The Future Hope for Christianity is its Past (Why I Became Orthodox)
_______
I became and Orthodox Christian by chance. I was actually seeking to start a house church and as I researched it in Scripture, I found that ancient house churches were likely liturgical in nature, rather than the informal kumbaya sessions with a meal and brief chat. Of course, I wanted to be in line with historic Christianity. I wanted to know how these small home-centered churches looked and why. From my Bible college days I recalled professors who had great admiration for Eastern Orthodoxy as perhaps the most ancient form of Christianity still in practice. So, in the fall of 2014 I made my first visit to an Eastern [Greek] Orthodox parish in Cheyenne, Wyoming. To say the least, I was beyond intrigued. Something beckoned me to keep investigating.
Soon, I learned why the churches were so heavily adorned with imagery, smells (incense), vestments, movements (crossing ones self, kissing icons, etc.), and more. I of course had to contend with plenty of my Protestant presuppositions regarding Mary, images, infant baptism, and the utter formality of ritual. After I studied the history of the Church and how these "to be avoided" elements for Protestants were steeped in 2nd Temple Judaism and were even more consistent with ancient Jewish ritual we find in the Old Testament, I came to realize purpose and meaning. I learned that Christianity was always meant to be a continuum of Judaism in its own way. As a historian by nature (and now profession) I could not deny the historicity of Eastern Orthodoxy, as strange as its components were compared to the iconoclastic, stripped down, and sermon/worship band focused church experiences I was used to.
It's hard to be in such foreign territory, because it meant learning a whole new language. I even tried to interest some family members, but its alien nature caused discomfort and I have even been accused of joining a cult. At the very least, some of the practices I have adopted have solicited questions about how I could jump Protestant ship when it was these areas that I earlier rejected. Plus, the ritual is seen as unnecessary, like I worship some pagan deity at a shrine. I cannot blame peoples' reactions. I had to study deeply and suspend my disbelief to see the veracity and integral nature of Orthodoxy to Christianity.
Below is not my testimony per se, but rather as brief as I could make each item, reconsideration of what Protestantism has rejected, as well as my explainer on why I believe Orthodoxy to be the salvation of Christianity that western culture needs. I will not lace this with heavy citations. Instead, for brevity (as much as I could afford), I will try to keep each item simple and general. Thanks again for giving this a read, whoever you are.
_______________
Q1: What about the trappings (incense, priestly robes, crossing oneself, etc.)? Are these necessary?
A1: Humans are ritualistic by nature. We applaud after attending Broadway shows, we cheer our favorite sports teams, we wear band and sports team t-shirts to show our allegiance, we have personal superstitions or rituals (like holding our breath when driving through tunnels), and we sing along to our favorite songs at concerts whilst holding up cigarette lighters or cell phone flashlights. Ritual is our way of unifying with like-minded people in celebrating what matters to us. Ritual is a way to make certain things important to us. Ritual matters because creation matters.
The early Church had liturgical rituals because these were adapted from Hebrew roots in temple worship, as prescribed by the Old Testament. The Church is a continuation of biblical worship. Protestantism has simply scraped away these elements for fear of extra-biblical Roman Catholic contamination. Yet, these rituals are intrinsic and biblical. They aren't magic, but they are a way to unify and express physically -- through sight, hearing, touch, and smell -- what the heart posits in worship and repentance.
Q2: What about icons and praying to the saints?
A2: Prayer is conversation. The Hebrew word tefilah that is among the common words for prayer in the Old Testament has roots not in asking for things from God as our English word conveys, but instead includes a sense of self-judgement and introspection. In this sense, talking with God is like using him as a sounding board. We learn his will through applying known theological truths and dealing directly with our foibles. In a real sense, prayer is communicative. More often than not, we receive his answers to prayer in the very hearing of words of the prayers we offer.
The Eastern Church has always understood prayer to the saints to be the seeking of mutual aid. We ask saints to pray for us, much like we might seek intercessory prayer from a fellow Christian at our churches. There is, after all, strength in numbers. As for those who have died, their lives are embedded in the resurrected Christ, even now as we await the resurrection. In this sense, they are more alive than even we are. It's not and never has been that we cannot pray directly to Christ on our own, but that we are all -- dead saints and living ones -- part of the Body of Christ, so seeking the intercession of a saint with Christ is efficacious since we are all to have a relational unity with Jesus. It is an echo-chamber of introspection, where the experiences and contemplation of the saints feedback to us as corporate introspection and feed into Christ's unity of mind and spirit. Prayer is not magic. Prayer is not about getting stuff -- though asking for blessings and help can be part of the conversation too. Prayer is ultimately about unity, which includes all who are in Christ, precisely because they are in-Christed.
Q3: What about Mary? Is there something about Mary?
A3: Mary fulfills the ancient paradigms of the Queen of Heaven or monarchical regent. She is also seen as a second Ark [of the Covenant] in carrying God's presence before the people. Mary is also likened to the new or second Eve, just as Jesus is the second Adam. She is noted in the gospels to have a name that will be blessed forever. In short, she matters more than the sidelines Protestantism has given her.
Now, the Orthodox do not have the later theology Roman Catholics developed of an immaculate conception, which views Mary sinless from birth so that she might be clean enough to carry Jesus in her womb. Yet, the Orthodox acknowledge that Mary was significantly faithful in order to become the mother of God, and that the incarnation was salvific and purifying to her physically. Still, she was a human and born with the same inclinations to sin as we all are, regardless of whether she sinned or not. She always needed Jesus' sanctification and so she was made holy by the Holy Spirit and became mother to Jesus, our elder brother as we Christians inherit the Kingdom of God. In this sense, she also becomes our mother... The mother of a redeemed and healed humanity (the second Eve). How can we not revere or communicate with our mother?
Q4: Why not become Roman Catholic then?
A4: The split between Rome and the rest of Christianity in the 1000s was unfortunate and wrong. Unity matters. Yet, many of the divisions began as early as the fourth and fifth centuries. Some of this was due to the inadequate linguistic translations of the Greek into Latin. In the Latin West, tweaks on earlier theology helped shape its own theological expressions. One thing was the filioque, which is the Latin addition onto the Nicene Creed that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This was originally codified into Western theology at the Council of Toledo in 589 AD. It was used as a teaching tool against the lingering influence of the Arian heresy, which denied that Jesus was by nature God. So, if saying the Holy Spirit was sent by both the Father and Jesus, it was seen as a rubber stamp on Jesus' divinity. The problem in the East was that it was not brought before the whole Church in an ecumenical council and for all its good intentions, the filioque confused the relationship between the members of the godhead.
While all three of the persons of God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- are co-equal in essence, in relationship they differ. The Father is the Father because he begets or sends. Jesus is the Son because he was born into humanity, though his role was eternal as evidenced by theophanic visitations described in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit is sent. In Scripture, the Spirit is promised or sent by Jesus only in relationship to temporal creation in his absence. Jesus says the Spirit is given by the Father in his name and not that the Spirit originates in his personhood. In short, if Jesus sends the Spirit himself, then he is acting as the Father. The filioque then confuses the two relational roles and makes the Holy Spirit seem subservient and perhaps less of a person. The filioque is used throughout the Roman Catholic and much of Protestant traditions. It could have been fixed in antiquity if it was rephrased as the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and through the Son. Often times, this is what Western Christians mean, but the Orthodox are sticklers to as clear the language as possible, because things can always be taken out of context.
Another reason I did not become Roman Catholic is because of papal supremacy. This was a minority view before the Schism between East and West and has since become the chief divisive issue. Essentially, the Roman Church takes Jesus' comments to Paul in Matthew 16:19 as a proof that Peter was the head of the whole Church and through apostolic succession, the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is top dog since Peter was seen as a Bishop of Rome.
In Matthew 16:19 it says that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. In another way, it's seen as if Jesus makes Peter the spiritual King on earth over the Church in Jesus' ascended absence. But is this contextual or just a prooftext to carry a presupposition or agenda? The Orthodox Church acknowledges a form of primacy with the Pope, but historical and theological context is interpreted differently than Rome and is in line with Church leadership of old.
The Church Fathers, like St. Augustine and Origen (though not formally sainted because some of his teachings were outside of the mainstream) both acknowledge a relationship between the keys of the Kingdom and the Old Testament key of David, which the Roman Church capitalizes on. The key of David was described by these leaders as the authority to interpret Scripture and doctrine, as empowered by the Holy Spirit. Central is the power of the Holy Spirit. The keys may even be said to be the gift of the Holy Spirit. Are the keys or is the Holy Spirit Peter's exclusively and only reserved for the Bishop of Rome? Or is it/he the Church's gift?
John 20:20 tells us that Jesus blew on his disciples (breath and blowing are referential to the Hebrew for Spirit -- Ruach). What was it the disciples received if not the Holy Spirit and hence the keys of the Kingdom?
If the reading that all disciples received the interpretive gift of the Paraclete, then the idea of ecumenical councils makes perfect sense. Councils were where the Church made its interpretive decisions regarding Scripture and dogma/doctrine. Required for a council were the attendance and deliberation of bishops -- an ecclesial rank of apostolic succession. In essence, the keys of the Kingdom are the prerogative of the Church in unison, as represented by each local church's leadership in its bishop, to discern the Holy Spirit's instruction and counsel for the Church. Possession of the keys then is conciliar and not vested in a single bishop.
In the 3rd century, St. Cyprian (1, ch. 4) says that all the apostles had the same authority, and St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century says that it was the Church that possessed the keys (Homily on John). St. Augustine explains it as a matter of word-play. He said in his sermon on Peter and Paul that the stone or rock Jesus referred to was the word petra, whereas Peter was Petrus or Petros. According to St. Augustine, the Church was built on petra and not Petros. Petra is, according to the saint, the rock which Peter confessed Christ as Lord on. In other words, it is the faith of Peter. The Church then is built by faith of those who believe and follow after Christ. So, if Peter was given the keys and these are authoritative as directed by the Holy Spirit, and all the disciples received the same Spirit, then what is Peter's role?
The Church is the Body of Christ, not the body of Peter. If Jesus is the originator of Kingdom authority and the Holy Spirit enlivens the Church to life in Christ, then the possession of the keys is the Church's. Another way of thinking about it is that the Church is Christ enlivened and so Christ still retains his keys. He is the bridge between heaven and earth, so the keys given the Church make sense as the authority to bind and loose in heaven and earth as Matthew 16 shows. It is a factor of unison between the ascended Christ and the manifest Christ who indwells the Church through the Holy Spirit.
Peter's role then was most likely a temporal role. He was given the keys as the discipler of the disciples in Jesus' absence. He was the first among equals. If he was the chief of the Church administratively, then why was James, the brother of Jesus, as authoritative at the council in Jerusalem -- even closing out the council? Tradition holds that James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. The Council of Jerusalem met conciliarly and James seems to have the authority in this local church in making the final judgement. Bishops seem to possess the same authority in their respective areas of influence. This is even reflected in the canons of the Church.
Following the 2nd Ecumenical Council in 381 AD, the canons established the authority of the Bishop Rome, Constantinople, and all bishops. In canon II, bishops were admonished to not exceed their authority beyond their borders as to lay doctrinal confusion. The only difference is that canon III says that the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople differed, with Constantinople having second tier to Rome, because Constantinople was the second or "New Rome." The primacy of these two Sees is not in who their ancestral bishop was, but in the fact that these were the two capitals of the world -- the Roman Empire. So, Rome's prestige then was in its pragmatic placement as a principle city, not necessarily because Peter was once its bishop.
Even early Popes recognized that possessing the keys was referential to the Church and not the Pope of Rome. Pope Leo the Great in his Letter 73, paragraph 2 notes this fact. And Saint Gregory the Great (one of the greatest Popes) refers to Peter's role as that of strengthening the disciples, not to rule them. In Book 7, Letter 40, St. Gregory notes that the apostolic successors of Peter were in three cities [where Peter was once leader]. These cities include Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, yet none except for Rome claimed primacy. The only reason Rome had or has any clout is because of Rome itself and not Peter.
So, the Eastern Orthodox Church does believe that the Pope had primacy, but as the first among equals, like Peter had with the disciples. Peter received the keys, but so too did the other disciples when Jesus imparted the Holy Spirit to them. Peter's role was as elder brother or tutor. When the Church, who possess the keys, meets in conciliar fashion, the Pope functioned as a counselor and as first among equals to chair the board as it were or break ties in debates. His job was to serve the Church and not to rule it.
I like to think of this like the Trident gum commercials of the 1980s and 90s, which posited that four out of five dentists agreed with the oral efficacy of chewing Trident sugarless gum. If what history seems to show is true and four of the five ancient patriarchs (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople) disagreed that Rome's primacy was absolute and was merely honorary, then is Rome truly correct? It's here I disagree with Roman Catholicism on history and theology.
There are other less critical issues I disconnect from Rome over, but the above are the two that have convinced me that Eastern Orthodoxy is the consistent remnant of the ancient Church.
Q5: What about closed communion?
A5: Many Protestant denominations practice closed communion too. Yet, it's not really closed. Rather it is held off for the maintenance of unity. If every Protestant Christian church held to the same faith as the Orthodox and one another, there'd be no need to a closed communion. The point of communion is "common union." We can say we all agree with the basics of the creeds, but even then, we don't all have the same interpretation of those creeds. Yet, there is commonality between most Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox to celebrate a union of sorts. We are all Christians. Still, to be in union also means acknowledging the tenants of one's respective church. The Orthodox just want partakers on the same page, so that the elements are not received with the wrong heart.
Q6: Are the elements of communion really the body and blood of Christ? Or, are they symbolic?
A6: The Orthodox Church rests on the early Church era's interpretation, in which Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century (he was a disciple of John), viewed the elements as really Christ's blood and body and not as a mere symbol. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church and some higher church Protestants, the Orthodox haven't tried to explain this and accept its mystery. We acknowledge that it is bread and wine, as well as a symbol, and it's also body and blood.
It really falls on what a symbol is in a ritual manner. Church ritual is the connector to the eternal. Services are bridges between heaven and earth, just as Christ (who indwells the Church) is the conduit between the Creator and creation. The bread and wine can simultaneously transcend the temporal into the eternal. Symbols become connection points to reality and bridge time and space. For this reason, when a person is baptized, they truly die and rise in Christ's death and resurrection. Communion is a recapitulation of this timeless event. We participate in the upper room with Christ. We repent and recommit to our baptism. And, we enter into the tabernacle as Christ is the atonement for the world. In eternity, these are all connected as the same event across time and space. Therefore, when we receive communion, we are really receiving Christ in us so that we become Christ in the world. The Church is the gathering of the Priests of the Planet.
Q7: Why baptize babies?
A7: Basically, the Church views baptism as the new circumcision, which it's compared to in the New Testament (Col. 2:8-15). Babies were circumcised on the 8th day as a testimony to their Hebrew identity under the Old Testament covenant. Jesus rose on Sunday (the first day of the week and also the eighth day if we see it as the conclusion of holy week, from his death to resurrection). Jesus is the new covenant. His life is a continuation and finalization of Old Testament paradigms. So, just as circumcision began with babies to foster children into a covenantal community, the Orthodox baptize babies as being born into the same community under Christ, with a circumcision of the heart. Baptism is about being born into a new people more than it relies on the mental ascent of the person being baptized. Much like Protestant baby dedications, reliance is placed on parents and the community to raise children into the faith they grow up in. If the baptism demands mental ascent, then it suggests baptism actually does something. But most Protestants will say that it's merely symbolic. So, why do it at all? The Orthodox believe it is essential for the remission of sins (it's in the Nicene Creed and Acts 2:38). Why would babies be left out of the life of the community of repentance? Until they can repent, babies rest on the teaching and dispositions of their parents and community.
Q8: Doesn't the Orthodox Church believe it's the only true Church? What of other Christians?
A8: Simply put, the Orthodox do not claim to be the only Christians, but do believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church Jesus established. There's a saying in the Church that says, "We know where the Church is, but we don't know where it isn't." In short, the Orthodox Church is THE Church historically and theologically. Yet, there are Christians outside of the physical Church who are members as the Holy Spirit blows where he wills (John 3:8).
So yes, the Orthodox believe they are the original and authentic Church, but they do not deny other Christians their faith or that God may work through their churches and denominations. The Orthodox want unity, but it must be from others joining it and not some misaligned amalgamation based on sentiment. As for the Roman Catholics, while there are many errors the Orthodox believe need to be resolved, Rome does have apostolic roots, yet they remain in schism from the base.
Q9: Why go to church if it's basically the same songs each week and there's only a short sermon? How will the Orthodox recruit new people if it's so old school?
A9: Church services are not about what I get out of it, nor about reaching the lost, per se. Surely, we want people to come to Christ upon visiting an Orthodox Church and we hope we all get something out of each service. But the historical structure of each service (called a Divine Liturgy) was and is not to proselytize or send us all off with the "feels." The point was for the gathered members of Christ's body to gather, repent of their sins, receive the common union Eucharist (taking Christ into ourselves to become Christ to the world), and to pray for the world as the royal priesthood -- the priests of the planet. It was and is a church service to serve at (laity are an order like the clergy) in prayer and worship, not a service to be served. So, the Church didn't rest upon fads or new music or even dynamic preaching. It is less about entertainment than it is about paying it forward in prayer and worship.
And speaking of worship. In the Old Testament, sacrifice was the centerpiece for worship. The Liturgy carries this over in the use of the Eucharist as the sacrifice. Many Protestants object that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a once and for all event, so the Eucharist can only be symbolic, otherwise it is a re-sacrifice. Yet, since ritual is the timeless participation in type, each time the communion is given and received, it is an entry into Christ's sacrifice 2,000 years ago. It's not a re-sacrifice, but a rejoining into the original as heaven and earth are bridged across time and space through practice.
Q10: Why Priests? Why call Priests Father? Aren't we a Kingdom of Priests?
A10: Like I said above, all are priests (a royal priesthood or priests of the planet). Still, clergy exist to lead the priesthood. Even ancient Israel had chief priests. And the priests fulfill paternal roles, hence the title Father. The Orthodox emphasize the Church as truly the family of God. Priests are called Father not because they replace parents or because God the Father is less so, but because each parish or church is a family unit and that's the role. Plus, when a priest wears a vestment, they are serving as icons of Christ, our head.
Many Protestants reject calling anyone father but God because of a verse in Matthew 23 that says to call no man father or teacher. Yet, Paul in 1 Corinthians 4 essentially establishes himself as a spiritual father. It is an imparted role because God is the Father. Is this a contradiction? Perhaps on the surface it looks so, but context matters most. What we can say then is that ultimate fatherhood is in God and all other forms are as deputies.
Q11: How is Orthodoxy the rightful future for Christianity?
A11: As the title says, the future hope for Christianity is its past. The Orthodox retain the history of Christendom and the necessary context for its practice. It has not whitewashed the faith, the emblems, the rituals, the decorum, or the structures of the early Church. This doesn't mean that zero changes have been made or that adaptations haven't occurred, but these minute changes did not affect the the directional stream of the Church. What changes that did take place were largely seen through the councils as doctrine had to be secured against heresy or through cultural adaptations as the faith grew in numbers.
Contemporary Christianity is all over the map, making doctrine out of what the early Church might only consider theologoumenon or pious opinion. Opinions and novel interpretations of Scripture and dogma have become normalized as doctrines, even if they further fracture Christianity into newer and newer tribes. And many of the Protestant West's pet issues, frankly, are better addressed by the tempered approach of Orthodoxy. Christianity is losing face because of frictive and politicized incursions into culture, trying to gate-keep the faith and culture, which has alienated many and rubbed many others the wrong way. The priests of the planet have become the inquisitors, even if only verbally and positionally. Rather than being aliens in the world, not of it, many Christians are seeking to counter culture in a game of one-upmanship, to retake the world.
This doesn't mean that some confessions of Orthodoxy have kept pure in avoiding the culture wars, but systemically, the temperament of Orthodoxy is to seek after peace, humility, and love; understanding that the world is the world. The Church changes the world by its inner-life and testimony, and by prayer for the world. It is evangelical, but not obnoxious.
Since a church service is meant to be a session for prayer and repentance and not an evangelistic invitational, the church should grow numerically by lives lived and shared with non-believers in true loving relationships and not some agenda or system of witnessing as is popular in the West. The stress is removed and believers are allowed to be the priests of the planet in their respective spheres.
Orthodoxy is the future of Christianity because it draws back to a timeless faith that was less concerned with self-preservation of itself as a cultural icon and more concerned with being an icon of Christ in the world. This is not to say Protestants or Catholics don't do this, but these pure works are often clouded by the aura of judgmentalism and cultural distrust. In short, the Church needs to not be the local jerks or some pretentious group that pushes itself on culture. That's seen as less than authentic. The Church needs to love and bless and serve and pray, while at the same time not acquiescing to the world. While there are jerks and bad actors even in Orthodoxy, I have seen the potential for more love and humility in its very dogmas and tenets, so I believe it will be where the whole of Christendom needs to go for global relevancy.
These are the reasons I became and love Orthodoxy.
Blessings.
Comments
Post a Comment