As a Catholic even I feel we have plenty to learn from our Orthodox brothers.

I converted to Catholicism from a mainline Protestant denomination. On my journey I became very attracted to the Byzantine Catholic liturgy (it’s almost identical to Orthodox services). Since then I’ve attended several Orthodox services too. I’ve never seen churches and services so full of symbolism and mystery. Everything the Orthodox does during worship is chock full of symbolism, from the way they make the sign of the cross or even to the tones they use in singing. And it all points towards the one holy and triune God.

In the Orthodox tradition icons are “windows into heaven.” Like their services icons are full of symbols that express mysteries and truths much more fully than words could ever hope. That’s why you won’t find photos or lifelike paintings in their churches, they would say it distracts from contemplating God and focussing on his worship.

I think one thing we should keep in mind when talking about the Orthodox is that they view Protestants and Catholics as the two sides of the same coin. They see a difference more fundamentally between East and West. They believe generally that western theology (both Catholic and Protestant) is too wrapped up in the enlightenment and trying to explain things in logical and clear fashion. The Orthodox focus more intensely on mystery and contemplating the divine and not worrying about how exactly it works. They seem happy to just say it’s a mystery (don’t get me wrong they have a very well defined theology that concurs mainly with Catholic understandings but they just don’t have the emphasis on rationalism that western theology developed). I think we all could take a page from that book and not worry about connecting the lines correctly from a to b to c and just enjoy the fact that it “is.”

ChadS

From the other side of the fence, here are some correctives. The mystical/reason dichotomy is not really helpful. We think we can know things about God using our brain. It is because of our view of theology proper, we think reason has a limit. We know God in the divine activities, not the essence, which is one reason why we deny the filioque.

Orthodoxy claims infallibility, though it isn’t limited to one bishop. Plenty of the Ecumenical councils claim it. There are conditions in 2nd Nicea, not to mention some earlier at Ephesus that determine what is or is not an Ecumenical Council. It is not arbitrary.

Generally speaking, the Orthodox do not have statues, but only icons. Icons go back as far as the Catacombs and Duros Europas 2nd/3rd entury. Even earlier if we take Gnostic criticism seriously. As for Liturgy and emotion, if you know the Scriptures the liturgy comes alive. If you don’t, it is quite boring. The Liturgy often says things I wish to say but much better than I could and so gives form to my emotion. I make it my own and teach my children to do likewise. You use the book till you don’t have too.

Another benefit of liturgy is that it actually protects the lay people. The priest simply can’t do whatever he likes and neither can anyone else. Some may think that this is restrictive, but on the other hand Orthodox have voting rights and canon law to protect them from abuses. The liturgy serves a similar purpose in part.

As for hierarchy, Heb 13:7 should be kept in mind. As for the Eucharist, Calvin’s view of the Eucahrist is similar to the Orthodox view of Icons, they are divinely energized and put forth an illuminating power to those who reverence with faith. But for the Orthodox, the Eucharist isn’t an icon (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/).

I am not sure how Dan’s appeal to the Spirit’s work bridges the access gap, given the noetic effects of sin. The latter seems to cut at the appeal to the Spirit as well. Moreover, just as much skepticism about the actual working of the Spirit and the apparent work of the Spirit can be generated as with reason or tradition. At least tradition is historical and demonstrateble to a large degree.

Orthodox emphasize a Christological union since our corporate union with Christ is hypostatic in the Incarnation and not legal, for all are “in Christ” and raised regardless of legal standing (1 Cor 15:20ff). We would be worried that a fundamental legal relationship would not only be inadequate to rescue creation from annihilation caused by sin, but that it betrays a fundamental mistake in Christology (Nestorianism). I am not accusing, just expressing concerns from over here.

I found all the comments here to be very interesting. Miles, I am glad you recreated your post after it went missing. I agree with your statement, Miles: “Our relationship with God needs to be based on more than just reason.” Somewhere in the Bible it says “Taste and see how good the Lord is. ” And Jesus said that he brings us great joy. There is more than reasoning there. I was brought up Catholic, then was involved with an independent “born again” type of church, then back to Catholic with the charismatic Catholics, then learned Centering Prayer as taught by the Catholic monk, Thomas Keating. It’s centering prayer with silent praying “in tongues” at times along with more formal prayer at times like the Our Father that sustains me. Due to situations within my marriage, I unfortunately am not involved with any local church and am “on my own” but I am surrounded by people doing their best to follow Jesus. I do miss the more formal gathering of the people at the Catholic church though. And though I still am unsure what I think about Communion, I wish I could attend.

Dan, you bring up some very good questions. I am glad your time at Patmos was so fruitful for you and your friends. The Abbot there sounds like a very loving man.

Joanie D.

Ok, I dont feel so bad then. ;^) I’ll check out that essay and keep my eyes open for the others.

thanks,

I’m embarrassed to say that I can’t find the essays either! A preliminary essay is called “Passover in the Time of Jesus.” That doesn’t deal with the issues direction, but it may be helpful just the same.

Dr Wallace – do you perhaps have a title or link to one of the articles you mention over on Bible.org – I have searched a bit and do not see them. Or rather, I dont see what I thought I would see. ;^)

thanks,

So many comments! And all while I was traveling from Athens to Dallas. Thanks for the great interaction. We got to the Athens airport at 8 am yesterday (Athens time) and didn’t get back to Dallas until almost midnight last night (Dallas time). Since Dallas is 8 hours behind Greece, our time from airport to airport was 24 hours. Long day.

It looks as though the comments have taken on a life of their own, but there are two or three that I felt I could and should respond to:

1. My own view on communion is pretty much the same as Calvin’s. (I wrote an essay or two on this, posted at bible.org). I don’t think that Jesus instituted rituals for ritual’s sake. Mere memorial strips the Eucharist of its mystery and is, in my view, a reaction to the abuses of the Roman Catholic approach in the 16th century. So, for me, having communion frequently is an important aspect of the Christian life. I do not see it as a means of saving grace, but it is a means of sanctifying grace. (And although it is true that we need to make a distinction between apostolic practice and apostolic precept, I think there is sufficient ground to argue that communion fits both.)

2. The problem of how to access revelation as our final authority remains a large one. Catholics and Orthodox appeal more to tradition, while Protestants appeal more to reason. I’m not entirely in either camp, perhaps because I believe in the noetic effects of sin (viz., sin has tainted our thinking) and because I believe that the Church quickly shifted away from a clear understanding of the Jewish/Old Testament roots of Christianity. Thus, reason cannot be fully trusted (because our minds cannot) and tradition cannot be fully trusted (because the church fathers also were affected by the noetic effects of sin and because they looked at the gospel through a hellenized worldview). There is a third way to access revelation and that is through the Spirit. I’m not saying that the Spirit provides believers with new truth, but he does assure our hearts about what has been essentially revealed. That is, if we can’t trust tradition or reason to guide us infallibly to a grasp on the essence of the gospel, we must rely on the Spirit in this endeavor as well (cf. Rom 8.16).

3. One of the demarcations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on one side and Protestantism on the other is simply this: RC and EO focus more on our organic connection to Christ while Protestants focus more on our forensic status brought about by Christ. Both of these views are taught in the New Testament. I think Paul especially grasped both well, as did Luther. But Luther’s followers have abused his views by focusing so strongly on forensics (i.e., our declared status of ‘not guilty’ before God) that some even say that once you’re saved you can live like the devil. On the other side, I’m not sure that RC and EO often grasp fully the incredibly freeing good news that Christ has paid for all of our sins and that we appropriate him by faith.

I think a lot of spirituality depends on your culture as well. My father’s family is Roman Catholic and I have attended a handful of Catholic services before with extended family members. The differences I saw were mainly in how the service was arranged, and how we took communion. When I moved to Japan this year I had to “shop around” at the different English language services to find a new church to go to since my denomination did not have an English service here. I attended a Roman Catholic service for Filipinos living in my town, and it was worlds away from what I had known before. There was standing room only, everyone was singing and clapping their hands, we repeatly joined hands together while singing, and everyone truly cared about who you were, no matter who you were. The room was packed, with standing room only left for late comers. The spirituality of the service was the strongest I had ever experienced. While the liturgy and the communion probably added to the spiritual experience, I believe that it was the people who truly carried the spirit with them that made the difference. I’ll check out the English Orthodox Service next though and see if it’s any different:-).

Very interesting indeed and good observation from outside the box. I also concur with your assessment of the Orthodoxy religion.
It does lead one to a relationship of obedience and traditionally speaking that is preciously what the Apostles & Apostolic Church Fathers did do.
It IMO, is an order of hierarchal duty and reverence to do those things which the early church set out to do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their daily activities’.
I believe here in the west we have lost focus on such crucial elements of worship that is taking us further away from the truth, as revealed. I am not saying we are wrong, but maybe we have lost something along the way,
yes tradition is important!!!
Besides my wife is Russian Orthodox and I know when I went to some of the churches in Ukraine for the first time, I felt like dropping to my knees before entering, it was truly can I say a mystical experience.
One thing my wife tells me about the icons, is sort of like this, a magnifying lenses if you will to focus on God or maybe better said to channel thru onto the father.

My question is this: Since we as Protestants have so much momentum pushing us further in the direction we are going, how can we change direction? How do we explore the mystery of worship or of the Lord’s Supper? How do we explore Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? How can we do any of this as a part of our local congregation?

In my local church, the attitude is one of preaching only a simple message of the Gospel (which is good), but that there is little need to go beyond this, and certainly no need to probe our faith historically.

What action can we take as individual believers?