...that's heresy!

Greetings to any and everyone who has stumbled across this blog. I don't know if you have read the previous posts or not but this one is definitely going to be quite controversial. I really want to emphasize that this is not intended to be condemning or condescending to any certain parties. In fact this post should not even be considered complete thought. It is merely touching on a topic that is much much more complicated than I will currently present it. However, I do think it is necessary to simplify things for the sake of beginning a discussion. Recently I was talking with some friends about the difference between what Christians in the early church (the time from Christ to 1000 a.d.) believed verses what the modern western church (1500 a.d. -2015 a.d.) believes because of the events surrounding the Reformation. The question that came up, that I want to discuss in this post, is "What makes something heretical?". I think this is a very important question but also a very difficult question, because, like most conversations, not everyone is on the same page at the beginning. So, I want to start off by trying to get everyone reading this to start on the same page. (Now for the sake of time, and practicality, I don't plan on writing a book about this. I think you would learn a lot more if you start off by reading a few books that I will be referencing in this blog; The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware, Rock and Sand by Archpriest Josiah Trenham, and Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Andrew Stephen Damick.)

Now, I don't know what your experience was or how you learned about the Christian faith, but growing up, I went to what could be considered a college prep school that also happened to be very protestant. It was mandatory for me to take a lot of Bible classes as well as other religious classes to reinforce my Christian faith. During that time I learned a lot about Christian history but everything started about mid-1500s onward. I knew very little about Christianity from the time after Christ's ascension to the time of the reformation. Even in my college education at Liberty University it wasn't until I took a class on Western Civilization that I learned much at all about the development of the early church (this was just a basic history course requirement and not a biblical history class). It wasn't until my mid 20s - early 30s that I started studying the early church and I think I got the most from a book called The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware (now Kallistos Ware). In this book Ware gives a very comprehensive outline of the growth of the Christian church from the time of Christ to current day. It was very interesting to read how the church expanded throughout the world and, not only when and where, but why the church split into different schisms. Damick's book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy goes into much more detail about all the different schisms in the church as well as how other religions compare to the Orthodox Christian faith. Before doing these personal studies, I never really understood what Christians actually believed for the first 1000 years of the faith. Now I don't think anyone should have to become PHD in Christian History to have a basic grasp on the historical Church but I find it very heart breaking that most of my Christian friends have such a limited / skewed understanding of Christian history. But this post is not intended to be an extensive history lesson and I don't plan on rehashing what could easily be found in Ware's book The Orthodox Church. However, I do think that if we don't have a proper view of history it will make it harder to make a proper assessment of the topic of Heresy, but I will get back to that soon.

First I'd like to start by defining the word Heresy. But, to define this word I would like to define a few other words for the sake of being on the same page in regards to other language we need to use as well. (Please excuse me for being lazy here but I am just going to take these definitions directly from Damick's book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. I felt like he just did such a great job; why make things harder.)

- "Orthodoxy" means both "true teaching" and "true worship". Orthodox Christianity is the life in faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and then passed down within the Orthodox Church from generation to generation. It is not possible to be Orthodox outside the historical community of the Orthodox Church.
- "Heterodoxy" means "other teaching" or "other worship." Heterodoxy is anything that contradicts Orthodox Christian doctrine and worship. This term may also be used to refer to all non-Orthodox Christian groups.
- "Heresy" literally means "choosing." Heresy is the act of choosing to be separate from Orthodoxy in doctrine and/or worship. The word may also be used to describe any heterodox teaching.
- "Heretic" is one who was a follower of the Orthodox Christian faith and then consciously rejected it. Technically speaking, one who was never Orthodox cannot be a heretic. He may, however, believe in heretical teachings (i.e., heterodoxy).
- "Apostasy literally means "standing apart." Apostasy is the act of deliberately leaving the Orthodox Church. One who dose so is an apostate.
- "Schism" literally means "separation." Schism is a separation of a group from the Church, which may not include heresy on the part of the schismatics. (It often does, however.)

Again these definitions are going to be the guide for this discussion so feel free to refer back to them as you need to.

So, now that we have some words defined for the discussion, let's take a minute to talk about some history. It's important that we are all looking at the same time line for this discussion so we can discuss these terms above in the right context. To begin with, I'd like to acknowledge an interesting anomaly that often gets ignored with these types of discussions concerning church history and how we use the scriptures to prove our points. My first instinct is to talk about what we know about the early church from scripture, but that is a historically inaccurate approach to this whole conversation. The truth is that what we know about the early church comes from the early church itself. In so facto, we have the scriptures as a direct result of a thriving church that had a well developed spiritual life before it ever had an official "hand book" of sorts. So the question we all need to address first is "how did the church really grow after their leader died as they faced some of the worst forms of persecutions to date?" Well we know historically that the Apostles were unified and organized. They traveled to different cities and discipled people and trained leaders how to worship and follow Christ. They created a network of people that all believed and practiced their faith in a particular fashion. We can see the results of this movement in historic documents describing their beliefs and practices as well as visit their church buildings that still exist today, even though they were built 2000 years ago. The early church was very good at documenting movements and ideas but our knowledge of these beliefs and practices are not limited, simply, to a catalog of documents; after all Christianity has always relied on oral and ritual tradition. Because of the great wealth of documents in the church we can see that the Apostles themselves established an organized and authoritative hierarchy for church leadership and accountability, as well as carried on the liturgical worship practices that carried over from Judaism. (This "New Liturgy" was now practiced in light of the Truth of Christ; not completely abolished as some have taught. But this is a completely different discussion to be had at a later time.) The Apostles were the first bishops and we know who their successors were and we can follow that lineage of apostolic successors to modern day bishops. We can even read about what some of these successors believed and taught. These men of the early church are affectionately referred to as the "Church Fathers." For more information look up Ignatious of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, St Basil the Great, Irenaeus of Lyons,  John Chrysostom, and Maximus the Confessor (this list is not exhaustive but is a good place to start).

Now as much as we attribute the establishment of the faith to Christ and the Apostles, we have to give credit for the survival of the church to the Holy Spirit and the work that was done through those who were ordained and succeeded the Apostles. I'm really trying to emphasize that if it weren't for the Holy Spirit's continual work, then there would be no church at all. After all, by definition, heresy is (almost always) developed within the church; and sometimes from bishops. Again, we have many documents discussing the many heretical movements and the defense against them within the church. For instance, Irenaeus wrote a book called "Against Heresies" (180), which was an attack of popular heresies that were causing problems in the church. But the problem of heretical teaching was something even the Apostles had to combat. In 49 a.d. we see the first counsel of Bishops gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of gentiles (which involved a heresy that even the Apostle Peter was guilty of following for a short while, but thank God for the Holy Spirit whom worked through Paul to call Peter to repentance). This counsel set the standard for dealing with church disputes. This tradition of counsels is how the church continually articulated its foundation of faith and reinforced their beliefs when heresy arose in the church. There are Seven Ecumenical Counsels that the Church can confidently look to when certain issues are brought back into question. I think it is important to recognize that these counsels did not invent or create theological positions but simply affirmed what was already entrusted to them from Christ and the Apostles. A few examples of this would be the the deity of Christ, the two natures of Christ, and the Trinity. These were not new doctrines of the church but were affirmed as the truth preserved.

Now let's get back to the scriptures for a moment. The canonization of the scriptures took about 300-400 years to become official and even then there was further debate as to what should or should not be included. This leads us to consider a few things.
1) The early church only had access to the Old Testament for most of it's development; textually speaking, that is what was considered "the scriptures". The contents of the New Testament did come around eventually and were circulated amongst the churches abroad but was not the foundation in which those churches were established.
2) The teaching of the Apostles was/is authoritative. Christ sent them out and gave them authority to establish his church and they did.
3) The letters, written by the apostles, were in addition to what was already sufficient for knowing Christ and a life fulfilled in Him. The epistles became authoritative not because they were from the Bible but because they were from the Apostles.
4) The Gospels and the Epistles were reinforcing what was already taught, correcting followers of an existing church, and encouraging those believers to hold on to those traditions they were taught in person.
5) The Bible was never intended to be a stand alone source. It was always meant to be understood in the context and in the care of those to whom it was entrusted. Otherwise it is incomplete.
6) It is the church that preserved the truth found in Christ and established the canonized scriptures.
7) The church valued and respected the scriptures and sees them as authoritative. Even today the Bible is celebrated and paraded around Orthodox churches in the Liturgy. They even stand up out of awe and respect while the Bible is being read during the service.
8) The scriptures are a crucial tool in combating heresy. This however can become problematic  if the scriptures are used improperly whether intentionally or un-intentionally.
9) The New Testament itself reinforces it's non-exclusivity. ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2,  John 21:25, Luke 24:27)
10) The Bible confirms the establishment of the church and it's authority as well as the promise to preserve it ( Matthew 16:17-19).

The reason I took a moment to talk about the scriptures is because as protestants we have been taught that the Bible is the supreme authority in all maters of doctrine and practice. However, you can see how this idea is contradictory to both history and the scriptures themselves. As we review history, and the scriptures, we can clearly see the interdependence of the teachings of the Apostles, early church fathers, the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit as the glue that holds the church together. (This is the conduit Christ has used to fulfill the promise that He would establish His Church "and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it" again, Matthew 16:17-19). This foundation is affectionately called "The Traditions" of the Church. So when someone says "The Traditions" they are not simply referring to rituals; they are referring to the teachings and worship practices handed down from the Apostles. Now earlier I mentioned the Seven Ecumenical Counsels. These counsels were considered authoritative, by the whole church, as preserving the truth when heresies arouse and clarity was needed on issues that addressed the life of the church as a whole. For the first 1000 years of Christianity, the church was all on the same page and these counsels were the product of that unified body. Let's take a moment to look at some of the issues these counsels addressed.

1) Nicea 325 Repudiated Arianism. Formulated the First Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Son of God.
2) Constantinople 1 381 Formulated the Second Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
3) Ephesus 431 Repudiated Nestorianism and defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and Mary as Theotokos.
4) Chalcedon 451 Repudiated Monophysitism and Defined Christ as Perfect God and Perfect Man in One Person (His Two Natures).
5) Constantinople II 553 Reconfirmed the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ to combat uprisings of Arianism Nestorianism and Monophysistism.
6) Constantinople III 680 Repudiated Monothelitism and affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action (His two wills).
7) Nicea II 787 Ended the first iconoclasm and affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith.

Looking at this list a few things pop out at me. First of all the deity of Christ, His nature, His will, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity are not simply things we find "clear" from Scripture. In fact, they needed to be specifically articulated and affirmed by the Church to bring clarity to those who disputed these truths. Second as a protestant these were things I took for granted and assumed they were true because the Bible said so somewhere (but it doesn't). Maybe I was just naive, but these issues didn't seem like an issue that needed to be revisited over and over. Now I can see that these truths were just considered common knowledge and settled issues, because they had been settled long ago by those that came way before us (or at least in some circles). The third thing that stood out to me was that it seemed like a lot of these issues were repeat problems. Even though there was a collective agreement affirming these issues there is still a need to continue to preserve the truth over and over again. And the fourth thing that stuck out to me is that, even though these issues arose, there was a system in place to affirm what is "right" teaching and what is "wrong" teaching. And the fifth thing that stuck out to me is that all of these issues are about who God is and what is He like. And all of these issues matter greatly in how we relate to Him and how He relates to us. (This is one of those topics that I think needs more discussion, but later, of course.)

So far, all of this is leading up this question of "What makes something heretical?" . So let's recap. The early church was established and growing and spreading throughout the world, and for 1000 years there was a unified system of beliefs and practices that was common to all. So during that time, if an individual or a group decided that they wanted to believe or teach something other than what the church defined as the Orthodox Faith, they would fall into the category of "heretic". If they choose to leave the church then they would be considered "apostate" or "schismatics". Around 1054, the Church in Rome separated from the rest of the Christian Church. The two main issues, surrounding this schism, were a change to the Nicene Creed, which altered the understanding of the Trinity, and the claim that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over all the other bishops in the church. (A more in-depth look at this topic can be found in The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware.) But it was the issue surrounding the creed/Trinity that caused the most controversy within the Church. After the Great Schism, Rome continued to develop doctrines and practices that would further distance themselves from the Orthodox Faith.

Skipping ahead a little, the Reformation is a very confusing series of events for many reasons. I don't necessarily want to go in depth about what each sect of protestants believe, so I am just going to make very broad strokes for the sake of time. (As I mentioned before Damick, Trenham, and Ware all have amazing books on this topic.) First of all, the Reformers did not attempt to reform anything, otherwise they could have just reconciled with the Eastern Church (there are cases where some reformers consulted the east but eventually rejected their teachings as well) or even if they didn't, true reform would have looked like or lived like an identical version of the Traditions of the Eastern Church. Second, there was no official belief system as a result of the Reformation; unless you consider the over arching theme of the Reformation was to reject the authority of Rome, which also resulted in a rejection of basic foundations of the faith itself. But to be fair, I believe that the reformers had every right to demand change, after all they themselves were by products of a flawed system. (Here I'm referring to the problems in Rome, not the Orthodox Christian Faith which Rome abandoned.) However, the Reformers did choose to abandon the foundations of the Christian Faith in the process.

So were the Reformers heretics? Yes in every sense of the word. First in that they "chose" to reject the teachings of Rome and second in that they "chose" to rejected the teachings of the Orthodox faith. The reality is that these scholars of the faith had the Bible as well as the teachings of the Apostolic Church Fathers and they still chose to reject the Traditions of the Church to create their own system of faith that is very different from the Orthodox Christian Faith.

But what about the generations that followed the reformation? They may not have had the wealth of knowledge of the reformers. They are simply holding on to what truth they have been given. They may not believe all the things that the Orthodox Church would consider the True Christian Faith, but they aren't necessarily choosing not to believe it. In that case I would say they would not be considered "heretics" but simply "heterodox" in their beliefs. (This would be one of those statements that may be offensive. But again, I am not trying to condemn anyone. I am simply trying to acknowledge the reality of these terms and how they apply to all of us in proper context.)

So, how should protestants respond to this idea that their faith is based on, maybe not all but, some heretical teachings? Well, lets take a look at something for just a moment. Remember that high school I went too? Well they taught me about the difference between "cults" and the "occult". They taught me that a cult was a group that had deviated from the "true faith". A few examples they gave me was Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Classically speaking, these groups do deviate from the Protestant faith and do have a fixation with particular individuals that shaped their beliefs. But what about "The Church of Christ"? Would they be considered a cult? To some they are. Others would say they teach heresy because of their beliefs in baptism and their rejection of instruments in Church. But if you spent time with anyone within these three groups you will find plenty of people who live passionate lives for the Lord. They may even devote their lives to the scriptures and prayer. And these are also the groups that devote a considerable amount of time to missions. So, how do we address these groups or individuals? How can we show them their errors (without offending them or scaring them off as some of you may relate to while reading this blog) and hope to perfect their faith? Because what do we really want for these people? Don't we want them to come to know the complete faith? Or do we belief that because they have some parts wrong that they are completely wrong? Does it matter which parts they get wrong? There is a saying I have heard people use when talking to atheists and former Christians and I really like it, "Tell me about the god you don't believe in and I probably don't believe in that god either." This goes back to what I was saying earlier, what we believe about "who" God is and "what" He is like shapes our faith and our lives. So I think the question, for not only these 3 groups but for all of Christianity, is "do we all believe in the same Jesus?".

So, which Jesus do you believe in? The one who established his church 2000 years ago, 500 years ago, 2 years ago, or the one who changes when culture changes? Do you know why you believe certain things about The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their characteristics, how to connect with them, or how to connect with their people? When I read Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Damick, my mind was blown by how much of my beliefs about God were shaped by very specific people and very specific movements in the protestant church (not the Bible). Not only that but by how many of my beliefs were actually contrary to both the Bible and the Church. My whole life, I have been in churches, or study groups, where the leaders have been "preaching the scriptures" through the filter of their favorite (or only known) theologian(s). I have met many different Christ's and learned about many different paths to salvation. In college, I was taught to study the scriptures and interpret them through the lens of the church; but which version of the church should I attempt this process? This "freedom of interpretation" was quite maddening.

So again, how should protestants respond to this idea that their faith is based on, maybe not all but, some heretical teachings? (That maybe the protestant faith is not quite the same as the Christian Faith, but a cult.) I think the initial reaction is to be offended (but remember that Christians are a "Cult" of Judaism: also I don't believe protestants are the same as mormons or JW). So, let's not let pride rob us from really evaluating our beliefs. I remember my first thoughts when I was exploring the Orthodox Church. At first I was excited because I felt like a lot of questions I have always been asking were finally answered for the first time. But then, I was mad, because I felt like all these pastors and Christian leaders in my life had just neglected to tell me the whole truth (but honestly most of them were just as clueless as I was at the time). Then I was confused because I felt like, in order to reconcile what I had always been taught with what I now knew to be the truth, I would have to abandon all the people I loved. But thankfully that just wasn't true. I have found so much joy and freedom as I have begun to discover the Orthodox Faith.

But why does the protestant faith have such a blind spot to the ancient, and in fact current, Christian faith? I think that a big reason is because at its core protestantism teaches us to reject all forms of Biblical authority and traditions. But it is ironic that a schism that was founded on the rejection of papal and church authority has become so obsessed with the teachings and interpretations of specific teachers (or and endless supply of popes and traditions). As much as we study the reformers and their beliefs, we should really make an effort to know what the early church believed and WHY they believed it. However, most conversations I have with protestants, that are familiar with Orthodox Traditions, don't seem to really understand what those Traditions really mean or what they teach us about who God is (Luther was especially guilty of this, again another discussion).

Today, Russia (who was a Christian nation for over 1000 years before communism took over: which is something Americans should really consider) is experiencing a revival in the Orthodox Church. In the Middle East Orthodox Christians, who are still worshiping in Churches established by the Apostles themselves, are being heavily persecuted and killed. Most protestants would like to call these people brothers and sisters in Christ but in reality they have made many efforts to convert these people to the "right faith". In conclusion, in today's modern world we have more than enough access to learn about our faith and if we truly desire to "be like the early church", or to just not be heretics, then I think we should make the effort to know what that actually means and then make every effort to embrace the faith that others have died to preserve (I'm not trying to belittle the many protestants who have died for the faith). I also think it's been long enough to have evaluated the progress, or the lack there of, that the "Reformation" was supposed to accomplish. If we were honest, then we should admit that the Protestant church is more confused about who God is and what he is like then ever before. And we if we are confused on who He is, how could we begin to attempt to become more like him? I hate to end this on such a downer, but my experience is that most protestants are completely apathetic about whether their beliefs are genuinely Christian or not. We tend to like the comfort that comes from subjective beliefs and relative truth. To contrast that, the foundation of the Christian Faith is communion with Christ and each other, being of one accord. And yet somehow we have become content with doctrinal chaos and spiritual disunity. I hope this post encourages you to study Christianity in its entirety and embrace the fullness of the Christian Faith that is found in the Orthodox Christian Church. And as much as a conversation about the differences between the Orthodox Church and many Protestant denominations would be a good thing, more importantly there needs to be a celebration of the things they hold in common.

I know I tend to ramble a bit, but I hope it wasn't too confusing and that this leads to good and healthy discussions about our faith. Please feel free to contact me about questions or comments.

DC


Here are links to the books I mentioned above.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-New-Edition/dp/0140146563

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterodoxy-Exploring-Systems-Christian/dp/1936270137

http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Sand-Archpriest-Josiah-Trenham/dp/1939028361/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

Is Truth Relative?

Is Truth Relative?

In my last post I talked about looking for Truth, but Truth seems to be relative. I am sure most of you think that scripture is what I should base Truth on, and I love that idea, but there seems to be some inconsistencies. I am not suggesting that the Scriptures are inconsistent, however, I am saying that there is a lot of inconsistencies about what people believe about the Scriptures. You may say, “You just need to learn how to study the Scriptures”. Well, this is where it gets more complicated. While I was learning how to study the Scriptures in “Bible College” I used the skills I learned to interpret the Scriptures; only to be told by my professor that I was wrong. Well now that I am on my own, should I call my professor to make sure I am interpreting the Scriptures right? How can I trust my own interpretation?  Well maybe I am just not qualified to interpret Scripture. What about all the different Bible Colleges and Universities pumping out Masters of Divinity Graduates, who can’t agree on what the Bible is or isn’t saying? Is there one truth or is it relative? And who decides what that truth is?

            I don’t believe truth is relative but I am not convinced that I know everything or that I should have that burden on my shoulders. I have realized that I disagree with a lot of very smart people. So if it is as simple as submitting to the smartest person, who decides who that person is? And if we did decide who that is, what do we do with those that choose to rebel? And going back to my last post: what if God was the one who decided who we should submit to?

Sometimes when I talk to people about all of this I hear a common phrase: “No body is perfect” followed by “We are all broken” or “You can’t expect things to be perfect”. Well I can’t help to wonder, when we are trying to encourage our brothers and sisters to repent and persevere, what do we say to them when they respond with one of the previous statements? I don’t make a habit of making excuses for my friends when what they really need is to follow Jesus. Should I tell them “Yeah, you’re right. Don’t worry about the sin in your heart. We all make mistakes. Jesus understands. He doesn’t expect you do make an effort. Just keep doing what you’re doing. If God wanted you to change he would have made it easier for you; or at least more clear.” Or “Hey man, Grace!” Or how about “Less of you, more of Jesus.” What does that even mean? “Less of you” should mean “more of Jesus”. Jesus tells us to die to self, be humble, and repent. And repentance is an action step that takes humility and effort. So when I ask someone to be humble and they respond with “What do you expect from us?”- I expect humility. And if you are a leader in your church I expect you to lead by example. Am I wrong in expecting that?

I want to be clear. This is not a smear campaign or a hate letter. I am not trying to attack anyone. I just want to be clear about these things that seem to be contradictory.

So what do I think Orthodoxy will solve? Well, if there is such a thing as Apostolic Succession (A.S.), then it lies in the walls of the church that has been around since the time of Christ. What is the benefit of Apostolic Succession? If A.S. is real then it would mean that the Traditions and the Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were passed down to each persons’ successors. Prior to what we now know as The Holy Bible, the Church relied on the Old Testament and the Traditions of the Church to learn about God and His teachings. The Church did not have The Bible to debate heresies, they only had the teachings that were passed down to them from the Church Fathers. Today we still rely on these Church Fathers when discussing common confusions such as Gnosticism, Christ’s Deity/Humanity, the Trinity, and the Resurrection.  It is because of the early Church that we have the Creeds, the Theology of the Trinity, and the Bible. If the Fruit of the Orthodox Church is all of these things and more, why should I be so quick to reject their teachings? But maybe it is all just a pipe dream. But I want to find out.

Just a note: I am trying to use this blog to explain my thoughts and not debate. So if you don’t understand some of the topics I am addressing or if I do a poor job explaining something, feel free to ask questions, but I highly suggest you do some research. Topics I suggest you check out would be: Church History, Apostolic Succession, Sacraments, The Eucharist, and Theosis.

A Flashback to a Simpler Time and the Results Thus Far.

A Flashback to a Simpler Time

Over eight years ago I was living the bachelors life. I was a few years out of college, living the life of a broke musician in Columbia, South Carolina. At the time, I was a part of a small community of believers, who met at a coffee shop instead of a traditional church. I spent a lot of my time hanging out with a group of “crust punks” and “train hoppers”, both Christian and non-Christian. Together we shared meals, rode bikes, went to shows, made art, explored the city and the wilderness, and discussed our ideas about faith. That year one of my good friends Eric told me that he was looking into converting to Catholicism. At the time this seemed like the craziest idea a believer could admit to.

My whole life, growing up, I was taught that Catholics were heretics, that exploited the gospel for power and control. I was taught to believe that they worshiped idols and prayed to a woman instead of Christ. And most of all, I was taught: “Catholics are not Christians”. 

This was my first impression when Eric told me the news of his interest in Catholicism. But, I must admit I was very curious about his journey. After a few very interesting conversations, Eric gave me a book that explained the major beliefs of the Catholic Church. Once I got past the chapters on the Sacraments, my understanding of Catholicism shifted dramatically. As I read the explanation of the sacraments, I found myself falling in love with Christianity all over again. The way this guy explained Baptism, Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing the sick were absolutely romantic. I couldn’t figure out why people were so negative about the teachings of the Sacraments. All my life I have met people from every denomination who believe that you need to be “obedient” or “a good person” to earn your salvation, but we can’t trump good theology by pointing out bad Christians or Heretics within the fold. I would even go so far as to say; even bad pastors aren’t a good enough reason to discount good biblical theology. So, why was I taught to reject these teachings from the Catholic Church? Well, because…

            That same year, a friend of mine from California was in town visiting for a few days. He was a telling me about how he was considering becoming a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. After some inquiry, he explained how he felt like he had learned all he could from his current church, of which he was a deacon, and that he wanted to grow deeper in his faith. Even though I spouted out some reasoning for more prayer and devotion time, I really didn’t know what to tell him. He said things about Orthodoxy that I had never heard before, and I decided to do some research.

Up until this point the only thing I knew about Orthodoxy was that they prayed to paintings and worshiped idols; or so I was told. Either way I thought they were not “real” Christians. This is decision to look deeper into Orthodoxy is what really created a deep longing in my heart to discover the “One True Church” or “One Single Bowl of Mixed Fruit”. 

I started my research by reading a few books on the teachings of the Orthodox Church. This was very enlightening and also very challenging. And very much like my experience with the Catholic book I read; I was finding, that instead of being upset, I was becoming more excited about my own faith. Next I read a few books that were written by Protestant pastors who converted to Orthodoxy, after they themselves did research in an attempt disprove its statements of authority. I found these books hit all too close to home. It was almost like I was reading my own diary. They were wrestling with all of the same questions I was wrestling with and they seemed to be experiencing the same fears and frustrations I was also dealing with. When I was finished reading these books, I felt like I could have converted right then and there (which I couldn’t), but there were some things that I was still not ready to accept. So I did a little more research and found myself very conflicted. I didn’t know how to reconcile these mixed emotions and ideas; so I didn’t.

Over the next few years I found myself hostile toward the Protestant Church as a whole. I still went to church and loved the relationships I had, but I couldn’t shake this feeling that something was missing or that some things just didn’t add up.

When Alisha and I were living in Atlanta we were going to a Vineyard church that was in the process of converting to an Anglican Church. This felt more like home than I have ever felt. They were so intentional about recognizing the earlier traditions of the Church and it felt so right. It was neither mindless nor legalistic. It was organic and genuine. It even had a modern flare because they still used a band for worship instead of the tradition piano or organ you usually find in an Anglican church. While I was there I was content. But then we moved back to Columbia. We visited the Anglican Church in town but it felt so sterile and forced. I decided that we would just look around for a better fit. Eventually we landed at a church that treated us like family from the start. It was just what we needed at the time. We have spent the last four years attending that same church and it has been great. However, I can’t seem to shake this feeling that I am missing something.

Like I said, my community has been great. They have been there for me during some really dark times of my life and I can’t express how much they have been a blessing to my family and me. However, I often found myself feeling like I didn’t share a lot of the same ideas about the faith. We would often talk about these ideas but it never went anywhere. It has just gotten to the point where I feel like I am arguing about something I am hearing from the pulpit. So I asked myself, “If all my arguments are coming from the perspective of the Orthodox Church, why am I still not Orthodox?”

Now, here is part of the conundrum. One of the biggest questions I am wrestling with is the question of Authority. One of the questions you maybe asking is, “Why don’t you just submit yourself to your church leaders and their teachings?” A good friend of mine once asked me, “How does one get authority?” My answer was “authority is either handed down from above or it is given from below”. Now that may not be 100% accurate, but let me explain what I mean. If we elect someone into office, we are giving someone authority by putting them above our selves. We are then choosing to be led by them. The benefit of this scenario is we get to choose who we want to lead us. We also get to change leaders when we don’t like what happens or when discipline is a threat. When Jesus gave the Apostles authority he gave it to them via his own authority, therefore passing it down. The challenge with this scenario is that we don’t decide who is in charge and if we don’t like what they have to say we don’t get to participate. But we also benefit from knowing that they are the ambassadors of God and not the ambassadors of US. Today the modern church is a mix of both; some churches are passing down their authority to a younger generation, while others are taking it with an “if you build it they will come” mentality.  The latter may not always be a bad thing but it tends to be on the unhealthy side. Rick Warren is one of the most popular names in Christian America. He was the Pastor of one of the largest churches in America. Some would say that because his church was big and growing larger and larger that he must be doing God’s will. However, he was often criticized for selling a watered down gospel covered with positivity and a smile. Last year his church went into bankruptcy. Does any of this discredit him or his ministry? Should we even care? What about the small church plant that was born out of rebellion? What about the thriving local ministry that is above reproach? Who is responsible to confront the local church about turning their pastor into a little Pope? Who will confront the Pastor who acts like a king instead of a servant? Sadly, I think it is easy to confront individuals about accountability and submitting to authority, but it seems almost impossible to hold church leaders to that same standard.

So to tie this post all together: I have grown discontent with the “build a Jesus” mentality; that church is a personal expression of faith that we get to make up as we go along. I see a trend of using the Bible to justify our emotional whims, while ignoring the scriptures that are a threat to our precious Traditions. And even though this sounds very harsh: my observations so far have shown me that while Orthodoxy seems to be a practice of humility and piety, Protestants have shown me nothing but pride and arrogance while defending their stance on these issues. Now don’t get me wrong, I am willing to admit that these observations, of mine, don’t prove anyone more right than the other. I just want you the reader to understand why I am so eager to figure this out.

What is “this”? “This” thing is Truth. I want to know if God built his Church and if the Gates of Hell are still at bay. Or did the Gates prevail, and are we trying to salvage the wreckage? I want to believe that the Church has been and is still intact; and that it has not been tainted. I don’t want to have to feel like I am just guessing anymore.

An Introduction to an Open Confession.

An Introduction

So this blog is an attempt to discuss my journey in Christianity (Specifically pertaining to my investigation of Eastern Orthodoxy) with the hope that it will create an atmosphere of unity amongst Christians, despite denomination. I know that a lot of people don’t agree with my beliefs and most people will probably find this whole thing quite confusing; however, I really think starting this blog will be the easiest way to express my thoughts and allow others to add their thoughts as well. I know these things can often create lots of heated debates, but I hope that it becomes a place where people can ask questions and express their thoughts on different topics pertaining to the faith. 

A Bowl of Mixed Fruit.

Like a lot of southern boys, I grew up going to church with my family. Something that set my family apart right off the bat was we went to a lot of different types of churches. My parents took my siblings and me to Baptist churches growing up; but on holidays and special occasions I would go to my grandparents church, which was a Pentecostal Holiness church. So early on, I was exposed to both a very conservative, reserved, and intellectually driven flavor of the faith that had a strong assurance of salvation, and a hyper charismatic, spirit filled, emotionally driven flavor of the faith, where the certainty of salvation was not so assured. Around middle school, I developed a faith of my own and I started attending an Assembly of God church; mainly because of the youth group. This flavor of the faith seemed to be a blend of the two flavors I grew up with. During High School, I spent most of my teenage years as a very dedicated Christian in two very diverse environments; a private Christian School, where most of the students came from a wide range of flavors of the faith and the underground punk scene, where my beliefs were far from the social norm. During this season of life my family was attending a Presbyterian Church where Salvation was thought of more like a Spiritual Lottery. But despite my exposure to so many denominations (including Evangelicals, Southern Baptist, Nazarene, and Episcopal) I was taught early on that Catholics and Orthodox Christians were absolutely NOT actual Christians. Based on all the “logic” that accompanied these warnings, it was not hard to convince me of this way of thinking. After high school I moved to Florida where I went to a few different churches, some were enjoyable and others I didn’t care for so much. As an adult I have been a member of house churches, small church plants, Vineyard churches, Anglican, Non-denominational, and Inter-denominational. I eventually explored Catholic and Orthodox churches as well (much more to come on that topic later). So far my life has been greatly exposed to the many different flavors of the faith, and I think that these flavors have, over time, greatly affected my taste buds. 

I really like the idea of comparing the Church to a bowl of fruit. In a bowl of fruit you can find a variety of delicious flavors that all have different health benefits. Not everyone likes all the flavors but everyone can benefit from the many nutrients in that bowl. Now this metaphor isn’t supposed to be flawless and the truth is that the church isn’t flawless either.

Being exposed to so many Denominations has had its pros and cons. Yes I was exposed to a lot of different doctrines and theologies, and I will discuss that later, but what I really want to talk about is the communities that I was exposed to.

Amongst all the different churches I went to, they all had their core communities. These communities had rhythms and personalities that were organic and genuine. And despite their beliefs about spiritual gifts, baptism, communion, or salvation, they all had passion for their members and for the growth of the Church. They all wanted to see people connect and they all wanted to see the Gospel spread in the local community. They all sang songs and prayed and read the Bible. They all had yearly rhythms and celebrations and traditions. (For the sake of this blog I will keep referring to all of these things as “Traditions”.) Some of these Traditions seem so different and yet, other than frequency and style, for some of these churches these traditions are almost indistinguishable. Now, I will say that most of these churches would agree that 90% of what they are practicing is all “right and good”, but most of them would disagree on why they are doing these things. This is where doctrine begins to dictate what makes these Churches so different. But, let me interject something. I understand that the leadership plays a major role in the “what”, the “when”, and the “why”, but it really isn’t that simple. However, as much as there are people who genuinely dig deep into the depths of their faith and the “why” they do what they do, I have found that a lot of people just go with the flow. People, like sheep, like to be led. People tend to settle into a church that fits their personalities and their personal preferences; some people just go because “It’s Tradition”. People want something that feels familiar. Over the years, I have been invited to churches, by countless individuals who believe the pastor, the music, the atmosphere, or the special event at their church would appeal to me. I have even been invited to churches because of special emotional or physical healing opportunities. These people invite me (mostly) because they truly believe that their Church has something for me; something they have found for themselves. People often settle into a church because that church meets a need in their life. That need may be as simple as “I want to go to church because it’s the right thing to do” and for them that is as far as it goes. For others, it may be a much more complicated reason. Over the years, I have grown to appreciate some of the different Traditions these Churches have to offer, and I can’t help to feel like I am missing something when a Church doesn’t practice certain Traditions. This brings me to the Cons.

As someone who analyzes everything, I can’t help but to wonder, “Why do some people believe or practice this part of the faith but not these other parts?”. You may go back to the “Bowl of Fruit” analogy and say, “God put the different nutrients inside the many different fruits so that we would be motivated to try and enjoy the many different flavors.” If that is true, why do we keep separate bowls with only one kind of fruit in its’ designated bowl? Although some churches may believe that they themselves are a healthy mix of fruit, they still tend to leave out certain flavors. Let me be more specific. I have been to plenty of Churches that are very open to the Holy Spirit. These Churches have seen the Power of God work miracles in their community. Some of these Churches experience God’s healing the physically broken and some of them experience freedom from the demonic. Some of these Churches embrace the many gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues. Other Churches I have gone to don’t want anything to do with these types of things. They tend to act as if the Holy Spirit will convict you of your sin and point you toward Jesus; outside of those two things, He just doesn’t make much of an appearance. Or, if He does we just don’t make a big deal about it; “we don’t want to look like fanatics or scare anyone off”. I have been to other Churches that are very big on Theology and Intellectual Reason. They emphasize understanding and practical application of the Bible, but not spiritual gifts. These Churches tend to be more Humanistic in their approach to the Faith. And then, some Churches love the history and early traditions of the church and don’t care to move forward. Whether those traditions are from the 4^th Century or the 16^th Century has more to do with the denomination than anything else. And some Churches don’t have any ties historically to the earlier Traditions, at all; they are completely Modern in every way. Again, lots of Fruit, lots of flavors, lots of bowls.

But this doesn’t answer my question. Obviously this has just been my observation. Why do some people single out a particular trait of the Faith and build their Community around it? Why leave out so many other good traits? We are all reading the same Bible, aren’t we?

Before I try to answer any of those questions or pretend to anyway; I want to talk about a few other observations. Some similarities that aren’t so nice.

One thing that I can say from my observations is that every Church I’ve attended, on some level, has people who truly love God and serve His Kingdom. These people are intelligent and loving and full of the Holy Spirit. These people are truly co-heirs with Christ. That being said, every Church has a few tools in the shed that just aren’t that sharp. And these people don’t know all the answers, they can’t recite scripture, they can’t tell you why they do what they do or what their Traditions are all about. They may not even be able to explain the way to salvation. This does NOT mean that they are not believers. This also does NOT mean that their Church or Community is “Invalid”. I am saying all of this because I have heard many people discount a local ministry because they “know somebody there that is _______” and “there’s no way those people are Christians”. I am convinced I could walk into any Church and find someone there who doesn’t “make the cut”. That being said it has been a major struggle for me to be humble and consider others better than myself. I have left many Churches feeling superior because “I know better” or “those guys are so far off”. I believe that “Everyone thinks they are right”. I have never met someone who openly admits they are wrong and their ideas are not correct. If you do, it is because you think you have found the “right” answer and now you can be “right” again. For those of you who are stuck in your knowingly “wrong” ways, you are still somehow “right” because you at least “know the truth”. Now I am not saying that everyone is “right” and that there is no “wrong”. But if we all think we are “right” then we must think that everyone else is also “wrong”; unless we agree. So, what do we truly believe about all these different fruits and all of these different bowls? Are we just picking and choosing? Is that okay? Are we condemning the bowls that contain the fruit we don’t like the taste of? Is this what God intended for us? Or does he want us to embrace one bowl with all the different fruits in it?

Okay, I know what you’re thinking: “Some of the fruit is rotten. And for some reason it looks like someone threw a bunch of “Nuts” in the bowl. Look, this bowl is contaminated and eventually the whole bowl will be a waste”.  Well, isn’t that why we had a reformation? Good point. However, has the reformation ever stopped? Have we really gotten all the bad fruit out? How do we know we aren’t the bad fruit or the nuts? How do we decide what is “right” and “wrong”? These are the questions that I am having a hard time with.

It would seem easy to see that some things God blesses and others He doesn’t. That would seem logical but I have two problems with this idea. 1) God bless many ministries that are very different types of fruit. So by default I would have to embrace both. 2) Good ministries often get attacked by the enemy and God lets it happen. That is why we are encouraged to persevere. So, if a ministry looks like it is failing, that doesn’t make it default to “God must not approve”.

So what if I refined this statement by saying “Test the tree by it’s Fruit”. Well then, I would have to reiterate: “Why are we rejecting the Good Fruit that is out there?” Let me ask this one more way. “How can we balance out the lack of a balanced meal?”

I don’t suppose that I have all the answers, but I am looking. So this blog is just a way for me to get those ideas out there and share them with my community. Feel free to ask questions, or offer your ideas, about these posts.