Category Image Rome or Orthodoxy


One of my favorite bloggers, Christopher Orr, posted an excerpt from another blog(this makes this sort of chain blogging, I suppose), that was written by a soon to be former member of the LCMS, and Professor of Philosophy, who is departing the Lutheran Church for Rome. He provides a brief synopsis of his reasons for not choosing Orthodoxy, which I hope is merely reflective of the fact that this was a response within the comments area of a post, and not the amount of thought he actually gave the matter.

His first reason for going to Rome vs. to the Orthodox rings a familiar bell. Much of what I liked about being an AngloCatholic is that I had the freedom to be somewhat "Orthodox", while still enjoying the familiarity of Anglican Worship. He then goes on to note that he leans toward the Roman position on theological questions, and he finds the filioque eminently reasonable and closer to Scripture than the Orthodox position (forgetting for a moment that the one place in Scripture which addressed the Procession of the Holy Spirit specifically states that He proceeds from the Father).

He acknowledges that "The Eastern churches have, one must admit, an impressive two-thousand year history of eucharistic unity and orthodoxy." He proposes historically weak suppositions for how this was accomplished, and then has to throw in the canard of the jurisdictional problem in the U.S. While the jurisdictional issue is of concern, it hardly represents as much of a problem as he supposes (the fact of reunification of effectively warring jurisdictions - ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate bodes well for unity in the U.S.). Similar to Philip Jenkins, he looks at the future of the Church in a very secular way. The reality is that Orthodoxy and Eucharistic unity has been maintained in spite of a myriad of challenges.

The fact of the matter is that Rome has changed the teaching and doctrine of the Church, and there is no honest argument against that. John Henry Newman put forth a somewhat compelling rationale for this under the guise of development of doctrine, but whether you call it development or not, it is change, and significant change.

When you step back for a minute, what directs Dr. Koons to Rome and not to Orthodoxy are his comfort with worship style, his opinion of weighty theological matters discussed by men of great holiness, his need for supreme singular authority. In other words, it is really about him. This is a critical statement for me to make, but I make it against myself as well. The primary besetting sin of humanity, the sin of the garden, is the sin of me. Orthodoxy proposes, in its stead, a theology of us and you.

This theology of communion, as I would casually call it, is the answer to the question Mr. Orr proposes. It is making it clear that Orthodoxy offers a cure for the malady of me, by replacing it with you and us. In fact, this is the big difference - the big point. Orthodoxy does not offer a philosophy class. It does not offer a set of logical propositions to be held on to - it does not attempt to save by virtue of the intellect. Rather, as did the Great Healer who founded it, Orthodoxy offers a therapeutic method. I think that when people become truly aware of their need to be healed, then they will heed the call of Orthodoxy. As a final note, a children's book was recently translated into English, which holds much of value to adults. I heartily recommend it. It is called, "From I-ville to You-ville." That is precisely what Orthodoxy is all about.

I should add one more thing that I think should be of some concern to people concerning Rome. Dr. Koons cites a total of 2 theologians who describe his beliefs. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. A friend of mine and I have, for a very long time, noted that most modern Roman Catholic theology can be summed up by Augustine and Aquinas, with perhaps a smidge of Anselm plus the writings of the latest Pope. In fact, most books, and most apologetics sites seem to predominantly quote this group. On the contrary, when reading Orthodox sources, while you may see a preference for St. Gregory Palamas and St. John Chrysostom, you will also see references and quotes of everyone from St. John of Shanghai (20th Century) back to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I think this reflects a lack of willingness on the part of Orthodox to look to one person to summarize their beliefs. Instead, they always look to the community - in this case the community of Church fathers. Again, I think Rome has long since left this communal view behind.

Posted: Saturday - June 02, 2007 at 09:29 PM          

©