A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Category: Tradition (Page 9 of 18)

Aging Protestants, Deep Sighs, and Holy Tradition

Screen shot 2014-04-13 at 2.34.10 PM 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pastor Andrew Sandlin recently posted a beautiful and poignant blog posting “Time Passages” about the trials of an aging church leader.  He wrote:

It is arresting to observe the constancy of older men and women within the variability of historical flux and the inevitable change it engenders. The world has changed, but they have not.  They seem an anachronism to their juniors, for whom the unquestioned assumptions of the present age are normative.  The elders carry with them the perspectives, virtues, convictions, prejudices, and vices of the peculiar era of their youth.  To their idealistic juniors, the prejudices and vices predominate, and the virtues and convictions evaporate at the scrutiny of youthful eyes naively conditioned by a single era, their own era, whose normativeness they would not think to question.  (Emphasis added)

The reflection is by a church elder concerned about the handing over of church leadership to the next generation.  He fears that the hard earned wisdom of his generation will be dismissed out of hand by their successors.

The passage of time is hitting baby boomer Evangelicals hard.  As they head into the 50s and 60s their perspective on life changes.  The sunny optimism of youth is being overtaken by troubling shadows of old age.  The forever young baby boomers find themselves being confronted by end of life issues like retirement, physical decline, and inevitable death.

The local church once thought to be a place of solace and security has become a source of uncertainty and anxiety.  Michelle Van Loon in “Aged Out of Church” described how the mid life crisis is affecting Evangelical churches.

Church should be a place of meaningful connection with God and others at every stage of our lives, but nearly half of more than 450 people who participated in an informal and completely unscientific survey I hosted on my blog last year told me that their local church had in some painful ways exacerbated the challenges they faced at midlife. As a result, they’d downshifted their involvement in the local church from what it had been a decade ago.

Pastor Sandlin is calling for an intergenerational conversation in the church.  He wants the younger generation to be receptive to the “strangeness” of the past.

What in the 1960’s was termed the “generation gap” is, however, precisely the opposite of what should occur.  A conversation, not a gap, is what is most needed.  A generational conversation is essential not only to transmit the best elements of the past’s “strangeness” to a succeeding generation but also to exhibit the subversive fact of historical conditioning to the previous one, which ordinarily glories in the peculiar features of the age of its youth, and intensely so the older it grows.  (Emphasis added)

Pastor Sandlin has a good point here.  There is indeed a need for intergenerational conversation. The wisdom of the Fathers is desperately needed, especially by cultures like ours which have been given over to the youth.  However, there are powerful forces in Evangelicalism that work against this. Even the best and most mature Evangelical churches place a premium upon youthfulness and the innovation that goes with it.  Michelle Van Loon observed:

When we in the church ape (awkwardly!) our culture’s obsession with all things young and cool, when we focus our energies on creating ministries targeted at the same desirable demographic groups targeted by savvy advertisers, we communicate to those who don’t fit those specs that they are less desirable to us than the ones we really want in our church family.

The emphasis on evangelism has led to the drive to boost church membership, draw in young families, and keep up with modern youth culture.  As a result of this, many ministry programs in Evangelicalism have been geared to the first half of life issues: how to find God’s will for finding a good job and the perfect mate, how to have a solid spiritual life while living life to the fullest, how to raise a godly family, how to have a Christian witness at work and with friends.  Little is said from the pulpit about second half of life issues.

 

From Generation to Generation

Pastor Sandlin’s lament is in many ways that of a Protestant without an enduring tradition.  There is no capital “T” Tradition in Protestantism, only small personal traditions.  He wrote:

The solidarity of humanity is marked partly by this gripping trait – the ability not merely to span eras (“tradition”) but to commit a small portion of one’s past, one’s private, unrepeatable tradition, to another individual.  (Emphasis added.)

These small traditions are fine in the short run but are incapable of sustaining a congregation for the long haul, i.e., over the centuries.  That is why Protestantism is in such dire straits today.

The abandonment of Tradition has made the Evangelical culture vulnerable to the flux of modernity.  For Evangelicalism the Gospel is eternal but the forms of church structure and the framework for worship and discipleship are temporary and contingent, changing from one generation to the next – often every few months if not every week! Like their Roman Catholic elder brothers Evangelicals never quite escaped theological innovation. This disregard/dismissal of Tradition has resulted in one generation feeling little obligation much less a sacred duty to learn from their predecessors about the Christian way of life.

This historical flux lamented here by Pastor Sandlin can be traced to the Protestant principle: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the church reformed, but ever reforming).   The Protestant Reformers did not want change for change sake; rather they sought change on the basis of Scripture.  But without a Tradition that acts as a guardian to how Scripture is to be read and interpreted, the Reformers opened the floodgates for innovation.

Over the past several centuries Protestantism has undergone tremendous changes, but in recent years the pace of change accelerated.  Protestantism’s landscape has changed such that familiar landmarks are disappearing or becoming barely recognizable to the older generation.  Evangelical theology has recently branched off into neo-Calvinism, neo-Pentecostalism, and postmodern Emergent theology.  This loss of historical memory can be seen in the recent shift away from “traditional” hymns to contemporary worship with praise bands using electric guitars and drums.  The irony here is that the so called “traditional” hymns for the most part date back to the 1600-1800s!

 

Holy Friday Procession

Orthodox Tradition — Holy Friday Lamentations

The Comfort and Security of Holy Tradition

So, what is missing?  What is missing from the best of Evangelicalism is a deeply rooted and sacred commitment to Holy Tradition. Tradition consists of one generation passing on and another generation receiving a body of teaching.  The Apostle Paul expected the early Christians to be committed to Tradition.  He admonished the Christians in Thessalonica:

So then, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.  (2 Thessalonians 2:15; OSB; emphasis added)

Here Paul instructs the Christians to hold fast to both written Tradition (Scripture) and to oral Tradition.  This concern with the traditioning process did not begin with Paul.  Tradition did not as it were fall unexpectedly from the sky into the lap of the early Church.  No, Holy Tradition has a deep historicity that reaches back into the Tradition of the Old Testament saints and patriarchs.

What we have heard and known,
What our fathers have told us.
We will not hide them from their children;
We will tell the next generation . . . .
. . . which he commanded our forefathers
to teach their children,
so the next generation would know them,
even the children yet to be born,
and they in turn would tell their children.
(Psalm 78:3-6; NIV; emphasis added)
 

This sense of obligation to the past is deeply engrained in Orthodoxy.  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church (ch. 10) captured wonderfully this deep sense of reverence the Orthodox have for the past.

When Orthodox are asked at contemporary inter-Church gatherings to sum up what they see as the distinctive characteristic of their Church, they often point precisely to its changelessness, its determination to remain loyal to the past, its sense of living continuity with the Church of ancient times. (Ware pp. 195-196; emphasis added)

So, what is Holy Tradition?  Ware describes it in this way:

A tradition is commonly understood to signify an opinion, belief or custom handed down from ancestors to posterity. Christian Tradition, in this case, is the faith and practice which Jesus Christ imparted to the Apostles, and which since the Apostles’ time has been handed down from generation to generation in the Church.  But to an Orthodox Christian, Tradition means something more concrete and specific than this. It means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writing of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service Books, the Holy Icons – in fact, the whole system of doctrine, Church government, worship, spirituality and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages.  Orthodox Christians of today see themselves as heirs and guardians to a rich inheritance received from the past, and they believe that it is their duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future. (p. 196, emphasis added)

In contrast to Sandlin’s aging church elder who has only personal insights to pass on to the next generation in Orthodoxy there is a sense that one is part of a Great Tradition that spans the generations and extends to the Second Coming.

 

John of Damascus

John of Damascus

 

This reverence for Tradition goes back to early church fathers like John of Damascus who wrote:

 

We do not change the everlasting boundaries which our fathers have set but we keep the Tradition, just as we received it. (in Ware p. 196; emphasis added)

 

 

 

John of Damascus here is echoing the Prophet Jeremiah:

Stand at the crossroads and look; 
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is,
and walk in it,
And you will find rest for your souls.
(Jeremiah 6:16, NIV; emphasis added)
 

If the traditioning process is part of both the Old and the New Testaments, one has to wonder — and lament with them — why there is so little of it among Evangelicals.

 

Orthodox Christians Processing with Icons - Holy Cross Orthodox Church - Williamsport, PA

Ancient Tradition – Processing with Icons, Holy Cross Orthodox Church – Williamsport, PA

Unto the Ages of Ages

The stability of Holy Tradition makes intergenerational conversation a natural and expected process.  The solidarity of Orthodoxy lies in Holy Tradition.  The Liturgy will be there for generations to come.  The liturgical calendar and the ascetic disciplines will likewise be followed by future generations.  A longtime Orthodox can share insights to younger Orthodox about keeping the fast, following a rule of prayer, how to participate in the Liturgy, and the significance of the Pascha (Easter) service.  They can talk about the lives of the saints and martyrs, or the writings of the church fathers.

As the years go by one becomes familiar with the prayers and the theme for the services; one’s heart and mind are reshaped through repeated exposure to the prayers and hymns of the Church.  Spiritual healing takes place and enlightenment of the soul commences.    In Orthodoxy the past is not “strange” but familiar because it is rooted in the Great Tradition.  These things are even more true when there are Orthodox parents and godparents who faithfully live out the teachings of the Church.  Where Pastor Sandlin’s church elder can only hope to pass on a private unrepeatable tradition, the Orthodox Christian passes on a Tradition held by the entire Church.

In the Liturgy are prayers that can be helpful for dealing with the second half of life issues.  These two petitions are found in the Completion Litany just before the Nicene Creed.

That we may live out our lives in peace and repentance, let us ask of the Lord.  

A Christian end to our lives, peaceful, free of shame and suffering, and for a good defense before the judgment seat of Christ, let us ask.

Here we ask God for his mercies in order that we may be faithful to the Gospel all our life.  We seek to live a life of prayer and repentance in preparation for that great day when we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Matthew 7:21-23, Romans 2:6-11).  The Good News is not just the forgiveness of our sins, but also our being transformed into the likeness of Christ.  This is the doctrine of theosis (deification).  As we stand during the Liturgy we see the icons of the saints who have gone before us.  We are reminded that one day our earthly life will come to a close and we will then become part of the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 12:1.  Eventually, the intergenerational conversation will take us to the communion of saints and to the life of the age to come where we will come face to face with Christ.

 

Radiant Pascha!

Radiant Pascha!

 

The Ancient Beauty

Too late have I loved you, O Beauty so ancient and so new, too late have I loved you!

(Confessions 10.27)

Here Augustine talks about his encounter with God; this line will also resonate for many converts who have been seeking something more in worship.  There is a mystical beauty about Orthodox worship that makes even Protestant “traditional worship” ring a bit hollow and the notion of “contemporary worship” ludicrous.  The Liturgy is for the ages.  The discovery of the Liturgy leads many converts to wish they had known of the Liturgy sooner.

It is old, very old.  So old that almost I feel young again . . . .

The line above is from the Lord of the Ring where Legolas the Elf commented on Fangorn Forest.  In the Orthodox Liturgy there is the sense of being part of an ancient tradition that goes on and on and never grows old.  Becoming Orthodox involves more than acquiring a new theology, one joins a church rooted in antiquity.  Ware wrote:

The thing that first strikes a stranger on encountering Orthodoxy is usually its air of antiquity, its apparent changelessness. Orthodox still baptise by threefold immersion, as in the primitive Church; they still bring babies and small children to receive Holy Communion; in the Liturgy the deacon still cries out: ‘The Doors! The Doors!’ – recalling the early days when the church’s entrance was jealously guarded and none but members of the Christian family could attend the family worship; the Creed is still recited without any additions. (p. 195; emphasis added)

I have experienced the Orthodox Church’s antiquity in surprising ways.  One is the recent visit of the Kursk Root Icon to Hawaii.  This particular icon dates back to the 1200s.  I was amazed to see something that is five centuries older than the United States of America and which predates the Protestant Reformation by three centuries!  One cannot help but feel like a child in the presence of this ancient heritage. It is indeed a heritage, a Holy Tradition worthy of reverence and our sacred duty to pass on to our “children’s children” with confidence as we depart this world for the ages to come. May God have mercy on us all.

Robert Arakaki

 

Sources

P. Andrew Sandlin.  “Time Passages” in docsandlin.com (3 April 2014)

Michelle Van Loon.  “Aged out of ChurchChristianity Today (5 April 2014)

Timothy (Kallistos) Ware.  The Orthodox Church.  Penguin Books.  1963.

Augustine.  Confessions.  (Translation by John K. Ryan)  Penguin Books.

 

Following Christ in Holy Week

 

Icon - Entry into Jerusalem

Icon – Entry into Jerusalem

One surprise for me when I converted to Orthodoxy was the frequency of church services during the week.  After several years of being an Orthodox Christian I began to understand that the middle of the week services was a form of Christian discipleship.  Being at the services deepens one’s prayer life and serves as a “Sunday School” lesson of sorts.

How should one view these services?  They are not “good works” to earn “brownie points” with God.  A more Orthodox perspective is to view attendance at these services as an expression of Christian discipleship, a means of uniting one’s self with Christ.

The middle of the week services – feast days – are not distributed evenly throughout the year.  Sometimes there are no services and other times there are multiple services during the week.  Holy Week is full of services.  These services offer us an opportunity to follow Jesus Christ in the final week of his life.  Oftentimes when we read the Bible we feel in our hearts: “I wish I had been there.”  This can happen in the Holy Week services.  The Holy Week services in Orthodoxy have a sacramental aspect to them.  By the grace of the Holy Spirit we are no longer separated by time from the life of Christ recounted in the Gospels.  Through the services we are there when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and when he enters Jerusalem on the donkey.  We are there at the Last Supper, and we stand with Mary and the beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross.  We are also witnesses to Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial.  All this takes us to the wrecking of hell and Christ’s glorious resurrection.

Holy Week is part of the ancient tradition of the Church.  Its roots go back to the second and third century when candidates were prepared to undergo baptism on Easter Sunday.  In the fourth century the services celebrating Christ’s death and resurrection were elaborated becoming longer and more complex.  The result of this evolution can be seen in the Holy Week service book almost 500 pages long!  Many church members have a copy of the Holy Week service book to help them to follow along.

 

Holy Week commences after Palm Sunday on Sunday night.  Below is a general outline of the Holy Week services.

Sunday night, Monday night, Tuesday night – Bridegroom services.  The name of the services come from the parable of Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) in which a group of virgins are waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom.  Some stayed awake and were ready to receive the bridegroom while others dozed off and were not there to greet the bridegroom when he came.

Wednesday nightHoly Unction service.  This services teaches us about salvation as healing, both spiritual and physical.  At the end of the service the Orthodox faithful go up to be anointed by the priest.  Because Holy Unction is a sacrament visitors should refrain from going up to receive it; but they are free to watch the service.

 

Holy Thursday Service at St. Mary Orthodox Church in Cambridge, MA.

Holy Thursday Service at St. Mary Orthodox Church in Cambridge, MA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday night – This service is also known as the Twelve Gospels.  In this service the Gospel accounts of Christ’s betrayal and the events leading up to his death are read out loud in twelve separate excerpts.  In this service one is literally saturated with Scripture.  During this service the priest carries the cross around the sanctuary like Jesus did.  Then the icon of the crucified Christ is affixed onto the Cross and the parishioners line up to bend down and kiss Christ’s feet.  We kiss Christ’s feet to show our appreciation of the fact that Christ died for our sins.

 

Holy Friday Service - Source: McBrooklyn

Holy Friday Service – Source: McBrooklyn

Friday night – In this service we celebrate Christ’s burial in the tomb and also his descent into hell.  There is a joy atmosphere in this service because it was not so much that death defeated Christ but rather that his death destroyed Death itself.

When You, the Immortal Life, descended to Death, You struck Hades dead with the lightning of the Godhead; and when you raised up the dead from the abyss, all the powers of Heaven cried aloud; “O life-Giver, Christ, our God, glory to You! (p. 373)

Visitors will see the entire congregation processing around the church.  Up in the front is a group of men carrying on their shoulders a wooden table covered with flowers.  The “epitaphion” is a table on which is an image of Jesus Christ lying in state.  We mourn Christ’s death but we also rejoice because by his death Death is destroyed.  One could say that this is a funeral procession in reverse!

 

Saturday night/Sunday morning – The Pascha (Easter) service is the high point of the Orthodox year.  On this night we celebrate Christ’s rising from the dead.  His resurrection is proof that death is not final and that one day we too will be resurrected.

O King and Lord, having slept in the flesh as a mortal, You arose on the third day, raising up Adam from corruption, and abolishing Death.  O Pascha of incorruption, the salvation of the world. (p. 457)

One deeply engrained habit among Protestants is celebrating Easter on Sunday morning.  Many attend a sunrise service to celebrate Easter, but this is not the case for the Orthodox.  We go to church late Saturday evening.  In many Orthodox churches the Easter service begins at midnight and goes on into the early morning hours.

As an example of the Protestant mental habits the first time I attempted to visit an Orthodox Easter service I called the church office, the lady who answered the phone told me that their Easter service was being held that Saturday night.  I had a hard time believing her so I went to the Orthodox Church that Sunday morning and heard the Gospel account of the resurrection being read by at least a dozen different languages.  This is the Agape Vespers service.  At the end of that service I saw children going up to receive a chocolate Easter bunny; I thought to myself: “That’s a funny way of doing Communion.”  Looking back, I can only smile at my naiveté about Orthodoxy.  I learned from my mistake and the following year I was there for the real thing.

 Lurkers Alert!

Holy Week is a good time for lurkers to learn more about Orthodoxy.  Call the local Orthodox Church and ask about the Holy Week services.  Then sneak in quietly into the back pews and listen to the prayers and chants.  Don’t be surprised if you get lost or feel overwhelmed.  This is not Orthodoxy lite but the deep waters of Orthodox worship.

Practical Tip #1: It would probably be a good idea to find out how much of the service will be in English.  Some Orthodox parishes will do more of the service in the language of the old country.  If you have an Orthodox friend, the friend can guide you along in the often confusing complexity of the services.  And don’t be surprised if even long time Orthodox get lost during the services!

Practical Tip #2: Don’t feel obliged to do anything.  Some Protestants might feel nervous and anxious when they see people doing prostrations or kissing icons.  We’re happy you are visiting us and we don’t expect non-Orthodox do the same thing we do.

Robert Arakaki

 

Sources

George L. Papadeas, compiler and translator.  2003.  Greek Orthodox Holy Week & Easter Services.  New English Translation.  Patmos Press.

Which Path to Church Unity? Recognition vs Reception

 

Beauty so ancient and so new

Beauty so ancient and so new

 

From time to time my friends and I get into a discussion about Christian unity.  Anglicans and Roman Catholics seem to be especially eager to reunite with the Orthodox and I have to explain why such efforts are difficult, if not improbable.  This position is often met with frustration and perplexity: Why can’t we just be one?  What’s the hang up?  I began to notice that we seem to be speaking past each other.  As I reflected on this impasse I realized that we were operating from different paradigms.  One is what I call the recognition paradigm and the other, the reception paradigm.

The recognition paradigm involves the mutual recognition of the validity of the other church’s baptism, their clergy’s ordination, their doctrines, and allowing for inter-communion among their members.  The reception paradigm involves one church body accepting the other church’s doctrines and practices as normative, and being received or incorporated into the other church body.  Understanding the difference in paradigms can go a long way in helping Christians understand each other.

 

Invisible or Visible Church?

The question of church unity depends on how we understand the Church.  When I was a Protestant Evangelical I was taught that there was the visible local congregation and the invisible universal capital “C” church which consists of all true “born again” Christians.  Thus, the ideal Church existed in heaven above all the scandalous divisions among Christians here below.

But when I reflected on the Apostle Paul’s teachings in I Corinthians 12 about the body of Christ I began to see a contradiction between what Paul taught and what modern Evangelicals believed.  An invisible body is essentially a ghost, not a genuine body.  This notion of an invisible body of Christ also ran contrary to I John 1:1-3 which taught that Jesus’ tangible and visible body was the core of the Gospel.  This led me to question whether Evangelicalism’s invisible capital “C” church was theologically sound.

I began to move towards the idea of a visible Church as I started reading about the early Church. I was haunted by Irenaeus of Lyons’ description of the early Church:

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; emphasis added)

The early Church shared the same faith and worship all across the Roman Empire.  This was so different from Protestantism’s many denominations.  The early Church was remarkably free of denominationalism, why wasn’t the same true of Protestantism?

I was also struck by the early Christians’ emphasis on the importance of belonging to the visible Church.  Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.  (On the Unity of the Church §6)

My view changed further as I reflected on the Nicene Creed’s line: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”  The word “one” means that there is only one Church, not two churches, nor two halves.  Nor does it mean the branch theory Anglicanism proposes or the multitude of denominations as is the case with Protestantism.  The problem with the Anglican branch theory is that it substitutes the church catholic with the church comprehensive.  Anglican comprehensiveness superimposes liturgical uniformity on doctrinal pluralism.  Because there is no precedent for this in the early Church, this approach is highly suspect.  Likewise, I began to see that if one took the idea of the visible Church seriously then Protestant denominationalism is like Humpty Dumpty all broken up in pieces waiting for someone to make him whole again.

In Orthodoxy I encountered a different paradigm: the Orthodox Church IS the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.  Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church wrote:

The Orthodox Church in all humility believes itself to be the ‘one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, of which the Creed speaks: such is the fundamental conviction which guides Orthodox in their relations with other Christians.  There are divisions among Christians, but the Church itself is not divided nor can it ever be. (p. 307)

For Orthodoxy there has always been one Church.  There may have been people and groups that fell into heresy and schism: they have left the Church but the Church always retained her unity.  A leaf may fall from a tree or a branch may break off, but there still remains one tree.  Theologically speaking, it is heretical to believe that where there was one Church there is now two or more churches, or that the one Church is now broken into several fragments, or that one Church is now invisible.  For Orthodoxy the one Church has never been lost.  It has never gone away because it is here in the Orthodox Church.

Many Western Christians are offended by the Orthodox position.  They interpret this to mean that Orthodoxy is superior to other religious traditions, or that God’s grace is found only in Orthodoxy and absent outside.  The irony of the Orthodox understanding of visible church unity is that it has been regarded as schismatic, especially by Protestants!  This can be seen for example in Gordon-Conwell adjunct professor Preston Graham Jr.’s paper on ecumenicism.  Of the Orthodox understanding he noted:

This option seeks to express visible unit by limiting the church to what is in reality only one denomination or “tradition” based on one interpretation of the meaning of apostolic order/succession such as to exclude all dissenting views of apostolic order/succession. The sum effect of this option is to seek after visible unity by means of schism! (p. 26)

 

Protestant Egalitarianism

Prof. Graham’s rejection of Orthodox ecclesiology is rooted in Protestantism’s almost dogmatic insistence upon egalitarianism.  There is a certain appeal to Protestantism’s ecclesial egalitarianism; all churches are equal therefore Orthodoxy is just one denomination among many.  This insistence on the equality of all church bodies likely stems from the Reformers’ rejection of the Roman papacy.  It also conforms to the modern mindset which favors individual liberty and equality for all.  If all men have an inherent right to an equal liberty, who’s to say that one Church structure and Tradition should be favored over any other?

Protestant ecclesial egalitarianism can also be found in the Anglican branch theory.  An interesting take on the branch theory is the stance that no one branch is the true Church therefore we all need each other.  There is a certain humility in this stance but it also opens the door to theological relativism.  It is a sad fact that Anglicanism today is theologically incoherent and increasingly fractured.

In addition to Protestant ecclesial egalitarianism, there is corollary epistemological egalitarianism.  This takes the form of all Christians being equal with respect to the interpretation of Scripture.  This is a consequence of the Reformers’ rejection of the papacy.  In light of the supremacy of Scripture (sola scriptura), they feel free to reject or disregard what they call “manmade doctrine.”  More recently, Protestant egalitarianism took a postmodern turn with the Emerging Church movement criticizing the traditional church’s “captivity to Enlightenment rationalism.” (see O’Brien 2009)  The Protestant disbelief in a supernatural capital “T” Tradition makes discussion of reunion highly problematic.  Here we see two disparate paradigms for the source of doctrine.  For Protestants it is Scripture Alone; the church plays an auxiliary role but not a determinative role in the making of doctrine.  The belief that there is no capital “T” Tradition, only manmade traditions, implies a disbelief in Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church (John 16:13).

But for Orthodoxy, the Church is the recipient and guardian of Apostolic Tradition.  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit she preserves and expounds Scripture for the generations to come (John 14:26, Ephesians 4:11).  Theological controversy is best settled through the conciliar method.  The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 provided the precedent for the Ecumenical Councils.  Just as the Jerusalem Council was guided by the Holy Spirit, so also the Ecumenical Councils.

Some of my Anglican friends are appreciative of small “t” tradition, but they view certain Orthodox positions, e.g., Mary as the Theotokos or the veneration of icons, as too extreme.  They see themselves as a moderating center between Orthodoxy and low church Evangelicalism.  But I noticed that like their low church brethren, Anglican Evangelicals reject all supernatural notion of Apostolic Tradition.  The presupposition of sola scriptura held by Protestants, whether low church or high church, constitutes a major obstacle to church reunion.  If Anglicans desire reunion with Orthodoxy they need to be willing to renounce sola scriptura and embrace the very same Holy Tradition passed on by the Apostles.

Scripture Alone does not exclude other sources like ancient church councils and church fathers.  Evangelicals seeking to engage Orthodoxy are often enthusiastic practitioners of ressourcement.  They appropriate from the early Church while blithely ignoring its authority.  This cherry picking approach is fundamentally flawed.  Augustine of Hippo summed up the matter aptly when he wrote:

If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe but yourself.

Some Evangelical pastors love to pepper their sermons with quotations from early church fathers but they do this selectively.  Few Protestants have come to grips with the fact that while they embrace certain church fathers as individuals, they ignore the fathers’ Church.  For example, Augustine wrote:

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.  (Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Manichees, Chapter 5)

Here Augustine was warning against an individualistic Christianity divorced from the visible Church.  This is something that Ancient-Future Evangelicals are reluctant to grapple with.  So my question to Protestants seeking church unity is: Are you willing to put sola scriptura on the table?  In a Facebook thread I described what this approach would entail:

If you really want to put sola scriptura on the table consider whether you would be willing to accept the Council of Nicea’s Creed as authoritative, binding on all Christians, and an infallible guide for understanding what Scripture teaches. For me this conciliar hermeneutics provides the basis for theological unity. A departure from conciliar hermeneutics will result in doctrinal pluralism and relativism. Accepting this position wouldn’t necessarily make you Orthodox but it would provide for a common basis for discussion with Orthodox Christians.

It is good to see Evangelicals develop an interest in the church fathers and the early liturgies.  I would also encourage them to learn from the way the early church fathers read Scripture and to see how the conciliar hermeneutics differ from later Protestant hermeneutics.  A patristically informed biblical hermeneutics can help build bridges between Evangelicals and Orthodox.  (See Scot McKnight’s posting “Patristics and the Bible.”)

 

Horizontal and Vertical Unity

There are two critical dimensions to church unity.  Horizontal church unity consists of unity among churches across space; vertical church unity consists of unity across time – being united with the ancient churches founded by the Apostles.  Key to vertical unity is apostolic succession through the office of the bishop.  It is through the local bishop that the local Orthodox parish is linked to the early Church.  Reading the writings of the early church fathers or using early liturgical texts do not suffice for vertical unity.  The office of the bishop is one key difference between Protestant and Orthodox approaches to unity.

For Orthodoxy horizontal and vertical unity are both critically important.  They are found in the Eucharist and in the bishop who presides over the Eucharist.  Receiving Communion in Orthodoxy means sharing the same faith as other Orthodox Christians around the world today.  And through its bishop the local Orthodox parish can trace a direct historical link to the “breaking of bread” mentioned in Acts 2:46!

Christians interested in church unity need to understand Orthodoxy’s distinctive understanding of Tradition.  Apostolic Tradition is key to understanding Orthodox ecclesiology.   Bishop Kallistos Ware recounted Father Lev Gillet’s definition of Orthodoxy:

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

The key here is the crucial role played by the bishop in Apostolic Tradition.  At the time an Anglican, Ware found this to be an eye opener.  He recounted:

Orthodoxy, so I recognized in a sudden flash of insight, is not merely a matter of personal belief; it also presupposes outward and visible communion in the sacraments with the bishops who are the divinely-commissioned witnesses to the truth (The Inner Kingdom p. 15; emphasis added).

So with respect to Orthodoxy’s claim to be the true Church, the question is not superiority versus inferiority, but rather fidelity to and continuity with Apostolic Tradition.

In the early Church the bishop was more than an administrator, as the successor to the Apostles he presided over the Eucharist and guarded the doctrinal purity of the Church. This understanding of the crucial role of the episcopacy to the integrity and unity of the Church is an ancient one.  Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

This is true Gnosis: the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient institution of the church, spread throughout the entire world, and the distinctive mark of the body of Christ in accordance with the succession of bishops, to whom the apostles entrusted each local church, and the unfeigned preservation, coming down to us, of the scriptures, with a complete collection allowing for neither addition nor subtraction, a reading without falsification and, in conformity with the scriptures, so interpretation that is legitimate, careful, without danger of blasphemy. (Against Heresies 4.33.8; emphasis added)

Augustine had a similar high view of the episcopacy.  He wrote:

The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.  (Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Manichees, Chapter 5; emphasis added)

Many Protestant churches do not have bishops or if they do have bishops are unable to trace an unbroken lineage back to the Apostles.  The concept of apostolic succession is alien to Protestant theology.  Much of the efforts at church unity by Protestants have been focused on horizontal unity with little attention given to vertical unity.  This is the greatest flaw in the mutual recognition approach to church unity.  In its pursuit of horizontal unity it has sacrificed vertical unity.

A local Orthodox parish cannot modify its liturgy or doctrine unilaterally.  If a local Orthodox parish were to do so in order to have unity with their Protestant neighbors they will have severed their connections with the Orthodox Church worldwide not to mention their ties with the early Church.  Moreover, no Orthodox bishop would permit a local parish to stray from Apostolic Tradition.  The bishop’s job is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Church.

There are two types of church bodies: those whose episcopacy can claim linkage to the original Apostles (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the Non-Chalcedonian churches) and those whose leadership cannot make that claim (Protestantism).  Recognition to one degree or another is possible with these church bodies that can claim historic ties to the early Church (see Ware The Orthodox Church pp. 311-316).  But in the case of Protestants who have broken off from the papacy recognition is ruled out as an option.  This means that union with the Orthodox Church is through reception.

 

Western Ecumenicism

It seems that for Western Christianity church unity is a problem that needs to be solved, that church unity has been lost and needs to be restored.  There seems to be a certain eagerness and anxiety in the West’s endeavors to achieve unity with Orthodoxy.  When it comes to unity among Christians two important issues need to be addressed: (1) the nature of the unity we seek and (2) and the path we are to take to get there.

For example, my Anglican friends insist that they are part of the “catholic church” confessed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.  They note that they use the “same” Nicene Creed as the Orthodox and that they too can claim apostolic succession.  In the course of numerous discussions I began to realize that while my Anglican friends don’t hold to Orthodox doctrine or follow Orthodox practices, what they want is for Orthodoxy to recognize the validity of their Anglican doctrines, rites, and clergy.  In other words, they are seeking mutual recognition between Anglicans and Orthodox even with the disparity in doctrine, worship, and polity.

Mutual recognition is also the strategy that Roman Catholics are using with Orthodoxy.  Pope John Paul II adopted the branch theory when he spoke of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as two lungs breathing together.  They are not asking any changes in Orthodox doctrine and practice; “all” they are asking for is for Orthodoxy to come under the authority of the Bishop of Rome which for Orthodoxy is a deal breaker.

Related to the mutual recognition paradigm is interfaith dialogue.  Many in the ecumenical movement approach interfaith dialogue much in the spirit of labor versus management negotiations: We will give a little on this, if you give a little on that. They believe that doctrine, worship, and polity are all “on the table.”  Another ecumenical tactic is to redefine or reframe theological issues so that both sides, once at odds with each other, can now sign a joint statement.  Orthodox priest Georges Florovsky called this “doctrinal minimalism.” This approach to ecumenicism is based on an ecclesial pragmatism and theological relativism, or a theological reductionism that seeks to frame doctrine in broadest possible terms.

But for Orthodoxy Holy Tradition is the fullness of the Faith and therefore not negotiable.  The Church is not a social construct but a divine creation founded by Christ himself (Matthew 16:18).  Thus, one of the major impediments to ecumenical dialogue is that we differ significantly on the goal (the kind of unity we seek) and the means (the path to unity).

 

Christian Collaboration in a Pluralistic Society

There are two kinds of goals for Christian unity.  One goal is Christian unity in the form of one family.  The family model of Christian unity is based on the assumption that we are all related to one another and that we live under the same roof.  Given the Orthodox understanding of church unity, union with Protestants through the recognition paradigm is unfeasible.  The only viable path to unity is through reception.

But what if Protestants are not ready to give up their core Protestant beliefs, what then?  I suggest that there is an alternative approach to Christian unity available to Orthodox and non-Orthodox.  That is Christian unity in the form of being friendly neighbors.  We live next door to each other but we live under separate roofs.  We coexist peacefully and work cooperatively on important projects in the name of Christ.

 

We need to encourage and support friendly cooperative relations across the Christian traditions.  We can respect each others’ different traditions as we seek to work together for a Christian witness in a pluralistic, post-Christian American society.  The annual March for Life in which Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox come together is a good example interfaith cooperation.

 

 

In Hawaii I am happy to be part of a monthly get together of “mere Christians” comprised of Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians.  We come together in Christ’s love from our different church traditions for a common meal and a talk on faith and culture.

 

Unity through Coming Home

What is the reception method like?  In the 1970s a group of Evangelicals became interested in the early Church.  They discovered to their great surprise that early Christian worship was liturgical and sacramental so they became liturgical and sacramental in their worship.  They found out that the early Church was creedal so they adopted the Nicene Creed.  Along the way they found out the early Church had priests and bishops, so they ordained each other as priests and appointed their own bishops!  They even went so far as to make altars and put up tiny postcard size icons behind their altars.  They thought of themselves as “orthodox” until they came face to face with Eastern Orthodoxy.  Peter Gillquist tells the story how this group of Evangelicals was received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church in his book Becoming Orthodox.  But in terms of numbers this paled in comparison with the reception of some twenty thousand Uniates into Orthodoxy in the late 1800s.

There is a great hunger among Protestants today for the early Church and for church unity.  This has led to many rediscovering the early church fathers and seeking to bring back liturgical worship.  This hunger for ancient Christianity manifested itself in the 1800s in the Mercersburg Theology in the US and in the Oxford movement in England, and more recently in the Federal Vision movement and the Ancient-Future worship movement.  This recent enthusiasm for church unity and the ancient faith is very commendable but carries a high price tag.  If one wishes to enter into Eucharistic unity with the ancient Church one must be prepared to give up aspects of Protestantism that are at odds with the ancient Christian Faith.  Reception should not be viewed as an obstacle but an open door.  Thousands of Protestants have already taken this bold step and hopefully many more in the days to come will unite themselves with the one Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.

Robert Arakaki

Other articles:

Former Church of England priest Michael Harper‘s conversion story

A Calvinist Anglican Converts to Orthodoxy” Interview: Joseph Gleason with Mark Bradshaw — Journey to Orthodoxy (24 October 2013)

Episcopal congregation embracing Orthodox faith” by Carla Hinton NewsOK (7 July 2007)

St. Alexis Toth – Confessor of the Orthodox Faith in America

Service Text: “Service for the Reception of Converts” (denver.goarch.org)

 

« Older posts Newer posts »