What a Normal Church Looks Like

3,177 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 8 yr ago by Zobel
Justin2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was debating whether to include this in the Biblical Pastors thread, because it's an article written by the same guy. But decided it deserved it's own topic.

Source

quote:

What a Normal Church Looks Like

This is a story about a city. There is only one church in this city. In this particular town, there are anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 people who are all part of the same church. Any Christian in this city is part of this one church. There is no believer in this city who belongs to a different church. This is an entire network of Christian people.

The fellowship they have with one another is completely overlapping. Every person does not know or fellowship with every other person, there are too many people for that to happen. But everyone knows and fellowships with someone, who knows and fellowships with someone else. The entire church meets and gathers in homes, in parks, in various restaurants for lunches and coffee, and often you can find them at the nearby lake for weekend camping. This vast network of people are gathering together and sharing life together in many different ways.

Seven days a week, during any evening, you can visit a number of homes in this town and find Christians gathered together. Because there are so many active participants, there are meetings and gatherings every single night. And anyone is welcomed to go to any one of them. These people are worshipping Jesus in these meetings. They are sharing, praying, teaching, operating in their gifts, and intensely supporting one another's personal lives.

Besides the daily gatherings, about once a month, the entire church gathers together outside at the city park for a giant picnic. This scene is incredible. There are people scattered everywhere throughout the city park. The park is completely full of people. There are, what looks to be, 2 acres of table cloths and blankets spread all over the ground. Everyone brings their own food. After a while, everyone begins to move into groups of 10 to 20 people to visit and pray for one another. This all day meeting in the city park starts around 9:00 a.m. on Saturday morning. By 6 p.m. that evening, it is still going strong.

At 6 p.m., around dusk at the park, there are still 10 or 12 Christians gathered around and talking while on the tail gate of a pick-up truck. There are also 8 or 9 ladies sitting in lawn chairs together nearby. There are still children running and playing. For the last couple of hours, there has been a children's game of ball over at one end of the park with about 15 adults standing around visiting while the kids play.When this monthly, city wide church meeting in the park is over, everyone goes back to their homes to resume their weekly activities of work, family time, and church life all during the week.

There is nothing to identify this vast network of Christians, other than the relationships they have. There is no name for this massive group. There is no sign posted anywhere. There is no building. There is no leader. But many people lead.

Most of the people who want to travel to this city to visit and participate in the church activities, usually know at least one of the Christian families who live there. But even if you didn't know any of them, it is really pretty easy to find them all.You decide to take a road trip just to see what it's all about. As you drive into town, you realize you don't know where to go in order to find these Christians. Where do they meet? What time do they meet? They don't have a yellow page ad. What will you do? It's Friday evening when you drive into town.
You stop at a local gas station and ask the clerk, "Excuse me, do you know where I would find any of the church in this town?" The lady behind the cash register replies, "Oh yea, I think a lot of them have been getting together down at the lake on Friday evenings. You could probably find them there."

Just the fact that the gas station clerk knows where "the Christians usually are" is a testimony. These people are visible, they gather in large numbers, and they are clearly identified by the whole town.

You drive out to the lake. You see a bon fire down by the water. You get out of your car and discover about 20 people singing to the Lord under the stars. You join in singing. A brother stands up by the fire and shares a brief testimony with the group. A sister shares a prophecy. Others chime in and share brief encouragements and teachings. They begin to pray for one another. It is a glorious occasion. You've never seen anything like it. They are so free, so real, so spontaneous, and so encouraging.

As the time naturally gravitates to visiting with one another, several of them introduce themselves to you. They find out that you are new to the town and that you drove out in order to plug in and meet the other people in the church. They make you aware of several other gatherings that are going on the next day. Some of them ask you to join them for an unplanned, late night supper in one of their homes. You spend the late evening sharing and talking with your new friends.

The next morning is Saturday morning. You've been made aware of a variety of get-togethers you can choose to attend. There are about 8 people going to play a round of golf. There are a few gathering for breakfast at a local restaurant. There is a prayer meeting available in someone's home. Some of the families are going back to the lake to hang out and do some boat riding and water skiing. You don't really want to miss anything, but you have to choose. "Ok, I'll go to the breakfast. Then, I'll catch the last part of the prayer meeting."

After the prayer meeting that morning, you grab some lunch with a couple of brothers and then take a nap. You are made aware of a small gathering of Christians who are planning to meet in a home later that night to worship the Lord. You attend the worship time. Afterwards, you catch up with a group who decide to do some late night street witnessing.Just about everyone you meet invites you into their home to stay for as long as you want. They feed you. They pray for you. They are sincerely interested in you, interested in your family, and interested in your life with Jesus.

You realize this all could go on for days. You are well aware that if you were to live in this town, there would be no way anyone could attend every gathering.

In the last couple of days, you've gotten to know a couple of the other Christians pretty well. You ask them a question saying, "What are your backgrounds?" You communicate to them how you are aware that this entire city has joined together as one church, but you would really like to know what denomination they all come from.

They reply, "Brother, in our attempt to take the New Testament seriously, we've purposed in our hearts to repent from divisions and denominations. There is only one church in this city, just like in the New Testament. We don't fellowship just with those who believe exactly like we do on every issue. Many of us have different convictions and beliefs on many things found in scripture, but our personal doctrines are always open-ended and kept open for discussion. We are devoted to one another. We are devoted to Christ. However, we are not devoted to our own personal beliefs and opinions that are not central to faith in Christ."

"But who is really in charge of this whole thing?" you ask. They reply, "Jesus is in charge. You would be amazed at how well He runs the church, if people will just let Him. The church belongs to Him. He designed it, He grows it, and He keeps it if we do it the way He laid out for us in the New Testament. Here in this city, when men started taking their hands off the church, all the gifts began coming forth. People who would never open their homes before, started opening their homes! People who would never speak before, started speaking! People's walls started coming down. People started to get honest with one another. People started functioning! It's amazing how it all came together. I have to warn you though, you can't be afraid. You have to learn to trust the Lord. If you get afraid and say that "it won't work", or from fear you revert to the old traditions of men to organize it, it will kill what the Lord wants to do. You have to let go of your personal feelings of needing to "know for sure" that you'll have leadership in place. You have to let go of "knowing for sure" what your group identity is or "who you all are" as a group. Our identity is simply that we are Christians in the city we live in. You have to let go of concerns about where you are going to tithe to. There are plenty of needs to give your money to, such as the poor, evangelism in our city, and to foreign missions. Trust the Lord my friend, and trust the New Testament example. God gave it to us for a reason."

You realize that the example of the church in this particular city should be true for every city in the world. No walls, no one aligning themselves with a certain affiliation, but everyone belonging to the same group. And although the Lord leads each individual to be closely knit with just a few, everyone feels they are a part of one large family in this town, and they practice it.

But how did they get to this place? How did it happen? How did they ever accomplish such an amazing feat?
It started with a few brave souls. Before they all came together as one church, those who were on staff at one particular church in the town contacted the other pastors and leaders at all the other churches in the town. Through much effort, the leadership from every denomination finally got together and had one big meeting in that town. The pastor responsible for putting the meeting together stood up and said:

"Gentlemen, we at First Methodist have called this meeting in order to share a revelation we have had. From our honest assessment of the New Testament, we find no scriptural basis to support our role of leadership at First Methodist. As men in charge of the flock, we do not deny that we do have gifts. Namely, we have gifts of leadership, teaching and shepherding. But these gifts are to be employed as any other member of the congregation should employ their gifts. We should not recognize a separation of clergy and laity or staff and non-staff.

Elders in the New Testament were given to a city, not a group within the city. Those who were appointed as elders in the early church were already elders according to the lives they lived, the spiritual qualities they possessed as men, and the spiritual authority they had that comes from God. Not because of any formal training or institutional authority. Just because a leader or pastor has a personal identity as such, does not make it so. Just because a man believes himself to be a leader, does not make him a leader. These gifts are spiritual and are from God alone.

Those of us who do have gifts of leadership, gifts of teaching, prophecy, evangelism, shepherding, or apostolic functions, should use those gifts as though we were just one of the flock and in the context of just being a regular brother.

Furthermore, it has been revealed to us through the scriptures and the Holy Spirit that the management functions and administration of the church at First Methodist concerning things such as budgeting issues, buildings, the programs, marketing, and the business office functions are all in place and are a result of the traditions of men and of our Western culture. We've discovered that these things actually hinder and stifle the natural and organic functions of the people. Because we have assumed so many roles as staff members, the congregation depends on us in ways they should not. Not only has this hindered them from fully expressing themselves in their gifts and functions, but it has hindered the general edification of the church. Therefore since the church is to in essence, run itself, there is no need for our staff positions. We are taking our hands off the church in order to let it grow.

Up to this point, we've never trusted the Lord in the church to grow the church. We've perceived the members as incapable, not trained, and not possessing enough spiritual maturity to adequately be a functioning church. We firmly believe that people are to learn and grow by doing, and if you hinder them from doing and take the responsibility away from them to function, then they will simply not function and never learn. God's design and intention is for every member to have a platform and an environment to express their gifts, no matter what they may be. We have repented of our arrogance and our control. We have fully realized that we were performing as we had been trained, and we have been acting as in the example which was passed down to us by others in leadership.

Although we have been sincere in our efforts, we were not using the New Testament as our model, but rather men's traditions and the culture of the day as our standard. God forgive us.As of today, we are resigning. We have most boldly chosen to no longer accept a salary, but we have instead decided to get regular jobs. We will still continue to function in our various gifts, but we will be re-learning how to function properly and without having to "run everything".

Our meeting formats will also change at First Methodist in order to encourage every member to participate and bring what they have spiritually to every meeting of the church. This is consistent with 1 Corinthians 14. We still may stand up and teach on occasion, but we will encourage the others to teach as well.

Also, from the example in the scriptures, we are taking our sign down in front of the building. Also our name, First Methodist, has been our identity. Our identity is changing to come in line with the New Testament. We therefore will no longer refer to ourselves as First Methodist, but we will be "the church in Cypress Texas," of which we all are part of the same group. In fact, we're selling the building we've met in because we have no need of it. The building has been an icon and representation in our hearts of establishment, stability and growth. It has also been a perverted method of attracting members. We will be meeting in more natural everyday life settings and in our living rooms.

We realize that for you to follow us in the New Testament example in these things, that many of you will have serious concerns as church leaders. We understand that you will have concerns for your jobs. Perhaps the hardest challenge for you men will be the choice of getting regular jobs. This has been the hardest choice for us. I can honestly attest to you that you will not be able to fully see the true nature of the church, nor will you fully be able to understand the things I am telling you today unless you are willing to get a regular job. The heart has a way of causing you to not understand the truth as long as your livelihood is on the line.

Another difficult question you may be asking is concerning the whole idea of how we are to meet the needs of our current modern culture with such a radical church model. How will people in our society be able to relate to such a church? How will new people be able to come and participate? Do we not have to have the traditions we have in place in order to meet the needs of our modern society?? My answer to you men is this. Why would God establish his plain example in the scriptures of the church and how it should function, only to change it for every culture? Why would he lay out the structure of the church, which is built on the foundation of the apostles, only for every culture in time to shape it and reform it? Because of this type of thinking, we now see things like homosexuality being endorsed by the church, etc. God even condemned the Israelites for taking on the cultures and practices of the people and nations around them. I tell you men : the Church should be affecting our modern world culture, not our culture affecting the Church.The pattern in the New Testament is God's design. It's what works for the church. It is timeless. If we change it or alter it, we pervert it. If we pervert it to better fit our culture or lifestyles, we diminish its power and effectiveness. What God laid out for us in the New Testament is perfect. We cannot have such arrogance to say the Biblical example is no longer relevant or that it should be compromised in some way.

Men, we wonder why the experience of the early Christians is so different from ours. We wonder why when we read our Bibles it seems so different than what we practice and experience today, yet we have chosen to meet, to function, to gather, and to lead in ways that are completely different from the blueprint the New Testament provides us with. Why would it be a mystery to us that the people in Bible times had a different experience than us?

Over time, and through much talking and prayer, others in church leadership in that city listened to the brothers at the former Methodist fellowship. A trend was set in the town. By example, the shepherds led the flock. Truly, a revolution took place in that city. All over town people began to talk about the new freedom they were gaining in Christ, and the whole thing had a snow ball effect. As people started forsaking the dead traditions of men, more people followed suit as well.

Of course, not every church leader or fellowship agreed. But over time, the majority did. Those who practiced denominationalism and division soon became the minority in the city.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ecumenism and abandonment of right teaching does not heal schism. Tolerance of falsehood does not cause unity.

Scripture tells us:
quote:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
quote:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
...
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

quote:
Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.
This person has a good heart, but this is not a scriptural teaching. Consecrated ministers are both seen in the NT and OT. Christ appointed the Twelve to be with Him and so He could send them to preach (Mark 3:14) and the Seventy to send them out with power (Luke 10). The Apostles ordained deacons (Acts 6). They consecrated and ordained St Paul and St Barnabus (Acts 13:3) who then ordained presbyters in the churches they founded (Acts 14:23) . St Titus was instructed to appoint presbyters in every city (Titus 1:5) and St Timothy is given clear instructions on how to sleect people for ordination. (Timothy 3). We have scriptural references of the Holy Spirit coming at the laying on of hands of the Apostles (Acts 8:17) and of spiritual gifts coming at the laying on of hands in ordination (Philip and Timothy), so ordination is by God and comes with power from the Holy Spirit.

There has always been an interpretive authority in our Faith: the Holy Spirit. And this authority is vested in those who are appointed, consecrated, set apart for God, chosen by Him for His ministry. We see it in the first council "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." and in the authority St Paul exercises as an Apostle.

This is nothing but a bunch of feelgoodery with an underlying danger of omitting or watering down correct doctrine.

And I can't help but plug - there is a Church that is in unity globally and has been since Pentecost: The Orthodox Church. Christ promised us that He would build His Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. If we say has ever left or ever gone then we are making Him a liar.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is how I felt reading your post:



right up until the end:

\

Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"We truly just want to love Christ and serve others, all are welcome!"

"You're wrong. God put us in charge; so we have the authority to tell you what to do."
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This made me think of a book I'm currently going through called 'Move'. It's about a study done on the state of spiritual growth in churches today. Basically, they found that at least 35% of churches surveyed were either 'apathetic' or 'introverted', and not really growing spiritually. It was, as they pointed out, more a study of the individual members of the congregation, and not so much the church itself. It's very detailed w/ a lot of numbers. I highly recommend it, especially if your church body is currently going through transition.
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
"We truly just want to love Christ and serve others, all are welcome!"

"You're wrong. God put us in charge; so we have the authority to tell you what to do."
Your second statement could just as easily be "God gave us authority to oversee his chuch and his flock, so we have the authority to oversee the church and his flock"
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
And I can't help but plug - there is a Church that is in unity globally and has been since 1054: The Orthodox Church. Christ promised us that He would build His Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. If we say has ever left or ever gone then we are making Him a liar.


You can't harken back to Pentecost without including us, and back then it was the Catholic church; which was Orthodox. Now you have the Catholic Church which is Orthodox, and the Orthodox Church that isn't Catholic.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Catholic only means universal. If we talk about schism, neither church properly has the claim to universiality in a temporal sense. If we talk about orthodoxy, or right belief, as the two differ only one can be orthodox.

The tags are a red herring. If you want to go back to Pentecost, you have the Church of Jersualem. Then the other churches, which include the Church of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constinople. Then a long time later the Roman church decides only it is universal and orthodox.

I agree with you that basically only the Roman church or the rest of the ancient church can be "The" Church. The unbroken continuity is a requirement. I just don't agree that Rome is it.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
"We truly just want to love Christ and serve others, all are welcome!"

"You're wrong. God put us in charge; so we have the authority to tell you what to do."
Your second statement could just as easily be "God gave us authority to oversee his chuch and his flock, so we have the authority to oversee the church and his flock"


Or the RCC could leave the Christians who don't want to be under their authority alone. Seems after 500 years Rome would take the hint.
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
"We truly just want to love Christ and serve others, all are welcome!"

"You're wrong. God put us in charge; so we have the authority to tell you what to do."
Your second statement could just as easily be "God gave us authority to oversee his chuch and his flock, so we have the authority to oversee the church and his flock"


Or the RCC could leave the Christians who don't want to be under their authority alone. Seems after 500 years Rome would take the hint.
We do leave them alone, how do we not leave them alone? Is the Vatican headhunting you away from Protestantism?
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm curious to see Justin's thoughts on the opposition.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"We truly just want to love Christ and serve others, all are welcome!"

"You're wrong. God put us in charge; so we have the authority to tell you what to do."
Your second statement could just as easily be "God gave us authority to oversee his chuch and his flock, so we have the authority to oversee the church and his flock"


Or the RCC could leave the Christians who don't want to be under their authority alone. Seems after 500 years Rome would take the hint.
We do leave them alone, how do we not leave them alone? Is the Vatican headhunting you away from Protestantism?
Watch out for us on LinkedIn...



BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Catholic only means universal. If we talk about schism, neither church properly has the claim to universiality in a temporal sense. If we talk about orthodoxy, or right belief, as the two differ only one can be orthodox.

The tags are a red herring. If you want to go back to Pentecost, you have the Church of Jersualem. Then the other churches, which include the Church of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constinople. Then a long time later the Roman church decides only it is universal and orthodox.

I agree with you that basically only the Roman church or the rest of the ancient church can be "The" Church. The unbroken continuity is a requirement. I just don't agree that Rome is it.
I know we Catholics get blamed for getting a bit too technical in some aspects of faith; but I think on the orthodoxy of belief; the EO are the ones who get a bit too technical. Eastern and Western Christianity have slightly different understandings or manifestations of the same belief; this is even seen within the bounds of the Catholic Church (headed by Pope Francis) between the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite; it doesn't mean we have differing beliefs. The filioque mess is another perfect example; the Eastern Catholic Churches profess the same creed verbatim that you do; I believe the same exact thing that you do as regards the importance of the Holy Spirit and it's interaction with the rest of the trinity; yet I have the words "and the son" which impacts our beliefs not in the least. You and I believe the same exact things; our liturgies are a little different (they differ even within Catholicism), our beliefs are homogenous.

I wasn't meaning the tags as a red-herring, mainly saying that I believe the Catholic Church shepherded by Pope Francis is orthodox in belief, and universal; and you have the Orthodox Churches which are orthodox in belief; but fragmented among geographical or geopolitical sects due to lack of a centralized juridical authority. Take the Pan-orthodox council hubbub going on right now, I'm surprised anathemas haven't started flying yet.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It only takes one party in a dispute to disagree for there to be a disagreement. By the historic test of "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi" you do not believe "the same exact thing" as the Orthodox church with regard to the Trinity. The Symbol of Faith matters. It was established by the whole Church and the whole Church pronounced an anathema to those who would change it. Forget wrong or right - on the face of it, we have a different confession about the Trinity. St Photios said that in spite of all of the disagreements, the only thing that matters is the Filioque, that it is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - no, rather, against the whole Trinity."

Gennadius Scholarius noted "Even as the Monophysites, though they deny ten thousand times that God suffered in the flesh, are still Theopa*****es as long as they remain Monophysites, and even though they name Christ both true God and true man, but nevertheless remain Monophysites ...so also the same must be understood here, for as long as they profess the Filioque in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans; the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what they are."

Theophylact said "If...after the dogma has been set right and the novelty replaced by older [teachings], they still hold their opinions regarding azymes and [Sabbath] fasting..., then you must become Paul in this matter, appearing to those under the law as one under the law." Nothing else truly matters except the creed.

I would be happy to discuss the Filioque with you further, but I'm not sure this is the correct thread.

Regardless, it is not up to you to tell me what I do and do not believe. We are separated by the Latin change to the creed. I am not saying you are not or shouldn't be under submission to your church - but I am under submission to mine.

//

The Orthodox Chuch is not fragmented by lack of juridical authority for any theological concerns. As I've said before, we don't subscribe to the same standards of unity as you do. Administrative unity or having a "point man" has nothing to due with true theological unity and communion. True unity is found only Christ, only in Christocentric worship. It is not found in syncretism, ecumenism, and religious platitudes that water down the potency of the Truth. What the Orthodox have is unity, represented by two pillars: Holy Tradition and our common Orthodox theology. This doesn't magically make all members (clergy or laymen) into perfect souls. Your likening petty infighting to a lack of spiritual unity is equivalent to me saying that the pedophilia scandal is tantamount to the Roman church endorsing child assault. Does not follow.

The main reasons there's so much pushback to the current Pan-Orthodox synod are:
- Not all bishops were invited (only 24). This is unusual.
- There was a significant amount of disagreement over the purpose and the prepatory documents
- There doesn't seem to be a need. Councils are to decide large doctrinal matters. What is the confusion here? What theological issue needs to be addressed?
- There is significant skepticism over the aimsm and large resistance to the current "World Orthodoxy" ecumenical overtones. The most common response I've heard about the council breaking up is "thank God". But no one is throwing anathemas, because we are in union theologically. Administrative union isn't even an aim of ours, and never has been. Bishops are responsible for their flock, and their flock only.
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
good post, I will think on this.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It was all good until the statement that First Methodist had good teachers. Methodist pastors have to detox from seminary and relearn some Bible doctrine before they can be good.
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
okay, read your post, digested it; have some questions still. Im on my phone so my post will be more direct than normal.

earlier you spoke of the two pillars of Holy Tradition and common Orthodox theology.

Can you explain where Orthodox theology and Roman Catholic theology differ, and where Orthodox theology and Eastern Catholicism differ.

Do we both possess the pillar of Holy Tradition?

Secondly, how is the Seat of Peter viewed in Orthodoxy? Valid but Schismatic? Heretical? Correct me if Im wrong, but there is no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome, correct? How can a council be held without Rome?
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
and by the way, slightly off topic but I listen to exclusively orthodox chanting while praying my nightly rosary. Odd, but I prefer it to all of the Catholic chanting albums out there.

I dont know if youve heard of Meletios Kashinda of South Africa, but hes my favorite right now

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, to answer your question I would have to agree with you on what theology and tradition mean.

Properly the Orthodox church recognizes only three theologians: St John the Divine, St Gregory Nazianzus, and St Symeon. This is because our understanding of theology is essentially Christocentric, and we humble ourselves before God by recognizing it is not within our ability to approach Him. Divine vision or Theoria is a grace that comes from God, and the ability to write and express this is yet another gift. A Theologian has both and this is a rare thing indeed. True Theology is sourced in Holy Tradition - it explains out from spiritual experience which reveals the very substance of the study of God.

I had an email conversation relating to this with a bishop some time ago. I'm going to put an excerpt here.
quote:
Someone who struggles for illumination would approach the question of how virtue and sin are related to our deification in Christ...not from thought, but from experience. This is probably why even Aquinas, the quintessential Scholastic, whose theology molded Barlaam, in the end came to the striking conclusion that all of his "correct" arguments were ultimately "straw." That does not mean that thinking correctly is wrong; it simply means that it is inadequate and is not produced in the same way that correct thought gained from experience is. The crucial issue is the source and consequence of thought, not the tightness of the argument by which one conveys it. Theology at the level of the intellect is mere belief and is secondary and not spiritually fecund. The theology of the Trinity, for example, is ultimately not subject to the intellect; it is true only when one theologizes from "within God" and from an experience of His Trinitarian Nature in three Hypostases. Indeed, St. Gregory says, in this respect, that trying to pry into the mystery of the Trinity with the mind alone can drive one mad. One must experience the mystery of God In three Hypostases to expound on it.
He continues in that light..
quote:
Father Florovsky...said, when asked about the correction of the Creed among western believers as an adequate step to Orthodoxy, simply reciting the Creed correctly is not the same thing as understanding what it symbolizes. This is adequately demonstrated in the fact that westerners speak of it as the "Creed," whereas Orthodox, quite technically, should call it the "Symbol of Faith", as the Fathers who composed it called it (and as it is known in most Orthodox traditions: , in Russian, Simbolul Credinei, in Romanian, etc.). The word "symbol" serves to signal that we must experience the words. They are not an oath or a confession of Faith alone, but symbolize our experience of what is transcendent of words.
With that firmly in mind, let's address the topic at hand. The heresies in the church ultimately are dangerous for one reason: they wind up either being directly Christological or have Christological implications. Because our faith, grace, movement, everything flow from Him, Christological heresies are deviations from the Church, which has Christ as the only High Priest, the Head...which means, as we separate from Him, there are always consequences. To that end, adherence to Holy Tradition is both part of theology and part of practice.


Holy Tradition is not limited to this prayer or that prayer, this service or that, an administrative structure or "something we've always done". Holy Tradition is what St Paul spoke of, paradoseis, "That which has been passed down". He says to hold firmly to it, whether it was traditioned by letter or word of mouth. What was contained in his letters, what was he teaching? The Gospel itself. Holy Tradition is the sum total of knowledge about God, it encompasses the Scriptures, pious traditional practice, everything. Every word that is inspired by truth adds to the total without adding anything new, because the Revelation happened, the Word became Flesh, He was here. St Vincent of Lerins says "Christian doctrine should follow the same laws of progress [as the growth of a human], so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits." Holy Tradition can't be divided, it can't stray from what it is - that is, expression of Truth.

The only way to answer whether anyone shares in Holy Tradition is to test it by the means St Vincent proclaims: "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

It's difficult, then, to start talking about where east and west differ in tradition, because I would run the risk of mutilating the body of Christ for my own self-love and lack of humility, to paraphrase St Theophylact. But, wherever there is a difference there is a danger of separation.

The Symbol or Creed is a particularly troublesome because it creates a change to an amazing and deeply profound mystery - that of the Trinity itself. Can you confess to knowledge of the Trinity? I can't. But not only does St Gregory, he and the others at Nicaea were able to express it with precise, sharp language, in a way that not only was true but effective at answering both heretical controversy (Arius) and philosophical speculation (Eunomius). Can you improve on St Maximos? I can't.

quote:
For we believe in a monarchy that is neither begrudging of its bounty (in the sense of being restricted to a single person), nor disorderly (in the sense of being poured out ad infinitum), but which is constituted by a Trinity that is equal in honor by nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "whose wealth is their identity of nature and the single manifestation of their splendor," and whose "divinity is neither poured out beyond these three, lest we introduce a multitude of gods, nor bounded within them, lest we be condemned for poverty in divinity."

This is not, however, a causal explanation for the cause of beings, which is itself beyond all being, but the demonstration of a pious opinion about it, since the Godhead is a Monad (but not a dyad), and a Trinity (but not a multitude), for it is without beginning, bodily form, or internal strife. For the Monad is truly a Monad: it is not the origin of the things that come after it, as if it had expanded after a state of contraction, like something naturally poured out and proliferating into a multitude, but is rather the inherently personal reality of the consubstantial Trinity. And the Trinity is truly a Trinity, not the sum of a divisible number, (for it is not an aggregation of monads, that it might suffer division), but the inherently essential subsistence of the three-personed Monad. The Trinity is truly a Monad, for such it is; and the Monad is truly a Trinity, for as such it subsists, since there is one Godhead that in essence is a Monad and in subsistence a Trinity.
Further, St Mark of Ephesus, St Photios, St Theophylact, and St Gregory Palamas all wrote on the dangers of the implications of the filioque, and the dangers of the resulting philosophy and doctrinal outflows (Thomism etc). So I must let the illumined talk about illumined things. I trust St Gregory and those at Nicaea. In this, we are separated tradition against tradition - 325 AD against 1054 AD.

////////////////////////////

quote:
Secondly, how is the Seat of Peter viewed in Orthodoxy? Valid but Schismatic? Heretical? Correct me if Im wrong, but there is no Orthodox Patriarch of Rome, correct? How can a council be held without Rome?
Well, St Peter didn't just found the Roman Church. The Episcopacy of Antioch also traces its Apostolic succession to him. Yet Rome gives no primacy to Antioch. So, he is viewed as one of the apostles, a great saint, the Rock of the Church. Most Orthodox churches have an icon of him and St Paul embracing somewhere or other. As for the central authority, I would say that near as I can tell the doctrine of papal supremacy is an innovation. I've seen all the arguments, I don't particularly find them compelling. I do think that the view of the Roman Bishop as "The Vicar of Christ" is borderline heretical...

To quote Orthodox wiki:
quote:
It is the belief of Orthodoxy that Christ is the only priest, pastor, and teacher of the Christian Church. He alone forgives sins and offers communion with God, his Father. Christ alone guides and rules his people. Christ remains with his Church as its living and unique head. Christ remains present and active in the Church through the Holy Spirit.

Through the sacrament of holy orders bishops give order to the Church. Bishops guarantee the continuity and unity of the Church from age to age and from place to place, that is, from the time of Christ and the apostles until the establishment of God's Kingdom in eternity. Bishops receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to manifest Christ in the Spirit to men. Bishops are neither vicars, substitutes, nor representatives of Christ. It is Christ, through his chosen ministers, who acts as teacher, good shepherd, forgiver, and healer. It is Christ remitting sins, and curing the physical, mental, and spiritual ills of mankind.
Bishops are responsible for their flocks. No bishop has authority to interfere with another bishop. Spiritual authority ends with a bishop, there is no higher "rank". So, I see the bishop of Rome as another bishop. No more, no less... just like any other bishop, including the MP or EP.

I think if there were to be another Ecumenical Council, Rome would need to be there. If there were to be another, God willing it would unite the church. Not the false union of syncretism and ecumenism, but a true theological and spiritual union. To do so, Rome must be there. As a note, even Arius was at Nicaea. Ecumenical councils are to correct errors and heal schisms with all of the bishops of the church together speaking as the church, for the laity.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sigh. I'm not sure any of that was coherent.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
Catholic only means universal. If we talk about schism, neither church properly has the claim to universiality in a temporal sense. If we talk about orthodoxy, or right belief, as the two differ only one can be orthodox.

The tags are a red herring. If you want to go back to Pentecost, you have the Church of Jersualem. Then the other churches, which include the Church of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constinople. Then a long time later the Roman church decides only it is universal and orthodox.

I agree with you that basically only the Roman church or the rest of the ancient church can be "The" Church. The unbroken continuity is a requirement. I just don't agree that Rome is it.
I know we Catholics get blamed for getting a bit too technical in some aspects of faith; but I think on the orthodoxy of belief; the EO are the ones who get a bit too technical. Eastern and Western Christianity have slightly different understandings or manifestations of the same belief; this is even seen within the bounds of the Catholic Church (headed by Pope Francis) between the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite; it doesn't mean we have differing beliefs. The filioque mess is another perfect example; the Eastern Catholic Churches profess the same creed verbatim that you do; I believe the same exact thing that you do as regards the importance of the Holy Spirit and it's interaction with the rest of the trinity; yet I have the words "and the son" which impacts our beliefs not in the least. You and I believe the same exact things; our liturgies are a little different (they differ even within Catholicism), our beliefs are homogenous.

I wasn't meaning the tags as a red-herring, mainly saying that I believe the Catholic Church shepherded by Pope Francis is orthodox in belief, and universal; and you have the Orthodox Churches which are orthodox in belief; but fragmented among geographical or geopolitical sects due to lack of a centralized juridical authority. Take the Pan-orthodox council hubbub going on right now, I'm surprised anathemas haven't started flying yet.


Related:

http://nftu.net/ecumenical-patriarchate-bishop-at-council-in-crete-proclaims-orthodoxy-not-church-of-the-creeds/
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, saw that. I got like fifty emails about it. It's a really scandalous thing for him to say.

*shakes head*. Ecumenists, man, y'know?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read it and shrugged. Granted, I didn't see anything *but* that article..but it seems like there are a hundred ways to backpedal from that...namely, excluding those who confess the filioque.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh, I don't think so. He's saying heterodox, as in, Catholics and Protestants. There's a very strong ecumenical current right now. No different than the Pope praying with charismatic catholics and evangelicals like Luis Palau, Kenneth Copeland, James and Betty Robison. The Pope wants unity. The EP wants relevance. The danger is syncretism - just like the Pope praying at the Blue Mosque.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.