Killing with Relevance

This week David Mills forwarded an article from the British journal The Telegraph titled "Women Priests and their Continuing Battle." Obviously written by someone in favor of the institution, it celebrates the godly patience of ordained women in the face of the frequently rude, always backward, opposition of people who don't seem to realize that their advent is an essential part of the revitalization of a national church where attendance has fallen radically in the past several generations. Since women bring so many vital qualities to the role that were absent when only men could be priests, obviously ordaining them can only be a step in the right direction, a step toward greater wholeness, and therefore toward what people are seeking.

I remember hearing pretty much the same thing in the sixties from the Bishop of Woolwich, who also insisted the Church of England could only survive by adopting a far more open stance to the new ideas and practices it had a reputation for resisting. His Church took much of his advice, women's ordination eventually coming along as one of its responses to the continuing call of its leadership for relevance. Of course, there is no recognition, much less acknowledgment, from people like this that the radical decline of their churches corresponds chronologically to their success in a search for relevance that began several hundred years ago, that there might possibly be some connection between decline and relevance, especially when the best-attended churches in their realms are almost invariably those where people looking for irrelevance go, and the more relevant a church is, the fewer people are likely to attend.

A good many polls show there are enough people in the secularized West who consider themselves believers--at least in the Christian God, generally speaking, and the moral law, generally speaking--so that if they actually attended church services regularly it would be difficult to say that Christianity in their respective countries is in serious difficulty. To be sure, with churches, especially nationalized churches, bottoming out, secularization and non-Christian religions are naturally on the increase, but the principal problem long before the crisis stage was reached had to do with people who professed to be Christians who did not attend church. My fairly well educated guess is that if they were asked why they did not, most of them would have complaints in one of two general areas: (1) the church isn't relevant, or (2) changes are happening there that I don't like.

Their own desire to stray--blaming the church for irrelevance, for example, when the real problem is that they, living companionably with the Spirit of the Age, are in transgression of its moral laws--would naturally be placed at a discount, but the fact is that during the last several hundred years many churches have imposed radical changes, first in doctrine, then in practice, that have robbed them of much of the interest of those who seek less from them rather than more. The relevance of the Church to modern society depends on continuation in preaching and teaching its old Message, that is, on what modernists, who are by definition not Christians, and whose relevancies are continually disrupted by the teachings of the Church, condemn as irrelevant. The attraction of the Church rests in its reliability, its deportment of itself in every way as though it believed that Truth does not change, and that one will find it here.

Yet everywhere we are seeing the death of relevance-seeking churches that profess above all things the desire of speaking to modern people in idioms they understand. The apology for this is, of course, How will they understand the Gospel message if we don't speak it in their language? But behind most of this talk is a lie. I have come to believe that church leaders who say this may be presumed, lacking evidence to the contrary, not to have an evangelical bone in their bodies. Behind it is, in fact, the question, How can I maintain the advantages Christianity has brought me and, at the same time, have the world reward me for playing its game? How can I be at the same time in the pay of God and the King of Sodom?

The Lord's answer to this is clear: one cannot serve two masters. The test of which master is being served is easy: Is the person who professes the desire to speak to the world in a language it understands willing not only to comfort, but offend those who hear him with the ancient faith, as the real Gospel, the old Gospel, always does? This is the Relevance of the Church, and the churches will never know if "religion" is actually on the decline until they test the waters by preaching and teaching the Eternal Gospel that calls men not simply to believe what the demons believe, but also to repent--which is part of believing--with all this implies about opposition to the world, the flesh, and the devil, and about the personal beliefs and behavior of the faithful.

One cannot really say that Christianity is on the decline if the churches by which one takes its measure have been in active opposition to the faith for generations, casting out the stronger of the flock for crimes against relevance, and dispiriting the weaker members by becoming an inferior example of what the world already offers them. The first cannot attend for reasons of conscience, the second sees no reason to bother.

Comments

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Steve,

It’s been some time since I have commented on any of your invective-laced tirades, perhaps because—in the final analysis—I do actually agree with you. What consistently strikes me as queer, however, is your use of such terms as “Church,” “Gospel,” “Truth,” etc. as if any were self-explanatory and not, rather, impregnated with meaning by the bodies (or the individuals of those bodies) who use them. Even your post admits that not all who call themselves “Christian” or purport to be “the Church” are indeed preaching “the Gospel.” They’re preaching something, but not that. But what, I wonder, are you seeking to call them back to? If it is true that they should renounce using the world (or, as you say, the “Spirit of the Age”) as the measuring stick of their message, then what becomes the measuring stick? On what basis do we say that they have aligned themselves with the Truth, that they are preaching the Gospel, and thus that they are indeed the Church?

You have been asked these questions before, have you not? They’re old questions, but not irrelevant ones for your line of attack or—dare I say—the very ethos of the journal you write for. No doubt the simplest reply is to list those overarching points of doctrine all “real” Christians agree upon and leave it at that. The problem is that beyond the basics, everything breaks down fairly quickly. And really, at what point in history has Christianity—a Christianity you and I are apt to recognize—been simply “about the basics”? Even an illiterate peasant in medieval Russia who regularly made his way to weekly services knew things to be essential to his Salvation that would scandalize other Christians you or I may be inclined to say agree with the overarching points.

Now, you may say that all of this is beside the issue. You may willingly (even glibly) admit that all you are out to do is to attack, to rip apart, to bring down the pagan idols like so many heroic martyrs of old. But supposing you get your way, that you did indeed convince one, two, maybe a thousand, misled individuals that what they either profess or have turned away from amounts to nothing but lies. Then what? Where do they go? What is next for them? I am curious if it ever gets that far in your analysis. Perhaps you’ve written on it before. I confess that I am not going to win the position of chief archivist of your collected works. You’ll have to help me out. It would be of great interest to me to read something positive out of you, something that points to the Truth rather than merely billowing out fire and brimstone at falsehood.

As a secondary matter, it seems petty to worry about whether or not Christianity is on the decline. I have to wonder if it has ever made it over the peak. There is certainly considerably more evidence in history that societies—even supposedly Christianized ones—were full of far more tepid believers than those on fire with love for God. One doesn’t have to look any further than the Old Testament to see that lamentable reality played out time and again. What is exceedingly more important (and you seem to recognize this) is that the Church (the true Church, not some empty-vessel term into which strange ecumenical mixtures can be poured in) holds to the Truth, i.e., that they preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness, without regard to the dubious yardstick of relevance. Maybe a dozen are Saved that way, maybe less. I don’t know. I just question placing ones hopes in a supposed return to “authentic” witnessing will do much more than bring a trickle. Still, Christ clearly foretold that would be so and I see no reason to lament it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Even an illiterate peasant in medieval Russia who regularly made his way to weekly services knew things to be essential to his Salvation that would scandalize other Christians you or I may be inclined to say agree with the overarching points.<<<

Say what? (A question I could extend to the entire preceeding post).

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

What say you?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Gabriel,
You consistently misread Steve Hutchens. Why don't you give it a rest? Do you enjoy tilting at windmills?

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Godbold,

"Consistently"? I don't think I've had the opportunity to "misread" Mr. Hutchens in--if my calculations are correct--nearly two years. But assuming I am wrong (a safe assumption to make), why don't you (or, maybe, Mr. Hutchens) cut to the chase and tell me where I am wandering off path. If I recall correctly, the general trend when people dissent from anything written by Mr. Hutchens (or other Touchstone authors) is that they are denounced, not refuted. In this instance, however, I am looking less for a debate and more for a clarification. Since you seem to believe yourself capable of properly reading Mr. Hutchens, perhaps you can cut to the chase and answer my very minor, very basic questions.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

If I remember correctly, the last time you appeared you seemed to find it intolerable that Mr. Hutchens could be speaking of the Church (with a capital "C") and still be a Protestant Christian.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I also remember the irenic Luthien (an Orthodox convert from Protestantism) telling you to back off. But my memory fails to note whether her advice was heeded or not.

[JeanB]

Gabriel, I also read your comment and had to go out and reread the post. It is still not clear to me what exactly you are objecting to in the original article. What are you talking about that you do not like?

Perhaps we could reply more intelligently to you if we knew what you were talking about.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What say you?<<<

That your writing is powerful, and promotes growth.

[smh]

Mr. Sanchez:

You will find the answers to all the questions you ask of me here somewhere in what I have published, on this website or in Touchstone. I doubt whether many of them will satisfy you: many of them do not satisfy me. There are a great many things that do not--but you seem to cherish the notion that I am intellectually careless--that I have not thought much about things that I have in fact thought about for years, and this makes it very difficult to communicate with you. Everything you have asked about here can all be discerned from my writings by intelligent minds such as yours when the will to do so is present.

You have consistently criticized me for not defining terms, and in your retorts have assigned me other labors meant to speak to your difficulties in particular--difficulties which obviously a good number of others, just as bright as you, clearly do not have. You must realize that if one wrote according to your prescription, one could not write at all--certainly not with any hope that reasonable people would be willing to read what was written. Sometimes, of course, close definition is called for, but more usually we depend for these things on general understanding in a community of discourse and knowledge of an author's mind. You can quite easily determine, for example, what my typically and very unextraordinarily Protestant definition of the Church is by reading what I have written on it here and there. It's all in Lewis's Mere Christianity, which only elaborates in its own way the opinion of the major Protestant confessions. The Westminster Confession, Art. 25, is a good example.

There, I have answered that question. Of course it is a bottomless subject: all subjects are. You may disagree and find this unsatisfactory; most of my colleagues here do. But if my opinions concern you, frankly I would rather you search for them in what I have already written than open a public discussion with you. If you want me to undertake to teach you privately, it is something I would consider, for you are, as I have said elsewhere, obviously made of very good stuff, but would certainly be inclined to wait until I am reasonably sure that you will not explode every time I try. And if what I believe concerns you I would start you out by reading what I have said, and then question you to discern whether you have understood it. You cannot do this with any author unless you begin with the charity involved in the will to understand.

smh

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Here is a little context for those new to the Hutchens/Sanchez wrestling match.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Godbold,

I don't find it intolerable so much as I find it impossible. At the same time, I am open to what Church (with a capital "C") means to a Protestant of Mr. Hutchens's stripe. I doubt very much that he or those who agree with him would call it mere rhetoric even if it seems that way. It is exceedingly easier to know what your average Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian means by Church even if it requires a bit of investigation to see whether they are sticking to a very traditional (read: narrow) understanding of that word or a much more open-ended (and--I might add--unintelligble) reading that would allow all sorts of contradictory doctrines under one roof. There is, of course, the "middle way," the way Touchstone wishes to take where such a term can be used to cover disparate confessions without letting in the riff raff. Marking the boundaries of that "middle way" seems to be something of a challenge, and if Mr. Hutchens is taking that "middle way" as his way (at least for the purposes of his writings on here), then I am curious to know how he has come to understand those boundaries. Regardless of what you may think I think about him, I do give him enough credit not to be the sort of empty-headed relativist on ecclesiastical issues that he often lampoons in his writings.

Also, just for the record, I believe you may be referencing my position on women "priests" or "pastors" or whatever it is they are called in relation the confessions they operate in. I have called the matter a non-issue before (at least for Orthodox and--hopefully--Catholics) on the grounds that women in such roles in Protestant confessions is analogous to women in professional roles in secular society. Even if you don't wish to believe it, my understanding of Orthodox teaching is that no Christian sect, regardless of how laudable their adherence to the Seven Ecumenical Councils may be, are endowed with Grace. Thus, women are not "violating" a Sacramental role installed for men only. They may be at the pulpit spouting all sorts of nonsense on Sundays, but then again, there are probably many more men doing the same thing. I am sympathetic to why Protestants find women in teaching roles (which is all those roles are if one does not see Grace in them) unbecoming, but I still believe it is a non-issue for Orthodox. That is the extent of my opinion on the issue. It is certainly not--as some have distorted it--an endorsement of women in such roles.

[David Gray]

>I have called the matter a non-issue before (at least for Orthodox and--hopefully--Catholics) on the grounds that women in such roles in Protestant confessions is analogous to women in professional roles in secular society.

You have certainly demonstrated a lack of understanding in this matter in the past, as has been pointed out to you. I see no evidence of growth in that regard in your current comments.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

My take on the Church is that my Lord determines who is in (and out) and doesn't need my advice or consent. Provisionally, I'm content with assessing people on what they say and do. By the grace of God I haven't yet been placed in a situation where I'm the one that has to draw the line.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Steve,

Living and working in a profession whose life blood is rhetoric, the literary acrobatics and sleight of hand fail to impress me. Equally unimpressive is failing to have at your disposal one citation to your own writings that I might begin to look at. Why the defeatism? And more importantly, why assume that I won’t be impressed or, heck, even convinced? I have already admitted I agree with you on a number of points. But beyond that, there seems to be a need for more. When I ask for it, this is the kind of fluff I get in return.

As for your failure to define terms, whether or not others are willing to accept at face value the plasticity of your statements is absolutely irrelevant. Even hucksters the size of Marx and Nietzsche have found more than a tolerable number of epigones to latch onto their most indefensible statements and turn them into public dogma. With that aside, it wasn’t that hard to reference Lewis or the Westminster Confession, was it? If there is imprecision there (and there may very well be), then so be it. At least one knows where you are starting from. Surely you recognize that there are Protestants out there that would never touch either work and say it fits their definition of “Church.” Far be it for me to assume what you have handpicked as your sendoff point.

Not all subjects are bottomless, Steve. If either of us believed that, we wouldn’t call ourselves Christians, would we? I agree that all topics can be dragged out endlessly and I see no reason why this one should be. I fear you have mistaken “explosion” for “nausea” at times, but that’s old news. You assume I am unwilling to understand and I am not. I will go to a mountaintop and proclaim that I simply do not understand. And while you need no empty compliments from the likes of me, please know that I have—without a shred of irony—referred to you many times as the most consistent Protestant I know of. My problem is that I cannot see for the life of me how a consistent Protestantism amounts to anything but an inconsistent Christianity. Please, pardon the cat for his curiosity.

I still wouldn’t mind a pinpoint to an article or two…

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Even if you don't wish to believe it, my understanding of Orthodox teaching is that no Christian sect, regardless of how laudable their adherence to the Seven Ecumenical Councils may be, are endowed with Grace.<<<

Um, you understand wrongly. There may indeed be some obscure Old Calendarist, anti-ecumenist sects led by some vagante bishops who believe thus, but they do not speak for Orthodoxy. Indeed, you can go as far back as the Cappodocian Fathers to find statements supporting the possibility of divine grace outside of the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church--or as it is commonly put today, "We know where the Church is, but we cannot know where it is not".

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

How do you know I'm not an obscure Old Calendarist? For that matter, how do you know that they're not right?

But I digress...

That line has gotten an incredible amount of mileage over the years despite the fact it has never been properly sourced in any Father of the Church or any collective statement on the Faith. It is, however, a great line to deploy to get out of uncomfortable interactions with family members during the holidays.

Patrick Barnes--an author who is decidedly not an obscure Old Calendarist--has offered the most straightforward treatment of the issue in his book, The Non-Orthodox (now available online for free). It seems rather that line is taken from the Russian theologian Alexis Komiakov and interpreted through +KALLISTOS Ware's misreading. Barnes's new apothegm, "We know who is in the Church but cannot be sure who will not be," is probably more on point, though certainly not without its traditionalist critics.

Either way, I am at pains to find a statement from any Orthodox body officially recognizing Grace in the "sacraments" (which may not even be recognized as such by the bodies which perform them) of non-Orthodox except, of course, a few extensions to Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox Eastern Christians. I am at even greater pains to see such statements or even hints at such thinking accompanied by a thoroughgoing defense. If you know of some, do tell.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How do you know I'm not an obscure Old Calendarist? For that matter, how do you know that they're not right?<<<

(1) It would not surprise me.
(2) Their mind is not one with that of the Fathers. In fact, such rigorism is merely a knee-jerk reaction to equally rigorist Latin polemics of the 16th-19th centuries.

>>>Either way, I am at pains to find a statement from any Orthodox body officially recognizing Grace in the "sacraments" (which may not even be recognized as such by the bodies which perform them) of non-Orthodox except, of course, a few extensions to Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox Eastern Christians. I am at even greater pains to see such statements or even hints at such thinking accompanied by a thoroughgoing defense. If you know of some, do tell.<<<

The Orthodox do not go in for "official" statements, as a rule. Interferes with the oikonomia of the local bishop. I will point out the sacramental reality of Orthodox life, not only in this country but in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and wherever Catholic (particularly Eastern Catholic) and Orthodox Christians live in proximity to each other. There is, and always has been, extensive intercommunion between the two families of Churches, and the constant condemnations of the practice by hierarchs on both sides is witness to its ubiquity. On the other hand, the pastoral reality of our situation means that these same hierarchs openly abet the practice, because they recognize that there is no sustainable rationale for maintaining Eucharistic separation between Churches that not only share the same sacraments, but also the same rite. Thus, Metropolitan Nicholas of Emissa, who is the head of ACROD (American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese) has written, "There are thousands of Greek Catholics in my parishes every Sunday, and I for one am not going to put a guard on the Chalice to keep them away". Conversely, there are thousands of Orthodox in Greek Catholic parishes every Sunday. Many of these spend their whole lives there, receiving the sacraments, baptizing their children, getting married, dying and being buried. They do not hide their identity--we know who they are--and they never abjure their allegience to the Orthodox Church. When they travel, when WE travel, we attend whatever Church is available, regardless of formal affiliation. The reality is, we just don't care. This was borne out to my daughter in Romania, when she asked an Orthodox priest if she could go to Liturgy and receive Communion. He said of course, and she said she was a Greek Catholic, and he just skoffed, "But it is the same thing". Same situation pertains in Ukraine, and in the Middle East.

My own approach to the issue is simple: the Apostolic Churches are all equally manifestations of the fullness of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, sinfully separated by exigencies of history and culture. I recognize the sufficiency of each to ensure the salvation of their faithful adherents. With regard to the various "ecclesial communities", I refuse to state that their sacraments are without grace. The Holy Spirit passes where He wills, and it is presumptuous to say that the divine grace absents itself wherever anyone invokes it. However, I cannot guarantee, e.g., that the Eucharist outside of the Apostolic Churches is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ, which is one reason why I will not receive there (that we lack unity in faith and communion in the Holy Spirit is another). As for those communities that explicitly reject the Eucharistic presence of Christ, I think the Lord does not impose his presence on those who do not call it down themselves.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

I am glad it wouldn’t surprise you that I’m an Old Calendarist, especially since there is at least the possibility that they take themselves seriously. As for your characterization of them, I can’t much agree, especially given the depth of their defenses. It is true that you will find reactionary brands here and there, but the more circumspect Old Calendarists (perhaps best represented by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies in Etna, CA) have gone to great lengths to explain their position in the light of Holy Tradition. Sadly, I have not seen nearly the depth nor the energy given to refuting their claims, despite my good sense that they are not entirely correct. Triumphalism comes in many forms, and sadly it is too often the cushy, warm-hugs wing of Orthodoxy that embraces it.

As for the lack of “official” statements in Orthodoxy, I am perplexed given just how many official statements have been issued by the Church over the last two millennia. That these statements—just like the Canons of the Church—are given little weight in an era of free range “scholarship” is another unfortunate reality of our times. Without daring to speak for the Church, however, my point was to highlight that the open-endedness of the “don’t know where the Church isn’t” statement has received nothing approaching official adoption and, in fact, there is more literature out there refuting the sort of “Branch Theory” it is bound up with than there are statements lauding it. It is only by virtue of the popularity of +KALLISTOS’s book and, I suspect, the ease such a statement brings in keeping relations cordial between Orthodox and non-Orthodox in decidedly non-Orthodox societies that has give it the unwarranted value it currently possesses.

The intercommunion of Catholics and Orthodox, along with non-Orthodox Eastern Christians, is nothing new. Pointing out historical incidences of it (along with its continuation in certain parts of the world) does nothing to offset the possibility that it is not correct, that doing so is an affront to the received witness of the Church, and that those bishops who approve of such behavior are doing a grave disservice to themselves and the flock they are entrusted to lead. At the very least, I see no basis in any enumerated or interpreted point of Church teaching that allows individual hierarchs (or groups of hierarchs) from making the sort of bold claims that you have referenced. And while it may be true that it doesn’t get to the heart of whether or not they are ultimately right or wrong in doing what they do, it does raise a red flag. What are the limits? Again, I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question, but given what is at stake, it seems they are being openly played with in an unwarranted fashion.

Again, I stress that the issue isn’t one of saying X, Y, and Z, lack Grace, but that we have no basis for believing that Grace exists there. Arguments forwarded that say there is Grace in the Roman Catholic (or maybe just the Eastern Catholic) Sacraments are speculative at best. No part of me wishes they didn’t have Grace, just as no part of me wishes that any should be outside the Church. I don’t believe one can be a true Christian and dwell in the despicable hope that others are bound for damnation. At the same time, I also do not believe one can be a true Christian and blow-off questions like this in the name of some entirely human value. Speaking as a former Catholic of the Eastern Rite whose family is still almost entirely Catholic, I certainly take no comfort in holding to a belief that they dwell in bodies that are not simply heterodox, but an affront to the Church itself. But what comforts me personally is not now, nor has even been, good ground for asserting a claim as bold as transcending Grace in all communions who happen to call themselves Christian.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am glad it wouldn’t surprise you that I’m an Old Calendarist, especially since there is at least the possibility that they take themselves seriously.<<<

No, they take themselves pompously. There is a difference. Old Calendarists, like the FBI, have no discernable sense of humor whatsoever. And, as true integrists, they can never see the forest for the trees. Interestingly, the most militant Old Calendarists I know are recent converts from certain Evangelical denominations. Their sense of election is such that they feel the need to disinherit the rest of humanity, lest heaven get too crowded.

>>>Pointing out historical incidences of it (along with its continuation in certain parts of the world) does nothing to offset the possibility that it is not correct<<<

Except that it tends to be an historical artifact, which can only be understood in an historical context. And when one does, it becomes eminently clear that mutual exclusionism is a relatively recent development based more on political and social prejudices than on any substantive theological grounds.

>>>Speaking as a former Catholic of the Eastern Rite whose family is still almost entirely Catholic, I certainly take no comfort in holding to a belief that they dwell in bodies that are not simply heterodox, but an affront to the Church itself. But what comforts me personally is not now, nor has even been, good ground for asserting a claim as bold as transcending Grace in all communions who happen to call themselves Christian.<<<

To me, it's all the same. I am an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome. There is nothing that the Orthodox Church professes that I do not profess.

[Luthien]

>>>Either way, I am at pains to find a statement from any Orthodox body officially recognizing Grace in the "sacraments" (which may not even be recognized as such by the bodies which perform them) of non-Orthodox except, of course, a few extensions to Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox Eastern Christians.<<<
There may or may not be a specific document recognizing it, but certainly in practice the Orthodox church does not usually rebaptize converts from other Christian backgrounds who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nor does the Church usually insist on remarrying couples who were married in another church before becoming Orthodox. So clearly there must be some sort of grace recognized in those sacraments.

>>>Old Calendarists, like the FBI, have no discernable sense of humor whatsoever. <<<<
Now Stuart, ease up on the Old Calendarists, I do actually know one who has a sense of humor... Here in France the parishes of the Exarchate are roughly evenly divided between old calendar and new; somehow they all manage to survive under the same hierarchs without actually killing or anathemizing each other as far as I am aware. The calendar doesn't absolutely have to be that huge of a deal. You are quite right about converts from certain Protsetant backgrounds being the most hardcore. They call it convertitis.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There may or may not be a specific document recognizing it, but certainly in practice the Orthodox church does not usually rebaptize converts from other Christian backgrounds who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nor does the Church usually insist on remarrying couples who were married in another church before becoming Orthodox. So clearly there must be some sort of grace recognized in those sacraments.<<<

in fact, rebaptism of Catholics occured only during a brief period in the mid-18th century, and then only within the territory of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This was a reaction to the Melkite schism of 1724, and the subsequent directive of the Church of Rome to deny communion to Orthodox Christians within the Patriarchate of Antioch. Given the fusion of political and spiritual functions within the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the Ottoman captivity, this was an understandble development. But by the 1760s, the directive to rebaptize had been reversed by a synod in Constantinople. With the exception of a few hyper-Orthodox rigorist sects (themselves utterly uncanonical and out of communion with all but themselves), all Orthodox jurisdictions recognize trinitarian baptism, and only chrismate those already baptized, trusting to "the divine grace, which provides that which is lacking and heals that which is infirm". That is, by the way, the same formulation used in the Rite of Ordination (Cheirotonia) within the Byzantine rite.

>>>They call it convertitis.<<<

Happens frequently when someone converts "from" something, rather than "to" something.

[Kyralessa]

Just how recently did you convert, Gabriel?

I can remember when I sounded like you.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

As much as I sometimes love to do it myself, dropping "convertitus" is about as old hat as dropping "don't know where the church isn't." It's exceedingly lame--not to mention incorrect--to assume that just because one is skeptical concerning open-ended ecclesiology that there is animus there. Still, I see why it gets done and appreciate it as a shortcut to bypass the treacherous roads of thinking.

The issue of how converts are received into Orthodoxy is not germane to this discussion. Still, it's worth pointing out that the history of how converts are received into the Church is still open to questioning, especially in light of the fact that methods were adopted without much given in the way of thought. It's worth mentiong Paul Meyendorff's article on St. Peter Moghila (yes, I said "Saint") from SVS Quarterly some years ago and his innovative writing of the three means of reception into the Trebnik. Right or wrong, Moghila did it unilaterally and due to a variety of transmission issues I won't go into here, it became normative in Russian Orthodoxy for centuries. It's theological merit or, rather, what we can draw from it theologically is a much more complicated matter. What's important to keep in mind is that some of these practices arose in response to cultural and political conditions, thus making sense in their context but not--dare I say--standing as be all, end all evidence that the Church's true attitude towards converts and the Grace of other confessions has been set once and for all.

But to get back on track here, there still hasn't been much offered in the way of a proper answer about where I would find evidence of the rather profound claims being forwarded here. Historical anecdotes aside, nothing substantial has been offered which is a shame. I think it would be fascinating to read something of substance that could offset or, at least, correct the treatment of the issue by Barnes I mentioned earlier. But when all else fails, let the ad hominem attacks and condescension begin.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Kyralessa,

When did you sound like a skeptic in the face of bold new claims and why does the duration of your conversion have anything to do with it? Because as I see it, that's what is in play here.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Historical anecdotes aside, nothing substantial has been offered which is a shame. <<<

There is nothing else, because Tradition is what the Church DOES, not what is written down in a book.

[Stuart Koehl]

By the way, Gabe, just as there is nothing Linda can tell me about Jews, there really isn't anything you can tell me about converts. Or Orthodoxy, or ecumenism, or Church history, for that matter. Snark somewhere else.

[kate]

Sanchez: It's theological merit or, rather, what we can draw from it theologically is a much more complicated matter.

I'm only a spectator of this match, nor was I lurking when the original dust-up began. But it is bracing to read precisely and carefully constructed English on the internet. So, I couldn't resist pointing out to Mr. Sanchez a common grammatical mistake, since he obviously values correct English usage: It's should be Its.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Kate,

I don't put on my tap shoes for a barnyard hoedown.

I'm of the opinion that my English (and, for that matter, my grammar) is the pits when I'm not in mortal fear of having my words read by students in a class or academics at a conference. That may be the very worse thing about "blogging" next to the fact that this exercise is called "blogging" and not web-logging. Regardless, I never did get my answer and I don't think I am going to. I may just have to bite the bullet and read some of Mr. Hutchens's old articles. Thank Heavens for free printing and long train rides.

For my dissenting Orthodox brethren out there, you know where to e-mail me when you find that book or article or note your priest scribbled on the back of a napkin at coffee hour that directs curious minds to an authentic and adequate (read: not ad hoc) treatment of Orthodoxy's understanding of Grace outside of full communion. For the record, I think your sentiments are in the right place and I can't say I don't hold some of them myself. In the end, none of it amounts to a shred of evidence that we can know for certain where Grace abides except in the "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" we confess as Orthodox Christians--hopefully--every single day.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>For my dissenting Orthodox brethren out there, you know where to e-mail me when you find that book or article or note your priest scribbled on the back of a napkin at coffee hour that directs curious minds to an authentic and adequate (read: not ad hoc) treatment of Orthodoxy's understanding of Grace outside of full communion. <<<

Define "authentic and adequate" in a truly Orthodox manner. Provide essential patristic citations for the concepts of "authenticity" and "adequacy". Frankly, both seem like awfully (dare I say it?) "Latin" categories. Are you by any chance a victim of "pseudomorphia"?

[Peter Gardner]

"With the exception of a few hyper-Orthodox rigorist sects (themselves utterly uncanonical and out of communion with all but themselves), all Orthodox jurisdictions recognize trinitarian baptism, and only chrismate those already baptized, trusting to "the divine grace, which provides that which is lacking and heals that which is infirm"."

ROCOR baptizes all converts, whether previously Catholic, Protestant, or Zoroastrian. We're in communion with almost everyone else.

Though the baptism policy might change sooner or later; it was put into place shortly after the Bolshevik takeover, when it felt like the whole world was crashing down around us. So far, the MP hasn't pushed us to conform to their baptismal policies yet (which is probably an extremely good idea -- there are still some non-commemorating parishes here and there; the reunification hasn't finished playing itself out.).

[Mairnéalach]

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?”
And they were not silent, because they were not AT ALL ashamed of what they'd been discussing. Thus, they began to blather to him about who among them was the greatest. They had really great arguments drawn from the writings of many Christian people in the 4th and 11th centuries to support them. They had lots of this "arguing who is the greatest" tradition behind them. They were even very well read, and had a great way with rhetoric. Surely their master would be impressed with their zeal and passion and their picayune definitions!
And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”
And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”
And they muttered to themselves, "I wonder how we can make this illustration an even better argument for who's the greatest?"
And he said "What did you say?"
And they said, "um, nothing".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>ROCOR baptizes all converts, whether previously Catholic, Protestant, or Zoroastrian. We're in communion with almost everyone else.<<<

Actually, ROCOR policy varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I have a friend who became Orthodox and was received by Chrismation at the ROCOR Cathedral in Washington, DC. And, with the return of communion between ROCOR and the Patriarchate, I expect the practice, which was not followed by the Russian Church prior to the Revolution, will deservedly die out. After all, there is that nasty canon of Basil the Great which indicates that even baptisms performed by heretics should be recognized "by economy" as long as they were conducted in the name of the Holy Trinity.

Also, ROCOR was not until recently in communion "with everybody", due to its lack of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.

[Rob G]

If I remember correctly, there was a decimation of Barnes' book in Touchstone some years ago, by either Fr. Reardon or Dr. Tighe. In addition, the book appears to have been allowed to go out of print -- it no longer appears in the Regina Orthodox Press catalog.

At the time Barnes wrote the book he had been Orthodox only a few years. Not sure how he managed to become such an expert on these things so quickly. Also, I'm not sure why Franky Schaffer gave him a platform, but that appears to have been rectified, at least temporarily. Barnes runs a traditionalist/rigorist Orthodox website called the Orthodox Christian Information Center which is a mix of both good info and some shaky stuff. Because of its curate's egg quality, I generally tell inquirers to steer clear of it when looking for info on Orthodoxy.

[luthien]

Mr. Sanchez,
This article from the GOARCH website exlains the Archdiocese's position on sacraments of non-Orthodox churches; you have to scroll down a bit, it's under the heading Sacraments Outside the Church.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7106.asp
Also the OCA generally accepts Trinitrian baptisms of other churches although less of an explanation is given.
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=121&SID=3
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=178&SID=3
These are probably the most official statements you'll be able to find; as Stuart says, Tradition is what the Church does.

[Margaret]

"I never did get my answer and I don't think I am going to. I may just have to bite the bullet and read some of Mr. Hutchens's old articles. Thank Heavens for free printing and long train rides."

You have the sudden keen interest AND the time, yet you expect others to scurry into the archives to forage tidbits for your delectation?

After you've made it clear that you'd do it yourself except researching the answers to your questions is painful and tedious?

And that though you may in the end be forced to read a bunch of old stuff because of the barnyard's slack attendance, you give sincere thanks that neither writer, nor scholar, nor paper seller will get a dime out of satisfying your desire for information?

Whee! Oh Mr. Sanchez, I love your risky sense of humor.

[Stuart Koehl]

Just to save people some time, here is what the GOARCH site says:

Sacraments Outside the Church.

In principle the Orthodox Church does not see the same fullness in the 'sacraments' performed outside the Church. Yet, she does not consider these actions of other Christians as lacking totally in spiritual power and substance. Here, the Church applies the doctrine of economy and sees these acts in the light of the Lord's words "no man who performs a miracle using my name can speak ill of me" (Mk. 9:38). The 'sacraments' of other Christians are disfigured to the measure that Christ and his teaching have been kept or distorted. These Christians may be considered, in a lesser or greater degree, as peripheral members of the Orthodox Church. The center of the operation of the Holy Spirit is the historical and visible One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

*******

On baptism, see Canon 1 of Basil the Great:

For it appeared to the ancients to be a reasonable rule that any baptism should be utterly disregarded that has been performed by heretics, or, in other words, by those who have been utterly separated from the Church and who differ from the Orthodox in respect of faith itself, and whose difference is directly dependent of faith in God. As for the baptism of schismatics, on the other hand, it appeared to the Synod of Cyprian and of my own Firmilian that it too ought to be disregarded and rejected, seeing that the schismatics—the Novatians, I mean, the Encratites, the Sarcophores, the Aquarians, and others—have separated in principle form the Church, and after separating have not had the grace of the Holy Spirit in them any longer, as the impartation of it has ceased; hence as having become laymen they have had neither the spiritual gift nor the authority to baptize or to ordain, and consequently those who are baptized by them, as being baptized by laymen, have been ordered to be baptized with the true Baptism of the Catholic Church. Yet inasmuch as it appeared reasonable to some Fathers of Asia for the Baptism of schismatics to be deemed acceptable for the sake of some economy in behalf of the multitude, let it be accepted.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Jaroslav Pelikan wasn't Orthodox for almost 90% of his life and I'd dare say he knew more about Orthodox doctrinal history than 99.9% of the Orthodox. The point being that Barnes's time in the Church has no necessary correlation to the rightness/wrongness of his arguments. Also, Barnes's book is largely a survey of the literature with extensive quotes from both Patristic and more recent sources. He doesn't forward his own thesis, but rather calls attention to one that has been witnessed to consistently in the history of the Church. Also, his dispute with bent of Regina Orthodox Press probably has more to do with the book going out of print than anything else. Those down with their Orthodox publishing trivia may recall that such works as the Pentecostarion and the Ascetical Homilies of St. Issac the Syrian are both now out-of-print; should I assume that's because they're full of errors and unreliable? What a silly argument.

As for Fr. Patrick Reardon's "review" of the book, Barnes posted it on his website here (scroll down) and it is hardly a shining example of thoroughgoing critique. In fact, I think Barnes is right that Fr. Patrick didn't read the book or, at least, not that closely. I found Fr. Patrick's remarks on Barnes relying on "fringe" commentary to be especially strange considering there is over a page and a half of quotes from that "radical sectarian" +KALLISTOS Ware's commentary on Grace and the reception of converts. (Warning: That quote comes from a book which I believe is now out-of print (!!!), so I can't honestly say it isn't riddled with lies.) Also, the freely available edition of Barnes's book contains quite a bit of careful response to his critics. Nothing that has been said here (and really, not much has been said at all) hasn't been addressed in the text itself or his various replies.

It's worth mentioning that Barnes's book is one book amongst many, and given how much of it relies on quotations, a glance at the footnotes reveals numerous other places one can go for a treatment of the issue. It's helpfulness does not lie in Barnes's originality, but rather in its succinctness. As for his website, I do wonder: What is the "standard" being employed to separate the wheat from the chaff? What personally doesn't sit well? It's one thing to dismiss writings and positions that don't fit in with one's comfort zone; it's another thing altogether to submit them to rigorous analysis and demonstrate clearly and convincingly that the object of said analysis is flawed if not altogether false. I lament the fact that it is a skill which is fast evaporating in a consumerist culture where pick n' choose living is as easily extended to religious doctrine as it is to which color SUV with the five-disc DVD changer to buy. The same pathology is at work in both and I am sorry to see it rear its ugliness here.

As for the web citations, I thank you for them. The open-endedness of the statements simply circles us back to the issues being "discussed" (pardon my loose usage) here. This is where--again--Barnes's book and the sources he cites becomes useful for wrestling with it. In my own research on this topic (research that took place long before this hashing and bashing fest began), I was disappointed to find that those forwarding an "open-ended" understanding of the Church and Grace were inclined to do what so many theological liberals revel in: Historicize that which is inconvienient and absolutize what is agreeable. So, e.g., if some wing of the Church shared Communion with the non-Orthodox for X number of years, it is taken as proof that Grace abides in the non-Orthodox branch. However, if a canonical body of bishops come together to determine that converts need to be received by Baptism, it's a historical matter bound up with nationalism and prejudice, thus not worth the time of day exploring as a possibly correct route for confronting the matter. Regardless of the topic, the historicize/absolutize approach is as unhelpful as it is dubious.

On a final note to Margaret: Have you been reading this thread at all? My "keen interest" comes from Mr. Hutchens's original post, and I dare say that I don't believe I was out of bounds in hoping that he knew his own works well enough to point out a few that might clarify certain ambiguities in his writing. So sue me.

[Stuart Koehl]

All I have to say is Gabe's posts reveal a mindset about as legalistic and Latin as any I have found outside of the SSPX and certain Russian Orthodox partisans. It certainly doesn't show a particularly profound understanding of or sharing in the Orthodox mindset.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

Thanks for the quotes, but even you know you're "canon picking" here. As much as you don't want to, I really think you should look at Barnes's work since it does treat the canons quite well and--more importantly--actually discusses the longstanding meaning of Economy in Orthodoxy rather than tossing it out there as a meaningless buzz word. Also, when have I ever endorsed the rebaptism of converts to Orthodoxy? How did this issue even get started? It is entirely consistent to believe that those who have been baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity in non-Orthodox bodies ought to be received through Chrismation *and still* not endorse a view that Sacramental Grace abides in the body which performed it. It is--perhaps--even more consistent to believe that Chrismation is the proper way to receive convers who have been baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity and remain *agnostic* to whether or not Sacramental Grace abides in the non-Orthodox body which performed it. Either way, whatever my inclination on this matter is, it has nothing to do with the Baptism issue that has become the "hot talk" of the hour.

If you need a refresher, recall that the Grace discussion began in reference to my statement concerning women in leadership roles in non-Orthodox (Protestant) bodies. Nobody has addressed that issue except--surprise surprise--a Protestant and really, that's a much stickier matter of how Biblical interpretation is to be applied to offices which the Orthodox Church has not, and will not, ever endorse. I leave it to the Protestants who find themselves in the midst of the "crisis" of women leaders to hash that one out. For the Orthodox, it is and always will be a non-issue.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

Wait? I'm a Latin now? Well, at least--according to you--I have Grace in my Church!

Good Heavens son (or is it "sir"?), this one-liners are getting to be a bit much. I know we all have better things to do (I'm sitting on hold with United Airlines as we speak), but you could at least point out where I am being a "Latin." Maybe you meant to say "Latino" because of my last name. Is that it? If so, I forgive you. I've been prone to making a few typing errors myself on here.

[David Gray]

>I leave it to the Protestants who find themselves in the midst of the "crisis" of women leaders to hash that one out. For the Orthodox, it is and always will be a non-issue.

Perhaps then you can refrain from making any more foolish statements regarding that subject.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Wait? I'm a Latin now? <<<

No, you just think like one. An occupational hazard for those who come in from the West--although two hundred years of imbibing Latin theological methods in Orthodox seminaries did leave its mark (in Russia, theology classes were taught in Latin until the Revolution). You're Latin because you like authority to be extrinsic--you just differ from them on the locus of authority. True Orthodoxy has always seen authority as being intrinsic, utterly grounded in the sacramental life of the Church.

>>>Well, at least--according to you--I have Grace in my Church!<<<

That there is grace in the Church has nothing at all to do with you, though.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

Thanks for the history lesson on Russia, though surely a man as well-versed on all things Orthodox to the point of himself being an authority capable of rendering final judgment on my thinking without any evidence that you've put forth even a modest collection of logically-strung thoughts picked up on my earlier reference to St. Peter Moghila. If that's not "Latinizing," I don't know what is. All the same, it's one thing to say someone thinks like a Latin and another to point out that their Latin thinking leads to decidedly un-Orthodox conclusions or--to subdue the matter a bit--simply leads to the wrong conclusion. Maybe I should have taken a right turn down Hazy Topic Dr. and swung a sharp left on Imprecision Blvd. so that I too might share in your mapping of the Orthodox terrain, but all the same, I have arrived and you still haven't come any closer to proving I'm in the wrong spot. (In fact, I am starting to think you don't even know where I am.)

You're dropping platitudes and punchlines, Stuart. Do you really expect that I am going to be rocked to the core by them and retreat to my bookshelf to be re-educated by those "fluid" and "emotive" thinkers like Sts. John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, or Theodore the Studite? I have a hunch--just a hunch--that if I were to do so, I still wouldn't come back with the touchy feely ecclesiology you unwavering take to be the absolutist statement of Orthodoxy. And that is where the problem really lies, I suppose. I could do all sorts of reading and never reach your ill-stated, wobbly conclusions because in the end, no matter what I put forth, you can immediately close off reason by saddling me (or others who might agree) with thinking like a "Latin" and holding to your precious experentialism which divinizes all truths to you and you alone. The degree to which your line declines towards pneumopathology is unsettling, though I take comfort in the fact that it's entirely unintentional.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thanks for the history lesson on Russia, though surely a man as well-versed on all things Orthodox to the point of himself being an authority capable of rendering final judgment on my thinking without any evidence that you've put forth even a modest collection of logically-strung thoughts picked up on my earlier reference to St. Peter Moghila.<<<

Peter Moghila is a very interesting person, who probably would have been willing to accept union with Rome except for the issue of the Filioque. His thinking is perhaps a little too Latin for some Orthodox, though his Orthodox Confession, based as it was on the model of Latin catechisms, was accepted (with reservations) by several Russian synods. Positioned as he was at the crossroad of East and West, Moghila was undoubtedly exposed to counter-reformation religious educational techniques, and his adoption of them to counteract the spread of the Unia was an effective albeit double-edged sword: effective because it allowed Orthodox apologists in the Brotherhoods to beat the Uniatizers at their own game; double-edged because "when you look into the abyss you become the abyss"--Orthodox theology took on a Latin tint that it did not shake for close to 300 years.

Moghila's 1629 Liturgicon is an even more useful document, since it accurately represents the pre-Nikonian usage of the Kyivan Church. The publication of a facsimile copy of the book, using three of the five extant original editions, caused considerable consternation in both Orthodox and Greek Catholic circles. The former were dismayed to find that many of the usages they had thought to be "latinizations" were in fact authentically Orthodox; the latter discovered that many so-called "Russifications" of the Kyivan liturgy were authentically Ukrainian after all.

>>.Do you really expect that I am going to be rocked to the core by them and retreat to my bookshelf to be re-educated by those "fluid" and "emotive" thinkers like Sts. John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, or Theodore the Studite?<<<

No, you're far too stubborn a pissant ever to admit you're wrong.

>>>I have a hunch--just a hunch--that if I were to do so, I still wouldn't come back with the touchy feely ecclesiology you unwavering take to be the absolutist statement of Orthodoxy.<<<

So, at the end of the day, you would side with Ignatios over Photios, or is it the other way around?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

That's a lovely, precious style of writing, Mr. Sanchez. It obscures as much as it reveals, which I suppose is the point. But Stuart is a lot clearer than you are. Your suppositions about him seem less grounded than his about you.

[Rob G]

"All I have to say is Gabe's posts reveal a mindset about as legalistic and Latin as any I have found outside of the SSPX and certain Russian Orthodox partisans. It certainly doesn't show a particularly profound understanding of or sharing in the Orthodox mindset."

Amen to that, Stuart. In my 16 years among the Orthodox, four as an inquirer and over twelve in the Church, I've run into very few Orthodox priests, monastics, or faithful who express views of this type. And I've been to many different parishes, retreats, conferences, etc., of the various jurisdictions. The mindset that Gabriel is representing is, in my experience, quite the anomaly.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

Let me water it down so Godbold can follow as well: You haven't shown anything. In fact, this whole "discussion" has gotten so derailed from the original point that I am willing to concede that you don't even know what you're arguing about. The "Grace/no Grace" issue effectively died yesterday; since then it has been a battle over the limits of dismissive statements and your disjointed series of declarations concerning me in all of my shame and glory.

For the record, you're not telling me anything new when you insert your history lessons. I thought I made that clear when I called attention back to my referencing of St. Peter. I think Paul Meyendorff's article on him and his reforms is about as levelheaded a treatment of the man as I have read. As for his contributions to Orthodoxy, I think it's very fair to say that he helped preserve Orthodoxy in the midst of a crisis but that in so doing he stretched the boundaries of what more a more soberminded analysis would call Orthodox. Regardless, I find it more fitting to think of the man's legacy in terms of what he helped protect rather than what footnotes he may now furnish to historical-critical analysis of the transmission of liturgical books.

Again with the sweeping statements and where, oh where, are ye dear substance? Honestly, we don't have to do this all day for the children to see. After reading enough of your retorts, I am beginning to sense a locked-in pattern of cute referencing of historical facts available on Wikipedia in your one-liners meant to "expose" me for my "Latinizing" ways. It's unhelpful for one, and no doubt a waste of your time as much as it is of mine. I find your utter disregard of caution to be vexing, but it's nothing new. I again draw your attention to the closing lines of my previous reply to you...and I'll have to leave it at that.

By the way, just out of curiosity, you're not the same Stuart Koehl the military analyst are you? Maybe you are. I just wondered.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Rob,

What is my mindset? Just curious. I want to know since apparently you and Stauart know and I, sadly, sit in the dark. It's a horrible thing when a man can't even understand what he thinks.

Just for kicks, I'll take a stab: I am unconvinced that emotional appeals and one-liners amount to an argument for anything (even the existence of such things as gravity and mathematics). As for the Orthodox-specific issues being "discussed" here, I don't recall saying much of anything that positively reflects my views. But please, enlighten me. And be quote-happy if you will; it'll help tie down this exciting final chapter in an otherwise abysmally disjointed novel.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

That was supposed to be clear?

[Rob G]

Gabriel: I'll keep it succinct. From what you've written here your approach to Orthodoxy seems quite rigorist and triumphalistic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What is my mindset?<<<

Supercillious?

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Rob,

That was easy enough.

On "Rigorist": I'm a "rigorist" in that I do not believe the Orthodox Church's teachings to be as open-ended and flexible as Stuart seems to believe. (Please note the word "seems" since all I can do is speculate given what little evidence Stuart has presented on the matter.) Perhaps I am a "rigorist" in other respects as well, though we certainly haven't touched upon those matters here. I do, however, reject the dichotomy between rigorism/liberalism in Orthodoxy. I have to wonder if my defense (a very basic defense at that) of Barnes, his book, and his website hasn't caused some to draw the wrong conslusion that I am somehow absolutely infatuated with all three. But I could list off any number of other books written by Orthodox authors I both agree and disagree with which have been the subject of undue scorn that I could try my hand at defending just as easily (read: just as basically) without in any way wedding myself to the whole (or even part) of their contents. What has been disappointing to me in all of this is that despite all of the animosity towards Barnes and the thinking he allegedly represents, nobody has really done anything to show where he is wrong. I leave it as an open question that he has presented a wrong and/or incomplete picture. I also have recommended--and will recommend again--that his sources be explored since, again, his book is not, nor tries to be, an "original" work.

Maybe here my "rigor" shines through again. It has nothing to do with setting boundaries or developing precise definitions. It does, however, have everything to do with clearly away needless gunk and removing ambiguities that are only ambiguities because individuals have not invested the care to clarify. There is a proper distinction to be made between a Mystery and willful ignorance. If that's "Latizing," then so be it. May we all find shade in the seven hills of Rome.

On "Triumphalist": I confess the Orthodox Church to be the "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" of the Creed. Is that "triumphalist"? Because I tell you, it doesn't go further than that. I don't pay much attention to what goes on in other Christian confessions except when it spills over into the greater whole of the society I happen to live in. If it is for good, then I praise it; if it is for anything else, my attitude cools considerably. I don't see how that makes me different from most who call themselves Orthodox and believe it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I do, however, reject the dichotomy between rigorism/liberalism in Orthodoxy<<<

So do I. The proper terms are rigorism and oikonomia, and in Orthodoxy both are held in dynamic tension. Which is why i asked you about Ignatios Neos and Photios. Both are saints, yet the latter was certainly very much more inclined to oikonomia than the former. For that matter, I wonder how you can deal with the entire issue of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, particularly those that dealt with the Christological issues (Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III), since they were in fact exercises in the very sort of "split the difference", "fuzz the issues" ecumenism you find so distasteful. See, e.g., John Meyendorff's "Christ in Orthodox Theology" and "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions" for details.

[Bobby Winters]

Just a question from a Methodist sitting on the side watchin' the tennis match: Is anyone Orthodox?

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

Neither of those councils were anything of the sort, especially since the "fuzz the issues ecumenism" I have mentioned is of a fairly recent vintage. That Meyendorff himself may be complicit in such activities is--as I am sure you know--a point which has colored both the reception and the reliability of his scholarship.

"Liberalism" is not the same as "oikonomia," no matter how closely the two are blended in the everyday parlance of armchair experts on Orthodoxy. This is where some reasonable degree of percision is important. Otherwise, what you have as a an empty-vessel term into which can be poured all sorts of poisons. The problem is that "oikonomia" has been wrongly appropriated by those who want to skirt the hard issues or, worse, reimagine the very Church itself. I stress again, however, that the matter isn't germane to this discussion since--again--the means by which the Church has chosen over the course of her storied history to receive converts has nothing conclusively to do with whether or not any act by any non-Orthodox body can be said to have Grace. It certainly doesn't even begin to tread into the issue of what the offices of non-Orthodox bodies indeed are (or are not) in a Sacramental sense.

Again, when it comes to *my* position on any of these topics, there is no offering of any evidence on yours (or Rob's) part of where I have announced once and for all that X or Y or, heck, even Z, is the case on any of the topics "discussed." I confess and believe that Grace is in the Orthodox Church. Period. Beyond that--as I said before--you are getting into speculative waters that may indeed benefit from some grounding rather than the personal hopes and dreams of adherents to open-ended ecclesiology. Despite your claims to the contrary, I do not believe such grounding needs to come in the form of official statements (though I admit that they are helpful from time to time) or even the opinion of any one Church Father. An analysis of the lived experience and history of the Church is entirely valid insofar as a complete analysis is undertaken with a constant eye on those elements of the Faith that have been defined and witnessed to over the life of the Church. Dare I ask: Where is it? Let's have it, Stuart. I am not expecting you to pen a thesis on the topic. But since you believe yourself to be so well-informed, surely you must know some treatment of it--a treatment that has given you the confidence to stroll onto a public forum and make the sort of far-reaching, broad declarations that are the hallmarks of your writing.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>On "Triumphalist": I confess the Orthodox Church to be the "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" of the Creed. Is that "triumphalist"? Because I tell you, it doesn't go further than that. I don't pay much attention to what goes on in other Christian confessions except when it spills over into the greater whole of the society I happen to live in. If it is for good, then I praise it; if it is for anything else, my attitude cools considerably. I don't see how that makes me different from most who call themselves Orthodox and believe it.<<<

Gabe's approach to Orthodoxy is not unlike the way some Prius drivers approach their cars. Driving hybrid can be a good thing, even an admirable thing--but why do Prius drivers have to be so damned smug about it? Similarly, it should be possible to be Orthodox without thinking or acting like you're better than everybody else (even if you are).

But then, from my perspective, guys like Gabe are put on earth to provide balance to the Ultramontane Romans. Without Gabe, I would be tempted to think that only Roman Catholics were jerks. He provides equal time for the Orthodox case.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Bobby,

I thought I was, but apparently I'm not. I'm busy filling out my application to join the Society of St. Pius X. (If they reject me, I'll forward my materials to SSPV.)

[Bobby Winters]

>>I thought I was, but apparently I'm not.<<

If you say so, I'll say you are. Who'd say such a thing if it wasn't so?

So, I am a Methodist. Am I goin' to hell if I don't change?

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Stuart,

You be the pot, since I'm the kettle...

It's strange, isn't it, to call me names, indict my personality, and strip of my dignity for all to see and yet not produce a single word that might be used to describe yourself. Of course, there's nothing I can do about it now. "Sticks and stones..." and all that cal.

I am trying to be sensitive to your words, but the hardest thing about it is that it's so darn far from what my usual critics (I am apt to call them friends) say about me and my attitude towards Orthodoxy. I suppose that is why I have been pestering you for some time to narrow it down, to stay grounded, to keep within the wide and wonderous reality that we both share. I leave it open as to whether or not you are more perceptive than the people I normally join company with. You'll have to excuse me, however, if I don't find myself leaning towards the negative on that one. Your penchant for indictment doesn't match any apparent willingness to gather evidence.

I think, however, you have made a good point (albeit indirectly). I am definitely being a "jerk" in that I am drifting away from seriousness on this topic. I have exhausted what I honestly have to say on it and while I do enjoy the hints at going elsewhere with this, it hasn't amounted to much of anything. I think it's too bad you believe what you do about me because I am willing to place my hand on a Bible (any Bible--even a Douay-Rheims) and tell you truthfully that most of what you think I think is not what I think or, for that matter, have ever thought. It's not fair to you that I'm being elliptical anymore than it is fair to those poor souls who find themselves trampling through this muck to have to see you and I (or anyone else for that matter) having a feces throwing contest. I do thank you for mentioning the Meyendorff books--it's been a long time since I have read anything of his. With that said, I really do need to take my leave of this.

I am sorry if you have been put-off or offended by anything I have said. I am sorry if my words were not as toned down as is fitting for discourse between Christians of any stripe. Your forgiveness is humbly requested.

In XC,

Gabriel

[DGP]

>>I would be tempted to think that only Roman Catholics were jerks.

There's an old saw, "Prick a Protestant, and he bleeds Roman Catholic." But it's true of jerks as well. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You be the pot, since I'm the kettle...<<<

Oh, I know I'm an arrogant SOB, but you're a snarky, arrogant SOB who generates his own smug cloud.

>>>It's strange, isn't it, to call me names, indict my personality, and strip of my dignity for all to see and yet not produce a single word that might be used to describe yourself. Of course, there's nothing I can do about it now. "Sticks and stones..." and all that cal.<<<

And I never whine. Sign of weakness. If you grew up in a Jewish intellectual family, you'd know this.

>>>I am sorry if you have been put-off or offended by anything I have said. I am sorry if my words were not as toned down as is fitting for discourse between Christians of any stripe. Your forgiveness is humbly requested.<<<

Me, too. But I never take it personally (lots of scar tissue from flensing administered by experts). I only get annoyed when people pick on my friends.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But it's true of jerks as well. :-)<<<

I've met my share of Byzantine Catholics, too. At least four of them wear mitres.

[Josef]

Gabriel,
Nobody here has made you aware that Stuart Koehl is NOT Orthodox. He is Uniate, but thinks it's the same as being Orthodox. He runs under a false flag...

[Rob G]

Josef, Stuart said this above: "I am an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome. There is nothing that the Orthodox Church professes that I do not profess."

I wouldn't call that running under a false flag.

[Stuart Koehl]

Thanks, Rob.

Also, I would point out that I am NOT a Uniate, a term many consider opprobrious. I KNOW many Uniates--Eastern Catholics who for all intents and purposes are Roman Catholics in all but their ritual observance. I am not one of these. In theology, spirituality, doctrine, discipline and ritual, I am as Orthodox as anyone under the omophorion of a canonical Orthodox bishop--and a lot more Orthodox than some of those.

[Josef]

@Rob G, could you please explain then who is the Orthodox (in the usual meaning of the word) the one in communion with the Bishop of Rome or the one who is in communion with a canonical Orthodox Bishop... You can't be both!

@Stuart Koehl, I have read your comments here for quite a while, with some of which I agree, many I am not. I am definitely not in agreement with you constantly maintaining that you are Orthodox. You are NOT! If you are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not Orthodox by definition. That is the meaning of being Orthodox. All your fancy rhetoric cannot change that fact.
"In theology, spirituality, doctrine, discipline and ritual, I am as Orthodox as anyone..." Only in your own mind and because you use your personal definition of the word Orthodox in this context....
"...and a lot more Orthodox than some of those." Good to know that you are even more Orthodox, while in communion with the Bishop of Rome, than some of the canonical Bishops of the Orthodox Church. That is called chutzpa...

[Peter Gardner]

While I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox, I'm even less comfortable with "If you are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not Orthodox by definition. That is the meaning of being Orthodox." In fact, I'd adimantly disagree with that. Orthodoxy is not Catholic minus Rome, nor is Orthodoxy inherently out of communion with the Patriarch of Rome (St. Gregory the Dialogist, anyone?).

[Josef]

@ Stuart Koehl, if you really want to be Orthodox, go to the next Orthodox Church, see the parish priest, make an Orthodox Confession, and get Chrismated. Then you can call yourself Orthodox......

[Josef]

@ Peter Gardner, we're talking here about the semantics and definition of the word Orthodox, not its doctrinal implications.
"nor is Orthodoxy inherently out of communion with the Patriarch of Rome" What does "inherently" stand for? You are either in communion or you're not. Inherently in this content is a weasel word.... meaning nothing.

[Josef]

For what it's worth, I am an Orthodox Christian (not in communion with Rome)and a longtime reader, but have never before posted here.
I don't want to make my entry by, so to speak, falling with door into the house. But, I got royally annoyed how Gabriel Sanchez was treated to a howling pack. He was courteous and well spoken, most of all he had many points that merited thoughtful reply. However, the reception he got was disgraceful.
I am doubtful about the whole ecumenical enterprise anyway and what I saw here did nothing to convince me otherwise. I will, however, keep reading....

[DGP]

>>If you are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not Orthodox by definition. That is the meaning of being Orthodox.

>>we're talking here about the semantics and definition of the word Orthodox, not its doctrinal implications.

But that's exactly what you're talking about, if you're claiming that Mr. Koehl is not allowed to describe himself as Orthodox.

[DGP]

JOSEF: >>But, I got royally annoyed how Gabriel Sanchez was treated to a howling pack.... However, the reception he got was disgraceful.

I don't see him getting any worse than he gave. After all, he launched into this thread with rather unflattering remarks about Mr. Hutchens.

>>He was courteous and well spoken, most of all he had many points that merited thoughtful reply.

He does, but most of them have been answered by Mr. Hutchens as far as Mr. Hutchens is likely to answer them. I happen to agree that Mr. Sanchez has a valid criticism of Mr. Hutchens, but Mr. Sanchez's "questions" read less like legitimate questions and more like a man trying to press an attack when he senses weakness in his enemy.

Even if they were legitimate questions, it's against the chivalry of most weblogs to insist on a response. One makes contributions as best one can, and one may ask questions in hope of response, but it doesn't follow that one may complain about an individual has failed to respond to any and all challenges.

[Josef]

@DGP.... mmmmh, I should have let bad enough alone. But here we go.

"But that's exactly what you're talking about, if you're claiming that Mr. Koehl is not allowed to describe himself as Orthodox." Okay then I declare (describe) myself Emperor of China and Outer Mongolia and Czar of all the Rest.... What is your point.
Mr. Koehl can describe himself to be whatever he wants. That description, however does not make it so... Either we agree on the definition of a word, and "Orthodox" has a definite meaning, or we're at the end of a rational discussion.

"Even if they were legitimate questions, it's against the chivalry of most weblogs to insist on a response. One makes contributions as best one can, and one may ask questions in hope of response, but it doesn't follow that one may complain about an individual has failed to respond to any and all challenges."

I know this is unfortunately true of most blogs. However, by its contaent and aim,I am holding this one up to a higher standard. Ignoring the questions of one's opponent in a debate is, to say the least, rude if not a sign of boorishly hiding one's ignorance. What is the point of having a discussion or debate if the other end refuses to answer or even acknowledge one's, directed, questions?

[Peter Gardner]

Being in communion is a much fuzzier thing than is usually admitted. The Antiochians were sort-of-officially in communion with Rome until the 17th century (I think). So were the Antiochians Orthodox? The Patriarchs of Constantinople sure thought so. And as for what Stuart said a while back, sort of dismissing ROCOR for not having been out of communion with some -- from what I've read of Orthodox history, it's quite common for someone to be out of communion with someone else -- splits between Moscow and Constantinople have been fairly common, for example. So its hard to make any consistant definition of who is Orthodox based on being in (or out of) communion with anyone else. And then you have the other fuzziness of laity being in communion while clergy are not --
I just do what my bishop says when it comes to such things; I'd much rather it be his problem than mine.

[Matthias]

""I am an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome. There is nothing that the Orthodox Church professes that I do not profess.""

I am surprised that Mr. Koehl would commit such a blunder as to suggest that one can be Orthodox simply by virtue of what one personally believes. I, throughout the time of my lengthy catechumenate, believed and professed and all that the Orthodox Church believes and professes. But I did not delude myself that I was actually Orthodox before my chrismation. You are Orthodox if you belong to an Orthodox church. Mr. Koehl does not.

I am sure any number of Anglicans, Eastern Catholics, and Latin Rite Catholics have a better understanding of Orthodox doctrine, and believe it more fervently, than a great many members of the canonical Orthodox churches. But it doesn't have a thing to do with them being Orthodox.

It's as simple as the difference between being a New York Yankees fan and being a New York Yankee.

[Josef]

@Matthias, Thank you. Much better said than I did...

@Peter Gardner, Your point? Is the Orthodox Church, now, today, in formal communion with Rome or not?
You're mixing oranges and apples. A local Orthodox Church (apples) temporarily out of communion with another local Orthodox Church (apples), leaves both as Orthodox Churches. However, the community of all the Orthodox Churches (apples) not in communion with the Roman Church (oranges), leaves the former still Orthodox and the latter Catholic. Thus your sentence: "So its hard to make any consistent definition of who is Orthodox based on being in (or out of) communion with anyone else" doesn't make sense...
Do what your bishop says, he knows better. Trust me...

[Josef]

@Peter Gardner, Unfortunately in 1054AD one of the five apples morphed into an orange and since then we have these wars of definition.

[Peter Gardner]

Just then? In 1054? Not 1053 or 1055?

Only Constantinople and Rome went out of communion that year. The rest of the Eastern Church took longer -- a couple centuries for the Russians, quite some time for the Antiochians.

I'm not saying that the EO are in communion with Rome right now; I only objected to you saying that the EO are out of communion with Rome by definition.

[DGP]

>>I'm not saying that the EO are in communion with Rome right now; I only objected to you saying that the EO are out of communion with Rome by definition.

And that was my point, too. Josef, if you're going to complain about the "howling pack," you ought not be one of the loudest of the dogs. "Okay then I declare (describe) myself Emperor of China and Outer Mongolia and Czar of all the Rest.... What is your point." The point is there are *substantive* reasons why you should not be described as Emperor of China, such as the fact that you exercise no influence there, and you add nothing to the conversation by insisting that Mr. Koehl cannot be Emperor because he's also the Czar.

Matthias' answer is more helpful: Being Orthodox requires membership in such a Church. At least one may chew on that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am surprised that Mr. Koehl would commit such a blunder as to suggest that one can be Orthodox simply by virtue of what one personally believes. I, throughout the time of my lengthy catechumenate, believed and professed and all that the Orthodox Church believes and professes. But I did not delude myself that I was actually Orthodox before my chrismation. You are Orthodox if you belong to an Orthodox church. Mr. Koehl does not.<<<

Stuff like this reminds me of Alexander Schemann's comment: "The right Church with the wrong people".

My last word on this: I yam what I yam.

[Rob G]

Stuart IS 'Orthodox' in the sense that he accepts and follows Eastern Christian belief and practice. He is NOT, however, Orthodox by communion; that is, he is not a 'canonical' Orthodox. I don't see why this difference is so hard to figure out, whether one agrees with it or not.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

This is excellent, by Josef's definition: If you are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not Orthodox by definition. That is the meaning of being Orthodox.

As an Anglican, I'm out of communion with the Bishop of Rome (as is every Protestant), so we're all Orthodox! What a welcoming church! My OCA brother will be so pleased!
:-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> he is not a 'canonical' Orthodox<<<

Which, of course, puts me in the same boat as members of the various Orthodox splinter groups that are not recognized by one or more canonical Orthodox jurisdictions. Are/were the Old Calendarists not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate "Orthodox"? Are/were the Old Ritualists "Orthodox" even though they were not recognized by the Patriarch of Moscow, the Ecumenical Patriarch, or most other canonical jurisdictions? What of those jurisdictions that did recognize the Old Ritualists and ordain priests and bishops for them? We they then "not" Orthodox because of their communion with an "uncanonical" Orthodox group?

What about all those national Churches erected in the 19th and 20th centuries? They were not recognized by most canonical Orthodox Churches at their foundation, and in many cases recognition was not accorded for years, even decades. In the interim, were these people "Orthodox" or not?

Going back a bit farther in history, was Patriarch Peter III not "Orthodox" because he maintained communion with both Rome and Constantinope after the mutual excommunications of 1054? When, precisely, did the Italo-Greek Church of southern Italy cease to be "Orthodox"? Was it when they were shifted from the jurisdiction of Constantinople to that of Rome--which happened in the 10th century? These people were always Orthodox, always worshipped according to the Byzantine rite. At what point did they cease to be "Orthodox"?

The issue is thus more complex than many people let on, and there are no clearly set criteria. No, one cannot be Orthodox simply by matter of personal belief. On the other hand, it is clear that Orthodoxy is not determined soley by formal communion with one or a set of canonical bishops. There are groups universally recognized as Orthodox that do not or have not met that test. It would seem, then, that Orthodoxy is determined mainly by the existence of a group of Christians in local Churches consisting of duely ordained bishops in the apostolic succession celebrating the Eucharist together with their priests, deacons and faithful, in accordance with the Byzantine Orthodox Tradition.

By that standard, as a de facto member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, I consider myself to be an Orthodox Christian, as does my Patriarch Gregorios III and his Holy Synod. I consider the separation between my Church and the Orthodox communion to be a scandal in the eyes of God, but one that is not based on substantive theological differences, only matters of ecclesiastical governance and hierarchical perquisites.

[Rob G]

Exactly. Which is why I put 'canonical' in quotes. These things aren't nearly as cut and dried as rigorists on either side make them out to be.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Part of the reason I'm attracted to the Touchstone project is that it does seem to relativize (at some level) our differences, holding them comfortably at arm's length while admitting the more important unity we share as followers and fellow-worshipers of the Lord Jesus. It recognizes that while we are provisionally separate, we are eschatologically one, and that ultimate unity is what God wants (and will have, in the fullness of time, whether we cooperate or not :-)

At the same time, it doesn't toss out the differences as if they didn't matter but--by keeping them at some distance--it provides some perspective for respectful examination.

When Jesus returns, of course, all the rest of you will find out that you were supposed to be Anglicans reading the KJV with all right-thinking people all along. But in His all-provident mercy, He allows you to sojourn in your less-than-perfect churches where you can only look with wide-eyed admiration (not to say astonishment) at how we, the truest of Christians, conduct ourselves.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When Jesus returns, of course, all the rest of you will find out that you were supposed to be Anglicans reading the KJV with all right-thinking people all along. <<<

As Firesign Theater used to say, "I can prove that God wrote the Bible in English. . . or could have, if He had wanted to".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He allows you to sojourn in your less-than-perfect churches where you can only look with wide-eyed admiration (not to say astonishment) at how we, the truest of Christians, conduct ourselves.<<<

I am curious, though, as to why the gift shop in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral, London, is filled mainly with reproductions of Byzantine icons.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart, it's just a fulfillment of this prophesy:

"By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it"

I'd better stop before God strikes me dead for blasphemy...

[David R.]

>>>When Jesus returns, of course, all the rest of you will find out that you were supposed to be Anglicans reading the KJV with all right-thinking people all along. <<<

If the King James was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

I've started a monster...

People need to keep in mind that my questions posed to Mr. Hutchens are--as I mentioned--old questions and the fact they haven't been answered years after I first posed them leads me to suspect (though not to believe absolutely) that he has no answers to them. So be it. It obviously doesn't impact in any adverse way his capacity to draw a crowd, to interest readers, and to sell the journal. All three are critical necessities in publishing and he deserves honest praise for it. It still doesn't make me enjoy the unctuous nature of his thinking on concrete subjects, but I think it's pretty clear by now that I am in the minority on that one.

The canonicity discussion going on here is as silly and pedantic as I have seen in some time. That Stuart is not canonically Orthodox is clear by his own admission. That Stuart believes himself to still be Orthodox is also perfectly clear. What is certainly less clear--and has been unclear for the duration of this entire thread--is what Stuart means by "Orthodox" and whethere that meaning matches-up with anything except Stuart's own self-drawn definition. That Stuart relies upon experiential "knowledge" on his religion seems clear as enough as well. My concern was and continues to be whether or not "experience" as Stuart seems to bask in it says anything besides what is rolling around in his head n' heart at a given moment.

Stuart's replies are patterned after one assertion: "I'm 'Orthodox' and you can't tell me otherwise!" That alone should probably have stopped myself and others from pressing the matter. Why? Because it's clear Stuart isn't in a mode to think, but rather to proclaim, to evangelize others on the basis of his asserted authority rather than a logically constructed argument or even a coherent thought (both are no doubt "Latin" in his point of view). He's neither a subtle nor a careful thinker, and I am starting to get the impression he'd rue being called a "thinker" at all. At the end of the day, regardless of his "canonicity," the company he keeps, or the views he selects as proper on the basis of his own judgment, he just wants to be called "Orthodox." I say let him have it. I sometimes tell my 16-month-old son he's monkey; it makes him laugh.

[Nick]

Actually byzantine *stuff* seems to have become all the rage in some circles. Just visited a Christ the King parish up in Redding CA and the art work near the alter was all byzantine. I believe both Touchstone and First Things advertise byzantine jewelry. You guys are so hip! Enjoy it while it lasts :)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You guys are so hip! <<<

So square we're cool, eh?

[Scott Walker]

My goodness, Stuart, somebody else who knows Firesign Theatre? The Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light pastored by Rod Flash was one of my favorites, and prescient, too. Consult your local listings for TBN programming.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

That piqued my interest as I had never heard of these guys before. MP3s of some of their material can be listened to on their site:

[Bobby Winters]

>>Stuart's replies are patterned after one assertion: "I'm 'Orthodox' and you can't tell me otherwise!" That alone should probably have stopped myself and others from pressing the matter. Why? Because it's clear Stuart isn't in a mode to think, but rather to proclaim, to evangelize others on the basis of his asserted authority rather than a logically constructed argument or even a coherent thought (both are no doubt "Latin" in his point of view). He's neither a subtle nor a careful thinker, and I am starting to get the impression he'd rue being called a "thinker" at all. At the end of the day, regardless of his "canonicity," the company he keeps, or the views he selects as proper on the basis of his own judgment, he just wants to be called "Orthodox." I say let him have it. I sometimes tell my 16-month-old son he's monkey; it makes him laugh.<<

So rather than offer a counter-argument one simply states that since an argument was offered Stuart must not be Orthodox. Sounds like the Freudian "you are in denial" method. Cool. I will remember it.

[Rob G]

Here's a third, Scott. Believe it or not, floating around somewhere on my premises is an 8-track tape (yes, you read that right) of "How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You're Not Anywhere At All?"

[Josef]

@Peter Gardner, Okay.... we're pretty close on this.
@DGP, Please read my post again, this time correctly. I proclaimed myself Czar and Chinese Emperor.... I did not leave anything for Mr. Koehl to claim. You say "there are *substantive* reasons why you should not be described as Emperor of China,..." Yes, but there are also *substantive* reasons why Mr. Koehl should not be described as Orthodox.
@ WED Godbold, funny! How did the Protestants got into the discussion? So, I was not very specific in exluding them. But then, I wasn't aiming for an article size post...
@Gabriel Sanches, You say: "...he just wants to be called "Orthodox." I say let him have it. I sometimes tell my 16-month-old son he's monkey; it makes him laugh." I'm with you on that. Thanks!

I would like to thank all those who responded to my little contribution. You were kind to me. However, I have to excuse myself from this conversation for now, since I am going into a spiritual retreat for the next seven days and will have no access to a computer.
Thank you again and my God bless you all.

[Scott Walker]

Rob G: be still, my heart. Another Firesign classic: "We are marching, marching to Shibboleth" which fits right in with some of the recent posts on this thread.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light pastored by Rod Flash was one of my favorites, and prescient, too. Consult your local listings for TBN programming.<<<

He's been up all day, but he's coming DOWWWNNNN!