On second thought, it may be that the Church itself is exactly that permanant institution and that it is an Institution rather than a mental construct, one that I haven't really encountered yet.
I think that in any circumstance or progress of thought or experience, it is often true that what we think we are learning we may end up throwing overboard in a few years, while what we really learned at that time and truly know remains with us eternally. So people like me, who talk while they are learning, often seem to make fools of themselves and change their minds a lot. That's OK.
A young man I once admired very greatly read books related to the theology of his Christian sect so voraciously that he aquired a reputation for brilliance. "What you become in these college years" our pastor warned us "is what will stick with you your whole life. You are probably not going to change your beliefs later on." I felt dismally behind.
But every now and then I would look at that young man and his quiet assurance about everything he believed and I would wonder a little. Was it possible to be so completely right all at once?
Now that same man appears to me as someone who has little original to say. He seems to be carefully climbing a step-ladder of success in a world that is essentially an ephemeral phase of the backside of God's family. He is possibly going to miss the larger part of his religion because the aspirations and assumptions he fastened on to in youth are all related to that very small part. And that is the very part that is now looking so insignificant to me. It is failing and it was bound to fail, I beleive, because it departed from something that departed from something that was (I think) on the wrong side of the first Church split. There's just so little left of Christianity in evangelicalism.
There's a lot of life ahead of us and we can't be afraid to learn. Because in our true eternal beings, in our selves that are determined, we are either lovers of truth or followers after untruth. It is impossible to learn something that is not true. It is impossible to know that which is false. We will not fall nor wander into darkness if the love of God burns bright at the center of our hearts, the spring of our beings. This is what Jonathan Edwards said and this he knew whatever else he may (or may not) have been wrong about.
21 comments:
"it departed from something that departed from something that was (I think) on the wrong side of the first Church split."
Am I right to trace this back in such a way as to read in it an affirmation of Orthodoxy as the true Church, more or less? Just curious -- that's how it struck me, but I've understood things stupidly before, and may be doing so again. And I haven't read your blog long enough to have from it a confirmative or negative feel for my conjecture. Just followed from Remonstrans, which I also found only recently.
Hi Pitchford,
You're on the right track. We are looking into the Orthodox church right now. And since I disagree with the papacy and I like the Eastern reasons for rejecting the filioque clause then I have to say the West was on the wrong side of that split. I do think the Great Schism was a cultural and religious tragedy.
After that it gets complex. I understand and am in great sympathy with the Reformation - as was the East, naturally. I think Rome betrayed us all and its corruption basically forced the split that followed. But a split is a split and it's never healthy in itself. I think the consequences of the split inherent in the Reformation gave rise to or allowed the religious confusion that our society faces right now. As protestantism fractures again and again, cults spin off of it, it embraces more and more innovation (which I consider unhealthy) and its spiritual vitality is ebbing I think we have to seriously consider the other options and not be afraid of looking clearly at what's good and what's bad in them. So far the Orthodox option looks amazingly traditional and to conservatives like me and Josh that's good news.
But as to your "more or less" clause, I'd have to say 'less' in that we haven't embraced or joined the church yet, we're not sure of what we agree with, and I'm not sure I even believe in the whole concept of "The True Church" as identified with an outward organization. It's a concept that's very old and very venerable so it has to be considered. But of all the things that religious institutions say, the things that they say about themselves are the ones that make me the most cynical or suspicious.
So there's my complicated answer to your simple question. :)
Any thoughts?
So are you struggling with the concept of the visible vs invisible church? How do you view the distinction between the two. What do you see as the "True Church?"
Thoughts? I don't know. Any I might have right now are incondite and vague. I agree in large part that there is little Christianity left in Evangelicalism, but I think there is some, not so much concentrated in a movement or denomination, but there nonetheless. When I was a fundamentalist, I thought the true Church was almost coterminous with the fundamental baptist movement. When God began to open my eyes to the truth, and I realized how much more of it was to be found in reformed writings than I had ever known, I assumed that most confessionally reformed people were Christians. Now I realize that a confessional orthodoxy means very little in terms of a genuine Christianity. Whether worshiping the Westminster standards or the unwritten fundamental standards of holiness, the product is all the same. We seize the dead forms of the past -- ah, but where is the rest? The bird's flown -- we still guard the cage, goaded on by mute fears...
Not to sound too pessimistic, though. I will believe till the day I day, that Christ will preserve his Church through every trial. I know many true Christians, at least as nearly as I can tell. But they are one or two in this church, a few in that city, etc. I think that, in all the wheatfields of denominations, movements, etc, there are a few genuine grains among the tares. But there is not one true field.
Is orthodoxy any different? I doubt it. For the first time in my life, I'm living where Orthodoxy is far and away the dominant Christian institution (Kazakhstan). I haven't seen much evidence of anything different yet. My main hesitancy in Orthodoxy would be their elevating holy tradition to a place where, practically, it carries more weight than the scriptures, as that which must interpret them. I'm not so blind as to assume that other denominations don't do that -- they all do, at some level. But at least where sola scriptura is paid lip service, the table is open for discussion (until you say too much, and offend someone, anyway).
Sorry for rambling so long. I'm hungry for a real church, and don't know where to look. Any further comments you might have on the topic will interest me.
Nathan
Sofros: As of right now, I don't see. That's my problem. I've become aware of too many integral and related questions and concepts, not the least of which is an understanding of Christian history, to feel that I'll have a real firm grasp on this very soon.
Nathan,
Please don't apologize for fully expressing your thoughts. It's helpful to know where you are coming from (Kazakhstan? No way!) when talking to you.
I'd like to hear more about your view of Orthodoxy from where you are at.
Josh and I have very similar background to you. Growing up Baptist (me in fundamentalism, he in new evangelicalism) and then seeking to go back and finding ourselves in sympathy with many reformed ideals and doctrines, especially of Calvinism of the Edwards type. But what we loved most in Edwards was that breaking in of glory into the experience of Christianity (as well as his astute observations about the psychology of human beings.)
I agree there are true Christians in evangelicalism. I believe they exist in every corner of Christendom that holds to an orthodox view of Christ.
So now we find ourselves looking in this direction. With a Church as old and continuous as the Orthodox you have to look at it from a lot of angles before you can say you understand it. The Tradition as distinct from the local church, etc.
Well, we share your hunger. It's a search and a journey and I believe its in searching we find even if our the places we look don't pan out every time.
Maybe you could do a blog post on your observations of Orthodoxy where you live? Or what you see of it?
Alana,
I don't feel like I know enough about Orthodoxy to do a post, or even discuss it except in the barest generalities. All I know is what I've picked up from observation, which has been seriously limited by my really bad Russian. But what I think I've seen is that those persons who publically identify themselves as Orthodox in some way have the same materialistic, American-entertainment-worshiping mindset as everyone else. I'm broadbrushing of course, not out of malice, but because I don't have enough data to paint more precisely.
You've sparked some curiosity, though, and I may do some reading on Orthodox doctrine, tradition, etc. I'm still pursuing the truth, and sometimes the journey leads me to surprising places.
By the way, Edwards has been very influential in my life as well. His sermon on the admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Christ is one of the most impacting brief writings I have ever read.
Oh, one more thing: we'll be flying back to the States in a week and a half, so my window of opportunity for observation is limited.
Yes, the worldliness seeping in has bothered me as I've seen it in the Greek Orthodox church, too. Not everywhere. But it's definitely seductive.
One thing that's important to remember, my husband tells me, is that the Russian Orthodox church was recently released from a terrible persecution by the Soviet Union and that it's still recovering. No one under sixty allowed to be members, etc.
Well, if you start looking into Orthodox theology a whole lot is going to seriously bother you, because I can tell from reading your blog that you are a theologically serious person. I would recommend starting with the central theology, or theology proper. I promise you will get something out of it even if you disagree with everything else they teach. The centrality of the Holy Trinity (not belief about it but the Trinity itself) is what I love most about Orthodox Theology. I'm reading "The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church" right now (by Vladimir Lossky.) I don't know that it's the best introduction out there but it's very good.
I had some trouble trying to comment on your blog, by the way.
I was going to add, but I enjoy your poetry.
Alana,
Thanks for the pointer. I'll keep your suggestion in mind. Sorry you had trouble commenting on my blog. I'm not a technologically competent person, so I can't even begin to suggest what the problem might have been. I'm actually borrowng the page from a more technologically minded friend, and whenever something doesn't work, I just assume he's changing things around, and everything will be back to normal soon. Usually I'm right in my suspicion.
Keep pressing on,
Nathan
I just thought I would tell you, we visited the Orthodox Church here in Almaty on Sunday. It was the most beautiful building I think I've ever been in, and the priests in the front were orating in authoritative tones of solemn dignity. What they were saying, however, I was not able to discern, because of the ambient noise. The church floor was packed with a multitude of people, all dressed in the latest Almaty styles (skin tight jeans, shirts that reveal a great portion of the upper chest and a narrow sliver of belly, often with an endorsement of an American hip-hopper, such as Eminem, etc.). They were shuffling around and thrusting themselves through the masses (an activity at which the Kazakh people are particularly adept, thanks to the overcrowded state of the buses here). It seems like they were mostly interested in getting around to kiss all the icons and light candles. I don't think anyone was listening to the priests, although maybe up front there were a few, but I couldn't get close enough to tell.
It was a strange combination of the beautiful and solemn, mingled with thoughtless, mindless, long-entrenched ritual, and splashed all over with a good dose of Hollywood triteness.
My inital forays into theology (admittedly inadequate as of yet) have given me the same general feeling of that which is ancient and beautiful being betrayed by later (but not modern) innovations against the truth. As if one were to graffiti the Hagia Sophia with mundane falsities.
But then, that problem is well-nigh ubiquitous, isn't it? Lately, I've thought upon and mourned the splintering of the Church and the proliferation of heresies, half-truths, and insincerities, "Till I well could weep for a time so sordid and mean,/And myself so languid and base" (Tennyson).
One thing I am sure of: the recovery of the beautiful will never happen at the expense of the truth. They are siamese twins that can never live long alone, once separated.
In your search for "real" Christianity, why don't you try searching the Bible for reality?
Oh, I agree, Pitchford, about turht and beauty - and beauty and truth.
That's a very sad picture you painted of the Sunday service there. Our experience in the states has been far more decorous, perhaps because Orthodoxy is not such a popular religion here. People dress and act appropriately. But unfortunately they don't participate as much as they are supposed to.
It is really not the Protestant mindset, but Josh and I are coming to feel that Tradition is an essential part of practical Christianity. As I said elsewhere, the Orthodox church seems, to me, to be a place where we can practice the ancient rites while avoiding many of the encrustations of the RCC. But perhaps in countries where it is as popular and native as the RCC it is as much encrusted as it's Western cousin.
Anonymous: Thank you for your suggestion. I'm going to help you be a little more precise about your terms.
"Reality" is something I've already found in the Bible, in that I consider it to be a real example (and incidentally the only real example) of what it claims to be: a scripture, a written inspired revelation of God and his Way.
'Real Christianity' is a more complex term. It is not the same as 'reality' simply considered.
Christianity is a thing in the class of things called "religions." A religion is a way - a way of thinking, feeling, and practicing devotion to a god. A real form of any religion would be it's authentic form. Therefore "real Christianity" would be the authentic Christian way of thinking, feeling, and practicing devotion to our God, the Holy Trinity.
So to sum up. While you can find 'reality' (and I have) in the Bible, you cannot find 'real Christianity' there, because the Bible is not the Christian religion. It is a a written representation of that religion.
To experience and practice what the Bible talks about (in the way the writers really meant it) is 'real Christianity.'
So 'real Christianity' can only be found in individual hearts and in the church. You can read about it in the Bible but it does not exist nor reside there.
I love and believe the Bible. I read and study it. You must pardon my hunger to go further and experience the things of which it speaks, many of which, contradictory to our individualistic protestant tradition, can only be experienced in a properly practicing church. What you see here is an honest, painful discussion of where we can find the best example of a properly practicing church. We are not all going to agree about what that is, partly because interpretations of the scriptures vary. I am considering submitting my interpretation to the Tradition of an ancient church. I need to examine that Tradition first, but on the face of it, that seems like a reasonable thing to do.
"Tradition is an essential part of practical Christianity"
Yes, as a Protestant (I suppose), what I miss most is the sense of connectedness to the ancient, apostolic Church. Perhaps you're right, but I don't know if I can bend that far in my doctrine. I would like a church that had roots in the ancient traditions, and could even boast of direct continuity with the NT church, but without the innovations that I find so troubling (e.g. chrismation, prayers to the saints, coronating Mary as the "Queen of Heaven," etc. And to be honest, I'm a little skeptical of icons as well. Not quite so much in theory, but how I've seen them used in practice).
Og course, such a church doesn't exist. Thus the problem.
Perhaps I should be more clear on the precise nature of my hesitancy with many Orthodox traditions. I can appreciate (indeed, can scarcely live without) certain classes of tradition in the Church. First, those traditions which reflect an exegetical struggling with the text, in light of heretical onslaughts. In that class I would place the ecumenical councils (at least the first six), the creedal expressions, Trinitarian formulations, etc. Second, traditions that have been brought in extra-biblically in order to facilitate the saints' struggle to live the life of faith, provided they are not then used as a litmus test of essential Christianity. Including monasticism, church architecture, perhaps even icons, as they were originally envisioned. What I cannot accept are traditions which are extra-biblical and also seen as fundamental to true Christianity. This is why chrismation in particular bothers me so much. If chrismation really is instrumental in the bestowal of the Spirit, then the logical conclusion is that they who have not been chrismated in the Orthodox Church do not have the Spirit. And I know from Romans 8 that if someone does not have the Spirit, he is not Christ's. He is not a Christian, and does not have the hope of eternal life. So then, here is a tradition, for which I find little convincing biblical support, that has the practical effect of cutting off everyone who has not submitted to it from true Christianity. I find this dangerously close to the Galatian problem.
I hope you don't mind that I've been using your blog to thrash around sloppily in my pursuit of understanding. I find that the discipline of attempting to express my thoughts in writing to another party is useful in helping to formulate them more exactly in my own mind, and is also valuable for eliciting feedback.
No, I don't mind at all. It's inexpressibly helpful to get feedback from someone who's going to be critical without being a moron. Josh appreciates it, too, he's been reading your comments.
To be honest, we were looking at the Anglican church first and I still feel that I would be more at home there. But with the insurmountable, completely shameful problems in the Cantebury communion right now, and the fact that no "traditional" or "continuing" Anglican parishes are within driving distance of us, that became out of the question. Josh, because of his military term being linked to the state of WI, cannot move for another five years.
Yes, the chrismation thing is a problem as you describe it. I need to look into it more in terms of how it's actually viewed. Because for some reason the Orthodox don't come to the same conclusion as you would think rational - i.e. Protestants and Catholics aren't true Christians and have no hope of eternal life. I think the view of Orthodox for tradition is a lot different than Catholic dogma...not sure how it all works yet but it seems to be more...flexible, for lack of a better word, than we might expect. The traditions coming from the East, it seems so far, are just not as technical and legal as those from the West. What is your view on that?
So far what I am suspecting is that when a practice is considered to be part of one's salvation in the Orthodox church, that is not the same as saying you cannot be saved without it, because they feel that they cannot limit the ways in which God might bring people to the knowledge of Christ, even if they through ignorance or confusion neglect some appointed means. What contact I have had so far with thinking (American) Orthodox leads me to think they believe that Protestants are not without Christ and the Spirit.
Even among the Catholics, the present Pope said recently that Protestants have not been denied the Spirit and salvation...or something like that.
I think your point is really important... I would not be able to deny what I know, either, and say that so many people I have known who truly trust in Christ are actually without him. I think I'm approaching this Orthodoxy question from the large, rather than the small. I'm trying to get the big picture, the overall viewpoint, before applying it to individual cases of interpretation and doctrine. Only then, I feel, can I understand what they are saying in the way they mean it.
Yes, I believe you're right that the general attitude, as far as I've read, seems to imply that there are Christians outside the Orthodox fold, but they have impediments to pursuing a deep life of spirituality. I see that as an inconsistency with their doctrine of chrismation -- but on the other hand, Christians of all stripes may have inconsistencies which, if you followed them to their logical end, could not co-exist with the gospel. If there were no inconsistencies in the minds of true believers, I don't think there would be any disagreements or divisions between them, either.
I've also begun thinking about the Anglican Church. I don't know what's in driving distance back home (North Dakota). We had been going to a Baptist Church before we came here eight months ago, but it has problems serious enough that I don't see ourselves staying (especially after our previous pastor, who actually spoke the truth, left). The only other serious options involve a one hour drive (or further), but we would certainly be willing to go that far if we found something suitable. We might not stay in ND, either.
For now, we'll keep pursuing, studying, and trusting that God will lead us where he would have us. I still love Calvin and the Reformers. They taught me to trust in God because he is God, and not because of my response to him.
Yes, that is exactly what I got from them too. It's far too precious to ever lose. I've said a number of times that I'll never surrender anything I know to be truth unless I believe that I will find it transfigured on the other side.
Josh thinks that the reformers and Edwards have a sort of wilderness knowledge of God - the result of an intensely focused inquiry into his being, a seeking him through the path of communion of spirits such as the more sacramental churches might see only in their hermits. It's a bit ironic but Josh is reading Edwards for the first time right now. :)
He wanted me to mention communism and their atheist upbringing as a reason why the people you saw might have acted that way in church. He suspects the miracle is in their being in church at all...but he's the more world-affairs/history -minded person here so I'll let him fill that out.
Yes, you're probably right about the communism. Now, it seems like nominal adherence to a religion is a way to underscore one's ethnicity. Besides the numerous minorities, the population of Kaz. is split almost equally into Russians and Kazakhs. The former are orthodox and the latter Muslim. To change is basically to betray one's family, ethnicity, people. But for most, it's just a badge, saying, "I'm still a loyal Russian [Kazakh]". Also, oil money started pouring into Almaty a few years ago, in quantities such as no one had ever seen before, so people are now drunk with the intoxicating wine of newly-acquired prosperity -- something which never mixes well with true religion.
Tell Josh that A History of the Work of Redemption is an excellent Edwards read(particularly the first two parts -- the latter is a bit too post-mil. for my tastes, but has some profitable things to say nonetheless). And also, his sermon on the admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Christ (I've linked to it from my sidebar). And also, anything he else he ever wrote :).
Thanks for the heads up; will do.
Post a Comment