Having family that is still Protestant, I sometimes find myself at their church for various reasons. Never at services, but the church is a convenient place to rent for family events. Last time I was there for an anniversary party, I picked up the weekly bulletin and was reading it when the pastor came over to chat. I showed him the schedule for the previous Sunday and asked him, “Where did you learn how to conduct a worship service?”
He laughed and said, “Seminary.”
I then asked him, “Where did the people who taught you how to conduct a worship service learn how to conduct a worship service?”
He started to look uncomfortable. “From the Bible, I guess,” he finally answered.
“This order of worship,” I pointed at the bulletin, “Is in the Bible?”
“Well,” he answered, “It’s based on the Bible.”
“How?” I asked.
At that point, he made an excuse to go see some other guests. I hope I gave him something to think about, without ruining his event for him. It can be tough to be a Protestant pastor since you often really are making it all up as you go along.
As Orthodox Christians we have all the answers. Not us personally. We’re all miserable sinners. But the Church has all the answers. After 2,000 years of guidance by the Holy Spirit, the Church has seen, heard, and responded to everything. There is so much knowledge within the Church that it can be attractive to dump as much of it as possible on our Protestant neighbors.
Which can work, of course, if someone is genuinely seeking to learn about the Orthodox Faith. However, many aren’t. Rather, we often find ourselves up against Protestants who are convinced Orthodoxy is wrong. Rebuffing their assertions sets up arguments, and may not be the best way to go in every case. Which is why asking questions can be an effective way to engage others. Instead of defending Orthodoxy, sometimes asking Protestants to explain aspects of their faith can be very enlightening for them.
Protestantism is ahistorical and self-contradictory. If you can lead people to see that for themselves, the path to Orthodoxy can become clear. For cradle Orthodox, the questions below may seem strange, especially if you are not familiar with common Protestant doctrines. All the more reason to keep reading.
1) Where was your “church” in the early Christian centuries?
Most Protestantism is founded on the same assumption – at some point the historic, visible Christian Church fell away from the True Christian Faith found in the New Testament. This Apostate Church persecuted True Christians, and was only finally overcome via the Protestant Reformation at which point the True Church reappeared. (The Reformation actually didn’t happen in the Orthodox lands, but let’s not quibble over that.)
Answers to when this Great Apostasy occurred vary among low-church Protestants. Some will tell you the 4th Century and blame it all on Constantine. Some will tell you as far back as the close of the Book of Acts. Others pick different dates in between. Few low-church Protestants are willing to claim even the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, though I have met brave Baptists who tried to sell a gathering of Orthodox Bishops as a Baptist convention.
So, if the early Church of the Book of Acts was Baptist or some other flavor of Evangelical, where did it go? Who were its leaders? Who are the writers that testified to its existence? It had to go somewhere, because the visible Church became apostate. So where was the True Church?
This question is a rhetorical trap for low-church Protestants. It really doesn’t matter which timeframe they pick for the slide into apostasy, the problems with their answers are the same. No matter the era, any Protestant researching Church history will quickly discover that the Church was not Baptist or Pentecostal or anything else of the kind. In both the New Testament and the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers, you find a Church that is hierarchical, liturgical, and centered around the Eucharist. The best thing for his soul, that a low-church Protestant can do, is go in search of the historic Christian Church to prove it was Baptist.
The New Testament presents less of a problem for Protestants than ante-Nicene Patristic writings. Protestants have traditional scriptural misinterpretations that have convinced them the Apostles really were Protestants of some flavor or another. They will confidently butcher the interpretation of even the clearest New Testament passage to deny the truth of Orthodoxy. Ante-Nicene Patristic writings, however, are tricky for them. Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd Centuries testify to an Orthodox Faith in full bloom with hierarchy, liturgy, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Their witness has nothing in common with modern low-church Protestantism, and there is no way to pretend it does.
So where in the historical record is the “True Church” of sing-alongs, grape juice, and praise bands?
Nowhere.
Many Protestants will simply shut down at this point, as they have no answer for who their spiritual forbears among the early Christians could have been. In fact, many of them have never even thought about that question. Some of them have answers worked out that avoid the True Church being missing for 1,500 or so years. The True Church, according to them, went underground and persisted as a holy “remnant”. There were True Christians “everywhere” or “somewhere” or “hidden in plain sight”. There’s no actual evidence of that, so they can’t tell you who any of the holy “remnant” were, but they are completely convinced they must have existed.
Sometimes Protestants do have a theory about who the “remnant” were. This usually involves claiming multiple heretical groups as having been the “True Church” which was bloodily suppressed by the evil Catholic Church. This belief is most often found among Baptists. Groups frequently included in the “Baptist succession line” (“Trail of Blood”) are the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicians, Cathars, Waldenses, Petrobrusians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Hussites (partly), Lollards, and Anabaptists. They got the Anabaptist part right, at least, but they didn’t show up until the 17th Century. As any historically-minded person is aware, the listed groups did not even agree with each other on doctrine, much less with modern Evangelicals such as Baptists. The succession line also often puts the existence of these groups wildly out of chronological order. Curiously, most of those groups were Gnostics. Which makes any affinity modern Evangelicals feel for their teachings…. interesting. The standard timelines also portray many Orthodox practices and beliefs as later innovations. Reading the ante-Nicene Church Fathers quickly blows that up, firmly establishing that “Catholic” innovations were right there in the 1st and 2nd Centuries.
Once a Protestant starts to ask, “Where was my church in history?”, a crisis of Faith can ensue because the standard Protestant answers to that question are less-than-convincing.
2) If the Bible was meant to stand alone, why is it so incomplete, and where did it come from anyway?
“All we need is the Bible. It is the all-sufficient guide to Christian Faith,” so say many modern Protestants. But at the very beginning of this article, I noted something important.
The Bible does not provide directions on how to run a worship service. Nowhere in the NT does any writer tell you how to do that, yet the Evangelicals have an order of worship. Where did they get it from, if they just believe and practice what is in the Bible?
Here are some other things the NT provides no guidance on:
- How does one conduct a baptismal service and at what age?
- How does one conduct an ordination?
- How does one convert to Christianity? Are there steps? Requirements? What constitutes membership in the Church?
- How does one prepare for and conduct a wedding?
- Since Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not signed, how do you know they wrote those Gospels?
- Which books actually belong in the New Testament? The New Testament doesn’t contain a list. The books in the NT were canonized by the Orthodox Church.
- The Gospels and the Apostle Paul mentioned other teachings and traditions, what are those since they are not in the NT?
Those are just a few examples. For a set of books that was intended to be “all sufficient”, the New Testament certainly leaves out a lot of important details on how to run a church. Which, frankly, is not surprising. The New Testament arose within functioning Churches. The Churches had been established by the Apostles and their disciples. The local clergy and the people had been taught how to be Christians in-person. Not through a book. There was no need, and really no way, to write down everything that the Apostles spent years teaching people orally and by example. The New Testament books, after they were written and began circulating, were selected for authenticity based on their conforming to what the Church was already doing and teaching. That is why a book such as the “Gospel of Thomas” was rejected, despite being the purported work of an Apostle. Reading “Thomas” in light of Church teaching clearly indicates its Gnostic nature.
The Church created the Bible. The Bible did not create the Church.
Until the 16th and 17th Centuries, that is, when radicals, cut off from an authentic sacerdotal priesthood, had no choice but to invent their own flavors of Gnosticism based on their misreading of the Christian Bible. The newly available printed Bibles really did create those churches, in a twisted sort of way.
Protestants will fight you on this. You will hear all kinds of things from them. For example, the New Testament is the eternal Word of God that dropped from Heaven fully formed. (That is Christ, by the way, Who is the eternal Word of God, and not a collection of books.) Arguing for the NT as a purely divine action, divorced from human history, doesn’t work. Even the hardest shell Baptists imagainable know it doesn’t work. They know that the Bible arose within living communities, and that the Church selected the books to include, even if they desperately try to avoid admitting that. It is a hard argument to make that the Church which collected, preserved, and canonized the New Testament was, simultaneously, in deep apostasy.
The low-church know that they believe and follow all kinds of traditions that are not recorded in the Bible. Some of these are authentic (names of the Gospel writers, the composition of the canon), but many aren’t. They are also aware, on some level, that their preferred interpretations of scripture are not, in fact, actually scripture. They are traditions of men far removed from the Early Church, and any real study of history will show them that.
The Bible is neither a liturgical handbook nor is it systematic theology. The books of the New Testament were meant to be read within the Church and interpreted by the Church through the leadership of the Holy Spirit with the guidance of Holy Tradition. Any attempt to understand the scriptures outside the Church leads to unavoidable error, which is why we have 30,000 plus denominations in the US alone.
Once a Protestant sees the error of “scripture alone”, he can’t unsee it. Trust me, I’ve been there.
3) How did the first Christians worship?
Modern low-church Protestants don’t think much about how the Early Church worshipped. Not deeply, anyway, as most just assume the Early Church worshipped exactly the way they do. Even the Evangelicals who are very into the Jewish / Hebraic Roots of Christianity, and so realize that Jews use liturgies, usually can’t connect the dots. Early Christian worship is simply a blank space many Protestants never try to fill in.
The earliest Christians in Jerusalem continued to worship in the Temple and met, on the first day of the week, to celebrate the Eucharist. When away from Jerusalem, they would have participated in the Synagogue on the Sabbath instead of the Temple. Eventually the Church separated from the synagogue and the Temple (even before it was destroyed), but Orthodox Christians continued the traditions of both in their worship.
This is simply historical fact. The early Church worshipped liturgically centered around the Eucharist. There were no altar calls, praise and worship bands, pop songs, guitars, choreographed dance routines, or excited pastors jumping around. Coming face-to-face with that fact has caused more than a few low-church Protestants to convert to Orthodoxy.
The video below is a great introduction to Orthodox Worship as the continuation of Old Testament worship.
The Eucharist especially is a stumbling block for many low-church Protestants. They are cut off from a valid, sacerdotal priesthood and so deny the Eucharist, even though it was instituted by Christ and confirmed by the Apostle Paul in his 1st Letter to Corinthians (Chapter 11):
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Protestants, out of necessity, have misinterpreted the Biblical references to the Eucharist in a “spiritual” manner as referring to the teachings of Christ, and not to the actual Bread and Wine. Therefore, engaging in Bible quote battles is usually not going to avail much for anyone. Protestants often have an ironclad belief in their interpretation of scripture, especially on this topic.
But it gets harder for them with ante-Nicene writers such as St. Irenaeus. This is from his 2nd Century work Against Heresies:
When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,(14) from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”
The ante-Nicene Patristic writings are not in the canon of scripture. That was a decision made by the Orthodox Church. Even so, they were preserved by the Church and are accorded great authority for their early Christian witness. These writings testify to a 1st and 2nd Century Church that was already hierarchical, liturgical, and centered around the Eucharist. These historical facts present a difficult challenge for Protestants, especially for those who teach that the Church only went “apostate” during the 3rd or 4th Centuries.
Conclusion
Protestants in America are getting nervous about Orthodoxy. Many of them have friends, family, and former pastors that have converted. They clearly see us as a threat. Expect the attacks to continue. While it is frustrating, we need to remember that our job is not to win arguments or put other people down. The Holy Spirit must soften their hearts and prepare them to authentically receive Christ through His Church. All we can do is be examples of Christian holiness, and perhaps get as many Protestants as possible interested in learning more about the Early Church and the authentic roots of Christianity. For many of us, learning the real truth about historic Christianity was all it took to get us into the catechumenate.
Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America
1) Exactly where the Apostles left them.
2) “Incomplete” is an opinion, not a factual statement.
More importantly this is a strawman, yes. Protestants or Evangelicals do rely on tradition for certain issues, like believing that the Gospels were written by who they’re attributed to. However, they do not base key doctrine solely on tradition, and believe that in order for a doctrine to be proved true, it must pass Scriptural testing.
Though to answer some of your questions:
3) To assume that the Early Christians worshipped the same way Catholics or Orthodox churches do today is to massively misunderstand the ancient world. Catholic and Orthodox services today use precious metals such as silver and gold along with other expensive jewels. The ancient believers would never have been able to afford such extravagant things, nor would they want to. Not only because Jesus warned against how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven, but also because the Roman Empire would seize these goods and send the person, or people, to be sentenced to death for being a follower of Christ.
The main point of a church gathering was for believers to support and encourage one another, and to have a pastor, whom God has called, to teach other believers and to keep them from straying into false doctrine and teaching.
Pertaining to the Eucharist, there is no ritual mentioned that one must do in order for the Eucharist to be done correctly. Paul makes no mention of a specific ritual, and seems to write rather casually about the bread and wine of the Eucharist, if he truly believed that they turned into the literal physical flesh and blood of Christ.
Conclusion: While yes, Evangelicals and Protestants get certain teachings wrong, this does not mean they are wholly wrong and that their opposition is automatically the “one true Apostolic church.”
1) Exactly where the Apostles left them.
Not an answer. You belong to a church today? Where is that church in history? Who taught what your church teaches today? Who worshipped like your church worships now? You understand this question very well, but have no answer to it. You don’t have a tie to the 1st Century. And you know it.
2) “Incomplete” is an opinion, not a factual statement.
More importantly this is a strawman, yes. Protestants or Evangelicals do rely on tradition for certain issues, like believing that the Gospels were written by who they’re attributed to. However, they do not base key doctrine solely on tradition, and believe that in order for a doctrine to be proved true, it must pass Scriptural testing.
Where does the bible say doctrines must pass scriptural testing? The Church is ground and pillar of truth, Right? (1 Timothy 3:15) Especially since the Church is older than the New Testament by decades. If you are Trinitarian, you absolutely base a key doctrine off Tradition that is not explicitly found in the NT. Plus, what you are really arguing is that you can interpret the NT better than the Church who actually wrote it, preserved it, authenticated it, and canonized it.
Though to answer some of your questions:
As pointed out, there are mentions of specific baptisms, with no detailed instructions of how to perform them, when to perform them, how to prepare for them. Is that because a Church which was instructed to believe and be baptized thought none of this was important? Of course not. It was not included because the Church was not spread by mailing copies of the non-existent New Testament around the Mediterranean. The Apostles physically went and established Churches, who were taught in person how to be Christians. This is history, you can’t escape it. When the Apostles such as Paul heard that things were not going well in a Church, they would write letters of correction. This is not systematic Church practice, but spot corrections as needed. That is why not everything will be addressed. You can’t condense years of in-person teaching into a single short set of books like the NT really is. How do you know, based on the text, what differences there are between 1st Century baptism and Orthodox baptisms? Households were baptized, which would include children. The Church has always baptized children into the faith and they grow up as practicing Christians.
This is not a big issue so as to be addressed by Paul or the other apostles.
The Apostles taught how to do this in person. They went out and ordained elders, bishops, and deacons. They did not need to put it in the NT, unless it was being done wrong and they needed to correct the deviation from practice. That is, again, the whole point of these questions. The NT was not a handbook.
Acts 8 verses 36-39 show what a person must do to be saved, and also to be baptized.
The whole of the Christian life is contained in those verses? If that is the case, why bother with prayer, repentance, fasting, communion, works of charity? Those are all in the NT as well. Once-saved-always-saved Protestants have that verse in Acts. Are they right? Just get baptized and you are a member of the Church, even if you never live according to the Christian Faith and never learned anything about the faith? You really believe this is a complete guide to preparing oneself to live eternally with a righteous God?
Again this wasn’t a big enough issue for the apostles to address, as the modern form of marriage is not the same as ancient marriage.
What is the difference between Christian marriage today, and Christian marriage in the 1st Century? Of course the Apostles addressed family formation and marriage. They taught the communities they founded for years before moving on. You are really arguing that marriage is not an essential aspect of Christianity, simply because the NT is not a comprehensive handbook for the practice of the Faith?
All we have is tradition, however this is not a “gotcha” as this isn’t key doctrine based off of solely tradition.
If those books are not written by those men and are not of Apostolic origin, then your whole faith is a lie. It was the Orthodox Church that told you that these books represent the true faith. You have no choice but to believe her, or your faith has no foundation. How can that be? The same applies to the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and much more. You simply have to trust the Orthodox Church for so much of the foundation of your faith, only to then reject her on other points.
The test of canonicity is to see if a book contradicts the Old Testament, the Gospels or Paul. And because of that, such books as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Thomas (just to name a few) are not and should not be considered canon.
There were many Gospels floating around. You named three that were rejected. On what basis did the Church decide which were authentic and which were not? How did the Church decide what were authentic Pauline and other Apostolic writings, and which were not? The Church decided based on which writings reflected the teaching of the Apostles as practiced in the life of the Church. If the Church did not have this Tradition as a guide, then the Gospel of Thomas may have ended up in the NT. You are taking the canon as you were given it by the Orthodox Church and arguing that the books were selected based on adhering to the canon you were given by the Orthodox Church. It is a circular argument. The Orthodox Church decided which books were authentic and which were not. You trust that we got it right, and on that basis is your whole faith.
We don’t know. However it seems they weren’t important enough for God to perfectly preserve them in written word.
Where does the Bible say that all the important things were written down? Especially since the Church predated the NT by decades. The NT says the opposite, that we are to hold fast to tradition as taught by the Apostles. You will find nowhere in the NT a claim that the NT is the full and complete teaching of the Christian faith. As it was compiled piecemeal by a Church which was already decades old and running in multiple cities, that claim would be ridiculous on its face.
3) To assume that the Early Christians worshipped the same way Catholics or Orthodox churches do today is to massively misunderstand the ancient world. Catholic and Orthodox services today use precious metals such as silver and gold along with other expensive jewels.
The ancient believers would never have been able to afford such extravagant things, nor would they want to. Not only because Jesus warned against how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven, but also because the Roman Empire would seize these goods and send the person, or people, to be sentenced to death for being a follower of Christ.
The main point of a church gathering was for believers to support and encourage one another, and to have a pastor, whom God has called, to teach other believers and to keep them from straying into false doctrine and teaching.
Orthodox services are conducted in forests, in store fronts, in homes under bombing attacks, in cemeteries, at front lines, in prison camps. There is nothing in Orthodoxy that requires all the finery, though people certainly are influenced by beauty and crave it. That is how we were made, to be inspired by beautiful things. But the discussion here is over the primary elements of Christian worship which is a liturgical service centered around the Eucharist. Your statement about the “main point of church” is not actually in the NT, because it is a modern, Protestant understanding of church. Church is about worship. Yes, there is teaching, but you can have teaching in a class outside of the worship of the Church. Above all, the Church is about worship. The Eucharist is mentioned in the NT, but because it was being abused in some way such as in 1st Corinthians. The Eucharistic services were taught in person by the Apostles. As the Apostles and their direct disciples were dying off, the Didache and other Christian sources were compiled to preserve the teaching. Plus, we have late 1st and 2nd Century Christian witnesses attesting to Christian worship. Your ideas readily fall into Gnosticism, in which it is mental learning and not the actual experience of God which leads to Salvation. Your doctrines are not in the NT. They are your interpretation of what is in the NT.
Pertaining to the Eucharist, there is no ritual mentioned that one must do in order for the Eucharist to be done correctly. Paul makes no mention of a specific ritual, and seems to write rather casually about the bread and wine of the Eucharist, if he truly believed that they turned into the literal physical flesh and blood of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:17-34
The Lord’s Supper
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[a] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for[b] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[c] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[d] 31 But if we judged[e] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[f] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers,[g] when you come together to eat, wait for[h] one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
In that passage, does that look as though Paul were writing casually? He affirms that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Savior. Paul affirms the centrality of the Eucharist in Church gatherings. He also tells the readers that failing to prepare for the Eucharist means bringing judgment onto themselves. As noted, we also have 1st and 2nd Century sources which affirm the Church’s belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood and that it is central to the worship of the Church. You have no NT or traditional foundation for what you asset concerning the Eucharist.
Protestants usually say they are Biblical literalists, but when the NT states that the Eucharist are the Body and Blood of Christ, suddenly it becomes “metaphorical.”
Conclusion: While yes, Evangelicals and Protestants get certain teachings wrong, this does not mean they are wholly wrong and that their opposition is automatically the “one true Apostolic church.”
The Orthodox Church came first, so we are the original not the “opposition”. What makes the Orthodox Church the True Church is because she has preserved the unbroken faith of the Apostles. Whereas, the Protestant Churches are inventions of men.
Not an answer. You belong to a church today? Where is that church in history? Who taught what your church teaches today? Who worshipped like your church worships now? You understand this question very well, but have no answer to it. You don’t have a tie to the 1st Century. And you know it.
Yes, I do belong to a church today, and like many churches in the North and South American continents cannot and do not predate ~1500s or so. However, who worshipped like my church worships? The church in Antioch, mentioned by Paul and Peter in the New Testament.
Where does the bible say doctrines must pass scriptural testing? The Church is ground and pillar of truth, Right? (1 Timothy 3:15) Especially since the Church is older than the New Testament by decades. If you are Trinitarian, you absolutely base a key doctrine off Tradition that is not explicitly found in the NT. Plus, what you are really arguing is that you can interpret the NT better than the Church who actually wrote it, preserved it, authenticated it, and canonized it.
I don’t know, the Berean Jews checked the Scriptures to check Paul’s teaching out. (Acts 17:10-13) And we don’t need “Tradition” to base the doctrine of the Trinity on, Jesus makes it pretty clear in Matthew 28:19.
As pointed out, there are mentions of specific baptisms, with no detailed instructions of how to perform them, when to perform them, how to prepare for them. Is that because a Church which was instructed to believe and be baptized thought none of this was important? Of course not. It was not included because the Church was not spread by mailing copies of the non-existent New Testament around the Mediterranean. The Apostles physically went and established Churches, who were taught in person how to be Christians. This is history, you can’t escape it. When the Apostles such as Paul heard that things were not going well in a Church, they would write letters of correction. This is not systematic Church practice, but spot corrections as needed. That is why not everything will be addressed. You can’t condense years of in-person teaching into a single short set of books like the NT really is. How do you know, based on the text, what differences there are between 1st Century baptism and Orthodox baptisms? Households were baptized, which would include children. The Church has always baptized children into the faith and they grow up as practicing Christians.
1) Let’s talk about baptism first: Yes, it is true that there are no explicit instructions on how to perform them, when to perform them, or how to prepare for them. However in Acts 8, Philip takes the Ethiopian eunuch down into the water. If all that’s needed to be baptized is a little sprinkling of water on the head, why go down into the water? Also in Acts 8:36-38, Philip gives the requirement for baptism: belief, with one’s whole heart, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is not something that infants can do before baptism. Also who says that those households had small children? There’s many families that I know that have children, yet all are aware and able to make their own decisions.
2) Letter sharing was very prominent in the first few centuries of the church, as Paul even encouraged it (Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Also it is very unlikely and illogical, that Paul would write letters to one city, and those churches WOULDN’T go and share with other believers from different cities.
The whole of the Christian life is contained in those verses? If that is the case, why bother with prayer, repentance, fasting, communion, works of charity? Those are all in the NT as well. Once-saved-always-saved Protestants have that verse in Acts. Are they right? Just get baptized and you are a member of the Church, even if you never live according to the Christian Faith and never learned anything about the faith? You really believe this is a complete guide to preparing oneself to live eternally with a righteous God?
I never claimed those verses contained the whole of the Christian life. I am simply bringing up the requirement that Philip used before baptizing someone. I very much doubt that the Ethiopian eunuch, prayed, fasted, had communion, or did works of charity before being baptized. However it would make sense for the eunuch to repent before his baptism, as commanded by Jesus and other apostles (Matthew 3:2, Mark 6:12, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, 3:19, etc.) Outside of that we are not told anymore of the Ethiopian eunuch.
What is the difference between Christian marriage today, and Christian marriage in the 1st Century? Of course the Apostles addressed family formation and marriage. They taught the communities they founded for years before moving on. You are really arguing that marriage is not an essential aspect of Christianity, simply because the NT is not a comprehensive handbook for the practice of the Faith?
The difference is in the 1st Century, Christians, or people in general, did not hold a ceremony as we do today where the bride and groom meet under a canopy and say their vows then “I do”. In fact, the “Church” did not hold marriage to be a sacrament until the 12th century (the 1100s). And no, marriage is not absolutely essential to Christian living as Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says that it is “good” for believers to abide, as he does, but if they cannot that believers should marry.
If those books are not written by those men and are not of Apostolic origin, then your whole faith is a lie. It was the Orthodox Church that told you that these books represent the true faith. You have no choice but to believe her, or your faith has no foundation. How can that be? The same applies to the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and much more. You simply have to trust the Orthodox Church for so much of the foundation of your faith, only to then reject her on other points.
And yet the Catholic Church says the same thing, that I must listen to her. Hmmm.
There were many Gospels floating around. You named three that were rejected. On what basis did the Church decide which were authentic and which were not? How did the Church decide what were authentic Pauline and other Apostolic writings, and which were not? The Church decided based on which writings reflected the teaching of the Apostles as practiced in the life of the Church. If the Church did not have this Tradition as a guide, then the Gospel of Thomas may have ended up in the NT. You are taking the canon as you were given it by the Orthodox Church and arguing that the books were selected based on adhering to the canon you were given by the Orthodox Church. It is a circular argument. The Orthodox Church decided which books were authentic and which were not. You trust that we got it right, and on that basis is your whole faith.
I have brushed up on this answer previously: by studying the Scriptures (the Old Testament) daily as the Berean Jewish Christians did. (Acts 17:11) If an epistle or letter or other writing did not agree with the Old Testament, then the early Christians threw it out. And later on, after Paul had wrote his letters, if a letter did not agree with Paul’s writings, then it was deemed a forgery and thrown out.
Orthodox services are conducted in forests, in store fronts, in homes under bombing attacks, in cemeteries, at front lines, in prison camps. There is nothing in Orthodoxy that requires all the finery, though people certainly are influenced by beauty and crave it. That is how we were made, to be inspired by beautiful things. But the discussion here is over the primary elements of Christian worship which is a liturgical service centered around the Eucharist. Your statement about the “main point of church” is not actually in the NT, because it is a modern, Protestant understanding of church. Church is about worship. Yes, there is teaching, but you can have teaching in a class outside of the worship of the Church. Above all, the Church is about worship. The Eucharist is mentioned in the NT, but because it was being abused in some way such as in 1st Corinthians. The Eucharistic services were taught in person by the Apostles. As the Apostles and their direct disciples were dying off, the Didache and other Christian sources were compiled to preserve the teaching. Plus, we have late 1st and 2nd Century Christian witnesses attesting to Christian worship. Your ideas readily fall into Gnosticism, in which it is mental learning and not the actual experience of God which leads to Salvation. Your doctrines are not in the NT. They are your interpretation of what is in the NT.
I do not care what is beautiful, or what is fine, or what is expensive, Satan himself is described as beautiful. Something can be beautiful and not be of God.
Yes, you’re right church is about worship, however sitting for 1-2 hours listening to a priest preach in Latin, or Greek or some other foreign language does not equate to worship, and only puts people to sleep. Do you really think God wants us to listen to some guy up on a podium speak in a language we cannot understand for hours?
In that passage, does that look as though Paul were writing casually? He affirms that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Savior. Paul affirms the centrality of the Eucharist in Church gatherings. He also tells the readers that failing to prepare for the Eucharist means bringing judgment onto themselves. As noted, we also have 1st and 2nd Century sources which affirm the Church’s belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood and that it is central to the worship of the Church. You have no NT or traditional foundation for what you asset concerning the Eucharist.
Protestants usually say they are Biblical literalists, but when the NT states that the Eucharist are the Body and Blood of Christ, suddenly it becomes “metaphorical.”
Yes, Paul writes rather casually than in other places, where he commands us to cut off fellowship with people who do not follow the law or commandments. Also, according to you, everyone who has taken communion in a non-Orthodox church should be dead because they didn’t prepare for the Eucharist properly. Also what does “judging ourselves” mean anyways? That if we have a sin we haven’t repented of, we shouldn’t partake of communion? Then what about hidden sins that we don’t know about yet? Wouldn’t it just be better to never partake of the Eucharist, in case we have hidden sins?
The Orthodox Church came first, so we are the original not the “opposition”. What makes the Orthodox Church the True Church is because she has preserved the unbroken faith of the Apostles. Whereas, the Protestant Churches are inventions of men.
And yet the Roman Catholic Church claims the same thing. Hmmm.
Yes, I do belong to a church today, and like many churches in the North and South American continents cannot and do not predate ~1500s or so. However, who worshipped like my church worships? The church in Antioch, mentioned by Paul and Peter in the New Testament.
All the Orthodox Christians in North and South America belong to a Church that long predates the 1500s. It is good that you recognize how historically recent your roots are. The Church in Antioch worshipped liturgically with that worship centered on the Eucharist. Assuming you are Evangelical, you do not worship liturgically nor do you have a true Eucharist as you lack a sacerdotal priesthood. Why do you believe that the Church in Antioch worshipped with altar calls (in which there is no actual altar), praise bands, and a central focus on a 45 minute sermon? That is the actual point that you are avoiding. There are other sources in the 1st and 2nd centuries that detail how worship was taught by the Apostles to be conducted, but the New Testament does not have a description of an order of service. You are simply taking something you read in Paul and Peter and making that assertion. Even though the historical record clearly shows that the Church in Antioch did not worship in an Evangelical style, and that style is not grounded in the New Testament.
The challenge still stands – show us in the New Testament where your worship service is laid out. It must be there, right, since you only believe what is in the NT?
I don’t know, the Berean Jews checked the Scriptures to check Paul’s teaching out. (Acts 17:10-13) And we don’t need “Tradition” to base the doctrine of the Trinity on, Jesus makes it pretty clear in Matthew 28:19.
Trying to avoid the question. Where does the New Testament tell you that all dogma and teachings must be written somewhere in the New Testament? Of course, you needed Tradition for the Trinity and not just the NT. Arius used the NT to try and prove his point. Nestorius did also. The NT clearly teaches that Christ and the Father are One, but only at a basic level is their relationship described. Our understanding of the Trinity and the Person of Christ are based on the Traditional teachings that were recognized by the Ecumenical Councils. Had Arius or Nestorius prevailed, we would have had a very different faith. Though that might not have affected you, since many Evangelicals are actually Arian and/or Nestorian because of their deficient understanding of the Trinity. A deficiency, by the way, that comes from only studying the NT and not the Fathers of the Church. Here are some other Traditions of the Church concerning Christ:
1. Christ has two natures – He is both God and man, possessing a divine nature and a human nature
2. Each nature is full and complete – He is fully God and fully man
3. Each nature remains distinct – they do not intermix to form a third type of nature
4. Christ is only one Person – with two natures united in one Person, He will be both God and man forever
5. Things that are true of only one nature but not the other, are still true of the whole Person of Christ.
6. Christ possesses two wills – divine will and human will, where the human will willingly submits to the divine will.
Let’s talk about baptism first: Yes, it is true that there are no explicit instructions on how to perform them, when to perform them, or how to prepare for them. However in Acts 8, Philip takes the Ethiopian eunuch down into the water. If all that’s needed to be baptized is a little sprinkling of water on the head, why go down into the water? Also in Acts 8:36-38, Philip gives the requirement for baptism: belief, with one’s whole heart, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is not something that infants can do before baptism. Also who says that those households had small children? There’s many families that I know that have children, yet all are aware and able to make their own decisions.
The Orthodox Church baptizes by triple IMMERSION in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We do not “sprinkle”. You are arguing with Orthodox Christians while not actually knowing very much about Orthodoxy, as evidenced by such a major mistake. You are interpreting the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, not following explicit instructions in the NT. Is rational belief in Christ the only requirement for baptism? The NT doesn’t say so. You are interpreting the text to mean that, which means babies cannot be baptized in your estimation. Yet, we know from 1st Century sources that babies were baptized all the time and the immediately brought into the life of the Church. Did not Christ say for the little children to come unto Him? Can you find an ancient Christian patristic source questioning baptizing children? With all the controversies in the early Church, why was infant baptism never controversial, if it is wrong? The Church has always baptized infants. You will never be able to find any proof otherwise, as none exists.
2) Letter sharing was very prominent in the first few centuries of the church, as Paul even encouraged it (Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Also it is very unlikely and illogical, that Paul would write letters to one city, and those churches WOULDN’T go and share with other believers from different cities.
Of course letter sharing was common, between CHURCHES. As in, the Churches had already been planted. That is the point. The Churches existed before the New Testament. The Gospels and the Epistles arose within functioning Churches. The Church gave you the NT. The NT did not create the Churches. Missionaries went to new places and planted Churches on the basis of oral teachings and the Septuagint for scriptures. When the Church canonized the books of the NT, the books were judged against the teachings of the Church, not the other way around. That is how the Church judged which were authentic and which were not – by how the teachings in the books comported to Church Tradition.
I never claimed those verses contained the whole of the Christian life. I am simply bringing up the requirement that Philip used before baptizing someone. I very much doubt that the Ethiopian eunuch, prayed, fasted, had communion, or did works of charity before being baptized. However it would make sense for the eunuch to repent before his baptism, as commanded by Jesus and other apostles (Matthew 3:2, Mark 6:12, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, 3:19, etc.) Outside of that we are not told anymore of the Ethiopian eunuch.
The Ethiopian eunuch was reading the Hebrew scriptures when Phillip encountered him. He was a practicing Hebrew who had been in Jerusalem to worship at the temple and to repent of his sins through sacrifice. He clearly had prayed much in his life. He had studied as well. As a practicing Hebrew he would have fasted. As a good Hebrew, he no doubt did works of charity. Living a life within the Mosaic religion is what prepared him for Baptism by Phillip. A preparation that Pagans, for example, would have severely lacked. As for communion, you can’t have communion until after you are baptized into the Church. That is subsequent to baptism, not a preparation for it. As for eunuch, we know more about him:
Church Father St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his book Adversus haereses (Against the Heresies, an early anti-Gnostic theological work) 3:12:8 (180 AD), wrote regarding the Ethiopian eunuch, “This man (Simeon Bachos the Eunuch) was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this (God) had already made (His) appearance in human flesh, and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him.” In Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition he was referred to as Bachos and is known as an Ethiopian Jew with the name Simeon also called the Black, a name used in Acts 13:1
The difference is in the 1st Century, Christians, or people in general, did not hold a ceremony as we do today where the bride and groom meet under a canopy and say their vows then “I do”. In fact, the “Church” did not hold marriage to be a sacrament until the 12th century (the 1100s). And no, marriage is not absolutely essential to Christian living as Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says that it is “good” for believers to abide, as he does, but if they cannot that believers should marry.
In the Orthodox Church, there are no vows. This is a very strange comment, considering Jesus’ first miracle was at a wedding. The epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp in the early 2nd Century says this, “But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust. Let all things be done to the honour of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31” So the Church approved of marriages from the beginning (with a blessing granted or withheld), and over time the marriage ceremony took shape (differently in East and West), and a long time prior the 12th Century. But even so, when you marry someone in your church, there are no instructions on how to do so in the NT. You are following a tradition. As for marriage being required, you do know that Orthodoxy has monks. Right? We esteem celibacy. Our Bishops are celibate, as are any Orthodox who are not married.
And yet the Catholic Church says the same thing, that I must listen to her. Hmmm.
For over 1,000 years, what we today think of as the Roman Catholic Church was part of the Orthodox Catholic Church. We bear witness that the Roman Church departed from the Faith. We can do so, because the Orthodox Church is the original Church. Therefore, we have a right and an obligation to oppose the RC’s heresies. Your “church” has no such ability, being the invention of men from the 1500’s onward.
I have brushed up on this answer previously: by studying the Scriptures (the Old Testament) daily as the Berean Jewish Christians did. (Acts 17:11) If an epistle or letter or other writing did not agree with the Old Testament, then the early Christians threw it out. And later on, after Paul had wrote his letters, if a letter did not agree with Paul’s writings, then it was deemed a forgery and thrown out.
No, actually. There is a lot in the New Testament that would not have a corollary in the Old. The Church is older than the NT. The NT arose within functioning Churches. They were not sitting around waiting for Paul to write them a letter before opening their doors. Paul wrote to existing Churches. The Orthodox Church measured and authenticated texts based on their agreement with Church teaching, not on the basis of the OT. You are making this up because you are in a trap, and you know it. The ground and pillar of truth is the Church, as clearly stated in the NT.
I do not care what is beautiful, or what is fine, or what is expensive, Satan himself is described as beautiful. Something can be beautiful and not be of God.
Yes, you’re right church is about worship, however sitting for 1-2 hours listening to a priest preach in Latin, or Greek or some other foreign language does not equate to worship, and only puts people to sleep. Do you really think God wants us to listen to some guy up on a podium speak in a language we cannot understand for hours?
You must not be aware that the vast majority of Orthodox Churches in the US use English as the service language? Worship is participatory, as in the people sing and chant, and recite. Since many of our temples don’t have pews, it would be interesting to know how people can fall asleep standing up. Worship is not a show put on for the people, it is their duty to God. You really don’t know much about Orthodoxy, if you don’t realize that we mostly use English, except in cases where a large percentage of the parish are immigrants who are more comfortable in their native language.
As for beauty, if God didn’t care about it then why was the temple in Jerusalem and all those 1st Century Synagogues so highly adorned?
Yes, Paul writes rather casually than in other places, where he commands us to cut off fellowship with people who do not follow the law or commandments. Also, according to you, everyone who has taken communion in a non-Orthodox church should be dead because they didn’t prepare for the Eucharist properly. Also what does “judging ourselves” mean anyways? That if we have a sin we haven’t repented of, we shouldn’t partake of communion? Then what about hidden sins that we don’t know about yet? Wouldn’t it just be better to never partake of the Eucharist, in case we have hidden sins?
Where does the NT use the word “casually”? It doesn’t, which means it is simply your interpretation of the interpretation of someone you follow. There is only true communion in the Orthodox Church, so everyone taking communion outside the Orthodox Church is safe, as it isn’t real. You perform constant exegesis, but suddenly are unable to understand how to examine or judge yourself? You should repent and examine whether your are living your life according to God’s precepts prior to communing. The Liturgy gives you opportunities to repent, as does the mystery of Confession. You are not to partake of the Body and Blood as if it were some kind of regular meal. It is Heavenly food. The Apostle is clear in his writing, as are all the other sources from the 1st and 2nd Centuries. Your commentary here simply makes no sense, but given the centrality of the Eucharist in actual Church history, you probably don’t have much choice unless you are willing to admit being wrong.
And yet the Roman Catholic Church claims the same thing. Hmmm.
Sure the RC does, as previously answered. The Mormons make extravagant claims they can’t back up with reality either. History is on the side of the Orthodox.
[…] of the past, particularly the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical (Universal) Councils, and uphold the unbroken Christian tradition they have preserved and transmitted, so that we will not be lacking in the fire of Faith necessary […]
In reference to the article on “Dixie Identity” I’m conflicted as to where to smack the piñata first. This I could do blindfolded. (blindfold please). Linking it here and quoting it here, make it fair game here as well as there.
The article mixes a lot of things that should not be mixed. While I love ice cream and I love steak sauce, I never put steak sauce on my ice cream, and that’s giving Dixie the benefit of the doubt. But, maybe they do put steak sauce on ice cream in Dixie, because that is what they did in, “The Good Shepherd Solution.” Which puts a smiley face on an agenda somebody is trying to sell into the Church.
For the record, can anybody tell me what Dixie is? Is it purely geographical, or a state of mind, in which case, a phantasm.
When one says I am in Orthodoxy, that means definable things, initiation by an oath, going to church, reading the fathers, doing the fasts (or not), and if you want to cover all the bases, you do both old calendar and new calendar Christmas. But, what defines Dixie? Lifestyle? What life style?
The amalgamation of things Orthodox and things Dixie, the author is using the good name of the Church (whatever remains of it), to sell you something, don’t be deceived. Actually, it’s comical, very comical once you see the scheme.
This is reminiscent of the TV commercials where the beautiful woman was selling a Corvair (unsafe car at any speed according to Ralf Nader).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnMDNn5DkLw (Do the ladies come with the car?)
The ladies are bait, to get a man’s attention to create an emotional attachment then transfer; typical bait and switch. (They quit doing that because women make 80% of all purchases). Bottom line: the desirableness of the ladies attaches to the car. But at least the car is tangible.
The article is a sales job in keeping with the mission of the site—“Identity Dixie”—to promote Dixie (whatever that might be), but it prostitutes the Church—just like the ladies in the car commercial got paid to use their bodies as stage props.
The commercial is all about the feel-good, and Dixie, at the core is just another feel-good fantasy without sustenance in reality—it won’t pay your bills, feed your children, fix the roof, feed the poor, preach the Gospel, give anyone the inside lane to heaven, or bring anybody closer to their Creator, Savior, and Heavenly Father. So, what’s the point? Like we said, the connections are a prostitution (“one of these things does not belong here”)[1] somebody gets to feel good about themselves at somebody else’s expense (oh, we’re so sorry you don’t live in Dixie). Pride has pleasure, rooted in comparison it looks down on everything not Dixie.
The term “Dixie” is fully and emotionally charged, meaning different things to different people. To a person of slave descent it means one thing, to WASPS[2] living south of the Mason Dixon line, something very different. To boldly—in your face—proclaim it dragging the Orthodox Church along with it is very disingenuous.
And to say, “we in Dixie…” to everyone else, is a looking down the nose.
Like all delusions, Dixie is a delusion with no clear purpose or definition and works like every other demonic cult, “just follow the yellow brick road…” “Please explain what Dixie is” we complain. “Shut up and just follow the yellow brick road”. But where does the Dixie yellow brick road lead? Is it the narrow path Jesus spoke of? Answer: “Nobody knows, nobody cares, just shut up and follow the yellow brick road”. That’s how delusions work.
GET OVER IT DIXIE, you lost the civil war, its over, nobody else in the world gives a rat’s petutie about “Dixie”. Sherman is not marching on Atlanta, and no real estate weighs in the balance, so why the hubbub? It’s a phantom ideal created by the demonic, “Ye shall be as Dixie-demigod’s lording it over the rest“ If “Dixie” had won, America would not be, it would be two nations, one with slaves and one without. How is hanging on to that notion even respectable?
Here is what I mean: people in California think of the Alamo as just one half step this side of the Little Big Horn—pure tactical stupidity. Really, if the freight train is coming, would not it be a good idea to get off the tracks. At least, live to fight another day. If the Alamo was in my state, I’d be embarrassed to talk about it, “Yup, we really got our butts kicked in that one, nothing short of an old fashion butt whooping; Santa Anna clean our clock, yes he did. And we wasted a boat load of ammo that could have been used elsewhere. And we are sooooo proud.” Stockholm syndrome Texas style. The masters of deception—the globalists—always spin a catastrophic loss as a big win; and people believe it. People believe what they want to believe—regardless of the integrity of the issue—when it intoxicates the ego into a drunken stupor. Dixie is no different. Stop being engrossed with yourself.
Make no mistake; people in California are just as rabid about their state as people in Texas/Dixie are. However, they are decent enough to not stick it in your face, then weave it into some false piety as if there was any rational relationship between historical Orthodox and Dixie. If any of that even remotely works, the Russians and the Greeks already own that turf.
You may say, “But you don’t appreciate our wonderful Texas—and Dixie— history like we do.” Hell no, and neither do the fathers, neither does the Gospel, neither does the Bible, neither do the Apostles, neither do the Greeks whose language the fathers wrote and spoke, neither do the Russians whose history in Orthodoxy goes back over a millennia. Dixie has as much to do with the Orthodox Faith as does the Los Angeles Dodgers. This kind of stuff really makes us look stupid.
Helloooo Dixie, knock, knock, anybody home? Stop watching old “Dallas” or Dy[e]—nasty reruns. Coming covenantally into the Church makes the Afro-bro in Chicago who is also Orthodox, your brother. Do you really want to put it “in your face” to him? To him the associations are clear, the connotations unmistakable, whether you intend them or not. Will you become your brother’s keeper? Or no. When you put it in his face, you put it in Christ’s face (he is the icon of Christ), and you put it in my face and the Greeks face and the Russians face. How is that being good kinfolk southern hospitality?
If you wish to do your Dixie thing, knock yourself out; put the Stars and Bars on a raked pickup truck, but don’t bring it into the Church or we’ll toss it out with the rainbow flag.
Keep the “profane” thing outside, it does not belong in the Church. And the profane thing, might be neither here, nor there morally speaking, just don’t put it where it does not belong.
“When you sort the profane from the precious, you will be my mouth piece [says the Lord of hosts—Lord of all the Church]” (Jeremiah 15:19 my paraphrase).
[1] A tune from Sesame Street teaching toddler to think
[2] White Anglo-Saxon Protestants
It is the other way. That article quoted us, which WordPress notifies us about, and we brought that to your attention by approving it.
[…] Questions for Protestants, https://orthodoxreflections.com/three-big-questions-for-protestants/ […]
Oh, Nicholas, you are sooooo funny! You make me laugh! Picking a fight with some hapless Protestant pastor? How can that ever be fair? As you can see, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Judging by the bulletin, at least it’s a denominational expression of Protestantism, which at some measure has the virtue to resist change, by resisting the cave toward cultural winds. And really, even Luther loved the Holy Virgin Mother of God—most modern Lutherans won’t go near her—, but cutting the boat loose from the moorings, it has never stopped drifting. In some of those places, the bulletin is posted somewhere on the wall where we could view our family—icons. Looks tacky.
At the same time, if you look closely, you will see shadows of Orthodoxy in every Protestant church. The folks—even Protestants—have an internal “Orthodox Instinct”, that is a yearning for the real, and this brings into Protestantism, flashes of Orthodoxy. Yet, we, demonstrate only a fraction of what our inheritance is, some of which is dished out to Protestants.
Here is a classic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
The best term for Protestantism, is, it is an “orphan church” (small c), no basis in apostolic succession, therefore malformed rather than true reformed.
Because Protestantism—at the core a “protest”—is defined by what it is not—rather than what it is—it always picks a single brick out of the heap, and makes is the whole building, building a shrine—of material not-Church—around it. All “programs” are faux-church replacement for Church and family (established in the creation covenant). And, sometimes we do the same thing. Ok, let’s bring it home. All Orthodox missions should be—because it used to be—a function of the bishop, inherently organic, not some quazi 501c3 or parachurch organization. Substantively, programs are not Church. God never sent a program—evil does that—He sent a Man and only ever sends men.
With this concept, we should rethink our mission as Orthodox, in that in every mother, there is the mothing instinct—the core of femininity—to regather every fragment and orphan back under her wing. How that works, I’m not sure, but it’s been done before; Peter Gillquest.
I just love the Lutheran video (above). Having a sense of humor is distinctly Man thing. Demons have no sense of humor and I’m not sure if angels are capable either, at least, never to the extent of Man. God has a sense of human (just look at you-teasing-), David said, God is laughing.
If God is laughing, we would be idiots if we did not join Him. Where is the joke? How about we start with Elpi? Never did Barnum and Bailey ever have such a clown.This then answers the question of why God allows him to keep doing what he is doing: God enjoys the comic relief. At the end of the day, Christ has not fallen off His throne and we should never fear anything of the enemy: ha, ha, ha, Scratch (aka Satan), the jokes on you—we win every day of the week, twice on Sunday, and 10 times on Pascha.