www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Triumphalism or Humility?

Friends,

In the thread on "God in a Box," the focus seemed to shift from the idea of the "box" to that of "triumphalism," which may just be an easier concept to discuss.

As our brother johnzonaras said, I think it should be obvious that the humility that Christ exemplified for us ought to be a hallmark of His followers. This has nothing to do with the self-abasement or ineffectuality that people often confuse with humility--Christ's humility was part of His strength, and is an important key to our becoming the kind of Church that can "live together as one."

OK, so what exactly is triumphalism? Webster declines to define it, except to include it as a derivative form of triumph. Triumph, in its classical sense, refers to the ceremony in which a conquering king or general returned to the city from whence he had marched forth to war, in parade with his army (and usually some token prisoners in tow).

Based on this, then, I will venture a definition here: I have more to say here, but I think it's time to open up the floor.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Amen. And well said.

-- John

Brother Richard, my concept of triumphalism = lock on the truth. Both members of EOC and of the RCC have been known and still exhibit this failing. Christianity exhibits it as far back as the Apostles and, I would argue, that it part of the reason the faith ran afoul of the Roman state. In fact, evangelical Christianity engages in triumphalism to even a greater degree than the EOC and the RCC. Now I am going to really going to raise some hackles!! Should Christian missionary activity of any type be considered a byproduct of triumphalism?

johnzonaras:

Is it because the early Church realized that "truth" was a Person? And that we are commanded to preach Christ to the ends of the earth, baptizing everyone in the name of the Trinity?

In Christ,

BOB

Good point....the NT does say that.

John,

You're quite right, all the extra details I gave are just a typical human response to having--or believing oneself to have--a lock on truth.

I think Bob got it right here, reminding us that Truth is a Person. From that perspective, I suppose we can say that although we possess the truth in its fullness, we never have a "lock" on it.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

This is a tough one, and I know many Orthodox and Catholic friends who would say that it not triumphalism, but the Great Command to go preach to the ends of the earth.

Our modern society tells us that we have to respect everyone and treat all equally. I would agree. However, we have to be careful not to fall victim to a sense of total ecumenism. If we sincerely believe what the Church teaches, then we believe that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that we need to share this with everyone. That means that I may respect my Jehovah Witness neighbor, but I might want to convert him to Christ. I should think "he's got it all wrong".

Is that triumphalism? Isn't the opposite just as bad, though?

Is it not also that, having the Truth and knowing Him--having the intimate relationship with Him that the Father wishes all to have, too--this should underlie our desire for evangelization of every creature?

It is true that other religions have a dim glimpse of the truth because it is hard-wired into us by our Creator as He forms each of us. But it is also true that He came here to reveal the fullness of how we are to understand ourselves, to understand Him, and to understand the relationship He wants us to have in and with Him.

Beyond that, the Church has struggled for the entire period of her life to get it right herself as well as passing it along to the generations that follow in the Fatih but also to thsoe who have never had the experience of it.

And it all that, we sometimes have what the world would call triumphalism: that "in-your-face" attitude that "I've got it and you don't" that turns so many off. But we do have it and communicating it to an increasingly jaded world is a difficult task.

On the other hand, we might take a page out of some marketing manuals: "some will, some won't, who's next?" (Leaving out the "so what.") Some will accept the message; some won't; our task is to keep on talking about the Truth in season and out.

While we need to constantly evangelize, sometimes it must be done with our lives. Sometimes we are the only Bible that others will ever read. And we need to take the time to constantly challenge and accuse ourselves, as the Desert Fathers admonish us, so that we not fall into the trap of saving others and losing ourselves. That part comes with the daily examination of conscience that both Eastern and Western spiritual manuals advise.

Or so it seems to me.

In Christ,

BOB

Brothers Bob and Richard, I'm going to disagree with you and, for the sake of argument,say it is triumphalism! Here is why. I guess every Christian would say we have to go do missionary work because of that passage. What about some one who is not Christian ? If you were a Wiccan or a Moslem (btw they are triumphalist also), how would they perceive that command? If you were not a Christian looking at the faith from the outside in, how would you look at it? If we could achieve peace by putting it aside, would not it be worth it? Consider missionary work in a Moslem country where a convert from Christianity from Islam is subject to a death sentence. Is it appropriate to convert him? Brothers Bob and Richard your turn!

johnzonaras:

Let's start at the end. Re: missionary work in a Moslem country. To quote a verse often used at Latin funerals--"we have no permanent home here." Our pilgrimage here is to "get it right." It isn't to live forever. I have a prayer verse I've added to the General Intercession for those who are persecuted for the Faith in Christ: that they always remember that this life which passes so quickly away is nothing compared to that life of blessedness which You have prepared for those who remain faithful . . . .


What price peace? And what peace are we talking about? Christ told us He did not come to bring peace upon the earth but to pit the members of one's own family against each other. We have to choose when we encounter His Person. As the Divine Liturgy begins we pray for the peace that is from above. I've taken that into petitions I write for my parish: for the peace from above, for the peace of Christ, the peace that the world cannot give and cannot know, that it will enter our hearts. We cannot go back on our Baptismal commitment to proclaim Him with our lives and take up our own crosses, unless we are ready for Him to deny us before His (and our) Father at the end of our pilgrimage.

How would (or should) the non-Christian perceive the command of Christ? Well, that command is not given to them. It is given to us. It is our job to convince others with both word and life the truth that is Him. If our witness is weak, it may be no wonder that they don't believe us. But that is our fault because we don't pray enough and don't work hard enough. St. Benedict tells us that we should work as if everything depends on us and pray as if everything depends on God. With that kind of approach, we may see the Holy Spirit make conversions. In all this, hwoever, we ought to remember that we do nothing. If the Spirit is able to work through us, we ought to say that we are unprofitable servants and have done nothing except that which we were commanded to do. And if we don't make it, we need to pray harder that our own lives and witness be corrected and strengthened to do what we are called to do.

Someone who is not Christian is not called to do missionary work for Christ. Only the believer is called to do that and he is called after the Church has formed him and then initiated him by Baptism, Christmation, and fed him with Christ Himself. When we have all this, we have put on Christ, as the Baptismal hymn says, and we are His living icon to draw others to Him by word and example.

I guess the simple fact that there is one objective Truth that all can know, no matter what country or culture he comes from ought to be stated here. That Truth is a Person; that Truth is Christ. He is the end of the ages; the first and the last; the eternal one. All others are created by Him. All other "truth" is either derived from Him or is only temporary and will pass away at the end of the age--if not before.

The proofs of Christianity are enough. The one thing that no other religious figure did that Christ did was to return from the dead. We can accept that or reject it, but we must confront that fact and make a stand for or against it. Christ came, we believe, to end all prophecy and all further claims to be pathways to the Creator as we see in the Transfiguration. When the vision ends, there is Christ alone. And while we have plenty of weakness in much of our witness, it is that very weakness that testifies to the fact that a Greater Power than mere men is at work here.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob, I am asking you to put aside your Christianity and walk in some one else's shoes for a moment or two. The question I am asking you is would a non Christian.. a Jew lets say (pretend you are a Jew for a moment).. argee with that Christian missionary work in Israel is appropriate or would they argue that it is triumphalist?

Our brother Richard cited Mark 16:15ff to justify missionary activity.I am sure you know that you know that some scholars dispute the exact point at which Mark ends. There is the longer ending (16:9-18),which contains the passage which Richard mentions, which is inserted after 16:9. 16:10-11 (in the short ending) becomes 16:19-20 (in the long ending). The longer ending seems to have been written by the second century, although the Greek style is clearly not that of the author of Mark. To be fair, the short ending appears to be late. One obviously may speculate why the passage was added in the second century. I have read some scholars' speculation that it was added to justify missionary activity. The Longer ending is cited by the church fathers. The longer ending has traditionally been accepted by Rome since the time of the Council of Trent. In short, is the issue about missionary activity as clear-cut as was argued above? Some would argue that it is not.

For us Christians (speaking about sacramental churches) the feeling arises from a combination of operative beliefs. I say 'operative' because these are not necessarily out in the open but they are in fact what we operate on.

We believe we hold the right beliefs, the right doctrine or truth, and all we have to do is maintain ourselves in that. If we do maintain ourselves ... then at death we will go to heaven. We are (as it were) on the right team, we are in the right organization (which supplies us with the doctrinial set to believe in). We are in the right church (which conversely means that anyone not in our right-church .. is in the wrong-church ).

We are in the right church and we do hold the correct beliefs .. and we see it as our duty to convert all others to our right beliefs and into the right church. Go out and convince all people to be baptized into our ... right church and doctrines.

Christianity on a social level. Christendom.

For us .. preaching the gospel is explaining the doctrines of our church. Everybody has heard that Jesus is supposed to have resurrected (we live in Christian culture) and so our preaching centers of explaining the rosary, explaining Liturgy or Mass, the sacraments, and trying to give the truth that our church teaches us,

We HAVE have triumphed! We ARE in the right church ... and we have the TRUTH - and we can maintain ourselves in it.

All we have to do is maintain ourselves in it all. And that is what confession is for - if we slip - we confess - and all is repaired and back to being good again.

All this boils down to .. we HAVE it ! all we have to do is keep our faith in it - and when we die - we are judged to a reward (heaven and resurrection) as long as we do not slip from it.

We HAVE the prize (membership - sonship) now as long as we can hold onto it (maintain faith in it) we are certified for heaven. And if we can get others to become members in our church - all the better for us (it will count to our reward). How do they become members? they conform to the rituals and doctrines of the right-church.

This mind set automatically creates division. Separation. Being in the right-church can only be true if there are wrong-churches to be in. Having right-doctrine can only be true against the backdrop of others having wrong-doctrine.

Since humility is part of the doctrine - we feel triumphant (because we hope and expect for final heaven which is salvation) .. but we don't always say so. Our church is right - but in our humility we do not come out and blast that into the face of people who are in wrong-churches. We hope that explaining our doctrines will shine the light that our church is perfect and the church they are in is less than perfect.

Now come on .. isn't that it? When we are really honest with ourselves - isn't that description pretty close? (every head nods slowly).



Bob made a step in the right direction when he said to the effect that our life should display the gospel. Living as a sacramental Christian - is also a way to preach the gospel to all men.

I remember the words of Archbishop Sheen about our lack of being able to attract people to the church: "All arguments have been tried ... the only thing left is for us to actually live it ourselves."

Now that was a paraphrase. But it seems to me that my own spirtual director (years agao) and Bob's spiritual director - had a lot in common. Because mine used to say that a conversion of the intellect (intellectual arguments) wares away when a better argument comes along .. only a conversion of the heart remains strong. He used to say "we do not need to speak the gospel ... when we live the gospel ourself it speaks way better than our words". It IS the best argument.

When Christ lives mysteriously within us - Christ himself attract others to himself (in us).

I invite Bob to elaborate first.

-ray

johnzonaras,

I understand what you're trying to say. And I agree with you. That is, YES, I think that Jews or Muslims or Shinto or whoever might see Christian missionaries as triumphalists. They SHOULD see them that way--here's people who say "my religion is better than yours so come and join it". I would think that your coworkers at work should see you as one, too. Because we believe that we are right, that we are in the right Church, the True Church of God; don't fall into Protestant error, believing we're all the same and worship the "same God" -- this is clearly not true. The God of the Church is much different from the Muslim Allah and the Heavenly Father of the Mormons, even the Lord of the Protestants. But of course, we need to be humble about it as Ray explains above.

Now, you seem to want to argue that if we "put aside our Christianity" and "walk in someone else's shoes", maybe we'll all just finally get along. That's presupposing that Mormons will do the same. And Orthodox Jews. And, of course, Muslims, who are far far more triumphalist than any of us.

Besides that, if we put aside our faith in order to "just get along", we disgrace ourselves and deny Christ, not to mention the faith and witness of the martyrs. This a faith we must die for -- and many Christians have died for. No one dies for Islam, they kill for it. There's your triumphalism vs. humility in a nutshell.

johnzonaras:

That's not possible. It's as much a part of me as my body parts. It's fused into and through my soul. I have been aware of Christ walking beside me day in and day out since I was barely old enough to read the Catechism.

Our mission field knows no boundaries. Our message knows no nationalities. Our mandate knows no limitations or people who are "off limits." Christ did say that "I am the way the Truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me."

I think where we part company is the way in which people perceive missionary activity. Missionary activity usually comes by someone going into some new area and setting up some social service that is not there and that is needed: school, hospital, etc. When people ask what motivates the missionary to do this kind of generous sacrificial work, he responds by offering to tell people about Christ. On the other hand, there are those who are out there doing what they term "missionary work" who are out to convert people who are already Christian or start with the standard "hell fire and brimstone" message that gives all missionary work a bad name. Christ went around doing good works, healing the sick, casting out demons, and other things that lead people to understand that God is not some supernatural being bent on terrorizing the human race or playing "gotcha" with them over ommisions.


Frankly, I have no time for scholars who deviate from the Church Fathers. My pastor warned me some 40 years ago that "in the future you won't be able to trust your parish priest because of the direction the seminaries are going." He further said "you'll have to know the Faith and instruct your children yourself." What scholars speculate is their own business. I have heard that Rome has finally come to the point where they are cautioning people about some critical methods in relation to the Scriptures and want them balanced with a look at patristics. So while the wind blows in the scholarly world in one wya or another, people have the danger of losing that which is the most valuable. The scholar cannot save me; Christ can.

I'm now in the middle of a parish situation where the pastor is off in the New Age, running after every whim and fancy of every "scholar" or religious writer who posits some new theory about what Jesus realy said or what the Church really means or what we should believe rather than what has been taught over the centuries. If there is some new thing that bashes what he was taught in Catholic school or his formation, he's for it. He reminds me of people who are bored with the Faith and want to create something entirely new but they get bored with their own creations and are off to the next new thing: the Parable of the Sower, those without roots.

And the parish situation is not unique. My inlaws include a radical feminist nun who has never seen a traditonal practice or teaching she didn't think should be overturned. She hates men (long story that involved her upbringing) and doesn't see anything in the Church that should not be emasculated and feminized.

But for all this, john, where is the Truth? We seem to lose that in so much of our wrangling over the surface things. And we waste time that should be spent in developing a relationship with the Person Who is Truth.

Or so it seems to me,

BOB

ray--

Actually I'm terrified of being entrusted with the gift of the Faith. Triumphalistic? Not for a long time. There was the time when youthful exuberance caused me to look down on anyone outside of the Church where I was born and raised, but, thanks be to God, He lead me out of that.

I constantly ask myself why I was given this gift and not someone else. I constantly accuse myself in the spirit of the Desert Fathers who tell us that if we accuse ourselves and really examine our own conscience we won't have time to accuse others or look down on them. Since those to whom much is given much more will be required, I've got enough to do before I have time to be triumphalistic.

As I have grown in my understanding--perhaps glacially slowly--I have come to see God as having as His second attribute a vast humility that does not trumpet Him as "Here I am, I'm God and you're not." Rather as seeing Him as One Who has all that He needs and then humbly coming along, knocking on the door of my heart and asking if He may come in and rest His Head. Also seeing Him as one who has had the flu; been rejected by family and friends; being misunderstood and vilified for not meeting everyone else's expectations. And in this I can see myself and still wonder why'd you waste your time with me?

I'm also on track for having Him ask rather angrily why I didn't do more with what talents and blessings I've received. And I have no answer except the hope that someone else will step up and say that something I did or said lifted them or gave them encouragement or in some way made them aware of the vast dignity that they have as sons of God. Otherwise I'm up the river without a paddle.

Christianity, for me, is deeper than the surface and is something that is so much a part of me that to try and separate it would require the kind of thing one does when one needs to remove a computer program that has entwined itself into the basic program of the machine. I'd have to be re-booted.

In Christ,

BOB