Which Path to Church Unity? Recognition vs. Reception

monastery-church

From time to time, my friends and I get into a discussion about Christian unity.  Anglicans and Roman Catholics seem to be especially eager to reunite with the Orthodox and I have to explain why such efforts are difficult, if not improbable.  This position is often met with frustration and perplexity: Why can’t we just be one?  What’s the hang up?  I began to notice that we seem to be speaking past each other.  As I reflected on this impasse I realized that we were operating from different paradigms.  One is what I call the “recognition” paradigm and the other, the “reception” paradigm.

The recognition paradigm involves the mutual recognition of the validity of the other church’s baptism, their clergy’s ordination, their doctrines, and allowing for inter-communion among their members.  The reception paradigm involves one church body accepting the other church’s doctrines and practices as normative, and being received or incorporated into the other church body.  Understanding the difference in paradigms can go a long way in helping Christians understand each other.

Invisible or Visible Church?

The question of church unity depends on how we understand the Church.  When I was a Protestant Evangelical I was taught that there was the visible local congregation and the invisible universal capital “C” church which consists of all true “born again” Christians.  Thus, the ideal Church existed in heaven above all the scandalous divisions among Christians here below.

But when I reflected on the Apostle Paul’s teachings in I Corinthians 12 about the body of Christ I began to see a contradiction between what Paul taught and what modern Evangelicals believed.  An invisible body is essentially a ghost, not a genuine body.  This notion of an invisible body of Christ also ran contrary to I John 1:1-3 which taught that Jesus’ tangible and visible body was the core of the Gospel.  This led me to question whether Evangelicalism’s invisible capital “C” church was theologically sound.

I began to move towards the idea of a visible Church as I started reading about the early Church. I was haunted by Irenaeus of Lyons’ description of the early Church:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.  (Against Heresies 1.10.2; emphasis added)

The early Church shared the same faith and worship all across the Roman Empire.  This was so different from Protestantism’s many denominations.  The early Church was remarkably free of denominationalism, why wasn’t the same true of Protestantism?

I was also struck by the early Christians’ emphasis on the importance of belonging to the visible Church.  Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.  (On the Unity of the Church §6)

My view changed further as I reflected on the Nicene Creed’s line: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”  The word “one” means that there is only one Church, not two churches, nor two halves.  Nor does it mean the branch theory Anglicanism proposes or the multitude of denominations as is the case with Protestantism.  The problem with the Anglican branch theory is that it substitutes the church catholic with the church comprehensive.  Anglican comprehensiveness superimposes liturgical uniformity on doctrinal pluralism.  Because there is no precedent for this in the early Church, this approach is highly suspect.  Likewise, I began to see that if one took the idea of the visible Church seriously then Protestant denominationalism is like Humpty Dumpty all broken up in pieces waiting for someone to make him whole again.

In Orthodoxy I encountered a different paradigm: the Orthodox Church IS the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.  Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church wrote:

The Orthodox Church in all humility believes itself to be the ‘one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, of which the Creed speaks: such is the fundamental conviction which guides Orthodox in their relations with other Christians.  There are divisions among Christians, but the Church itself is not divided nor can it ever be. (p. 307)

For Orthodoxy there has always been one Church.  There may have been people and groups that fell into heresy and schism: they have left the Church but the Church always retained her unity.  A leaf may fall from a tree or a branch may break off, but there still remains one tree.  Theologically speaking, it is heretical to believe that where there was one Church there is now two or more churches, or that the one Church is now broken into several fragments, or that one Church is now invisible.  For Orthodoxy the one Church has never been lost.  It has never gone away because it is here in the Orthodox Church.

Many Western Christians are offended by the Orthodox position.  They interpret this to mean that Orthodoxy is superior to other religious traditions, or that God’s grace is found only in Orthodoxy and absent outside.  The irony of the Orthodox understanding of visible church unity is that it has been regarded as schismatic, especially by Protestants!  This can be seen for example in Gordon-Conwell adjunct professor Preston Graham Jr.’s paper on ecumenism.  Of the Orthodox understanding he noted:

This option seeks to express visible unit by limiting the church to what is in reality only one denomination or “tradition” based on one interpretation of the meaning of apostolic order/succession such as to exclude all dissenting views of apostolic order/succession. The sum effect of this option is to seek after visible unity by means of schism! (p. 26)

Protestant Egalitarianism

Prof. Graham’s rejection of Orthodox ecclesiology is rooted in Protestantism’s almost dogmatic insistence upon egalitarianism.  There is a certain appeal to Protestantism’s ecclesial egalitarianism; all churches are equal therefore Orthodoxy is just one denomination among many.  This insistence on the equality of all church bodies likely stems from the Reformers’ rejection of the Roman papacy.  It also conforms to the modern mindset which favors individual liberty and equality for all.  If all men have an inherent right to an equal liberty, who’s to say that one Church structure and Tradition should be favored over any other?

Protestant ecclesial egalitarianism can also be found in the Anglican branch theory.  An interesting take on the branch theory is the stance that no one branch is the true Church therefore we all need each other.  There is a certain humility in this stance but it also opens the door to theological relativism.  It is a sad fact that Anglicanism today is theologically incoherent and increasingly fractured.

In addition to Protestant ecclesial egalitarianism there is corollary epistemological egalitarianism.  This takes the form of all Christians being equal with respect to the interpretation of Scripture.  This is a consequence of the Reformers’ rejection of the papacy.  In light of the supremacy of Scripture (sola scriptura) they feel free to reject or disregard what they call “manmade doctrine.”  More recently, Protestant egalitarianism took a postmodern turn with the Emerging Church movement criticizing the traditional church’s “captivity to Enlightenment rationalism.” (see O’Brien 2009)  The Protestant disbelief in a supernatural capital “T” Tradition makes discussion of reunion highly problematic.  Here we see two disparate paradigms for the source of doctrine.  For Protestants it is Scripture Alone; the church plays an auxiliary role but not a determinative role in the making of doctrine.  The belief that there is no capital “T” Tradition, only manmade traditions, implies a disbelief in Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church (John 16:13).

But for Orthodoxy the Church is the recipient and guardian of Apostolic Tradition.  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit she preserves and expounds Scripture for the generations to come (John 14:26, Ephesians 4:11).  Theological controversy is best settled through the conciliar method.  The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 provided the precedent for the Ecumenical Councils.  Just as the Jerusalem Council was guided by the Holy Spirit, so also the Ecumenical Councils.

Some of my Anglican friends are appreciative of small “t” tradition, but they view certain Orthodox positions, e.g., Mary as the Theotokos or the veneration of icons, as too extreme.  They see themselves as a moderating center between Orthodoxy and low church Evangelicalism.  But I noticed that like their low church brethren, Anglican Evangelicals reject all supernatural notion of Apostolic Tradition.  The presupposition of sola scriptura held by Protestants, whether low church or high church, constitutes a major obstacle to church reunion.  If Anglicans desire reunion with Orthodoxy they need to be willing to renounce sola scriptura and embrace the very same Holy Tradition passed on by the Apostles.

Scripture Alone does not exclude other sources like ancient church councils and church fathers.  Evangelicals seeking to engage Orthodoxy are often enthusiastic practitioners of ressourcement.  They appropriate from the early Church while blithely ignoring its authority.  This cherry picking approach is fundamentally flawed.  Augustine of Hippo summed up the matter aptly when he wrote:

If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe but yourself.

Some Evangelical pastors love to pepper their sermons with quotations from early church fathers but they do this selectively.  Few Protestants have come to grips with the fact that while they embrace certain church fathers as individuals, they ignore the fathers’ Church.  For example, Augustine wrote:

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.  (Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Manichees, Chapter 5)

Here Augustine was warning against an individualistic Christianity divorced from the visible Church.  This is something that Ancient-Future Evangelicals are reluctant to grapple with.  So my question to Protestants seeking church unity is: Are you willing to put sola scriptura on the table?  In a Facebook thread I described what this approach would entail:

If you really want to put sola scriptura on the table consider whether you would be willing to accept the Council of Nicea’s Creed as authoritative, binding on all Christians, and an infallible guide for understanding what Scripture teaches. For me this conciliar hermeneutics provides the basis for theological unity. A departure from conciliar hermeneutics will result in doctrinal pluralism and relativism. Accepting this position wouldn’t necessarily make you Orthodox but it would provide for a common basis for discussion with Orthodox Christians.

It is good to see Evangelicals develop an interest in the church fathers and the early liturgies.  I would also encourage them to learn from the way the early church fathers read Scripture and to see how the conciliar hermeneutics differ from later Protestant hermeneutics.  A patristically informed biblical hermeneutics can help build bridges between Evangelicals and Orthodox.  (See Scot McKnight’s posting “Patristics and the Bible.”)

Horizontal and Vertical Unity

There are two critical dimensions to church unity.  Horizontal church unity consists of unity among churches across space; vertical church unity consists of unity across time – being united with the ancient churches founded by the Apostles.  Key to vertical unity is apostolic succession through the office of the bishop.  It is through the local bishop that the local Orthodox parish is linked to the early Church.  Reading the writings of the early church fathers or using early liturgical texts do not suffice for vertical unity.  The office of the bishop is one key difference between Protestant and Orthodox approaches to unity.

For Orthodoxy horizontal and vertical unity are both critically important.  They are found in the Eucharist and in the bishop who presides over the Eucharist.  Receiving Communion in Orthodoxy means sharing the same faith as other Orthodox Christians around the world today.  And through its bishop the local Orthodox parish can trace a direct historical link to the “breaking of bread” mentioned in Acts 2:46!

Christians interested in church unity need to understand Orthodoxy’s distinctive understanding of Tradition.  Apostolic Tradition is key to understanding Orthodox ecclesiology.   Bishop Kallistos Ware recounted Father Lev Gillet’s definition of Orthodoxy:

An Orthodox is one who accepts the Apostolic Tradition and who lives in communion with the bishops who are the appointed teachers of this Tradition.  (The Inner Kingdom p. 14; italics in original)

The key here is the crucial role played by the bishop in Apostolic Tradition.  At the time an Anglican, Ware found this to be an eye opener.  He recounted:

Orthodoxy, so I recognized in a sudden flash of insight, is not merely a matter of personal belief; it also presupposes outward and visible communion in the sacraments with the bishops who are the divinely-commissioned witnesses to the truth (The Inner Kingdom p. 15; emphasis added).

So with respect to Orthodoxy’s claim to be the true Church, the question is not superiority versus inferiority, but rather fidelity to and continuity with Apostolic Tradition.

In the early Church the bishop was more than an administrator, as the successor to the Apostles he presided over the Eucharist and guarded the doctrinal purity of the Church. This understanding of the crucial role of the episcopacy to the integrity and unity of the Church is an ancient one.  Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

This is true Gnosis: the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient institution of the church, spread throughout the entire world, and the distinctive mark of the body of Christ in accordance with the succession of bishops, to whom the apostles entrusted each local church, and the unfeigned preservation, coming down to us, of the scriptures, with a complete collection allowing for neither addition nor subtraction, a reading without falsification and, in conformity with the scriptures, so interpretation that is legitimate, careful, without danger of blasphemy. (Against Heresies 4.33.8; emphasis added)

Augustine had a similar high view of the episcopacy.  He wrote:

The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.  (Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Manichees, Chapter 5; emphasis added)

Many Protestant churches do not have bishops or if they do have bishops are unable to trace an unbroken lineage back to the Apostles.  The concept of apostolic succession is alien to Protestant theology.  Much of the efforts at church unity by Protestants have been focused on horizontal unity with little attention given to vertical unity.  This is the greatest flaw in the mutual recognition approach to church unity.  In its pursuit of horizontal unity it has sacrificed vertical unity.

A local Orthodox parish cannot modify its liturgy or doctrine unilaterally.  If a local Orthodox parish were to do so in order to have unity with their Protestant neighbors they will have severed their connections with the Orthodox Church worldwide not to mention their ties with the early Church.  Moreover, no Orthodox bishop would permit a local parish to stray from Apostolic Tradition.  The bishop’s job is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Church.

There are two types of church bodies: those whose episcopacy can claim linkage to the original Apostles (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the Non-Chalcedonian churches) and those whose leadership cannot make that claim (Protestantism).  Recognition to one degree or another is possible with these church bodies that can claim historic ties to the early Church (see Ware The Orthodox Church pp. 311-316).  But in the case of Protestants who have broken off from the papacy recognition is ruled out as an option.  This means that union with the Orthodox Church is through reception.

Western Ecumenism

It seems that for Western Christianity church unity is a problem that needs to be solved, that church unity has been lost and needs to be restored.  There seems to be a certain eagerness and anxiety in the West’s endeavors to achieve unity with Orthodoxy.  When it comes to unity among Christians two important issues need to be addressed: (1) the nature of the unity we seek and (2) and the path we are to take to get there.

For example, my Anglican friends insist that they are part of the “catholic church” confessed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.  They note that they use the “same” Nicene Creed as the Orthodox and that they too can claim apostolic succession.  In the course of numerous discussions I began to realize that while my Anglican friends don’t hold to Orthodox doctrine or follow Orthodox practices, what they want is for Orthodoxy to recognize the validity of their Anglican doctrines, rites, and clergy.  In other words, they are seeking mutual recognition between Anglicans and Orthodox even with the disparity in doctrine, worship, and polity.

Mutual recognition is also the strategy that Roman Catholics are using with Orthodoxy.  Pope John Paul II adopted the branch theory when he spoke of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as two lungs breathing together.  They are not asking any changes in Orthodox doctrine and practice; “all” they are asking for is for Orthodoxy to come under the authority of the Bishop of Rome which for Orthodoxy is a deal breaker.

Related to the mutual recognition paradigm is interfaith dialogue.  Many in the ecumenical movement approach interfaith dialogue much in the spirit of labor versus management negotiations: We will give a little on this, if you give a little on that. They believe that doctrine, worship, and polity are all “on the table.”  Another ecumenical tactic is to redefine or reframe theological issues so that both sides, once at odds with each other, can now sign a joint statement.  Orthodox priest Georges Florovsky called this “doctrinal minimalism.” This approach to ecumenism is based on an ecclesial pragmatism and theological relativism, or a theological reductionism that seeks to frame doctrine in broadest possible terms.

But for Orthodoxy Holy Tradition is the fullness of the Faith and therefore not negotiable.  The Church is not a social construct but a divine creation founded by Christ himself (Matthew 16:18).  Thus, one of the major impediments to ecumenical dialogue is that we differ significantly on the goal (the kind of unity we seek) and the means (the path to unity).

Christian Collaboration in a Pluralistic Society

There are two kinds of goals for Christian unity.  One goal is Christian unity in the form of one family.  The family model of Christian unity is based on the assumption that we are all related to one another and that we live under the same roof.  Given the Orthodox understanding of church unity, union with Protestants through the recognition paradigm is unfeasible.  The only viable path to unity is through reception.

But what if Protestants are not ready to give up their core Protestant beliefs, what then?  I suggest that there is an alternative approach to Christian unity available to Orthodox and non-Orthodox.  That is Christian unity in the form of being friendly neighbors.  We live next door to each other but we live under separate roofs.  We coexist peacefully and work cooperatively on important projects in the name of Christ.

We need to encourage and support friendly cooperative relations across the Christian traditions.  We can respect each others’ different traditions as we seek to work together for a Christian witness in a pluralistic, post-Christian American society.  The annual March for Life in which Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox come together is a good example interfaith cooperation.

In Hawaii I am happy to be part of a monthly get together of “mere Christians” comprising Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians.  We come together in Christ’s love from our different church traditions for a common meal and a talk on faith and culture.

Unity through Coming Home

What is the reception method like?  In the 1970s a group of Evangelicals became interested in the early Church.  They discovered to their great surprise that early Christian worship was liturgical and sacramental so they became liturgical and sacramental in their worship.  They found out that the early Church was creedal so they adopted the Nicene Creed.  Along the way they found out the early Church had priests and bishops, so they ordained each other as priests and appointed their own bishops!  They even went so far as to make altars and put up tiny postcard size icons behind their altars.  They thought of themselves as “orthodox” until they came face to face with Eastern Orthodoxy.  Peter Gillquist tells the story how this group of Evangelicals was received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church in his book Becoming Orthodox.  But in terms of numbers this paled in comparison with the reception of some twenty thousand Uniates into Orthodoxy in the late 1800s.

There is a great hunger among Protestants today for the early Church and for church unity.  This has led to many rediscovering the early church fathers and seeking to bring back liturgical worship.  This hunger for ancient Christianity manifested itself in the 1800s in the Mercersburg Theology in the US and in the Oxford movement in England, and more recently in the Federal Vision movement and the Ancient-Future worship movement.  This recent enthusiasm for church unity and the ancient faith is very commendable but carries a high price tag.  If one wishes to enter into Eucharistic unity with the ancient Church one must be prepared to give up aspects of Protestantism that are at odds with the ancient Christian Faith.  Reception should not be viewed as an obstacle but an open door.  Thousands of Protestants have already taken this bold step and hopefully many more in the days to come will unite themselves with the one Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.


Other articles:

Former Church of England priest Michael Harper‘s conversion story

A Calvinist Anglican Converts to Orthodoxy” Interview: Joseph Gleason with Mark Bradshaw — Journey to Orthodoxy (24 October 2013)

Episcopal congregation embracing Orthodox faith” by Carla Hinton NewsOK (7 July 2007)

St. Alexis Toth – Confessor of the Orthodox Faith in America

Service Text: “Service for the Reception of Converts” (denver.goarch.org)

About these ads

18 thoughts on “Which Path to Church Unity? Recognition vs. Reception

  1. You wrote: “Mutual recognition is also the strategy that Roman Catholics are using with Orthodoxy. Pope John Paul II adopted the branch theory when he spoke of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as two lungs breathing together. They are not asking any changes in Orthodox doctrine and practice; “all” they are asking for is for Orthodoxy to come under the authority of the Bishop of Rome which for Orthodoxy is a deal breaker.” This is not entirely true regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in a re-united Church. Perhaps the deeper issue is how Rome and Orthodoxy view the schism. Rome sees the schism as being within the Church. Orthodoxy views the schism as being from the Church. To that end, Rome has made clear that the authoritative version of the Creed is that of the Council of Nicaea (without the filioque), has said that the way forward is to go back to the role of the primacy as practiced prior to 1054, and has invited the Orthodox to address the role of the Bishop of Rome in a re-united Church. The problem is that Orthodoxy does not speak with one united voice. The Greeks see things one way and the Russians another. The recent response of Moscow toward Primacy seemed more about “putting the Ecumenical Patriarch in his place” and claiming a primacy of numbers, than responding to the Pope’s invitation for a way forward. The total non-canonical situation of the Orthodox Churches in America begs for someone with acknowledged authority to solve the local problems as the locals cannot do that themselves. Sure, the Anglicans dream of the “branch theory” just as the Orthodox dream that the Orthodox Churches in America are canonical in our ecclesiology! “Physician, heal thyself!” comes to mind. Finally, as uncomfortable as it is for all of us, the prayer of Jesus that his Church be one compels us to keep trying with humility and forgiveness to fulfill His prayer.

    • Greetings! Could you inform me as to your church affiliation? And the location of your diocese? That would help me in my response to your comment.

      Thank you.

      Robert

      • Dear Sir:

        I checked the Directory of Bishops provided by the Assembly of Canonical Bishops of North and Central America, and I was not able to find your name there. Please see: http://assemblyofbishops.org/directories/bishops/ This leads me to conclude that you lack canonical standing or that you belong to another faith tradition. I will therefore regard your comments above as expressing a personal opinion and not that of a religious hierarch.

        Regretfully,

        Robert

        • Dear Robert,

          Old Calendar. Are not all opinions personal? It is good to know that Christ has someone in you who can help him separate the sheep from the goats when the time comes. However, for the present, would his will not be better served by joining forces to overcome the chaos, confusion, enmity, strife and hatred in this world?

          If Moscow can work together with Rome to address society’s ills, can we not as Orthodox Christians work together? Were not the very churches you reference in the Assembly at one time or another in or out of union with each other?

          None-the-less, this is your site and I will continue to be respectful of it.

          In Christ (who is not divided)

          +Anthony

          • There is actually an old calendar Archbishop Anthony who lives in New York, who is affiliated with some ex-ROCOR parishes (and I believe the Greek Orthodox Synod in Resistance), but I’m not sure if its this guy, given that that Anthony doesn’t speak much English, and given the antipathy they have for non-Old Calendarists in general, and for ecumenism in particular, which is not reflected here.

            One other point; your article did gloss over the fact that the Anglicans, the Swedish Lutherans, and a few other Protestant churches ostensibly have apostolic succession; the Old Catholics certainly do. One can easily argue in the case of the Protestants that their apostolic succession is meaningless due to the lack of a sacramental priesthood, and reception is therefore the only option, however, I think that for the Old Catholics, recognition would have been a possibility, had they not fallen into heresy (the PNCC is the only conservative holdout, but the PNCC’s theology appears to go beyond the Orthodox position on original sin, and into the unpleasant territory of outright Pelagianism, which is rejected even by the Assyrian Church of the East).

            It seems to me the best approach for Protestants in general, to avoid any question of sacramental invalidity, is to receive and reordain the senior clergy, if a Protestant community joins en masse, and then that senior clergy can receive their parishioners, presumably by chrismation.

  2. This is a good post, and I found it informative, though I do have a couple of questions that have come up during my readings that relate to what you have posted here.

    Firstly, we Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession. But what about times when the church was full of heresy (such as with the Arians and during the time of St Maximos)? Many church bishops were heretics, and I would think that modern day Orthodox bishops would have some of those fellows in their lineage. Does that distort the succession?

    Secondly, I remember reading that during the time of St Maximos the Confessor (in the Prologue maybe?), he was one of the few Orthodox Christians in the world. I don’t know if that was an exaggeration, but if it wasn’t, then wouldn’t that promote an invisible church theology if nearly all of the hierarchy, priests, and lay people have fallen into heresy?

    • The unworthiness of the minister does not effect the efficacy of the sacraments. Those who believe it does commit the heresy of Donatism.

  3. Jeremiah, on your point, I would observe that during the Arian schism at least, to a large degree the heretics in question would not ordain Orthodox, or vice versa; the Arian bishops for example would only ordain fellow Arians, and there are relatively few cases of Arian bishops coming over to Orthodoxy. Both hierarchies had valid apostolic succession, but in general diverged starting around 330.

    This was in general a good post; I do object to the citing of the Orthodoxinfo article on the Oriental Orthodox, rather than what I consider to be the much superior article on Orthodoxwiki; one might also observe that, strictly speaking, the definition of Non-Chalcedonian ought to include the Assyrians; to exclude them from the definition would have the amusing effect of validating the concerns of DIoscorus. My view is that Orthodox Christology can only be maintained with a view that excludes equally Nestorius and Eutyches.

    Lastly, I would propose that in the years ahead, we should develop marketing programs to encourage individual Protestant clergy and congregations to be received into the Orthodox church. The Roman Catholics are already engaging in such a campaign, targeting Anglicans. Recognition of most Protestant churches is an ecclesiological impossibility, as this article points out, whereas those that were viable targets for ecumenical reconciliation have now more fully and irrevocably alienated themselves from us by embracing a theology of human sexuality that one might, at best, politely refer to as crypto-Borboritism.

    Yet in taking up the lowest doctrine of the Gnostic “Mud people” (for a complete description, see the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis), the degenerate churches in question have facilitated in many cases the reception of their laity, on an individual, and in some cases, congregational basis, into the Orthodox church. Marketing material ought to be developed targeting both clergy and parishioners, with a particular focus on those congregations that have control of their own buildings, or that are located in close proximity to under-utilized Orthodox facilities. That said, we should obviously stop well short of offering financial inducements to clergy, for obvious reasons, not the least of which would be to avoid re-enacting the recent alleged $2.2 million buyout of the Nation of Islam by Scientology.

  4. wonderful piece, Robert, as always. my journey home to Orthodoxy (from non-denom Evangelical Protestantism) continues in amazing, God-led ways. every time i think i hit a doctrinal wall and say, “well, it’ll end here,” God melts and changes my heart and i come to understand the Orthodox PoV.

    i am at a Protestant seminary and i was studying to become a Protestant Pastor. now i can see only one way to end the epidemic of schisms: to put down my own interpretations, return to the Church and let her teach me.

    when i first became a believer, i learned to conform myself to Christ, and not vice versa. as i sought to follow Him, i learned to conform myself to the Scripture, and not vice versa. and now, Lord willing, i will learn to conform myself to the Church, and not vice versa.

    i’m reminded of St. Paul who, even after coming to know the Lord and spread the Gospel, returned to Jerusalem to be accepted and to make sure that he was not running in vain. (Gal. 2)

    thanks for all your work!

  5. Perhaps a stronger emphasis on accepting Mary as God Bearer and calling her blessed might be in order when considering the Protestants? It is certainly a major stumbling block for many.

  6. You wrote: Theologically speaking, it is heretical to believe that where there was one Church there is now two or more churches, or that the one Church is now broken into several fragments, or that one Church is now invisible.

    Isn’t this what the Patriarch of Constantinople precisely taught in Jerusalem a few weeks ago? This is what is being put forth in this article, now circulating on the web:

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/on-the-recent-events-in-jerusalem-and-their-ecclesiological-underpinnings.aspx

    Please explain why the Patriarch of Constantinople can teach that the One Church is “divided in time.”

    • As my friend (and O&H contributor) Fr. Matthew Baker put it on his recent appearance on AFT, this language of “divided in time” is, at best, “imprecise.” Does that really mean that the EP is teaching that the Body of Christ is truly divided? And does that mean that anyone who speaks of the first millennium of Christianity as the “undivided Church” means the same thing regarding its second millennium? Surely the EP’s own actions indicate that what he meant is that those who seek to follow Christ have been divided from each other. I’m not sure why some folks are so eager to interpret these comments in the worst possible way.

      Honestly, if the EP really meant that the Church itself had been “divided,” then why wouldn’t he be joining in communion with Pope Francis? But he’s not. It’s also worth noting that his own representatives at various theological consultations with RCs repeatedly stress that Orthodoxy regards itself as fully the one Church (e.g., as in the much-hated Ravenna document which no one actually seems to read). And of course one must also remember his famous Georgetown speech, in which he actually spoke of an ontological difference between the way of life of the Orthodox and RCs.

      As for the link, its author himself teaches an ecclesiology that is not congruent with the Church’s history and tradition, especially where he says that recognizing heterodox baptisms means you have to recognize their Eucharist, and that recognizing their Eucharist means you have to be in communion with them. If that’s really the case, then St. Basil himself, who definitely recognized certain heretical baptisms as valid, was himself the worst kind of “ecumenist.” And he even knowingly communed a semi-Arian emperor! I wouldn’t say that latter action sets a precedent, but the former certainly did and got confirmed in the ecumenical councils themselves.

      • Does that really mean that the EP is teaching that the Body of Christ is truly divided?

        The author of the article combines this with the Patriarch’s other statements and overall stance vis-a-vis Rome and shows that his ecclesiology is in sync, if not essentially the same, as Vatican II’s theology of the Church. There, it is clear that the Church is experienced by degrees by the various confessions – which are, of course, divided. . . In any case, as was the case with ancient heretics, such as Nestorius, it can be the case that those who are teaching such a heresy (“a divided church in time”) have not understood the implications or have created their own deluded explanation for their new view which, nevertheless, is still not the Faith of the Church and has soteriological consequences, as the article states.

        Surely the EP’s own actions indicate that what he meant is that those who seek to follow Christ have been divided from each other. I’m not sure why some folks are so eager to interpret these comments in the worst possible way.
        But, he could have stated that, and he clearly did not. Rather, he repeats the statement twice (the second time referring to the Local Churches being divided in the Faith). Is it possible that you are also eager not to read it plainly but to give it the best possible spin? Is it possible that you are not reading it in total context, nor considering that it is expressing an ecclesiology already widely expressed by other ecumenists (at Vat. II and beyond among RCs, by Chrysostom of Messinias and John Zizoulias among the Orthodox, for example)?

        if the EP really meant that the Church itself had been “divided,” then why wouldn’t he be joining in communion with Pope Francis?
        This is, of course, a question for him to answer, not us to guess at. Moreover, the post Vatican II ecclesiology certainly holds that the Church is divided (two lungs, recognition of mysteries yet still a church that is lacking or deficient) and RCs have not jumped into communion yet with the Orthodox. It may be that a tactical and not a theological reason is lurking behind this decision.

        It’s also worth noting that his own representatives at various theological consultations with RCs repeatedly stress that Orthodoxy regards itself as fully the one Church (e.g., as in the much-hated Ravenna document which no one actually seems to read)
        Are you reading that document correctly? Such a sentiment is only stated in the notes of the document, whereas the over document sends the same message which was sent at Balamand: we are one Church which is still somehow divided.

        its author himself teaches an ecclesiology that is not congruent with the Church’s history and tradition, especially where he says that recognizing heterodox baptisms means you have to recognize their Eucharist, and that recognizing their Eucharist means you have to be in communion with them.
        I think he means from an Orthodox standpoint that the sacraments are united and inseparable, since they are all the one Mystery of Christ/the Church. And it depends what we mean by “recognize”. The Canons of the Church never speak of “valid” mysteries among the heretics – that is an exclusively Augustinian/Western term and view. So, recognizing mysteries for the Church/the Orthodox always means with respect to those converting and in the context of their initiation into the life of the Church. In other words, it refers to the typos or form of the mystery and not to the mystery per se. So, I think that the author is referring to recognition per se, as in the Western sense.

        If that’s really the case, then St. Basil himself, who definitely recognized certain heretical baptisms as valid, was himself the worst kind of “ecumenist.”
        St. Basil never uses the term “valid.” You are reading this back into his canons and that time. Moreover, he clearly says that the fathers before all agreed to reject the baptism of heretics altogether. And, furthermore, the Oecumenical Councils never used the term “valid” nor did they even give reasons for why certain heretics were accepted in one way, and certain heretics in another way.
        In any case, none of this stands as precedent to speak as the Patriarch did.

        • Much of what you say here is addressed in my new post: http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2014/06/12/did-the-ecumenical-patriarch-say-that-the-church-is-divided-response-to-an-anonymous-greek-orthodox-priest/

          As for St. Basil and the councils, don’t get caught up in the term valid. It doesn’t matter whether they used the term. I’m not suggesting that they bought into RC validity theology. Rather, the point is that he accepted certain baptisms and did not rebaptize those converts (you don’t baptize someone who has already been baptized, since there is one baptism for the remission of sins), which means that he did not accept the ecclesiology of the author of that article.

          • So, the “one baptism” we confess in the creed means every baptism of every schismatic and heretic? Does it matter whether or not they immerse? Or if they do the exorcisms? Or if their confession has or even believes in the Eucharist?
            What criteria did he use to accept “certain baptisms”?
            Forgive me, but I don’t see how baptism – which means above all initiation/entry into the Church – can exist where there is not Orthodox Faith, the Eucharistic assembly, or the Church’s hierarchy. Why do we make such a distinction and say that one of the mysteries can be apart from the Church but others – such as the Eucharist – cannot?

            • So, the “one baptism” we confess in the creed means every baptism of every schismatic and heretic? Does it matter whether or not they immerse? Or if they do the exorcisms? Or if their confession has or even believes in the Eucharist?
              What criteria did he use to accept “certain baptisms”?

              That’s not really clear. What is clear is that some were accepted.

              Forgive me, but I don’t see how baptism – which means above all initiation/entry into the Church – can exist where there is not Orthodox Faith, the Eucharistic assembly, or the Church’s hierarchy. Why do we make such a distinction and say that one of the mysteries can be apart from the Church but others – such as the Eucharist – cannot?

              I don’t know “how” (though one might do well to read Florovsky on this), but it’s what our history actually shows.

              As for why baptism and not, for instance, the Eucharist (though even there, it’s not really clear; and even recognizing someone’s Eucharist doesn’t mean one is in communion, as for instance with ROCOR in much of the 20th c.), that is something else. We tend to think of these things as all belonging to a category called “sacraments” or “mysteries,” but the truth is that the whole life of the Church is a mystery. Are we really prepared, therefore, to say, that there is absolutely nothing at all that is of the Church outside its canonical boundaries?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s