Baptist News: 5 things Protestant churches in the U.S. can learn from Eastern Orthodoxy

This feels like this guy was given the short straw on the assignment and could only think of 1 thing.

That guy looks like a real son-of-a-Baptist.

Worship style is irrelevant IMO. The problem is not style, it's content. Are the songs we are singing true? Are they teaching us while we are singing?

Can you define worship? Are you just talking about music?

True worship requires a Sacrifice.

A good argument could be made that true worship also requires an Apostolic liturgy.

As a former Southern Baptist, I urge all my brothers and sisters to pray about joining the Apostolic faith (Catholic/ Orthodox)

This is encouraging to me as no way the Baptist Church I grew up in would praise anything Orthodox. Heck, they would not even mention Orthodox.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Can you define worship? Are you just talking about music?

---

I'm referring to his comment on catering to worship style in the article.

Don't help him narrow his search through his Early Church Fathers Quote database!

Quote:

---

1. Tailoring worship style to popular culture is overrated.

For many American Protestant churches, it has become almost an article of faith that worship style needs to match popular culture. This is an effort to ensure that unchurched people can "relate" to Christian worship. That may be convincing for many church and denominational leaders, but does experience corroborate this widespread notion? While many Protestant congregations bend over backwards to fit their worship to popular tastes and trends, many of these churches are no longer growing. Orthodox churches do not even use any musical instruments in worship, yet they still have the highest percentage of adults under 30 among their adherents compared to other Christian groups.

---

Amen and amen. The formality of dressing up a bit and singing great hymns of the faith has been vastly understated.Reciting the Apostle's Creed likewise grounds a church theologically

Quote:

---

2. Life is liturgical.

Liturgy, the Eastern Orthodox term for worship, has Greek origins and literally means "work of the people." A major purpose is to form habits that facilitate a life of faith that is meaningful and good. One does not need to understand all the fine points of Orthodox liturgy to realize that our daily activities mold us. James Smith, a Calvinist theologian influenced by Eastern Orthodox thought, reminds us that even the most casual or ordinary activities, such as going to a shopping mall, attending a sporting event or just hanging out with friends, contribute to our character formation. A better awareness of this contribution can make us more selective regarding the activities we engage in and more intentional about shaping our character. This awareness can shape our spiritual formation, which, in turn, may make our churches more vital.

---

Thinking that Protestants are going to embrace the vestments/incense or stand for hours for a very formalized worship is stretching it. We like heart-grabbing sermons, testimonies delivered by preachers passionate to reach people with the gospel and we like altar calls and healing services. Likewise, the beauty of believer baptism rather than infant baptism (a sticking point for me within my church) can describe the journey of faith because it is God's relationship with us to bring us to willing submission.

Quote:

---

3. Images matter.

In its zeal to combat idolatry, much of Western Christianity removed images, statuary and art from its churches. Eastern Orthodox Christians chose a different path. Icons reflect what the Christian life is like, and one does not need to venerate them in order to realize the importance of images for worship and spiritual formation. American Christians are constantly bombarded by secular images of the "good life" on television, in magazines and on social media, not to mention shopping centers. We need to be cognizant of the power of images and look for ways to use art and other imagery in our worship and spiritual formation programs.

---

Agreed. Many churches resemble corporate or municipal multi-purpose buildings with little of the heavenly depicted in their windows or walls.

Quote:

---

4. So does beauty.

---

Obviously so.

Quote:

---

5. It's not Jesus and me; it's Jesus and all of us, living and dead.
"Me and Jesus got our own thing going; me and Jesus got it all worked out," says a popular evangelical song. This individualistic mindset, which seems to reflect much of American Protestantism, relegates the church to secondary importance after individual salvation. If me and Jesus, in this order, have it all worked out, it is not clear why we need our brothers and sisters (or even our pastors and other ministers). The link between this mentality and empty pews on Sunday mornings seems apparent.
In contrast, this individualistic ethos is quite alien to Eastern Orthodox spirituality. According to Orthodox teaching, attending worship is essential for salvation, which has a robust communal dimension. In addition, liturgy is a place where not only the living are present, but the souls of the dead are also there, strengthening worshippers in their journey of faith.
One does not need to share Orthodox dogma to realize that giving due recognition to the communal dimension and other strengths of Christian faith and worship in Orthodox Christianity can have a positive influence on Protestant churches in America. Perhaps more dialogue between leaders of these two traditions could prove fruitful for both.
In the meantime, it seems we Baptists and other Protestants can affirm again the joyous refrain of "Christ is risen!" with our Orthodox sisters and brothers as they celebrate the resurrection this Sunday

---

Then some Protestant churches need a general shakeout to eliminate abusive personality types from the clergy and earn the trust of the community around them. That is a huge problem with politically oriented pastors from either side of the spectrum in particular, and churches seem to attract abusers into their ranks.

Redstone said:

---

As a former Southern Baptist, I urge all my brothers and sisters to pray about joining the Apostolic faith (Catholic/ Orthodox)

---

Which one? And are Southern Baptists really your brothers and sisters?

Quote:

---

The formality of dressing up a bit and singing great hymns of the faith has been vastly understated

---

Naw. Every Great Hymn was the "new edgy song" in it's day. Dressing up is a "whats in your heart" thing to me. Some people need to dress up more to honor God properly and some people need to dress down more to humble themselves.

Quote:

---

Likewise, the beauty of believer baptism rather than infant baptism (a sticking point for me within my church) can describe the journey of faith because it is God's relationship with us to bring us to willing submission.

---

They both accomplish the same thing. One just puts the water at the front rather than the end. Both end in submission to God.

Point 5 is a West vs East thing and has nothing really do with the Gospel. They both have their benefits imo.

Yes, all Trinitarian baptized are in Christ, though my position on salvation is "Catholic"
Second -
I am a Catholic.
However, I will not argue against an Orthodox because I do believe, as the Church does, that they are Apostolic with valid Sacraments.

Quote:

---

You need the Sacraments and the liturgy

Come home

---

We need Christ. The Sacraments aren't needed inandof themselves, but only Christ's commandments (Do this...)

The Liturgy is a good thing, but not the ultimate thing. Do us non-denominationals do ourselves a disservice with "3 songs, give each other a high five, and listen to this 45 min sermon that only has 10 min of actual theological content" service? Of course. But we don't just bounce between extremes.

Well, for 2,000 years Christians have believed Christ to be very literally present in the Eucharist.

This is the challenge: the Sacraments can be traced to the 1st Century. How exactly is it that the Bible, a product of the discussions of people who believed that, argues against this? You know better?

Quote:

---

Well, for 2,000 years Christians have believed Christ to be very literally present in the Eucharist.

This is the challenge: the Sacraments can be traced to the 1st Century. How exactly is it that the Bible, a product of the discussions of people who believed that, argues against this? You know better?

---

You're not getting my post. I'm not claiming anything about the Eucharist. In fact, I lift it up by saying "do this" reference.

Without Christ saying "Do this..." and his words about being the bread of life, the Eucharist has no power. I'm not giving that power to the Bible. It was only the written words about these events.

I'm leaving that power with Christ and focusing on this.

What did Christ leave at His ascension?

If he left St. Peter and St. Linus and the anointed successors with, say, the power to "bind and loose," then that tells us something extremely important about the best way to now worship.

Quote:

---

What did Christ leave at His ascension?

If he left St. Peter and St. Linus and the anointed successors with, say, the power to "bind and loose," then that tells us something extremely important about the best way to now worship.

---

No it doesn't. There's no "best" way to worship other than genuine. I don't believe these verses were intended to give priests carte blanch that God confirms any decisions they make. I think quite the opposite: to raise their level of responsibility up to God himself.

And, as sad as it is, humans failed in this regard...and that's why we are here today.

Quote:

---

Your characterization of priests and "their decisions" is not accurate. I have very negative opinions about the decisions and formation of many priests over the last century. Those opinions and their collective grave evil do not overcome the promise of protection of the Holy Spirit.

Heck, the greatest of all priests, St. Peter, denied Christ thrice in His presence!

---

So you just selectively choose on your own what's "bound" and what's "loosed"?

This Scripture can't be used to defend your preferences and then ignored when you don't like something.

Nope.

The point is that Holy Spirit protects the deposit of faith and worship - the Sacraments - despite the various evils of humanity.

We see this principle in our lives - the cunning of Reason (Logos, which is Christ).
Human evil, which God does not will, is used as an instrument for God's plans.

Quote:

---

The problem is that you have this barrier of infallibility that makes it impossible to correct some of the errors, many of them dealing with the very nature of salvation. I don't begrudge you for your heresies; I only begrudge your inability to fix them, and the immutable impasse that keeps us apart. I get it - you can't change, and I respect that.

---

This is an untenable position.

Plenty of very major intra-Catholic controversies over 2,000 years -
one of the greatest of Saints, St. Catherine of Siena, argued over who the true Pope was for years with another Saint - St. Vincent Ferrer (she was correct)

Our current crisis is very grave. It's happened also plenty of times before, including when St. Peter denied the Lord. Church and anti-Church - side by side

Sacraments will endure.

edit- St. Catherine's time was quite bad, and people don't know enough about it. Kind of like how people now think politics is so heated are forgetting about Andrew Jackson and / or various mass riots in the streets, which we've had multiple instances of.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The problem is that you have this barrier of infallibility that makes it impossible to correct some of the errors, many of them dealing with the very nature of salvation. I don't begrudge you for your heresies; I only begrudge your inability to fix them, and the immutable impasse that keeps us apart. I get it - you can't change, and I respect that.

---

This is an untenable position.

---

Perhaps, but probably not in the sense that you mean. Insomuch as the church itself has difficulty distinguishing what is a "doctrine" and what is a "dogma," one could make my position untenable by claiming:

a) That's not a dogma, but merely a doctrine, and therefore subject to change.
b) That is a dogma, and here's why you Protestants are wrong.
or...the ultimate trump card...
c) I'm Catholic and I don't believe that, so it must not be a dogma, or if it is, I don't care.

All of this moves toward being less apostolic, which is the one thing they had going for them. We should each hold to our traditions, work together when possible for the Kingdom, and resist speaking of each other in "dogmatic" ill-advised ways.

I can explain the sense I mean. The reason your position is untenable is because is presumptive of a truth criterion that you don't have.

You assert that another church has errors, specifically the nature of salvation. This requires a criterion to err from.

You that others have heresies, which, I think, has two problems. First, to have a heresy in the sense you mean it -- a wrong understanding -- requires a counterpoint in the form of a right understanding, again, a criterion.

Second, heresies are not simply wrong or misguided understandings -- we all have those -- but wrong understanding to the point of schism. You can't be magnanimous or begrudge others of their schisms when you're in schism yourself.

Before you can start talking about errors, you have to establish the canon, standard, rule. If you can do that, then perhaps the discussion could begin.

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but probably not in the sense that you mean. Insomuch as the church itself has difficulty distinguishing what is a "doctrine" and what is a "dogma," one could make my position untenable by claiming:

a) That's not a dogma, but merely a doctrine, and therefore subject to change.
b) That is a dogma, and here's why you Protestants are wrong.
or...the ultimate trump card...
c) I'm Catholic and I don't believe that, so it must not be a dogma, or if it is, I don't care.

---

A dogma is simply a rational formulation about the mystery of God. It is something that can be grasped rationally, to help guide people towards something that cannot be grasped rationally. Dogmas are not true as such, because these are created words and concepts which are used to describe ineffable Realities. But they are useful for demonstrating that other rational concepts are false.

I don't have to talk about a dogma to show that you're wrong, because you don't have a criterion to demonstrate variance. Now, depending on what you're asserting as true, there may be a dogmatic reason to object. For example, if you said that Jesus Christ is a creation and not of one essence with God the Father, I would certainly use dogmatic statements of the Church to show that you are at variance from the standard of Faith.

But I've never said any of those things, and I wasn't implying them.

Quote:

---

All of this moves toward being less apostolic, which is the one thing they had going for them. We should each hold to our traditions, work together when possible for the Kingdom, and resist speaking of each other in "dogmatic" ill-advised ways.

---

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Again, you presume a standard, as if you hold the rule or definition for what is apostolic. How do you know what is apostolic, so that you can say what is more or less?

We should not hold to "our" traditions, we should hold to "the" traditions, which were taught by the apostles. In this regard, there was only one deposit of faith made. Each of us should hold to the same things, because there is only one true faith. This is what the scriptures teach us.

As far as I know, the only person so far talking about heresies and dogmas here is you.

Frok said:

---

Worship style is irrelevant IMO. The problem is not style, it's content. Are the songs we are singing true? Are they teaching us while we are singing?

---

Good question! Anybody ever see a deer panting for water? I sure haven't.

You know that's a psalm right?