A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Year: 2015 (Page 8 of 9)

The Mystery of the Church and My Search for Truth

 

10945391_10205051702565789_1268695296_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screen shot 2015-01-23 at 9.49.24 AMToday’s posting is by Stefan Pavićević.  Welcome Stefan! 

Stefan Pavićević was born and raised in the city of Bitola, the Republic of Macedonia (aka FYROM).  He is currently studying engineering and computer science at St. Clement of Ohrid University of Bitola.  He attends the Most Holy Theotokos Orthodox Church  (Црквата Света Богородица).

 

I was raised in a nominal Eastern Orthodox family.  Even though I was never taught about the Christian faith, I always had some sense of the supernatural, that which is beyond natural. I always believed in God, even though I didn’t know anything about Him. Yet I remember desiring to pray regarding my needs and desires but I always felt I won’t be heard, because I was not baptized. I don’t know why my parents had forgotten to baptize me as an infant.  Maybe it wasn’t something of a great importance to them; maybe they wanted to raise me an atheist; maybe it was simply that they weren’t able to.

My life has been a constant search for truth.  Since earliest childhood I’ve always wanted to know: “What is the meaning of life?” and “Why there is death?” I was never satisfied with shallow answers like: “The meaning of life is to study, work, have a family, etc.” They never made any sense to me. And they still don’t. If that were the meaning of life, then life doesn’t have much meaning, honestly.

In the course of my life I have changed so many religious and philosophical beliefs and positions, that to many it would seem like there is no constancy and stability in my life. And to be honest, I think they would be right. Yet, pretending that wasn’t the truth, would do more hurt than profit.

My childhood was not an easy one. I was bullied, laughed at, most of the time I was lonely. I had to struggle with the consequences of constantly being and feeling rejected. Maybe that’s what made me search for deeper meaning in life. Maybe that’s what finally made me turn my back on God and become involved in paganism and occultism, thinking that’s where I would find deeper meaning I often longed for.

I came close to calling myself an atheist, then I experienced some good in life. I experienced what it is like to be accepted. Initially I had no plans of becoming a Christian.  Something happened that paved the way or opened my heart to Christianity. I had started high school and even though I was very opposed to the idea of reading the Bible (since we were studying ancient literature at that time), it somehow fell into my hands and I started reading it. Shortly afterwards, I felt a strong conviction about its truthfulness that I simply became a Christian. I was baptized in the Orthodox Church, and all was going to be fine. And then I discovered Protestantism.

 

Screen shot 2015-01-22 at 7.32.42 PM

Who is correct, actually?

Though I never thought I would become a Protestant, I must admit I was not content with being Eastern Orthodox at that time.  This was probably because I thought I was familiar enough with it, and I thought it was uninteresting for me. I thought I should explore other options such as Catholicism and eventually Protestantism, even though it was never my intention to become a Protestant. Catholicism was a viable alternative though. Then I stumbled upon actual Protestants, started attending Protestant services, and eventually ditched Orthodoxy because it seemed unbiblical to me. Yet once I was Protestant the existence of the variety of denominations troubled me. It went strongly against my search for truth. It was antithetical to my quest for truth. What was I to do, presented with competing truth claims? To accept all of them as true would be relativism, rendering all truth as relative and therefore unimportant, something unthinkable for a Christian, because it goes against Christ Himself Who claims to be Truth. [Note 1; see References at bottom]

I started out as a general Protestant with no denominational belonging, but soon I realized I must find the true doctrine and join a denomination which teaches it. So, I became a Baptist, because I thought baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality for those adults who profess faith in Christ. Then I went even further when I became an IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) which is some of the worst Christian manipulative cults. Finally, the unthinkable happened. I became a Calvinist because I became convinced the Bible taught the so called doctrines of grace (or TULIP) which deny the freedom of the will and teach we’re unconditionally elected and preserved by God solely because of His [arbitrary] decree of election. And shortly after that, I found many problems with Calvinism because not only does the Bible speak that one can fall away from the faith, but it is clear that Christ died for all of mankind, not just the elect, as Calvinism holds. And these were not the only problems I had with Calvinism. I had philosophical problems as well. Finally, I became a Lutheran. Now I started experiencing some true joy and freedom, and finally turned a new page in my Christian life. The anxiety and depression I experienced previously — and I struggled with depression quite a lot — was finally gone for good. As a Lutheran, I finally accepted infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the Eucharist, etc. I was now comfortable with claiming Tradition as my own (for a brief defense of Holy Tradition, I would recommend this text I recently wrote).

But one thing that always troubled me as a Protestant was, who is correct? What is the truth? I’ve seen Calvinists and Baptists argue, and I’ve seen Lutherans and Calvinists argue. All of them had real, strong arguments for what they believed. How was I to decide who is right? By reading the Bible? [Note 2] Well, I could see how the Bible supported either position, given a particular point of view. Who was more biblical? There was no way of knowing; both were and both weren’t.

 

Screen shot 2015-01-22 at 7.35.55 PMHoly Tradition and the Holy Scriptures

As a Lutheran, I was finally bold to quote Tradition in my favor. Look, I said, the early Church believed in infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence. I was not afraid to say this, because I believed it was the Scriptures that ultimately taught these things and the Tradition simply witnessed to it. But whenever I quoted Holy Tradition to support my views, I always felt hypocritical about it. How is it that I can use Tradition for those things when the very same Tradition [Note 3] stands against my belief in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Many Protestants conceded that no church father taught Sola Fide. The only justification I had was that if Tradition teaches something contrary to the Bible, that particular facet of Tradition is to be rejected. What I didn’t realize at that time was that I was setting up my interpretation of the Bible against that of those I disagreed with. I eventually realized it is not as if the Church Fathers weren’t familiar with the Scriptures, but simply that I thought they were wrong. And this is why I couldn’t remain a Protestant in a good conscience. If the Church Fathers got Christianity and the Holy Scriptures wrong, why think I or anybody else got it better? If they erred on so important things, why think they were right about anything at all? If they didn’t have the true gospel, how could I possibly call them Christians or trust them at all? And if they have been so wrong, Christ didn’t fulfill His promise that He would send the Holy Spirit Who would guide the Christians into all truth [Note 4]; and the gates of Hell finally prevailed against the Church [Note 5], until Luther came.

 

The Problem of Truth

Finally, I encountered the claims of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And I, for once in my life, was (or rather willingly became) vulnerable to Orthodoxy. I just gave up all the fear I’ve had of Eastern Orthodoxy during my Protestant years. And I started reading EO apologetics and arguments online and found myself in agreement with them.  It soon became very clear I was headed East. I’ve read hundreds of articles, arguments and conversion stories online. I was also able to afford some books which have also been of immense help. Meanwhile, I started attending Orthodox services and started immersing myself in the Orthodox way of life, because my Orthodox friends would often tell me how Orthodoxy is more than just a set of beliefs, but a way of life.

And then I found myself in trouble again. On what grounds should I accept the Ecumenical Councils? Or rather, how did the Church accept them? What made a council ecumenical? Also, what if two Orthodox Christians essentially disagreed on certain things? I came to Orthodoxy seeking for doctrinal unity and one-mindedness. And then I discovered that finding doctrinal truth is far more complicated than most of us would admit. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be so much diversity and disagreement. Another thing to note is that I also discovered that some things are dogma (absolutely essential) and there were many things that weren’t absolute dogma and that many people held different opinions. So, I came to the realization that dogmatizing what is not a dogma is also dangerous. To elevate a particular opinion over many others just as viable and tenable is evidently problematic, and can also lead to a schism. And that’s what Protestants did and still do, hence the existence of so many denominations. I also found out that the church fathers could be proof-texted and misinterpreted as easily as the Scriptures. What is one to do? How can I know the truth?

However, what I soon came to understand is that the Church does not have any problems with Her teaching at all. The real problem is that I still thought as a Protestant, that truth (and orthodoxy) is just a set of doctrinal propositions and heresy is anything contrary to that. While at the surface level it may seem like that is the case, this is not the Orthodox understanding of truth.  [Notes 6, 7, 8, 9]

 

Screen shot 2015-01-22 at 7.47.21 PMEnter Apophaticism

Before moving on, let me briefly explain a few very important concepts Eastern theology holds dear.

Apophatic (negative) theology, as opposed to cataphatic (positive) theology, is also known as theological knowledge obtained by negation. It does not say anything about Who or what God actually is (as in cataphatic theology), but rather admits ignorance and only speaks of what God is not. This is because we’re unable to know God as He is in His essence, because He is unlike anything else. We can’t say God exists because existence is characteristic of created things. God is beyond existence. He is called Creator by the virtue that He is uncreated. Yet, there is a way we can know Him, and that is by His energies, or what is more commonly known as His attributes. Thus, another important concept is the Essence-Energies distinction. The energies are fully and truly God, yet they are distinct from His essence. The energies belong to His essence and proceed from His essence as rays proceed from the sun.

All of theology, therefore, is apophatic, because we can’t know God in His essence. We can’t study Him and make positive statements about Him. We can only experience Him in His energies, i.e. His grace in the communal life of the Church, through prayer, ascetic struggle, partaking in the Eucharist and the rest of the Divine Sacraments. This is also known as theosis (lit. deification) which means we become partakers of the divine life by being united to God by His grace, through His Church.

Evagrius of Pontus wrote: “God cannot be grasped by the mind.  If He could be grasped, He would not be God.”  A theological scholar could write a lengthy book about God but still fall woefully short of the reality of God.  To think that we can adequately capture who God is in a book is idolatry.  This is why cataphatic theology inevitably comes up short.  In Orthodoxy a theologian is not so much someone who has done much studying about God but someone who has had an encounter with God.  We need to remember that beyond the text of the Ten Commandments (cataphatic theology) was the mystery of God Moses encountered when he went up Mount Sinai, entered into the thick cloud and in the darkness of the cloud encountered God in holy mystery (apophatic theology) and came down with his face radiant (theosis).  (See Exodus chapters 19, 20, and 34:29-35)

Dogma, then, is not about making positive statements about God, but is rather a limited, apophatic confession of the Mystery which has as its goal to protect the Mystery and discern heresy.  Similarly, heresy is not merely something opposite to a particular set of doctrines, but something which destroys the Mystery and renders Theosis impossible. This, it does by rationalizing certain aspects of the Mystery; overemphasizing one aspect over the others; philosophizing and attempting to make positive statements where such are impossible.

 

"I am the Truth" (John 14:6)

“I am the Truth” (John 14:6)

Truth is a Person

With all that in mind, let me suggest a fresh perspective, a fresh paradigm, which says that Truth is a Person. [Note 10]  Namely, Christ, the Divine Logos, the second person of the Holy Trinity. And this I mean quite literally and apophatically. Christ is ultimately the beginning, the middle, and the end of truth. He is the presupposition, the method and the conclusion.

Let us approach the Mystery of the Incarnation and of the Holy Trinity with a renewed sense of wonder, and childlike trust in the Mystery of our Faith.  Let us prayerfully contemplate this Mystery and constantly be reminded of God’s love for His creation.

And let those who desire to find Christ, put their trust and faith in the Church He established and preserved throughout the ages, even as He promised to do.

To hear Jesus, and not just his words, we have to stand within the tradition of the Church; we have to put our trust in those to whom our Lord entrusted his mission, his sending. Part of the stillness that is needed for us to hear the words of Jesus is a sense of presence, and it is this that tradition conveys. We become Christians by becoming members of the Church, by trusting our forefathers in the faith. If we cannot trust the Church to have understood Jesus, then we have lost Jesus: and the resources of modern scholarship will not help us to find him. – Fr. Andrew Louth

I do not want my readers to come to the conclusion that I’m wholly opposed to academic study and inquiry of history or theology, but I want to state that I believe that even the Church is an article of faith.  We trust the Church just as we trust a teacher to teach us the truth or a doctor to bring healing to our bodies.  If we have no desire to put our faith in Her, then no study and scholarship will be able to help us.  However, academic study is not antithetical or opposed to what the Church teaches, and can prove itself useful in many ways, and for that reason shouldn’t be repudiated.

Christ at the Altar

Christ at the Altar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is important is that we always give the highest priority to the corporate, sacramental, liturgical, prayerful, communal and mystical life of the Church, where we directly experience our union with God and from which every orthodox teaching has its source.  I also want to make it clear that I do not believe in any sort of theological relativism; however, scientific study is incapable of delivering theological truth.

“If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian.”  – Evagrius of Pontus

 

Some Concluding Remarks

Finally, I want to say a few words why I chose Orthodoxy and why I believe the Orthodox Church to be the One Church that our Lord Himself established.

First, the Eastern Orthodox Church (along with the Roman Catholic Church) can claim apostolic succession, unlike Protestant churches, which unfortunately, cannot make the case for that.  The filioque and the papacy, however, seem to me to be what caused a breach in Church unity, since it was the Roman Church along with Her Pope that went rebelled against the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, and thus changed the ecclesiology of the Roman Church. Rome, once part of the conciliar Church, declared Herself the Universal Church, ceasing to be part of the conciliar Church.

Many people think they are criticizing Orthodoxy but what they are really criticizing is their understanding or conception of Orthodoxy.  The Republic of Macedonia is a post-communist society.  This means that many people were raised and indoctrinated in its atheistic ideology.  Many people in my town are nominal Orthodox.  Because they have not been properly catechized they do not understand what Orthodoxy is about and leave the Church.  When Protestants criticize Eastern Orthodoxy they are often criticizing either strawmen or nominal Orthodoxy.

A Place of Beauty (Rivendell)

A Place of Beauty (Rivendell)

And last, but not least, what has drawn me to Orthodoxy is the beauty of the Orthodox Church. A friend on Facebook recently just posted how one of the underrated and underused argument for the existence of God is beauty. And I absolutely agree with that. There is always a very direct and essential connection between truth and the beautiful; what is good and true is beautiful.

Beauty is an important part of our lives, and J.R.R. Tolkien was definitely aware of this. His works reflect the importance of beauty. Unfortunately, modern man has forgotten about beauty altogether.  So much so that modern works both fiction and non-fiction are devoid of beauty. The same is sadly true in much of contemporary Christian theology.  This probably has its roots in Reformation thought as a whole and Calvin’s iconoclasm in particular.  The physical reality of our faith was de-emphasized.  Churches gradually became empty buildings with only pews and the pulpit. This, I believe, is a mere reflection of the abandoned spiritual beauty.  The de-emphasis of beauty in theology resulted with the de-emphasis of beauty in worship, and ultimately in all of human culture.  Reading Tolkien has helped me to appreciate the spiritual importance of beauty.  His description of beautiful places like the Shire, Lothlorien, and Rivendell has opened my mind and heart to the spiritual beauty of the kingdom of God.  In the Orthodox Church I found that truth is beautiful.  There is a passage that describes the elves singing songs in the Hall of Fire in Rivendell that reminds me of the Liturgy.  The Divine Liturgy is heaven on earth.

At first the beauty of the melodies and of the interwoven words in elven-tongues, even though he understood them little, held him in a spell, as soon as he began to attend to them.  Almost it seemed that the words took shape, and visions of far lands and bright things that he had never yet imagined opened out before him; and the firelit hall became like a golden mist above seas of foam that sighed upon the margins of the world.  Then the enchantment became more and more dreamlike, until he felt that an endless river of swelling gold and silver was flowing over him, too multitudinous for its pattern to be comprehended; it became part of the throbbing air about him, and it drenched and drowned him.

 

408617_520274531363964_1480562585_nNo, I’m not merely speaking of outward beauty (though that is not without its importance), but rather of the spiritual beauty Orthodoxy possesses. Orthodoxy is organic, holistic and therapeutic – it is meant to heal and restore the whole person.  It is personal though not individualistic. Beyond that there is the Holy presence of God, that is able to instill proper reverence and fear of God in the heart of anyone who sincerely approaches God. And the whole spiritual experience, hard as it may be, is filled with joy and spiritual peace.

Similarly, if someone asks me why I’m a Christian, I would say that it is the only thing in the world that can satisfy my deepest needs, both aesthetically, morally, theologically, philosophically and existentially. It is the only thing worth living for!

 

References

Note 1
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” – John 14:6,7 ESV
Note 2
So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. – Acts 8:30,31 ESV
Note 3
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. – 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV
Note 4
 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. – John 16:13 ESV
Note 5
 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matthew 16:18 ESV
Note 6
 [I]f I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. – 1 Timothy 3:15 ESV
Note 7
 As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master [the Church]); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.St. Irenaeus, Against All Heresies
Note 8
For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. Origen, On First Principles
Note 9
 In reference, however, to the character of Novatian, dearest brother, of whom you desired that intelligence should be written you what heresy he had introduced; know that, in the first place, we ought not even to be inquisitive as to what he teaches, so long as he teaches out of the pale of unity. Whoever he may be, and whatever he may be, he who is not in the Church of Christ is not a Christian. Although he may boast himself, and announce his philosophy or eloquence with lofty words, yet he who has not maintained brotherly love or ecclesiastical unity has lost even what he previously had been… But apostates and deserters, or adversaries and enemies, and those who lay waste the Church of Christ, cannot, even if outside the Church they have been slain for His name, according to the apostle, be admitted to the peace of the Church, since they have neither kept the unity of the spirit nor of the Church. – St. Cyprian
Note 10
For years in my studies I was satisfied with being ‘above all traditions’ but somehow faithful to them… When I visited an Orthodox Church, it was only in order to view another ‘tradition’. However, when I entered an Orthodox Church for the first time (a Russian Church in San Francisco) something happened to me that I had not experienced in any Buddhist or other Eastern temple; something in my heart said this was ‘home,’ that all my search was over. I didn’t really know what this meant, because the service was quite strange to me and in a foreign language. I began to attend Orthodox services more frequently, gradually learning its language and customs… With my exposure to orthodoxy and Orthodox people, a new idea began to enter my awareness: that Truth was not just an abstract idea, sought and known by the mind, but was something personal–even a Person–sought and loved by the heart. And that is how I met Christ.” Fr. Seraphim Rose

 

 

What American Orthodox Believe: A Survey

 

A frequent visitor “Prometheus” posed a very good question with respect to my posting “An Orthodox Remedy to Evangelicalism’s Heresy Epidemic.”  He asked:

My question is what such a survey would look like in Orthodoxy. Protestants lack certain epistemological bases for their teaching, but the very act of teaching has the chance to provide a lot agreement on “orthodox” issues. The epistemology and the application ore two different issues, and I am interested to know what the orthodoxy of the Orthodox looks like on average.

The best answer I can find is Alexei Krindatch’s report The Orthodox Church Today.   It is based on survey research done with some 1000 people from 103 parishes in the Greek Orthodox of America (GOA) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) (p. 5).  The survey is relatively recent having been done between September 2007 and May 2008.

The survey provides an insightful peek into the empirical reality of Orthodoxy in America — what real flesh and blood Orthodox Christians believe as opposed to the official teachings of the Orthodox Church.  It is important to keep in mind that the questions asked by Alexei Krindatch’s survey for the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute differ from that posed in Stephen Nichol’s survey done by LifeWay Research for Ligonier Ministries.  Below are screen shots of tables showing the various survey results and a few comments on how these bear on Prometheus’ question.

How Orthodox are American Orthodox?

Unlike the Lifeway survey of American Evangelicals which asked a number detailed doctrinal questions, the Orthodox survey combined questions of doctrine with orthopraxy (right practice).   It found that nearly all respondents affirmed Jesus’ bodily resurrection (98%) and the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist (97%).  What is striking about the survey research is that when it comes to doctrine, both cradle Orthodox and converts are on the same page; the difference being 1% or less.  With respect to orthopraxy converts tend to be more conservative than cradle Orthodox.

A search of Krindatch’s report for “Trinity” yields only 2 results.  We know that American Orthodox are exposed to the Church’s teaching on Trinity every time they attend church but we can only guess as to how well American Orthodox understand the Church’s teaching on baptism.  Further research is needed.  (Figure 78, p. 160)

Krindatch Fig 78

How Many Believe the Orthodox Church is the True Church?

The question was asked with respect to whether there were multiple interpretations of the Christian faith or the Orthodox Church being the closest to the “best and true interpretation”?  The survey found a strong majority (80%) supporting the position that the Orthodox Church is the closest to the best and true interpretation.  Members of the OCA tended to be slightly more conservative than the Greek Orthodox respondents on this issue.  (Figure 68, p. 146)

Screen shot 2015-01-12 at 10.17.00 AM

Liberal, Moderate, Traditional, or Conservative?

One interesting question in Krindatch’s survey was how Orthodox Christians identified themselves on a scale from liberal to conservative with respect to church life.  It may surprise some that the “liberal” Orthodox are a very small minority, 4%.  But while the “liberals” are those who favor change in the Orthodox church, the “moderates” who are open to change make up nearly a quarter of the respondents.  Probably, the most significant finding is that a strong majority (almost 70%) identify themselves as either “traditional” or “conservative.”  This point to a strong sense of stability in American Orthodoxy.  (Figure 5, p. 14)

Liberal, Moderate, Conservative

Self-Confidence in Explaining Orthodoxy to Others

There is a stereotype of the typical Orthodox Christian not being able to explain what he or she believes to others.  It is a pleasant surprise that nearly half of Orthodox Christians who have not had a college education and slightly more than two thirds of those who graduated with a college degree feel confident to explain Orthodoxy to others.  The flip side of this is that nearly a quarter of those with a college degree and slightly more than a third did not share this confidence.  While there is room for improvement in Christian education among American Orthodox, the stereotype of an inarticulate Orthodox is largely a myth.  (Figure 71, p. 151)

Krindatch Figure 71

Conclusion

Survey research questions about theology like that asked of American Evangelicals while helpful have in-built limitations from an Orthodox standpoint.  Orthodoxy does not give rote “propositional truth” statements the same kind of premium as does Protestantism. So it is not as critical for an Orthodox believer to be able to spit out the “right answer” to all theological questions.  That said, an Orthodox Christian is expected to have self-consciously embraced the Creed and Councils of the Church as providing a fence against heresies.  This fence prevents the theological free fall so often seen in Protestant circles. Neither of these are a substitute or excuse for weak understanding of the faith among Orthodox.

Robert Arakaki

An Orthodox Remedy for Evangelicalism’s Heresy Epidemic

 

Build hospitalA significant proportion of American Evangelicals hold views that are at odds with the historic Christian faith.

This is the finding of a Christianity Today article: “New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies” (October 2014). The survey was done by LifeWay Research for Ligonier Ministries.

 

The Problem: Evangelicalism Infected by Heresies

The good news is that the majority of self-identified Evangelical do believe in key doctrines like Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (96%), salvation through Jesus alone (92%), God’s sovereignty over all people (89%), and the Bible as the Word of God (88%).

The bad news is that while the majority of Evangelicals affirmed belief in the Trinity (96%) and Jesus’ divinity (88%), nearly a quarter (22%) were of the opinion that God the Father is more divine than Jesus.  Disturbingly, a sizable minority (16%) say Jesus was the first creature by God and 11% were not sure.  This is disturbing because this echoes the ancient heresy of Arianism that was repudiated at the Council of Nicea (AD 325).  Just as disturbing was the finding that slightly more than half (51%) said the Holy Spirit is a force, not a personal being.  This echoes another ancient heresy that was condemned at the Council of Constantinople (AD 381).

 

Evangelical Solution: More Adult Education

Kevin Emmert who authored the Christianity Today article presents an Evangelical solution: better adult Christian education.  He cites retired Asbury College professor Howard Snyder sees the need for clearer teaching on the Trinity.  Stephen Nichols of Ligonier Ministries urged Evangelicals to learn from the historic church and to use creeds in their personal discipleship, steps many low church Evangelicals would find radical.

 

Mainline Protestant Solution: Return to Classic Sola Scriptura

Matthew Block wrote a response article for First Things: “Misreading Scripture Alone: How We Ended Up Heretics.”  He is of the opinion that the reason for the prevalence of these heresies lie with the extreme version of Sola Scriptura – “All I need is me and my Bible” – among Evangelicals.  He calls for a return to the classic version of Sola Scriptura which eschews an individualistic approach to Scripture and favors reading Scripture in the context of the church tradition.

This is a more accurate understanding of the Reformation understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition (and, indeed, explains why Lutherans can consider the Lutheran Symbols authoritative).  We cannot simply reject the history of the Church.  True, where Tradition is appealed to as a source of new dogma, we are right to resist it.  But when Tradition codifies and clearly re-presents the teachings of Scripture, it is to be accepted as a norming influence on our individual reading of Scripture. (Emphasis added.)

Here we see Matthew Block, unlike many Evangelicals, boldly affirming the role of capital “T” Tradition.  His remedy to the heresy epidemic is classic Protestantism.  While his remedy sounds much like Orthodoxy there are some fundamental differences in the way classical Protestantism and Orthodoxy understand Scripture and Tradition.

In what follows I will examine: (1) how Orthodoxy’s living Tradition differs from that proposed by Mr. Block and (2) how Orthodoxy’s Holy Tradition offers an efficacious remedy against the heresy epidemic troubling contemporary Evangelicalism.

 

eucharist

Where’s the Church?

Matthew Block’s high view of the church can be seen in his use of capital “C” Church.  He writes:

But Scripture was not given for the benefit of you or me alone.  Instead, it was given for the benefit of the Church, throughout history and throughout the world.  Consequently, we ought to read Scripture together as a Church.  The Church as a body has centuries of experience of reading the Word, of immersing itself in the language of God.  (Emphasis added.)

This statement is something that an Orthodox Christian can easily agree with.  But what does Matthew Block mean by the “Church”?  Does “Church” apply only to the Lutherans?  Does “Church” apply to other Protestants like the Reformed and the low church Evangelicals?  Does he include also the Anglicans?

Priest and Bishop at the Eucharist

Priest and Bishop at the Eucharist

Orthodoxy understands “Church” to comprise the local Eucharistic assembly under the leadership of the bishop.  Historically, the bishop was viewed as the successor to the Apostles and the guardian of Apostolic Tradition.  Christianity from its early days was episcopal in structure.  Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers, stressed the importance of the church being under the bishop.  It is important to keep in mind that Ignatius’ church in Antioch was the home church of Paul and Barnabas, and of Mark who later wrote the Gospel of Mark (see Acts 13:1-3, 15:37).  Ignatius thus represents the mainstream view of the early Church in the statements below.  He writes:

See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles.  (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.1; emphasis added.)

For Ignatius the office of the bishop was integral to the existence of the Church.

Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as the bishop is also a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles.  Without these the name of “Church” is not given. (Letter to the Trallians 3.1; emphasis added.)

And for Ignatius, there could be no valid Eucharist apart from the bishop.

Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he appoints.    . . . .  It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an “agape” without the bishop . . . . (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.2; emphasis added)

In Orthodoxy it is expected that a local church will celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday and that the local parish priest be under the authority of a bishop.  The office of the bishop was the universal norm in Christianity until the Reformation in the 1500s.  So I find it puzzling that Matthew Block is vague as to what he means by “Church” when early Christian Tradition is clear about the church being under the bishop.  The Lutheran tradition allows for “bishops,” but it does not regard the episcopacy as universally normative.  For the Orthodox the bishop links the local church to the Church Catholic around the world and provides an unbroken historical ink to the Apostles, a claim that Lutherans cannot make.

 

Orthodox Solution: Living Tradition

Protestantism can be said to be a religion of books.  In addition to the Bible as the supreme authority, for Matthew Block there is also the Lutheran Symbols, i.e., the Book of Confessions, for Reformed Christians there are the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  There is also a tendency among Protestants to produce thick tomes called systematic theology in which doctrines derived from the Bible are laid out in a neat orderly manner.

Orthodoxy is based on Living Tradition.  In Orthodoxy Scripture is inseparable from Tradition.  Paul taught that Tradition is both oral and written (2 Thessalonians 2:15).   Holy Tradition and the Church comprise one organic whole.  Matt Ferdelman put it so well in a recent posting.

The Church is the living Tradition of faith handed down from the Apostles and maintained by the Spirit of Truth from the beginning until today. It is an unbroken stream of right doctrine and right worship to which individuals unite themselves. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and she cannot be divided. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

 

The Flow of Holy Tradition

The Flow of Holy Tradition

The river metaphor is rooted in the mystery of Pentecost when Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit on the Church to guide her into all truth and to empower her to be his witnesses in all the world (John 16:13, Acts 1:8).  Becoming Orthodox is like stepping into a mighty river of grace and mercy.  We start off in the shallow end and over time we progress into the deep waters.

A good entry point for stream of living Tradition is the Liturgy.  Sunday worship in Orthodoxy is rooted in Apostolic Tradition.  We celebrate the Lord’s Supper because “We’ve always done it this way.”  We don’t do the Eucharist because a group of theologians after studying the Bible drew up a set of guidelines on how to celebrate the Eucharist.  The Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist is part of the traditioning process.  Paul wrote: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread . . . .” (1 Corinthians 11:23)   The church in Corinth was already doing the Liturgy based on Paul’s oral tradition when it received Paul’s letter.  So when my priest prays over the bread and wine I am very conscious that he is part of an ancient chain of tradition going back the first Eucharist celebrated by Christ.

 

The Liturgy is a powerful way to learn about the Trinity.  The Liturgy does not so much explain the Trinity as it leads us into the worship of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  At every Sunday Liturgy we recite the Nicene Creed (AD 325) which confesses faith in God the Father and affirms the full divinity of Jesus Christ.  Every Sunday I hear the words: “Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father” that teach in no uncertain terms Jesus’ divine nature.  Every Sunday we also recite the expanded version approved by the Second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) which affirms the divinity of the Holy Spirit: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.”  The numerous litanies (set prayers) all close with reference to the Trinity.  This repeated exposure to the worship of the Trinity has deepened my appreciation of God as Trinity.

The Liturgy is an acted out metanarrative.  Beginning with the Saturday evening Vespers which recounts the narrative of creation, fall, and hope, it then culminates on Sunday morning in the narrative of the Incarnation, Christ’s death on the Cross, and his third day Resurrection.  The Liturgy links the Last Supper in the Upper Room to the Messianic Banquet of the Age to Come.  At every Liturgy we are reminded of Christ’s first coming when he died on the Cross for our sins and  of Christ’s Second Coming and our standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ.  In all this we are taught or reminded of God’s work of redemption in historical figures like Constantine and Helen, Kyril and Methodios, Joachim and Anna, Nicholas of Myra, John Chrysostom, Mary of Egypt, Moses the Black, Nicholas of Japan, Herman of Alaska, et al.  Orthodox worship in its totality – Saturday Vespers, Sunday Matins, and Sunday Liturgy—comprise an ongoing adult Christian education in chant and song.  As a church history major I used to learn about church history by reading books, now I find myself exposed to a constant stream of lessons about Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, Church Fathers, and the Saints just by going to church!

Living Tradition requires people of vibrant faith.  It comprises families who faithfully attend the Sunday services and follow Christ’s teachings during the week, priests who joyfully lead the congregation in worship and diligently exposit the Scripture, bishops who shepherd the flock under their care and have a missionary heart, and monastics who devote their lives to prayer and worship.  Without this vibrant faith Orthodoxy becomes vulnerable to nominalism, ritualism, and ethnocentrism.  This danger is all too real given the fact that there are people for whom Orthodoxy is mostly their ethnic identity; many are woefully ignorant of Orthodoxy’s rich heritage or they like hearing the Liturgy in the language of the old country even if they don’t understand what is being prayed.   When an Orthodox priest attempted to correct the erroneous views of a parishioner he made reference to the ancient hymn “Monogenes” (Only Begotten).  He said: ”You’ve been singing this hymn all the time!,” only to find out that she didn’t understand the hymn because it was sung in Greek!  Living Tradition requires that the Liturgy be accessible to the congregation in their language.  In the case of the US the dominant language is English.

The Orthodox Church is like a well endowed hospital with superbly trained doctors and based on best practices.  The healing of sick souls calls for deep, radical treatment.  It also requires long term therapy to help patients regain their health.  This high level of care requires diligence and commitment on the part of the patients, the physicians, and the support staff.  Breakdown in discipline and order can result in infections, and if left unchecked an outbreak of heresy and sinful behavior.  Having the true Faith is not grounds for pride and complacency, but a call to gratitude, humility, and diligence.

 

Conclusion

Survey researchs like that published in Christianity Today are like snapshots taken at a specific point in time.  What is needed is a historical analysis so we can understand the underlying cause.  A review of recent history shows Protestantism to be especially vulnerable to theological decay and heresy.  Protestant history is full of examples of mainline denominations succumbing to heresy and theological conservatives retreating into another smaller denomination.  Many mainline Protestant seminaries have become vectors for heresy with the result that future pastors go on to infect their local congregations.  Why is that?  I argue in “Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw” that the classic doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the underlying reason for this heresy epidemic.  Protestantism views Tradition as valuable but not equal to Scripture in authority and can therefore be subject to revision as the Church’s understanding of Scripture change over time.  This makes Protestants susceptible to a cafeteria style pick-and-choose mentality to church tradition.  Thus, Sola Scriptura impairs Protestantism’s ability to maintain right doctrine and practice So while the proposed Evangelical and Protestant solutions are good, they are inadequate for dealing with epidemic of heresies.

In Orthodoxy Scripture and Tradition are organically linked giving it a stability largely absent among Protestants and Evangelicals.  This is ironically validated by the complaint by Protestant critics that Orthodox theology is “stagnant.”  Holy Tradition has blessed Orthodoxy with a stability in faith and worship that offers the best hope for protection against the heresy epidemic currently raging unchecked among Evangelicals.  For those of us who have ventured from Protestantism into Orthodoxy’s stream of living Tradition have found it full of truth, mercy, and healing.

Robert Arakaki

 

References

Matthew Block.  “Misreading Scripture Alone: How We Ended Up Heretics.”  First Things, 29 October 2014.

Kevin P. Emmert.  “New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies.”  Christianity Today, 28 October 2014.

« Older posts Newer posts »