Page 80 of 94

Book Review: Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom

February 3, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 19 Comments

Tell me the history of the church and I can tell you your theology.

Church history is not neutral but is shaped by our theological beliefs. This is especially the case with Emperor Constantine:

to many Evangelicals and Anabaptists Constantine was the arch villain who caused the early Church to fall from its apostolic purity,
to mainstream Protestants and Roman Catholics Constantine was a pivotal historical figure who made Christianity into a public religion,
to Eastern Orthodox Christians he is Saint Constantine “equal to the apostles.”

Defending Constantine by Peter J. Leithart is more than a biography of Constantine the Great. It starts off as a theological history and ends as an attempt to construct a political theology. Leithart draws upon a wide range of scholarship to present the reader with a fine grained and nuanced understanding of Constantine the man and the consequences of his embrace of Christianity.

Pastor Leithart’s underlying motive for writing this history is to refute John Howard Yoder‘s radical Anabaptist political theology. This stream of Protestantism holds that the church is a community of faithful believers who renounce all worldly power and adheres to pacifism. This position leads Yoder to the position that Constantine never truly converted to Christianity and that the Christian church he allied himself with was a fallen, compromised church (see Leithart pp. 252-254; 305-306). By refuting Yoder, Leithart intends to present Constantine as a model for Christian political practice.

The purpose of this review is not just to assess Leithart’s book but also to comment on some of his ideas from the standpoint of an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Constantinian Paradigm

Constantine’s historical significance lies in his embrace of Christianity which laid the basis for the Constantinian paradigm. This is the belief that Christianity has a rightful place in the public sphere and that the church has an obligation to bring Christian moral values to the family, society, and politics. Similarly, the Constantinian paradigm views Christian clergy as public leaders and allows for the use of state resources to support the church. This alliance which began with the Edict of Milan in 313 would frame Western society and politics until the 1800s and 1900s. The Constantinian paradigm began to be displaced by the Enlightenment which gave rise to non-theistic systems of thought like Communism and Rawlsian liberalism.

Constantine matters to Reformed and Orthodox Christians because both traditions rely on the Constantinian paradigm. Important to Reformed theology is the belief that the call to reformation extends not only to the church but to society as well. This is apparent in the last chapter of Calvin’s Institutes “Civil Government” (Book 4, Chapter XX). While Reformed Christians might agree with Yoder on the fall of the church, they would disagree with his view of the church as a pure community of disciples removed from society.

Eastern Orthodox Christians will likewise take issue with Yoder’s political theology, especially with the assumption of the fall of the church. The Orthodox Church believes that it has maintained an unbroken chain of apostolic succession going back to the original apostles. Furthermore, Orthodoxy holds to the doctrine of symphonia — the doctrine of church and state distinct from each other but working in harmony.

Leithart does the Christian community a great service with his discussion of the historical origins of the notion of the fall of the church (p. 307). He shows how Yoder’s allegations that Constantine corrupted the church rests on poor history (p. 317-321). Leithart shows that Yoder’s flawed church history leads to a defective theology. His critique of Yoder’s historiography demonstrates the aphorism stated at the outset of this blog posting: Tell me the history of the church and I can tell you your theology.

Discipling the Nations

Arch of Constantine

Constantine was not the first emperor to issue edicts of toleration. What distinguishes him was his turn away from Roman paganism and his supportive attitude towards Christianity. When Constantine defeated Maxentius and entered Rome as victor, rather than follow the conventions which stipulated that the victor enter the Capitolium and offer sacrifice to Jupiter, he refused (p. 66). This marked an epochal shift in Rome’s political culture. Constantine’s outlawing of the gladiatorial shows reshaped Roman culture. It in effect shut down a key means by which the populace were instructed in the values of violence and martial glory (Leithart p. 304).

In embracing the Christian cause Constantine did not relinquish the power of the sword. He continued to engage in military campaigns and he continued to engage in political intrigues characteristic of any political elite. His refusal to abandon the powers of the state is a disappointment to those who hold an Anabaptist political theology.

Hagia Sophia – Church of Holy Wisdom

Another momentous decision by Constantine was the founding of Constantinople, the New Rome (pp. 119-120). This decision was rooted in Constantine’s desire to raise up a new metropolis built from a Christian foundation. The old Rome, the traditional center of power, was deeply stained by its pagan past. From the standpoint of political theology the establishment of Constantinople reflected the belief in the possibility of a Christian civilization. This can be traced to the call to disciple the nations in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) and in the eschatological vision of the New Jerusalem in Revelation. The radical Anabaptist tradition disavows the possibility of the Christianization of societies and holds instead to the idea of a Christian counter culture marked by ethical purity and pacifism.

There is a certain paradoxical quality to the attitudes that Eastern and Western churches hold towards Constantine. In the Western tradition Constantine is more of a remote historical figure, yet there has been considerably more discussion about the Constantinian paradigm, i.e., how politics ought to be shaped by Christian values. Thus, Leithart’s book is part of a long running debate in the Western tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy venerates Constantine as a saint, but there is relatively little written about political theology in the Eastern tradition.

Constructing a Political Theology

Sacrifice to Apollo – 5th BCE Vase in Louvre

One of the fascinating insights presented by Leithart is his argument that: (1) every ancient city had a sacrificial center, (2) Constantine’s significance lies in his abandonment of the responsibility of attending to the sacrifices expected of Roman emperors, and (3) just as significant his welcoming the church, the city of God founded on the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross (pp. 326-331). Leithart’s political theology juxtaposes pagan Rome against the New Jerusalem, the Church.

He writes:

The church too was a sacrificial city, the true city of sacrifice, the city of final sacrifice, which in its Eucharistic liturgy of sacrifice announced the end of animal sacrifice and the initiation of a new sacrificial order (p. 329).

I found chapter 6 “End of Sacrifice” especially helpful for understanding the way religion and sacrifice permeated pagan Rome and how Constantine’s “conversion” led to the passing of pagan sacrificial system and the ascendancy of the Christian Eucharist as the basis for Western culture. What is striking about this passage is that one can easily see in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy a resemblance to the sacrificial city described by Leithart, but it is much harder to see this resemblance in the Reformed churches due to the fact that the sermon has displaced the Eucharist in many Reformed congregations. Nonetheless, it should be noted that many Reformed churches still proclaim Christ’s sacrificial death.

St. Polycarp Before the Crowds

As an Orthodox Christian I would like to point out the role of the early martyrs in the evangelization of the Roman Empire. The ancient polis rested on the civic liturgy, i.e., public officials offering up sacrifices to the gods to ensure the well being of the city. The ancient Christians attacked the ancient sacrificial system through two means: (1) the proclamation of the Good News of Christ’s death and resurrection, and (2) their willingness to sacrifice their lives for the Gospel of Christ. The inability of the authorities to cow the Christians like Polycarp into offering up the traditional sacrifices meant the end of the pagan religions.

Leithart asserts that Constantine provides a model for Christian political practice. As much as I’d like to support Leithart in this there are a number of questions that need to be raised from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. One is that Constantine was a catechumen for much of his adult life and was not baptized until shortly before his death. The significance here is that he was able to rule with a relatively free hand executing members of his household without fear of excommunication. The first Christian emperor was Theodosius who was baptized shortly after he became emperor. It was only because Theodosius had been baptized that Bishop Ambrose of Milan was able to threaten him with excommunication over the massacre of 7000 in Thessalonica in 380. The sacrament of baptism effectively brought the most powerful man in the Roman Empire under the authority of the Church. It would have been good for Leithart to have qualified his touting Constantine as a role model for Christian politics by presenting him as providing the beginning of a social template and by including other notable Christian rulers, e.g., Justinian the Great in the East and Charlemagne in the West.

Post-Constantinian Society

Killing Fields – Phnom Penh, Cambodia

In the subsection “There Will Be Blood, Again” (pp. 340-341), Leithart discusses the implications of a post-Constantinian society. He asserts that when the modern state excludes the church, it has no moral brakes to speak of and instead seeks to be “resacralized” by other means (p. 340). This is a point that needs to be explored through a discussion as to whether or not the Nazi Holocaust, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the so-called “right” to abortion are modern equivalents to ancient ritual offerings to the gods. Leithart’s suggestion of a grim nihilistic future politics is something that Christians need to take seriously. “There Will Be Blood” is a fascinating discussion of modern politics and if I have a criticism it is that it is far too brief. Only two pages?!

Conclusions and Findings

In this reviewer’s opinion Leithart’s critique of Yoder’s Anabaptist political theology is like fighting yesterday’s war. He touches on modern politics in just the last few pages of the book (pp. 340-341). Hopefully, Leithart will be writing more on this important subject matter.

Any attempt to construct a Christian political theology needs to study Constantine’s impact on the church’s role in society. Without question, it is Constantine who made Christianity into a public religion. Much of American political history, e.g., the Moral Majority, the Prohibition, the Abolitionist movement, the Puritan Commonwealth all assume the Constantinian paradigm. The widespread influence of anti-Constantinianism has impeded the ability of Christians to scrutinize Christianity’s role in modern society. It has also prevented many Christian leaders from understanding the significance of the recent move away from the Constantinian paradigm in America.

Reading Defending Constantine has made me conscious of a significant difference between Western and Eastern Christianity. Where the West has had a long continuous history with the Constantinian paradigm, Eastern Christianity has suffered numerous disruptions, e.g., the Muslim conquests of North Africa, the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918. However, with the Greek War for Independence in the 1820s and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s we see attempts being made to bring back some form of the Constantinian paradigm in Russia and in the Balkans with results that can be disconcerting for Westerners schooled in Lockean liberalism. My impression is that American Protestants and Roman Catholics are much more comfortable speaking up in the public square and theorizing on Christians’ role in politics than the Orthodox. This can be seen in Liberation Theology in Roman Catholic circles and Christian Reconstructionism in Protestant circles. Orthodoxy in America has been much more reticent in its public witness despite its doctrine of symphonia. It has yet to match the literary output of Christian political thinkers in the West. There is much Christians from both the Reformed and Orthodox traditions can learn from Constantine. Leithart has done us a great favor by critiquing the anti-Constantinian prejudice widespread in American Protestantism and his presenting Constantine as a model for political theology.

Robert Arakaki

Response to Theodore – Semi-Pelagianism, Sola Fide, and Theosis

January 28, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 58 Comments

Luther Nailing the 95 Theses

On 22 December 2011, Theodore wrote:

#1 — Granting that the Eastern Orthodox Church (“EOC”) has an ancient tradition, and, further, that its pretty rituals contain much sacred meaning, the fact remains that it is — by its own admission — semi-Pelagian, and, as such, teaches a false religion. Debates about the nature, duration, and content of the service are totally irrelevant when what is presented to the congregation is antithetical to Scripture.

#2 — There are almost too many verses to count in support of Sola Fide, but a good place to start is Luke 18:26-27: “Those who heard it said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ He replied, ‘What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.'” What part of “impossible” is so hard to grasp? There’s no room for synergism here, and, by holding that ANY part of our salvation is the result of our own efforts fundamentally distorts the Gospel, invites the compounding of error, and injects lethal doses of doubt into what should be — in the elect — unshakable, persevering faith.

#3 — In this regard, Mr. Arakaki states: “Salvation in the early Church was both sacramental and evangelical; faith in Christ was necessary in order for God’s grace to be received through the sacraments.” Here please note: 1. Faith comes first, before grace, and, 2. Sacraments — being performed by human beings — are unquestionably “works.”

#4 — Thus, the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis is a sad and ancient error invented by men to satisfy their fallen pride, mistaking the post-justification process of the working out of our sanctification through good works for grace plus works leading to faith and justification, getting it precisely backwards:

#5 — “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.” Ephesians 2:8-10. Contrary to the EOC (as stated by Mr. Arakaki, above), here please note: Grace comes first, then faith, followed by GOOD works AFTER we are created in Jesus Christ.

#6 — Whatever else the EOC may get right, such a profound doctrinal error cannot be embraced by a truly Christian church. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” Galatians 1:8.

#6 — Those of you roaming about from denomination to denomination searching for something to make you feel better about yourselves need to grapple with the fact that all the golden robes, gaudy temples, jewel-encrusted icons, clouds of incense and humanly invented theater in the universe are not going to get you any nearer (let alone into!) heaven…

#7 — “Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.” John 8:47.

My Response

1. Semi-Pelagianism, Theological Benchmarks; Historical Context of Sola Fide

In paragraph #1 Theodore wrote: …the fact remains that it is — by its own admission — semi-Pelagian, and, as such, teaches a false religion.

Historically, the benchmark for theological orthodoxy has been Christology as defined by the Ecumenical Councils. In the early church there were a variety of approaches with respect to soteriology. Prominent in the early church was the understanding of Christ as victorious conqueror over the Devil and Death. There was no one single theory of salvation that became the universal norm required of all Christians. The controversy between Augustine and Pelagius resulted in the condemnation of Pelagianism. At no time did the early church condemn the semi-Pelagian position.

What Theodore has done is to make the Protestant model of soteriology the benchmark for theological orthodoxy. In his broad sweeping condemnation of Semi-Pelaganism Theodore has in effect condemned many of the early church fathers, e.g., Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Athanasius the Great, and many of the Greek Fathers. He has in effect cut himself off from fellowship with the early church.

It is important to note that the term “semi-Pelagian” was not used in the early church. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter Elwell, ed.) the term was first used in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1527) and apparently only once.

Theodore’s criticism of the Orthodox Church becomes more problematic when we look closely at the Formula of Concord’s rejection of Semi-Pelagianism. In Article II “Free Will” Negative Thesis 3, we read:

3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it (emphasis added).

What we have here is a soteriological paradigm that involves certain assumptions about the Fall, Original Sin, human nature after the Fall, and how we are saved by Christ that are alien to Orthodoxy. For example, Orthodoxy does not teach that man by his “own powers” can “make a beginning” of his conversion. I challenge Theodore to present a church father, a council, or a liturgical text that teaches the Semi-Pelagian position as defined by the Formula of Concord.

The fundamental assumption here that drives the Protestant paradigm is the extreme Augustinian view of the Fall, i.e., that as a result of the Fall man’s capacity to respond to God’s grace was destroyed (see Formula of Concord Article I “Original Sin”, Negative Thesis 6; see also the Second Helvetic Confession chapters VIII and IX). This is the Augustinian interpretation of the Fall. It is the opinion of one church father but it was not part of the universal patristic consensus.

Western Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism after 1054 and later Protestantism, have been heavily influenced by Augustine. When Luther formulated the doctrine of justification by faith alone he introduced a new twist to the Augustinian paradigm. He then went on to make sola fide the core of his theological system and the benchmark for theological orthodoxy. For Luther sola fide was the doctrine on which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). What he did was to turn sola fide not just into a doctrine but a core dogma without which one could not be considered a Christian. Orthodoxy abhors theological innovation and Luther did two things at the same time; he committed heresy by introducing a theological innovation and he committed schism by rejecting those who did not hold to sola fide, e.g., the early church fathers and the Orthodox Church.

Protestants believe that Luther discovered sola fide and in doing so recovered the Gospel, but to the Orthodox Luther invented a doctrine that none of the early church fathers taught. Orthodoxy accepts that we are saved by divine grace and that we are justified by faith in Christ, but it never heard of our being justified by faith alone. The difference is not just in sola fide but in the set of assumptions behind it. Luther came up with sola fide in response to the problems he encountered in attempting to find salvation through medieval Catholicism. This intellectual breakthrough came to be known as Luther’s Tower Experience. Especially problematic for Luther was the Roman Catholic interpretation of Semi-Pelagianism, i.e., facere quod in se est (to do what is in you) (see Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei Vol. 2 p. 5). Unlike medieval Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy was not confined to Augustinian theology nor was it influenced by Scholasticism’s drive for certainty, precision, and logical consistency. In short, sola fide was one man’s response to a spiritual crisis rooted in the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation. It soon became the basis for a new religious movement known as Protestantism. The longstanding division between the churches of the East and the Church of Rome became further complicated by the emergence of Protestantism and its novel doctrines.

The issue here is not Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. The real issue between classical Protestantism and Orthodoxy is monergism versus synergism. The Orthodox Church unabashedly affirms the synergistic understanding of salvation in Christ: God in his grace reaches out to us and we respond to God’s initiative.

Monergism (mono = one, erg = energy) is based upon a radical understanding of the Fall. According to the monergistic position, because of the radical effect of the Fall, humanity lost any capacity to respond to God’s grace. Augustine of Hippo taught that humans are born under a harsh necessity of committing sin. John Calvin taught that fallen humanity became utterly depraved. This radical understanding of the Fall leads to the position that there is only one key actor in our salvation: God. God alone determines who will or will not be saved. A logical consequence of monergism is the doctrine of double predestination.

Synergism (syn = together, erg = energy) is based upon a less radical understanding of the Fall. According to the synergistic position, Adam and Eve’s sin resulted in our inheriting a corrupted nature. Fallen humanity still possesses free will. While we lack the ability to initiate salvation, we retain the ability to respond to God’s initiative. There are ample citations from the church fathers that show they affirmed our free will in our response to God’s grace. Gregory of Nyssa in The Great Catechism wrote: “For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination.” John Chrysostom wrote: “God never draws anyone to Himself by force and violence. He wishes all to be saved, but forces no one.”

Just so there is no confusion: synergism is not the same as Semi-Pelagianism. If Theodore has a bone to pick with Orthodoxy, it is over synergism. There is no evidence of Orthodoxy affirming the Semi-Pelagian position, but there is evidence of it affirming the synergistic understanding of salvation. Theodore will need to show how the Orthodox synergistic understanding of salvation deviates from the historic Christian faith and that its understanding of salvation has been formally condemned by a church council.

I’ve traced the historical context for sola fide in order to lay the ground work for my response to Theodore. My criticisms of sola fide are several. One, it is not part of the catholic (universal) faith of the early church. It is based upon certain individuals, namely Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther. Two, Semi-Pelagianism was never condemned by the early church. Three, the doctrinal standard for the early church was Christology, not soteriology. Four, Luther had no authority to make sola fide into a dogma, only an ecumenical council has the final say on dogma.

Theodore, you cannot just use a label like “Semi-Pelagianism” to condemn Orthodoxy. You need to use an appropriate benchmark for showing on what basis Orthodoxy is wrong. I will readily agree with you that the Orthodox Church is not in agreement with Luther; that is because Orthodoxy is based on the theology of the early church. We cannot accept a sixteenth century theological innovation. You need to show that sola fide was taught in the early church and that it was used as a standard for theological orthodoxy. Unless you can do so, I remain of the opinion that you are using as a theological benchmark a standard alien to the early church. Either Luther’s sola fide is a theological novelty or it is part of the ancient Christian faith. I have presented evidence for the former; I invite you to present evidence for the latter position.

One last note, by condemning Orthodoxy as a “false religion,” you are at the same time condemning the early church as a “false religion.” Are you sure you want to take that extreme stance?

2. Biblical Teachings on Justification by Faith

In paragraph #2 Theodore cites Luke 18:26-27 to defend sola fide. I’m surprised by his choice of passages. In this encounter between Jesus and the rich young ruler neither the issue of justification nor faith are brought up. One would need to do quite a bit of eisegesis (reading into the text) to arrive at the conclusion that the doctrine of sola fide is being taught here. Furthermore, if one wishes to use this passage to rebut the doctrine of synergism then one must also take into account the following chapter in which the encounter between Zaccheus and Jesus results in Zaccheus giving up his wealth (Luke 19:8-10).

If Theodore wishes to present the biblical basis for the Protestant sola fide he would be better off discussing Paul’s letter to the Romans where faith and justification by faith are clearly discussed. All he needs to do is point to at least one verse where the phrase “faith alone” is used explicitly, not inferred. A doctrine can be inferred from Scripture but it is dangerous to base a fundamental dogma on an inferred understanding of Scripture. Likewise, Theodore needs to take into account the one place where phrase “faith alone” (pistis monon) is used in Scripture, that is, James 2:24. “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (pisteos monon) (NKJV).”

I was amused when in paragraph #3 Theodore infers that I was asserting that faith came first before grace. This obsession with chronological order is characteristic of theological scholasticism in the West. Theodore’s dismissive claim of baptism as “works” strikes me as a simplistic and extreme understanding of sola fide that is alien to Lutheran theology. According to Luther’s Small Catechism Article IV baptism is not just a symbol but a sacrament that “effects forgiveness of sins, deliver from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believes….” This understanding of baptism is very much like that of the Orthodox Church.

In paragraph #5, Theodore writes: …here please note: Grace comes first, then faith, followed by GOOD works AFTER we are created in Jesus Christ. The Orthodox position is not that one precedes the other but that faith and works go together, work together (synergy). This synergistic interaction between faith and works is taught in James 2:22. The Greek word synergei is used in this verse. “Do you see that faith was working together (sunergei: syn = with, together; ergei = to work, to do) with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? (NKJV).”

3. Theosis – Becoming Like Christ

In paragraph #4 Theodore criticizes the doctrine of theosis. He writes: Thus, the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis is a sad and ancient error invented by men to satisfy their fallen pride, mistaking the post-justification process of the working out of our sanctification through good works for grace plus works leading to faith and justification, getting it precisely backwards….

First, he must address the fact that theosis has a biblical basis. It is taught in II Peter 1:3-4 which talks about our becoming “partakers of the divine nature.” This is not an isolated passage but one that complements other similar teachings about our ultimate glorified state. In Romans 8:29 Paul writes about our being conformed to image of Christ. In I John 3:2 John writes that at the Second Coming of Christ, “we shall be like Him.”

Second, the doctrine of theosis was taught by early church fathers like Athanasius the Great. In the theological classic On The Incarnation, Athanasius wrote: “He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God (§54).”

Third, the doctrine of theosis has been given a more friendly reception by Reformed scholars recently. I refer you to W. Bradford Littlejohn’s Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity. You can read my review of his book here. I would caution Theodore against uncritically repeating the party line. Reformed theology is complex and nuanced than many have thought it to be. The same can be said for Orthodox theology. I would urge Theodore to examine the evidence and arguments before passing judgment on another religious tradition.

Fourth, one must be careful about resorting to ad hominem attacks or imputing impure motives to those who hold to a certain belief. His accusation that theosis was “invented by men to satisfy their fallen pride” is an ad hominem attack. Furthermore, it claims to know the inner motives of those who hold to it. Theodore would be better off presenting biblical and historical evidence showing that Scripture repudiates theosis and that the early church likewise rejected this teaching. One cannot uncritically repeat what one has learned from secondary sources.

4. Hurling Anathemas

I recognize that there are significant differences between Eastern Orthodox and the Reformed traditions. I constructed this site as a place where the two sides can learn from each other. It is not constructive to come out announcing anathemas without having first engaged the other side. If both sides hurled anathemas preemptively then we won’t be building bridges but rather walls of silence and hostility. Theodore, what is your intent in citing Galatians 1:8? Wouldn’t it be better to build bridges?

As a former Evangelical and one who studied at a conservative Reformed seminary I am quite familiar with Galatians 1:8. I would like to note that one cannot just cite Galatians 1:8 and be done with that. The controversy that the Apostle Paul had with the first century Judaizers was very different from the controversy between the sixteenth century Roman Catholics and Protestants. Theodore needs to show how the situation in Galatians applies to the actual (not alleged) teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy. The absence of citations from authoritative Orthodox sources makes me wonder how familiar he is with the Orthodox Church. Without this informed understanding Theodore risks sounding like a Bible thumper. I am confident that he can present a more balanced and nuanced argument.

5. Reasons for Converting to Orthodoxy

It is disturbing to find a personal attack in paragraph #6. Theodore writes: Those of you roaming about from denomination to denomination searching for something to make you feel better about yourselves need to grapple with the fact that all the golden robes, gaudy temples, jewel-encrusted icons, clouds of incense and humanly invented theater in the universe are not going to get you any nearer (let alone into!) heaven…

It may be that some people are drawn to Orthodox worship because of its rich aesthetics but a stronger case can be made from Scripture. We find in Exodus chapters 25 to 40 God giving Moses instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle. The instructions called for an ornate place of worship that included heavily decorated vestments, images of angels worked into the curtains, and incense. If Orthodox liturgical worship is patterned after the Old Testament worship how can one claim that it is not biblical? Rather one must raise the question whether or not it is the Reformed churches who have abandoned true biblical worship with their bare four walls and ministers who wear robes patterned after that of university professors.

Reformed Worship vs. Biblical Worship

Burning Incense

I have two questions for Theodore in closing. In Malachi 1:11 we read: “For from the rising of the sun even to it going down, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering, for my name shall be great among the Gentiles (NKJV).” Here we have a prediction that when the Christ comes incense would be a sign of worship in the Messianic age. The incense offered in Jewish worship would be offered by the Gentiles in the age to come. Does your local church offer incense during its worship? If your church does not offer incense, why has it abandoned the biblical pattern of worship?

In Hebrews 13:10 we read: “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat (NKJV).” The early Christians believed that Christ’s death on the cross was the fulfillment of the Jewish sacrificial system. The Jewish priests were not allowed access to the Eucharist because they did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Historically, Christian churches had an altar where the Eucharist was celebrated in the Sunday liturgy. Does your church have an altar? Does it celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday as in the case of historic Christian worship? If your church does not follow the historic pattern, why has it abandoned the historic pattern of worship?

Robert Arakaki

March for Life & Great Tradition

January 20, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 0 Comments

Metropolitan Jonah, OCA

March For Life Monday

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

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

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

Pro-Life Icons

Icon – Mary the God Bearer

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

The Reformed Tradition

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

Karl Barth — Reformed Theologian

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

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

Anti-Abortion vs. Pro-Life

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

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

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

Robert Arakaki

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 80 of 94

Book Review: Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom

Response to Theodore – Semi-Pelagianism, Sola Fide, and Theosis

March for Life & Great Tradition

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives