Calling Time

In an article on the advisability of teaching the Bible in the public schools (the author thinks this should be done, but “very, very carefully”), the April 2 issue of Time notes, “Only half of U.S. adults know the title of even one Gospel. Most can't name the Bible's first book. The trend extends even to Evangelicals, only 44% of whose teens could identify a particular quote as coming from the Sermon on the Mount.” I tend to doubt, however—and note my wording here--that the latter figure may be relied upon to signify a real decline of biblical knowledge among the class of people to whom the poll data evidently refers.

I say this for several reasons. First, it appears to me that the group to whom the term “Evangelical” generally applies has undergone inflation in the past generation or so, due to a small but significant movement in cultural plate tectonics. Whereas before sometime in the mid- to late 1970s an Evangelical was a post-fundamentalist biblicist with a fairly consistent understanding of himself as a countercultural phenomenon, the regularization of Evangelicalism in mainstream American culture and the success of the movement in secularizing itself (for evangelical purposes, of course), along with the omnium-gatherum known as the megachurch, has, I suspect, brought a lowering of certain averages among those who profess to Evangelical conviction. 

I doubt, for example, whether the shocking divorce statistics among Evangelicals (the rate is slightly higher than that of the population at large) are unconnected to the movement’s spiritual inflation and loss of rigor--a weakening that does not necessarily accompany a change in core beliefs--and am quite prepared to see a general decrease in biblical knowledge as another symptom of the same. The more one moves in the Evangelical world, however, toward the churches that retain the more culturally detached “fundamentalist” attitude characteristic of an older Evangelicalism--the kind that have Awana programs for their children--the higher the level of biblical knowledge one will find among the people. Before one inquires whether this knowledge has decreased among Evangelicals, it would be well to know whether the knowledgeable and less knowledgeable Evangelicals, while doubtless of the same genus, are the same species.

Second, the choice of the question that required identification of a certain quotation as coming from the Sermon on the Mount shows an ignorance on the part of the pollsters of how conservative Evangelicals—the ones who would be expected to have the deepest biblical knowledge--study the Bible. Recollecting my own early life in such an Evangelical church, I recall that if you asked me at, say, ten or twelve years old, to complete any verse or passage from the Sermon on the Mount, I could have done it for you, explained what it meant, and preached you a brief sermon thereupon. I had the Beatitudes memorized, but didn’t know, or didn’t care, that they came from the Sermon on the Mount. They came from the fifth chapter of Matthew. I would have heard of the Sermon on the Mount, of course, not least because the marginal headings in my Bible in that area said “The Sermon on the Mount.” 

But the preachers I had listened to didn’t care much where the Sermon was given, nor would they have mentioned that detail except in passing. What they were interested in, and preached minutely, was its contents. They did not “preach through” the Sermon on the Mount, but the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, I heard no one emphasizing these chapters as such until I was outside the Evangelical world, where the Sermon on the Mount as the Sermon on the Mount seemed to interest the preachers more than it did within. I suspect this was because their text-critical training brought them to regard its teachings as more centrally explicative of the doctrine of Jesus than certain other parts of the gospels. Interesting connections were made between the Beatitudes and the war in Vietnam, judging others and sexual misconduct, the lex talionis and capital punishment. But that is not how my pastors saw things.

The long and short of it was that if you had asked me as an “Evangelical Youth” in a day when the typical Evangelical Youth might have known the Bible better than he does today, if a certain quotation came from the Sermon on the Mount, I could only have guessed, and might have guessed wrong—even though I knew “who said that,” had read the passage many times, and if prompted, could have quoted every verse in it from memory.   

Comments

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, it's not really something we tick off our checklist each Sunday... However, surely you are not suggesting that any hobo off the street can grab a loaf of Wonder Bread, a jug of Grape Crush, sing twinkle twinkle little star and pass it out to random passersby as "communion"?<<<

Not at all, but the scholastic approach of form-matter-intent does have a tendency to remove the sacraments from their ecclesial and liturgical context (check out most Western books of sacramental theology, and you will see a lot about the meaning of a sacrament in a very abstract manner, but not too much about that sacrament in the life of the Church. If you would check out even a modern classic of Orthodox sacramental theology, such as Schmemann's "For the Life of the World" or "Of Water and the Spirit", you would see a very differnt way of lookiing at sacraments. The reason we don't think too much about the risk of bums with Wonder Bread and Grape Crush is the regulating effect that the matrix of Holy Tradition has upon both the actions and thoughts of the faithful.

[Michael Martin]

Stuart,

I had a gigantic problem with "bishop whom God loves," as I am sure you did. I am, however, glad that the bishops had the sand to affirm that the proper posture during the consecration and anaphora is standing. Other than that, I've been to enough liturgies in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches of a variety of enthinc orientations to not let the current translation get under my skin. I will certainly not let it get in the way of my participation in the Liturgy. Though, I have to admit, the new book is a cumbersome bugger!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I had a gigantic problem with "bishop whom God loves," as I am sure you did.<<<

So did my wife, not the least because that's not what the Slavonic words involved mean (they mean, literally, God-loving, though frankly, I have my doubts about the applicability of the words).

>>>sand to affirm that the proper posture during the consecration and anaphora is standing.<<<

Empty gesture. I can't be bought off with an occasional "Theotokos" and "permission" to stand, that I did not need, anyway. The people will probably pay as much attention to the rubric to remain standing as they do to the ones that direct you to make the sign of the cross during the Communion Prayer. The people will do what the people want to do, regardless of our God-loving bishops. On the other hand, if they are going to use inclusive language, I may have to rethink my opinion about the necessity of reciting the anaphora aloud (did you, by the way, see the part that now reads, "let us stand aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive to offer the holy anaphora in peace"? Obscurantism meets obfuscation. It may be anaphora in Greek, but in Slavonic, the word means oblation, which, by the way, Anaphora does not mean).

>>>Other than that, I've been to enough liturgies in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches of a variety of enthinc orientations to not let the current translation get under my skin. I will certainly not let it get in the way of my participation in the Liturgy.<<<

As my daughter said the other day, "I'll have my license by the end of the summer, so I can drive to Holy Transfiguration for Liturgy. But you have to go in your own car". So, there you have it--there are always the Melkites. If Bishop John Michael Botean would allow the singing of prostopinje in English, he could double the size of his Romanian exarchate overnight by taking in all the "Old Ritualist" Ruthenians.

[Michael Martin]

But if Bishop John Michael did that, he'd lose the Romanian "Old Believers."

[Bobby Winters]

Stuart,

I can sympathize with you, man, but have you ever had to sing the following as a doxology:

Lord You are
More precious than silver
Lord You are
More costly than gold
Lord You are
More beautiful than diamonds
And nothing I desire
Compares with You

All because "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" has the male pronoun in it in a few spots.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Lord You are
More precious than silver
Lord You are
More costly than gold
Lord You are
More beautiful than diamonds
And nothing I desire
Compares with You<<<

The Great Doxology, from Orthros (Matins) and Vespers (Non-Inclusive Version):

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace, good will among men. (3x)

We praise Thee, we bless Thee,
we worship Thee, we glorify Thee,
we give thanks to Thee for Thy great glory.

O Lord, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty;/
O Lord, the Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ; and O Holy Spirit.
O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
that takest away the sin of the world, have mercy on us;
Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
Thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For Thou only art holy,
Thou only art the Lord, O Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Every day will I bless Thee and I will praise Thy name forever, yea forever and ever.
Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the God of our fathers,
and praised and glorified is Thy name unto the ages. Amen.

Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us according as we have hoped in Thee.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes.

Lord, Thou hast been our refuge in generation and generation.
I said: O Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.
O Lord, unto Thee have I fled for refuge, teach me to do Thy will, for Thou art my God;
For in Thee is the fountain of life, in Thy light shall we see light.
O continue Thy mercy unto them that know Thee.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Holy Immortal, have mercy on us./
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I find Schmemann's perspectives very inspiring, and not so terribly different than a lot of Anglican's.<<<

Schmemann had great sympathy for Anglicanism--up to a point. That point came in the 1970s, when a woman was ordained a priest. At that point, Fr. Alexander wrote to an Anglican friend, with obvious sorrow, "The ordination of women means the death of dialogue".

[Bobby Winters]

Now that is a doxology.

[Bill R]

Take a glance at SMH's original comment--we have a truly breathtaking ability to wander off-topic!

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

Sorry to distract attention from Stuart's entertaining and informative posts, but to get back to your remark --

"But we have still left hanging the quote from Basil that grace is the reward of virtue."

I presume that we have here an example of what RC theologians would later term "merit" (or "grace") "by congruity" (or "condignity"). Briefly, what this means is that a virtue does not "merit" grace in the sense that God owes man anything as a debt or payment for work done. Rather, it relates to the moral order of the universe. Certain things (including virtuous actions) are inherently good because God created them and (when not corrupted) they thus reflect some aspect of His being and nature. Thus, when a virtuous action is performed, God grants (rewards) both it and the doer of the same grace -- not because the doer has intrinsic merit apart from God, but precisely because the work has intrinsic merit by virtue of its partaking of and reflecting the divine nature. And since God is generous and not niggardly, he blesses and rewards that which is done in His name, for His sake, reflecting His being and will -- "Well done, thou good and faithful servant". This is reflected in C. S. Lewis' passage in "the Silver Chair" where one of the characters (I forget which one) recites a spell. Aslan appears and chides the suprised child by asking if he (she) thought that Aslan would not obey his own spell when He (Aslan) created it in the first place.

I happen to think that the use of the term "merit" for this point was unfortunate and confusing, and of course the concept had become much abused by the 16th c. (Article XIII of the 39 Articles condemns the doctrine of "grace by congruity", as taught by the "Schoolauthors" or medieval scholastics, with respect to works done before justification.) It is rather like the difficult tangles Rome got itself into at the same time in trying to explicate *too* precisely "the sacrifice of the Mass". In both cases something sound at its core became so overlaid with hair-splitting fine distinctions that the original sense became obscured and distorted to the point or being virtually lost. At the same time, the criticsm of the concept by the Reformers also reflects an unfortunate tendency toward what might be termed (tongue in cheek) a "hyper-Augustinianism" verging on Gnostic dualism regarding the Fall, which in incautious hands comes perlously close to denying that there is any good of any sort left in the created order. The EOs have sensibly largely avoided both messes (in favor of having their own unique theological messes, of course).

[Matthias]

Now that is a doxology.

And a great incentive to be early to Liturgy, I find. I feel like I'm late if I miss it. It's definitely a favorite in my congregation; all the kids have it memorized and sing along.

[Michael Martin]

Stuart,

We can hardly get all over our Latin brothers and sisters (sorry if I'm being too inclusive) for Thomistic hairsplitting about minutiae concerning the sacraments when we do the same over Greek/Slav, anaphora/oblation semantics. As you have said, tradition only goes back as far as a person's memory. It all depends on how far you want to go it back in order to retrieve the said "tradition." Which invariably leads to arguments over minutiae. By the way, though I go to a Ruthenian church, I am not Ruthenian. I'm Irish. Which would make me akin (ethnically) to Fr (I think Archimandrite) Kelleher. And the last time I talked to him, his liturgies were in Irish and Greek (it's been a few years). As for the rest, I'm willing to let the Holy Spirit worry about it.

[Michael Martin]

And, I forgot to say...

Christos anesti!

[coco]

>>>I hope B16's upcoming Motu Proprio will refocus the attention of RCs on the importance of liturgical worship. <<<

Except, of course, that what was done under the old Missae Pius V was not really liturgy in the true meaning of the word as 'the work of the people'

Nah, no sale! What was done grew out of the work of many people.

In any event, I don't expect the MP will bring back the MPV wholesale but rather (as I indicated is my hope) will refocus attention on the importance of liturgy. Can't be a bad thing.

Excellent comments on the off-topics, very enlightening.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And the last time I talked to him, his liturgies were in Irish and Greek (it's been a few years). <<<

Fr. Serge was elevated to the dignity of Mitred Archmandrite by Bishop Basil (Losten) of Stamford at the request of Patriarch Lyubomir (Husar) of Kyiv for his work in reestablishing the Lviv Theological Academy (now the Lviv Theological University). He is presently de facto Ethnarch for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic community in Ireland. He celebrates the Divine Liturgy in St. Kevin's Oratory underneath St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral in Dublin. When I was there a couple of years ago, the little chapel was packed to the gills, a temporary iconostasis having been erected across the sanctuary. His flock encompassed Slavs from all over Eastern Europe, both Catholic AND Orthodox, mainly working class, mostly young, with children (I remember one blond little boy who kept crawling under the Royal Doors. Father Serge would bend down, turn him around and let him crawl back out). A surprising number were actually Irish, some Roman Catholics, some Protestants, a few unchurched. The Divine Liturgy was an interesting blend of modern Ukrainian, Irish Gaelic, and Slavonic--but no English, which made it fun trying to follow along. Fortunately, having served for Father Serge on a number of occasions, I knew his style.

He's supposed to be setting up a couple of missions in Belfast and Londonderry, a sign that this new St. Patrick is reconverting the Irish.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Christos anesti!<<<

Alithos anesti!

Christos voskrese!

[Michael Martin]

Voistinu voskrese!

[coco]

Unfortunately true RC priests (why just RCs, BTW?) have raped minors. Validly ordained but fallen from their calling, that is. The ordination of women represents a different crisis of authority than failure of oversight...though perhaps the issue of moral cowardice in Church leaders runs thought both.

[coco]

'through' not 'thought'

[Bill R]

"[H]yper-Augustinianism verging on Gnostic dualism"

As Dave Barry would say: what a great name for a rock band!

Seriously, James: I'm familiar with the doctrines of condign and congruent merit. Your descriptions seem fairly innocuous, and are close to the doctrine of rewards that all Protestant theologies I know of espouse. Again, however, the quote from Basil says something rather different: "[G]race will not be given to those who do not live virtuous lives." And if that is understood to mean (and I believe, as worded, it can only mean) that only the virtuous receive grace. That is demonstrably false. But again, I grant that Jeremias is quoting Basil out of context.

[Bill R]

"But again, I grant that Jeremias is quoting Basil out of context."

Or may be quoting Basil out of context. I simply don't know.

[Joe]

Bill R,

Re: "But we have still left hanging the quote from Basil that grace is the reward of virtue."

No, rather St. Basil would say that "virtue" (good works) is a fruit of grace received in true faith, because faith manifests itself in virtue.

In other words, Orthodoxy there no dichtomies between faith/works or justification/sanctification as there are in the Christian West. That is why we are talking past each other. We are using the same words, but with different meanings. Orthodoxy ain't Protestantism, but even some Protestants are beginning to see the Light. For example:

"Eastern Christianity proves that the categories of justification and sanctification can be brought together in a way that does not violate the principle of salvation grace. This theology of Eastern Orthodoxy is permeated by the thought of divine grace; it is an approach to understanding the saving action of God that is relational not mechanical, that is dynamic not static." - Ross Aden (a Lutheran)

[Joe]

Here's the Orthodox answer to the standard Evangelical witnessing challenge, "Are you saved?":

I have been saved. I am being saved. By the grace of God, I will be saved.

For us, Salvation is a journey with a beginning, a middle and an end. By the grace of God, we are running the race to win and not waiting at the starting line for medals. No "forensic justification" (aka "virtual reality") here.

[Joe]

The development of the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the incarnation, as it took place during the first eight centuries of Christian history, was related to the concept of man's participation in divine life.

The Greek Fathers of the church always implied that the phrase found in the biblical story of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26), according to "the image and likeness of God," meant that man is not an autonomous being and that his ultimate nature is defined by his relation to God, his "prototype." In paradise Adam and Eve were called to participate in God's life and to find in him the natural growth of their humanity "from glory to glory." To be "in God" is, therefore, the natural state of man.

This doctrine is particularly important in connection with the Fathers' view of human freedom. For theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) and Maximus the Confessor (7th century) man is truly free only when he is in communion with God; otherwise he is only a slave to his body or to "the world," over which, originally and by God's command, he was destined to rule.

Thus, the concept of sin implies separation from God and the reduction of man to a separate and autonomous existence, in which he is deprived of both his natural glory and his freedom. He becomes an element subject to cosmic determinism, and the image of God is thus blurred within him.

Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by man, which led Adam to a subhuman and unnatural existence. The most unnatural aspect of his new state was death.

In this perspective, "original sin" is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death.

Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life.

The "prince of this world" (i.e., Satan), who is also the "murderer from the beginning," has dominion over man. From this vicious circle of death and sin, man is understood to be liberated by the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is actualized in Baptism and the sacramental life in the church.

The general framework of this understanding of the God-man relationship is clearly different from the view that became dominant in the Christian West--i.e., the view that conceived of "nature" as distinct from "grace" and that understood original sin as an inherited guilt rather than as a deprivation of freedom.

In the East, man is regarded as fully man when he participates in God; in the West, man's nature is believed to be autonomous, sin is viewed as a punishable crime, and grace is understood to grant forgiveness.

Hence, in the West, the aim of the Christian is justification, but in the East, it is rather communion with God and deification [Christ-likedness].

In the West, the church is viewed in terms of mediation (for the bestowing of grace) and authority (for guaranteeing security in doctrine); in the East, the church is regarded as a communion in which God and man meet once again and a personal experience of divine life becomes possible.

[Bill R]

Joe,

I cut and pasted the quote from Basil directed from your post. If you have a problem with it, your problem is with Joe, not with Bill. Please don't correct me for something you yourself said.

I thought your immediate post above to be quite eloquent. I don't necessarily see the elements you list as East and West to be contradictory however, but rather complementary. Or, as we evangelicals would say, one refers to justification, the other to sanctification--but both are Biblical and hence true. I have no objection to your finding the answers you seek in Orthodoxy, but they were there in Protestantism as well, if you but sought them.

[Gina]

"When Bad Liturgy Happens to Good Churches"

I'm truly sorry, Stuart. I was really surprised to read about all this. I had assumed (naively, I guess) that the liturgical "reformers" had about run out of steam even in Latin corners. To hear of them moving in ByzCath parishes, and in such a paternalistic way (let's hear it for inclusiveness), was disheartening. "When Bad Theology Happens to Good Liturgies"... I hope the babushkas rise up in their pews and won't stand for it.

[Gina]

That last sentence was a pun on top of a paradox, I guess. :)

[Jenny Islander]

Within the rite, there are literally dozens of individual usages, within Churches, withiin eparchies and dioceses, and even within parishes. As the Liturgy is the property of the people, who hold it in trust for God, it is a living, dynamic organism that reflects the true genius of the people who celebrate it. Moreover, it has to be understood that the Byzantine Liturgy follows a monastic ordo (it would require twenty five separate books and about three hours to celebrate a Sunday Divine Liturgy in its fullness).

That's a wonderfully generous way to put it. The Episcopal church I attend explains the unusually thick U.S. version of the BCP as the result of Americans arguing over every little thing and we lament the necessity to juggle a hymnal (or two or three!) as well.

Re: faith vs. works: I was greatly relieved when I took the Education for Ministry class and found out that as a Christian I was not in fact obliged to dissect every paradox in my religion. Demystifying God is like trying to sculpt an elephant from a block of marble by first removing every part of the stone that has mass.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But we have still left hanging the quote from Basil that grace is the reward of virtue."<<<

The three Cappodocian Fathers held a range of opinions on the workings of divine grace. Basil, a monastic, was a rigorist on the subject. As those familiar with his Anaphora know, he repeatedly states that God will judge each according to his merits, and prayers of the faithful constantly ask for "a good defense before the awesome judgment seat of Christ".

His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, a married bishop, was far more lenient, going so far in some of his writings to propose the Apocatastasis of creation, wherein the God who desires all to be saved, through some mysterious exercise of his sovereignty, would manage to have his way without violating the free will that is an inherent part of the nature of a man created in God's own image.

Gregory Nanzianzen--one of only three men to be formally accorded the title of "The Theologian" by the Orthodox Church (the others being John the Evangelist and Gregory the New), rejected both Basil's rigorism and Nyssa's apocatastasis. His comes closest to the Orthodox coonsensus position: the grace is a gift freely granted to all, which requires the "symphonia" and "synergia" of the individual to become efficacious. God's grace is a gift lying in the middle of the road; some pick it up, others pass it by--the choice is theirs.

[David Gray]

>I have been saved. I am being saved. By the grace of God, I will be saved.

My pastor would say that. And he was Presbyterian.

>Ross Aden (a Lutheran)

Oddly enough he now goes by "Father Basil Aden", an Orthodox priest. And given that he was an ELCA pastor prior to that point he wasn't exactly rigorously orthodox by Lutheran standards.

[Joe]

David,

Father Basil,eh? Very Cool. Thanks for the update. I should amend "beginning to see the Light" to "seen and stepped into the Light." Another Lutheran following the footsteps of Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan?

[Joe]

Bill R,

Re: "I have no objection to your finding the answers you seek in Orthodoxy..."

I'm glad that you have no objection!

"...but they were there in Protestantism as well, if you but sought them."

You would show that all our doctrine is yours, and indeed, at first sight, you seem quite right. Many bishops and divines of your communion are and have been quite orthodox. But what of it? Their opinion is only an individual opinion, it is not the Faith of the Community...We may, and do, sympathise with the individuals; we cannot and dare not sympathise with a community which interpolates the Symbol and doubts her right to that interpolation, or which gives communion to those who declare the Bread and Wine of the High Sacrifice to be mere bread and wine, as well as to those who declare it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. This for an example — and I could find hundreds more — but I go further. Suppose an impossibility — suppose all the [Insert Protestant Denomination of your choice here]to be quite orthodox; suppose their Creed and Faith quite concordant with ours; the mode and process by which that creed is or has been attained is a Protestant one; a simple logical act of the understanding, by which the tradition and writings of the Fathers have been distilled to something very near Truth. If we admit this, all is lost, and Rationalism is the supreme judge of every question. Protestantism, most reverend sir, is the admission of an unknown to be sought by reason; and that unknown changes the whole equation to an unknown quantity, even though every other datum be as clear and as positive as possible. Do not, I pray, nourish the hope of finding Christian truth without stepping out of the former Protestant circle. It is an illogical hope; it is a remnant of that pride which thought itself able and wished to judge and decide by itself without the Spiritual Communion of heavenly grace and Christian love. Were you to find all the truth, you would have found nothing; for we alone can give you that without which all would be vain — the assurance of truth."

- Alexei Khomiakov to (then Anglican) Willliam Palmer in 1846. I plugged in "Insert Protestant Denomination" in place of "Anglican" in the original.

[Mairnéalac.h]

I have learned to discern ecclesiological truth by one measure, and one measure alone: Who loves the brothers?

Now, take that measure and run with it. Leave aside all arguments and out-love your brother. By this, you will prove to me that your communion is the true one.

Get to it, gents.

[Joe]

Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

What you raise again is simply the flip side of that to which I responded, and answered the same way.

Sorry, Joe, but Alexei Khomiakov was simply a bigoted crank (if a sometimes brilliant one), and quotes such as this and others I have seen cited from him against Anglicanism in particular and Protestantism in general amply display a lack of understanding as well as sympathy. Fr. Schmemann was far more perceptive. He also said of the PECUSA (now TEC) decision to purport to ordain women priests, "They either thought we wouldn't notice or wouldn't care, and were grievously wrong on both counts."

[Bill R]

"I'm glad that you have no objection!"

I didn't intend my remark to be condescending. I apologize if it cames across that way.

"Were you to find all the truth, you would have found nothing; for we alone can give you that without which all would be vain — the assurance of truth."

Well, would that be the western Roman Catholic version or the Eastern Orthodox version? Or does THAT stir up a hornet's nest? ;-)

[Bill R]

"What you raise again is simply the flip side of that to which I responded, and answered the same way."

For once (I think), I don't follow you, James:

"...only the virtuous receive grace."

I took your comment to mean that God rewards virtue. Fair enough. No argument there. But "ONLY the virtuous receive grace"? THAT is the meaning of "congruent merit"?

[Bill R]

"The three Cappodocian Fathers held a range of opinions on the workings of divine grace."

Enlightening (as well as entertaining), Stuart. Just curious--are all three opinions of the Cappodocian Fathers still considered within the acceptable range of Orthodox opinion today?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Enlightening (as well as entertaining), Stuart. Just curious--are all three opinions of the Cappodocian Fathers still considered within the acceptable range of Orthodox opinion today?<<<

Yes, although the Church never accepted Nyssa's concept of apokatastasis. But neither did it reject it or condemn it; it remains a theologumenon. As Maximos the Confessor wrote, "One should pray constantly for the apokatastasis, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine".

[Joe]

James,

Re: "Alexei Khomiakov was simply a bigoted crank (if a sometimes brilliant one)..."

Well, I never knew him personally so I can't comment on his personality, but his observation about Protestantism must certainly qualify as an example of his "sometimes" brilliance:

"Protestantism...is the admission of an unknown to be sought by reason; and that unknown changes the whole equation to an unknown quantity..."

A Protestant might protest, "But we have the known quantity, this 'Mere Christianity' that C.S. Lewis, Patron Saint of Touchstone, wrote about!"

C.S. Lewis re: "Mere Christianity": "It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms...The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in."

I am eternally grateful to CSL for capturing my interest when I was a young man with "Mere Christianity" and I am ever pleased to remember how he helped to usher me out of the hall and through the Wardrobe in his introduction to "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius the Great. (See: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm)

One choice bit:

"His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, 'Athanasius against the world.' We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, 'whole and undefiled,' when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius—into one of those 'sensible' synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away."

I can't tell you how nice it is to be out of the hall and into "Aslan's country" (to use Narnia-speak) to go further up and further into the Church and to discover that the Church is "like an onion: except that as you continue to go in and in, each circle is larger than the last.”

Who wants to try to live in the hall? Who feels threatened by the possiblility of something more than the "hall"? Those Protestants who want the Faith to remain an "unknown quantity" accessible only by their own reasonings.

Been there done that. Moved on.

[David Gray]

>Been there done that. Moved on.

Good for you.

[Joe]

Thanks, David!

Good-bye folks don't let those "sensible synthetic religions" getcha while you're not looking!

[Bill R]

"I can't tell you how nice it is to be out of the hall and into "Aslan's country"

Well, there's a bit of confusion here, Joe, as "Aslan's country" would seem to be the age to come or the Kingdom of God, not the church militant.

Further confusion comes from your equation of Protestantism with "Mere Christianity." Flattering, I suppose, but we're happy to include many others besides Protestants in this description. ;-)

"Protestantism...is the admission of an unknown to be sought by reason; and that unknown changes the whole equation to an unknown quantity..."

I almost feel like chanting, "ommmm." If this is Khomiakov at his most brilliant, I'm glad I didn't catch him on an off day...

[Michael]

>>A Protestant might protest, "But we have the known quantity, this 'Mere Christianity' that C.S. Lewis, Patron Saint of Touchstone, wrote about!"<<

What uneducated Protestants have you been talking to? I'm a good evangelical Catholic (LCMS Lutheran--a church claiming beautiful succession from the original Protestant), and would not begin to claim Lewis' simple theology as Luther's complex one, which is not to say Lewis was a simpleton, but to say that his explanation of Christianity at its "merest"--read N. T. Wright's Simply Lewis now being discussed at the Treaders blog--is just as you quoted, the hall, not the rooms.

To be fair, the Orthodox understanding of justification and virtue as explained in this thread is the understanding of faith and works I have had since before Confirmation, and that is a result of the teaching of a Lutheran pastor, one who has not, like Father Aden, converted to Orthodoxy. Faith itself is a gift of the Holy Spirit, which allows us to live in a state of grace, thus pushing us towards good works. Works show faith, but they are not in and of themselves that faith. This is why Lutherans claim "faith alone"--not because works have no merit, but because just as faith without works is dead, works without faith are meaningless. One may have virtue independent of Christendom, but vapor, everything is vapor, says the Teacher, until you strive to live in and with God.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This is why Lutherans claim "faith alone"<<<

Actualy, had Luther said "grace alone", he would have been closer to the mark. Faith comes through grace, which is offered freely to all. Faith actuates grace, and faith is manifested through righteous acts.

[Michae]

Stuart,

Not to proof-text (a practice which irritates pretty much everyone), how do you exegete "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8, ESV)? Many translations don't have a period after "faith" and instead make the gift clause incredibly unclear, wherein we have to ask whether it's referring to "faith" or "grace". If you know the Greek on this, please share.

That said, however, Luther did say "grace alone," too. It's one of those three "sola" sayings. What was the third one...oh yeah, "sola scriptura." Not that anyone, even Luther himself, truely practiced exegesis removed from historic understanding of the text...

[Reid]

I like Stuart's comment (about 60 posts ago...yes, I'm slow), "First consider that the very concept of a "seminary" as a school for the training of potential clergymen is only about 450 years old. Back in the good old days...there were no seminaries. Men destined for ordination learned their faith, the Scriptures, the doctrines of the Church and the liturgical responsibilities of the different orders by living them within the community from which they were called out. All things considered, the seminary may have outlived its time (if, indeed, it ever really had one), and we should return to the older, organic and holistic approach to forming future ministers."

That seems right. A man learns to be part of the Church by being part of the Church in the company and instruction of men who have grown wise and godly in the Church before him. He demonstrates His fitness to serve the Church through his life within the Church as judged by those among whom he lives.

I've been thinking lately about the analogous artificiality and undesirability of treating education (in the sense of formal coursework) as the primary focus of childhood. My little knowledge of the history of such things suggests that in most times and places life for most people centered in the home. Most wives and mothers worked at home, managing the household. Most husbands and fathers worked in or near home, supporting the household. Children grew up at home, in their parents' company, learning how to be men or women from the real-life examples of their parents, older siblings, and neighbors. Formal education (bookwork) may have taken place in or near the home, for purposes of the parents' choosing, but it was a supplement to the real-life education a child got from observing and imitating his parents. Raised this way, children learn knowledge within a loving context that shows them what the knowledge is good for. This, I have come to believe, is part of what our Lord calls for in His commandment, "Honor your father and mother." It is, I suspect, the ideal way for children to grow into wise, mature men and women.

In contrast, the modern approach seems to be to present a child with a great deal of contextless information, give him tests to see if can retain some minimal portion of it until the test is over, and then, when he has spent 12 years (or 13 or 15 or 21) doing this and has passed enough tests, give him a certificate saying he meets the standards to be a productive member of adult society. This is bad enough if parents train their children thus at home. It is far worse when such education takes place (as it usually does) in a government-run school outside the home, a home which mother and father both work far from as well. If I understand the admonition "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up," such an educational system is the perfect tool for raising a proud, foolish, loveless generation.

[Bill R]

"If I understand the admonition "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up," such an educational system is the perfect tool for raising a proud, foolish, loveless generation."

Well said, Reid. I assume that you would strongly support home schooling.

[Judy Warner]

Reid, have you read John Gatto? I'll bet you have. I'm not sure I agree with the conspiratorial way he thinks modern education came about, but I'm with him on the results.

[Judy Warner]

Reid, have you read John Gatto? I'll bet you have. I'm not sure I agree with the conspiratorial way he thinks modern education came about, but I'm with him on the results.

[Reid]

Thanks, Bill R. I do strongly support home schooling, but I have come to think that my own approach to home schooling carries with it one of the worst aspect of government and private schooling, namely the idolatrous exaltation of knowledge. (By knowledge, of course, I mean the sort taught in schools and books, not the sort that Proverbs speaks of synonymously with wisdom).

Theological or Scriptural knowledge is deadly as an end in itself. Such knowledge is, of course, very valuable, but only as it leads us into communion with God, knowing Him, being known by Him, obeying Him, imitating Him, walking in His light. In the same way, a child learns how to live (as a mature, wise, godly man or woman), from communion with his parents, living in their company, watching them live, and imitating them. Homeschooling parents must give themselves to their children more than they give books to them.

[Reid]

Judy, thank you, yes I've read John Gatto's online book carefully (and to a very small extent checked some of his historical claims against independent sources), and I've come to believe he is right. It helped once I understood that he was not talking about conspiracy but philosophy. The time he deals with (mid-nineteenth century to early twentieth century) was one in which people with power were ready to put into practice philosophies that exalted man's ability to study and control himself and the "destiny" of mankind (this age, for instance, produced Darwin's work on evolution, Freud's invention of psychology as a pseudo-scientific discipline, various philosophies and practices of eugenics including Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, and the promotion of laissez faire economics to let the Industrial Revolution enrich a favored few at the expense of the working masses). In such an atmosphere, with the Church's influence on society greatly weakened, the development of state-run schools and the imposition of compulsory school attendance laws was not conspiratorial but perfectly natural. Leaders of government and industry (and "education") believed they were being "progressive" (a term that, I believe, C.S.Lewis wisely derides in various places. It was, I believe, against this very philosophy that he directed his book, The Abolition of Man.)

[Ethan Cordray]

I too read Gatto's "Underground History of American Education," while I was in high school (though not, of course, as part of any curriculum!). It greatly reinforced the support for homeschooling I derived from seven years of my mother's teaching. What learning I have is all founded upon her loving efforts.

Education is like food: there are nice restaurants and lousy fast food joints, but nothin' beats good home cookin'!

[Judy Warner]

That makes sense, Reid. Thank you for that insight.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Education is like food: there are nice restaurants and lousy fast food joints, but nothin' beats good home cookin'!<<<

Assumes mom is a competent cook.

[Bill R]

"It greatly reinforced the support for homeschooling I derived from seven years of my mother's teaching."

I suspected you were home schooled, Ethan. It accounts for a maturity rarely seen in young persons of your age.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart, my confidence there is derived from 23 years of my mother's cooking. Pot roast tonight...mmmmmmmmm.

[Michael]

">>>Education is like food: there are nice restaurants and lousy fast food joints, but nothin' beats good home cookin'!<<<

Assumes mom is a competent cook."

Hence, the caveat, Stuart: nothin' beats good home cooking.

[Joe]

My Ma is the very BEST cook. She made me this great dish once. Just once. She told me, "Once fed always fed." She said it. I believe it.

[Joe]

Bill R

Re: "...there's a bit of confusion here, Joe, as 'Aslan's country' would seem to be the age to come or the Kingdom of God, not the church militant."

No confusion on my part.

Because:

"In the Church, the past is contemporary; and that which is present remains so on account of the living past, since the God-man Christ Who is `the same yesterday, today and forever' (Heb. 13:8) continuously lives in His divine-human body by means of the same truth, the same holiness, the same goodness, the same life and establishes the past in the present. Thus, to a living Orthodox understanding and conscience, all the members of the Church, from the Holy Apostles to those who have recently fallen asleep, are contemporary since they continuously live in Christ. For the Orthodox Christian these are more real than many of his contemporaries." - St. Justin Popovich

[Joe]

"In the Divine Liturgy we do not commemorate one or another isolated event of sacred history. We celebrate, in joy and thanksgiving, the whole mystery of the divine economy from creation to incarnation, especially 'the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father and the second glorious coming.' Thus, in experiencing the reigning Christ in the Divine Liturgy, the past, present, and future of the history of salvation are lived as one reality in the mystery of the Kingdom of God." - Rev. Alciviadis C. Calivas, Th.D.

[David Gray]

>No confusion on my part.

We beg to differ.

This truth:

"Thus, to a living Orthodox understanding and conscience, all the members of the Church, from the Holy Apostles to those who have recently fallen asleep, are contemporary since they continuously live in Christ. For the Orthodox Christian these are more real than many of his contemporaries."

does not equate to your prior statement.

[Joe]

David,

I was trying to address Bill R's dichotomy between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.

To a living Orthodox understanding and conscience, all the members of the Church, from the Holy Apostles to those who have recently fallen asleep, are contemporary since they continuously live in Christ. The past, present, and future of the history of salvation are lived as one reality in the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Thus, we are in an active, real and contemporary Communion with the Church, Past, Present and Future. Are we here on Earth experiencing the very Fulness of the "Church Triumphant" at this present moment? "Yes, but not yet," as my Father Confessor is known to say. Christ is Risen!

[James A. Altena]

"Re: 'Alexei Khomiakov was simply a bigoted crank (if a sometimes brilliant one)...'

"Well, I never knew him personally so I can't comment on his personality, but his observation about Protestantism must certainly qualify as an example of his "sometimes" brilliance."

No, it's a prime example of his crankiness -- which is representative of the blind anti-Western bigotry of many members of the 19th c. Slavophile movement in their over-reaction to the forcible imposition of Western culture upon Eastern Europe by rulers such as Peter the Great during the Enlightenment. And it doesn't take perrsonal knowledge of Khomaikov -- just comparison of his writings against historical content and context.

As for the rest of your comments about Protestantism, they are representative of the simplistic cliches, smug arrogance, and lack of charity that too many converts to Orthodoxy exhibit toward their former confreres. It was a real turn-off to me in the years I spent investigating contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy. I had few such problems with the cradle Orthodox I encountered and who remain my friends. They generally could only roll their eyes at statements made by people in their midst such as Joe and tell me that such was not real Orthodoxy.

Among converts of any and every stripe, there is too often a persistent strain of insecurity among them compared to their present cradle co-religionists. They must perpetually seek to prove themelves more the genuine article than the latter by engaging in relentless and distorted criticism of their former church allegiance -- generally accompanied by an unconvincing canned profession of gratitude toward a figure such as C. S. Lewis -- along with self-congratulatory statements about having "moved on". Whereas what they have moved on to is a form of Gnosticism -- salvation by pride in supposedly superior enlightenment and wisdom compared to the apparently benighted ignoramuses they have left behind.

As an Anglican, I have my disagreements with my RC, EO, and Protestant brethren over particular doctrinal issues. But they are my brethren in Christ, and it would never occur to me to impugn that by relegating them to a "hall" and placing myself in "Aslan's kingdom." (And if Protestants are so outside of heaven, Joe, I'd like to know what business you have even quoting C. S. Lewis.) They are in the latter as much, and perhaps far more so, than I am. If, in the words of the Psalmist, I am even so much as a doorkeeper, that is sufficient.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

"What you raise again is simply the flip side of that to which I responded, and answered the same way."

For once (I think), I don't follow you, James:

"...only the virtuous receive grace."

I took your comment to mean that God rewards virtue. Fair enough. No argument there. But "ONLY the virtuous receive grace"? THAT is the meaning of "congruent merit"?

-------

OK, I better understand your point now. There is a distinction, though I still think it is the flip side of the original issue, as I said.

Actually, from a Reformed perspective, there should be no problem with the statement. Many Reformed theologians hold that God gives grace only to the elect -- and the elect are surely also the virtuous, by virtue of their election and predestination, since all their virtue is also a gift from God. And I don't think that e.g. RC theology has much trouble with this either. The two sides differ on the dynamics of how it occurs -- the temporal and logical sequence -- but not on the fundamental fact that all virtue ultimaely is of God and not of man. So merit is still congruent to virtue. It is all of God, and all of grace, and all a gift.

I wonder if your difficulty here is that when you see the word "virtue" in such quotes, you presume that it refers to virtue as a a construct or product of human activity, rather than a divine gift and standard.

[Joe]

James,

Re: "And if Protestants are so outside of heaven, Joe.."

Outside of "heaven?" I do not judge the judgement that belongs to the Righteous Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, alone, so I don't get what you mean by "outside of heaven." Outside of the Church, yes, but outside of "heaven?" Who knows? Do you?

"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. 12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day." (Khomiakov)

Now as to relegating certain believers into a "hall." I thought it was a given that this gathering place called Touchstone Mere Comments was based on Lewis' Mere Christianity, Lewis' very own metaphorical "hall." He himself talked about leaving the "hall" and going into doorways and entering rooms and in his most beloved fictional work, wrote about a wardrobe within one of these room that opened to another place.

My posts have been about my sojourn in the hall, my entrance into a room and my exit out of this room through another doorway (cf. "Wardrobe")into quite another world where all the members of the Church, from the Holy Apostles to those who have recently fallen asleep, are contemporary since they continuously live in Christ, where the past, present, and future of the history of salvation are lived as one reality in the mystery of the Kingdom of God.

By your own admission you have stated that you have disagreements with Orthodox over certain doctrinal issues. These disagreements are not part of your belief system. They form part of your disbelief Sadly this disbelief has kept you out of the Orthodox Church, the place I was telling you about.

[Michael]

Joe,

I am going to say this simply, leaving Bill and James to the the essential but sometimes unfortunate role of diplomat: You're arrogance is irritating in the fullest. For one, who is it that has taught you that every denomination besides Orthodoxy doesn't believe in the intemporal communion of the saints? If I remember right, it's part of the Apostle's Creed that Western (do the Orthodox?) all profess:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic (sometimes "Christian") Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

You will note that the Communion of Saints and the life everlasting are distinct elements of a list from the resurrection of the body. In short, I believe in the Holy catholic Church; I believe in the Communion of Saints, I believe in the resurrection of the body and I believe in the life everlasting. Distinct statements about tenets of the faith. Far be it from me to say I do not believe, as a Protestant, in the Communion of the Saints past, present and future.

You, sir, are smug at best and simply ignorant at worst.

[Joe]

It's one thing (and a very very good thing) to believe in the Communion of Saints, but do Protestants actually live out this relationship in everyday life?

In the Church, the Communion of Saints is a very living and active one. We ask for their prayers and their help. They give us their prayers and their help. Since my family has been received into the Church we have been blessed to experience this type of thing firsthand. Remember this from the Gospel? (Especially appropriate for the Paschal season)

"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Now this sort of thing, though not exactly commonplace (with the exception of places like the island of Corfu), still happens in this day.

Remember that scene in Return of the King, when Frodo collapsed in exhaustion upon exiting from Shelob's lair and suddenly he found himself being lifted up by Galadriel (in Lorien?!)? What was that about? Even though that scene was not in Tolkien's original ("a fundamentally religious and Catholic work") I was amazed that Peter Jackson inserted a scene of such a fundamentally Catholic spiritual reality into the film.

This sort of thing-a living, ACTIVE communion with the Holy Saints of God is what I have been trying to convey without going into specifics. Holiness which enables the Holy to pass between two worlds and times, to suspend the "laws of nature," THIS is what I meant by using this most inadequate metaphor of "Aslan's country."

Why would I hesitate to go into specifics? I well remember what I was taught as a Protestant about such things: "Necromancy!" "Magic!" There is a real danger about sharing too much, because it may put those who have no experience of such good things in "seat of mockers" who could blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. "he casts out demons by the rulers of demons" or "too much wine" at Pentecost). I hope and pray that I haven't said too much already.

I mean to express no smugness, arroganc or ignorance with my words. If you believe in the "Communion of Saints" I say well and good! But I must also say, "Further up and further in!"

[Joe]

I'm going to gamble that there is enough goodwill and faith on this board to close with the following example without inciting charges of smugness and ignorance (especially ignorance since I know very well of what I speak - in this case at least.).

Since even the early days of pre-school, my son’s teachers told us that our son had a learning disability. He struggled (as did we worried parents – what with the testing, specialists and dire warnings about his future) from pre-K through most of his elementary school years until… One day we brought home a story book about one of the most revered Saints of Russia.

As a child this Saint had tremendous difficulty with reading (and thus with schooling) until his encounter with a mysterious old man. The old man listened to the boy with sympathy the old man began praying for his enlightenment. He then produced a small piece of communion bread and blessed the boy with it and said, "Take it and eat it, this is given to you as a sign of God's grace and for understanding of the Scriptures." The future Saint did this and found that he could read fluently and became very learned in the Holy Scriptures. This first miracle was a first step into a truly miraculous life…but I digress.

In Russia, devout schoolchildren put an icon of this Saint under their pillows before bedtime. My son asked me to get him one of these icons and he put it under his pillow. He prayed for help from the Saint and following his example, promised to use his learning for the Kingdom of God. He has been a straight-A student ever since! (They moved him into advanced levels in middle school.)

My son is literally learning the Faith from this Saint in ways that we never could have imagined since we gave him this “story book” for his encouragement. Not only does he venerate this Holy Saint of God, but he is exhibiting clear signs of a spiritual bond. He seems to be guided by this Saint in his choice of future career. That’s another story, but it’s just another story of the living Communion of the Saints WITHIN the Orthodox Church.

[Michael]

Joe,

Praise be to God for the blessing He has given your son! It is not far off for many of us to imagine, and for some of us it is a reality, that dear family members face real difficulties in their learning. Therefore, I don't dismiss your story, nor do I disbelieve it or criticise it. The Saints live eternal, and by the will of God, may they forever aid us for God's will.

However, what is rubbing me the wrong way with your commentary isn't the profession of faith, it is the assertion that the Orthodox have a monopoly on that Communion. I do not practice prayer to the temporally deceased Saints because it is nowhere practiced in Scripture. This is not to say they no longer live--by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, they do--but simply that by the grace of God, the veil, metaphorically and literally, has been torn in two, and that I can approach my Creator facedown and beseech Him with my own lips.

I understand why the Orthodox and many RCC's venerate the Saints past and even pray to them, but I cannot in the least think it is an essential element of the Faith to pray to practice the Communion of Saints in the way you deem it. RCC's may agree with you on the living Communion of Saints in the sense you are talking, but I doubt any would claim that the RCC has a monopoly on that, as if only the faithful papist can live with the Saints everlasting.

Reference Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession to understand that, as Lutherans, we respect and seek to live by the example of the Saints, but cannot in good conscience pray to them, as it is not scriptural, nor is anything given to us from the ECF to practice as such. Indeed, the term invocation is not used at all until after the Council of Nicaea in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen. Thus, the earlist formation of the church is not known to have invoked the saints in the least.

[Joe]

The Gospel says that God is the God of the living and not the dead (Luke 20:38. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much (James 5:16). This is why it is so very puzzling to Orthodox and Roman Catholics when Protestants say that we pray to the "dead" or in your case, the "temporally dead." "Dead? Who's dead?" That is my priest's incredulous response to such accusations. It is a simple fact to him (and to all Orthodox) is that the prayers of the "departed" have availed much for the faithful since the time of the Old Testament!

2 Maccabees 15

7But Maccabeus did not cease to trust with all confidence that he would get help from the Lord. 8He exhorted his troops not to fear the attack of the Gentiles, but to keep in mind the former times when help had come to them from heaven, and so to look for the victory that the Almighty would give them. 9Encouraging them from the law and the prophets, and reminding them also of the struggles they had won, he made them the more eager. 10When he had aroused their courage, he issued his orders, at the same time pointing out the perfidy of the Gentiles and their violation of oaths. 11He armed each of them not so much with confidence in shields and spears as with the inspiration of brave words, and he cheered them all by relating a dream, a sort of vision,a which was worthy of belief.
12 What he saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews. 13Then in the same fashion another appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. 14And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the family of Israel and prays much for the people and the holy city--Jeremiah, the prophet of God." 15Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword , and as he gave it he addressed him thus: 16"Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries."

It's in the Orthodox Old Testament but sadly, it was removed from the Protestant OT canon precisely to remove "scriptural" evidence of this practice.

Here are some of pre-Nicene references:

St.Clement of Alexandria (208 A.D.)

"In this way is he [the Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]"

Origen (233 A.D.)

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep".

St. Cyprian of Carthage (253 A.D.)

"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy."

This living Communion of the Saints is absolutely essential element to the Christian Faith because God is the God of the living and not the dead. Communion means just that: an intimate fellowship and rapport. It's a relationship that like any other relationship involves love, communication and support. This relationship has this wonderful "wrinkle"(all props to Madeleine L'Engle) to it, because it is one that just happens to transcend time and space! "Wonderful is God in His Saints!" (Psalm 68:35).

[Michael]

All of those quotes, including that from Maccabees, speak of the saints praying for and with us (and us for them), but never directing prayers and requests to them. The Communion is such that they pray with us and for us in death as they live eternal, but it is not to them that we direct our prayers. Rather, we approach God and ask for his blessing, being joined by the saints, not at our invocation, but simply by the nature of the Christian bond. In some respects, we are splitting hairs, but in others...we simply disagree with the exegesis of Scripture.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>All of those quotes, including that from Maccabees, speak of the saints praying for and with us (and us for them), but never directing prayers and requests to them. The Communion is such that they pray with us and for us in death as they live eternal, but it is not to them that we direct our prayers. Rather, we approach God and ask for his blessing, being joined by the saints, not at our invocation, but simply by the nature of the Christian bond. In some respects, we are splitting hairs, but in others...we simply disagree with the exegesis of Scripture.<<<

It doesn't really matter, since the Church itself determined, from very early in its existence, that since the dead live eternally, and are bound to us for all eternity as our brothers and sisters in Christ through the ineradicable seal of baptism, our prayers for their repose are efficacious; and in turn asking for their intercession (not praying to them in the sense of offering proskynesis) on our behalf, especially asking those whose lives have manifested a true witness to Christ (particularly by their blood), are also efficacious.

Shrines to the martyrs date to the secnd century. Inscriptions asking for their intercession also exist from that period. This is what the Church has believed and practiced since the beginning, this is how the Church has interpreted Scripture from the beginning. Therefore, whatever interpretation is contrary to this understanding is contrary to Holy Tradition. Justify contrary beliefs as you will, just don't pretend that the Church is obliged to accept you belief.

[David Gray]

Eastern Orthodoxy certainly isn't obliged to accept that belief. Just as we are not obliged to accept that Eastern Orthodoxy is "the church."

[Joe]

Michael,

Re: "We simply disagree with the exegesis of scripture."

Actually, it is much, much more simple than that. We are simply living the Faith differently.

Re: "The Communion is such that they pray with us and for us in death as they live eternal, but it is not to them that we direct our prayers."

"We" of course means thee and thine and not me and mine, so you're talking about your communion and not THE Communion. In the Orthodox Church, all of this is not only scriptural, it's actual.

My family met a particular Saint in California about 5 years ago. [He's only been "fallen asleep" since 1966, so you Orthodox out there probably know who I am talking about.] God is indeed glorified in his Saints, because we received a sign of his blessing in a most startling and beautiful manner then and there. In his earthly life this Saint was known for his prayers which "availeth much" and everywhere he went people begged him to pray for them and their loved ones. It got to be too much so he told people to write down their prayer requests and he promised to pray for each one. In person and by mail the requests kept coming. Even after he reposed, the prayer requests are still pouring in.

Part of this Saint's relics reside 20 minutes from my home on the East Coast. I go to pray there when times are especially tough. One day I went to leave him a list with 9 names. At that time I was struggling with unbelief and silently prayed(rather too boldly?)for the Saint to give me a sign like he did in California that he was listening. I was desperate! As soon as I made this request, a server came from behind the altar screen to ask for my assistance. He led me over to the case containing the Saints relics. He lifted up the case and handed it to me! While he was making some adjustments to the stand, I hugged the relics tightly with tears streaming from my eyes. When I handed the case back to the server, I was startled to find 9 sweet smelling flowers (pressed flat from the back of the case)stuck to the front of my sweater. Later, I gave a flower to each of the 9 people that were on my prayer list.

If someone asks you to pray* for them, are they directing their prayers to you? If I am drowning, is it wrong to cry out to the lifeguard "help help" instead of "Lord, I am sinking?" We ask for the Saints for their help and their prayers because they are still living and active in building up the Kingdom of God, not in some sort of "soul sleep" stasis or in a gated community or in retreat. They cannot do anything contrary to the will of God so all of their intercessions are "all in the family" for the glory of God.

*Pray means to “ask” or request something of someone: Luke 14:18 “I pray thee excuse me”, Acts 10:48 Cornelius prayed Peter to tarry, Acts 16:9 Macedonian call “Praying to Paul saying, “Come!”, Acts 24:4 Paul to Felix: I pray you give us a brief hearing” The King James translates this word accurately.

From the Roman catacombs (circa 2nd, and 3rd century):

"Pray for thy parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year and 51 days."
"Januaria, take thy good refreshment, and make request for us."
"Atticus: sleep in peace, secure in thy safety, and pray anxiously for our sins."
"Martyrs, holy, good, blessed, help Quiracus."
"Peter and Paul, help Primitivus, a sinner."
"Paul and Peter, have us in mind in your prayers, and more than us."
"Paul and Peter, pray for Victor."

[Gina Mosko]

Thank you for describing these blessings, Joe. Though the context seems to be trying the patience of our Protestant brothers, it is nonetheless sweet to be reminded of the nearness of the saints.

[David Gray]

>"We" of course means thee and thine and not me and mine, so you're talking about your communion and not THE Communion.

I'm pretty sure that isn't what he meant.

[Joe]

"Though the context seems to be trying the patience of our Protestant brothers..."

Isn't all in a day's work for Protestants to be protesting against something? In Protestantism, doctrinal differences are the engine that drives institutional maintenance. The final logic of the Protestant faith can only be that each individual makes up his or her own religion, which will then be defined over and against every other individual's religion. Gina, I hope this is not the case in this particular discussion, but your observation may be "spot on."

[Yaknyeti]

Joe,

Isn't all in a day's work for Protestants to be protesting against something?
Today it'll be your statement. :-)

In Protestantism, doctrinal differences are the engine that drives institutional maintenance.
Rather wide swing, there, Joe. Can you be more specific? The persistant fracturing of Protestantism is a sad thing, but so is the number of different Orthodox communions in this country. At the level of the local church, it seems to me that doctrinal differences are a side issue compared to the immediate issues of worshipping God and building up our neighbors. Perhaps at the level of meta-church structure, some denominational squabbling takes place, but as often as not people support the denominational structures out of love for their own church and gratitude for things they can't provide on their own as a church (church camps, world-wide evangelization and aid programs, etc.). I doubt this is limited to Protestant churches.

The final logic of the Protestant faith can only be that each individual makes up his or her own religion, which will then be defined over and against every other individual's religion.
The history of the church from Day One - or maybe Year 100 - has been defined by its struggles against various individuals' religions: Arianism, Gnosticism, etc. I think your beef is more with the fact that individuals are doing it, and doing it against the traditions and understandings laid down by our ancestors in the faith. Even there, I suspect most of us Protestants would agree with you that "making up our own religion" is bad, and is the error of our brethren who have thrown out the Bible wholesale. The question is specifically what authority we believe we should accept to correct our sinful impulses and lead us closer to God's truth, and how much room that leaves open for personal interpretation.

I appreciate what you have to share about the power of God working through His saints. It makes me rethink some of what I've taken for granted in my Protestant upbringing. But please find more constructive, specific ways to do it.

[Yaknyeti]

"But please find more constructive, specific ways to do it"
... that is, to criticize us Protestants. I don't mind the celebrations of your/ our Saints.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Eastern Orthodoxy certainly isn't obliged to accept that belief. Just as we are not obliged to accept that Eastern Orthodoxy is "the church."<<<

David,

There is an undivided, "catholic" Tradition that binds the Churches of the East and the West, encompassing the Vincentian canon of that which is believed everywhere, at all times, by all people. It is this stratum of Tradition to which the Reformers declared their desire to return. Yet, not understanding fully the depth and universality of the Tradition, and likewise reflexively antithetical to anything held by the Church of Rome, they ended up rejecting large pieces of that catholic Tradition, and superimposing their own. It is therefore not encumbent on those confessions that have maintained that ancient catholic Tradition to justify their beliefs, for they merely receive that which has been passed down to them from the Apostles through the bishops in unbroken line of succession. It is encumbent on those who choose to ignore or reject the Tradition to demonstrate that their belief is more congruent with the faith of the Apostles than that which is held by the Apostolic Churches today.

[Michael]

>>It is therefore not encumbent on those confessions that have maintained that ancient catholic Tradition to justify their beliefs, for they merely receive that which has been passed down to them from the Apostles through the bishops in unbroken line of succession. It is encumbent on those who choose to ignore or reject the Tradition to demonstrate that their belief is more congruent with the faith of the Apostles than that which is held by the Apostolic Churches today.<<

Your faith is contingent on the teaching of the church, which claims to be of apostolic descent, wherein each tradition it holds is apostolic. However, we know from papal encyclicals and declarations and the writings of church fathers that traditions entered the church when the bishops found it conducive. What of the counter-Reformation launced by the RCC after the excommunication of Luther? Were all these changed practices apostolic, 1500 years after the apostles?

I realize you're Ruthenian, but even with you're amazing knowledge of church history, you are treading on remarkably thin ice. I highly doubt Luther's original complaint--indulgences--were sold part and parcel by Peter and Paul, and yet the practice and understanding of the RCC and EO are wholly Apostolic? I'm going with, uh, no.

Quoting at length from another blog (whole post available here):

The particular biography which I was reading, Common Sense 101: Lessons from G.K. Chesterton, is by Dale Ahlquist and was published by Ignatius Press. Comments against Protestants range from the substantively unfair but mildly voiced:

Both the strength and weakness of Protestantism is that it has borrowed its truths from the Catholic Church, but not the whole truth. (pp. 196-197)
to those completely abandoning any pretense at fairness or brotherhood:
Chesterton also shows how those who attack the Catholic Faith steal from it at the same time. This is true not only of Protestantism, but also of the rest of the world. (p. 205)
From a Protestant view, of course, we haven't "borrowed" anything from Roman Catholicism, much less stolen from it; we simply share the same heritage up to a certain point in history. We consider that the heritage of the united church is as much our own as that of our estranged brothers and sisters; it is the common ground on which we ought to rebuild. Athanasius and Augustine belong to the whole of Christianity, not only to the church of Rome. Just from the standpoint of Mr. Ahlquist's arguments, it's interesting that, when the question comes up whether Rome has done any borrowing or stealing as some have accused, Ahlquist says that Rome neither borrowed nor stole from others such as pagans, but is so broad-minded as to incorporate and preserve whatever was good. It's disappointing that Ahlquist's generous spirit of interpretation was not also applied to Protestants in a similar situation.

But my main concern is not Ahlquist's personal animosity towards Protestants -- or Ignatius Press disseminating it. Not only do we have the same heritage up to a certain point, but even since the breach, as estranged brothers and sisters hoping for a reunion, we have something like a "creative commons" license for materials each side has produced since. What if Protestants could not quote Chesterton or Tolkien or listen to Mozart without being accused of theft, or Roman Catholics couldn't quote C.S. Lewis or Charles Dickens or listen to Bach without being subjected to similar divisive bullying? In practice in the divided church, our own actions acknowledge that not only do we strive for unity, but that we all recognize various people who have nearly enough achieved it on a small scale.

Ahlquist provides a few more examples of the divisive and polemical approach. Here he raises a criticism that can be leveled legitimately at certain individuals and applies it over-broadly as a group smear:
The bad memory of Protestants applies to their own history as well. (p. 204)
It's irksome, as a non-Roman Catholic, to know that whatever our approach to anything in the ancient or medieval church, it will be criticized mercilessly by some in Rome. When things from the united church still speak to us and we still admire and preserve these things, we're accused of "borrowing" (as if we did not share a heritage) or "stealing" (as if we had no right at all to our common history); but for those things that do not speak to us we're collectively smeared with the charge of "bad memory" (others would charge ignorance or selectivity). Ahlquist in particular criticizes on both of these two opposite fronts, so that regardless of whether or not we believe that some medieval teaching has passed the test of time, either way we can be sure of criticism from the spirit of partisanship.

What does it mean when a critic criticizes a thing on inconsistent grounds? When Ahlquist reviews the inconsistent criticisms lodged against his own church in Rome, he takes these inconsistencies as proof of her truth, her breadth, and her vitality, and in some measure as proof of the opposition mentality of the critics. It is again disappointing that Ahlquist does not apply the same type of reasoning when the group in question is Protestant rather than Roman Catholic.

Here is one final example from Ahlquist of a common misrepresentation of facts:
The Medieval Age was a time of united and devout faith. (p. 136)
"United" faith in the Medieval Age? Ahlquist is not alone in arguing as if Protestants are completely unaware of the schisms -- and continuing divisions in the church -- that began long before Martin Luther was born. I'm not sure that we could say in good faith that the whole church had been united since the days of Chalcedon back in the 400's, and certainly not since the break with the Eastern Orthodox some centuries before Luther. Ahlquist accuses Protestants of being historically ignorant -- but then himself offers arguments that do not stand up to historical scrutiny. The sad truth is that persistent, unhealed divisions in the church have been a fact of life since at least the 400's, not merely since the 1500's. I wonder very much how the Copts, Eastern Orthodox, etc. view Alhquist's and others' practice of speaking as if they did not exist. Myself, I am tired of the Roman Catholics charging that Protestants have the entire and unique fault of splitting the church when it's a demonstrable historical fact that the church had not been united for centuries before that.

Pride, hatred, arrogance, greed, impatience, injustice, indifference, wilfull foolishness -- these are the things that have ruined the church. If the church were to become the strong and united body of Christ that we could together make it, in keeping with Christ's teachings, then people could nail debating points and reform suggestions to church doors all day long without causing a schism. Those who have read Luther's writings know that he never set out to cause a schism; it never entered his mind that the church was such a fragile thing that something he could do could break it. And still the divided church, such as it is, produces a steady stream of universal figures that all sides admire: Bach, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Chesterton, Lewis, Tolkien, Bonhoeffer, Barth -- these have shown that the church is not entirely broken, even as we are. Our friends to the east might mention Stravinsky and Dostoevsky and Nabokov ...

Up until the Great Schism, the EO and the RCC held the same line of succession. Up until Luther, Protestants and the RCC held the same line.

[David Gray]

>It is therefore not encumbent on those confessions that have maintained that ancient catholic Tradition to justify their beliefs, for they merely receive that which has been passed down to them from the Apostles through the bishops in unbroken line of succession. It is encumbent on those who choose to ignore or reject the Tradition to demonstrate that their belief is more congruent with the faith of the Apostles than that which is held by the Apostolic Churches today.

Stuart, you can do better than that. All that amounts to is that if I accept your presuppositions then I'm more likely to arrive at your conclusions. No thanks.

[Bill R]

I lost track of this thread when I was gone for a few days at the end of last week. Hope I’m not too late. I’m not going to enter into the debate about prayer to the saints. Scripture is silent on this issue, and therefore so am I.

But I offer just one little word on so-called “Protestant division.” Those who persist in pointing to this have a rather abstract understanding of Protestantism, or at least of evangelicalism. The latter is remarkably united across a rather wide spectrum. But perhaps you have to live in this world to see it. In my own church I encounter Arminians, dispensationalists, pre-millennialists, post-millennialists, etc., ad infinitum. These are almost entirely Protestant issues, but they are far less divisive than is sometimes imagined. At least they are among most evangelicals. The defining principle of evangelicalism is an affirmation of the truth and infallibility of the Scriptures. But most evangelicals will accept a rather wide range of interpretation of Scripture by those who make this their guiding principle. Denominationalism is not a primary principle of evangelicalism—the declaration that Christ is Lord and Savior is, along with the affirmation that the Scriptures are truly the Word of God. We share these suppositions with the Orthodox and with Roman Catholics. But true ecumenism among all Christians is not strengthened by describing straw men. Evangelical unity is not ecclesial in nature but rather spiritual: we recognize the Spirit of Christ in one another.

[James A. Altena]

Joe,

First, you wrote:

"I can't tell you how nice it is to be out of the hall and into 'Aslan's country'."

"Aslan's country" is Heaven. But even if one were to view it as the Church instead, you also know full well that there is no salvation outside the Church. Therefore your statement here that the hallway is external to Aslan's country is tantamount to saying that those in the hallway -- among which you explicitly count Protestants -- are outside of Heaven and salvation. No subsequent disclaimers or borrowed quotes can get around that.

Second, you misuse C. S. Lewis in your metaphor of the hallway. Lewis never would have counted Protestants (or RCs or Orthodox) as being outside of "Aslan's country" and only in the hallway. He clearly situated them as being within the wardrobe, not without.

Third, C. S. Lewis was an Anglican, which you clearly consider to be Protestant. (He certainly was not an Anglo-Catholic!) He is therefore by your own statement also outside the Church, and thus by your own standards a heretic and schismatic. For you to take the work of someone you consider to be such, and to twist his work to support an assertion that your communion alone is "the Church" -- well, chutzpah doesn't begin to describe it.

Fourth, yes, Touchstone indeed endeavors to be the meeting place of C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." But somehow it seems to have escaped you that the hallway is not a meeting place; instead, all present are gathered in the same room and none is relegated to the hall outside of it. And, as editor S. M. Hutchens noted on another thread recently, that involves a certain type of truce between those in the room, wherein those present put up their swords with repsect to one another regarding ccertain issues. One aspect of that is to suspend assertions of claims in that forum that one's own communion is "the Church" and that other communions are not. (Note: I did not say "renoucne the conviction"; I said "suspend assertions of claims in that forum.") I invite you to find any articles in Touchstone in which any of the editors and regular contributors asserts his particular communion to be exclusively "the Church."

You also wrote:

"I'm going to gamble that there is enough goodwill and faith on this board to close with the following example without inciting charges of smugness and ignorance."

Well, then, what do you intend to prove by your lengthy accounts of your spiritual experiences? That the Orthodox have them and the non-Orthodox do not have anything similar? Or, perhaps, while while other Christians may be vouchsafed such experiences, those of the Orthodox are superior? Or that these are evidence that the Orthodox are the Church and the non-Orthodox are not? If not, then what is their relevance to your assertions here?

And how about some attention here by you to the principle of spritual reserve and the import of Matt. 6:1-5?

"By your own admission you have stated that you have disagreements with Orthodox over certain doctrinal issues. These disagreements are not part of your belief system. They form part of your disbelief. Sadly this disbelief has kept you out of the Orthodox Church, the place I was telling you about."

Quite false, and yet another instance of your self-congratulatory circular reasoning and reliance upon cliched stereotypes about non-Orthodox. (Not to mention the implication in your slur about "disbelief" that I am not even a Christian.) As I already noted, Joe, one of the biggest things that kept me out of the Orthodox Church is converts such as you, whom my cradle Orthodox friends find such an embarrassment.

You will receive as much goodwill and faith as you extend to others. So far, you've offered less than zilch, nada, bupkes.

Kudos here to Michael (though we disagree about invocation and comprecation of the saints), David Gray, and as always my good friend Bill R.

[Serge Keleher]

Just a bit of clarification - sorry to be late, but this only now reached my attention. I seem to have been confused with Father Archimandrite Robert Taft. He and I are friends, and I'm flattered to be confused with him, but I don't promise that he would be flattered to be confused with me!

Anyway, I was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite in June 1988 (as part of the Millennium of the Baptism of St. Vladimir observances) by Bishop Anargyros of Gratianopolis; the mitre was a gift from Bishop Isidore of Toronto of holy memory. Neither Patriarch Lubomyr nor Bishop Basil of Stamford were particularly involved, so far as I know.

Our Greek-Catholic community in Dublin has been blessed with a significant immigration of parishioners from Ukraine - fortunately I speak Ukrainian. Less happily, I've been blessed with arthritis and am in no fit condition to travel around the country regularly. This is a problem, because we have faithful in several other cities in Ireland, so please keep us in your prayers that we may have some more priests - and a deacon in Dublin - to enable us to care for the faithful with incipient parishes where they are.

On the matter of the Ruthenian recasting of the Divine Liturgy, I've expressed myself in my book, which one of the posters above has mentioned. My only present comment is that the recasting is even worse than I expected.

(Father Archimandrite) Serge Keleher

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Just a bit of clarification - sorry to be late, but this only now reached my attention. I seem to have been confused with Father Archimandrite Robert Taft. He and I are friends, and I'm flattered to be confused with him, but I don't promise that he would be flattered to be confused with me!<<<

My bad, Father. I did indeed confuse you, though how I do not know. Regarding whether Father Robert would appreciate my transposition, it would be a good exercise in humility for him.