barnes that every Christian should pursue holiness, and that the pursuit of holiness as a participant in the Eucharistic life of the Church is central. Where I part company with Barnes and other similarly minded traditionalist Orthodox is on the notion that such a pursuit leads to divinization. Barnes may want to pretend that an extra long fast will guide someone to getting through the Rudder with a perfect understanding of its meaning and present application (which may or may not be variable). However, this is a task which I wouldn’t dare attempt on an empty stomach. But I still think there’s enough room out there for someone to avoid a charge of atheism and still retort with, “Prove it.”