What is Orthodoxy? pt 2
Continuing an earlier post, came across a nice article titled, "Why I'm Not Orthodox" by a Protestant professor who taught in Russia. Very well written, and what I appreciated most was that it was not a "I'm right, you are wrong" type article that is found by authors on both sides of the discussion.
The focus is mainly on the Russian Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodoxy, and there are some points of difference between this and the Oriental Orthodox. But, I liked the way the author divided the points of discussion:
The Church: Orthodoxy makes a "bold and unapologetic theological claim as the one true church of Christ on earth, which alone has guarded right belief and true worship in absolute identity and unbroken succession with the apostolic church". The central point of disagreement to this issue is clearly who constitutes the "Church" and how one enters the church (i.e., through the Sacrament of Baptism, etc).
The Sacraments: I found it odd that the author seemed a bit surprised that the Sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox faith were similar, as a quick read of the historical evolution of Christianity all began with a common starting point. The author also explains here that "Evangelicals urge the necessity of personal conversion through the faith and repentance of the individual believer, as opposed to the Orthodox idea of regeneration by the sacraments". The author emphasizes that these were concepts central to evangelism, almost implying that Orthodox Christians disagreed. To really engage in this argument, a deep knowledge of theology is required ... but, my little brain doesn't quite understand how both "substitutionary atonement" and "justification by faith" disagrees with the beliefs of the early Church. Coming back to the Sacraments, though ... it seems to be the misunderstanding that Sacraments are a substitution for true Christian practice. True Church doctrine is not teaching that receiving Eucharist at mass on Sunday does not mean you have a 'Get out of jail free' card to behave unlike Christ on Monday.
Icons: This is one point where I will never understand those who take the extreme points on this argument (i.e., some Orthodox Christians vehemently argue that only icons can be used, and having nothing better to do point to the Catholic use of statues as blasphemous). Although the use of icons in the Indian Orthodox Church is not as emphasized as the Eastern Orthodox Church, there are many articles and books that correctly emphasize that worship is always towards God, period. Any argument, action or belief other than this is not according to the Catholic or Orthodox Church. This is one of many good articles that elaborate on this topic, "Orthodox Christians venerate or show honor and respect for icons, they understand that they are merely expressing those feelings for the people and events depicted, and not for the icons themselves. To make this clear to the laity, worship of icons was forbidden by the same council that defended their veneration, the Second Council of Nicea."
Scripture and Tradition: This is "Sola Scriptura", or as articulated by Martin Luther, "What else do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the divine Scripture and human teaching or custom?". Ironically, many Orthodox scholars agree on the point that influence of human teaching or custom at times confuses or misleads on issues, e.g., Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote, "Many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message". Martin Luther was primarily challenging the Catholic Church who unfortunately had several very misguided popes at in the middle ages of Europe. The irony here is that even with the belief Sola Scriptura, there are points of the Bible that do require an authority to help clarify, and the primary objection seems to be that the authority to interpret is anyone but the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
To summarize, many of the theological arguments and who is right and wrong are honestly are above me - Yeah, I'm no street theologian!. :) For me when struggling to understand and explain all of this, I relate much more to points such as when in the article, the author mentioned that when he asked an Orthodox priest whether he as a Protestant theologian might be considered a true Christian, the priest responded "I don't know". Although I think the author was using this as a point to show that the Orthodox priests themselves were ignorant, I actually believe the answer was both correct and wise, similar to one of the stories from the desert fathers.
The article also concluded with a thought i.e., what is at stake? If I could bring this all to a personal level, what continues to be at stake is how the Indian Orthodox Church in America will be defined. Is it possible to uphold and love the beliefs and traditions of this historic Church, and also embrace the truly Christian acts and practices of the modern-day Church? That is the challenge ahead.
Much to think and write about later ... hopefully this post will generate some feedback!
The focus is mainly on the Russian Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodoxy, and there are some points of difference between this and the Oriental Orthodox. But, I liked the way the author divided the points of discussion:
The Church: Orthodoxy makes a "bold and unapologetic theological claim as the one true church of Christ on earth, which alone has guarded right belief and true worship in absolute identity and unbroken succession with the apostolic church". The central point of disagreement to this issue is clearly who constitutes the "Church" and how one enters the church (i.e., through the Sacrament of Baptism, etc).
The Sacraments: I found it odd that the author seemed a bit surprised that the Sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox faith were similar, as a quick read of the historical evolution of Christianity all began with a common starting point. The author also explains here that "Evangelicals urge the necessity of personal conversion through the faith and repentance of the individual believer, as opposed to the Orthodox idea of regeneration by the sacraments". The author emphasizes that these were concepts central to evangelism, almost implying that Orthodox Christians disagreed. To really engage in this argument, a deep knowledge of theology is required ... but, my little brain doesn't quite understand how both "substitutionary atonement" and "justification by faith" disagrees with the beliefs of the early Church. Coming back to the Sacraments, though ... it seems to be the misunderstanding that Sacraments are a substitution for true Christian practice. True Church doctrine is not teaching that receiving Eucharist at mass on Sunday does not mean you have a 'Get out of jail free' card to behave unlike Christ on Monday.
Icons: This is one point where I will never understand those who take the extreme points on this argument (i.e., some Orthodox Christians vehemently argue that only icons can be used, and having nothing better to do point to the Catholic use of statues as blasphemous). Although the use of icons in the Indian Orthodox Church is not as emphasized as the Eastern Orthodox Church, there are many articles and books that correctly emphasize that worship is always towards God, period. Any argument, action or belief other than this is not according to the Catholic or Orthodox Church. This is one of many good articles that elaborate on this topic, "Orthodox Christians venerate or show honor and respect for icons, they understand that they are merely expressing those feelings for the people and events depicted, and not for the icons themselves. To make this clear to the laity, worship of icons was forbidden by the same council that defended their veneration, the Second Council of Nicea."
Scripture and Tradition: This is "Sola Scriptura", or as articulated by Martin Luther, "What else do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the divine Scripture and human teaching or custom?". Ironically, many Orthodox scholars agree on the point that influence of human teaching or custom at times confuses or misleads on issues, e.g., Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote, "Many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message". Martin Luther was primarily challenging the Catholic Church who unfortunately had several very misguided popes at in the middle ages of Europe. The irony here is that even with the belief Sola Scriptura, there are points of the Bible that do require an authority to help clarify, and the primary objection seems to be that the authority to interpret is anyone but the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
To summarize, many of the theological arguments and who is right and wrong are honestly are above me - Yeah, I'm no street theologian!. :) For me when struggling to understand and explain all of this, I relate much more to points such as when in the article, the author mentioned that when he asked an Orthodox priest whether he as a Protestant theologian might be considered a true Christian, the priest responded "I don't know". Although I think the author was using this as a point to show that the Orthodox priests themselves were ignorant, I actually believe the answer was both correct and wise, similar to one of the stories from the desert fathers.
The article also concluded with a thought i.e., what is at stake? If I could bring this all to a personal level, what continues to be at stake is how the Indian Orthodox Church in America will be defined. Is it possible to uphold and love the beliefs and traditions of this historic Church, and also embrace the truly Christian acts and practices of the modern-day Church? That is the challenge ahead.
Much to think and write about later ... hopefully this post will generate some feedback!
Comments