Wait! What Did I Do?

The Saker: First, I think the first step is to ignore what insects (bionic or not) have to say about the Scripture and turn, where else, to the Fathers (especially those insects who refer to the holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Paul simply as “Paul” as if talking about a buddy of theirs).

I regularly read The Saker, primarily for one reason.  I find his views and analysis regarding Russia – its military, its approach to geo-politics, its relationship to the West and the Anglo-Zionist Empire – as a valuable contribution to my understanding.  It also happens to be a topic on which I am unqualified to challenge him.

A second topic on which I am unqualified to challenge him is on the Orthodox Christian faith.  But I don’t really read him much for this.

A good friend of mine sent me the link to this piece from the Saker.  I offered above an excerpt from an interview: Orthodox Faith: Yvonne Lorenzo interviews the Saker.  I probably would not have read the piece had my friend not made me aware of my newfound celebrity.

What prompted such a personal attack by the Saker?  It was a question by Lorenzo regarding Romans 13:

A commentator and writer named The Bionic Mosquito wrote in “Christians and Government” that if we interpret these authorities as government, “then I am sure that what Paul meant by this was that Mary and Joseph should have turned the newborn Jesus into Herod’s grasp.”

Now, I read this several times, thinking to myself, “I would never have written anything so stupid.”  Finally, I decided to look at the linked source: it was to my piece entitled Christians and Government, republished at LRC.  And what do I find at the link?

We all know Romans 13: let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  I am sure that what Paul meant by this was that Mary and Joseph should have turned the newborn Jesus into Herod’s grasp.  Not.

Please notice carefully the missing word, the last word in the cited portion – also italicized in my original.  It would seem to make clear a very different meaning than the one suggested by Lorenzo.

Now, it all goes downhill from here.  Lorenzo offers a more extended cite from my piece, after which the Saker offers his views on her question.  Truly, I am having a hard time finding an inch of difference between my position and the Saker’s – certainly nothing deserving of the ridicule in his opening.  I offer sections from what Lorenzo has cited from my piece (ignoring what else I had written in my piece, which carry some relevance) and sections of the Saker’s comments:

The insect: One has to view Romans 13 in isolation if one wants to make of it Biblical support for any and all earthly government authorities.

There is nothing in Romans chapter 12 or 13 to suggest that the beginning of Romans 13 be interpreted as unconditional support for earthly government. There is little, if anything, in all of Scripture that supports such an interpretation.

For the Saker’s reply, some setup is required:

The Saker: When the Bolsheviks took power the Russian Orthodox Church split into roughly 4 groups:

He then identifies the four groups, the first three of which remained true to their Christian faith in various ways (in opposition to the government), the fourth of which – who “[accepted] the submission of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Bolshevik’s state” – are “often referred to by the name of their leader, Metropolitan Sergius: the ‘Sergianists.’”

The stances taken by the three first groups are all equally pious options. The proof of that statement is that the first three groups all remained in communion with each other and rejected the communion with the Sergianist even when threatened with torture and death! The stance of the forth group is, however, diametrically opposed to original, Patristic, theology. (Emphasis in original.)

So, accepting the authority of the state is not unconditional – just as I have written.

Further, the Saker reminds that Romans demanded that the early Christians perform a sacrifice to the Roman Gods, to which he offers: “Some Christians lapsed and agreed to perform the sacrifice.”  Which suggests that other Christians did not “lapse,” meaning that they did not unconditionally obey the government.  Just as I have written

Keep in mind that the pagan Romans usually did NOT ask Christians to give up their faith. They “only” asked that the Christians “respect” the pagan gods. Yet that is clearly an apostasy, at least in the teachings and ethos of the Fathers.

Which suggests that some Christians did not commit “an apostasy,” instead choosing to not obey the government.  Just as I have written.

Now, after reading my comments and reading the comments of the Saker, I will ask you to guess: which one of us also wrote the following?

For [a] Christian, there cannot be any obedience outside the obedience to God.

Can you tell?  Neither can I.  The only hint will be what was written in place of the “[a]” in the quote.  Here it is in its entirety:

For an Orthodox Christian, there cannot be any obedience outside the obedience to God.

Yes, those are the Saker’s words.  Does this strike you as any different from mine, when I write the following?

There is nothing in Romans chapter 12 or 13 to suggest that the beginning of Romans 13 be interpreted as unconditional support for earthly government. There is little, if anything, in all of Scripture that supports such an interpretation.

A different angle, I grant you.  But the same meaning: Christians do not offer unconditional support to the government.  Just as the Saker and I have both written.

I don’t know if the Saker’s comments about the insect would have been different if Lorenzo had included the quote with the entire context.  The missing word, “not,” certainly makes quite a difference.  But maybe it was how I referred to Paul that got under his skin.  Since he didn’t spend any further time on this portion of the quote, I don’t think that it was this.

To my knowledge, the Saker knows nothing of my writing, so I can’t imagine there is some history for which he chose ridicule as the means to introduce his reply.  Perhaps he chose this due to the import of the missing word, perhaps it just reflects something of his character that I have previously not noticed.

Conclusion

Lorenzo offered the following in her introduction to her interview with the Saker:

In what has frequently been described, and rightly so I believe, as “post-Christian” America, Christians are under attack. In this extremely hostile environment, one would think despite differences in interpretation of scripture and ritual, Christians would try to learn more about one another and become mutually supportive, no matter their background.

It is a wonderful sentiment, one that acts in accord with C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.  Lorenzo clearly didn’t act accordingly, by offering my words without the full context.  Her choice does not demonstrate a “mutually supportive” spirit.

Lorenzo, by her omission, took what is clearly an opportunity for mutual support between Christians and turned it into an opportunity for ridicule.  I find such actions dishonest.