Why I'm still not Orthodox (pt 2: mysticism)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
If you missed the first installment, you can check it out here. This time I'd like to take up where I left off by sharing some of the things I've been learning about personal relationship with God from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.One thing that can be quite confusing in a dialog between Orthodox and Protestant believers is the two ways that the term "salvation" is used. In Protestant usage it commonly refers to justification, and thus it is stressed that "salvation is by grace, not works." What this specifically means is that justification or redemption is by grace not works. Of course just about everyone would agree that we need to respond in faith to this. So is that a "work"? No, because works are about earning and merit, and even if we accept a gift (the response of faith) we are still not meriting it. So far so good. On the Orthodox end "salvation" commonly refers to sanctification and so the emphasis is on our participation, our praxis, what we do. Again, just about everyone would agree that we do need to participate in our sanctification, through a life of obedience to God, devotional life, repentance, and so on. We do not do this to earn God's favor, we do this in God's favor, as a response to grace.
Both of these uses of the term "salvation" are legitimate, the Protestant "getting saved" type and the Orthodox "work out your salvation" (Phil 2:12) variety. But since one side is speaking about justification/regeneration (the inception) and the other about sanctification/deification (the continuation/fulfillment) using the same word it can get pretty confusing and lead to a lot of misunderstanding. Put in relational terms, we need to enter into a relationship with God (regeneration), and we then need to grow in that relationship (sanctification).
What I appreciate about Orthodox theology is that it is very much focused on the experience of a lived relationship with God. As Vladimir Lossky has said, "all theology is mystical theology". What that means is that all theology needs to be connected to our living it, to our being in a real transforming relationship. Theology always needs to be joined to praxis. In the end, the real meaning of "orthodox" is not "right doctrine" but "right worship" (as in doxology). Now of course we also find in the Orthodox tradition its share of head-theology entrenched in lots of metaphysics and formulas. One common categorization scholars make is between two schools in Orthodox thought - one of the "head" and one of the "heart". We find this same tug of war in the evangelical church as well of course, and what we need is a balance. We need to be smart about stuff, we need to use our brains, but we need to also have our feet on the ground and have our theology be practical. This sense of "pietism" (I see that as a good word) is very present in orthodoxy. We can see it in ancient writers like the author of the Macarian Homilies, or Symeon the New Theologian, and we can see it in contemporary theologians like Kallistos Ware. Bishop Ware writes that, "All genuine theology must be mystical theology – something based upon a personal experience of God granted in prayer, upon a conscious awareness of the Holy Spirit."
What I find absent in all of this, as I mentioned in my previous post, is a lack of focus on being born again in the Orthodox church, or in other words, a lack of the initial expereince of regeneration. Not just as an assurance of forgivness for a guilty conscience, not simply as a judicial requirement, or as an end in itself, but as a way of entering into new life and lived relationship with God as a way to begin living in grace, in the Spirit. The Orthodox understanding of salvation lacks this experiential beginning, this initial experience of God's indwelling presence and love to begin our participation of growing in God and through God. This expereince of "assurance", of God's indwelling presence and love, (which clearly is the end goal of ascetic praxis and mysticism in the Orthodox faith) was what turned the world upside down for Luther and Wesley (and for me), and I just don't find it in Orthodox writing. That is, I do find them speaking of our pursuit of union with God as the end of ascetic struggle, of experiencing this intimacy with God after struggle and seeking. I think that is all good. But what is missing is how we begin that pursuit of God with God. How we, as Augustine said, at the same time taste of God, and yet hunger for more, how God allows us to experience his love and nearness, and that this embrace makes us long for more. A pursuit we do not embark on on our own, but with God and through God. "I tasted, and now hunger and thirst. Thou touched me, and I longed for Thy peace."
Now I certainly think we can learn a lot from the emphasis of the Orthodox on sanctification. But I also think it goes both ways, and that there needs to be a discovery of the relational transformative expereince of a born again conversion experience in Orthodoxy. New birth in conversion is often rejected by Orthodox Christians who associate it with a legal end, rather than as a relational beginning (Ware for example takes this position). But from the shared relational perspective of our two traditions, this initial experience of the indwelling of the Spirit calling out within us “Abba, Father” is vital, not only because of the transforming assurance of knowing who and whose we are, but because union with God is something that begins and ends in the Spirit, lived together with God, through God, and in God. Despite the emphasis on experience in Orthodox theology, that personal experience of the indwelling of the Spirit previous to, and thus as the cause and means of ascetic struggle, is missing in Orthodoxy.
Labels: born again, Orthodoxy, relational theology, relationship with God
RSS Feed 
30 Comments:
Is that all? Do you have any other objections when it comes to the Orthodox Church? The reason I ask is because I'm coming from a Calvinistic Pentecostal perspective and I'm looking into Orthodoxy. I freak out a little bit when I abandon my Sola Scriptura and private Biblical interpretation, as well as many other smaller beliefs I once held/still hold to.
Well to me that is a pretty major objection.
But one of the nice things about a blog is that it is interactive.
So why don't you elaborate on your objections.
For example, where do you see a conflict with sola Scriptura and Orthdoxy?
Actually, let me change my question:
1. As a Protestant have you always been so comfortable and accepting of the other teachings of the Orthodox Church that arent so commonly accepted in the Protestant realm (things such as having the Church interpret Scripture for us, the use of tradition along with scripture, the Virgin Mary and her role in the Church)?
Let me interject and say that Sola Scriptura is not compatible with Orthodoxy. This is readily apparent when you read through the Greek Fathers of the first five centuries, or in fact, anything Orthodox at all when the subject of the interpretation of the Scriptures is broached.
I've seen Calvinist James White quote Saint Athenasius and from White's perspective, he's an early Sola Scriptura advocate. But what White does not do is also quote Athenasius' views on the Church's interpretation and that interpretation rooted in Apostolic Tradition. This prooftexting is very misleading on his part.
I'm not sure how much you've read, but I can readily affirm that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not Orthodox, Patristic or Biblical.
John
Jcoolio,
Just to make sure we are on the same page, how would you define sola scriptura, especially as you see it conflicting with the early church fathers?
The early fathers kept the Church's interpretation in mind when reading the Scriptures. This is the same interpretation that Saint Athanasius speaks of when he states that:
'But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.'
Ad Serapion 1,28
Sola Scriptura basically states that all one needs is the capacity to reason and the Scriptures in order to come to its proper interpretation. But the Fathers would say that without the understanding of the Church which she has received from the Apostles and handed down until now, there is no understanding to be had except heresy.
Saint Ignatius uses a good analogy. The Truth is like the mosaic of a King. The tiles that compose the mosaic are the Scriptures. Without the guidance of the Church to inform one of the image (the King) the Scriptures can be rearranged into any likeness, even that of a fox.
So very true, it seems in light of the reality of over 30,000 different Protestant denominations. Without the interpretation of the Church, anyone can make any image that they want and base everything within the Holy Scriptures. This prooftexting is a Protestant practice that results in their great disunity.
I hope that helps. I do understand that Saint Athanasius speaks of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. But when we look at the entirety of what he wrote, we see that his statements are not to be prooftexted by Sola Scriptura advocates. Rather he, along with the other Fathers of the Church, always reminded their readers of the importance and necessity of the Church's interpretation, handed down from the Apostles until now, uncorrupted.
John
Also, if you were basically Orthodox in all of your theology, then I wonder what your theology of the Church is. For if you agree in your ecclesiology then you would most certainly be Orthodox. Orthodox ecclesiology is a huge piece of the theological pie, so-to-speak. In fact, all of Orthodox theology is intertwined. You cannot rightly speak of one subject of theology, for example soteriology, without broaching the subject of something else, in the example of soteriology, the theology of relics. You can't just believe one bit of Orthodox theology while simultaneously rejecting another piece because to do so would lead to large inconsistencies in your mishmash of theology.
Waiting for your views and definition of Sola Scriptura, I would bet that if you accepted the normative definition used by most Protestants, then Orthodox, no matter what theology you agree with, you are not.
Okay, first things first. If sola scriptura means "all one needs is the capacity to reason and the Scriptures in order to come to its proper interpretation" I would disagree with that. Let me say what I do believe about the Bible.
The Christian message is rooted in historical reality of the incarnation as the ultimate source of knowledge of God. The NT witness is thus not authoritative because it contains superior doctrinal formulations or laws, but because it bears direct personal witness to that historical and personal encounter with Jesus as God's own self-revelation.
That story of what happened in the incarnation and how it transformed the Apostles sets the trajectory for tradition that follows it. Tradition as far as it points us back to that encounter in history and thus leads us to encounter the risen Christ in our own experience is indeed valuable. We have a heritage or interpretation in the church that helps us to interpret Scripture. However, when push comes to shove the primary and most direct account of God's encounter in the flesh with humanity is contained in the NT. The NT therefore trumps tradition where they contradict. This is an important principle because there has been human corruption and distortion in the church, and so we need to be able to go "ad fontes" (back to the sources).
As a general rule of thumb I see the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience) as a good guide. Scripture provides the interpretive lens through which we can understand our experiences. Its story gives us the larger context in which to understand our stories, as part of that larger Gospel story. Scripture provides the starting point from which the trajectory of tradition begins, and acts to pull us away from the danger of worldly reason towards the godly wisdom of the cross which at first glance can appear as foolishness (1 Co 1:18-25). Reason when it begins in fallen and subjective human assumptions cannot lead us to God because our thinking is just as landlocked in sin as is all of our experience, but through God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ we can learn - as we abide in that relationship - to have the “mind of Christ”. This entails learning to think in the counter-cultural and counter-intuitive way of Jesus where we lose our life to find it, and the greatest is a servant.
Again, returning to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, Scripture is primary because it informs experience, shapes reason, and is the source from which tradition develops, as well its constant spur to reformation. As the reformation motto has it: ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (the Reformed church is a church always reforming according to the word of God).
Scripture acts at the center point of the Quadrilateral not to define abstract doctrinal formulas, but to shape how we reason, how we experience, and the direction our tradition develops out of and into. In other words, the goal of Scripture is to relationally encounter us with God's own self-revelation Jesus Christ.
p.s. I'm quite sure I'm not Orthodox. That's why this post is titled "why I am not Orthodox". :^)
I'm Wesleyan Pentecostal. However I do think there is quite a bit in common between my faith tradition and the Orthodox tradition which it would be rewarding to explore.
Well, given your detailed explanation of Sola Scriptura, I'd still have to say that the Fathers would not agree. Your dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition, for example, is unknown to the Fathers because the two are a seamless whole; one does not contradict the other and both are preserved by the Holy Spirit.
Also, I almost forgot where I was going with that last statement about you not being Orthodox. I read the post title, but in my hurry I kicked out more than what I was meaning to say. Sorry about that.
This post has been removed by the author.
"I'm Wesleyan Pentecostal. However I do think there is quite a bit in common between my faith tradition and the Orthodox tradition which it would be rewarding to explore."Derek,
I agree. I was raised the same but have made the leap into Orthodoxy and have found it to be the soil that Wesley's reclamations were meant to bear fruit in.
But let me push against the argument of your post here a bit. Your next-to-last-paragraph is beautifully stated. But how is what you're describing there not baptism/chrismation? Whether speaking of infants or converts, they are by definition the initiatory experience that you're speaking of, no?
Apologies for all of the deleted posts and whatnot here. Blogger had an error where it was not accepting comments from anyone (including myself). Looks like its fixed now. If anyone's comments got inadvertently lost, let me know and I will repost them.
Jcoolio,
The difficulty with your assertion that the "dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition... is unknown to the Fathers because the two are a seamless whole" is that it just simply does not hold up when one reads the patristics. There is not a consistent party-line throughout the church fathers, rather we see a development or evolution of thought. Evagrius is quite different from Pseudo-Macarius, Pseudo-Denys is different from them both, Maximus is different again. That's why Orthodox scholar John Meyendorff speaks of theologians like Maximus and Palamas introducing a "Christological corrective" to earlier writers like Evagrius and Denys. A second aspect Meyendorff brings up is how the Orthodox tradition moved away from Scripture towards a neo-Platonic philosophical worldview and assumptions (hence the need for a corrective). If one reads all of these writings it becomes clear that there is simply not one consistent unbroken tradition in line with the original Apostolic teaching, but rather quite a bit of diversity. This is something that major Orthodox scholars like Meyendorff and Andrew Louth readily admit.
The reality is that humans in power (which includes the church) are susceptible to politics and corruption. So there needs to be a way to return to the Scriptural sources when tradition takes a wrong turn, as it has repeatedly. This is of course true of any church, not just the Orthodox church.
First of all, Robert, its great to hear from you! You write:
"Your next-to-last-paragraph is beautifully stated. But how is what you're describing there not baptism/chrismation? Whether speaking of infants or converts, they are by definition the initiatory experience that you're speaking of, no?"
No, I do not see it as the same as baptism, especially when one refers to infant baptism. In Orthodox mysticism, the focus of the mystical way is in achieving the experience of union with God, in other words of experiencing the reality that took place at baptism. This experienced reality is found in the writings of Macarius, Symeon, and Palamas, and it is picked up again by contemporary Orthodox theologians like Kallistos Ware. Basically, through ascetic practice one seeks the experience of union with God as the end goal of the ascetic struggle. Theologically this is known as the process of sanctification or theosis.
What I am saying is that the Orthodox understanding of salvation lacks the experiential beginning which is what Evangelicals call being "born again," an initial experience of God's indwelling presence and love to begin our participation of growing in God and through God. This makes for a spiritual praxis which is focused works rather than on living in a relationship. In the Orthodox conception of sanctification, before one reaches that union, an intimate relationship is not experienced. It is a theoretical deduction inferred from an ecclesiastical rite. But one can experience God's transforming indwelling presence immediately. This is the new birth Wesley speaks of. In that embrace we can in engage in ascetic practice as a participation and response to that relationship with God, as a way to grow in it. That's what I see as missing: the immediate experience of God's indwelling Spirit transforming our lives.
To their credit, I think the Orthodox with their focus on mystical experience are much closer to the heart of relationship that many evangelicals are who focus on a merely legal understanding of salvation. But I think they need to expand that understanding of mystical experience to include the life transforming experience which Wesley helped to recover.
I think a lot of the "born again" experience you're looking for can be found in Confession.
Take one old lady in my parish for example:
She was born into a devout Orthodox family, and went to church frequently from infancy. She was a pious child, and at one point, wanted to be a nun, though she ultimately decided to get married instead. She has continued all her life to pray, fast, go to church, and everything; as far as I can tell, out of a sincere love for God. As far as I know, there was never a one moment of conversion in her life. If a moment of conversion is emphasized, she'd be left out.
Except that she, every week, makes long tearful confessions. (I'll admit this is a rather extreme example.) The beauty of Confession is that you can, on a regular basis, be confronted with your sins, express your repentance of them, and be assured of God's forgiveness through Christ.
It's probably because we have Confession that we don't emphasize the "born again" sort of thing so much. One consequence of this, though, is that it's not very visible unless you're actually in the Church to some degree -- Confession tends not to be emphasized in interactions with the non-Orthodox world.
Hi Peter,
I can appreciate that confession can be a very good thing. But I'm not sure I follow why it would be a replacement for the initial expereince of regeneration in someone's life? For me the central issue has to do with a conscious awareness and expereince of our being loved and indwelt by God as the beginning of our Christian faith and pursuit. Confession, seeking, and repentance would be how we continue to grow in that, but I don't see how they would replace it. People who's hearts cry out for God need to know that they are loved by God, fully embraced and adopted. That needs to be the foundation out of which they grow and seek.
The thing is, that initial experience does not happen consciously in every person. Some people are raised Christian, never have any serious doubts, never fall away for a while, and continue as devout, committed Christians all their lives without ever having a moment of conversion. The beginning point would be their Baptism, which they wouldn't remember.
Another thing is that we do absolutely believe that it's important to be consciously aware and experience being loved and indwelt by God, as you put it, but that it doesn't need to be a one-time thing.
I don't think I ever had a dramatic moment of conversion; I was raised Baptist, and went to church from my earliest childhood, and always knew that God loves me. When I was six, for reasons I don't clearly remember, I asked to be Baptized, and the pastor explained repentance to me. While I'm sure it had an effect, I don't remember my awareness or experience changing particularly. Later, I decided to become Orthodox, not out of any noticeable conversion experience, but because I came to the conclusion that it was the appropriate thing to do.
It's hard for Protestants especially to think about this sort of thing without using the language of nineteenth century American revivalism. It's not that nineteenth century American revivalism is inherently bad, but that it's not a universal expression of the Faith. Orthodoxy contains all the good aspects of nineteenth century American revivalism, but places them in a different context and uses quite different words to express them. But it's all there, I promise you.
"we do absolutely believe that it's important to be consciously aware and experience being loved and indwelt by God"
Yes, and I agree that it should not be a one-time-thing. It's like a marraige: the wedding is not the end, it is the beginning. My concern is that in the writings of Orthodox mysticism one seeks this conscious expereince of being loved and indwelt by God as the final end of ascetic practice. Palamas for example goes into great detail about how this comes only after great effort. What you are saying (and I think it is significant that you have a Baptist background here) is that you went in knowing that God loved you as the starting point. That's a very different statement from Palamas. Palamas and other Orthodox mystics speak of only having that awareness after long and hard ascetic struggle. I can appreciate that one does not need to have a "dramatic" awakening. I even agree with Palamas that there is indeed a struggle involved in growing deeper in our union with God. But I do think that we need to begin with a foundation of knowing first hand God's love - whether dramatic and sudden or not - as the soil out of which that seeking grows. So theologically I think Orthodoxy does not have any concept of experiential redemption, and instead goes from a theoretically inferred redemption based on an ecclesial rite (infant baptism) straight into experiential sanctification.
Ok, I think I see where you're coming from now. The awareness of God's love that St. Gregory speaks of is not the same thing as the awareness you speak of. While I have never read anything by St. Gregory, if he's talking about what I think he is, it's like that fleeting feeling where you glimpse the immensity of God's love for just an instant, except that they've been purified sufficiently to be able to experience that continually. Unless someone's a lot holier than I am, at least, that's not going to be the starting point.
As you say, the starting point for everyone needs to be the knowledge that God loves us. At the least, this should be intellectual knowledge, though preferably the sort of deep intellectual knowledge like our knowledge that grass is green or the sky is blue -- the sort that if ever the question arises as to whether God loves us, the answer is instinctive and obvious. At this, the Orthodox Church does wonderfully. No one who goes to the services with any attention at all is going to miss that God loves us. No one who reads the morning and evening prayers from almost any Orthodox prayer book, let alone who goes to Confession and Communion regularly, will miss that. And I can't imagine someone going through Lent and Holy Week, and then Pascha through Pentecost and not getting that message.
"it's like that fleeting feeling where you glimpse the immensity of God's love for just an instant, except that they've been purified sufficiently to be able to experience that continually."
Yes, that is what I am talking about. That is the starting point.
You frame this as if it is something only the most holy can have. Symeon the New Theologian stresses that it should be the expereince of every believer.
One can expereince this not through their own righteousness and holiness, but as a gift from God.
A continual experience of this is something that you have to be holy to have. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." While I can only speak for myself, I'm certainly not so pure in heart as to get more than fleeting glimpses of God.
But no one is denying that these fleeting glimpses of God are given to anyone God wants to give them to. I don't quite see how you think we're denying this.
Also, St. Gregory is not exactly normal reading for most non-monastic Orthodox. For most of the rest of us, we generally assume the ascetic writers are talking mostly about things we won't understand in this life anyway, and go on with our spiritual lives normally.
I remain unconvinced as well that that experience is a universal starting point. From what I've observed, it's frequently a middling point, or a renewal point, and often, though not at all always, a starting point too. These sorts of things are different for each person, which is why it's very problematic to try to *emphasize* something that people experience in different ways.
"A continual experience of this is something that you have to be holy to have"
I agree. The question is how does one become holy? Is it through our own effort, or is it something God makes us? While I would agree that one needs to participate with God in holiness, the idea of regeneration (which the rite of baptism points to) is that God makes us holy and sanctified, as as a result we can see God.
"I remain unconvinced as well that that experience is a universal starting point. "
The main idea here is that the starting point is in the holiness that God imparts. Our own ascetic struggle is then in response to that. Because that holiness imparted by God is real, it is experienced in our lives. But the point is not that one must have certain feelings, but that salvation has its origin in God's work not in our work. Gregory (along with much of the monastics) I think gets this backwards saying that we begin through our ascetic struggle and in response God acts.
"Also, St. Gregory is not exactly normal reading for most non-monastic Orthodox."
Maybe they should be :). All I can do here is quote Kallistos Ware who writes that "all theology is mystical" and Symeon who stresses that every Christian should be a mystic. I just can't agree with having one class (monastics) that has deep expereince with God and and another (liturgical laity) who do not. I think in this the majority of Orthodox theologians would back me up. The expereince of God's love is not meant to be elitist.
Might I comment here on Derek's last comment. I don't know if this will help the topic that you two are discussing so if I take a dive off the deep end, ignore me.
Paul, when speaking about marriage, states that he wishes that everyone were not married as he is. This is because one is able to devote their entire lives to the Lord, without having to take part of that time and attention and give it to a spouse. Similarly, the monastic has more time to devote to God. The experience of God's love certainly is not elitist. But given that some families not only consist of husband and wife but sometimes a few or even many children, one has to wonder how much time can said person take away from that family and give it solely to God.
Paul seems to acknowledge that the division of priorities, even good priorities like children and spouse, can indeed take ones attention off of the Lord, or at least focus on the Lord through the family (indirect attention so-to-speak, because marriage is God ordained).
So, to wrap this up, the liturgical laity certainly can and do have deep experiences with God, but that depth and length would certainly be affected if there were other priorities in place, such as a spouse/children.
John
"The question is how does one become holy? Is it through our own effort, or is it something God makes us?"
God makes us holy; I believe that is what the ascetic writers mean by "participating in the Divine Energies" -- God making us holy. The point of asceticism is making ourselves receptive to God. This is why Christian asceticism and Buddhist asceticism are different -- even when techniques are similar, we're working on being receptive to different things.
(As I was writing that, it suddenly made more sense than it had before; thank you for bringing it up!)
"While I would agree that one needs to participate with God in holiness, the idea of regeneration (which the rite of baptism points to) is that God makes us holy and sanctified, as as a result we can see God."
We would say that Baptism doesn't merely point to regeneration, but that it is regeneration.
"But the point is not that one must have certain feelings, but that salvation has its origin in God's work not in our work."
Ok, here's where the confusion lay: it sounded to me like you were, in fact, saying that having a certain feeling was an essential starting point in the Christian life, which the Orthodox Church inexplicably omits. That's what I found odd.
"Gregory (along with much of the monastics) I think gets this backwards saying that we begin through our ascetic struggle and in response God acts."
While I'm not certain, since I haven't even been Orthodox for long enough to come close to what St. Gregory talks about (two years plus a year as a catechumen), I think what he's saying is that we work in ascetic struggle, and in response, God lets us perceive more of His action.
"I just can't agree with having one class (monastics) that has deep expereince with God and and another (liturgical laity) who do not."
I'm happy to report that from what I've seen, the difference between laity and monastics is mainly one of degree, not of kind. This makes sense, because monks have more time to focus on prayer than those living in the world. It usually works out pretty well in practice. Anyway, it's not a race, and we'll have plenty of eternity to catch up later.
I don't really understand why you put so much emphasis on one moment. The initial conversion experience that you find among Protestants can often be short-lived. It seems much more fruitful to have a long-term focus.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_salvation.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ac_personhood.aspx
So The above link on Personhood is a rather lengthy letter from Archbishop Chrysostomos. He contrasts Evangelical piety with Orthodox mysticism, in particular the notion of a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". The crux of his argument is here:
"salvation is personal, centered on the distinct human being who draws on his essence—renewed in Christ—and who, in his person, becomes a small Jesus Christ within Jesus Christ, to quote one Church Father. So it is that Jesus Christ is our personal Lord and our Savior. In this profound sense of the personal, and in an apocalyptic encounter with redemption (for salvation is closely united to spiritual vision and to the noetic revelation and knowledge of God), we find, through experience, what the more fundamentalistic Protestant Evangelicals understand only in empty form. We know through the attainment of true personhood in Christ, which is the enlightenment or salvation of man, what these seekers know only intellectually and in terms of a theology of affirmation and commitment crippled by the unrestored senses and passions."
Other than just being insulting, I really can't see what the difference is between an Orthodox Christian who focuses on a personal relationship through expereince of God, and the exact same thing in Evangelical protestantism. One could easily reverse the statement and accuse the Orthodox of having empty form. The fact is, there are those in both churches with rich personal expereince of God, and there are those in each who only follow an empty form. And there are those in each who are... well... intellectual blowhards. I find the Archbishop's comments in the end are really just mean spirited rather than insightful. That meanspiritedness to me reveals a lack of spiritual depth on the part of the Archbishop. Again, we Evangelicals have our fair share of meanspirited folks, but I don't listen to them either.
This is a very interesting discussion. I would say that the initial point, Derek is talking about, that Orthodox brothers lack is the assurance of salvation. As Peter said, we may not have a dramatic conversion experience, but I believe we should have a moment when we get the assurance of salvation.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home