Category: Church History (Page 16 of 19)

Early Jewish Attitudes Toward Images

July 29, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 33 Comments

Book Review: Early Christian Attitudes toward Images by Steven Bigham (2 of 4)

This blog posting is a continuation of an earlier review of Fr. Steven Bigham’s book. In this posting I will be reviewing and interacting with Bigham’s arguments in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 examines early Jewish attitudes toward images. This is important because modern Protestant iconoclasm assumes that the early Christians inherited from the Jews a hostile attitude towards images. However, if it can be shown that there existed an open attitude toward images among early Jews then the basis for the hostility theory becomes problematic.

Steven Bigham notes that a distinction needs to be drawn between figurative art and pagan idols. He presents Jean-Baptiste Frey’s theory that an alternation took place between a rigorist and less rigorous interpretations of the Second Commandment (pp. 22-23). This challenges the implicit assumption that Jewish opposition to images to be fixed and unchanging. This new approach allows for more flexible readings of the biblical, rabbinical, and historical data. It is suggested that a liberal attitude towards images existed from the period of monarchy to the exile, then a rigorist attitude from the restoration to the Hellenistic period. Later, an accepting attitude was found among the Amoraïm, the successors to the Pharisees.

Biblical Evidences

In sub-section 3 (pp. 22-32), Bigham reviews the biblical evidence for the use of art and images in Israelite worship: Exodus, Numbers, 1 Kings, Ezekiel, and Ecclesiasticus. In considering the Old Testament evidence, Bigham excludes passages relating to pagan idolatry and examines passages pertaining to Israelite worship (p. 26).

The Tabernacle in Exodus

Tabernacle in Exodus

Bigham finds it significant that Exodus which contained the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:2-6) also contained divine instructions for the construction of the golden cherubim over the Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:1-22), as well as the manufacture of curtains embroidered with cherubim (Exodus 26:1, 31). Bigham notes,

Placed so close to God himself and so intimately linked with the worship of the true God, the cherubim could never be separated from that worship and become themselves the object of misdirected, idolatrous worship. The cherubim on the Ark of the Testimony are a real problem for the advocates of rigorism, because God himself ordered Moses to have them made. The untenable contradiction in the divine commands disappears if we assume a relative interpretation of the 2^nd Commandment that allows for non-idolatrous, liturgical images (p. 26).

All too often Protestant iconoclasm has equated idolatry with images, but this is too simplistic a definition. In his examination of the passage on the bronze serpent, Bigham notes that a sculpted image can be used in a non-idolatrous way. In response to the poisonous snakes sent to punish the Israelites, God ordered the making of a bronze serpent as a means of healing (Numbers 21:4-9). Later, King Hezekiah destroyed the serpent because the Israelites had begun to misuse it (2 Kings 18:1-4). Bigham notes:

This episode shows how an object, an image, normally not considered to be a idol, can become one. Idolatry is determined by a person’s intention and attitude toward an image, and not by the image itself (p. 27; emphasis added).

What Bigham has done here is to clarify the difference between religious art and idolatry. Furthermore, he has resolved an apparent contradiction in the Old Testament. His contextual understanding of the Old Testament passages avoids the difficulties caused by the more rigorist interpretations of the Second Commandment which would clash with subsequent passages that mandate the making of religious art.

In doing so, Bigham has rendered a tremendous service to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. In any conversation on the Second Commandment and the proper role of images in worship, it is important that a balanced and biblically based definition of idolatry be established at the outset. If the two sides start from disparate definitions, the conversation will go nowhere. One question for the Reformed Christians and Evangelicals to consider is whether Bigham’s understanding is both biblical and balanced. If not, then they should put forward an alternative definition for the Orthodox to consider.

Solomon’s Temple

Bigham describes Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings to be “a veritable art gallery and a nightmare for the advocates of the rigorist interpretation” (p. 28). King Solomon did not just replicate the Mosaic Tabernacle, but expanded and elaborated on the religious art work in connection with the worship of Yahweh. He had two enormous cherubim sculpted out of wood and overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:23-28).

Interior of Solomon’s Temple

Solomon also had cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers carved on all the Temple walls and on the door to the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:29-31). Solomon made a molten sea which was placed over twelve statues of bulls (1 Kings 7:23-26). Furthermore, Solomon ordered the making of movable stands on which were carvings not just of cherubim, but also of lions and bulls (1 Kings 7:27-37).

The laudatory tone with which Solomon’s construction of the Temple for Yahweh was presented and the absence of any criticism makes 1 Kings quite problematic for those who hold to the iconoclastic position.

Solomon’s throne likewise was a huge work of art comprised of ascending steps with sculpted lions on both sides of each step leading to the throne (1 Kings 10:18-20). While less holy than the Temple, the throne was nonetheless the seat of the Lord’s anointed. This biblical passage points to an acceptance of images beyond the Temple into “secular” domains.

The favorable attitude among Jews continued into the post-exilic period. Bigham found in I Maccabees 1:22 and 4:57 evidence that the front of the Second Temple (520-515 BC) had been decorated with gold.

Ezekiel’s vision of the restored Temple continues the favorable attitude towards the use of images. As a prophecy it is significant because it extends the orthodoxy of religious images from the Mosaic Tabernacle of the past into the future worship of the Messianic Age, i.e., the Christian era. What is astounding is the profusion of images in Ezekiel’s future temple.

As far as the nearby wall of the inner and outer courts and along upon the wall all around within and without were depicted cherubim and palm trees, between cherub and cherub. Each cherub had two faces, the face of a man toward a palm tree on one side, and the face of a lion toward a palm tree on the other side. Thus it was depicted throughout the house all around. From the floor to the threshold, the cherubim and the palm trees were interspersed upon the walls (Ezekiel 41:17-20; OSB).

Taken together, the combined witness of passages across the Old Testament–from the time of Moses, the royal kingdom, and the prophetic tradition–presents an immense challenge to those who hold to the rigorist interpretation of the Second Commandment which disallows any and all forms of images in connection with the worship of Yahweh.

Non-Religious Images

In sub-section 5 (pp. 34-41), Bigham notes that additional evidence in support of Jewish tolerance or acceptance of images can be found in coins decorated with symbols like wreaths, horns of plenty, palms, cups and amphorae. It seems that these were accepted by Jewish authorities and rabbis. Similarly, Bigham found in Josephus’ The Antiquity of the Jews evidence that a certain prominent Jew, Hyrcanus, built a castle decorated with animals engraved on its walls (Bigham p. 37).

Angel on Jewish Sacrophagus – Beth Shearim

Detail of Sarcophagus at Beth Shearim, Israel. Source

Carving of Lioness on Hyrcanus Palace

Josephus and Philo

In sub-section 6 (pp. 41-66), Bigham examines the evidence used to support the notion that first century Judaism prohibited “images of animate beings” on the basis of the Jewish Law. Two early sources, Josephus and Philo, have been used to bolster the claim that first century Judaism was by and large iconophobic. Bigham notes that behind this iconophobia was hostility to symbols of Roman rule. In other words the first century rigorist reading of the Second Commandment may be rooted just as much in politics as in religion (p. 44). Josephus in his Antiquities XVIII, III, 1, explained that Jewish opposition to the Romans display of the emperor’s image on military standards was due to the Second Commandment. However, Bigham notes:

We can also see Josephus’s motivation for painting the incident in religious, rather than its obvious political colors: The Roman authorities for whom Josephus wrote would be less offended by an insult to the emperor’s image based on the Jews’ well-known sensitivity in religious matters. In any case, Josephus’s presentation of the Law – “our law forbids us the very making of images” – is simply wrong since previous and subsequent Jewish history shows that such images were made and accepted under certain conditions (p. 45).

Recent Archaeological Discoveries

Dura Europos Synagogue. Source

In sub-section 7 (pp. 66-78), Father Bigham devotes several pages (pp. 66-70) to the archaeologists’ discovery of the Jewish synagogue in Dura Europos in 1932. Its complete burial allowed it to be preserved virtually intact. Due to the widespread assumption at the time that early Judaism was aniconic, the building was initially mistaken for a Greek temple.

Image of Baby Moses – Dura Europos Synagogue. Source

The Dura Europos synagogue has profoundly challenged many misconceptions of early Jewish worship. The Dura Europos synagogue was not an isolated exception; other ancient synagogues had figurative arts (p. 67).

Moses and Burning Bush – Dura Europos. Source

The Binding of Isaac – Beth Alpha. Source

Mosaic at Beth Alpha

This leads Bigham to write:

… it seems increasingly clear that Judaism led the way in developing figurative art and that Christianity followed, at least at the beginning. We have already seen that this hypothesis is upheld by many scholars. Even in areas other than art, we see the same phenomenon: early Christianity often modeled itself on its Jewish parent. “For the ancestry of most elements of early church worship, we must look to the synagogue rather than the home … (C. Filson)” (Bigham p. 68)

These archaeological evidences present serious problems for those who hold to the hostility theory, especially on the assumption that early Judaism was uniformly aniconic and iconophobic (Bigham p. 89). However, if first century Judaism accepted religious art, then it makes sense that the early Christianity reflected its Jewish roots. It can then be argued that it is the iconoclastic hostility theory that represents an alien intrusion into Christian history. The hostility theory was easy to uphold when the evidence was buried in the ground but when archaeological discoveries over the past century unearth these evidences that theory lost its foundation.

Religious Art in Early Jewish Synagogues

In addition to the startling discoveries at Dura Europos, there are other evidence of religious art in Jewish synagogues.

Zodiac – Synagogue Mosaic on Mt. Carmel. Source

The zodiac mosaic at Beth Alpha was not an isolated example. Other similar zodiacs have been found in Israel, e.g., Hammath Tiberias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Naaran near Jericho, Sepphoris slightly north of Nazareth, En Gedi by the Dead Sea, and Huseifa near Mt. Carmel.

Religious Art in Medieval Judaism

Torah Shrine – Butzian Synagogue in Cracow, Poland

An examination of religious art in medieval Judaism shows an attitude more accepting of religious art than that found in the Reformed tradition. One example is the carving of images on the ark in the Butzian Synagogue in Cracow, Poland.

Findings and Conclusion

Fr. Steven Bigham has conducted a wide ranging review of evidence about early Jewish attitudes toward images. The evidences include both biblical and extra-biblical sources, as well as secular literary sources and archaeological evidences. Bigham notes that the evidence is not conclusive, but it does call into question the assumption that early Judaism was uniformly and rigidly opposed to images. Early Jewish acceptance of images even in the context of synagogue worship lays the historical basis for the acceptance of images in early Christian worship.

Robert Arakaki

See also: “The Biblical Basis for Icons“

Clearing the Way for Reformed-Orthodox Dialogue on Icons

July 23, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 6 Comments

Book Review: Early Christian Attitudes toward Images by Steven Bigham (1 of 4)

In recent years icons have become a matter of public debate among Protestants and Evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians. Where in the past Protestants thought of icons as an Orthodox peculiarity or a quaint dispute quickly passed over in church history class, they are coming to grips with the fact that icons present a serious theological challenge to their theology. In addition to the discovery that a rereading of Scripture from a different angle can lead to a solid biblical basis for icons, they must also grapple with the implications that ripple out from the historic role of icons in the early Church. Cardinal John Henry Newman’s quip: “”To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” might be more true than most have considered! [See my articles: “How an Icon Brought a Calvinist to Orthodoxy” and “The Biblical Basis for Icons.”]

In the recent dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox over icons both sides have appealed to evidence from early Christianity. One of the challenges in this conversation has been unfamiliarity with early Christian sources on the part of some participants. Oftentimes it seems that those opposed to icons find some surprising evidence from early sources that appear to refute the Christian use of icons. What is needed is a comprehensive overview of early Christian sources on the use of images in worship. Steven Bigham’s Early Christian Attitudes toward Images (2004) seems to fit the bill.

The purpose of this review is to assess Bigham’s book in terms of its usefulness to the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue on the use of icons in Christian worship. I plan to review Bigham’s book in four installments.

Overview

Given the highly charged nature of the topic it is important that we put out certain facts on the table at the outset. Father Steven Bigham, Ph.D., is an Orthodox priest serving the Carpatho-Russian diocese in Montreal, Canada. The book is published by the Orthodox Research Institute. In his preface Bigham gives the book’s objective: “Eliminate once and for all the idea that the Christians of the first centuries were iconophobic.” Thus, Bigham’s book is an unabashed Orthodox apologia for icons.

While many of our readers hold strong theological convictions, I am confident that they are likewise committed to the use of critical reason and evidence based approach to forming of their faith convictions. In other words, we are not trapped by partisan categories; rather through an evidence-based approach one can come to a critically informed position on icons one way or the other. The primary criterion driving this review is historical. That is, how comprehensive is Bigham’s survey of the evidence from early the Christian period? How balanced is Bigham’s assessment of the evidence? How significant a contribution can the book make to the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue?

The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 deals with the “hostility theory” which holds that the early Christians were hostile toward images. Chapter 2 deals with early Jewish attitudes toward images. Chapter 3 deals with the early Christian attitudes towards images, that is, the pre-Constantinian period. Chapter 4 deals with Eusebius of Caesarea who witnessed the beginning of Constantinian era.

The Hostility Theory

The argument against icons has taken several forms. One major line of attack has been biblical, giving special attention to the Second Commandment. Another has been a historical argument against icons. The “hostility theory” proposes: (1) that first century Judaism was aniconic or iconoclastic, (2) the early Church reflecting its Jewish roots was likewise aniconic or iconoclastic, and (3) the incorporation of images can be attributed to Christianity’s assimilation into Roman society under Emperor Constantine. For the reader’s convenience Bigham presents a lengthy excerpt that exemplifies the hostility theory (see pp. 2-3).

Bigham conducted a literature review that shows much of the hostility theory can be traced to nineteenth century liberal Protestantism. The contention here is that the modern historians invented the early Christians hostility towards images. In his assessment Bigham notes that the theory assumes the absence of images in first century Judaism and that this theory has been weakened by recent archaeological findings of images used in connection with Jewish religious life.

When the hostility theory was being developed, our knowledge of ancient Judaism was much more limited than it is today. The artistic monuments we know today were all still underground. It is easy to see why no one questioned the notion that Judaism was monolithically iconophobic, but throughout the 20^th century, our accepted ideas about the attitudes and the practices of ancient Judaism have gone through a radical revision and this especially as a result of recent archaeological discoveries. Once again, artistic monuments, this time Jewish ones, have challenged the advocates of the hostility theory to reconcile the supposed Jewish aniconia and iconophobia with the Jewish artistic monuments found in the archaeological digs (Bigham p. 6).

Bigham examines the recent archaeological finding in Chapter 2. But issue before us here is the way the hostility theory is framed. It is important to keep in mind that much of the recent Protestant opposition to icons has been influenced by nineteenth century Christian liberalism and is thus markedly different from the iconoclasm of the seventh and eighth centuries, and from the iconoclasm in Calvin’s Institutes. By deconstructing modern Protestant iconoclasm Bigham has made a substantial contribution to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. His analysis enables us to become critically aware of the issues and assumptions that unite us and divide us. All too often it has been the hidden assumptions that have derailed inter-faith dialogue. This creates a window of opportunity for two different theological tradition to converse with each other with understanding and empathy.

Image versus Idol

Another important task Bigham carries out in Chapter 1 is drawing the distinction between image and idol. The term “image” covers a wide range of meaning. Image can mean: (1) image of pagan deities, (2) religious art in the Mosaic Tabernacle and later Jewish temples, (3) decorative art in Jewish life, and (4) religious art used in Christian worship. This distinction is important for how we understand the prohibition in the Second Commandment. An awareness of these conceptual categories helps in the assessment of historical and archaeological evidences.

One frequent problem I’ve noticed is the tendency by some to interpret the Second Commandment as a blanket prohibition against any and all images. These critics then take early sources that denounce the use of images in pagan worship and apply them to the use of images in worship in Christian worship. The issue here is not pagan religions, but worship in the Jewish and Christian traditions. Leaving out irrelevant ancient sources critical of pagan idolatry reduces the amount considerably leaving us to consider relevant evidences. And even when those who oppose icons do find ancient sources critical of the use of images in Christian worship they must show that these are not isolated individual instances but part of a broader consensus opposed to the use of images in Christian worship. So far they have failed to do this.

Differing Understandings of Tradition

Another frequent problem in the dialogue between Orthodox and Protestant dialogue is the disparate understandings of Tradition. Some Protestants assume that for Orthodox Christians Tradition is static, allowing no room for development. This is not the case. Bigham counters that stereotype noting:

Few defenders of the idea of Tradition claim that nothing has changed since the beginning of the Church, and everyone recognizes that all the changes that have taken place have not necessarily been for the good. . . . . A healthy doctrine of Holy Tradition makes a place for changes, and even corruption and restoration, throughout history while still affirming an essential continuity and purity. This concept is otherwise known as indefectibility: the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. This theoretical framework, indefectibility, takes change and evolution into account but denies that there has been or can be a rupture or corruption of Holy Tradition itself (p. 15).

This description of Tradition as dynamic and organic with an element of continuity and fidelity is helpful for both Orthodox and Reformed Christians. It recognizes Orthodoxy being situated in the messiness of human history. It allows for Orthodox Christology existing alongside early heresies like Docetism, Arianism, and Apollinarianism without undermining the notion of theological orthodoxy. The presence of early Christological heresies does not mean the early Church did not believe in Christ’s divinity or in the Trinity. The Church had always held to these beliefs, but was forced by these heresies to articulate her beliefs with precision using “invented” terms like: Trinity, homoousions (consubstantial), and creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The Reformed tradition’s understanding of the Trinity and Christology imply an acceptance of historical development in early Christianity. A rigid and static approach to Christian tradition would require the jettisoning of important theological terms like: Trinity, hypostasis (person), ousia (being), and homoousios (of the same Essence). No serious Protestant would dare take this position!

Most Protestant and Reformed approaches to this messy historic traditioning process all too often default to ahistoric propositional reductionism. The propositional reductionisms in their confessions fail miserably to deal rigorously with how the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit applied the implications of Christological dogmas. Thus, Protestant ecclesiology and its understanding of history seem void of any consideration of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the early Church and in lives of the church fathers. This tendency can be seen not only in the icon debate, but also with respect to the formation of the biblical canon. The Holy Scripture so revered by Protestants and Reformed Christians is the result of several centuries’ long process in which the Church guided by the Holy Spirit determined which writings can be deemed divinely inspired and authoritative. But when we read Reformed confessional documents we find only ahistoric assertions about the nature and makeup of the Bible. It is as if the Bible miraculously appeared out heaven and landed in the early Church in leather bound version with all 66 books neatly listed with little or no human involvement in the making and shaping of the biblical canon.

The Orthodox affirmation of the historical development of Tradition is based on Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13). The historical development of Tradition is like a tiny young sapling that grows over time into a big mature tree (Matthew 13:31-32). Bigham writes about the growth and development of the role of art in Christian Tradition:

Nevertheless, once adopted, Christian art became such an important support to the proclamation of the Gospel that its conscious rejection had very serious repercussions. With time, the Church invested so much energy in its sacred art that a simple custom became an essential witness to the preaching of the Gospel. Once again, images are not necessary as are baptism, the eucharist, the doctrines of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, etc. without which we cannot even conceive of Christianity as we know it now. Images became essential, in item and through the blood of the martyrs, because their rejection implied a weakening or even a denial of the Incarnation itself (p. 18).

Bigham here presents Tradition as concentric circles. There is the essential core consisting of the Gospel, the Trinity, and the Eucharist, and an outer layer of practices like the use of incense, holy images, and church buildings. While the outer layer is ‘less’ important, the organic nature of Orthodox Tradition is such that it is practically impossible to separate the various constituent elements. Over time as the liturgical life of the Church flourished and as the early controversies led to a deeper appreciation of the Incarnation the role of images in Christian worship underwent a profound change.

It is important that any Protestant critique of Orthodoxy have an appreciation of Orthodoxy’s complex and nuanced approach to Tradition. Failure to do so will result in the projecting of popular stereotypes on a venerable theological tradition. In short, a Protestant apologist presuming that for Orthodoxy Tradition is static will end up setting up a straw man argument. This is shoddy apologetics and hinders Reformed-Orthodox dialogue.

Icons and Apostolicity

Both those favor icons and those who oppose them argue from apostolic continuity. Those who oppose icons argue that they represent a lost apostolic Tradition, that the early Christians did not use images in worship, and that the introduction of images into Christian worship represent a rupture that require a return to the original apostolic Tradition. Those favoring icons likewise argue from Tradition asserting there was no break in apostolic Tradition, that there exists a fundamental continuity between the early Christians and Orthodox veneration of icons. For theologically conservative Christians, both Protestant and Orthodox, apostolicity is essential to authentic Christianity. This gives them common ground as opposed to modernism. For theological liberals fidelity to apostolic tradition is less crucial than evolutionary adaptation to society. If Reformed theology rests on a flawed historiography then Reformed Christians need to seriously reconsider the implications of icons for apostolicity and authentic Christianity.

Conclusion

The work done by Father Steven Bigham in Chapter 1 will make a valuable contribution to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. The care and attention which he gives to the issues underlying the recent icon controversy will assist both sides. The Reformed-Orthodox dialogue on icons is far from over and has only just begun. This book is recommended for both Reformed and Orthodox Christians.

Robert Arakaki

Is St. Patrick an Orthodox Saint?

March 17, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 14 Comments

Icon – St. Patrick

This coming Sunday will mark the feast day of Saint Patrick – Bishop of Armagh and Enlightener of Ireland. This may come as a surprise to many that St. Patrick was and is an Orthodox Saint centuries before Rome split from the Holy Apostolic Church.

The rule of thumb for Orthodox Christians is that a Latin Christian who lived after the Great Schism of 1054, while they may have lived exemplary lives, are not saints in the full sense of the Church’s understanding. But because he lived from c. 385 to 17 March 460/461 Patrick is considered part of the undivided Church and therefore is an Orthodox saint.

St. Patrick’s Life

The name “Patrick” is derived from the Latin “Patricius” which means “highborn.” He was born in the village of Bannavem Taburniae. Its location is uncertain; some scholars place it on the west coast of England, while others place it in Scotland. His father was Calpurnius, a Roman Decurion (an official responsible for collecting taxes) and a deacon in the church. His grandfather, Potitus, was a priest.

County Antrim

This means that Patrick had a solid Christian upbringing and was well acquainted with the refinements of Roman civilization. But he lived on the edge of civilization at a time when the Roman Empire was under siege by barbarians. When Patrick was sixteen he was kidnapped by pirates, taken to Ireland, and there sold as a slave. He was put to work as a herder of swine on a mountain in County Antrim.

Looking back on his youth, he recounts:

I was at that time about sixteen years of age. I did not, indeed, know the true God; and I was taken into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of people, according to our deserts, for quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation. (Confessio §1)

Although Patrick had a Christian upbringing, he took his faith for granted. This complacency would be shaken by the calamity of being taken into exile. For the next six years he spent much of his time in solitude and prayer which would prepare him for life as a monastic. During this time Patrick also learned the local language which would prepare him for his future work as a missionary bishop.

But after I reached Ireland I used to pasture the flock each day and I used to pray many times a day. More and more did the love of God, and my fear of him and faith increase, and my spirit was moved so that in a day [I said] from one up to a hundred prayers, and in the night a like number. . . . (Confessio §16)

His escape from slavery resulted from two visions. In the first vision it was revealed that he would return home. The second vision told him his ship was ready. He then walked two hundred miles to the coast, succeeded in boarding a ship, and reunited with his parents.

Sometime later Patrick studied for the priesthood under St. Germanus in Gaul (France). Eventually, he was consecrated as a bishop and entrusted with the mission to Ireland. Patrick had a dream in which he heard the Irish people begging him to come back to them. There were other missionaries in Ireland but it was St. Patrick who had the greatest success. For this reason, he is known as “The Enlightener of Ireland.”

Evangelizing the Irish people was not an easy task. The Irish populace regarded him with hostility and disdain. He was a foreigner and, worst yet, a former slave. Despite the opposition, Patrick persevered in his missionary calling and baptized many into Christ. This resulted in churches and monasteries all across Ireland.

In his autobiography Patrick described his motivation for doing missionary work:

I am greatly God’s debtor, because he granted me so much grace, that through me many people would be reborn in God, and soon after confirmed, and that clergy would be ordained everywhere for them, the masses lately come to belief, whom the Lord drew from the ends of the earth, just as he once promised through his prophets: ‘To you shall the nations come from the ends of the earth. . . . (Confessio §38)

St. Patrick’s missionary labors would result in a blessing, not just to the Irish, but to humankind as well. How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill tells how Ireland became an isle of saints and scholars, preserving Western civilization while the Continent was being overrun by barbarians.

American culture has been richly blessed by the presence of the Irish. In the US, March 17^th has become something close to a national holiday. While in many instances St. Patrick’s day has become more of an excuse for partying, it can also be made into an occasion for renewing our faith in Christ.

St. Patrick’s Faith

We learn of his faith through the well known Breastplate of St. Patrick. It is also known as the Lorica (Latin for ‘breastplate.’). In the monastic tradition a lorica is a prayer/incantation for spiritual protection.

Below are some excerpts of the rather lengthy but powerful and inspiring prayer. There is a strong masculine and militant tone in Patrick’s prayer that contrasts with the softer, more feminine quality of later Christian spirituality.

I arise today

through a mighty strength,

the invocation of the Trinity,

through belief in the Threeness,

through confession of the Oneness of the Creator of creation.

I arise today

through the strength of Christ with His Baptism,

through the strength of His Crucifixion with His Burial,

through the strength of His Resurrection with His Ascension,

through the strength of His descent for the Judgment of Doom.

Patrick’s commitment to Orthodoxy can be seen in the third stanza which refers to the fellowship of the saints and angelic hosts. His was not the faith of rugged individualism but one marked by a profound awareness of the interconnectedness with the spirit and biblical worlds as expressed in the Liturgy.

I arise today

through the strength of the love of Cherubim,

in obedience of Angels, in the service of the Archangels,

in hope of resurrection to meet with reward,

in prayers of Patriarchs, in predictions of Prophets,

in preachings of Apostles, in faiths of Confessors,

in innocence of Holy Virgins, in deeds of righteous men.

In the fourth stanza we learn of Patrick’s zeal for holy Orthodoxy and spiritual warfare against the forces of darkness.

I summon today all these powers between me (and these evils):

against every cruel and merciless power that may oppose my body and my soul,

against incantations of false prophets,

against black laws of heathenry,

against false laws of heretics,

against craft of idolatry,

against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,

against every knowledge that endangers man’s body and soul.

Christ to protect me today

against poison, against burning,

against drowning, against wounding,

so that there may come abundance of reward.

Living in dangerous times Patrick was keenly aware of the dangers all around him and constantly invoked divine protection as he went about his missionary and pastoral labors.

As amazing as it may be to Orthodox Christians, I was informed that a Reformed church of the CREC denomination, who in their new-found interest in Liturgy and broad catholicity, have made it their practice to sing St. Patrick’s Lorica in its entirety at every Baptism before worship!

Honoring St. Patrick Today

One key means by which the Orthodox Church honors its saints is by remembering them on their feast day. Usually during the Vespers and Matins service preceding the Liturgy, we hear a short summary of the saint’s life and sing a hymn celebrating God’s work in that saint’s life. The Orthodox Church in America’s website posted the two hymns for St. Patrick’s feast day:

Troparion — Tone 3

Holy Bishop Patrick, / Faithful shepherd of Christ’s royal flock, / You filled Ireland with the radiance of the Gospel: / The mighty strength of the Trinity! / Now that you stand before the Savior, / Pray that He may preserve us in faith and love!

Kontakion — Tone 4

From slavery you escaped to freedom in Christ’s service: / He sent you to deliver Ireland from the devil’s bondage. / You planted the Word of the Gospel in pagan hearts. / In your journeys and hardships you rivaled the Apostle Paul! / Having received the reward for your labors in heaven, / Never cease to pray for the flock you have gathered on earth, / Holy bishop Patrick!

Our Lady of Walsingham Orthodox Christian Church (Antiochian) in Mesquite, Texas, near Dallas, will be celebrating St. Patrick’s feast day not just liturgically but by serving corned beef and cabbage afterwards.

Another way the Orthodox Church honors its saints is by naming a church after them. There is for example St. Patrick Orthodox Mission (ROCOR) in Wayville SA, near Adelaide, Australia. By taking on the name of a particular saint it seeks to imitate that saint and seeks the prayers of that saint. The mission’s goal is to provide a spiritual home for Orthodox Christians who do not currently attend a church, as well those who desire an English service. This parish also seeks to help non-Orthodox discover the richness of the Orthodox Faith.

Where is St. Patrick in the Orthodox Church Today?

A friend of mine in a recent email asked why his local Greek parish did not celebrate St. Patrick’s feast day. He wrote:

HOWEVER . . . . there IS a difference between Americans attending an Orthodox church and infecting that parish with their cultural personality, versus an American Orthodox Church as an institution headed by American bishops. We have somewhat “Americanized” the Orthodox Church here, but not to the extent that we have supplanted the ethnic identity of the parish’s Motherland. I still hear plenty of Greek spoken in the social hall after service, let alone being exposed to Greek dance practice, Greek posters on the walls, and Greek cuisine.

Let’s put it this way: this Sunday will be St. Patrick’s Day. He IS an Orthodox Saint! However, will there be ANY mention of him at church by the priest? Will the choir or chanter sing his hymns? Will his icon be placed in the narthex? Yes, St. Paddy was Irish, but he has become incorporated into the American ethos such that every calendar printed in this country notes the holiday, and every city in this nation has a celebration of him. Yet, will our church acknowledge one of their own? No, because he is a Western saint, and GOA only recognizes the Eastern Roman Empire’s contribution to Orthodoxy. And as long as it does so. . . wait for it. . .there will never by an American Orthodox Church!

My friend made some good points. St. Patrick is honored by some Orthodox jurisdictions, like the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), but neglected by others like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America (GOA). This observation applies not just to St. Patrick but to other Orthodox saints as well. For example, St. Herman of Alaska, St. Peter the Aleut, St. Innocent, St. Juvenaly are all American Orthodox saints. These Orthodox Christians played a key role in bringing Orthodox Christianity to America but I have yet to hear them honored in the services of the Greek Orthodox church I attend. I often wonder about this oversight and am almost persuaded it is shameful.

I think my friend’s uncomfortable observations about Orthodoxy in America shines a spotlight on some areas where we can mature as a faith community. It seems that some jurisdictions see themselves more as belonging to the old world than to America where they now live. While some are recent immigrants, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians in the US were born and raised in America.

Neglecting to honor western saints like St. Patrick is a far from a minor issue. It impacts our ecclesiology. The Orthodox Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. I use the phrase “Eastern Orthodoxy” sparingly because I do not want to give the impression that Orthodoxy is for the East and Roman Catholicism is for the West. With the tragedy of the Great Schism it has become the responsibility of the Orthodox Church to embrace, preserve, and carry on the rich spiritual legacy of Western Christianity. The Orthodox Christian Church is not another denomination, but the Church catholic encompassing all the Earth – East and West, North and South. Orthodoxy in America needs to be rooted in American society and culture rather than be a colonizing presence for the old world. If all Orthodox jurisdictions in the US were to celebrate St. Patrick’s feast day we will have taken a major step towards an American Orthodox Church.

Lessons From the Life of St. Patrick

One, Patrick was blessed with being born into a family of committed believers but had drifted away from God. He saw his captivity as punishment for his earlier sins but also as an opportunity to return back to God. Similarly, we need to remember to be vigilant in our spiritual life but also to be mindful that God can use hardships as a means of spiritual growth.

Two, life is often more fragile than we know. Patrick lived on the edge of Roman civilization where life was often far from stable or secure. He was among the thousands who were taken captive by the barbarians. For those of us who feel like the world as we know it is on the verge of collapse, we need to remember God rules over human history even while this sovereignty seems hidden from our eyes.

Patrick lived in a time when the Roman world was under siege by barbarian forces and at a time when a new Christian society was emerging. In 410 Rome was sacked by Alaric and soon after that the western half of the Roman Empire slid into the dark ages. But thanks to Emperor Constantine’s foresight the Roman Empire continued in the New Rome of Constantinople which was founded in 330. Roman civilization would endure another thousand years in the East until the Ottoman conquest in 1453.

Three, God worked through the tragedies in Patrick’s life. Patrick’s abduction took him away from his Christian surroundings into an unreached people group. His time as a slave gave him a knowledge of Irish culture and language that would later enable him to preach Christ. The practical skills acquired now can be used for God’s kingdom in the future.

Four, trials and hardship can become a means of spiritual growth. The lonely work as a goatherd prepared Patrick for the monastic life of solitude and prayer. In our life are hidden opportunities for prayer and meditation waiting to be discovered.

Five, the earlier hardships gave Patrick an inner toughness and steadfastness that would enable him to preach Christ in the face of fierce opposition. Rather than complain about our current hardships we can allow them to teach us the inner strength to persevere and prepare us for some future task ordained by God.

Six, Patrick’s life and mission teach us the importance of the Great Commission to Orthodox Christianity. The Christian faith is broad and catholic, it is meant for all peoples, not just for particular ethnic groups.

Finally, I would be remiss not to notice the challenge Saint Patrick presents to our Protestant friends who are so interested in the early church fathers and the lives of the pre-schism saints. This interest is also based on the fact that these saints did not embrace Rome’s later innovations like forbidding priests to marry, Mary’s immaculate conception or her being co-redemptrix for our salvation, papal supremacy over all bishops, and papal infallibility. St. Patrick (385-460/461) lived around the time of other great saints like Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397), Augustine (354-4300, Basil the Great (c. 329-3790, Athanasius (329-373), Jerome (c. 345-c. 419), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 310- c. 386). Saint Patrick embraced the Orthodoxy of his day, e.g., the Liturgy, the office of the bishop, the first and second Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed without the Filioque, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and monasticism. It is commendable that Protestants are using St. Patrick to rediscover their historic roots, but one should stop to ponder whether it is wise to pick and choose their heroes of the faith. Are they doing it because it is the cool thing to do today or because it is part of Holy Tradition? Wouldn’t it be better to embrace the Holy Tradition taught and proclaimed by St. Patrick? And wouldn’t it be wiser to embrace the entire communion of saints recognized by historic Orthodoxy? Wishing you all a blessed St. Patrick’s Day!

Robert Arakaki

Category: Church History (Page 16 of 19)

Early Jewish Attitudes Toward Images

Clearing the Way for Reformed-Orthodox Dialogue on Icons

Is St. Patrick an Orthodox Saint?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives