A confession
Sometimes I'm a bit nutty. When I see Evangelical Protestant groups in my area that are active in the community I get the strong urge to ask them "why aren't you Orthodox??" I know, I know, I should just go to liturgy, say my prayers and mind my own business, but it irritates me.I mean, they are passionate Christians looking for a genuine, dynamic faith experience and I want to grab them by the shoulders, stare into their eyes and say "follow me, I know the Church you are seeking." I would then thrust a copy of "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware into their hands and whisk them off to liturgy. Alas, this is just not socially acceptable behaviour.
This week my social decorum, well, shall we say, waned slightly? I went ahead and did something a bit nutty. I emailed the pastor of a local "post-modern" church, a Baptist off-shoot doing the whole inner-city-we-call-ourselves-a-tribe-and-meet-in-a-hotel thing. And yes, they inspired my previous post.
The pastor, a very nice young guy, replied right away, inviting me to meet him for a chat over coffee. I may take him up, but I will more likely attend their discussion group called "Pub Theology" in the fall...and see if my husband and priest want to tag along too.
And Hipster Christian, if you are reading this, seriously, why aren't you Orthodox? Orthodoxy is so obscure, heck, when I say I'm Orthodox most people think that means I'm Jewish. Then they look at my head scarf and think I'm a Muslim, but do a double take when they see the gold crucifix around my neck. The opportunities for smugness are endless!
We do tons of obscure things like carry pussy willows on Palm Sunday, we don't paint icons we "write" icons, (oh yes and we have icons. Have you heard of Nicea II? We have), we read the Septuagint, or should I say the LXX, we get to pick a new name when we are baptised, preferably something archaic such as Polycarp, Xenophon, Photini or Thekla, we call Easter "Pascha" and much like your children, Hipster Christian, our churches have old-fashioned names, such as "St. Sophia's" or "The Prophet Elias."
But for much more than the desire to avoid the mainstream, you should ask yourself why you are not Orthodox because there must be a good reason for it. Why is that? Because there is a Church today that was founded by Christ through his Apostles and has carried His teachings by the power of the Holy Spirit for over 2000 years. You maybe hadn't heard of it before because you lived in the West and it was in the East. In fact it was greatly oppressed, persecuted first by the Ottomans for 500 years and later by the Communists for 70. Meanwhile in the West, Roman Catholics and Protestants were duking it out over control of Europe. By the time of the Renaissance, the Roman Catholics had evolved to be utterly incompatible with their cousins in the East and the Protestants had already started their exponential dividing into a multitude of sects and sub-sects. Yet the Orthodox Church held its line.
Now, if you think you are "orthodox" without having to actually be "Orthodox" you should ask yourself these questions (taken from Unintentional Schism? A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Too catholic to be Catholic” by Robert Arakaki on the blog Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy)
- Does your church accept the Nicene Creed as authoritative? (Many Evangelicals today [have] never heard of the Nicene Creed.)
- Does your church celebrate the historic Liturgy or is your order of worship something recently concocted? (Most Protestant churches do not celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. Those who celebrate the Eucharist regularly do not have a received liturgical tradition that goes back to the Apostles, e.g., the Liturgy of St. James, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Mark.)
- Does your church accept the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood as taught by the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies? (Most Protestants today believe that the bread and wine are just symbols. The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation and the Reformed doctrine of the spiritual feeding in the Lord’s Supper have no counterpart in the teachings of the early Church.)
- Who is your bishop? What is his line of succession? (Virtually all Protestants lack bishops in the historic sense.)
- Does your church accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s decision about the veneration of icons? (No Protestant denominations and none of the Reformers venerated icons as decreed by Nicea II.)
- Does your church reject the novel doctrines of sola fide (justification by faith alone) and sola scriptura (the Bible alone)? (None of the early church fathers taught these Protestant doctrines.
If you answered "no," "I don't know," "probably not," or "maybe" to any of the above questions, you are definitely not orthodox or Orthodox. This should be considered a problem for anyone who considers himself a Christian. From my own personal experience, when I read about Orthodoxy and learned pre-Reformation Church history (something that a lot of Protestant Bible colleges either gloss over or avoid all together) it was evident to me that the Orthodox Church was and is THE CHURCH that Christ calls His Body. As a Christian, a devoted follower of Christ, I knew I had to be united to Him through His Church. I didn't see how there could be any other option: I became Orthodox.
And because of the joy this had brought me and the great gratitude I have to God for bringing me to His Church where I can eat the Bread of Life and drink the Living Water, I want to share the beauty of Orthodoxy with everyone.
Please forgive me for being so bold.
The closest Orthodox parish is 2 hours from where I live. :'(
ReplyDeleteI drive 1 hour to make it to my Anglo-Catholic parish... that's the best I can do for now... but I have a beautiful corner in my home and my priest lends me Schmemann and other such books. :D
Someday, I'll be leaving, though. But I'm still a minor. :P
Anonymous, you can still contact a priest and discuss things with him. There are ways to do things when you can't get to a church, but they're all best discussed with a priest.
DeleteDid you forget, dear Orthodox girl, that Christ's church is His PEOPLE - not the RELIGION as you're trying to put it. And yes, maybe no church fathers did teach sola fide and sola scriptura, but Jesus most definitely did... Please check your Bible more. It seems you are more knowledgeable about church history after Christ rather than focusing on what HE himself did establish. It was never about RELIGION
ReplyDeletePlease forgive me Anon, I do not wish to offend - but concerning sola fide, was it not Christ Himself who provided us with the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46)? Were not the sheep those who acted on their faith while the goats were not just those who did terrible things but who simply neglected to clothe the naked, visit the sick and minister to those in prison? And in John 8, was it not Christ who said to the adulteress after forgiving her "go and sin no more"? As St. James points out in his epistle (the only time sola fide is mentioned explicitly in scripture) and as Christ testifies in the gospels, faith without works is dead.
DeleteAnd concerning sola scriptura, does not John testify at the end of his gospel (21:25) "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." As Anna Bee points out below by directing you to that scripture, we have to understand that, before these things were written, they were passed along both through the letter as well as orally. And despite this fact, the Church lived and thrived in those years even before the first gospel was committed to paper.
I believe you made and unfortunate error - Holy Tradition (not history) is the context by which we understand scripture, recognizing that, unlike in Islam, scripture did not just drop from the sky, but is the inspired word of God written by real people located in a particular time and place from which we can not remove them. And being so dislocated from that time and place, these text may sometimes be difficult to understand (I have never met manuscript that is self-interpreting, let alone the bible; one need only visit a bible store and examine the myriad of Bible reference books to understand this). The Holy Fathers and Mothers of the Church provide us not only wonderful examples of well-lived lives, but also much needed insight (particularly those nearest the period of Christ - Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc).
And as for religion, I encourage you to go over Fr. Andrew's post here: http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/01/12/why-i-love-true-religion-because-i-love-jesus/.
All this being said, I am not sure it is possible to argue someone into or out of a spiritual position. I encourage you however to visit your local Orthodox parish and engage the priest with your questions and concerns (face-to-face with a knowledgeable person is the always the best way to go). Hopefully you will find a truly loving and beautiful community where Christ's words are not only believed, but worked out. Unfortunately, the Church being a hospital for the spiritual self, you will likely encounter much of the same ugliness you find everywhere else. Despite this, I hope that your preconceived notions of us poor Orthodox are challenged.
Blessings.
In reply to the issue of sola fide, here are a few verses for you (loads more):
DeleteRomans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Galatians 2:16
16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Clearly from what Paul has written, in both Galatians, Romans and in other letters as well, we have to conclude that he believed a man was made right before God ONLY on the basis of FAITH in the finished work of Christ.
But then we come to a verse like James 2:24
"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
When we come to James, at first glance it seems as if he is saying the complete opposite. It sounds as if James is saying that a man is justified not only by his FAITH, but also by his WORKS.
What do we make of this seeming contradiction? Do we ignore James and side with Paul (and the overwhelming amount of Scripture), or do we ignore Paul and side with James? Do we have to ignore either of them?
Paul and James aren’t contradicting one another. They are both saying that a man is justified by faith alone. The difference is that they are trying to make 2 entirely different points. That becomes clear if we address the context in which James 2:24 appears.
In v22 James uses Abraham as an example that he was made righteous by works. This is from the story of Isaac being sacrificed in Genesis 22. Notice, however, that in the very next verse (23) he quotes from Genesis 15 (7 chapters prior). How is it that Abraham was fully justified in Genesis 15 by believing God, and yet James takes us 7 chapters further ahead to prove that he was justified by works? That wouldn’t make any sense.
But if we understand that when James says ‘justified’ he means ‘shows to be righteous’, rather than ‘declared to be righteous’ that would fit with the context.
What that means is, when Abraham offers up his son he is showing that his faith is real. What is being proposed here is a different understanding of the word ‘justified’. Paul within his context has it to mean ‘declared right’ and that, he says, is only done by faith, not works. James is saying it to mean ‘showed to be right’ not by faith alone, but by works. (How else would we know our faith to be real unless it is seen on our actions because even the demons believe in God?)
When we understand it like that we see that the 2 writers aren’t contradicting one another. They just have 2 different purposes. Paul is establishing ‘faith-broad’. The ONLY way you will be made right with God is by FAITH. James is establishing ‘faith-narrow’. He is qualifying true faith as that which is met with action.
If we had to show it in formulaic, it would be as follows:
Paul: FAITH (broad) = Christ alone.
James: FAITH (broad) = FAITH (narrow) + WORKS
All James is doing is fleshing out what FAITH (broad) looks like. He is attacking the thought that says FAITH is purely an intellectual category that finds no expression in actions. He attacks those who were seeking to cheapen FAITH to such.
Please chime back at me on that...thanks!
Anon, I am not a girl. Also, who wrote that Bible of yours? Who decided what books should be in it and which books should be excluded? When was it compiled as the 66 books you are now familiar with? Also, 2 Thess 2:15.
DeleteIn ever instance Scripture declares we are judged by what we do. You are confusing references to Jewish ritual law with faithfulness to Christs commands.
DeleteAlso be aware the word "pistis" in Greek does not really translate to "believe/belief".
What you are describing is a falsification of the Christian life and the Gospel.
Thank you for being so bold.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the full and comprehensive authority of the Bible (Sola Scriptura)because it is God's word to us (Ex 24:7; Matt 4v4, 5:17-18; 2 Tim 3:16; John 14:26). To depart from such a conviction is to depart from Jesus, the founder of our faith - not a very orthodox thing to do mind you. In the very familiar words of Jesus, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark 7:9) In that sense, orthodoxy is indeed very orthodox...
Anon, read more of the context: Mark 7:1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
Delete5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[Isaiah 29:13]
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
This is not referring to the Holy tradition of the Christian faith, passed onto us by Christ through his apostles. It's referring to hypocrisy. The Bible itself is a part of Holy tradition...it did not float down out of the sky on a cloud. And you should know that the word for tradition in the Greek is "Paradosis" which simply means tradition, either good or bad. In the NIV whenever paradosis is used in a negative sense it is translated "tradition" and whenever paradosis is used in a positive way (as in the traditions given to us by the Apostles) it is translated "teaching." This is a reflection of the Protestant bias against Holy Tradition. compare 2 Thess 2:15 in NIV and NKJV and you will see what I mean.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey. No, it wasn't the same person. I posted the second comment. There is a lot I could say, and would love to say. This post and the comments that have ensued have helped me personally, and I'm very grateful for them. This is neither here nor there, but I can say that in my thinking about this subject more, I have been strengthened in my evangelical roots. The whole argument practically boils down to who is your authority? Tradition or the Bible (which is the Written Word of God testifying to the Word Jesus Christ)? At the end of the day, you cannot have both as your authority. One will always trump the other.
DeleteI want to quote the last few lines of an article written by Mark Saucy, which I think hits the nail on the head regarding the subject being discussed.
"Privileging the early patristic tradition as some kind of “hermeneutical ground zero” or as necessary for evangelicals to stay orthodox therefore neglects the hermeneutical norm the canonical writers employed in the new-covenant Story and falls into the same tar pit as the “other christianities” also being pushed today.95 Both camps mistakenly assume that Christianity simply began with Jesus Christ and then proceed to argue for heresy or orthodoxy from there. However, it was not in competition with other contemporary options that the disciples located their gospel. Rather, they looked back to the OT canonical script for their interpretation of the person, life, and ministry of Jesus Christ. This indeed was the hermeneutical lens for the gospel that founded the church and that always measures the church and that the Protestant Reformers intended under the maxim of sola scriptura."
I would encourage you to read the whole article for more clarity as to his final point summed up in this quote. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the article.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/canon_as_tradition_the_new_covenant_and_the_hermeneutical_question/
Ok, I read most of it, painful as that was. This is basically a defence of pure Biblical Theology, but the author is clearly interpreting the Bible according to his own tradition throughout the article. He's bias as a dispensationalist is glaring and his ignorance of the writings of the early Church fathers is unforgivable in such a context. You should check the footnotes: there is NOT ONE primary source to back up his claims; not one actual quote from a Church father. He claims the early fathers neglected Paul - where's the proof of that? It's poor scholarship. But setting even that aside, I just can't agree with his main idea that there is a pure Biblical theology which the Reformers discovered and which was completely overlooked by the early church Fathers. nonsense. All Biblical theology uses interpretation. It's unavoidable. The author puts a Calvinist spin of interpretation in the article, citing Rom 11:29. Others would read the passage differently - what happens to pure Biblical theology then? But honestly, it's hard to comment on this article since it does not fairly examine the early Church Fathers - you cannot examine them if you do not cite them.
Delete@Anonymous: If I may comment on your... comment. :) You said: "The whole argument practically boils down to who is your authority? Tradition or the Bible (which is the Written Word of God testifying to the Word Jesus Christ)? At the end of the day, you cannot have both as your authority. One will always trump the other." I have a few responses to this if you are interested:
Delete1. As often happens in discussions like these, it may be beneficial to begin by clarifying terminology, especially regarding the word "tradition." When "tradition" or "traditions" are mentioned in the New Testament, it surely can't be the Christian tradition because it was in the process of being established. All the books of the New Testament were written before the close of the first century, and most of them well before it. The books of the New Testament are all letters that were written to people who lived within a certain culture (Judaism, Hellenism, Paganism, etc.) Save a few instances, I've learned that when the term "tradition" is mentioned within the New Testament, it's referring to traditions of the Law, the Old Testament. I hardly think the New Testament writers were prophesying about future condemned practices that crept into the Church (like indulgences or something).
2. I think the question, "who is your authority?" really gets to the heart of the matter and is one that we should all be asking. But then you say that Tradition and the Bible are opposed to one another. Why? Though you could probably quote verses of the Bible to "prove" that they are opposed to one another, then I could quote verses showing the opposite, and back and forth we'd go, ad nauseum... So, without doing that, why is the Bible opposed to Tradition? The way Orthodox Christians look at it is that the Bible is at the center of our Tradition. Like a bullseye on a target. It is the kernel of the Christian tradition and is not opposed to it in any way. To phrase it another way, St. John the Theologian ends his Gospel (his was the last of the four written) with this verse: "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." I don't know how you read this, but it sounds like he's saying that the Bible is not exhaustive.
3. I was Baptist, then Evangelical before joining the Orthodox Church. Protestants have said for many years that "the Bible is my only authority," and I always had a hard time understanding that. Because, if this was the case, wouldn't God be communicating the same truth about Himself to everyone who reads the Bible? Yet there have been countless breaks and divisions within Protestantism since the Reformation. Division is of the devil, not of God. It seems that every person who claims it as their sole authority believes it says something different than the next person who claims the same thing.
Usually I prefer not to join in forum-type conversations like this because, without the help of inflection and body language words alone always seems to sound different than they were intended. Please receive them with a tone of kindness.
I come from a conservative Lutheran church (having originated from a protestant Evangelical background). Like you I found that there is more to worship than merely singing and clapping your hands to the music of the praise band. Liturgy is central to worship as is partaking of the Holy Eucharist. Having said that, I have to state that God blesses outside denominational boundaries - though I know that the cloven Church grieves his heart. Moreover, I know that there are some denominations that are closer to the teachings of scripture and historic Christian practice than others. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that God will forgive us for differences in understanding over the particulars of the essence of the Eucharistic elements (con vs. trans-substantiation). Ultimately, I want to both encourage you and to warn you: zeal for the Lord and his Church is a beautiful thing to behold and nurture - especially in this day of complacency, but it can rub people the wrong way when you try to argue them into the faith. Especially when you try to argue them out of one church family into another. Finally, I noticed that you mentioned the Nicene Creed but left out the Athanasian Creed (not recognized by the Orthodox Church). I think you would find that there is a fullness in the proclamation of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ (Christology) that is sublime. Whereas I am not Orthodox, there is much that is in the Orthodox Church that I admire and find of great value. I think you too should look for elements outside the Orthodox expression to see how your own faith might be enhanced. To do so does not require you to abandon your Orthodox beliefs. After all, ecumenical discussion among the leaders of the various denominations is rooted in just that sort of dialogue and exploration.
ReplyDeletePeace.
Lovely post, Anna. Ben, I understand where you are coming from. I grew up Orthodox, but got disillusioned in college with the claim that the Orthodox church is the True Church. Like you, it was obvious to me that the Holy Spirit can be present anywhere; to deny it would have been nonsense. I joined a Hipster Protestant church for awhile. Despite my convictions about the correctness of my decision, however, I began to miss "home." Two things:
Delete1) The Orthodox church does not claim to monopolize the Truth. The Truth of God is as uncontainable in a doctrine as it is in a book. The Holy Spirit is like wind - He goes where He wills. The Orthodox True-church claim is one of historical accuracy - this is what really happened, what eye witnesses testify to. Unlike other church leaders, Orthodox bishops never debate among themselves as to whether or not the virgin birth happened, etc. Their Truth is deep and robust - in stark contrast to those friendly Protestant bible study groups in which we ask brilliant questions about the nature of Christ and Salvation, yet never get straight answers. Shoulders shrug, interpretations are offered; "you can believe that is Christ's blood or you can believe its grape juice - it's up to you to decide." In my journey with the Protestant faith, I felt a constant confinement, a box, a spiritual glass ceiling that I could no longer break through.
It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit doesn't work in Protestant churches - His presence in protestant churches is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. But there are two different types of truth at play in this discussion. Capital-T Truth (communal concurrence of historical accuracy) - and little-t truth (Holy Spirit). Obviously the latter is more important for personal salvation, but the former is vital to establishing lasting communities rooted in the Holy Spirit - in other words, to safeguard the salvation of the next generation. It is a problem that recurs in the Protestant church over and over - one generation is strong in faith and the next is weak.
The most devastating part of the Protestant church for me was the lack of spiritual nourishment - lack of fasting, lack of feasting, and especially lack of Paschal observances. The tomb-hopping vigil with friends on Holy Friday, the stale vegan farts sweeping through the communion line that first Sunday of Lent. Perhaps what I missed most was the roast lamb, which is a shallow but oh-so-tangible witness of the Orthodox Joy.
2) You recommended that we Orthodox branch out to see how our faith might be enhanced. You are missing the point that Ms. Bee is trying to make. The Orthodox church is an ocean full of life and beauty. It certainly has imperfections, perhaps isn't even 100% accurate, but you are asking us to visit a lake. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do so... good fishing... but it would require momentarily stepping away from the ocean of spiritual learning. Besides doing and fasting, there is so much to read - writings by the Holy Fathers, the lives of the saints, profound insights provided by Orthodox scholars, both ancient and modern. There is so much to explore; even for an accomplished Orthodox theologian the spiritual journey never ends. So when we seek enhancement, we seek to enhance ourselves through the tools provided by the Orthodox Church. To try to enhance the Orthodox Church - well, why do you think the Holy Fathers and Mothers wrote down what they wrote down? In the Protestant church, I - and so many others around me - seemed to be constantly searching, searching, searching. In the Orthodox church, I am home.
I came back to the Orthodox church with great joy, and great joy has followed that decision. Taste and see: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/how_should_orthodox_relate_to_other_christians
Fair enough. I can appreciate one's devotion which is so exclusive, though I still hold fast to what I said earlier. I would like to also note that your grouping of all protestant denominations into a singular group is a bit of an oversimplification. I come from one of the oldest of the "Protestant" churches - the Lutheran Church. We do not view ourselves as a new church (church revolutionaries), but rather as church reformers - bringing the Church back to where it originated. You'll note well that what we were reacting against was the overstepping of the authority of Rome, not the Orthodox Church. Therefore, we do accept much of what the Church Fathers have written including the likes of St. Augustine (though from what I have read, you do not include him). So it is not as though we merely begin with Luther and assume that the true faith was given to the apostles and then given exclusively to Lutherans sixteen hundred years later. We are a liturgical Church and you will be hard pressed to find the kind of evangelical style Bible study that you so accurately described above. So while we are given the label of Protestant (or is it an epithet?) it is one that we do not readily accept. Hence, the quotation marks around the word Protestant above.
DeleteI know of the differences that you as Orthodox Christians have with Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. There are aspects about them that are troubling if they become predominant over scripture or the Church itself. They are not meant to erase the teachings of the early church, but rather the kinds of abuses that so often came from Rome during the Late Medieval Period. But alas, I do not wish to debate theology here. I want only to express that there is much that comes out of Western Christianity that is good. Consider the impact of such writers as C.S. Lewis or Dietrich Bonhoeffer to name a couple from recent history. Have they nothing to contribute to the oceanic beauty that is Christ's Church? For that matter (staying within the boundaries of your analogy here), are there lakes within his Church that is an ocean?
Ben - Why not? Many Orthodox theologians read and love C.S. Lewis' work. St. Vladimir Seminary Dean Emeritus Fr. Hopko recommends him which means a lot of others probably do too. I don't know if Lewis has made it to Mt. Athos yet, but we know a Romanian theologian who cherishes his Romanian copy of the Screwtape Letters. We named our second son after Dietrich Bonhöffer - we live in Germany, so it was fitting.
DeleteEspecially in the English and American Orthodox Churches, there is a push to integrate Western manifestations of the faith that resonate with the congregants - C.S. Lewis, favorite hymns (such as Amazing Grace), Christmas Carols, Harry Potter, etc. American St. John Maximovitch did a lot of work collecting the stories of pre-schismatic Western saints (all of which are recognized) and sharing them with the Orthodox community, both American and abroad. Several Orthodox theologians see this is a necessary process - that the American Orthodox church must find its own culture, its own legacy - along the lines of the Celtic cross (i.e. the process through which St. Patrick introduced Jesus as manifestation of the pagan Sun god, thereby integrating Christianity with indigenous culture rather than vice-versa.) A more particular example would be fasting. Usually, Orthodox fasting is vegan, but what about those Eskimos up in Alaska who have little access to plant life/produce? When the Russian Orthdox missionaries came, they taught an alternate fast in which one abstains during certain hours of the day - so that it wouldn't be impossible for the indigenous population. God is God, no matter the cultural infrastructure, right? Such development is a generally considered a very good thing, but it takes time to do, and care to ensure that the important aspects of faith translate intact.
A Sea of Lutheranism - I am sure it exists spiritually! I already mentioned that we live in Germany - we have some Lutheran friends, and I agree they do not fit the Protestant model of my earlier argument. Sorry if I offended you.
As for formal unity with the teachings of C.S. Lewis, Bonhöffer, and St. Francis of Assisi - that would be a beautiful thing, but very tenuous, technically speaking. And it is a shame. There are beautiful things in Western Christianity that would be very difficult to sew officially into Orthodoxy. But, yes, in many cases, those things are part of our "ocean" too - Narnia, Advent wreaths, Weiss Rose protests - they are part of who we are as Christians. Thank God, many Orthodox clergy recognize these streams of the Holy Spirit as well, and - perhaps after a thorough vetting - have no objection to them.
Does that make sense? I suppose, upon closer examination, that I would have to revise my previous depiction of an "Orthodox ocean": the American Orthodox ocean has a lot of non-Orthodox source rivers and underlying currents. The C.S. Lewis Stream Current - I like the sound of that!
Ben, the Athanasian Creed sees limited use in the Orthodox churches. Athanasius was the Orthodox bishop of Alexandria, but his authorship is in doubt. In any case the 3rd and 4th Councils of Nicea forbade any other creed to be published than the Nicene Creed, however it is found in the Russian Orthodox Psalter.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarification on the Orthodox use of the Athanasian Creed. There is always something new to learn, isn't there? We read it aloud together as a Church typically once a year during Holy Trinity Sunday. There may be one other point during the Church year where we read it as well. I find that it still has merit as a safeguard against repackaged heresies that spring up like wild flowers in today's post-modern culture.
DeleteYou are very welcome.I would only clarify further that the Russian Church accepted it, but without it's "filioque" clause. Despite this I have never heard of the Athanasian Creed being used in a Russian service. Most of Orthodoxy rejects it because it lacks a seal of approval from any ecumenical council. The filioque is a very contentious issue. Its addition to the Nicene Creed by the West was one of the issues that led to the mutual excommunications and the rupture between the Eastern and Western churches in 1054 from which Christendom has never recovered. But for that, the Eastern and Western "catholic" churches should have no problem with either creed as both are basically "orthodox".
ReplyDeleteI am enjoying this discussion - thank you everyone! Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteWhile I found this amusing, well written, and informative. I feel that it sort of misses the point of Protestantism. A large part of the critique of (predominantly) Catholic traditions mounted by Martin Luther was a rejection of the necessity of said traditions and a rigid hierarchy for someone to have legitimate connection with God.
ReplyDeleteWhile I admit it is problematic that many Protestants today are unaware of a full history of the Christian Church it is important to remember that what’s going on here is a difference of interpretation of the nature of the person of Christ. Catholics and the Orthodoxy view Christ as divine while many Protestants do not. It is important to respect that view, because of the fact the both the Catholic Church and the Orthodoxy have historically used their power and privileged to silence those who choose to read the bible on their own and view it differently.
With that in mind, while your points about what it means to be an Orthodox Christian are excellent. That’s all they are: what it means to be an Orthodox Christian, period. Protestants aren't Orthodox, they are protestant and they have a very different cultural evolution from the 'original' (and I put that in quotes because the hypothetical Q sources has yet to be found so technically speaking we only have other people's interpretations of Jesus's words not his own so to be frank that doesn’t exist) teaching of Christ which should be respected. The fact that Protestants do not: celebrate the Eucharist, believe in transubstantiation, follow the Liturgy, have bishops, and follow the dictating of the 7th ecumenical council is entirely the point of Protestantism. It’s a rejection of all of that because of the corruption, power dynamics, and oppressive nature of the medieval churches (particularly Catholicism) in terms of its control over church doctrine and dogma, interpretation of the bible (as well as control of who could even read it), and censorship of descent.
Also why is it a problem that the Protestants have elements of Christianity that the Orthodoxy does not? Sola scriptura and sola fide are powerful participatory doctrines that gave (and give) many people a sense of self-worth in the eyes of God that was previously not provided to them by the Catholic Church. This is historically evident by how the Protestant movement spread like wildfire throughout Europe. And while impart it was spread by kings seeking to opt out of Papal taxes that position would have been impossible, if the people living under their rule hadn’t begun to agitate for change in the first place. These doctrines encouraged people to read, as well as gave a role to women beyond being either property or a nun in the public eye for one of the first times in western history.
Finally, complaints of how this change distorts church doctrine or Christ's teaching by alerting the way the bible is interpreted is frankly hypocritical. Both the Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church have reformed and refined themselves numerous times across history in response to difference of opinion within the church (aka heresy), outside reinterpretation of Christ in syncretist and Gnostic movements (Manichaeism is a perfect example of this), and internal reform movements as evident by what the church fathers deciding what stories and versions of Christ were worthy of being in the bible (i.e. the fact that most of Christ's female disciples were excluded from history by the erasure of their gospels and the declaration of their views as heretical) as well as what was approved church doctrine and dogma.
Religions change because their people change. Trying to deny that is foolish and ignorant of one's history. While it is true that the Orthodoxy has claim to one of the most stable linage in the church there is so much about early Christian history that has been forgotten, lost, or erased and in many ways the Orthodoxy is simply one line of one side of the story, not the only one.
How very post modern of you...
Deleteand that's a bad thing? In exploring religious history keeping in mind plurality of perspectives is vital.
DeleteJacob, there is no "plurality of perspectives" in Orthodoxy. From the Greek orthos (right, straight, true)+ doxa (belief,...worship), Orthodoxy literally means the "right way" to think and worship. You describe Christian doctrine changing as people change, and dogma being open to debate. I understand that the point behind Protestantism was a "protest" and that Martin Luther probably died considering himself nothing more than a good Catholic priest, but what you describe is not a recipe for stability, and better describes fashion than anything else. Caving to fashion and the "conventional wisdom" is exactly why Christianity is fast becoming irrelevant in the USA and Western Europe. It's why mainline Protestant denominations, and even Roman Catholicism is seeing vastly diminished membership, empty pews and waning influence in our Western societies. It's the reason many denominations have changed their traditional dogmas and now see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and accept female ordination, gay clergy, and even gay bishops. If a church can discard wisdom and teaching handed down through the ages, and make things up as they go along, at what point does that "church" degrade into a christic cult and cease to be Christian? What kind of "Christian" can seriously deny the divinity of Christ or His Resurrection? The Orthodox church has an unbroken apostolic succession in its bishops that flows all the way back to the time of Christ, and its dogma has not changed for nearly 2,000 years. While not perfect, it has adapted to local cultures, but its essence, dogma, and doctrine remains unchanged from the time of Christ. People need and crave this consistency and stability
ReplyDeleteProblems with that:
Delete1. What about the East Asian Orthodoxy which is closer to the Nestorian 'heresy' then the Greek orthodoxy? Or the Coptic Christians they're older then the orthodoxy and arguably have a more direct line to Christ then the orthodoxy. And as long as there are people with thoughts there is going to be plurality of belief. Even with in the Orthodoxy, historically the Orthodoxy was a union of equals from a variety of regions within the church and this plurality was forcibly codified into a single set of beliefs by the ecumenical councils. Which is why they are called ecumenical in the first place. After all ecumenical means: "promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation" as in turing away from minor differences for the greater body of Christ.
2. Who are you to say what is christian and what is not? Because last time I checked the only person who could do that with any authority would be Jesus. I mean to be frank your sweeping dismissal of homosexuality, female ordination, and lgbtq clergy is evidence of this. To be christian is to be Christ like and no where in the bible does Christ even discuss homosexuality and in fact many of those closest to him are initially women. Remember it is Mary and her friends who spread the good news of the resurrection to the disciples who initial balk at their claims. In fact Jesus talks a lot more about being kind and understanding towards marginalized groups that rigid structures such as certain elements in the church opress. After all in mark 12:31 it is written "'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (And if you want to drag the Hebrew scriptures (i.e. Leviticus) into this debate. Be warned most of those books of laws are referring to property exchange its a much longer conversation to be had.) Jesus taught forgiveness and acceptance as can be seen with the story of him intervening on the side of a prostitute to prevent her from being stoned.
3. As for churches who allow such 'radical' changes (as you know respecting the rights of women and the lgbtq community by including them instead of persecuting them like the Romans did to your beloved early church fathers) that decrees their membership I must be to differ. The Anglican Church (my birth faith) has allowed all of these changes and to be frank my Church has more attendance then ever before because it is so accepting. If your going to make such a claim please show me some statics.
4 Finally i'm not describing fashion I'm describing reason. If a 'faith' is irrelevant to the needs of its people it will become obsolete and while the neo pagan movement is gaining sway despite historic attempts to silence it, the old religions and ways of the Roman, Greece, and Egypt are no more. Replaced by a host of other thoughts and practices because in many ways they did no speak to the needs of the poor as Christ did.
5. Additionally lots of people deny the divinity of Christ, claim to be Christian, and (to be frank) act a lot more Christian then most Catholics, protestants, and Orthodox. I.e. the Quakers or Christian Atheists, or the UU.
DeleteFinally Luther quit being Catholic actually by rejecting monastic life and marrying his long time female companion and former Catholic nun, and was quite happy about it.
Jacob, I don't really know where to begin in replying to you. I'll start by saying you might want to hold off on that doctoral program in Christian history...
DeleteHey Jacob. You wrote a lot in your posts above! Clearly you are a thinking man. Nevertheless, there are a couple of items that I would like to address based upon what you said. I think it is always a dangerous thing to look back on prior movements of history and judge them from a critical 21st century world view. Today American culture is largely accepting of homosexual practice. It was not in the 1950s. Americans then could not think of a world where homosexuality would be openly embraced. And yet we castigate the America of the 1950s as close minded, ethnocentric, misogynistic cretins. Imagine an America where it is culturally acceptable to have children who are the romantic companions of adults as existed in ancient Greece and Rome 50 years from now. Might they also look at us today in the same way simply because we culturally and legally proscribe pedophilia today? Should the Church embrace pedophilia in time simply because the culture does?
DeleteYou are right to bring the faith of your birth into this discussion. The Anglican Church is growing, but a close look at the growth is needed. It would be most accurate to say that the Anglican Church is growing in spite of its stance on homosexuality and women in the priesthood. The Anglican branch in America (the Episcopal Church) is sliding quickly into oblivion. If the Church embraces all that the culture does it becomes so relevant as to be indistinguishable from the culture. Why go? I can have more fun at the movies and see my culture reflected with better artistry than I get at a church. No, the reason that the Anglican Church is growing is because of the African branches which, though not perfect by any stretch, still hold to the traditions of the Church. There you will find no cultural relevance, but rather a firm holding to doctrines (creeds) established by the early church. Moreover, many Episcopal and Anglican congregations in America are now severing ties to the American Episcopal Church and embracing those from Africa - even to the point of answering to African bishops.
And now Protestantism. Well, if the term "Christian" is merely a culturally constructed label, then it is up to the people to decide what it means. Your examples of Christians who do not see Christ as divine accordingly are proper within their context (post-modernism, which presumes that truth is created and not revealed). But any religion within that particular context is no religion at all. It is merely a make-believe set of persons and circumstances that require no faith - only imagination. But religion cannot be judged from within a shifting cultural context (as established above), but rather, exists apart from culture where the maintenance and propagation of belief (doctrine, dogma, etc) is the predominant focus. Of the Churches that you listed that reject Christ's divinity, they are so marginal as to be almost laughably absurd. You forgot to mention both Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints, by the way. And even the Latter Day Saints call Christ divine, though we would disagree on what that means in the particulars.
And finally on historical interpretation. I have a masters in history, and I can tell you that a part of that training included understanding and engaging in historical discourse. History is always a debate. So when you make references to erased gospels written by women, I immediately take notice. Based upon what evidence? That Hebrew women in Roman Palestine were liberated people noted for their Biblical exegesis and scholarly aptitude? It's slightly incongruous with the cultural reality of the day. Within the realm of what is possible is not the same thing as historically credible argumentation. It fits better into the category of "what if". Along the same lines, you mention the gospel Q. This is, of course, in reference to the three synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Mark is recognized by most scholars to be the original author and source. There is a reference to a young man during the moment of Jesus' arrest who fled naked leaving his loin cloth behind. Why include this? The scholarly speculation is that the gospel writer was making reference to himself in the passage, thus tying him to Christ himself. Regardless of whether or not it was him that fled, scholars point to Mark because the textual criticism used by both historians and linguists indicate that it is so. And what of the Gospel of John? It is different from the others, but corroborates what they proclaim. That one is written by one of the disciples themselves.
DeleteOop. One thing more. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide protect from the abuse of religious authorities. They do not give people a sense of self worth in the eyes of God. Christ, his life, death, and resurrection, are what give people worth in the eyes of God - and that, not of the self.
Point number one the Greeks and Romans didn't practice pedophilia and their romantic partners were not as you say children. Instead they practiced pederasty which was when an adult male had a mentoring sexual relationship with a young man in his teens say sixteen or so. And to be frank many people in this country are having sex when they are sixteen, what's the difference? Unlike pedophilia in which the child is abused pederastic relationships were consensual between understanding partners. And it was considered to be a serious, educative, and critically important part of a youth's entrance into adulthood. It was both critiqued and praised on both sides but it was in no way what you are considering it was. While there are parts of the bible that refer to the forcible prostitution of male children that was an entirely different subject entirely and was subject to critique by those who practiced pederastia as well as those who didn't.
DeleteAnd I mean do you keep kosher? Jesus tell us that we shouldn't ignore the Hebrew scriptures, so do you follow all 613 of the commandments? I mean a person could but to be frank many of the laws given therein are no longer relevant, such as the sanitation of animal products, or the way in which property laws treat humans. So they have been dropped over time. Now if you're proposing we live like the Bible tells us to because it is an ancient truth that will always be relevant regardless of the times and are will to actually do that, then more power to you.
2nd on your subject of the Episcopalian church of which I'm a part, its actually quite a toss up. In fact the more vibrant part of the church that is gaining membership is not the part aligning itself with the African bishops. Also Episcopalianism hasn't been popular in the US for about 200 years not because of its theology and dogma but because of the American Revolution and its relationship to the queen.
In terms of Christian being a cultural context like I said before we have no original words of Christ its all interpreted by his disciples. What was established by the early fathers was their choice and historically when folks differed from that they were put to death. That's what a heresy its a violent debate over the nature of the person of Christ.
In terms of the gospels I am making referring to, I am mostly talking about the recently rediscovered gnostic gospels such as the gospel according to Mary Magdalene and while there is an ongoing debate about if it can be called a gospel do to its length it was a part of the early church tradition that has since been forgotten due to decisions made by church father councils.
And yes it is true that we have corroboration from various gospels I am not saying what happened there is isn't true in part by any stretch of the imagination. But we must remember it was the disciples thought what happened, its their reaction to the events so of course it is going to be warped by their opinion. They were human after all.
Finally what makes a religion a religion my friend? As someone who is going through the process of completing degree in religious studies a major point of debate now and forever is what that word even means. For example many of you no doubt would consider Buddhism to be a religion but upon talking to many Buddhist they're immediate reaction is to deny that. However, we still considered it to be a religion. So what does that say? Faith is a concept pretty much isolated to the Abrahamic Religious experience, so why is it a necessarily component of religion? Buddhist have no need for faith, they test the sayings of the Buddha for themselves to see if they are correct and the proceed, if it doesn't work for them they go find another path. Daoism never even mentions faith its much more interested in being placed. While Shintoism and Confucianism are much more about being in touch with the divine found in relationships and roles fulfilled by both humans and non-humans.
DeleteSo what I'm trying to ask you is what prevents your definition of religion from being completely and utterly abirtrary. Why does it matter if they're Christians who don't believe in God? If they follow Jesus's teachings as an attempt to be more like a citizen of the kingdom of god (which, as attested in Luke 17:21, is in us) how are they any less 'religious' then you? Are you God? Are you the Universe? Are you truly 'objective'? No? Then who are you to say otherwise?
Jacob, Jacob, my wayward brother in Christ, there is so much you wrote about that is off the mark that I hardly know where to begin.
Delete1. In the case of the so-called “Oriental Orthodox” they are irrelevant, have nothing to do with East Asia, and the Orthodox Church considers them heretical false churches. I can’t get into a full length dissertation on their heresies, but I will say that they are generally described as non-Chalcedonian or Monophysites, and are insignificant in size compared to canonical Orthodoxy. They were only recognized as distinct bodies and parted ways with the universal church during the 4th Ecumenical Synod and reject its decisions as well as those of all the later synods. Those “churches” have appropriated the term “Orthodox” for themselves, but it is difficult by any stretch to consider them Orthodox. Even the Roman Catholics and many of the Protestants ostensibly accept the decisions of all seven Ecumenical Synods, but they would hardly be considered Orthodox. If you want to talk about Orthodoxy in East Asia, and the Pacific rim, the Russian Orthodox Church has had historical influence there, most notably in Alaska, Japan, and China, but that is another story. Today there are small but thriving local churches in Japan, Australia, and Indonesia, and they are Orthodox in full communion with the other canonical Orthodox churches, but not “Oriental” in the way that you infer.
2. It is not ME who judges and enforces Christian dogma, it is the Ecumenical Councils or Synods of the universal church whose decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit and considered infallible. There were seven councils convened to settle questions of Christian dogma, with the last Ecumenical Synod recognized by both East and West having been held in the A.D. 787, often called the second Council of Nicea. With respect to homosexuality, female clergy, and other innovations, it seems I have smoked you out. In any case I agree with you that the point of Christianity is spiritual growth with a goal of becoming Christ-like. In Orthodoxy we call this “theosis” which is a transformative process whose goal is a likeness to or union with God. It is the goal of all Orthodox Christians. I also have no dispute with you that Christ ministered to the spiritually weak, the marginalized, and the persecuted. He also preached about universal brotherhood. Despite this, He had no qualms about calling out sins as sin, teaching people right from wrong, teaching us to love and accept our fellow man, and reminding us that no person is without sin. Jesus did in fact upend contemporary notions of a “woman’s place” and gathered many female disciples whom He taught, but it must be understood that He chose only men for his Apostles, and there are significant reasons why He chose to do that.
3. With regard to homosexuality, homosexuality is incompatible with Christian doctrine. Same-sex attraction is a sinful temptation, while homosexual sex is a grave sin not only because it is a sin against God, but also because it is a sin against one’s own body. While the references to homosexuality in Scripture are sparse and often oblique, they are quite clear in maintaining that homosexuality is against God’s law. If you take into account the writings of the Desert Fathers, and the early theologians which are often ignored by Protestant sects, it is quite clear that homosexuality has been viewed as a sin since the earliest Christian times. St. Paul is very clear on this subject as well as St. John Chrysostom who is considered the exegesist of exegesists, never to be equaled, in the Orthodox Church. This also illustrates the danger of Sola Scriptura and sects that regard the Bible and a spiritual calling as the only authority necessary to determine what is Christian doctrine. By example, one would not expect to take a degree simply by reading the textbook. It would be expected that you would attend classes, and learn from a master on the subject.
Delete4. You asked for statistics on denominational decline in the Anglican Church, but I’m unclear if you are located in the USA or abroad. In any case the ECUSA is the poster child for decline, having witnessed catastrophic losses since WW2 and now finding itself with its lowest membership since the 1930’s. In fact the ECUSA has lost 1/3 of its members since the 1980’s and Sunday church attendance is down 20% since 2001. If you are discussing the breakaway Anglican Church in America, a conservative offshoot of refugees from the ECUSA, I have no statistics for you, but they are numerically insignificant anyway. It’s quite clear that the U.S. Episcopal Church is in free fall and one writer’s statistics predicts that in 25-years there will be no one left. So if you think Anglicanism is growing, at least in the USA, you are living in a dream world. There appear to be some bright spots in international Anglicanism, but they are chiefly found in the developing world which hold more strictly to tradition and reject many innovations.
I have nothing to add except that I dislike the reference to all Protestant denominations as "sects". I do understand that this is a web blog devoted to Orthodox Christianity, nevertheless, I think that the term implies illegitimacy and even outright heresy - a notion to which I take umbrage.
DeleteBen, no offense intended. Sorry to raise your hackles. I was thinking of the more hyperbolic churches outside of the mainline denominations when I wrote that, although there is a tendency for many Protestant denominations to ignore or give short-shrift to the writings of the early church fathers of the late 1st thru 4th centuries, and particularly the Desert Fathers of Egypt.
DeleteWell you are all right, but I am righter. lol. I have the Holy Spirit who gives me discernment in all things despite the source.
ReplyDeleteWell... uh... Geez... I have no comeback to that... ;)
DeleteAmen anon, amen
DeleteOn an entirely different note, I know that you as Orthodox Christians refer to the Roman Bishop as First Among Equals. I have had many explain that to me - all non-Orthodox explanations. Would you define that for me and tell me what it means to you, and to the Orthodox Church more generally?
ReplyDeleteSecond, this goes back to Anna and her initial dialogue. Your general question is why evangelicals don't look to the Orthodox Church to fulfill their longing for the truest essence of Christian experience. (Please forgive the paraphrase.) First let me say that in spite of my disagreements with Jacob, I agree with what he said in the following:
"The fact that Protestants do not: celebrate the Eucharist, believe in transubstantiation, follow the Liturgy, have bishops, and follow the dictating of the 7th ecumenical council is entirely the point of Protestantism. It’s a rejection of all of that because of the corruption, power dynamics, and oppressive nature of the medieval churches (particularly Catholicism) in terms of its control over church doctrine and dogma, interpretation of the bible (as well as control of who could even read it), and censorship of descent."
I would only nuance it to place more stress on the corruption of Rome with her abuses that took Christian practice far beyond the example of the early church - a perfect example being he oft cited sale of indulgences. Again, it was not about severing ties so that Christianity could be rewritten according to the arbitrary sensibilities of the people. If you study the Reformation, there is no getting around the legitimacy of the complaints that the reformers had during that day.
I bring this up because many young protestant evangelicals today still feel skeptical about all things Roman. This relates to the Orthodox Church quite simply because most protestant evangelicals view the Orthodox Church as a dim reflection of Roman Catholicism: "they're the same except one doesn't have a Pope." One complementary thing that I can say about Evangelicals is that they know their Bibles. The sad thing is that they are typically able to run circles around their Catholic counterparts in this area. They therefore tend to view Catholics (and by extension, even if unfairly, Orthodox) as people who know nothing about the Bible, live like heathens, and are bound by endless traditions and rites that ultimately obscure the person of Christ: dead in their works. So why not consider Orthodoxy? For the same reason that you will likely never consider becoming an Evangelical: it's too radically different from what they "know" to be true.
Having said that, I used to be one, and viewed Lutherans much the same way I did Catholics. But I fell in love over time with the poetry and beauty of liturgy. How did I get there when I was so hostile to begin with? I genuinely believe that the Spirit moved me. From there, it was encountering the right people who were willing to approach me and talk to me. So I guess I would say this: keep inviting, loving, and living your faith openly for them to see. They are always blown away when they see a liturgical Christian who is sincerely devout - especially if they know their scripture!
Ben, "First Among Equals" is a term used to describe the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, currently Bartholomew I. When I converted to Orthodoxy, I was previously RC, I was taught that the Pope as Bishop of Rome, and western Patriarch was given a primacy of honor because Rome had been the capital of the empire. However, papal supremacy has never been accepted by Orthodoxy which continue to govern the Church collegially. Even the Patriarchs and Metropolitans of the various autocephalas Orthodox churches are simply bishops in their own jurisdictions who can be viewed as "first among equals" within their own canonical territory.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the clarification, JD. I know that you as Orthodox Christians do not accept the papal supremacy, nevertheless, I am interested in how you view the Pope. Is he still accorded the honor, respect, authority, etc. due a standard bishop within the Orthodox tradition? And if so, what about the differences in theological interpretation? Are there degrees of theological difference that exist between Orthodox bishops?
DeleteDid you ever take that pastor up on his offer of a chat over coffee? Or attend/will attend the "Pub Theology" discussion group? I'm curious to see what would have resulted of that :) I once attended a meeting of a similar Christian faith group at a cafe not long before I became Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteI loved these two posts, great lolz :P I agree that I would want to convince everyone to be Orthodox, but alas prayer and example are some of the best ways of doing that, which I'm not very good at, and I don't like discussion/debate, I'm too much of an introvert.