The Church of the East ; Philip Jenkins ; Cornelius

No one has been sent to us Orientals by the Pope. The holy apostles aforesaid taught us and we still hold today what they handed down to us. -Rabban Bar Sauma c. 1290

I read way too much of this book tonight, instead of doing my homework.

It's funny because the more I read about Orthodoxy both Eastern and Oriental, and the more Confessional Anglicans and Lutherans I read, the more I am overwhelmed by the fact that we all confess the same traditional faith. Where we diverge is obviously important, but the fact that we all agree on the Trinity, largely the first 7 ecumenical councils, and to differing degrees, the Old and New Testament, there's actually a lot in common by way of heritage.

And it's also funny because at the same time, I'm amazed at how absent Christ can be in faiths that bear his name. Suddenly one's identity becomes based on who is the true catholicos, or who is the real head of the church. In reality, I think we should be looking to the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. As a Protestant Christian I also think the bishops of the world should stop claiming to be "more bishop-y than other bishops" (to quote my old Reformed professor of religious philosophy). If a bishop or a pastor is a shepherd, this should always be remembered to be at best a visible analogy or sign of Christ who is the True head of the Church, the real universal shepherd.

You can have all the unified ecclesiastical bodies in the world and yet lose your soul.

I'm struck by the story of Cornelius in Acts 10, who was an unbaptized gentile that prayed. And yet when St. Peter arrives at his door, he exclaims so beautifully:

"So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ ( he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days."

This is my new ecclesiology.


(John Woo is a Chinese-American Lutheran, just threw him in here to show an 'eastern Christian')

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthdoxy seems like the near perfect version of Christianity. I think they have an amazing balance of Tradition and Scripture. Scripture is still allowed to critique traditions and it is held in high esteem (even if the communion as a whole can't agree on the canon of it).

I love the fact that they allow for mystery, and that they seem so ancient in how they do things. At the Catholic Church I occassionally attend they use modern Christian music. But I remember listening in History class to the Liturgy of St. Anthony, and the beauty of the churches. I love the Icons which constantly remind me of the Great Cloud of Witnesses. I think if I ever went into one of those churches it would feel like that line in the Apostles' Creed "The communion of the saints", the one covenent body on Earth and in Heaven. It's a great image.

As well the Filioque issue to me is in favor of the East Orthodox (for those unfamiliar with it, the Orthodox belive the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Catholics add, or the Orthodox remove - depending on your position of course - the Filioque, which is latin for 'and the Son', thus Catholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.) In my reading of scripture I believe it is the Father. (but of course, I haven't read intensively on it).

I think their position on Tradition is what I like the most. The fact that they ordain married priests, and that they seem to have an amazing reverence for God. I also really like a few of their saints. I enjoy the Eastern Mysticism, and frequently pray the Jesus prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) as they do, and find it beneficial.

Of course the closest Orthodox church is a 45-50 minute drive away, and I hear they're even less welcoming than the Catholics (which would mean probably not letting me in the door). And the Church is split up into about 19 churches all claiming episcopal authority over the same diocese, and they are ridiculously nationalistic (quite like Catholics as well except substitute Irish and Italian, for Greek and Russian).

I remember my grandmother telling me a story about how in the Ukraine in my great grandmother's time, the Mennonites and the Ukranian Orthodox used to come after church and bake together and that's how alot of Mennonite recipes came to be. I like that kind of ecumenism. Two totally different theological viewpoints, both heretics in the eyes of each other's dogma, but they can come together as one body on the Sabbath and bake. We need more ecumenical baking, and I wish there was an Orthodox church in town...

Baptism

"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" - Nicene Creed

My entire life I've been taught at our Evangelical Baptist Church that baptism is 'an outward sign, of an inward reality'. I was baptized at 16 and I thought little about it before hand. When I was in the tank I gave my testimony and conversion story and agreed with the whole saved sola fide (faith alone) blah blah, and then the baptismal formula and as I was dunked with the word 'Spirit' ringing in my ears I came out of the water. .... let it be known I'm no charismatic, I have no problem with them at all, but I'm more tempted towards rationalism than anything, I'm a doubter. But when I came out of that water I felt this rush come over me, it was a bit like being shocked, but in a good way. I felt incredibly holy. I was utterly confused and stumbled out of the tank... it did not feel like 'an outward symbol' ...

I am well aware that my personal experience should not be enough to convince anyone, but I find it interesting as I read St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine, and the Nicene creed above all else that the early church - in my limited knowledge - seems like it was overwhelmingly in favour of 'regenerative baptism'. Now if you stumbled onto this blog and you aren't one of my theology friends then I'll explain. Regenerative Baptism is the idea that in baptism your sins are washed away, and forgiven. This is an idea within the East Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican and Lutheran churches (note *some).

As the Council of Trent says, "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema". Anathema means cursed to hell. I'm not sure I would go that far, but those Catholics, they're sticklers for orthodoxy.

I think it's interesting as I've never come close to believing that before, how it seems strangely close to the experience I felt. In St. Gregory's book he likens baptism to the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds (or Red Sea for you KJV folks). He says that as the Egyptians were drowned, so our sins are washed away. ... He also says creepy stuff about not being able to sin after baptism, but I'm going to ignore that for this post.

I think it's crazy how we can read those words from Nicea that Baptism is FOR the forgiveness of sins and still disagree with this idea. ... I guess it's like we can read the words "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and ignore those as well.

I again am not sure where I stand on alot, I know so very little but I feel like I'm learning tons as I go along. I mean just yesterday I argued for believers baptism with Lance lol, but I think this position is alot stronger. Once again I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that in Protestantism the only place left is the teetering, splintering, liberal theology infested, Anglican communion. God save it.

Pastoral Issues

I've been wondering lately about the whole thing in Evangelicalism where people pick a church by pastor and kind of go from church to church untill they find the best one. I kind of do this as well (though I do study the theology lightly behind each of the churches). I wonder about the role of a pastor is in Protestant churches. The Priesthood of all believers kind of destroys everything Paul says about Bishops and Deacons and Pastors at the church, and having a Congregational polity kind of destroys the idea of God placing leaders in the church to lead the people in the right way, even if it is the unpopular way.

My Pastor and I are a bit at odds lately for lots of complex reasons but I feel like I'll probably end up just finding another church and go there. But there's another problem. The closest church to my house is the 1st Presbyterian church, which is led by a female minister who barely speaks english and preaches at a sunday school level, the music sucks, the pews are rock hard, and there's probably a congregation of 35 people mostly over 60. But because I am my own pope in essence, I can choose to drive 20 minutes to the 'cool' non-denominational church in the town, with friends my age who attend, good preaching and good music. But then again, why should I judge on those characteristics, maybe I should go back to the Nicene creed and find a church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, well I don't know if any 'Holy' churches exist these days... Ok so lets remove Holy and go with Apostolic, Catholic and One. I could go Catholic ... but then I'd have to throw away my bible. I could go Anglican... but then I'd have to throw away God (liberal Anglicans in Canada). I could go Orthodox... but then I'd have to learn Ukranian or Greek and make up a fake family tree.

So maybe I'll just give up on theology all together and go Mennonite Brethren...

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.asp

Here is a great article written by an Orthodox Christian just about all of the differences that exist between The Eastern and Western churches. It is interesting to me that after reading it, I realized that the Orthodox church and Roman church are actually more separated in many ways than the Protestant and Catholic churches. I find this really interesting, especially since Catholics forever tell us Protestants that we are the first and only schismatics.

I still have no clue which church I'll end up in it could be any of them, but it is interesting to know how different their views really are, and also astonishing to see how quickly one group will brand another with the title of 'heresy'. I guess it's inherent in Christianity because we believe so much in absolutel truth which is non-negotiable, it only makes sense that none of us can figure out what the absolute truths are.