Author Topic: "Why I'm not Orthodox" & "Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century" on Evangelicals  (Read 876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rakovsky

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,885
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The article by Brian Nassif "Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century" in Christianity Today, December 2006, envisions a renewed movement towards orthodoxy.

It mentions:
Quote
(3) The multicultural nature of orthodoxy. No modern multiculturalism is as deep or fertile as the ecumenical multiculturalism of antiquity. The cross-cultural richness of the early church is becoming increasingly evident today.

...

So whether they are aware of it or not, every time evangelicals pick up their Bibles, they are relying on the historic church's judgment on the colossal issue of canonicity! Without acknowledging it, evangelicals validate the authority of the Spirit-led tradition in determining canonicity. That same Spirit-led tradition has governed the Orthodox church over the centuries.

It also adds an interesting, hopeful note:
Quote
At the same time, my evangelical passions prompt me to suggest that this renewed fascination with the Great Tradition may indirectly revive Orthodoxy. And if it doesn't, it should. Little by little, our parishioners are being touched by evangelicals who are rediscovering the creative relevance of the Christian East and repackaging it far more attractively than we have been doing for ourselves.

More and more Orthodox, as they study the Great Tradition, ...recognize that the church... hasn't figured out how to relate to unchurched people in North America (its converts consist mostly of disillusioned believers from other Christian traditions).

But what is it talking about when it says the underlined part?
Quote
More and more Orthodox, as they explore the early church afresh, see that there are parts of its ancient liturgies that seem to have no biblical justification...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/30.40.html?start=3

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,289
The article by Brian Nassif "Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century" in Christianity Today, December 2006, envisions a renewed movement towards orthodoxy.

It mentions:
Quote
(3) The multicultural nature of orthodoxy. No modern multiculturalism is as deep or fertile as the ecumenical multiculturalism of antiquity. The cross-cultural richness of the early church is becoming increasingly evident today.

...

So whether they are aware of it or not, every time evangelicals pick up their Bibles, they are relying on the historic church's judgment on the colossal issue of canonicity! Without acknowledging it, evangelicals validate the authority of the Spirit-led tradition in determining canonicity. That same Spirit-led tradition has governed the Orthodox church over the centuries.

It also adds an interesting, hopeful note:
Quote
At the same time, my evangelical passions prompt me to suggest that this renewed fascination with the Great Tradition may indirectly revive Orthodoxy. And if it doesn't, it should. Little by little, our parishioners are being touched by evangelicals who are rediscovering the creative relevance of the Christian East and repackaging it far more attractively than we have been doing for ourselves.

More and more Orthodox, as they study the Great Tradition, ...recognize that the church... hasn't figured out how to relate to unchurched people in North America (its converts consist mostly of disillusioned believers from other Christian traditions).

But what is it talking about when it says the underlined part?
Quote
More and more Orthodox, as they explore the early church afresh, see that there are parts of its ancient liturgies that seem to have no biblical justification...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/30.40.html?start=3
Where is the "Why I'm not Orthodox" part?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online rakovsky

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,885
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
In the 1997 Christianity Today article, "Why I'm not Orthodox", Daniel Clendenin, a western professor in Moscow, writes:

Quote
Evangelicals [are] opposed to the Orthodox idea of regeneration by the sacraments.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/january6/7t1032.html?start=7
I think this is true. I don't think Evangelicals promote any kind of confession, even without a priest, where they tell God they repent of their sins, although some of them may do this.

I found this to be a remarkable passage counterposing Scripture and Tradition:

Quote
When Martin Luther burned the books of Catholic canon law at Wittenberg's Elster Gate on December 10, 1520, he symbolized an important Protestant distinctive. Whatever honor Protestants bestow upon tradition, they deny that its authority is coequal with Scripture. Thus Luther once wrote, "What else do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the divine Scripture and human teaching or custom?" Calvin objected to the "tyranny of human tradition which is haughtily thrust upon us under the title of the Church." The Reformers did not reject tradition as a help to wisdom, as a reading of Calvin, Luther, or Wesley easily shows. What they objected to was the elevation of tradition to the status of Scripture.
I assume some Catholic canons had good content, even from a protestant perspective, so burning all of them seems "inflammatory."  :D

In any case, St Peter wrote in the New Testament that reading scripture is not a matter of private interpretation, because scripture came from the Holy Spirit. Instead, St Peter meant that the real interpretation comes from the Church (which would be nonprivate interpretation).

So if you say traditional interpretation of scripture has a lower status than scripture, isn't this comparing apples to oranges, saying that glasses have a "lesser status" than the books they are needed to read?

Besides that, I think at least some traditions would have been divinely inspired over 2000 years- that would be a long time for God to leave alone the Church. And isn't divine inspiration the measuring stick for the kind of status Luther is talking about?

I think so. In my opinion, since the Church Fathers sometimes disagreed on things (like St Augustine's ideas), the Orthodox Church doesn't give equal weight to everything Church Fathers said as the weight given to the scriptures. Rather, the idea is that there is a divine inspiration somewhere within the body of Church Tradition, and this divine inspiration is equal to that in scripture.

I think that the author may be aware of the "apples and oranges" issue, and thus he writes:
Quote
One can find Orthodox statements that ascribe a unique authority to Scripture over tradition, but these are few and far between, and they speak of tradition in a narrower than usual sense.
However, the author doesn't give examples or explain what he means here, and I would have encouraged him to pursue this issue. I think understanding the distinction this would lead to him realizing more clearly that Divine Inspiration exists in both, and that the theoretical criticism he makes about "status" is semantic.

The author also gives a quote from a writer named Karmiris, who he never identifies:
Quote
Karmiris writes, "Scripture and Tradition are equally valid, possess equal dogmatic authority, and are equal in value as sources of dogmatic truth . …This conception lessens the validity and value of the Holy Scriptures as the primary source of Christian dogma."
I find Karmiris' quote troubling, because I do see Scripture to be the primary written source. But in any case I see Scripture as part of Tradition - a writing that was canonized and passed down- so I think Karmiris and Clendenin are focusing on a false dichotomy.

The topic of private interpretation vs the Church's interpetation reminds me of St Peter's words:
2 Peter 1: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies...

The article summarizes Orthodox and Evangelical ideas, but disappointingly it doesn't really explain, in my view, why the author agrees with one view or the other. For example: OK, Martin Luther said Scripture is below Tradition, and Orthodox say "Scripture stands within rather than above the church", but why do you feel that Luther's view was correct? Why isn't Scripture passed down as part of Tradition?

Thus the author concludes disappointingly and didactically:
Quote
To my friend who asked why I had not converted to Orthodoxy, the answer was surprisingly easy. I responded by writing back: "Because I am committed to key distinctives of the Protestant evangelical tradition."

Please note the quote's last word.  :D
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 01:05:11 PM by rakovsky »

Offline Nicene

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
By no biblical justification perhaps he means that liturgical worship isn't spelled out, that there ought be a set standard way of worship during the service. Or perhaps he means he means the content of the liturgy of the orthodox church doesn't agree with his evangelical assumptions concerning scripture and what it teaches.

Thank you.

Online rakovsky

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,885
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
By no biblical justification ... perhaps he means he means the content of the liturgy of the orthodox church doesn't agree with his evangelical assumptions concerning scripture and what it teaches.

Actually, the author of that "21st century" article was Orthodox.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,289
By no biblical justification ... perhaps he means he means the content of the liturgy of the orthodox church doesn't agree with his evangelical assumptions concerning scripture and what it teaches.

Actually, the author of that "21st century" article was Orthodox.
He was evangelical for a while and then returned to Orthodoxy, and was long married to an evangelical (she later converted).
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth