I have recently had the opportunity to have some long conversations with Eastern Orthodox brothers. In both conversations it was suggested to me that the Eastern Orthodox church is the true church.
Now in principle, reformed Christians such as myself can accept all the arguments about the Eastern Orthodox church being the true church. Where we would differ is in accepting that the Eastern church is the only true church. This is because the New Testament shows that a church is defined by faith in Christ, as evidenced in baptism (Galatians). To make anything other than faith in Christ the defining feature of membership to God’s people (the church) is to fall into the error of the Judaisers (Acts 15; Galatians 1 & 2). Paul’s great defence of justification by faith in his letter to the Galatians arose from the divided table at Antioch. Table fellowship had been divided between two types of Christians, and Paul’s answer to this was the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Thus, in its original context, justification was an ecclesiastical doctrine, since it affirmed that all who profess faith in Christ belong to the same common table. The Westminster Confession recognises this by stating that anyone with a Trinitarian baptism is part of the visible church, unless there is a specific instance of the church exercising its authority to excommunicate someone.
When talking with an Eastern Orthodox priest about this a few weeks ago, he kept coming back to the fact that the Eastern church is out of communion with the Western church. Although I initially denied this, after some reflection I realised that he had a point. The Eastern church is out of communion with the Western church. I can likewise agree on the fact that this is bad. As a consequence of these two premises, I can affirm that the Western church and the Eastern church ought to get back into communion with each other. Where the reformed tradition would differ with the Eastern Orthodox tradition is in what it means for the Western church and the Eastern church to get back into communion with each other. I would argue, on the basis of the scriptures cited above, that what is required is a joint acknowledgement of each other as fellow members of Christ’s body. On the basis of this, there could (in principle) be ecumenical table fellowship between the two traditions. Even without actual table fellowship, when we partake of the Lord’s supper every Sunday we should be conscious by being connected, through the Spirit, to Christians throughout the world in all different denominations.
The Eastern church does not accept this. Since they believe that they are the only true church, they are not allowed to have communion in other churches. Similarly, if a Protestant visits an Eastern Orthodox church, they would not be allowed to join them in celebrating the Eucharist unless they first came under their patriarchs, which in practice means joining their organisation and doing whatever they have decided that involves in practice. Once we joined their organisation they could then have fellowship with us. This means that until there is organisational unity, we are excommunicated. But on what basis has this excommunication occurred? To justify this excommunication, the burden is on the Eastern Orthodox to first prove that anyone who is not already in fellowship with the patriarchs is not part of the true church. But such an argument is a blatant non sequitur since we already accept that they are the true church (as are all who confess faith in Christ). The key is for them to first establish Biblically and historically that Eastern Orthodoxy is the only true church. That will be difficult to prove, given the decision of the first ecumenical council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), and the subsequent fleshing out of that decision in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.
Now in principle, reformed Christians such as myself can accept all the arguments about the Eastern Orthodox church being the true church. Where we would differ is in accepting that the Eastern church is the only true church. This is because the New Testament shows that a church is defined by faith in Christ, as evidenced in baptism (Galatians). To make anything other than faith in Christ the defining feature of membership to God’s people (the church) is to fall into the error of the Judaisers (Acts 15; Galatians 1 & 2). Paul’s great defence of justification by faith in his letter to the Galatians arose from the divided table at Antioch. Table fellowship had been divided between two types of Christians, and Paul’s answer to this was the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Thus, in its original context, justification was an ecclesiastical doctrine, since it affirmed that all who profess faith in Christ belong to the same common table. The Westminster Confession recognises this by stating that anyone with a Trinitarian baptism is part of the visible church, unless there is a specific instance of the church exercising its authority to excommunicate someone.
When talking with an Eastern Orthodox priest about this a few weeks ago, he kept coming back to the fact that the Eastern church is out of communion with the Western church. Although I initially denied this, after some reflection I realised that he had a point. The Eastern church is out of communion with the Western church. I can likewise agree on the fact that this is bad. As a consequence of these two premises, I can affirm that the Western church and the Eastern church ought to get back into communion with each other. Where the reformed tradition would differ with the Eastern Orthodox tradition is in what it means for the Western church and the Eastern church to get back into communion with each other. I would argue, on the basis of the scriptures cited above, that what is required is a joint acknowledgement of each other as fellow members of Christ’s body. On the basis of this, there could (in principle) be ecumenical table fellowship between the two traditions. Even without actual table fellowship, when we partake of the Lord’s supper every Sunday we should be conscious by being connected, through the Spirit, to Christians throughout the world in all different denominations.
The Eastern church does not accept this. Since they believe that they are the only true church, they are not allowed to have communion in other churches. Similarly, if a Protestant visits an Eastern Orthodox church, they would not be allowed to join them in celebrating the Eucharist unless they first came under their patriarchs, which in practice means joining their organisation and doing whatever they have decided that involves in practice. Once we joined their organisation they could then have fellowship with us. This means that until there is organisational unity, we are excommunicated. But on what basis has this excommunication occurred? To justify this excommunication, the burden is on the Eastern Orthodox to first prove that anyone who is not already in fellowship with the patriarchs is not part of the true church. But such an argument is a blatant non sequitur since we already accept that they are the true church (as are all who confess faith in Christ). The key is for them to first establish Biblically and historically that Eastern Orthodoxy is the only true church. That will be difficult to prove, given the decision of the first ecumenical council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), and the subsequent fleshing out of that decision in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.
2 comments:
I appreciate that evangelicals are starting to be interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. An honest articulations of the Orthodox position, followed by a forthright response, is something that is rare and, as an Orthodox Christian, I appreciate it. Let me say that, in addition to Orthodoxy teaching its members that we are the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, there is an equal emphases (or should be) on not judging and avoiding all forms of triumphalism. Bishop Kalistos Ware has said, in his book The Orthodox Church, that we know where the church is but we can’t always say where it isn’t. And the question of the validity of other ecclesial organization’s sacraments is always left to God and not touched. That said, let me quote one church father. St. Ireneus. I don’t expect these quotations to settle the matter. I think it may shed some light on it.
To get some sense of the historical proximity of Ireneus to the Apostles, Ireneus was born only 15-25 years after the death of the apostle John. Here is what he said:
“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity…
But Polycarp [b. 69 - d. 155] also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he [Polycarp] tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true…
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"
As an Orthodox Christian I can't just go and take communion whenever I want. We fast, we obstain from certain other things too in preparation. The eucharist is to be understood only in conjunction with all the other sacraments of our church. Moreover, communion is a sign of unity, not a means towards unity. There are many things, though, that are a means toward unity. We have blessed bread and wine for everyone contiguous with the concecrated bread and wine. By insisting on unity of faith first, the Orthodox church hasn't excommunicated anyone. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want to just waltz up the chalice---cowboy like---and take communion anyway if they felt the church was in error or only partially legitamite. Unless, of course, it was just to prove a point. This would waterdown the euacharist. People have died as a result of not taking the eucharist seriously. In my last post I quoted copiously from St. Irenaeus about tradition and the Orthodox faith. Now let me quote Tertullian:
Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their Bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that that first bishop of theirs shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,---a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles...But should even they effect the contrivance...their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare...that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man.
And he goes on. Even though this was written in the early 3rd century, it has pointed relevance for today. It is said by critics of Orthodoxy that the Orthodox church is ancient, but not ancient enough. That it goes back far, but not far enough---to the time of the scriptures and the apostles. Well, as Tertullian asks, "let them produce their lists." Can protestants show a historical succession? They point to the bible. But so do the Orthodox. The real descriptions of Christian practice came afterwards. Perhaps, therefore, the church fathers are our best guide.
Post a Comment