Page 38 of 94

What American Orthodox Believe: A Survey

January 13, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 5 Comments

A frequent visitor “Prometheus” posed a very good question with respect to my posting “An Orthodox Remedy to Evangelicalism’s Heresy Epidemic.” He asked:

My question is what such a survey would look like in Orthodoxy. Protestants lack certain epistemological bases for their teaching, but the very act of teaching has the chance to provide a lot agreement on “orthodox” issues. The epistemology and the application ore two different issues, and I am interested to know what the orthodoxy of the Orthodox looks like on average.

The best answer I can find is Alexei Krindatch’s report The Orthodox Church Today. It is based on survey research done with some 1000 people from 103 parishes in the Greek Orthodox of America (GOA) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) (p. 5). The survey is relatively recent having been done between September 2007 and May 2008.

The survey provides an insightful peek into the empirical reality of Orthodoxy in America — what real flesh and blood Orthodox Christians believe as opposed to the official teachings of the Orthodox Church. It is important to keep in mind that the questions asked by Alexei Krindatch’s survey for the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute differ from that posed in Stephen Nichol’s survey done by LifeWay Research for Ligonier Ministries. Below are screen shots of tables showing the various survey results and a few comments on how these bear on Prometheus’ question.

How Orthodox are American Orthodox?

Unlike the Lifeway survey of American Evangelicals which asked a number detailed doctrinal questions, the Orthodox survey combined questions of doctrine with orthopraxy (right practice). It found that nearly all respondents affirmed Jesus’ bodily resurrection (98%) and the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist (97%). What is striking about the survey research is that when it comes to doctrine, both cradle Orthodox and converts are on the same page; the difference being 1% or less. With respect to orthopraxy converts tend to be more conservative than cradle Orthodox.

A search of Krindatch’s report for “Trinity” yields only 2 results. We know that American Orthodox are exposed to the Church’s teaching on Trinity every time they attend church but we can only guess as to how well American Orthodox understand the Church’s teaching on baptism. Further research is needed. (Figure 78, p. 160)

How Many Believe the Orthodox Church is the True Church?

The question was asked with respect to whether there were multiple interpretations of the Christian faith or the Orthodox Church being the closest to the “best and true interpretation”? The survey found a strong majority (80%) supporting the position that the Orthodox Church is the closest to the best and true interpretation. Members of the OCA tended to be slightly more conservative than the Greek Orthodox respondents on this issue. (Figure 68, p. 146)

Liberal, Moderate, Traditional, or Conservative?

One interesting question in Krindatch’s survey was how Orthodox Christians identified themselves on a scale from liberal to conservative with respect to church life. It may surprise some that the “liberal” Orthodox are a very small minority, 4%. But while the “liberals” are those who favor change in the Orthodox church, the “moderates” who are open to change make up nearly a quarter of the respondents. Probably, the most significant finding is that a strong majority (almost 70%) identify themselves as either “traditional” or “conservative.” This point to a strong sense of stability in American Orthodoxy. (Figure 5, p. 14)

Self-Confidence in Explaining Orthodoxy to Others

There is a stereotype of the typical Orthodox Christian not being able to explain what he or she believes to others. It is a pleasant surprise that nearly half of Orthodox Christians who have not had a college education and slightly more than two thirds of those who graduated with a college degree feel confident to explain Orthodoxy to others. The flip side of this is that nearly a quarter of those with a college degree and slightly more than a third did not share this confidence. While there is room for improvement in Christian education among American Orthodox, the stereotype of an inarticulate Orthodox is largely a myth. (Figure 71, p. 151)

Conclusion

Survey research questions about theology like that asked of American Evangelicals while helpful have in-built limitations from an Orthodox standpoint. Orthodoxy does not give rote “propositional truth” statements the same kind of premium as does Protestantism. So it is not as critical for an Orthodox believer to be able to spit out the “right answer” to all theological questions. That said, an Orthodox Christian is expected to have self-consciously embraced the Creed and Councils of the Church as providing a fence against heresies. This fence prevents the theological free fall so often seen in Protestant circles. Neither of these are a substitute or excuse for weak understanding of the faith among Orthodox.

Robert Arakaki

An Orthodox Remedy for Evangelicalism’s Heresy Epidemic

January 11, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 12 Comments

A significant proportion of American Evangelicals hold views that are at odds with the historic Christian faith.

This is the finding of a Christianity Today article: “New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies” (October 2014). The survey was done by LifeWay Research for Ligonier Ministries.

The Problem: Evangelicalism Infected by Heresies

The good news is that the majority of self-identified Evangelical do believe in key doctrines like Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (96%), salvation through Jesus alone (92%), God’s sovereignty over all people (89%), and the Bible as the Word of God (88%).

The bad news is that while the majority of Evangelicals affirmed belief in the Trinity (96%) and Jesus’ divinity (88%), nearly a quarter (22%) were of the opinion that God the Father is more divine than Jesus. Disturbingly, a sizable minority (16%) say Jesus was the first creature by God and 11% were not sure. This is disturbing because this echoes the ancient heresy of Arianism that was repudiated at the Council of Nicea (AD 325). Just as disturbing was the finding that slightly more than half (51%) said the Holy Spirit is a force, not a personal being. This echoes another ancient heresy that was condemned at the Council of Constantinople (AD 381).

Evangelical Solution: More Adult Education

Kevin Emmert who authored the Christianity Today article presents an Evangelical solution: better adult Christian education. He cites retired Asbury College professor Howard Snyder sees the need for clearer teaching on the Trinity. Stephen Nichols of Ligonier Ministries urged Evangelicals to learn from the historic church and to use creeds in their personal discipleship, steps many low church Evangelicals would find radical.

Mainline Protestant Solution: Return to Classic Sola Scriptura

Matthew Block wrote a response article for First Things: “Misreading Scripture Alone: How We Ended Up Heretics.” He is of the opinion that the reason for the prevalence of these heresies lie with the extreme version of Sola Scriptura – “All I need is me and my Bible” – among Evangelicals. He calls for a return to the classic version of Sola Scriptura which eschews an individualistic approach to Scripture and favors reading Scripture in the context of the church tradition.

This is a more accurate understanding of the Reformation understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition (and, indeed, explains why Lutherans can consider the Lutheran Symbols authoritative). We cannot simply reject the history of the Church. True, where Tradition is appealed to as a source of new dogma, we are right to resist it. But when Tradition codifies and clearly re-presents the teachings of Scripture, it is to be accepted as a norming influence on our individual reading of Scripture. (Emphasis added.)

Here we see Matthew Block, unlike many Evangelicals, boldly affirming the role of capital “T” Tradition. His remedy to the heresy epidemic is classic Protestantism. While his remedy sounds much like Orthodoxy there are some fundamental differences in the way classical Protestantism and Orthodoxy understand Scripture and Tradition.

In what follows I will examine: (1) how Orthodoxy’s living Tradition differs from that proposed by Mr. Block and (2) how Orthodoxy’s Holy Tradition offers an efficacious remedy against the heresy epidemic troubling contemporary Evangelicalism.

Where’s the Church?

Matthew Block’s high view of the church can be seen in his use of capital “C” Church. He writes:

But Scripture was not given for the benefit of you or me alone. Instead, it was given for the benefit of the Church, throughout history and throughout the world. Consequently, we ought to read Scripture together as a Church. The Church as a body has centuries of experience of reading the Word, of immersing itself in the language of God. (Emphasis added.)

This statement is something that an Orthodox Christian can easily agree with. But what does Matthew Block mean by the “Church”? Does “Church” apply only to the Lutherans? Does “Church” apply to other Protestants like the Reformed and the low church Evangelicals? Does he include also the Anglicans?

Priest and Bishop at the Eucharist

Orthodoxy understands “Church” to comprise the local Eucharistic assembly under the leadership of the bishop. Historically, the bishop was viewed as the successor to the Apostles and the guardian of Apostolic Tradition. Christianity from its early days was episcopal in structure. Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers, stressed the importance of the church being under the bishop. It is important to keep in mind that Ignatius’ church in Antioch was the home church of Paul and Barnabas, and of Mark who later wrote the Gospel of Mark (see Acts 13:1-3, 15:37). Ignatius thus represents the mainstream view of the early Church in the statements below. He writes:

See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.1; emphasis added.)

For Ignatius the office of the bishop was integral to the existence of the Church.

Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as the bishop is also a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles. Without these the name of “Church” is not given. (Letter to the Trallians 3.1; emphasis added.)

And for Ignatius, there could be no valid Eucharist apart from the bishop.

Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he appoints. . . . . It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an “agape” without the bishop . . . . (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.2; emphasis added)

In Orthodoxy it is expected that a local church will celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday and that the local parish priest be under the authority of a bishop. The office of the bishop was the universal norm in Christianity until the Reformation in the 1500s. So I find it puzzling that Matthew Block is vague as to what he means by “Church” when early Christian Tradition is clear about the church being under the bishop. The Lutheran tradition allows for “bishops,” but it does not regard the episcopacy as universally normative. For the Orthodox the bishop links the local church to the Church Catholic around the world and provides an unbroken historical ink to the Apostles, a claim that Lutherans cannot make.

Orthodox Solution: Living Tradition

Protestantism can be said to be a religion of books. In addition to the Bible as the supreme authority, for Matthew Block there is also the Lutheran Symbols, i.e., the Book of Confessions, for Reformed Christians there are the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. There is also a tendency among Protestants to produce thick tomes called systematic theology in which doctrines derived from the Bible are laid out in a neat orderly manner.

Orthodoxy is based on Living Tradition. In Orthodoxy Scripture is inseparable from Tradition. Paul taught that Tradition is both oral and written (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Holy Tradition and the Church comprise one organic whole. Matt Ferdelman put it so well in a recent posting.

The Church is the living Tradition of faith handed down from the Apostles and maintained by the Spirit of Truth from the beginning until today. It is an unbroken stream of right doctrine and right worship to which individuals unite themselves. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and she cannot be divided. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

The Flow of Holy Tradition

The river metaphor is rooted in the mystery of Pentecost when Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit on the Church to guide her into all truth and to empower her to be his witnesses in all the world (John 16:13, Acts 1:8). Becoming Orthodox is like stepping into a mighty river of grace and mercy. We start off in the shallow end and over time we progress into the deep waters.

A good entry point for stream of living Tradition is the Liturgy. Sunday worship in Orthodoxy is rooted in Apostolic Tradition. We celebrate the Lord’s Supper because “We’ve always done it this way.” We don’t do the Eucharist because a group of theologians after studying the Bible drew up a set of guidelines on how to celebrate the Eucharist. The Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist is part of the traditioning process. Paul wrote: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread . . . .” (1 Corinthians 11:23) The church in Corinth was already doing the Liturgy based on Paul’s oral tradition when it received Paul’s letter. So when my priest prays over the bread and wine I am very conscious that he is part of an ancient chain of tradition going back the first Eucharist celebrated by Christ.

Reciting the Nicene Creed in Overland Park, Kansas

The Liturgy is a powerful way to learn about the Trinity. The Liturgy does not so much explain the Trinity as it leads us into the worship of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At every Sunday Liturgy we recite the Nicene Creed (AD 325) which confesses faith in God the Father and affirms the full divinity of Jesus Christ. Every Sunday I hear the words: “Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father” that teach in no uncertain terms Jesus’ divine nature. Every Sunday we also recite the expanded version approved by the Second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) which affirms the divinity of the Holy Spirit: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” The numerous litanies (set prayers) all close with reference to the Trinity. This repeated exposure to the worship of the Trinity has deepened my appreciation of God as Trinity.

The Liturgy is an acted out metanarrative. Beginning with the Saturday evening Vespers which recounts the narrative of creation, fall, and hope, it then culminates on Sunday morning in the narrative of the Incarnation, Christ’s death on the Cross, and his third day Resurrection. The Liturgy links the Last Supper in the Upper Room to the Messianic Banquet of the Age to Come. At every Liturgy we are reminded of Christ’s first coming when he died on the Cross for our sins and of Christ’s Second Coming and our standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ. In all this we are taught or reminded of God’s work of redemption in historical figures like Constantine and Helen, Kyril and Methodios, Joachim and Anna, Nicholas of Myra, John Chrysostom, Mary of Egypt, Moses the Black, Nicholas of Japan, Herman of Alaska, et al. Orthodox worship in its totality – Saturday Vespers, Sunday Matins, and Sunday Liturgy—comprise an ongoing adult Christian education in chant and song. As a church history major I used to learn about church history by reading books, now I find myself exposed to a constant stream of lessons about Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, Church Fathers, and the Saints just by going to church!

Living Tradition requires people of vibrant faith. It comprises families who faithfully attend the Sunday services and follow Christ’s teachings during the week, priests who joyfully lead the congregation in worship and diligently exposit the Scripture, bishops who shepherd the flock under their care and have a missionary heart, and monastics who devote their lives to prayer and worship. Without this vibrant faith Orthodoxy becomes vulnerable to nominalism, ritualism, and ethnocentrism. This danger is all too real given the fact that there are people for whom Orthodoxy is mostly their ethnic identity; many are woefully ignorant of Orthodoxy’s rich heritage or they like hearing the Liturgy in the language of the old country even if they don’t understand what is being prayed. When an Orthodox priest attempted to correct the erroneous views of a parishioner he made reference to the ancient hymn “Monogenes” (Only Begotten). He said: ”You’ve been singing this hymn all the time!,” only to find out that she didn’t understand the hymn because it was sung in Greek! Living Tradition requires that the Liturgy be accessible to the congregation in their language. In the case of the US the dominant language is English.

The Orthodox Church is like a well endowed hospital with superbly trained doctors and based on best practices. The healing of sick souls calls for deep, radical treatment. It also requires long term therapy to help patients regain their health. This high level of care requires diligence and commitment on the part of the patients, the physicians, and the support staff. Breakdown in discipline and order can result in infections, and if left unchecked an outbreak of heresy and sinful behavior. Having the true Faith is not grounds for pride and complacency, but a call to gratitude, humility, and diligence.

Conclusion

Survey researchs like that published in Christianity Today are like snapshots taken at a specific point in time. What is needed is a historical analysis so we can understand the underlying cause. A review of recent history shows Protestantism to be especially vulnerable to theological decay and heresy. Protestant history is full of examples of mainline denominations succumbing to heresy and theological conservatives retreating into another smaller denomination. Many mainline Protestant seminaries have become vectors for heresy with the result that future pastors go on to infect their local congregations. Why is that? I argue in “Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw” that the classic doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the underlying reason for this heresy epidemic. Protestantism views Tradition as valuable but not equal to Scripture in authority and can therefore be subject to revision as the Church’s understanding of Scripture change over time. This makes Protestants susceptible to a cafeteria style pick-and-choose mentality to church tradition. Thus, Sola Scriptura impairs Protestantism’s ability to maintain right doctrine and practice So while the proposed Evangelical and Protestant solutions are good, they are inadequate for dealing with epidemic of heresies.

In Orthodoxy Scripture and Tradition are organically linked giving it a stability largely absent among Protestants and Evangelicals. This is ironically validated by the complaint by Protestant critics that Orthodox theology is “stagnant.” Holy Tradition has blessed Orthodoxy with a stability in faith and worship that offers the best hope for protection against the heresy epidemic currently raging unchecked among Evangelicals. For those of us who have ventured from Protestantism into Orthodoxy’s stream of living Tradition have found it full of truth, mercy, and healing.

Robert Arakaki

References

Matthew Block. “Misreading Scripture Alone: How We Ended Up Heretics.” First Things, 29 October 2014.

Kevin P. Emmert. “New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies.” Christianity Today, 28 October 2014.

Why I’m Becoming Orthodox (3 of 3)

January 3, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 35 Comments

Part 3 Why I Became Orthodox – I Always Was

by Matt Ferdelman

Matt Ferdelman and son

Today’s posting is by Matt Ferdelman. Welcome Matt!

Matt Ferdelman is a catechumen at St. Paul the Apostle Orthodox Church in Dayton, Ohio.

Matt was born into the Pentecostal church where he attended for the first 17 years of his life. In 2008 he began the process of becoming a five-point Calvinist at Apex Community Church in Kettering, OH, where he remained until his conversion to Orthodoxy in November 2014.

After marrying his wife Erin in 2011, he finished his Bachelor’s and Master’s of Science in Accountancy at Wright State University in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Matt now works as a CPA in a small accounting firm downtown, and spends his free time entering deeper into Orthodox theology and life, and playing with his two young boys, ages 2 and 3 months.

This is the third installment of a multi-part series. Part 1 “Scripture and Tradition” Part 2 “Why I Deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement”

The further I dive into Orthodox life, doxology, and theology, the more strongly I get the impression I have always done and believed these things and worshipped in this way. Or, at least, I have always attempted to worship in this way. Orthodoxy for me was like a light switch going on, illuminating parts of my faith which had been dark since the beginning. A candle had been lit and burned, but it not yet become a lamp. With a great many topics of Orthodox theology, as I began to study I realized Orthodoxy said what I had been trying to articulate for years. I see in my past clear signs of God’s work to prepare me for the Orthodox faith, in prayers he placed in my heart and desires that developed within me.

Let me walk you through some of these developments.

Icon – Holy Transfiguration

A. Theosis

I remember from my early teen years thinking often on the doctrine of Sanctification. In Sanctification we become more and more like God, forsaking sin and attaining to his level of righteousness. Really, this idea is quite incredible. As time goes on, we start to look more and more like the risen Son. We forsake idols and seek him and, like Moses, our faces begin to shine from the close encounters we have with God. The more sanctified we become, the closer we get to God.

At some point I began to consider the implications and limits of Sanctification. All the teachers I listened to seemed to have this idea that Sanctification ends when you die. After death, we are made perfect and there is no need for us to become more like God. Once the death of our physical body occurs, we are free from sin, which is perfection. I fully believed we would be without sin once we died, but I wasn’t so sure that we would stop becoming like God. I mean, God is infinitely perfect, right? That means he’s not just free from sin. Being free from sin would just be tabula rasa – it would make you a blank slate. But being free from sin is not the same thing as having righteousness. In life we are not called to just stop sinning; we are called from that to the act of love for God and man. If we are to seek to be like God in this life, why not in the next also? I reasoned that God would want us to become more and more like him after we are with him too. Because God is infinite there would never be an end to us becoming like him. There would always be some level of perfection above and beyond the level we had already achieved. One can understand this partially by comparison to technology. Personal computers currently are very powerful machines. They crunch numbers for us, help us communicate with each other, and serve as centers for entertainment. But every month better and technology is developed. Better processors are built. Clearer screens are made. Lighter laptops are tested in the field. There is no foreseeable end to the improvements we could make through technology. Becoming like God is similar in this way.

I thought like this and rigorously checked my logic through most of my teenage years. In my junior year of high school I solidified my claim to this doctrine. At that time I bought my first ipod. When you order from the Apple store, you have the option to inscribe something on the back of your ipod. After much deliberation, I chose these words:

I have been humbled by

The Art of Becoming God

At first, the words felt like blasphemy, but I couldn’t escape the thought that we were meant to become like God, and that we were meant to do so for eternity. Becoming like God forever logically seemed to follow from the doctrine of Sanctification. But I also knew I couldn’t say that we actually became God. That would obviously be heresy. Still, I chose these words to express the mystery to which I joined myself, hoping that its meaning would one day become clear to me … And so it has.

What I did not realize at the time was that I had inadvertently expressed the Orthodox doctrine of Theosis. Theosis for the Orthodox is the very purpose of salvation. Jesus came to earth to take away our sins, free us from death, and build a bridge that we could take to be unified with God. Theosis is that process by which we are unified to God. It is the everlasting deification of man into the likeness of God. The part about this that simply confounds me is that I had never heard the doctrine of Theosis before I had its meaning engraved on my ipod. The only exposure I had to Orthodoxy prior to that was a minimal coverage in history class. At the time I was not drawn to Orthodoxy at all, and only had a vague impression that it was a form of Christianity that had been overly-influenced by Buddhism and had lost the faith. I think I might I have gotten this idea from my history class, but I am not entirely certain. In any case, I had not studied anything about Orthodoxy, and yet their doctrine was engraved upon my life.

The reason I thought my extrapolation on Sanctification might be heresy is because at that time I was not aware of the Essence vs. Energy distinction. God in his Essence is unknowable. But God’s Energies are knowable and we can relate to them. Theosis is the process of unifying ourselves to the Energies of God. To help explain this, think of your relationship with your spouse or a really good friend. You do not know their heart. No one knows a man’s heart except the spirit within that man. But we do know what that person is like based on how they act, what they do, and what they say. We experience their emotions because they express them. The essence of a human is their heart, to which no other human can be united. But their actions are knowable and other humans can relate using actions. In the same way, we can understand God by his actions, his Energies, and seek to become like him in every way possible. We become gods by grace, but not by nature.

If you want to read more on this, check out these two interesting Wikipedia articles: Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology) and Essence–Energies distinction.

B. Hell

I find it most interesting that the teachers I was drawn to most in the Protestant church were those that expounded one or more Orthodox-leaning views. At times I was enthralled by teachers that taught doctrines opposed to those of the Orthodox Church but, as time went on, I steadily stopped listening to these preachers, finding the goal of their teaching to be unedifying. The teachers to whom I was most drawn and still am were C.S. Lewis, Timothy Keller, and N.T. Wright. All these teachers have expressed views of either the atonement or hell which are similar in some regards to Orthodoxy theology.

C.S. Lewis and Timothy Keller espouse views of hell that are quite different from those most often taught in the Protestant church. Both Lewis and Keller have explained that hell is a place locked from the inside. Hell is, in their view, not a prison system to which God sends those whom he dislikes to be tortured for eternity, but a state of mind in which a human chooses some good thing above God. That good thing ultimately cannot satisfy, and yet the human that clings to it keeps looking to that good thing to fulfill his deepest desires. In our own lives we see this in things like the worship of spouses and drugs. When we look to our spouses for our sense of meaning, as a sort of god, we grow impatient when they fail our expectations. We continually desire they replace God in our lives, and we are continually disappointed, since they cannot. Every time they fail some standard we have set, we make another loop in the cycle of expectation and disappointment. This cycle, if left unchecked, can go on for eternity and lead to insanity. Likewise with drug addictions, the addict seeks more and more pleasure from increasingly high doses of substances. Every time a high is reached, chemical changes in the brain make a larger dosage in the future necessary to achieve the same level of euphoria. Eventually, there won’t be enough of that substance on the planet to satiate one’s desire. A infinite cycle has been started. And the only end it to which it leads is dissatisfaction and turmoil.

Ungoliant Attacking the Tree of Life

I am reminded also of the character Ungoliant in J.R.R. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings. For those who have read or watched tales of Middle Earth, Shelob and the spiders of Mirkwood are descendents of Ungoliant. Tolkein, a personal friend of Lewis, describes Ungoliant as a giant venomous spider that teamed up with Melchor, a Satanic archetype, to destroy the tree of life at the center of the city of the Valor. Ungoliant pounced upon the tree and sucked its dry, gorging herself upon its life, but receiving no life thereby. She became so large, in fact, that she frightened the powerful Melchor, who in his might had known little fear prior to that day. Later in the story, Melchor steals three of the most precious gems on earth out of jealousy for their glory. Ungoliant demands he give the diamonds to her that she might consume them. Unwillingly, he delivers two of them into her maw. But even after swallowing such beauty, she is unsatisfied. In the end, Ungoliant prowls the earth, seeking whom she may devour. But her hunger becomes so great that no food or glory or weight on earth can fill her. So, at the last, she consumes herself.

This is the view of hell espoused by Lewis and Keller, and one to which I was drawn as soon as I heard it. It made a lot more sense than the view of hell as a place where God is actively involved in torturing unrepentant sinners. Because, though I tried very hard over many years, and with a sincere heart, I simply couldn’t bring myself to love a god that would do that. Whenever I dwelt on a punitive idea of hell, I could no longer approach God by faith within my heart. I was separated.

What I did not realize at that time was that the view of hell to which I had ascribed through Keller was inconsistent with my belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). See, if God doesn’t torture anyone for eternity in hell against their will, then he didn’t need to stop himself from doing so by placing all that misery on Jesus at the cross. Jesus’ work saves us from hell. In PSA, Jesus went through hell so we wouldn’t have to. But if hell is not punitive, neither was the cross. Because Orthodoxy denies PSA, it likewise denies a penal view of hell. My beliefs from long ago were inconsistent with PSA, though at the time I did not take my belief about hell and apply it logically to my beliefs concerning the atonement. But God in his mercy helped me in his good timing.

I likewise have been drawn toward the teachings of N.T. Wright for many years. Both he and Keller explain Jesus’ salvific work in a more holistic manner than do the teachings of most others I knew at the time. They both explain salvation as a cosmic restoration of creation – all of it – and a reunification of the created order to God. (Just listen to how many times either of them uses the word “cosmic” in a sermon. It’s quite amusing actually.) Because of this, I was most intrigued to learn N.T. Wright denies Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I was not aware of this until I started studying PSA just a few months ago. But given Wright’s studies on the history of the Church and his cosmic view of salvation, his denial of PSA shouldn’t be surprising.

Now, I know there is some confusion as to what precisely Wright believes. While I have not read extensively on Wright’s musings on the atonement, I did see one video where he explained his view that I believe makes his doctrine clear. In that video the interviewer asked point blank “Do you deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement?” Wright responded by saying “Yes, I believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but I deny the Anselmian view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.” He then went on to explain that the Jews of Jesus’ time were under punishment from God in the form of Roman rule. Jesus was killed by the Romans using crucifixion, thus bearing the wrath of God toward the Jews and, by extension, everyone who would believe in Jesus. But this view is entirely different from the view of PSA currently held. The Anselmian view explains that Jesus suffered an infinite punishment from the Father at the cross. But Wright’s explanation says Jesus suffered a finite amount of punishment. Really, the idea Wright is expressing is entirely different from what Anselm and Calvin taught and what most Protestants have believed for centuries. Though I do not know his heart, I would guess Wright believes PSA is false, but realizes that if he just comes out and says that point blank, he will lose a great part of his audience, and have less opportunity to help people understand why he denies it. So, for the time being, he has masked part of his belief for the benefit of others.

Interestingly, Wright and Keller appear to hold the opposite sides of the same coin. Wright denies PSA. Keller denies the hell that results from PSA. Yet I have never heard Wright say that he denies a punitive view of hell. Nor have I heard Keller says he denies PSA. To be logically consistent, though, these men must hold to the other’s belief. I look forward to seeing how their theology develops and/or is revealed in the future.

God as Mystery

C. Mystery

I have always been fascinated by mystery. Whenever I have run across a theological concept that baffles me, I study and study it and soak in its ideas and implications. I can’t get enough of it. The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Virgin Birth, the Eternity of God, the Omnipresence of God – I ate up these doctrines. After watching the Fellowship of the Ring in my teenage years I started reading Tolkein and Lewis extensively. I have loved all of Tolkein’s works, especially the Silmarillion, and greatly enjoyed Lewis’ Space Trilogy. These books and my love for the unknowable developed in me an appreciation of Mystery. I tried to understand the greatest concepts and ideas I could find. But when I did so I did not begin to think I was something special or that I had attained some level of knowledge beyond my fellow man. Actually, the opposite happened. I realized rather quickly in dwelling on these things in my teenage years that I simply couldn’t get it. My logic could only take me so far. There was an end to reason, and I had reached it. I took the road as far it went. I found myself consistently saying “I don’t know.”

Scripture and other forms of revelation only show us part of the picture of creation and of God’s nature. But even if God had written down for us every scientific detail and description of who he is and what he’s been doing for eternity, we still could not understand. As Jesus said to his disciples “I have many things to tell you, but you are not yet ready for them.” So too no human can ascend to God by his own will and understanding. God doesn’t leave us in the dark on purpose, but is patient, waiting until we are ready to receive more of who he is.

From these musings I realized I couldn’t expect to figure out how God did everything. I could at least understand part of how it worked. But for now I only see through a glass darkly. I do not yet know fully as I have been fully known.

When I began to study Orthodox theology, I soon came across their apophatic approach to explaining who God is. In this method, they say what God is not, as opposed to what He is. So while it is true to say God is love, the Orthodox will often respond by saying it is more accurate to say God is not evil. Speaking of God in positive terms is called cataphatic theology. Speaking of God in negative terms (saying what God is not) is called apophatic theology. This apophatic approach comes from the realization that there is much that has not been revealed to us and that there is much we simply cannot understand. Apophatic theology is a humble acquiescence to the mystery of God’s existence and ways, a form of divine worship in which we bow to the unknowable essence of the I Am.

This mystery is extended by the Orthodox to their understanding of the sacraments. They believe, contrary to Protestant belief, that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. How does this happen? They don’t have an answer. They recognize that Christ told us Communion was his body and blood, but they don’t know exactly how God accomplishes this. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, they do not hold strictly to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Likewise, they recognize Baptism is not just a token of one’s faith in Jesus, but a participation in the death and resurrection of our Lord, a Pascha of the future and the past brought into the present.

In all of these things, the Orthodox recognize that we cannot approach God by rationalistic logic. Logic and reason only take us so far. The reduction of the Sacraments by the reformers to mere tokens or symbols was based in part on the Scholastic reasoning that had developed through the Medieval period. Today that rationalism is seen in naturalistic science which seeks to explain the entire created order through observation and reason. Science has provided us with many wonderful things. But naturalistic science assumes the natural, observable world is all that exists. It assumes only the material exists. It cannot, by its own definition, observe or experiment upon other dimensions or modes of being. It is limited. Much of the reductionism applied to the sacraments and the mysteries of God, however, is due to this rationalistic approach.

The Orthodox Church recognizes the mystery of God’s ways and worship him for it. They teach the Theosis of man into the image of God. They proclaim the doctrines to which I have held, though I did so then in an incomplete manner.

In my studies on Orthodoxy I keep finding myself saying “But this is what I always believed.” Orthodoxy is the full revelation of the partial faith I had in some areas and is the explanation to the questions with which I struggled with in others. In fact, the more I think about it the more I begin to see my journey parallel that of Israel. Under Moses, God gave his chosen nation a partial revelation of his will and character. He gave Moses the law to keep the people until the time of full revelation should come and to train them to recognize the Messiah when he appeared. In many ways, this describes my life in the Protestant church. I will be forever grateful to my shepherds there, but from it I did not receive a full revelation of God. There I was first taught how to begin to know God. I began to see his works in all of creation. I learned in part how to worship. I learned in part how to believe and trust him.

But when the fullness of time came God gave to me the fullness of his revelation. When once I understood in part, God in Christ demonstrated to me the entirety of whom he was and the intentions behind his actions. While I used to approach God with uncertainty, now I approach with full confidence in the knowledge of the Son. While I understood God wanted to save humanity, now I see he wishes to restore all things. While I used to offer the sacrifice of guilt, I now offer my very self. While I used to worship in part, now I worship in spirit and in truth. What I knew was like a tutor preparing me for the coming of the Messiah. But when the new comes, the old passes away.

Really, the Orthodox Church is God’s answer to every prayer I have ever prayed – my desire to be like God, my desire to seek him, my desire to know his love, my desire to understand his intentions, my desire to be united with him. In his mercy and perfect timing, he has delivered to me true faith and understanding and enlightenment in the knowledge of his Son, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Now I say with peace that I am not a stranger to God. I know him because he has shown himself to me. He is merciful to those that seek him. I am no longer a sojourner. I am home.

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 38 of 94

What American Orthodox Believe: A Survey

An Orthodox Remedy for Evangelicalism’s Heresy Epidemic

Why I’m Becoming Orthodox (3 of 3)

Today’s posting is by Matt Ferdelman. Welcome Matt!

Matt Ferdelman is a catechumen at St. Paul the Apostle Orthodox Church in Dayton, Ohio.

Matt was born into the Pentecostal church where he attended for the first 17 years of his life. In 2008 he began the process of becoming a five-point Calvinist at Apex Community Church in Kettering, OH, where he remained until his conversion to Orthodoxy in November 2014.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives