Category: Discipleship (Page 7 of 9)

Christian Discipleship Under Holy Tradition

March 8, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 16 Comments

Holy Tradition, the unbroken voice of our Church

One common fear is the fear of the unknown.

Many Protestants contemplating becoming Orthodox wonder what Christian discipleship under Holy Tradition will be like. Will I have to believe strange doctrines and do odd rituals? Will I come under a new law and have to earn my salvation?

Relinquishing sola scriptura does not mean we stop reading the Bible. We continue to read the Bible but in the context of Holy Tradition. The Orthodox interpretation of Scripture is framed by the Nicene Creed, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of the church fathers. Holy Tradition is not something vague and mysterious. It is a body of beliefs and practices passed on from one generation to the next. Basil the Great, a fourth century church father, described in On the Holy Spirit the Church’s unwritten tradition:

For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.

Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? (Chapter 66)

Orthodoxy claims to have kept the Tradition without change for the past two millennia. This claim can be tested through the study of church history. Entering into an Orthodox Church is like having a “Jurassic Park” experience. We see the ancient Church right before our eyes. It’s nothing at all like what we see in modern Protestant churches! The continuity between the early Church back then and the Orthodox Church today indicates that the Orthodox Church will still be Orthodox one thousand years from now.

Where Protestantism teaches Scripture over Tradition, Orthodoxy follows the model of Scripture in Tradition. Orthodoxy believes that Apostolic Tradition and Scripture arise from the same source: Jesus Christ. St. Paul admonished the Christians in Thessalonica to “hold fast” to the tradition both in the oral or written form (2 Thessalonians 2:15). St. Paul also referred to his Gospel message, the Eucharist, and Christian propriety as part of the tradition he received and handed down to them (I Corinthians 15:1-4, 11:28, 11:16).

Tradition is not static, but dynamic and organic. It is like a tiny seed that grows into a big tree (Mark 4:30-32). One common misunderstanding is that Tradition means Orthodoxy will do things exactly like the early Church. But when we study church history we find a certain amount of variety and fluidity that in time would evolve into more stable and uniform structures. There are two opposites to living tradition; one is dead formalism and the other is unchecked innovation. The former gives too much priority to the outward form at the expense of the inner life of the Gospel, the latter disregards the importance of the form to preserving and giving expression to the inner life of the Gospel.

The Nicene Creed is a good example of the growth of Tradition. The New Testament writings contained short confessions like: “Jesus is Lord!” This would develop into a confession of faith taught to baptismal candidates who were expected to recite it from memory. While there were local variations, the basic contents of the early creeds were the same. By the time of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils the Creed acquired a fixed form that endures till today known as the Nicene Creed.

When the early Church was confronted with the Arian heresy an ecumenical council was convened in which bishops from all parts of the world came together. They repudiated Arius’ teaching by inserting into the Creed Athanasius’ phrase homoousios, that is, the Son was of the same essence as the Father. Athanasius’ coining “homoousios” might seem innovative, but it was really conservative in intent. Similarly, the coining of “Trinity” was not an innovation, but an attempt to make explicit what had long been understood in the Church’s Tradition.

In matters of controversy the Church gathered in council. The Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 set the precedent for the later Ecumenical Councils. Orthodoxy considers the Seven Ecumenical Councils as binding on all its members from the bishops and clergy down to the laity. Orthodoxy relies on Christ’s promise in John 16:13 for its belief that the rulings of the Ecumenical Councils were more than human decisions but the result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The fact that the Councils are not optional ensures doctrinal consistency in the Orthodox Church. For a former Protestant who had to live with Protestantism’s doctrinal chaos I find this to be a huge relief.

Priest and Bishop at the Eucharist

Tradition informs the leadership structure of the Orthodox Church. The office of the bishop or episcopacy is rooted in the New Testament practice of ordaining qualified men to the priesthood (2 Timothy 2:2) and entrusting them with the “sacred deposit” (2 Timothy 1:13). Irenaeus described how the Christian faith was preserved by means of a chain of apostolic succession. Furthermore, the authority of the bishop was not so much institutional as it was rooted in his faithfulness to Tradition. A bishop unfaithful to Apostolic Tradition would cease to be qualified to hold that office. The office of the bishop was critical to a local church’s claim to be apostolic. ‘No bishop’ = ‘no link’ to the apostles. Without the bishop the local church could not claim to be following the Apostolic teachings or be part of the Church Catholic.

Tradition can be viewed as a matrix made up of several components: the Bible, the Nicene Creed, the Eucharist, the episcopacy, and church councils. These are integrally linked to each other and together uphold each other. In other words, Tradition is a singular Package.

Tradition in the Liturgy

Orthodox Church – Warrenville, IL

We see Tradition most notably in the Sunday Liturgy.

The first half of the Liturgy is focused on Scripture and thus is called the Liturgy of the Word. The Orthodox Church follows a set of prescribed Scripture readings known as the Lectionary. This ensures that all parishes will share in the same Scripture readings. It also ensures that what the parish hears is not subject to the personal whim of the priest. The Lectionary is like a menu that ensures a balanced diet of spiritual feeding. In many Protestant churches it’s hard to predict what the coming Sunday sermon will be about.

Another important aspect of the Liturgy of the Word is the prayers and hymns. We pray for each other and for the needs of the world. We also remember to pray for our bishop and other clergy. We end the litanies or prayers invoking the name of the Trinity. Several times during the Liturgy the Holy Trinity is mentioned and at that point we make the sign of the Cross. Through regular participation in the Liturgy we become vividly aware of the reality of the Trinity. For much of Protestant worship the Trinity is hardly mentioned at all. For many Protestants the Trinity is something they read about in a book or hear about in a church membership class. This has caused the Trinity to fade from the consciousness of many Protestants.

In the Liturgy the Orthodox Church remembers and honors Mary the Theotokos (God Bearer). The Orthodox Church’s honoring Mary is a way of affirming the Incarnation and also the result of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils’ repudiation of the Nestorian controversy. It is also a way of affirming our fellowship with the great cloud of witnesses in heaven (Hebrews 12:1). To neglect honoring Mary as the Mother of God would be consequential for our theology. It would weaken our appreciation of the Incarnation. Many Protestants view Christ’s Incarnation as a historical event but have very little appreciation of its implication for the Eucharist, the Church as a divine institution, for salvation as recapitulation and deification, and the redemption of the cosmos. Also, not to honor Mary in the Sunday services implies that we honor her in word but not in our actions.

Following the sermon we stand and recite the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed unifies us across the world and to other Christians in history. The Creed provides a fence protecting us against heresy. If there is no fence in place a local congregation can become vulnerable to the pastor or a visiting preacher introducing a questionable new teaching.

The second half of the Liturgy, the Eucharist, is rooted in Tradition. St. Paul in I Corinthians 11:23 told the Christians in Corinth that the way he celebrated the Eucharist was based on a tradition that went back to Christ himself. The early Church had a variety of liturgies but by the fifth century the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom became the norm in much of the Greek speaking world. In the early Church the Eucharist was a normal part of the Sunday worship (see The Didache Chapter 14). This stands in contrast to the infrequent observance of the Eucharist in many Protestant churches today.

The Eucharist unites the local church to the Church Catholic. The Eucharist was viewed, not as a mere symbol, but the actual receiving of Christ’s body and blood (Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians Chapter 4). In the early Church the Eucharist could not be celebrated apart from the bishop (Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrneans Chapter 8). For an Orthodox Christian to go up and receive Holy Communion means that he or she accepts the teachings of the Orthodox Church and that he or she accepts the authority of the bishop.

Holy Tradition — A Way of Life

Orthodox Monk on footbridge

Holy Tradition is not a set of rules but a way of life. It is the Church living out the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the culture that has unified Orthodoxy for the past two millennia. Jesus commended fasting (Matthew 6:16-18, Mark 2:20) but did not dictate the specifics of fasting. We learn in the first century church manual called The Didache (Chapter 8) that the early Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. This spiritual discipline is still followed by the Orthodox Church today. It is not viewed as a quaint practice or for the super spiritual but expected of all Orthodox Christians: laity, clergy, and monastics. We fast as a way of denying ourselves, combating the passions of the flesh, and for our spiritual growth. It is not a way of earning our salvation!

Orthodoxy has a lot of rules, but it is not legalistic. The rule is for Orthodox Christians to fast the night before to prepare for receiving Holy Communion, but there are exceptions to this rule. One is that we don’t keep a spiritual rule if it results in bodily harm. I know of a priest who would withhold Communion to a parishioner if she disobeyed her physician’s instructions to eat on a set schedule! Another exception is that we try to avoid the sin of pharisaism, that is, of putting spirituality over charity. For example, for the Wednesday and Friday fasts we are expected to abstain from meat and dairy product. However, if we are invited to a meal it is better to eat what is set before us than to reject our host’s hospitality. Being Orthodox means not just knowing the rules for spiritual disciplines but more importantly the spirit of charity behind these rules. We fast under the guidance of the parish priest or our spiritual director. It is not advisable that we make up our own rules for fasting.

Orthodox Crossing Themselves

Holy Tradition consists of little things like making the sign of the Cross, bowing at certain times during the Liturgy, lighting candles, kissing the Bible, venerating icons etc. Orthodox music tend to follow either Byzantine chant or Slavic polyharmonic singing, both done a capella. The general consensus is that musical instruments (whether ‘traditional’ organ or contemporary guitars) and contemporary praise songs are incompatible or inappropriate for Orthodox Liturgy. All this is part of the Orthodox way of life. Those contemplating converting to Orthodoxy must be prepared to make the necessary adjustments. This calls for the relinquishing of the independent spirit and the adoption of an attitude of trust and humility needed for submission to the Church’s authority (Hebrews 13:17).

Two Ways of Joining a Church

When a Protestant decides to join a church body they usually check out the church’s statement of faith, and if they agree with its teachings they join that church. Or they may decide that they like the services the church offers or that the pastor’s sermons help them grow spiritually. In many churches there is a short four to six weeks long membership class that goes over what the church believes.

But in the case of becoming Orthodox people are encouraged to check out the Orthodox Church’s beliefs and its way of life. Catechumens attend the Sunday worship services and take a several months long overview course. An up close look at an Orthodox parish will reveal people who are far from perfect but committed to growing in Christ in the context of His Church. To accept Tradition is not so much agreeing with a theological system as it is entering into a way of life. Converting to Orthodoxy is much like Ruth’s conversion to Yahweh:

Do not ask me to leave you, or turn back from following you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. (Ruth 1:16)

Robert Arakaki

A Calvinist Argument for Church Rituals

February 18, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 4 Comments

James K.A. Smith – Calvin College

James K.A. Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Redeeming Ritual” which was published in The Banner (February 2012). In the article Prof. Smith points to the beneficial results of having ritual in our lives. He notes that while Protestants tend to shun rituals in church, they embrace rituals outside the church. Rituals in the form of routines and disciplines are needed if we are to achieve excellence in activities like golf or playing Bach.

He draws our attention to the formative aspect of rituals:

In all of these cases we intuit that rituals are not just something that we do; they do something to us. And their formative power works on the body, not just the mind. So why should we be allergic to ritual when it comes to our spiritual life? Could we redeem ritual?

He notes that rituals do exist in Reformed worship. Moreover, these rituals are beneficial to Reform worship. He notes of the practice of standing during the Scripture reading and saying “Thanks be to God” at the end of the reading:

You might say it without thinking about it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not doing something. That little ritual trains your body to learn something about the authority of God’s Word, and to respond in gratitude.

He appeals to a holistic understanding of human nature. We are “embodied beings,” not “brains-on-a-stick.”

We need not be afraid of ritual. If we appreciate that God created us as incarnate, embodied creatures, then we will recognize his grace lovingly extended to us in ways that meet us where we are: in the tangible, embodied practice of Spirit-charged rituals.

These are thoughts that an Orthodox Christian can readily agree with. As a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy this describes well my experience of the Divine Liturgy and Orthodox prayers. Orthodoxy is rich with elaborate, theologically profound prayers. By repeating these prayers sincerely I was learning from the great spiritual classics of ancient Christianity. Rituals like crossing myself and bowing gave me a sense of participation, and the sense I was taking part in the same worship as the early Christians.

Protestants and the Sign of the Cross

Prof. James K.A. Smith’s article provides an alternative viewpoint to Pastor Doug Wilson’s claim that it is inappropriate for Protestants to make the sign of the cross. His article shows that there are good reasons to bring back ancient rituals like the sign of the cross. If there is a missing element to Prof. Smith’s article it is how historic rituals, as opposed to invented rituals, can connect one to the past. Being rooted in the past and having a well grounded Christian identity is needed for spiritual maturity in today’s vertiginous religious climate. The biggest threat today is not the empty ritualism of works based salvation but belonging to a church tradition that has become unmoored due to its disavowal of rituals and historic worship.

However, Prof. Smith is not unaware of the need for historic worship as evidenced by another article of his: “Tradition for innovation” which appeared in Faith & Leadership (June 2012). In it he argues that if evangelicals wish to minister to a broken world outside the church and engage in “culture making,” they first need to be grounded in the historic Christian worship and faith. He writes:

In short, we cannot hope to restore the world if we are constantly reinventing the church; the hard work of innovation requires grounding in a tradition.

We cannot hope to re-create the world if we are constantly reinventing “church.” Instead, we will reinvent ourselves right out of the story. Liturgical tradition is the platform for imaginative innovation.

“Why all the Rituals” by Michael Bressem, Ph.D.

Evangelicals and Protestants are becoming aware that Christianity is more than just a theological system but also a worldview and a way of life. There is a hunger for a holistic approach to being a follower of Christ and living out the Christian faith in the world. Many have started investigating the early church fathers and the historic liturgies in an attempt to be grounded in a faith tradition that does not drift with the ebb and flow of modern culture.

They are also grappling with the fact that far from being “brains-on-a-stick,” we are embodied beings and that what we believe in our hearts needs outward bodily expression like rituals. This explains why there is this increased interest in rituals like the sign of the cross and liturgical worship among Reformed Christians. But sooner or later they will have to ask themselves: How far do we want to go? Half way or all the way? Some Protestants have gone all the way and crossed the Bosphorus.

Robert Arakaki

Note: All emphasis in quotations have been inserted by me and not part of the original text.

Is the Protestant Church Fragmented? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson (2 of 2)

February 9, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 62 Comments

source: canonwired podcast 26 January 2013

In a 26 January 2013 canonwired podcast, Pastor Doug Wilson was asked about the fragmented state of Protestantism. One frequent objection to Protestantism is the fact that it has over 20,000 denominations. Pastor Wilson responded that if you look at the data in terms of tradition as opposed to independent polities, you will find Orthodoxy has 19 different traditions, Protestants have 21 different traditions (streams), and for Roman Catholics there are 16 different traditions. This answer gives one the impression that Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox are all in the same boat.

However, Pastor Wilson is confusing apples with oranges. His 21 Protestant groupings are based on theological differences among Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals etc. His 19 Orthodox groupings are based mostly on national jurisdictions, e.g., Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, Bulgarian Orthodoxy etc. National Orthodox jurisdictions are of a very different nature from doctrinal differences between Protestant denominations.

In this blog posting I will sketch Protestantism’s theological divisions. Then I will compare its doctrinal disarray against Orthodoxy’s theological unity.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Luther vs. Zwingli — Marburg Colloquy 1529

One of the first major divisions occurred over the Lord’s Supper. In 1529 Luther and Zwingli met at the Marburg Colloquy seeking to come to a common understanding of Christ’s words: “This is my body.” Luther held to the real presence, while Zwingli preferred a more symbolic understanding. Unable to come to an agreement the two went their separate ways. Calvin held to a position somewhere between the two.

This difference over the real presence in the Lord’s Supper continues to divide Protestants. Many Evangelicals and Baptists will side with Zwingli, while the more traditional or high church Protestants will side with Luther (if properly nuanced). The significance of the Marburg Colloquy is that deep divisions emerged so soon among the original Reformers despite their adherence to sola scriptura. Theological division is not a later development but present from the start.

source

Baptism was another cause for division. Lutherans and the Reformed Christians continued the practice of baptizing infants, while the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism insisting that only those old enough to understand the meaning of faith were to be baptized. The Anabaptist movement began in 1523 in Zurich and spread to many parts of Europe. The Baptists we know today can be traced to seventeenth century English Separatism. Their refusal to recognize infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling divides the Baptists from more historic Protestants. Some Protestants have experienced the pain of being excluded from Holy Communion at a Baptist church just because they had not been baptized by total immersion. And those who wish to join a Baptist church will need to be rebaptized by total immersion.

Conclusion: The majority of Protestants reject Roman Catholicism’s seven sacraments for two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The reducing of the number of sacraments to just two rather than promoting unity resulted in divisions among Protestants.

Church Government

Westminster Assembly

Under Elizabeth I the Anglican Church and the Via Media (Middle Way) was established in the mid 1500s. Via Media was a compromise between Roman Catholicism and the more radical Protestants influenced by Calvin’s Geneva. The English Puritans objected to the retention of the episcopacy and its close ties with the monarchy. Two novel forms of church government emerged from this: presbyterianism and congregationalism. Presbyterians believe that the local congregation is to be governed by presbyters (elders) elected by the people of a congregation or by a group of congregations. Congregationalists reject the notion of a state church. Following the “gathered church” principle, they insist that the church should consist only of those who responded to the call of Christ and who covenanted with Christ and each other to live as Christ’s disciples.

The Holy Spirit and Religious Revivalism

Frontier Revival in early 1800s

There is within Protestantism, especially Puritanism, a strong emphasis on a personal experience of God’s grace. The Halfway Covenant controversy that troubled the New England colonies in the mid 1600s was over whether those who professed faith in Christ and lived upright lives but had had no conversion experience were to be admitted into full church membership. In the mid 1700s there emerged a movement of New England Congregational preachers who insisted on the possibility of an instantaneous or sudden conversion experience attended by emotional and mystical features known as “New Lights.” These were resisted by those who believed that faith in Christ did not require a dramatic experience and that the baptism administered to infants was efficacious provided that it was accompanied by diligent catechesis. In the mid 1800s John Williamson Nevin in The Anxious Bench criticized the emotional approach to religious conversion being popularized by the frontier revivals. From the frontier revivals of the 1800s we see the origins of the emphasis being “born again” prominent among many Evangelicals and Baptists today.

Similar to the emphasis on instantaneous conversion was the emphasis on instantaneous or entire sanctification. The Holiness movement which emerged in the mid 1800s sought to preserve John Wesley’s teaching that through a powerful instantaneous and emotional experience, distinct from the initial conversion, one who became cleansed from inbred sin was enabled to live without conscious or deliberate sin. This emphasis gave rise to the Holiness Churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and many other smaller groups.

A new religious movement emerged from this emphasis on the Holy Spirit, Pentecostalism. This movement which emerged at the turn of the century emphasized speaking in tongues as the sign that one had received the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism has exerted a wide and powerful influence on twentieth century Protestantism. What was initially considered a bizarre sect in time became accepted in many mainline churches through the charismatic renewal. Its expressive form of worship laid the foundation for the contemporary worship services found in many congregations.

We find here three quite different approaches to Christian conversion and faith in Christ: (1) the more traditional churches that accept infant baptism and view faith as trusting in Christ, (2) those who insist that becoming a Christian requires having undergone a distinct conversion experience and that baptism is only valid for those who had such an experience, and (3) those who believe that having a born again experience while necessary is not sufficient and that one needed to have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in tongues. These differences are more than doctrinal. They touch upon the issue of who was a genuine Christian and who was not. These questions generated strong emotions on both sides often resulting in church splits and new church groups being formed.

Liberalism Versus Fundamentalism

With the rise of modern science and the Enlightenment, Western Christianity faced a new challenge, knowledge based on autonomous reason. The historical critical method of studying the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus caused many to question and rethink traditional doctrines. Many Protestant theologians, pastors, and denominational leaders began to jettison traditional beliefs like the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and even that of Jesus’ divinity!

This gave rise to theological liberalism, an attempt to forge a new theology compatible with the insights and findings of modern science. Others resisted the attempt viewing naturalism as incompatible with the traditional Christian worldview. This gave rise to conflicts between the theological conservatives that sought to hold on traditional doctrines and the theological liberals that sought to adapt theology to the new knowledge being generated by modern science. In contrast to previous theological schisms that more or less remained within the confines of Christianity, theological liberalism resulted in many churches and denominations parting ways from the historic Christian Faith.

This is not to say that ‘conservative’ Protestantism resisted the temptation to syncretism. The controversial ‘word of faith’, prosperity gospel, and holy laughter teachings, while immensely popular today have gone beyond the boundaries of historic Christianity. The contemporary Christian music and the seeker friendly/church growth movement have taken much of Evangelical worship away from the historic pattern of Christian worship. And ironically, in a post-modern reaction to the excesses of modern Evangelical worship the ancient-future movement surfaced in an attempt to reconnect with the ancient Christian tradition lost by modern Evangelicalism.

Protestantism and Orthodoxy Compared

In his attempt to describe Protestantism as consisting of 21 groupings or traditions, Pastor Doug Wilson glossed over the serious doctrinal divisions among Protestants. This is where the contrast between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is most evident.

Core Doctrine – All of Orthodoxy share in the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology as defined by the Ecumenical Councils; Protestants, on the other hand, range anywhere from the classical Reformed and Lutherans who adhere to traditional Christology to the liberals who question or even reject the divinity of Christ or seek to redefine the Trinity using inclusive language – with more than a few denominations lying somewhere in between.

Worship – All of Orthodoxy carefully follow a select few ancient liturgies received from the historic Church; Protestantism has no common pattern or unity of worship. Rather than rely on Tradition, they sought to create their own liturgies based on their reading of the Bible. Protestant worship follows a broad spectrum from liturgical Anglican and Lutheran services, to sermon focused services characteristic of Evangelicals and Baptists, to the more emotionally expressive services among charismatics and Pentecostals.

Church Government – All of Orthodoxy agree that proper church government requires a bishop who is in apostolic succession; the vast majority Protestantism have no bishops in any historic sense. Where the early Church only had one kind of polity: episcopal, Protestantism allows for all kinds: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. In a disturbing development some of the Third Wave charismatic churches have claimed to have restored the office of the apostles!

Sacraments – All Orthodox share a common understanding of the historic sacraments. They all affirm the real presence in the Eucharist. There are different understandings about the need to baptize converts from Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. Among Protestants there is no unity over infant baptism or the mode of baptism. Neither is there a shared understanding about how often a church should observe the Lord’s Supper, the real presence, and who is authorized to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

It has been claimed that Protestants do in fact enjoy Eucharistic unity. But given the widespread belief that Holy Communion is just a symbol, intercommunion among Protestants has become all but disconnected from doctrinal orthodoxy and moral discipline. In the glaring light of this fact, claims to Eucharistic unity among Protestants sound hollow to Orthodox Christians.

Conclusion: The sad fact is that Protestantism today has no unifying core beliefs, no shared pattern of worship, on top of its many denominations founded on these divisions. From what I know of Pastor Wilson, he takes doctrine seriously. However, he does his listeners a horrendous disservice by ignoring this scandalous reality. What is compelling many Evangelicals to take a serious look at Orthodoxy is not merely the fractured state of Protestant theology and the widespread apostasy among liberal mainline denominations, but also the accelerating pace of doctrinal innovations among the younger generations of Evangelicals.

Protestantism’s Doctrinal Disarray

When I was a member of the liberal mainline United Church of Christ (UCC), a friend made a joke about the fact that if you walked into a room of 30 people at a UCC conference you would find 30 theologies in that room. While intended to be humorous, the joke also underscored a very sad fact about the theological health of a denomination in decline. Similar tensions have surfaced in the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

When I studied at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary the majority of the students there were conservative Evangelicals. There was much common ground among us students but the sad fact was that there was no common worship life at Gordon-Conwell. There was a chapel service but that was sparsely attended. Once a month the students would meet with their fellow denomination members, but there was little interest in reconciling denominational differences during these meetings.

This is not to say that there are no differences among Orthodox Christians. We differ over following the new church calendar versus the old church calendar of fast and feast days. I have friends who attend an old calendar Russian Orthodox parish. But while they celebrate Christmas two weeks later than the Greek Orthodox, I can receive Holy Communion if I were to visit that parish. As far as multiple administrative jurisdictions in America, we all agree that it is contrary to canonical law. I don’t know of any Orthodox bishop or priest who believe that multiple jurisdiction is God’s will. Steps have been taken to prepare the way for another council.

The multiplicity of administrative jurisdictions has not destroyed or precluded the fundamental liturgical and Eucharistic unity among world Orthodoxy. In Honolulu I attend the Greek Orthodox Church; on occasion I will visit the nearby ROCOR parish. When I visit the mainland I usually attend an OCA or Antiochian Orthodox parish. Also, we recently had an OCA priest who moved to Hawaii and was assigned to the local ROCOR parish and who would fill in for the Greek Orthodox priest when he went on vacation. So those who point to the problem of multiple jurisdictions are overlooking the Eucharistic unity that we all share and our desire to live out our unity in Christ.

Reconciliation in Moscow 2006

Schism can be healed. When I became Orthodox in 1999, I was discouraged from visiting the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) parish. This was because ROCOR saw the Moscow Patriarchate as collaborating with the Soviet regime and broke off ties with them. That schism was healed in 2006. As far as the schism between Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox I remain cautiously optimistic. Whenever I visit a nearby Coptic church I can sense of family resemblance that I do not have when I visit a Roman Catholic or Anglican parish. One positive sign is that the Copts have been sending students to the Greek Orthodox Holy Cross Seminary. Another positive sign of possible reconciliation is the fact Coptic Christians can receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox church when there is no Coptic church in the area. This is an exception made on a case by case basis and requires the blessing of the bishop.

One could point to the various splinter Orthodox groups. A Wikipedia article on Orthodoxy has three categories: (1) those in full communion, (2) traditionalist schisms, and (3) nationalist schisms. The best way to deal with this complex situation is to ask: What do we mean by Orthodox unity? Unity in Orthodoxy is organic and relational. The Eucharistic unity that all Orthodox share in is not just in the body and blood of Christ, it is also a communion among Orthodox bishops around the world and goes back to the Apostles. It is not enough for a church group to put the name “Orthodox” on its door; it must be in communion with the ancient patriarchates. It is a sad and unfortunate fact that human nature being what it is has resulted in individuals and groups leaving the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. But based on what the Nicene Creed teaches we believe that there has always been one Church, not two parts. This view means that if one leaves the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, the Church remains intact but one has become outside the Church. One way of locating this one holy catholic and apostolic Church is to see who is in communion with the ancient patriarchates.

There was a group of sincere Christians who called themselves the “Evangelical Orthodox Church.” There is no patent, to my knowledge, on using the word “Orthodox.” Similarly, there are many cults who call themselves “Christians.” Yet as the Evangelical Orthodox grew in maturity and understanding, they learned that to be Orthodox in the historic sense meant entering into canonical communion with the historic Orthodox patriarchates. So, they did. (See chapter 10 “A Decade of Decision” and chapter 11 “Welcome Home!” in Peter Gillquists’ Becoming Orthodox.)

Inquirers will need to confront two questions: (1) Do I agree with the Nicene Creed’s “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church?” and (2) Where do I find this one holy catholic and apostolic Church? I don’t think they will find it in Protestantism.

Conclusion

When I entered into Orthodoxy I found a common faith and a common worship. I close with two quotes: one from the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons, and another from a contemporary Orthodox blogger, Vincent Martini. Irenaeus wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth (Against Heresies 1.10.2, Richardson 1970:360).

Vincent Martini wrote:

An Orthodox Christian in America can travel to any Orthodox church in Greece, Russia, or Serbia, experiencing the same liturgy, prayer, and piety that they are accustomed to in their “home” church, while sharing full eucharistic fellowship with every single one of them. (“How Many Different Orthodox Churches Are There?”)

Despite the nearly two thousand years that separate Vincent Martini from Irenaeus of Lyons, we see the same Orthodox Faith.

When we compare Protestantism against Orthodoxy we will find that very little has changed with respect to Orthodoxy. Orthodox unity is based on the stability of Holy Tradition. All Orthodox share the same core doctrines, the same worship, and the same Eucharist — as did our Fathers in the centuries before us – and as will our grandchildren in the generations to come. But Protestantism is not grounded in the stability of Holy Tradition but in the quest for a reformed church ever reforming. This has resulted in constant change and flux from the time of Luther and Calvin till now. Neither the most historic high church denominations nor its low church evangelical or charismatic counterparts will be able to guarantee that its grandchildren will worship or believe as they did.

Robert Arakaki

Category: Discipleship (Page 7 of 9)

Christian Discipleship Under Holy Tradition

A Calvinist Argument for Church Rituals

Is the Protestant Church Fragmented? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson (2 of 2)

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives