#Biblical parallels in Orthodox theology

[seekingtheosis]

Mother Mary as the Pillar of Cloud & Fire

In the name of God the Father, Christ Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, One True God. Amen. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus It has been a blessed experience to learn and share about the various imageries used for the blessed Theotokos in the Orthodox Christian worship and its teachings. As we draw closer to the Feast of the Assumption of the blessed Mother, let us look forward for…

[peaceofthespirit]

Dr. Chrissy Stroop (an ex-evangelical atheist writer I follow on twitter) often makes such great points about how we can't just say "oh those people aren't real christians!!!" when fundies do something regressive in the name of Jesus. Those people have arguments that still use the bible and Christian tradition, whether we like it or not.

Melissa Florer-Bixler, a Mennonite pastor and writer, also recently brought up that "Christian" is pretty much a broad sociological category unified only through members' self-identification.

I've been thinking about all this a lot. One thing I went through as I began deconstructing was my relationship to the Bible and Christian tradition. In some ways, tradition didn't matter for me as much, since I grew up non-denominational in a church that wanted to get rid of "idolatrous" traditions and get back to the spirit of the "early church." But when it came to scripture, there was apparently no valid questioning of it in their eyes (which is hilarious considering that the biblical canon didn't exist in the early church?) Anyways, after I began to read the Bible more critically (and keeping in mind historical or cultural context/differences), I began to realize that I sometimes just didn't like what it was saying. I typically have never felt that way when I read teachings ascribed to Jesus (at least in terms of the basic meanings), but other parts of the new testament? Sometimes I just disagree (same goes for the old testament too but I'm talking about the explicitly Christian texts here). And many critical, biblical scholars assert that a lot of the new testament disagrees with itself in many places anyway (letters and texts written by different people who probably didn't agree on every detail?? hello??). So for me, I continue to identify as Christian because I see myself as a follower/disciple of Jesus, or at least someone in constant dialogue with his teachings (not to say one can't ever go further or find new insights). But while the evangelicals I grew up with claim that they are Christians because they affirm specific things about the person, death, and "resurrection" of Jesus, their Christianity is more than just that. No matter how much they love to claim that you don't need "works" for salvation (that's a whole other can of worms), they still follow so many rules and take the whole Bible extremely seriously/literally (at least their specific interpretations) and refuse to "disagree" with the canon texts.

So I then I see people say stuff like "how can I stay Christian? Especially when Christians are so terrible?" Well first of all, what matters first and foremost is your actions and well-being. If you don't want to engage with Christian texts or traditions anymore, or don't want to call yourself a Christian, that's totally valid. In fact, I think that Jesus himself would totally understand. Just go be a good person and take care of yourself.

However, I personally have no issue identifying as a Christian, largely because what I believe is so different from what the fundies believe. Maybe I would struggle if I was still holding the text in a similar regard to them and sticking to fairly "orthodox" church teachings/canons/etc. Because while one can be progressive and still take the Bible somewhat literally, you get the same issues of how tightly you are holding on to certain interpretations, presuppositions, historical pictures, and etc. You see how someone who has a strong allegiance to a specific church/understanding in a way that parallels your own convictions can turn out to be so un-progressive.

So what I say to that is, let go of certainty, and hold on to what you love about Christianity (which is typically the essence of Jesus's messages). Don't be afraid to be someone who others wouldn't really consider "Christian" because you are willing to eschew the hierarchies that have made their way into the church and traditional theologies.

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

Moon’s theology was designed to maximize worker output

A Korean Evangelistic Movement in the West

Professor James A. Beckford      1973

... The radical novelty of this group [the Unification Church, now known as the FFWPU] lies in both its peculiar teachings and in its social organization, but perhaps most strikingly is the way in which it effects a conciliation between ostensibly incompatible teachings and principles of organization. For the teachings combine strands of Karmic Buddhism with Christian messianism, spiritualistic metaphysics with Judaic millennialism, and biblical truth with esoteric revelation, while its social organisation combines communal living with autocratic control. ...

... The conjunction of Christian messianic millennialism and schematic meta-physics [polarity, three stages of growth, four-position foundation, parallels of history, etc.] in the set of Unification Church beliefs described above does not amount to a major novelty on the religious scene of the Western world, for a number of groups have already espoused formally similar views. Yet, the additional complication of a perspective borrowing heavily from spiritualistic traditions serves to give the UC a unique distinctiveness among contemporary religious groups. In Korea, of course, the shamanistic tradition has always been dominant, and nearly all the new religions have effected a synthesis between shamanistic elements and a wide diversity of other inspirations. Indeed, the realm of spiritual matters is of the utmost importance to UC members, and their daily activities evince a heightened awareness of a dimension transcending the ‘everyday’ world. Moon’s Divine Principle teaches that the physical and spiritual worlds are indivisible, and that it is possible for man to develop a special sensitivity to spiritual affairs. The aim of the sincere UC member is accordingly to achieve spiritual perfection during earthly existence as a preliminary to joining the ‘limited number’ of Divine Spirits who will enjoy the fruits of a paradisal existence thereafter. ‘Spiritual’ in this context refers to a person’s attitudes towards, and actions in respect of, God, and ‘spiritual perfection’ means adopting attitudes and behaviour-patterns that reflect a relationship of mutual love with God. 

The notion of ‘salvation’ seems inappropriate, therefore, in the UC context, since the opportunity to achieve spiritual perfection arises from the outworking of almost mechanical ‘principles’, and it is the individual’s personal responsibility to improve his own condition.

A further implication of UC belief in the indivisibility of the physical and spiritual realms is that both good and evil spirits are understood to influence the course of everyday events on earth. The allegedly recent upsurge in para-normal phenomena, for example, is said to be partly the result of spirits’ attempts to re-inhabit physical bodies in order to achieve perfection before the time of irrevocable judgement arrives. Thus,

More and more people are speaking in tongues, healing, prophesying, imparting spiritual fire, and performing mighty works at this time. Most, of these are the co-operative ministries of Life-Spirits.5

Since it is believed that Life-Spirits can only establish rapport with people sharing their aims, UC members count themselves an ‘elect on earth’ in a uniquely privileged generation. They therefore link their own specially privileged role with Moon’s divine mission and with the aspirations to perfection of innumerable spirit entities in what they foresee as an imminent period of division.

Illustrative of the strength of interest in spiritualistic matters in the UC is the fact that a highly publicised part of the legitimation for Moon’s claims to messiahship rests upon the evidence of an American spirit-medium. Several publications carry the message of Arthur Ford,  ‘a world-known sensitive’ , that Moon was ‘Truth Incarnate...a prophet…who has tremendous spiritual power and also psychic power...who will bridge the gap between the east and west and the past and the future’. Similarly, Moon’s own account of his divine calling describes an intense vision that he experienced at the age of sixteen in which Christ instructed him to complete the mission that He had failed to accomplish 2,000 years before. It is widely believed amongst UC members that Moon still receives revelations direct from God, although he is also thought to be subject to temptations by satanic spirits.

The UC’s explanation of evil is simple and relatively orthodox by most Christian standards: Satan usurped God’s position as the object of man’s affection, thereby-forestalling the realisation of the happiness that God had intended for Adam and his descendants. Moon’s teachings deviate sharply from Christian traditions, however, in regard to the possibility of overcoming evil, for he adopts a position more closely resembling that of Buddhism. Denying that Jesus cancelled the law of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’, Moon teaches that man can discharge his debt of evil by acts of ‘physical indemnity or restitution’ such as fasting, taking cold baths, early rising and exceedingly hard work. He explicitly endorses belief in the operation of an inexorable Law of Karma, holding that:

Those who harm or mistreat their brothers will find themselves in the position of being themselves mistreated if they fail to make amends. If they arrive in the spirit world with unpaid debts, they will have to work to assist perhaps the very ones they hurt in order to pay what they owe.6

Conversely, Moon argues that discomfort, dissatisfaction and disappointment are penalties imposed by Satan on those who try to live by God’s Principle, and this frequently serves as a rationalization for all kinds of failure in UC enterprises. The psychological effectiveness of such a theodicy* probably depends heavily on a very real belief in the active interference of spirit beings in human affairs.

[* Theodicy, in its most common form, is an attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil.]

UC beliefs therefore resemble those of many so-called ‘Little Traditions’ in peasant cultures of South Asia through their fusion of karmic laws and demonic contingencies: Moon’s followers explain evil by reference both to ‘inexorable laws of indemnity’ and to the interference of satanic spirits. If this reconciliation between two distinct theodicies appears to rest upon a paradox, then we must agree with Obeyesekere that ‘the paradox is part of the system and integral to it’.7 In fact, receptivity to the influence of local religious traditions is a distinguishing feature of Buddhism in Asia which helps to explain its ability to embrace theoretically incompatible elements of doctrine and thereby to survive as a viable religious form.

Moon’s teachings on the subject of the denouement of God’s plan for human restitution are the most confused parts of the UC’s total body of beliefs; on the one hand, there are predictions of the imminent collapse of all social systems in the last days of God’s battle with satanic forces, but, on the other, there are statements to the effect that mid-twentieth century history is characterized by fruitful patterns of unification in religion, culture, economics and politics. Nevertheless, Moon has unequivocally identified signs that the Second Advent is in process of occurring: victory for the Allies in World War I symbolized the defeat of the satanic forces that had ensnared Adam; Allied victory in World War II symbolized the defeat of the satanic forces that had prevented Christ from accomplishing His mission; finally, the anticipated frustration of the Soviet Union’s alleged plot to bring the entire world under the communist yoke will symbolize the Lord of the Second Advent’s establishment of freedom, and good on earth. ...

... Similarly, the Western groups [of the UC] have no knowledge of the intensively shamanistic character of Tong-il rituals and beliefs in its homeland nor of the harmonious relations that it enjoys with the South Korean government.

1. ‘Tong-il’ is the native Korean title for the movement known in the West as the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity [or Unification Church, now the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification].

5. The Divine Principle, ed. Young Oon Kim, H.S.A.U.W.C., Washington D.C., 8th edition, 1970, p. 95.

6. Ibid., p. 60.

7. G. Obeyesekere, ‘The Great Tradition and the Little in the perspective of Sinhalese Buddhism’, Journal of Asian Studies. XXII, 2, 1963, p. 149.

Arthur Ford was a con man too

The FFWPU / Unification Church and Shamanism

Sun Myung Moon’s theology used to control members

Ashamed to be Korean

The Moons’ God is not the God of Judeo-Christianity

Sun Myung Moon – Restoration through Incest

Studying the Divine Principle is a passive ingestion of written ‘truth’

[kabane52]

Sola Scriptura, Solo Scriptura, and the Question of Tradition

This was in response to a Facebook comment about the classical Protestant understanding of ecclesial tradition as an authority subordinate to Scripture rather than being irrelevant or meaningless to one’s interpretive paradigm. 

 Personally, I think that while sola scriptura and solo scriptura are conceptually distinct, the former reduces to the latter because there is an equivocation on what “authority” means. The analogy often used of lower and higher courts of law isn’t applicable because when one is speaking of theological doctrine, one isn’t speaking of something which can be hierarchically ordered in terms of its authority for Christians, even though some doctrines undoubtedly play a more central role in structuring the whole system of Christian teaching.��

When one is dealing with authority in the way that scripture is authoritative, one speaks of it as authoritative because it is absolutely trustworthy as a witness to divine truth. Given that truth or falsehood are mutually exclusive- a thing can’t be false in the same way that it is true- there cannot be higher and lower authorities here. And while one might say that tradition is authoritative but subordinate to scripture, this cannot be concretely implemented, because in the Orthodox and Catholic view of tradition, tradition is authoritative precisely in its capacity to bear absolutely reliable witness to divine truth and thereby cut off interpretive approaches that contradict the traditional teaching.

If one holds the Lutheran and Reformed idea of tradition as a subordinate authority, then how does this actually function? If a person doesn’t believe that the scriptures teach the eternal generation of the Son, then they can appeal to scripture as a witness against the traditional teaching. If told that they should accept tradition as a subordinate authority, they need only reply that this is an example of where tradition must be overruled by scripture. There’s no consistent way to cut off a person’s heretical approach without comprising the underlying principle which governs sola scriptura (not just solo scriptura).

Consider as a parallel the issue of Matthew and Luke. There is no hierarchy of authority between Matthew and Luke. They are equally authoritative because they are equally inspired by the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth. To one who holds the traditional Christian doctrine of biblical inerrancy, they simply cannot say that Matthew overrules Luke or Luke overrules Matthew. What about if they find what genuinely seems to them to be a contradiction between the two? They will have to say that while the two are reconciliable, they are not presently aware of how they are reconcilable. 

What that does is leads a person to continue to meditate upon and engage with the two texts, ultimately producing a deeper understanding of both and very often an organic reconciliation which solves the problem. But if they go into it thinking that Luke is a subordinate authority to Matthew, then how long are they supposed to think about the issue and attempt to reconcile them? What if they still can’t find a reconciliation after six months? A year? Ten years? If they think that Luke is subordinate to Matthew, at some time or other they will simply conclude that Luke is wrong and Matthew is right. In doing this, they will miss what the Holy Spirit wished for them to see in His work.

This is essentially how I conceive of scripture and tradition. The Bible functions as an integrated unit in its own right, so it should not be imagined that each particular book or passage in scripture ought to be considered in its own right within the tradition of the Church. The Bible as the integrated written word of God, utterly perfect, has its own way of speaking and teaching us theology that is different than the way the Councils or the Fathers teach us theology. So we must consider each text in scripture within its context, each book within its specific covenantal context (the Torah as unit, Prophets, Writings, New Testament) and each collection of books in its overall canonical context. 

The canon, then, is considered in its canonical context, which is the tradition of the Church, which bears witness to the authenticity of the Scripture since the Church breathes by the same Spirit who breathed the Divine Logos into text. So if we cannot understand how to reconcile a particular passage with this overall tradition, there’s no expiration date for when we are freed to break with the tradition and follow what we take scripture to say. We are required to keep working at it, to keep studying to find an organic and hermeneutically sound integration between the two.

If the tradition is not genuinely inspired, then this should be a fool’s errand. It should produce immense difficulty and confusion, and one ought to begin to find that anomalies just keep piling up, getting worse as one studies the issue more and meditates on the words of God in Scripture. But if tradition is authentically inspired by the Spirit of God, one should find the opposite: that tradition plays a clarifying role, assisting us in the sacred work of interpretation by preventing us from wasting time on false paths which lead nowhere. It has been my experience, again and again, that alleged scriptural contradictions resolve themselves when one has a proper understanding of the covenant-historical unfolding of the Bible and the language of biblical symbolism, history, and typology. G.K. Beale has talked about this amazing experience where one truly sees in practice the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God intextualized. 

Here’s the thing: I’ve had the exact same experience concerning the integration of the Scriptures with the tradition of the Church. Again and again, continuing to work at a realistic and sound integration of scripture and tradition- so that a particular interpretation concordant with tradition need not be propped up by explicit appeal to that tradition, but is believable simply as exegesis of scripture on its own terms- has revealed incredible depths and beauties in the Bible. Over and over again, it has struck me that superficial discord transforms into a very deep concord between Scripture and tradition- often Scripture and tradition will say something in a completely different way. Tradition speaks in terms of transfigured metaphysics and philosophy, while the Hebrew Bible speaks in the language of the temple and priesthood, symbolism and typology. But when one deepens one’s understanding of both, there is a very rich unity between them.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Catechesis Flows from Byzantine Marian Spirituality - PART 2 (Marian Mariology) by Brother John M. Samaha, S.M.

Is There a Byzantine Mariology?

Researching this question leads to a seeming paradox. On one hand we find a tremendous richness of Marian thought in the liturgy, but on the other hand a virtual absence of specifically Mariological studies in theology. In the Eastern Churches for the understanding and appreciation of the Virgin Mother of God developed differently, and is not the result of scientific theological reflection. The Mariological experience and piety of the Byzantine Churches — Catholic and Orthodox — seem to be embodied almost entirely in the worship. But we find no prominent theological reflection on the subject, nothing that would parallel the specialized Mariological treatises of the Western Church. Theology manuals contain no charges dealing with the place of Mary in the economy of salvation. The veneration of Mary, which is so central in Byzantine worship, had not been extensively expressed, analyzed, or evaluated systematically.

This scarcity of theological reflection may seem to some a deficiency in Byzantine theology. How could the Byzantine Church which never prays to God or Jesus Christ without at the same time also addressing her prayers to Mary, and which constantly praises her who ". . . is more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim . . ." neglect theologizing about her? Why has the Byzantine theological mind not been focused on this enormously important aspect of its list and worship?  

In the Byzantine mind, this seeming absence of theological study and reflection is seen as an integral part of the "mystery of Mary" in the experience of the Church. The Byzantine scholar questions whether theology as the rational investigation of the truths of faith is adequate to transpose into precise terms the real content of that mystery. Perhaps the proper locus of Mariology is in liturgy and prayer, that is, in worship. This is reminiscent of Prosper of Aquitaine's maxim: Lex orandi, lex credendi.

In the Eastern traditions, Mariology developed through liturgical veneration within the framework of the concomitant feasts; that is, it followed the development of Christology and the Church's contemplation of the Incarnation. All Marian devotion — liturgical and popular — remained organically connected with the mystery of Christ. This has always been the norm and criterion.

In the Byzantine spiritual heritage the liturgy has been the principal locus of Mariology. The liturgical expression of piety is often found to be adorned with allegory and symbolism. This gave rise to questions about the biblical character and justification of these expressions or forms. Where in the Bible do we find information about Mary's nativity, presentation in the temple, dormition? Yet these are celebrated as Marian festivals. Whatever their poetic, liturgical, and hymnographic expressions, all these events are real because they are self-evident. Mary was born, like every Jewish girl, she was taken to the temple, she eventually went to heaven. Simply because such information derives from the Apocrypha does not alter their reality. The Church contemplates the ultimate reality of these events, not the poetic elaborations in the prayers and hymns. (continued in part 3)...

From: www.pamphletstoinspire.com

[askchua]

My church has recently announced a split, with one side claiming they follow the traditional view of marriage versus the other side that seems to be more loving and inclusive of my non-church friends. How can I stay true to the Bible and love others?

The movie “Book of Eli” is set in America where society has broken down after a nuclear war and Eli is on a quest to deliver a book westward. A warlord wants the book because he believes it contains words of power to control others. Eli knows that those words in the wrong hands can abuse others and is willing to fight and die to ensure that the warlord does not have the book.

Since the establishment of the Christian church, throughout history there have always been people who have questioned its leadership about how true to the Bible or Jesus’ teachings that leadership and the subsequent actions of the church has been. That’s why Christianity now has two main divisions from the initial Catholic Church: Orthodox and the Protestants. That’s why Believers of the Apostle Creed recite “I believe… in holy Catholic Church’ still. Protestants, who get their name and identity from being protesters against wrong teaching in the broader Church, therefore has a continual history of ‘splitting’ or separating themselves further from other believers of Jesus on that basis. While, practically any idea that defines a protestant movement has some mirror in some Catholic somewhere, let’s just say unity and acceptance of others with different theological views has not always been a defining trait of many Protestant churches or movements.

Every leadership championing a split has always done it in the name of being more faithful to God and the Bible than their opposers. Increasingly these leadership claim their position as ‘traditional’ labelling their opposers as either progressives (that is, steering away from the text) or, increasingly using a sneering term from conservative politics, revisionists (that is, claiming to rewrite the original text with ideas not present there). This also parallels the increasing alignment of religion and conservative/right-leaning politics (search ‘Republican Party and evangelicals history’). An alignment that has only been really active in Protestantism in the last 50 years. Prior to that religion and politics were generally regarded as separate. Of course, Christianity has a long history of challenging tradition and bringing ‘progressive’ social change to all of society - driven by the theological view that human society has never reached the pinnacle of God’s values where all people are seen as equally worthy and valued children of God deserving of all opportunities to thrive and so therefore changes need to occur (e.g. search ‘social gospel’ or early church non-conformity to society). This 'fresh' marriage of Republican and evangelicals has contributed to churches being more the defenders of traditional power structures and values rather than challenging them (search ‘liberation theology’). The underlying assumption is that ‘traditional’ view of the past is the best version of life there is, and anything progressive or revisionist challenges that and therefore is ‘bad’, 'disruptive' or ‘sinful.’

In history circles, the term revisionist history is embraced as a common and non-controversial approach to understanding and defining history. The challenge to previous ‘orthodox’ history through introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved is embraced as just how the study of history is done well (e.g. the movie ‘Braveheart’). Revisionism is not a dirty word in history. The real problem is historical negation, which is attributing false conclusions to books and sources, ignoring valid contradictory information or inclusion of false documents, or deliberate misinterpreting of the text (e.g. denial of the Holocaust or perpetuating Australia Terra nullius).

When a church says they claim to be a champion of the Biblical traditional view of marriage - I wonder how much they actually understand the history of the Biblical traditions of marriage. Women’s choice in marriage? Marriage for love? Being a good/better follower of God as a married person versus single? Rape in marriage is wrong? Not using marriage to avoid masturbation? Abuse as a valid reason for divorce? Divorce due to personal incompatibility? Sex as a holy and honourable act? Non-procreative sex as good? Women seen as an equal partner? If you didn’t know all of these ‘traditional’ views are revisionist and are not easily supported by explicit “translate as is” verses. 

The Bible has always championed learning history and shaping our lives from that. While Jesus championed staying true to the ideals of old, he also said that those that stuck to the details of the old often missed the ‘spirit’ of those details and that God was always creating and making things new and that new wineskins were necessary. God and Jesus championed revisionism in getting its followers not to see the world through the eyes of established traditions and values but to see a new kingdom or way of being much greater than anything that existed before, that radically loves in new ways than before. Worry less about labels, love like Jesus did and still does.

[gospelblkhistory]

Day 20 #28DaysOfGospelAndBlackHistory , we highlight Origen Adamantius, later known as Origen of Alexandria. -Born 184AD, died 253 AD. -Wrote 2,000 Treatises consisting of Textual Criticism, Biblical Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Homiletics, Spirituality and Apologetics. -Labeled the greatest Genius of the Early Church -Crowned as the ultimate teaching authority in Palestine and Arabia on all matters of Theology. -Vegetarian (did not eat meat) and Teetotaler (abstained from alcohol) -Taught at The Catechetical School of Alexandria at 18. -Wrote "On First Principles" , a systematic theological layout on the foundation of Christian Theology and Principles. -Wrote "Hexapla", An Old Testament biblical and critical analysis written to defend the faith against Jewish and Gnostic critics of Christianity. It contained 6 parallel columns, 1 in Hebrew and 5 in various Greek translations. Reference: Eastern Orthodox Christianity Christianity Today.com , and Early Coptic Papacy (by Stephen J. Davis) #AfricanChristianityStillThrives #ChristIsMyLifeAthanasiusOnTheShirt #ChristIsKing #MyChurchFathersAreBlack #Gospel #BHM #OrigenOfAlexandria #TheGospelAndBlackHistoryPodcast #TheGospelAndBlackHistory https://www.instagram.com/p/CLrdAjagsQ2/?igshid=67bynsc3ibp0

[seekingtheosis]

Bridging Heaven and Earth: Mother Mary and the Ladder of Jacob

Embark on a spiritual journey as we explore the intriguing connection between the Divine Ladder of Jacob and the revered Mother Mary in Orthodox Christianity. Discover the deep symbolism behind the ladder that bridges heaven and earth, and learn how the..

In the name of God the Father, Christ Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, One True God. Amen. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus It has been a blessed experience to learn and share with you all on various aspects about the blessed Theotokos during our journey to the Feast of the Assumption of Mother Mary. As we continue on this journey, let us explore with each other another Old Testament…

[kabane52]

Why Am I an Orthodox Christian?

A friend of mine asked me this question today, and I realized that I didn’t have anything specifically written in response to it- this article aims to answer this question coherently. From the outset, I must note that the reasons I became an Orthodox Christian, while definitely related, are not necessarily the reasons I remain an Orthodox Christian. I have been Orthodox for seven years, and I have been attending an Orthodox church for nearly eight years. In fact, it is almost the eight year anniversary of the date that I decided to leave Protestantism. My journey towards Orthodoxy is not particularly interesting, and I regard it simply as a momentous act of divine providence. Since I became Orthodox, I have learned much more and refined my theological positions. These are the reasons I am an Orthodox Christian today:

1. I met Christ here.

Before I became Orthodox, my Christianity was very heady and apologetics-oriented. I rarely prayed (though I had begun to pray in the months leading up to my conversion- I regard this as very important) or attended my mom’s evangelical church, which I regarded as boring and spiritually useless. It was very much a “do it yourself” Christianity. Moreover, as I had no instructors to whom I was bound, I could easily justify my own faults and recognize my sin only in an abstract way. When I became Orthodox, I was suddenly bound to the spiritual instruction of the Fathers and bound to a church-community. I was bound to obey the instruction of my spiritual father. I met Christ here because it was here where Christ revealed to me that I had to change my life. I had to repent for my selfish and rude ways of relating to other people, and I had to repent of my immense pride. I am still very much in the process of doing this, but after I became an Orthodox Christian, I began to relate to other people in general and my family in particular in a way that was much healthier.

I also learned to pray in the Orthodox Church. The specific, regulated, instructions on prayer gave me a routine that increased the concrete sense of the Divine Presence in my life. In the summer of 2010, I had an experience with the Jesus Prayer that directly confirmed to me that God hears our prayers and shapes us through them. That was an enormously important experience for me. In short, I learned to know Christ here, and I remain here because I want to continue to learn that most important of all truths.

2. The Scriptures come to life here. 

When asked about biblical inerrancy, G.K. Beale responded that contrary to the common assumption, it is inerrantist scholars who are encouraged to pursue the text more deeply. When faced with a potential contradiction, the evangelical scholar ought not try to force a resolution, neither should he simply assert contradiction. Rather, it is an opportunity for meditation on the biblical text, and very often, the solution will simply present itself- the inerrantist scholar then formally argues for this new interpretation in a scholarly way, and often does so in such a way that convinces non-inerrantist scholars that this particular issue is not an issue. I have found exactly this to be true when it comes to inerrancy- but I have also found it to be true with respect to Scriptural teaching and Orthodox teaching.

A person once asked me what I would do if I found a contradiction between Orthodox theology and the Scriptures- I responded that this question exactly paralleled what I would do if I found an ostensible contradiction between Kings and Chronicles or Matthew and Luke. Instead of simply asserting a contradiction, I would meditate on both Orthodox theology and the Scriptures, and very often, a solution would simply present itself. Importantly, the solutions that present themselves not only work to solve the tension between Orthodoxy and Scripture, but provide additional insights which can be applied more broadly. This is a signpost of a good model, when the insights generated by a theory designed to solve a particular problem unexpectedly provide insights into all sorts of other questions as well. I found this to be true when it comes to the doctrine of justification. I worked on this question for several years, and as I continued to reflect on the question, I found that the reading of Paul most congruent with Orthodox theology actually generated biblical-theological insights all across the Bible. I found that the reading of Scripture that I had come to accept was so powerful that it could be defended even without reference to tradition. Thus, I find Orthodox theology in the text of Scripture not because I am imposing it from tradition, but because it is really there. It is not merely one possible interpretation of the text, but the correct interpretation. For that reason, it can be proven even if one assumes sola scriptura for the sake of argument. 

This is an incredibly powerful experience when one experiences it directly. I have experienced it again and again and again. But that’s not only how Scripture comes to life in Orthodoxy. I have found that studying biblical symbolism makes the Divine Liturgy come to life. The readings for particular festivals make much more sense when you know biblical theology. The Divine Liturgy, for example, follows out step by step the process of Israel’s covenant with God at Sinai- each Liturgy is a covenant renewal. It follows out, step by step, the offerings of Leviticus 1-3, which itself is designed as a covenant renewal for ancient Israel, one which brings them back to Sinai. That liturgical pattern is expanded in more detail throughout the rest of Scripture, especially the Book of Revelation. Importantly, I’m not sure if the various connections between the daily readings and the life of the Church were even known to those who set up the liturgical cycle- it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who inspired the Bible. I have found that the Mariological symbolism described by the Church Fathers richly connects with Scripture and the way it uses the typology of the Bride Eve. Consider as one example the fact that Zipporah, after circumcising her son Gershom in Exodus 4, refers to him as her “Bridegroom of Blood.” This refers to the “tokens of virginity” (the bloody sheets of the wedding night) which are to be produced if a woman is accused of having not been a virgin on her wedding night. The bridegroom of blood is the bridegroom who produces such tokens on the Woman’s behalf- Zipporah’s virginity is thus restored by her son, who is also, symbolically, her bridegroom. This connects deeply with the typology of the Virgin Mary, whose son, Jesus Christ, is the Bridegroom of the Church. Mary is the Ever-Virgin who symbolizes the Church-Bride, the City of God- just as God is said to have “built” Eve from Adam’s side- language only ever used elsewhere of the construction of houses and cities. The Holy Virgin is the City of God. 

3. I have come to know the Saints here.

Saints still exist. Their stories are not just legends from the ancient church. St. John Maximovitch, the greatest saint of the last 100 years, worked mighty miracles throughout his entire life. Hundreds to thousands of witnesses can testify of this. The light of God was radiant from his face. This is what it means to be a member of the new humanity created in Christ. And he is by no means the only example. My patron, St. Seraphim of Sarov, also glowed with the divine light- as many witnesses in his day could attest. And importantly, when one prays through the Saints, when one receives their intercession, these prayers are often answered. Many of the true experiences recounted by evangelical Protestants about stunning answers to prayer have strong parallels in my own experience with the Saints, as well as the experiences of thousands of other Orthodox (and Catholic) Christians. Miracles happen. Unbelievers are led to Christ by a vision of the saints. And so on. Not only do the Saints provide the definitive proof of the incarnation of the Word and the union of God with man in Christ, they also do intercede for us. In the past two years, I have discovered that there is a rich biblical theology of the invocation of Saints from the concept of the Heavenly Council and the glorification of mankind to that council under the New Covenant.

4. Theology is the most true, beautiful, and good here.

In part, this explains why I am not Roman Catholic. As I have studied the Scriptures, Church History, and philosophical theology, I have found the Orthodox case against the Filioque to be extraordinarily powerful- when one recognizes that the eternal relationship of the Son to the Spirit is clarified only when one affirms the doctrine of the threefold distinction between essence, person, and energies. Because most Western theology works only with a twofold distinction, all sorts of problems emerge within philosophy and theology. For example, many Western theologians are at a loss to explain how the mutual indwelling (perichoresis) of the three divine persons is shared with humanity. But within Orthodox theology, we understand that this mutual indwelling is a function of the divine energies- the three persons indwell one another because they eternally share in one another’s activities (energies). As such, the creation, which exists in virtue of contingent participation in the divine energies, reflects this mutual indwelling at every level, and this Trinitarian relationship is the model for all human society- Church, State, and Family.

In philosophy, the doctrine of the divine energies clarifies and deepens our understanding of the philosophy of time. We recognize, for example, that time is not the opposite of eternity, but an icon of eternity. As past, present, and future come to dwell in one another more deeply, time is eventually glorified into eternity, where all past moments reach their goal and the future, towards which the present strains, is wholly realized in eschatology. Moreover, we recognize that timelessness is not identical to eternity. Timelessness is predicated of God as He is in essence, and is an apophatic statement. It means simply that the concept of time altogether transcends the divine essence. But time is real, because it is the result of God’s energetic upholding of the creation from glory to glory. Without an understanding of the threefold distinction, it is difficult to see how a person could affirm that time is real at all- leading some theologians to see time as simply a line on a piece of paper, where all moments are equally real to God.

This doctrine explains how all things are made through the Logos. Because the Father eternally acts or energizes through the Son in the Spirit, He is called the Logos. The forms of all created things are unique modes of participation in God’s creative energies. He constantly upholds the world as it is because the inner essence of every distinct thing is constituted by its mode of participation in the divine energies. As humans, we are images of the Logos, and all things are transfigured and brought to their goal through us, because we share in the Divine Life and thereby pass it on to the creation, which is a macrocosmic man, as St. Maximus teaches. Or, as St. John Damascene says, the whole earth is a living icon of the face of God.

5. Conclusion

There are undoubtedly many other reasons I remain an Orthodox Christian. But the core of this is the fact that Christ lives here. He met me here. He showed me His family, the Saints, here. And here the good, the true, and the beautiful dwell in perfect harmony. Orthodox theology is beautifully congruent with the whole counsel of God as it is realized textually in the Bible. And Orthodox theology generates a philosophical worldview which again and again makes the whole Creation more coherent, shedding new light on every human discipline, from physics to mathematics to biology to history.