When we were visiting Heath's hometown (GC) for Christmas, we had the chance to talk briefly to one of our friends there who has decided to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. His decision is especially interesting considering another friend, from Heath's office, is also considering joining, and we have known four of our fellow Bible college students who joined after college. What is it about Eastern Orthodoxy that is drawing these former non-denominational church members?
We have been reading a book that our friend from GC lent us called "Becoming Orthodox." We have also looked up several internet articles and dug up a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible that my Uncle Mark gave me ten years ago, which has some very helpful articles as well. In college, I learned of the split in 1054 A.D. between the Western and Eastern branches of the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic" Church (Western, now known as Roman Catholic, and Eastern, now known as Eastern Orthodox). However, I always thought that the two branches were pretty much the same except that the Eastern church has icons and rejected the filoque clause in the creed (which was the cause of the split). I have to admit, there were some things I didn't know...
Two doctrines in particular which are troublesome to non-Catholics are the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Infallibility of the Pope. I discovered these doctrines were incorporated into the Roman church after the split. So that knocks two off the list of things that concern or confuse me about the Eastern church.
However, there are still parts of the Eastern church that confound me as much as they did in the Catholic church. I know part of this is my upbringing, hearing the people around me in my non-denominational protestant church voice their own disagreement or bafflement at certain Catholic doctrines or practices. One such practice is the veneration of Mary. When I read the Orthodox church's statement regarding Mary, I agree with the basis of it - she definitely was honored and blessed as no other woman in history has been. But the actual practice of it makes me sooooo uncomfortable. I also understand the Orthodox perspective on praying to the Saints. I understand the perspective, and I don't think it is a problem doctrinally, but I just don't buy it, really. I think, "Why? Why wouldn't I just pray to God myself?" I understand it is supposed to be similar to asking a friend or pastor in the physical realm to pray for you, but when I do that, I do it partially for the advice I might receive and the tangible support I feel from them. I don't think I would get the same benefit from asking a Saint, who I have not known personally and who I presumably can't get feedback from.
The other major hitch for me about Orthodoxy is infant baptism. Now, this is definitely a major hitch, because if we are concerned with going back to how the first Church did things, then infant baptism just might be a part of it. For the children of the first Church members, that is. (The very first Church members were older children or adults who heard the Gospel at Pentecost, accepted it and were baptized, as recorded in Acts - although some would say when whole households were baptized as recorded later in Acts, that it also included babies.) It appears that as early as the 100's or 200's, babies of church members were being baptized. Maybe it was even earlier, but we don't have any record of it. Infant baptism may have began because the early church believed that something actually happened in baptism, and they wanted that something to happen to their children. I understand the early church's belief that something actually happened in baptism, because I think the scriptures support that view. However, what I have long believed is somewhat different from the Orthodox view in that I have assumed that the reason something happens in baptism is because of the faith it expresses; that it is, basically, the means that God has provided or decreed for us to express our belief and repentance, and that is what gives it its power. For my friends or acquaintances that have faith but for some reason have not been baptized, I have always believed that they are still saved by their faith, although I felt they should still go ahead and receive a baptism of faith for the spiritual benefit and blessing that it will bring. I can't explain exactly what that benefit or blessing is - I agree with the Orthodox perspective there, too, that it is a "mystery of grace." It (along with the Lord's Supper) is something God set up as a means of us responding to Him and receiving His grace, and we just need to trust Him on that.
I did some more reading to try to understand the perspective of those who baptize infants, and it became clear that for at least some, they believe that the act of baptism alone can initiate faith. That despite the infant's incapacity to understand and accept the Gospel, God can still provide spiritual blessing and benefit through baptism, which will then lead to later faith. They point out that even our faith was not our own doing - it is God who moved in our hearts and brought us, as older children or adults, to faith and to baptism to express that faith. So, they say, we can trust God to use baptism to initiate faith in the child. I do think proponents of infant baptism believe you must continue to hold on to faith throughout your life in order to be saved, but that it is still through your faith and baptism together (both gifts of God) that you are being saved. Even if that baptism happened prior to your faith. The proponents of infant baptism say, "Why would we want to deny the grace of baptism to a child?" rather than "Why would we baptize an infant who cannot have belief?"
These explanations are interesting to me, but they don't really convince me that Christians should have their infants baptized. Even though I believe in the mysterious grace of baptism, I have trouble seeing how that can apply to an infant. If there is no belief on behalf of the participant, then how is baptism any different than giving the infant a public bath? I guess proponents might answer that it is because of the faith and commitment of the sponsors, parents, and church family involved, who are committed to raising the child in the faith, or perhaps they would answer that it is because of the authority of the priest performing the ceremony?
The final, practical matter of Orthodoxy that would keep many protestants away is the liturgy. Granted, the liturgy is beautiful. It contains lots of doctrine and scripture, which are reinforced and celebrated each time it is spoken - provided the speaker is paying attention. Yet, it is the same beautiful words every week, and as humans who become too easily accustomed to the familiar, I see how many would not even pay attention to what they are saying, how they would begin to think there was some magic in simply saying the words, not that the magic is in what the words attest to, the miracle of Christ saving us. I understand having a plan for worship, a structure to make sure all the various aspects are included (and often times we non-liturgical folk sadly lack this), but I don't see the necessity of having exactly the same words to express the thoughts of worship each week. Didn't David always want to sing a new song to the Lord? While I value and enjoy the rote prayers and hymns that have been collected by the Church through the centuries, I think we have to also leave room for that new song in our hearts for the Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment