Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Page 44 of 93

Ascension Day and the Great Commission

 

Great CommissionThe feast of the Ascension is one of the major feast days of the Orthodox Church.  On this day our Lord Jesus Christ is taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.  This prepares the way for the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

The feast of the Ascension is also significant because it is the day Christ gave the Great Commission to his apostles.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.  (Matthew 28:18-20)

The Great Commission can be viewed as an enthronement speech given by the suzerain (king) at his coronation.  In more modern terms the Great Commission is like the newly elected American president giving his inaugural address to the nation and the world.  In it he lays out the agenda and priorities for his administration.

The Great Commission passage is more than a collection of last words or parting instructions by Jesus before he goes away.  Matthew frames it using covenant language.  In the ancient Near Eastern treaties the suzerain (ruler) recounts his might deeds or his conquests to his prospective vassals (followers).  The accounts of healing, exorcisms, and signs and wonders in Matthew’s Gospel announces the mighty acts by the suzerain.  The passion narratives also recounts the mighty acts by the suzerain.  Jesus by his death and resurrection having defeated Death the last enemy now proceeds to reclaim what belongs to him (1 Corinthians 15:24-27).  He sends out his Apostles into the world as heralds of the kingdom of God who invite the nations to submit to the rule of Christ.  To become Christ’s disciple is to submit to his kingly authority.  Covenant initiation is done through baptism into the name of the Suzerain. This calls for fealty (personal relationship) between the vassal and the lord.  If a Reformed Christian attends an Orthodox baptism he will hear strong covenant language. The baptized joins himself to Christ and accepts Christ as king.  After baptism one is no longer one’s own person but Christ’s.

The baptismal formula has an interesting grammatical structure; “name” is singular but is followed by three subsequent names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  This point to the doctrine of the Trinity: we are baptized into one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Another important grammatical aspect of the command to baptize is the collective pronoun “them,” a reference to the nations (ethne, εθνη).    While Christian baptism is profoundly personal, it also has a corporate dimension.  It is an affirmation of our unique ethnic identities.  The early Christians baptized families and social groups.  Paul baptized entire households (Acts 16:31-34, 18:8); later entire nations like the Russian people in the tenth century.  God’s redemptive work in Christ aims at the restoration of fallen humanity through union with Christ (Ephesians 1:10, 3:14-15).

People often misquote the Great Commission when they say: “teaching them everything I have commanded you,” when the actual words are “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (NIV).  Christian discipleship is not about learning a set of doctrines as it is adopting a lifestyle based on Christ’s teachings.  The phrase “everything I have commanded you” is the basis for Holy Tradition which comprises both written and oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15).  That is why Orthodox catechesis emphasizes not just learning a system of doctrines but also learning a way of worship and a set of spiritual disciplines.

Jesus closes the Great Commission using eschatological language.  The phrase “I am with you,” echoes Haggai 1:13: “I am with you, says the LORD” and strongly implies Jesus’ divinity.  It also echoes Isaiah 7:14 which promised that through the promised Messiah God would be with his people.  Furthermore, when Jesus promised “I am with you always” he was asserting his divinity.  In Matthew 28:18 Jesus asserted the universality of his lordship across space, heaven and earth; here Jesus is asserting the eternality of his rule in time.  Many Christians today take for granted Jesus’ divinity but for early Christians, especially for Jews, this was astounding in its audacity.  Jesus’ divinity would become a major issue that would result in the convening of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325 and the Nicene Creed.

 

The Orthodox Church and Missions

The history of Orthodox Christianity can be viewed as a history of Christian missions.  In the first three centuries the Church evangelized the Roman Empire which gave rise to the emergence of a Christian civilization.  Following that the Gospel was brought to the Western frontiers of the Roman Empire.  Saint Boniface evangelized Gaul (France) and Saints Patrick and Columba evangelized Ireland and Scotland.  Saints Cyril and Methodius brought the Gospel to the Slavs in the tenth century.

More recently, Orthodox missionaries like Saint Herman and Saint Innocent brought the Gospel to the natives of Alaska in the eighteenth century.  Orthodox missions in the twenty first century has resulted in conversions among the Mayans in Central America and the Turkana peoples in East Africa.  There is a growing interest in Orthodoxy in the Philippines and in Indonesia.

 

 

There is a mistaken perception among Orthodox and non-Orthodox that the Orthodox Church does not do missionarywork.  This is obviously not the case!

This Ascension Day celebration should be a reminder for Orthodox Christians to commit their lives to help bring the Gospel to all nations.  Fr. Luke Veronis wrote:

Missions does not simply represent a “nice” task of the Church, but it summarizes the essence of who we are as Orthodox Christians, and it embodies the very nature of the Church. Archbishop Anastasios emphasizes this in another way, “Missions is a part of the DNA of the Church’s genetic makeup.”

Robert Arakaki

 

See also

Fr. Luke Veronis.  “Our Orthodox Faith and the Centrality of Missions.”

OCMC  (Orthodox  Christians Missions Center)

Fr. Martin Ritsi.  “The What, Where, When, and Why of Orthodox Missions.”

Concerning “Eternal” Marriage

Orthodox wedding - the crowning of the couple

Orthodox wedding – the crowning of the couple

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have received several inquiries about the Orthodox understanding of marriage, especially with respect to “eternal” marriage. I am grateful for Isaiah’s help with this important question. Robert

By Fr. Isaiah Gillette

Is marriage forever? Well, yes… and no.

In penning a few thoughts about the Orthodox understanding of marriage, and how it does and does not carry over into the Kingdom of Heaven, I found the single best source for scriptural and patristic teaching to be a recently-published book by Archpriest Josiah Trenham: Marriage and Virginity According to St. John Chrysostom, especially Chapter Six, “Celestial Bodies and the Union of Souls: Life in the Eschaton.”

St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), the “Golden Mouth,” is recognized by the Orthodox Church as the foremost of the Fathers of the Church, and its greatest homilist. His preaching and teaching were always pastoral, directly concerned with the salvation of his hearers. Fr. Josiah Trenham has distilled St. John’s teaching on the subject from his many homilies, especially on St. Paul’s teaching on the Resurrection in First Corinthians, as well as Chrysostom’s essay On Virginity, and his Letter to a Young Widow (see bibliography).

To properly understand marriage, one must develop a proper anthropology: What is a human being? St. John’s anthropology was both protological  and eschatological, i.e. it took into account God’s purpose in the creation of man, and His redemptive purpose from our resurrection and restoration in the Kingdom. Chrysostom found and expounded the deep connection between the creation of the world and its resurrection, and a deep Christian conviction of the resurrection of the body in particular. The Transfiguration of Christ (Mt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:2-8; Lk. 9:28-36) serves as a prefiguring of our resurrection. Chrysostom uses the well-known patristic analogy of a sword thrust into a fire: the iron, while retaining its own properties, is interpenetrated by the heat of the fire. As iron, it cuts; but it also burns like fire. Likewise, in the Transfiguration, Christ’s human nature is shown to be interpenetrated by His divine nature. In His human nature, Christ eats, sleeps, and mourns for Lazarus. In His divine nature, He walks on water and raises the dead.

 

Continuity and Discontinuity

In Christ’s resurrection, He guarantees and models our resurrection. In understanding the state of resurrected humanity in the Kingdom of God, and how that relates to marriage, it is helpful to think in terms of continuity and discontinuity.

On the one hand, there is an essential continuity between our earthly, mortal bodies, and our bodies after the resurrection, just as there is between Christ’s body before and after His resurrection. The scars from the nails and spear were still visible. The body that died on the cross was the same body that was raised. Our human nature remains human nature, even after the attributes are changed (vs. a strictly Gnostic conception of purely spiritual bodies, with no continuity with the mortal ones).

On the other hand, the risen Christ passed through locked doors on the day of His resurrection. This is the discontinuity side. What is sown perishable is raised imperishable; the mortal puts on immortality. “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). So the goal is “neither escape from the body nor satisfaction of the body, but spiritualization of the body” (Trenham, p. 245, emphasis by the author).

If you have stayed with me so far, here is the application of a biblical anthropology and theology of the resurrection, for marriage: there is continuity and discontinuity.

When the Lord spoke to the Sadducees about marriage in heaven (Mt. 22:23-33), He made it clear that “in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” That is, the earthly purposes of marriage, to suppress man’s licentiousness and to procreate, are irrelevant in the Kingdom. All the earthly concerns of a married couple: sexual intercourse, birth-giving, possessions, etc., are part of the “form of this world” which is passing away. “They are like the angels in of God heaven” (Mt. 22:30).

But there is one aspect of marriage that is eternal: “Love never ends” (1 Cor. 13:8). St. John Chrysostom reminds us that married Christians are known to be such in the Judgment and in the Kingdom. We will recognize and delight in our spouses and in our children. We will be restored, not to marriage, but to something better, a union of souls, rather than bodies, a union that begins in marriage and reaches a far more sublime condition (cf. Chrysostom’s Letter to a Young Widow).

This is why the Orthodox Church discourages (but does not prohibit) re-marriage after the death of a spouse. A second or third wedding ceremony (no fourth is allowed) has a somewhat penitential character, recognizing human weakness. St. John urged the young widow to whom he wrote to remain faithful to her husband (the title “husband” is used even after his death), in order to keep alive their bond of love, and eventually to be re-united with him. The Orthodox Church forbids re-marriage to widowed clergy, as a way of upholding this ideal.

 

Till Death Do Us Part?

A couple of notes about the Orthodox wedding ceremony: First, the language of the sacrament does not contain the phrase, ‘Till death us do part. In fact, there are no  vows at all taken by the couple, except to certify that they come to the marriage of their own free will, and have not promised themselves to anyone else. The vows of the Catholic and Protestant West give the marriage a more legal emphasis, rather than the Eastern Church’s emphasis on the blessing of God to effect the union. Second, the climax of an Orthodox wedding ceremony is the crowning, when crowns are placed upon the heads of the bride and groom, signifying the formation of a little outpost of the Kingdom of God in their home, and the crowns of martyrdom, which must be their daily goal, to take up their cross and follow Christ. Near the end of the wedding the crowns are removed with these words: “…receive their crowns into Thy kingdom, preserving them spotless, blameless, and without reproach, unto ages of ages.” On the eighth day of their married life, the couple returns to the Church for a formal removal of the crowns, and again, these words are spoken by the priest:

…preserve their union indissoluble; that they may evermore give thanks unto thine all-holy name, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. 

Closing Thought

All that is strictly earthly in a marriage will pass away. Love remains.

Fr. Isaiah Gillette

 

Recommended Reading:

Trenham, Josiah B. (2013). Marriage and Virginity According to St. John Chrysostom. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.

Writings of St. John Chrysostom:

Homilies on First Corinthians. PG 61. Eng. trans. in NPNF, 1st series, vol 12.

On Virginity. La Virginite (1966). Edited by Herbert Mursurillo and Bernard Grillet. SC 125. Eng. trans.: Sally Rieger Shore (1983). John Chrysostom: On Virginity, Against Remarriage. Studies in Women and Religion 9. New York: Mellen.

To a Young Widow. A une jeune veyvre, Sur Le marriage unique (1968). Edited by Bernard Grillet. SC 138. Eng. trans. in NPNF, 1st series, vol 9.

 Other articles by Fr. Isaiah Gillette

Family Concerns and Converting to Orthodoxy

Called Together

 

birthday-cupcake

 

Our Third Anniversary

Thank you for your support!

 

 

Back to the Future for Protestantism?

 

Future of Protestantism: Peter Leithart, Peter Escalatante, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman

Future of Protestantism: Peter Leithart, Peter Escalante, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman

 

On 29 April 2014, Biola University hosted “The Future of Protestantism,” a panel discussion comprised of Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman.  Brad Littlejohn gave the introduction and Peter Escalante moderated the discussion.  The event was prompted by Leithart’s essay “The End of Protestantism” which appeared in First Things in November 2013.  The essay generated quite a bit of discussion among Evangelicals and this event was designed for Leithart to have a face to face discussion with some of his critics.

The video is long – two and half hours.  To save time one can skip Brad Littlejohn’s 5 minute introduction.  Pastor Leithart’s presentation is only 15 minutes.  He is followed by Fred Sanders and Carl Trueman whose talks are about twenty minutes each.  This is the first hour.  The second hour consists of dialogue among the panelists.  The last half hour consists of questions from the audience.

I am writing this response from the viewpoint of a former insider who is both critical and sympathetic towards contemporary Evangelicalism.

 

Leithart’s “Reformational Catholicism”

Pastor Leithart’s presentation is a vision of what future Protestantism could look like.  It is based more on theological imperatives than on social analysis.  It is more about what Leithart wants to see happen than what he thinks will happen.  I imagine that if he had more time he might have brought in sociological analysis.  This is not to fault him, but it leads to questions that Leithart will hopefully attempt to answer down the road.

In many ways what Peter Leithart called for is nothing new.  It may be new, even startling, for modern Evangelicals but for those who know something about the original Reformation of the 1500s Leithart’s prescription will sound quite familiar.  Basically, what Leithart calls “Reformational Catholicism” is classical Reformation, one that Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, Bucer and others would have been very comfortable and familiar with.  Furthermore, Leithart’s attempt to reappropriate the early church fathers resembles the Mercersburg Theology and Oxford Movement of the 1800s.

Like most Christian bloggers I usually categorize Evangelicals as Protestants.  However, this understanding must be taken with more than a grain of salt.  Many of the original Reformers would question whether present day Evangelicals are Protestants.  Martin Luther abhorred the notion of rejecting infant baptism and strongly believed in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper.  Luther expected Christians to recite the Apostles Creed daily and to make the sign of the Cross in their morning devotion.  John Calvin strongly condemned those who held to a “bare symbol” understanding of Holy Communion and affirmed the visible church as our Mother.  I became aware of all this when I went beyond popular Evangelical publications and began to read up on the Reformers.  The discrepancy between modern day Evangelicalism and the original Reformation caused me to wonder: Are Evangelicals even Protestant?  If one takes a rigorous theological approach one could deny low church Evangelicals and their Pentecostal brethren are Protestant. Charity and intellectual flexibility are needed to classify modern Evangelicals as Protestant.

If Pastor Leithart is calling for Evangelicals to return to their Reformational roots one has to ask why they do not join up with the church bodies with the most direct ties with the original Reformation, the mainline denominations.  The answer is: For the most part mainline Protestant denominations have become apostate.  Many mainline liberals deny the divine inspiration of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, and even his bodily resurrection.  One has to ask: Why have so many of the mainline Protestant denominations and seminaries succumbed to the anti-supernaturalistic rationalism of the European Enlightenment?  In military terms it would be like an embattled battalion retreating to a position that has been taken over by enemy forces.

Evangelicals are the offspring of conservative Protestants who lost the denominational wars in the early twentieth century.  The raging controversies over biblical inerrancy stemmed from the emergence of a new source of knowledge: the autonomous reason of the European Enlightenment and modern science.  In the late twentieth century modern scientific rationalism found itself being displaced by postmodernism.  Will modern day Evangelicalism and Leithart’s Reformational Catholicism be able to withstand the coming onslaught from postmodernism?  I expect that postmodernism will take its toll leaving only a few congregations and seminaries unscathed.  I expect the Protestant brand will still be around by the year 2100, but the content of that future Protestant brand will have been redefined to the point that many of us today will not be able to recognize them as Protestants or even Evangelical!

My pessimism is rooted in what I call Protestantism’s fatal genetic flaw.  Lacking a stable binding hermeneutical framework (Holy Tradition) sola scriptura gives rise to multiple readings of Scripture.  This gives Protestant theology a fluid quality, one that results in theological incoherence.  It also results in numerous church splits as evidenced in Protestantism’s fractured and decentered denominational landscape.  Leithart’s failure to address the sociological consequences of sola scriptura constitutes a serious weakness in his presentation.

The implications for the future of Protestantism are troubling.  The more conservative, classical Protestantism of Luther and Calvin has no future.  It will continue on in declining isolated pockets, while the ahistoric low church Evangelicalism that Leithart deplores will increasingly dominate the Protestant landscape.  Evangelicalism will continue to mutate and adapt to post-modern American/Western society while oblivious to its Reformation heritage.  Pastor Leithart rightly waxes eloquent about the need for Christians to band together but there is little evidence of this becoming a broad trend among Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

 

Getting There From Here

Pastor Leithart’s call for a Reformational Catholicism is fraught with practical difficulties.  He failed to inform his audience how to get there from here.  One, isn’t it likely that a Baptist pastor who institutes weekly communion services and accepts as valid infant baptism will be fired by the church board?  Two, how many independent congregations would be willing to come under a higher church authority with the possibility that they might be forced to embrace foreign or exotic teachings and practices?  Three, who will have the authority to determine doctrine and worship where Scripture is silent or ambiguous?

 

Engaging Former Protestants

One thing that struck me about the conversation was the frequency with which Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy came up.  This raises the question: Can Reformational Catholicism have a future if so many of its best and brightest are converting to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?  The numbers may be small but the caliber of their intellect is impressive.  We are talking here of pastors and theologians exiting Protestantism!  I wish Peter Leithart had spoken on the irony and significance of Jason Stellman who sought to try Leithart on grounds of heresy only to soon after become Roman Catholic!  Then there is Scott Hahn, a Gordon-Conwell Seminary graduate and Presbyterian seminary professor, who converted to Roman Catholicism.  Francis Beckwith was president of the Evangelical Theological Society until he stepped down as a result of his conversion to Catholicism.

Then one has to wonder about Jarsolav Pelikan, a Lutheran pastor and eminent professor of church history, who late in life joined the Orthodox Church.  The group of former Campus Crusade for Christ staff workers and their followers numbering two thousand joined the Orthodox Church in 1987.  Frank Schaeffer, the son of the famous Francis Schaeffer, became disenchanted with Evangelicalism and became Orthodox.  Michael Harper, who worked with the leading Anglican theologian John Stott, converted to Orthodoxy.  Many other younger, bright and serious men (some being Leithart’s students) have headed to Orthodoxy. Rarely a month goes by without hearing of another settled, mature, thoughtful Protestant church leader who after studying the church fathers headed to Orthodoxy.  (See Journey to Orthodoxy)

Thus, Pastor Leithart’s call for ecumenical cooperation and engagement with historic Christianity – Reformational Catholicism — while admirable will likely have unintended consequences for the very cause he so dearly cares about.  The growing permeability and fragmentation along the borders of Evangelicalism while it enriches also allows for easier exits.  The wave of the future may lie, not with Leithart’s Reformational Catholicism, but with people exiting Protestantism altogether for the ancient communions of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  This I suspect is the blessing of exposing young Evangelicals to the rich heritage of ancient Christianity.

 

Moving the Conversation Forward

The “Future of Protestantism” is part of an ongoing conversation taking place among those concerned about the future of Christianity in America.  This conversation needs to be continued and also expanded.  A wider range of people need to be brought into the conversation.  “Future of ProtestantIsm” was a Protestant event; one could even say that it was primarily an Evangelical event.  All the discussants hailed from small off shoot denominations: Leithart from the Presbyterian Church of America, Trueman from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and Sanders from the Evangelical Free Church of America.

Missing from the conversation were representatives from mainline Protestant denominations.  I would suggest that Leithart and his fellow panelists ask their mainline Protestant brethren: What accounts for the theological collapse of the church bodies that have the most direct ties to the Reformation?  And, what lessons does the mainline debacle have for Pastor Leithart’s vision of a Reformational Catholicism?

Also missing were former Protestants who have become Orthodox or Roman Catholic.  Due to their bicultural theological backgrounds they can speak knowledgably to Leithart’s vision of Reformational Catholicism.  They could also answer the following questions: After reading the early church fathers why didn’t you remain Protestant?  What compelled you to leave Protestantism altogether?  What compelled you to discard the Protestant principle of sola scriptura?  Many of these converts still regard themselves as Evangelicals and would be quite interested in being part of the conversation.

Robert Arakaki

« Older posts Newer posts »