Replies

Submitted for Discussion with massive reservations on the part of FReeper "OP".

Some criticisms:

We are Presbyterians who are just as satisfied with our local church (but not our denomination!) as Frederica is with her Orthodox community. Although our ship isn't sinking, we still found much in her account to admire.

queer

Whether Orthodoxy has all the right answers or not, it is profoundly attractive to people who are asking the right questions, and who want to find the trunk of the tree rather than to crawl further out on a branch. -- which begs the Question: what is the Trunk of the Church? "Profoundly attractive" as Orthodoxy may be, Protestants have never located the "trunk" of the Church either in Roman Papal Succession or in Orthodox Ecclesial Succession. For Orthodox Protestants, the "the line of my people, back to the beginning" has always been located in the Succession of Biblical Doctrine:

We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church -- a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects. -- The Belgic Confession of the Reformed Faith, 1561

This is a major Protestant objection to both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims of being the "One True Church". Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics claim that their Church is the eldest representative of the True Church, each claiming to be 2000 years old. To Orthodox Protestants, this Claim itself represents a declaration of Ecclesial Error -- claiming one's Church to be 2000 years old amounts (in the Orthodox Protestant Mind) to hanging a Neon Sign over one's sanctuary announcing, "We're NOT the True Church!" The Church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects. Any Church, whether Roman or Eastern, which claims to be a mere 2000 years old, claims itself to be a novelty and an invention -- and therefore NOT the One True Church.

As I said: submitted with massive reservations, but submitted for discussion.

Submitted for discussion (with some objections noted above).

Johnson's article here doesn't compare to his brutal and devastating critique of evolution. In terms of doctrine, he's pulling his punches.

Still, not a bad article, some good observations here for the non-Orthodox who want to learn a little more about the Orthodox and their appeal to modern Americans. Given their recent growth in numbers, the Orthodox deserve closer attention in any event. But this article is only marginally helpful in exploring the Orthodox churches and their current appeal.

Johnson seems oblivious to the defining doctrines of the Reformation, almost as though the Reformation was primarily a political event. Perhaps to him, it was.

This is a major Protestant objection to both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims of being the "One True Church".

The church of Christ is simply that, those whom Christ recognizes as His, whether they are part of the Orthodox church or not.

As to the claim of being 2000 years old, I believe the Orthodox church makes this claim to show historical continuity - of the Orthodox church, not the church of Christ. The problem so frequently becomes that of defining the word "church", even down to the simple levels. As in a Sunday school lesson in our parish from last year where the children were taught with a hands-on lesson to understand the idea that "church" is defined not as the building we drive to for liturgy, or even the faith outlined in the Nicene Creed we say, but the people who worship Christ.

To address the nature of the word "true" which is used in Orthodoxy, becomes even more tricky. Orthodoxy is so far from logical and so empirical that this becomes really impossible. My best attempt at it would be to say that the Orthodox church feels she has retained a more "full" version of Christianity and a different ethos - that of ascetism and a strong emphasis on love. She feels she has the "whole" truth. Often the whole truth requires apparently contradictory statements - God is one nature but three persons; Christ is one person but two natures. So I would say that we feel we have the truth and at the same time we recognize that others within the church of Christ also possess the truth.

You could stand as a perfect example of my point above, OP. It was not surprising to me that in your initial posting you chose to criticize the presbyterian church of today, as you frequently post here on FR with a spirit of humility and love. In fact it is often what I consider to be a perfect spirit of humility and love, obviously of Christ, so from my very empirical viewpoint you must possess the truth. And to come full-circle and complete this thought, in your post you did exhibit qualities of ascetic thinking, humility, and love for others, which are the things we believe define the Orthodox church as filled with truth. :-)

Using this post to you to also ping katnip, instead of posting another empty one and typing "ping"....

Phillip Johnson is professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is Defeating Darwinism -- by Opening Minds (InterVarsity).

I have his Darwin On Trial. I wonder if the new book is any good. I thought the first one was excellent but needed to be at least twice as long and even more detailed.

read later

Paging the Catholic Caucus for their perspective.

claiming one's Church to be 2000 years old amounts (in the Orthodox Protestant Mind) to hanging a Neon Sign over one's sanctuary announcing, "We're NOT the True Church!" The Church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects.

Wow.

I am boggled over the implicit denigration on the Incarnation.

Orthodox Christianity, teaches us that God was incarnate for two reasons:

1. To defeat death.
2. To found the Church.

For #1, He died and descended to Hades and released the captives that death held - broke those gates.

For #2, off St Peter's confession, He founded the Church, and at the Last Supper, after John 6: 54ff. especially 67, when many quit on Him, he confirmed what was up.. "This is My Body...This is My blood...

I wrestled with this for years, until I decided that Holy Scripture actually was meaning what the words said.

What say ye?

The method was collegial, not authoritarian; disputes were settled in church councils, whose decisions were not valid unless "received" by the whole community.

This is a baloney doctrine currently circulating in the Orthodox Church. By it the Councils are emptied of all authority, unless the "whole community" spoken of, is circularly defined as those Christians who accept the Council.

The Council of Chalcedon was widely rejected throughout eastern Christendom, especially in Egypt, Syria, Armenia, and Ethiopia. Likewise, the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople II were not "received" by the Church in Seleucid Persia and Arabia and Edessa.

Based on the standard enunciated above, the councils were invalid.

On the other hand, the Anathemas of the Fathers at those councils bespoke of their belief that THEY had determined the faith, and that the Church could either conform to the definitions, or be excommunicated anathema maranatha. "Anathema to those who think otherwise" is the common cry of the Fathers upon being read the true doctrine in a letter from the Pope or one of the Patriarchs (i.e. the reaction to St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St. Leo, Pope St. Agatho, etc.). This is called the doctrine of the Conciliar Infallibility "ex sese" - "of itself", and NOT by consent of the Church.

submitted for discussion.

Hello, OP; long time no see.

Facing East is a fine apologia and introduction to apostolic Christianity in general and Orthodoxy in particular. In addition, Frederica Mathews-Green is one of the most intelligent and insightful columnists currently writing on Christianity and culture.

I don't understand your claim for the kingship of Christ dating from all eternity. As I see it, it begins with the Incarnation: if as you suggest the second Person of the Trinity, the eternally-existing Logos, is King by his very nature, he'd be king even in the absence of creation.