Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

I made a few comments about my journey to Orthodoxy and was given a suggestion by agricola to start a topic on Orthodoxy in America. I am in no way an expert in Orthodox Christianity but I do consider myself an amateur and I mean amateur historical theologian, with an emphasis on the history. First, thanks agricola for the suggestion because this has been a thoughtful few days for me and I am glad you thought about my comments.

The thing that has impressed me the most over the last 10 or 15 years is that I can see a liturgical group of people worshiping very similar to people worshiping today. Yes, I understand that things change and sometimes change for the worse. But the beauty of Orthodoxy is that it has this strong desire to remain true to the ancient ways and is very slow to change. When I write about change, it is regional customs not core doctrinal points.

Even though I grew up in an ultra-conservative, NI, "anti" church in North East Texas, I consider my up bringing normal. However, I remember at a very young age noticing contradictions. For example, the use of the Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr to give credence for how we "do worship". All the while discounting the rest of the letter. You see we can use some of his writings as good but the other stuff is a departure from the pattern. I never understood why or how the Church was lost. I could not square up the notion of the "seed principle" and the analogy with baseball rules. Either the Church was a functioning entity that could with stand the "gates of Hell" or it wasn't! I thought Jesus promised the Comforter and that all the troubles the Apostles and the early Christians faced would be for nothing until the reformation got the ball rolling and of course the restoration movement finally got religion "right".

With the writings of the early church and the writings of the contemporaries of the day I saw a different picture. I saw Christians working out their salvation with the best tools they had: the writings of the Apostles, the writings of their disciples, the traditions passed down through their bishops and the sacramental and liturgical framework that borrowed from the familiar synagogue worship. We all know, if people disagree in the CoC, people can take up and leave to form another church. Why? Because there is no guiding authoritative framework. Each church is an island unto itself and every man can interpret the scripture to fit their immediate need, usually, I don't like what is going on so I am going to leave. We have all seen varying degrees of that type of behavior, but all to common in the churches of Christ.

I am asked, "isn't the Greek Church just the eastern branch of the Roman Catholic Church?". Short answer no. Long answer a little more involved. The two were together on paper for the first thousand years but the divide started centuries before. Without getting all technical and stuff, one bishop wanted more control the other 5 wanted to maintain the conciliar framework, see Acts 15. Because of language differences, latin in the west and greek in the east, things became harder to over come and the two began to have real problems talking about the person of Christ, the trinity and legal terms (Pelagius comes to mind). The west tends to try to put things into legalistic terms i.e. Thomas Aquinas and his works on proving God. The east tends to just accept mysteries as a the place of God and has an easier time with just asking for mercy and believing that God and his grace will grant it. That folks is way simplified.

I do find it interesting that the eastern Church did not go through a "reformation" period and even during the reformation in the west some of the western theologians were hoping to gain approval from the Eastern Church for their break from the Roman Church. Bishop Jeremiah from Constantinople exchanged some interesting letters with them and finally had to stop talking theology with them because of their stubbornness.

I am not sure who come up with this phrase but many writers have used it and it is very common place by current Orthodoxy writers to use this phrase when talking about the Church and how to identify it. I goes something like this " I can tell you where it is, but I can not tell you where it is not.", this is usually brought up when talking about the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. The creed lays out a framework for where the church is, but we can not go around pointing fingers because of the sin of pride. You see to be so puffed up in our "religion" the church fathers have warned against pride of being right. St. John of the Ladder (I think?) taught about us being the bee, that goes around looking for "the good" and avoiding the bad or dirty things like the common house fly. Most religious people and churches have something good but the orthodox church sees itself as preserving the fullness of what Jesus and the Apostles taught and handed down and preserved in the Church through the centuries.

I think Orthodoxy seems so foreign to people because of the national attachments: Greek, Russian, Antiochian and so on. Cultural connections are strong and so these churches have kept the language to some degree even though the former generations have gone on and the newer generations exclusively speak english. Those connections are special if your heritage is Greek or Russian. I have found the Greek that is used is not that difficult to follow and I have started reading it during the liturgy when it is sung or read. There is not much in Greek, it is mostly in English.

To sum up, how many times has that been said in an hour long sermon? I have been able to see a church, The Church through history. I see a firm starting point for the restoration movement and the divisions that have resulted from sola scriptura and interpreting them through the lens of CENI.

I went through a period of inquiry into Orthodoxy, even becoming a catechumen in the Antiochian jurisdiction. I found the ethnophyletism disagreeable. I also found that most of the clergy are Protestant converts who have a lot of baggage. I don't have anything against the Orthodox and I regularly read the Fathers. If someone indicated to me that they were seeking an Orthodox church, I would tell them where the closest one is and wish them well. I find the Orthodox hardliner's claims to be the one true church a bit ridiculous and have found Anglicanism to be a better fit for my own piety.

Shane R wrote:I went through a period of inquiry into Orthodoxy, even becoming a catechumen in the Antiochian jurisdiction. I found the ethnophyletism disagreeable. I also found that most of the clergy are Protestant converts who have a lot of baggage. I don't have anything against the Orthodox and I regularly read the Fathers. If someone indicated to me that they were seeking an Orthodox church, I would tell them where the closest one is and wish them well. I find the Orthodox hardliner's claims to be the one true church a bit ridiculous and have found Anglicanism to be a better fit for my own piety.

Good use of a greek compound word! Things, as you may know, move quite slowly in the Orthodox Church and national/ethnic distinctions are certainly one of them. There is a movement towards a coming together but with all the different leaders, Greek, Antiochian, Russian etc, it will take time. It was an issue early in my journey (20 years ago) but the church I am at currently does have some native Greeks. Some remember being driven from their homes and have close family still in Greece, so it isn't really hard to comprehend that they would go to a church that uses their native tongue. We also have Arabic and occasionally Russian native speakers there as well.

The one true church does have its hardliners to be sure, but that could be said about a large portion of other denominations as well. A theologian, can't remember his name, explained it like this: I can tell you where the church is but I can't tell you where it is not. I think a majority of theologians and clergy from all the national churches feel that way and deal with outsiders with that concept in mind.

Don't know much about Anglicanism, but I met someone the other day that is Anglican and likes talking theology. They even considered Orthodoxy but because of the distance to the nearest church chose to be Anglican. Maybe we will talk again and I can learn more.

Orthodoxy was split from the Catholic Church in 1054 CE. A Papal Bull was sent to Hagia Sophia in 1054 CE excomunicating the Eastern Church. There had been bad blood between them for about 600 years on where the Holy Spirit comes from. Does it come from the father or coexisting and eternal. They accepted the 1st Nicean Creed but not changes the Catholics made later. I do not accept the Nicean creed because it was made for political reasons. Wherever politics with religion poor decisions are made. The later reformation was a political revolution for freedom. People do not like to be told what to do and how to do it. The Catholic Church had become an oppressive weight. The Cyrilic Alphabet was for making Bibles in the natural language of the people. It is a product of the Orthodox Church. I don't see this quibble as important. God is what he is. jesus is what he is. The Holy Spirit is what it is. Why draw lines in the sand.

There is quite a bit more than just the creed distinction. The Bishop of Rome began to see things much more centrally located (Pope head of all) instead of conciliar, where all were equal. It is interesting to note that of the of the 5 Metropolitans, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople four disagreed with Rome and do to this day. The Creed is a distinction more for the unilateral addition of the filioque by the West without consultation with the East. This goes to the heart of the supremacy problem. There are way more problems that could be added to the list of differences but this one seems to be the most referenced.

Who God is has always been a major theme and the early Church strove to provide understanding during times of heresy. The first four Ecumenical Councils dealt specifically with who God is and strove to provide clearer definitions. But if we see God as legalistic and deserving of satisfaction, then our theology and dogmas will follow. This mode of thinking is linked to the Latin language (the language of laws) and to the feudal system of government and society. So it seems to me that the quibble could effect one's thinking about what God is and does.

The Nicene-Constantinopilan Creed was one of the first things I was able to reconcile early on in my journey. Not because I agreed with any political atmosphere of the day but because of the content. I felt like it served the purpose, concise truth about God the Father, who Jesus was and the work of the Holy Spirit and a clear statement of the faith as taught by the Apostles.

gordie91 wrote:There is quite a bit more than just the creed distinction. The Bishop of Rome began to see things much more centrally located (Pope head of all) instead of conciliar, where all were equal. It is interesting to note that of the of the 5 Metropolitans, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople four disagreed with Rome and do to this day. The Creed is a distinction more for the unilateral addition of the filioque by the West without consultation with the East. This goes to the heart of the supremacy problem. There are way more problems that could be added to the list of differences but this one seems to be the most referenced.

Who God is has always been a major theme and the early Church strove to provide understanding during times of heresy. The first four Ecumenical Councils dealt specifically with who God is and strove to provide clearer definitions. But if we see God as legalistic and deserving of satisfaction, then our theology and dogmas will follow. This mode of thinking is linked to the Latin language (the language of laws) and to the feudal system of government and society. So it seems to me that the quibble could effect one's thinking about what God is and does.

The Nicene-Constantinopilan Creed was one of the first things I was able to reconcile early on in my journey. Not because I agreed with any political atmosphere of the day but because of the content. I felt like it served the purpose, concise truth about God the Father, who Jesus was and the work of the Holy Spirit and a clear statement of the faith as taught by the Apostles.

Thanks Gordie. I view the creed as wrong this is because of what follows. Ron Wyatt found the dried blood of Jesus from the mercy seat. Ron was given The Ark of the covenant still exists. It is hidden in a quarry before the fall of the first temple. The blood was rehydraded and white blood cells were reconstituted. Red blood cells are not living and do not have DNA. White blood cells do have DNA. What does the DNA say. Mary was a Virgin. Jesus had her genes and a single Y chomotid from God that made him male. In otherwords he was male and human but unlike any sexually derived person today. I believe this to be the blood of Jesus because it is so unique. I can explain it more thoughly, but I would have teach DNA technical details. Google Ron Wyatt Blood of Jesus. Mary would have to have perfect DNA for this to work. Most Chromsomes are two copies. One from the mother and one from the father. There are 23 pairs in most humans or 46 chromotids. Jesus had 24 chromotids with two making a male chromsome. We cannot experiment with clones. Any one want to know about the Red Sea crossing. Ron found chariot wheels under the Gulf of Aqaba, skeletons and horse hoof as well. They have been looking in the wrong place. Mt Sinai is in Arabia. Not the Sinai peninsula. I have watched for hours to get this. Most chariot wheels have 6 spokes from this dynasty. There are four spoked and 8 spoked. Four was not as reliable because the rim had to bear the weight for a longer distance between spokes. In one case a chariot cab can be seen. We know how the chariots were built because of examples found in tombs. The wheels were the back of the cab. The wooden pole that hooked to the horses would flex providing a stable platform. Its a primitive suspension. They people of Israel were trapped by mountains on the wadi. The Lord held back the Egyptians until he could dry the land with a strong wind. The people crossed and the Egyptians were let loose. They did not make it and there is evidence today that the story is true. There are granite pillars that mark the crossing and barnicles growing on destroyed chariots. This was found by Ron Wyatt. There are many.