Intro to Orthodoxy

Review:
Listen to Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy’s description of a memory from childhood, his encounter with ‘Grisha,’ a ‘holy fool,’
“The door opened and there stood a figure totally unknown to me. Into the room walked a man about fifty with a long pale pock-marked face, long gray hair and a scanty reddish beard...He wore a tattered garment, something between a peasant tunic and cassock; in his hand he carried a huge staff. As he entered the room he used the staff to strike the floor with all his might and then, wrinkling his brow and opening his mouth extremely wide, he burst into a terrible and unnatural laugh. He was blind in one eye, and the white iris of that eye darted about incessantly and impoarted to his face, already ill-favored, a still more repellent expression...His voice was rough and hoarse, his movements hasty and jerky, his speech devoid of sense and incoherent (he never used any pronouns)...He was the saintly fool and pilgrim Grisha...Where had he come from? Who were his parents? What had induced him to adopt the wandering life he led? No one knew. All I know is that from the age of fifteen he had been one of ‘God’s fools,’ who went barefoot in winter and summer, visited monasteries, gave little icons to those he took a fancy to, and uttered enigmatic sayings which some people accepted as prophecies.”



The Orthodox Evangelicals:
‘The phantom search for the perfect church.” This group of Campus Crusade evangelists, burned out ‘house church’ types, ventured to find out what the early church was like and where it ‘went wrong.’ They divided into subgroups to study three things: Worship, Church History and Doctrine. Their study eventually led them to accept the Orthodox Church as The Church that Christ founded. In 1990, 1000 Campus Crusade for Christ evangelicals were chrismated into the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

The Mainline Exodus

Why would group of Campus Crusaders feel a venture and journey like this was necessary?
I’m going to again remind you to suspend your notion of what it means to be ‘saved’ as we listen to who the Orthodox are and what they believe.

History
The history of Orthodoxy cannot be separated from the monasticism and the teachings of the desert that is below. Without a doubt, Orthodoxy is a faith that is formed and informed by the mystical experience of prayer. The teachings of the Church Fathers and the seven ecumenical councils are key to a the deep, experiential aspects of Orthodoxy. Still, there is no doubt that Orthodoxy has its history in politics, war, and the kingdom of man as well.

Few Western Christians understand that Christianity is an Eastern religion. It was founded in the middle East and traveled to Asia, Egypt and the Medditeranian, as well as to Western Europe. The major churches in the early centuries of the church existed in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome. Later it flourished in the East, in the capital city of Constantinople.

When Constantine became a Christian, he moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople, now known as Istanbul. This move was to create one of the most powerful Christian empires in the history of our Faith. One writer says this:

As Kingdoms go, there are those that rise above the rest, usually from the sword. But for sheer idealism, the Kingdom of Byzantium had no equal.. few societies saw themselves as the icon of the Kingdom of Heaven and Rule of God like Byzantium. The Church’s Patriarch consecrated the Emperor with great pageantry in the capital city of Constantinople, marking the Kingdom of Heaven coexisting with the Kingdom of Earth.

The pinnacle of the Orthodox Church’s history was worship in the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.

In the 10 century, Vladimir the Prince of Kiev sent envoys to various Christian centers to study their form of worship. When they experienced the worship in Hagia Sophia they sent this word back

We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere on earth. We cannot describe it to you; we only know that God dwells there among men and that their Service surpasses the worship of all other places..."

How did this Church begin and come together?

The Seven Ecumenical Councils & role of Tradition
When Constantine moved to Constantinople in 324, he saw the need to bring clarity to the doctrine and teachings of Christianity. This was in part due to the views of Arius, a priest from Alexandria who was raising a firestorm. Arius taught that Jesus was the pinnacle of God’s creation but that Jesus was not to be worshiped as God himself. Only God was worthy of worship. Constantine called for a church wide council in the city of Nicea. In 325, the first ecumenical council took place. The divinity of Christ was upheld, in part due to the influence of Athanasius, who proclaimed Jesus as ‘of the same essence’ or ‘substance’ of the Father. The second ecumenical council, which met in 381 in Constantinople, dealt with the role of the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized (not invented of course, formalizing the doctrine of the Trinity was simply to proclaim and make clear what Christians had always believed). The results of this council were highly influenced by the so-called ‘Cappadocian Fathers’–Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. The Nicene Creed that we are familiar with today was put to paper by these two councils. Again, this Creed was an expansion of the already circulated and recited baptismal Creed that we know of as the Apostles Creed, which came from the second century.

Interestingly, the first ecumenical council declared the four major sees (or bishops) as having this order of primacy: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The second council added Constantinople to the list, after Rome. The Eastern Orthodox Church has always acknowledged the bishop of Rome as ‘first among equals.’ What caused problems for the two was that Rome concentrated on the ‘first’ while the East concentrated on the ‘among equals.’
The next 4 ecumenical councils concentrated further on the nature of Christ and proclaimed Mary as the Theotokos and Christ as both fully God and fully man, one person in two natures combatting the errors Nestorius, the Monophosytes and the Monothelites.
The final Council dealt with the role of Icons in Christian worship, we’ll talk about them in a moment.
The Councils did not come off without a hitch or without schism. They created what are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches of the East. Theses include the Egyptian and other African so-called Monophosyte Coptic Churches, the so-called Nestroian Syrian Churches, the Armenian Church, and others.
History and further discussion among these Oriental Churches and the Orthodox Churches have produced fruitful dialogue that may someday bring healing to these early schisms. Key to the schism was the inability of both sides to understand what the other was saying. The Oriental Churches are Trinitarian, have virtually the same liturgy as the Orthodox, but the fact that many of the Oriental Churches spoke Aramaic and not Greek, led to misunderstanding of key doctrines. For example, the term homoousios, used by Athanasius and the Nicene Creed meaning ‘of one substance’ has no translation in Aramaic, so the Copts and others had no real understanding of what was the term was trying to convey.
Moving on in the history of Orthodoxy, you have to understand the Byzantine Empire was a bastion of Orthodoxy for over 1000 years. From it Orthodoxy thrived and its worship live was solidified. From it also Orthodoxy expanded into Russia. I mentioned before that the Slavs came to Christianity in 988 and Russia was an Orthodox nation until the Bolshveik revolution in 1917.
But what happened between the East and the West? Well, there were a few problems.
1. The Filioque. In 5th century Toledo Spain, a council added a clause to the Creed. The Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘from the Father.’ The filioque is a phrase that means, ‘and the Son,’ hence, the Western Creed would say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘from the Father and the Son.’ This was a serious problem for the Orthodox. They felt that the nature of the Trinity was being compromised. Key for the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is that the Son and the Spirit are ‘subservient’ to the Father, like a triangle. This does not make them inferior to the Father or less than God, it just means that there is a heirarchy in the Trinity. The Son is ‘eternally begotton’ from the Father and the Spirit ‘eternally proceeds’ from the Father. The Father is the ‘source’ of the Trinity. The filioque, from the Orthodox point of view actually makes the Spirit subservient to the Father and the Son, it is as if the Spirit has become a kind of ‘grandchild.’ It makes the ‘source’ of the Holy Spirit both the Father and the Son. Now what I believe the council of Toledo meant by ‘proceeds from’ was ‘sent by.’ We see in Scripture that Christ ‘sends’ the Holy Spirit at various occasions. But ‘proceeds’ is a technical term in the East that does not mean ‘sent from.’ Again, Christians in the West spoke Latin and Christians in the East spoke Greek, making the discussion even more challenging.
2. The papal claims. The second rift between Orhodoxy and Rome was the claim of the pope of Rome to be the jurisdictional head of the entire Church, not first among equals, but the supreme head. Not primacy, but supremacy. The Orthodox looked as the great sees (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem) as a relationship of equality and collegiality, with Rome being the most honored. But Rome insisted on supremacy, which it has to this day.
The Orthodox churches and Rome were not able to come to terms with these divisions and in 1054, a papal bull from Rome was issued at the altar of Hagia Sophia and a mutual anathema was returned by the patriarch of Constantinople. To make matters worse, in the 13th century, Crusaders sacked Constantinople and desecrated the altar of Hagia Sophia. To this day this is still a bitter event.
As Islam made its rapid descent among Christian lands, there was a brief reunion in the 15th century called the council of Florence, in which the East accepted the supremacy of the pope and the West denounced the filioque. The council was called because the Emperor in Constantinople was making a final desperation plea for military help against Islam. The two churches put their differences aside to attempt to defeat their common enemy. But by the middle of the 15th century, the Sultan sacked Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine XI was beheaded, and the Byzantine Empire was no more. The promise of Crusader assistance never came.

With both Romes being defeated, Moscow became the seat of Eastern Christendom–even the king was called Czar, or Ceasar. For almost 500 years after Constantinople was destroyed, the Church of Russia thrived as the seat of Orthodoxy. But Communism destroyed the last bastion of Byzantium.
Though this is true, Orthodoxy continues to survive as it has over the centuries, if not in a diaspora kind of state. It still represents a growing movement and still retains the beauty and magnificence that it has always had. This is a brief overview of the history of the Eastern Church.

But you are budding theologians so let’s move on to the theology of the Eastern Church.

Theology & Spirituality
Gregory of Nazianzus, “a theologian is one who prays, and only one who prays is a theologian.” This is so important when talking about Orthodoxy. For the Orthodox, religion is not dogma, religion is life. Still, there is a content to the Faith.

Key to Orthodoxy is their emphasis on Tradition.

Tradition:
Georgy Florovsky says:
“The true tradition is only the tradition of truth, traditio veritatis. This tradition, according of St. Irenaeus, is grounded in, and secured by, that charisma veritatis certum [secure charisma of truth], which has been "deposited" in the Church from the very beginning and has been preserved by the uninterrupted succession of episcopal ministry. "Tradition" in the Church is not a continuity of human memory, or a permanence of rites and habits. It is a living tradition — depositum juvenescens, in the phrase of St. Irenaeus. Accordingly, it cannot be counted inter mortuas regulas [among dead rules]. Ultimately, tradition is a continuity of the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, a continuity of Divine guidance and illumination. The Church is not bound by the "letter." Rather, she is constantly moved forth by the "Spirit." The same Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which "spake through the Prophets," which guided the Apostles, is still continuously guiding the Church into the fuller comprehension and understanding of the Divine truth, from glory to glory.
"Following the Holy Fathers"… This is not a reference to some abstract tradition, in formulas and propositions. It is primarily an appeal to holy witnesses. Indeed, we appeal to the Apostles, and not just to an abstract "Apostolicity." In the similar manner do we refer to the Fathers. The witness of the Fathers belongs, intrinsically and integrally, to the very structure of Orthodox belief. The Church is equally committed to the kerygma of the Apostles and to the dogma of the Fathers. We may quote at this point an admirable ancient hymn (probably, from the pen of St. Romanus the Melode). "Preserving the kerygma of the Apostles and the dogmas of the Fathers, the Church has sealed the one faith and wearing the tunic of truth she shapes rightly the brocade of heavenly theology and praises the great mystery of piety." [2]
For the Orthodox, you can’t have the Faith without the deposit of Tradition, which is not a dead letter, but a living organism that has nurtured and nourished the church over the centuries. What about the Bible? You might ask. For the Orthodox, Holy Scripture is the pinnacle of Tradition. But the Bible cannot be separated from Tradition or from the worship and dogmas of the Church. The Bible is not in opposition to Tradition, but can only be properly understood through the grid of the ancient Church.

Orthodoxy means ‘right doctrine’ but it also means ‘right glory,’ or ‘right worship.’ You cannot understand Orthodoxy without understanding the importance of the Divine Liturgy. The chief Sacrament of the Orthodox Church, like other liturgical traditions is Holy Eucharist. From the earliest centuries of the Church, the primary act of worship was the celebration of Holy Eucharist. In the Eastern Tradition, they do not use the language of ‘transubstatation’ but rather Christ is present in a Real, but mysterious way:
From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
I believe and confess, Lord, that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly your pure Body and that this is truly your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.

How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.
Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these Holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.

Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries, nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.

Other Sacraments:
Baptism
Chrismation
Unction
Confession
Ordination & Apostolic succession

Icons: The last Ecumenical Council, which met in 787 in Nicea, proclaimed the use of holy Icons in worship, a practice that was common in the East, but condemned by some. The ‘iconoclastic’ controversy lasted for some time, and many icons were smashed because of the fear that the use of icons in worship was idolatrous. St. John of Damascus, an iconodule, proclaimed, ‘Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make an image [or icon] of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from worshiping the matter which my salvation has been affected.’

The Orthodox do not worship icons, but they do venerate them, seeing them as ‘windows to heaven.’ Remember that for centuries the faith was passed on by visuals, stories and liturgies. The printing press was not invented until the 16th century and many folks could not read. Icons were and are a way of passing on the faith in a way that engages the senses and in many ways is a picture of the way Christ redeemed matter by becoming matter.
For the Orthodox, Icons are an essential reminder of the Incarnation and of the saints who are being glorified.

There is something about Mary...

Deification:
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood dogma of Orthodoxy is the doctrine of deification or theosis. ‘Sounds New Age or Mormon’ someone might say.

St. Athanasius said, “Christ became man in order to divinize is in Himself” and “Christ became man in order that we might be divinized.” Others translate his words by saying ‘God became man so that man might become god.’

In pantheism, salvation occurs when humans become one with the ‘divine.’ In actuality, pantheism is a view that we all become part of the divine, whatever ‘the divine’ might be. We are saved when we are joined to all things.

The Orthodox are not pantheists, but are what we might call Panentheists. What does that mean? It means that God is in all things, but that he also is above all things. That means that God’s fingerprints or ‘energies’ are everywhere, but that he still remains above all.

St. Basil said that the essence of God is absolutely inaccesible to man. Florovsky says,
“God moves toward man and embraces him by His own ‘grace’ and action, without leaving that light unapproachable in which He eternally abides.”

But the Orthodox view of salvation involves followers of Christ becoming just what Christ is–that is his character, his own resurrected nature. For the Orthodox, every aspect of Christ’s Incarnation, his birth, his life, his teaching, his death and his resurrection are involved in our salvation. While in the West our tendency is to concentrate on Christ’s ‘payment’ for sin on the cross, in the East what is at issue is the healing of the human person. St. Maximos the Confessor said, ‘That which is not assumed is not healed.’ In other words, Christ would have to endure every aspect of human existence, birth, life death, in order to heal us, or raise us with himself.

In the West, we concentrate on our original guilt, and in the East the emphasis is on original illness. In other words, in the West we are guilty in the womb and in the East we are born into a toxic ‘environment.’ In the West, our need is to be made righteous, to assuage our guilt, in the East, our need is to be healed and rehabilitated.

Romans 3:23 says what? ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ What do Western Christians look at? ‘All have sinned and fall short.’ We need forgiveness and rescue, we need to be made right. What do Eastern Christians look at? ‘The glory of God.’ In other words, how does Christ restore in us God’s image? How are we made like him.

A key illustration is Luther’s example of Christ’s work. For Luther, human nature is a pile of dung. The work of Christ is like a snowfall that covers that dung. Then when the Father looks at us, he sees the fresh, white snow, being the work of Christ, that covers our dung-like nature.

In contrast, the patristic mind, the Eastern Christian mind, sees our nature as a mirror that has been marred or dirtied by sin. The work of Christ, then, slowly and through our efforts as well, cleans the mirror until the image of God is once again reflected. You see the contrast.

At this time, I’d like to open up our discussion to your questions.



Why not convert?
• Which Orthodox jurisdiction? The scandal of Orthodox division.
• Ethnic challenges: ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding.’
• The freedom of Anglicanism.
• The treasure of the historic Church is a treasure for all Christians. (Apostolic Treasure Chest)


Authors to be familiar with:
Kallistos Ware
Vladimir Lossky
Alexander Schmemann
George Florovskye
Kyriacos Markides

Key Primary Texts:
Athanasius De Incarnation
Gregory of Nazianzus Theological Orations
John Cassian Conferences
John Climacus The Ladder of Divine Ascent
The Philokalia in 4 volumes
See the Series called Classics in Western Spirituality by Paulist Press which includes the writings of Symeon the New Theologian, Psuedo-Dionysius, Gregory Palamas and many others.