Category: Worship (Page 9 of 10)

Response No. 2 to Pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s “What is Eastern Orthodoxy?”

March 19, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 23 Comments

Response to Pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s “What is Eastern Orthodoxy?” — Trinity Talk Interview No. 2 (16 November 2009)

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. In this blog posting I will be responding to Pastor Wedgeworth’s November 16 presentation. This review will be structured along the lines of topics than chronology. Given the large number of topics covered, I have grouped them into four broad categories: (1) Orthodox worship, (2) the Orthodox Church, (3) Converts to Orthodoxy, and (4) West versus East. To facilitate the review I will be referencing his statements by minute and second in the pod cast.

I. Orthodox Worship: Icons • Congregational Participation • Visiting an Orthodox Church

Icons and Orthodox Worship

St. Nicholas Orthodox Church – Springdale, Arkansas

Wedgeworth describes what it’s like to enter an Orthodox church:

You walk into an Orthodox Church and to see an Orthodox sanctuary is an amazing thing. You see icons everywhere. All along the wall. You see large icons up in the front. You see icons of the Virgin Mary (they call her the Theotokos), of John the Baptist and of Jesus himself. (6:33)

He does a good job presenting the Orthodox understanding of icons:

It’s a portal. It’s a connection between heaven and earth. (9:09)

Typically, the Orthodox answer is that you are not praying to the icon, but you are asking the saint pictured in the icon to pray for you. (8:30)

He notes that some Reformed Christians might get anxious at seeing Orthodox Christians venerating icons:

Your nerves will get tight when you see people bowing, burning incense, praying to the icon. Many Protestants will want to leave because of what they think is idolatry. (10:13)

The problem comes when you’re actually participating in the use of icons in worship. (10:45)

Pastor Wedgeworth did a good job of describing what one can expect to see upon entering an Orthodox church. He does not see any problem with Evangelicals attending a lecture or Sunday School class at an Orthodox Church (10:34). My advice to Evangelicals visiting an Orthodox worship service is: Don’t feel obligated to venerate the icons or to cross yourself. The best thing is to just observe what is going on in the services and don’t be quick to judge. Visiting an Orthodox service is a lot like visiting a foreign culture. Be respectful of your host culture and don’t be afraid to ask questions.

Let me offer an exhortation to first time visitors: Be slow to judge that which is unfamiliar to you. The ability to suspend judgment is critical to intellectual growth. Some people (Protestants included) are far too ready to make quick judgments before they understand both sides of the argument. Or, they believe they possess true understanding long before they have all the facts at hand. Remember, you cannot see or read peoples’ hearts or their motives.

Congregational Participation in Worship (7:51)

I wondered: Did Pastor Wedgeworth visit mostly Russian Orthodox churches? He notes:

The Orthodox church service is completely chanted or sung. (7:51) Other than that you’re not doing much. You’re not reading Scripture. You’re not engaged in lengthier prayers and responses.

It’s important to keep in mind that congregational participation vary across jurisdictions. I often visit a nearby Russian Orthodox church. Much of the services there are sung or chanted. Congregational participation is also affected by the amount of non-English used. The Greek Orthodox church I attend use a mixture of English and Greek. My experience has been that the Antiochian Orthodox and OCA churches are most likely to have all English services and encourage congregational participation.

Remember that style of participation varies even among Protestants: you have sober Reformed services, elaborate Anglican liturgy, exuberant charismatic services, and the simple Plymouth Brethren services. Just because the Orthodox do not participate “just-like” Protestants, does not mean they are not engaged, body and soul, in worship, there is more going on than you might think.

Evangelicals Visiting an Orthodox Church

Wedgeworth has a somewhat open attitude to Evangelicals visiting Orthodox services. It’s okay to attend Orthodox services, so long as you don’t venerate icons. As far as Wedgeworth’s criticism of Orthodox veneration of icons as idolatry, I would encourage visitors to go to an Orthodox Liturgy with an open mind. Go and observe what goes on in the Liturgy. Feel free to ask questions about what is going on in the Liturgy and the role of icons in Orthodox worship. And before criticizing the Orthodox approach to icons learn from both sides: the Reformed and the Orthodox. Don’t get your information from one side only. I’ve written a number of articles that attempt to explain icons to Reformed Christians who have reservations about the use of icons in Christian worship. (Please visit my Archives section – Icons.)

II. The Orthodox Church: Historical Development • Church Authority • Church Unity

Orthodoxy’s “Dirty Secret” — Historical Development (12:07)

Pastor Wedgeworth was likely mistaken when he inserted the word “exactly” into the statement: “This is the Apostolic Faith exactly as if you heard it from the Apostles’ mouths. (12:42)” Those who are well versed in Orthodoxy, if they do make such claims, are simply saying that there exists a deep, organic or fundamental continuity between Orthodox praxis today and the ancient Apostolic church. By ignoring these nuances Wedgeworth is setting up a simplistic dichotomy between “no change” versus “all has changed.”

I found Wedgeworth’s unqualified endorsement of evolutionary development disturbing:

We say some things now of necessity we would not have said earlier in the church’s history. (13:01)

When I heard him saying: “If you’re saying the Nicene Creed, you’re engaging in doctrinal development,” I found myself wondering how far he would take this thinking. He goes on to say that the controversy over Christ’s divinity was the result of Athanasius and Arius following a theological trajectory set by Origen (13:44). Wedgeworth went on:

They (Athanasius and Arius) both represent different strands of that tradition and so they butted heads and through that infighting we got new language and new rules about what can and cannot be said.

He made similar observations about the Nestorian and the Monophysite controversies (13:37). I found myself thinking: “Where’s the Scriptural teaching about Christ’s divinity? And where are the primitive Christological confessions that formed part of the oral tradition?” His cavalier treatment of the Ecumenical Councils strikes me as a risky position for an Evangelical theologian to take. Belittling the Ecumenical Councils leads to the unmooring of Evangelical theology from the historic Christian faith. Would it not be better to assume the Apostles really did receive the Truth promised from the Holy Spirit and that they delivered it to their disciples as Holy Tradition? Isn’t this the logical understanding based on the promises of Christ found in Scripture?

Wedgeworth sounds at times like a secular historian with a shaky commitment to the eternal truths of the Gospel. Are we think that after all twelve Apostles died that the church ended up as warring theological factions and that the Holy Spirit was not there to guide the Church into all truth? Are we to infer that the doctrines of Christ’s divinity, his two natures, and the Trinity were all the result of one church faction prevailing over others? Furthermore, Wedgeworth seems to ignore the well respected late Yale historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, who wrote about the traditioning process that goes on in the midst of doctrinal development. Wedgeworth’s relativistic approach to historical theology reminds me of an aphorism I heard often in liberal Protestant circles: “Yesterday’s heresy, today’s orthodoxy.” As a former member of a liberal Protestant denomination chills run down my back whenever I hear this aphorism.

Let’s pause and ask: How much has our theology influenced our reading of the New Testament and church history? Most early churches started in the Jewish synagogues. We also find the original Apostles and St. Paul continued to worship at the Jerusalem Temple (Acts 3:1, 21:26). Wouldn’t it be natural for us to expect our Reformed friends who espouse a covenantalist approach to the praxis and polity of the early church with the assumption of a fundamental, organic continuity with the Apostolic Church? Where the Dispensationalists tend to wipe the slate clean between Covenants (called Dispensations) and see ‘Discontinuity’ in God starting something mostly new and different from before, Reformed Covenantalists see a fundamental ‘Continuity’ in the way God works between Covenants. They see in biblical history God maturing what He started before; that what blooms and flowers in the Christological Covenant was there in seed form in God’s covenant with Abraham. But when it comes to the early Church and the deposit of the Faith once and all received from the Apostles, we find to our surprise Reformed Christians reading church history like a Dispensationalist or a Roman Catholic – with all manner of discontinuities and innovations. Why is this? The Protestant disavowal of apostolic continuity and the assumption of a Discontinuity between the Apostolic Church and the church of today bears a striking resemblance to Dispensationalism’s Gap Theory: the Age of the Church falls into a gap between the Old Testament prophecies about the restoration of national Israel and the literal millennial reign of Christ.

When we consider that the early Christians held the Apostolic Fathers and the early Church Fathers in high regard similar to the Apostles of Christ, we have to wonder where lies the Discontinuity by Wedgeworth. The Apostles were viewed as the foundation stones of the Church and the Church Fathers were viewed as building on the foundations laid by the Apostles. There is no hint of a widespread apostasy in church history. In assuming such a Discontinuity Wedgeworth seems to understanding church history like a Dispensationalist. If we regard the Apostolic Tradition handed down from the Apostles much like Moses’ Law and the Prophets – then our Reformed friends are being shy in applying the “General Equity” of the Law, and not only that, are acting more like selective, cherry-picking Anabaptist Antinomians! They mine the Apostolic Fathers for gems and nuggets they might like to keep for their use. But there is little regard for the binding validity of the Holy Tradition received by the Apostle from the Holy Spirit – and delivered once and for all to the Church (Jude 3).

This leaves me with the impression that paradoxically Wedgeworth does church history from the standpoint of a secular church historian and/or a fundamentalist dispensationalist. I would argue that a more sound approach to church history and historical theology is to combine the Reformed Covenantalist reading of Scripture with the Orthodox understanding of a fundamental continuity between the original Apostles and the church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Church Authority (20:00)

Pastor Wedgeworth is technically correct when he states that apostolic succession is the basis for church authority (20:00). However as I noted in my earlier blog posting, he neglects the role of Holy Tradition. Authority in the Orthodox Church is not just institutional authority but is also grounded in Apostolic Tradition. If a bishop were to deviate from Tradition, his institutional authority is nullified. Furthermore, the authority of the bishop is catholic in nature. He exercises pastoral authority as part of the church catholic. There is no such thing as an independent bishop. Any bishop who attempts to lead his diocese independently of the church catholic becomes a schismatic and the parishes under his leadership cease to be churches. For this reason adherence to the Ecumenical Councils is an important indication of a valid church authority.

Wedgeworth presented accurately the Orthodox view of Protestantism: “We’re not the church. We’re a schism from a schism.” (22:22) This harsh assessment stems from the Orthodox understanding of the church described above. For Orthodoxy the Church is not a human creation, an association of like minded believers who love Jesus. For Orthodoxy the Church is a supernatural creation founded by Jesus Christ. It is the household of God, the New Israel, the Pillar of Truth.

Wedgeworth asserts that apostolic succession in the Byzantine Empire became nationalized. His insinuation that apostolic authority in Orthodoxy rests on the power of the state is misleading and wrong. The authority of the church is a covenantal authority bestowed by the Suzerain, Jesus Christ, on his designated followers, the Apostles. The Liturgy, especially the weekly Eucharist, is an act of covenant renewal; however, covenant renewal can only take place where there is valid covenant authority. Picking up a Bible and preaching from it does not suffice. One needs to be part of an unbroken chain of apostolic traditioning.

With respect to Apostolic Tradition Pastor Wedgeworth notes: “We Reformed Christians, we’re followers of the Apostles. We teach the same doctrines. And our pastors, priests, bishops come from the same line (20:44).” The problem is that picking up the Bible does not make you part of Apostolic Tradition; just as picking up a copy of the US Constitution makes you an American citizen. Nor does getting a law degree makes you an heir of the tradition of the colonial fathers!

Orthodox Unity in America and Abroad (24:53)

Pastor Wedgeworth strongly denies that Orthodoxy speaks with one voice (24:53). He notes that historically there were different patriarchates that operated on the basis of autocephaly — one being a head unto themselves. He notes that Moscow does not have to submit to Constantinople and visa versa. He notes that historically it was the Byzantine emperor who would have been the head of the church. What he put his signature on would have been the unifying doctrine (25:23). He seems to assume that the unity of the early church was principally an external administrative unity and not an internal organic unity based on a shared Apostolic Faith.

But the fact remains that Orthodox across jurisdictions share in the Orthodox Tradition: the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Divine Liturgy, and church leadership based on Holy Tradition. Regardless of jurisdictions, they are united in faith and worship. The key sign of this unity is the fact that a member of the Antiochian Orthodox church can receive Communion at a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox church. Their priests often substitute for each other; they teach at each other’s seminaries. Wedgeworth’s criticisms seem to imply that he expects to see administrative and organizational unity along the lines of the Roman Catholic church.

This high degree of real doctrinal and practical unity is all but lost in the way Wedgeworth highlighted the administrative overlaps and redundancies. It is as if he would prefer they unify under a Pope who speaks with one voice! This sort of obfuscation all but bespeaks an intent to argue for disunity where real unity exists. One can only speculate why he wishes to paint such a view of Orthodoxy? Granted, most Orthodox Christians pray and long for even more unity in America, but to imply Orthodoxy speaks with a many-voiced disarray – is all but unconscionable.

III. Converts to Orthodoxy (28:24)

Orthodox Convert in Hawaii

Wedgeworth relates that he saw an article about Orthodoxy growing as Protestants and Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. He expressed surprise and skepticism at the claim that 70 percent of the priests in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese are converts (28:44). He responds: “Let’s get real! That’s a real challenge to uniformity.” (29:39) I find his dismissive incredulity insulting. If he finds the fact that so many priests are converts so hard to believe all he has to do is do further research. He could contact a local Orthodox priest and ask: “Is it true that so many Orthodox priests are converts? And how has it affected Orthodox tradition having so many converts from non-Orthodox backgrounds?” It seems that he hasn’t taken the time to do the necessary follow-up. This I find disappointing. His Protestant listeners deserve better.

Here in Hawaii the statistics hold up. On the island of Oahu the priest of the Greek Orthodox church is a convert from the Episcopal Church. At the Russian Orthodox church the rector is a cradle Orthodox, while the assisting priest is a convert from Roman Catholicism. That comes out to 66 percent of the Orthodox clergy being converts. If we factor in the OCA mission on the Big Island, we find that the priest is a convert from the Episcopal Church. That changes the percentage from 66 percent to 75 percent. And if the paper work goes through for another priest from Canada who grew up unchurched the percentage goes up to 80 percent! So the empirical reality here in Hawaii matches the statistics cited elsewhere.

As far as converts attempting to bring in their own views and attempting to change things in the Orthodox church, Wedgeworth completely misunderstands the situation. In most instances converts from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are traditionalists. They left churches where doctrinal or worship innovations were rampant and joined the Orthodox Church because of its doctrinal and liturgical stability.

IV. West versus East: Anti-Augustinianism • Original Sin • Neo-Palamism • Fr. Schmemann

Anti-Augustine Orthodoxy (15:41)

Pastor Wedgeworth describes the anti-Augustinian tendency among Orthodox Christians, especially immigrants from Russia or from the monasteries of Mount Athos. These Orthodox Christians want to be as far from the West as possible. Such that if something is from the West it must be bad, e.g., original sin, the doctrine of grace, predestination and free will. This strain of anti-Augustinianism is a post-1940s phenomenon and does not represent historic Orthodoxy.

My response is that in a forum like Trinity Talk, Pastor Wedgeworth should be discussing the mainstream views of Orthodoxy, not the more extreme versions. What he is doing is promoting unfounded caricatures that will hinder Orthodox-Reformed dialogue.

The Orthodox View of Original Sin (11:58)

It seems that Wedgeworth has encountered some Orthodox zealots who have branded the Western doctrine of original sin heretical (16:02). Wedgeworth notes that when pressed what they find objectionable about the Western doctrine of original sin they start to hedge and qualify their position. But to be fair it seems that these Orthodox Christians have been reading the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI.3: “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed….”

Probably one of the biggest differences between Orthodox and Reformed Christians is not the question about the imputed nature of Original Sin, but the severity of the Fall. Following Augustine, the West came to understand the Fall as meaning that Adam fell from a position of mature perfection into a state of absolute depravity and bondage to sin. All of his descendants thereafter are now incapable of good desires, deeds, acts. In contrast the East following Irenaeus of Lyons came to understand the Fall as meaning that Adam starting position was as a youth fell from a state of undeveloped simplicity and that the image of God within us is distorted but not destroyed. Probably, the most consequential difference is that where the West understands human nature as totally lacking in free will, the Eastern tradition believes that even after the Fall humans still possess free will. This can be found in Kallistos Ware’s excellent introduction The Orthodox Church (pp. 222-225). For the Reformed the destruction of man’s free will is foundational for the doctrine of double predestination, and for the Orthodox the presence of free will even after the Fall is foundational to the Orthodox understanding of salvation as synergy — our cooperation with divine grace.

Fr. John S. Romanides article: “Original Sin According to St. Paul”

Fr. Ernesto Obregon aticle: “Roman Catholic and Orthodox differences on Original Sin”

Neo-Palamism as an Example of “New” Doctrine (14:35)

Pastor Wedgeworth’s claim that Neo-Palamism is a new and novel Orthodox doctrine shows his unfamiliarity with apophatic theology. This is a rich strand of spiritual writings that Pastor Wedgeworth seems to unaware of. When we compare Gregory’s theological method against his opponent Barlaam, who made use of the Western Scholasticism, we find him upholding a more ancient theological tradition.

Pastor Wedgeworth’s claim that Neo-Palamism is a new doctrine is flawed in more ways than one. His logic in citing modern Orthodox theologians like Vladimir Lossky, Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff et al. as proof of neo-Palamism makes no sense. Just because a spate of books by Reformed theologians came out recently about Calvin’s belief in the mystical union doesn’t make it a new doctrine. Nor would it make it neo-Calvinism! For the Orthodox a doctrinal novelty is a teaching that breaks from the teachings of the church fathers.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann a Heretic? (29:44)

Schmemann’s writings has been popular among Protestants and has helped many in their conversion to Orthodoxy. I can still remember reading Schmemann’s For the Life of the World while waiting in line to confirm my plane reservation and being blown away by the sacramental world view Schmemann was presenting.

Pastor Wedgeworth concedes that many Protestants love the writings of the late Alexander Schmemann. This is a positive development and at the same time a curious thing in itself. There is little wonder why some Protestants from High-Church Reformed, Anglican and Lutheranism would enjoy Schmemann’s masterful elucidation of the Divine Liturgy in his For The Life of the World. But why Protestants pastors love and recommend it to each other without a thought of fallout is also puzzling. An elderly Greek Orthodox priest upon hearing that a Protestant pastor loved Schmemann’s book incredulously replied, “And he’s still Protestant?”

Fr. Schmemann with Alexander Solzhenitsyn

So I was dumbfounded to hear Pastor Wedgeworth claim that some bishops in Russia declared Fr. Schmemann to be heretic! I searched the Internet and found no corroborating evidence in support of what Wedgeworth said. I emailed several Orthodox priests and again came up empty. I invite Pastor Wedgeworth to give us additional supporting evidence or else retract his libelous statement about Fr. Schmemann.

[Also, a quick Google search shows Fr. Schmemann to be held in high regard by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. See Solzhenitsyn’s letter about Fr. Schmemann.]

Conclusion

As noted in the first blog review, it is evident that Pastor Wedgeworth has done a fair amount of reading about Orthodoxy and has even taken the trouble to attend Orthodox services. However, a similar pattern of weaknesses also recur: oversimplification, unbalanced presentation of the issues, unfamiliarity with Orthodoxy’s finer points, and some egregious errors that calls for correction or public retraction. I will hold off until my review of his third and final pod cast Trinity Talk interview for an overall assessment of how good a job he did in presenting Eastern Orthodoxy to his audience.

Robert Arakaki

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

Orthodox Worship Versus Contemporary Worship

February 25, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 118 Comments

Willow Creek Church

Recently, a new form of worship has become widely popular among Christians. Where before people would sing hymns accompanied by an organ then listen to a sermon, in this new worship there are praise bands that use rock band instruments, short catchy praise songs, sophisticated Powerpoint presentations, and the pastor giving uplifting practical teachings about having a fulfilling life as a Christian. This new kind of worship is so popular that people come to these services by the thousands. They go because the services are fun, exciting, easy to understand, and easy to relate to. This new style of worship is light years away from the more traditional and liturgical Orthodox style of worship. How does an Orthodox Christian respond to this new worship? Is it acceptable or is it contrary to Orthodoxy? How should an Orthodox Christian respond to an invitation to attend these contemporary Christian services?

According to the Pattern

First we need to ask: Is there a guiding principle for right worship? St. Stephen, the first martyr, gave a sermon about the history of the Jewish nation. In this sermon he notes that Old Testament worship was “according to the pattern.”

Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. (Acts 7:44 NIV, italics added).

This phrase comes up again in the book of Hebrews.

They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Hebrews 8:5 NIV, italics added)

Jewish Tabernacle

The phrase is a reference to Exodus 24:15-18 when Moses went up on Mt. Sinai and spent forty days and forty nights up there. On Mt. Sinai Moses was in the direct presence of God receiving instructions about how to order the life of the new Jewish nation. Thus, the guiding principle for Old Testament worship was not creative improvisation nor adapting to contemporary culture but imitation of the heavenly prototype.

Altar of Incense

The next question is: What is the biblical pattern for worship? In Exodus 25 to 31, Moses received instruction concerning the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, the lamp stand, the altar for burnt offerings, the altar for incense, the anointing oil, the vestments for the priests, and the consecration of the priests. The principle of “according to the pattern” was repeated several times in the design specifications for the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:8, 25:40, 26:30, 27:8). This was the template for the spiritual identity of the Jewish people. To be a faithful Jew meant that one offered to Yahweh the proper sacrifices in the prescribed manner.

Despite the clearly laid out instructions in Exodus and Leviticus, the Israelites struggled to keep to the biblical pattern of worship. The struggle to maintain the right worship of Yahweh in the face of temptations to follow the idolatrous ways of the non-Jewish nations is a theme running through Old Testament history. The sin of the golden calf in Exodus 32 was not the sin of heresy (wrong doctrine), but the sin of false worship. When the northern tribes broke from Judah, Jeroboam did not create a new theology, instead he had two golden calves made and appointed non-Levites to be priests as a way of consolidating his rule (II Kings 12:25-33). II Chronicles is a history of the struggle to maintain fidelity to Yahweh by holding to the biblical worship. II Chronicles 21 to 24 relates how a bad king — Jehoram — led the Israelites astray through Ba’al worship and a good king — Josiah — brought them back through the restoration of the Passover sacrifice. Apostasy in Old Testament times meant abandoning Yahweh for other gods and the chief means was the sin of idolatry (wrong worship). The lesson here is that right worship was critical for a right relationship with God.

Thus, orthodoxy — right worship — in the Old Testament meant keeping to the pattern of worship that Yahweh revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Right worship was also key to Israel’s covenant identity. This suggests that right worship is key to our Christian identity. By studying how worship was defined in the Old Testament and comparing it with the Orthodox liturgy we can better understand why Orthodox worship is the way it is and how contemporary worship has strayed far from biblical worship.

Where Does Orthodox Worship Come From?

Worship in the Orthodox Church is patterned after the Old Testament Temple. Typically, an Orthodox church has three main areas: the narthex (entry hall), the nave (the central part), and the altar area. This is similar to the Old Testament Tabernacle which consisted of the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:30-37, 27:9-19; I Kings 6:14-36; II Chronicles 3 and 4). The layout of Orthodox churches may seem strange to those who attend contemporary services, but it is patterned after the Old Testament Temple. As a matter of fact, Orthodox church buildings are often referred to as temples.

When we enter into an Orthodox Church we are entering into sacred space much like the Old Testament Tabernacle. When I go to an Orthodox church on Sunday, I enter into the narthex, a small entry room. I light a candle in front of the sacred image of Jesus Christ and commit my life to Christ in preparation for worship. The short time I spend in the narthex helps me to shift my mind from the world outside to the heavenly worship inside.

Orthodox Church Interior

Then I enter into the nave, the large central part of the church building where the congregation gathers for worship. All around me I see sacred images of Christ, the saints, and the angels. This is patterned after the Jewish Temple which had images of angels, trees, and flowers carved on the walls (I Kings 6:29; II Chronicles 3:5-7). Up in the front is a wall of sacred images (the iconostasis). In the middle of this wall is a door with a gate across it. This wall of images is patterned after the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the Jewish Temple (Exodus 26:31-33; I Kings 6:31-35). Behind this is the altar area where the Eucharist is celebrated. Just as the Jewish high priests offered sacrifices in the Most Holy Place at the Jerusalem Temple, the Orthodox priests offer up the spiritual sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood at the altar. The altar area also symbolizes Paradise, the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve enjoyed deep communion with God before the Fall. We receive Holy Communion in front of the altar reminding us that we have been restored to communion with God through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.

Orthodox worship is also patterned after the worship in heaven. At the start of the second half of the Divine Liturgy the church sings:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

This is a participation of the heavenly worship described in Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8. For the Orthodox Church this point of the Divine Liturgy is not so much an imitation as a participation in the heavenly worship.

Another way Orthodox worship is patterned after the heavenly worship is the use of incense. Incense was very much a part of the heavenly worship. In his vision of God, Isaiah describes how as the angels sang: “Holy, Holy, Holy” the doors shook and the temple in heaven was filled with incense (Isaiah 6:4). The Apostle John in Revelation describes how the angels in heaven held bowls full of incense and how the heavenly Temple was filled with incense smoke (Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4, 15:8).

The vestments worn by Orthodox priests are patterned after the Old Testament and the heavenly prototype. The entire chapter 28 in Exodus contains instruction on the making of priestly vestments. In heaven, Christ and the angels wear the priestly vestments (Revelation 1:13, 15:6). The vestments are more than pretty decorations, rather they are meant to manifest the dignity and the beauty of holiness that adorns God’s house.

Old Testament Prophecies of Orthodox Worship

Orthodox worship is more than an imitation of Old Testament worship. It is also a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. The Old Testament prophets besides describing the coming Messiah also described worship in the Messianic Age. Within the book of Malachi is a very interesting prophecy:

My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord. (Malachi 1:11)

The phrase “from the rising to the setting of the sun” is a poetic way of saying from east to west — everywhere. Here we have a prophecy that the worship of God which was formerly confined to Jerusalem would in the future become universal. This was confirmed by Jesus in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. In response to her question whether Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim was the proper place for worship (John 4:19), Jesus answered that in the Messianic Age true worship would not depend on location but on worship of the Trinity. His statement about worshiping the Father in spirit (Holy Spirit) and truth (Jesus Christ) (John 4:23-24) is a teaching that true worship is worship of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Incense and Icon of Christ

What is striking about Malachi’s prophecy is the reference to incense. Where before incense was offered in the Jerusalem Temple, in the Messianic Age incense would be offered by the non-Jews. One of the most vivid memories many first time visitors have of Orthodox worship is the smell of incense. Incense is burned at every Orthodox service. In the Roman Catholic Church incense is used in the high Mass but not in most services. Most Evangelical and Pentecostal churches do not use incense at all. Thus, whenever an Orthodox priest swings the censer and the sweet fragrance fills the church one experiences a direct fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy. Protestants may complain about how strange incense is, but they should realize that the use of incense was an integral part of Old Testament worship and is one of the key markers of authentic biblical worship in the Messianic Age.

Orthodox Eucharist

Malachi’s prophecy about “pure offerings” is a reference to the Eucharist. The Jewish rabbis taught that when the Messiah comes all sacrifices would be abolished with the exception of one, the Todah or Thanksgiving sacrifice. This was fulfilled in the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, the last supper Christ had with his followers when he gave thanks over the bread and the wine (Luke 22:17-20). The word “eucharist” comes from the Greek word ευχαριστειν,”to give thanks.” Jesus’ statement about the cup of the new covenant meant that he was about to inaugurate the Messianic Age. The Eucharist is a remembrance of Christ’s death on the cross as well as a participation in Christ’s body and blood (I Corinthians 10:16-17). Thus, the Eucharist — the pure offerings — is another key sign of right worship in the Messianic Age.

In the last chapter of Hebrews is a strange verse that many Evangelicals and Protestants skip over:

We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat (Hebrews 13:10; italics added).

What the author is asserting here is that the priests and Levites working at the Jerusalem Temple have no access to the Christian Eucharist. The Eucharist is only for those who confess Jesus as the promised Messiah and his death on the cross as the ultimate Passover sacrifice. The reference to the altar tells us the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist on real altars and that they had priests.

Protestants today have the habit of calling the platform area altars and spiritual songs as sacrifice. This involves a significant spiritualizing of the meaning of Hebrews 13:10. Furthermore, if we take this spiritualizing approach the phrase “have no right to eat” would not make sense. In the early Church if one did not confess Jesus as Christ, one could not receive the Eucharist. Contemporary Protestant worship on the other hand welcomes everybody and makes no distinction between believers and nonbelievers in its worship. In short, the early Church’s worship style was radically different from Protestant churches that have dispensed with the altar and the idea of the Eucharist as a spiritual sacrifice. To those who advocate contemporary worship, the Orthodox Christian can reply: We have an altar, where is yours?

An Evangelical or Charismatic visiting an Orthodox service might object to the Eucharist on the grounds that it is a re-presenting of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice. First of all, this argument comes from the Protestant debate against Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy is not the same as Roman Catholicism. Second, the idea of the Eucharist as a re-presenting of Christ’s blood is contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. In the Liturgy, the priest prays: “Once again we offer You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood….” (Kezios p. 25; italics added)

For the Apostle Paul the Eucharist was just as important as the Gospel message. As he went about planting churches across the Roman Empire, Paul taught them the Good News of Jesus Christ and how to celebrate the Eucharist. This can be seen in Paul’s formal phrasing: “For I received from the Lord what I also pass on to you….” in I Corinthians 11:23 for the Eucharist and in I Corinthians 15:3 for the Good News (Gospel). Paul’s phrase: “What I received from the Lord….” parallels that in Exodus 25:9: “exactly like the pattern I will show you.” The infrequent celebration of the Eucharist in Evangelical and Pentecostal worship shows how far they have moved from historic Christian worship.

Another prophetic sign of worship in the Messianic Age is the priesthood. The last chapter of Isaiah contains a prophecy about the time when knowledge of Yahweh would become universal among the Gentiles and God would make priests of non-Jews.

And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites, says the Lord. (Isaiah 66:21 NIV; italics added)

Part of this great ingathering would be the consecration of Gentiles to the priesthood. This was fulfilled when Jesus gave the Great Commission to the apostles (Matthew 28:19-20). Paul understood his work of evangelism as a “priestly duty” (Romans 15:16). In Isaiah is another prophecy about the important role that the Gentiles would play in the rebuilding of Israel, that of the establishment of the New Israel, the Church.

They will rebuild the ancient ruins

and restore the places long devastated;

they will renew the ruined cities

that have been devastated for generations.

Aliens will shepherd your flocks;

foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.

And you will be called priests of the Lord,

you will be named ministers of our God. (Isaiah 61:4-6 NIV; italics added)

Isaiah’s prophecy could be understood to refer to the Jews’ return from Babylon in 538 BC, but the fact that non-Jews would be part of the rebuilding process is an indication that the prophecy points to the coming of Christ. At the first Church council, St. James, the Lord’s stepbrother, quotes from the prophet Amos in defense of admitting non-Jews into the Church:

After this I will return

and rebuild David’s fallen tent,

Its ruins I will rebuild,

and I will restore it,

that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,

and all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things

that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-17 NIV; Amos 9:11-12)

The key to understanding Isaiah’s prophecy about the priesthood is that a priest does not stand alone but in a certain context: temple, altar, and sacrifice. This pattern of priesthood, temple, and sacrifice can be found in I Peter 2:5:

…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (NIV).

The Apostle Peter reiterates the teaching that the Church is a “royal priesthood” in I Peter 2:9. This can be seen in the fact that the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist regularly on the first day of the week, Sunday. The early Christians understood the Eucharist to be a spiritual sacrifice and had priests to lead them in worship. Today, two thousand years later, the Orthodox Church still has priests standing at the altar offering the eucharistic sacrifice. Contemporary worship has none of these. Thus, Isaiah 61:6 finds its fulfillment in Orthodox worship, not contemporary worship.

Protestants may object to the Orthodox Church having priests on the grounds that because of Christ we have no need for a man to serve as a mediator with God. This objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of Orthodox worship and the office of the priest. Basically, the priest’s role is to lead the congregation in worship. If one listens carefully to the litanies one finds the priest addressing the congregation, For … let us pray to the Lord, and the congregation responding with, Lord have mercy. In other words, the congregation prays with the priest, not through the priest. As a matter of fact, in Orthodoxy the priest cannot begin the Divine Liturgy unless the laity is present. This is based on the Orthodox Church’s understanding that the priesthood resides in the whole church, not just in the ordained clergy. The participation of the laity is just as critical for right worship as the clergy. This can be seen in the fact that “liturgy” comes from the Greek λειτουργεια, “leitourgeia,” which means worship and also the “work of the people.” Jesus Christ is our Mediator and he exercises that ministry through his office as the great High Priest. This means it is imperative that we be part of the Divine Liturgy and not off doing our own thing.

Protestants cite I Peter 2:5 as a repudiation of the priesthood. This reading of I Peter 2:5 relies on the illogical reasoning that since we are all priests, no one is a priest. The Protestant reading of I Peter 2:5 has resulted in churches without priests and no altars. Historically the Christian Church has recognized the offices of deacons, priests, and bishops. The practice of an ordained clergy has roots in the New Testament Church. We read in Acts 1:20, “Let another take his office” (NKJV, italics added; see also I Timothy 5:17-22, II Timothy 2:2). Where for over a thousand years Christianity had priests celebrating the Eucharist on altars, after 1500 there emerged a new form of Christian worship that disavowed the priesthood and removed the altar from the sanctuary.

Anyone who compares Orthodox worship with contemporary worship will be struck by how biblical Orthodox worship is and how far contemporary worship has moved away from the Old Testament pattern. When we take into consideration the Old Testament prophecies, the significance of liturgical worship in Orthodoxy becomes even more compelling. Orthodox worship follows the pattern of Old Testament worship and is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. This is the worship God wants in this day and age.

Was Old Testament Worship Abolished?

The Evangelical approach to worship seems to be based on the assumption that Jesus abolished the Old Testament. Because of this Evangelicals ignore the Old Testament teaching on Tabernacle worship and focus on the New Testament for instruction on how to worship God. The paucity of New Testament passages on worship has been taken as grounds for an anything goes approach to worship. But, this assumption is wrong. Jesus made it clear he did not come to abolish the old covenant but rather to fulfill it:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17).

An examination of the gospels shows Jesus’ adherence to the Old Testament pattern of worship. Jesus was in the habit of attending the synagogue services (Mark 1:21; Mark 3:1; Mark 6:2). Likewise, he observed the great Jewish festivals at the Temple: Passover (Luke 2:41), Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:1-13), and Passover (Matthew 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:7-11). Like Jews throughout history, Jesus considered the Passover meal the highlight of the year. Jesus told his followers: “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (Luke 22:15)

In the healing of the leper we find an affirmation of Jewish Temple worship. After healing a leper, Jesus orders him:

But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them (Mark 1:44; Matthew 8:4).

Here we find Jesus affirming: (1) the Mosaic Law, (2) the Aaronic priesthood, and (3) the offering of sacrifices at the Temple. Nowhere do we find Jesus or his apostles disregarding the Jerusalem Temple or the Jewish forms of worship; rather we find indications they affirmed the Jewish form of worship.

Likewise, we find Jesus’ apostles continuning the Old Testament pattern of worship. Following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the first Christians met at the Temple courts (Acts 2:36). The Temple court was a focal point for the early Christians (Acts 5:20). The apostles preached the Good News in hope that the Jews would accept Jesus as the Messiah. Just as significant we find them relying on the ritual prayers used by Jews. This can be seen in the fact that a literal translation of Greek in Acts 2:42 would be “the prayers.” We find that Paul, like Jesus, attended the synagogue (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:2, 19:8). Even when Paul had become a Christian he continued to make it his habit to attend the synagogue services: As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue…. (Acts 17:2)

The Apostles of Christ showed a similar respect to the Jerusalem Temple. We read in Acts 3:1 that Peter and John attended the prayer services at the Jerusalem Temple. In his testimony to the Jews Paul recounts how God spoke to him while he was at the Jerusalem Temple praying (Acts 22:17). The positive regard Paul and the other Apostles had to the Jerusalem Temple can be seen in: (1) Paul’s eagerness to attend the Pentecost services in Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), (2) the Jerusalem Apostles advising Paul to take part in the purification rituals to show their loyalty to the Torah (21:22-25), and (3) Paul’s participation in the Temple rituals (Acts 21:26).

Where Evangelicals assume a sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, the Orthodox Church sees a strong continuity between the two. The Evangelicals’ assumption of a sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments has led them to ignore the Old Testament teachings on worship. This disregard for the Old Testament is much like the early heresy of Marcionism. Orthodox Christian worship is based upon a radical continuity. As the Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ took the Jewish forms of worship and filled them with new content and meanings. Orthodox worship took the Jewish synagogue and Temple worship and made them Christocentric.

Where Does Contemporary Worship Come From?

The classic shape of Christian worship consists of two parts: the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of Holy Communion. This was the way all Christians worshiped until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s when Martin Luther and his followers rebelled against the Roman Catholic Papacy. It should be kept in mind that over the years the Pope had introduced changes like the Filioque clause and the dogma of transubstantiation with the result that the Roman Catholic worship diverged from that of the early Church. The Protestant Reformers sought to reform the church but the result was not a return to the historic pattern of worship. The Protestant teaching “the Bible alone” resulted in the sermon becoming the center of worship. Priests were replaced by Bible expositors, and the altar was replaced by the podium. This marked a decisive break from the historic form of Christian worship.

But the break from historic worship did not end there. In the early 1800s a more emotional and expressive form of worship became popular on the American frontier. Then, in the early 1900s Pentecostalism emerged with its emphasis on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and other charismatic manifestations. Where mainstream Protestantism stressed sober singing and the rational reading of the Bible, Pentecostalism stressed ecstatic worship and experiencing the Holy Spirit. For a long time Pentecostals were relegated to the margins of Protestantism and were derided as “holy rollers.” Then in the 1950s Pentecostalism began make inroads among mainline Protestants, and in the 1960s among Roman Catholics. Less demonstrative and theologically more sophisticated, this movement came to be known as the charismatic renewal.

Pentecostalism was just one of three movements that would radically transform American Protestantism in the second half of the twentieth century. Just as influential on Protestant worship was pop music popularized by music groups like the Beatles. The pop culture of the 1960s shaped in profound ways the values and outlooks of the baby boomer generation. A cultural gap widened between the more traditional church services that relied on organs or pianos and had traditional hymns, and the more contemporary church services that used guitars and sang simpler and catchier praise songs. Many churches were split as a result “worship wars” — hymns and organs versus praise bands and praise songs.

The third influential movement was the church growth movement. Though less visible to the public eye, it influenced the way many pastors understood and ran the church. The church growth movement brought market analysis and business techniques to the way the church was run. With the introduction of the concept of the seeker friendly church, church worship moved away from edification of the faithful to evangelizing outsiders. Numerical growth was seen as proof of God’s blessing. This is exemplified by mega churches packed with thousands of enthusiastic worshipers. However, despite its good intentions the church growth movement introduced several serious distortions. Worship of God often became spiritual entertainment. The sermon shifted from an exposition of Scripture to selecting Bible verses to support teachings on how to live a fulfilling life. In seeking to tailor the Christian message to non-Christians many pastors have dumbed down their message with the result that many of their members know very little of the core doctrines. Just as troubling is the fact that many churches have become spiritual machines that rely more organizational techniques, high tech electronics, and social psychology than the grace of the Holy Spirit.

In short, Protestant Christianity has undergone a major uprooting as a result of the influence of Pentecostalism, contemporary Christian worship, and the church growth movement. As a result of this massive uprooting, Evangelicalism has become rootless. The uprooting of Evangelical worship has created an opening for many new teachings and new styles of worship. There have emerged fringe groups with strange worship practices like being slain in the Spirit, holy laughter, word of faith teachings, prayer walks, etc. Some may believe these new forms of worship may presage a great spiritual revival that will sweep the world but it could also be a sign of a spiritual collapse of Protestant Christianity.

What Would the Apostle Paul Think?

If the Apostle Paul were to walk into an Orthodox liturgy, he would immediately recognize where he was — in a Christian church. The key give away would be the Eucharist. This is because the Eucharist was central to Christian worship. In the days following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost the early Christians met in homes and celebrated “the breaking of bread” (the Eucharist). Paul received his missionary calling during the celebration of the liturgy (Acts 13:2 NKJV). He made the celebration of the Eucharist a key part of his message to the church in Corinth (I Corinthians 11:23 ff.).

If Paul were to walk into a traditional Protestant service with the hymn singing, the reading of Scripture and the lengthy sermon he might think he was in a religious service much like the Jewish synagogue. He may not have much trouble accepting it as a kind of Christian worship service, although he might question their understanding of the Eucharist. However, if the Apostle Paul were to walk into a mega church with its praise bands and elaborate worship routine, he would likely think he was at some Greek play and seriously doubt he was at a Christian worship service. If the Apostle Paul were to walk into a Pentecostal service he would probably think he had walked into a pagan mystery cult that had no resemblance at all to Christian worship.

Why Orthodox Worship?

A non-Orthodox might ask: What difference does it make to God how we worship? The better question would be: What does the Bible teach about worship? Does the Bible teach it makes a difference how we worship God? The answer is God does care about the worship we offer Him. We read in I Peter 2:5:

…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (NIV, italics added).

This concern for proper worship goes all the way back to Leviticus 22:29:

When you sacrifice a thank offering to the Lord, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf (see also Leviticus 19:5) (NIV, italics added).

If we are instructed to offer “acceptable” sacrifices, this implies we can offer improper worship that will be rejected by God. We see this in Genesis 4:3-5 where Abel and Cain offered sacrifices to Yahweh, and one was accepted and the other rejected. It can also be seen in Leviticus 10:1-3 where Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, died because they offered unauthorized fire to Yahweh. In I Chronicles 13:8-10, Uzzah, a non-Levite, died because he touched the Ark of the Covenant that only Levites were allowed to handle (I Chronicles 15:11-15, Numbers 4:15). In II Chronicles 26:16-20, King Uzziah sought to offer incense to Yahewh, something only the priests could do, and suffered divine punishment. Thus, there are consequences for not offering right worship. In this day and age the consequence of wrong worship are less dramatic. To offer wrong worship is to be outside the Orthodox Church and unable to receive the Eucharist.

If salvation is about a right relationship with God then worship plays an important part in having a right relationship with God. Before the Fall Adam and Eve enjoyed unbroken communion with God; after the Fall they became alienated from God and mankind has suffered as a result. God has been at work throughout human history working to bring us back into fellowship with him. This work of restoration reached its climax with the coming of Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). The author of Hebrews stresses that Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant (5:7-10; 9:9-14) and as a result of His death on the cross we are able to enter into the Most Holy Place (Hebrews 10:19-25) and take our place in the heavenly worship (Hebrews 12:22-24). In Revelation 7 is a description of the great ingathering of the Jews and the Gentiles in worship at the throne of God.

Our ultimate destiny is not to be Bible experts but to have communion with God. This can be seen in a strange verse in Exodus 24:7: “…they saw God, and they ate and drank.” In ancient times, after a covenant was ratified, the ruler and his subjects would sit down for a common meal. Eating together was a sign of fellowship and their common life together. This verse finds its fulfillment in the Liturgy when we feed upon Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist (John 6:53-56). The heavenly worship described in Revelation is not in some far off future but can be experienced in the Sunday liturgy in an Orthodox church. In Revelation 22:3 we read:

And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face and His name shall be on their foreheads (NKJV).

St. Seraphim Cathedral – Dallas, Texas

The Greek word “serve” (λατρευειν) can also be translated “worship.” As we stand in worship facing the altar we behold the throne of God; this is because the altar, like theArk of the Covenant, is where God’s presence dwells. The phrase we shall see God “face to face” finds its fulfillment when we face the altar looking at the icon of Christ the Pantocrator (the All Ruling One). The icon is more than a religious picture, it is also a window into heaven. Lastly, “His name shall be on their foreheads” is fulfilled in the Orthodox sacrament of chrismation where the priest anoints the foreheads of converts with sacred oil forming the sign of the cross. Every Orthodox Christian has this spiritual seal on their forehead as a sign of their belonging to Christ.

Thus, it is not Orthodox worship that is so strange and different but contemporary worship. Orthodox worship only seems to be strange because it is not of this world. It is part of the worship of the eternal kingdom. We as Orthodox Christians need to appreciate what a precious gift God has given us in the Divine Liturgy. We should become fervent in our prayers and our commitment to following our God and Savior Jesus Christ. We need to recognize that much of the attraction of contemporary worship comes from the fact it has taken the best the world has to offer but in so doing it has abandoned the orthodox, or right worship, God wants from us. The best response an Orthodox Christian can make to an invitation to visit a contemporary worship service is: “Come and see!” Many people today don’t know about the Orthodox Divine Liturgy and are hungry for a real worship experience. They need someone to invite them and be ready to explain how the Orthodox liturgy is the true worship taught in the Bible.

Robert Arakaki

Category: Worship (Page 9 of 10)

Response No. 2 to Pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s “What is Eastern Orthodoxy?”

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

Orthodox Worship Versus Contemporary Worship

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives