I recently read an excellent essay entitled, “The Essentials of Orthodox Spirituality,” by an anonymous author who simply calls himself “a monk of the Eastern church.” This reading is in part preparation for a course on Christian spirituality that I teach, and in part from a genuine interest in the subject.
I found the monk’s section on the sacraments especially enlightening. The subtitle is “The Holy Mysteries,” and the monk contrasts the Orthodox emphasis on the mystery of these means of grace with the Catholic familiarity and openness in regards to the sacraments.
But it was the monk’s comment on Quakers that most surprised and delighted me. Let me quote:
“There is ‘one greater than the Temple' (Matt. 12:6), and greater than the Holy Mysteries. The scholastic axiom ‘Deus non alligator sacramentis’—‘God is not bound to the sacraments’—may have a Western origin, but expresses quite well the Eastern mind. What Orthodox would dare to assert that the members of the Society of Friends are deprived of the graces that the sacraments represent? The angel went down at regular times into the pool, and whosoever stepped in first after the troubling of the waters was made whole; but our Lord directly healed the paralytic who could not step in (John 5). This does not mean that a man could disregard, or slight, or despise, the channels of grace offered by the Church without endangering his soul. It means that no externals, however useful, are necessary to God, in the absolute sense of this word, and that there is no institution, however sacred, which God cannot dispense with” (in Exploring Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Reader, edited by Kenneth J. Collins, Baker, 2000, p. 115).
I feel affirmed in my own faith and renewed in the conviction that one of the callings of Friends is to give witness to the truth of the spiritual reality of the sacraments and God’s ultimate independence of any external means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found you! And here's Mike's blogspot: e-mcgideaspace.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI am puzzled by Friends' tendency to cast discussions of baptism and communion in the interpretive framework of "sacrament". I believe that this term is extra-Biblical, and that it is a high church concept imposed upon dialogue concerning baptism, communion and other ordinances. The sacramental framework then becomes the basis for discussion, rather than the Biblical framework.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your observation, Bill. Yes, I am using the word "sacrament" in its traditional sense, following the term the Monk uses in his essay. I realize this is not a biblical term (as in so much of our theological language). Your observation intrigues me and I admit to not understanding completely. Could you say a little more?
ReplyDeleteNancy
Why would you be pleased to receive affirmation concerning dispensing with a channel of grace? I'd want to avail myself of every opportunity to receive the presence of Christ. Also, is it possible that dispensing with the repeated reminder of Christ's body and blood (communion) has led to removing Christ from the center within so many denominations (including some Friends)? Love, Mary
ReplyDeleteMary, your reflections always push me further. Actually, I think one of the weaknesses of Friends practice (while agreeing with the substance of Friends beliefs on the sacraments) is that we have no regular form by which to thankfully focus on the sacrificial death of Christ, and therefore, we don't do it.
ReplyDeleteNancy
I think Friends need to be mindful of "Do this in Remembrance of Me." I was brought up with silence before every meal rather than "grace" because we were each remembering the presence of Christ with us as we "broke bread" together. In conversation with a Jesuit friend, he commented that in the older(?) tradition of the RC mass a bell was rung at the offering of the host followed by a silence to welcome the presence of Christ. He was struck by the congruence with Friends silence before a meal to recognize the presence of Christ.
ReplyDeleteNancy Thomas asked if I could comment more on my claim that "sacramentalism" imposes a high church frame of reference on interpretations of Quakerism and Quaker silence.
ReplyDeleteOver the years I have attended Old Order (German Baptist) Brethren and conservative Mennonite churches for lengthy periods. I have never heard the term "sacrament" used in these groups to describe the "ordinances". It struck me that "sacrament" is a concept from the "liturgical" churches, not those of the Radical Reformation. Is high church liturgicalism the appropriate framework for interpreting the Quaker faith?
Furthermore, Friends often claim that silence has a sacramental quality, and this justifies laying aside baptism, communion, etc. Does this sacramental view of silence also justify replacing the clear commands of Christ to His followers? (For example, "do this in remembrance of Me.")
I recently came across Vernard Eller's book *In Place of Sacraments* (Eerdmans, 1972). Thus far I have only skimmed this book, but it raises similar questions about the emphasis on "sacrament".