Intellectuelle

The more I hear sentiments like this within Christendom - outside, it's to be expected - the angrier I get when I read yet another. I should probably find an outlet for that, or else someday very soon I'll pop a blood vessel. Isn't that pretty imagery?

Mr. Torode's statement about truth being a person is extremely ambiguous, but I assume that he essentially means that a relationship with Christ, not "mere knowledge" about him, is the only way we can be sure we're not making this whole Christianity thing up. But let's make a parallel - generally we know a lot about our best friend, though we don't say that that knowledge warrants friendship. But it is impossible to have a meaningful friendship without extensive knowledge about the other person, because otherwise you cannot trust him - neither can you trust that what he tells you about himself or anything else is true!

And on the surface, maybe this "We only know Truth as much as we know Christ" sounds good and true, but truth is by definition propositional. It makes no sense to say that a person, God or not, is truth. Compare what Jesus said with this. Does not John 17:17 - "Sanctify them in truth; your Word is truth" - sufficiently imply that God's written revelation is made up of inspired propositions that constitute truth? Now, knowing enough about God to trust that what he tells us is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, does it really make sense to fear being called dogmatic when we make statements that are unambiguously found in or deduced from Scripture?

But Sam Torode is very much an intellectual. See for instance http://carl-olson.com/book%20reviews/bodyandgift_ncr.html (Assuming it's the same Sam Torode, that is. But it's not that common a name).

I would imagine what he says about truth is related not to the Bible, but to the Orthodox Church's claim that they have the whole truth and are the perfect church on earth. They believe Protestants are somehow lesser - able to be saved, and pious, but not in full possession of the facts. Which, I suppose, is what some Protestant Christians believe about their churches too, even if they don't express it so vociferously.

Knowing Jesus IS the beginning of wisdom, and wisdom leads to truth. We'll never get ALL the truth this side of heaven, because it's infinite. God is infinite. (As for the passage in John mentioned above, it's a little ambiguous: in most of John's gospel, 'The Word' is taken not to refer to the Bible (which Jesus generally calls 'The Scriptures') but to Jesus himself. 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God'. It's the same Greek word LOGOS which is used in John 17:17)

Yes, truth is objective and propositional, but we really cannot know truth at all without first knowing God and Christ, which is actually a supernatural thing, not something we can "choose" to do. We are told in the Scriptures that whatever is without faith is sin, so no one without faith can know the propositional truth, no matter how much we pound them over the head with brilliant apologetics. This is not to "diss" apologetics (my entry to be an Intellectuelle was pro-apologetics, after all).

So although I can understand how the comment about Jesus being the truth can and is used in a way so as not to "offend" people with statements about sin, repentance, etc. we also know from the very lips of Christ that He is the Truth, somehow, in His very Person, and that if we *know* Him, we will *know* the Father.

I am naturally a person who gravitates towards doctrine, systematic theology and propositional truth statements. Yet, I have found from personal experience that to understand these things and to be able to explain and extrapolate difficult theological concepts (which I can do pretty easily) is not what keeps a Christian afloat, and in fact, can leave her high and dry in terms of spiritual health.

I cut my Christian teeth on Schaeffer, and discussions of "true truth", about how Christianity is the only "system" which makes sense of the world as it is, etc. I think all that is very important. But I think it is equally important for the unbelievers to see that we have a vibrant *relationship* with the Living God, which includes living by faith, in prayer for all things - the Schaeffer's were great at this too, which is one of the reasons I think they were so effective - they demonstrated both sides of the Christian experience, the life of the mind and the life of childlike trust in a Person, about whom you can make truthful propositions, yes, but who is also not synonymous with those propositions, just as none of us *are* whatever can be truthfully said about us.

Samantha, very well said - I agree with you. It's just that when people make comments like that, I react assuming the worst, because most of the time people don't have a balanced grasp on it the way you do. So thanks for balancing me. :)

I have the same reaction as Sarah to Torode's statements. The "we can't know" argument has come up so often in theological conversations -- even Bible study groups -- that I became heartily sick of it. Why do people who have been in the same church for 20 years say "we can't know" or "I'm no scholar" or just look upset when a truth is stated -- even quoted from Scripture? Everyone is afraid to "know" anything. "Knowing" something is deemed arrogant, a result of literalism, dogmatism, foolishness (I love that one) and simple-mindedness (that one, too.)

So I went through my Bible and looked up every instance of "know", "knowledge" "truth" etc. that I could find. I circled places where the writer (particularly Paul) says "we know" or "you know." I marked places that say God "revealed" and "made manifest" and other secondary indicators of knowledge. The list goes on and on. Then I read why knowledge of God is good, a thing to strive for.

Then I made a second list of references to God's unfathomable ways and wisdom, heavy on Job. Added in limits on, and dangers of, knowledge gone solo.

My approach has no finesse, nuance, elegance or sophistication. But I like those two lists, submitted to the Holy Spirit. The first gives confidence. The second provides humility.

If I HADN"T discovered this anchor, I think the keening sirens of fallible-ism would have wrecked me this year.

What an odd coincidence. My only familiarity with Sam Torode was having read (parts of) a book that he wrote with his wife Bethany that advocated using NFP. I had already decided I was going to go the natural way at the point that I read it, so that's why I didn't read all the reasons for doing it, but I didn't get any picture of un (or "generous") orthodoxy from that book. In fact, it might have even seemed to go more in the other direction (toward legalism) but I wasn't aware of QF at that time and was more into the science of NFP, so I probably didn't pay much attention. I just think it's interesting how our posts sometimes intersect in the strangest places!

oops, I missed the main part about him being a convert to Greek Orthodoxy. In my comment, I meant "orthodox" in the doctrinal sense of the word--not the branch of Christianity. It kind of bugs me that they call themselves that, though...as though the rest of us aren't orthodox...which is why I put "Greek" in front of it. Seems like the evangelicals who convert to orthodoxy (and maybe some to Catholicism--Sheldon Vanauken comes to mind) have a strong bent toward beauty and intellectualism. I have felt the yearning at times, but I guess I'm too unrefined at heart ;)

Sue, I completely missed your comment somehow. ? Thanks for pointing out the bit about Greek Orthodox perspective - I hadn't considered that. Re: John 17:17, it sounds a little awkward to my ears to say that we are sanctified by or in Jesus. Justified, yes, but if we're talking about being made holy, that is the work of the Spirit, who speaks to us in Scripture. So that's why I interpret it as meaning Scripture (and Jesus does use "logos" in that sense in at least one place). But you're quite right that it is ambiguous, and I suppose it is entirely possible that he meant both - looking at a concordance, I can see all the occurrences of "logos" in John, and there are several instances where Jesus could have been talking about himself just as well as about Scripture/God's commandments. It rather reinforces the whole Logos doctrine, which highlights the word's philosophical depth, explored by Hellenistic philosophy, whose emphasis on its multivalent meaning likely had bearing on John's usage of the word. Fascinating.

Gray - Wow, good idea with the lists...I would personally like somebody to make me a list of all the passages in Scripture that say things to the effect of "he is arrogant who claims to know truth" and "beware of knowing for sure!" Hah.

The article's not online, so I can't comment directly, but I found the following blogpost by another Evangelical-turned-Orthodox.

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2005/07/reconsidering-meaning-of-conversion.html

He thinks Torode hasn't been Orthodox long enough to really acquire an Orthodox worldview yet. He also is unhappy with Torode's attitude towards truth-claims:

"Sam Torode writes near the end of his essay: “Instead of “evangelizing” my evangelical friends, I now hope to learn from them. Discussing differences is worthwhile, but it’s more important to encourage each other as we grow in Christ.” Sam sees this as being a question of “humility” rather than of truth.

"This reflects a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be Orthodox..."

I'd probably say "Eastern Orthodoxy", just in case he's gone for Russian, Serbian, Georgian....etc.

Sarah, I tend to think that what Torode says is true, at least it wouldn't turn on red lights for me. But I agree that those thoughts can be used to justify an attitude that is not helpful.

Marla, I have been attracted towards both Orthodoxy and Catholicism for their intellectualism and beauty, but never could reconcile the doctrinal differences either.

I confess I have a major contention with the term "objective truth." Catez and I debated this back and forth and came to the conclusion that I can accept the term "absolute truth" but not "objective truth."

Marla, I reviewed the Torode's "Open Embrace" which can be found at www.cbhd.org.

I am saddened by Torode's struggles with learning "right belief" and the "right practice" that should flow from that belief. (Orthopraxis flows from Orthodoxy).

As a former baptistic, darbyite, evangelical Protestant (with Reformed tendencies) I certainly can identify with his struggles, but NOT in his re-nascent evangelical Protestantism.

In my experience as a 5 year old Orthodox Christain (Fr. John Whiteford articulates the struggle very nicely), there has been almost as many things to unlearn as there are to learn.

I'm confident that if Torode continues in the Orthodox Way, that he will regret the airing of his dilettantish grievances. If I am reading him correctly though, it seems he's taken that one step back from his two steps forward. But then our Journey of Salvation is like that isn't it? "We fall down, we get up again, we fall down, we get up again..."

I'm praying that he will not delude himself into thinking that his conclusions as they now stand, are (or should be) normative for those who have been received into the Church from other confessions.

I'm hoping that it will not serve to turn away people who are journeying towards Orthodoxy, but if it does, I am convinced that it has served the purpose of Christianity Today.

In closing, for those of you who have no idea what Orthodoxy is about, here are some beautiful nuggets from the Encyclopedia Britannica that always remind me of why I am Orthodox.

"If I have not accomplished anything in my life, at least I die an Orthodox!" Amen.

GOD AND MAN

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

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

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

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

Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by man, which led Adam to a subhuman and unnatural existence.

The most unnatural aspect of his new state was death. In this perspective, "original sin" is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death. Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life. The "prince of this world" (i.e., Satan), who is also the "murderer from the beginning," has dominion over man.

From this vicious circle of death and sin, man is understood to be liberated by the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is actualized in Baptism and the sacramental life in the church.

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

In the East, man is regarded as fully man when he participates in God; in the West, man's nature is believed to be autonomous, sin is viewed as a punishable crime, and grace is understood to grant forgiveness. Hence, in the West, the aim of the Christian is justification, but in the East, it is rather communion with God and deification. In the West, the church is viewed in terms of mediation (for the bestowing of grace) and authority (for guaranteeing security in doctrine); in the East, the church is regarded as a communion in which God and man meet once again and a personal experience of divine life becomes possible.

CHRIST

The Orthodox Church is formally committed to the Christology (doctrine of Christ) that was defined by the councils of the first eight centuries. Together with the Latin Church of the West, it has rejected Arianism (a belief in the subordination of the Son to the Father) at Nicaea (325), Nestorianism (a belief that stresses the independence of the divine and human natures of Christ) at Ephesus (431), and Monophysitism (a belief that Christ had only one divine nature) at Chalcedon (451). The Eastern and Western churches still formally share the tradition of subsequent Christological developments, even though the famous formula of Chalcedon, "one person in two natures," is given different emphases in the East and West. The stress on Christ's identity with the preexistent Son of God, the Logos (Word) of the Gospel According to John, characterizes Orthodox Christology. On Byzantine icons, around the face of Jesus, the Greek letters '' --the equivalent of the Jewish Tetragrammaton YHWH, the name of God in the Old Testament--are often depicted. Jesus is thus always seen in his divine identity. Similarly, the liturgy consistently addresses the Virgin Mary as Theotokos (the "one who gave birth to God"), and this term, formally admitted as a criterion of orthodoxy at Ephesus, is actually the only "Mariological" (doctrine of Mary) dogma accepted in the Orthodox Church. It reflects the doctrine of Christ's unique divine Person, and Mary is thus venerated only because she is his mother "according to the flesh."

This emphasis on the personal divine identity of Christ, based on the doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria (5th century), does not imply the denial of his humanity. The anthropology (doctrine of man) of the Eastern Fathers does not view man as an autonomous being but rather implies that communion with God makes man fully human. Thus the human nature of Jesus Christ, fully assumed by the divine Word, is indeed the "new Adam" in whom the whole of humanity receives again its original glory. Christ's humanity is fully "ours"; it possessed all the characteristics of the human being--"each nature (of Christ) acts according to its properties," Chalcedon proclaimed, following Pope Leo--without separating itself from the divine Word. Thus, in death itself--for Jesus' death was indeed a fully human death--the Son of God was the "subject" of the Passion. The theopaschite formula ("God suffered in the flesh") became, together with the Theotokos formula, a standard of orthodoxy in the Eastern Church, especially after the second Council of Constantinople (553). It implied that Christ's humanity was indeed real not only in itself but also for God, since it brought him to death on the cross, and that the salvation and redemption of humanity can be accomplished by God alone--hence the necessity for him to condescend to death, which held humanity captive.

This theology of redemption and salvation is best expressed in the Byzantine liturgical hymns of Holy Week and Easter: Christ is the one who "tramples down death by death," and, on the evening of Good Friday, the hymns already exalt his victory. Salvation is conceived not in terms of satisfaction of divine justice, through paying the debt for the sin of Adam--as the medieval West understood it--but in terms of uniting the human and the divine with the divine overcoming human mortality and weakness and, finally, exalting man to divine life.

What Christ accomplished once and for all must be appropriated freely by those who are "in Christ"; their goal is "deification," which does not mean dehumanization but the exaltation of man to the dignity prepared for him at creation. Such feasts as the Transfiguration or the Ascension are extremely popular in the East precisely because they celebrate humanity glorified in Christ--a glorification that anticipates the coming of the Kingdom of God, when God will be "all in all."

Participation in the already deified humanity of Christ is the true goal of Christian life, and it is accomplished through the Holy Spirit.

There is irony for me (a convert to Orthodoxy from evangelical Protestantism) in the title of Torode's piece, "It's all about Jesus."

I had an especial pleasure one afternoon to walk my brother (at this moment, still an e-P) around the inside of our parish after a Good Friday service. He was boggled by the beauty of the service, the content of the service ("Scripture after Scripture!"). I walked him around and explained the icons, candles, incense, the movement during the liturgy, the prayers and the conclusion hit the both of us almost simultaneously:

"It's all about Jesus!"

The Orthodox Church has had 2000 years to get it right. There is no wasted motion, no empty words, no vain repetitions. Everything, from the flame of a candle, to the very colors and materials of the icons, the words, the prayers, the motions - ALL exist in order to glorify the INCARNATION!

In my younger days, I spoke of these sacramental symbols upon symbols as something like "overkill." Slightly older, hopefullY a little wiser, I would like to amend that and call it over-LIFE.

It's all about LIFE IN CHRIST! It's all about Jesus!

Joe,
me-o-my, I think your comment is longer than Sarah's post. A few of points from it:
From this vicious circle of death and sin, man is understood to be liberated by the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is actualized in Baptism and the sacramental life in the church.

It is actualised through confession, repentance, and forgiveness of sins.

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

This is an unnecessary and unbiblical split that has been created here. We are justified by faith, through grace. Justification is not an aim - it is an ever present judicial reality for those who have faith. It is by this faith, through the grace in which we stand, that we have communion.

It reflects the doctrine of Christ's unique divine Person, and Mary is thus venerated only because she is his mother "according to the flesh."

And yet this veneration flies in the face of scripture - which is the inspired word of God. We do not worship or venerate the creature, but the Creator. We do not fall down before man (or woman) as Paul pointed out when some tried to venerate him. In looking at the Orthodox Church previously, and from discussions I've had, it has become obvious to me that extra-biblical tradition is given the same weight, or even more weight than scripture. Yet if tradition contradicts scripture then scripture should take precedence.

I'm an ex-Catholic. I appreciate the comments that have been made about the aesthetic advantages. But the extra-biblical tradition is too erroneous and creates distance where connection could take place.

It's all about Jesus - not externally through church rites, but internally through faith. "That Christ may dwell in our hearts" - and this because "by faith we have access".

Catez,

Re: "It's all about Jesus - not externally through church rites..."

I'm surprised that you (a former Roman Catholic) would trot out the canard that somehow "church rites" are somehow only something that RCs and Orthodox, for that matter, are only done "externally." The rites are "liturgical" (translates: "work of the people") and are the external working out of the (to borrow a little evangelicalese) "internal reality" of the communion that we have with Father, Son and Holy Spirt, the Saints and our fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in the Church.

It is beyond funny, that evangelical Protestants substitue "Ordinances" for Sacraments (in the East we call sacraments the Mysteries). For evangelical Protestants, these "ordinances" (baptism and Lord's Supper) are supposed to be the EXTERNAL sign of an inward reality.

So for some reason, evangelical Protestants would have us believe that THEIR external rites are somehow superior to the external rites of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The only possible reason for this would be the belief on the part of evangelical Protestants that the "external rites" of the Orthodox Church are devoid of any "inward reality." This kind of reasoning can only be a product of pure prejudice and/or willful ignorance.

Sacraments are visible means through which God's grace are imparted. Now, are Sacraments the ONLY means? Of course not! But in the life of Church, the sacraments are the working out the communion that we share with each other through the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. We see our liturgical life as the working out, both external and internally of our Communion.

Bottom Line: The Sacraments/Mysteries manifest BOTH the physical and spiritual reality of our Life in Christ.

When evangelical Protestants talk about their life in Christ together, instead of the word "Communion" they use the word "Community."

This is very telling. Community means a group of individuals who come together for a common purpose. Communion is a joining on a much higher and deeper level.

In a London newspaper, I read a very revelatory interview with a famous American evangelist/author who is also noted for his anti-Catholic polemics. Here's a bit of it:

When I ask him what he has against Catholics -- he says often that they will be under-represented among Christians taken up at the Rapture -- he is at a loss to answer. It is as if they were simply bad in his book, and that's that. Pressed, he suggests that it's because they do not believe that the way to salvation is to receive Jesus into their hearts.

"What about Holy Communion?" I ask. "Isn't that all about receiving Jesus, body and soul?"

The great scholar of religion looks at me blankly. "Maybe," he says. "I really don't know."

=====

Catez, Here's an FYI:

About what you call our "external rites":

IT'S ALL ABOUT RECEIVING JESUS, BODY AND SOUL.

Hi Joe,
a couple of things.
1. Let's keep it on track. I gave you my comment - not some polemic from some guy. I responded to your incredibly long cut and paste - and was briefer. I don't intend to get into a never-ending debate though.

2. The doctrine of transubstantian is a bit more than a visible representation isn't it?

You have sidestepped the most important point here - we are justified by faith - this is not an aim but a judicial reality.

Second crucial aspect - if extra-biblical tradition contradicts scripture, then scripture should take precedence.

To be honest, Evangelical Prostestant griping about Sacraments/Mysteries sounds like sour grapes to Orthodox Christians.

To paraphrase the proverbial Fox: "Those grapes MUST be sour because I can't get at them."

Now there are some Evangelical Protestants who are wrestling with the problem instead of griping (or should that be graping).

The highlight of the following piece (written by an Evangelical) is this:

"Rites... are not mere external decorations but the means through which the interpretive pattern of the religion is exhibited, transmitted, and interiorized."

Anyway, here are some excerpts from:

What's Wrong with Evangelical Theology?
Peter J. Leithart

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9608/opinion/leithart.html

Evangelicals entered the mainstream of American life during the late 1970s and "almost immediately" lost their ability to define themselves theologically.

Modernity's separation of public and private has limited evangelicals' beliefs "to matters of private experience, increasingly shorn of their distinctive worldview, and increasingly withdrawn from what was external and public."

Ultimately, "being evangelical has come to mean simply that one has had a certain kind of religious experience that gives color to the private aspects of daily life but in which few identifiable theological elements can be discerned or, as it turns out, are necessary."

The theological wheel has turned again in the same circle: "Evangelicals, no less than the Liberals before them whom they have always berated, have now abandoned doctrine in favor of 'life.'"

Evangelicalism is, after all, often defined as a branch of Christianity that gives particular emphasis to certain aspects of Christian experience: spiritual rebirth, conversion, and a personal relationship to Christ. Spend a little time among evangelicals, and you are sure to learn about people who believe all the right doctrine but are not "real"-which is to say, born-again- Christians. Long before neo-evangelicalism, long before the rise of the Christian right, long before the "Toronto blessing," revivalism gave American Protestantism its distinctive experiential shape, as wave after wave of anti-intellectual New School, New Light, and New Whatever movements were accepted and, paradoxically, accorded theological legitimation.

...evangelicals are drawing "increasingly injurious" conclusions from the appropriate emphasis on a believer's personal relationship with Christ: "They have proceeded to seek assurance of faith not in terms of the objective truthfulness of the biblical teaching but in terms of the efficacy of its subjective experience." Not only in the use of testimonies but in hymnody as well, evangelicalism is "changing direction to reflect this experience-centered focus."

...evangelicalism oscillates between...emphasizing assent to propositional truth one moment, then insisting on personal experience of the new birth as a (perhaps the) central reality of Christianity.

Evangelicalism, however, has little sense of the "cultural-linguistic" dimension of Christianity... In this approach, religion is not merely a system of propositions nor a symbolic expression of natural and universal religious experience; religion is instead a comprehensive interpretive scheme, embodied in narrative and ritual, which structures human experience and thought. From this viewpoint, Christianity is indeed seen as a "life," but as a communal life that includes not only a system of ritual and worship and a way of living, but also a way of speaking and thinking.

Doctrine and theology can take a very high profile in a cultural- linguistic approach, but doctrine would not be the sole mark of true Christianity.

An evangelical understanding of theology and church life in a cultural-linguistic mode could avoid the intellectualist extreme of a cognitive approach as well as the irrationalist extreme of the expressivist model.

A cultural-linguistic conception of Christianity highlights the need for evangelical sacramental and liturgical theology.

Evangelicals well understand how doctrines and moral standards shape and define a community, but their instinctive anti-ritualism leaves them bereft of the theological tools required for understanding how rites mold, sustain, and nourish the Church.

Evangelicals typically examine ritual only for enhancing individual experience. At the risk of sounding pretentiously postmodern, evangelicals would be served by reflections toward a "meta-liturgics," a liturgical theology that does not ask, "What is the warrant for this gesture?" or "Must we say these words?" but instead seeks the meaning and status of ritual action as such.

From the cultural-linguistic perspective, rites are as important as doctrines in defining a community.

Rites... are not mere external decorations but the means through which the interpretive pattern of the religion is exhibited, transmitted, and interiorized.

In this perspective the narrative and ritual patterns of Christianity do not merely express prior religious experience but give shape to experience and even form the conditions of the possibility of Christian experience.

Perhaps we are not going too far to suggest that the shape of evangelicalism depends on its answer to the question of infant baptism, which sharply poses the question of whether it is possible for external rites to shape experience, rather than merely expressing it.

Catez,

Re: "The doctrine of transubstantian is a bit more than a visible representation isn't it?"

The Roman Catholic dogma about Transubstantiation is certainly more than a "visible representation." Even though the Orthodox Church does not have this dogma, we hold to the the same belief in the Real Presence of Christ and that the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed present in the "changed" (by the Holy Spirit) elements of the Eucharist (Wine and Bread).

That is why the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Sacraments. It is the food for our journey of Salvation.

But let's leave it at this. It's a Sacramental thing, you wouldn't understand it.

Re: "we are justified by faith - this is not an aim but a judicial reality"

No sidestepping here. I thought the Orthodox position was quite clear from what I posted earlier.

Within Evangelical circles there is plenty of sidestepping and tapdancing around this very issue, if by ("judicial reality") you are arguing for the doctrine of "Eternal Security." The doctrine of "eternal security" is certainly not THE soteriological DOGMA even within your own evangelical Protestant circles.

Re: Veneration

As an ethnic Asian, I have no problems with my traditional signs of respect and veneration (bowing and prostration) being transfigured in my Christian life into signs of respect and veneration for my spiritual betters, but worship as always is reserved for God alone.

To the untutored Western eye, it all looks the same which is understandable, but even ignorance is no excuse to accuse an Orthodox Christian or Roman Catholic of worshipping the creature over the Creator.

Westerners should be careful about applying their prejudices into spiritual matters in which they have no understanding.

FYI:

It is clear that we need to distinguish between worship, which is for God alone, and honor, which the Bible says we owe to kings (1 Peter 2:7), presbyters (1 Tim 5:17), wives (1 Peter 3:7), and indeed to all people (1 Peter 2:17), since all are in the image [icon] of Christ. We bow to honor one another and to honor our heroes in the Faith who are depicted in icons. We greet all the saints (Hebrews 13:24) with a holy kiss ...including the saints who are represented in the Bible and in icons. This is why we kiss our icons. It is much like a husband kissing the picture of his wife and children, or a widow kissing the wall of the Vietnam memorial. It is clear that we as human beings intuitively understand that there isn't a great chasm fixed between the living and the dead. That gulf lies between the righteous and the wicked (Luke 16:26), not between us and the living Christians who are "absent from the body and present with the Lord." Christ doesn't have two Bodies, one on earth and one in heaven; His Body the Church is one, and includes both us who are in the body and the "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1).

BOWING AND KISSING
In the Eastern cultures bowing is sign of humility before someone, or paying respect to someone. This is known to all from movies about Japanese customs. What about Scripture? Does the Bible have anything to say about bowing to people or objects and kissing things?
What did Jesus do? If one reads the Babylonian Talmud (contemporary to Christ) it describes the feast of tabernacles and says the Jews prostrated to the ground and kissed the court floor of the Temple. Pious Jews still kiss the mezuzah (scroll containing shema and Shaddai on doorposts), fringe of prayer shawl, and phylacteries, the weeping wall, and the LAW during worship, (now we kiss the Gospel). We all know that Christianity grew out of Judaism. What was/is the Jewish practice regarding kissing “holy objects”? Jesus, as a Jew, practiced these same things, especially in the context of the Temple and Synagogue worship. We see parallels within the Orthodox practices toward sacred things.

KISSING
This is an article about “Kissing” from "To Pray As A Jew", by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin
******************************************
KISSING: AN ACT OF RELIGIOUS DEVOTION
Kissing is a universal sign of affection. It is an act of love, an expression of endearment, not only between man and woman, parents and children, but is also the expression of one's feelings for the ritual objects and the religious duties associated with them.

There are no religious laws that require us to kiss a ritual or holy object. There is only the force of custom as it develops through the ages. In varying degrees kissing has become an optional commonplace
among the Jews as an expression of religious devotion at the following times:

The tallit [prayer shawl] is kissed just before putting it on.

The tefillin [phylacteries] are kissed when taken them out of their bag and before replacing them in the bag.

The mezuzah on the doorpost is sometimes kissed upon entering or leaving a house. It is done by touching the mezuzah with one's hand and kissing the fingers that made contact with the mezuzah.

The Torah is kissed when it passes by in the synagogue. Here, too, it is often done by extending a hand to touch the Torah mantle and then kissing the hand. Some touch the Torah with the edge of a tallit and then kiss the tallit.

The Torah is also kissed before one recites the blessings over it. Here it is done by taking the edge of one's tallit or the sash that is used to tie the scroll together, touching the outside of the scroll with it, and then kissing the tallit or the sash. Many people place the tallit or sash to the very words where the reading is about to begin. The sages advised against doing this as it may hasten a wearing away or erasure of the letters. At best, they recommend touching only the margin area near the line where the reading is about to begin. In all instances, one should not touch the Torah parchment with one's bare hand. The custom of not doing so derives from a special edict issued by the sages prohibiting such contact (Shabbat 14a: OH 147:1).

The curtain on the Ark (paokhet) is kissed before one opens it, or after closing it when the Torah is put away.

A siddur [prayer book] and [C]Humash [Jewish Bible] are kissed before putting them away. These holy books are also kissed if they are accidentally dropped on the floor.
From To Pray as a Jew: A Guide to the Prayer book and the Synagogue
Service, (New York: Basic Books [Harper Collins], 1980), p.43f.

The Biblical customs and piety of the Jewish faith is carried over into New Testament times and continued in the life of the Church. In general you won’t find commands to kiss things because it did not need to be commanded because it was part of the fabric of the Jewish faith. Howeve, the Bible does command we “greet one another with a Holy Kiss” Rom. 16:16, I Cor. 16:20, I Pet. 5:14 etc. So we see that kissing is NOT IN AND OF ITSELF a sign of WORSHIPPING an object or a person.

IS BOWING TO SOMETHING WORSHIP?
As we noted in the Eastern cultures it is common for people to bow to one another as a sign of humility and respect. The Roman culture practiced social bowing too. You'd bow to the ground (prostrate) upon meeting a king or governor.

But once again, we must let SCRIPTURE tell us the meaning of bowing. The Septuagint version of Genesis and noted the following instances of "proskunew" (bow down).

* 23:7, 12 "And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth... And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land."
* 27:29 "Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee"
* 33:3 "And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother."
* 37:7, 9, 10 "Behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf."
* 42:6 "and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth."
* 43:26, 28 "And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance."
* 47:31 (quoted in the NT, Hebrews 11:21) "And Israel worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."
* 48:12 "And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth."
* 49:8 "thy father's children shall bow down before thee."

In Esther 3:2-4, Mordecai refuses to bow before Haman since the latter is demanding this as latria (worship). But in Est 8:3, Mordecai’s own niece, Esther, bows before King Ahasuerus, which is simply an instance of her rendering him the honor (proskunew) he is due as royalty.

What's significant about these passages is they demonstrate a form of veneration that is *NOT* worship. This is the OT basis for the fundamental distinction that St John of Damascus makes between worship (latreia) and veneration (proskunew).

BOWING BEFORE OBJECTS AND THINGS OF GOD
One might grant that it is OK to bow before a “live human being”, but what about before inanimate objects? What do the Scriptures say about that?

"Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and **casting himself down before the house of God**, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore." (Ezra 10:1)

""And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the Ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads." (Joshua 7:6)

The Scriptures did command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands: "bow before the footstool of His feet...." We should note first of all that the word for "bow" here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols. And what is the "footstool of His feet"? In 1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In Psalm 99 [98 in the Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who "dwells between the Cherubim" (99:1), and it ends with a call to "bow to His holy hill"—which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is preceded by the statement "We will go into His tabernacles..." and is followed by the statement "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength." This phrase is applied to the Cross in the services of the Church where as Orthodox Christians we will bow before the Cross, and the connection is not accidental—because on the Ark, between the Cherubim was the Mercy Seat, upon which the sacrificial blood was sprinkled for the sins of the people (Exodus 25:22, Leviticus 16:15).

Other Biblical references to bowing, images, and worship are found in many places.
1 Kgs 8:54 and 2 Chr 6:13b, Solomon kneels in prayer in the temple, which as we noted was full of images of bulls, cherubim, things on earth and heaven. Ezekiel 43:3b-4 depicts the prophet’s prostrating himself in a temple that chapters 40-41 have described as being carved from floor to ceiling with images of cherubim. Other Biblical instances of people genuflecting in presumably image-laden houses of worship include 1 Chr 29:20, in which the people bow before God and the king ! 2 Chr 20:18, in which Jehoshaphat and all of Judah and Jerusalem fall on their faces in worship; 2 Chr 29:28-30, in which the king and the assembly prostrate themselves thrice before the altar (Orthodox priests also bow thrice before the altar at one point during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom); 2 Chr 32:12, in which Hezekiah instructs the populace of Judah and Jerusalem to prostrate itself before one altar only; and Ezr 10:1, in which Ezra is prostrate in front of the temple in tearful prayer.

In 1 Sm 5:3-4 God causes a statue of the Philistine god Dagon to fall on its face before the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered with carvings of Cherubim. This is an instance of a false image bowing to a true one.

So we see that Scripture teaches clearly that the Orthodox practices toward icons is NOT
idolatry, anathema or heresy. Bowing and kissing are firmly Biblical, rooted in Jewish piety and continued within the piety of the Church from the beginning. It is a modern innovation that these practices have been dropped from the life of the Christian. It would do us well to recover
the spiritual practices of the Prophets, Apostles and Christ Himself.

CONCLUSION:
The Scriptures tell us that images, in and of themselves, are not idols.
The Scriptures tell us that bowing down and kissing things are not worship in an of itself.
The Scriptures tell us that God became flesh, circumscribed Himself with material form and thus depicted Himself in created matter to us.
Only by following the Scriptures can we not fall prey to two heresies: either worshipping that which is created and not God alone, OR rejecting the proper respect and veneration for things which God has told us is a right and good and properly expressed in relationship to HIM who is to be worshipped only.

Joe, have you thought about getting your own blog? :)

Joe,
I am not going to read the long articles. Sorry - but I come here to read the Intellectuele posts and comments.

Re: To be honest, Evangelical Prostestant griping about Sacraments/Mysteries sounds like sour grapes to Orthodox Christians.

I didn't gripe. No ad hominems please. I gave a biblical position.

Re: transubstantiation. So the questions I've had for years are - how long does Jesus last then? Some people "eat" him once a week and some every day. When does he wear off? How often do you need to "eat" him? If you aren't forgiven your sins but "eat" Jesus then technically you now have Jesus but you aren't forgiven. Does he wear off the next time you sin?

The problem is tradition has elevated certain things to a level not given in scripture. And we haven't even gotten onto necromancy and idolatry in the veneration of and communication with dead saints and mariology. Phew!

Three final points:

1. I think it's not the best form to keep copying and pasting articles into some-one's blog.

2. But let's leave it at this. It's a Sacramental thing, you wouldn't understand it.

That's a bit silly to say - I'm an ex-Catholic.

3. Westerners should be careful about applying their prejudices into spiritual matters in which they have no understanding.

Oops. Forgot to mention I'm also Jewish. I don't buy the culturally relative argument on basic doctrine Joe.

Re: My Own Blog

It's in the works!

Re: The Eucharist

If you're really interested, I'll let my Church answer:

http://www.oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book=Worship§ion=The%20Sacraments

Re: "Dead Saints"

I'll answer this one myself. Dead? Who's dead?

It's been sorta fun, but I'm going to take myself off this blog now. Sorry for hogging the bandwith.

If anyone wants to contact me personally, please, be my guest.

Under His Mercy,

Orthodox Joe

An orthodox evangelizing the evangelicals ;)

Catez,

One last thought in regards to: "... I'm also Jewish. I don't buy the culturally relative argument on basic doctrine Joe."

My godson (whom I just saw at Vespers 4 hours ago) is Jewish . He loves the Jewishness of Orthodox Christianity! One of the cooler things is that in the Orthodox Church, Pascha (what you call Easter) always follows Passover on the Liturgical calendar. Needless to say, this is one of the reasons that he enjoys a rich Paschal season. Some Orthodox trivia: Pascha is Greek for the Hebrew: pesach, which translates, of course, as: Passover.

His thinking and experience, I think, is close to that of Father James Bernstein (one of the founders of Jews For Jesus) who wrote popular booklet: "Orthodoxy: Jewish and Christian." He is also the author of the popular apologetic tract:

Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament
http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

Also, this site has been an inspiration to him:

Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

The interdisciplinary seminar on the Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism is designed as the internet version of an ongoing research seminar of graduate students at the department of theology of Marquette University (Milwaukee, USA). The seminar is directed by Alexander Golitzin, a professor of eastern Christian theology (Marquette University) and Andrei Orlov, an assistant professor of Christian Origins (Marquette University). The seminar started in March 2002 as an attempt to investigate Jewish mystical traditions in the eastern Christian theological and liturgical texts. It was thought that the seminar would help initiate and inspire the discussion about the Jewish influences on eastern Christian mysticism among a broader audience.

(Just a little something for any intellectual intellectuelles that might be reading)

Bye now!

Joe,
Thankyou for your case for legalism. I'm not ready to convert just yet...

Re: "Thankyou for your case for legalism."

No, thank YOU! "Judicial" was your word, not mine:

"...we are justified by faith - this is not an aim but a judicial reality."

Catez, I do appreciate your ironic sense of humor!

"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge's righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." -N.T. Wright

One of the hottest theological debates in the Evangelical community today relates, surprisingly, to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

A number of contemporary theologians are suggesting that we need to revisit, correct and move beyond the formulations of the great sixteenth century Protestant Reformers and confessions (and their conservative heirs) on the nature and meaning of justification.

The school of thought that is promoting this particular reassessment has been called the New Perspective (or Perspectives) on Paul.

The New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP) represents a paradigm shift in the scholarly study of Pauline theology (with ramifications for New Testament Theology as a whole).

It calls into question the Protestant Reformation's reading of and conclusions regarding Paul's doctrine of redemption and its application to the believer.

In other words, it suggests that the Protestant Reformers' exegesis of Paul on justification and their theological formulations of what Paul taught about our being justified by grace through faith alone, and not by works, based on the work of Christ alone, imputed to us were mistaken.

The NPP even questions whether Paul was primarily concerned with the question "how can I be saved?" For instance, N.T. Wright says flatly "that 'the gospel' is not, for Paul, a message about 'how one gets saved', in an individual and a historical sense" in What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 60, see also 113-117.

In the evangelical world, its best-known exponents are James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Wright views his version of the NPP as an essentially compatible corrective to historic Protestant exegesis and theology relating to Pauline soteriology.

He says things like "if you start with the popular view of 'justification by faith', you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel; whereas if you start with the Pauline gospel itself you will get justification in all its glory thrown in as well" (What Saint Paul Really Said, 113).

The NPP argues that what distinguishes Paul from his Jewish contemporaries is his core conviction that Jesus is the Messiah for Jews and Gentiles, who are now admitted into the people of God on the same basis. Paul did not view contemporary Judaism as Pelagian, or charge it with teaching some form of works-righteousness.

Paul's problems with the common Judaism of his day were ecclesiological, eschatological and Christological, not soteriological.

Paul, according to the NPP, did not criticize Judaism for legalism in its teaching on salvation.

As far as Paul was concerned, there was nothing wrong with Judaism's theology of grace. Paul did not view Judaism as a religion of merit, and expound over against it a distinct doctrine of divine monergism.

Instead, Paul charged his Jewish contemporaries (1) with misunderstanding the doctrine of the people of God (ecclesiology), an error especially seen in the exclusive first century Jewish mindset that looked to the "works of the Law," especially to circumcision, the Sabbath, and dietary laws, as badges of covenant membership, rather than to faith in Jesus as Lord and Messiah; (2) with a failure to rightly appreciate the Old Testament's eschatology, especially seen in Judaism's failure to grasp the ramifications of the eschatological event of the incarnation in which Yahweh has acted to save his people, and (3) with an inadequate Christology, evidenced in the general Jewish rejection of Jesus as Lord and Messiah.

Lots more "New" Perspective ["new " to Protestants, that is] on Paul here: http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspectivism

All in all a timely corrective (what took so long?) and a pulling the stuffing out of the "Judaism was and is a religion of "works righteousness"-Straw Man.