Smells and Bells

A friend was recently discussing a man who had a spiritual experience which resulted in his becoming Orthodox. She said she was still waiting for her children to have such an experience. She has very fine children – all of whom are Orthodox – but in her opinion, they have not all really embraced their Orthodoxy. That may be true, but my point in relating this is that I have similar concerns about my children, and many of us have a similar question about the youth at our parish and throughout the Church.

Typically the response to this concern is to immediately start developing programs that will keep the kids affiliated with the Church. Not necessarily make them deepen their Orthodoxy, but that is a different topic. The quest is to try to make the bells go off for them – to generate the spiritual experience. I do think that their is value in this, especially with children whose parents are functionally not Orthodox ( the ones who drop the children off for Sunday school on their way to Starbucks). However, for those whose parents strive to lead an Orthodox life, I think perhaps we need to be more concerned with smells rather than bells.

Fr. Josiah Trenham in one of his talks on the Divine Liturgy, told the story of an Elder to whom a certain priest wanted to speak. The Elder refused to speak to the priest because “he smelled.”. The smell was not a physical smell, but the stench of some grave sin. At that point nobody knew about the sin, but the Elder clearly perceived it. Ultimately, the priest was defrocked. Of course, there are many other similar stories throughout the history of the Church. Similarly, there are numerous stories about these who are more spiritually developed perceiving holiness, the presence of angels, and the like. Young children, interestingly, seem to have the same ability to perceive reality. It is only over time that this capability seems to wane.

I suspect that it is this ability, or the residual ability in older children, that stands at the heart of the challenge to develop children into strong Christians. If their parents, as well as other adults involved in their formation, do not carry the sweet smell of a righteous life, but rather carry, perhaps not the stench of some grave sin, but even so much as the bad smell of a life lived too enthralled to the passions, or perhaps just a bit too hypocritically.

So, while there is much to be said for developing strong programs for our youth, the first place we need to look is to ourselves. Perhaps the person in need of a spiritual experience is us, not our children.

 

Reading the Old Testament

One of great things about becoming part of the Orthodox Church has been learning how the early Church read the Old Testament. During my time in Protestant Bible Studies, there were typically two approaches used to read the Old Testament. One either read the Old Testament by itself, to see what things you could learn from it, or one read it to gain insights into the New Testament. Typically, both were used, and they seem reasonable.

Interestingly, though, the Church never approached the Old Testament in that manner. The Old Testament, instead, is filled with “types” pointing to Christ and our ultimate salvation. This was brought to mind yesterday when flipping the channel and I ran across Joyce Meyer. Now, I realize that she is not well received among all Protestants, and she has more serious issues in her preaching than this one -but I think her prosperity gospel approach to things may be fed, to some extent, by her lack of understanding about how to read the Old Testament.

In the course of her talk, she referred to Moses and the parting of the Red Sea. She stated (I’m paraphrasing a bit here) that she didn’t know why God asked Moses to stretch his arms out over the Red Sea to help part it. She stated that it was an act of faith on Moses’ part, but that there was no purpose other than that.

Unfortunately, she is unfamiliar with the way the Church read the Old Testament. God did not ask Moses to do it as an act of faith, but rather that we might see the saving power of the cross. We know this from the first Katavasia of the Holy Cross:

Inscribing the invincible weapon of the Cross upon the waters,

Moses marked a straight line before him with his staff and divided the Red Sea,

opening a path for Israel who went over dry-shod.

Then he marked a second line across the waters and united them in one,

overwhelming the chariots of Pharaoh.

Therefore let us sing to Christ our God,

for He hath been glorified.

If she read the rest of the Old Testament in light of the New, as the Church does, I think she would have a different theology than what she has developed.

Discerning the Will of God

Recently, especially since the layoffs at work, I’ve been more concerned than usual about discerning God’s will. That in itself is problematic – I should have been more concerned about God’s will long before that, but that’s a different discussion for a different day. What I’m concerned with is how do we know what God’s will is for any given situation? Most people I know who consider themselves Christian, and who take this seriously, are concerned about the same.

Typically, the standard response is pray, and God will reveal his will to you. That is sound advice. Decisions taken without thought to prayer are likely misguided. Orthodox elders will tell you the same. An Abbess at a skete in northern California related the need for prayer in a talk she gave on this subject. However, that really only addresses the asking of God. How is it that I am supposed to hear Him? Mother Dorothea continues and shares the wisdom of various Orthodox saints and elders on that topic.

Before getting to that, though, I think it worth pondering a couple of stories in Scripture that relate to hearing and speaking with God. These stories provide the backdrop, really, to the counsel we hear from the spiritual giants of Christianity. The first is the famous story of Elijah and the “still small voice”. While God is powerful and creates the winds, and causes the earthquakes, etc., He is not in those. Rather, He comes in a still, small, voice. How, then, can we hear God when our lives are filled with noise, and activity, and even more importantly, the maelstrom that is our passions. Blown this way and that by our desires and our will, how can we stand still long enough to even be aware of God? Mother Xenia cites St. Pimen the Great who said that our will is like a wall of brass that stands between us and God. She then quotes, at length, St. Silouan as to the need for great humility to submit our will to God. So, not only can we not hear God, it may be as much that we truly don’t want to. For to do so, requires humility.

The second story is that of Moses bringing the Israelites before God in the wilderness. In order for them to even come near to God (and at that not very near), they must prepare. Moses is required to sanctify them. They must wash their clothes, and abstain from women. They must purify themselves. In the New Testament, we see the Apostles fasting and praying prior to great undertakings, just like the Israelites.

Mother Xenia says the following: “Arguing and judging come from pride, and pride immediately cuts us off from remembrance of and communion with God. St. Silouan said, ‘A cloud blows over and hides the sun, making everything dark. In the same way, one prideful thought causes the soul to lose grace, and she is left in darkness. But, equally, a single impulse of humility—and grace returns. This I have experienced and proved in myself.’” The Church has always taught that the ascetical practices of prayer, and fasting help us to learn humility and to not allow pride and our desires to rule our lives. The purpose, then, of these practices is to allow us to draw nearer to God. It is only then that we can hear that still, small voice.

The Church has also directed us to seek the counsel of a spiritual father, someone who has spent much time growing closer to God. The reason for that is all of what is stated above. These individuals have humbled themselves (one has to go find a spiritual father, they don’t advertise, that’s why St. Theophan was known as the recluse), and by that humility, they allow themselves to hear that still, small voice. Thankfully such people exist, to help keep us from the delusion of our pride.

This is a great wake up call for me.

The False Prophet

I, like many of my friends and fellow Orthodox, had mixed reactions to Harold Camping and his prediction about the impending rapture. We were amused that anyone would be so bold as to claim that which is not to be known, we joined in the myriad jokes after the prediction failed, and we were all saddened by the heart break of those who followed this man. Tragically, as we all imagined would happen, there has already been reported one suicide related to this man.

I find myself wondering why this man and his prediction captured this Orthodox Christian’s attention so much, as well as that of others. I know that one story that really struck me was that of the people who had basically given up their life savings due to this man’s teachings. Is that really what was most important, though? Or, does it reflect my still worldly mindedness. As an Orthodox, we have a fairly narrow definition of what the true faith is, and thus followers of other faiths are, to some degree or another, following false prophets. Yes, Harold Camping is a false prophet, but so are John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen. However, these other people won’t lead one to bankruptcy. Looking at Rick Warren and Joel Osteen, one imagines quite the opposite to be the case. I don’t mean this offend my many dear friends of different faiths – most of whom are sincere and loving people – more so than I have ever been. However, these other prophets are laying out a path that is different than the path to salvation that our Lord established with His Church. How much more dangerous is that than simply losing your money? As a result, do I pray as I should for all of my friends? Do I try to follow the teachings myself, and follow the path with the urgency that I should?

I take this event, and my reaction, as a stark warning to myself that my priorities are still not aligned correctly. Thankfully, the end has not come yet, for I am afraid I am like the servant who shall be found heedless:

Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight,

And blessed is that servant whom He shall find watching,

And again, unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless.

Beware, therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep,

Lest you be given up to death, and lest you be shut out of the Kingdom.

But rouse yourself crying: Holy, Holy, Holy, art Thou, O our God,

Through the Theotokos have mercy on us.

Troparion of Bridegroom Matins

Why We Worship the Way We Do

Orthodox are known for not changing much. The most modern hymn that I can think of that we ever do is around 100 years old. The oldest go back so far, that I’m not sure anyone is really certain of the age. Our worship service, itself, has undergone very little change over the last 2000 years. If a Christian in the second century were to wander into our Church, except for his inability to understand the English portions of the service (or Slavonic if he were to go to a Russian parish), I think his only comment would be to wonder how come we’ve made it so short (Orthros through Liturgy on a Sunday morning is, at best 2 1/2 hours, vs. all night which used to be the case in the early days of the Church).

I found a great article at a parish in Arizona, that explains the Orthodox understanding of what Worship is supposed to be about. I only would like to add a few thoughts to the great information there. There is one element of worship, arguably a less important element, so I can understand why Dr. DeVyver didn’t really address it. That is the element of Catechesis. Although not so much the case within the Divine Liturgy, there is a strong element of Catechesis in some of the other services, most notably that of Orthros. Although the structure is largely the same from day to day and week to week (Sunday Orthros is longer, as it has a predominant focus on the Resurrection, and additional hymns were developed for that), the text of many of the hymns change in order to express teaching about the Saints or feast being celebrated on that given day.

The wealth of teaching in these services is not to be missed. Unfortunately, in this day and age, most Orthodox do miss Orthros, and thus miss the edification that comes from this service. Given the lack of knowledge of the faith among the Orthodox laity as witnessed by recent surveys, one part of the solution would certainly be attending and listening to the hymns and readings of Orthros. I only hope to see more priests pushing this among their flock.

So what?

Okay, now that I’ve stressed the need to teach our children about the Incarnation, how the Incarnation figures so prominently in Orthodox theology, and that its unfortunate that it doesn’t figure so prominently in other Christian groups, the question remains, “so what?” Yes, we can see from the hymnography of the Orthodox church that the Incarnation is very important, but why is that? That isn’t made clear at the feast of the Nativity. However, everything in Orthodoxy is connected, in particular to Pascha. In that feast, the ultimate meaning of everything is revealed. However, shortly after the feast of the Nativity is one of the other great feasts of the Church. This feast is so closely connected to the Nativity that they used to be the same feast. Even now, the hymns of Theophany begin not very long after the feast of the Nativity, and Theophany is foretold in some hymns of the Nativity.

Although there is a lot of very deep theology associated with Theophany, there is something that we see with one of the activities associated with Theophany that speaks, I think, to the one aspect of the Incarnation. At Theophany we perform the Blessing of the Waters. In this, we celebrate the Baptism of Christ, and the fact that by his act, he sanctified the waters – all of the waters, not just the River Jordan (which experiences an annual reversal of flow during the Theophany Blessing of the Water). Every year, we repeat this process through the Blessing of the Waters. At Christ’s Baptism, therefore, we see the beginning of the restoration of creation. It starts with the sanctification of the water, and ends, at Pascha, with our own restoration.

This then, points us to what is important about the Incarnation. Christ takes on human nature to heal and restore it, and begin the restoration of all of creation. In fact, it is the teaching of the Church that this assumption of humanity is absolutely necessary in order to heal our humanity. As St. Gregory Nazianzus’ famously said, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” This restoration of creation is then seen throughout the life of the church, most notably with our many incorrupt Saints, such as St. John Maximovitch, or St. Athanasios, for instance. We act on this, but treating holy objects with profound reverence, in part because we know that God has begun the process of the restoration of all.

The Incarnation is the Reason for the Season

November 21st, 2010

I’m sitting here on a Sunday morning during the Nativity Fast, getting the book cart ready for business. Up on the stage in the hall, the Sunday School children are preparing for the annual Christmas pageant and practicing carols. Unfortunately, that is not where they should be, nor is it what they should be doing.

Today is one of the 12 feasts of the Church. As such, the children should be in class (or in the Church for a sermon), learning about the feast. In most parishes, this would be the case, thankfully, but for those that are most interested in looking like Western churches, this time is spent learning predominantly Protestant carols in preparation for the annual Christmas pageant.

So, what could possibly be wrong with Protestant/Western Christmas carols? Many (especially the older ones) range from simply cheerful to majestic. The lyrics are generally devoid of theological error. Of course, I’m not talking about Rudolph or Frosty, but rather O Come All Ye Faithful, and What Child is This.

A couple of years ago, 9.West blogged on the subject of Protestant Christmas carols. He was responding to an episode of Issues, etc., that found fault with many Christmas carols for not focusing sufficiently on the cross. At the time, I responded with a criticism that Protestant, and, in particular, Lutheran, theology is too focused on the cross. As a result, their understanding of other aspects of God, and His relationship with us, have become atrophied. My focus was on the resurrection, but as I sat there listening to the Protestant carols, I realized another aspect of Protestant theology which was weak, and this weakness is the reason I have a problem with spending time teaching Orthodox children Protestant carols. This is especially true when this time is spent during time that would otherwise be devoted to teaching them about Orthodoxy. Protestant carols generally do a bad job of expressing the incarnation. Frequently it isn’t mentioned, and when it is, no attempt is made to engage the mystery of the incarnation at any level.

Let’s look at some of the hymns the kids were practicing the morning that I first started working on this entry. The selection of carols is “O Come All Ye Faithful,” then there is “Silent Night,” “Joy to the World,” “Little Drummer Boy”, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”, “O Little Town of Bethlehem”, “The First Noel”, and “Angels We Have Heard on High”. There is one question I think we should ask in two different ways. The question is, “is there anything about singing this that would cause an Arian to feel he has gone against his faith?”. The two ways in which this should be asked is first with regard to the first verse (which is pretty much all that will be sung at this pageant), and secondly with regard to the entire carol.

For Silent Night, I’m not sure anything, anywhere in the song demands an understanding that we’re discussing God when we’re discussing Jesus. The closest might be the third verse, but that really doesn’t pass muster. For Joy to the World, the Little Drummer Boy, Angels We Heave Heard on High (one of my all time favorites, I’ll add), and The First Noel, you have the same problem. Again, the last verse of The First Noel can be argued, but its not terribly clear. O Little Town of Bethlehem gets pretty close, if you’re willing to wait until the last verse. The phrase, “o come to us, abide with us, Our Lord Emmanuel” makes it relatively clear that this song might be addressed to God. Which is good for the song, but in the children’s case, they won’t learn this verse because they never go that far. Hark, the Herald Angels Sing hits the nail right on the head, no question about it, in the second verse, “Offspring of a Virgin’s womb, veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the incarnate Deity.” Finally, after all of these carols, we get to one which unambiguously proclaims the incarnation, which is, after all, the point of the holiday.

Compare this to a couple of Orthodox hymns, or carols from Orthodox countries:

Thy Nativity, O Christ our God,
hath shone forth the light of wisdom upon the world;
for therein those who worship the stars
have been taught by a star
to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness,
and to know Thee, the Dayspring from on

high.

O Lord, glory be to Thee! (Troparion of the Nativity, Tone 4)

Today the Virgin giveth birth to the Transcendent One,
and the earth offereth a cave to the Unapproachable One.
Angels with shepherds give glory,
the magi journey with a star,
for our sakes, a young Child is born, Who is Pre-eternal God! (Kontakion of the Nativity, Tone 3).

One of my favorites, from the Royal Hours on Christmas Eve:

Today He Who holds the whole creation in His hand is born of a Virgin.
He Whose essence none can touch is bound in swaddling-clothes as a
mortal man.
God, Who in the beginning fashioned the heavens, lies in a manger.
He who rained manna on His people in the wilderness is fed on milk from
His mother’s breast.
The Bridegroom of the Church summons the wise men;
the Son of the Virgin accepts their gifts.
We worship Your birth, O Christ.
We worship Your birth, O Christ.
We worship Your birth, O Christ.
Show us also Your Holy Theophany!

Finally, the following, a traditional Greek carol:

Good evening noblemen,
may i sing at your mansion,
this day celebrating Jesus’ holy birth,

that Jesus is being born today
in the town of Bethlehem
The skies rejoice
the whole nature is happy

In the cave he is being born
in the horses’ trough
the king of the skies
and maker of everything

Again, I don’t have anything against Protestant/Western Christmas carols. Many are very pretty, and I’m sure they serve Protestant/Western theology just fine. However, the Orthodox think the Incarnation is extremely important, hence our hymnography. As Orthodox, I don’t think we should be wasting the limited amount of time available to us to instruct our youth in the Orthodox faith with hymns that are not designed to do that at all.

 

Why We Don’t “Do” Santa

Discussing the Polar Express, I felt compelled to republish this.

I mentioned in an earlier entry that we don’t do Santa at our house. I thought it would be worthwhile explaining why. My intent is not to cast a bah humbug over the day, but rather to provide one person’s view.

Initially, our intent behind not doing the Santa myth was two fold. The first was that we really wanted to focus on Christ, and things that the Church felt was important for us around the Nativity. Even more important was a concern we had that creating this make believe semi spiritual character and working hard to convince the children that he is real, only to have them ultimately learn otherwise, could have unintended consequences in other aspects of their spiritual lives.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of trouble people go through to convince their children that Santa is real. From the simpler things, like leaving out a plate of cookies that are ultimately consumed, to the more elaborate of leaving footprints outside and people coming in the house dressed as Santa, it becomes of utmost importance to lead the children to believe in this make believe character. When the children ultimately learn otherwise, they can be heartbroken.

While I realize that not every child, maybe not even most, will be terribly bothered by the revelation, I propose that something much more serious could affect all of them. If mom and dad have been so dishonest over this never seen figure, how are children supposed to accept that they are being honest about God? Children will go through enough significant struggles as they grow older. Will they automatically turn to God and the Church for help, or will they think of God as merely some nice make believe character that their parents pretend exist in the interest of getting their children to behave?

I find it interesting that most Santa related movies that I’m aware of have to do with a loss of faith. People, who, for a variety of reasons don’t believe in Santa anymore. If you think I’m wrong that most Santa movies have that as a theme, name me one that doesn’t. Miracle on 34th Street, Polar Express, Elf, The Santa Clause, The Santa Clause 2 (where one character hates things Christmas because she was lied to about Santa), etc., all have loss of faith as a theme. I think the reason is that the film makers understand that it is the Santa myth that causes people to lose faith. All of these movies feel like a desperate cry for something to believe in. I remember an incident with one of our children when they asked a teacher if Santa Claus was real. When told that he was, there was confusion. Were mom and dad wrong? Worse, did their beloved teacher lie to them?

What’s interesting, I suppose, is that I find myself in interesting company. Googling on the whole notion of Santa Claus, I found an atheist website, and then this Op-Ed piece. An interesting quote appears part of the way through the article:

I’ve amassed recollections of “finding out the truth about Santa,” and many were stories of genuine embarrassment and resentment. The systematic deception makes children feel taken advantage of or like the butt of a joke.

If all of this isn’t a good enough reason, as we became Orthodox, it occurred to me that Santa represents a somewhat misguided theology. If Santa ultimately reflects a Christian world view, then in that world God punishes us if we’re bad and rewards us if we are good. On the one hand, a sort of Pelagianism, and on the other hand a Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God scenario. Neither is really consistent with Orthodox theology.

I think it would be far better for Santa to simply fade away. After all, he is mostly a marketing gimmick, if not created by Coke, exploited by them and most everyone else. Instead let’s spend December 6th learning about St. Nicholas, and celebrating him with Church services (<self serving> like this concert that was performed after our Pan-Orthodox St. Nicholas Vespers </self serving>). Let’s leave the feast of the Nativity for focus on Christ and his incarnation, and what that means to us. You can read some hymns that might be beneficial in that study.

Anglocatholicism

One of the greatest difficulties in discussing Anglicanism is in understanding what the beliefs actually are. I recall when I briefly attempted to do an “Ask the Catechist” page on our website, that often I would get a question of the sort, what does the Episcopal Church belief about…? The answer needed a caveat about the challenges of defining doctrine in the Episcopal Church. Anglocatholicism, as a subset of Anglicanism, suffers from the same problem, although to a lesser degree.

When I first returned to the church, I had never heard of the term Anglocatholicism. Over time, of course, that changed. What I came to learn, both by reading what would become the core text of our adult formation (to be renamed the Catechumenate later on), and by simple observation, was that we were basically very Roman, both in practice and in belief. In fact, outside of Papal infallibility, and perhaps indulgences, there is nothing I can recall that would separate us from Rome. We had a Mary altar, occasionally the benediction of the sacrament, including the annual vigil before the sacrament on Maundy Thursday, and many other practices that would remind one of being in a Roman Catholic parish. In fact, in the post Vatican II era, we could be described as more Catholic than many Roman parishes. We sold rosaries in the gift shop (we never had a formal rosary recitation, although it was discussed). Even at that, we weren’t as bad as some parishes. One that I attended in London, still had significant portions of the service in Latin.

I would come to adopt the Anglican Breviary – the book of hours companion to the Anglican Missal. Both books could be found amongst more “hardcore” AngloCatholics and AngloCatholic parishes. The breviary celebrated all of the Roman Catholic Saints and Feast Days established prior to the start of the 20th century. I struggled at times with some of this – for instance the Immaculate Conception, and some of the teaching on transubstantiation which appeared in the Breviary.

My point in describing all of this, is in order to compare this information against the writings of the Oxford Movement. It is interesting to note, especially when compared to Tract 38, which 9.West quoted, the degree to which this sort of Anglicanism would have been objectionable to the early Tractarians. Of course, by the time Tract 90 came along, some of these beliefs would have been less problematic, as John Henry Newman was actively trying to make excuse for his beilefs in light of the 39 Articles, which, until the 20th century, had been binding upon Anglicans. Just a few years later, of course, he would write “On the Development of Christian Doctrine,” which would effectively justify every Roman Catholic Doctrine (and any other innovation they would seek to introduce).

John Henry Newman’s point in Tract 38 was to seek to return Anglicanism to its roots in the reformation, In 1834, at the time of the writing of Tract 38, that seemed reasonable. By 1841, at the writing of Tract 90, the contradictions both between Newman’s beliefs and the writers of the 39 articles were becoming apparent, and the contradictions between ancient Christianity and the English reformation were becoming apparent, as well.

It is interesting to note that in the late 19th century, a series of books was published called the Library of AngoCatholic Theology. In it was much of the material of the early Anglican Divines. According to the John Henry Newman of 1834, this was the stuff of authentic AngloCatholicism. When I decided that the near Roman Catholicism of 20th century AngloCatholicism wasn’t really the right path, I decided to go the way of the early Anglican Divines, and was able to locate one of these volumes vs. bookfinder (perhaps the most dangerous websites for bibliophiles). It was a book called Hammond’s Practical Catechism. I figured a Catechism was a good place to start.

Unfortunately, Hammond’s Practical Catechism, while holding a lot of “catholic” views, wasn’t entirely that way. Nor was it entirely in agreement with AngloCatholicism of any stripe. It took me all of a minute to discover that. I couldn’t remember when I was thinking about it the other day, what i ran across that convinced me of that. A review of Hammond’s work quickly led me to at least one such disagreement. Hammond, like Zwingli, believes that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. In no manner is Christ present in the Sacrament. That is in stark contrast to both Tract 38 and 90, and most certainly to 20th Century AngloCatholicism. My recollection is that there are other problems, as well.

The question in all of this, then, is, what is AngloCatholicism? Is it the nearly Roman Catholic views of 20th Century AngloCatholicism? Is it the Via Media that John Henry Newman espoused in 1834? The version he espoused in 1841? Or is it the Anglicanism of the Reformation?

It is not enough to simply assert that all of these are valid positions, as they are, at times, opposed to one another. For example, according to Tract 38, invocation of Saints and veneration of Icons is idolatry. By Tract 90, not so much, by the 20th Century , not at all. The problem is that if something is truly idolatrous, then to engage in it is quite simply not permissible as a Christian. If you attempt to take a position that is in the middle, you are still saying that those holding the Reformation view have to be wrong. So the middle position isn’t really quite in the middle. That is the situation with most of the conflicting views between Protestantism and Romanism that AngloCatholics, at least those of the Tractarian stripe, find themselves in.

9.West holds out hope that Anglicanism, specifically AngloCatholicism, might be the mechanism for ultimate reunification of Rome and the East. In other words, the Via Media of AngloCatholicism might actually be the Via Media between Rome and the East. This is a familiar view – I used to believe that myself. The assumption was that AngloCatholicism was Orthodox in much of what it believed, but of a Western flavor. I’ll look at that notion in a future entry.

Attitude Toward the Ancient Church

Virtually all religious groups that align themselves with Christianity make claims about their connection to the early Church. These claims can generally be divided into types – those that claim continuation with the early Church, and those who claim to be restoring the faith to it’s early roots.

The first question is, what is meant by the early roots. Almost always this refers to the Church of the New Testament era, and generally not a day later. Some have asserted that the Church began to fall away almost immediately after the death of St. John the Evangelist. The Anglican Church, however, has tended to make the argument that the Church continued on for a period after the repose of St. John, but later fell into error. More recently, I’ve seen writings by modern groups (most notably Reformed Baptists) that seem to imply that they, too, see the Fathers of the post-apostolic age as continuing on in the doctrine to which these groups adhere. The one thing that all of these groups have in common is that doctrine is the entire definition of the Church. That is, any group holding to the same doctrines as the early Church, are thereby members of that same Church.

Of course, “holding to the same doctrines” is a bit of a tricky question. One has to determine what those doctrines are. To some, all doctrines are contained within the covers of their 66 book Bible. Others, as I mentioned, believe that these doctrines are contained both in Scripture and in the writings of the early Church. There is little effective difference between these two views. In both cases, one needs to come to the text with an interpretive framework that helps you understand the text, and deal with those parts which are either unclear or appear to be contradictory. In both cases, as well, there is no foundation in either Scripture or the writings of the Fathers to hold to the belief. St. Paul, himself, clearly refers to teachings that are not contained solely in his letters, but that were transmitted orally. These teachings are part of the παραδοσισ of the Church. The word, often translated as tradition, refers to that which is handed down. So, the teachings of the Church are part of a larger body of knowledge that has been transmitted, or handed down, throughout the history of the Church. Yes, this includes Scripture, and the Church Fathers, but it also includes the prayers, the hymns, and also an oral tradition.

However, the Church has a much different view of itself. We find that view in St. Paul’s epistles, where the Church is described as the very body of Christ. This is not simply some rhetorical device, its a statement of fact. There is an organic wholeness to the Church. It is certainly the case that holding the same beliefs is a key component to what unites us, but there is also something more. That something more is Baptism and Chrismation. It is through this mystery (the two are done together in the ancient Church, and Orthodoxy has preserved this), that we are united to Christ, and therefore united to the Church. In the traditional forms of the Baptism service, either the Godparent or the new member are asked to state three times that they unite themselves to Christ. This, then, points to another aspect of being united to the Church. It is through our will (or those appointed to speak for us), and therefore we must have the capacity to depart as well. Historically, this, of course, has happened, and the Church has had to decide how to bring those who have left back in, if they so desire. Frequently, this is through Chrismation, as the Church has always been very concerned to not baptize anyone more than once.

So, the only way to be truly connected to the early Church is doctrinally and temporally – that is, being physically and spiritually part of that body which has existed since Christ established it. Realistically, any other approach is simply man made.