Anglo-Orthodox?

[Peter J]

Question for you Protestants out there: Are any of you "Anglo-Orthodox"?

[Peter J]

Historically, Eastern Orthodoxy shares many Anglican concerns about the Roman church such as the papacy, the use of statues ("graven images"), purgatory, works righteousness, clerical celibacy, and divorce. In fact, many Orthodox would agree that the 16th century Reformer's had legitimate complaints against the Roman church and its medieval system of works righteousness. The problem is that their reforms went too far-a sentiment shared by a number of Anglicans, especially Anglo- Catholics. Given these remarkable historical similarities, it is amazing that Orthodoxy is so unfamiliar to most Anglicans.

Since the Oxford Movement of the mid-nineteenth century, some sectors of Anglicanism have, by degrees, become more liturgical, sacramental, and incarnational in their theology. While this trajectory moves in tandem with Roman Catholic theology, it also runs parallel with the theology of the Eastern church.

- from "Anglo-Orthodoxy": Why some Episcopalians are turning to Eastern Orthodoxy for spiritual enlightenment

[Timon]

Question for you Protestants out there: Are any of you "Anglo-Orthodox"?

I dont know if thats an official term but based on my "in between-ness" that may be an acceptable way to describe me.  I believe what Orthodoxy teaches, but have not made the conversion yet...

[Doubting Thomas]

That is a good article you linked--and it describes me somewhat, but in reverse. 

I grew up Southern Baptist, but about 10 years ago I really started questioning my long held baptist beliefs, and I began looking to the early church for guidance after I started reading the claims of the RCC and the EOC.  I was particularly attracted to Orthodoxy and began reading several articles and books about the Church and started attending the Divine Liturgy when I could. After exploring the Eastern Orthodox Church for a few years, and being a catechumen for a month or so, I ended up landing in the Anglican Catholic Church, where I worshipped off/on for three years or so.  A year and a half ago, a new ACNA mission was started in my home town, so I have been going there (rather than driving an hour to the ACC parish) and am happily involved there.  I still have some strong Orthodox sympathies, but I'm a 'western Christian' at heart I guess, and I particularly love the richness of the Book of Common Prayer, the KJV Bible tradition, and classic western hymns. 

[Scotty]

That is a good article you linked--and it describes me somewhat, but in reverse. 

I grew up Southern Baptist, but about 10 years ago I really started questioning my long held baptist beliefs, and I began looking to the early church for guidance after I started reading the claims of the RCC and the EOC.  I was particularly attracted to Orthodoxy and began reading several articles and books about the Church and started attending the Divine Liturgy when I could. After exploring the Eastern Orthodox Church for a few years, and being a catechumen for a month or so, I ended up landing in the Anglican Catholic Church, where I worshipped off/on for three years or so.  A year and a half ago, a new ACNA mission was started in my home town, so I have been going there (rather than driving an hour to the ACC parish) and am happily involved there.  I still have some strong Orthodox sympathies, but I'm a 'western Christian' at heart I guess, and I particularly love the richness of the Book of Common Prayer, the KJV Bible tradition, and classic western hymns. 

What happened as a catechumen, if you don't mind me asking? 

[Doubting Thomas]

That is a good article you linked--and it describes me somewhat, but in reverse. 

I grew up Southern Baptist, but about 10 years ago I really started questioning my long held baptist beliefs, and I began looking to the early church for guidance after I started reading the claims of the RCC and the EOC.  I was particularly attracted to Orthodoxy and began reading several articles and books about the Church and started attending the Divine Liturgy when I could. After exploring the Eastern Orthodox Church for a few years, and being a catechumen for a month or so, I ended up landing in the Anglican Catholic Church, where I worshipped off/on for three years or so.  A year and a half ago, a new ACNA mission was started in my home town, so I have been going there (rather than driving an hour to the ACC parish) and am happily involved there.  I still have some strong Orthodox sympathies, but I'm a 'western Christian' at heart I guess, and I particularly love the richness of the Book of Common Prayer, the KJV Bible tradition, and classic western hymns. 

What happened as a catechumen, if you don't mind me asking? 

Oh, nothing bad happened.  The Orthodox priest and the parish were very welcoming.  I had a couple of issues I just couldn't shake. 

First, my wife wasn't on board AT ALL.  She didn't like the Orthodox Liturgy, didn't like that I had to drive an hour to get there, and really didn't like that we were basically going to two different churches (these issues continued to be a problem when I went to the ACC parish too, but she could tolerate the service a LITTLE better).

Second, I had some theological issues. For one, I was at heart still a western Christian and I seemed to see a lot of western bashing among the Orthodox defenders on the internet and in some of the books I read.  I know Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm aren't perfect, but I couldn't dismiss all of their insights either, much of which was very good and with which I agreed. I also saw not a few Othodox apologists give too little emphasis to the doctrines of justification and substitutionary atonement.  Granted, both of these have been overemphasized to the point of distortion among some groups in the West, but the doctrines themselves are biblical very important.  Finally, I couldn't believe that the Holy Spirit vanished from either side of the church in 1054 simply because Pope and  Patriarch excommunicated each other.  I know that may be an extreme way of putting it, but this is often the impression I got from BOTH of the 'One True Churches'. 

So I am happily Anglican.  I don't pretend however Anglicans don't have problems of their own, but I enjoy being reformed catholic, patristically protestant, and western orthodox. 

[ialmisry]

I also saw not a few Othodox apologists give too little emphasis to the doctrines of justification and substitutionary atonement.  Granted, both of these have been overemphasized to the point of distortion among some groups in the West, but the doctrines themselves are biblical very important. 

Can't be that important, as the Bible doesn't teach it.

[alanscott]

Hello Peter,

Thanks for including article link.

This is an interesting question for me. As I am not Anglican the short answer obviously is no. That still leaves the question however...

I grew up Presbyterian though today I respectfully reject Calvinism. I stepped so far away from God in my teenage years I have spent most of my adult life wondering in darkness to be honest. I came back to Christ (glory be to God) in a Church of the Nazarene. Looking back I would have to say it was a bit of a watered down version of Truth but perhaps what I needed at that time -idk- Several years ago I was exposed to Orthodoxy and today hold a profound respect and reverence to the Truth and Understanding I have received. (primarily via Orthodox sermons on line to which my wife and I still often listen to) For the last couple of years I have been blessed to be led and pray at a small, humble, independent Church that is firmly Wesleyan-Arminian in doctrine and fairly traditional in worship. Protestant 'western' traditional that is The similarities in theology, interpretation of scripture, and deliverance of God's Word is notable if not overwhelming when compared to the differences between this Church and what I have learned from Orthodoxy. The 'worship style' is of course completely different. In that way the article you included applies to some extent; I am drawn to the consistant and fundamental Truth in Orthodox theology, yet seem to be more comfortable with the western Protestant style of worship. Much of this may be out of ignorance on my part as I have yet to visit an Orthodox Church. There are also some Theological and Dogmatic differences that incline me to Protestantism though some of that may be out of my ignorance as well.

Does that make me a Wesleyan-Armanian-Orthodox? lol (Just kidding!)

I am not Orthodox, nor Catholic, so I would be considered Protestant I guess. Until your post I have not given too much thought about what others, or even how I would classify myself. My concerns are of a theological nature. A repenting sinner, in a broken world, seeking the fundamental Truth so that I may continue to 'get to know my maker'. To let self die that I may live in Christ. However, or wherever, The Holy Spirit reveals such fundamental Truth is of little concern to me at this point other than exercising caution to not be misled or deceived. Make sence? 

In my quest for Christ,

Scott
 

[Peter J]

Timon, Doubting Thomas, and alanscott, I've greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts on this matter.

Alanscott, your "As I am not Anglican the short answer obviously is no" is a pretty good description of me as well.  

...
Does that make me a Wesleyan-Arminian-Orthodox? lol (Just kidding!)

You strike me more as an Arminian Weslo-Catholic.

[Doubting Thomas]

I also saw not a few Othodox apologists give too little emphasis to the doctrines of justification and substitutionary atonement.  Granted, both of these have been overemphasized to the point of distortion among some groups in the West, but the doctrines themselves are biblical very important.

Can't be that important, as the Bible doesn't teach it.

Try reading it again--particularly Isaiah 53 and Paul's epistles  

In all seriousness, please note that although I pointed out these doctrines (justifiction and substitutionary atonement) are biblical and important, I did acknowledge a distinction between the biblical doctrines and the distortions of the same one may encounter in various modern Christian groups.  I have often noted that in (rightfully) reacting to the distorions of these doctrines, some Orthodox apologists seem to disclaim that these these doctrines are biblical at all.  (Thankfully, though, I have also encountered some Orthodox who do acknowlege a substitionary atonement and that Paul did in fact teach about justification.)

[Peter J]

So I am happily Anglican.  I don't pretend however Anglicans don't have problems of their own, but I enjoy being reformed catholic, patristically protestant, and western orthodox. 

I'm a little surprised that you haven't gotten any angry, or sassy, or whatever, replies from Orthodox posters for describing yourself as "western orthodox".

 

I know we Catholics wouldn't take it too well if you called yourself "eastern catholic".

[ialmisry]

I also saw not a few Othodox apologists give too little emphasis to the doctrines of justification and substitutionary atonement.  Granted, both of these have been overemphasized to the point of distortion among some groups in the West, but the doctrines themselves are biblical very important.

Can't be that important, as the Bible doesn't teach it.

Try reading it again--particularly Isaiah 53 and Paul's epistles  

In all seriousness, please note that although I pointed out these doctrines (justifiction and substitutionary atonement) are biblical and important, I did acknowledge a distinction between the biblical doctrines and the distortions of the same one may encounter in various modern Christian groups.  I have often noted that in (rightfully) reacting to the distorions of these doctrines, some Orthodox apologists seem to disclaim that these these doctrines are biblical at all.  (Thankfully, though, I have also encountered some Orthodox who do acknowlege a substitionary atonement and that Paul did in fact teach about justification.)

The dogma of substitutionary atonement requires Christ to die instead of us, instead of dying for us.  Neither Isaiah nor St. Paul preached any such thing.

[Doubting Thomas]

I also saw not a few Othodox apologists give too little emphasis to the doctrines of justification and substitutionary atonement.  Granted, both of these have been overemphasized to the point of distortion among some groups in the West, but the doctrines themselves are biblical very important.

Can't be that important, as the Bible doesn't teach it.

Try reading it again--particularly Isaiah 53 and Paul's epistles  

In all seriousness, please note that although I pointed out these doctrines (justifiction and substitutionary atonement) are biblical and important, I did acknowledge a distinction between the biblical doctrines and the distortions of the same one may encounter in various modern Christian groups.  I have often noted that in (rightfully) reacting to the distorions of these doctrines, some Orthodox apologists seem to disclaim that these these doctrines are biblical at all.  (Thankfully, though, I have also encountered some Orthodox who do acknowlege a substitionary atonement and that Paul did in fact teach about justification.)

The dogma of substitutionary atonement requires Christ to die instead of us, instead of dying for us.  Neither Isaiah nor St. Paul preached any such thing.

I'm not sure whose 'dogma' you are talking about, but by 'substitutionary atonement' I merely mean what the Scriptures say:

"5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

"8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken."

"10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul,  and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors."  --from Isaiah 53

"24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification." --Romans 4:24-25

"21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." --2 Corinthians 5

" 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. "  --1 Peter 2:24

"18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us  to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit" --1 Peter 3:18

This is what I mean by 'substitutionary atonement'.

[Peter J]

So I am happily Anglican.  I don't pretend however Anglicans don't have problems of their own, but I enjoy being reformed catholic, patristically protestant, and western orthodox. 

I'm a little surprised that you haven't gotten any angry, or sassy, or whatever, replies from Orthodox posters for describing yourself as "western orthodox".

 

I know we Catholics wouldn't take it too well if you called yourself "eastern catholic".

Ah well, Orthodoxy never ceases to surprise. I guess I should be used to it by now. :thoughtful:

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Anglo-Orthodox?