• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

The Orthodox Church as "The Lazy Servant"

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
We should all know the parable of the talents:

“Now the one who had received one valuable coin came and said, ‘Master, I knew that you are a hard man. You harvest grain where you haven’t sown. You gather crops where you haven’t spread seed.  So I was afraid. And I hid my valuable coin in the ground. Here, you have what’s yours.’ 

“His master replied, ‘You evil and lazy servant! You knew that I harvest grain where I haven’t sown and that I gather crops where I haven’t spread seed?  In that case, you should have turned my money over to the bankers so that when I returned, you could give me what belonged to me with interest.  Therefore, take from him the valuable coin and give it to the one who has ten coins.  Those who have much will receive more, and they will have more than they need. But as for those who don’t have much, even the little bit they have will be taken away from them.  Now take the worthless servant and throw him outside into the darkness.’

“People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth."

Matt 25:24-30

The parable can just as easily be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution just as much as it can apply to our personal, spiritual lives; in fact, the parable provides an excellent lesson for a tried and true business model.  What I want to ask - in light of some of the other threads currently floating about the forum concerning the Orthodox Church's fidelity to the "deposit of faith" and Tradition - is:  Does the Orthodox Church fit the characterization of the "lazy servant" who has held so steadfastly to not changing anything about the talent which he has received that, in the end, his resoluteness proves to be his damnation?

In my opinion, it does.  Here's why I think so.

The Orthodox Church projects the image of a glass house sterilely protecting what was put into it in the first century.  While Tradition has been a safeguard against liberal innovators who think that theology can perpetually created anew in each generation, it has also discouraged constructive insights that augment the true faith.  Too many Orthodox bishops over the centuries, afraid of new ideas, have held too great of a cavalier attitude as they dare not see any minutiae of the deposit of faith be lost to their administration.  As such, it is my opinion that such fear has become endemic to the very ecclesial structure of the Church itself and, through such fear, it has become the "lazy servant," afraid of having any new, constructive ideas at all.  It seems plainly evident that the retort, "Why should there be new ideas?" is the prima facie modus operandi of such fear.

I hope there are some here who can prove me wrong.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Shanghaiski said:
No one can prove you wrong unless you have first proved yourself wrong.
No doubt.  While I hope a good discussion can be had regarding this subject, I am open to being proven wrong.  I am arrogant but Not so arrogant as that.
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
Big Chris said:
We should all know the parable of the talents:

“Now the one who had received one valuable coin came and said, ‘Master, I knew that you are a hard man. You harvest grain where you haven’t sown. You gather crops where you haven’t spread seed.  So I was afraid. And I hid my valuable coin in the ground. Here, you have what’s yours.’ 

“His master replied, ‘You evil and lazy servant! You knew that I harvest grain where I haven’t sown and that I gather crops where I haven’t spread seed?  In that case, you should have turned my money over to the bankers so that when I returned, you could give me what belonged to me with interest.  Therefore, take from him the valuable coin and give it to the one who has ten coins.  Those who have much will receive more, and they will have more than they need. But as for those who don’t have much, even the little bit they have will be taken away from them.  Now take the worthless servant and throw him outside into the darkness.’

“People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth."

Matt 25:24-30

The parable can just as easily be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution just as much as it can apply to our personal, spiritual lives; in fact, the parable provides an excellent lesson for a tried and true business model.  What I want to ask - in light of some of the other threads currently floating about the forum concerning the Orthodox Church's fidelity to the "deposit of faith" and Tradition - is:  Does the Orthodox Church fit the characterization of the "lazy servant" who has held so steadfastly to not changing anything about the talent which he has received that, in the end, his resoluteness proves to be his damnation?

In my opinion, it does.  Here's why I think so.

The Orthodox Church projects the image of a glass house sterilely protecting what was put into it in the first century.  While Tradition has been a safeguard against liberal innovators who think that theology can perpetually created anew in each generation, it has also discouraged constructive insights that augment the true faith.  Too many Orthodox bishops over the centuries, afraid of new ideas, have held too great of a cavalier attitude as they dare not see any minutiae of the deposit of faith be lost to their administration.  As such, it is my opinion that such fear has become endemic to the very ecclesial structure of the Church itself and, through such fear, it has become the "lazy servant," afraid of having any new, constructive ideas at all.  It seems plainly evident that the retort, "Why should there be new ideas?" is the prima facie modus operandi of such fear.

I hope there are some here who can prove me wrong.
Wrong is wrong.  It needs no proof.
 

Luke

Merarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
565
Points
113
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Metropolis of San Francisco
Must be a lazy servant which survived 500 years of Turkish oppression.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Gamliel said:
Must be a lazy servant which survived 500 years of Turkish oppression.
What did this lazy servant do beyond keep its first century faith secure in a safe deposit box for those 500 years?

This is the scope of the OP.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Big Chris said:
The Orthodox Church projects the image of a glass house sterilely protecting what was put into it in the first century.  While Tradition has been a safeguard against liberal innovators who think that theology can perpetually created anew in each generation, it has also discouraged constructive insights that augment the true faith.  Too many Orthodox bishops over the centuries, afraid of new ideas, have held too great of a cavalier attitude as they dare not see any minutiae of the deposit of faith be lost to their administration.  As such, it is my opinion that such fear has become endemic to the very ecclesial structure of the Church itself and, through such fear, it has become the "lazy servant," afraid of having any new, constructive ideas at all.  It seems plainly evident that the retort, "Why should there be new ideas?" is the prima facie modus operandi of such fear.
This deserves a standing ovation just for its prose.

But I disagree with you.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Sleeper said:
Perhaps you would enjoy this article, by Abp. HILARION: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx
I haven't had a chance to read the full article yet, but I thank you for it.  I enjoy his interpretation of the same parable:

It is obvious why Christian faith should be “apostolic”: transmitted by God the Word become flesh, it was passed on to the apostles as a talent for them to multiply in order to bear fruit, thirty-fold and sixty-fold and an hundred-fold in the history of different nations.
The matter then becomes an issue of hermeneutics.
 

HouseOfGod

Sr. Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Well, first of all, I totally agree with everything that Achronos said.

In Orthodoxy the Church does grow and change, and this is evident in many things. It isn't as though everyone celebrates the Divine Liturgy in one language, for example, it is adapted. What must remain constant is the doctrines and the faith itself. It is written in Hebrews 13:8- "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever."  The faith of the Church is one that holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ, which never change, even as the Church changes other aspects to conform with the inconstant and imperfect Earth. I've used this analogy before, but here goes. If we allow the faith itself to change to conform to these modern standards, it becomes like a game of Telephone. Things keep getting rearranged and miscommunicated to the point where the final statement is totally different from the one that we were supposed to start with. God bless, and I'm happy to answer any questions I can that you might have. :)

 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1
Points
36
I think you're entire post is a category error. You say it 'can be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution.' but I see nothing about the parable to indicate that the servants=the Church. Rather the Church is the treasure while the servants are the individual members thereof.

Is the Orthodox Church full of 'lazy servants' (and foolish virgins, and ungrateful servants who refuse to forgive 100 denarii, and prodigal sons, and tares)? Yes. Definitely. But the Church is not 'a servant'. In the parable immediately beforehand, Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, and we are the foolish or wise virgins who accompany her. The Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ, the ark of salvation and the treasure we have been given.
 

KBN1

High Elder
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
888
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Minneapolis
witega said:
I think you're entire post is a category error. You say it 'can be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution.' but I see nothing about the parable to indicate that the servants=the Church. Rather the Church is the treasure while the servants are the individual members thereof.

Is the Orthodox Church full of 'lazy servants' (and foolish virgins, and ungrateful servants who refuse to forgive 100 denarii, and prodigal sons, and tares)? Yes. Definitely. But the Church is not 'a servant'. In the parable immediately beforehand, Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, and we are the foolish or wise virgins who accompany her. The Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ, the ark of salvation and the treasure we have been given.
Well said.
 

HouseOfGod

Sr. Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
witega said:
I think you're entire post is a category error. You say it 'can be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution.' but I see nothing about the parable to indicate that the servants=the Church. Rather the Church is the treasure while the servants are the individual members thereof.

Is the Orthodox Church full of 'lazy servants' (and foolish virgins, and ungrateful servants who refuse to forgive 100 denarii, and prodigal sons, and tares)? Yes. Definitely. But the Church is not 'a servant'. In the parable immediately beforehand, Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, and we are the foolish or wise virgins who accompany her. The Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ, the ark of salvation and the treasure we have been given.
Once again, extremely beautiful and very clear, witega. :)
 

Carefree T

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
witega said:
I think you're entire post is a category error. You say it 'can be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution.' but I see nothing about the parable to indicate that the servants=the Church. Rather the Church is the treasure while the servants are the individual members thereof.

Is the Orthodox Church full of 'lazy servants' (and foolish virgins, and ungrateful servants who refuse to forgive 100 denarii, and prodigal sons, and tares)? Yes. Definitely. But the Church is not 'a servant'. In the parable immediately beforehand, Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, and we are the foolish or wise virgins who accompany her. The Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ, the ark of salvation and the treasure we have been given.
Wow, wonderful words. Just wow.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
witega said:
I think you're entire post is a category error. You say it 'can be applied to churches, ecclesiology and any institution.' but I see nothing about the parable to indicate that the servants=the Church. Rather the Church is the treasure while the servants are the individual members thereof.

Is the Orthodox Church full of 'lazy servants' (and foolish virgins, and ungrateful servants who refuse to forgive 100 denarii, and prodigal sons, and tares)? Yes. Definitely. But the Church is not 'a servant'. In the parable immediately beforehand, Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, and we are the foolish or wise virgins who accompany her. The Church is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ, the ark of salvation and the treasure we have been given.
The minas ("talent" or "treasure") is not something which is definitively isolated to a single thing as it can be applied to the deposit of faith, personal faith, contemplative prayer, the Church, Israel, or even capital investment as that seems to the clearest, most erudite interpretation.  What you offer, then, is really nothing more than another (personal) interpretation.

If the Master of the parable is seen as referring to Christ, then "[t]he Savior reveals Himself, out of His abundance, to dispense goods to His servants according to the ability of each recipient.  Thereby, His servants can increase them by useful activity and then return to account for them…  [Paul says,] "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, the same you should commit to faithful men, who will also be able to teach others."  So states Clement of Alexandria.  Origen asserts that “those who have received the ten talents are those who have been entrusted with the dispensing of the Word, which has been committed to them."  Thus, Clement and Origen both agree that the people in the parable are entrusted with quantities of wealth; that is, they are given charge over something of value given to them by someone outside.  That quantity of wealth is the gospel truth which is the deposit of faith and churches are the servants given charge over that wealth.

Now you will likely say, 'Yes, but Gregory of Nyssa sees the wealth as the graces of God, or Augustine sees the wealth as the divine gifts," which only further demonstrates how this parable is subject to hermeneutics, but at least my interpretation, for the purpose of this thread, finds support in the Fathers, as well.  And to that end I think we must restrict ourselves to such an interpretation, seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Big Chris said:
...seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Even if we accept your premise that Christ is the Master in the parable and the talents are the deposit of faith (which is reasonable), it does not necessarily follow that the Orthodox Church is the lazy servant. That is your unsupported opinion. Which unfortunately leaves us with nothing to discuss. You have a particular personal opinion or vision of the Orthodox Church which also does not necessarily reflect the reality of history.
 

HouseOfGod

Sr. Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
...seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Even if we accept your premise that Christ is the Master in the parable and the talents are the deposit of faith (which is reasonable), it does not necessarily follow that the Orthodox Church is the lazy servant. That is your unsupported opinion. Which unfortunately leaves us with nothing to discuss. You have a particular personal opinion or vision of the Orthodox Church which also does not necessarily reflect the reality of history.
You took the same thoughts I had when reading his post and turned it into a calm reply that makes sense :) I agree
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
...seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Even if we accept your premise that Christ is the Master in the parable and the talents are the deposit of faith (which is reasonable), it does not necessarily follow that the Orthodox Church is the lazy servant. That is your unsupported opinion. Which unfortunately leaves us with nothing to discuss. You have a particular personal opinion or vision of the Orthodox Church which also does not necessarily reflect the reality of history.
Telling me that I'm wrong or that such-and-such is my opinion is hardly any way to convince me, convince any lurkers/doubters on this forum, or adequately defend Orthodoxy.  I'm not here to attack Orthodoxy, but to discuss a presentation of the Orthodox Church as the lazy servant, a presentation which, I believe, more closely reflects the reality of history because Orthodoxy has guarded its first century treasure so well that it is incapable of facilitating new ideas that support and nuance sound doctrine. 
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Big Chris said:
The Orthodox Church projects the image of a glass house sterilely protecting what was put into it in the first century. 
This is a personal subjective opinion - to you the Orthodox Church projects this image. Does it project it to anyone else? Not so far, it seems, on this thread anyway. There's nothing wrong with having opinions. Personally I have opinions or preferences on almost everything!
Asking for evidence to support your opinion is not saying you're wrong nor is it being critical, because personal opinions are just that - on the level of preferring chocolate to vanilla. It's asking you to support a personal subjective impression or opinion with some objective facts. Then we can argue about interpretation! Won't that be fun?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Big Chris said:
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
...seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Even if we accept your premise that Christ is the Master in the parable and the talents are the deposit of faith (which is reasonable), it does not necessarily follow that the Orthodox Church is the lazy servant. That is your unsupported opinion. Which unfortunately leaves us with nothing to discuss. You have a particular personal opinion or vision of the Orthodox Church which also does not necessarily reflect the reality of history.
Telling me that I'm wrong or that such-and-such is my opinion is hardly any way to convince me,
Well, you DID come right out and say it was your opinion. ;)
 

HouseOfGod

Sr. Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Big Chris said:
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
...seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Even if we accept your premise that Christ is the Master in the parable and the talents are the deposit of faith (which is reasonable), it does not necessarily follow that the Orthodox Church is the lazy servant. That is your unsupported opinion. Which unfortunately leaves us with nothing to discuss. You have a particular personal opinion or vision of the Orthodox Church which also does not necessarily reflect the reality of history.
Telling me that I'm wrong or that such-and-such is my opinion is hardly any way to convince me, convince any lurkers/doubters on this forum, or adequately defend Orthodoxy.  I'm not here to attack Orthodoxy, but to discuss a presentation of the Orthodox Church as the lazy servant, a presentation which, I believe, more closely reflects the reality of history because Orthodoxy has guarded its first century treasure so well that it is incapable of facilitating new ideas that support and nuance sound doctrine. 
What new ideas do you specifically refer to?
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,882
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
Big Chris said:
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
...seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Even if we accept your premise that Christ is the Master in the parable and the talents are the deposit of faith (which is reasonable), it does not necessarily follow that the Orthodox Church is the lazy servant. That is your unsupported opinion. Which unfortunately leaves us with nothing to discuss. You have a particular personal opinion or vision of the Orthodox Church which also does not necessarily reflect the reality of history.
Telling me that I'm wrong or that such-and-such is my opinion is hardly any way to convince me, convince any lurkers/doubters on this forum, or adequately defend Orthodoxy.  I'm not here to attack Orthodoxy, but to discuss a presentation of the Orthodox Church as the lazy servant, a presentation which, I believe, more closely reflects the reality of history because Orthodoxy has guarded its first century treasure so well that it is incapable of facilitating new ideas that support and nuance sound doctrine. 
Orthodoxy is not a servant.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
The Orthodox Church projects the image of a glass house sterilely protecting what was put into it in the first century. 
This is a personal subjective opinion - to you the Orthodox Church projects this image. Does it project it to anyone else? Not so far, it seems, on this thread anyway. There's nothing wrong with having opinions. Personally I have opinions or preferences on almost everything!
Asking for evidence to support your opinion is not saying you're wrong nor is it being critical, because personal opinions are just that - on the level of preferring chocolate to vanilla. It's asking you to support a personal subjective impression or opinion with some objective facts. Then we can argue about interpretation! Won't that be fun?
Unfortunately I think the categories are quite different.  While one's palette for chocolate or vanilla is indeed a personal subjective opinion, we are dealing here with biblical hermeneutics and ecclesial history.  Again, if Christ is the Master and the wealth is the deposit of faith and the churches are the servants entrusted with that wealth, I do not see anything in Orthodox church history to suggest that it has done anything more than bury the wealth in the ground fearful of irritating its Master.  And I have not read anything in this thread thus far to suggest otherwise.  If there is no concern for proving my disposition wrong, then this again further illustrates my point, for it seems that Orthodox Christians are more concerned about preserving their own than multiplying Christ's wealth.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Big Chris said:
Now you will likely say, 'Yes, but Gregory of Nyssa sees the wealth as the graces of God, or Augustine sees the wealth as the divine gifts," which only further demonstrates how this parable is subject to hermeneutics, but at least my interpretation, for the purpose of this thread, finds support in the Fathers, as well.  And to that end I think we must restrict ourselves to such an interpretation, seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Matt 25: 14. "For the kingdom of heaven is like a..." servant? No. Like three servants? No. The kingdom of heaven is like "a man travelling into a far country, who...".
I agree that the Master is Christ. And have no dispute that the talents are a multivalent image that can be applied to anything which 'the Master' grants. But the 'lazy servant' cannot be the Church because in the very first sentence Christ has already identified what the Church is in this parable--it *is* the parable, it is the context within which individual figures of the servants exist and act. (You say your interpretation finds support in the Fathers, but if you can find a Father who does not equate the Kingdom of Heaven and the Church, I'll be shocked).

And note the plural. Because this is not a parable about a lazy servant. It is a parable about 3 servants. So if the lazy servant is the Orthodox Church then who are the two good and faithful servants? Rome and Protestantism? The Assyrian Church of the East and the OOs? Judaism and Islam? I presume you are not going to argue that we should re-interpret every explicit Scriptural and Patristic reference to One Church, One Body, in light of your interpretation of this particular parable. So if we are, instead, to interpret the parable in light of those verses, none of the servants can be the Church because the servants are something there can be plural of, whereas the Church is One.

You can be the lazy servant. So can I. So can my priest or my bishop. And indeed, if you are trying to argue that the majority of Orthodox bishops, priests, and laity for the last 1000 years have been lazy servants, then I won't disagree with you. But I'd have to ask "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." (Rom 14:4) Indeed, to the extent that you think this verse has anything to do with identify the lazy servant as anyone other than yourself, I think you've missed the point.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Big Chris said:
katherineofdixie said:
Big Chris said:
The Orthodox Church projects the image of a glass house sterilely protecting what was put into it in the first century. 
This is a personal subjective opinion - to you the Orthodox Church projects this image. Does it project it to anyone else? Not so far, it seems, on this thread anyway. There's nothing wrong with having opinions. Personally I have opinions or preferences on almost everything!
Asking for evidence to support your opinion is not saying you're wrong nor is it being critical, because personal opinions are just that - on the level of preferring chocolate to vanilla. It's asking you to support a personal subjective impression or opinion with some objective facts. Then we can argue about interpretation! Won't that be fun?
Unfortunately I think the categories are quite different.  While one's palette for chocolate or vanilla is indeed a personal subjective opinion, we are dealing here with biblical hermeneutics and ecclesial history.  Again, if Christ is the Master and the wealth is the deposit of faith and the churches are the servants entrusted with that wealth, I do not see anything in Orthodox church history to suggest that it has done anything more than bury the wealth in the ground fearful of irritating its Master.  And I have not read anything in this thread thus far to suggest otherwise.  If there is no concern for proving my disposition wrong, then this again further illustrates my point, for it seems that Orthodox Christians are more concerned about preserving their own than multiplying Christ's wealth.
What does it mean to you to "multiply Christ's wealth"? So far I've not seen you give a definition of this, which would be quite helpful as a guide to knowing how we need to address your concerns.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
witega said:
Big Chris said:
Now you will likely say, 'Yes, but Gregory of Nyssa sees the wealth as the graces of God, or Augustine sees the wealth as the divine gifts," which only further demonstrates how this parable is subject to hermeneutics, but at least my interpretation, for the purpose of this thread, finds support in the Fathers, as well.  And to that end I think we must restrict ourselves to such an interpretation, seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Matt 25: 14. "For the kingdom of heaven is like a..." servant? No. Like three servants? No. The kingdom of heaven is like "a man travelling into a far country, who...".
I agree that the Master is Christ. And have no dispute that the talents are a multivalent image that can be applied to anything which 'the Master' grants. But the 'lazy servant' cannot be the Church because in the very first sentence Christ has already identified what the Church is in this parable--it *is* the parable, it is the context within which individual figures of the servants exist and act. (You say your interpretation finds support in the Fathers, but if you can find a Father who does not equate the Kingdom of Heaven and the Church, I'll be shocked).
Actually, it's not hard at all to find a Father who does not equate the Kingdom of Heaven with the Church.  This is just bad theology and bad ecclesiology.  The Kingdom is larger than the Church.  After all, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the Kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt 7:21). Or, in the words of St. Augustine, "Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."  When the Church identifies or equates itself with the Kingdom, the Church is declaring that it is the saving presence of God on earth and at least implying that God is not present as a saving God anywhere else except in the Church.  If the Church is regarded as the Kingdom, then a person who criticizes the Church and calls for institutional and structural change is, in effect, criticizing God and calling for change in the way God chooses to deal with us and be with us.

The Church is meant to be:

1. a proclaimer of the Kingdom of God already begun;
2. a sign revealing God's Kingdom or redemptive presence now;
3. a servant of the continuous unfolding of the Kingdom.

As for the rest of what you say in your post, I can only take that to mean that you have no direct, adequate response to my thesis concerning the Orthodox Church as a glass house.
 

witega

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Big Chris said:
As for the rest of what you say in your post, I can only take that to mean that you have no direct, adequate response to my thesis concerning the Orthodox Church as a glass house.
Have fun playing your games Chris.
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
witega said:
Have fun playing your games Chris.
I'm sorry that you think I'm playing a game.  Or do you just wish to undermine my efforts to have my questions answered because you can't answer them?  Did you think I would just sit back and placidly accept any answer that you gave like everyone else here on the forum?  I stated in my OP that I would like to discuss this topic in all earnestness but all I have received thus far is aversions.
 

Azul

High Elder
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
988
Reaction score
0
Points
0
parables and metaphors can be interpreted in many ways, that does not mean that a certain manner of interpretation is true or intended among parts.. i applaud your prose also.. my question is , if the EO is the lazy servant , who are the other two and why it's the talent of the least given to the one who has the most?Did God imparted different kinds of talents to the three servants?How much talents can one collect?Why 10, 5 and 1?Do these numbers have any meaning.. Where does it stop? Is 11 the maximum?
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Big Chris said:
Gamliel said:
Must be a lazy servant which survived 500 years of Turkish oppression.
What did this lazy servant do beyond keep its first century faith secure in a safe deposit box for those 500 years?

This is the scope of the OP.
Producing millions of saints is laziness?
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Too many people in this thread think that I am saying that when Christ delivered His parable that, at that time, he was speaking about something called the Orthodox Church plus two other servants.  If there was some miscommunication concerning that, then forgive me but I thought my OP was quite clear.  Even if it wasn't, I thought my several restatements were clear.  Either apparently not or all this aggravation thus far has merely been an intentional aversion from the question being asked.  All that I am actually getting at is that the Orthodox Church demonstrates apt characteristics of the "lazy servant" in the parable.  

[If you want to know the real, integral interpretation of the parable, modern scholarship seems to be consistently of the opinion that it really was a parable that struck to the core of capital investment with moral overtones.]
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Shanghaiski said:
Big Chris said:
Gamliel said:
Must be a lazy servant which survived 500 years of Turkish oppression.
What did this lazy servant do beyond keep its first century faith secure in a safe deposit box for those 500 years?

This is the scope of the OP.
Producing millions of saints is laziness?
Who's asking about sainthood?

From the OP:

Too many Orthodox bishops over the centuries, afraid of new ideas, have held too great of a cavalier attitude as they dare not see any minutiae of the deposit of faith be lost to their administration.  As such, it is my opinion that such fear has become endemic to the very ecclesial structure of the Church itself and, through such fear, it has become the "lazy servant," afraid of having any new, constructive ideas at all.  It seems plainly evident that the retort, "Why should there be new ideas?" is the prima facie modus operandi of such fear.
 

Azul

High Elder
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
988
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Big Chris said:
Too many people in this thread think that I am saying that when Christ delivered His parable that, at that time, he was speaking about something called the Orthodox Church plus two other servants.  If there was some miscommunication concerning that, then forgive me but I thought my OP was quite clear.  Even if it wasn't, I thought my several restatements were clear.  Either apparently not or all this aggravation thus far has merely been an intentional aversion from the question being asked.  All that I am actually getting at is that the Orthodox Church demonstrates apt characteristics of the "lazy servant" in the parable.  

[If you want to know the real, integral interpretation of the parable, modern scholarship seems to be consistently of the opinion that it really was a parable that struck to the core of capital investment with moral overtones.]
In the parable Jesus speaks of three servants , or three categories of servants if you want.In order for a parable having application to the very Church of Christ all variables need to be met.Those tend to be pretty exact if you ask me.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Faith
7 Councils
Jurisdiction
First without Equals
I would think that many Orthodox Christians are lazy servants, and I am the first of them. Let us all work more.
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Big Chris said:
Shanghaiski said:
Big Chris said:
Gamliel said:
Must be a lazy servant which survived 500 years of Turkish oppression.
What did this lazy servant do beyond keep its first century faith secure in a safe deposit box for those 500 years?

This is the scope of the OP.
Producing millions of saints is laziness?
Who's asking about sainthood?

From the OP:

Too many Orthodox bishops over the centuries, afraid of new ideas, have held too great of a cavalier attitude as they dare not see any minutiae of the deposit of faith be lost to their administration.  As such, it is my opinion that such fear has become endemic to the very ecclesial structure of the Church itself and, through such fear, it has become the "lazy servant," afraid of having any new, constructive ideas at all.  It seems plainly evident that the retort, "Why should there be new ideas?" is the prima facie modus operandi of such fear.
Then you asked the wrong question. Because the mission of the Church is to sanctify, which has nothing to do with "new ideas," per se. Amongst those "new ideas" are good and bad ones. Some further the Church in her mission and she uses them, some do not and she preaches against them. So, I suppose I don't see your point in this, unless you want to be specific.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
51
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Big Chris said:
Shanghaiski said:
Big Chris said:
Gamliel said:
Must be a lazy servant which survived 500 years of Turkish oppression.
What did this lazy servant do beyond keep its first century faith secure in a safe deposit box for those 500 years?

This is the scope of the OP.
Producing millions of saints is laziness?
Who's asking about sainthood?

From the OP:

Too many Orthodox bishops over the centuries, afraid of new ideas, have held too great of a cavalier attitude as they dare not see any minutiae of the deposit of faith be lost to their administration.  As such, it is my opinion that such fear has become endemic to the very ecclesial structure of the Church itself and, through such fear, it has become the "lazy servant," afraid of having any new, constructive ideas at all.  It seems plainly evident that the retort, "Why should there be new ideas?" is the prima facie modus operandi of such fear.
What new, constructive ideas would you like to see? In what areas would you like to see these new ideas?
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
PeterTheAleut said:
What new, constructive ideas would you like to see? In what areas would you like to see these new ideas?
I think it's more a matter of principle.
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Big Chris said:
witega said:
Big Chris said:
Now you will likely say, 'Yes, but Gregory of Nyssa sees the wealth as the graces of God, or Augustine sees the wealth as the divine gifts," which only further demonstrates how this parable is subject to hermeneutics, but at least my interpretation, for the purpose of this thread, finds support in the Fathers, as well.  And to that end I think we must restrict ourselves to such an interpretation, seeing Christ as Master, the talents as the deposit of faith, and the lazy servant as the Orthodox Church.
Matt 25: 14. "For the kingdom of heaven is like a..." servant? No. Like three servants? No. The kingdom of heaven is like "a man travelling into a far country, who...".
I agree that the Master is Christ. And have no dispute that the talents are a multivalent image that can be applied to anything which 'the Master' grants. But the 'lazy servant' cannot be the Church because in the very first sentence Christ has already identified what the Church is in this parable--it *is* the parable, it is the context within which individual figures of the servants exist and act. (You say your interpretation finds support in the Fathers, but if you can find a Father who does not equate the Kingdom of Heaven and the Church, I'll be shocked).
Actually, it's not hard at all to find a Father who does not equate the Kingdom of Heaven with the Church.  This is just bad theology and bad ecclesiology.  The Kingdom is larger than the Church.  After all, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the Kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt 7:21). Or, in the words of St. Augustine, "Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."  When the Church identifies or equates itself with the Kingdom, the Church is declaring that it is the saving presence of God on earth and at least implying that God is not present as a saving God anywhere else except in the Church.  If the Church is regarded as the Kingdom, then a person who criticizes the Church and calls for institutional and structural change is, in effect, criticizing God and calling for change in the way God chooses to deal with us and be with us.

The Church is meant to be:

1. a proclaimer of the Kingdom of God already begun;
2. a sign revealing God's Kingdom or redemptive presence now;
3. a servant of the continuous unfolding of the Kingdom.

As for the rest of what you say in your post, I can only take that to mean that you have no direct, adequate response to my thesis concerning the Orthodox Church as a glass house.
Speaking of bad ecclesiology...
 

mint

Elder
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
William said:
Speaking of bad ecclesiology...
Wow.  You really proved me wrong with that snarky comment.
 
Top