Ask an Orthodox Christian

[Alenee]

Laurie,  no offense taken here either.  I find *your* questions hard to answer though...you think on a whole different plane than I do (meant as a compliment!) so that's why I typically stay silent and wait for others to answer.  :)

[Alenee]

The question I keep coming back to when I am trying to understand another faith is how does it express itself in your life?  How do you live it? 

 

I've been trying to come up with an answer for you and today, I read a post on facebook from one of our semi-local Abbots.  Here is a snippet of his post today:

 

"We all have a natural tendency to lay blame on others, when in truth we must blame only ourselves. When facing our own sins and shortcomings, it is always easy to put the blame on others, yet our faith tells us that spiritual progress can only come with the acquisition of a humble and contrite heart. As long as we are anxious to put the blame on others for our shortcomings, we will remain stagnant on the spiritual path. The saints give clear witness that progress towards holiness can only come when we look only to our own faults, and not see the faults of others."

 

This attitude has meant more to me than almost anything else in Orthodoxy.  It has been HARD and like the Apostle Paul said, "...not that I've already attained it..."  But when I was in my former church, I never saw a humble person. Everyone always acted like they had somehow "arrived". It bothered me but at the same time, I tried to be in that same camp.  However, as I explored the Orthodox faith, it became very apparent to me and I wanted to flee from that camp and throw off that sin.  It's HARD. HARD. HARD.  But I've never been at more peace than when I realize my own sin of judging others and ignoring my own.  It's in these moments where I feel God all around me.  To the rest of the world, this probably sounds totally lame but this is how Orthodoxy has changed my life.

[PrairieSong]

I'm not sure how to frame my question but here goes. Orthodoxy is a union of separate churches..right? I don't mean separated..but there are Greek Orthodox and Russian and OCA and so on. So when a new branch is formed (maybe branch isn't the right word) how is it approved? Is it started from one of the other established ones? Like the OCA...it is fairly recent, yes? How did it come into being? Who approved it as being truly Orthodox? I'm sorry if some of my wording isn't correct..but hopefully you will understand what I'm asking.

[JenniferB]

I've been trying to come up with an answer for you and today, I read a post on facebook from one of our semi-local Abbots.  Here is a snippet of his post today:

 

"We all have a natural tendency to lay blame on others, when in truth we must blame only ourselves. When facing our own sins and shortcomings, it is always easy to put the blame on others, yet our faith tells us that spiritual progress can only come with the acquisition of a humble and contrite heart. As long as we are anxious to put the blame on others for our shortcomings, we will remain stagnant on the spiritual path. The saints give clear witness that progress towards holiness can only come when we look only to our own faults, and not see the faults of others."

 

This attitude has meant more to me than almost anything else in Orthodoxy.  It has been HARD and like the Apostle Paul said, "...not that I've already attained it..."  But when I was in my former church, I never saw a humble person. Everyone always acted like they had somehow "arrived". It bothered me but at the same time, I tried to be in that same camp.  However, as I explored the Orthodox faith, it became very apparent to me and I wanted to flee from that camp and throw off that sin.  It's HARD. HARD. HARD.  But I've never been at more peace than when I realize my own sin of judging others and ignoring my own.  It's in these moments where I feel God all around me.  To the rest of the world, this probably sounds totally lame but this is how Orthodoxy has changed my life.

 

:iagree:   This is the attitude / mind shift change I have experienced also going into Orthodoxy.  It is what attracted me so much, and my godmother's ability to see the best in others is what authenticated the faith to me.   I can't see that I will master this attitude anytime soon.  It is hard, and I see it as a lifelong struggle. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I'm not sure how to frame my question but here goes. Orthodoxy is a union of separate churches..right? I don't mean separated..but there are Greek Orthodox and Russian and OCA and so on. So when a new branch is formed (maybe branch isn't the right word) how is it approved? Is it started from one of the other established ones? Like the OCA...it is fairly recent, yes? How did it come into being? Who approved it as being truly Orthodox? I'm sorry if some of my wording isn't correct..but hopefully you will understand what I'm asking.

 

I am too new to really understand how it all works, but from what I understand, the OCA is an autocephalous church, meaning we are not under any other patriarchate. Hopefully someone will step in to clarify more. There were originally 4 patriarchates: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. Then there are the junior patriarchates (which were originally under one of the 4 ancient patriarchates): Russia, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria. The OCA was originally part of the Russian Orthodox Church until we gained autocephaly in 1970.

[Guest]

I'm not sure how to frame my question but here goes. Orthodoxy is a union of separate churches..right? I don't mean separated..but there are Greek Orthodox and Russian and OCA and so on. So when a new branch is formed (maybe branch isn't the right word) how is it approved? Is it started from one of the other established ones? Like the OCA...it is fairly recent, yes? How did it come into being? Who approved it as being truly Orthodox? I'm sorry if some of my wording isn't correct..but hopefully you will understand what I'm asking.

 

Let me take a stab at this one; it can get really complicated if we want it to but I don't.  If it gets too complicated, I'm gonna point you to a book, so watch it!!!  :0)  Don't worry about correct wording...I'm not sure I'm going to get it all correct myself.  

 

The Church started with 5 patriarchates, one of which was Rome, and that is now the Roman Catholic Church.  So there were 4 Patriarchates.  Then the Russian Orthodox Church became a Patriarchate so now there are 5:  I think.  ETA:  I'm going to have to go look this one up...TWells and I are not saying the same thing and I doubt I'm right. 

 

 

At any rate, the growth of the Church is organic; it grows through outreach but is established by the existing church.  So, for example, Cyril and Methodius were the evangelists to the Slavs.  They were sent from an existing Patriarchate by a bishop to tell the gospel to the Slavs.  By the way, to do this, they had to invent an alphabet--Cyrillic (I can't tell you how long it took the penny to drop for me on that one...LOL).  

 

Anyway, basically the way it works, is a bishop sees an area that is adjacent to his own where the gospel needs to be told.  The bishop sends missionaries, and if it is received, the sending bishop establishes "missions"--non-consecrated churches--to give the Church a chance to take root in that country.  But the missions are under the sending bishop's "omophorion"--authority and care.  However, once there are  enough consecrated churches to require the care of another bishop, and once they are solid in the faith, the sending bishop, with the agreement of other bishops, establishes a local bishopric over the new area, and there is a new "church"--with local language and music and so on, and a bishop of its own--but completely in union with the sending bishops and churches.  

 

There's no such thing as "roll your own."  

 

THAT SAID:  the history of the establishment of Orthodoxy in America is ... messy.  Lots of these rules got broken.  And a lot of them kept.  It is a fascinating history.  But even so, today, no one says, 'Hey, I''m going to go start an Orthodox Church in my neighborhood!"   The broken rules had more to do with people immigrating and bringing their church with them, but not having a lot of contact with the home country and so on.  

 

I myself am part of a well-established mission; we are big enough and old enough to be a consecrated church, but we can't afford property in our neck of the woods, so we continue as a mission.  Right now, I am visiting Cannon Beach Oregon, and there are a few Orthodox families along the coast.  The bishop has allowed them to attempt a mission, and so a priest comes from a Portland parish and offers the Divine Liturgy every couple of months.  But the families could not establish the mission without the permission of the bishop, nor could the priest come and offer the Divine Liturgy, and there is no guarantee that this mission will ever become a parish.  Every year, new ones open, and some that could not take root are closed.  However, it is very rare that a consecrated church is closed.  

 

That's the simple version.  It can get complicated.  

[Kathryn]

I'm not sure how to frame my question but here goes. Orthodoxy is a union of separate churches..right? I don't mean separated..but there are Greek Orthodox and Russian and OCA and so on. So when a new branch is formed (maybe branch isn't the right word) how is it approved? Is it started from one of the other established ones? Like the OCA...it is fairly recent, yes? How did it come into being? Who approved it as being truly Orthodox? I'm sorry if some of my wording isn't correct..but hopefully you will understand what I'm asking.

Here's an orthodoxwiki article: http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_churches

 

Eta that I believe the question of autonomy/autocephaly not being recognized by all has to do with those churches who were granted such status by the Russians under communism and therefore that status is not recognized by some other churches.

[PrairieSong]

Thank you, Patty Joanna. I'm sure the whole story is very complicated but I understand a bit better now. I'm Catholic so I have a slightly different take on some things but I wanted to understand better from your POV. And I don't mind book recommendations. I do have...um...a few of those around here. :-)

 

My Orthodox friend who converted less than two years ago told me a bit about the situation in the United States. So...why did the immigrants coming here not maintain contact with their churches back in their countries of origin? Was a big part of it because many came in the 19th and 20th centuries when communication was much slower and harder than it is today? That's purely a guess on my part.

 

Oh...and I am familiar with the story of Cyril and Methodius bringing the gospel to the Slavs and inventing an entirely new alphabet. Fascinating.

 

Let me take a stab at this one; it can get really complicated if we want it to but I don't. If it gets too complicated, I'm gonna point you to a book, so watch it!!! :0) Don't worry about correct wording...I'm not sure I'm going to get it all correct myself.

 

The Church started with 5 patriarchates, one of which was Rome, and that is now the Roman Catholic Church. So there were 4 Patriarchates. Then the Russian Orthodox Church became a Patriarchate so now there are 5: I think. ETA: I'm going to have to go look this one up...TWells and I are not saying the same thing and I doubt I'm right.

 

 

At any rate, the growth of the Church is organic; it grows through outreach but is established by the existing church. So, for example, Cyril and Methodius were the evangelists to the Slavs. They were sent from an existing Patriarchate by a bishop to tell the gospel to the Slavs. By the way, to do this, they had to invent an alphabet--Cyrillic (I can't tell you how long it took the penny to drop for me on that one...LOL).

 

Anyway, basically the way it works, is a bishop sees an area that is adjacent to his own where the gospel needs to be told. The bishop sends missionaries, and if it is received, the sending bishop establishes "missions"--non-consecrated churches--to give the Church a chance to take root in that country. But the missions are under the sending bishop's "omophorion"--authority and care. However, once there are enough consecrated churches to require the care of another bishop, and once they are solid in the faith, the sending bishop, with the agreement of other bishops, establishes a local bishopric over the new area, and there is a new "church"--with local language and music and so on, and a bishop of its own--but completely in union with the sending bishops and churches.

 

There's no such thing as "roll your own."

 

THAT SAID: the history of the establishment of Orthodoxy in America is ... messy. Lots of these rules got broken. And a lot of them kept. It is a fascinating history. But even so, today, no one says, 'Hey, I''m going to go start an Orthodox Church in my neighborhood!" The broken rules had more to do with people immigrating and bringing their church with them, but not having a lot of contact with the home country and so on.

 

I myself am part of a well-established mission; we are big enough and old enough to be a consecrated church, but we can't afford property in our neck of the woods, so we continue as a mission. Right now, I am visiting Cannon Beach Oregon, and there are a few Orthodox families along the coast. The bishop has allowed them to attempt a mission, and so a priest comes from a Portland parish and offers the Divine Liturgy every couple of months. But the families could not establish the mission without the permission of the bishop, nor could the priest come and offer the Divine Liturgy, and there is no guarantee that this mission will ever become a parish. Every year, new ones open, and some that could not take root are closed. However, it is very rare that a consecrated church is closed.

 

That's the simple version. It can get complicated.

[Kathryn]

Thank you, Patty Joanna. I'm sure the whole story is very complicated but I understand a bit better now. I'm Catholic so I have a slightly different take on some things but I wanted to understand better from your POV. And I don't mind book recommendations. I do have...um...a few of those around here. :-)

 

My Orthodox friend who converted less than two years ago told me a bit about the situation in the United States. So...why did the immigrants coming here not maintain contact with their churches back in their countries of origin? Was a big part of it because many came in the 19th and 20th centuries when communication was much slower and harder than it is today? That's purely a guess on my part.

 

Oh...and I am familiar with the story of Cyril and Methodius bringing the gospel to the Slavs and inventing an entirely new alphabet. Fascinating.

 

 

Many of them were political refugees from countries where the church was severely persecuted.

[PrairieSong]

Many of them were political refugees from countries where the church was severely persecuted.

Yes, of course. That makes sense.

[Guest]

Thank you, Patty Joanna. I'm sure the whole story is very complicated but I understand a bit better now. I'm Catholic so I have a slightly different take on some things but I wanted to understand better from your POV. And I don't mind book recommendations. I do have...um...a few of those around here. :-)

 

My Orthodox friend who converted less than two years ago told me a bit about the situation in the United States. So...why did the immigrants coming here not maintain contact with their churches back in their countries of origin? Was a big part of it because many came in the 19th and 20th centuries when communication was much slower and harder than it is today? That's purely a guess on my part.

 

 

Come to think of it, I am not sure how the Roman Catholic Church establishes new churches...so there ya go.  :0)  You probably have a better book collection than I...I'm more of a lecture-listener. 

 

Kathryn mentioned the main reason that people didn't stay in close contact with the home Church.  Sadly, in some cases, the new parishes became, in the end, not much more than a culture club.  Some didn't even have priests, so they could not offer the sacraments but could continue in prayers.  

 

There was a point in the history of North America where there could have been unity of jurisdiction, but that moment came and went, and now it remains to be seen how much work it will take to get that to happen...

 

:0)

[Guest]

Here's an orthodoxwiki article: http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_churches

 

Eta that I believe the question of autonomy/autocephaly not being recognized by all has to do with those churches who were granted such status by the Russians under communism and therefore that status is not recognized by some other churches.

 

My dh understands this and we are going for a drive in a few minutes so I will get a brain dump and see if I can put it into a post later on.  I can't always follow all the ... byzantine convolutions.  :0)

[Guest]

Why isn't your theological unity reflected in an ability to achieve structural unity? ie I "get" the decision to allow the church in a certain country/culture to reflect that culture to some extent while maintaining theological unity. I get that that is the ideal.I "get" that many Orthodox churches in the US were established when immigrants came. However, it seems like there would be able to be an establishment of an Orthodox Church in countries outside Russia, Greece, Syria, etc. that reflect those other countries and their cultures in something of a timely fashion, not taking decades or centuries.  Is the cultural/national more important in reality than it's supposed to be in theory? Organizationally, it doesn't make sense that it would take decades to do that . There must be some kind of debate that is unresolved.  What are the actual issues that hold that up?  Are there a certain number of patriarchs (is that the right designation) because of the number there was back in the Roman world?

 

Laurie, again I apologize if I came off as crabby.  I don't mean to...sometimes things don't "internet" well...and sometimes things that are dry in subject matter come across as crabby...and sometimes ***I am a crab!!!!!****

 

I started listening to a podcast today that discussed the current efforts toward jurisdictional unity.  If you are interested, here is the link:  http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday.  It is the February 23 broadcast.  The podcast is conversational in tone, and is not uber-intellectual, but is accessible.  

 

Jurisdictional unity is both compelling and fearsome...there is a lot that will have to be settled to obtain jurisdictional unity, and a lot of it will boil down to the receptivity of the people "in the pews" (haha) being able to adapt to change.  That is why I have a feeling that even if decisions are taken at the coming Council, they will take many years to implement, in order to give people (like me) time to adjust, to come to terms, to die off (seriously and said without bitterness).  

 

Think about your own practice of your faith.  If the denomination hoo-hahs came to you and said, "From now on, you will sing hymns in the tunes given us by the Japanese melodies," you might have a little bit of angst about that, especially if you were in the choir or loved the music.  YES the faith would be the same, blah blah blah.  But something you love would change.  But what if the option was this:  "Over time, we will start to introduce new melodies, and the vestments will look a little different over time, a little bit at a time."?  That's a lot easier to take on.  And because there is nothing wrong with any of the particular practices in use, but because unity might require these changes, this slow change might be a very merciful way to deal with this.  

 

To a certain degree, I am talking through my hat, but perhaps you can see through my shallow presentation what might be the way jurisdictional unity starts to appear.  

 

:0)

[milovany]

 

Think about your own practice of your faith.  If the denomination hoo-hahs came to you and said, "From now on, you will sing hymns in the tunes given us by the Japanese melodies," you might have a little bit of angst about that, especially if you were in the choir or loved the music.  YES the faith would be the same, blah blah blah.  But something you love would change.  But what if the option was this:  "Over time, we will start to introduce new melodies, and the vestments will look a little different over time, a little bit at a time."?  That's a lot easier to take on.  And because there is nothing wrong with any of the particular practices in use, but because unity might require these changes, this slow change might be a very merciful way to deal with this. 

 

Really good analogy, Patty Joanna. Loved the Japanese part as that brings it home. Our archbishop is trying to get allll the parishes in his diocese to use Byzantine music (the same tones and the same words) but there are many parishes in our diocese that use the Russian music, for which both the tones and the words are different. It's not easy, nor always well-received ("I liiiiiikkke the way we sing the doxology!" <-- me). Thankfully, he's working slowly over time. 

 

[Teannika]

Tradition may play a part in whether Luke was a Gentile or Jew prior to becoming a Christian. There were people there who knew for a fact which it was and these people wrote and spoke and therefore the "tradition" (story) of his life was passed down. I haven't at all looked into this topic, and don't see the need to at this point (meaning for me, personally). It would be similar to the Virgin Mary only having one child: Jesus. Some people say she had more children herself, but Holy Tradition says she unequivocally did not. How can we be so sure? Because there were people who knew! They lived at the same time and in the same place; many knew her personally. They knew and they themselves said that she didn't have other children. So even if that was never clearly stated in the Scriptures when they were written later, it was still common knowledge and fact for those that lived then. It got passed on as knowledge, and thus is Holy Tradition. Tradition isn't bad.

 

I find it interesting, in another defense of Holy Tradition, that the names of the books of the Gospels are given to us through Holy Tradition yet few question the authorship of these books. Nowhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John does it say that those men wrote their respective books. The Scriptures alone do not teach us this - Holy Tradition does, and only Holy Tradition does.

Thankyou Milovany (and others). I read your replies yesterday, but then today I went back to read from the start of thread again! I am slowly getting my head around Orthodox, as compared to Catholicism. My immediate heritage is Catholicism. My great grandmother on my father's side was Catholic, and so was my grandfather until he converted. On my mother's side, she was also born into a Catholic family, but adopted out of it at a young age. My husband was brought up strict Catholic, and the large majority of his family are all large Catholic families. So I am on the Catholic mind-track, and trying to understand Orthodoxy from there.

 

Regarding Mary having other children, from my point of view there is no personal interpretation involved, because I just have to read and believe the scripture as it stands. In the verse that I quoted "firstborn" implies that there were other children born afterward, or else the word is unnecessary and meaningless to begin with. (And this term is used in Luke as well.) A very clear set of verses answer the question to who Jesus was. Those in the synagogue knew him personally and identified him.

 

'And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?'

(Matthew 13:54-56)

 

I haven't looked up the other versions to compare because I don't use them as they are from a different line of manuscripts. I know the bible manuscript lineage better than I know the historical church lineage. But both are closely related. One line is from Alexandria, the other from Antioch. And that is why there are great doctrinal differences between different churches still today. Because there were differences right back then as well.

 

So my perpective is that the traditions that you may be referring to as holy traditions being passed down from men in the church, may still not be true if the particular man being quoted as a church father etc wasn't really one. I also do not believe that any man after the apostles should be quoted as if their beliefs are inspired like scripture is. Then we would be picking and choosing which men we wanted to believe when it came to all sorts of doctrinal issues, based on what we thought was true to begin with. (But I do however understand your point of view of acknowledging the church history of your church as the true line of church history, so I see no inconsitency with your own beliefs and conclusions.)

 

I have started to find my own lineage of historical beliefs from the early church period. I fit in with the premillennial groups of believers. And those who believed and practiced adult baptism. There are names for these groups that I can give you, but I would need to look them back up again. And anyway, this is your thread not mine, so it's not really relevant.

 

But this has helped my understanding a great deal better, so thankyou. I also think that I am on a similar wave length on bishops running the early local churches as well. I reread my early posts and can see how awkwardly I expressed the early church structure. Sometimes it can take me a while to get a coherent thought out.

[ElaineJ]

I don't want to hijack the thread, and I have no opinion at all on the general topic, but the linguistic issue caught my eye.  

 

In Hebrew the term b'chor, firstborn, is a specific status and has nothing to do with whether or not there are other children.

 

I have no idea if that understanding can be extended to your text, but I wanted to throw it out fwiw.

 

Eliana, that is very interesting! This is why I really enjoy these conversations with those of us from many different faiths and backgrounds involved. I learn all sorts of intriguing things that I wouldn't have even thought to ask about before. Thanks for speaking into the discussion.

Elaine

 

[ktgrok]

So my perpective is that the traditions that you may be referring to as holy traditions being passed down from men in the church, may still not be true if the particular man being quoted as a church father etc wasn't really one. I also do not believe that any man after the apostles should be quoted as if their beliefs are inspired like scripture is. Then we would be picking and choosing which men we wanted to believe when it came to all sorts of doctrinal issues, based on what we thought was true to begin with. (But I do however understand your point of view of acknowledging the church history of your church as the true line of church history, so I see no inconsitency with your own beliefs and conclusions.)

 

 

 

But, in the early years, there was consensus by the body of believers....the Church had a consensus on all sorts of things. So it isn't a matter of picking and choosing, really. Sure, there were outlying groups declared heretical, but the vast majority of those we call Christian had a consensus of belief. That's that makes "Tradition" for those of us who believe in it. We don't quote these men as inspired, we look to them to describe what the beliefs/situations were at the time when there was still a collective memory of the life of Christ. They are the people that decided what was scripture. If we can't trust them, we can't trust the scripture they gave us. 

[Kathryn]

I don't want to hijack the thread, and I have no opinion at all on the general topic, but the linguistic issue caught my eye.

 

In Hebrew the term b'chor, firstborn, is a specific status and has nothing to do with whether or not there are other children.

 

I have no idea if that understanding can be extended to your text, but I wanted to throw it out fwiw.

Yes, this is what our priest teaches and a huge reason we aren't to rely on personal interpretation of translations. The words in today's Bibles are at best approximations of original intent. The issue is very obvious with verses with language that is translated like "firstborn" and that Joseph didn't know her "until" Jesus' birth (previously explained by someone else here). Holy tradition tells us that Mary had no other issue, that the names mentioned as Jesus' siblings were from Joseph's first marriage.

[milovany]

I don't want to hijack the thread, and I have no opinion at all on the general topic, but the linguistic issue caught my eye.  

 

In Hebrew the term b'chor, firstborn, is a specific status and has nothing to do with whether or not there are other children.

 

I have no idea if that understanding can be extended to your text, but I wanted to throw it out fwiw.

 

That's very relevant, Eliana, thank you for posting. The men who wrote the words in question knew that Mary did not have other children (because they had known her personally), so the words HAVE to mean something other than that she did. They simply have to.  The men wouldn't have included a meaning in their letters that they knew not to be true. It would be like someone 2000 years from now reading a letter I wrote claiming that something I said in that letter implies that my neighbor didn't have children when in fact the words have to mean she does because I can see the children playing in her yard and I had previously talked to her about their births. Anything I'd written would have to mean she had children because I knew personally and for a fact that she did. If someone 2000 years down the road thinks something I wrote means she didn't, it's their thoughts that need adjusting, not my words. I can see where the sheer amount of time that has passed might make it seem possible that she didn't have children to that person of the future, but that doesn't make it any more true.

 

Teannika, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply!  And for making an attempt at trying to wrap your brain around what we're saying.  It's fine that you don't get it and/or agree with it!  We're just trying to present the Orthodox perspective per the purpose of this thread. 

[PrincessMommy]

I don't want to hijack the thread, and I have no opinion at all on the general topic, but the linguistic issue caught my eye.  

 

In Hebrew the term b'chor, firstborn, is a specific status and has nothing to do with whether or not there are other children.

 

I have no idea if that understanding can be extended to your text, but I wanted to throw it out fwiw.

 

as someone who enjoys philology I found it quite interesting.   Esp. how words were understood historically - which is at the heart of this particular discussion on Mary.  

 

Thanks!!

[PrincessMommy]

Yes, this is what our priest teaches and a huge reason we aren't to rely on personal interpretation of translations. The words in today's Bibles are at best approximations of original intent. The issue is very obvious with verses with language that is translated like "firstborn" and that Joseph didn't know her "until" Jesus' birth (previously explained by someone else here). Holy tradition tells us that Mary had no other issue, that the names mentioned as Jesus' siblings were from Joseph's first marriage.

 

 

We must also look at how Christians taught these things historically (ie. things that are questioned today).  Many new controversies (for lack of a better word) have been around for quite a long time and have been dealt with already.   Mary's Ever-Virginity came up in the 3rd or 4th century.  The Antidikomarianites heresy was rejected by the Church as heretical.     I think the idea largely died out until many years after the Reformers as both Calvin and Luther accepted Mary's Ever-Virginity.  Incidentally, at the same time they had another heresy crop up that was just the opposite... There were a group of people ascribing Divinity to Mary.  As you would imagine, it was also denounced. 

 

One of the scriptures that we use that prefigures her ever-virginity is in Ezekiel : "Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the Sanctuary, which faces East; and it was shut.  And He said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut."

 

But, I do think that throwing around scriptures is difficult.  All traditions interpret differently and all use different measuring sticks.  Teanika uses the plain English text literally. Others use the text with historical praxis & understanding.  And yet other will look at Scripture only as an allegory or metaphor.    Thus, we will all deal differently with difficult scriptures such as the one you quote.  Or John 6, or even I Corinthians where Paul speaks of Baptism for the dead. 

 

edited for clarification

 

 

[mommaduck]

Is it true that someone that is Greek Orthodox wouldn't be able to walk into say, a Russian Orthodox community and receive communion? 

 

Absolutely they may receive! As long as they are prepared, just as with anyone else. Now, the exceptions might be that a priest may ask your name and whether you are Orthodox or where you are from to make certain that he may serve you, and some priests are a bit more particular than others (aka, in some Russian parishes, they may wish you to arrive early and do a quick confession before Liturgy...this is to keep the priest's conscience clear that he's done his duty in not serving communion to someone that is not qualified to receive communion, but again, it has to do with everyone across the board, not which jurisdiction a person belongs to...we are all Orthodox, regardless of Jurisdiction). I'm part of ROCOR. However, I think we technically were never released from GOA (Russian and Greek). I have a Greek priest in a Russian parish. I'm happy here. It's not a big matter. I'm Orthodox. THAT is what matters, not Jurisdiction.

 

[mommaduck]

Thankyou Milovany (and others). I read your replies yesterday, but then today I went back to read from the start of thread again! I am slowly getting my head around Orthodox, as compared to Catholicism. My immediate heritage is Catholicism. My great grandmother on my father's side was Catholic, and so was my grandfather until he converted. On my mother's side, she was also born into a Catholic family, but adopted out of it at a young age. My husband was brought up strict Catholic, and the large majority of his family are all large Catholic families. So I am on the Catholic mind-track, and trying to understand Orthodoxy from there.

 

Regarding Mary having other children, from my point of view there is no personal interpretation involved, because I just have to read and believe the scripture as it stands. In the verse that I quoted "firstborn" implies that there were other children born afterward, or else the word is unnecessary and meaningless to begin with. (And this term is used in Luke as well.) A very clear set of verses answer the question to who Jesus was. Those in the synagogue knew him personally and identified him. Wrong. When I had my oldest, he was right then and there my firstborn, regardless if I had any other children after. He could be referred to as my firstborn even if he was an only child. This is how the word firstborn has been used historically and by those that translated the Geneva, Bishop's, and KJV. Firstborn, means firstborn. There is no implication that other children were born after. The ONLY implication is that there were no other children born BEFORE.

 

'And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?'

(Matthew 13:54-56) As held by those that were closer to the time and has carried through with traditiion, Joseph was much older than Mary, and this was not an unusual situation. He had been married before and had other children before. Stepsiblings are still siblings. I have nine siblings. Everyone knows them as my siblings even though we share a mix of varied parents. No one sits and says "stepsister", "half-brother", "half brother of your half brother". No, they are my siblings. My half brother on one side is considered brother to my half sister on the other side. Technically, no. Communally, yes. Communally, the people aroun Jesus would be referring to his stepsiblings as his brothers and sisters. It also was not uncommon for even cousins to be referred to as brothers and sisters. Just as in many cultures my children would call some elderly grandma and grandpa (or yiayia and papou) regardless that they have no familial relationship to those people. In similar cultures, anyone that is mom and dad's age is aunt or uncle, regardless of actual relationship. The Scriptures were not written in the British Isles with an English context of relationship. Therefore, you cannot apply the literalism of English thinking to those that wrote using the context of their own time and culture and wording.

 

I haven't looked up the other versions to compare because I don't use them as they are from a different line of manuscripts. I know the bible manuscript lineage better than I know the historical church lineage. But both are closely related. One line is from Alexandria, the other from Antioch. And that is why there are great doctrinal differences between different churches still today. Because there were differences right back then as well.

 

So my perpective is that the traditions that you may be referring to as holy traditions being passed down from men in the church, may still not be true if the particular man being quoted as a church father etc wasn't really one. I also do not believe that any man after the apostles should be quoted as if their beliefs are inspired like scripture is. Then we would be picking and choosing which men we wanted to believe when it came to all sorts of doctrinal issues, based on what we thought was true to begin with. (But I do however understand your point of view of acknowledging the church history of your church as the true line of church history, so I see no inconsitency with your own beliefs and conclusions.) And yet, Protestants do all the time. Calvin, Luther, Pink, Sproul...heavens, I have people littering Facebook with Osteen and Meyer quotes even! "oh, but we don't quote them like they are Scripture." That is a matter of POV...just as it's a matter of POV if someone believes that we are quoting the ECF's as though we are holding them up to Scripture. Perhaps, one should look and notice that the ECF's have a better qualification for interpretting Scripture than more modern men do. As to the "well, I can read the translation and see for myself", given that there are proven errors or changes in meaning or missing context...I disagree. Even with that aside, I've seen five men read the same passage and come up with five to six different interpretations by "reading and seeing for themselves," so which one is correct? They all read the same passage. They all read the same translation. They all came to different conclusions. Something is missing. Context, original lingual intent, incorrectly added verbage to make sense of something when translating into another language, translator's bias, personal bias, etc. Oral tradition and even written extra-biblical tradition has been a huge role in Christianity just as much as it has in Judaism.

 

I have started to find my own lineage of historical beliefs from the early church period. I fit in with the premillennial groups of believers. And those who believed and practiced adult baptism. There are names for these groups that I can give you, but I would need to look them back up again. And anyway, this is your thread not mine, so it's not really relevant. This could lead to an entirely differnt thread. Gnostics is the short answer.

 

But this has helped my understanding a great deal better, so thankyou. I also think that I am on a similar wave length on bishops running the early local churches as well. I reread my early posts and can see how awkwardly I expressed the early church structure. Sometimes it can take me a while to get a coherent thought out. Which bishops? Are you only in line with them on practical matters or on theological matters as well?

 

:)

[JenniferB]

I also do not believe that any man after the apostles should be quoted as if their beliefs are inspired like scripture is. 

 

This statement presents problems when considering how the inspired scriptures became known as the inspired scriptures, as different from the other writings of the time.  A few years ago, when I was questioning all these things, I asked the man who was my pastor at the time, "How can you believe the Bible and all the words in it if you don't believe the words of the men who were instrumental in canonizing the Bible?"  His response was, "I have a problem with that."  I said, "If the men who canonized the Bible went wrong, when do you think they began to go wrong?"  His response was, "Sometime in the early 300's."  This answer did not satisfy me, because as I began to dig deeper, the men of the Church in the 300's were the men who were fighting Arianism, which said that Jesus was not God.  These were the same men who put together the Bible canon.  How can a person have perfect discernment in one thing, such as which books are to be included in the canon of scripture, but have a faulty discernment toward other things, such as the ever-virgin Mary or the true Body and true Blood in the Eucharist?  

 

For example, let's take St. Athanasius.  We see here from this wiki article that St. Athanasius gave us a list of books which he considered to be equal to scripture, which today is known as the exact same books which we call the New Testament Scriptures. 

 

From wiki "Biblical canon," "In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon,[25] and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them."

 

Logically, if he chose the exact same books that has become the New Testament as we know it today, we would have to determine him to be a man inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Because, how can a man who is not inspired by the Holy Spirit know whether a book was inspired scripture or not, unless he himself was inspired.  

 

So, if we can agree that he was inspired, because he was able to discern that the exact books we have today in the New Testament were indeed scripture and not some other kinds of writings, then let's look at some of the other things St. Athanasius wrote, and ask ourselves the tough question.  Are these statements uninspired, or inspired by the Holy Spirit?  Don't they go against Scripture?  Or could it be that my understanding of Scripture is the one that has gone in the other direction?

 

Writing on the Incarnation of Jesus St. Athanasius said that Jesus, "took flesh from the ever-virgin Mary." Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]

 

On his sermon to the newly baptized he said this of the Eucharist, "You shall see the Levites [meaning priests] bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'And again:' Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected."

 

As we understand it in the Orthodox Church, Mary was ever-virgin.  We also understand that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, after the prayers have been said.  This was the understanding from the beginning on both subjects.  Ideas about these topics didn't change until way later when the fractured portion of the western Church lost many aspects of Tradition and relied on Scripture apart from Tradition, not as Scripture was always understood, but as if the book had been dug up from a hole in the ground, newly discovered, and interpreted from scratch (exaggerating for emphasis.)

 

Teannika, I understand where you are at with the way you see/understand Scripture.  Of course, if you don't want to take into consideration what St. Athanasius has said, or other Saints who were part of the canonization of Scripture, that is your individual choice.  If my logic outlined above does not make sense to you, and you want to discuss this further, please let me know.  I'm happy to discuss it further, even on this thread about Orthodox Christianity.  It is a subject that most of us converts from the Protestant side of things have studied to our shock and amazement when we started to see things the Orthodox way.  In fact, I have a funny story.  If you've heard it before, please forgive me.  When I first heard the Orthodox position/understanding of Scripture, and why Orthodox Christians are not Sola Scriptura, I was listening to a podcast from Ancient Faith Radio.  My family and I were driving down to Disneyland and I was listening secretly to this "new teaching."  When I got the most shocking part I threw the headphones off my head and they hit the windshield of our van.  My husband said to me, "What the *heck* are you listening to."  I replied, "You *don't* want to know."  The rest is history.  May God grant you peace and guidance on your journey.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

The Orthodox never officially closed the cannon. It is what all Orthodox everywhere and at all times have agreed upon (about 77 books in the Old and New Testaments). :)

 

When I was in Egypt I went to an old Bedouin's house (hut). He was over 100 years old. He had a wife who was 27. It is common for a very old man, living in the desert, to take a young wife who would function as his nurse. In this case the couple had a baby son who was under 2 years old. :0 This is the most common understanding of Mary (the Mother of God) and St Joseph's relationship that I have heard. But the story of Jesus is the Gospel. And the story of his mother is not the Gospel, so it does not really matter.

 

First time in a long time post. I was on here a few years ago (before the format change) as "Father of Pearl."

[Guest]

How wonderful to "see" you again, Father of Pearl.  Your posts made a difference to me in the past; I'm glad you are here.  I hope you and your family are doing well.  I remember you had a lot on your plate, to say the least, last time we were in touch. 

[milovany]

Hi, Father of Pearl! You have been missed.

[dauphin]

Spinoff question from another thread - about talking at cross purposes due to different definitions of a term depending on the speaker/listener (it was referring to modesty). In that thread, someone mentioned that "salvation" was a word that can have different meanings to the sender/receiver if one of them is Orthodox Christian and the other is Protestant. Can you elaborate??

 

Thank you! Appreciate all the info I've read so far! I have a friend who recently joined the Orthodox Church and it is so interesting. Church history is so fascinating to me!

[mommaduck]

Spinoff question from another thread - about talking at cross purposes due to different definitions of a term depending on the speaker/listener (it was referring to modesty). In that thread, someone mentioned that "salvation" was a word that can have different meanings to the sender/receiver if one of them is Orthodox Christian and the other is Protestant. Can you elaborate??

 

Thank you! Appreciate all the info I've read so far! I have a friend who recently joined the Orthodox Church and it is so interesting. Church history is so fascinating to me!

 

Most Protestants view Salvation as a one time event, a moment in time, and is often compared to an object (a gift).

 

The Orthodox view of Salvation is more of a journey, a process. It began long ago and won't be finished or complete until the Day of Judgement. We don't divide up Justification from Sanctification as those in the West, particularly Protestants, do. The two cannot be mutually exclusive of each other. They are tandem parts of a whole. It's not one event plus a tacked on benefit. It's a life long process and journey that we are on. If you have to separate the two, Justification happened over 2000 years ago...not when someone "accepts Jesus in their heart" or says "the sinner's prayer." Salvation is partly communal, not just individual. Our life and world around us is part of our Salvation process. The Church is an important part of this with the sacraments and the fellowship together. It's NOT a "me and my bible in the closet" type of thing. Each is part of a whole. The focus is on the whole, not just a small, bitty portion.

 

Are you Saved? An Orthodox Christian Answer

[milovany]

Good reply, mommaduck.  You have a way with words.  I think the result of the two different approaches (in practical terms) is something to consider as well.  When I was Protestant and had prayed a prayer to be "saved," which meant that unequivocably (in that belief system) that I wouldn't go to hell when I died, pushing hard into sanctification was somewhat optional.  No one would say that out loud, but that's how it plays itself out in a practical way.  For example, I have struggled for years with overeating at times.  Back then, I really had nothing that motivated me to push hard and consistently into overcoming it because I was already saved.  I would try different things (dietary approaches, mostly, which had little to do with my faith), and would find some success but my heart wasn't changed and so nothing changed in the long term.  On the other had, as an Orthodox Christian, since our salvation (coming into communion with God, through Christ) is a process through which the purpose is to become more and more united with God as we push forward with faith and repentance, it's something I am motivated to deal with daily/weekly.  I see my heart being changed, little by little but most certainly on an upward incline toward God, and so I see more permanent changes occurring in my approach to food.  It's slow-going but that's okay.  It's better than fits and starts and feeling like I'm either not getting anywhere or even moving backward at times. 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

I have started to find my own lineage of historical beliefs from the early church period. I fit in with the premillennial groups of believers. And those who believed and practiced adult baptism. There are names for these groups that I can give you, but I would need to look them back up again.

I have some friends who are in a church that has been studying a possible anabaptist link to the early church outside of the Catholic and Orthodox lineage. This is my understanding of their link:

 

Priscillian from Spain in 375 to about the 500's.

Paulican in Arminia around 668-872.

Bogomils in Macedonia from the 900's.

Albigensians in France from 1100's to the 1200's

Waldensian in Lyon 1170

Lollards in England from around 1381

Marovian in the Czech Repiblic from around 1457

Anabaptist in Germany from around 1525

 

The groups after 1054 are from the west and are not of much interest on this thread about Orthodoxy.

 

My understanding of the first three groups (coming mostly from the online encyclopedia Britannica) is:

 

Priscillian is a dualistic (possibly gnostic) belief system that "outlawed sensual pleasures, marriage and the consumption of wine and meat."

 

Paulican is also a dualistic religion with an Evil God (the Hebrew OT God) that rules the world now and a Good God that will rule the world that is to come. According to the them, Jesus is not the son of Mary because the Good God could not take on flesh (because it is of this evil world). Therefore, a gnostic system.

 

Bogomils are again a dualistic belief. They reject the incarnation of Christ. They also reject baptism and the Eucharist.

 

I am not saying this is the lineage referenced (in the quote) above but just a lineage I have heard.

 

On salvation, it is up to God if we are saved. Our job is to become like Christ.

[mommaduck]

I have some friends who are in a church that has been studying a possible anabaptist link to the early church outside of the Catholic and Orthodox lineage. This is my understanding of their link:

 

Priscillian from Spain in 375 to about the 500's.

Paulican in Arminia around 668-872.

Bogomils in Macedonia from the 900's.

Albigensians in France from 1100's to the 1200's

Waldensian in Lyon 1170

Lollards in England from around 1381

Marovian in the Czech Repiblic from around 1457

Anabaptist in Germany from around 1525

 

The groups after 1054 are from the west and are not of much interest on this thread about Orthodoxy.

 

My understanding of the first three groups (coming mostly from the online encyclopedia Britannica) is:

 

Priscillian is a dualistic (possibly gnostic) belief system that "outlawed sensual pleasures, marriage and the consumption of wine and meat."

 

Paulican is also a dualistic religion with an Evil God (the Hebrew OT God) that rules the world now and a Good God that will rule the world that is to come. According to the them, Jesus is not the son of Mary because the Good God could not take on flesh (because it is of this evil world). Therefore, a gnostic system.

 

Bogomils are again a dualistic belief. They reject the incarnation of Christ. They also reject baptism and the Eucharist.

 

I am not saying this is the lineage referenced (in the quote) above but just a lineage I have heard.

 

On salvation, it is up to God if we are saved. Our job is to become like Christ.

 

Also, there are gaps and no connections between many of these groups. They were heretics that kept trying to reinvent the wheel. We have the same issue today. Everyone thinks they are reinventing (trying to find) the biblical/early Church. The thing they overlook is that it never disappeared; it's still here; they simply do not want to accept it as it is and as it's always been. If it doesn't fit with their personal view of what the early Church was, some regardless of the facts and others ignorant of the facts, then they reject it.

 

[dauphin]

Wow, mommaduck and milovany, that -is- different from what I've learned about the (generally) protestant perspective. 

 

 

Also, there are gaps and no connections between many of these groups. They were heretics that kept trying to reinvent the wheel. We have the same issue today. Everyone thinks they are reinventing (trying to find) the biblical/early Church. The thing they overlook is that it never disappeared; it's still here; they simply do not want to accept it as it is and as it's always been. If it doesn't fit with their personal view of what the early Church was, some regardless of the facts and others ignorant of the facts, then they reject it.
 

 

So I'm curious what the Orthodox would think about the Global Missions focus as the modern expression of the early Church: "We glorify God by making disciples of all nations." 

http://www.2911.org/house-church/vision-mission-goal/

and

http://www.transformingwords.org/wordpress/2012/04/20/david-platt-on-american-wealth/#sthash.0pxs0rBi.dpbs

 

 

[mommaduck]

Wow, mommaduck and milovany, that -is- different from what I've learned about the (generally) protestant perspective. 

 

 

 

So I'm curious what the Orthodox would think about the Global Missions focus as the modern expression of the early Church: "We glorify God by making disciples of all nations." 

http://www.2911.org/house-church/vision-mission-goal/

and

http://www.transformingwords.org/wordpress/2012/04/20/david-platt-on-american-wealth/#sthash.0pxs0rBi.dpbs

 

http://pemptousia.com/2012/05/the-what-where-when-and-why-of-orthodox-missions/

 

http://www.ocmc.org/

 

http://www.antiochian.org/missions

 

Yes, we have missions. It's how Russia, the Ukraine, etc became Orthodox. St. Patrick and Ireland...(yes, Orthodox claim him also...he was pre-Great Schism). It's how Orthodoxy came to Alaska. We don't have the door to door knocking and the "you MUST come to our Church or you're going to burn in hell forever" mentality or methods. We are there. People are welcomed to come and see. We help those around us and in need. In places such as Albania, it's been a work of re-establishing the Church that was suppressed by Communism and giving needed sacraments to those that were too scared to receive them before. In Mexico, it's building homes every year. In America, it's the attempt to start parishes where there are scattered Orthodox in need of them or maintain parishes where there are few Orthodox. We need more priests. We need more monasteries. We need more for our young people.

[ElaineJ]

I know this is an older thread now, but I'm wondering if you ladies could tell me more about the Orthodox understanding of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Are the priests an integral part of the process, representing Christ as they are in Roman Catholicism? I am wondering if with the different perspective on sin and salvation there is a different perspective on confession and forgiveness as well. Thanks!

Elaine

[milovany]

Elaine, with this sacrament, we meet with our priest and stand side by side before the icons.  In some parishes this is privately in his office and in some it's part of the service where you go forward while others are participating in the service (the confession is quiet with no one else hearing). Our priest prays prayers to Christ to start and in those prayers says he is but a witness to our confession. Then we make our confession to Christ, not to the priest.  Afterward, he puts his omophorion over our heads and prays the prayers of absolution, again absolving us in the name of Christ. Sometimes, there's then a time of counsel as the priest's discretion or if the Christian has any questions/concerns. 

 

We must stay current on confession to be able to receive the Eucharist.  The definition of "current" will vary a bit by parish/jurisdiction.  Some want confession before each time one receives the Eucharist, some allow confession less frequently, perhaps every 4-6 weeks (more/less). 

[PrincessMommy]

Just to add onto what Milovany wrote: 

 

I do not know what a Catholic confession looks like as I've never been Catholic, so it is hard to say what is similar and what is different.

 

Orthodox view confession is therapeutic in nature.  We do not come merely to check off a list of things we have/have not done.  We come to confess how we have missed the mark.  It is a turning back toward God (metanoia) rather than a checklist of sins/transgressions.  Of course, the way that we turn from God is through sins - big and small.  But, it's subtler than just a listing off of deeds.   Honestly, I find it harder than just giving the checklist... because I have to really look inside myself.  My priest gives advice and council during confession (not after as Milovany explained).  But, not all priests offer advice either.  It varies.   In my limited experience penance is rarely given.  My priest doesn't give me a list of things to do - (ie Lord's prayer so many times, etc.)  But, he will encourage me to read my Bible and say my prayers regularly.  Once he did have me read one of the epistles and another time he advised me to contact someone who had become estranged from the family.  

 

Since we see confession as spiritually therapeutic and our priest somewhat like a physician, we can take his counsel and advice or not - just as we may ignore our doctor's advice. 

[Alexigail]

Ideally, an Orthodox Christian will develop a relationship with their priest and they will have one confessor who they see each time.  There are always exceptions to this, of course and we can confess to any priest, but this relationship is a special one.  My priest knows me, he knows what my weaknesses are and he can give me advice based on where I am in my spiritual journey.  From what I've heard, penances work differently in Orthodoxy.  It's rare that I will receive a penance and it is generally specific to my situation rather than being specific to the sin I've committed.  (Meaning, two different people may receive an entirely different penance for the same sin depending on where they are in their spiritual journey.)

 

Like many things in Orthodoxy, confession is part of a process.  During the prayers of absolution, the priest asks that God forgive any sins we've committed, both those we've confessed and those we haven't because of forgetfulness or ignorance.  We're "covered", so to speak, as long as we go with a desire to repent.  However, if later in life I realize that I didn't confess something major, I'll go and confess it, thanking God for enlightening me about the state of my soul.  It's not strictly necessary, I guess, but the Orthodox life is one of continual repentance and development - confession brings us closer to God through humility.  God sees our intentions as well as our sins and helps us accordingly.  

 

BTW- It's entirely possible that some or all of these things in are true in Catholicism as well, but I'm not familiar enough to speak to the differences.  

[Kathryn]

Our priest asks that we confess at least at the four longer fasts (Lent, Apostles, Dormition, and Advent).

[Teannika]

Apologies for a late reply, I have had a few days off from the forum.
I've nothing to add at this point as I am on a completely different wavelength in regards to scripture, salvation, tradition, and the early churches and so on. But thankyou for the responses. I can better see where you are coming from.

[milovany]

You're welcome, Teannika.  May God bless your journey. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Wow, mommaduck and milovany, that -is- different from what I've learned about the (generally) protestant perspective. 

 

 

 

So I'm curious what the Orthodox would think about the Global Missions focus as the modern expression of the early Church: "We glorify God by making disciples of all nations." 

http://www.2911.org/house-church/vision-mission-goal/

and

http://www.transformingwords.org/wordpress/2012/04/20/david-platt-on-american-wealth/#sthash.0pxs0rBi.dpbs

 

In addition to mommaduck's statements, I would say that the Orthodox Church appreciates the Protestant attempts to bring the Gospel to new places and we lament that these introductions do not represent the fullness of the faith. Upthread there was a discussion about "house churches." Modern Protestants who have attempted to interpret the New Testament outside of Holy Tradition have viewed the "house churches" of the early Church to be something similar to modern, independent churches that have sprung up from the protestant movement. This is not the case.

 

Here are some good podcasts that discuss the Orthodox view of Evangelism: http://www.ancientfaith.com/collections/evangelism_and_orthodoxy

[dauphin]

I will try to give those a listen soon, thank you. (Also, if you have any quick-read quotes or links, I'd love that; I might get to that sooner!) I have some more requests for feedback. Here are further comments elaborating the view of a Global Missions-oriented evangelistic leader that I thought were quite related to your comment TWells. I'd appreciate it if you all could share your thoughts on this as well. 

 

"(In Acts 11)This was not Peter and John being sent to Antioch, these are unnamed men and women, unofficial leaders – no seminary training, no church planting experience, no convention behind them, no official direction before them… just some people. Acts 11:20 says… who would start some of the greatest churches, literally, in the history of Christianity. Ordinary disciples of Jesus making disciples, this is how the Gospel is spreading in the book of Acts, and if we are not careful, we are tempted to miss this in our day."

 

and

 

"Our evangelistic strategy is not built on bringing as many people as possible into a building for nice programs. Our evangelistic strategy must be built on sending out as many people as possible, to be God’s people, ordinary men and women making disciples, multiplying churches, doing extraordinary things in the kingdom."

 

From:https://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/david-platt-at-the-send-north-america-conference-2012/

[Guest]

I will try to give those a listen soon, thank you. (Also, if you have any quick-read quotes or links, I'd love that; I might get to that sooner!) I have some more requests for feedback. Here are further comments elaborating the view of a Global Missions-oriented evangelistic leader that I thought were quite related to your comment TWells. I'd appreciate it if you all could share your thoughts on this as well. 

 

"(In Acts 11)This was not Peter and John being sent to Antioch, these are unnamed men and women, unofficial leaders – no seminary training, no church planting experience, no convention behind them, no official direction before them… just some people. Acts 11:20 says… who would start some of the greatest churches, literally, in the history of Christianity. Ordinary disciples of Jesus making disciples, this is how the Gospel is spreading in the book of Acts, and if we are not careful, we are tempted to miss this in our day."

 

and

 

"Our evangelistic strategy is not built on bringing as many people as possible into a building for nice programs. Our evangelistic strategy must be built on sending out as many people as possible, to be God’s people, ordinary men and women making disciples, multiplying churches, doing extraordinary things in the kingdom."

 

From:https://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/david-platt-at-the-send-north-america-conference-2012/

 

Please forgive my butting in here, and also, the fact that this will NO DOUBT be an incomplete answer.  

 

I read through Acts 11 (which is why I bolded that part of the quote above) and noted a couple of things that were not included in the quotation.  First, in 11:13, an angel of the Lord appeared and told the man to send for Simon Peter, who would come and "tell you words by which you and your household shall be saved."  So even though an angel of the Lord appeared to the man, it was the apostle Peter who would teach them.  

 

In the section starting about verse 19, regarding Antioch, "unnamed teachers" came and proclaimed the good news, as is indicated in the quotation above.  Indeed, "the hand of the Lord" was with these teachers and a great number believed.  But read on.  The news of this came to the Church in Jerusalem, and Barnabas, one of "The Seventy" (not the 12, but those who had been sent out and taught by Christ himself--it's in the gospels--went to find out what was going on.  HE saw that things were good, and went and found *another* apostle (Saul) and brought him back to Antioch and they together spent a YEAR teaching the people of Antioch.  

 

I am not accustomed to doing this kind of "proof-texting" so please forgive me if I sound turgid or "thumping"--the thing that I wanted to point out is that there was the linking together with the established churches, and even though the hand of the Lord was upon these people, the apostles still came to instruct and to establish the church in communion with the Church.  

 

I have to say that this section of the scriptures reminded me of the book "Becoming Orthodox" by Father Peter Gilquist.  I'm too whacked tonight to spell out why it reminds me, but I will maybe tomorrow...and those who have read the book might know why.  :o)  Sorry to be so mysterious.  I don't mean to be...,it's just been a long day.  

[CadenceSophia]

 

I have to say that this section of the scriptures reminded me of the book "Becoming Orthodox" by Father Peter Gilquist.  I'm too whacked tonight to spell out why it reminds me, but I will maybe tomorrow...and those who have read the book might know why.   :o)  Sorry to be so mysterious.  I don't mean to be...,it's just been a long day.  

 

 

I just need to jump in second "Becoming Orthodox" for anyone curious. Fr. Peter's son & family are my neighbors. It is largely about my church and how a group of Christians seeking the church from the book of Acts found the Orthodox church as well as their journey INTO the Orthdox Church. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I will try to give those a listen soon, thank you. (Also, if you have any quick-read quotes or links, I'd love that; I might get to that sooner!) I have some more requests for feedback. Here are further comments elaborating the view of a Global Missions-oriented evangelistic leader that I thought were quite related to your comment TWells. I'd appreciate it if you all could share your thoughts on this as well.

 

"(In Acts 11)This was not Peter and John being sent to Antioch, these are unnamed men and women, unofficial leaders – no seminary training, no church planting experience, no convention behind them, no official direction before them… just some people. Acts 11:20 says… who would start some of the greatest churches, literally, in the history of Christianity. Ordinary disciples of Jesus making disciples, this is how the Gospel is spreading in the book of Acts, and if we are not careful, we are tempted to miss this in our day."

 

and

 

"Our evangelistic strategy is not built on bringing as many people as possible into a building for nice programs. Our evangelistic strategy must be built on sending out as many people as possible, to be God’s people, ordinary men and women making disciples, multiplying churches, doing extraordinary things in the kingdom."

 

From:https://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/david-platt-at-the-send-north-america-conference-2012/

Here is a really good example of how readings taken out of context can be very misleading depending not only on translation discrepancies but also on taking small parts of verse and using it to try and interpret all of Scripture. For starters, The Church made many disciples via Apostolic Tradition meaning these disciples were brought into the church and taught through a lineage that runs straight back to the Apostles themselves. None of the early Church founders we read about in Acts were operating outside of this Apostolic Tradition.

 

Using the example you gave, Acts 11:20 reads, "But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus."

 

If you look at only the underlined portion of verse above, it would be quite a simple thing to presume that "some of them" were just random people who had no Apostolic succession. However, if you read the entire chapter, you will begin to see the context a little better, and if you zoom out more, viewing a few chapters at a time the context becomes even more clear.

 

Let's back up just a little bit to Acts 11:19 which states, "Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only."

 

This verse better elucidates who the "some of them" were that are mentioned in verse 20. Now we see that these men were the ones who scattered after Stephen's persecution. Who would be scattered after Stephen's persecution? Random people? No. Those who were scattered were his followers and students. Who was Stephen? The Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Copts, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Oriental Orthodox revere him as St. Stephen, the Apostle and first martyr of the Church. Now it is clear that some of St. Stephen's disciples were men from Cyprus and Cyrene (both of which were Hellenistic or Greek states), which makes perfect sense since St. Stephen himself was a Hellenistic Jew before he became a deacon in the Church. These men, his disciples, dispersed and went back to their lands of origin to preach the Gospel.

 

Now let's jump forward to Acts 11:22-24, "Then the news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord."

 

From these few verses we see that the Church in Jerusalem was happy to hear that the Word was spreading among the gentiles in Antioch by the followers of Stephen and they sent another Apostle, Barnabas, to see for himself that what was being taught there was of the Lord. St. Barnabas was pleased and said they should continue as they were before he left them to travel on missions with St. Paul in Tarsus.

 

As I hope you will agree, the readings are very clear about the rise of the early Church and the Acts of the Apostles. These early Church Fathers were indeed acting in line with what would become Holy Tradition through Apostolic succession.

 

I highly recommend that you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is easy to do with today's technology. :)

 

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

 

edited to correct typos.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

 

"Our evangelistic strategy is not built on bringing as many people as possible into a building for nice programs. Our evangelistic strategy must be built on sending out as many people as possible, to be God’s people, ordinary men and women making disciples, multiplying churches, doing extraordinary things in the kingdom."

 

From:https://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/david-platt-at-the-send-north-america-conference-2012/

 

I did not have time last night to address this second part of your post, but I do have thoughts I would like to share on what you have quoted. The above statement is absolutely in line with Orthodox teaching on evangelism. Orthodox Christians do not go door to door or pass out flyers in the streets. Every single baptized Orthodox Christian is expected to "evangelize" or share the Gospel through living a life modeled after our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. We are to be out among the people in service to our brothers and sisters in a spirit of humility and love. We are not to make names for ourselves and plaster our own image on the works of Christ, but just the opposite, we are to humbly offer all Glory to God. When we pray for others and see that they recover or have found comfort, we are not to say things like, "Of course, I was praying for you!" or "See how prayer works!" Instead we simply offer a quite prayer of thanksgiving and say something like, "Glory to God," or "Thank God." Orthodox Christians are vary wary of the cult of personality that is often seen among the Protestant movement and its offshoots. We are wary of any teaching that comes in packaging that glorifies a single individual (insert Joel Osteen, Louise Hay, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, etc.) above Jesus Christ himself. We evangelize by quietly serving and doing God's will to the best of our abilities. Those who are drawn to God will see and feel the work of the Holy Spirit and will want to come and see for themselves the community that we belong to--the Body of Christ. We simply bear witness to Christ without seeking any credit or adulation.

 

I hope that makes sense to you. I have not had my coffee yet and am feeling a tad fuzzy-headed at the moment. Wishing you peace on your journey wherever it leads.