Category: Tradition (Page 17 of 18)

Tradition: Family, Friend, or Foe?

July 14, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 19 Comments

Contributed by “Nicodemus”

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes,our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton

Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. The Vindication of Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan

First, let us establish Orthodoxy’s reverence for Scripture as the inspired Word of God right up front.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book 3, 1, 1)

Without passages like this, our Protestant friends to would have little to quote when they wish to pretend the Fathers prove their notion of Sola Scriptura! Ah, but it’s not so simple as a few truncated quotes. In this same article, Irenaeus continues with this:

Even if the apostles had not left their writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches? Many barbarian peoples who believe in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink. (in Cyril Richardson’s Early Christian Fathers 1970:374-375)

Orthodoxy’s reverence for Holy Scripture does not rest upon selective quoting of the Fathers. So please stay with us as we set a context for understanding Scripture within the Tradition which eventually gave us the New Testament. In this we avoid falling for a simplistic fundamentalism which divorces Scripture from its birth and use within Church history.

Scripture

Icon – The Holy Forefathers

There was no Scripture before Moses. Though blunt and even shocking, this sentence will not likely make most of our Protestant friends uneasy. The reason is because evangelical Protestants have little problem assuming Adam began a long history of what became a carefully maintained Oral Tradition, one passed down to Noah as the truth, all the way to Moses. Nor do human frailties, like errors in memory or transcription cause Protestants to blush. This is because they trust the Holy Spirit to secure the truth in oral transmission, so Moses (via Adam’s/Noah) wrote the revelation of God. (Note: Many early OT patriarchs were contemporaries: OLD TESTAMENT GENERATIONS LISTED ADAM TO MOSES)

So what do we know of the making of the OT canon of Scripture? Like the New Testament, it did not fall from the sky one day all neat, tidy and complete. It took centuries for the books and writings to be identified. Much is learned of from the making of the Greek version of the Old Testament. I will not repeat what is found in these excellent articles. But I do commend them to you for your instruction and edification. Read them here – NT canon, here – OT canon, and here – Which Came First.

There was no broadly recognized New Testament canon of Scripture before 350 AD. I suspect this blunt sentence stirs up more squirming in our Protestant friends. Marcion’s list was likely the first listing of gospels and letters. But Marcion and his list were both too hostile and anti-Jewish for broad acceptance by the early Church. He excluded James, Mathew and others. But if Adam’s Oral Tradition handed down to Moses for a thousand+ years does not upset Protestants, why would a similar Oral Tradition upset them for the New Testament the first 350 years of Church history?

Christ did not write a book. Nor does he urgently press His Apostles to write. They waited several decades to begin writing the New Testament. But we do have His promise of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit’s presence in the Church. Meanwhile, they taught their disciples their doctrine, rule of faith, sound words, Tradition – repeatedly exhorting them to guard and protect it. Protestant are defensive, if not panicked, by the reality of there being “No New Testament Cannon before 350 AD.”

The Gospel of Mark was likely written in the early 50s, 20+ years after the Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost, then soon I Thessalonians. All the New Testament books were completed by the end of the 1^st century (70 years after Pentecost). But these circulated in the early Church with a host of other gospel accounts and letters. Settling upon which Gospels and letters would comprise the New Testament, and which would be excluded, took several centuries. Protestants often instinctively obfuscate or blur the facts of historic scholarship. But simplistic fundamentalism does not stand the test of serious examination.

There is a natural unsettledness for Protestants to imagine life in the historic Church without neatly printed and bound Bibles (scrolls). Yet the Church not only existed but multiplied, flourished and covered the entire Roman world without a recognized New Testament Bible for a few hundred years. Even if you grant earlier dates to some writings, most books were local “letters” not broadly published. And when all finally became extant, they still had limited circulation, not to mention severe printing restrictions of book publishing in the ancient world. How did this early Church know what to do, and how to live without a settled New Testament?

Of course, the letters of Paul and the four Gospels (among many other writings) eventually trickled throughout Asia Minor and Palestine and eventually to Alexandria and Carthage (Egypt) and to Rome. But this took decades, and there were comparatively few copies printed by hand and quickly wore out. Fact is, few Christians, maybe even many Priests/Pastors and Bishops of the Church had a complete Bible as we know it, before 350AD. (Be it the seven decades the New Testament was being written, or the several hundred years of settling afterwards, the ahistoric nature of Sola Scriptura is inescapable during this period, regardless of how the Fathers related them to Tradition.)

Given the reverence for Holy Scripture Evangelicals have, it’s amazing how ignorant most are about the history of how the Bible (Old or New Testament) came to exist. Let me challenge my Protestants friends to read and think carefully about this by yourself. Talk with others later, after reading outside your own camp, thinking for yourself first. A good place to start is with The Emergence of the New Testament Canon.

Tradition

Frankly, one reason Protestants regard Holy Tradition as a likely enemy is because they’ve been led to believe loving Holy Tradition equals hating the Bible! But this (almost comically) is not true. Nor does Scripture itself assume all Tradition, the traditions of men, like the Pharisee tradition or worse yet, Roman Catholic tradition. Here is another simplistic fundamentalism that “would be laughable if not so tragic” situation. There are indeed traditions of men. The tradition of the Pharisees is certainly one man-made tradition.

But there is also another Tradition hidden and obscured from most Protestants – in the Bible – commended to the Church by the Apostles themselves. A good place to start is with Robert’s Blog post here: ‘IF NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN WHAT? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.’ Here he patiently reviews all the biblical texts relating to holy tradition like:

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. (I Corinthians 11:2)

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care (I Timothy 6:20). What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (II Timothy 1:13-14)

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the tradition you received from us. (II Thessalonians 3:6)

There are many other passages of Scripture and Mr. Arakaki covers them all in a thorough but concise way most Protestants have never seen, much less seriously considered. I challenge you to read this article very carefully and completely alone, prayerfully asking the Holy Spirit to guide your thinking.

Holy Tradition is similar to the oral tradition Adam handed before Moses before wrote the Torah. Yet there is a difference worth noting. Holy Tradition is not only promised by Christ, it is clearly and positively commended in the text of Scripture. It is the Tradition of the Apostles, supernaturally inspired by Christ and the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to the Discipling of the Nations. We must understand Paul’s commission to Timothy in this light. (2 Timothy 2:2) What the early Church did, lived, how they worshiped (liturgy Acts 13:2), how they answered the heretic(s) in their Councils, is Holy Tradition.

This Holy Tradition has been reverenced by the Orthodox Church since the Patristic Fathers walked the earth. This Tradition can be studied, like the Greeks, Romans, Celtics, American Indians and Old South. However, there is far more here than merely the customs, habits and traditions of men.

Prof. Clark Carlton

Lessons from Prof. Clark Carlton

In his conversion Journey to Orthodoxy, Associate Professor Clark Carlton, Ph.D. makes several very important observation about the place of Holy Tradition. Reared as a Southern Baptist, he attended a Southern Baptist Seminary just as he’d begun to study Orthodoxy. There while he was at a Baptist seminary he came face to face with Holy Tradition.

Among the books I read was The Vindication of Tradition by Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan. In it Pelikan drew a distinction between the intellectual rediscovery of tradition and the existential recovery of tradition. In other words, there is a great difference between simply recognizing what has gone before and genuinely claiming it for oneself. I had discovered the Church of history, the wisdom of the Fathers, and the liturgy, but I had yet to come to grips with all that such a discovery entails. (emphasis added)

In this insightful observation Professor Carlton differentiates how we see, then embrace Tradition. First, there is an intellectual discovery. We notice a tradition that is out there. A particular tradition shows up on your mental radar, perhaps due to a college roommate, teammate or class you take. You see the tradition much like a German student might see tradition in a Spanish Latin culture. But knowing and learning about its peculiar distinctives is very different from embracing it and claiming it as you own. Professor Carlton says, “I had discovered the Church of history, the wisdom of the Fathers, and the liturgy, but I had yet to come to grips with all that such a discovery entails.” (emphasis added)

But this is not all that confronted him. Professor Carlton continues:

Actually, I would amend Pelikan’s formula slightly at this point, for a further distinction needs to be made. There is also a great difference between claiming tradition for oneself and being claimed by tradition. I, along with Webber (Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, Robert Webber) and the contributors to his book, was perfectly willing to claim the historic Church and the liturgy for my own understanding of Christianity. Yet, I was still in control! I, in true Protestant fashion, was judge and jury of what would and would not fit into my kind of Christianity. I was willing to claim the historic Church, but I had yet to recognize Her claim on me.” (From First Baptist to the First Century)

Here Professor Carlton implies more than a Christian philosophy of history being the providential unfolding of God’s plan in time, in Creation. He gives us an excellent glimpse into the modern Protestant mind when it is forced to confront Church History and Holy Tradition.

The Protestant Christian stands outside of history and Tradition. Regardless of its attractiveness to him, he observes from a safe distance. From outside he can lay selective claim to as many or as few elements of that traditions he wishes to taste and embrace. He is like a careful diner before a vast smorgasbord. He might like a bit of sacramental this, and a taste of liturgical that. Yet he will take his doctrinal cuisine from yet another table. Professor Carlton says,

“Yet, I was still in control! I, in true Protestant fashion, was judge and jury of what would and would not fit into my kind of Christianity. I was willing to claim the historic Church, but I had yet to recognize Her claim on me.” (emphasis added)

Recently, some Protestant scholars and pastors have been exposed to historical studies and critical scholarship. They have been compelled to adopt Tradition as Useful Tool. The result has been an eclectic hodgepodge in which they pick and choose as they like from the ancient church and try to blend it with the Reformed tradition. The results have often been interesting, but all too much like Professor Carlton above. They are yet in control of how Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Reformed their Churches shall be.

Professor Carlton’s observation is striking. Can tradition have a claim upon a person? We might pause to ask how this is possible. We noted Adam’s passing on Truth via oral tradition did not bother Protestants much because they assume it was preserved from error by the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here is our first hint, the unnoticeable introduction of a divine element into the passing on of Oral Tradition. If God Himself is managing, in ways we cannot see, the integrity of Oral Tradition, then those who like Moses end up writing it need not worry if they got it right. Scripture grows supernaturally, via the Holy Spirit, out of Oral Tradition.

Holy Tradition is thus the substance of divine providence. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in history. This providence and history is of a nature that we at some point can no longer hold it at arm’s length and pick and choose what has a claim upon us. If Holy Tradition is the work of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost in the Church) then it cannot be so easily ignored or jettisoned like some cultural folk lore.

Tradition in the Familial Body

Here, Holy Tradition is comprehended in a whole new light. With Pentecost as the cause, Holy Tradition changes everything. It never was merely the traditions of men. Indeed, the sure promise of Christ and the active presence of the Holy Spirit is our surety. If the Holy Spirit is the author and giver of Holy Tradition, then I am not only bound to embrace it – it has a sacred claim upon me. Like the law of God given through Moses was no take-what-you-want-of-it tradition of men, Holy Tradition is the gift of the Holy Spirit in history, our cherished joy, our wisdom and glory before the nations – and our duty to preserve and pass on! (See also this excellent article on the evangelistic nature of Holy Tradition in the Divine Liturgy.)

In sad contrast we saw recently in a Pentecost Blog where a Protestant scholar saw the Protestant view of Pentecost as BOBO theology: Blink-On, Blink-Off. The Holy Spirit comes and goes, for centuries at a time! History becomes practical Deism for hundreds if not a thousand years. Pentecost is thus series of temporary phenomena in Church History. The Holy Spirit is God with us, sometimes. Yet Christ promised He would never leave or forsake His Church, Bride and Body. By the Holy Spirit He is Emmanuel, God with us. This is why the Protestant view of Pentecost, as well as church history might be regarded as damnable. Again, Professor Carlton says:

It would take a great deal more reading and an even greater amount of prayer before I would be able to accept the historical Church on Her own terms and be judged by Her….[others] helped me to understand that the Holy Tradition of the Church is not merely historical continuity or rootedness. It is the context in which the Church lives out Her divine life and carries out Her divine mission. Tradition is, to use Vladimir Lossky’s phrase, the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. (emphasis added)

Gradually I came to recognize the fact that Holy Tradition has the same claim upon my life as the Gospel itself, for Tradition is nothing other than the Gospel lived throughout history. It is not my place to judge the Apostolic Tradition and decide how or if to incorporate it into my own religious tradition; rather Holy Tradition judges me and calls me to account for how I have handled that Good Deposit that has been committed to Christians. I finally began to understand Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians-a passage I had never heard preached on in a Baptist church-”Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (emphasis added)

Protestants rarely get this far in their thinking about history and Holy Tradition. (It’s likely many Orthodox have more caught this claim of Tradition upon them, than have been taught it?) What is particularly sad, is to see bright young Protestants come right to the edge of Holy Tradition’s claim upon them, only to lose their nerve and shy away. They see and know it well. But they fear to embrace it. They settle for holding it at a distance. What was once only intellectually unsettling has now become a crisis of moral courage. Will they follow through, or back away?

Refugees Leaving Their Homes

Honestly, it takes no small amount of courage to depart from a beloved tradition, especially one filled with many good things. Family pressures and the misunderstandings (hostility?) of friends, even the glory and name one might make for himself in the Protestant world, causes many to lose heart. So, they deny the claim upon them they know Holy Tradition and the Church has on them. They clothe themselves with what they know are spurious arguments, to only settle for far less than the full Orthodox Faith they know is the deposit of Apostolic Faith.

But what of those who do muster the moral courage to become Orthodox Christians? I’m thinking not only of Frs. Peter Gillquist (recently reposed), Jack Sparks, Richard Ballew, Gordon Walker and others who lead 2,000 parishioners into Orthodoxy in 1988. I’m also thinking of hundreds more Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed and Charismatic Pastors, Anglican Priests and the many laymen who have come to Orthodoxy since. In large measure they view their departure from Protestantism more an act of humble obedience than one of courage. The same is likely true of recent Protestant pastors, unmercifully savaged by many who do not know them, or the personal details of their departure. (Jason Stellman resigned from the PCA for reasons of conscience). These men made the wrenching decisions to switch church homes after much wrestling in thought and prayer. They deserve our prayers more than our condemnation.

It is interesting how Protestants tear up when admiring the courage of Martin Luther against the corrupt Roman Church of the late middle-ages. Luther’s plea was for the liberty to follow the dictates of his conscience: “because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.” Is it not just a tad hypocritical that sincere men leaving Protestantism are not granted the same liberty of conscience Luther claimed? This is especially so given their appeal is not to the leading of their private, jiminy-cricket, individual consciences. Rather, those leaving Protestantism are most often gripped by far broader and historic claims than their private consciences – the Scriptures speaking within the Church and Holy Tradition like Professor Carlton.

So what do we say in conclusion? Our modern world surrounds us with more and more progressive, ever Reforming Protestant and Roman Catholic theological innovations? Do these lead us to a deeper love and reverence for the Faith and Worship the Apostles once for all delivered to the Church? No, they boldly presume to lead us away from Tradition toward that forever-in-flux new & improved promised land of progress. Much could be said here, but I will conclude with an excellent and potent quote. In his Amazon review of Pelikan’s The Vindication of Tradition, ”Matt” beautifully sets the weighty place for Holy Tradition within our modern context.

“After all, is not progress, that dogma of the modern era, the antithesis of tradition? Not quite, writes Pelikan. Only within the context of a tradition that has as its hallmark the ability to both hold the person within its embrace, while at the same time pointing beyond itself, can true progress be both understood as such and achieved, connected to the past and yet living within the potential of new growth. The modern error, and that of so many of the greatest heresies, is that it fails to maintain a connection with the whole. This is the modern iconoclastic temptation- to break the image of the past in the hopes of inventing it anew. It is destined to fall short.” (“Matt”)

“Nicodemus”

Response No. 1 to Steven Wedgeworth “What is Eastern Orthodoxy?”

March 11, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 24 Comments

Pastor Steven Wedgeworth — Trinity Talk No. 1 (2 November 2009)

Pastor Steven Wedgeworth

Trinity Talk, an Internet radio blog, did a three part series with Pastor Steven Wedgeworth on the Eastern Orthodox Church. The interviews took place on November 2, 16, and 30, 2009. Trinity Talk is a creedal podcast by Uri Brito and Jarrod Richey. Wedgeworth is interim pastor of Immanuel Presbyterian Church (CREC) in Clinton, Mississippi.

First time listeners should be prepared to listen a short commercial then to a fairly lengthy introduction about Trinity Talk before actually hearing Wedgeworth at
5:07. Although presented as interviews, what one hears are a series of questions that leads Pastor Wedgeworth into various topics. This is not a criticism, but more of a heads up alerting the listener to expect something more of a monologue than the dynamic give-and-take of a real conversation.

In this blog posting I will be responding to Pastor Wedgeworth’s November 2 presentation. This review will be structured along the lines of topics than chronology. To facilitate the review I will be referencing his statements by minute and second in the pod cast.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Pastor Wedgeworth defined Eastern Orthodoxy in terms of institutional structure and political authority. However, he failed to draw attention to the role of Holy Tradition. Wedgeworth’s omission of this fact results in a distorted understanding of Orthodoxy. The bishop’s authority rests upon his holding the Apostolic Tradition. If he were to abandon the Apostolic Tradition or tamper with it, he loses his ecclesiastical authority no matter the correctness of his episcopal ordination. This would be like a Protestant pastor upholding the Bible alone, but denying salvation by grace through Christ.

Wedgeworth’s discussion of the five patriarchates gave too much attention to the influence of the Roman Empire. One almost gets the sense that the Roman Empire incorporated the Christian church into its apparatus. Wedgeworth asserted that soon after Constantine converted to Christianity it did not take long for the church to be ordered along “imperial lines.” He went on to say that these five patriarchal cities were “chosen” (8:39) because it was “politically advantageous” (8:49). It would be more accurate to say that Emperor Constantine recognized the inevitable in the Edict of Milan after the Decian persecutions proved to be too costly and disruptive to the stability of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the recognition of the five patriarchates did not stem from Emperor Constantine, but the Ecumenical Councils (see Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] and Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon [AD 451]).

Another omission is the conciliar nature of the early church. The early church often settled theological controversy through conciliar action, i.e., the bishops would come together and as a council uphold Holy Tradition. The Ecumenical Councils were regarded as having a higher authority than individual bishops and patriarchs.

Pastor Wedgeworth omitted the Orthodox Church as an Eucharistic community. This can be summed up by Roman Catholic theologian Henri de Lubac’s statement: “The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church.” This pithy statement is one that an Eastern Orthodox Christian can agree with wholeheartedly. The Eucharist sums up and ties together the Christian Faith. One could say that alongside apostolic succession through the bishops is liturgical succession through the Sunday Liturgy. For two thousand years the Orthodox Church has been celebrating the Liturgy without break Sunday after Sunday. Thus, an Orthodox Christian today is part of a liturgical tradition that takes him back to time of Athanasius the Great, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Ignatius of Antioch, and beyond that to the original Last Supper. Protestants lack this liturgical continuity having instead a ceremony based upon their reading of the Gospels. They lost this liturgical continuity when they broke off from Rome.

What makes one Orthodox?

Wedgeworth does a good job of succinctly defining an Orthodox Christian as one under an Orthodox bishop (17:50). If I ever have doubts about someone claiming to be Orthodox I ask two questions: (1) Who is your bishop? and (2) Is he in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople?

However, Wedgeworth gives an imbalanced picture by approaching Orthodoxy principally as “authority structure” (17:37). In contrast the church as “authority structure,” Bishop Kallistos Ware defined the Orthodox Church as communion. In The Inner Kingdom Ware cited Lev Gillet:

An Orthodox Christian is one who accepts the Apostolic Tradition and who lives in communion with the bishops who are the appointed teachers of this Tradition. (page 14; italics in original)

Where Western Christianity and Protestantism put a premium on faith as intellectual understanding, Eastern Orthodoxy places more emphasis on relationship and communion. To receive Communion in the Orthodox Church means that one accepts Apostolic Tradition, e.g., the Ecumenical Councils, the Liturgy, the Nicene Creed, the icons, Mary as the Theotokos etc. It also means that one accepts the bishop as the recipient and guardian of Apostolic Tradition. Both the bishop and the laity are bound by Apostolic Tradition. The bishop has authority in the church so long as he upholds Tradition, but if he attempts to modify Tradition he loses that authority. This is a subtle nuance that Pastor Wedgeworth failed to convey in his interview.

Filioque Clause — “And the Son”

The Filioque clause was a major issue that contributed to the Great Schism of 1054 between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. While the insertion of the phrase “and the Son” into the third section of the Nicene Creed about the Holy Spirit: “Who proceeds from the Father (and the Son)” may seem like a tempest in a teacup for some, for the Eastern Orthodox this is a major concern.

Icon – Seventh Ecumenical Council

Pastor Wedgeworth seems to be unaware of the role of conciliarity in the early church. Early pre-Schism popes were theologically and ecclesiastically Orthodox. They resisted attempts to amend the Nicene Creed. The autarchic papacy independent of the Ecumenical Councils and other patriarchates represents a break from the theological method of the early church. The Orthodox Church’s refusal to alter the Nicene Creed is a sign of its continuity with the early church. The decision to unilaterally revise the Nicene Creed through the insertion of the Filioque clause implied the Pope’s belief that he held an authority equal to or higher than the Ecumenical Councils. Protestantism’s cavalier attitude to the Filioque controversy reflects its operating on an all together different theological principle — sola scriptura.

Wedgeworth statement that he does not see it as a “church dividing issue” (12:58) makes sense in light of his abstract and ahistorical approach to doing theology. This theological method has roots in medieval Scholasticism which saw theology in terms of propositions and syllogisms logically organized, and the Humanist movement which saw theology in terms of an critical, scientific reading of the biblical text. This blind spot in Wedgeworth is all too common among Protestants and shows much they have been shaped by the Western theological method. So while Wedgeworth displays a degree of awareness exceptional among Protestants, until he grasps the Eastern Orthodox approach to theology, e.g., the role of Holy Tradition and conciliarity, he will not be able to adequately describe and address the differences between the Reformed and the Orthodox theological traditions.

Council of Florence (1438-39)

Icon – Mark of Ephesus

Wedgeworth’s mention of the Council of Florence shows an exceptional awareness of Orthodox history (18:21). But his attributing the repudiation of the Council of Florence to the Patriarchate of Moscow and his statement that the Patriarch of Moscow excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople makes me wonder: What has he been reading?? Given that the Orthodox delegates repudiated the agreement soon after they returned home raises question as to whether the Patriarch of Moscow did in fact excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople as Wedgeworth claims (18:55). I challenge Pastor Wedgeworth to substantiate his claims.

There are two significant omissions in Wedgeworth’s account of the Council of Florence controversy: (1) the role of St. Mark of Ephesus and (2) the role of the monastics and laity in the rejection of the council. The omission is troubling given the fact that Mark of Ephesus was mentioned several times in Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Church (see pp. 71, 203, 213) and he is mentioned in other history texts as well. This throws into question Pastor Wedgeworth’s church history research.

The Council of Florence debacle underscored the importance of Tradition in Orthodoxy. It showed that even if Orthodox hierarchs — bishops and patriarchs — were to go astray, the laity will rise up in arms to defend Holy Tradition. This event challenges Wedgeworth’s depiction of Orthodoxy as merely an “authority structure.” If that had been the case, then the Patriarchate of Constantinople would have become a Uniate Church soon after. The Council of Florence controversy underscores the fact that Orthodox polity rests on Apostolic Tradition, not institutional power. The Orthodox will not stand by deferentially if Tradition is compromised but will rise up in defense of the Faith received from the Apostles.

Oriental Churches

Icon – Jesus Christ

Wedgeworth discussed briefly the diverse collections of Oriental churches besides the Eastern Orthodox, e.g., the Copts and Nestorians (19:40). He states that if the Bishop of Constantinople did not recognize you, you are not in the true Church (21:38). Technically Wedgeworth is correct but he is glossing over the complexity of the situation. Those who are not familiar with Orthodoxy may assume that the Patriarch of Constantinople exercises top-down authority over all the Orthodox Churches. This overlooks the principle of autocephalous — self governing — churches. Closer to home, the fact is that the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) actively participates in Orthodox life in America despite Constantinople’s reluctance to recognize it’s autocephaly.

Here in Hawaii when Fr. John, the priest of the Greek Orthodox parish, goes on vacation he often asks Fr. Paul, an OCA priest, to fill in for him. Furthermore, Fr. Paul assists Fr. Anatole at the local Russian Orthodox parish. I also know a Coptic Christian who received Communion at the Greek Orthodox Church. This is based upon the understanding that if there is no local Coptic Church, they can receive Communion at a Greek Orthodox Church with their bishop’s approval.

I find it amusing that Pastor Wedgeworth had to rely on the works of a sixteenth century Protestant theologian, Richard Field (1561-1616), for his understanding of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I’ve read about the Nestorian and the Monophysite controversies in church history and historical theology. Just as important, I have also interacted with their modern day descendants. I had conversations with the bishop of the local Coptic church and the metropolitan of the local Nestorian church. Let me just say here that the reality is much more complex than what one reads in printed text. Pastor Wedgeworth would do well to spend less time reading books and more time out there meeting with flesh and blood members of these traditions.

Icons & Reformed Iconoclasm

More Light Presbyterian Church

Pastor Wedgeworth does an able job of comparing religious images in the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic traditions (23:50). He demonstrates a nuanced understanding by discussing icons not just in terms of their being religious images but also with respect to their liturgical use. The chief difference between the Reformed and Orthodox traditions is not the existence of icons but their use in worship. After giving a brief overview of what icons are and how they are intended to be used in the Orthodox tradition, Wedgeworth presents the Reformed objections to the Eastern Orthodox usage of icons.

Wedgeworth notes that Orthodoxy justifies the use of icons on the Incarnation (27:07). This again shows that he done his homework. He rejects the classic Orthodox defense of icons as not making sense to him (27:51). To defend the Reformed iconoclastic stance Pastor Wedgeworth expounds briefly on Moses’ speech to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 4:15 and the Apostle Paul’s speech at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17) (28:25). But Wedgeworth oversimplifies the biblical teachings and skews it in a particular direction. There are two strands of biblical teachings with respect to religious images: (1) the polemic against pagan idolatry and (2) instructions for Old Testament worship which included the use of religious images. Wedgeworth neglected to focus his exegetical skills on Exodus 25 and 26, I Kings 6 and Ezekiel 41. These bible passages describe the liturgical use of icons in Old Testament worship. Pastor Wedgeworth is giving his audience a lop sided and biased understanding of what the Bible teaches.

Image of Baby Moses – Dura Europos Synagogue

He asserts that Reformed iconoclasm is consistent with contemporary research on Judaism (31:44). It should be noted that Judaism is a complex religious tradition and equating Protestantism’s iconoclasm with that in Judaism is clearly overreaching. Furthermore, Wedgeworth neglected to bring up the recent archaeological findings at Dura Europos that indicate the use of religious images in first-second century synagogue worship.

If there is a serious flaw in Pastor Wedgeworth’s discussion of the Orthodox position on icon, it is his failure to discuss the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the principle of conciliarity. His citing John of Damascus apologia points to a Western way of doing theology: (1) read a theologian, (2) identify a key theological proposition, then (3) critique the proposition on the basis of logic. Wedgeworth’s reliance on abstract theological reasoning based on his reading of biblical and theological texts is at odds with the Eastern Orthodox theological method. Eastern Orthodoxy does not eschew theological reasoning; rather it situates it within Holy Tradition and within the ecclesial context of the Church. There was controversy over the use of icons in Christian worship but that was settled at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. It was at this Council that unity was restored to the Church. Pastor Wedgeworth may claim that allowing for icons (26:40) is “asking for trouble,” but the fact remains that the early church were in agreement in accepting icons and repudiated iconoclasm. What Pastor Wedgeworth has done is declare his independence from the Ecumenical Councils and endorsed an ahistoric doctrine that has no basis in the historic Christian Faith.

“Icon” of Pastor Rick Warren — Saddleback Church

Wedgeworth argues that it is human beings who are the image of God, not flat wooden icons. He cites Calvin’s belief that in light of the fact that people best present the image of God that the Lord’s Supper should be around the table with people looking at other people (33:00). But the fact remains that in most Protestant churches the congregation faces in one direction looking at the minister who is giving the sermon. Ironically, in the case of contemporary worship one finds in mega churches huge jumbotron “icon” of the pastor!

St. Nicholas Antiochian Orthodox Church – Springdale, Arkansas

He asserts that Orthodox worship is not focused on the other people in the room but on the icons (32:22). These assertions about Orthodox worship is based upon a superficial understanding of what goes on in the Liturgy. I have found that there is a strong Christ-centered focus in Orthodox worship. The most prominent icons are that of Jesus Christ. Usually Orthodox churches will depict Christ as the unborn Child in Mary’s womb, Christ crucified on the Cross, and Christ the Pantocrator (the All Ruling One). Boredom and distraction is a common problem in churches. When I find myself distracted, I look at the icons and am reminded of their zeal for Christ. But most time my focus is on the icon of Christ up in the front and the prayers of the Liturgy. I found it harder to focus when I was a Protestant in churches with four bare walls.

Conclusion

It is evident that Pastor Wedgeworth has devoted a fair amount of time and energy into understanding Eastern Orthodoxy. One commendable feature of his presentation of Eastern Orthodoxy is the absence of gross caricature and severe distortion one finds elsewhere. If I have a criticism of Pastor Wedgeworth it is that he sometimes gave an unbalanced portrayal of Orthodoxy and doesn’t quite understand the Orthodox perspective on doing theology, but that is understandable given that he is an outsider trying hard to understand a religious tradition that is so different from his. Overall, he did a commendable job.

It is commendable that Trinity Talk devoted a considerable amount of time to the subject of Eastern Orthodoxy. The podcasts reflect the growing awareness of Eastern Orthodoxy among Reformed Christians and concern over growing numbers of Protestants converting to Orthodoxy. Wedgeworth has referred to this as “conversion sickness.” It seems that Pastor Wedgeworth is attempting to inoculate his listeners by exposing them to an attenuated form of Orthodoxy in his pod cast. I admire his efforts to persuade them to remain in the Protestant fold. The Orthodox response is: Come and see! Come to our Sunday Liturgy. Come and experience the ancient historic worship. Instead of reading books about Orthodoxy or listening to a second hand source on an Internet pod cast, come and talk with real flesh-and-blood Orthodox Christians. Let’s get together and talk, and get to know each other.

Robert Arakaki

March for Life & Great Tradition

January 20, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 0 Comments

Metropolitan Jonah, OCA

March For Life Monday

Monday, January 23 is March for Life Monday. It is an annual rally in protest of the US Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision which legalized abortion in America. It began in 1974 with an estimated 20,000 in attendance. Since then March for Life has grown in size over the years to over 200,000 in recent years.

March for Life brings together people from the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox traditions. Metropolitan Jonah, who heads the Orthodox Church in America, has played an active role in recent marches and rallies.

The pro-life stance is intrinsic to the Christian Faith. Historically, the Faith of the Church consisted not only of a set of doctrines but also a moral code. The Church has been pro-life from early on. We find in the first century The Didache II.2 a prohibition against abortion: “thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide.” Thus, being pro-life is integral to being Orthodox.

Pro-Life Icons

Icon – Mary the God Bearer

Orthodoxy’s pro-life stance can be seen in the icons of Mary the Theotokos (the God Bearer). This icon is known as the icon of “The Sign,” a reference to Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son…. (NKJV).” In many Orthodox churches there is on the front wall over the altar an image of Mary, over her midsection is a circle depicting the Christ Child. This circle symbolizes Mary’s womb and thus teaches that the Incarnation includes the nine months that the Christ Child spent in her womb as an unborn child. In light of Irenaeus of Lyons’ doctrine of recapitulation, Christ the Second Adam saves us by recapitulating (retracing or reenacting) the whole of human life: from gestation, to infancy, to maturity, to his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven.

The Reformed Tradition

With respect to the Reformed tradition, we find a similar pro-life stance. Karl Barth wrote in his Church Dogmatics (II/4, 415ff.):

Karl Barth — Reformed Theologian

The unborn child is from the very first a child. It is still developing and has no independent life. But it is a man and not a thing, nor a mere part of the mother’s body….He who destroys germinating life kills a man….The fact that a definite No must be the presupposition of all further discussion cannot be contested, least of all today” (quoted in The Evangelical Theological Dictionary, p. 4)

Being pro-life is intrinsic to the Christian Faith. To abandon this moral code as described in the Didache is in effect to abandon the Faith. For this reason Orthodox Christians have more in common with the conservative Evangelicals than the mainline Protestants who have abandoned the church’s historic pro-life stance on abortion.

Anti-Abortion vs. Pro-Life

There is a difference between being anti-abortion and being pro-life. The anti-abortion stance can be rooted and confined to a legalistic morality; the pro-life stance draws its spiritual motivation from life affirming love. The pro-life stance allows for an expansive moral framework that includes not just the unborn, but also the newly born, the weak, the frail, those who are sick or elderly, and the strangers in our midst. Taken this way one can detect pro-life themes in parables like The Good Samaritan and The Prodigal Son. The Good Samaritan story teaches us that even a healthy man can become our neighbor in need. The Good Samaritan (Christ) comes to the aid of the stricken man and takes him the Inn (the Church). The Prodigal Son story teaches us that life apart from the Father’s love leads to ruin and destruction, and that true life is found in the return to the Father’s loving embrace.

Roe vs. Wade marks a watershed event in American history. It marks a turn away from the Constantinian paradigm which assumed a political order informed by Christian values. As we move increasingly into what looks like a post-Christian society it is imperative that Christians from various traditions find common ground in the Great Tradition.

On March for Life Monday let us remember Mary the Theotokos (the God Bearer) who affirmed life by carrying Christ in her womb for 9 months. Let us remember Jesus Christ who once like all of us was an unborn child.

Robert Arakaki

Category: Tradition (Page 17 of 18)

Tradition: Family, Friend, or Foe?

Contributed by “Nicodemus”

Response No. 1 to Steven Wedgeworth “What is Eastern Orthodoxy?”

March for Life & Great Tradition

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives