Skip to content

Why I’ll Never Swim the Bosphorus

by Carson T. Clark on August 11, 2012

* For those not up on their ecclesiastical-nerd-lingo–that’s the technical term– “swim the Bosphorus” means converting to Orthodoxy.

Back in December 2010 I was regularly being asked why I’d committed to the Anglican tradition rather than converting to Roman Catholicism. The question was so frequent I decided to write “Why I’ll Never Swim the Tiber.” Today the question is being asked of Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the impetus for this sequel.11.To be clear, it’s a more than fair inquiry. I openly acknowledge having much more doctrinal affinity with the Orthodox than I do Catholics. If circumstances were such that I absolutely had to pick between just those two options, it wouldn’t be a difficult choice. To keep the spirit behind the first post intact I’ve decided to use the same preface:

A bunch of people have recently asked me why I committed to Anglicanism rather than [Orthodoxy]. I’d become flustered by the prospect of repeatedly having the same conversation about something I don’t enjoy talking about in the first place, so I’ve decided to write a quick post I can point people toward. Emphasis on the word quick. Again, I don’t like this topic so I’m going to crank this sucker out in no more than [60] minutes. This isn’t a theological treatise. It’s not an assault upon [um, Istanbul? Moscow?] It’s not even an argument for why others should follow suit. And I’m in no mood to deal with the schmoes who try to sound smart by nitpicking the crap out of everything. Just give me the benefit of the doubt that I’ve thought things through more than I’m writing, OK? Thanks.

This time I’m going to spend 30 minutes copying/pasting from earlier posts in addition to the 30 minutes writing fresh material. But I’m definitively stopping at 1 hour:

  1. Mystery. I have an intense love-hate relationship with how Orthodox understand mystery as well as when they appeal to it. On the one hand, to their infinite credit they avoid the Western tendency to over define the hell out of everything.22.For example, many Western theologians almost seem to treat the sacraments as divine pez dispensers dolling out a sort of quantifiable grace. Thank God the Orthodox don’t! On the other hand, they always seem to conveniently appeal to the mystery exactly when the weaknesses in their joint doctrine-practices are being illuminated. It’s like the theological implementation of deus ex machina.33.Which I find socially disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
  2. Filioque Controversy. I agree with the descendants of the Greek East that the Latin West was gravely mistaken in modifying the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without consultation of the universal Church at an ecumenical council. Yet I disagree with both side’s exact formulation of the economy of the Trinity, which the Orthodox will tell you is central to their faith. In short, I believe the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit (having been sent by the Son) proceeds from the Father.44.For a fuller explanation of my view, please read “A Moderate View on the Filioque Controversy.”
  3. Exclusivity. I like to refer to myself as humbly Anglican, by which I mean that I don’t consider my tradition the “one true church” or necessarily even the best tradition for all Christians. Not so with the Orthodox and Catholics. I find their practices both pretentious and historically untenable.55.This is perhaps most clearly seen in their practicing of a closed-communion.
  4. Ecclesiastical Authority. In my opinion, the Orthodox place a disproportionate emphasis upon tradition. As an evangelical Anglican who likes to half-jokingly refer to himself as Western Orthodox, I place a great bit more weight upon tradition than most of my generically evangelical peers.66.Specifically, I hold to an elevated view of the Bible (Prima Scriptura) and see apostolic tradition as an authoritative lens through which Scripture must be interpreted. Yet when it comes right down to it, I make a central distinction between historic orthodoxy (essential doctrine) and adiaphora (secondary doctrine) that Orthodoxy doesn’t.
  5. Ecclesiology. Protestants and the Orthodox differ on their point of emphasis. The former hold to a bottom-up where believers make up the Church. The Orthodox are top-down where the Church makes up believers. My own view is somewhere in between and the only tradition I’m aware of reflecting that tension is the Anglican tradition.77.To see a fuller description of my perspective, click to my Anglican page and scroll down to point #10.
  6. Ecclesiastical Structure. I affirm the bishopric, but have reservations about strong top-down governance in any organization. It’s not from Scripture or anything, but I agree with the principle that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Naturally, I have a moderate conception of church polity. Orthodoxy’s power isn’t as concentrated or hierarchical as Catholicism’s, but it still makes me innately uncomfortable.
  7. Anachronistic. I’m not sure if the Orthodox got the memo, but it’s not the 8th century anymore. Don’t get me wrong. I love history and tradition.88.In fact, the foremost reason I committed to the Anglican tradition is that my soul longed for an intentionally historically-rooted expression of Christianity that connects the Body of Christ through time and space, consciously seeking the wisdom of those who’ve come before us. It was exhausting to feel like the weight of all of Christianity rests here and now on my shoulders. Finding historical continuity with ancient practices removed that sense of burden. I find spiritual fulfillment in ancient practices. But in my estimate continuity must be kept in tension with renewal. For a tradition that so values incarnational theology, they sure seem to struggle in even seeing the need to incarnate contemporary culture let alone actually doing it. It often seems like they’re stuck in an Eastern European, Patristic time warp.
  8. Cultural Religion. Eastern Orthodoxy in Europe has long been guilty of being a cultural religion not unlike evangelical Protestantism in the American South, Catholicism in Ireland, Anglicanism in England, or Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. In each case their places of worship are chalked full of practitioners who are just walking through the motions, which I’m absolutely opposed to. Without question all religious expressions are prone to digressing into cultural religion and traditionalism, but, whether this is fair or not, it seems to me Orthodoxy, because of its very nature, is particularly prone to these vices.99.What do I mean by traditionalism? Jaroslav Pelikan provided this helpful distinction: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.”
  9. Heresy Accusations. Though I strive to maintain the tension between being challenging and being irenic, I’m a clearly a staunch critic of Reformed Theology and would emphatically distance myself from that label. Yet I count many Reformed Christians among my best friends, closest mentors, and favorite scholars. The same could be said of Anabaptists and many others. As such I find it terribly offensive that the Eastern Orthodox dismiss these groups as heretics. Not cool. Not cool at all.
  10. Missions. Straight up, the Orthodox are terrible at missions.1010.Of course, they emphatically disagree and inevitably offer a litany of factors why this has been so historically–geography, politics, economics, etc. Without minimizing all those factors, why can’t they just humbly admit that this is a weakness in their tradition? I do this sort of thing all the time with Anglicanism. There’s a reason Orthodox Christianity is confined primarily to Eastern Europe. Take a look at history. Their greatest missionary endeavor involved the Russians coming to them. In this way, Orthodoxy tends to reflect an OT, Solomonic view of missions where the world will come to them rather than going out to the world.
  11. Priesthood. I disagree with the whole intermediary between God and man idea, including the absolution of sins, etc. It was Thomas Cranmer who decided to keep the nomenclature while fundamentally redefining the nature of the priesthood within the Anglican context. I affirm his view.1111.“[Thomas Cranmer] sought to retain the terminology of minister as “priest”–only because it was an English translation of the New Testament term for “elder” (presbyteros)–and invest it with new meaning. For him the priest was the person ordained by the church to preach and teach God’s Word, serve in pastoral labor the spiritual needs of the congregation and administer the sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion. The office of priest in the Church of England was envisioned as not distinctively priestly in nature but rather as prophetic and pastoral. According to Cranmer, only Christ is our true priest who mediates between God and the believer in intercession, forgiveness and imparting grace.” – Roger Olson
  12. Gender Roles. I affirm Discernmentarianism.
  13. Icons. I’m not opposed to them. Icons were upheld at an ecumenical council, so who am I to question their legitimacy within the bounds of historic orthodoxy? That doesn’t mean, however, that I personally am comfortable with them. Throw in the relics and I get downright fidgety.
  14. Church-State Relations. The Orthodox have a long preferred Caesaropapism as their tradition’s ideal church-state model. Sadly, there’s a mountain of historical evidence suggesting things get ugly in a hurry whenever the church gets in bed with the state.1212.Among the problems that arise from this is the inevitable attack upon the church when the state falls. Look no further than the Bolshevik Revolution for evidence of this. The Orthodox are loath to admit this, but a big part of the reason Soviet persecution was ruthless was because of how intimately the Russian Orthodox Church was tied to Czar Nicholas II and his predecessors. And still, after the entire Cold War, they’re reverting right back to it because of the tradition’s cultural church-state norms… Unreal.
  15. Hellenization. I’ve long been critical of the degree to and manner in which early Christianity was synthesized with Greek philosophy. At the very least, I think we lost a lot of the richness and beauty of the faith as articulated from a generically Ancient Near Eastern and specifically Jewish context. Thankfully, many Protestants and even Catholics are coming to see this. I think of N.T. Wright’s work with Second Temple Judaism, for example. Unfortunately, it seems as though Eastern Orthodoxy is particularly insulated against correction because of its unwavering dependence on tradition.

One hour is up!

From: Uncategorized
  • charles twombly

    Would recommend to interested parties to read Georges Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky on tradition.

    Would likewise urge that books on Orthodoxy by the following authors be read (in the following order): Timothy Ware, John McGuckin, Paul Evdokimov, Sergei Bulgakov, Stefan Zankov, Nicholas Zernov. (Evangelical assessments by Robert Letham, Donald Fairbairn, and Daniel Clendenin might be consulted too, though I’ve never found them very satisfactory.)

    On more specifically doctrinal isssues, would commend the writings of John Zizioulas, Dmitru Staniloae, and John Meyendorff.

    As for Orthodoxy being “anachronistic,” read David Bentley Hart’s THE BEAUTY OF THE INFINITE for starters. Dostoevsky’s “big four” novels would be a good follow-up as would the writings of Nicholas Berdyaev and the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff, Arvo Part, and John Tavener. The writings of the Slavophiles (especially Alexei Khomiakov) beg to be brought into the conversation here too.

    Along the way, read/reread Carson’s characterizations and see what you think. For my part, I have disagreements with virtually every line or at least every item; but make up your own mind.

    (A close friend who works with the refugee problem in the Middle East has recently visited Christians from ancient Christian communities in places like Iraq and Syria and was amazed and inspired by the depth of faith still alive in those troubled communities. The stories could be multiplied elsewhere.)

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      Charles,

      After reading your comments I stepped away from the computer for a while to reflect. The following thoughts came from that time.

      First, I think it important to keep my comments above in perspective. Unlike Roman Catholicism where the weight of my criticisms clearly outweigh that of my commendations, my commendations of Eastern Orthodoxy clearly outweigh my criticisms. With the exception of Anglicans and possibly also the Anabaptists, I would say that about no other tradition.

      Second, I hope you know how much I value the Orthodox tradition and have drawn from its rich wells. As I said in the body of the post, I half-jokingly refer to myself as Western Orthodox. I know of no better way to praise the tradition than to say this: Were Anglicanism not an option, I’d tentatively suggest that Orthodoxy might be the only other ecclesiastical option I could swallow long-term.

      Third, have you ever heard which deceased clergyman in all of church history I’d most like to meet? It’s not Irenaeus nor Origen, Erasmus nor Hooker. The person I’d be most honored to meet would be St. John Chrysostom. That should speak volumes about where my own affinities lie.

      Fourth, the purpose of this blog post is critical. I’m giving the reasons I’m not Orthodox in response to repeated inquiries. (It’s worth noting that there’s a reason why people ask me this so much.) In this case the whole discourse from the title onward is framed negatively, but that doesn’t imply I don’t have a great deal to positively say about the tradition.

      Fifth, as you know, I care far more about understanding than being right. As such your critical feedback is appreciated. I’d encourage anyone who should read this post and these comments to follow it up with your recommendations. I trust their quality.

  • Felix Alexander

    Might I ask you, as a newcomer to your blog, about your views on the Oriental Orthodox churches, and whether you might ever swim one of the respective rivers? (Of course, I realise you might not have had reason to form a view; they don’t seem to have any significant online presence, and anyone who does mention them on the internet seems to just say they’re the same as the Byzantines without actually giving you any reason to suppose it’s true!)

    As for me, I seem to find myself as some sort of Charismatic Anglican. That’s more because I decided I’d stop effectively dechristianising other people in my mind by going passed their churches, so I just walk to the nearest obvious church.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      Felix,

      Hello. If I’ve not previously, welcome to my blog!

      I sometimes tell people I much prefer to walk than swim. That’s my way of saying I’ve found the Canterbury Trail a more than satisfactory alternative to swimming either the Tiber or Bosphorus. In short, I’m more than content with my home in Anglicanism and fully intend to remain here for the rest of my life.

      As for your question about the Oriental Orthodox, I have looked into them a *decent* amount (to my own mind, anyway) but certainly no where as thoroughly as I have Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Some day I hope to get around to it if for no other reason than intellectual curiosity. I will say, however, that I tend to be more ecumenically-inclined toward the Oriental Orthodox than are many others.

      Hopefully between those couple brief paragraphs I adequately answered your question. If not, lemme know.

      So you literally go to the nearest geographical church to your home? Am I understanding that rightly?

    • Felix Alexander

      What do you mean by “I tend to be more ecumenically-inclined towards the Oriental Orthodox than are many others”? Do you mean others exclude them as Christian heretics? I didn’t think even the Romans and the Byzantines did that. And here in Melbourne where I am, the ecumenical MCD University of Divinity has a Coptic college, alongside the Anglican, Baptist, Uniting Church, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Salvation Army and Churches of Christ ones. So I wasn’t aware that they’re excluded in any sense, just ignored or forgotten. (Albeit, I’ve never heard of the “Churches of Christ”; I only included them because I checked the list on WP just now!)

      As for how I picked my church, I haven’t measured the distances, but I don’t go past any other church. It’s possible the Pentecostal church at the bottom of the hill is closer than the Anglican church at the top of the hill, but the Anglican church is more obvious and seems closer because it’s in the suburb centre, where the shops and buses are, and the pentecostal one is on the periphery—you’d have to look for the pentecostal one, but you just know about the Anglican one. In any case, there isn’t much in it either way. I just hadn’t thought about going downhill to reach a place until now; that’s what I meant about “obvious”.

      And don’t get me wrong, either—I follow this algorithm not because I don’t have opinions and don’t care, but because I do have opinions, and I think this sort of way of picking a church is better than deciding I like the theological opinions or worship style of this or that group.

  • http://godschool.wordpress.com/ Gill

    Interesting post, and comments, Carson. I’ve lived in Romania for a while and have recently graduated with an MPhil on the relationship between Romanian Orthodoxy and the evangelical churches, known there as ‘neo-Protestants’.

    I sympathise with many of your points, although I would say that they are somewhat generalised, although I’m sure you’re aware of that. So much of Orthodoxy is wonderful and inspiring, and reading someone like Staniloae lifts the heart and the spirit as well as instructing the mind. Orthodox theologians know something that many of our theologians have forgotten – that theology needs to be prayed as well as thought and talked. But when we get to the way that it’s lived out in practice … well, our evangelical hearts say that we should practise what we believe, and there we would differ from them.

    Orthodox scholars do indeed tangle with modern problems, and always go back to the patristics to do so. I admire the way that they will not rush into anything, or take any stances, until they have measured current thinking by the whole of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy seems to me a package deal – you either subscribe to all of it, or it doesn’t work. We can’t pick out the bits we like and abandon the rest, which is what we do with our subjectivism, individualism and personal autocracy in ‘the west’.

    However, like you, I do think that Orthodoxy needs a ‘reformation’ to deal with its anomalies although it has a very great deal to teach us.

    • charles twombly

      Very much like this. Do have questions about the “package deal” though. Within areas of broad agreement, there is considerable variety. You can have a kind of ultra-fundamentalism on the one hand; you can have a very “unorthodox” Orthodox Christian like Berdyaev on the other with mixing and matching in between. The Creed is the boundary marker within which virtually all stay. But it’s like a fence surrounding a large pasture. Within the fence is room to roam.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      “Interesting post, and comments, Carson.”

      The word choice “interesting” is always… interesting ;)

      “I’ve lived in Romania for a while and have recently graduated with an MPhil on the relationship between Romanian Orthodoxy and the evangelical churches, known there as ‘neo-Protestants’.”

      Didn’t know that, but good to know.

      “I sympathise with many of your points, although I would say that they are somewhat generalised, although I’m sure you’re aware of that.”

      In reading back over this post I think I made a mistake. In “Why I’ll Never Swim the Tiber” I kept my points tight. I didn’t begin to unpack the points of disagreement so much as just identify them. Here I *began* the process of unpacking. In doing so they’re left largely dangling and simplistic–arguably oversimplistic, I suppose. I probably should’ve stuck with the previous format. It was a touch choice. I wanted to say a little bit more because Orthodoxy remaining so largely foreign in the circles I usually run in whereas in Catholicism I can say “Transubstantiation” and people largely know what I’m talking about.

      “So much of Orthodoxy is wonderful and inspiring, and reading someone like Staniloae lifts the heart and the spirit as well as instructing the mind. Orthodox theologians know something that many of our theologians have forgotten – that theology needs to be prayed as well as thought and talked. But when we get to the way that it’s lived out in practice … well, our evangelical hearts say that we should practise what we believe, and there we would differ from them.”

      Yes, one of the things I like best about the BCP provides a template for the full integration of belief and practice, somewhat hinting at the Orthodox strength in this regard.

      “Orthodox scholars do indeed tangle with modern problems, and always go back to the patristics to do so.”

      The word “always” is what makes me uncomfortable. The patristics were fallen people like us who made mistakes just like us. I don’t see this as setting this borderline inerrant vision for the church. Especially when it comes to issues where the Church has long disagreed… Enough.

      “I admire the way that they will not rush into anything, or take any stances, until they have measured current thinking by the whole of Orthodoxy.”

      That I appreciate as well. At its best Anglicanism reflects that sort of temperance. At its best.

      “Orthodoxy seems to me a package deal – you either subscribe to all of it, or it doesn’t work. We can’t pick out the bits we like and abandon the rest, which is what we do with our subjectivism, individualism and personal autocracy in ‘the west’.”

      You say potato (poh-tay-toh), I say potato (po-tah-toh). They call it individualism, I call it intellectual honesty. My standard approach to just about everything is to identity the positions, study them, glean the strengths and insights, sift out the weaknesses and pitfalls, synthesize what I gathered, and create something new. The result of which is almost inevitably moderate. Thus the title of this blog. Again, it’s my pattern for how I approach darn near everything. Honestly, this is probably *the* #1 reason I cannot be Orthodox. (I’m thinking about adding it.) I don’t buy the tradition’s “package deal” approach.

      “However, like you, I do think that Orthodoxy needs a ‘reformation’ to deal with its anomalies although it has a very great deal to teach us.”

      Wholeheartedly agree.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Bozeman/1143676742 James Bozeman

      Carson, what you see as anomalies, we just call “life in the Church”. As imperfect as Orthodox people are, I’m pretty sure that you aren’t seeing what you think you are seeing. I was in a similar place before I converted.

      Orthodoxy is a package deal not because you have are at a spiritual buffet that requires you to select only certain things from the menu for sake of the requirements of Orthodoxy. Rather it tells you to fill your plate with certain things, because the other things on the menu aren’t food and will not give you life.

      I tried to take aspects of Orthodox spirituality and adapt them to my evangelical experience and my evangelical church. It just didn’t work. At all. I ended up with less than what I started with, and ultimately realized that if I wanted what the Orthodox Church had to offer— if I wanted that full buffet to choose from— I had to step away from the table that I had chosen at first.

      People come to the Orthodox Church with all sorts of hang-ups about Tradition. This if fine, but the Church (I’ll leave the word “Orthodox” off for the moment, just speaking of those who belong to Christ) is always calling us to itself, and not the other way around. Will we be formed by Christ within His Body, the Church, or will we subject it to our own analysis out of fear and pride or other human failings? Within such a context is room for debate about *why* we believe, worship, and confess what we do.

    • Gill

      Individualism is a huge issue for the Orthodox Church vis a vis the west. ‘They’ (and I am only talking about my experience with Romanian Orthodox, but I have read more widely) feel that this is the cause of many of the weaknesses of western Christianity. Interestingly, many of the major Protestant theologians of the 20th century – Moltmann, Volf and others – agree with this. What we’re after is not individualism, but the personal – just as the holy Trinity is personal. It’s fundamental to the argument.

  • http://abnormalanabaptist.wordpress.com/ Robert Martin

    I agree with pretty much everything here…of course, I’m an Anabaptist/Mennonite and not an Anglican so there are a few things we differ on but I’m like you in that I don’t consider it heresy but more a matter of differing intepretations and not outside of a generous orthodoxy.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      You’re agreeing with me far too much for an Anabaptist. Makes me uncomfortable. ;)

      Aside: Have you ever read my paper/post evaluating the biblical and historical evidence for both credobaptism and paedobaptism?

    • http://abnormalanabaptist.wordpress.com/ Robert Martin

      I don’t recall if I have…link me. :-)

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      A Consensus of Diversity:
      Proposing A Biblically Faithful and Historically Informed View for Anglican Baptism

      http://carsontclark.com/uncategorized/7936/a-consensus-of-diverity-proposing-a-biblically-faithful-and-historically-informed-view-for-anglican-baptism

      Please pardon the crappy sidenote formatting. Never again will I try to use sidenote formatting on an academic paper I post. Nightmare.

  • charles twombly

    Thanks, Carson. Actually my brief word about your blog was aimed at your “characterizations,” not your evaluations as such. I might have had the same reaction if you had been entirely positive but used much the same descriptions. Daniel Moynihan’s famous words kept popping up: “You’re entitled to your own opinion; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Try reading Fr John McGuckin’s THE ORTHODOX CHURCH with each of your items in hand and see if you’d modify anything here. You might actually find more things to criticize, not less! But you’d do so on much firmer historical grounds. I like your “I care far more about understanding than being right.” Can’t think of a better rule myself.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      I suppose I’m dense then. I’m having difficulty understanding your meaning with “characterizations.” Do you mean that I’m basically creating caricatures, painting with a broad brush, and so forth?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1407660929 David Knudtson

    I need a bumper sticker that says “Carson T. Clark said it, I believe it and that settles it”.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      I find that to be equal parts hysterical, frightening, and painful.

  • Danut Manastireanu

    Dear Carson,
    The only way to do justice to your text would be to insert some comments on each of your points, which, in fact, I will try to do today, if I can.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      I eagerly await.

  • http://godschool.wordpress.com/ Gill

    Hi Carson, maybe I am dense but I can’t see a way to reply to a comment apart from coming back here! When I say that the Orthodox go back to the patristics I am not advocating that as an ideal. Simply, it seems to me that so much which goes by the name of theology these days is ill-thought-through, and uninformed, and takes for granted that we don’t have to know anything about previous theology before forming our own opinions. I am of course not including you in that. What I admire about Orthodoxy is that they look at so-called ‘modern’ trends in the light of all their theology, not just picking bits out. That big picture, and that connection with our forebears in the faith, is something we can learn from, I believe.

    Individualism, as I understand it, is part of an anthropocentric view of the universe where humanity judges by itself. This is in opposition to a theocentric view, which sees God at the centre. Individualism in this understanding opposes the profoundly personal which we are able to glimpse in the life of the Holy Trinity.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      “When I say that the Orthodox go back to the patristics I am not advocating that as an ideal. Simply, it seems to me that so much which goes by the name of theology these days is ill-thought-through, and uninformed, and takes for granted that we don’t have to know anything about previous theology before forming our own opinions.”

      Totally agree.

      “What I admire about Orthodoxy is that they look at so-called ‘modern’ trends in the light of all their theology, not just picking bits out. That big picture, and that connection with our forebears in the faith, is something we can learn from, I believe.”

      Absolutely.

      “Individualism, as I understand it, is part of an anthropocentric view of the universe where humanity judges by itself. This is in opposition to a theocentric view, which sees God at the centre. Individualism in this understanding opposes the profoundly personal which we are able to glimpse in the life of the Holy Trinity.”

      Yup. I gotcha. This begs many questions, however, about what an intellectual methodology ought look like in light of a theocentric view of the universe. There I seem to regularly differ with the Orthodox.

  • http://derekzrishmawy.com/ Derek Rishmawy

    This may not be anything, but can anybody name a noted Eastern Orthodox Biblical scholar? I may just be ignorant, but that has struck me. Protestants of various stripes have always been the dominant force in Biblical studies, but the Catholics have managed to establish themselves quite solidly within the discipline (Raymond Brown.) I can’t for the life of me think of a single biblical theologian coming from the EO tradition. I’m sure that will change with time. Still, this is one more thing that gives me pause.

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      Where’s Leo Staley when you need him? He’s friends with an Orthodox guy who’s finishing up his PhD in NT Studies, or something like that. If there’s anyone who’d know the answer it’d probably be that guy. I’ll contact Leo and see if we can’t track this dude down.

    • http://godschool.wordpress.com/ Gill

      Hi Derek, while in Romania we got to know Rev Dr Vasile Mihoc well, who is a New Testament scholar with an international reputation who writes in English. He belongs to the Lord’s Army in Romania – one of its leaders – which is an evangelical movement in and on the edge of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He’s professor of New Testament at Andrei Saguna Orthodox Theological College in Sibiu, Romania, and travels a lot as a speaker. His latest publication:
      Greek Patristic and Eastern Orthodox Interpretations of Romans (Romans Through History & Culture) (Romans Through History and Culture) by Vasile Mihoc and Daniel Patte (19 Jan 2012)

  • http://www.facebook.com/binks.webelf Binks Webelf

    A thoughtful take, but your question on the pro-icon Council “…so who am I to question their legitimacy?…” might be reflected backwards on the whole essay. There are at least 22 different versions of what seems a lot like you holding your opinion, analysis, and view as the last best word on a topic, as if you were choosing entrees at a buffet, or checkmarking options for a high-end computer. Last time I looked in the mirror, I didn’t notice the words “Ecumenical Council” or “Patriarch” or “Pope” on my forehead, but modern Western Christianity seems full of people who exalt their own understanding or authority as the final arbiter over all that has come before. I can tell you have in fact thought, read, and discussed your faith with lotsa folks– yet seem to enjoy being able to tell evangelicals, Orthodox, and Catholics that despite your sympathies, you reject their actual full church-doctrines and practices. Am I missing something?

  • James Bozeman

    If your description of Orthodoxy was accurate, I wouldn’t be Orthodox either.

    Fr James

    • http://twitter.com/carsontclark Carson T. Clark

      I can easily imagine you disagreeing with the primary thrust of the point on #s on pts # 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Would be curious about the others. For example, you do affirm that the Reformed are heretics and I, as a baptized Anglican, am barred from Orthodox communion, right?

    • James Bozeman

      I will try to answer some of your points, but forgive me in advance. I’m not much of a theologian or a thinker, I admit. Take my words for what they are worth

      2: The book isn’t closed on the filioqué controversy. While it is a point of contention between RC and EO theology, it is well understood in EO circles that the filioqué was adopted in part to fight heresy in the West. The EO get this, but the Orthodox contention is that the West departed from Tradition by gradually, and more regularly, adopting this addition to the Creed. The important fact is that it was an addition which is the critical issue. The Creed, as a summation of our commonly-held belief, should by nature be sacrosanct. Any additions to it would be subject to what the Church as a whole could agree on. The filioqué went too far as the whole Church could not agree on it as an addition, and now we find ourselves divided. But the bottom line is that EO theologians are more and more willing to see the filioqué as a product of a particular situation in the West.

      You say that you disagree with tenants on both sides of the Creed divide, which seems pretty presumptive and spiritually hazardous, in my opinion.

      3: My rule of thumb is that any church that *doesn’t* think that they are the “one true church” is not worth anyone’s time. Shouldn’t any church that we are involved with believe that they, more perfectly than any other Christian expression, hold/preserve/live the Tradition of the Apostles? This claim does not (or should not) imply the perfection of those that hold to that Tradition. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. But the Church, by nature as Christ’s Body, is without flaw. Our job as his followers is to be hewed to that Church. Notice that I have made no reference to Orthodoxy specifically in this paragraph.

      It is not pretense, but necessity. We must claim what we claim. And if we do so without humility, claiming a false sense of perfection for ourselves that so very clearly does not exist, then we are sinning. None of this, however, alters the truth behind the claim that the Orthodox faith *is* the preserved Tradition, handed down to all Christians by way of the Apostles. And it is by no merit of our own that we are either members of the Orthodox Church or participants in that ongoing preservation. Instead, it is God’s grace that has allowed this. It is a shame that so many Orthodox Christians fail to live up to this great grace.

      “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:48b

      Orthodox Christians should fear the Final Judgement more than anyone else.

      4. You use the phrase “ecclesiastical authority”… I do not think that it means what you think that it means (insert smiley face here). Your footnote #6 is very Orthodox, apart from the phrase “prima scripture” which sounds nice, but seems to be only a hop and skip from sola scripture, which is untenable from an Orthodox perspective. We, too, see the scripture as central. Heck, just go to one of our services. If this isn’t obvious, then you had your eyes closed and your ears plugged. There is no tradition on earth that sees the holy scriptures as more central than does the Orthodox Tradition. I won’t back down on this point. We see those two things that you have divided (essential vs secondary doctrine) as meshed together, and that it is largely unnecessary to divide them. Perhaps you should give specific examples of what you are talking about here.

      5. We are members of the Body of Christ. What is a body without its parts? Even so, the Church is not dependent on you or me: it simply *is* because it is Christ. We are not simply being “made up” by an administrative body called the Orthodox Church. We are being united to Christ, having rejected Satan and all his works.

      You seem to propose that the Church and its members can somehow be divided from one another.

      6. The Orthodox Church is not top down, but rather bottom up, with the hierarchy at the bottom carrying the weight of the Church. They are the servants of all, being carried by Christ Himself. Basically, we are talking about an “inverted pyramid”. Power definitely corrupts, and in the Orthodox Church it becomes very obvious: bishops whose place is to carry the weight suddenly are found to be out of place, forcing others to carry their weight. It happens, but then again that is human history.

      Perhaps the problem the problem here is you. Do you resent the possibility that someone might be entrusted with your spiritual well-being (a confessor or a bishop, for example), and therefore this person may have some sort of “authority” over you? Believe me: nothing is better for a person than to have a spiritual father who loves them and treats them with care and compassion, exerting his supposed “authority” (which is really only the duty placed on him by Christ himself) only when absolutely necessary. I say this as a priest and a confessor.

      And last, but not least….

      9. When someone departs from the Tradition, as have many Christians down through time, and when they propose doctrines that deny the sacraments or are contrary to the teaching of the Church down through the ages, what choice does the Church have but to declare them as either schismatic or heretical? This is an important distinction, by the way.

      It is like your issue with closed communion. We don’t commune those who do not confess the same faith that we hold to be true as Orthodox Christians because to commune them would be a lie. We are *not* in communion with them. We don’t believe the same things. You might go as far as to say that the Christ that some Christians propose is not the same as the *actual* Christ. Clearly, this is BIG problem.

      We would not be acting in love if we pretended to be in communion, or if we simply ignored our incredibly problematic theological differences with folks like Anabaptists or Roman Catholics or whomever.

      By emphasizing this distinction, the hope is that they will see the error in their theology and their belief and practice and will return to the one faith, handed down by the apostles. No doubt, this will strike you as arrogant, but my hope is that you will see that this way of being is necessary for *any* Christian church. Our only mistake is when we think that we can bend others to our will or when we think that it is up to us personally to convict and change people. If all Christians could simply humbly allow God to work in them, allow Christ to work through them, then divisions would disappear and we could once again be a united Church. Simplistic, I know, but then again the Gospel (and, dare I say it, Orthodox Christianity) is radically simple… though impossibly difficult apart from Christ.

      ________________

      My final word: While there is nothing equivalent to the Orthodox faith… if you can do anything other than becoming Orthodox… anything at all that draws you closer to Jesus Christ… do it. Orthodoxy is hard. It is challenging and demands so much of anyone who desires to come to the chalice and receive Christ’s Body and Blood. Once you swim across the Bosphorus, you become that much more responsible for the gifts that have been given to you. I say this as someone who converted from an excellent evangelical tradition, for which I have great respect. To whom much is given, much is expected.

      How much do you want?

    • charles twombly

      James, many good word below. See several areas that could be expanded upon but none that I’d like to see radically changed. Especially enjoyed your words in items 4 and 6.

  • Pingback: Theology Around the Blogosphere — August 2012 « Cheese-Wearing Theology

%d bloggers like this: