One of the core axioms of Church of Christ theology is the supremacy of reason in discerning matters of doctrine. It is said that, while our emotions may lead us into all sorts of danger, the faculty of reason can always be trusted, if applied honestly.
For my part, this thread started to unravel when I began to look at the history of the Restoration Movement (from which come the Churches of Christ, the independent Christian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ). It is said that Alexander Campbell, one of the primary founders of the movement, carried a copy of John Locke with him in his saddlebags, next to his bible. As you might imagine, he believed that scripture should be read in a very rationalistic way. This has produced one of the core tenets of Church of Christ belief, which is that that anyone who approaches the scriptures rationally and with honesty will reach the same conclusions about belief and practice as anyone else who does the same. It is believed that if we can use reason to agree on the true meaning of scripture, we can unite the Christians from all of the denominations into the one Church of Christ. The only hinderances to this process are the existing traditions, creeds, and biases that men (and women) bring with them when they read. Thus, creeds and traditions must be rejected outright. It is believed that such an approach to God’s word will enable us to fully recreate the church of the first century, which is now so long obscured by the abuses of history that we must discard all we have inherited and start afresh. Indeed, the New Testament is viewed as the blueprint for the Church of Christ, sent down to us by the Master Architect, and we must follow its pattern exactly. This is sola scriptura, par excellence.
The problem with this framework, as it has turned out in practice, is that men do not and cannot read the scriptures alike. To make matters worse, if two individuals disagree on an interpretation of scripture, it follows that at least one of them is either mentally deficient or perverse in some way. This lends a serious air of vitriol and superiority to any debates on doctrinal issues.
The truth is that it is not possible to read the “plain” meaning of scripture, because it is not possible avoid the coloring of our reading that comes from our own experience. It is interpretation “all the way down.” The postmoderns among us would say, “well, duh,” but I think the Orthodox do a little better than that in pointing out that our reason is just as much a part of our fallen nature as, for instance, our emotions. That is not to say that reason is useless, but in practice it fails to be authoritative. Even within the Church of Christ, there are the mainstream, the non-institutionals, the one-cup non-Sunday school crowd, the progressives, and so on, and all claim an authoritative reading of scripture based on reason.
To further emphasize the point, the mainstream churches of Christ have changed dramatically over the last century, though from what I can gather, we have no idea of it. A Church of Christ 125 years ago would have been functionally non-institutional, non-Sunday school, and had one-cup communion. Its women wouldn’t have dared show up without their heads covered, and only the elderly and infirm would have prayed while sitting in a pew. Everyone else would have been on their knees when praying, or occasionally standing. There would have been no located salaried “minister”, rather, the preacher would have varied from week to week or month to month, as preachers were itenerant and focused primarily on evangelism and church planting. Many congregations would have been staunchly pacifist, and regularly heard pacifist sermons. All of these practices were considered “scriptural” and based on a rational reading of scripture, just as today, we base our non-practice of them on a rational reading of scripture. Clearly, something is wrong with our basis of authority!
This, however, is where I find myself in a pickle. Once you reject the authoritativeness of a rationalistic reading of scripture, where do you go? Where do you get your authority? At the moment, I can see three basic options, represented by three groups: the Charismatics, the Emergents, and the Orthodox.
The first option, represented by the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, is the direct and immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is, the Holy Spirit speaks to us directly as individuals to give us guidance in all matters of belief, practice, and life. If there seems to be a contradiction between those directions and the scriptures, we should go with the more recent orders of the Spirit, who is the final authority. From the little experience I have of the Charismatic movement, this does not look like the way for me to go. The situation is ripe for abuse, as when I visited a Charismatic mega-church a few years ago, and one of the pastors got up to say that he was receiving a message from the Holy Spirit at that very moment that the congregation needed to be putting more money in the collection plates that were being passed around. Often times, it all seems to devolve into “Jesus made the light turn green for me,” or, “I can hear the Spirit telling me to move on to this bigger paycheck and buy a new SUV.” Perhaps I am being unfair, but for multiple reasons, this option is unappealing. How do I discern between the messages of the Holy Spirit and my own delusion?
The second option, which I have said is represented by the Emergents, as far as I can understand them and as far as they can be pinned down, is that I myself become the final authority. Of course, they would never put it that way, but the practice seems to be to take (for instance) a little contemporary worship music, a little Orthodox artwork, a little Reformed theology, a little classical spiritual formation, a little Quaker discernment, all from different “traditions”, and roll them up into one until you get a church. (Anything edgy like a soul patch or a tattoo is a bonus.) In full postmodern style, whatever works for you is OK, as long as you don’t judge the way I choose to respond to the story of God. So for instance, one might hold that the Virgin Birth is true, not because it actually happened, but because it is beautiful. Again, perhaps I am being unfair, as I know some Emergents who are good, loving, righteous believers and whom I consider friends. But the final authority in this model is what I consider to be beautiful and helpful, and as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This seems too much to me like the days when Israel had no king, and “each one did what was right in his own eyes.”
In addition, I don’t think it is fair to scavenge ideas from all of the existing Christian traditions to piece together your own hybrid church. The pieces you are scavenging were formed within the context of the tradition from which you scavenged them, and only reach their full expression within that same context. Thus, to play Gregorian chant to create a “mood” of reverence before the praise band starts jamming at the beginning of service is to do a disservice to both the Catholic church which originated the musical style and the participants in the service, who get musically and cognitively lurched around a bit.
In this model, as there is no authority outside the individual, there can be no heresy either, as we all are just in “different stages of our journey towards God.” Therefore, even though I am a generational Millennial, I’m afraid I cannot go along with the forecasters for my demographic into the trendy new Emergent churches. Whatever authority I end up accepting, I’m pretty sure it’s not supposed to be me.
This brings us to the Eastern Orthodox. Most of what I’ll say here could be applied to the Roman Catholic Church (and to a lesser degree the Anglican Church) as well, but for multiple reasons the Orthodox are where my interests lie. The interpretation of scripture that the Orthodox hold to be authoritative is the one they received from the previous generations of believers, all the way back to Jesus and the apostles. This is a part of what is referred to as the Tradition. Tradition and scripture are not at odds for the Orthodox; rather a part of the Tradition is a particular reading of scripture that is purported to have been given by Christ directly to his disciples. For more on this topic, I point the reader here and here.
This view of the matter is very appealing. For one thing, it makes a place for history in discussions of the life of the Church. Indeed, as G. K. Chesterton said, “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” It also relieves some of the burden I’ve placed on myself of having to have it all “figured out”. I don’t have to fully comprehend everything, I just need to accept what has been faithfully passed on to me. It is possible for distortions or impurities to enter into the Tradition, but there is also the ongoing work of the Spirit and of the bishops to repent and return to the purity of the Faith that has been delivered to us. When problems arise, Christ is seen as still active in his Church through the Holy Spirit, and this is particularly manifested in the collective discernment of the bishops in councils. Thus, the doctrinal purity of the Kingdom is preserved by Christ himself. Of course, the things that matter most for me are those that pertain to communion with God, to salvation and sanctification, and these are clearly established and do not change.
I mentioned the work of Church Councils, and this topic points to an important reality that we have long ignored in the Church of Christ: as much as we like to claim that we have restored the New Testament Church, we are deeply beholden to the believers who have come before us, indeed to the Tradition which they have passed on to us, despite the fact that we normally consider them to be apostates. The canon of scripture was established by the painstaking work of the early Church Councils, as they sought to determine which books and writings were consistent with the Tradition that had been passed on to them, and which were heretical or superfluous. The canon was later revised by the Reformers (also “apostates”), and this version of the canon we have accepted unquestioningly. The way we generally explain this (if somebody asks troubling questions) is to say that the Holy Spirit was at work in these men, even though they were apostates, so that the pure canon would be faithfully delivered to us a few centuries later, who could rightly discern it. This is an extraordinary exercise in hubris, to say the least.
As I have said earlier, reason is not without a place in the life of the Christian, it is just not our final authority. And it so happens that many of the “new” conclusions that Campbell and others reached about the life of the Church are those that Orthodox Tradition had taught all along: for instance, weekly Communion, baptismal regeneration, and acapella worship. To me, this is a good sign. In fact, with the exception of this core matter of interpretation, as far as I’m aware there is little-to-nothing the Church of Christ teaches or practices that Orthodox believers would find problematic. (Obviously, the reverse does not hold.) Yet, the beauty of the faith and practice presented by Orthodoxy is absolutely stunning to me. These people really know how to be in the presence of God, to partake of his Body and Blood, to worship, to repent, and to pray. Orthodoxy has been described as “the fullness of the Faith”, and when confronted with such richness and fullness, it is hard not to feel sometimes that one has been living in theological poverty.
So then, what’s the dilemma? Why have I not yet jumped on board with the Orthodox Church? There are multiple reasons, one of which is that my wife and I are attending a Church of Christ congregation that we love very much. We have formed some wonderful relationships with the Christians there, and we can see the image of the “family of God” at work among us. Such ties should not be dissolved lightly or quickly. More deeply, the Church of Christ is my heritage; it is what I was raised to believe. I am chafed by the idea of following the generational herd and ditching my parents’ church for whatever is new and exciting to me. Again, such decisions are often made too quickly, and care is advised. I must “count the cost”, lest my latter state become worse than the former.
Finally, in good Protestant style, I have a “hang-up” with the Tradition as delivered to me by Orthodoxy, and that is infant baptism. The topic has taken up all the more importance as my wife and I begin to think about having children. I have read arguments for both sides, and both sides have some darn good ones. It is not my desire to start a debate on this issue here, but simply to say that I am not ready to embrace this practice. The Orthodox baptismal liturgy itself, which is quite beautiful, seems so much more meaningful if engaged in by an adult catechumen, rather than a proxy godparent. And yet, here I judge myself, for I am elevating my own Reason to the place of final authority against the claims of Tradition.
There may be yet another option, besides the three I have discussed. I have seen it referred to here and there as “re-traditioning”. The idea is that we (the Church of Christ) let go of this paradoxical stance of being an a-traditional tradition and rather embrace the tradition from which we have come. Reaching back into our past, we dust off our copies of Cambpell, Stone, Lipscomb, Sommer, Lard, Richardson, Srygley, and all of our other “Fathers”, and allow them to critique who we are today. We drop the pretense that our interpretations are authoritative on the basis of Reason, and accept that they may be quite valuable, nonetheless. This would also allow us to accept the idea that we may not be the only True Christians while at the same time affirming that the issues on which we disagree with others still matter. Closely related to the strict Church of Christ re-traditioning option is to reach back even further and embrace what we have rejected from Christian history. This would include things such as liturgical worship, the works of the Church Fathers, and the communion of the saints. We could do either one, or both.
This course is not without its own perils, though. Any Church of Christ congregation which started to do this would quickly find itself anathematized by the rest of the brotherhood, “congregational autonomy” be damned. My own attempts (in conjunction with a few others) to introduce some old-style Church of Christ as well as some liturgical elements at our congregation have not been very successful. According to Father Stephen, the liturgical side of these attempts are misguided, and I’m somewhat inclined to agree with him. And once again, I am judging myself, for like the Emergents, I am pulling practices I like out of their ecclesial contexts and trying to get them to take hold in a place where they don’t make sense. But perhaps a strictly Restoration Movement re-traditioning may yet yield some valuable fruit. I point here to the work of Richard Hughes, John Mark Hicks, and many others.
To conclude, it seems I cannot escape making myself the ultimate authority in some sense, because I am the one who has to decide to which authority I will ultimately submit. For now, I am biding my time, praying and repenting with the Church, and waiting for more clarity in my path. The only thing that is clear right now is that I cannot stay where I am, theologically speaking, forever. Thus, I welcome your comments, readers, especially if you see other options I have not considered, or if you believe I have mischaracterized something or someone. And I put the question to you: what’s a Church of Christ boy to do?
Orthodoxy – it’s where the Truth lies
Very good thoughts, JM. Blessings to you in your search.
There are many of us, as you know, that have made this specific walk. Our hearts almost identical in timber to your own. If I could I would be the perfect witness, but alas I pretty much suck as an Orthodox Christian. Perhaps that is why I am so glad I became one.
If ever you would like a conversation, I’m more than happy to call, skype or whatever on my dime to chat with you. But in the end, you’ll have to hurdle the same things I did and though I wish I could say some magic words to “skip some steps” there is no such short cut.
Regardless if we ever get a chance to talk, may God bless you in your search for Him. He always finds those who are seeking.
Excellent post, and one that certainly resonates with me. I have been where you are now. I would like to address several of the issues you raised. But first, I would like to outline my Church of Christ credentials. I am 7th-generation, my family not only predating Campbell, but Stone as well. They were O’Kellyite “Christians only,” associated with Rice Haggard and the Mulkeys in southern Kentucky as early as 1794. Later, the family become closely connected with the Stoneite Movement, long before Alexander Campbell started making a name for himself. Despite that heritage, I was raised…nothing at all. My dad had been baptized in the Church of Christ, but my mom was nominal Baptist, and to the extent that I received any religious training at all, it was Baptist. As a young adult, I studied and became impressed with the logic of the Church of Christ plea. I was baptized at age 23. I later met my future wife in church. I served as a deacon for 17 years, and as an elder for 2 ½ years. Late in 2005, I laid it aside and became an Orthodox Christian.
Now to your post—Even from the first, I was not entirely comfortable with Campbell’s Lockean scientific rationalism. The Church of Christ believed and taught that if one came to the table without presuppositions, unencumbered with traditional assumptions and biases, then one and all could understand the clear meaning of Scripture—the blueprint—alike. The problem, as you note, is that no one, including Campbell himself could actually do that. He opened the Bible as a disciple of Locke and dissected Holy Writ as if he were conducting a scientific experiment. As a historian, I knew that this teaching was an impossibility.
You make an excellent point in stating that most Church of Christ members are blissfully unaware of the changes in their church. And when calls were made for a return to the “old paths,” they were often referring to the way things were done in the 1920s. This was the case in my church, where the “old paths” meant little more than Tillitt Teddlie hymns and always outlining the “Plan of Salvation” before the invitation song. Any references I would make to any of the 19th-century pioneers fell flat.
Of your 3 options, I will pass on the first 2, as you might well expect. I too am prejudiced, but I do not consider them serious alternatives. Your impression of the Charismatic option mirrors my own. The mix-and-match Emergent option, I feel, cannot withstand the test of time. Obviously, my sympathies lie with the third option. Your links to Fr. Stephen Freeman and Tom Howard are on target.
As you note, the rank-and-file church member has no concept of how scripture came to be pulled together in the Bible we have now (and this is not unique to the Church of Christ, but typical of most evangelicals, in my experience.) The work of the Church Councils, if they were acknowledged at all, would have been highly suspect. I believe most just assume that the books of the Bible were collected together soon after the end of the First Century. A visit to Patmos in 2004 finally disabused me of the last traces of this notion. In the Monastery of St. John, I viewed a 4th-century codex of the Gospel of St. Mark. The thing was huge. A complete New Testament would have taken an entire bookshelf.
I agree that many of the things we emphasized in the Church of Christ find fulfillment in Orthodoxy, though often the reasons for doing them are markedly different. One major difference I noted is that when the Church of Christ speaks of “the word,” they mean the printed word on the page. If pressed, preachers will equivocate or deny this, but the language used betrays them–and I certainly heard it preached for 25 years. Within the last week, I have seen a Church of Christ preacher hold up a Bible and tell his hearers that “this is the Faith.” In other words, Church of Christ doctrine is shot-through with bibliolatry. This language is foreign to Orthodoxy, where we reverence scripture and where 95% of the Liturgy is taken directly from scripture, but whenever we speak of “the Word,” we are speaking of Jesus Christ. It makes a tremendous difference.
I understand your dilemma in contemplating leaving the Church of Christ. In my case, a full 1/3 of our church were relatives of my wife. I might add, she remains a member of the Church of Christ. For some time, my decision strained our marriage. It certainly severed ties with many of the extended family. But, I do not consider my choice a hasty one, and it is just as the parable teaches—seeking the Pearl of Great Price.
Your “hang-up” about infant baptism is the same one I had. I accepted what the Church claimed for itself almost at once. The same goes for apostolic succession and the Virgin Mary, which gave me no trouble at all. But I balked on infant baptism. And I agree that the Orthodox baptismal service sometimes seems more meaningful for an adult catechumen rather than for an infant. In the Church of Christ, the importance is placed on what happens in the believer’s mind—his obedience, resulting in his submission to baptism. The problem often came into sharp focus with Baptists who came into the Church of Christ—were they to be rebaptized or not? The discussions always revolved around whether they realized that they were being baptized “for the remission of their sins” in their previous Baptist baptism. So, their understanding was the critical element in the event. In Orthodoxy, baptism is one of the Mysteries, a salvific event to be sure, but one where all the “action,” for lack of a better word is happening on God’s part. I made a mess of explaining this contrast, but I think you get the gist of what I am saying. In time I came to understand this. Observing Orthodox infant baptisms helps as well. Still, my Church of Christ training is hard to shake and I sometimes have to revisit this issue.
In all honesty, your fourth option of “re-traditioning” is not really viable. I say this because I tried the very same thing myself. I guess it is the “how-do-I-get-there-from-here”stage. I suspect you already realize this, but as an intellectual construct, this option has to be put on the table. I don’t mean to be discouraging, and just because I say it is not viable does not make it so. This is something you will have to discover for yourself. I tried to reference the teachings of our 19th-century Restorationist leaders to address our drift (in my perception.) Nobody was interested. Later, I experienced Orthodoxy and tried to incorporate aspects into our worship. This mainly involved my public prayers and comments in class. Ho-boy, was that a disaster.
Attempting to re-tradition a congregation would quickly devolve into a church split. As you note, all other Churches of Christ—whether right-wing, liberal or mainstream–would anathematize your group. Nor would the churches with claims of an apostolic foundation—the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans—consider you a compatriot. It would seem, and would actually be, just another discordant voice clamoring within evangelicalism, proclaiming again something “new” by piecing together some outward trappings of the old. That sounds critical, I know. And what I am about to say may sound arrogant, though I certainly do not intend it that way. I have come to understand that the Orthodox Church simply IS that which the Church of Christ claims to be. The Church of Christ tries mightily at times to restore and lay claim to that which was never lost. This claim is ultimately unconvincing, in my view.
My heartfelt apologies if any of this came off sounding harsh and arrogant. I am no theologian, and struggle when trying to explain anything of a theological nature. So generally, I don’t! But I know exactly where you find yourself now and have some insight into the issues you are struggling with. You ask, “what’s a Church of Christ boy to do?” My response would be to simply continue on the course you are on. Continue in prayer with constancy. As was told to me, “all in God’s own time.”
It’s interesting that infant baptism is a big hanging point. I came to Orthodoxy from a Reformed perspective, so I was already “on board” on that issue. But we “sprinkled,” on the basis of some reasonable exegesis, whereas the Orthodox immerse even infants.
My wife remains Protestant. She very much is of the “ties should not be dissolved lightly or quickly” persuasion – so much so that she refuses to look closely at Orthodoxy (as if it might seduce her – which it might). Two or three books I importuned her to read, plus our son’s wedding, our grandson’s baptism, and one liturgy when we were on vacation years ago, is the sum of her exposure other than living with me.
May the most Holy Trinity grant you discernment together.
Leaving any place is hard. You nailed that one.
Orthodoxy offers an authenticity of continuity… not selectively adding back, but the whole from which it has not subtracted. Some of this will be what draws you in initially, but there’s also the wild and woolly that makes you say, “Hmmmmm.”
I found the notion of not having to figure it out… as if I could… a release. As you suggest, history shows folks struggle outside Tradition to come to the same conclusion… so a place where the same conclusion has been stable for 2,000 years gives some confidence that they know something… even if what they know makes you say, “Hmmmm.”
On infant baptism, I’d offer something from Fr. Meletios Webber’s speaking on the illumination of new life in baptism:
“This enlightenment is not necessarily obvious when it comes to the mind, but finds its expressoin at a much deeper and more eternal level – the level of awareness, the level of the heart. This is one reason the Orthodox CHurch has never withheld baptism from young children.”
“In answer to those who ask whether a child is able to understand what is happening to him, most Orthodox would reply that even an adult does not understand what happens when he participates in the Holy Mysteries. Belonging to the CHurch is not a matter of intellectual choice, but a matter of God gathering His people.”
Fr. Mel has a way of making his points without offense or provocation to other understandings I find compelling. Hope it helps.
Best wishes for your journey.
Too many ‘Johns’ on here.
Any interest in establishing a private discussion group where those from the church of Christ who are considering leaving for Orthodoxy and those who would plead to stay (that would be me) could discuss things together? We could invite Stephen to argue his side, perhaps. We could do it on Facebook or Yahoo or whatever. (I’m the ‘John’ that’s been commenting recently on Stephen’s blog).
Kindly comment if interested.
JM: I have a daughter in Lebanon and I finished at Lipscomb in ‘73 (after 3 years at Freed-Hardeman). I see you are in Nashville. My daughter and her husband go to Bethlehem.
Adult catechumens often understand less when standing before the font than do infants. After our chrismations, my son (1yo) went around chrismating everyone in our house with his toy paint brush for weeks. Meanwhile, I went back immediately to struggling with my prayers and sins. “Out of the mouth of babes and infants thou hast fashioned perfect praise” Psalms 8:2 (LXX)
Ditto what John said. I left Roman Catholicism for the church of Christ in 1969, went to Lubbock Christian and did some Sunset School of Preaching stuff, did a stint as a campus minister for the churches of Christ in the Phoenix area and was a (ahem) wildly popular Bible study teacher at our congregation (120 out of 140 of our adult members for over 20 years). In the early 80’s I began questioning the Lockean “blueprint” framework and once I did that the building collapsed. In the process of teaching the gospels I began seeing a sacramental theology woven throughout them (which the church of Christ touches the hem of the garment). The implications of the Incarnation in the Gospel of John were coming to light (all of this without a clue about Orthodoxy…by 1980 I had laid aside commentaries altogether and just began reading Scripture for my Bible classes). In the late 80’s I found Thomas Howard’s “Evangelical is Not Enough” and it grabbed me and wouldn’t let go. In 1991 I left the church of Christ and became Episcopalian (I visited an RC Church and it was not an option to me after seeing what Vatican II had done to it after only 30 years, the handwriting was on the wall for me). In 1993 a former campus minister friend contacted me and told me he had converted to the Orthodox Church and handed me some AGAIN magazines. For the next 6 years I read. Then I visited a vespers service in Greek and a Divine Liturgy at my friend’s parish and my family and a group from my Episcopal Church converted together in 1999. I didn’t have the deep roots, but it was hard to leave a congregation where my kids grew up and I was “there” for so long. It did cost me my friends there. Ironically I met a former friend there who used to be in my Bible classes and he laid out a long tale of woes and divisions and a recent major split… mostly due to the ramifications of my teachings and influence on the guys who are now elders there. I deconstructed their church but they have no clue where to go now or what to build. I grieve for them. (Of course it probably might have happened anyway in the long run, I can’t take all the credit…but from the outside looking in it seems pretty clear.)
Anyway, I’m going to do a shameless self promotion here. I hosted an Orthodox radio program for 10 years and we have audio archives of about 120 of them.
The home page is http://ourlifeinchrist.com/ then go to the audio archives page. There’s a ton of stuff there and the program titles are fairly self explanatory.
I too wrestled probably the most with infant baptism (and Mary). The Eucharist was almost a slam dunk, actually it was a relief because of the conclusions I’d come to about John 6…the Orthodox Church confirmed what I had come to suspect about a LOT of things in my bible studies.
There is a four part series on infant baptism that begins here
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/ourlife/sacrament_baptism1_092505.mp3
and we have a four part series on “sola scriptura” that begins here http://audio.ancientfaith.com/ourlife/solascriptura1_041705.mp3
Anyway, God bless you. My wife came along kicking and screaming and now she is more pious than I am. Women are not generally converted by information, but by the transformation of their husbands. If Orthodoxy turns you into a judgmental, agressive, condemning lunatic well……
And an open invitation to email me anytime too.
jm, may God bless you on your journey. Alas, I am on the same path; and I, too, have not left my Church of Christ congregation. I’ve considered incorporating some aspects of Orthodox worship into the CoC service, but I couldn’t find the Trisagion Hymn on PowerPoint.
I have a hangup or three, but infant baptism is not one of them. Look at what Peter says in Acts 2:39, just after our favorite verse, “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Peter immediately says, “This promise is for you and your children…” You and your children! Of course, members of The Lord’s Church interpret that to mean the promise is for our children once they turn twelve or thirteen, but I don’t have to tell you that “the Age of Accountability” cannot be found in scripture. Add in a bit of “suffer the little children to come unto me, and hinder them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven,” and I’m all the way there.
I could go on, but you’ve already stated that you aren’t looking for a debate, so I’ll let it go.
Thank you for your post. It makes my journey easier knowing there are fellow-travelers.
Actually, what my coreligionists were trying to say to You is this.
I know you said you didn’t want to discuss infant baptism, and that you said nothing about your reasons for finding it problematic, but I suspect that it is close to the root of the problem, and that the root of the problem is pure reason (no, I’ve forgotten Kant’s critique of it).
So this may miss the mark completely, but it may be worth considering.
Most objections I’ve heard to infant baptism are based in reason, or the lack of it. Infants are “too young to understand it” and they lack the reasoning capacity.
And the objection to this is that we are not saved by our own reason, but by an act of God.
When the children of Israel left Egypt and were between Pharaoh’s army and the deep blue see, did they leave their children on the Egyptian shore because they were “too young to understand it”?
To leave them on the shore would imply that God’s act is insufficient to save us from the pursing army that would take us back into slavery, and that our reason is somehow necessary as well.
As my (formerly Southern Baptist) Orthodox priest said about his own decision to embrace Orthodoxy, “I had to decide if I wanted St. John Chrysostom to be in my church, or if I wanted to be in St. John Chrysostom’s church. Once I decided on that, everything else fell into place.”
He was right.
If you’ll permit the thoughts of an interloper…
I think you rightly identify the only possible sources of authority: the Bible, personal revelation, personal desires, or a church hierarchy. You correctly describe the problem faced by many churches: a difference in personal understanding. And I believe you’re absolutely right in pointing out the untenable issues presented by the second and the third possibilities.
However, many of the problems you identify with the first (that is, the approach of churches of Christ) also apply to the third (the Eastern Orthodox, among others). Instead of trusting your own understanding derived from Scripture, you trust that church’s understanding expressed through tradition – or, to be more precise, your understanding of tradition. Thus, you wind up with the very issue that you started with (much as you would with any of the different sources). Why the Orthodox and not the Catholic, Coptic, or Syriac? You can’t escape the use of logic and reason to examine the claims of each, falling back in the trap you started from.
In addition, schism and disagreement have been an issue within Orthodox Churches as well, as is contradiction. It was only recently that two “branches” of the Russian church reconciled after decades apart, for example, and eccumenicalism has been an issue for it throughout its history. Tradition today among the Eastern Orthodox seems to be somewhat different than tradition in the 11th century, which was different from that of the 1st century.
You note correctly that some see a return to the “old paths” as a return to 1920. However, you could just as persuasively argue that the Orthodox Church argues for a partial return to 1000 AD. Maybe the solution is, instead of a return to Campbell, Stone, and the like, a true return to the essentials of the first century?
Incidentally, the problem here is partly rational. A sort of backward thinking that throws several paradox which are unnecessary.
The Orthodox Church isn’t the Church because (or “if”) it is correct. It is correct because it’s the Church. If one attempts to figure out “who’s got it right and hang with them” you’re doomed back to a denomination of one (and maybe not even that if you fall into despair).
The theology of schisms is a hairy and troublesome matter. And I’ve found that several popular theories fall short existentially (ultimately schism is Eucharistic or it isn’t schism and many ideas don’t handle this well).
But you see the Orthodox Church is perfectly comfortable not knowing. There is no requirement for an explanation of all phenomenon, there are merely greater or lesser attempts of defending the experience of the Church when challenged.
The N-C creed itself didn’t exist until it was needed to defend the existent Church.
Robber councils, popular teachers who are later declared heretical, the intrusion of the political concerns of history all make a mess of looking for some Platonic perfection. There isn’t such a thing. The point is going to the Church to “with” and “within” the Church work out salvation with fear and trembling.
So you say, “I’m still forced to chose who’s claims are greatest.”
I would encourage an experiential encounter, but a historical analysis might serve to at least the burden of “choice”. Summed up here against my better judgment.
Look at all the earliest writings of Christians, from the scriptures, to the fathers, to the councils and then see who’s kept, defended and lived in that faith. Copts, regardless of their legitimate criticisms had those criticisms addressed long ago by the Church. This problem might yet be resolved (the last person I talked to “in the know” told me this was as much about who’s saint’s who venerated or didn’t at this point).
That leaves basically Rome v East. There are plenty of books on this topic from the great to the small. Many full of polemic, others full of love. I have my own ideas on this conflict that I’ll keep to myself. However, it’s clear even to Rome that the East preserves the Apostolic Faith, the only substantive point is exactly how we should treat the Bishop of Rome.
To my thinking this pretty much means deciding how you relate to the Pope decides with whom you commune.
David,
You wrote:
“The Orthodox Church isn’t the Church because (or “if”) it is correct. It is correct because it’s the Church.”
Ah, but we’re discussing a matter of proof.
That which claims to be the infallible standard (speaking for God) must prove its claim. This is how people have established the truth of prophets, spirits, and even Jesus Himself throughout time, according to Scripture. If it is proven fallible, it cannot be the authoritative standard.
Thank you all for your comments. I’ll try to reply to a few of you in the next few days, but please accept my apologies if I can’t respond to you all.
Here are some thoughts similar to Jeff. I had been meaning to comment on this.
Everyone make their day-to-day decisions based on reason. What to wear this morning, what to eat for lunch, how I will do my job of work right now, etc. These are all made using reason, rationality, mind, logic, whatever you want to call it.
Why would we trust someone else’s reason, when God is going to judge me, not them in my place? It all inescapably comes down to the use of our God-given intellect.
I plead with you friends not to leave the church of Christ and if you already have to return. You are literally breaking my heart. Alleged succession has nothing to do with anything. It is adherence to the New Testament pattern that is crucial. I ask, as I asked Stephen, can God not deliver a communication that can be understood?
Jeff,
Your argument is essentially “Its hard to know which of three shades of red is rightly labelled ‘burgundy’, therefore, you might as well choose green.” Sure its hard to sort out history, but to suggest that Campbell/Stone is the answer represents something else entirely.
jmgregory,
Regarding infant baptism, one of the things that was always helpful for me was considering the case of those with a developmental disability. I don’t know a single protestant group that refuses baptism for an adult person with the mental capacity of a 3 year old. Yet those same churches will refuse baptism to a 3 year old, citing lack of understanding. This is an “absurdum” if I’ve ever seen one, and it is a hard one to get away from.
Read Irenaeus, Christ has assumed not only a single moment in human life, but its entirety, even death. This is so that we can participate in the divine life at every stage of life, even in death. Christ was united to human nature at conception through the overshadowing of the HS, thus, even the zygote participates in the divine life. Thus, we call Mary the Theotokos because from the moment of conception she bore God. Thus, we reject abortion since it destroys a person capable of participating in the divine life. Thus, we baptise babies. Abortion, Mary as the Mother of God and infant baptism are all related to our proclamation about Christ’s incarnation.
John, you assume that Christ died to give us a message rather than a sacrament/mystery. If this were so it would only be enough to “reproduce” the doctrines of early Christianity. However, the Church is the Body of Christ because it gathers around a common table and eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ. We eat His body, we become His body. Christ didn’t come to start a philosophy, He came to give us a Church, that we might participate in His very resurrection through our union with His death.
This is the Pauline vision: there is one baptism that makes a peculiar people that subsists in one Christ holding one faith in the one true God.
John,
How do you know that any CoC we would attend would adhere to the NT anyway? There are CoCs with musical instruments, where baptism isn’t taught as necessity, that have all manner of differing organizational structures (how many elders should a congregation have), that employ women in ministry/teaching roles, one cup-many cup, institutional v non-institutional… I could go on.
My own congregation was black listed by others for putting in a kitchen. Do you have a kitchen? Is this supported by the NT?
The things you have come to believe that the NT teaches for “how a Church should be” simply have no consistent application in sola scriptura Churches, not even within the churches of Christ. So what does it mean to be a member of the “churches of Christ” how can I “leave” or “join” it. I might attend your particular congregation, but I’m sure even in your local church there are discussions and difficulties regarding what the NT teaches on any number of even “minor” topics.
Every CoC I have been a part of was endlessly rehashing the same dozen or so differences of praxis and theology. The funny thing is, while certain groups would win a particular battle about how church would be run, the others NEVER AGREED they simply LOST. So what then? How many CoC members believe that the congregation they are in is “doing it wrong”.
Why would such a divergence be? How can the CoC approach guarantee my salvation when it cannot even identify itself not even in a single congregation?
If you answer saying, “all that matters is that you are trying to do what the NT says” then I say I’m doing that by joining the Orthodox Church, which I did because I was trying to do what the NT says.
Jeff,
Actually, it doesn’t have to prove anything. Many of the scriptures themselves make unprovable statements (unprovable doesn’t necessitate being false). However, to the extent that scriptures, or fathers, or councils, or any particular preacher or teacher has shown to be trustworthy (and that’s easier to see with the experience of time, a very long time) that gives weight to their claims.
If someone you personally knew and trusted, who had shown a lifetime of responsible statements told you that they had a vision you’d at least have to consider that they did. If their vision proved true upon reflection and echoed scriptural principles, you’d have to weight it even more heavily. That’s just the nature of things.
That’s all the Orthodox Church has been doing for 2000 years. Considering who and what is a reliable source for information about God. The canon that so many other people find authoritative (though even that is flexible to some) was found authoritative by these people.
By what do to accept the authority of the scripture? On who’s word?
David,
If someone I knew and trusted said they’re received a vision that ran contrary to my experiences, I would listen to them, probably skeptically. If they then ripped off their clothes and ran down the road screaming obscenities, I’d probably apply Occam’s Razor and try to get them help.
Consistency and reliability are the keys. If my friend said the vision contradicted Scripture, I’d urge him to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”
Lots of churches – RCC, Orthodox, Coptic, churches of Christ, etc. – make a claim to be the same as the first century church. You can either pick one at random, or pick one due to a pre-existing bias, or examine the merits. What I’m urging is the third.
I’m also pointing out that whichever of the four paths JM chooses, he faces the same fundamental problem that he’s going through with interpreting the Bible. Ultimately, since revelation is given to man in human terms, understanding it comes down to applying one’s mind, as we see the early Christians and apostles doing in the first century (even when given visions!).
(FYI for anyone who cares, as a rule, I limit myself to no more than two or three posts on someone else’s blog to prevent getting into tedious debates and monopolizing someone else’s web space. Since I’m up against that three comment limit, I’ll likely refrain from further comment unless something I’ve said is very unclear. Some good conversation here, and thanks for it.)
John (@ 11:51 AM):
No one is asking anyone to check Reason at the door, but the track record of Christianity since the Reformation clearly indicates that it is almost impossible for even highly-motivated Christians to reach consensus using the Bible alone.
“Can God not deliver a communication that can be understood?” The question is what vehicle did God use to deliver the communication. The Bible is not God’s revelation to man: Jesus is God’s revelation to man. God established the church to convey that message, and the Bible is one of the writings of the church. Using the Bible alone to recreate the church is like using the Constitution alone to recreate the United States.
Surely we can all see that if you took our Constitution to another place and established it as the law, you would have the same thing we have here. You would have precisely a recreation of the United States.
I’m afraid you’ve confused me thoroughly John. I suppose you were being sarcastic?
Our Constitution existed in a framework of British Common Law. If you were in court the day before ratification and a day after, you’d have experienced the same court system.
Not only that, but from the beginning there was distention as to what various parts meant (particularly about the Supreme Court having soul authority to interpret it).
This seems to run counter to sola scriptura Protestant claims.
It is not that different than being in Church the day before the canon was canonized and the day after. Same Church. In this sense, neither the Constitution nor the Bible are “magical”. Though both are authoritative and what authority means to different people is clearly a part of this discussion.
In a legal sense the Constitution formally created a fictitious entity called the United States of America. But the Church isn’t a fictitious entity and the Bible didn’t create it. The Church existed before the Bible (like British Common Law) and it continued to exist after the texts the Bible consists of were accepted.
John, even if you could (which I find dubious), it still wouldn’t *be* the United States. It wouldn’t love George Washington and loath Benedict Arnold. It wouldn’t have 50 states, with the laws and legal precedents of each of those states. It wouldn’t have our strange civil ceremony, it wouldn’t have our media conglomerates. It wouldn’t love baseball and apple pie. Most importantly, it wouldn’t be *us* (since we would still live in the US). If you retained the same name (United States of America), there would then be an immediate dispute in the UN as to whether or not this would be a recognized nation. The old USA would highly contest the name.
If you clone a person, is the clone the same person? Even the materialist has to say no because that person has different atoms. It is a similar person.
As I said before, the Church is a table. We don’t sit at the same table. We are not the same Church. Anything else is wishful thinking…
David: you know I would never be sarcastic, my friend. Humor aside, I really was not being sarcastic at all. If you used our law verbatim to create another country – it would essentially be us. I know it wouldn’t have the same people and traditions that developed apart from Con law. That’s not the point. It would be a government just like ours.
Or, we would have a church just like they had in Acts. They had human problems b/c some didn’t keep the word perfectly, and so do we. But, if we follow the same plan they did, we will be them today. It would seem to me that to argue contrariwise, would mean that the church never actually existed in Acts, and really never could, since truth would still be “developing,” whatever that means.
John, this is the other John (from July 31st comment). The example of the Constitution reminds me of what I heard soon after I came into the Church of Christ long years ago. It went something like this: suppose the game of baseball was lost somehow and everybody forgot how to play the game. Then years later someone discovers an instruction book, reads it and then teaches others how to play the game. Voila! Baseball restored!
I understood the point that was trying to be made. I just don’t think it proves what it was intended to prove. Yes, in a very technical sense, one could go through the motions of playing baseball, but without any knowledge of what really makes the game special (and I don’t know what this is myself, as I have always hated baseball.) I never thought much of the example, even from the first. And in my 25 years in the Church of Christ, I never taught “pattern theology.”
Now, if the Bible were simply an instruction book, then the baseball or Constitution argument might apply. But I think what all of us are saying to you and Jeff is that we reject the odd notion that it is a mere instruction book, and contend that it was never viewed as such until recent centuries. Thanks be to God that it is so much more than that.
John,
Some Catholics and many Anglicans would say that the truth was developing. Orthodox might say instead that the Church “responded” to heresies and controversies where and when they occurred with applications of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.
Let me get right to the heart of what you are saying. In Acts the Church did “change”. Before the Council of Jerusalem there were no Gentiles in the Church.
Did the faith change? No, but the Church applied the faith and it did so without the NT even in existence. It did so on it’s own authority and by the work of the Holy Spirit.
(Before you talk about Apostolic Authority James who held council wasn’t an apostle and Paul, who was submitted himself to James.)
In addition, Paul’s reasoning wasn’t from proof-texts of Christ’s words (not yet recorded in written form), it was the evidence he provided that the Spirit was confirmed as moving among the Gentiles. He gave not a textual scriptural argument but one from the living experience of his work in ministry.
My point is the one scriptural instance of a Church council looks very much like the other councils the Orthodox Church claims to have had. It matches with their pattern, not yours.
Did the Council of Jerusalem “change” the faith or did it “address” the issues of the day and by who’s authority (certainly not the scriptures) did it act?
Why should Mark and Luke be in the Bible if they weren’t written by Apostles? Is there some other place other than the “written word of the Apostles” that the scriptures get authority from?
Do any of the NT writings (apart from Peter’s mention that Paul’s writings are sometimes hard to understand) reference and authorize the other writings? Who wrote Hebrews? Paul, Silas, Apollos? If you don’t know who wrote it how do you know it belongs in the Bible?
[...] friend of mine blogging on the problem of authority in Stone-Campbell/Restorationist thought. The comment thread is [...]
John (whose heart is breaking), It also broke our hearts to leave the church of Christ, not because we despised it or think anyone is going to hell etc., but because our sincere and long and gut wrenching rational process led us out of it. In one of our radio programs on sola scriptura we deal with the “blueprint” concept of the Bible. The Bible is a product OF the Church because the Church predates the Bible. The apostles never intended it to be a recipe book or blueprint. I am in construction and the blueprints are what the house is constructed from, which is the Apostolic teaching for 30 years before the first epistle was penned. The Apostolic writings are like the “deltas”, or addendums to the blueprint which tweak, clarify and give on the fly changes to the basic structure. So trying to build the Church from the Bible is like trying to build a house with only the addendums. You’ll get PARTS of it right, but not the true house. The Bible is more like a map which represents and highlights the paths and places but don’t give you the REAL city or country. To get that you have to actually talk to a flesh and blood person. A map will tell you the name of the road and a direction to go, but a native will tell you “Go down the street past the big oak, turn left at Billy-bob’s gas station and its across the street from Aunt Hazel’s Dairy Queen.” The Church is incarnational and relational and it is through people who have actually built the town and lived in it for 2000 years (“teach faithful men who will be able to teach others also”) that the Church is ultimately identified. With the “bluepring addendum” analogy, insofar as a Church follows the Bible and does not contradict Scripture it can be said to resemble the Church in some ways, but which is why all Christian Churches have very basic similarities (5 acts of worship to some degree or in one way or another), but to know the real “city” you have to live IN it. The problem we all wrestled with who have left is basically indeed a crisis of “authority”, and with Rome or the Bible as the only two options, if we reject the Pope, we become our own infallible popes interpreting scripture for ourselves according to our own philosophical hermeneutic…. and I’m not half as smart or holy as the Pope, so why should I even listen to myself?
Sincerely, thank you for your concern and love for those who are struggling. It is not an easy place to be.
John,
I find it curious that you chose the Constitution, of all things, to illustrate your point. Most of our Constitutional law is in fact the application of tradition. Many people consider the fact of judicial review, for example, as a key aspect of the balence of power between federal branches and as a guarantee of individual rights. But the Constitution itself does not spell out the right to judicial review–the Supreme Court adjudicated itself that right in Marbury vs. Madison. Or to return to your concept of an alternate USA…the Constitution does not enummerate how many justices are to be appointed, or their qualifications. It is completely up to Congress. (Art. III, sec. 1) So this alternate USA could be Constitutionally sound by having a Supreme Court made up of the President’s kid brother, as long as the Congress agrees. But such a Court would be unthinkable in the real USA. Nor would such a kangaroo government be “a government just like ours.” (Incidently, there is a whole academic political science/economic literature on how unlegislatable, intangible things like “commitment to rule of law” and “integrity” create real differences in countries’ stability and economic development.)
One more parallel…the Constitution, as original ratified, did not contain a Bill of Rights. It was added (shortly) thereafter, based on traditional notions about rights that had previously been based on English common law (not an oral tradition, but analogous). The Rights were there, inchoate but still somehow enforced, long before someone decided to write them down.
Real human communities are not made by decree, but by history, tradition, and espirit de corps–or in the case of the Church, the Holy Spirit.
–another CoCer slowly fording the Bosphorus
Don’t mean to hog the comments, but a personal reflection on the infant baptism issue…
This hasn’t been such of a big hangup with me, because of my own experience of my baptism. I was “raised in the church,” and my mother is very devout CoC, but I wasn’t baptized until I was 14. I knew it was something I needed to do, but I was petrified of going up the aisle. Finally my dad sat me down one day at home and asked me why I hadn’t been baptized yet. He arranged for me to do so on a Wednesday night–I would wait in the baptistry for the mini-lesson to be over. Mom insisted on braiding my hair, lest any of it float. Afterward, one of the elders congratulated me on “becoming a Christian.” This struck me as bizarre. What had I been doing for the previous 14 years–going to church, trying to be good, loving Jesus–didn’t that mean anything? What was I before, a pagan? That is probably why I didn’t force myself to get baptized earlier, as well. I knew intellectually the infamous baptism verses, but something in my consciousness couldn’t fathom how I had managed to cross the invisible line between “Jesus loves me, this I know” and “come home, poor sinner, come home.” Certainly I wasn’t perfect–but I wasn’t perfect when I was six, either. How come only the over-12s get kicked out of the household of God?
As others have already commented there are plenty of comments here. I just want to say how much I appreciate everyone’s thoughts, especially John’s and those others who are remaining faithful to their commitments. It remains very important to me to critically consider all that I am and have done.
May God answer all our prayers with what our hearts truly desire,… Himself.
Gaudium:
By Constitution it was my intent to include the amendments. I thought the Constitution was the original document plus any amendments. I may be technically incorrect on that.
Are you a lawyer and if so what state? My oldest son is an attorney. Remote chance, but perhaps you know each other. We are in Alabama.
I could talk at length about the Constitution analogy. It is precisely true, and I am sticking with it. If you had taken our Constitution to the USSR after is fell and established it as the law of the land, you would get the same thing you have here as far as what the Constitution actually decreed. Anything else would naturally be left to opinion and that would introduce some variation. I would be a strict constructionist, but if one is not, you would wind up with something “unpindownable” like the Emergents.
One interesting difference in our Constitution and the Bible is that its ( the Constitution’s) authors realized that their work was totally the work of men and they might not get it precisely right the first time. Therefore, they left the door open for amendments. The Bible is not that way. God got it right from the beginning.
“By Constitution it was my intent to include the amendments. I thought the Constitution was the original document plus any amendments. I may be technically incorrect on that. ”
I think you have misunderstood my analogy. I was not meaning to deny that the Amendments are a real part of the current Constitution. I was merely submitting an analogy for how it is possible for a later document/tradition (in this case, the Bill of Rights) to faithfully represent the true–even indispensable–views of our “apostles” (Founding Fathers) despite not having been included in their core document. Anyone seeking to understand the “true dogma” of the American Revolution and Constitutional Framers cannot ignore the concept of “inalienable rights,” even though that phrase was not included in the first draft of the Constitution.
“Are you a lawyer and if so what state?”
No. My Constitutional knowlege is a result of historical study. Perhaps that is why I consider it differently.
“If you had taken our Constitution to the USSR after is fell and established it as the law of the land, you would get the same thing you have here as far as what the Constitution actually decreed. Anything else would naturally be left to opinion and that would introduce some variation. ”
I guess this is where we will just have to disagree. After all, the USSR itself had a constitution! It sounded nice on paper. In _The Gulag Archipelego_, Solzhenitsyn recounts how the secret police were scrupulous in fulfilling certain legal procedures. Some of these procedures and formalities were the same as prevail in American courts. But I maintain, that the same forms do not ensure the same spirit, and thus is not the same thing at all.
I really didn’t mean to be argumentative in my reply–indeed, I strongly hesitated before replying at all. I certainly don’t intend to get tangled up in a long converstion about Constitutional minutae! However, I have followed this discussion from Father Stephen’s blog to here, and hoped that these historical examples and analogies might help you understand where we are coming from.
P.S. My designation of our Constitutional Framers as “apostles” is meant to be facetious. No analogy is perfect.
Gaudium, thank you for what you said about infant baptism. As I stated before, I still attend a Church of Christ, and I have a thirteen-year-old daughter who was recently baptized. (O Happy Day!) I’ve been nervous about her, as any Church of Christ parent would be, for fear that she would never make that commitment despite being raised in the Church her entire life. According to CoC doctrine and the “Age of Accountability,” at some point we are to treat our children as strangers to Christ and the Church unless they respond to the alter call. Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, the Age of Accountability ultimately means that children don’t need Christ to be saved–they don’t need a savior at all because they have no sins from which to be saved. This is ludicrous! Christ didn’t come only to pardon our offenses, but to heal us all and all of creation.
John, despite the name on the door, I will never never never leave the Church of Christ; it’s just that the group that identifies themselves as the (sign-out-front, non-instrumental) Churches of Christ (or churches of Christ) does not have a monopoly on Christ’s Church. In fact, I believe sincerely that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ. Christ’s Church may be found outside the Orthodox Church, but it is not up to me to determine where the Spirit has blown, and from whence.
[...] and slightly different ecclesiological issue is raised in What’s a Church of Christ Boy To Do? — The Gourd Reborn. The Church of Christ is a Protestant denomination that believed it was possible to reestablish [...]
Does anyone still try to see the real church of Christ as simply all the saved individuals in the world known only to God and not as a hodgepodge collection of wrangling congregations that came from the Stone-Campbell movement? I cringe every time I see the word “church of Christ” used as an adjective: “Church of Christ boy”, “Church of Christ doctrine,” etc. Of course I know what is meant, but the use of such terminology reinforces what many of us, at least in this blog, seem to acknowledge to be some of the worst influences to come from the Stone-Campbell movement.
Those of us who are trying to just be counted as Christ’s followers in a body whose makeup is known only to a God who is thankfully merciful, often feel like the old woman trying to sweep back the ocean of sectarian thought with a broom. I know it sounds trite and overly simplistic to many, but Christ’s way is not any denominational tradition including that of the Church of Christ denomination nor is it any hermeneutical system whether its origins be in Orthodoxy, Pentecostalism, John Lock or Francis Bacon. May God have mercy on us.
“Christ’s way is not any denominational tradition including that of the Church of Christ denomination nor is it any hermeneutical system whether its origins be in Orthodoxy, Pentecostalism, John Lock or Francis Bacon. May God have mercy on us.”
This statement needs to be proven, not just asserted. How do you know that Christ’s way is not the Roman Catholic way? They certainly claim it is. Matthew 16:18 surely does seem to imply that Christ is founding a Church which will never fail. This is consistent with the traditional Christian teaching on the Church is that it is not merely “all the saved individuals in the world known only to God” since this would imply that the unity of the Body of Christ (the Church) is something spiritual rather than incarnate or “in the flesh.” This heresy (called docetism) is explicitly condemned by the apostle John: “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” – 2 John 1:7
The problem with the invisible Church composed of whomever God knows is that we cannot know each other.
Spurgeon once said it would be appropriate to preach to just the elect if they just wore shirts proclaiming who they were.
How can we possibly take the description of the body of Christ in 1 Cor 12? Or how can we have true fellowship as in 1 John 1 without attesting to the same Gospel?
If we cannot be a body, existentially, what does that say about Christ’s incarnation? How can an invisible, unknown (even to themselves) group that follows Christ bear witness?
When the world asks, “who was this Jesus, what is His Gospel?” How does a choir singing from different sheet music sound in harmony? More importantly what do all those people who pick up a book they call the Bible attest to it when they had no part in receiving it, authorizing it, or preserving it.
There are some that say, “why are you reading letters not written to you?” The Church of Christ I attended growing up had no relationship with the christians in Corinth, or Rome, or Antioch. They were just dead people who lived long ago that may or may not have followed the words the Apostles told them.
Now that I’m a part of the Church, I know these people. I am related to them. I know them existentially in the Liturgy and in prayer. They know me. We commune together in the Eucharist. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. One Church standing against the gates of Hell in the Eschaton. Already participating in the 8th day, not just in fellowship with the past, for there is no past in the Eucharist. All is now.
None of this can be said of the spiritual Bedouins, wandering the desert of the world unknowing. Come home, you don’t need to wander in the world. There is a hearth. There is a table. There are many rooms.
Thanks Nathaniel for your friendly challenge and David for your comments. A few quick points:
(1) David, to say that we know every individual who is saved (who God considers to be a part of his body) is in a sense to be a judge. Only the Lord “knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). Only he knows to whom he will extend his mercy. Certainly I have fellowship in Christ with the saved of all ages, even though I may not see them or know exactly who they are. I share with them in Christ’s grace, his mercy and his salvation.
(2) On docetism, Christ certainly had a physical body. However, the term “body of Christ” is also used often metaphorically to refer to saved individuals (1 Cor. 12; Col. 1:18; etc.)
(3) The Roman church as we know it today with its multitude of medieval rituals, complex hierarchy, etc. was not the way of salvation in the first century because most of those innovations developed centuries after Christ. If first century disciples were saved without rosaries, hail Marys, holy water, scapulars, images, candles, limbo, etc., why can’t we? Do we really need all of that to go to God?
(4) The word ecclesia by definition has to do with people and not systems. It is composed of those purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28) and those whose names are written in heaven (Heb. 12:23) When Christ used it in Matthew 16:18 he was thinking of his people that would come together in him, not of a system that would control the people.
I’m sure you won’t agree with these points (I’ve cut a few out to try to be brief) but give them for your consideration.
Responding:
1) I do not say who is saved and who is not. I pray for the salvation of all which is the will of God, but know that Christ revealed the fear of the destruction of the soul as well. However, I do know where the Church is, both universally and particularly. Spurgeon did not.
2) “Body of Christ” isn’t a metaphor, it’s a symbol. There’s a big difference and that difference is critical for the type of docetism Protestants practice. You might accept that a guy named Jesus wasn’t a disembodied spirit, but you do not believe in the fullness of the incarnation. You do not hold that He is everywhere present and fillest all things.
3) I am not here to defend the Roman church. While I might agree with you that certain “innovations” are questionable in value, many of the things you mention (or might include in a more voluminous list) are very salvific. Why would you do without something that is salvific? Why an “essential” faith instead of a “full” faith?
4) You seem to be saying that hierarchy is necessarily a invalidation of community. I contend that you cannot prove such a statement and that the vast psychological and sociological body of work is against you.
I’m disappointed that you engage me propositionally. I don’t offer my meager ramblings here as an exhibitions of my epistemology, but rather as a dialog in earnest desire to develop a relationship (such as is limitedly possible online) with others for the salvation of us all. If you took my efforts otherwise, my sincerest apologies to any violation of your person.
David,
I take absolutely no offense at anything you have written and hope I offend no one in what I say. There is nothing wrong with analyzing different points of view propositionally as long as we maintain a loving spirit while doing so. Paul, Jesus and early disciples did it. These blogs are a blessing because they give us the opportunity to exchange ideas with intelligent and sincere people who have different perspectives. I appreciate very much your input and have been educated by it.
I have a few questions that I would like to ask to help clarify some things you’ve written, but sending llists of questions can sometimes be taken as overly aggressive, especially when done publicly. I may email them to you later if you have the time for them. I might just ask here if you think there are saved people outside of the church as you identify it. A response to that might be enough to help shed light on your concept of church.
May God bless you and all of us as we struggle with difficult issues,
My name on my comments is linked to my Google profile where you can contact me privately. You make a great point about lists of questions. I have watched many such discussions “fork” into a thousand indiscernible and unhelpful sub-discussions by such lists.
Other Orthodox posters are welcomed to correct me if I misspeak in answer to you.
Whether or not someone can “be saved” outside the Church assumes a certain definition of salvation which Orthodox Christians do not subscribe to. Being saved is not so much “not being sent to hell” as it is participating in the life of Christ.
Such participation defines the Church. The whole world is sanctified by the Church, just as the Jordan was sanctified by Christ when He was baptized in it. This is what I mean when I warn that docetism is evident in the Protestant mind.
Everyone who does the will of God is in some sense participating in the life of Christ. Every good thing belongs to God. CS Lewis wasn’t Orthodox (though some might call him crypto-Orthodox) but I am reminded of the end of the “Last Battle” where the Tash worshiper was surprised to find himself face to face with Aslan who claimed ownership of him because all things that are good belong to Him.
That is not strictly dogma, though some saints have speculated (or rather hoped) that perhaps God’s goodness would eventually rehabilitate all.
But I would rather say something more reliable from a saint (I think it’s Isaac the Syrian, but I’d welcome correction on this point as well). “We know nothing of God’s justice, only God’s mercy.”
The Orthodox Church views sin most predominantly as an illness needing to be cured rather than a crime needing punishment.
The important point here is that God is working through Christ to reconcile the world to Himself. He has given the Church that mission of reconciliation.
This is definitely not Orthodox dogma, but in my head I have worked it out this way: “Everyone has a relationship to the Church, some relationships are just more functional than others.” This bears some unfortunate parallels to my previously held Protestant “invisible Church” ideas, but I think adequately corrects the worst of them.
When you reduce salvation questions to “whether or not I’m going to get sent to hell” you cannot appreciate the fullness of it’s meaning. I would recommend reading St Athanasius “On the Incarnation”. It’s surprisingly approachable for a Protestant and yet it explodes one’s awareness of the cosmic implications of what Christ did and forever alters the reading of certain passages of scripture.
Gourd,
I suspect that everyone that has left the CoC has grappled with the issues you present in your OP. You said:
In fact, with the exception of this core matter of interpretation, as far as I’m aware there is little-to-nothing the Church of Christ teaches or practices that Orthodox believers would find problematic.
To a certain extent that is true. However, ask someone in the CoC why he worships on Sunday and they will point to Acts 20:7. By contrast ask a Catholic or Orthodox why he worships on Sunday and he will say that it is the day of the Lord’s Resurrection. That is what makes all the difference.
Gardner,
I appreciate your irenic tone in your replies to the “Orthodox” posts. I am a former minister from the churches of Christ (1970’s Lubbock Christian U. and Sunset School of Preaching trained) who has become Orthodox. I do not “evangelize” church of Christ people, but I find it fascinating how many of them seem to appear on my doorstep. I’ve done an apologetical Orthodox radio program for about ten years and at the risk of being shamelessly self promoting, I’d encourage you to check out the audio archives at http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com where we have over 120 programs on almost every imaginable topic that would be a “speedbump” for most Protestants looking into Orthodoxy. I also have a personal “spiritual life” podcast called “Steve the Builder” that you can just google. I bear no animosity or ill feelings toward my 20+ years in the churches of Christ, in fact I thank God for the Bible knowledge and intellectual disciplines I learned there. You can also contact me personally from either website’s email link provided. May God bless your walk in Christ as you seek His will more perfectly.
I encourage everyone to bother Steve (s-p) early and often. It worked for me as I was searching out the Church.
I wonder if his email box still as scorch marks from some of the messages I sent him.
OH… You’re THAT David! LOL!! Yeah, I had to put a high capacity cooling fan on my CPU when you started emailing me….
Its nice to “see” you again, I’ve been wondering how you’re doing. Thank you for the kind referral.
Hi, all. I’ve been intentionally “laying low”, as this conversation is proceeding quite nicely without further input from me. Thank you ALL for your insightful comments! This has been tremendously helpful for me.
I just want to hop in and respond to Gardner’s comment about nomenclature. I do not think your point is trite in the least, and I agree that it is most unfortunate that “we” started thinking like a denomination many decades ago, but I’m not sure how to shake it. I admire those congregations who choose to put “The church in [city] meets here” on their signs rather than the phrase “Church of Christ” which, although scriptural, appears to have been co-opted by many (including me, forgive me) as nothing more than a denominational marker. Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh, but it seems to me that “we” have an identity crisis on our hands that stems directly from our ecclesiology. With all that said, if you have a better adjective which I could use to describe the “hodgepodge collection of wrangling congregations that came from the Stone-Campbell movement” than “Church of Christ”, I’m all ears.
For anyone that is reading along and not already aware of it, there is a parallel conversation going on at Glory to God for All Things. John at Notes from a Commonplace Book has a quick intro with text and links to the relevant posts, here.
Not much time to blog on weekends, but thank all for their thoughtful comments on the few paragraphs I wrote. Thanks to Jim for his good article which produced so much thought. It has been interesting to read about how the Orthodox approach has appealed to many who have become dissatisfied with some of the problems and flaws in the Stone-Campbell movement.
I obviously think that the basic ideas of Stone and to some extent Campbell are still valid, that God wants to replicate as much as possible what we read in the New Testament, without the additions that have accumulated throughout the centuries. The approach is much older than Stone and Campbell, going back at least as far as Hezekiah and Josiah.
Of course many of us who have been influenced by Stone and Campbell have lost our way, due in great part to the under emphasis of mercy and grace and the institutional concept of the church. May God help us to have a better focus on the Savior.
jmgregory and gardner,
I agree with your frustration over the nomenclature used in Churches of Christ. Back in the day, I too chafed at our misuse of the word. After many years of fighting that losing battle, I finally gave up on that issue. One phrase I never, ever used was our common, in-house terminology of “the Lord’s Church.” I recognized the sense in which the phrase was used, and refused to use it. Interestingly, in Orthodox writings one will often see the term “Church of Christ” used, but always in the correct sense.
Gardner, I was glad to see in your last post that you gave slightly more credit to Stone than Campbell. Good for you! I was always a “Stone man” myself. I still have a hardbound set of his “Christian Messenger”–and I have actually read every volume. I don’t think, however, your linkage of their ideas back to Hezekiah and Josiah will get much traction outside of Stone-Campbell circles.
As a historian, I have always found it interesting that the movement came to think that they were doing a revolutionary, unique thing. And certainly, this has been the received view down to contemporary Churches of Christ. Actually, restorationism, or biblical primitivism is an old Protestant concept. Quite a few groups consider themselves restorationists (including the Mormons and Jehovahs’ Witnesses) and restorationist language crops up in many places one normally wouldn’t expect. My only point here is that the belief among Churches of Christ that their idea to “restore New Testament Christianity” is somehow their unique plea, is simply false.
Many CoCers might not like the connection but S-C is essentially an rationalist-anabaptist. So in that sense you find the roots in the early 15th century. Definately they have more in common with Mennonites than LDS-type folks. All the other “restorers” came baring new revelations that were supposed to correct all the errors. S-C were just minimalists.
David, I agree about the anabaptist minimalist roots. Oddly enough, however, there was some overlap between early Stone-Campbell and the LDS (Sidney Rigdon et al.). The main similarity I see is that their plea followed the same format: there was the pristine “early church,” followed by a “falling away,” then to be restored by the teachings of fill-in-the-blank (Campbell, Smith, Rutherford,etc.)
Keep thinking I’ve made my last post on this thread, but the privilege of sharing ideas with such kind and well-read people motivates further acknowledgement.
(1) Yes, it’s incontrovertible that there have been many “restoration movements” besides Stone and Campbell’s. Some have had more success in aspects of restoring first century ideals than those influenced by Stone and Campbell. The Anabaptists have been more successful in restoring the concept of separation from the world. The LDS have been more successful in evangelizing. Of course, I believe that they and others with restorationist goals (especially the LDS) have missed some basic spiritual principles taught by Jesus, but I still highly respect them.
(2) The concept that Stone and Campbell “restored” the “Church of Christ” is completely flawed. Their efforts didn’t represent so much an effort to restore the church of Christ, but rather to be a part of the church of Christ, i.e. his assembly of all the saved in the world. (Sorry if that sounds like Docetism to David. Don’t think it is.)
(3) Stone and Campbell aside, were Josiah and Hezekiah’s efforts pleasing to God? Are they worthy of imitation today? I think so!
(4) I love religious history and yet I wonder if our constant analysis of all the sociological currents and political maneuvering in religion cloud our basic spiritual need to seek God on a one to one basis. On one hand, I think the study of religious history can help us avoid pitfalls. On the other, I think it might tempt some to throw up our hands and think it’s impossible to be a simple follower of Jesus just like Peter, John, etc., without all the complicating factors that have been added through the centuries. Is that really over simplistic and impossible? Again I ask that God help us all.
Gardner,
I think I can speak for everyone else when I say that we appreciate your kind and thoughtful posts as well. One reason I have enjoyed this thread is that everyone has been gentlemanly in their responses. Also, as is so often the case, one party or both ends up talking past the other. That has certainly not been the case in this discussion.
In brief response to your points:
1) As I understand it, our basic difference here is that you view the various “restoration movements” as having varying degrees of success. I would posit that the entire “restoration ideal” is invalid.
2) Obviously, I would agree that the concept that Stone and Campbell “restored” the “Church of Christ” is completely flawed. In your statement–”Their efforts didn’t represent so much an effort to restore the church of Christ, but rather to be a part of the church of Christ, i.e. his assembly of all the saved in the world.”–are you saying that this is what they believed they were doing? One can find quotes from both men (depending on whether in their early or later careers) to make the case for the former or the later (in a qualified sense.) But, it is without doubt, that the portion of the movement that became the “Church of Christ,” as we know it, came to believe that they had restored the church and taught the same for several generations. Without this core element of the “Church of Christ,” then you have no real “Church of Christ” sect.
3) Certainly Hezekiah and Josiah are worthy examples for us. And I understand the linkage you were making between them and Stone and Campbell (for Josiah “restored” much from a book of the Law that had been lost.) My point was not to discount these kings (or even Stone and Campbell for that matter), but to simply say that this is not a template one should arbitrarily force on the church. What need is there to restore that which has never been lost?
4) re: “our basic spiritual need to seek God on a one to one basis.” This is not language that I am comfortable with as an Orthodox Christian. Orthodox prayer and worship can get pretty crowded–that whole “host of witnesses” thing. We tend not to think in terms of “one to one basis.” That said, the only reason to become Orthodox is to find Christ, to grow in closer and closer communion with God. So perhaps we ultimately are saying the same thing. When I became a Christian, I was attracted to the minimalism of the CoC plea–being just a simple Christian. In time I came to see that being “just a Christian” was itself complicated in the way it was understood through the CoC prism. Orthodoxy is not minimalist, but maximalist, and unapologetically so. But our life in Christ among the baptized revolves around worship, the Eucharist and scripture. What is added or complicated about that? From your perspective, much has been “added.” From my perspective, much was stripped-away by both Catholicism and Protestantism. I would posit that no one opens scripture without viewing it through a particular prism. I readily admit my prism is that of the Holy Orthodox Church, and my conclusions are informed and shaped thusly. And by so doing, I consider myself, as you say “a simple follower of Jesus just like Peter, John, etc.” Campbell used his rationalism and Lockean philosophy as a prism to peer into scripture, and forensically extract from it the original meaning. Or so he thought. You ask “is that really over simplistic and impossible?” If you are asking if it is possible to do this by leaping across history, so to speak, bypassing the witness and life and present reality of the Church, then I would answer, “Yes, it is simplistic and impossible.”
I commend your ending sentiments–”God help us all,” which should be on all our lips.
Gardner:
Thank you for your kind words.
The reference you made to Hezekiah and Josiah reminded me of this post by Father Stephen (on whose blog this whole discussion was started):
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/you-are-not-a-bible-character/
He discusses the difficulty of appropriately apply Biblical examples to the details of current life or theology by citing instances where such templates are misused–for example, he notes that many early American settlers used the example of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan as an excuse to kill Native Americans. Such examples are of course extremes chosen to make a point, but they do illustrate the basic difficulty: if we interpret the Bible in this way, we are liable to err in deciding what Biblical template best fits our current situation, and how to apply it. As John pointed out, the analogy between CoC-type restorationist theology and Josiah’s situation is only tenable under the assumption that we have “lost” the true Church–which is an assumption foreign to Orthodoxy.
John,
The exchange is enlightening and I appreciate very much your kindness and patience with me since I know I’m not up to your level academically. I hope this thread isn’t getting too long and don’t want to dominate it, especially since it’s not my blog and I’m probably one of the least qualified to write in it. I’ll hush when jmgregory thinks it’s gone far enough and he wants to pursue a different line of thought.
Your comments about point #2 that Stone and to a greater extent Campbell seemed to vacillate between a sectarian and nonsectarian view of the church probably have some validity. Campbell in particular in his later years seemed more focused on a movement, or sect, as he tried to organize it. Of course, I think they were more correct when more unsectarian in their approach. That aside, however, isn’t it still possible to be in the church of Christ (little c) without being in the “Church of Christ sect?” Would you say that you are a member of the church of Christ (little c) or at least a church of Christ? Incidentally, I feel no need to defend the Church of Christ sect, which has produced Church of Christ theology.
On viewing scriptures through a prism, of course all of us have a cultural heritage that affects us as we read. The same thing, however, could be said of the Ephesians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, etc. In thinking of the Corinthians in particular, they were influenced by Paul, Apollos and their Greek culture. And yet Paul still exhorted them to be simply of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-17). He obviously didn’t think that such was impossible in spite of the different preachers who influenced them nor their cultural baggage. Neither do I see why it would be impossible to follow Paul’s exhortations in spite of our own cultural traditions. To say that such was possible for them but not for us, is to underestimate the challenges of their own cultural background. Yes, I suppose that is minimalist thinking, but I suppose we could classify Jesus’ teachings as such.
Can I summarize my understanding of our different assumptions? Those or the Orthodox tradition (and perhaps the Roman Catholic position) would feel that changes and additions through the centuries in their traditions are either harmless or needed adjustments and don’t affect our basic relationship with God. Therefore, no restoration is needed and in fact efforts to “restore” have historically been schismatic. If that is not a fair representation of the position or an oversimplification, feel free to correct it. I’m just trying to restate what I’ve understood in simple language.
Those of us who feel that the concept of restoration is valid think that many innovations in Christian thought and practice through the centuries have distanced us from the simplicity we see among Christ’s followers in the New Testament and to a degree from Christ himself. Therefore, restoration is needed, not so much of the church as I see it, because I am confident that God has always had his people through the ages, but of the simple “I am of Christ” only faith that Paul exhorted the Corinthians to have. As we work for restoration, we acknowledge the obvious shortcomings in others and in ourselves in our efforts to restore. We just want to be careful not to throw out the baby (the need for restoration) with the bathwater (the abuses). Have I summed up our basic differences?
I think that “Gaudium” is right that if no restoration were needed, then the Hezekiah-Josiah template would not apply. However, if restoration is needed, then such examples can be helpful. So, we’re back to our different assumptions!
Thanks again and God bless.
Gardner and all: Please feel free to continue the discussion for as long as you would like. I’ll close the comments if things become rancorous, but I can’t see that happening any time soon with the present company.
I think your understanding of Catholic and Orthodox “development” is a bit over-simplistic.
Catholics essentially believe that development (both doctrinal and practical) are a necessity and that the important consideration is the authority by which those developments are termed valid, namely papal authority as expressed in the Roman Curia and College of Cardinals. See John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” as a good place for more details.
Orthodox have a somewhat more subtle opinion. Orthodox don’t really believe in development per se, though this needs to be qualified. First, we believe in continuing definition. For instance, the scriptures teach and we profess that Christ is God, while not being the same person as the Father, and that God is one. This seeming contradiction would not do for Arius, so he taught that Christ was not God. This is clearly wrong. At Nicea we proclaim a belief in “one God” (the Father) and one Son who is of the same essence with the Father, making Him fully God. You’ll notice that the Nicene creed maintains the ambiguity of the scriptures (Christ is God without being the same person as the Father), yet the wording of the Creed eliminates some possible interpretations of the scripture (including Arianism). This is called “apophatic theology.” We don’t consider this to be development since we are restricting development by declaring the new developments of Arianism to be a heresy.
Second, we believe in economy. Economy is essentially “do the most with what you got.” The law exists for man and not man for the law. In normal cases, a person should be baptized by triple immersion by a presbyter (i.e. elder or priest). However, if you are in a car accident and the person next to you is dying and asks to be baptized, you “do the most with what you got” even if all you have is your own spittle. The rules are about salvation.
Sometimes, the economy becomes the rule. There is a canon that specifies that we are not to take communion on a spoon. Yet if you go into any Orthodox Church, this is precisely how communion will be served. Why? Over time we realized that people were receiving communion in their hands (rather than directly in their mouths) and then taking the holy things and doing despicable things with them. Since treating holy things with a cavalier attitude is not beneficial for our salvation, we changed our practice. Note that we don’t consider this “development” but rather economy.
As an aside, Roman Catholics also used to serve communion directly into the mouth. However, in the Vatican II council they returned to the older tradition of serving it into the hand. Many people lauded this as a “restoration.” Yet, since this was done there have been dozens of cases of people mistreating the Eucharist. The restoration was actually counter productive.
However, it must be said that some changes in piety are ideologically motivated. Nestorius wanted people to call Mary the “mother of Christ” rather than the “mother of God” because he had a faulty view of the incarnation. Ideologically motivated changes must be resisted.
Third, there are a set of differences that are really no more than local custom. In Russia, woman stand on one side of the Church and men on the other. In the USA this is atypical. This is just a local custom. In fact, the phrase “when in Rome do as the Romans do” actually originates from a person complaining about different local traditions. The advice given to him was: “Follow the customs of the local church you are in.”
Finally, there are customs which are simply older than what most people think. For instance, NT Christianity is hierarchical. Yet most people attempting to restore the NT “church” completely miss this.
I hope this explains our understanding a bit better. I’m glad to try to answer any questions you might have.
Thanks for the expanded explanation. I suppose that when you say that NT Christianity is hierarchical you would have something in mind similar to this order: Christ, apostles, bishops, disciples. Most of us would agree with something along that line. I suppose our disagreement would be similar to that we have with our Catholic friends, whether there would living successors to the apostles or whether the original 12 still serve their role.
Our understanding of NT hierarchy is fairly close to yours. We would say something like (this order below is the order found in I Clement):
1. God the Father
2. Christ
3. Apostles
4. Bishops and Elders
5. Deacons
Also, dynamically working within (and sometimes above) the bishops, elders and deacons would be the prophets. Prophets very quickly (even by the time of the Didache [~100AD]) began to have more restrictions as many false prophets arose. However, even to this day prophets are highly valued.
I should also mention that over time bishops came to be viewed above elders (clearly by the end of the 2nd century, if not earlier). My personal argument is that a church would have many elders and one “overseer” elder to preside (hence sometimes called a president) at services. As the church grows, having a nearly flat structure of bishops/elders becomes unwieldy. So this eventually morphs into metropolitan bishops (or archbishops) -> diocesan bishops -> elders. Later, metropolitan bishops of important cities (that would have the resources to travel and manage disputes between metropolitans) became called patriarchs (east) or cardinals (west). These changes would be viewed as economy (since the purpose is to keep the unity of the faith). The final change in the west was the adopting of yet another layer, the papacy. Orthodox never agreed to this change because we didn’t see it as necessary (there was no ongoing dispute that needed to be solved by another layer of authority), and thus not a proper expression of economy.
Orthodox and Rome have a somewhat different understanding of authority. For Orthodox, all bishops are local bishops (i.e. pastors) and the various roles (i.e. metropolitan, patriarch, etc) determine their function in council and who presides at liturgical celebration. The phrase used here is “primus inter pares” or “first among equals.” Thus, the titles (metropolitan, patriarch) describe not the *kind* of bishop, but a bishops function for a specific task. This is why we would include these changes as economy.
I think both we and Roman Catholics would have a very similar view of apostolic succession after noting the differences above. While the original 12 (13?) still serve their role, their authority is today wielded by the “succession of bishops in every place” (Irenaeus AH). This authority ought not be “lorded over” the faithful, but is an authority of love and service.
All in all, I would suggest that our view of authority is (both in spirit and actual form) essentially that found in I Clement (which was considered for inclusion in the NT), the only difference between then and now being economy.
Also, I mean to say the following about prophets:
In the modern age, prophets are most generally monastics (though not always). This is due simply to the fact that people who are “sold out for Christ” choose the monastic life. We would view this monastic life in the line of Elijah, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, etc…
Gardner,
I would also like to mention the phrases “of Christ” and “in Christ.” These are sacramental terms. We are baptized into Christ. We are His Body as we commune His flesh and blood. St. Paul is reminding the Corinthians of their baptism, namely they were not baptized into Paul but into Christ. Since both Paul and Apollos were baptized into Christ, their teaching must be the same. Paul is arguing for a hermeneutic (of catholicity) in receiving the spoken (not written) Tradition: namely, if you are interpreting the teaching of Paul as different than the teaching of Apollos, you misunderstand the teaching. This (bad) hermeneutic surfaces later with Marcion who argues that the OT reveals a different God than the NT. He comes to this conclusion by using the wrong hermeneutic. St Irenaeus corrects him by pointing out that the *correct* hermeneutic is to realize that the OT speaks of Christ. For Irenaeus, the thesis of the OT is Christ as demonstrated in the “canon of faith” which is the summary of theology present both verbally and symbolically in baptism and the eucharist. His argument is essentially the same as St Paul’s: remember your baptism. Irenaeus further points out that this canon of faith is used by all the churches which were founded by apostles (no matter which apostle). This is the essence of apostolic succession: all the churches founded by apostles hold the same canon of faith in baptism. This is true today: the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches all profess the same canon of faith at baptism: the Nicene Creed.
To return to St Paul, when Paul tells us to be “of Christ” or “in Christ” he means baptized into the Church with the canon of faith according to the rule which was handed down from the apostles. To somehow read “no creed but Christ” into St Paul is, I think, a serious error. St Paul was not speaking of cultural traditions, but a baptismal tradition.
Gardner, I just saw that you’re a NYC bloke.
I visit NY quite often, we should grab some coffee.
It seems to me that when we talk Orthodoxy v Restoration S-C, the issues come in two categories.
1) Whether or not something of substance was taught or practiced by the Apostles that is either thinly represented or largely unwritten in the letters that have been preserved. This category might include their adoration of Mary, the liturgical prayer practices, or the formalities of “ordination”.
2) Throughout the ages choices were made to deal with matters at hand with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and while everyone must make such choices (even the Restorationists), there is a belief that some of them erred in judgment. These might be the acceptance of icons, the acquisition of the technical philosophical terms used by the Greeks, or the appreciation for the monastic lifestyle.
I’m not sure we can do much about things that fall into #1. If someone doesn’t believe the early Christian records about the veneration of the Theotokos, there isn’t any way to “convince” them because the material itself is deemed necessarily a corruptive influence on the purity of the scripture. Any evidence we might point to, is evidence of being corrupted by definition of that evidence being extra-Biblical.
I think the approach, if one wants to assure “purists” that the Orthodox Church is “the” Church, is to walk through the historical background behind the challenges the Church faced in history and how it responded.
The discussion of icons as idolatry necessarily depends on a proper education of the historical events in question and the reasoned response of the Church. I, myself, found that reading Bishop Ware’s book on the history of the Church (and following all his footnotes on that history) to be most enlightening.
If one looks through the events and observes the Church living out it’s testimony in history, I believe there emerges a pattern of preservation and application under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To me, there is no greater testimony to the truth that this is “the” Church, but that the Holy Spirit has been distinctly involved in its life.
Of course, I’m not equipped to do that, but Bishop Ware did a fine enough job.
Gardner,
I am enjoying the exchange, as well. I had to chuckle a bit when you mentioned not being up to my level academically. I am not an academic. I have a regular job and just teach history in a night class at the local university. For many years, I had a passionate interest in our particular church history, but basically pursued those studies on my own. But none of it is fresh on my mind, and you may have noticed that regarding restorationism, I have written in broad-brush generalities, basically from memory (and hoping that I wouldn’t have to reach back and back any of it up with specifics!)
Campbell’s thought didn’t so much vacillate as evolve. Interestingly, his Disciples of Christ heirs focus on his later writings, while his Church of Christ heirs focus on his earlier works. Stone was more consistent throughout.
You ask if I consider myself a “member of the church of Christ (little c) or at least a church of Christ?” First, I stopped doing the “little c” thing years ago, long before I was aware of Orthodoxy. I understand the sentiment (towards nonsectarianism), but spelling the word with a “little c” doesn’t make a sectarian group nonsectarian. It was the same with our use of “undenominational” rather than nondenominational. It is a distinction without a difference, and its use can easily devolve into mere semantic games. As I wrote in an earlier post, the Orthodox Church freely refers to itself as the Church of Christ. So, in that sense I consider myself a member.
I understand that you feel no need to defend the Church of Christ sect, and I apologize if I have tarred you unfairly with their shortcomings. We can make it something of a straw man sometimes. But that said, your position, as I understand it, still corresponds with much of their approach to the faith.
I’m not sure I follow what you are saying about St. Paul and the Corinthians in its application to this discussion. I agree with Nathaniel in his comments as to what St. Paul was actually saying. That aside, Ephesus, Thessalonica and Corinth were all part of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman culture, a society in which St. Paul was entirely comfortable. His writings to Corinth were to address some very serious problems among the new Christians there. His admonitions to them were not made across a cultural divide–as an educated and well-traveled Roman citizen, he could speak to them as one of their own culture. But his letter to them, as with all the other Epistles and the Gospel accounts, was a letter from the church, to the church, to be used within the church. It was never intended to be taken out of that context, to be interpreted forensically, if you will, as to its meaning. That is what we do when we take any scripture and draw conclusions outside of their context, which is the Church.
And I will have to disagree with you about classifying Jesus’ teachings as minimalist. When all the books of the world couldn’t contain the acts that Jesus did (John 21.25), I can only characterize his teachings as anything but minimalist.
I would like to qualify, if I may, your summarization of our differing assumptions. First, I will defer to the excellent recent posts from Nathaniel and David that address these questions far better than I could do. I notice you use the phrase “changes and additions.” This is not language we would ever use or agree with in describing our history. I do understand the viewpoint, for this was the way we viewed Catholicism back when I was a member of the Church of Christ. Interestingly, Orthodoxy was never on our radar screen and many of the “changes and additions” we found objectionable in Catholicism do not have any application to Orthodoxy, anyway. As has been stated numerous times, the New Testament scriptures are a part of the Tradition of the Church, but they are not the sum total of it (2 Thess. 2:15). What I might add is that the Tradition, however, never contradicts Scripture. Whether such “changes or additions” would be “harmless” or whether something “needed adjustments” are beside the point, for they are certainly not seen as changes or additions at all. To view the traditional liturgical churches worship as containing “changes and additions” presumes an evangelical Protestant interpretation of the nature of that church found in Scripture.
For example, in Matthew 6, Jesus Christ says “when you fast.” He did not say “if” you fast. Simply put, if we are to pray and give alms, we are also to fast. But in all my years in evangelical Protestantism, I never met anyone who fasted or even knew how to go about it–and not only that, no one in class ever wanted to talk about it either. Left to own devises, as individual interpreters of scripture, we will skip over that passage as “nonessential” and do not fast. Or at least, that was my behavior. In the Orthodox Church, however, we do fast, and not as individuals, but collectively. In the Didache (ca. AD 70s), we read that these early “first-century” Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. We continue to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. In fact, there are over 180 fast days in the Orthodox calendar. From your viewpoint this must seem one of those unnecessary “additions,” an accretion to the simple Gospel of the New Testament. We do not see it that way at all, but rather the means by which we, in fact follow the very teachings of Jesus found in Scripture.
Another example (which Nathaniel has already addressed) would be the hierarchical nature of the Church. I think we can all admit there to be a certain amount of ambiguity/overlap in the New Testament usage of bishop, overseer, elder, presbyter, etc. In your view of the Orthodox Church, I would suspect that you see our system of bishops and priests as yet another example of historical “changes and additions” to the original faith. When Alexander Campbell, for example, read scripture, he believed he had sorted-out the confusion, finding a pattern for individual, autonomous congregations, each under the oversight of elders and served by deacons. This position holds for the Churches of Christ to this day, and the explanation of this approach sounds perfectly logical, sensible and scriptural. The only problem is that this modern interpretation of the “first-century” church is an historical fiction fashioned to fit particular traditions and biases. I say this only because that very same church, wrongly analyzed by Campbell, saw itself quite differently. The Letters of St. Ignatius, while not part of the canon of scripture, were the writings of a contemporary of the Apostles. These letters were penned in 107 AD, while he was on his way to martyrdom. St. Ignatius was the student of St. John, and the 3rd bishop, I believe, of Antioch. The references he makes to bishops and priests is not some new, burgeoning controversial digression, but rather the established, accepted understanding of the Apostolic teachings and writings. So, what evangelicalism or restorationism may see as needless “changes and additions,” we view as the continuation and implementation of Scripture itself. Granted, there has been “continuing definition,” as Nathaniel aptly describes it, but it has all been well within the Ignatian framework, and none of it has ever been with the framework of Campbell and others.
Hopefully, this has helped in some way to explain our differing perspectives. In short, I would reject the view that we have allowed harmless or needful “changes or additions” in matters of faith. And, I would question whether your view of the “simplicity we see among Christ’s followers in the New Testament” is really that, or perhaps a somewhat forced view contingent on a particular, modernist interpretation of scripture.
Thanks for being such a good sport about all this. We Ortho-bloggers seem to be ganging-up on you a bit.
John and all,
Thanks again for your kind points and explanations. I don’t feel that I’m being ganged up on, because that term seems to imply being set upon by a group of unsavory characters. The “gang” you have in mind is too kind to be linked with that kind of a term. I guess I might feel a little lonesome, knowing that some out there who are much more qualified to respond than me, and also limited in time to digest and then respond in detail to so many points (my wife wishes I would use my spare time to paint instead of blog!), but will try to respond briefly to a few. Sorry if I miss some points that were made.
* John, I accept that you’re not an official academic, but you are obviously well read, I’m sure much more so than I am.
* Your description of Campbell’s thought as evolving more than vacillating is accurate. I might say, “regressing” from my perspective.
* Nathaniel, I’m still trying to digest your point about Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 and can accept that part of Paul’s emphasis may have been that there were no contradictions between him, Peter, Apollos and Christ. However, the main problem he seems to be attacking according to verses 11 and 12 is that of quarrels that came from identification with men, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas.” Thankfully, some did identify with Christ but rather than rebuking that group, Paul backs them up in verse 13 by pointing out that all should identify themselves that way. Paul mention of baptism only into Christ shows that he isn’t criticizing those who said they were “of Christ” and telling them that there was no difference between Christ’s teaching and the other men mentioned, but rather that they were right in making Him the exclusive focus of their identification as well as their baptism.
Incidentally, I live in New Jersey but I’m in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan a lot, especially Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. It would be interesting to get together sometime when you’re here.
* John, sorry my point on the Corinthians may be unclear, but I’ll try to restate it here. Whenever we try to point out the need to identify only with Christ and avoid sectarian distractions (whether those of ancient sects like Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, etc or modern ones), the response is often that we all look at the scriptures through different colored prisms and therefore such a template is impractical. My response is that though it is true that we have cultural bias (“the prisms”), so did the Corinthians and other first century Christians, and yet they were told to identify with Christ and not be divisive and quarrelsome by identifying with Paul, Cephas, Apollos or any other man. I will think more about Nathaniel’s point, but still think this is a legitimate response.
* David may be right that many of our differences might have to do with whether God allowed some of his will for us today to be revealed apart from the N.T. in the oral traditions. While acknowledging that the development of the canon may not have been as quick or neat as some have assumed, I think we must trust in God’s providence to have provided us today with His will in the NT. While the canon was being developed, certainly the oral words of the apostles or prophets would have had had their place, but the oral tradition became written, and that written record we have is the only undisputable source of information we have today.
* John, I understand that a little “c” doesn’t make a group unsectarian, but please realize that I’m not defending the Church of Christ Church as unsectarian by referring to it with a little “c”. Though I share many ideas with them, I would be considered a maverick by the churches of Christ you have been associated with and don’t want to identify myself spiritually with them, although I have many beloved brethren in their number. However, God has an assembly of people that He has washed in his blood, That’s a little long however to write out, so when I want to refer to it, I sometimes use the little “c” in saying “church of Christ: but see that doing so hasn’t successfully erased the confusion.
* I should not be using words like “minimalist” since I’m not very familiar with them and apologize for doing so. I would say that Jesus’ teachings, though profound in so many ways, also promote a back-to-basics approach in that they strip away all the pretext and form-without-substance approaches that were prevalent in his day and focus on the heart of man. That’s what I meant, but should have said “back-to-basics” instead of “minimalist” since I understand the former term better than the latter.
* I thought I was probably oversimplifying in my analysis on Orthodox attitudes towards change and see that I was. Sorry.
* Didn’t know about the reference to fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays in the Didache. I doubt it dates as far back as A.D. 70, but I’m way out of my field of expertise here (if I had one!). I would question making fasting obligatory since I don’t see it that way in the N.T., but rather as a recommended but not bound practice. When bound, I think it might come into the realm of items mentioned by Paul in Col. 2:20-23.
* On the “hierarchy,” there are many different ways to look at Ignatius. References from subsequent second century writers like Polycarp, Hermas and the Didache (if 2nd century) refer to bishops in plurality. I suppose there’s no benefit in hashing this out here. I suppose a question you would have to constantly deal with is why the Greek tradition and hierarchy should take priority over the Roman one.
My wife is pressing me to leave the blogging alone! However, I’ll close with another question for your analysis when you have time. I’m sure others have had it when thinking of the Orthodox tradition.
Things like infant baptism, icons, etc. have been mentioned as problem areas for those considering Orthodoxy. I would like to have your opinion about the links between Orthodoxy, oppressive governments and the resulting effect on religious liberty. Though I’m not sure of the official and exact links today between Orthodoxy and various governments (I know they have changed through the years), I have friends who have tried to work in Russia who are increasingly and frustratingly limited by new laws pushed by the Orthodox church that are designed to make their work more difficult. Aren’t such ties between church and state corrupting by nature? I know it may be a loaded question and maybe a little touchy, but you are such nice people, I’m sure you don’t mind it and that you’ll deal with it well.
Gardner,
I don’t have much time today, so just a few hurried responses:
I apologize for being a little argumentative about the little “c” issue, but that idea has a history within the “Churches of Christ,” and that perspective is, of course, the context for this whole discussion. You had addressed a question to me and I felt I needed to explain my response. That is all. I totally understand your usage of the term “church of Christ.”
Regarding the Didache, I am not a scholar in this area either. But from everything I can read, a consensus seems to be forming that it dates to the period of AD 65-80. The reference to fasting was made in contrast to the days that the Jews fasted.
I think you misinterpret my use of fasting as an example. Again, I was merely using this as an illustration to point out that what you see as an accretion to the original faith, we see as a means to follow Christ and his teachings. I was not necessarily advocating its obligation. I was saying that Jesus taught fasting in the same passage he taught prayer and alms-giving. Protestantism has cherry-picked over fasting, and perceives it as unnecessary addition to the “simplicity” of the Faith. (And I strongly disagree with your suggestion that this teaching of Jesus falls within the category of items condemned by St. Paul in Col. 2:20-23. But the whole purpose behind fasting needs to be the topic of a separate discussion.) The Orthodox have always fasted as a spiritual discipline, even from the very first, as the reference to the Didache supports. This is no “change or addition,” but what the church has always done. Simply put, the Orthodox understanding of this practice is in line with the New Testament teachings regarding same, while modernist Protestant interpretation of Scripture generally dismisses it altogether.
Obviously, the writings of St. Ignatius are not definitive. But whether bishop or bishops is mentioned is beside the point, as are other discrepancies we can all find between the writings of these men. Orthodoxy is quite at home with the writings of our church fathers whether it be St. Ignatius or any of the ones you mention. And we do not see a tension between the Greek tradition and the Roman one, as you put it, at least not until many centuries later. What one doesn’t find in these writings, are references to any anti-hierachial sentiments characteristic of evangelicalism. But you are right, this is the subject for a separate post.
As to your last question—when you reference “the links between Orthodoxy, oppressive governments and the resulting effect on religious liberty,” I assume you refer to difficulties Protestants now encounter in Russia. This is a subject for another post as well, I am afraid. It touches on subjects that I am perhaps too opinionated about. I have never been to Russia, but have traveled extensively in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Levant, and have seen much of this first hand. Our ideas on “religious liberty” and separation of church and state is a thoroughly Americanized concept—one that we feel applicable to everyone in all places. It is not the Faith. Likewise, our view of what constitutes an oppressive government is a thoroughly Americanized concept, dictated by our historical perceptions (or misperceptions) and our belief in American exceptionalism. What is happening in Russia is a reaction to a flood of American-financed evangelical efforts after Communism fell—Baptists, Presbyterians, Assembly of God, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses—you name it, they were all pouring into the country in one confusing mass. In a total disregard to Russia’s rich religious history and heritage, many considered the country totally atheistic, overlooking the struggling Orthodox remnant, or at best considering them marginally Christian. I have seen too much of this hubristic attitude. My sympathies here and elsewhere lie not with your evangelical friends, but with the struggling indigenous Christians. I am pretty radical in this area, so someone else needs to take the ball and run with it, for I probably do not need to go any further!
Again, thanks for your thoughtful and kind questions, and excuse my hasty responses.
The problem in Russia isn’t so much that the Orthodox Christians don’t consider the Protestants Christian, but that the Protestants don’t consider Orthodox to be Christian.
Gardner,
I think you’ve missed my point. The phrase “of NAME” is not about identification in Pauline terminology, but about baptism. “Of NAME” is the same as “baptized in the name of NAME.” For Paul, since all the names listed are ministers of the Church, there is one gospel being preached by all and this gospel is the gospel we were baptized into. *Other* people are teaching a different gospel than the one being passed on in the baptismal canon (or creed). They are violating the creed and are thus false teachers.
My point was this. You seem to be using “of Christ” to mean “no creed but Christ.” This is the exact opposite of what Paul is saying. When Paul says “of Christ” he means “the creed by which you were baptized into Christ.” If we reject this creed, or baptize in another creed, or baptize without a creed at all, we are precisely the false teachers that Paul warns us about.
Send me an email (to nathaniel@natemccallum.com) and we’ll try to hook up for coffee in November when I come.
David, thanks for that very poignant explanation… You are exactly correct.
John, David, Nathaniel,
I sense we’re all feeling the constraints of time and may be missing each others’ points a bit as we hurriedly try to digest them. I apologize for my misunderstandings. Sometimes I feel that maybe it’s time for me to back off and do some thinking and reading, but I am enjoying this and will keep at it a little longer, trying to stay brief and digestible. I don’t mind taking 15 minutes every few days for this, but I took an hour on yesterday’s post, and I can’t afford that!
Nathaniel, I’m still trying to digest your point and apologize if I’m a little slow. I can see that the term “of Paul”, “Of Cephas, “ etc, can have reference to their baptism since baptism into a name is the primary point of the last part of verse 13. Where I am a little slow, however, is that it seems to me that Paul is rebuking those who were calling themselves “of Paul” and “of Cephas.” Am I right in presuming that? I understand it to mean that since they were baptized in the name of Christ, they shouldn’t say that they were “of Paul” or “of Cephas.” Doing so was divisive. My application is that neither should we identify ourselves primarily with any man or system but only with Jesus Christ into whom we were baptized. In other words, we should just identify ourselves as disciples of Jesus Christ, rather than of “Luther,” “Wesley” or any system like “Mormon,” “Seventh Day Adventist” and I’ll add, “Church of Christ church.” I think that what you might be saying is that Christ’s system is included in being baptized into Christ and though I might see that as being true(though we would differ on what is his system), I still think the primary thrust contextually here has to do with the divisions caused by identifying with human parties. Sorry, sometimes I feel thick. Perhaps my cultural “prism” is messing me up!
On John’s point, I can imagine that there are many abuses by a large number of the Protestant bodies that are going into Russia. I, of course, can’t and wouldn’t defend them all and understand how some of them could raise hackles. I would say, however, that I think the most admirable way to combat them would be through an honorable defense, much as you are doing on this blog, rather than laws that would stifle dissenting voices. Such is not only Western thinking, but scriptural, especially when thinking of texts like 1 Peter 3:15. The fact that some might not consider Orthodoxy to be Christianity as Dave points out, is beside the point. I think competing ideas among sincere people should battle on the field of honorable exchange, not regulated with human laws. If you like John Milton here’s a quote from Areopagita. “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.” Of course, I suppose John Milton is Western but still think his sentiments here reflect that of the scriptures which aren’t. I sense John’s indignation about abuses, but since free exchange of ideas is a concern many of us have, I appreciate your addressing it.
Going beyond the current situation in Russia, where I might tend to sympathize with you regarding some of the more egregious errors of some of the sects, am I wrong to think that generally speaking, links between human governments and national churches tend to corrupt and politicize what is spiritual?
I’ve taken about 30 minutes with this. Thanks again and God bless
I’m afraid I cannot agree. Part of the problem of the Reconstructionist Protestant heritage I come from is that there is the demand to have all sincere people be heard in a never ending “honorable” exchange.
There is a time and a place for such exchanges and differing standards of “honorable”. I’ve done my share of Sunday evening debates with one-cuppers, once-savers, women ordinators, musical-innovators to name a few.
Next month they demand another go-around and the next and the next. Nothing is ever settled and the real work of salvation is lost in the noise.
Yes the “idea marketplace” has value. But surprisingly the scriptures are condemning of the fruitless debates of young men and very supportive of “keeping the faith delivered to you”.
My experience is limited and I have my biases. But I believe the day I stop posting on people’s blogs about this sort of thing is the day I’ll have grow considerably. I’m not there yet, but I’m on my way.
Parishioners are not customers they are family. We don’t belong to each other because we agree with each other. We belong to each other because we are one body in Christ. Operating on the notion that Christianity is a proposition is dehumanizing and spiritually harmful.
The funny thing is, I don’t know any CoC person who’d admit that they should all change Churches if one of these Sunday evening slobberknockers was “won” by the other side. They are almost universally exhibitions and prideful ones at that (I speak here of my own heart).
Debate isn’t the focus of scriptural leadership. Pastoral care is.
Here’s my 5 minutes…
Please forgive me if I’m a little blunt in what I say below. I mean it in the great depth of Christian charity and love.
My point is that “no creed but Christ” is patently false, since our baptism comes with a creed. The question is which creed is true. Sometimes people teach the same creed using different language (i.e. Paul and Apollos). Some teach false creeds. The proper (scriptural) response to a person teaching false creeds (if they are unrepentant) is to expel them from communion with the Church (Galatians 1:8-9; the Greek word here ‘anathema’ is still used by the Orthodox Church today when excommunicating someone from the Church).
It is (with great sorrow in my heart) the assertion of the Orthodox Church that the creeds of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Simons, Stone/Campbell, etc are false creeds. Thus, it is not a proper analogy to use the Paul/Apollos event when referring to such writers.
Further, changing your terminology to say “we are just the ‘work of God in X place’” is just a word game, since you still profess the creed(s?) of Stone/Campbell (or, as it may be, the rejection of the baptismal creed). Regardless of whether you say so or not, you are still “of Stone/Campbell” when you should be “of Christ.”
Regarding the Russian situation… while I wont defend any of their policies, 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t refer to an open exchange of an ideas, but merely preparedness to share ideas if asked (or if such opportunity arrives). It is, BTW, my favorite scripture verse. As I pointed out above, the scriptures require us to excommunicate (or anathematize) any such false teachers. Whether or not the State should enforce such anathemas is another debate (and a good one!). However, Christianity has always held a separation of Church and State and, as such, the Church should not be blamed for the State’s actions unless there is clear reason to do so. (Case in point here is the recent Russian/Georgian war, which the Church in both countries staunchly opposed.)
David,
“Operating on the notion that Christianity is a proposition is dehumanizing and spiritually harmful.”
Thanks for this. This cuts though much of the recent discussion.
* I acknowledge David’s point that “honorable exchange” can easily deteriorate into “foolish wrangling” (Titus 3:9). However, such doesn’t have to be the case. Paul continually reasoned with others in the synagogue and marketplace. That was honorable and good just as I feel that our exchange here has been. As messy as the open exchange of ideas can be (the word “debate” carries such negative connotations!), especially when there is pride and a lack of love, it is preferable to the alternatives: indifference or suppression.
* Yes it is true that Christianity is not a proposition. However, it is built upon a number of propositional truths that seekers must be willing to find –therefore, the need for openness. The loving exchange of ideas doesn’t have to be incompatible with pastoral care.
* Congregational discipline and the marking of false teachers were accomplished biblically through loving teaching and concerned verbal warnings, not governmental laws.
* I think I sense a little weariness in this thread and since I’m not going to be able to comment for several days, I think I’m going to back out and let anyone else that desires have the last detailed word. However, before doing so, I want to give special thanks to David, Nathaniel and John for giving me a new found and growing respect for the Orthodox tradition. My exposure until now has been pretty much limited to reading some articles and seeing pictures of robed archbishops who were working for peace in various parts of the world. However, the image in my mind now also includes some highly intelligent and kind people who are extremely able defenders of the tradition. My prayers are for God’s blessings on you and for his mercy for all of us.