I Should Read The Bible More

… because then I would not post things on my blog that St. Paul already posted on his (Romans 11: 16-21):

“For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.”

Advertisements

About The Groom's Family

I was born in Soviet Russia and grew up in Israel. I was baptized Orthodox Christian in 2006. Today my husband and I live in Northern Virginia. I would love to hear from you, so please leave a comment!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to I Should Read The Bible More

  1. Eugenia says:

    Just read the article you sent me: http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/12/kornblatt12.shtml

    Kinda liked the ending, wondering what you think about it:

    “Pasha,” a Russian Jewish Christian now living in New York suggested the following: “To show you are a Jew in Orthodoxy is a kind of litmus paper. Jewry is the verification of faith for a Christian. Why? If you take this paper, Jewry, and you immerse it in someone’s faith, and the paper changes color, even just a little, then that is a marker that something is not right in his faith.” True Orthodoxy, the Orthodoxy his followers believe was preached by Men’, is thus associated with tolerance and ecumenism, with what they see as the true message of the gospels. And any Orthodoxy that does not accept Jews, that flunks the litmus test, must have abandoned its true ecumenical form and become intent only on its own ritualistic laws. Did Men’ revolutionize the Russian Orthodox Church? By no means. Was he a messiah? Absolutely not. Does his legacy point out to the Church how it might “heal itself”? In a quiet, sometimes defeatist and always paradoxical way: yes.

    • Yes, that ending left me thinking!

      I am not sure I am comfortable with her framing of the Jew-litmus test (Jitmus? OK, I’m not going to try) in terms of “tolerance and ecumenism” – that’s a little mushy. It’s one thing for Orthodoxy to welcome Jews (which it certainly could do a better job of in Russia), and another thing for the Jew to be absorbed into it and remain a Jew because it is clearly the right place for him to be. The latter, I think, is true insofar as the Church comes to true grips with its Jewish origins and its closeness to the Jewish people, which it spent many centuries trying to deny.

      The mushiness leads, I suspect, to her conclusion that Men’s revolutionizing of the Church was a matter of making it more ecumenical. I don’t know enough about Men’, but again I suspect that his legacy is bigger than that, and that it had to do with asking the Church, uncomfortably, to face its true nature and its heritage.

      What was your take?

  2. Pingback: Matins of Great and Holy Friday | The Groom's Family

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s