Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear blessed Fathers and faithful,

May an evangelical humbly submit the question of the relationship between the modern Evangelical Church and the Orthodox tradition. Personally, I found Francis Schaeffer's words prophetic when he asked "May God grant renewal and reformation in the Evangelical Orthodox Church." This doubly so, as his son Franky's conversion to Orthodoxy is one of the most momentous in bringing just the existence of the Orthodox Church into the acknowledgement by the North American evangelical tradition. I see the frustration of the Orthodox in the "Arrogance of Evangelists" who look upon Orthodox faithful as non-Christian, and I too am disturbed. It is endemic of their view towards Catholicism and mainline Protestantism as well. But I must ask if the same view is not expressed in the Orthodox inroads into American culture which most often seem to be the conversion of Evangelicals to the Orthodox tradition. May I be so bold as to ask which denomination has been most faithful to the the Lord's command to go into the world? I wonder how anyone can look at the phenomonal conversion of non-Christians to faith in Jesus as accomplished by the modern Pentecostal fire sweeping the globe, without seeing the Spirit behind it. It seems that all these denominations seem too often to be fighting for "converts" from other Christian churches; how many non-Christans are being turned?

Do not get me wrong, I do find the doctrinal distinctions to be of extreme importance and not to be taken lightly. Indeed I would also ask for the major doctrinal areas disputed between Orthodox and Evangelicals, much like the Catholic thread on this board. The baptism of infants is one, and an important one for my beleiver-baptist mindset. On the Lord's Supper I am much more inclined towards the ancient faith that the Lord makes himself mystically available in the bread and wine than viewing them as a "mere" symbol, however this spiritual change occurs. The ecclesiology is obviously another major issue, with the Orthodox hierarchical principle and the local church self-governing principle found in much Evangelicalism. Our view on Mary seems much closer than either with the Roman approach.

Now that Evanglicalism has grown into an offical "tradition" we face the same problem of nominal beleivers that we have traditionally spoke against the Catholic and Orthodox. In other words, there are many people sitting in evangelical pews who would benefit from converting to Orthodoxy if they there came truly to faith in Christ; while may I be so bold to say that a person who sporadically visits the Orthodox church on cultural grounds may have benefited by converting to Evangelicalism and in so doing coming to a true saving faith in Christ.

I see the two traditions as learning a lot from interaction ... and more importantly I beleive that EVERY Christian must needs be Evangelical and Orthodox and Catholic.

I know I risk very harsh responses, and I indeed expect and request that you be true to your God, I only hope you see a genuine seeker and not an arrogant evangelist.

Peace be with you,
Cyril

[Waldemar]

Hi Cyril,

You will find few here who are so enamoured with the worldwide revival of the Montanist* heresy.

There has been a lot of coverage of this "revival" in the mainstream press, some of it quite revelatory. For instance, two articles in last weeks' New York Times documented the "changing Church." What is it changing into? Is this cause for celebration?

"They're preaching Cross-less Christianity," said the Rev. Iheanyi Enwerem, of the Catholic Secretariat in Lagos. "The idea of everything joy-joy, prosperity-prosperity, well-well. In life, there are certain things we can't have because God doesn't want it. For them, everything is Easter joy, no Good Friday. We say it's totally un-Christian."

from:
THE CHANGING CHURCH
Where Faith Grows, Fired by Pentecostalism
By SOMINI SENGUPTA and LARRY ROHTER
New York Times
Published: October 14, 2003


Pastor Matthew Ashimolowo could not welcome each of the worshipers personally, but his face beamed from screens and monitors scattered throughout the gargantuan assembly hall. His voice thundered over loudspeakers.

His message was a blend of Corinthians and Hallmark, gospel truth and pop psychology, rendered in the style of a convention center motivational speech.

"If you don't change your thinking from stinking thinking, your life will stink," he told the parishioners, who shouted "Hallelujah!" and "Amen!"

"Turn the dream machine on," he said.

Pastor Ashimolowo, a Nigerian immigrant, started Kingsway 11 years ago, and it now claims about 10,000 members in East London, along with thousands more elsewhere. Many are from Africa, or their parents were.

They belong to a stream of European newcomers who were already Christian when they arrived in Britain — or France or Switzerland or Holland — but did not find in the Protestant and Catholic churches of Western Europe what they remembered and relished from home.

They wanted excitement, spontaneity and a kind of inspiration that spoke directly to them. Throughout many European cities, independent Pentecostal churches that are unaffiliated with traditional denominations sprung up to deliver that.

London today is full of them. Some are gigantic, like Kingsway. Others inhabit narrow, indistinct storefronts in working-class neighborhoods.

Worshipers often speak in tongues and take part in faith healings, practices that have begun to crop up as well in more traditional settings, like a United Reformed congregation in East London.

A decade ago, that congregation had dwindled to fewer than 10 members, some white and some black. Then the Rev. John Macauley from Sierra Leone took over. He gambled that the future of the parish was in a more ebullient style of worship.

"I was the only one clapping my hands back then, like I was from Planet Cuckoo," he said.

But that sound and sensibility, which soon led to a drum kit and baptismal pool on the altar, tugged new congregants into his orbit. His church now has more than 250 members.

Both it and Kingsway deliver more than an adrenaline rush. They strive to be practical, and they market themselves that way.

At Kingsway, glossy brochures for a new religious seminar promise advice on "how to be entrepreneurs," "mastering your finances" and "managing your relationships."

THE CHANGING CHURCH
Faith Fades Where It Once Burned Strong
By FRANK BRUNI
New York Times
Published: October 13, 2003

Sadly, mainstream evangelical Protestantism is badly infected with what was once known variously as the "Word-Faith" or "Health and Wealth" gospel. This formulation of a gospel is an easy sell, and the fatal weakness of Evangelicalism is its worship of success as defined by the market.


* Re: Montanus

"...through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.

Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets? But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift, were elated and not a little puffed up; and forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him. In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep silence.

Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/antimontanist.html

In other words, there is nothing new under the sun...

I hope this does not come across as unduly harsh, but the harsh truth is that the Orthodox Church has the long view of history about such spiritual trends and heresies.

[Waldemar]

The essential principle of Montanism was that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, whom Jesus had promised in the Gospel according to John, was manifesting himself to the world through Montanus and the prophets and prophetesses associated with him. This did not seem at first to deny the doctrines of the church or to attack the authority of the bishops. The church acknowledged the charismatic gift of some prophets.

It soon became clear, however, that the Montanist prophecy was new. True prophets did not, as Montanus did, deliberately induce a kind of ecstatic intensity and a state of passivity and then maintain that the words they spoke were the voice of the Spirit. It also became clear that the claim of Montanus to have the final revelation of the Holy Spirit implied that something could be added to teaching of Christ and the Apostles* and that, therefore, the Church had to accept a fuller revelation.

Encyclopedia Britannica entry for: Montanus and Montanism

(as cited here: http://www.ntcanon.org/Montanism.shtml)

* Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3)

[Cyril Guerette]

First, I hope I made it clear that I am in the Baptist tradition, which holds to the same ideas being argued here. I think that like yourselves, it is sad not see how the Spirit is bringing pagans to confession of the true Christ.

Second, I find some of the accusations above to be racist ... indeed a rejection of those aspects of African culture such as exuberant music and dance, which worldwide people are recognizing as a beautiful addition to the European frigidity. I beleive that in many ways God allowed the horrendous event of deportation and slavery of AFrican people in order to bring this time of Evangelical renewal to the world at large. We have seen similar actions throughout the Church's history.

Thirdly, I am glad the Montanist issue has been raised because I feel that maybe the rejection of some of the Montanists early on was a result of similar prejudices. Including an early prejudice against extreme asceticism that Monasticism later helped curb. Tertullian treasured the Monastist movement precisely for its asceticism, and I find it ironic that even the Greek church is indebted to his teachings on the Trinity. Is there a direct Council refutation of his teachings? I would like to be more learned on this topic.

Finally, I am wondering if the Fathers do not hold to a similar idea of the Spirit working through the speech of individuals through the ascetical life? In fact, this is something that has intrigued me in my delving into the Fathers. Were they not in the end Prophets who spoke to their spiritual children with the words of the Spirit as their lives became more and more close to the the Angelic state?

Oh and "teaching Cross-less Christianity" and everything "joy-joy" ... this is offensive and broad generalizations which has nothing to do with the tremendous richness I've seen in many Pentecostals spiritual life. It is always fun to label the other side ... "Those Orthodox are Spirit-less and lacking the Joy of the Spirit" ... yeah right.

[Waldemar]

Cyril wrote: On the Lord's Supper I am much more inclined towards the ancient faith that the Lord makes himself mystically available in the bread and wine than viewing them as a "mere" symbol, however this spiritual change occurs. The ecclesiology is obviously another major issue, with the Orthodox hierarchical principle and the local church self-governing principle found in much Evangelicalism.

In the "ancient faith", Eucharist and ecclesiology are inseparable.

But avoid divisions, as being the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the presbyters as the apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.

Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure.

From:
The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
St. Ignatius of Antioch
(born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117)
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Greek/ignatius.smyrnaeans.html


Ignatius laid emphasis upon two things in particular, the bishop and the Eucharist; he saw the Church as both hierarchical and sacramental. "The bishop in each Church," he wrote, "presides in place of God." "Let no one do any of the things which concern the Church without the bishop… Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." And it is the bishop’s primary and distinctive task to celebrate the Eucharist, "the medicine of immortality" (To the Magnesians, 6, 1; To the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 and 2; To the Ephesians, 20, 2).

People today tend to think of the Church as a worldwide organization, in which each local body forms part of a larger and more inclusive whole. Ignatius did not look at the Church in this way. For him the local community is the Church. He thought of the Church as a Eucharistic society, which only realizes its true nature when it celebrates the Supper of the Lord, receiving His Body and Blood in the sacrament. But the Eucharist is something that can only happen locally — in each particular community gathered round its bishop; and at every local celebration of the Eucharist it is the whole Christ who is present, not just a part of Him. Therefore each local community, as it celebrates the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday, is the Church in its fullness.

The teaching of Ignatius has a permanent place in Orthodox tradition. Orthodoxy still thinks of the Church as a Eucharistic society, whose outward organization, however necessary, is secondary to its inner, sacramental life; and Orthodoxy still emphasizes the cardinal importance of the local community in the structure of the Church. To those who attend an Orthodox Pontifical Liturgy (The Liturgy: this is the term normally used by Orthodox to refer to the service of Holy Communion, the Mass), when the bishop stands at the beginning of the service in the middle of the church, surrounded by his flock, Ignatius of Antioch’s idea of the bishop as the center of unity in the local community will occur with particular vividness.

- Bishop Kallistos Ware, <u>The Orthodox Church</u>

[Joseph Willcoxson]

I was under the impression that part of the Montanist heresy was that Montanus claimed to be the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. IOW, as Jesus Christ was to the second person of the Holy Trinity, so did Montanus &#40;or his followers&#41; claim to be to the third person of the Holy Trinity.

Such a heresy could in no manner be orthodox.

[Waldemar]

Re: On the Lord&#39;s Supper I am much more inclined...

The &#34;I&#34; part of what you wrote is troubling.

Doesn&#39;t communion at least imply oneness in faith?

Can you be inclined to belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist while your co-religionists around you in the pews are inclined to Baptist modern-faith that the starchy squares and grape juice are &#34;just&#34; symbols?

Aren&#39;t you breaking communion with your fellow Baptists while you are more inclined where they are not so inclined?

According to your belief system, does &#34;I am more inclined&#34; precipitate &#40;for want of a better term&#41; the Real Presence into the elements that you are partaking while those around you are partaking of mere symbols or are they partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ without knowing it?

[Fr John Wehling]

Cyril,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

A few (hopefully not harsh :>) )responses to your questions and statements above.


May I be so bold as to ask which denomination has been most faithful to the the Lord's command to go into the world?

Given the witness of the martyrs of the first three centuries and beyond, the conversion of the Roman Empire (made up of many, many nationalities and ethnic groups) to the Christian faith within a few hundred years of Christ's ascension, the conversion of the Slavs under the inspired efforts of Ss Cyril and Methodius resulting in millions of people coming to the faith (and probably billions, if we consider those from then to now who have inherited the faith from those first converted), I think we can say humbly that the Orthodox have done a pretty good job of "going into all the world."

It is true that, for the most part, Orthodoxy has been a late comer to the New World, but again, the New World itself is a fairly recent development in world history. And I think we can also say that Protestantsim did not so much convert the inhabitants of the New World as it conquered them. Not the same thing, exactly.


I wonder how anyone can look at the phenomonal conversion of non-Christians to faith in Jesus as accomplished by the modern Pentecostal fire sweeping the globe, without seeing the Spirit behind it. It seems that all these denominations seem too often to be fighting for "converts" from other Christian churches; how many non-Christans are being turned?

This critique applies more to Pentecostalism and the Charismatics than to any other Christian group. Having been a part of the "Charismatic movement" for a short time in High School, I saw firsthand how divisive it was. Far more often than not it takes people from other Christian denominations (rather than non-Christians) and converts them to the "Spirit-filled" life, creating schisms and leaving divided churches in its wake. Even today I would bet that, where Pentecostalism and Charismaticism are flourishing (in South America, for example), by far the great number of converts are from Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christian denominations.

So is the Spirit "behind this"? Please understand why many Orthodox are skeptical of a positive answer to this question. We understand that the Holy Spirit is "everywhere present and filling all things," and that God "desires that all be men saved an come to a knowledge of the truth." God uses everything to lead us to faith and salvation, even the sins of others, suffering, etc. But that does not mean that these things are God-ordained paths/norms, only that God is the God who brings good out of evil.

Many converts to the Orthodox Church will tell you that God used many things in their lives to lead them to the Church, everything from philosophy to the hymns of Charles Wesley to eastern religions. And because God does not abandon the world, but has scattered His "seeds" everywhere, these things lead us onward and upward to a fuller apprehension of Truth.

St Irenaeus of Lyons, in a different context, used a beautiful analogy which, perhaps, applies here. He said (very rough paraphrase, forgive me if I miss it here or there) that the Truth (which is, of course, Christ) is like a beautiful mosaic of a king made up of many precious stones (which he saw,I believe, as the many testimonies about Christ in the Scriptures). To put the mosaic togther, one needs the key, or the diagram -- the schematic -- which is the Tradition of the Church. Without this, people put the stones together and get another image, perhaps of a dog.

So, to risk hijacking St Irenaeus' analogy, we Orthodox belive that, while the Holy Spirit is everywhere drawing people to Christ, bringing to fruition the seeds of Truth planted everywhere, the only place where the full image will be found -- or the fullness of Truth -- is in the Orthodox Church. Others might get parts of it right, more or less faithful to the image, but the Orthodox Tradition alone is the key to put it all together so that the beauty of the image of Christ shines through to the world.

Another way of looking at it. "The Great Comission" of St Matthew 28 not only tells us to "go into all the world," but to make disciples who will "observe all that I have commanded you." This is precisely what the Orthodox Tradition is: the observing of the commandments of our Lord. You quoted Francis Schaeffer. He asked, "how should we then live?" We point at the Orthodox Church and Her Holy Tradition and respond, "like this."

Sounds presumptuous, and we know that. We can only respond by saying: 1) we seek to be humble in this assertion; and 2)to say otherwise would be unfaithfulness to Him who called us and entrusted us with the saving Tradition.

And now to end this all-too-lenghty tome...

Peace,
Fr John

[Cyril Guerette]

Good questions Waldemar. First, I am curious as to the term &#34;bishop&#34; being used. Is this the same term &#34;shepard&#34; which we translate &#34;pastor&#34;? Does every individual Orthodox church have a bishop who presents the mass in each individual building? I guess I think of &#34;bishop&#34; in the Catholic term of a higher person in the hierarchy who has priests under him. I would wonder if our pastors do not fulfill the role of the bishop as initially intended.

As to MY inclination on the Lord&#39;s Supper. Every individual takes a personal perspecitve on the bread and wine. I do not beleive that I am breaking fellowship with my fellow baptists for my personal beleifs. To leave them altogether would be more harmful because at least amongst them I have the ability to argue my case as an insider. Plus I have not delved into how I think the Real Presence occurs, because I often wonder on this issue. If the presence is independent of my psychological state then it doesn&#39;t matter what I or they beleive about the elements; if it is depndent upon my psychological state than I receive them Real Presence while those around me do not. Of course I realize that you would argue it depends upon the presence of a valid bishop ... and I would need to hear more.

For the record, at the church I recently moved away from in Toronto, one of the pastors held views similar to mine, largely through discussions we had on the topic together in our mutual discovery of the efficacy of the Lord&#39;s Supper. So things may be changing. I say so also because of Dr. Fowler&#39;s book rediscovering the early Baptists viewing of Baptism as efficacious, which helped me come to see communion as likewise, something which he would reject no doubt. I do think this doctrine of &#34;mere symbols&#34; is one which can be changed in the Evangelical mindset.

[Cyril Guerette]

As far as Montanus beleiving he was THE incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Can this be confirmed? I would of course reject such a heresy, unless he meant it in the way that the Spirit indwells each of us, not in the way the Rastafarians view their founder as the physical embodiement of the Third Hypostases.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Some simple observations:


May I be so bold as to ask which denomination has been most faithful to the the Lord's command to go into the world? I wonder how anyone can look at the phenomonal conversion of non-Christians to faith in Jesus as accomplished by the modern Pentecostal fire sweeping the globe, without seeing the Spirit behind it. It seems that all these denominations seem too often to be fighting for "converts" from other Christian churches; how many non-Christans are being turned?

"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' Matthew 7:21-23


I see the two traditions as learning a lot from interaction ... and more importantly I beleive that EVERY Christian must needs be Evangelical and Orthodox and Catholic.

For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. Romans 12:3-8

Evangelism according to St. Seraphim of Sarov:
"Acquire the spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you shall be saved."

Herman the simple

[Arsenios]

Cyril writes:

&#34;As to MY inclination on the Lord&#39;s Supper. Every individual takes a personal perspective on the bread and wine.&#34;

Cyril, the Lord bless you!

You have captured the essence of the difference between Orthodoxy and the Baptists... Because in Orthodoxy, the entire Church is of one mind in its perspective on the bread and wine, Body and Blood. We do not each of us have &#34;personal perspectives&#34;, but are one with the mind of Christ, which is found in His Orthodox Church, which affirms with Him every Liturgy, &#34;Take... Eat... This is my body...&#34;

We need nothing more... And personally, to the degree that our infirmity allows us, we each, together with Paul and all the saints, hold [by ascetic contention, in the contest &#40;race&#41; laid before us] the mystery of the Faith in a purified conscience...

We do not struggle to each formulate our own personal understanding of the Faith so as to &#39;have&#39; the faith, but RECEIVE if from the Body of Christ, [Who is it&#39;s Head]. We talk about it only secondarily, concentrating instead on the living of a prayer-saturated daily life... In which effort I can assure you the vast majority of us, [and especially me], are miserable, yet hopefully confessing, failures...

God bless you on your journey...

geo [Arsenios]

[Waldemar]

Cyril,

You are a man determined to get some answers.

Re: Bishops and Priests

Try here: http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/worship/holy-orders.html

For all of the other questions that will undoubtedly follow, you might as well go whole hog here:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm

I’m afraid that you’re in for some changes if you accept these Orthodox Christians answers as the truth.

You’ll experience the thrill of discovery, but don’t confuse it with what Evangelicals are calling “recovery.” You can’t recover what you never had.

It will be tempting to cut patches from the seamless garment of Orthodoxy to cover the holes that you perceive in your Baptist traditions.

“No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.”

This new garment might look nice and fit right at first, but it won’t wash.

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Father Wheling,

I thank you for your gentle yet firm response. May I ask how then the Orthodox view Evangelicals ... will all burn in hell or will some of us be saved &#34;but through the fire&#34; for the Truth we have accepted?

Each Christian denomination sees itself as Truer to the Lord, as it must. The Evangelical stream obviously sees other traditions as slowly adding fallible HUMAN teachings to the divine word while the Orthodox see them as divinely inspired. I try and teach my students to respect tradition, with trepidition, because our acceptence of the Canon, is dependent upon a Council and thus the same tradition as the Orthodox. The question is to what extent, and can we see mistakes along the way.

But to repeat my major question: What status does an Evangelical beleiver have in the eyes of the Orthodox regarding their salvation.


Dear Herman,

The Romans text you quote helps me to see the positive role each of our traditions in modern society, an interpretation you no doubt disagree with.

Dear George,

First, from what I have witnessed there is less unity amongst the Orthodox than you pride yourselves on.

But more importantly, I am growing tired of the academic accusations of American, and thus Evangelical, Individualism. In the end you DO decide on what YOU personally perceive the Bread and Wine to be. Each Orthodox person decides to take the perspective of the tradition. This is indeed a &#34;personal perspective&#34; which wishes to align itself with the community. And you often interpret the tradition differently I have come to discover. And the Western tradition you reject does not &#34;struggle to each formulate our own personal understanding of the Faith so as to &#39;have&#39; the faith&#34;. As Anselm so bold declares in his &#34;Faith seeking Understanding&#34; ... &#34;I do not seek to understand so that I may have faith, but have faith so that I may understand.&#34;

Dear Waldemar,

I will try to set some time aside to read these articles, as I already owe Daniel J some time in reading from the other post. As it is I have taken a lot of time up already in this quest, so it may be a little while before I can read it all. I will do so, and I hope you do not mind my continuing the discussion in the meantime.


Thank you each for your conversation, and I hope you will forgive my boldness, as I have realized it is best to speak my mind as you do, it seems a positive way forward.

God be with you,
Cyril

[Waldemar]

Re: Those pesky and tinder-dry Evangelicals:

Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and &#40;according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. 12&#41; does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, &#34;not to judge another man&#39;s servant&#34; &#40;Rom. 14. 4&#41;.

from:

The Church is One
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_is_one_e.htm
by Alexei Khomiakov, 1804--1860

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Romans text you quote helps me to see the positive role each of our traditions in modern society, an interpretation you no doubt disagree with.

The Holy Apostle says we ALL see as through a smokey glass, darkly. I think it worthwhile to note that the Apostle, in Romans, was not talking about individual traditions, but about individuals. Extrapolating that to cover differing traditions seems a bridge too far to this simple mind. It should be noted that Orthodoxy considers the "branch" theory--that the various (as you call them) traditions are all branches of the tree of Christianity--as heresy, so you probably will not get a whole lot of sympathy for this point of view in this particular venue.

As to how the Orthodox view the heterodox:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.htm

This is one individual's website, it is not an "official" site of Orthodoxy. This particular article, I believe, is worthwhile and certainly germaine.

St Theophan the Recluse, a fairly well-respected Orthodox theologian wrote: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

Herman the simple

[Waldemar]

&#34;In the end you DO decide on what YOU personally perceive the Bread and Wine to be.&#34;

I didn&#39;t realize that by &#34;ancient faith&#34; you meant ancient gnostic faith!

[Cyril Guerette]

&#34;I didn&#39;t realize that by &#34;ancient faith&#34; you meant ancient gnostic faith!&#34;

Haha. So somehow your will was controlled by the community and you are not personally responsible for what you beleive?

[Joseph Willcoxson]

As far as Montanus beleiving he was THE incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Can this be confirmed? I would of course reject such a heresy, unless he meant it in the way that the Spirit indwells each of us, not in the way the Rastafarians view their founder as the physical embodiement of the Third Hypostases.

In book V of Eusebius' ecclesiastical history (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445):


Chapter XIV. The False Prophets of the Phrygians.

1 The enemy of God's Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church.220 For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.

[Waldemar]

So somehow your will was controlled by the community and you are not personally responsible for what you beleive?

I was received into the Communion of Saints, aka the Orthodox Church through a mysterious and ongoing conversion process – a synergy between the will of God and my own free will. I am not personally responsible as far as authorship of what I believe &#40;in other words, unlike what I was doing at my Evangelical stage, I’m not making it up as I go along...&#41;. What I believe is the Apostolic Deposit &#40;cf. Jude 3&#41;. I am personally responsible for living out these beliefs by the grace of God.

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Waldemar,

Yes, well put, I agree fully that all conversion is a synergy between the will of God and our own free will. But this does not negate the role of our will. I am sorry that in your Evangelical stage you were making it up as you went along. And I wonder if everything you beleive is the Apostolic Deposit, or whether it is your perception of that deposit. How do you account for the arguments amongst yourselves if every Orthodox simply receives these beleifs?


Dear Joseph,

Thank you very much for that link. I had read a little in Eusebius before on Montanism but your link is a wealth of information. On a skim reading, I wonder how much our perception of Montanus has been skewed by later interpretations of them as heretics. But I also think that in any case a great distinction between prophets and false prophets is made therein. There is this document no denial of the existence of true prophets, it was just the ecstatic nature of Montanism that seems to be rejected. Yet Paul himself had some more charasmatic experiences, all the while putting strictures upon how they were to function in the Church. Thus a form prophetic spiritual gifts as practiced in Pentecostalism may be regarded as distinct from Montanism if the later is truly heretical. I would indeed like more insight into the Orthodox view of prophecy and the existence or non-existence modern prophets as this may help clear up some of the the differences we are discussing.

[Waldemar]

How do you account for the arguments amongst yourselves if every Orthodox simply receives these beleifs?

Human nature.

[Cyril Guerette]

Yes. It is human nature to INTERPRET. And here I think this re-iterated distinction between Orthodox and Evangelical on the basis of some type of individualism breaks down when it comes to accepting the ancient faith. There isn&#39;t a simple reception of an Apostolic Deposit, interpretation is always presnt. I don&#39;t beleive interpretation itself is the result of sin, although false interpretations may be. And it seems that our interpretation of the Bread and Wine are closer than the average Orthodox and Evangelical, although still clearly apart.

[Waldemar]

Re: The Apostolic Deposit

I should let a fellow neophyte Orthodox do some talking. You should have a listen to this young fella who was received into Orthodoxy just a year before me:

Jaroslav Pelikan

Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University. His most recent book is Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions in the Christian Tradition. His other major works include Mary Through the Centuries, and the five volume The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.

You can listen to him here:

http://www.speakingoffaith.org/programs/2003/09/19_pelikan/


The talk:

Jaroslav Pelikan and the Need for Creeds

Sep. 19, 2003

Every field of human endeavor has its heroes - men and women who may be relatively unknown in the wider culture but are living legends in the world of their accomplishment. Jaroslav Pelikan is one of those. He is Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University, and past president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He wrote five epic volumes, the defining work of our time, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. This year, as he turns 80, he is being celebrated in a national lecture series spanning six months, at seminaries and cathedrals across the country. It will end with a gala event at the Library of Congress. Pelikan&#39;s gift is for clarifying the past for the sake of the present and the future. And so it is fitting that this year he is also releasing an historic collection of creeds and confessions of Christian faith, from biblical times to the present and from across the globe. This is the first such effort since 1870. Published by Yale University Press, it is already being hailed as the standard resource for the coming century. But the very idea of reciting an unchanging creed, composed many centuries ago, is troublesome for many modern Americans. We spoke with Jaroslav Pelikan about how a fixed creed can be reconciled with an honest, intellectual faith - which is surely not marked by a static certainty.

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Waldemar,

Thank you for the Pelikan link as I have been intending to read his work for a long time. I think I will add one of his volumes to my bibliography for my first comprehensive examination. In the mean time I will explore the resource you have shared.

I also see you linked me to the Eusebius passage earlier without my realizing it. Thank you.

I also have started peeking at the earlier link you gave me and have found that according to http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Bible-and-Church-History/Prophecy.html that a beleif in prophecy as a current gift is indeed alive and well amongst the Orthodox today. I thought it must be so, for in my readings of the Desert Fathers there was a recurring theme of God using human beings to speak forth his words amongst the current generation. I wonder how prophecy functions in the life of the Orthodox Church today concretely. For the most part because it appears that you may have found away for it to be manifest without the excesses you condemn in the modern charismatic movement, an accomplishment which I would indeed find telling.

[Waldemar]

I don&#39;t beleive interpretation itself is the result of sin, although false interpretations may be.

I agree. Let&#39;s also remember the much maligned but perfectly good New Testament word: heresy, which is about picking and choosing. That&#39;s bad and dangerous stuff too.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15


But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Titus 3:9-11


and from good ol’ Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:


Heretical
&#60;1,,141,hairetikos&#62;
akin to the above, primarily denotes &#34;capable of choosing&#34; &#40;haireomai&#41;; hence, &#34;causing division by a party spirit, factious,&#34; Titus 3:10, RV, &#34;heretical.&#34;

Heresy
&#60;1,,139,hairesis&#62;
denotes &#40;a&#41; &#34;a choosing, choice&#34; &#40;from haireomai, &#34;to choose&#34;&#41;; then, &#34;that which is chosen,&#34; and hence, &#34;an opinion,&#34; especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, Gal. 5:20 &#40;marg., &#34;parties&#34;&#41;; such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage; see 2 Pet. 2:1, where &#34;destructive&#34; &#40;RV&#41; signifies leading to ruin; some assign even this to &#40;b&#41;; in the papyri the prevalent meaning is &#34;choice&#34; &#40;Moulton and Milligan, Vocab.&#41;; &#40;b&#41; &#34;a sect;&#34; this secondary meaning, resulting from &#40;a&#41;, is the dominating significance in the NT, Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5; 28:22; &#34;heresies&#34; in 1 Cor. 11:19

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Cyril G.

The Lord bless you, and make His face to shine upon you, and give you peace. Nothing new in that blessing, as you'll no doubt note that it's straight from the OT, by which usage I introduce my viewpoint on "personal perspective".

You say that,
"Each Orthodox person decides to take the perspective of the tradition. This is indeed a "personal perspective" which wishes to align itself with the community."

Remember that blessing appearing at the beginning of this post?, it came from what was the effort of the Early Church commonly known as The Bible! What each of us believe is not, I repeat, is not, a matter of personal intellectual journey. Rather; as you've correctly pointed out, the truths we hold dear, are those of the "community", the Church!

No one, again, no one is the same member of the body, but the Body has at least two things in common. WE have (1)a head, which is Christ, and (2) the life which courses through our veins, as it were, is the life of our head.

The perspective of the Church is not a matter of personal conviction, but it is what has been arrived at by joint decision, as the word community you used implies. It is personal, only in as much as one belongs to the Community of Faith, the Church.

Wherever I go, I go there as a representative of the Lord Jesus Christ, a member of His Body. And, if I should as much dare to open my mouth to cast abroad, preach, "evangelize"; whatever I say will not be taken as "personal", but as tenets of the Church! If what I believe jives with the Confession of Faith, then the less schizmatic and tormented will be my soul in the faith and practice of my religion.

The Church is not an amalgamation of persuasions, but WE have one confession, one faith, one Lord, one God and Father of all!

the unworthy servant

[Herman Blaydoe]

A simple thought:

It is one thing to read a book and derive some sort of personal meaning from it. It is something else again to try and determine what meaning the actual author was trying to express. Ask two different people what Catcher in the Rye is about and you will probably get two different opinions. But if you ask enough people, or better yet, if those people get together and discuss the book with the view of ascertaining what the author meant, you stand a better chance of coming up with a reasonable consensus that actually matches the author&#39;s intention. If you can discuss the matter with people who actually KNEW the author, even better. If the book is Catcher in the Rye, you have a literary society. If the book is Holy Scripture, you have a Church. Although it is only one small facet of the gem of Holy Orthodoxy, our continuity of Apostolic witness, polished by 2000 years of Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, Mothers, Ascetics, and mighty spiritual athletes.

Orthodoxy has never been a matter of &#34;personal interpretation.&#34; Our approach to Holy Scripture is the same as Holy Scripture describes it to be &#34;...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to US...&#34; Note the plural there. They did not say &#34;it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to ME...&#34; Personal revelation is all fine and dandy, but it MUST be measured against some sort of standard, so that we can know that it is truly from God and not self-delusion. Even as the Holy Apostle teaches &#34;..test all things. to see if they are from the Lord.&#34; Orthodoxy tests against the Concensus Patrum. What the Fathers teach must not contradict each other and of course, must not depart from Holy Scripture.

Pity the Protestant Evangelists, who have the Book, but have lost the lessons and witness continued directly from the Holy Apostles, who received their witness direct from Christ Himself! Where is the concensus? Where is the standard? How is the poor Protestant to know that he is not a victim of self will? Does not the Holy Apostle Paul warn us about false prophets and wolves in sheep&#39;s clothing? Who will protect the Protestants from them? They do NOT have the protecting staff of Holy Tradition to keep them safe.

What happens to those outside the flock of the Holy Orthodox Church? They wander lost, hoping in this pastor or that, hoping that the leader is not a wolf and no way to determine. That any reach shelter and pasture is a wonder, but God is good and merciful, and reaches out even to the wild sheep. But we know where safety is, we know our Shepherd and He knows us. In the Church there is Truth. Some of us former wild sheep have been blessed to find the flock. We know what it was like &#34;out there&#34; and, thank you very much, we want no more of it.

May God keep you safe on your spiritual journey.

Herman the simple sheep

[Fr Averky]

Dear in the Lord
Cyril and Waldemar,

I wish to thank both of you for the civility and patience you have shown so far. Cyril&#39;s questions, answers and statements are ever so much more tempered than those of recent guests, Messers. Tanner and Lust.

Cyril-looking at your family name-are you by any chance French by background? If so, one would have thought you would have been a Catholic-just curious.

I will post later, but just wanted tro tell you that if this thread can be conducted with the civility shown thus far, for of course, it concerns matters in which we cannot agree, we will all gain from it.

Herman-come on now- we know and you know that you are anything but simple. Signing yourself &#34;simple&#34; is the same as if I were to sign myself as &#34;Humble Fr. A.&#34;

[Arsenios]

Cyril writes:


Dear George,
First, from what I have witnessed there is less unity amongst the Orthodox than you pride yourselves on.

It is not a matter of pride, but of obedience to Christ - One thing that might prove useful to you is that to Orthodox believers, the words do not define the faith, but merely point toward it, and even dogmatic formulations but form the boundaries of acceptable understanding... Hence the high value we place spiritually upon silence, and the fact that we do not figure out and appropriate the faith from our reading the Bible, but instead receive the faith from the Church, which itself received it from the Apostles, who received it once, for all, from Christ.


But more importantly, I am growing tired of the academic accusations of American, and thus Evangelical, Individualism.

Spoken as a true individualist! I used to be one of these... [via Ayn Rand and her athiesm and Objectivist philosophy - I taught it...]


In the end you DO decide on what YOU personally perceive the Bread and Wine to be.

So you say - Yet the truth is, we receive the faith, and enter into the Mystery, and the Mystery is not conceptually explicated... If it were, it would be no Mystery... And I can tell you for a fact, the understanding of this particular Mystery of the Church which I have now is decidedly NOT verbal... I could no more formulate it in words than I could levitate...


Each Orthodox person decides to take the perspective of the tradition. This is indeed a "personal perspective" which wishes to align itself with the community.

Yes, we have one mind, which is a communion of all our minds, in Christ. Paul writes "We hold the Mystery of the faith in a purified conscience... We have the mind [nous] of Christ..." WE do not decide what we will believe, but are instructed by Christ's Church.


And you often interpret the tradition differently, I have come to discover.

People are people... We do not always agree - Yet in faith, we are one... For the faith we practice is entered, and is not the words, even though we use words, and treasure them...

geo

[Cyril Guerette]

I think that there is here an overconfidence in the unity of the Orthodox faction, reading through the histories I often see more conflict than community. I think also there is an extreme non-understanding of the present Evangelical stream. The divisions and strifes between Evangelical dominations that are so loudly declared are fading away. Those of my generation are more prone to say, &#34;I am a Christian&#34; than &#34;I am a Baptist, or Pentecostal&#34; etc. In other words a growing unity is arising by the Holy Spirit.

I do see the problems that over-emphasizing individuality has caused much of American culture and faith; but I don&#39;t think that what I am saying amounts to this, nor does it refute what you are saying in terms of the Truth handed down. I am merely saying that each person must themselves consent to the tradition, which is a personal decision, a decision which Christ put on each of his followers: &#34;Peter, follow me.&#34; &#34;Cyril, follow me&#34; is the cry I hear today.

Again, you speak as if you all are in such beautiful harmonious agreement on everything and nothing is a personal interpretation, yet the divisions are so apparant to us both today and historically.

To be clear, I teach my students that if in their readings they arise an interpretation that is historically &#34;unique&#34; they must immediately suspect it as false. For the Spirit has lived in his people for 2000 years and it is arrogant to think that we need not listen to the tradition. But I find it arrogant also for so many individuals in one group to claim that they only have the tradition, especially when they have been fighting with great men of God for over a thousand years.

Finally, I agree that the mystery of the Eucharist is not captured in words. I hope I did not indicate otherwise.

Dear Father A, thank you for your encouragement, I pray I do not change your mind concerning the civility of the discussion in my future engagements. I am learning here how to speak one&#39;s mind boldly with conviction but still listening respectfully to equally convicted discussion partners. The level of intensity frightened me somewhat at first, but now I find it refreshingly honest.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think that there is here an overconfidence in the unity of the Orthodox faction, reading through the histories I often see more conflict than community.

Orthodox faction? As opposed to what, exactly? As to conflict, when has the Church ever been free from conflict of some sort or another? Even the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul quarreled for a time. But did they believe differently? Did they become different "factions?" They reconcilled and remained ONE CHURCH, ONE PEOPLE of GOD.

Simply Herman

[Waldemar]

Cyril wrote:
The divisions and strifes between Evangelical dominations that are so loudly declared are fading away. Those of my generation are more prone to say, &#34;I am a Christian&#34; than &#34;I am a Baptist, or Pentecostal&#34; etc. In other words a growing unity is arising by the Holy Spirit.


The reason why the divisions and strifes are fading away: &#34;...being evangelical has come to mean simply that one has had a certain kind of religious experience that gives color to the private aspects of daily life but in which few identifiable theological elements can be discerned or, as it turns out, are necessary.&#34;

In other words, this unity that you are trumpeting is less a sign of the Holy Spirit and more a sign of &#34;Who cares?&#34;

Excerpt from:

What&#39;s Wrong with Evangelical Theology?
Peter J. Leithart
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9608/opinion/leithart.html

In his book No Place for Truth, David Wells tells a tale of two declines-the first of which occurred in Protestant liberalism. What began as an effort to commend Christianity to its despisers ended with the loss of everything distinctively Christian. In the Kantian intellectual universe in which liberalism found itself, the &#34;script for study is human experience, not the teaching of the Bible or, for that matter, of the Church.&#34; The academy entrenched this experiential emphasis with the relocation of religion into the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, a relocation that established &#34;a bias in favor of the sort of Liberalism that Schleiermacher argued for &#40;which seeks the disclosure of God within human experience&#41; and a bias against classical orthodoxy &#40;which builds on revelation the ultimate source of which is outside human experience&#41;.&#34; Liberalism diluted and ultimately excluded confession from academic religious studies.

The focus of Wells&#39; lamentation, however, is the parallel process taking place within evangelicalism, which is now, like liberalism before it, drinking from the trough of modernity, with similar results. Evangelicals entered the mainstream of American life during the late 1970s and &#34;almost immediately&#34; lost their ability to define themselves theologically. Modernity&#39;s separation of public and private has limited evangelicals&#39; beliefs &#34;to matters of private experience, increasingly shorn of their distinctive worldview, and increasingly withdrawn from what was external and public.&#34; Ultimately, &#34;being evangelical has come to mean simply that one has had a certain kind of religious experience that gives color to the private aspects of daily life but in which few identifiable theological elements can be discerned or, as it turns out, are necessary.&#34; The theological wheel has turned again in the same circle: &#34;Evangelicals, no less than the Liberals before them whom they have always berated, have now abandoned doctrine in favor of &#39;life.&#39;&#34;

Wells find this surprising, given the fact that evangelicals have always defined themselves as a &#34;doctrinal people.&#34; On reflection, the real surprise is that it has not happened sooner, for his criticisms cut more deeply than Wells seems to realize. Evangelicalism is, after all, often defined as a branch of Christianity that gives particular emphasis to certain aspects of Christian experience: spiritual rebirth, conversion, and a personal relationship to Christ. Spend a little time among evangelicals, and you are sure to learn about people who believe all the right doctrine but are not &#34;real&#34;-which is to say, born-again- Christians. Long before neo-evangelicalism, long before the rise of the Christian right, long before the &#34;Toronto blessing,&#34; revivalism gave American Protestantism its distinctive experiential shape, as wave after wave of anti-intellectual New School, New Light, and New Whatever movements were accepted and, paradoxically, accorded theological legitimation.

Wells notes that evangelicals are drawing &#34;increasingly injurious&#34; conclusions from the appropriate emphasis on a believer&#39;s personal relationship with Christ: &#34;They have proceeded to seek assurance of faith not in terms of the objective truthfulness of the biblical teaching but in terms of the efficacy of its subjective experience.&#34; Not only in the use of testimonies but in hymnody as well, evangelicalism is &#34;changing direction to reflect this experience-centered focus.&#34; To anyone who has sung nineteenth-century revival hymns with their sentimental lyrics set to syrupy melodies, however, it is scarcely credible that these represent recent developments.

At certain moments in his analysis, Wells himself seems to half-doubt his tragic narrative. He wonders &#34;whether there ever was a theological structure that evangelicals commonly held and that held them together in a common world of belief.&#34; A good question, to which there is at least prima facie evidence of a negative answer: What theological structure was shared by, say, J. Gresham Machen and Billy Sunday?

The current state of evangelicalism, as well as program for the future, may be inferred from the typology outlined in George Lindbeck&#39;s The Nature of Doctrine. Though Lindbeck&#39;s book has to do with theories of religion and doctrine, his typology can be used to assess the contours and self-understandings of various religious communities and traditions. And, though it doubtless violates Lindbeck&#39;s thoroughly descriptive intentions, his framework may be deployed in a prescriptive manner. Lindbeck discusses the cognitivist model, in which doctrines are considered as propositional first-order truth claims, and the expressivist model, which treats doctrines as more or less arbitrary symbolizations of religious feeling and experience. While liberalism was self-consciously formulated in the second mode, evangelicalism oscillates between the two-emphasizing assent to propositional truth one moment, then insisting on personal experience of the new birth as a &#40;perhaps the&#41; central reality of Christianity.

Evangelicalism, however, has little sense of the &#34;cultural-linguistic&#34; dimension of Christianity, Lindbeck&#39;s third model and the one he adopts as the framework for his essay in postliberal theology. In this approach, religion is not merely a system of propositions nor a symbolic expression of natural and universal religious experience; religion is instead a comprehensive interpretive scheme, embodied in narrative and ritual, which structures human experience and thought. From this viewpoint, Christianity is indeed seen as a &#34;life,&#34; but as a communal life that includes not only a system of ritual and worship and a way of living, but also a way of speaking and thinking.

Wells&#39; justified concerns about the place of theology in evangelical life would not be ignored in such an approach. Theology composed in a cultural-linguistic key need not adopt Lindbeck&#39;s reductive &#34;rule theory&#34; of doctrine, his idea that doctrine functions as a grammar that regulates a community&#39;s speech but makes no direct ontological claims. Doctrine and theology can take a very high profile in a cultural- linguistic approach, but doctrine would not be the sole mark of true Christianity. An evangelical understanding of theology and church life in a cultural-linguistic mode could avoid the intellectualist extreme of a cognitive approach as well as the irrationalist extreme of the expressivist model.

A cultural-linguistic conception of Christianity highlights the need for evangelical sacramental and liturgical theology. Evangelicals well understand how doctrines and moral standards shape and define a community, but their instinctive anti-ritualism leaves them bereft of the theological tools required for understanding how rites mold, sustain, and nourish the Church. Evangelicals typically examine ritual only for enhancing individual experience. At the risk of sounding pretentiously postmodern, evangelicals would be served by reflections toward a &#34;meta-liturgics,&#34; a liturgical theology that does not ask, &#34;What is the warrant for this gesture?&#34; or &#34;Must we say these words?&#34; but instead seeks the meaning and status of ritual action as such.

From the cultural-linguistic perspective, rites are as important as doctrines in defining a community. Rites, Lindbeck emphasizes, are not mere external decorations but the means through which the interpretive pattern of the religion is exhibited, transmitted, and interiorized. In this perspective the narrative and ritual patterns of Christianity do not merely express prior religious experience but give shape to experience and even form the conditions of the possibility of Christian experience. Perhaps we are not going too far to suggest that the shape of evangelicalism depends on its answer to the question of infant baptism, which sharply poses the question of whether it is possible for external rites to shape experience, rather than merely expressing it.

Now that is a sharply posed question for a Baptist! An Orthodox answer to this question would have your &#34;Church Fathers,&#34; the Anabaptists wholly rolling in their graves!

[M. Rallis]

Dear Cyril:

Isn’t it rather prideful to suggest that the human mind is capable of interpreting anything in regards to the Uncreated? Brother, when you suggest to me that we come to knowledge of the truth through application of our own reason to the Holy Scriptures, you tempt me to abandon what has been the only true path to becoming a Christian. Our Holy Fathers shone with the Uncreated Light of God’s Grace, not because they pridefully exulted their intellect, but because they made their hearts to be a proper dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. And this process begins with humility, not with pride. Our salvation consists not in being erudite interpreters of the written Word, but in achieving within our own hearts the same communion with the Uncreated that the writers of the Gospel experienced. And the Orthodox life in Christ is how a human being prepares his heart and soul to receive the Uncreated. And this is a gift and a blessing bestowed on creation by the Creator, not an individual interpretation, nor any other man-made thing.

[Waldemar]

Re: Brother, when you suggest to me that we come to knowledge of the truth through application of our own reason to the Holy Scriptures...

&#34;Suppose an impossibility - suppose all Anglicans to be quite Orthodox; suppose their creed and faith quite concordant with ours; the mode and process by which that creed is or has been attained a Protestant one; a simple act of the understanding...Were you to find all truth, you would have found nothing; for we alone can give you that without which all would be vain - the assurance of truth.&#34;

&#43; Bishop Kallistos Ware quoting Alexei Khomiakov in his correspondence with the then Anglican, William Palmer &#40;<u>The Inner Kingdom</u>, 2000, p.15-16&#41;

Feel free to substitute &#34;Baptists&#34; or any other Protestant confession for &#34;Anglicans&#34; in the original. It would read the same.

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Herman,

The Orthodox faction is that which was for a great deal of history geographically definable, fighting for the rights of its privelleged language, Greek, and often motivated by politcal concerns in its battle with the West. To label everyone else as schismatic is an easy way out of responsibility. To say there is One Church, is a spiritual truth, but to identify it with ones own faction sadly is unrealistic in regards to the historical situation of those who have been trying to follow Christ for a millenia.

Dear Waldemar,

That account of Evangelicalism is highly contestable. A growing importance in rites in the Evangelical mindset is another significant factor at the present moment. Plus, there is still a great deal of honour given to doctrine. It is in the coming together of the Pentecostal and Baptist perspectives that I beleive a balance between the two poles described is coming into existence. Also, I think the importanct role of the rite of adult baptism in Baptist circles is something which other traditions can hardly imagine.

Dear Michael,

So you come to faith without the use of your mind? The demeaning of God&#39;s creation, including the human mind, is a serious matter. I do not think I have herein exalted it beyond the place God has given it in our formation of faith. We will never capture the Uncreated intellectually, but to say we cannot use our mind, which we are told needs to be renewed, in matters of faith is unacceptable. You do not make your heart &#34;a proper dwelling place for the Holy Spirit&#34; without your mind. I would appreciate it if words would stop being put in my mouth. I am simply saying the individual does matter, and must accept the prompting of the Holy Spirit. When have I said anything about needing to be an erudite interpreter of the written Word? My mothers faith is very real, though unlearned, and I have always tried not to exalt reason beyond the place that God has intended for it, neither should we demean it.

[Waldemar]

That account of Evangelicalism is highly contestable.

Take that up with the Evangelical Protestant author.

A growing importance in rites in the Evangelical mindset is another significant factor at the present moment

Borrowed or stolen rites from the so-called "Liturgical" churches. External forms without the substance. Evangelicals cannot "recover" rites what they never had in the first place.

The growing importance of "rites" in the Emergent Church is a reaction to the former "present moment" of the "Seeker Sensitive" trend. Actually it is just an evolution. The younger generation has a hunger for Orthodoxy. Evangelicals are scrambling to meet this hunger with rites, rituals, liturgy, etc.

It's just the flavor of the month and an answer to the old post-WWI query: "How do we keep them on the farm after they've seen Gay Paree?" Answer: Make the farm look like Paris, France.

Seeker Sensitive "worship" and the "Emergent Church" are both Evangelical Protestant marketing ploys. Here's how one of the leaders of the Emergent Church movement desribed the difference between S.S. and the Emergent Church: "It's a difference between a Jerry Bruckheimer movie and an arthouse flick." What he's saying is that both ploys are celluloid. They're shows. Slick repackaging of the same old superficial Evangelicalism.

The Orthodox Church is here in the "present moment" for those who will be drawn to authentic Orthodoxy instead of Evangelicalism in "ancient" drag and will be here when this present moment passes. Orthodox now and forever and unto the ages of ages.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Cyril,

It would be foolish if we would try to claim that there is perfect harmony among Orthodox-on the face of it. It can easily pointed out that we are divided into &#34;old&#34; and &#34;new&#34; calendar groups; some of us are &#34;Traditionalists,&#34; while others are called &#34;Modernists, and we are made up on not a single entitiy like the RC Church, but are made up of Local Churches, each having its own hierarchy, structure, even vestments and singing.

Howevwer, what makes us &#34;The Church&#34; is our acceptance of the teachings of the Holy Gospel, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed, the Apostolic Canons, the writings and teachings of the the Church Fathers, those of the fisst centuries of the Church&#39;s existence, and those Fathers who have been equally inspired by the Holy Spirit up until these last days.

We do agree on the fact that these sister Churches, despite some differences, share the same Faith, the same teachings, and accept the Church as a living body, the Body of Christ. We all hold that God is One on Trinity, we all believe that Jesus Christ, Second person of the Trinity became man for our salvation. We all believe that the Most Pure Mother of God, the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ. We believe He lived, was crucified and died and rose again from the dead. We all believe that as He promised, Jesus Christ sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, to the Holy Apostles on Pentecost, out of which grew the Church-the Orthodox Church.

We hold as true the same Sacraments or Mysteries, recognize the same universal authority which is of the Church, given to us in Truth..

Cyril, we might have many differences, but in the core matters of the Faith, we indeed are One. As other members have told you, we do not have the false &#34;freedom&#34; to interpret Scriptures, for that charisma is not given to weak and sinful people such as we.


The New Martyr Hilarion Troitsky says that Protestantism is the natural end to Roman Catholic error, for whereas Catholicism has replaced Christ&#39;s authority with a single person, the Pope, Protestantism has gone even further, and has deemed every man to be his own pope, his own divine authority, no matter the state of his heart, intellect or soul.

Thus, Cyril it would seem to me, that you as your own supreme authority may permit yourself to interpret any or all words from Holy Scripture and how you perceive the Chuirch to be. We do not have that view, for we must be obedient to the teachiong authority of the Church, or we are not part of it at alll. In light of this, we all believe, for example, that bread and wine truly become the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This is so of all the teachings of the Church, dear Cyril, and it is not a matter of how we &#34;feel.&#34; or how we &#34;think,&#39; but what we believe and live.

I will say little more, for never having been a Protestant, I leave it someone like Waldemar, who was himself at one time a Protestant. Be patient, Orthodox have a long tradition of heated debate, but it is because of their love of the Church as Truth. Also Cyril, keep your mind and your heart open. God bless!

Fr. A.

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Father A,

&#34;Howevwer, what makes us &#34;The Church&#34; is our acceptance of the teachings of the Holy Gospel, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed, the Apostolic Canons, the writings and teachings of the the Church Fathers, those of the fisst centuries of the Church&#39;s existence, and those Fathers who have been equally inspired by the Holy Spirit up until these last days.

We do agree on the fact that these sister Churches, despite some differences, share the same Faith, the same teachings, and accept the Church as a living body, the Body of Christ. We all hold that God is One on Trinity, we all believe that Jesus Christ, Second person of the Trinity became man for our salvation. We all believe that the Most Pure Mother of God, the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ. We believe He lived, was crucified and died and rose again from the dead. We all believe that as He promised, Jesus Christ sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, to the Holy Apostles on Pentecost, out of which grew the Church-the Orthodox Church.

We hold as true the same Sacraments or Mysteries, recognize the same universal authority which is of the Church, given to us in Truth.. &#34;

Well said! However, I feel that myself and many others in my tradition fall fully in accord with this. As this is the common faith shared by otherwise divided groups within Orthodoxy, I would contest that many Evangelicals, both individuals and local churches, share this with the Orthodox church as well.


Dear Waldemar,

Would it not be better to try and reconcile with this new movement in Evangelicalism than to denounce it? Perhaps there could be an unprecedented formal renunion between these two large denominations. Acceptance of the Nicene Creed is indeed the measure of Orthodox doctrines amongst modern evangelicals, and the recovery of the liturgy may perhaps me something more profound than the mere &#34;stealing&#34; you label it. From an Orthodox perspecitve, it may be more fruitful to try and bring individual churches into communion with the Orthodox church than &#34;stealing&#34; members peicemeal. Would you admit that there is more common between our traditions today than any other time? Do you hope that someday there might be a true union brought about by the Holy Spirit? Of course never at the cost of the Truth.

[Fr John Wehling]

Cyril,

I won&#39;t speak for Waldemar, but I will say that, of course, we hope for the union of all, and pray for it at each Divine Liturgy.

However &#40;you knew that was coming, didn&#39;t you?&#41;, we cannot and will not seek a union that reduces the faith to a least common denominator, whether it be the Nicene Creed or anything else. The Creed states our faith, yes, but this faith is explained, understood, and lived properly only in the context of the full Tradition of the Church.

If many evangelicals, as you say, are drawing closer to Orthodoxy, then why not simply come into the Church rather than remain outside and insist that they be accepted by the Orthodox? Why try and reinvent the wheel?

If the reason is that they accept &#34;most&#34; of Orthodoxy but not all of it, then there can be no real communion, for the parts that they would consider non-essential are, in truth, of a piece with the rest. We are not going to fudge on things that saints have spilled ink and blood to uphold.

If, on the other hand, these evangelicals really do see themselves as accepting the whole Tradition, then their only reason for remaining outside would be -- and I say this without malice or judgment -- pride. Personally, I have the highest respect for those who were in &#34;orthodox-like&#34; groups, yet finally came into the Church because they knew that it was all or nothing. It takes humility to submit oneself to the ancient Church and admit that it is you that has to change, not the Church that has to change to accomodate you. As I say, I have great respect for these people.

And for what it&#39;s worth, I have respect for you for engaging the questions.

Peace be with you,
Fr John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all participants of this &#39;Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism&#39; thread,

Please let me just say how delighted I am at the course of discussion here. On what is a topic inherently and understandably prone to heated, tempremental and divisive argumentation, the whole thread and all its participants have shown patience and a positive spirit of genuine conversation. Moreover, the course of the discussion has demonstrated an excellent encapsulisation of exactly the type of conversation for which this community is intended: a mixture of personal conviction, belief and questioning with consideration of patristic, monastic, ecclesiastic and liturgical views on the topic.

Brava. You have filled my morning with joy.

INXC, Matthew

[Waldemar]

Cyril wrote: Would it not be better to try and reconcile with this new movement in Evangelicalism than to denounce it?

Sadly this &#34;new movement&#34; is still in search of reconciliation within its own Evangelical body.

Already there is a backlash against this new movement within Evangelicalism &#40;well documented in the &#34;voice of contemporary Evangelicalism,&#34; Christianity Today magazine&#41; and neatly summed up here:

Haeresis as Doctrinal Choice
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/public.html#haeresis


Thomas Oden is one of the prime movers in the “confessional movement” to reclaim catholic substance for oldline Protestantism. He is also a key participant in the project known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together. In his recent book The Rebirth of Orthodoxy &#40;HarperSanFrancisco, 212 pp., $24.95&#41; he strongly affirms the Vincentian canon set forth by Vincent of Lerin &#40;d. circa 450&#41;. Oden renders the canon this way: “In the worldwide community of believers every care should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”

Roger E. Olson teaches theology at Baylor University, a Baptist institution, and he has his reservations. He writes: “We must remain open to the possibility that the Word of God—not some new revelation or personal opinion—may correct or supplement what the Church has always believed. Otherwise we must condemn Luther, for surely his doctrine of justification &#40;simul justus et peccator&#41; cannot be found within the consensual teaching of the Church before him &#40;at least he did not think so, nor do most contemporary historical theologians&#41;. For that matter, can one find Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification in a moment in the consensual tradition? What about the Synod of Dort’s doctrine of limited atonement? Most significant for many evangelicals is that one cannot find believer baptism only &#40;including ‘rebaptism’ of persons already baptized in the triune name as infants&#41; in the consensual tradition as Oden defines it. In fact, Baptists should note, Oden sides with Pope Stephen I against the Donatists in condemning ‘rebaptism’ &#40;a term no group uses for its own practice&#41; and declares, ‘When an unprecedented claim on such an important subject as baptism stands in direct contrast to the previous consensual memory, it has to be rejected promptly and firmly. . . . After Stephen’s prompt response to the practice of rebaptism, the historical precedent was reconfirmed so conclusively that the issue was seldom reviewed again until much later.’ Oden does not tell us what he thinks about the outcome of that later ‘review.’ Are Baptists heretics? He does not say it, but it would seem so by Vincent’s canon and Oden’s logic. If not, why could there not be contemporary steps away from the ancient, consensual tradition of the Church insofar as they can be established by appeal to Scripture and not to private opinion, philosophy, or culture? In matters of theological examination of Christian teachings old and new the ancient, consensual tradition of the Church gets a strong vote but not an absolute veto.”

In sum, if St. Vincent and Oden are right, much of Protestantism is wrong, and that can’t be right. That puts Olson’s complaint a bit too simply, but only a bit. These are knotty questions that will not be untangled anytime soon. Thomas Oden is no doubt well aware that the Vincentian canon does not mean that there was ever a time when every single Christian or group of Christians believed exactly the same thing about everything. In the early centuries of the Church, there were maddeningly diverse and often conflicting beliefs on core issues such as the human and divine natures of Christ, the unity and trinity of God, and much else. That is why there were disputes, synods, and councils in which the tradition of identifiable continuity appealed—before there was agreement on which texts constituted the New Testament of Scriptures—to the authority of the apostles and apostolic churches. This early came to be called the “rule of faith” &#40;regula fidei&#41;, of which St. Vincent’s formula is one expression.

Adjudication of differences by appeal to the rule of faith continues to this day in all Christian communions that intend to be catholic, and is, of course, most carefully observed in the churches called Catholic and Orthodox. It is easy to say that “the Word of God—not some new revelation or personal opinion—may correct or supplement what the Church has always believed,” but it is in fact the opinion of a person or group of persons about the Word of God that is set against the continuing tradition. This is what John Henry Newman called the tyranny of “private judgment,” which is not unlike heresy—from haeresis, meaning choice. As I say, these are questions that have been with the Church from the beginning, and metastasized into numerous institutional divisions in the sixteenth century. They will not be resolved by Thomas Oden’s The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, but his argument points toward what may, please God, be a resolution one day. It deserves a better response than the charge that it implicitly indicts the departures from historic Christianity that many people cherish.

[Waldemar]

Orthodoxy indicts the departures from historic Christianity that many people cherish, that is why the Church &#40;and I am part of the Church&#41; cannot reconcile with Evangelical Protestants who insist on reconciliation on their own terms: &#34;Orthodoxy as I see it.&#34;

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Orthodox faction is that which was for a great deal of history geographically definable, fighting for the rights of its priveleged language, Greek, and often motivated by politcal concerns in its battle with the West.

Dear Cyril,

Surely you can do better than that? Greeks will be Greeks, no different than Americans will be Americans. Greek was once the language of the entire civilized world. If you knew Greek you could go anywhere and be able to converse. It held no sway with the Slavs however. And in the bigger picture, it means nothing, it did NOT change the basic beliefs of the Church. That really did not happen until Luther came along, and then politics really took over theology.


To label everyone else as schismatic is an easy way out of responsibility. To say there is One Church, is a spiritual truth, but to identify it with ones own faction sadly is unrealistic in regards to the historical situation of those who have been trying to follow Christ for a millenia.

Not to be coy, but we Orthodox have been following Christ just fine for TWO millenia. I don't know of any Orthodox here who calls you a "schismatic", but truth be told, Protestantism (look at the name) was born from schism. It was an attempt to get back to Orthodoxy (right worship), but doing so OUTSIDE of Orthodoxy.


Would it not be better to try and reconcile with this new movement in Evangelicalism than to denounce it?

Actually we already did. Read all about it in the books by Fr. Gillquist, Coming Home and Becoming Orthodox.

Simply Herman

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Cyril,

You mention the apparent arrogance of the Orthodox, in saying that they are the only true Church. Suffice it to say, that since I've been "saved" I have been in several Protestant denominations, being influenced by the Charismatic Movement. By far, there was no donomination which equaled the apparent arrogance of the Southern Baptist Evangelicals. Are there arrogant people among the Orthodox, who state their position from a heart of pride, you bet there is! However, the same can be said for any religious faith, any faith. The difference with the Orthodox is, that as far as the Articles of Faith are concerned, they're right!

But what about all those who within Holy Orthodoxy, who disagree with other leaders? Actually the same thing could be said about Southern Baptists, Lutherns, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, etc., etc.,etc. You have mentioned several of the Church Fathers, who have disagreed; however, look at what the Church has passed on in the Confession of Faith, and the Divine Eucharist! Yes, there are those who haven't accepted all the Ecumenical Councils, but close investigation will reveal discrepancies between what their "statements of faith" are, and again, what is taught in the confession of Faith. To paraphrase an old Protestant saying; All I ever needed to know about life, I learned from the Nicene Creed

I would hazard the guess that inspite of men such as D.L. Moody, George W. Truett, R. A. Torrey, Praying Hyde, Robert Murray McShane, Hudson Taylor, D. James Kennedy, Llyod Olgive (sp), Jack Taylor, Charles H. Spurgeon, Wycliffe Translators, Jim Elliot, or the Wesley brothers, or the total of Foxx's Book of Martyrs, just as much and more, has been done for the faith by Orthodox Christians than any of them. That's unfair though, because Orthodoxy has been around longer.

I would suggest that you read the book by the Very Rev. Fr. Peter Guilquist, Coming Home. There's also a number of testimonies on www.Christianinfo.com (http://www.Christianinfo.com) by people from various backgrounds who have made the journey through all their mindsets to Orthodoxy.

God works through those whom He wills, and we hear the sound of it, but we cannot tell where they come from or where they're going. All each of us can do, is what God says to the prophet Micah, "He has shown thee o man what is good, and what doeth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God." and then pray we hear "Well done thy good and faithful servant.

the unworthy servant

[Waldemar]

Cyril wrote:


Make thou thy fold with the sheep: flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. Hate those also who have ever been suspected in such matters: and unless in time thou perceive their repentance, do not rashly trust thyself among them. The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to thee: learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine. Be an approved banker , holding fast that which is good, abstaining from every form of evil. Or if thou hast ever been such as they, recognise and hate thy delusion. For there is a way of salvation, if thou reject the vomit, if thou from thy heart detest it, if thou depart from them, not with thy lips only, but with thy soul also: if thou worship the Father of Christ, the God of the Law and the Prophets, if thou acknowledge the Good and the Just to be one and the same God . And may He preserve you all, guarding you from falling or stumbling, stablished in the Faith, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to Whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This line in particular is a call to battle for many of the participants on this board: "Or if thou hast ever been such as they, recognise and hate thy delusion."

Normally, I'm just a lurker and learner on these boards. (Matthew, what a wonderful sanctuary you've have provided!), but like many who have participated in this discussion I am a former Evangelical Protestant who recognizes and hates my former delusion. Understand this Cyril and know why Orthodox, particular formerly deluded EPs have no interest in talk of reconciliation with their past. It's nothing personal against you, it's personal against ourselves.

BTW, the Cyril that I quoted is St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

Through his prayers, may you find your way into the Church. May you find your way Home.

Perhaps, this is jumping the gun a bit, but you should give some consideration to St. Cyril of Jerusalem as your patron saint if (when?) you become Orthodox.

The quote is from:

Catechetical Lectures of Our Holy Father, Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-05.htm#P119_1292

[Cyril Guerette]

Yes, I have begun to read St. Cyril, his manner sometimes worries me, much like myself!

In terms of Greeks being schismatic, I refer to the early fights with the pontiff of Rome in the 7th century. He had previously always been held as the head among equals, but political moves to make Constantinople, more easily controlled by the Emporer, his equal created a friction which lasts to this day. We know many Popes tried to overcome even the filoque but politics held much more sway than you give credit for on both sides. In modern times I can point to the slaughter of Slavic Catholics under the USSR, done it seems either in complacency of the Orthodox church, or perhaps at its urging.

I have noticed that there were very many councils and synods which overturned previous decisions, or modified them substantially. Of course they become the Major councils while the other one&#39;s are swept under the carpet. Could not another major Council one day come togetehr across this planet and obviate mistakes of the past? The Baptism issue I admit is a large one, and one of the few ares where I stand strong in my tradition.

It saddens me that in your eyes so many people filled with the Spirit across this planet either aren&#39;t or are so deluded to be rendered almost devilish.

My question: What happened at the great Schism? Did the Western Christians who were earlier in communion with the Greek Church all of a sudden lose the Holy Spirit? Did an entire geographic region, and the lay people within it, oblivious to people 10 miles outside their area, all of a sudden lose true commuion with the Lord? Did people whom you would have previously said are most definitely part of the Church and God&#39;s Kingdom all of a sudden reach this ify status of &#34;don&#39;t ask&#34;?

[Fr John Wehling]

Cyril,

Once you take the &#34;will to power&#34; view of Church history, where does it end? Much of scripture can &#40;and is, in many camps&#41; being read the same way. Do you really want to go that way?

There is no doubt that are were sad and lamentable chapters in Church history, and I know of no one who takes some sort of sick glee in the Great Schism &#40;or any schism&#41;. Yes, bishops and emperors have done bad things, motivated by selfishness and greed and hatred. Sad to say, all of these things are alive in me, for which I must continually repent. But don&#39;t confuse Church history &#40;a record of external, historical [that is not to say unimportant, however] events&#41;with the Church &#40;the One Body of Christ&#41;. That would be like knowing the facts of the Bible inside and out without ever meeting and submitting to the Christ of the Bible.

Did Christ establish the Church, His Body, against whom the gates of hell would not prevail? Or was the Church of Pentecost lost in a mishmash of hellenistic paganism only to be recovered in 1517? If the basics tenets of Prot-ism are correct -- almost any form of Prot-ism -- then you have to believe that almost immediately after the death of the apostles the Church went bad, and the gates of hell did indeed prevail.

Food for thought. Awaiting your reply and all that. :&#62;&#41;

Fr John

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Father John,

I am the first to agree that the idea that the Church somehow went through 1500 years of non-
Apostolic teaching is ridiculous. I do think some valuable lessons came out of the Reformation here in the West however. And as I watch history unfold I see God&#39;s hand here in the West. I have loved my studies of the Fathers and the &#34;Middle Ages&#34; and discovered a living faith, and the current Evangelical ignorance towards Christian history is deplorable. But I can see how human sinfulness has crept into ALL Christian organizations. I ask, did God only establish his Church in the East for those so many hundreds of years? I also legitimately wonder how the Orthodox view the Christians in the West who were living during the Schism ... they were all excommunicated were they not? The poor peasant who went to Church faithfully everyday in England should have realized the great mistake of his Bishop&#39;s Pontiff and left on a pilgrammage to the East if he wished to remain in God&#39;s favour?

Learning a great deal through my Lord&#39;s servants,
Cyril

[Herman Blaydoe]

My question: What happened at the great Schism?

If, by "great Schism" you mean the sad events that occured in 1054, a Papal legate, spurned by the Patriarch of Constantinople, laid a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sofia (in the middle of the Liturgy) and walked out. The Patriarch replied in like manner to the Pope, who, unfortunately died befor the legate could return and report what happened. Had the Pope been alive, this all might have been sorted out, or maybe not. The office of the Pope had been assuming much more authority than his brother patriarchs felt was appropriate and politics got involved on both sides. However you want to call it, the Patriarch of Rome became isolated/separated from his brother patriarchs and operated in an non-conciliar autonomous manner. Relations between the eastern and western churches continued beyond 1054, but certainly were stretched beyond the breaking point after the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders.

Did the Holy Spirit leave the Roman Church when Patriarch Michael excommunicated them? Probably not. Has the Holy Spirit deserted the Catholics today? Who can say? We, the Orthodox, don't know and cannot say with authority either way. To be safe, to safeguard the Apostolic Witness we have been handed down, we do not share the Eucharist until such time as they conform to what we know is right doctrine (Ortho-doxa).

Right belief cannot be legislated, cannot be "enforced" at the point of a weapon. The only "weapon" we have to defend the Faith is the Holy Eucharist. If you do not believe as the community believes, then you are not part of the community. Simple yes?

Simply Herman

[Waldemar]

Bless, Father.

Dear Father John,

Have you ever heard of &#34;Landmarkism?&#34;

Landmarkism contends that Baptists are able to trace unbroken succession from early Christianity through a series sects that dissented from the corrupt and dominant Catholic Church &#40;founded by the pagan emperor Constantine&#41;. These sects were Baptist in everything but name. Therefore Baptist churches are the only &#34;true&#34; church, while others, including Catholics and mainline Protestants, are false churches. Landmarkian Baptists hold that they are the fulfillment of the promise of Matthew 16:18.

The history of this &#34;true&#34; Church is outlined in their tract:

The Trail Of Blood
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0172.htm

Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries
or
The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder,
to the Present Day
by J. M. Carroll

Divorce yourself from history and you can write your own!

[Herman Blaydoe]

I do think some valuable lessons came out of the Reformation here in the West however.

No doubt. Too bad the Reformation was an attempt to RECREATE rather than RETURN to right doctrine (Ortho-Doxa). A lot of the Baby got thrown out with the bathwater. The Protestants are also relatively ignorant of a LOT of unpleasantness in their own post-Lutherian history. Have you read Dancing Alone by Frank Schafer, son of noted Protestant Theologian Francis Schafer? I found it most eye-opening.

Simply Herman

[Waldemar]

P.S.

Here&#39;s some more esoteric Church History:

The famous tract:

Jesus Had Short Hair
http://www.baptist-city.com/Books1/Shorthair.html
by Dr. Jack Hyles

I received TOB and JHSH as a twofer from my brother when he was a Baptist.

[Fr John Wehling]

Waldemar,

The Lord God bless you!

I was aware of a group of Baptists who held this teaching, but was not aware of its name. Thank you.

I had a friend who was driving through Georgia one time and saw a Baptist Church whose sign read, &#34;Established by John the Baptist, 30 AD.&#34;

Thanks for your helpful comments. I have appreciated them very much, and I forwarded the First Things article to a Protestant friend and pastor who has read Oden. I read some of Olson&#39;s work several years ago when I studying the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg.

Peace be with you,
Fr John

[Fr John Wehling]

I received TOB and JHSH as a twofer from my brother when he was a Baptist.

And what is he now?

[Waldemar]

Bless, Father.

He&#39;s an Evangelical in a wannabe Willow Creek church.

He tells me that he wants to be Orthodox but the wife won&#39;t hear of it.

&#40;Cue sound of whiplashing&#41;

Forgive me.

[Fr John Wehling]

The Lord God bless you!

Well, I know many women &#40;my loving wife included&#41; who approached the Church very hesitantly at first, often because their husbands were drawn, but who now cannot imagine being anywhere else. They are the backbone of many parishes.

Fr John

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Herman,

You have the Great Schism down so well I question where you got the &#34;...until Luther came along...&#34; in your post 122?

I daresay politics has been in the church as long as the church has been flesh and blood, i.e., the apostolic times recorded in the Gospels.

I don&#39;t think it is simply your place to remonstrate against those in the lists against the foes of the church.

Luther&#39;s first objection was against selling indulgences to the effect that their buyers saw no need for repentance. Luther&#39;s call was to return to repentence. Indulgence giving, much less selling is certainly not Orthodox.

A return to Scripture understood patristically, i.e., with prayer, meditation, and affliction was indeed a return to Orthodoxy as had been lived in the Latin West.

The medieval affliction the western world was in and had been in for so long was a historical reality that contributed much to the missunderstanding there is between both sides.

Yours

Richard

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Richard,

Luther, I&#39;m sure meant well, but once those German princes got ahold of him, things went downhill, and theology truely took a backseat to politics as the German City States used Luther as an excuse to declare their independence from the Vatican. Little things, like the Real Presence in the Eucharist &#40;accepted by the Church for 1400 years&#41; got lost or tossed in the carnage.

Simply Herman

[Richard Leigh]

Herman,

Nooo, they didn&#39;t, &#34;little things,&#34; I mean, &#34;like the Real Presence in the Eucharist.&#34;

But first, so what point the Vatican? True enough there had originally been circumstances that thrust the Roman chuch into the place of ruling their part of the world, left as it was, for whatever reason by the True Emporer in Constantinople.

So princes declared their independence from a ruler who threatened his subjects with eternal as well as temporal punishment that he had no authority to weild. And why should all the German gold go to Italy after all? I thought it was pretty much agreed that the Pope wasn&#39;t Orthodox.
So how does he get defended?

Theology took a back seat to politics? I don&#39;t think it took any more back seat then than ever before. After all, the Church exists in political environments. The Holy Roman Emperor was and remained Papist &#40;which he considered &#34;Catholic&#34;&#41;
yet was finally forced to acknowledge the Remormation and the today.

Things got deteriorated, I would say when certain princes warred against one another for so-called &#34;religious&#34; reasons, and much later after the 30 years war when certain of them enforced &#34;Union&#34; between Churches that were not confessionally in communion with each other. Yes, politics does get in the way, but, that doesn&#39;t change what the church is.

Be assured that Holy Communion never lost the Real Presence in the Conservative Continental Evangelical &#40;Lutheran&#41; Reform.

Richard

[M. Rallis]

Dear Cyril:


You said:

“It saddens me that in your eyes so many people filled with the Spirit across this planet either aren&#39;t or are so deluded to be rendered almost devilish.

My question: What happened at the great Schism? Did the Western Christians who were earlier in communion with the Greek Church all of a sudden lose the Holy Spirit? Did an entire geographic region, and the lay people within it, oblivious to people 10 miles outside their area, all of a sudden lose true communion with the Lord? Did people whom you would have previously said are most definitely part of the Church and God&#39;s Kingdom all of a sudden reach this ify status of &#34;don&#39;t ask&#34;?”

Your question seeks to probe the limits of God’s Love and Mercy. I, personally, will need that Love and that Mercy to be superabundant when I stand before our Lord on that fearful day.

However, may I point out that the patriarchate of Rome chose to separate itself from the four other major Patriarchates, i.e., Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, and the four have remained in communion with one another to this very day. Across our planet today, Orthodox Christians continue to observe the Orthodox Faith, the Orthodox way of life, received from those who walked the Earth with our Lord, and who received the Grace of the Holy Spirit in the upper room in Jerusalem. We have not chosen to separate ourselves from so great a company of witnesses and martyrs and Holy people, but rather than follow a &#34;faction&#34; of our own making, we have chosen to seek our salvation in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ whose head is our Lord, Himself.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your words. Reading this thread makes so clear so many of the misconceptions divided Christians have about one another. When Seeker talks about not liking to see a man on the cross, tortured and dead, she thinks of it the Cross in light of Catholic ideas, and not those of the Orthodox.

Martin Luther wanted to reform the terrible abuse of power on the part of the Latin Pope and bishops, not perhaps even realizing that Rome had already cut itself off from the Body of Christ at least four hundred years earlier. So many things considered by Protestants to be &#34;Popish.&#34; while seemionglysimilar, such as veneration of the Mother of God, is approached quite differently by Orthodox Christians.

When one talks to most Pentecostals or Evangelicals, it soon becomes plain that they have not a clue about the Early Church, its struggles, and how what they now preach, especially the Bible was hard fought for centuries before them. Now, having broken into thousands of seperate groups, they still say that they are the &#34;Church.&#34; Cyril, please explain this to me.

As we encountered with Tom Just, it is not possible to discuss the Church in light of her history when you are a person limited to everything you thinks you knows comes from the Bibble, as it if exists in some sort of a cosmic vacuum.

Convincing many people that the Church came first, and the then Bible is most difficult. On author of a recent exhaustive study on Christianity etitle &#34;The Faith,&#34; mentions how Pentecostalism is so well suited to America.

I have always felt this also because of Pentecostalism&#39;s self assuredness, self-determination, indepent thought, moral and Scriptural rigidity, all combined with a sense of &#34;Manifest Destiny&#34; in that the whole world must see Christianity the way it does, damning those who don&#39;t. I have a friend in Georgia who constantly hs to deal with Baptists asking him, &#34;Say, Bill, are you a Baptist?&#34; When he answers, &#34;No,&#34; they sadly shake their heads and say, &#34;I&#39;m mighty sorry that you are going to Hell!&#34;

As to the Russian Orthodox Church being complacent about the senseless killing of fellow Christians-the bishops could do nothing while their own were being imprisoned, tortured and martyred. On the other hand, when Communism fell, Ukrainian Catholics took by force, thousands of Orthodox churches in Ukraine. One bishop, Makary, Archbishop of Novofrankovst and Sibirks, lose his entire diocese of 600 parishes to Uniates. People easily overlook the 325,000 Serbian Orthodox killed by Catholic Croatians. Please-let&#39;s not go there..

You might have read on another thread Cyril, how &#34;Christian missionaries&#34; are going to descend upon Greece to minister to the poor ignorant Greeks. Talk about arrogance! Imagine, people preaching to people from the Bible, when the Greeks had the original! How arrogant to imagine that centuries of Christianity which has produced Great Fathers, Martyrs and bishops since Apostolic times does not constitute the Church in their eyes! From our point of view, these missionaries are murderers of souls, for they teach a gospel which is not of Christ.. Forgive my hard words, but all these groups outside of the Church are the inventions of the opinions of men.

Fr. A.

[Richard McBride]

monochos:Evangelism

I pray that it be for my deliverance that I learn to acquire a tiny portion of the forbearance which the Apostle shows in tomorrow&#39;s reading:

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
Phil. 1:18; NKJV

As with those pretenders who nevertheless healed in the name of Christ: If they ain&#39;t against us, they&#39;re for us! And as Bishop Basil said &#40;or implied&#41;: Even a little of the Truth is better than none at all.

[Herman Blaydoe]

But first, so what point the Vatican? True enough there had originally been circumstances that thrust the Roman chuch into the place of ruling their part of the world, left as it was, for whatever reason by the True Emporer in Constantinople.

Well, actually there are those who believe that Charlemagne pre-empted the "true emperor" and used the Papacy and the ancient authority of "Old Rome" to do so. Politics indeed. Very complicated.


Theology took a back seat to politics? I don't think it took any more back seat then than ever before. After all, the Church exists in political environments. The Holy Roman Emperor was and remained Papist (which he considered "Catholic") yet was finally forced to acknowledge the Remormation [Reformation?] and the today.

Depends I suppose, on who you consider the "Holy Roman Emperor", the descendent of Constantine or Charlemagne? Beyond that, Orthodoxy never had or needed a "reformation."


certain of them enforced "Union" between Churches that were not confessionally in communion with each other. Yes, politics does get in the way, but, that doesn't change what the church is.

Maybe it is just me being simple, but enforced union between churches not confessionaly in communion DOES change what that church is.

Simply Herman

PS to Richard McB, isn't "a little Truth" part of the definition of "heresy"? Cannot "a little Truth" be the bait that allows the hook of untruth to be swallowed? Just a simple thought.

[Waldemar]

Father Averky wrote: When one talks to most Pentecostals or Evangelicals, it soon becomes plain that they have not a clue about the Early Church, its struggles, and how what they now preach, especially the Bible was hard fought for centuries before them. Now, having broken into thousands of seperate groups, they still say that they are the &#34;Church.&#34;

Bless, Father.

Dear Father Averky,

I think you will appreciate the following quotation:

“History is not a creed or catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so. . . . This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. . . . Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as offering one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophecies of St. Paul and St. John. . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

&#40;John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Development of Christian Doctrine [New York: Longmans, Green and Co., Inc., 1949] 7&#41;.

I think that last line speaks for many of us who had their first encounters with the Orthodox Church in the pages of Church History books.

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Father A,

You described Pentecostalism, culminating with:

&#34;... in that the whole world must see Christianity the way it does, damning those who don&#39;t.&#34;

Is this not how I and many others including my brother Catholics perceive Orthodox theology? And I know most Evangelicals today would say the opposite, that there ARE members of the Orthodox Church who are saved; just as the Orthodox response seems to be a hands in the air, we leave it to God. At least I more positively would argue that you are Christians, although not every Orthodox, just as not every so-called Evangelical.

As far as historical consciousness is concerned, I dare say I have read much more of the Fathers than a lot of your congregation. As to how we can call ourself the &#34;Church&#34;. Some of us beleive the Church is made up of all those that genuinely confess Christ regardless of institutional form. Sometimes I see the Orthodox as the disciples complaining to Jesus and trying to shut down the people preaching his name who weren&#39;t their friends.

As for the preachers descending on Greece, if you want to pretend that Greece is still a Christian nation because of cultural forms it saddens me. Much like Pentecostals who hold to a past and say America is Christian. Of course I would wish the Orthodox Church itself conducted a more effective evangelistic outreach within its own country. But why does this upset you so? I would think that any person who was truly in Christ through the Orthodox Church, and not just nominally Orthodox, would not be in danger of &#34;conversion&#34; and those who are reached by the Evangelists will be those who never actually knew Him.

Most reverently,
Cyril

[M.C. Steenberg]

Yes, I have begun to read St. Cyril, his manner sometimes worries me, much like myself!

You will be amused to know, then, that it has long been communicated that at St Cyril's funeral, another father remarked, 'Let there be placed a great stone above his grave, lest God should tire of him and try to send him back'.

So his attitude was appreciated in both directions, even in his own day.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Herman,

The Holy Roman Emperor was the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire AKA the 2nd Reich &#40;the 1st being in what looks to have been in retreat?&#41;. And yes, I agree with those you cite regarding Charlemagne and the Pope. This was in large part the rise of the filioque controversy where the East was laughably charged with having deleted it from the creed! This was, as I think you were alluding to, probably simply a ploy to excuse the establishment of this 2nd Reich in the first place, but alas, the other side of the issue is that some armed force was needed to bring peace and unity to the disintegrated realm. But the defense of the filioque clause &#40;in a Latin translation of the Creed where procedere is only one of six words to translate ekporeuetai of Jn. 15:26 [though the one used there]&#41;, and the growing centralization of authority in the Pope himself are what lead to that first schism &#40;but wouldn&#39;t we call the Chalcedonian Council the point of a previous schism?&#41;

Regarding unionism, I meant the Church as God sees it as distinct from how outside agencies, such as government might treat it or force it to behave externally.

What the church really is, the theanthropic unity of participants in God through His grace: His loving call to man through persons and persons&#39; loving response, perforce entailing recognition of what divided them from Him and turning from that cannot be changed. This, BTW isn&#39;t maintained or preserved by anything but God. Thus, Cyprian is right when he says, &#34;Outside the church there is no salvation.&#34; This does not limit the Holy Spirit to &#34;the church&#34; but &#34;the church&#34; to the Holy Spirit, who, we &#40;Lutherans&#41; insist, does not work apart from the Word &#40;and take &#34;Word&#34; in all its implications&#41;. And this Word is objective, to the person who receives it.

Yours,

Richard

P.s., you might be interested to know that Charles V &#40;the [anti] Reformational Holy Roman Emperor&#41; patterned himself after his namesake, Charlemagne. --RL

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father A,

At first, Luther did not know the the Pope was not a true pastor of the true church. I don&#39;t know what he knew about the schism, I seem to recall that he himslef was not really aware of the continued existence of the Eastern church after the Mongol sack of Constantinople.

He thought the whole Indulgence sale was something some wicked priest had trumped up, so he went to Rome with his complaint, fully expecting the Popes blessing to combat the heresy at home in Germany. To his great surprise, he found that the whole thing was the Pope&#39;s idea in the first place. That&#39;s where the reformation got its real start. At the point it was patently clear to him that the Pope was out of communion with the Church. Luther called him the Anti-Christ &#40;specifially, its &#34;head,&#34; as &#34;The Turk&#34; was the Anti-Christ&#39;s &#34;tail&#34;&#41;. By that time he&#39;d pretty much gotten it into his head that the &#34;Papal church&#34; had failed to preach the Gospel &#40;and was therefore, &#34;not the church&#34;&#41; and that that was the reason the Jews had not been won to the Lord, as anyone surely would when they heard the gospel.

Luthera actually thought that the end of the world was very near, here the &#34;man of perdition&#34; had set up house in &#34;The Temple of God&#34; &#40;the Church&#41;, the gospel was now freed to spread and so now the All of Israel &#40;the Jews&#41; must certainly be about to be saved! Well, history bears out that the Lord has not returned in the sense in which he expected it and it did not appear to him that the Jews were coming in in droves, so he got frustrated and cursed them all.

He is not recorded as ever having taken this back, but he has since said that he &#34;prays the catechism&#34; daily, which begins with the ten commandments &#40;as ordered by Augustine, not as in the east, I know you will know what that means dear Father&#41;, so our hope is that he repented of coursing the Jews, certainly most of the Lutheran churches have disavowed his seven statements against them.

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father A.,

To continue my last post, I feel it is important to tell you that Luther&#39;s friend and co-reformer, Philip Melanchthon became aware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox church through a deacon sent to him from the Ecumenical Patriarch at the time. I believe this was after Luther&#39;s death.

Next let me point out something important about the Augsburg Confession. It is known that there is an injunction against writing new &#34;creeds&#34; made at the third ecumenical council. A new creed is not what the Augsburg confession was originally. It was commissioned by Emperor Charles V who&#39;d askd the &#34;Lutheran party&#34; what exactly they taught, so that he and his theologians could determine whether or not they really were &#34;catholic.&#34; The first twenty-one articles spell out what they thought was held, believed, and taught by all. The Last seven articles contained the things that had slipped into the Roman provinces, such as the forced celibacy of the priests, and the communion in one kind, which they expected they would have to fight about. They were wrong, it was article four &#40;Justification by faith alone&#41; that got most of the attention! And well it might, I can almost hear you say. Well, I didn&#39;t bring it up to start an argument, only to show that knowledge of the existence of real live Orthodoxy slowly dawned, as well as realization of what Rome was definitely opposed to teaching.

Anyway, having explained what the Augsburg Confession is and was I will tell you that Melanchthon translated the document into Greek with the aid of the deacon sent to find out what the reformation was all about. He tried to couch it in language that would resonate to Orthodox ears &#40;not as a man-pleaser, but with a sincere desire to make the Orthodoxy of the new reforming movement as clear as possible&#41;. The document never got to that patriarch, but the ideals of the reform may have won over the deacon, but there is not enough evidence to establish proof of this that I know of &#40;I don&#39;t want any of you to charge him with apostacy!&#41;

Well, it was the beginning of a great conversation with the later patriarch Jeremias II &#40;the other was Joachim, who, to the best of my knowledge survived into the partriarchate of Jeremias&#41;.

As anyone who has been on this list might know by now it is not so simple for the Western phornema to get through to the Eastern one as all that, but I think Melanchthon is to be applauded for his attempt. It was, as I said, a start.

You will be interested in knowing that Melanchthon, unlike Luther, was a humanist, and a layman, and was more inclined to learn from the
Fathers than Luther was. He was also particularly irenic, and sought peace between &#34;waring&#34; parties. He taught such unLutheran doctrines as &#34;synergism&#34; and said &#34;without good works one will not be saved.&#34; IMO he bears more study among us Lutherans.

Yours,

Richard


P.s., Understand that I don&#39;t mean to say that I think Lutheranism is &#34;Orthodox&#34; in any sense Eastern Orthodoxy uses the term, I know we are too western, and too protestant for that. I only mean that the Continental Conservative Reform considered that it was a movement to return the whole church in the west to its original Orthodoxy, which could only be as the movement understood what that could possibly mean at the time. And don&#39;t worry, everyone else, I know what that takes! ---RL

[Waldemar]

Warning: Rant ahead

The Lord said about His Church, “the gates of hell shall not overcome it.” &#40;Matthew 16:18&#41;. The Lord Jesus Christ kept his promise. Before our eyes is a visible Church that has stood since its founding by the Apostles. It’s a magnificent and visible city on a hill that cannot be hid.

There are some Protestants who would claim the mantle of Church for themselves. Instead of the extant New Testament Church, some these Protestants would have you believe that the Church is like some sort of wounded beast &#40;cf. the Baptist’s “Trail of Blood” in an earlier post&#41;. Hunters follow the bloodtrail of the beast that they have wounded but have not yet killed and these Baptists would have you follow the bloodtrail of some sort of “true Church” dragging itself along through history.

Since TOB has been roundly discredited, most of the more enlightened Baptists have retreated from their direct support of this document, but the “truth” of it remains as one of their bedrock Traditions. Next time you are accosted by a Baptist, refer to him/her as a “Protestant” and watch him/her bristle!

What’s next for the more enlightened Protestant? Sour Grapes Me-Tooism and Just-As-ism.

<u>Sour Grapes Me -Tooism</u>

Sometimes, well actually all the time, I see Protestants who have worked to contrive this “invisible Church” tradition of theirs and those who cling to it as manifesting this despair that Cardinal Newman wrote about, the despair at the realization that Christianity is not Protestantism.

Not wanting to be left out of this magnificient extant and visible New Testament Church, they invent an “invisible” one , suggesting that they are seeing and operating on a higher spiritual plane. They are bound to this Invisible Church which we the earthbound Orthodox are unable to grasp because our minds are deadened by empty ritual and manmade traditions, but they charitably inform us that some of us who are not “nominal” Christians are also bound to this Church by invisible and insensible bonds!

Sour Grapes Me-Tooism allows the Protestant to be tangentially in communion with the Orthodox, but also “above” them because they are gifted with a higher form of spiritual farsightedness.

<u>Just-As-ism</u>

Soaring, soaring high above it all... This is the most disturbing aspect of Evangelical self-consciousness.

See how it manifests itself in their language. From their high spiritual perspective they are able to see history “unfold” before them and strive to correct the poor benighted ones like the hidebound Orthodox on where they went wrong, dreaming hoping and praying for the day when they can gather us into their bosom so that they can “obviate” our errors by their gracious counsel.

Soaring, soaring, high above it all...

There is a group of Evangelical Protestants out their who call themselves the “Emergent Church.” Their talk about “recovering” the “ancient” “rites,” “rituals,” “liturgy”, “praying with icons,” even the Jesus Prayer!&#41; reveals the height of their presumption and delusion and depth of their despair and desperation.

They keep talking about “reclaiming” or “recovering” things that they never had!

Now that they have “reclaimed” and “recovered” these things that they never had in the first place, what fruit can they produce with the schizoid union of antisacramentalism and sacramentalism?

History and the historical Church provide treasure troves for their plundering. Soaring, soaring high above it all, these Emergents are like the crow-aesthete who picks up only the shiniest and prettiest of things that it sees on the ground to decorate its nest. Somehow they are even above the stream of the history of their own confessions and everything that they desire outside of their own narrow traditions is for the taking. All that they lack and want has the potentinal to be a plug and play accessory.

Given enough time and a little knowledge &#40;a very dangerous thing&#41; these Evangelicals may soon come to resemble the Orthodox and come to think of themselves as Just-As Orthodox as the Orthodox Church.

A few years ago, a wannabe Orthodox but Evangelical congregation advertised itself on an Orthodox discussion board. In their statement of faith was this line, “Though we are unaffiliated with any of the larger world Orthodox Church bodies, may we humbly suggest that God has raised us up to be a modern expression of Orthodoxy in these times.” As if such a thing can be “humbly” suggested!

The responses were not pretty. This group soon disappeared after one of the posters, who claimed to be the Patriarch of a similar kitchen sink Orthodox jurisdiction, invited the Bishop/Priest of this “humble expression” to an ecumenical council/b.y.o.b. barbecue on his deck after Sunday liturgy... And who else has encountered that poor soul on the other Orthodox discussion forums who keeps inquiring about where he can “buy” some Holy Chrism?!

As an earlier poster showed us , sometimes playing dress up can lead to the desire to move beyond costumed illusions to reality. &#40;cf. the story of Fr. Peter Gillquist and the “Evangelical Orthodox Church.”&#41; but that can’t possibly be the best way to become an Orthodox Christian. Humility, in the recognition that the visible &#40;unto the ages of ages&#41; Orthodox Church is bigger that any imaginary construct is essential.

[Herman Blaydoe]

but wouldn't we call the Chalcedonian Council the point of a previous schism?

Yes, we would. We Orthodox call it the beginning of the Monophysite heresy, or more politely, the non-Chalcedonian churches such as the Coptic Churches.


What the church really is, the theanthropic unity of participants in God through His grace: His loving call to man through persons and persons' loving response, perforce entailing recognition of what divided them from Him and turning from that cannot be changed.

Too many syllables for this simple mind, but I don't think that Orthodoxy would agree to this definition. Church, as defined by Orthodoxy (as this simple mind understands it), is "the communion of the saints", the Eucharistic worshiping community. Even more simply, the Church is where my Bishop says it is because the Fathers say that where the Bishop is (who personally represents the Apostolic continuity), there is THE CHURCH. As long as he remains consistent with the Apostolic Witness he and his flock (me) remain part of the universal Church, the concilliar and communing aggregation of Orthodox Churches, as led by the power of the Holy Spirit as discerned by its bishops, as AMENed by its laity. Those who are no longer in concert with the Apostolic Tradition has handed down, I cannot recognize as part of THE CHURCH. They are strangers and my bishop says I should not commune with strangers....

I realize that our terms and views are different, and that to some extent we are talking past each other, but I simply cannot express what I have learned so far any better, please forgive.

Realize that I, and others here, were once Protestant too. Obviously we found, for whatever reason, the Protestant confession lacking, and were blessed to be led to Holy Orthodoxy. According to Patriarch Jeremiah II, Lutheranism is NOT Orthodox (right doctrine) and therefore not the Church as we recognize it to be, no matter how "theanthropic" its "unity" may be.

BTW, what does "perforce entailing recognition of what divided them from Him and turning from that cannot be changed." mean exactly? If it means what I think, we have a very definate ontological issue between us.

[Waldemar]

Correction:

Instead of &#34;crow&#34;:

Emergents are like the magpie-aesthete who picks up only the shiniest and prettiest of things that it sees on the ground to decorate its nest.

My apologies if I have offended anyone&#39;s ornithological sensibilities.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Waldemar,

Thanks for the warning!

I wonder why the rant though, given that you&#39;re in the stronghold yourself &#40;I take you at your word here&#41;, or, since you cannot tell where the Holy Spirit is not, how you can know that anyone in particular is not in the stronghold with you? I&#39;m not saying there aren&#39;t ways, I&#39;m just wondering what yours are. But, the nature of the &#34;invisibility&#34; you speak of is precisely in the impossibility of limiting the Holy Spirit to an institution manned by humans.

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Herman,

You apparently didn't read my last post to Fr. Averky (the P.s., in particular), I'll forgive that oversight.


what does "perforce entailing recognition of what divided them from Him and turning from that cannot be changed."

That wasn't the whole quote. "cannot be changed" refers back to what the church is, "perforce entailing..." means "necessarilly requiring repentance."

If there were too many syllables in my definition of "church" what makes you think it wasn't identical to yours? I would point out though that the church isn't anywhere because the bishop says it is, the bishop preaching the gospel is where the church is because gathered at his feet the church hears and believes.

As to "Communion of saints" yes, that is the later Romish use of the language but it originally meant "communion of holy things" i.e., the gifts of Body and Blood on the altar. But, yes we agree regarding worship.

And, oh, yes, I realize that you were once protestant and I would say that for the most part you made a wise choice in your conversion. In fact, I'll say it for the whole part since the conversion is an ongoing process for you as it is for me and for us all.

Richard

[Waldemar]

... since you cannot tell where the Holy Spirit is not, how you can know that anyone in particular is not in the stronghold with you?

As part of an answer, this lame analogy:

It’s kind of like being in the institution of my home at nighttime. I’m familiar with all of the regular noises: house settling, heater switching on, cats playing, kids kicking off their blankets. Those are not the sounds that I am listening for during my watch. It would be the sound of glass breaking or the doorknob jimmying that would get me out of bed tee-ball bat in hand. Those irregular noises tell me someone is breaking into my home to do harm to my family.

They’re a lot of people outside of my house, some good, some bad. Because I’m not omniscient, I don’t know anything about the good ones with whom I have no contact, but the bad ones are the ones who are trying to break into my house. I know a lot about burglars because I’m a reformed one.

The Church is my Home. My beef is with those who try to break into my Home to do harm to my family.

But, the nature of the &#34;invisibility&#34; you speak of is precisely in the impossibility of limiting the Holy Spirit to an institution manned by humans.


As far as the nature of “invisibility,”, the Fullness of the Church will be revealed to us at the Last Judgement. Until then I will try to share the fulness of Orthodoxy in what weak measure that I am able convey to those around me. I will do my best to defend myself and my family against anyone &#40;including heterodox Christians&#41; who would try to lead them astray.

I will rejoice at the Final Judgement if I am able to see and hear heterodox Christians receive the words from the Lord, “Well done good and faithful servant...” Heck, I&#39;d be pretty pleased to receive those words myself. But until then, why should I presume to see and hear what has not yet come to pass? Why should I make the Judgement that belongs to the Righteous Judge?

Why should I strain to see, even by Protestant reckoning, invisible bonds if they are invisible?

In closing, a line from a Patriarch who protected his family against the interests of another family:

“Good luck to you -- as best as your interests don&#39;t conflict with my interests.”
- Don Corleone

[Fr John Wehling]

“Good luck to you -- as best as your interests don't conflict with my interests.”
- Don Corleone

Ah, yes, from the Apophthegmata Gahdfadda...

:>)

[Waldemar]

&#34;I can handle things, I&#39;m smart, not like everybody says. Not dumb, I&#39;m smart, and I want respect!&#34; - Brother Fredo Corleone

Apophthegmata Gahdfadda Part II

[Fr John Wehling]

"I can handle things, I'm smart, not like everybody says. Not dumb, I'm smart, and I want respect!" - Brother Fredo Corleone

Isn't brother Fredo Bilbo's brother? The one who takes the ring to Mordor in the Godfather III?

:>)

(Sorry, had to ask...)

[Fr John Wehling]

Cyril, You wrote:


But I can see how human sinfulness has crept into ALL Christian organizations. I ask, did God only establish his Church in the East for those so many hundreds of years? I also legitimately wonder how the Orthodox view the Christians in the West who were living during the Schism ... they were all excommunicated were they not? The poor peasant who went to Church faithfully everyday in England should have realized the great mistake of his Bishop's Pontiff and left on a pilgrammage to the East if he wished to remain in God's favour?

I can understand your perplexity, as it was not that many years ago I was first considering Orthodox claims to be the One Church and preserver of the Apostolic Faith and Tradition. Let me say a couple things.

First, as others have already said better than I can, we do not damn anyone to hell because they are not in communion with the Church, least of all the "peasant in England" who was far removed from Papal Bulls and not consulted by Papal Legates, etc. We will each be judged according to what was in our power to do, not what we could not do. And no one -- no one -- no matter where or when they live, will be condemened because of their geographical locale or their point on a timeline. All can be saved if they desire to be saved and if, desiring it, they work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

Does this relativize dogmas, doctrines, and creeds, however? Absolutely not. There is no separation between dogma and life, faith and practice. The Nicene Creed, for example, is hardly a statement of abstract theological ideas with little bearing on the day to day life of men. Rather, it is a roadmap to salvation, as C.S. Lewis nicely pointed out in Mere Christianity (his indebtedness to St Athanasius, among others, is apparent in much of MC, which is one of the reasons that many people who have read MC and sympathized with his "take" on things have found themselves right at home in the Orthodox Church). The Church sees Herself as the inheritor and guardian of this faith -- this roadmap -- which is why She takes strict faithfulness and adherence to it so seriously. The path is narrow, and if we swerve to one side or the other the results can be dangerous. For us, the long history of western departures from the Tradition illustrate this point. We take no joy in it, but we cannot ignore it or pretend that it has not and is not happening.

So the English peasant: can he be saved? Absolutely; anyone can be saved, by the grace of God, if they desire to be saved and work out their salvation with fear and trembling. But without the roadmap, the compass, and the tools (pushing the analogy a bit) that the Tradition has given us to aid in our salvation, it will most likely be more difficult.

Perhaps you might say, "that is unfair; it wasn't his fault." But the same can and is said by many evangelicals of those who lived before Christ, or of those since who have not heard of the Gospel. This is why we labor to preserve the Faith -- the Tradition -- and why we work to spread the Gospel, so that the light can shine in the darkness and illumine the path. Those who truly do live by the light God has given them, whether it be the light of the Holy Spirit in their conscience or in some "form" of Christianity short of the Tradition, will rejoice at the greater and full light of the Apostolic Tradition (please note, my Orthodox brethren, I am not subscribing to anything akin to the Branch Theory here, only stating that there are obviously those who have read the Scriptures, recite the Creed, etc., and who have some light from these).

Enough said. Peace to you,
Fr John

[Richard McBride]

Beloved of the Lord Waldemar

That was a well done and informative rant.

It is easy to see that your heart was truly in it.

richard mcb

[Fr Averky]

Richard, Waldemar, and Hermån, and Dear Brother,Fr. John!

As I said earlier, I am glad you can answer, for I know so little about Protestantism.

Cyril, you might have read a lot of the Fathers, but you know nothing about Orthodoxy. As to your blind remarks concerning Greece and its people, again. you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

While you &#34;relax&#34; since you are already &#34;saved,&#34; you have no concept of what spiritual struggle is, and you have no idea of your Christianity as your whole way of life in the sense that those born to Orthodoxy do and those of us grafted to the Vine struggle to attain. Those poor ignorant Greeks have existed as Christians long before any Protestant walked the earth.

I have several Pentecostal friends in Oklahoma who change &#34;churches&#34; with the seasons. Are they still in the Church?

The Church cannot be united simply because a large number of people profess &#34;Christ.&#34; Is it the christ of the Mormons, who was married, and whose father is the supreme chairman of the board? Is it the christ, professed by Holiness and &#34;Oneness&#34; groups- the father, son and holy spirit being the same person, is it the christ of the Church of the Nazarene, which among other things denies His crucifixion,is it the christ who is called &#34;Only Son of God,&#39; but never referred to as God? &#40; the Arian heresy is alive and well, Cyril&#41; Is it the christ of the Seventh Day Adventists, or of the Baptists, or is he the &#34;polite&#34; English God of the C of E? Which one is He? How can thousands of groups, each with its own &#34;theology&#34; based on individual notions as to what the Scriptures mean constitute a &#34;Church?&#39; Is it some sort of Tower of Babel with everyone speaking a different tongue? Is true christianity found in the Toronto blessing with oinking, rolling on the ground, barking like a dog, and giggling? Or, honestly, is it just all those people who håve accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and are Saved?

If you are saved by &#34;acceptance,&#34; then what do the words, &#34;the acceptable sacrifice to God is a broken and contrite heart&#34; mean. Do you only have to be contrite once, accept Jesus, and you are assured of salvation from then on? I do not understand this.

Explain to me just how you are Saved. How do you know for sure? How do you sense it? Why is it that Pentecostals never discuss sin &#40;except in the past tense&#41;, or repentance, or the struggle to carry one&#39;s cross for the sake of Christ, even though He Himself says that if we would follow Him, we must take up our cross and follow Him? Because you are Saved, you no longer need to suffer as He suffered, but already live in glory? Has this wonder of Salvation now be accomplished for you? If you are Saved, how would I know it, or if you meet another Saved person, will you recognize that you both are Saved?

Why are Evangelicals always &#34;happy.&#34; What does it mean to be a &#34;vessel,&#34; to &#34;hold someone up,&#34; what is the &#34;rapture&#34; from your Saved point of view. If you are Saved, then the Holy Spirit will inspire you to explain all of these mysteries to me. Please, I am not attacking you-I really want to know. These are terms I have heard, but I want a definition, not from anyone else, please-from you, Cyril.

Don&#39;t be &#34;sad&#34; for Orthodox people; we are starting on our third millenium, so we have made it this far.

Our Savior said that many would come saying that they are of Christ, they would not be telling the truth. Like Waldemar said, you cannot go back to what you never had-what do you have past your knowledge of the Bible?

All of this is such a mystery to me. Where does Truth come into all of this?

I am not arguing here, but I would like you to prove to me, a person who was raised a Roman Catholic at a time when Protestants were not even considered Christians-now everyone is one happy family, and Catholics now act and believe like Protestants except with the Pope, and they are all trying to overlook all differences to form a megachurch free of &#34;differences,&#34; and joined by Universal Love!

How does your idea of millions of people with different opinions constitute One Church? Belief in Christ as Son of God and the Saviour of the world is a good start, but then what-where do you all go from there?

If you put 200 Pastors from various Churches, and gave them a set of questions concerning certain passages in the Bible views on sex and morality, women as pastors, same sex marriages, the True Presence, the Virginity of Mary, the meaning of the word &#34;saint&#34; what is the teaching authority of the Church, you would have many many answers.

Given the same questions, the same number of Orthodox priests, with some variation, would give essentially the same answer.

I cannot conceive of a multiplicity of teaching, thought, worship, values, and so on,constituting a Church! Explain to me how this works . Again, I do not ask Waldemar, Herman, or Richard, but you Cyril. Thank you, for these are questions I have had for many years. God bless you Cyril, I am praying for you - we may get passionate at times, but as you can see Orthodox hold very dear the Pearl of great price given to us by Jesus Christ..

Love,

Fr. A.

[Waldemar]

Richard McB,

re: ranting

I took a look at the mid-to-end parts of the Radical Orthodoxy discussion and found a lot of the same ground covered earlier&#40;with greater sensitivity&#41; by my elder brethren.

Cyril, you wrote something to the effect that we Orthodox should rejoice that you have discovered our &#34;treasure.&#34;

What are you going to do with it?

If you have the idea that you are going to sweep it up and carry it away to portion out as you see fit to your fellow co-religionists like some sort of gnostic intellectual property, then you have no idea what you have actually discovered.

The wonderful thing about our Orthodox treasure is that if you have truly discovered it, then you are the one who gets swept up and carried away.

&#34;Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.&#34;

[Waldemar]

A more or less typical reaction to the discovery of the Orthodox treasure:

&#34;We did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth.&#34;

--Emissaries of St. Vladimir, Equal to the Apostles, upon returning from their visit to Hagia Sophia, in Constantinople &#40;988 A.D.&#41;

[Waldemar]

Cyril wrote in The Ancient Art of Sampling:
http://www.varsity.cam.ac.uk/802567B80049EF7D/Pages/232000_TheAncientArt.html

&#34;The problem with sampling is that it can be either used as a tool to further creation or for obvious plagiarism and this line is often hard to draw.&#34;

Cyril, just out of curiosity, what are you sampling from Orthodox Christianity at this present moment?

What are you trying to create with the mix of Baptist traditions and Orthodox Christian samplings?

How will you avoid the trap of &#34;obvious plagiarism&#34;?

[Waldemar]

i caught the aroma
in ancient tomes a&#39; knowledge from the west to the orient
found at my college
it sounds like foliage
when i rustle through the leafs
it ends in grief
my friends, we&#39;re all thieves
stealing from a vast past of bastards...

from: “TRuthless” by ILL SEER
http://www.propheticpoetic.com/illseer/lyrics9.html

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky:

I know that most of your question was addressed to Cyril, but since my name was on the heading too I am going to take a stab at answering from the perspective of my own &#34;church.&#34;

First of all, it isn&#39;t as if we were not also &#34;grafted into the vine,&#34; we would have to be to have the life of Christ, the analogy is used specifically to teach that. In fact, the general Orthodox perception that we non-Orthodox Christians are not is what leads us to the conclusion that all of you in general believe we are not. When we pursue this attitude among you though we are reassured that you don&#39;t limit the Holy Spirit by your Canons &#40;but, even though your canons are Spirit inspired? Which, BTW smacks of a Neo-Pentacostal Prayer meeting? And that&#39;s a good thing, in my book.&#41; Bear with me here Father, you know you can trust me.

No offense to you, but I think you went a bit beyond yourself telling Cyril that he didn&#39;t know what spiritual struggle was. After all, you can&#39;t know what spiritual struggles he has been through or is going through now. This electronic medium we use called the internet gives the illusion of familiarity, but it is only an illusion and in any case only God knows the hearts and true experiences of any one of us.

Next let me point out that the course of this discussion seems to have come to two sides reacting against perceived insult. Thus, my first paragraph reacted against the initial proposition that non-Orthodox are not branches on the vine &#40;I trust all readers will recognize that being a branch on the vine is metaphorical of individuals, not institutions and does not constitute or illustrate the &#34;branch theory&#34; of the church&#41;.

So, then you ask how does the possibility that &#40;we&#41; are &#34;church too&#34; work? Well, it works by the definition that the church is limited to the Grace of God through the Holy Spirit. I understand the perplexity this raises. Hellenistic sensitivities deplore the &#34;apeiron,&#34; i.e., infinity, the unbounded, and that seems precisely to be the effect of such a definition for the Church. Thankfully no one, Orthodox or non will quail at the infinity and boundlessness of God.

It would be foolish to expect the church of the East to think of herself in any other terms than The One True Church because that is what she started out and that has continued, as you say, throughout all these centuries. The Non-Chalcedonians say the same. Are they worshipping a different Christ than we Chalcedonians? Maybe, and maybe not. If they are worshipping a different Christ, then they are not, collectively &#34;church.&#34; That cannot mean that there cannot be individuals in their congregations who actually disbelieve the alleged falsehood taught there and believe the truth. Anyone who believes the Truth is unite to the Truth, to the Holy Trinity at the point of that belief. We can know this because the Scriptures which God has written to us, tell us so. Oh, I know, the Scriptures are the Church&#39;s Book, but it is only because God wrote it through His apostles and prophets in the Church to the Church, so, it is God&#39;s Book to the Church. But of course it cannot be understood without the same Holy Spirit with and by which it was written, so it is not to be read, much less interpreted, by one&#39;s &#34;own understanding.&#34; Hence Orthodoxy&#39;s heavy reliance on the Fathers who obviously had the Spirit with which to read, as well as preach it.

So, what Christ is it? Joseph Smith &#40;a diviner&#41;, inventor of the self styled Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints &#40;AKA Mormons&#41; was not satisfied with Scripture so he added some more -- well, there&#39;s a clue, the Father of his Christ is Adam become God of this corner of the universe, therefore his Christ cannot save! Russell, the inventor of the so-called Jehovah&#39;s Witness was not satisfied with what Scripture said about The Logos, and since the Trinity was too hard for him to understand &#40;is there someone here that understands it?&#41; he limited God to having to be &#34;understandable&#34; and reverted to a form of Arianism. Well, there&#39;s a clue, his Christ is not Godd and so cannot save! So, we&#39;re not going to be following a Mormon Christ, nor a JW Christ. Those are not the True Christ and their followers are not the church.

Now, asking for the Holy Spirit to come into one&#39;s life, particularly without mentoring from an experienced spiritual father is probably as dangerous as praying the Jesus prayer in the same circumstances. As a matter of fact, we have it on Christ&#39;s own experience that the mere beginning of ministry in his life attracts the Adversary. The Spirit, after all, comes to us through the Church, specifically God&#39;s word presented through and by her and what we call the sacraments, or mysteries of, e.g., Holy Baptism and Holy Communion &#40;Eucharist&#41;. There are many &#34;spirits&#34; out there in the world, not the least of which is the Python Spirit. Just as much that passes for Orthodoxy is not Orthodox, much that passes for &#34;Holy Spirit&#34; is not Holy. But counterfeit money has not yet caused any of us to stop using real money; Spiritual Gifts are still in the provenance of God to Give as He sees fit, and that will be for the ommon benefit of all. Thus, as you rightly point out, not in a vacuum. The church as a whole is provided that we each aid and abet one another&#39;s work in the True Spirit of God. And we are assured in Scripture that we have this imperfectly, so we had none of us better get too proud about it.

But, as I was saying there is such an openess to any spirit on the part of the Pentecostal mentality, that anyone there can be sorely tempted to dissatisfaction with Scripture &#40;i.e., with what God says&#41; and it is easy to fall into that temptation and &#34;be blown about by divergent doctrines.&#34; So, the less mature do well to look to the more mature for guidance in this whole thing, and of course the more mature will be partly designated by their refusal to carry such an exalted title &#40;as has already been evidenced on this list&#41;.

Zwingli and others were not satisfied with the Scripture that says regarding the Holy Gifts &#34;This is My Body, This, My Blood&#34; and proposed the interpretation &#34;represents&#34;
Other of the Radical Reform were not satisfied with Scripture saying &#34;Baptism now saves you&#34; or &#34;whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved&#34; and treated baptism as if it were merely a public declaration of one&#39;s profession of faith, i.e., what one does rather than what God does.

But the Church lives by every word from the mouth of God, so those dissatisfied with what God has said cannnot be her apostles, prophets, evangelists nor pastors and teachers. So, of course I haven&#39;t listed all the problems but they come down to some area in which one or another of the Scriptures have not been believed &#40;faith is what bindes is to, lack of faith drives apart&#41;.

So, what Christ? The Christ of the Scriptures explicated for us by the Fathers and propounded in the Councils. As to the Chalcedonian/Non-Chalcedonian split, I &#40;though Chalcedonian myself&#41; would encourage a further look at what &#34;the other side&#34; is trying to say, is it really different? Maybe, maybe not, I don&#39;t know.

I am personally of a mind &#40;contrary to my own Lutheran/Post Latin schism&#41; that the filioque is a mistake, but we Lutherans took the Creed as delivered to us by our &#34;parants&#34; because we saw it teaching what Scripture taught without getting into the theologically philosophical details of why a particular word was chosen at one council to add to the Creed of another &#40;i.e., &#34;proceeds&#39; chosen at the Council of Constantinople to show the different way in which the Father was source to the Spirit than He was to the Son, and thus be also God, not to say how the Son was God --- that having been established in the original wording at Nicea&#41;. But we would generally argue in its defense from Scripture with the way the word is used throughout -- but that only amounts to giving it an &#34;economic&#34; sense, i.e., that of &#34;sending in time.&#34; but enough, I&#39;m not writing to examine the merits of demerits the term&#41;. So, I think a lot needs to be done, but I think along my own bias that it is a mistake to deny the designation &#34;Church&#34; to those whose organizations are or operate the means by which one comes into a living relationship with&#40;i.e., &#34;are saved by&#34;&#41; God -- God given Faith &#40;by proclaimed or preached gospel&#41; in Christ by and the initiatory Sacrament of Holy Baptism.

Scripture very clearly says that our Faith establishes our Hope of the Future and energizes our activity of Love both now and forever, and Faith is received from Grace, and of course it is not that it is simply &#34;faith,&#34; it is Who that faith is in, that is the enlivener of our souls, for Christ coms to dwell in us individually and among us corporately.

So, again, God establishes the Church by sending someone to bring the Gospel to people who, when they believe, constitute the congragation, the Body of Christ indwelt by His Spirit and which corporately calls God filled men to lead her. The details can all be prayerfully agreed upon in council or synod.

Richard

P.s., Dear Waldemar, &#34;Slap that Cyril&#39;s hand for asking!&#34; -- R

[Waldemar]

It&#39;s not personal, Richard. It&#39;s strictly business.

[Waldemar]

Cyril wrote: &#34;...it ends in grief.&#34;

Cyril the prophet-poet,

I hope your search ends in joy.

Under His Mercy,
Waldemar

[Richard McBride]

monochos: Orthodoxy & Evangelism

Dear Richard Leigh

I finished reading your plaint, though not thoroughly. It had a nice free ranging sense about it -- a sort of stream of consciousness &#40;haven&#39;t heard that term since my school days&#41;. So, perhaps its just as well read casually, not with too much determination.

And I think I have a sense of your frustration. In fact, I have the solution for it. It arises out of the Apostle&#39;s opening verse in today&#39;s reading:

&#34;Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith in the gospel,&#34; [Phil.1:27]

Of course, that to which I refer is my vision of these words. Would that I could share it with you. But as your message indicates, you are already too full of words. You are so full of words that they cannot help but spill out into argument after carefully contrived argument. I cannot believe that more words will help your frustration.

So, it is also frustrating to me that you do not see this same problem in Cyril. I had hoped that you would -- that his great faith in words would wake in you a question -- a question that these word games, no matter how well intended, reveal a faith placed in the wrong thing. Perhaps, they will eventually lead to something worthwhile. But they cannot lead to the little perch upon which I sit.

I doubt you would want a similar perch anyway. But the advantage it provides me is that I don&#39;t have to worry about all that minutia which clouds Cyril&#39;s horizon. I am free and clear of those worries, and do not have to concoct some shaky future that makes linguistic sense. It does not even concern me that the Archbishop confuses his local problem with the greater need. What does concern me about him is that being in his position, he is in greater jeopardy than am I, and I pray for his soul.

I do dread being the cause of one of Father Averky&#39;s tantrums. But so far, the Paraclete &#40;or perhaps the Theotokos&#41; has always brought him back down to earth. I just pray that he has many years.

But you, old sock, with your determination to find the genie in the ink well, are not allowing your intuition to work for you. That IS your nous, you know? Do you suppose it is your urge toward theology which won&#39;t allow the nous to run and play?

By the way, Richard, have you learned how to cultivate your nous?

Well, keep at it Richard. I have learned a great deal from you -- almost as much as I have from Seraphim and Daniel.

richard mcb

[Fr Averky]

Richard,

with all due respect, I want Cyrill&#39;s answer- I always appreciate yours.

Dr. McBride, forgive us poor foolish ones for not having reached the obvious spiritual heights that you have-your self assurance sounds like an Orthodox version of Cyrill&#39;s idea of being saved. Is there a part of the nous which fosters smugness? You need to be more careful than most of the members on this board. and you are not even aware of it.

I have to agree about my tantrums, but actually if you were with me, you would see that I would appear calm and unruffled, and not seem angry at all . I speak quite softly, but with what my friends call my &#34;tone adamant.&#34;

I am not so much angry as a bit frustrated, realizing how much I do not know., or that an answer of mine or anyone is dismissed out of hand. My questions for Cyrill were not an attack, but I have heard all these words and phrases, but no Evangelical ever explained them-he just kept repeating them. Waldemar is correrect-he is like Just and Tanner- all of you have given Cyrill quotes, places to look, good answers, and they are brushed aside, and the same trumpet keeps blatting with no melody or composition, just mindless noise.

I have known my friend in Oklahom since 1988, and in all that time, other than talking about the Lord, and quoting the bible and telling me how many people he ministers to, but after while won&#39;t return their calls, or as a Calvinist, he assures me that I am of the Elect and I am surely saved, we have not once had a conversation about anything else. He knows nothing of music, literature, art, anything. It is bbboooorrring! When I took him and his wife to a five star resort -hotel for dinner, and his wife and I were looking at he beautiful view of a magnificent lake, he started up, and I said, .&#34;It is Sunday, could you please give the &#39;Lord&#39; a rest!. He walked away in a huff. It is like we cannot have a normal life or a normal conversation but have to live in some sort of a vaccum, the air of which is Bible quotes.

My Greeks friends say I am more excitable like them being of a family from Seville rather than Northern Russians, who remain silent. and then eliminate you. Russians are masters of the non-person.

In regards to my question to Cyril-he has posed alll of the questions and demanded answers, let him be more than sad for us and fully explain his theology, not what he feels. I would like to hear more than Biblical quotes. Richard, you are defending him in a way. But, at least you are conscious.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

My Dear Richard Leigh,

Your good answer more than proves my point-you closet -Orthodox - you. But I am still waiting for Cyrill. He has not insulted me, he and his co-religionist baffle me, for how can one be so sure with so little? I have never heard an Evangelical Christian say anything about a struggle-everything negative is only in the past tense, and everything is always wonderful. It is simply something that I cannot relate to, because it is not a part of my life&#39;s experiences. I understand all that you said, but it makes no sense, because we are talking about the opinions of men.

My dear Dr. McBride,
do you know just what buttons to press! I am very susceptible when it comes to W.A.S.P.s- white anglo-saxon provoslavnii !

From news I received today, I do not think I will be around much longer to tantrum, or otherwise, so bear with me just a little longer. You will remember me of having been at least a little colorful.

Lovingly,

Fr. A.

[Arsenios]

Fr. A writes:


From news I received today, I do not think I will be around much longer to tantrum, or otherwise, so bear with me just a little longer. You will remember me of having been at least a little colorful.

Lovingly,

Fr. A.

Well, speaking for myself only, Father, I for one would treasure each and every word of any "tantrum" you might ever see fit to toss in my direction...

One of the things I have garnered from your postings here - what few of them I have read at least - is the close intertwining of emotion, honesty, goodwill, dispassion, and love from someone who has vast experience in being a Christian [at least compared to me, which isn't much]... There is great grace in your words, Father, but I am telling you nothing new - I almost feel cheated that you have not upbraided me for some miscreance - Denied of your blessing almost, although I know that is not true...

And it is very easy for us western folks to speak with great assurrance, standing in the tradition of our great educations - I do the same, to my loss...

Yet what I want to say here is that among the converts I know, piety is seen as silent meekness, and the very robustness of life seems to pass un-noticed, as if outside a window with two panes of glass... As if we try too hard, losing confidence in ourselves in Christ, reducing our lives so as to fight against our tendencies to sin, rather than simply fighting against the sin in our lives...

Am I making any sense at all?

So now I will be praying for you for "many years" - Are you leaving the country? Or the world?

I will remember you as colorful, but far more than this, as a teacher by example, even when the example gets himself into difficulties needing a fix! [In English, we oftentimes say "Getting oneself into a fix" meaning just this...]

Father bless!

[geo] - Arsenios

[Richard McBride]

You are right, of course.

I beg the members to forgive my smugness.

There are so many flaws in my character, I suppose I have not been keeping track of that one. Compared to the others, it just seems perhaps more irritating than damning, I hope?

Maybe not.

[Richard McBride]

monochos: and Evangelism

Please forgive me, but I have lost the message in which Cyril quoted from Saint Gregory the Theologian. I am truly impressed by Cyril&#39;s earnest desire to learn, and there is no better teacher than this Doctor of the Church.

As I recall, Cyril quoted from Saint Gregory&#39;s Second Theological Oration. For myself, I may hardly get passed the truly extraordinary prose of the First. Every time I read it, it comes to life in a new way. I think it may be second in quality only to Apostle &#40;Beloved of Christ&#41; John&#39;s Fourth Gospel.

Saint Gregory&#39;s admonitions to philosophers &#40;The First Theological Oration&#41; should be kept under our pillows -- those of us who write on the list. But it is so painful for me to look into that mirror, to have so many of my faults thrown into my face, that I cannot escape its mixed blessing.

From his first words I am damned, as he says:
&#34;I am to speak against persons who pride themselves on their eloquence; so, to begin with a text of Scripture, &#34;Behold, I am against thee, O thou proud one,&#34; not only in thy system of teaching, but also in thy hearing, and in thy tone of mind.&#34; It is not so much my supposed eloquence, for I struggle far too much with the words to pretend to &#39;eloquence&#39;; but my pride in learning is so unsupportable -- especially when I read so many well tuned minds on this list &#40;for instance, Richard Leigh&#39;s&#41;.

But then the blessed Saint attacks my ears, my tongue, even my hands, as he slashes away at this sinner, who itches for words, and who delights in profane babblings and &#34;oppositions of science falsely so called, and strifes about words, which tend to no profit.&#34;

O Woe is me! How cruelly he chops the very feet out from under me. I am nothing but an, &#34;acrobat of words&#34;.

In spite of the pain, I have to admit that the Blessed Doctor uses the most extraordinary and powerful metaphors of anyone. So, Cyril, if you can take the heat, I pray that you don&#39;t falter in your studies. May the Paraclete lead you to the Church of your dreams.