Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 36 of 89)

Solo versus Sola Scriptura: What’s the Diff?

October 12, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 138 Comments

Luther Invoking Sola Scriptura at the Diet of Wurms

Father Andrew Stephen Damick recently wrote: Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura. It’s an excellent article and I encourage readers to read the entire article. In this article I have excerpted parts of Father Andrew’s article and used it as a basis my take on what is happening with the recent rediscovery of historic sola scriptura by Evangelicals.

The Latest Evangelical Fad – Tradition is Cool!

Fr. Andrew describes the high church fad sweeping the Evangelical world:

Charismatics are celebrating Lent. Baptists are talking about the Eucharist. The inscrutable maybe-universalist and now Oprah-darling Rob Bell is even using the phrase the tradition. Maybe this tradition stuff isn’t so bad. I can branch out a little. I can line up some Athanasius next to my MacArthur, and a volume or two of Gregory of Nyssa next to my Bonhoeffer. Osteen still goes somewhere preferable near the bottom. (Who gave me that book, anyway?) Maybe we’ll put Origen down there with him. Both are questionable, right? Oh, hey, I’ve heard Ratzinger is kind of interesting. And that “wounded healer” Nouwen guy’s onto something. Has anyone heard of someone named “Schmemann”?

Welcome to the club, the Lutherans and certain Reformed types say. We’ve been waiting for you. Help yourself to some creeds. We hope you’ll stay for some liturgy.

And we hope you’ve discovered the difference between sola and solo scriptura.

Simple Fundamentalism versus Sophisticated Evangelicalism

Most Evangelicals grew up on what Keith Mathison calls solo scriptura. They were taught that all that is needed is the Bible – no external authority or assistance is needed for understanding Scripture. (See my review of Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scripture.) This approach can be traced to Alexander Campbell, an American revivalist who lived in the early 1800s. Out of the frontier revivals came the motto: No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.

In recent years Evangelicals in growing numbers have begun to discover Church history. They are venturing beyond Evangelicalism’s provincial sub-culture to explore the broad and diverse Christian traditions: historic Protestant Reformation, early Christianity, mysticism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. They soon discover that the original Protestant Reformers were not afraid to use creeds or to cite the early church fathers and that the Bible only slogan they grew up on is different from what Luther and Calvin taught. Classical sola scriptura while affirming Scripture as the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice allowed for creeds and the early church fathers. The original Reformers had a far higher view of the church compared to many Evangelicals today who question whether church membership is necessary to Christian discipleship.

Is Sola Scriptura Enough?

In recent years Evangelicals have begun to question and criticize solo scriptura. Keith Mathison points out that solo scriptura results in everything being evaluated in accordance with the individual believer’s opinion of what is Scriptural. As a corrective Evangelicals like Mathison have begun to call for a more communal and historically informed approach to Scripture, i.e., sola scriptura.

Father Andrew notes that to say sola scriptura involves a communal reading of Scripture leads to important questions about the church.

The Church is there to help. The Church will interpret the Bible together. I don’t have to go it alone.

But what if my church is wrong? What about when my church interprets it in a manner that contradicts the Methodists down the block? Who’s right? Just read the Scripture? But that’s what I’ve been doing!

What is missing here is ecclesiology.

Father Andrew notes:

One can say that the Church has authority to interpret Scripture, but which Church? Is it all of them? What about the fact that they don’t all agree? And no, they don’t even all agree on essentials. “Which Church?” is a critical question, and it’s one that isn’t being asked very much in these discussions. Still further, “What is the Church?” is also just as critical, and I fear it’s also gotten lost somewhere. The second question finally leads to the first. If you can figure out what the Church is, then you will realize that not all “churches” are the Church.

If not all churches are the Church, then that means there’s got to be one that is that One. The Bible talks about only one.

Thus, historic sola scriptura becomes deeply problematic in light of Protestantism’s deep rooted denominationalism. I have called this “Protestantism’s fatal genetic flaw.” (See article.)

Cause for Rejoicing

Father Andrew finds Evangelicalism’s recent discovery of church tradition cause for rejoicing.

I’m overjoyed, of course, that Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists and others should want to read the Church Fathers, sign onto the ancient creeds, and so forth. This is very good news, and I can only believe that it is likely they will thereby move closer to the faith that I hold as an Orthodox Christian.

We also rejoice with Father Andrew that Evangelicals are discovering the early Church and that they are discovering the Liturgy. Evangelicals are rediscovering their family roots and finding out about the ancient treasures of historic Christianity.

This has given rise to a curious kind of ecumenicism. Some Evangelicals tell me that they too reject sola scriptura (i.e., they reject solo scriptura) and that they too accept church tradition like the Orthodox. Or they will maintain that classical Protestantism like Orthodoxy allows for creeds, liturgies, and the church fathers. What is being implied here is that high church Evangelicalism is just as much a part of the one Church as the Orthodox. However, on closer inspection there are problems here. It becomes increasingly obvious there is a superficiality to the recent Evangelical rush to embrace church tradition.

Cherry Picking Church History

One thing that stands out about the recent Evangelical embrace of early Christianity and church tradition is how decidedly/overwhelmingly Protestant it all is. While contemporary Evangelicals can pride themselves for being well read, and more historically informed than their Fundamentalist cousins — they both come from the same Protestant family tree. Father Andrew writes:

This is finally the problem with Protestants laying claim to elements of Christian tradition while still retaining sola scriptura—it all becomes just “texts,” resources that can be called on or discarded as the individual sees fit for himself. I like it when Basil speaks highly of Scripture but not when Ignatius speaks highly of the bishop. I like it when Athanasius insists on the homoousios but not all that “man becomes god” stuff. I like Chrysostom’s commentaries on Scripture but not Cyprian’s insistence that you cannot have God for your Father without the Church for your mother.

This kind of individualism has never been part of Orthodoxy. To be Orthodox is to accept Holy Tradition and to live under the authority of the bishops the appointed guardians of Tradition. What we find in the Orthodox Church: the Divine Liturgy, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the early Church Fathers, the Sacraments, the priestly order, the icons, comprise an integrated package known as Holy Tradition. These are all the result of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

And Holy Tradition is not simply anything one might find lurking somewhere in Christian history. . . . . Rather, it is the living reality of Christ in His Church, vivifying the Church by the Holy Spirit. No new dogmas are revealed, because everything was revealed in Christ. There is an ongoing revelation, but it is a revelation of the same things, the same God Who wishes to be known by every person.

This understanding that the Holy Spirit guides the Church is a very crucial point. Father Andrew notes that for Keith Mathison, God inspires Scripture – but God does not necessarily inspire His Church. This despite Christ’s promise in Scripture! (see John 14:26, 16:13) Protestantism’s refusal to believe the Holy Spirit inspires the Church (likely a reaction against Papal authority) resulted in the individualistic interpretation of Scripture: Luther, Calvin, Wesley, one’s pastor, one’s favorite TV preacher or seminary professor giving rise to the current plethora of Protestant denominations.

What’s the Diff?

In the end the differences between Fundamentalism’s solo scriptura and high church Evangelicalism’s sola scriptura are inconsequential. It is like the difference between the practical, plainly dressed Fundamentalist who likes Hal Lindsey and Charles Stanley and his upscale hip Evangelical cousin who likes Henri Nouwen, G.K. Chesterton, and Alexander Schmemann. Having descended from the same Protestant family tree they both retain their individualistic autonomy. Even the Reformed Christian who recently discovers the church fathers and believes in the real presence in the Eucharist do so as a matter of individual choice. There is not the slightest ecclesiastical consequence for wholesale rejection of the historic Church’s view of bishop rule, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Liturgy and Eucharist. Each denomination (individual?) can have their own unique view of these things.

For Protestants church is a place of fellowship and mutual encouragement, a temporary rest spot before moving on. Tragically absent in Evangelicalism is the biblical understanding of the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Orthodoxy affirms it is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. This is something most Evangelicals and Protestants would hesitate to affirm about their particular denomination. Most Evangelicals have no problem with the notion of an invisible Church, but this leaves them with no concrete authoritative Church here on earth to guide them and provide them safe shelter from heresies.

Children in the Attic

Father Andrew closes his article with the wonderful image of tiny rowboats, all bumping up against the great Ark of Salvation, the Church. Allow me to suggest an alternative word picture. I am reminded of the scene where a group of children stuck in the house on a rainy day, make their way to the attic. Opening antique trunks they discover old dresses and clothes their ancestors wore years ago in the old country. They put on the old clothes and pretend to reenact life in the old days. The magic of the old days fills the attic for a brief moment on that rainy afternoon, but after awhile they tire of it and go downstairs to resume their “normal” everyday twenty first century life as before. Before you know it, they will find another new fun hobby. But for those of us who believe church history is the fulfillment of Christ’s promise in John 16:13 and who believe that ancient Church of yesterday continues in the Orthodox Church today we bid others to cross the Bosphorus with us. We converted to Orthodoxy not because it’s cool — but because it’s true.

Robert Arakaki

See also

Robert Arakaki. “Book Review: The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” OrthodoxBridge. 4 June 2011.

Robert Arakaki. “Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos.” OrthodoxBridge. 3 January 2012.

Robert Arakaki. “Crossing the Bosphorus.” OrthodoxBridge. 15 January 2013.

Chris Armstrong. “The Future Lies in the Past: Why evangelicals are connecting with the early church as they move into the 21st century.” Christianity Today. 8 February 2008.

Holgrave. “Hipster liturgists: or, Why I am an Episcopalian.” Hipster Conservative. 25 August 2014.

Frederica Mathewes-Green. “The Emerging Church and Orthodoxy.” Precipice Magazine. 7 July 2007.

Keith Mathison. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” Modern Reformation. March/April 2007.

Steve Woodworth. “How Hipsters Became More Powerful than the Gates of Hell.” The Thursday Circle. 15 August 2013.

St. Paul’s Home Church

September 25, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 18 Comments

Icon – St. Paul

Many Evangelicals love to read and study St. Paul’s letters and consider Paul the greatest missionary of all time. But few stop to think about which church Paul came from. Many know that he was born in Tarsus, was educated in Jerusalem under Rabbi Gamaliel, and that he spent three years in the Arabian dessert after his encounter with Christ. But many would draw a blank if asked: Where was Apostle Paul’s home church? Fewer yet would think to ask: Is Paul’s home church still around today?

Modern Evangelicalism’s historical amnesia has caused many Evangelicals to neglect or ignore the history and practice of this early Church. It is tragic to see how this unspoken Protestant bias is playing out in our day! Learning from church history can provide a valuable corrective.

We read in the book of Acts:

In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3, NIV; emphasis added)

The Church in Antioch played a significant role in the book of Acts and in early church history. Christianity had its origins in Jerusalem but very little cross cultural missions was done in the early days. As Luke noted in Acts 11:19 at the time Jews evangelized only their fellow Jews. It was not until Jews from Cyprus and Cyrene began to share the Good News of Christ with non-Jews in the city of Antioch that a major evangelistic breakthrough was made (Acts 11:20-21). Then when Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to do missionary work the Church of Antioch became a sending church – another milestone in world missions.

During Paul’s time Antioch was the third largest city following Rome and Alexandria. The city was also a major administrative and military outpost for the eastern edge of the Roman Empire. Its population was multi ethnic comprising native Syrians, Romans, Greeks, and Jews. Antioch had a sizable Jewish presence, of the 300,000 residents about 50,000 were Jews. Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity (1997) gives a grim description of what urban living in Antioch must have been like in ancient times. In addition to the overall squalor due to the lack of modern sewers and sanitation, social interaction was marked by ethnic divisions (there were at least 18 different ethnic groups at the time) and numerous newcomers “deficient in interpersonal attachments” (pp. 156-158). Christianity brought hope to many with the promise of new life in Jesus Christ and a new basis for social solidarity in the Church (pp. 161-162).

In terms of religion Antioch was an interesting amalgam. In addition to the pagan religions and Judaism, there was also a certain amount of syncretism taking place. Some of the Jews were drawn to the freedom of Hellenism, while a number of Gentiles were drawn to Jewish monotheism. Many became God fearers, Gentiles who accepted Jewish monotheistic faith but refrained from full conversion to Judaism. Paul’s message that one could become right with God apart from the Jewish Law would appeal to many causing them to become Christians.

Paul Barnett in Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (1999) notes that Christianity came to Antioch in two waves. The first wave stemming from the persecution of the church in Jerusalem likely took place in AD 34 – a year after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second wave stemming from men from Cyprus and Cyrene evangelizing non-Jews likely took place in the late thirties – nearly a decade after Christ’s death and resurrection. This points to rapid growth and expansion of early Christianity. Barnett is of the opinion that the majority of the converts came not from the Jews or the pagans, but from the God fearers.

They were Called “Christians”

Luke’s observation: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26) indicates that the number of converts had grown to the point where it had the attention of the general public. The term Christianoi reflected the practice of naming followers of a noted ruler, e.g., Herodianoi and Augustiani. The context for Isaiah’s prophecy in 56:5 points to God’s missionary outreach to the Gentiles and the ingathering of the Jews along with that of the non-Jews. Acts 11:26 can also be viewed as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prediction of a new covenant and a new name for God’s elect in the Messianic Age.

I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. (Isaiah 56:5)

And,

. . . you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow. (Isaiah 62:2)

The bestowal of a new name is significant. When Jesus gave Simon the fisherman the name “Peter,” this signaled a new life and a new vocation. Similarly, the emergence of the name “Christian” can be understood as signaling the emergence of a faith community which would take the place of the old Israel and the dawn of a new dispensation of grace.

"The Lamb of God is broken and shared, broken but divided; forever eaten yet never consumed, but sanctifying those who partake of Him."

Holy Communion

What is striking about Acts 13:1-3 is how central and important worship is for world missions. Paul received his missionary call in the context of worship. To be precise, Paul received his missionary call during the Liturgy! The original Greek in Acts 13:2 is λειτουργωντων (leitourgounton) which can be translated: “as they performed the liturgy” (Orthodox Study Bible commentary notes for 13:2). As an Evangelical I have heard many missions sermons but not one linking missions to the Sacraments or the Eucharist as the basis for Christian missions!

Middle Wall of Partition Separating Jews from Non-Jews Source

The Church of Antioch is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of “a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:7) The sizable influx of Gentile converts described in Acts 11:20-21 changed the church demographics significantly, from predominantly Jewish to predominantly Gentile. There were so many new converts that Barnabas recruited Paul to assist him in the catechizing of the Gentile converts (Acts 11:25-26). Where before Gentiles were separated by a dividing wall in the Jerusalem temple, in the Church Gentiles prayed and worshiped alongside with Jews in the Liturgy. What is happening here in Antioch is historically unprecedented! Here in the Eucharist Christ the Passover sacrifice reconciled Jews and Gentiles with God the Father giving rise to a new Israel! No wall separated them now. Rather, in united fellowship Jews together with their Gentile brothers and sisters partook of the most holy Body and Blood of Christ! Memory of this powerful worship experience in Antioch probably inspired Paul as he wrote in Ephesians 2:11-22 of Christ abolishing the dividing wall in his flesh (v. 15) and making “one new man out of the two”’(v. 15).

Paul’s Missionary Journeys Source

While Paul’s apostolic ministry was translocal in scope, he was very much rooted in the life of the Church and its sacramental ministry. Acts 13 and 14 describe Paul’s first missionary journey. We read in Acts 13:3: “they placed their hands on them (Barnabas and Paul) and sent them off.” Later we read in Acts 14:26-28 that at the end of the first mission Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and reported to their home base on their ministry. A similar pattern can be seen in Paul’s second mission. Paul started out from Antioch, his home base (Acts 15:35-36), and returned to the church at Antioch at the conclusion of the mission (Acts 18:22-23). The strong role of the church in Acts stands in contrast to modern Evangelicalism where parachurch ministries quite often overshadow the local church.

Antioch in Church History

Ignatius – 3rd bishop of Antioch

Just as Antioch played a major role in the book of Acts it would likewise play a major role in church history. Ignatius of Antioch was an early bishop and one of the Apostolic Fathers, i.e., Christians who knew the Apostles personally. Prior to his death circa AD 98/117 Ignatius wrote a series of letters that shed light on what the early Christians believed. In his Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius wrote:

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. (Philadelphians 4.1; emphasis added)

Ignatius’ high view of the Eucharist stands in contrast to popular Evangelicalism’s low view of the Lord’s Supper as purely symbolic. Just as striking is Ignatius’ high view of the office of the bishop. Where many Evangelicals hold to a congregationalist ecclesiology or Reformed Christians prefer a presbyterian polity, Ignatius held to an episcopal view of the Church! This is not a momentary quirk but an integral part of his theology. We find in Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (Smyrnaeans 8:1-2; emphasis added)

John X – 171st Bishop of Antioch

These passages shed valuable light on Acts 13:1-3. They underscore the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the early Christian Church. Furthermore, they show that the Church in Antioch during Paul’s time was under the rule of a bishop. According to Orthodox Tradition, St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. He was then succeeded by Euodius who was followed by Ignatius (cf. Eusebius’ Church History 3.22). The current Patriarch of Antioch, John X, can trace his apostolic succession back to St. Peter as well as to St. Ignatius. According to the list of patriarchs John X is the 171^st bishop since St. Peter.

For two millennia the Church of Antioch would guard the Faith and evangelize the nations. The renowned preacher John Chrysostom (Golden Mouth) was born and raised in Antioch. He later edited the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which is still in use today. The church was also known as the home of Antiochene Theology which emphasized a more literal and historical reading of Scripture than the allegorical method favored in Alexandria. With respect to Christology the Antiochene School insisted on Christ’s true humanity.

Patriarchate of Antioch, Damascus, Syria Source

The city of Antioch has not been sheltered from the upheavals of history. Shifts in trade routes, numerous Crusades, and the Mongol invasion resulted in the city’s decline and the removal of the ancient Patriarchate in the 1200s to present day Damascus. Today it is known as Antakya in present day Syria.

The Antiochian presence was established in the US during 1800s when political events and economic conditions forced many in the Middle East, especially Syria, to emigrate. An account of the challenges the young immigrant community faced in America can be found in Peter Gillquist’s Metropolitan Philip: His Life and His Dreams (1991). The Antiochian Archdiocese was instrumental in receiving some 2000 Evangelicals into the Orthodox Church. To become Orthodox these Evangelicals needed to adopt the faith and worship of the Antiochian Patriarchate. The welcoming of the Evangelicals in 1987 has done much to dispel the notion that Orthodoxy is an ethnic church constrained by ties to language and customs of the old world. One thing I have noticed in my visits to Antiochian Orthodox churches is that while their parishes tend to reflect mainstream American culture their doctrine and worship are identical to other Orthodox churches whether Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian, etc.

Antioch’s Challenge to Protestants

If the Church of Antioch is Apostle Paul’s home church and if it still exists today then Evangelicals and Protestants are faced with some challenging questions. Is my church like the Church of Antioch? Do the doctrines and practices of my church resemble that of Antioch?

The Church in Antioch as described in Acts 13:1-3 and Ignatius’ letters provides three markers of early Christianity: (1) it was liturgical, (2) it practiced fasting, and (3) it was episcopal in structure. Inquiring Protestants and Evangelicals can use these three markers (among others) as a means of evaluating their church tradition.

Evangelicalism’s historical amnesia has created a huge blind spot in their theology. One of the basic assumptions of Protestantism is that the early Church fell into heresy soon after the first generation of Apostles passed away but when one looks at history one can find no evidence of such apostasy. The absence of apostasy points to a fundamental continuity in the Church of Antioch. Antiochian Orthodox parishes today like Acts 13:1-3 use liturgical worship and fast on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, liturgy and fasting are very much a part of Orthodox Christianity everywhere. And like Ignatius’ letters all Antiochian Orthodox parishes live under the authority of a bishop whose apostolic lineage goes back to Acts 13.

The Protestant Reformation resulted in a number of developments that diverged from Acts 13:1-3. The doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) has resulted in the sermon displacing the Eucharist as the focal point of Sunday worship. Under the influence of Puritanism worship was simplified to the point where the Lord’s Supper became a mere symbol. Fasting which was an important spiritual discipline to both Judaism and historic Christianity is for all purposes absent in Evangelicalism. The Reformed tradition has been inconsistent and erratic in its approach to fasting, and more recently, at times hostile.

Come and See!

Evangelicals and Protestants have the opportunity to go beyond reading Paul’s letters by visiting a local church that has a direct historical link to Paul’s home church, the Church of Antioch. Today there are over 250 Antiochian Orthodox parishes in the US, many within driving distance. The curious inquirer may find reading Orthodox books and blogs very helpful for understanding Orthodoxy, but there is no substitute for an actual visit to an Orthodox worship service. There you will experience firsthand the hymns, prayers, incense, and ritual of the Divine Liturgy (usually of St. John Chrysostom originally of Antioch!). A visit to an Orthodox Liturgy offers an Evangelical or Protestant a unique and holy opportunity to reconnect with the ancient roots of the Christian Faith.

Go and visit! And let us know what you think of the ancient Liturgy.

Robert Arakaki

“A Peek Into Orthodoxy” — a video preview of a visit to an Orthodox Church

Dominion Rule or Life as Sacrament?

August 25, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 38 Comments

This blog posting is a response to Erik’s excellent comment to the previous blog posting “An Orthodox Critique of the Cultural/Dominion Mandate.” Thank you Erik for contributing to the Reform-Orthodox dialogue!

From Erik:

As for the key to CR, Rushdoony states that “Because we are not God, for us the decisive power in society must be the regenerating power of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in and through us. Not revolution but regeneration, not coercion but conversion, is our way of changing the world and furthering the Kingdom of God. This is the heart of Christian reconstruction.” In this light Christian dominance, or Christians being the predominate force in all society or in every sphere, is not the means or even the end sought in and of itself but is simply the by-product of God’s sovereignty in a redeemed society. In other words it is the outworking or effect of a nation observing what Christ has commanded. It just stands to reason that if a society is mostly Christian they are going to elect Christian magistrates to govern said society; Christian rulers (like all Christians) in turn are obligated to submit to Christ’s authority and only sanction or institute laws He has ordained (e.g. outlawing things like murder, adultery, theft, etc.).

Erik, your summary of Rushdoony and noting that regeneration trumps governmental coercion is refreshing. I have made this point many times to those accusing Theonomists of a sort of Islamic Jihad mentality. Besides, Protestants do not give their clergy social power over the State. Also, from a Protestant perspective, your progression from God’s monergistic regeneration of people–who grow into a Christian community-and elect Theonomic magistrates-and build the Shining City on a Hill is an easy flow. The primary thing an Orthodox would find missing here – is the two thousand years of Orthodox doctrine and praxis, jettisoned by the Reformation. As we will see below, the whole Dominion mentality has decidedly Western roots and recent origin – not rooted in the soil of the Early Church, Desert Fathers, Church Councils, or the Liturgical and Sacramental life of the Church. Bear with me as I try to explain.

There comes a point in many discussions or debates where one realizes they can no longer keep the issue at hand truncated from a broader picture. Responding to you has forced this reality. The issues surrounding Dominion, Reconstruction and Theonomy cannot be truncated away from other more fundamental theological matters which lay at the root of the Protestant Reformation. We could continue to quibble about the exegesis of verses here and there, or which verses best make dominion and post-mil points. We could niggle about how much natural law and natural revelation effect the General Equity of the Law. Yet ultimately, we come to that place where we must realize these issues are connected to other issues more central to the Faith once delivered to the saints.

You most likely believe the Protestant Reformers were right to rebel from the corrupt Roman Catholicism of the late middle ages. Agreeing with you at this point, however, does not begin to address where the Reformers should have looked after repudiating Roman corruption. Nor does leaving Rome address the new doctrinal spins on theology, or the fragmenting denominationalism that arose from some of their fundamental commitments.

It has often been quipped the Protestant Reformation “threw the baby out with the bath water”. So before moving too quickly to social & civil realms of Dominion, Law and Reconstruction, we might consider more of the substance of just “what-baby-was-in-the-bath-water” that got thrown out. Though we will not pretend here to elucidate the whole of what all was lost, allow me a few observations.

First, the Reformers did not simply reject the sale of indulgences, papal authoritarianism, purgatory, icons and the veneration of Mary as Theotokos. Even the most modest of magisterial reformers would evolve and ultimately reject most of the Sacraments of the historic Church East & West – and remove them from their central place in the worship and liturgy of the Church gathered. That expository or exegetical sermons and bible instruction would ascend to the central place, and crowd out the former is indisputable. A few short decades would begin to show the Protestant Church primarily as a place for bible instruction and learning, with minimal accessories. Gone were the icon, incense, as were the centuries old prayers and rituals and ornate liturgies of the historic East or West.

These same Reformers would go on to reject and replace the episcopal structure of Church government. This would include the sacred historic place of Apostolic succession connecting Church leadership with the Apostles themselves through the laying on of hands. These are no small things – with no incidental ripple-effects for the culture at large.

Note again, there is more here than just rejecting papal authority. Not only was the whole system of liturgical and sacramental worship of the Roman Catholic Church rejected. The 1,000+ history of Orthodox Byzantium and Russian Church history, Liturgy & Sacramentalism was also rejected. Essentially (despite some extensive borrowing that would creep back in later) ecclesiastical history was wiped clean – only to be pieced back together by some Reformers in various ways. The Anabaptist would do little or no piecing back and were oddly forced to wear the label “Revolutionary”. This includes, of course, largely rejecting the early Church Fathers, Councils, Scriptures (Bible), part of the Creed and Orthodox Holy Tradition. Luther and most ‘magisterial Reformers’ would try to distance themselves from the Anabaptists, even making war on them. But here is the salient point, from a cultural and historic perspective – the mental paradigm was broken in a revolutionary way. At the root of Protestant cultural life the Anabaptists were simply more thorough, consistent and radical Revolutionaries than their more modest and popular Revolutionary first-cousins.

As for Dominion, Reconstruction and Theonomy, we see what ultimately happens when historic Liturgical and Sacramental Worship is expelled from the Church – they also lost the Liturgical and Sacramental Life in the civil realm as well. However unintended it might have been, this marked the beginning of the secularization of Western culture. Subsequent Protestants project(s) of theological-minimalism and reducing The Faith to various lowest common denominators began. What did this do to life in the polis? What did this do to vocation, and ultimately the very telos or purpose of man on earth?

Reformed Christians have been zealous to mend the breach ripped opened by this truncating of life. But by making the sermon and bible knowledge substitute for the Saints, the ancient calendar, the writings of the desert Fathers, the whole place and importance of suffering, dying to self in the ascetic life, the centrality of the Sacraments — have been a losing cause.

Protestant Christian Man now stood in the public square without the secure and ancient ecclesiastical moorings. Increasingly, this was a culture without mystery. With a fresh new work ethic he might now be increasingly Individual-man, or, Productive-man, Legal-man Medical-man, Engineering-man, Family-man . . . . on and on. But there is little place left in Protestantism for Sacramental-man. Some have argued that the Reformation, by its rejection and loss of the Sacraments – secularized all life, especially life outside the ecclesial realm. The loss here (though difficult to articulate in ways easy for a Western protestant mentality to grasp) is far greater than many have realized. Indeed, the partial realization of this loss is likely behind Federal Vision theology and Jordan and Leithart’s rediscovery of Sacramentalism in the writing of Alexander Schumemann, Vladimir Lossky, John Zizioulas and other Orthodox and Roman Catholic writers. Sadly, their solution was to sew their favorite selected liturgical quilted-patch on to their new Protestantism to make it more historic. It is destined to fray and rip apart.

The de-sacramentalism of Worship would ultimately de-sacramentalize all Creation (nature). The loss of liturgical & sacramental life at the heart of the public square and polis was in the mix, lurking secretly in the recipe of the loss of liturgical & sacramental worship at the heart Protestantism. Gone also from the life of the Christian is all asceticism and battle with the passions – especially if these involve prolonged and historic sacred fasts. I do not recall ever seeing quotes like these in the writings of my favorite Theonomists.

Seek within yourself the reason for every passion, and finding it, arm yourself and dig out its root with the sword of suffering. And if you do not uproot it, again it will push out sprouts and grow. Without this means you cannot conquer passions, come to purity, and be saved. Therefore, if we desire to be saved, we must cut off the first impulse of the thought and desire of every passion. St. Paisy of Neamt

Or, article like this one recently making the Orthodox rounds: What Can We Do to Nourish Our Experience of the Transfiguration of Christ?

The ascetic struggle with the passions or any zeal to enter into the deeper spiritual life of the Faith are absent, or ridiculed as childish pietism in most theonomic and Recon circles. Such striving after Christ is dismissed – relegated to a Legal category.

When we compare Rushdoony’s writing with that of the early Church Fathers, what is strikingly absent is the sense of mystery. Rushdoony and his followers have much to say about God and His law-word, life in the legal and judicial realm. But where is the Eucharist wherein we receive the Body and Blood of Christ? Where is the blessing? In Genesis 1:28 and 2:3 we read that God blessed Adam and Eve, and the Seventh Day. These blessings marked the climax of creation. Then we read in Mark 14:22 that at the Last Supper Jesus blessed the bread. The act of blessing turns “mere” matter into a means of divine grace. God intended creation to be sacramental, a means of grace in which we come to know God’s love and goodness and to share in the life of the Trinity. For this reason the Liturgy (the work of the people) lies at the heart of the Church. The Liturgy reconciles fallen humanity to God and restores fallen matter to its original calling to be a manifestation of God’s love and goodness. Alexander Schmemann argued that the “original sin” consisted not so much in disobedience to the divine command but rather that man ceased to hunger for God, to live life as communion with God.

In our perspective, however, the “original” sin is not primarily that man has “disobeyed” God; the sin is that he ceased to be hungry for Him and for Him alone, ceased to see his whole life depending on the whole world as a sacrament of communion with God. The sin was not that man neglected his religious duties. The sin was that he thought of God in terms of religion, i.e., opposing Him to life. The only real fall of man is his non-eucharistic life in a noneucharistic world. The fall is not that he preferred world to God, distorted the balance between spiritual and material, but that he made the world “material”, whereas he was to have transformed it into “life in God”, filled with meaning and spirit. [Source]

Orthodox Byzantium would know and develop the concept of a Symphony – the holy cooperation between the Civil realm and the Ecclesiastical realm. Yet it did so without any sense of de-sacramentalizing either realm, and ending with a Cartesian rationalism that altogether demystifies true Christian Faith, and secularizes Life. This is why we appeal to the fullness of Orthodoxy. Rather than minimalism and reduction – Orthodoxy maximalizes the full depth and richness of The Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints.

“Come and see!”

David Rockett and Robert Arakaki

David Rockett was an elected Elder at two dynamic Reconstructionist churches for thirty years.

Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 36 of 89)

Solo versus Sola Scriptura: What’s the Diff?

St. Paul’s Home Church

Dominion Rule or Life as Sacrament?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives