Greetings in our Risen Lord! Christ is Risen! It is the almost the end of the Paschal season in the year 2015, and I have not written an article for my blog in a long time. The past year has been very busy, and the pace did not slacken with the coming of 2015. I have been very busy.
As Pascha draws to a close, however, I have been reflecting on the prayers and pious customs of my faith. I thought that I would share one particular custom that is often misunderstood in our day and age: the practice of a Christian woman covering her head in the Orthodox Christian tradition. The Orthodox Christian approach to the practice of women covering their heads is quite different from that of other traditions, such as Amish and Mennonite. Many people in today's modern world think of covering the head as a sign of female subjugation, but in the Orthodox Church it is the opposite: the head covering is a sign of female authority and honour. First, I will briefly explain the Orthodox reasons for female head-coverings in church. Then, I will share with you my own journey on how I became a woman who not only covers her head in church, but all the time. I will also share my own perspective about how I cover my head, and why I don't cover all of my hair like some full-time head-coverers do. I will present the facts in a question and answer format.
Question 1: Why do Orthodox Christian women cover their heads in church?
First, I will tell you what our head-covering custom is not. It is NOT a sign of submission to men, or a symbol of submission to our husbands. From what I've read about Amish and Mennonite traditions, I understand that submission to the husband is very much a part of their head-covering tradition. I cannot emphasize enough that this is not the case in Orthodox Christianity, and I find myself getting piqued when people outside of the Church make assumptions that because I cover my head, I am an oppressed victim of sexism with no rights and second-class status. No, no, and again, no!
Woman in the Orthodox Church has an exalted status, because it was through a woman that Christ chose to become incarnate of the Father. Jesus could have come into the world any way He wanted. He could have appeared in a flash of lightning. He could have descended in bodily form from heaven to earth. He could have simply appeared in a ball of light and fire right in the middle of Jerusalem, on a white horse with rich robes and apparel to show Himself as King and Messiah. However, He did not choose that way at all. Instead, He chose to be born of a woman, and to endure all the challenges, pains, and other great difficulties of the human experience. He chose to be born incarnate as God and man simultaneously, so that He could raise up our human nature to the Divine. To this end, He chose a Jewish maiden, the Most Holy Virgin Mary, to be the one who bore Him in her womb. She bore the Creator of all, the Word, the Logos from the beginning of time, in her humble human womb. A lot of people in various Christian confessions do not fully consider just how immense it is that the Lord our God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was incarnate in the womb of a human woman.
She also chose of her own free will to do this. With the severe penalties that were imposed upon young women who bore children outside of wedlock in the ancient Jewish Middle East, she could have become afraid and refused when the Archangel Gabriel announced to her that she would bear the Messiah. Then, the Gospel passage of the Annunciation would have been about a woman who didn't have enough faith in God to do as He commanded, and we would have a story similar to that of the prophet Jonah, only it would be about a young maiden instead.
Yet, even though she could have been stoned to death, her answer to the Archangel Gabriel was "yes." She said in response to his message, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." This "yes" on her part was huge, because in saying "yes," she showed supreme obedience to God and a model of faith in Him. She showed us what we all are capable of if we trust God, and she presented an example of the path of faith for all Christian women in ages to come.
So, because God came into the world incarnate of a woman, a woman therefore wears "a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels" (I Corinthians 11:10). There is a lot of discussion about what is meant by the phrase "because of the angels." There is also a lot of hymnography in the Orthodox Church about how amazed the angels were at the Incarnation of Christ. I do not know the reason that the angels like for a woman to have a head-covering on, and I won't know until the point when I pass into the next world and maybe get to actually ask an angel about it. However, the fact that the Scripture affirms the angels' preference for head-coverings is enough for me. Also, when I cover my head, I am honouring the Most Holy Theotokos, the Virgin Mary who bore Christ our God in her womb, for her obedience to the Father, her faith and her courage. I am not only honouring her, but also imitating her, for she wore a head covering all the days of her life. I consider such imitation to be a good idea spiritually. The authority referred to in the phrase "symbol of authority on her head" is the authority inherent in belonging to the gender through which Christ came into the world incarnate, and hence to special spiritual authority I have as a Christian woman.
The Christian man has authority also, but his authority manifests itself in a different function from mine. My authority is not lesser than his, but it is different because God made us in His image, male and female. If our ways of being in authority were meant to be exactly the same, God would not have created the difference in gender at all. Remember that God can do anything He wants. He could have easily created Adam to reproduce via some sort of mitosis, or He could have created Adam as an androgynous being. But He didn't! He divided humanity by gender, and made it so that the two must become one in order to make things complete. "Different" does not mean "subject" or "inferior." Orthodox female head-covering is a celebration of the difference between the female and male, and the fact that God has made us all distinct in His wisdom and love. In terms of submission, the only submission it symbolizes is submission to God and the direction He gives us through Holy Scripture.
Question 2: What is the nature of the woman's authority in the Orthodox Church?
What spiritual authority do I have as a woman? There is a lot of
discussion in the Orthodox Church about the role of women. But the
best statement I ever heard was by a friend of mine, a Matushka
(priest's wife), who was giving a presentation about the charisms of
women in the Church: the role of woman is like that of the Theotokos. Just
as the Theotokos gave birth to Christ in the flesh, so we as women are
called upon to give birth to Christ in the hearts of others. Thus,
our authority in the Church is that of teaching, modeling the faith for
others, and helping others grow in their Christian faith in whatever way
we might be called to do so, whether it's teaching Sunday School,
writing articles for blogs and newspapers, opening and running Orthodox
schools, or directing the choir.
There are many people today who think that the fact that Orthodox women aren't in the priesthood means that we are in a subjugated status. But this is really a non-issue for most of us as Orthodox women, because you see, the Eastern view of the priesthood is not the same as that in the West. In the West, as the papacy gained more and more power and the ecclesiology of the Church in the West became more monarchical and less conciliar, the priesthood became almost a type of small monarchy in and of itself. The priesthood became more and more connected with the idea of earthly power instead of the simple act of service and apostleship it had been in the early Church. As a result, the priesthood became equated with having a position of authority and power in the Church.
However, the Orthodox Church has always held that the liturgical functions in the Church are not to be seen as roles of power in the Church. Rather, being a priest is being a servant, as Christ instructs us all to be. In Matthew 23: 11-15, Jesus instructs us: "11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But
woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the
kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither
suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'
houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive
the greater damnation.
15 Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and
land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold
more the child of hell than yourselves."
Why do I include Christ's condemnation of the Pharisees in this article? I do so because what the Pharisees were doing was exactly the kind of spiritual authority Christ did not want the Apostles to imitate. The Pharisees and Saducees were all about power and being publicly exalted and honoured. Because they were so caught up in their earthly authority and honour, they were no longer acting as servants of God, performing spiritual and corporal works of mercy. In fact, they were marginalizing the poor and wretched, and giving the Jewish faithful impossible spiritual standards to follow. They became arbiters of rules and regulations instead of loving servants of God.
Christ's further instructions to the Apostles about spiritual authority in the Church are as follows, in Luke 22: 25-27:
25 "And
he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over
them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But
ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as
the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For
whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not
he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."
It is very clear that the priesthood should not be, and in the West should never have been, a king-like position of authority and power. But it became that. For that reason, the egalitarian and synergetic relationship between the male and female roles, which existed in the early Church, became lost to the Western Church by the advent of the Medieval period. The anti-female way of thinking, the "all women are bad because of Eve" idea, became prevalent in the West and even started to infect the East as well at the beginning of the early Middle Ages. The famous hymnographer St. Kassiani actually corrected the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire on the point that woman was not solely responsible for the fall of man, and that it was through woman--the Theotokos--that salvation came into the world, because she willingly bore Christ. Overall, however, the original synergistic relationship between male and female roles preserved in the Early Church stayed intact in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is still there to this day. If you don't believe me, go attend a few services in the Orthodox Church and hang around for coffee hour afterwards.
The liturgical function of the male priest in the Church goes back to Judaism and service in the Temple. The men serve in the Orthodox Temple as priests, deacons and subdeacons. I also serve in the Temple, as a singer. Male readers are considered to be tonsured. However, so is the position of singer and choir director, both for males and females. Our roles as women--choir directors, chanters, teachers, mothers, matushki, diakonissas--are no less important or unequal to the men's liturgical roles. In fact, we are the female side of that, if you will.
I will use a visual analogy to explain. Think of it like a Celtic Cross. Imagine that the Celtic Cross represents a cruciform shape of a church. The Cross bar on the Celtic Cross represents the iconostasis, behind which the liturgical functions of the Church are performed by the men. But guess what, folks: there's a circle in the middle of the Celtic cross, going around from below that cross bar to around the top of it. That circle represents the synergistic work of man and woman in the Church: we form one circle, and that circle is the work of the Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. There are men in the part of the circle that goes behind the inconostas, and then women are in the other part of the circle that's in front of the iconostas. Our roles are of equal value, authority and dignity. This is what the West cannot seem to grasp. Different doesn't mean lesser. Notice also that I didn't use the word "separate," so don't start thinking that I'm trying to peddle the "separate but equal" nonsense. "Separate but equal" doesn't apply in the Orthodox Church either, because men and women are not separate. We work together in harmony and synergy, just as do the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. We are distinct as male and female persons, but one in human essence. The Holy Trinity is three distinct Persons, and yet one in Divine essence. Through Jesus Christ, we can participate in the love and salvific Grace of the Trinity and become partakers of the Divine nature (2 Peter: 1-4).
So, why aren't women ordained as priests? Well, we don't need to be. We already have our own valuable and important functions in the Church. But, some people may persist to ask, doesn't that still make us less powerful and in a place of subjugation? Aren't our roles still less than those of men? Aren't the priests in power, and we're not? No, because the priesthood is not about power in the Orthodox Church. Orthodox priests aren't even materially well off. Many priests can't live on their church salaries, and often they hold other jobs during the week. Often, the priest's wife works a job outside the home. At Orthodox Church councils, the word of laypeople, both men and women, is both listened to and considered. Laypeople can overturn the decision of a Church council, if that council makes a decision contrary to the teachings of the Church. This happened in 1439 in Constantinople, when the laypeople of the Church heard the decisions from the Council of Florence that had been made by the Emperor and the bishops. The decision was contrary to the theology and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, and the people of Constantinople would have none of it.
My point? Priests aren't all-powerful, not even bishops. Are they respected for being representatives of Christ? Yes. Are they regarded as leaders who can help and influence their flock? Yes. But women are equally respected, and women are, for the most part, treated with great respect by Orthodox clergy. In fact, priests and deacons generally have always treated me as their equal. Those that don't are generally suffering from issues of pride or egotism, or they have a personality problem that affects everyone around them. Eventually, they get corrected by their bishop, they retire, or in worst case scenarios, they get booted out.
The work of man and woman in the Church is not represented as a vertical line segment, with men on the top point and women on the bottom point. Rather, it is represented by a circle, like the circle of the Celtic Cross that I mentioned earlier. Circles have no beginning or end, and in a circle, all is equal. It also happens to be eternal. Ponder that.
Question 3: When and how does a woman cover her head? My personal perspective
I should take this moment to point out that wearing a head covering is not compulsory in the Orthodox Church. It's a choice. It's a spiritual custom, a tradition from the Apostolic period. There are actually Orthodox women who don't choose to cover their heads, and the Church is okay with that. However, wearing a head covering is encouraged for the reasons I discussed earlier, the reasons laid out in Scripture about the symbol of authority on our heads because of the angels, and the celebration of the Theotokos and our special place as women in the Church.
St. Paul points out that the head-covering should be worn when a woman prays. At the same time, we are instructed in Holy Scripture to pray without ceasing. So, if I cover my head when I pray, and then I pray without ceasing, logically I would wear the head-covering without ceasing. However, this doesn't work for all women, and most Orthodox women only wear the head-covering during church. How the woman covers her head in the Orthodox Church varies according to the individual, and what she may feel spiritually called to do or not do.
I'm going to share with you my perspective: what I do with the head covering and why.
When I was growing up in the Protestant denominations, I actually longed for sacramental and liturgical services. I had that type of soul. I also longed for concrete ways to express my faith. I always wanted to wear something special to outwardly express the inward practice of my faith. I've always been a person who likes to show on the outside the important things about myself that are inside. I like to share that with other people, perhaps because I'm an artist (composer, poet, writer). Along that same vein, I've also always been artsy and dramatic in my dress. That's just me. So, when I entered the Orthodox Church and found out about wearing head-coverings, I was elated.
I always liked things on my head as a little girl: hats, ribbons, Juliet caps, flower garlands, hennins, and crowns. It's part of that whole Princess thing that little girls do. And now, because I was Orthodox Christian, I would get to wear something pretty on my head at church--like a Princess! My inner little girl was thrilled. Best of all, it could be any colour or pattern I wanted! It could be lacy, silky, red, blue, pink, white, gold, flowered, or multi-coloured! I could match it with my clothes and earrings. I could fulfill my natural female inclination to be a weaver and fashioner of beauty, and all in the name of devotion to Christ and ceaseless prayer. I mean, like, wow! As a major part of my Christian practice and devotion, I would have the undisputed opportunity to be. . .a girl!
So, I was happy to celebrate my gender difference by covering my head. I was also happy to honour the Theotokos through imitating her in wearing a head covering, because even from my Protestant youth I had always loved her. When I got home from Methodist church every Sunday, as a twelve-year-old girl, I would sing the Ave Maria because I felt that leaving it out of the church service just somehow wasn't right. Then, later in the Orthodox Church, I would enjoy the fact that every Sunday, a hymn to the Theotokos is sung at a major point in the service.
However, I did have some struggles about how to cover my head at first, because there were women in the congregation of my early Orthodox experience who believed that they should cover their heads entirely, covering up all hair, even their bangs. Being older women, they decided that what they did was also what I needed to do. Trying to satisfy them was not a wise thing for me to do, nor was it salvific. For one thing, covering up my bangs or trying to tuck them into the scarf was terribly uncomfortable. The bangs were too thick, I'd start sweating on my forehead (totally forbidden for a Southern belle to do in public!), and the bobby pins holding back my bangs would get all tangled in them. I would spend more time fiddling with the darn bobby pins than praying with attention in the service. So, regardless of the strong opinions of some Slavic women around me, I opted not to cover my entire hair. Then, my sweet Subdeacon of a husband rightly pointed out that only nuns cover all their hair, and married women are not called upon to do that. He also said that covering up my hair entirely was not pleasing to him aesthetically, and as he considered me to be his very beautiful wife of whom he was proud, oughtn't he to have some say in this? So, he showed me a way to wear a kerchief that allowed me to still show my hair, and also I didn't have to tie the kerchief under my chin, which I can't do because I have a strong gag reflex. I can't have anything against my throat without gagging, which is also why I don't wear turtleneck sweaters. So, I started wearing my kerchiefs always tied in the back instead of the front.
As my head covering practice evolved, I eventually added in other ways of doing it, like wearing veils and mantillas. I had always wanted to wear mantillas, so this worked out for me just fine. So now, I have cut and styled my hair so that the kerchief or mantilla can blend with my hairstyle in a way that frames my face. I wear different types of head-coverings according to liturgical season and mood. I wear kerchiefs, long scarves, and lace mantillas. During Pascha, I wear white ones. On Pentecost, I wear a green one. At Christmas, I wear white or red head coverings. On feasts of the Theotokos, I always wear a blue one. I unite what I do in head covering with the liturgical mind of the Church.
As I started covering my head in church when I prayed, I started to feel naked without it when I would pray at home. Then, I started trying to pray all the time, offering up my very acts of daily labour as acts of prayer. It started to make more sense to me if I covered my head all the time, since I prayed all the time, and Holy Scripture did specify that I should cover my head when I pray. Also, my husband is of Montenegrin heritage. In that culture, wearing a head covering all the time shows that I'm married. It also shows that I'm the wife of an Orthodox clergyman. In some Balkan and Slavic cultures, only wives of deacons or priests cover their heads all the time. In the Montenegrin and Serbian tradition, subdeacons' wives do it too. Last but not least, I discovered that the women of Ireland, in the place where my ancestors came from (County Fermanagh), had long been in the habit of wearing kerchiefs on their heads when out and about in town. They always wore a kerchief or a hat. It seemed to me that I had not only a spiritual reason to cover my head all the time, but also a cultural precedent.
In Orthodoxy, whenever one of the faithful takes on a type of asceticism, he/she asks the blessing of his/her father confessor. I asked the blessing of my father confessor to be a woman who covered my head at all times, and he gave me that blessing.
What did covering my head all the time do for me spiritually? A lot! For one thing, I stopped being so vain and picky about my hair during church. If I had a kerchief or mantilla on instead of hair barrettes, I wouldn't be fiddling with the barrette all the time or worrying that the hair I had in those barettes had gotten out of place. The other big thing that happened was that I actually started praying more, and the times when I didn't pray--like times when I was watching my favourite TV show--also slowly became times when I invited God's presence. However, I must tell you that if you start inviting God's presence when you're watching TV, you're very liable to find out that He doesn't like what you're watching, and there will be times when He makes it clear in your heart that He wants you to turn the thing off!
Covering my head also helped me fight against and overcome some really bad habits I had picked up before becoming an Orthodox Christian: using bad language, gossiping, complaining and having road rage. For many years, as a musician, I worked playing gigs. During that time, I encountered lots of people in the music business who made four-letter words such a regular part of their vocabulary that they didn't even think about it during casual conversation. Being around those people regularly caused me to fall into the habit of talking like them. By the time I was chrismated in the Orthodox Church, I had gotten a lot better about my language, but I still hadn't kicked the habit totally, especially when I lost my temper. But when I started wearing the head covering, I got way better, because having the scarf on my head acted like a WWJD bracelet. Soon, those curse words ceased to be a feature of my regular vocabulary. I didn't want to talk that way in front of God, and the head covering made me more conscious of being ever in His presence even though I couldn't see Him.
Gossiping was a habit I picked up when I was first in the Church, because of the unfavourable influence of some people around me at the time. From my youth up until my late thirties, I was fairly easily influenced by older women. (Now I'm forty-five years old, and formidable). In my mid-thirties, I went through a period where I found myself increasingly influenced by some negative talk by older women at church events and trapeza. Wearing the head covering all the time was like having a string around my finger, reminding me not to behave that way. I eventually gained the wisdom to stop hanging out with negative, gossipy people of any age, old or young. But even now, if I catch myself getting into a complaining cycle when talking with my brothers and sisters in Christ at trapeza, the head covering reminds me that I need to shut up and get on the right path before speaking again.
The road rage was connected with my aforementioned temper. I still struggle with it. However, wearing the head covering helps me remember Whom I serve as well as Who I'm imitating. Can I imitate Christ if I'm screaming at the person who cut me off in traffic? Of course not. Would the most holy Theotokos slam her brakes on, cut in front of the pokey person in front of her out of impatience, zoom forward, and risk other people's lives on the road? I don't think so. Having the head covering on helps me remember to pray for the people driving around me, and strive to regard them as sons and daughters precious to the Lord, instead of annoying people who are in my way.
Some Closing Thoughts
In conclusion, I cannot tell any Orthodox Christian woman what she should do, whether or not she should cover her head, or how she should do it. I can only say that it certainly has worked well for me. I must also add that the decision whether or not to cover all the time is one that needs to be carefully weighed and considered. Covering one's head all the time is an act that entails considerable sacrifice, because when you do it, you will no longer fit into the mold. You will be different, and people will sometimes stare at you in public. Some people will be quite gauche, and may ask you what the heck you're doing and why. You will be treated differently at work, and it may be hard for you to find an employer who will let you wear your head-covering. In a professional situation, you want to be sure that your covering is solid-coloured and very conservative in shape and type of cloth. I advise that you never wear a bandana for a head covering at work, and that when you wear a head-covering, don't cover up all your hair because that isn't acceptable in American culture by and large. Wear tailored clothes when you have your head-covering on at work, and avoid combining your head covering with artsy skirts or blouses. In short, cover your head as non-conspiciously as possible. If people notice your head covering, but at the same time it's not too obtrusive, then they will start seeing it as being no more extraordinary than a pair of glasses.
When people ask you about it, you want to answer honestly but succinctly. You don't want to go into a lot of detail. The truth is that most people who don't know you really don't want details from you. They just want assurance that you're not some sort of weirdo, or that you're a possibility for social affiliation. "Why do you wear that scarf on your head?" is usually a translation for, "You are okay, aren't you? You're not in a cult, I hope?". Sometimes people are genuinely interested in what you're doing, but most of the time it's about establishing their own boundaries and preserving their comfort zones.
I hope that this article has been helpful for Orthodox women who like to cover their heads, food for thought for those women who are staunchly opposed to head-coverings, and useful information for anyone who has ever walked into an Orthodox church and thought, "What's with the scarves?".
I personally dedicate this article to all the kids I've taught in school over the years who have asked me, "Mrs. Bronzich, what's that thing on your head?"
Christ is Risen! Signing off now.
---Gabrielle Bronzich
Personal spiritual reflections from a journey that is both Eastern Orthodox Christian and indigenous
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Friday, October 31, 2014
Halloween 3: The True Connection (Or Disconnection, Rather) of Halloween with All Saints Day
Halloween
3: The True Connection (Or
Disconnection, Rather) of Halloween with All Saints Day & Some More Primary
Sources Regarding Samhain
This is my last in a series of three
articles on Halloween and its true origins.
My purpose is to cite the primary sources that are behind my research
and information, as well as to re-emphasize the importance of the truth being
spoken about this holiday, especially by our churches and pastors. When we participate in the spreading of false
information, we do ourselves, our Church, and Christianity as a whole a great
disservice. We make ourselves appear to
the world as people who are preaching a message of ignorance and intolerance,
instead of people who have the precious Pearl Without Price, the holy faith as
witnessed and passed down by the apostles.
Many people in the world struggle with accepting Christianity
anyway. When clergy, bishops and even
saints of the Orthodox Church preach against a certain thing based on faulty
historical information, they just give those who doubt or disbelieve the faith
one more reason to dismiss Christ.
Faith is as much about free will and
choices as about inner daily conversion and sanctification. But how can human beings exercise their free
will and make intelligent choices without getting all the facts? Any Christian confession—be it Orthodox,
Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, non-denominational, etc.—that distorts
information and doesn’t give out correct facts to those who have questions
about the Way, is hampering the free will of people to choose Christianity or
not.
Last night, I received a link via e-mail
from a monastic father who sends out spiritual teachings to various people, his
own spiritual children and people like my husband and me who are on his mailing
list. While I have the greatest respect
for this monastic father, I was very disappointed to see that he is propagating
the same misinformation about Halloween that many others of my fellow Orthodox
Christians have bought into and spread about.
The most dismaying aspect of this is the source he used: he quoted the writing of one of our 20th-century
saints in the Orthodox Church, St. Nikolai Velimirovic. St. Nikolai wrote a small letter to his
flock on Halloween, and in the letter, alas, our revered father in the saints
puts forth objections to Halloween using the same false sources of information
that have been perennially promoted by certain fundamentalist Christian
groups. These groups in turn got their
false information from Renaissance and Victorian historians, and this
information was also promoted and spread widely from the 1960s to the 1990’s by
members of the Wiccan and Neo-pagan movement.
The text of St. Nikolai of Velimirovic’s
letter can be found on this web link, which was sent to me via e-mail last
night. Here is the link for all who wish
to read it, and it unfortunately represents the perception that many Orthodox
Christians have about Halloween: http://www.stgeorgehermitage.org/stnikolajvelimirovicionhalloween.html
I want to emphasize to everyone reading
this article that I have great love and veneration for our saints, from the
saints of the early Church to those who have been recognised in our present
time. But since the whole point of recognising
saints is that they are regular human beings who have been transformed by
Christ’s grace into His living vessels, I would remind my readers that all
saints lived on earth as ordinary people with as much of a tendency to make
mistakes as any of us. Even saints can
write letters and books based on faulty information. Our father in the saints, St. Nikolai
Velimirovic, got his information on Halloween and
the Celtic feast of Samhain from erroneous sources. At the time in which he wrote his pastoral letter against Halloween, these sources were commonly accepted, even by
historians from respected universities such as Oxford. But the fact is that these sources were
nothing more than folklore and speculation.
Most significantly, those sources are still widely accepted today, to
the point that some of the information they contain is considered common
knowledge.
The primary sources (sources written from
the actual time periods in question) from the ancient world and literary
sources from Ireland prove the following:
(1)
There
was no Lord of Death named Samhain (again, pronounced “Sow-when,” not “Sam Hane”). Samhain was a harvest festival.
(2)
There
is no historical evidence that Samhain was ever a festival of the dead. We know very little about how it was actually
celebrated by the Irish.
(3)
The
Coligny calendar that mentions Samhain as “Samonios” was lunar, which means
that the very day of Samhain did not even always fall on October 31.
(4)
The
Druids left no written records, so anyone, saint or scholar, who claims that
the Druids celebrated Samhain has no archaeological records or historical
writings on which to base this idea. The
only ancient sources we have on Druids come from the Greco-Roman classical
world. The picture painted of druids
from Roman sources is very unflattering.
Romans also make no mention of a celebration of the dead called Samhain,
and Romans did not even occupy Ireland in the first place.
But, guess what, folks: we also have Christian primary sources from
the early Church. Our Christian sources
from the early Church prove to us, by their very dates, that the celebration of
All Saints Day predates the mention and celebration of Samhain. The first mention of days commemorating the
saints and martyrs of the Church is the account of the martyrdom of St.
Polycarp, from 150 A.D. Other historical
accounts about the observance of All Saints day can be found in writings
ranging from the second century to the eighth century. In Ireland, the earliest historical account
of the celebration of All Saints Day occurs in the Martyrology of Oenghus the Culdee, which dates from the 8th
or 9th century. The Irish were commemorating the martyrs on the
seventeenth of April, and the saints of Europe on the twentieth of April. I would ask my fellow Orthodox Christians
reading this article, does that sound familiar?
Did not the Eastern Church always celebrate All Saints Day after Pascha
(Easter)? Do we not still do so today?
So, when was the Celtic celebration of
Samhain mentioned? It was mentioned in
early Irish medieval sources of the tenth century---200 years later,
folks! If the Celtic celebration of
Samhain isn’t even mentioned in Irish literature until 200 years after the
documented Irish celebration of All Saints Day, then how can Samhain be connected with the eve of All Saints, All
Hallow’s Eve? A little logic goes a
long way here.
I have a list of the primary sources that
prove all of this, but thankfully, I did not have to compile the list
myself. It was already compiled in a
couple of brilliant articles written by a Lutheran pastor, Joseph
Abrahamson. Pastor Abrahamson puts his
own Lutheran spin on one of his articles, but the primary sources he has
provided are the very ones we need to prove that there is no actual connection
between Samhain and All Saints Day. His
articles also help very much with proving that there is little connection
between our American Halloween and the original Catholic feast of All Hallow’s
Eve. Here are his two articles, with his
list of primary sources and the direct quotes he has provided from those:
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=33364 This article contains a list of the following
primary sources: (1) documentation from the 2nd to 9th
centuries of All Saints Day, celebrated in the East and in Western Europe; (2) the
documentation showing the shift of the date from spring to November 1st
in the Western Church; (3) a list of folklorists,
mostly Victorian, who fabricated a lot of nonsense about Samhain, beginning
with the name of the first historian to mention what he believed to be actual
Samhain practices, a late 16th/early 17th century Irish
priest named Geoffrey Keating;
please note that his work has been discounted now, but many Victorians based
their ideas on his writing; (4) medieval
Celtic references to Samhain: Mr.
Abrahamson came up with some of the same medieval Celtic references as I did.
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=33326 In this article, Mr. Abrahamson addresses the
false claims about Samhain and Halloween made by Wiccans and Neo-pagans. He lists primary sources for his refutation
of their claims. Then, he briefly touches
on the history of customs such as the Jack-O-Lantern and trick-or-treating,
using one or two more primary sources.
At the end, he puts his unique Lutheran spin on the whole issue,
pointing out something I didn’t know: Halloween was the date that Martin Luther
nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg. Apparently, some people view Halloween as
Reformation Day! I find that very
amusing.
How does All Saints Day relate to
Halloween? I believe, based on my research,
that the connection is speculative at best.
The reason I believe this is that the Western European medieval practice
of going “souling” on All Hallow’s Eve, going from house to house to beg for
and share soul cakes in honour of departed family members, is far removed from
the practice of trick-or-treating, which was started in America during the 1930’s. There is also no mention that I’ve found in
early American sources about people going souling on All Hallow’s Eve. The medieval European practice is too far
removed from the American practice, by a few centuries and by the Atlantic Ocean.
Here are some primary sources on American
Halloween:
(1)
Various
American historical images collected by the Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=halloween&fa=original-format%3Aphoto%2C+print%2C+drawing&st=gallery
(2)
Here
is a link to a newspaper article from the National
Republican, October 31, 1861. It
mentions folklore associated with All Hallow’s Eve, mainly from England, and
has a somewhat negative slant on the Roman Catholic practices of All Saints
Day. But it also mentions that the
major American custom on All Hallow’s Eve is to go from house to house, knock
on the door, and pelt whoever answers the door with turnips and cabbages! What
was that about trick-or-treating originating in the Middle Ages and spreading
to America? If that claim is true,
why is there no mention of it in this article written in our nation’s capital
just seven months into the Civil War?
(3)
For
more nineteenth and early twentieth-century articles on Halloween in America,
see this link: http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/halloween.html These are more sources collected by the
Library of Congress.
(4)
This
website has a list of primary sources, and some historical music. But it also has a lot of nonsensical blog
articles that repeat the same false information against which I’m making my
case. The primary source list, however,
is good: http://primarysourcenexus.org/2011/10/today-in-history-halloween/
(5) Ruth
Edna Kelley, The Book of Hallowe'en, Boston: Lothrop, Lee and
Shepard Co., 1919, chapter 15, p.127. "Hallowe'en
in America."
The
chapter listed in this entry can be found online here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/boh/boh17.htm
Ruth
Edna Kelley wrote the first history of Halloween in America. In this chapter from her book, she references
various folk customs in different parts of America. Sometimes she mentions certain folk customs
as having their root in Ireland or Scotland.
The customs she mentions appear to be mostly from her own time. A lot of them sound very superstitious and
silly, and some of them involve divination, which I as an Orthodox Christian
don’t condone. None of them are “druidic,”
nor would I define them as satanic, per say.
I would just call a lot of them stupid and foolish, interesting but
absurd.
(6)
The
first reference to trick-or-treating as we know it is mentioned in this 1927
article entitled “Trick or Treat Is Demand” from Blackie, Alberta, in the
November 3 issue of the Herald, on
page 5: “Hallowe’en provided an
opportunity for real strenuous fun. No real damage was done except to the
temper of some who had to hunt for wagon wheels, gates, wagons, barrels, etc.,
much of which decorated the front street. The youthful tormentors were at back
door and front demanding edible plunder by the word “trick or treat” to which
the inmates gladly responded and sent the robbers away rejoicing.”
(7)
There
are many more references to newspaper articles from the 1930’s and 1940’s in a
Wikipedia article on trick-or-treating that actually
has a bibliography with some primary sources.
Wikipedia articles are suspect as resources because of a general lack of
proper citing of sources. However, this
article not only has the names of the newspapers and the dates in the
bibliography, but also the quotes themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trick-or-treating
I could go on and list many more sources,
but I think that my point is made. There
may be some things about Halloween that are very incompatible with Christian
practice, such as the folk practices of divination mentioned by Ruth Edna
Kelley. There can be spiritual problems
for Christians if too much emphasis is placed on the dark and macabre. Actually,
I think that too much gore and horror can be bad for anyone, Christian or not. But overall, the evidence I’ve found points
to the fact that Halloween is nothing more than a secular holiday with most of
its practices rooted in the United States.
When we trick-or-treat, we’re not imitating the dead in some so-called “druidic”
celebration of wandering spirits. When
we watch movies about ghosts, werewolves and vampires, we’re not glorifying
demons, because the fact is that most ghost-sightings are caused by deception
and delusion, and the traditional monsters of Halloween are products of the
human imagination and writers such as Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker.
Halloween is what we make of it. As Christians, we can make it into a big, bad
bogey-filled holiday that we shouldn’t celebrate, or we can make it a fun, fall
holiday celebrating mythology, the harvest and the fun of dressing up. I, for one, am enjoying this holiday as a
celebration of the harvest and the human ability to tell stories. Even the Irish myth of Samhain might just be
considered yet another story that has been passed down.
In Orthodox Christian terms, this is the
feast of St. Luke the Evangelist on the Julian Calendar. This is also the pre-schism Western feast of
All Saints. For those celebrating Halloween,
I say “Happy Halloween!”. For those not
doing so, I say, “Happy Saint Luke’s Day!” or “Happy Western All Saints Day!”.
With love in Christ,
Gabrielle
Bronzich
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Halloween 2: The Primary Sources (or Lack Thereof) for the "Celtic" Background of Halloween (As Opposed to Unreliable Sources and Victorian Poppycock)
This is my second article in a series
about Halloween that I started this year.
To recapitulate from my previous article, I basically became tired of
Christian articles and videos that used inaccurate historical information and
unreliable sources for discouraging other Christians from celebrating
Halloween. I will reiterate what I
said before: if you, as a Christian, choose not to celebrate Halloween for
spiritual reasons—that you don’t find it spiritually beneficial for you, that
the premise of the holiday conflicts with the personal practice of your
Christian faith and beliefs, etc.---that’s fine. But if you’re going to either accept or reject Halloween as a Christian, then
do so based on accurate historical facts.
Don’t base your approach to Halloween on information from New Age
sources that have scanty scholarship, absurd books by Victorian writers about
so-called “ancient Irish” practices with no basis in archaeology and no
bibliography of primary sources, or writings from the Middle Ages that are
woolly at best. Granted, not all
medieval sources are unreliable, but they must be read with discernment. After all, the people of medieval Europe are
the same people who wrote stories about dog-headed people whom they believed to
live in the Far East, and strange green people who came up out of the
earth. They’re also the same people who
cut the heads off of corpses when they buried them, because they were afraid that
the dead person might rise from the grave and walk about, terrorising villagers
(British spelling), or possibly causing the plague. For a really good exposé on what medieval
people in Western Europe believed, watch this really excellent BBC video by English
history professor and medievalist Robert Barlett, who quotes primary sources
from the period throughout:
If the above link doesn’t work, this
video, entitled “Inside the Medieval Mind,” can be found on YouTube as well.
Anyway, let’s get down to business. The purpose of this article is to actually
give my readers the promised primary sources I said I would give them with my
last article. Allow me to repeat the
definition of a primary source. A primary
source, for the use of studies in history and archaeology, is a source
dating directly from the period of history being studied. It can be an inscription, a record of a
business transaction, a birth or death record, a written account of an event or
events from the time, or any other number of non-fiction sources from writers
of that period. An archaeological find
also counts as a primary source, as do any number of archaeological discoveries
with accurately recorded data, not speculation or guesswork. Works of fiction are sometimes cited as
primary sources, but because fiction has often been written with an idealised view
of a given society or sometimes might be a work of fantasy, I personally don’t
believe fictional literature can be used as a primary source.
I mentioned earlier that medieval sources
must be read with discretion. Actually,
this statement applies to all primary sources.
For example, Plutarch’s work on the story of Antony and Cleopatra cannot
be taken to be totally accurate, because Plutarch was writing with the purpose
of pleasing a most powerful person, the Emperor Augustus. There are several examples of Roman histories
being written from a certain slant because of political motivations. This is nothing new, of course. It even happens with histories today, such as
some current histories being written about the United States. But that’s another discussion. My point here is that we must always read
primary sources with a keen sense of the mindset of society at the given time,
the political realities of that time, and the religious beliefs of the people
from that period.
Some people say that Caesar’s writings about
the Druids aren’t reliable, because he was trying to politically promote his
war against the Celts, and he had a Roman penchant for putting down societies
he considered inferior to Rome. While
Roman society at that time certainly believed itself to be more civilised than most
parts of the world (the same opinion voiced by people in Western European and
American society time and again, throughout history), Caesar did not need to
impress anyone or sell anyone on his war.
Because of his unique political and military position in Rome, that of
being a Roman consul, he could make war on whomever he pleased for whatever
reason that seemed justifiable to him.
For most Romans, if a certain tribe of people attacked Roman soldiers or
citizens, that was reason enough to send legions to fight them. (I’m reminded of how Bush reacted to the
terrorist attacks of 9-11—but, that’s another discussion!).
In reverting to the subject of Halloween, in
this article I’ll list the sources I’ve found on ancient Celtic religion, since
there has long been a popular notion that Halloween was based on an ancient
Celtic “Day of the Dead” festival called “Samhain.” Before we continue, please
note that this word is not pronounced “Sam Hane.” It is pronounced “Sow-when” (e.g. “I had an
old sow once who had many piglets,
but I sold her when the time came for
the county fair.”). It is pronounced “Sow-when,”
with the accent on the first syllable.
First of all, let us be reminded that in
the Irish dictionary, the word “Samhain” means “November.” There is a tenth-century Irish story called Tochmarc
Emire (“The Wooing of Emer,” from the Ulster
Cycle of Irish mythology) wherein the heroine of the story, Emer, refers to
Samhain as the time “when the summer goes to its rest.” This may be why some people think that “Samhain”
means “summer’s end.” Secondly, let us be reminded that the only ancient
sources we have about Celtic religion are those from classical Greece
and Rome. I should point out here that neither Greece nor Rome ever colonized Ireland,
and Rome never annexed it. There is
debate about whether or not Rome actually invaded Ireland, but no definitive
sources have been found that state this.
Some archaeological finds in Drumanagh have been interpreted as proof of
a Roman military presence, but not everyone agrees with that interpretation of
the artifacts.
The relationship between Ireland and the
Classical world appears to have been primarily commercial. The Graeco-Egyptian geographer Claudius
Ptolemy (Klaudios Ptolemaios), who was from the city of Alexandria and lived
between 90 and 168 A.D., made a map of some coastal settlements and tribes of Ireland. Roman coins and jewelry have been found at
Tara and Cashel, and Roman coins have been found at Newgrange (Carson, R.A.G. and O'Kelly, Claire: A catalogue of the
Roman coins from Newgrange, Co. Meath and notes on the coins and related finds,
pages 35-55. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, volume 77, section C). Some silver plate was also found in Ireland,
cut up in pieces. Other places where
Romano-British artifacts have been found include Leinster, notably a site
called Drumanagh that is fifteen miles from Dublin, Lambay and Clogher. Tacitus writes about the Roman governor of
Britain from 78 to 84 A.D., stating that Agricola had plans to someday invade
Ireland (Tacitus: Agricola). But
Agricola never did so. There is a vague
reference in the writing of the Roman poet Juvenal referring to Roman armies
having been to places beyond “Hibernia” (Ireland). This is found in Juvenal’s Satires 2.
Ergo, if you read some so-called
historical article claiming that there are ancient writings about Irish
religion from Rome or Greece, that article is nonsense! The writings from
Rome and Greece refer to Celtic practices on the European continent only. Therefore, do ancient writings confirm the
practice of an ancient Irish festival of the dead called Samhain? No!
Here are the primary sources on ancient Celtic
religion, and I urge you to read them for yourself. You’ll have to excuse the fact that my
bibliography format isn’t perfect.
(1)
Caesar, Julius, 1980 (new trans.)
The Battle for Gaul, Boston: David R. Godine
OR
(2)
Caesar,
Julius, 1951 (revised 1982, Jane F. Gardner) The Conquest of Gaul, Great Britain: S.A. Handford
(3)
Diodoros Siculus, History
(4)
Strabo, Geographica
(5)
Tacitus, Agricola
& Annals XIV (See this link for his account of the attack
on the Druids on the island of Mona: http://resourcesforhistory.com/celtic_druids.htm)
(6)
The Coligny
Calendar, a Gaulish calendar found in Coligny, Ain, France in 1897. Inscribed
on a Bronze tablet, this artifact dates to the late first century/early second century
A.D. It mentions an autumn feast called Samonios.
These are the ancient primary sources I’ve
found so far. If anyone finds more,
please feel free to let me know in the comment line of my blog.
Now, here are some medieval Irish literary
references to Samhain:
(1)
Tochmarc Emire, “The Wooing of
Emer,” a text dated to the tenth century by Kuno Meyer; here’s an electronic copy of the text: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G301021/
(2)
Balor of the
Evil Eye,
a story from the saga text Cath Maighe
Tuireadh (“The Battle of Magh Tuireadh”), which dates from the Old Irish
period, ca. 600-900 A.D., and is preserved in a sixteenth-century manuscript;
here’s the electronic copy: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T300010/
and here’s another online version: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/cmt/cmteng.htm
(3)
The Fenian
Cycle, mythological
stories of the famous band of Irish warriors known as the Fianna and led by
Finn McCool (Fionn mac Cumhaill), which was written down roughly in the twelfth
century or so; here’s a link for online
texts: http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/index_irish.html
(4)
Leabhar
Gabhála Éireann, “The
Book of the Taking of Ireland,” dating to the eleventh century in its earliest
version which was compiled by an anonymous writer. Here is the reference to
Samhain: §44. Two thirds
of the progeny, the wheat, and the milk of the people of Ireland (had to be
brought) every Samain to Mag Cetne. Wrath and sadness seized on the men of
Ireland for the burden of the tax. They all went to fight against the Fomoraig
(Lebor Gabala Eirinn Ed. Trans. R.
A. S. MacAlister. Irish Text Society 1832).
(5)
Cath Crinna, “The Battle of
Crinna,” from “The Book of Leinster,” ca. 1160, the manuscript of which is kept
in Trinity College, Dublin; there is a reference to Samhain being the time when
produce and crops were most mature. Here’s
an electronic version of the text: http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/cathcrinna.html
These are the references to Samhain I’ve
found so far. By the way, none of these
references link Samhain with All Hallow’s Eve in any way. I have not been able to find any primary
sources indicating that Samhain ever became All Hallow’s Eve. There is a book by history professor Nicholas
Rogers (at York University in Toronto), entitled Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night. It was published by Oxford University Press
in 2003. In that book, Rogers states: “There
is no hard evidence that Samhain was specifically devoted to the dead or to
ancestor worship.” Based on what I’ve
found so far, I would have to agree with his statement.
The evidence I have found suggests that
Samhain was a harvest festival, and that’s it.
So, if a Christian wanted to celebrate a harvest festival, he/she could
celebrate Samhain separately from Halloween.
I personally celebrate Halloween as a type of harvest festival. The stories of ghosts, goblins and witches associated
with Halloween are just like the medieval Irish stories mentioned above: they are mythology. As such, they’re just part of the fun.
Again, as an Orthodox Christian, my lack
of belief in ghosts does not mean that I don’t believe in life after
death. I just believe in the living
experience of my Church, which is that people who die don’t come back to visit
as floating ghosties. When the Lord
allows them to visit, they do so as fully resurrected people who confirm the
holy Resurrection of Christ. And again,
resurrected people aren’t zombies. Was Christ
a zombie when He rose from the dead?
Certainly not!
My next article will deal specifically
with All Hallow’s Eve, whether or not the original All Saints and All Souls Days
in Western Europe were actually connected with Halloween, and the primary
sources that show how our present American celebration of Halloween
developed. Until then, Happy Halloween
and Joyous All Saints Day of the West!
In
Christ’s Love,
Gabrielle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


