Yesterday morning I greeted Tim near the warming woodstove with this thought: “I’ve figured out the difference between my church preferences and Orthodoxy.”
“Figured out” is maybe a stretch, but I had made a leap in my thinking process. It’s fantasy vs. realism all over again.
From the first, our daughter, Victoria, loved fantasy stories. Through all her years she’s encouraged me to read more of them. On the other hand, while I’ve appreciated high fantasy, especially, and seen a lot of truth shining through Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowling, I don’t gravitate to the fantasy genre.
Realism’s my joy. For reading, I’ll grab a novel set in this world, thanks. I’m always after good nonfiction narratives. I wish to relate, to taste the beef jerky chewed on the mountainside while smelling the blizzard approaching and not knowing how slippery the rock face will become in snow. I don’t so much care to listen for dragon’s wings overhead or ponder the king’s edict or become invisible.
Fantasy is artistic, the mind and spirit extolling epic perhapses. Realism is less graceful, but no less imaginative. And it’s the road along which I encounter worship. Victoria and I agree we’re worshiping the same being, though she soars in ancient liturgical chanting while I embrace adding up pieces within ancient texts.
We’re after similar things through very different means. And if we’re sincere, we’ll keep evaluating what drives our differing stories. All in all, this is a more interesting endeavor than I imagined a couple of years ago, when Victoria first said, “You know, I’ve been looking into Orthodoxy…” And I thought, “Oh, no.”
After I related to Tim my morning ponderings yesterday, he left for St. John’s to do the liturgy with Victoria. Then he came to church with me later in the afternoon. As usual when it comes to him, I can’t figure out exactly how his journey’s unfolding. But you might say he’s becoming well-read.
Oh, I hate to say this (because I know how hard it is to pin these things down, and it’s so cool you had an insight!), but I don’t quite follow you.
Sounds like you’re saying Orthodox Church is fantastical (a made-up world whose truths are real, but only metaphorically), not realistic (like “Call of the Wild”? [smile]), but surely you don’t mean that?
Or do you?
Or do you mean to say one is more ornate (Orthodox icons) and the other more spare (words on a page)?
If you’d like to say more, I’d love to hear it.
I just wandered into theology on my blog today too, and couldn’t decide if that was a good idea or not. Sure enough, someone immediately asked, “What do you mean?”
My favorite question, yes, and yet so hard to answer, sometimes. Especially when I’m supposed to be working!
My response is similar to Fresca’s. I’d love some clarification – or maybe I just need to think harder.
I love both of your comments, because you’re free to say when you don’t get it. And I’ve come to a place with blogging (about time after nearly four years) where I *know* this space is for practice, for processing. Which is my attempt here, though it needs further work. Just like when I come out to see Tim in the morning, sporting my latest insight.
Maybe it would have helped to say Victoria and I need to evaluate what drives our different genres, rather than stories. I was thinking genre differences, as a metaphor for theological differences. Or maybe just for denominational differences, but I’ll have to ponder that. When she and I talk about our beliefs, we’re still in essence on the same page. We’re expressing differently the same basic assumption: God exists and gave us his Christ to teach and intercede for us.
Orthodox practices are more ornate and outward than what I do, but either way can express an inner reality reflecting truth. Both ways can be about the wrong thing entirely. But my assumption at this point is they’re both flawed expressions of the truth.
Hm. Genres, yes, that makes sense to me. Different faith practices do seem to *parallel* (but not to equal) different literary or artistic styles. And therefore suit different personalities.
Along that line of thinking, then, it’s not that Orthodoxy = Fantasy, but that the sort of people who like to hear dragon wings overhead might be prone to like the aesthetics of Orthodox worship.
Certainly I know that the metaphysical imagination of Catholicism fits me very well (e.g. the teaching that Jesus is present in the host makes sense to me, the same way that Beethoven is in his music).
I don’t really get it when people think there’s only one way. What a narrow view that seems to me, like a god who can only write one kind of book, one style of song…
And yeah, anything humans do is going to be flawed–that’s the baseline of my thinking! We’re such silly little things.
Fresca, you are tremendous at putting words on ideas. I carried that thought of yours around a while, about Jesus being present in the host the way Beethoven is in his music. Fantastic! Though it’s not the strict teaching of either the Catholics or the Orthodox, it fits so well what I think the Bible portrays. This symbolic food people eat has what Jesus was all about “in” it. You don’t know how much that thought will help me, next time I visit my daughter’s church service. Thanks!
Hey, that’s so neat that I could help!
The idea came to me–big surprise–when I was listening to Beethoven and realized the music “is” the man.
Not strictly Catholic, perhaps, but not heretical. Talking about the sacraments often ends up sounding like talking about art: both trying to articulate mystery.