'Can we come in?' Orthodoxy and other traditions

[Brian Mickelsen]

I have noticed a trend among the Orthodox tradition, and would like to post a personal communication that I recently had with a member of the Greek tradition.

""' We who are outside the orthodox tradition are not all deceived and demonic. We are trying as best we can to Love and follow Jesus. The word of God came to the Jews and the greek part of the world first, but please let us outside the orthodox tradition join in your Christian world view -- Jesus accepts us so please influence the various orthodox groups to accept us in Christ.

You may find that newer and more recent converts (generationally speaking) outside the orthodox tradition can see things in the bible that the orthodox tradition has allowed to fall into disrepair over the centuries, due to overfamiliarity etc.

If you in the orthodox group decide to open your minds to the fact that so called outsiders are a part of Christ, it will get doctrinally messy. Can the patristic (fatherly) tradition bring up a whole world of screaming converts and possibly participate in a little self-realization at the same time?'''

I know that some of your authority figures have decided to allow outsiders such as myself to participate in messy doctrinal discussions. This instruction requires the patience of a father and a referee.

As your leaders understand - many of the "outsiders" will never change their chosen tradition or label "protestant - catholic - etc". Does this small conformity make them ineligible for Jesus Christ? Would Jesus exclude a person because they did not understand God?

Does the necessity of Jesus command to preach - teach and make disciples, weigh heavily enough upon the orthodox people that they will allow some "outsiders" to retain their comfortable tradition or label and still call themselves Christians?

More importantly do "You" as orthodox believers want to trouble yourselves with "outsiders", or remain comfortable speaking among yourselves and discussing doctrinal fine points? I believe some will try and obey Jesus mandate and that will bring condemnation to those who decide to follow that mandate, both from inside and outside the Orthodox tradition.

So will you open this can of worms or not?

Most traditional divisions are not over concerns central to salvation, as you all know, but over trivials.

Brian

[Andrew]

I have noticed a trend among the Orthodox tradition, and would like to post a personal communication that I recently had with a member of the Greek tradition.

""' We who are outside the orthodox tradition are not all deceived and demonic. We are trying as best we can to Love and follow Jesus. The word of God came to the Jews and the greek part of the world first, but please let us outside the orthodox tradition join in your Christian world view -- Jesus accepts us so please influence the various orthodox groups to accept us in Christ.

You may find that newer and more recent converts (generationally speaking) outside the orthodox tradition can see things in the bible that the orthodox tradition has allowed to fall into disrepair over the centuries, due to overfamiliarity etc.

If you in the orthodox group decide to open your minds to the fact that so called outsiders are a part of Christ, it will get doctrinally messy. Can the patristic (fatherly) tradition bring up a whole world of screaming converts and possibly participate in a little self-realization at the same time?'''

Brian

I don't quite understand what's being said here, especially the last line. If this has to due with how the Church views non-Orthodox people, then I can try to sum it up like this - all are made in the image of God and have a natural beauty and goodness, but we are fallen in the sickness of sin and death. Humanity and the universe is corrupt, not in the sense of "all bad," but in the sense of "once was pure but is now marred." Christ, the second person of the Trinity, became fully man to save mankind and creation - God became flesh and walked (and walks), and because of this the whole universe has changed. Man can now be freed from corruption, from sin and death, in Christ. Man can be truly holy! So there are saints, people who have conquered the passions. There are a lot of good non-Orthodox people, but they do not have the capability for any of this, because they are outside the Church, the Body of Christ that unites man to God in flesh and blood. Are there non-Orthodox who will see salvation? It's not for us to judge, but there are, because all salvation is through Christ, so it is in His hands.

I don't know if that answered what you were looking for, but I really don't understand what's being said in those quotes.

[Brian Mickelsen]

You have hit on the precise point ---


There are a lot of good non-Orthodox people, but they do not have the capability for any of this, because they are outside the Church...

Are there non-Orthodox who will see salvation? It's not for us to judge, but there are, because all salvation is through Christ, so it is in His hands.


First we have to learn to communicate.

You say that the "non-orthodox" are incapable of being Christians.

You seem to be saying the non-orthodox believers are incapable of becoming christlike. I would use this phrase ---non- Christians are incapable of becoming Christlike.

I assume therefore that you associate the term "orthodox with the term "Christian". Therefore everyone who is non-orthodox is non-christian in your mind.

If this is correct?

The next question becomes is the term "orthodox tradition" - the words you use to signify the process of the conformation to Christ.

Or is the term "orthodox tradition" a denominational label?

I myself who is not familiar with your termininology view your phrase "orthodox tradition" as a denominational label such as lutheran or baptist.

I probably view the term this way because I have to suffer through many schisms or denominationally divergent thought processes in my life. Such as lutheran baptist etc.

If I myself a non-orthodox believer follows Christ will Jesus transform me so that I can oversome sin? Or will he only transform those who convert to the orthdox tradition and adopt the label orthodox?

Must I humble myself before your tradition or before Jesus Christ before I become eligible for this transformation to the image of Christ?

Can I be saved if I don't understand God? Of course! - we all start out not understanding and I think I am safe in saying none of us will ever understand God completely.

What I am saying is that salvation is not dependant upon knowledge but trust in Jesus Christ.

Brian

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Mr Mickelson has again greatly edited a post after submission, which means that the comments that have followed no longer clearly link up.

Here is the initial post in this thread, as originally posted:

I have noticed a trend among the Orthodox tradition, and would like to post a personal communication that I recently had with a member of the Greek tradition.

""' We who are outside the orthodox tradition are not all deceived and demonic. We are trying as best we can to Love and follow Jesus. The word of God came to the Jews and the greek part of the world first, but please let us outside the orthodox tradition join in your Christian world view -- Jesus accepts us so please influence the various orthodox groups to accept us in Christ.

You may find that newer and more recent converts (generationally speaking) outside the orthodox tradition can see things in the bible that the orthodox tradition has allowed to fall into disrepair over the centuries, due to overfamiliarity etc.

If you in the orthodox group decide to open your minds to the fact that so called outsiders are a part of Christ, it will get doctrinally messy. Can the patristic (fatherly) tradition bring up a whole world of screaming converts and possibly participate in a little self-realization at the same time?'''

BrianPlease can I take this opportunity to remind all members that the edit-your-post-after-posting feature is intended for the correction of minor typos and the like - not for substantial re-writing, precisely because it changes the course of a thread. Fuller information on this is found in the Community Handbook (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=hb_posting#faq_hb_edit).

Please take the time to construct your posts as you want them to appear: and be sure to use the 'Preview' feature so you can see your draft post, edit it prior to posting, etc.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Before discussion in this thread goes further, please can I note that, as it has thus far been articulated, its theme is outside the scope of this forum. If it is to continue, please can all contributors ensure that it is approached explicitly and directly from the perspective of the patristic and monastic heritage of the Church. That is, please ensure that all posts are reflecting specifically on the thoughts, views and practices of the Fathers and monastic tradition (e.g. by quotations from the Fathers), in order to make them relevant to the specific context of this forum.

With thanks, INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

First we have to learn to communicate.

You say that the "non-orthodox" are incapable of being Christians.

You seem to be saying the non-orthodox believers are incapable of becoming christlike. I would use this phrase ---non- Christians are incapable of becoming Christlike.

In the spirit of learning to communicate, I am not sure that is a fair interpretation of what was said. It is not that non-Orthodox believers are incapable, but I think it fair to say that they are at a disadvantage. They do not have access to all the "tools" in the Orthodox tool box, as it were. They do not have access to the same medicines and treatments that the Church provides. Unlicensed healers and folk medicine can often relieve symptoms and even heal minor ills, but are not necessarily a good substitute for real medicine and real hospitals.


I assume therefore that you associate the term "orthodox with the term "Christian". Therefore everyone who is non-orthodox is non-christian in your mind.

Weeeelllll, not really, but here's the thing. "Orthodox" comes from "ortho" which refers to right, proper, or correct, and "doxa" which refers to doctrine, belief, and worship. Orthodox Christians, in that context, are right-worshipping, correct-doctrine, proper-believing Christians. Heterodox Christians are something else. Are they "wrong"? Well it can be said, from an Orthodox view, that SOMETHING is missing, they don't have the whole package. Does that make them "non-Christian"? God knows, we don't. Therefore we cannot say in good faith that they are "in" the Church as we understand it to be and we cannot in good faith merely commend them to go happily down the path they set, because we don't really know where it leads. If it leads to Christ then to God be the Glory. If it doesn't, then at least we have made our concerns known.


If this is correct?

Not exactly.


The next question becomes is the term "orthodox tradition" - the words you use to signify the process of the conformation to Christ.

Or is the term "orthodox tradition" a denominational label?

No. Orthodoxy is not a denomination. It is the visible New Israel, the continuing worshipping People of God.


I myself who is not familiar with your termininology view your phrase "orthodox tradition" as a denominational label such as lutheran or baptist.

I probably view the term this way because I have to suffer through many schisms or denominationally divergent thought processes in my life. Such as lutheran baptist etc.

If I myself a non-orthodox believer follows Christ will Jesus transform me so that I can oversome sin? Or will he only transform those who convert to the orthdox tradition and adopt the label orthodox?

If you have cancer and go to Mexico for treatment with guava juice, will you be healed? Or do you go to a proper hospital that treats your disease? Or do you just stay home and hope you heal?


Must I humble myself before your tradition or before Jesus Christ before I become eligible for this transformation to the image of Christ?

We all must be humble enough to accept that the doctor might know more about our illness than we do and submit ourselves to his care.


Can I be saved if I don't understand God? Of course! - we all start out not understanding and I think I am safe in saying none of us will ever understand God completely.

What I am saying is that salvation is not dependant upon knowledge but trust in Jesus Christ.

Brian

Absolutely. Knowledge helps but it (in and of itself) does not save, Orthodoxy has always taught this and this is a major differentiator between it and the Protestant churches. It is the ongoing and real encounter with Christ that saves, everything else is just part of the journey and helps us to have that encounter in a real and viseral way and not just as a thought exercise or theoretical manner. We encounter Christ in the sacraments, in communal worship, in asceticism, in private prayer, and in each other.

Can you be "christian" and not be Orthodox? Perhaps, but I think it is a lot harder to do.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Mary]

Most traditional divisions are not over concerns central to salvation, as you all know, but over trivials.

Brian

Not true.




You seem to be saying the non-orthodox believers are incapable of becoming christlike. I would use this phrase ---non- Christians are incapable of becoming Christlike.

Who told you that?


I assume therefore that you associate the term "orthodox with the term "Christian". Therefore everyone who is non-orthodox is non-christian in your mind.

If this is correct?

Assumptions are unsafe. You assume incorrectly.


The next question becomes is the term "orthodox tradition" - the words you use to signify the process of the conformation to Christ.

Or is the term "orthodox tradition" a denominational label?

It is not a denominational label. There is the Church Tradition that is pretty much identical in all orthodox churches, and then there are the tiny details that make the Greeks Greek, the Russians Russian, the Romanians Romanian - and us converts can pick and choose any of those that we take a fancy to, because those just add spice and color to our celebrations. No one messes with the Traditions that are handed down by the fathers, Traditions that our forefathers died for... these Traditions bring healing to our souls, and they have no substitutes - Baptism, Confession, Eucharist - and so forth.


I probably view the term this way because I have to suffer through many schisms or denominationally divergent thought processes in my life. Such as lutheran baptist etc.


There isn't any suffering that Christ cannot cure.


If I myself a non-orthodox believer follows Christ will Jesus transform me so that I can oversome sin? Or will he only transform those who convert to the orthdox tradition and adopt the label orthodox?


There isn't anything that Christ cannot do. But He does not force Himself on anyone. He will only change you to the extent that you are willing to let Him change you. Are you willing to follow Him anywhere? Even into the Orthodox Church?



Must I humble myself before your tradition or before Jesus Christ before I become eligible for this transformation to the image of Christ?

The tradition isn't ours. It is Christ's. Do you wish to humble yourself before Him? If you are, He won't let you down. Only Christ can help anyone become like Himself. And He's free to work in anyone He want's to work in. How are you going to make sure you're willing to be worked on by Him?

I have my traditions that help me judge my own willingness to change - there are the regular fasts that I can keep or not, there are the prayers that I can partake of or not, I can go to confessions or not, I can forgive my brother or not. The more willing I am to humble myself to these things that Christ has commanded me to do, the more He can work on me and transform me. I am my own judge. I know full well when I am willing to be transformed, and when my pride gets in the way. How do you judge yourself?


Can I be saved if I don't understand God? Of course! - we all start out not understanding and I think I am safe in saying none of us will ever understand God completely.

What I am saying is that salvation is not dependant upon knowledge but trust in Jesus Christ.

Brian

We're all saved by God's mercy, not by what we do, or how well we talk, or how well we understand. We all have some kind of understanding. God does find those who seek Him, and He reveals Himself in ways that we can comprehend so we can choose to respond to Him, or not.

In my case, I came to point where I knew I'd be disobedient to Him, if I refused to become Orthodox. He didn't force me to become Orthodox. But I was at a place where I had to make a choice. He had made it clear to me that the life I'd been living was ok, but there was a LOT more. If I wanted more, I had to keep moving - into the unknown Orthodox Church. You're right when you say it's about trust. I had to choose between trusting Him and going to a church that might just turn out to be another complicated human tradition, or remain in my uncomplicated protestant tradition that wasn't feeding me like I longed to be fed.

He didn't tell me ahead of time, what would happen if I chose to become Orthodox. But I knew what would happen if I chose to remain protestant. I would die of starvation, knowing everyday, that I'd lost my chance to maybe find some food for my soul.

I knew that I could not be saved, if I deliberately chose to not follow Him. Till He brings you to the place where you need to make such a choice, I don't think you can. All you can do, is to just make sure that every choice you make keeps you moving closer to Him. That's all I could do - and my choices led me to the Orthodox Church. Even now, I find that my choices remain the same - I can continue getting closer to Him, or fall away from Him. Some days I make the right choices, some days I don't.

Keep praying.
In Christ,
Mary.

[D. W. Dickens]

Brian,

I'm afraid I don't understand your post. Perhaps it would be helpful to say, while I don't think Orthodoxy has anything to learn or gain (the fullness can gain nothing as it is already complete) from Protestant or Roman Christianity, I do believe that Orthodox believers can learn things from Protestants and Roman Catholic believers, if they are carefully prepared for the pitfalls which might arise and they are in obedience to their spiritual father.

For example, humility can be learned from an atheist if they are humble. But that kenosis is a cornerstone of the Gospel is only fully manifest in Orthodoxy. Careless "learning from Protestants and Roman Catholics" on this matter would likely only result in a deformation of that cornerstone. Continuing my example, the Shakers considered humility in high regard for Protestants, so much so that they were obsessively unadorned. Shakers did not see the spiritual value of icons because their idea of humility is corrupted with iconoclasm. Learning humility from Shakers would thus involve a reasonable danger of engaging in iconoclasm.

If one approaches the knowledge of God as "scattered about the world" in such a way as an individual must go around collecting it and synergizing it he will find that much of it is incompatible. You are left only able to construct the largest possible collection of reasonably compatible factoids. Such an approach is in opposition to the received tradition of the Church as a matter of sourcing, a matter of personal judgment and as a misunderstanding about truth-as-proposition rather than Truth-as-Person (Christ).

Most Orthodox I know consider non-Orthodox to be perfectly capable of making correct statements about God, but that such statements are coincidental (a broken clock is right twice a day) and without context of the experience of Christ any such statements are rendered meaningless.

A few years ago, I could not have written this post. But having converted to Orthodoxy, it seems an utterly natural way of speaking now.

I should point out that I am a great example of someone who has been so distorted by the "truth-as-proposition" problem that I'm sure my therapy on that matter alone will take the whole of my lifetime. Forgive me, a sinner.

[Nina]

Of course you can come in Orthodoxy.

Read two volumes by Elder Cleopa titled "The Truth of our Faith". Those will help you very much because those are in the form of Q&A by ex-protestant beliver who is discussing with this Elder. Elder Cleopa not only makes a great expose of the Orthodox faith but replies with Patristic wisdom and basis to many issues a protestant may have with Orthodoxy.

[Ryan]

Brian- in your last post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=79607#post79607) here, you "refuted" Orthodox views using an assortment of scriptural quotes taken out of context, ie the proof-texting method which even serious advocates of sola scriptura don't take seriously. Have you abandoned this methodology? Fr. Dcn. Matthew has kindly asked us to keep this thread relevant with patristic evidence, but I think we are still at the very basics here, namely basic Orthodox ecclesiology. If you want a basic Orthodox view of the Church and how it relates to other Christians, this article (http://www.antiochian.org/node/16918) should be helpful. We are happy to answer questions, but if someone is serious about learning something, he won't rely on an internet forum for his research.

[Brian Mickelsen]

Of course you can come in Orthodoxy.

Wow! Thankyou Nina - I will look them up and begin to read them.

Brian

[Andreas Moran]

It may be a little misleading to non-Orthodox to call the Orthodox Church 'Orthodox' because that tends to suggest a denomination. It is, quite simply, the Church established by Christ on the faith of the Apostles. After some one thousand years, the west began to deviate from this faith. The Roman Church adopted unwarranted innovations. After a further five hundred years or more, protests at abuses in the Roman Church led the Protestants to deviate much further from the Church. So much is well known. What does this signify? That the fulness of faith - of truth - resides in the Orthodox Church. Guided by the Holy Spirit, it is perfect in faith and worship. As such, it has, to use Herman's analogy, a complete 'tool box' for salvation. Does this mean that the Orthodox are all saved? No. Does it mean that non-Orthodox are not saved? No. The Holy Spirit goes where He will. It also depends on how we make use of the tools in the tool box. I would hesitate to use the term, 'outsiders'. Were the Samaritan woman or the sinful woman who anointed Christ's feet with her tears outsiders? I often think of Dr David Livingston; after years of toil serving his brothers in Africa, he returned to Edinburgh to fame and acclaim. He had done more than most men ever do to serve his fellow men. He could justifiably have retired. Yet he went back to Africa to serve the people there. Years later, he was found in his hut one morning on his knees in prayer, dead - in this manner, he had given up his soul to God. In such manner had St Seraphim of Sarov been found to have reposed. What can we say? I was once told, 'let us not presume to tell God whom He may have as His friends'. So, does it matter if we are Orthodox or not? I believe it does. We are not all David Livingston or St Seraphim. How shall we manage? We shall have the best opportunity for salvation if we go where the fulness of truth is to be found, where we, in our frailty, can best be helped and healed.

[Father David Moser]

At least a large part of the flaw that I perceive in the discussion to date is that Mr Micklesen seems to be making a basic assumption that the Church is a human organization, membership in which is a prerequisite for salvation. This is not correct. The Church is a divine/human organism. The following quote from St Justin (Popovich) explains this in greater detail.


The definition of the Church, her life, her purpose, her spirit, her plan, her ways, all these are given in the wondrous Person of the God-human Christ. Hence, the mission of the Church is to make every one of her faithful, organically and in person, one with the Person of Christ; to turn their sense of self into a sense of Christ, and their self-knowledge (self-awareness) into Christ-knowledge (Christ-awareness); for them life to become the life in Christ and for Christ; their personality to become personality in Christ and for Christ; that within them might live not they themselves, but Christ in them. The mission of the Church is still to bring about in her members the conviction that the proper state of human personhood is composed of immortality and eternity and not of the realm of time and mortality... and the conviction that man is a wayfarer who is wending his way in the sway of time and morality towards immortality and all eternity.

The Church is God-human, eternity incarnated with the boundaries of time and space. She is here in this world but she is not of this world. She is in the world in order to raise it on high where she herself has her origin. The church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it s therefore a blasphemy - an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost - to turn the Church into an ... institution...

The Church is the personhood of the God-human Christ, a God-human organism and not a human organization. The Church is indivisible, as is the person of the God-human, as is the body of the God-human.The definition of the Church, her life, her purpose, er spirit, her plan, her ways, all these are given in the wondrous Person of the God-human Christ. Hence, the mission of the Church is to make every one of her faithful, organically and in person, one with the Person of Christ; to turn their sense of self into a sense of Christ, and their self-knowledge (self-awareness) into Christ-knowledge (Christ-awareness); for them life to become the life in Christ and for Christ; their personality to become personality in Christ and for Christ; that within them might live not they themselves, but Christ in them. The mission of the Church is still to bring about in her members the conviction that the proper state of human personhood is composed of immortality and eternity and not of the realm of time and mortality... and the conviction that man is a wayfarer who is wending his way in the sway of tim and morality towards immortality and all eternity.

The Church is God-human, eternity incarnated with the boundaries of time and space. She is here in this world but she is not of this world. She is in the world in order to raise it on high where she herself has her origin. The church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it s therefore a blasphemy - an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost - to turn the Church into an ... institution...

The Church is the personhood of the God-human Christ, a God-human organism and not a human organization. The Church is indivisible, as is the person of the God-human, as is the body of the God-human.

Fr David Moser

[Jennifer Anne S.]

The OP seems to be very angry -- perhaps there is more here than meets the eye?

Why should he be surprised that an organization -- any organization -- would have a defined set of beliefs which state their reason for existence? As a member (currently) of the Roman Catholic Church, I would not expect my hierarchy to change the beliefs of the Church to "welcome outsiders" (as you put it). Likewise, I would not expect the Orthodox Church bishops to do so either.

Both organizations, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, believe they have the fullness of the truth where the other is lacking. This is as it should be. After all, if you don't believe in what you are doing, why would anyone else?

Both organizations are also very much open to allowing anyone who believes as they do to join. So they are already open to "outsiders" who want to become "insiders". Do you want to join the Orthodox Church? Easy: confess, repent and believe. They will welcome you. It does not get much more open than that!

[D. W. Dickens]

Jennifer,

Forgive me if I err here, I am a recent convert to Orthodoxy.

However, it is not so much that Orthodoxy is an organization with beliefs that they defend. Rather it is an organism who's existence they defend. This is a subtle but critical difference.

While part of the life of the Church is the affirmation of (for example) the 7 Ecumenical Councils, I think it is deceptive that some have called the Church "the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils". This is too narrow an appreciation for the life of the Church, of which theological expressions of dogma are only a small part.

My spiritual father says the cataphatic is a delusion until it acknowledges the apophatic.

[Brian Mickelsen]

D.W. - What does this mean?


Jennifer,

My spiritual father says the cataphatic is a delusion until it acknowledges the apophatic.

Brian

[Herman Blaydoe]

D.W. - What does this mean?

Brian

In very sparse terms, it means that describing Who and what God is must be balanced by describing who and what God isn't. When we try to "define" God, we ultimately place Him in a box, and that which is uncontainable doesn't fit very nicely in a box. The apophatic approach tries to remove the boundaries that the cataphatic approach unavoidably creates.

At least that is how this bear of little brain understands it.

Herman the Pooh

[Ryan]

Brian- The terms "cataphatic" and "apophatic" refer to different ways of talking about God. "Cataphatic" are those things we can positively affirm about him- e.g., God is trinity, God is benevolent, God is all-knowing, etc. "Apophatic" theology is oriented toward what God is not. St. John Damascene says, "God, then, is infinite and incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about him is his infinity and incomprehensibility. All that we can say cataphatically concerning God does not show forth his nature but the things that relate to his nature." Apophatic theology is important in clearing away misconceptions about God, otherwise we may give a false interpretation to those things we do know about him from revelation. Without a grounding in apophatic theology, we may be tempted to take the positive attributes about God that were revealed, and to "fill in the blanks" using human reasoning, creating a distorted man-made theology.

[D. W. Dickens]

cataphatic and apophatic...

The explainations given are true. In this particular context I was saying that making declarative statements about God (which many mistakenly believe to be the whole of the purpose of the Church) is only part of the life of the Church, in fact, alone such "teaching" is demonic.

Theology without practice is the theology of demons.

Yes, we bare witness to the teaching of the Church. This message board seeks to preserve and engage in discussion about some of the first and greatest teachers in the Church, but is regularly evidenced by the challenge of staying on that topic the Church bursts out in all directions. :)

[Rick H.]

I appreciate Bishop Zizioulas's writing on the apophatic approach in Being as Communion. In this section he concludes (with Maximus, Myst., Praef.) that God is beyond affirmation and negation and "therefore truth lies beyond the choice between affirmation and negation."

The Bishop also writes of apophatic theology:




The principal object of this theology is to remove the question of truth and knowledge from the domain of Greek theories of ontology in order to situate it within that of 'love' and communion. That apophatic theology founds itself on love is something so evident as to be the necessary key to its understanding and assessment.



Otherwise, it is much as Jennifer Anne has said above.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I am grateful to Fr David for posting his selected quotations from St Justin, which begin to set a very general and amorphous conversation into an explicitly patristic perspective. I hope to add a little to that line of reflection, and encourage others please to do so also.

There are a number of fundamental problems bound up in the various positions implied in post #1 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=80890&postcount=1). Amongst these are:


The idea that ‘Jesus accepts us’ (i.e. people outside the Church) as persons, is in some manner equivalent either to such persons being in the Church, or to breaking down any real distinction between ‘in’ and ‘out’, and of a unique Church writ large.
That the alternative perspectives had by those outside the Church suggest not simply an abundance of experience and perspective, but a kind of inadequacy or incompleteness to the Church herself.
That not departing from a tradition outside the Church (e.g. another church or religious tradition) equates to a matter of ‘small conformity’, which is of little import in the perspective of Jesus’ acceptance of a person or group.
That life within or without the Church is based on one’s understanding of God, and therefore the views of Orthodox to those outside the Church equate to ‘excluding a person because they do not understand God’.
That the commandment to preach, teach and make disciples is important enough that the Church ought to ‘overlook’ the reticence of those outside her to leave behind other traditions (i.e. that she should ‘allow some “outsiders” to retain their comfortable tradition or label’).
That the traditional points of division between Christians and traditions are not over ‘concerns of salvation’, but ‘trivials’—as if smaller matters were not directly linked and intimately related to salvation.

Each of these points is problematic from any number of perspectives; but behind them all is the deeper issue, which Fr David already identified. In post #13 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=80913&postcount=13), he wrote that all of these seem


to be making a basic assumption that the Church is a human organization, membership in which is a prerequisite for salvation. This is not correct. The Church is a divine/human organism.This is at the very heart of right ecclesiology. The Church is not an institution, it is not a human construction. It is not one group of people’s perspective, style or interpretation of broader, deeper truths. It is not a ‘group’ amongst many groups. The Church is the Body of the Living Christ: that truly divine-human organism that has Christ as its head, the Spirit at its heart, and which offers itself continually to its Father.

All of the various positions argued in the opening post stem from this basic, false presupposition regarding the Church. Once the Church is reduced to a man-made, manufactured collection of certain views, certain traditions, it immediately becomes utterly subjective. Why these views, and not those? What of those who have different views? Etc. This is a pandemic problem of the post-Reformation era. One defines ‘church’ by one’s own understandings, one’s own comforts, one’s own interpretations and acceptances; and so ‘church’ is reduced from the living organism of God-in-man and man-in-God to an intellectual institution. It is constructed from whatever one interprets from whatever one chooses to take as sources of authority—whether the Scriptures (which begin to be read in ‘personal interpretation’, apart from any living, ontological reality of Truth encountered and personified), traditions, other writings, individuals, etc.

Orthodox ecclesiology rejects all this from the outset. The source of the Church is not any tradition or set of interpretations: it is the incarnation of the Lord, binding humanity to Himself. It is the taking up of humanity into the life of the Lord Himself, united to Him by the Spirit. It is man drawn into the life of his God. For this reason, the Church can only and ever be one, for there is but one Christ.

In the writings of St Justin (Popovich).

Fr David quoted from the writings of St Justin. Just a few words on his comments. St Justin said:
"The Church is God-human, eternity incarnated with the boundaries of time and space. She is here in this world but she is not of this world. She is in the world in order to raise it on high where she herself has her origin. The church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it is therefore a blasphemy - an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost - to turn the Church into an ... institution..."
Note St Justin’s emphasis on the fact that the Church is the Kingdom made present in this world (‘eternity incarnated’). The reason he is able to call it ‘unpardonable blasphemy’ to turn the Church into an institution—to make it simply a subjective thing of perspectives and opinions—is that this makes a mockery of Christ truly making Himself present in the world. It transforms Christ’s incarnation into a collection of ideas, tearing it away from the reality of being God 'come unto His own' (cf. John 1.11). It makes the Church into something denominational (i.e. demarcated by human interpretations, names and perceptions), isolationist, humanist and temporal—whereas in truth the Church is ecumenical (encompassing of all), catholic (holistic and universal), divine-human and eternal.

He goes on:
"The Church is the personhood of the God-human Christ, a God-human organism and not a human organization. The Church is indivisible, as is the person of the God-human, as is the body of the God-human. The definition of the Church, her life, her purpose, her spirit, her plan, her ways, all these are given in the wondrous Person of the God-human Christ."
It is telling (as well as beautiful) to see how St Justin identifies the Church with the personhood of Christ Himself. It is not simply an institution dedicated to or believing in Christ as Son of God: it is the Son’s own incarnational personhood—the fruit of His uniting humanity to Himself in the incarnation.

While there can be many groups dedicated to, believing in, Christ, there can be only one person of Christ. And when the Church is understood to be His true body, then there can but be one Church.

This is what leads St Justin to conclude:
"The Church is indivisible, as is the person of the God-human, as is the body of the God-human."
God is not divided. Human understanding may so be; but God is not. And the Church, as God’s body, is not. It is indivisible, ever one.

St Cyprian of Carthage.

It is this right perspective of the Church that grounds the various words from the Fathers on her nature. Amongst the most famous are perhaps those of St Cyprian; and amongst his most well-known is the brief and succinct:
“No human being can take God as his Father unless he takes the Church as his mother.”This is the kind of comment that can quite startle some readers, as it sounds exclusivist and seems to elevate the Church to an extremely high degree. Yet such criticisms are grounded in a humanist idea of the Church, which sees it again as a human institution of interpretations and views—and so a comment such as this, which makes such an institution so central to one's relationship to God Himself, seems dramatic and puzzling. However, when the Church is seen rightly as the incarnational body of Christ, then one could not say anything other than what St Cyprian articulates. Of course one must be united to the Church to have God as Father, for the Church is God’s Son, drawing humanity to Himself. We can call God ‘Father’ because we are incorporated in Christ, the Father’s Son.

Another telling quotation from St Cyprian, dealing with those who withdraw from the Church and establish other Christian bodies, reads:
“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43)This is a good example of a patristic source addressing the specific issue of ‘other churches’, and what St Cyprian views as their necessary, essential impossibility. There may be other groups seeking after Christ, and perhaps they may find Him to various degrees; but there can be but one Body of the Lord—and outside this, ‘it is not possible to set up another altar… whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.’

Clement of Alexandria.

In Alexandria in the late second and early third centuries, Clement of Alexandria expressed what was, already by then, the traditional view of the Church:
“As there is one God and one Lord, so also true dignity is expressed by oneness in the image of the One Principle. And so, the one Church, which heresies make an effort to cut into many, is likened by oneness unto the nature of the One. We call the ancient Catholic Church one according to her essence, according to our concept of her, according to her origin and pre-eminence.” Note again, here from the very earliest days of the Church, the same view we saw in St Justin much more recently. The Church is necessarily one and indivisible because she exists according to the nature of ‘the One’—of God. Alternative views (which is what constitute and define heresies) make an effort to cut this one into many; but the Church withstands this, ‘one according to her essence’.

St Jerome.

This grounds the abiding conviction of the Fathers, that when one is confronted with the apparent multiplicity of ‘churches’, it is one’s responsibility to discern and unite oneself to that which is Christ’s true Body, which remains undivided and one in all ages. So St Jerome writes:
“One ought to remain in that Church which, having been founded by the Apostles, exists even till this day.”
Returning to problematic assertions.

Those additional quotations from the Fathers helping to establish a right vision of the Church, it becomes fairly easy to respond what are, at the end of the day, quite predictable and often-encountered concerns expressed about Orthodox ecclesiology, which are rooted in a flawed understanding of the Church more fundamentally.

If I could return to the listing of six that I identified at the front of this posting as emerging out of the first message in the thread, we can respond to them briefly in turn. These problematic sentiments were:


1. The idea that ‘Jesus accepts us’ (i.e. people outside the Church) as persons, is in some manner equivalent either to such persons being in the Church, or to breaking down any real distinction between ‘in’ and ‘out’, and of a unique Church writ large.Christ’s love and acceptance of His children does not equate to being ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the Church. Christ’s love is what draws broken creation to Himself—which draws His children out of sin, back to His waiting arms. Christ loves the sinner; but the purpose of this love is to lead the sinner back to Himself, not to confirm the sinner in his unnatural division. The Father loved the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, even when he was in the filth of the pig sty; but the very point of the parable is that the son returned to his father’s house.


2. That the alternative perspectives had by those outside the Church suggest not simply an abundance of experience and perspective, but a kind of inadequacy or incompleteness to the Church herself.It is well and true to say that each person has his or her own experiences and perspectives, some of which are purified by spiritual discernment and offer genuine insight, some of which are muddied by sin and expressive of fallen self-will. But the idea that certain individuals have experiences and perspectives that might correct what is wanting in the Church as ecclesiastical reality, is once again to see the Church, and her teachings, as human constructs. It is to deny that the Church’s Truth is the living reality of Christ Himself, and suggest that it is the sum of the views and opinions of the men and women within it. This is incompatible with a vision of the Church as the Lord’s true body.


3. That not departing from a tradition outside the Church (e.g. another church or religious tradition) equates to a matter of ‘small conformity’, which is of little import in the perspective of Jesus’ acceptance of a person or group.This is a basic outgrowth of a humanistic view of the Church, which the quotations from the Fathers explicitly correct. Once again, in the words of St Cyprian, ‘It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.’

These divisions are not issues of ‘small conformity’: they represent fundamental distinctions in perceptions of Church, and fundamentally the ongoing, sinful human tendency to attempt to divide God.


4. That life within or without the Church is based on one’s understanding of God, and therefore the views of Orthodox to those outside the Church equate to ‘excluding a person because they do not understand God’.This, too, is grounded in an understanding of ‘church’ as a set of understandings and opinions espoused by a group of people. Orthodoxy simply does not see the Church this way. What sets one outside the Church is not necessarily a wrong understanding (though this can be involved): it is the actuality of uniting oneself to a ‘body’ which is not the unadulterated Body of the incarnate Lord. It may espouse many correct beliefs and understandings, many wrong—but neither equates to it being the Lord’s Body.


5. That the commandment to preach, teach and make disciples is important enough that the Church ought to ‘overlook’ the reticence of those outside her to leave behind other traditions (i.e. that she should ‘allow some “outsiders” to retain their comfortable tradition or label’).Here a right ecclesiology shows up the real irony of the suggestion; for how could it be genuinely missionary, genuinely a fulfilment of the commandment to make disciples, to do anything other than seek to draw all people to a true, living relationship with the Body of the incarnate Lord? A preaching, a teaching and mission that allows people to rest in division from this Body, fails to be genuinely evangelical. It becomes essentially secular.


6. That the traditional points of division between Christians and traditions are not over ‘concerns of salvation’, but ‘trivials’—as if smaller matters were not directly linked and intimately related to salvation.Orthodox would reject the whole premise of this claim, because the apparently ‘little things’ are intimately connected to one’s salvation—since these ‘trivial’ matters can keep one from whole participation in the living body of the Lord.

INXC, Fr Dcn Matthew

[Jonathan Hayward]

Hats off to Fr. Dcn. Matthew for an excellent and rounded post!

At my parish, there was an announcement inviting our youth to a seminar called, "Real Life in a Virtual World". I can only guess what more was meant, but the title captures something big.

In IT, virtualization is a big deal, and what you treat as a computer may be a real physical object that you can kick, but it may just be something running on another computer--something like an imaginary friend, only good enough of an imaginary friend that for a great many purposes you can treat it just like a physical computer.

Some years ago, years before I would hear of Google's Cloud, I interviewed with an organization that claimed it could use extra computing power (for instance, in an office's computer network when no one was using it--which was a hefty bit of computing power) as a virtual supercomputer doing statistical analysis: the infomercial said, "And the best thing about this [virtual] supercomputer is that it's free!"

"Virtual" and "real" whatever have every relevance here, because the doctrine of the Invisible Church is the doctrine of a Virtual Incarnation. Let me give a couple quotes from my own essays:

In The Incarnation: Orthodoxy, Islam, and the Reformation (http://jonathanscorner.com/incarnation/), which looked at attitudes to the Incarnation as powerfully impacting Orthodox culture, Islamic culture, and Protestant ecclesiology, I gave a bare tangent:


However, in terms of cultural working out, there is real question about how far Protestant Christianity lets the Incarnation unfold: I have read very few Protestants solidly deny that the Incarnation ends with Christ, and in practical terms, many would agree to disagree with Calvinism over the question of free will, but I have het to hear the question of whether Calvinism, in denying man anything to contribute to his salvation save a rubber stamp, denies the reality of man and in so doing cuts down the Incarnation. None of the Evangelical critiques I've read of Calvinism say that Calvinism jeopardizes the Incarnation. That the Incarnation could unfurl so that it is right to call Mary the Mother of God, or direct reverence to saints—even Protestants who agree to disagree may be a bit squeamish, and the idea that this is a proper consequence of the Incarnation, almost its purpose, is not one that comes up. Icons as one feature of a sanctified cosmos with Christ as its head (Eph 1:22), don't come up, and it is my impression that where there are no icons, there is a chasm between matter and spirit, and the unity of spirit and matter in Christ and the human person may be an exception rather than the highest example. There may be other issues to be raised as well: is the doctrine of the Invisible Church a doctrine of the Virtual Incarnation? The common thread running through these things is that the Incarnation may be asserted on a philosophical level by Protestants, but it does not seem to unfur as it might as the concrete culture plays out. The cultural shape of Protestant Christianity raises questions about how much practical belief there is in the Incarnation.
The Invisible Church is like the no-cost supercomputer: it is a Virtual Incarnation. In A Glimpse into Eastern Orthodox Christian Religion (http://jonathanscorner.com/orthodoxy/) I argued a little more explicitly:


The Catholic Church, along with Luther, and for that matter along with the Orthodox, recognized that there is one Church, bound together in a full communion that cannot exist without agreement in doctrinal matters. Luther's reconstituted Church and the Catholic Church differed in doctrine and could not have this common basis. If you have two different groups which differ in doctrine, at least one of them is not the true Church. This is for the same reason that if one person says that an airplane is in Canada and another person says the same airplane is in Mexico, at least one of them has to be wrong. They could both be wrong; nothing rules that out. Luther and the Catholic Church might neither be the true Church. But if there are two conflicting organizations competing to be called the true Church, at least one of them has to be wrong, just as an airplane cannot simultaneously be in Canada and in Mexico. Luther and the Catholic Church both recognized this.

What one might have expected, if Luther were simply re-establishing what the Christian Church was in ancient times, was that there would be one and only reformer's Church. When Luther couldn't agree with other reformers, they split off from each other, each saying, "We're the true Church!" "No, we're the true Church!" It wasn't long until there were seventy or so different groups, and the claim, "We're the true Church" could no longer be taken seriously. In retrospect, Luther's saying "I do not accept the authority of Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other," and then moving to Protestant churches was a move out of the frying pan and into the fire. Perhaps Luther could not have foreseen this unintended consequence, but the disagreements and divisions in Luther's wake made the disagreements of Popes and councils pale in comparison.

At that point, the reformers reconsidered what was going on, but they chose to consider the Church structure generated by the Reformation as valid. There was an unwritten rule: "Whatever you say about churches, it has to approve of what's happened with the Reformation splintering into many groups that could not be in communion with each other, no matter what Christians have believed about Church since the days of the Apostles themselves."

The solution they invented included the concept of a "denomination". The idea was that these different groups were not competitors for the title of "true Church;" instead, they were simply names for parts of the true Church. The true Church was not a unified organism complete with authority as it had been understood from the days of the apostles; it was something invisible and quite independent of formal structures. It's kind of like there had been a supercomputer club whose charter said that they would have one supercomputer, but they couldn't agree on which computer was the most appropriate supercomputer, so they violated the club charter by each buying his own computer, and to be able to say they had one computer like the charter said, hooked the computers up and said that the real club supercomputer was something invisible, a sort of virtual computer, that was emulated over the club network—and then said that this is what the original charter really called for. This is not because the reformers read the Bible and this was the best picture they could come up with of what the Church should be. It was much closer to an answer to the question of "How can we re-imagine Church so it won't look like the Bible condemns the church structures which the Reformation can't escape?"


Christos Jonathan

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Jonathan,

The basic problem with your analogy is that, in terms of computers, a 'virtual supercomputer' actually is a form of super-computer, and can in fact accomplish supercomputing functions - however 'virtual' it is in physical terms.

Divisions away from the one Body of the Lord cannot be the source of union in that body. They can accomplish knowledge of it, yes, in various degrees; but this is fundamentally distinct from engendering full union in and with it.

But, that small response offered: I'd rather stay grounded in the words of the Fathers.

INXC, Fr Dcn Matthew

[Kusanagi]

A priest i met once told me that the non orthodox can achieve salvation get into heaven if they keep doing the good things they are taught and know. However they will not be able to behold paradise in its fullest glory, Orthodoxy is like the "glasses" needed for someone to be able to behold paradise in its fullest glory. Not sure who teaches this but i find that a few greek priests actually say something similar along these lines.

[Jennifer Anne S.]

A priest i met once told me that the non orthodox can achieve salvation get into heaven if they keep doing the good things they are taught and know. However they will not be able to behold paradise in its fullest glory, Orthodoxy is like the "glasses" needed for someone to be able to behold paradise in its fullest glory. Not sure who teaches this but i find that a few greek priests actually say something similar along these lines.

No one can do enough good to get into heaven. St. Paul teaches in his letter to the Romans that the light of God is available to all and all will be judged by that light. All of creation speaks of the nature of God. The Jews have the Law and the Gentiles have the requirements of the Law inscribed in their hearts. Both sources of light are sufficient for determining what is good and holy and what is not. St. Paul continues that, indeed, if a person were to actually keep the Law by the source of light he has, he will be saved by it -- Jew or Gentile alike.

St. Paul concludes that, unfortunately, no one has ever kept the Law. He says, "All have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God." Because they have sufficient light, no one has any excuse. Jews will parish according to the Law, Gentiles will parish apart from it.

The only way salvation is the Good News of Jesus Christ. Apart from that, all are lost.

[Kusanagi]

Actually its for those that have not heard the word of God, what happens to those people?
Do they not get into heaven as summed up by yourself?

[Jennifer Anne S.]

Actually its for those that have not heard the word of God, what happens to those people?
Do they not get into heaven as summed up by yourself?

Who is saved and who is not is entirely up to God (and certainly not up to me). I did not create this teaching -- I'm only pointing out what St. Paul said about the subject in the Scriptures. St. Paul does not directly address the question of those who have not heard other than to say "all are without excuse" due to the light they have received.

The Church has been given a mandate by Christ to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching" -- presumably for this very reason -- that God desires that everyone hear his message and have the opportunity to come into the Church. Perhaps in the last judgment, some of the blame for what becomes of those who have not heard will fall on us, if we don't follow his commands to share our faith with the world!

[Kusanagi]

you just answered my question, by saying due to the light they have received.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Since bringing together some quotations and thoughts for post #21 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=80945&postcount=21) above, I’ve compiled a few other patristic quotations that might be of assistance in our reflections here.

When we echo the patristic position on the Church as the living Body of Christ, which is a divine-human organism of the Son’s incarnate presence in creation, we start to see, too, various connected themes that emerge from this vision. These include the eternal nature of the Church, and the fact that she is always ‘contemporary’ rather than historical, and carries true authority through that ever-contemporary experience of the Lord; that she is the haven of converted lives, mystically pure despite the impurity of many of her members; and that, as the Body of union between man and God, she has as her missionary work precisely the task of bringing humanity into this body. (There are of course many other themes that emerge; but these three have stood out from the quotations I’ve pulled together this morning.)

The eternity of the Church, and her continually contemporary experience and authority

In post #21, I quoted a famous saying of St Jerome: ‘One ought to remain in that Church which, having been founded by the Apostles, exists even till this day.’ When we are considering the Church’s attitude towards other Christian traditions and communities, we need to remember this injunction that lies at the heart of Orthodoxy—that God has founded His true Church, His very Body, which is the real pinnacle of Christian experience and life. Orthodoxy rejects the idea that there are ‘many churches’, all of which approach the truth in equal measure; and even more heartily rejects the idea that ‘the church’ is in fact a non-entity—that it is composed of all those traditions, but none in particular or exclusively, who approach Christianity in their own way. This is not, fundamentally, because of Orthodoxy’s views, one way or another, of those traditions. Rather, it is grounded in the firm conviction that Christ established a living Church which remains today, undivided and pure; and that the abstraction of ‘church’ in some modern approaches ultimately serves to render the Church intellectual, amorphous, and other than the living Body of the Lord.

This conviction is found, for example, in the advice of St Nicolai (Velimirovic):
“Also, always ask the Church, and she, with her great experience and her victory over falsehood, will tell you what is the truth. For you are of yesterday, but the Church is from time immemorial. Your understanding is less than that of the Church.” (St Nicolai Velimirovic, The Prologue)This is fairly straightforward advice, which needs little commentary. Human experience of the present moment, which seeks understanding based on its fleeting minutes in history, stands in need of the Church in her antiquity—not because she has a good memory of the past, but because she is the living Body which has lived, been in life ‘from time immemorial’.

This is what grounds the patristic view of the Church as always contemporary. Her antiquity does not simply make her ‘old’, nor does her authority come from her past. Her antiquity grounds her present experience, for it is the same experience she has been living since the foundation of the world; and her authority comes not from her past, but from the fact that her past is her present; it is contemporary to her life today.

We can find this in the words of St Justin (Popovich):
“In the Church, the past is contemporary; and that which is present remains so on account of the living past, since the God-man Christ, who is ‘the same yesterday, today and forever’ (Hebrews 13.8) continuously lives in His divine-human Body by means of the same truth, the same holiness, the same goodness, the same life; and she establishes the past in the present. Thus, to a living Orthodox understanding and conscience, all the members of the Church, from the holy apostles to those who have recently fallen asleep, are contemporary, since they continuously live in Christ. Further, today in every true Orthodox individual one can find all the holy apostles, martyrs, and holy fathers. For the Orthodox Christian these are more real than many of his contemporaries.” (St Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ)‘The past is contemporary.’ We must note the grounding for this, according to St Justin: that the Church lives Christ’s divine-human life, and Christ is eternal and unchanging. The Church’s ever-contemporary authority does not come from a well-defined set of doctrinal statements that she, and none other, possesses; it does not come from a particular doctrinal or dogmatic approach which surpasses that of all other traditions; it does not come from having ‘got it right in the beginning’ and locked her truth and practices in a vault for two millennia so that they remain untouched. The Church’s ever-contemporary authority comes from the fact that she is Christ’s Body, that her life is the life of the living, eternal Lord; that she is joined in Christ’s incarnation to His own life and being; that Christ is ever present in and with her.

This grounds her authority as eternal, ancient, yet ever contemporary and present (just as Christ is eternal, the ‘Ancient of Days’, yet always present); and also grounds the mystery of the true communion of humanity in the Church—for those of the past are present in Christ, and those of the present in converse with those of the past. This was evident in St Justin’s words, and it is found, too, in those of St John Chrysostom:
“Not only we are in this assembly , but also the prophets and the apostles and all the saints; and what is most important of all—among us is Jesus Christ Himself, the Master of everything.” (St John Chrysostom)This is the real majesty of the Church’s true nature, grounded in Christ’s living Body. She is the contemporary voice of all Christ’s saints, ever present, ever in converse, ever headed by their Lord. Christ is present, as are all His teachers—today. It is for this reason that the Church seeks not to affirm the equality of any-and-all intellectual approaches to understanding Christ and Christianity: she seeks to draw to herself all who are the handiwork and creation of this Lord, that they may live in the full union with their Maker which He has established in His Body.

The Church as the haven of converted lives joined to Christ, pure despite impurity

Part of the Orthodox vision of the Church is that humanity is, in a real sense, created for it, and that Christ continually works to convert fallen lives back to Himself, back to the Body of which they ought properly to be a part. The work of Christ in the world, in history, is in great part the work of preparing humanity to find its way back into the Church when it has gone astray.

There is a telling remark on this in St Ambrose:
“For although God can change and transform diverse natures, yet because a mystery is of more benefit to me than a miracle, I should acknowledge in the Forerunner of Christ nothing greater than the building of the growing Church, which constructed not of stony rock, but of living stones, through the conversion of our spirits rose into an habitation of God and a pediment of the Temple. Indeed, God prepared to soften the hardness of our minds, and from stumbling blocks to erect husbandmen of religion.” (St Ambrose of Milan, [I]Exposition of the Gospel According to St Luke)Even in the Forerunner, God was building and establishing the Church—softening hard hearts through repentance, constructing a temple not of rocks but living stones, taking rebellious minds and forming them into husbandmen of true religion.

This process of calling back the fallen means that the Church is the haven of sinners. As Christ said, it is not the healthy who require a physician, but the sick. Yet very often, the fact that the Church contains men and women of great sin, of great wrong, is taken as a kind of ecclesiastical ‘problem’: fine that they are there, being saved—but surely their presence, especially when they are pastors and bishops, means that the Church’s pure expression of God’s life is tainted, and therefore cannot be truly universal? Etc.

Here is a more or less direct response to such questions from St Gregory the Great:
“It should not frighten you that in the Church the bad are many and the good few. For the ark, which in the midst of the flood was a figure of this Church, was wide below and narrow above, and at the summit measured but one cubit (cf. Genesis 6.16). And we are to believe that below were the four-footed animals and serpents, above the birds and men. It was wide where the beasts were, narrow where men lived; for the holy Church is indeed wide in the number of those who are carnal minded, narrow in those who are spiritual. For where she suffers the morals and beastly ways of men, there she enlarges her bosom. But where she has the care of those whose lives are founded on spiritual things, these she leads to the highest place; but since they are few, this part is narrow […]. And so the more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer them in patience; for on the threshing floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high the piles of chaff that are burned with fire.” (St Gregory the Great)God has always worked to preserve and correct all those who sin; but also to preserve and manifest His truth. The ark saved all of creation, and yet the presence of the carnal with the pure did not destroy the purity. So, too, with the Church. The presence of sinners would only amount to a diluting of the Church’s truth if one believed that the Church’s head was men, and not Christ. But as it is Christ who is the head of His Church, who guides it at every moment by the Father’s Spirit, then such sin receives correction and the truth remains accessible to man.

The charge here is to recognise that God will not allow human sin to tarnish His Body, and that His truth remains, pure and unadulterated, despite the impurity of sinful men and women in His Church; yet also to recognise that we are called to overcome our own impurity and sin. On this, St Clement:
“So then, brethren, by doing the will of God our Father, we shall belong to the first Church, the spiritual one, which was created before the sun and the moon (cf. Psalm 72.5; Ephesians 1.3 ff.). But if we fail to do the will of the Lord, that passage of Scripture will apply to us which says, ‘My house has become a den of robbers’ (Jeremiah 7.11; cf. Matthew 21.13, etc.). We must then choose to be of the Church of life in order to be saved.” (II Clement)The Church as the union of man in Christ’s Body, and its missionary nature

When this vision is comprehended, we begin to see the Church as the natural home of man. Not in an abstract division of different intellectual and traditional approaches, but in the union of all humankind in the one, unadulterated Body of its Maker. St Maximus says of this:
“Thus, as has been said, the holy Church of God is an image of God because it realises the same union of the faithful with God. As different as they are by language, places, and customs, they are made one by it through faith. God realises this union among the natures of things without confusing them, but in lessening and bringing together their distinction in a relationship and union with Himself as cause, principle and end.” (St Maximus the Confessor, On the Church's Mystagogy)One popular sentiment today is that there are (and should be) many churches because there are many different cultures and peoples, with different languages, heritages, styles and customs, etc., and it is ‘only right’ that the Church accommodate and embrace these. But St Maximus attends to this concept centuries ago: the Church makes the peoples of this creation one, not by abolishing their distinctions, but neither by letting these distinctions become divisions. All find their true ‘cause, principle and end’ in Christ, and so their natural home is in this one Christ’s Body, the one Church.

So the Church is evangelical, not by saying to the world, ‘Go, be what you want to be’, but by calling all the world to herself and saying, ‘Discover yourself here’. It is only in union with his Creator and Fashioner that a man finds his true personhood. So the Church has a firm mission—to draw all creation to herself.

On this, St Symeon:
“The Church is the Body of Christ, His bride, the world to come, and the temple of God. The members of His Body are all the saints. However, not all of the saints who will please God have yet appeared, nor yet is the whole Body of Christ thus complete, nor the world to come yet filled. I say this about God's Church. There are, though, many unbelievers in the world today who will believe in Christ; many sinners and debauched who will repent and change their lives; many undecided who will be persuaded. There are many, a great many, up to the sound of the last trumpet, who will prove well-pleasing to God and who have not yet been born. All those who are foreknown by God must be born, come into being, before the world beyond our world, the world of the Church, of the first-born, of the heavenly Jerusalem, is filled up. Then shall the end come and the fullness of the Body of Christ be complete.” (St Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life)While there may be some who question the Church’s missionary and evangelical nature because she will not submit to pressure to let people simply be what they want to be, define Christianity as they wish to define it; because she doesn’t offer the ‘comfortable path’ of allowing people to remain in their divisions of thought and practice in the name of an abstract unity; because she insists that there is one Church, not many, despite the unpopularity of this position in the modern mind—nonetheless, she knows that it is only in these things that true mission, true evangelism, resides. It is in this abiding conviction that the Lord’s One Body awaits all His children as its members, that shew has the power and grace to seek out all those—‘and there are many, a great many, up to the sound of the last trumpet’—whom the Lord calls to Himself.

Perhaps a final quotation from St Justin:
“Undoubtedly, we are only saved as living and organic members of the theanthropic body of the Saviour, namely of the Church, of the holy Church, the apostolic Church, the catholic Church—because the Church is nothing but the whole theanthropic life of Christ, extended to all the centuries and to the whole of eternity.” (St Justin Popovich, The Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ)INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Jennifer Anne S.]

you just answered my question, by saying due to the light they have received.

Correct. There are no people, not even Buddhists who have never heard of the Law, who have not been given sufficient light to know God's eternal nature. Even still, they have failed to give him thanks and they have failed to glorify him (Romans 1). Therefore all are accountable to him in the last judgment. Therefore all need Christ to be saved.

Some people have a serious problem with this. They want there to be multiple covenants between God and man so that there are multiple ways of salvation. They think it rude to claim Orthodoxy as exclusive. As I consider joining the Orthodox Church and read these posts on Monachos, I am nervous that the Orthodox Church may have a strain of Universalism in it.

Does anyone have any Orthodox patristic sources which say that there is some other way than Christ to be saved? I have searched through the various English translations of the Liturgies of Sts. Basil and John and can find nothing which indicates that there is any other way than Christ.

[Ryan]

As I consider joining the Orthodox Church and read these posts on Monachos, I am nervous that the Orthodox Church may have a strain of Universalism in it.

Does anyone have any Orthodox patristic sources which say that there is some other way than Christ to be saved?

I can assure you that universalism is not involved. It is always by Christ that men are saved. On the other hand, at least as I see it, those who are ignorant of Christ and the Church, and therefore lacking the grace found in the Church, can't be reasonably expected to glorify God in a pure manner, and so we can hope that God will be merciful to them. This does not make Buddhism another covenant with God or another way to salvation. On the other hand it has always been recognized that the pagan religions often had some kernels of moral truth preserved in them, however incomplete and distorted by demonic notions and fallen human reasonings.

[Jennifer Anne S.]

I can assure you that universalism is not involved. It is always by Christ that men are saved. On the other hand, at least as I see it, those who are ignorant of Christ and the Church, and therefore lacking the grace found in the Church, can't be reasonably expected to glorify God in a pure manner, and so we can hope that God will be merciful to them.

Ryan:

Thank you very much for your considered reply. From my research, I can see that the Orthodox Liturgies are clear about entreating God to be merciful to all men, especially those who do not yet believe. Orthodoxy seems sure that God *will* have mercy on all, even those whom he separates from himself at the last day (Matthew 25:31-46) in the sense that he respects their choice not to follow him.

It seems that "those who are ignorant of Christ and the Church" are the very ones who St. Paul says have "no excuse" precisely because they were expected to glorify God in a pure manner, but have not done so (Romans 1). He makes the case that there are no ignorant people -- sufficient evidence is available to all to know God and give him glory. In other words, there is no need to know Christ or the Church to know that 1) God exists, 2) God should be thanked, 3) God should be glorified - these things can be known from creation and from conscience (and from the Law for Jews).

As far as I can see, the Church makes no other statement about the issue of people being saved apart from Christ. This may leave us wondering about the proverbial "Lost Tribe in the Jungle" who has never heard the Gospel, but that seems to be our problem not the Church's. St. Paul certainly seems to include them in his words. Perhaps the Fathers would answer, "If you know where this 'Lost Tribe' is, go preach to them!"

I have not been able to find any hint of Universalism in the patristic sources (like the Anti and Post Nicene Fathers) which is universally accepted by the entire Church, but of course I have not read everything...

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Jennifer, you are quite right!

[Father David Moser]

As far as I can see, the Church makes no other statement about the issue of people being saved apart from Christ. This may leave us wondering about the proverbial "Lost Tribe in the Jungle" who has never heard the Gospel, but that seems to be our problem not the Church's. St. Paul certainly seems to include them in his words. Perhaps the Fathers would answer, "If you know where this 'Lost Tribe' is, go preach to them!

The Gospel is the account of the unique, full and clear self revelation of God to man which is accomplished in the incarnation. Prior to the incarnation, the Truth was not fully known, but there were indications in every culture of mankind. These "indications" were in some cultures more clear than in others - the clearest of course being the law and the prophets of the Hebrew people for it was given by God in a systematic and ordered manner. However in every other culture (Babylonian/Persian, Egyptian, Indian/Hindu, Chinese/oriental, Alaskan, etc) there were hints of the Gospel. The best relatively modern example of this is made clear in the account of the conversion of the Alaskan peoples. Their beliefs "primed" them for the reception of the Gospel.

Thus we can say that the "Lost Tribe" scenario would be that whatever their beliefs were, those beliefs would be fulfilled in the Gospel when they were exposed to it. They would find their salvation, not in their former religion, but in Christ who fulfills their religion. There is no salvation outside the Church and those who genuinely search for the Truth will at some point (whether in this life or in the world to come) come face to face with the Church. At that point they must choose - to follow Christ or to reject Him.

The problem that we face today with other Christian confessions is that the Gospel has been misused and misconstrued in attempts to force Christ to conform to our own personal desires. The only place where the Gospel has been preserved pure and without deviation is in the (Orthodox) Church. When other Christians who are seeking the truth come face to face with the Body of Christ, they must choose whether or not to give up their own ideas and submit to the Truth as He is (not as they wish Him to be). This is exceedingly difficult. There is always some "sticking point" that a person is loathe to give up of their past belief, wanting to insist that Christ conform to them rather than giving up that one idea and submit to Christ. As a result we have this fiction that there is somehow an "unnecessary" part of the Truth that is "optional" and so rather than embrace the whole Truth, it is enough to only accept the "necessary" parts of the Truth. But that is all self deception because the very first requirement that Christ gives us who would follow Him is to deny ourselves, to give up all of our own ideas, our own desires, our own pride, our own reasonings etc, and in humility accept what Christ gives on His terms. The goal of the Christian life is that I would decrease and that Christ would increase so that it is not I who live, but Christ in me. Christianity is an "all or nothing" kind of proposition. We cannot follow Christ 50%, 75%, 90% or even 99%. We have to follow Christ 100%, giving up everything of our own and accepting the whole of what He gives to us.

Sorry, I've kind of rambled on. Back to your original concern - there is no salvation outside the Church, for salvation is to become part of the Body of Christ (which is the Church). Those who have never yet heard the Truth, when they fervently seek the Truth, will end up at the door of the Church. At that point they will either embrace Christ Who is the fulfillment of their belief, or they will reject Him choosing to continue in their own delusion.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

The location of this thread has been moved from casual topics to the ecclesiology topic under the section on "the nature of the Church".

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

The questions raised here about who may be a "Christian" and who may belong to the Church are also addressed in depth by (New Martyr) Archbishop Hilarion (Troistky) in his essay Christianity or the Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/christianity_church_e.htm). In the context of the article he addresses the fact that Christianity cannot exist outside the Church and that the Church has always been properly understood and a visible tangible entity (not an invisible ideal). Only by properly understanding the doctrine of the nature of the Church and its role in our salvation is one able to really see this discussion of those who wish to be Christians outside the Church in the context of God's provision for us.

Fr David Moser

[Brian Mickelsen]

In view of the following verse -- It could be said that the person who professes Christ will eventually be led (By God) to the orthodox tradition?

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I feel that the concept of salvation could be considered entry into the church - however ---

If the first paragraph is true I think it is very clear that many people will never live long enough to be led to the orthodox church --- such is the case with the thief on the cross.

Would the orthodox congregation consider the thief to have become orthodox at the point of His conversion on the cross?

Unlike the thief on the cross there would, in most cases, be a period of time in between the two transitions --

1. The time of verbal belief and profession and the
2. time of the initial encounter with the orthodox tradition

Would the person be a part of the church after confession and before they come to the orthodox tradition?

Brian

[Father David Moser]

Would the orthodox congregation consider the thief to have become orthodox at the point of His conversion on the cross?

The thief, St Dismas, is considered not only to be Orthodox but among the saints.


Unlike the thief on the cross there would, in most cases, be a period of time in between the two transitions --

1. The time of verbal belief and profession and the
2. time of the initial encounter with the orthodox tradition

Would the person be a part of the church after confession and before they come to the orthodox tradition?

This idea that there "verbal belief an profession" and "encounter with Orthodox tradition" are two different things is a false dichotomy True belief in Christ is Orthodoxy and there is no separation between the two. You are either Orthodox (true believing) or not. If a person holds a true belief in Christ, he will immediately embrace Orthodoxy as what he has believed and practiced all along. If he has embraced a false, or at best incomplete, belief in Christ then that is where the problems generally arise. When the false belief in Christ comes face to face with the true Christ there is an internal conflict which ensues. The result is that either the person relinquishes his false belief and embraces the true Christ, or he adheres to his own idea of who Christ ought to be in his opinion and rejects the true Christ.But the idea that there is some kind of separation between belief and practice is a fallacy.

Fr David Moser

Fr David Moser

[Michael Astley]

Dear Brian,

You have received a number of answers here to your original points, showing slightly different strains of thought within Orthodoxy about the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church, but all saying essentially the same thing. I especially appreciate Fr Matthew's contributions which are very detailed and deal with your points meticulously.

I don't know whether you may find this helpful but I think that it speaks to the points that you are raising here. If you do not consider it too tedious a task, perhaps you would like to read my humble effort (http://www.newmartyr.org.uk/branch.html).

In Christ,
Michael

[Gregory F. Murray]

True belief in Christ is Orthodoxy and there is no separation between the two. You are either Orthodox (true believing) or not. If a person holds a true belief in Christ, he will immediately embrace Orthodoxy as what he has believed and practiced all along.

Fr David Moser


This has been a very interesting thread for me, a newcomer who only just discovered Orthodoxy (and have barely gotten my feet wet). I have to say the arguments presented in favor or Orthodoxy being the One Church seem very sound from an intellectual perspective and also "ring true" from a heart perspective. If there were no continuity of the One Church, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, annulling the promises of scripture and thus undermining fatally the entire foundation of Christianity. Indeed, part of the reason I despaired in earlier years was my failure to find this Church, and my tragic conclusion that it did not exist. Observing around me the wilderness of Protestant denominations, none of which could demonstrate continuity or convincing authority, and being unable to embrace Roman Catholicism because many of its positions seemed unsupportable, I eventually saw nowhere to turn but away.

As a Protestant, I was also handicapped by a disinclination to examine the teachings of the Church Fathers, considering them to be mere extensions of a Roman Catholicism which had gone astray. I spent enough time in the bible, however (intensive and prolonged studies), to recognize (I think) sound doctrine when I see it. It is for this reason I am impressed with the statements of Fathers Moser and Matthews above, as well as the clear thinking of other Orthodox members who post here.



It could be said that the person who professes Christ will eventually be led (By God) to the orthodox tradition?

Brian


I am reminded that in the Book of Acts, Cornelius the centurion was guided in a vision precisely to search out Peter the Apostle for entrance into the One Church, rather than to set up shop and go it alone. And later when the Apostle Paul came upon disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus, he brought them into the One Church via baptism and the seal of the Holy Spirit, correcting their partial knowledge in the meantime.

In my own case, many years ago when I encountered (as I think) the true Christ, alone in an office, my first thought thereafter was not to immediately commit myself to any organization (I knew next to nothing about any of them), but to give myself to prayer and study for a period of time, so that I would know of a certainty where to go and what to do. As it happened, I only managed a few months solitude before well-meaning Christians succeeded in getting me, not to abandon my studies entirely, but to step out into the wilderness of denominations. Thenceforth I was learning on the fly, so to speak, attending different meetings, examining scripture, trying to make sense of it all. Ultimately I could find no home, and I questioned whether I was being too demanding, whether I ought to compromise some part of my evolving convictions and settle in someplace, anyplace, if only to stabilize my spiritual walk and not be "tossed to an fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

Yet this is the sticking point. As my understanding grew, I realized that, in denomination after denomination, "the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness" had distorted key points of scripture, over and over, until a vast array of confusion abounded. And this confusion hindered my spiritual growth. I could not get past Romans 7 (utterly bound by sin) into Romans 8 (an overcomer in Christ) precisely because, even if "entire sanctification" or one of its offshoots might theoretically be emphasized here or there, I found no consistent power of application of this doctrine within any institution, but what amounted to lip service. This is not to say that many did not sincerely desire, and make the attempt, to become holy and just and good, with greater or lesser degrees of success. Nor am I implying that every member of Orthodoxy has "already attained." But I mean to say that, as it seems to me, there is a fundamental disadvantage to attaining anything of lasting merit (and only to be more fully in Christ has merit) unless the path is clearly demarcated by sound doctrine and proper emphasis. This is the Orthodox doctrine and praxis of theosis, which necessarily must include being grafted into the One Body of Christ, to fulfill a bodily function. If one is not grafted into the True Vine, how can one assimilate the Spirit "of power, and of love, and of a sound mind"?

In closing, if I have misrepresented Orthodoxy in any way, please forgive me. It is brand new to me and I am marveling! I am certainly a sinner in need of sound guidance. Blessings to all!

Greg