# What is the recent lure of Eastern Orthodoxy?



## Pergamum (Nov 2, 2012)

Why have several folks that I am aquainted with fled to Eastern Orthodoxy? What is the lure and what explains the upsurge in conversions to orthodoxy? The link with history? Hatred towards overly systematic calvinism? An interest in Greek or Russian culture?

And how do we treat these who have departed? As erring brothers or as apostates?

What is the best way to engage them, what are the best links to show the errors of Orthodoxy, and what books would you recommend?


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 3, 2012)

Its rather mysterious and they claim to have the unbroken chain of apostolic succession. I think its the feel of this so called tradition in their liturgies that are appealing. After all this day in age doctrine doesn't matter only the feel of unity and tradition.Westminster Seminary California


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 3, 2012)

Witnessing to the EOhttps://docs.google.com/a/lpsk12.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qLWMyHXVnsEJ:www.roboam.com/BB_E_Orthodox_Manual.pdf+how+to+witness+to+eastern+orthodox&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShnSjvV0qKKWaoq0rAZ8ieBWDkRiMhroirrTSd1y49SUDExsCsbCt6mLAgqJMio7Ukt6UcEciD1mc1B5DLcUkVr45Zadr_hvw2lrDu8mzpIVn-llP66odHfoSj1wV5xvBIh_SBX&sig=AHIEtbTuuBtgf_CY6epTWvQmKqyUye6e_w


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 3, 2012)

I suspect that some of the EO growth is from exiting and former RC's who are disgusted by the child molester cover-ups. Similar liturgy to the papists may be the key drawing factor. I hope the phrase "swim the Volga" doesn't get used as much as "swim the Tiber". It is a sad journey, to watch someone make, either way. People are easily duped by tradition and pageantry. Were the people you know recovering RC?


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 3, 2012)

Another argument I have heard is that Christianity is an eastern religion since the Hebrews came from the east therefore they say that they think like the Hebrews not like the over judicial western Romans.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 3, 2012)

It is all post modernism's fault. 

With the rise of post modernity, people have severed their epistemological connections with authority systems that infringe upon their autonomy. Systems that are very much oriented around dogmatic assertions and careful reasoning are particularly odious to the post-modern mind. So they are abandoned for less cognitively demanding systems. 

In short, people go there because it wows the senses, scratches the religious itch, makes few dogmatic assertions, and because it isn't clearly and precisely thought out (it's "fuzziness" is actually attractive to many).


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 3, 2012)

SolaScriptura said:


> It is all post modernism's fault.
> 
> With the rise of post modernity, people have severed their epistemological connections with authority systems that infringe upon their autonomy. Systems that are very much oriented around dogmatic assertions and careful reasoning are particularly odious to the post-modern mind. So they are abandoned for less cognitively demanding systems.
> 
> In short, people go there because it wows the senses, scratches the religious itch, makes few dogmatic assertions, and because it isn't clearly and precisely thought out (it's "fuzziness" is actually attractive to many).



I'm glad this one wasn't hung on G. Bush


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 3, 2012)

Along with "tradition" and supposed authority, I think a part of it is the mix of Eastern mysticism/occultism that is in the Eastern churches. That stuff is alluring our entire culture, in and outside the Church.


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 3, 2012)

Rich Koster said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > It is all post modernism's fault.
> ...



Nice.....


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 3, 2012)

Wow,

Have you guys actually talked to any of these converts, or are you just spouting off? I personally know several converts to EO - from Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran backgrounds. 

On a social level, the answer is fairly obvious. EO has had virtually no presence in the USA until recent decades. They've just now gotten together some seminaries, a publishing house, and some network, so their influence is just now being felt.

But we're probably talking mostly about personal justifications. Here are some reasons I've heard:

1. Unity - converts to EO generally believe in the ideal of a single church, but don't buy the arguments for papal supremacy

2. Historical Liturgy - Many EO churches still have rites demonstrably similar to ancient (3-5 cent.) rites, thus reinforcing the idea of doctrinal continuity

3. Aesthetic Liturgy - Many converts to EO vigorously deny the "spiritualism" of Calvinism, asserting on incarnational grounds that the material is the proper channel for mediating the spiritual; they see Protestant (Calvinist) worship as bypassing the material and as being overly logo-centric

4. Anthropology/Soteriology - Many converts to EO see the West as being preoccupied with theories of original sin, merit, and consequently justification, and believe that their system of deification manages to avoid this; you might say that the East rejects both sides of the Augustine/Pelagian controversy

Lutherans seem to be getting hit particularly hard. I was talking to a Lutheran to EO convert and he said that at least 12 of his colleagues from seminary (LCMS) went East. Part of this may have been because of a surge of scholarship connecting Luther to certain Greek patristic theologians.

I think postmodernism is way off the mark as an explanation. Many EO's view postmodernity as being a Western problem. Catholics have a history of blaming Protestants for modernism, and the EO's have co-opted that line of argumentation to blame the whole West for the whole mess. Even some Westerners agree. The late Colin Gunton articulated this; see his _The One, The Three, and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity_. A recent work by an evangelical critiquing this narrative is Bradley Green, _Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine_. I have a published book review in _Augustinian Studies_.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 3, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> Wow,
> 
> Have you guys actually talked to any of these converts, or are you just spouting off? I personally know several converts to EO - from Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran backgrounds.
> 
> ...



I've heard most the things you list. My comments were my analysis and summary of the real reason. Simply put, post-modernism has created an atmosphere hostile to the dogmatic precision required by Reformed thought and the "fuzzy" pseudo-theology of the East is a lot more amenable. Additionally, the aesthetic of the East appeals to that sensual side that has been reaffirmed by post-modernism. 

In short, post-modernism has planted WITHIN THE CONVERTS THEMSELVES, the epistemological seed that is watered by the East.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 3, 2012)

SolaScriptura said:


> Simply put, post-modernism has created an atmosphere hostile to the dogmatic precision required by Reformed thought and the "fuzzy" pseudo-theology of the East is a lot more amenable. Additionally, the aesthetic of the East appeals to that sensual side that has been reaffirmed by post-modernism.
> 
> In short, post-modernism has planted WITHIN THE CONVERTS THEMSELVES, the epistemological seed that is watered by the East.



I am not certain how often post-modernism is the cause of conversions to Eastern Church. Post-modernism has become so ubiquitous in our culture I do not wish to dismiss it as a cause.

I know former Episcopalians, former Roman Catholics and former evangelical Reformed types that have went over to Eastern Orthodoxy. 

The Episcopalians and Roman Catholics left because their Churches had become liturgically sloppy and vague. The homilies were not connected to Scripture readings appointed for that day. One man told me "I don't recognize the Episcopal Church anymore. Some alien creature has taken over the Church edifice." For ex Roman Catholics, Western Rite Orthodoxy gives them the core of the old liturgy without the Vatican II silliness. 

At least one of the reformed men that went over to the East was not comfortable with some of the dogmatic precision that is part of our reformation heritage.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 4, 2012)

I know the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox pretty well. When my wife came to Christ it was a good while before she felt sure in her new faith and left attending GO services (we would alternate between Redeemer PCA in Manhattan and the GO Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, also in Manhattan). I had a copy of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in English / Greek so I could read it and follow along. I have a hard time believing a born-again person would be able to swallow replacing a Reformed order of worship with the GO liturgy, though I suppose it could happen. Finally, after Pola going to the GO worship for many months a girlfriend of hers there said to her, "If you don't believe this anymore why do you keep coming here?" For she had come to hold to the robust worship of Redeemer as the genuine worship of God. It was at that point she ceased going. When her father found out about it he didn't talk to her for about three years (and to me for about ten – for he held me responsible for her conversion). With the Greeks – and especially Greek Cypriots – it is part of their identity, not just what they believe.

With regard to post-modernism, it is perhaps the relativizing tendency of that worldview – there are no absolutes, only many culturally constructed truths – that has shaken the "faith" of many in the newer Christian communions, seeing them as illegitimate upstart breakaways from "the ancient and sure original faith". I lived among the purest form of Greek Orthodoxy (which the Greeks say is in Cyprus) for nine years, and did not personally run across any GO whom I thought to be born-again.

One Eastern Orthodox poet, Scott Cairns, said of American Christianity, that it is "the thinnest of soups". There is some truth in that; I myself have known it to be so. I learned early on one must seek the Lord for themselves and not depend on church services to sustain one. That might seem radical, but consider: we bring our faith to worship, and expect to meet the Lord there, but in some churches we are disappointed. A godly church, and an anointed pastor, is a real blessing from God. Only in vital Reformed churches is the "soup" rich. When I planted and pastored a Reformed church in Cyprus, I had to seek and find the Lord for myself, so as to be able to feed others with what He fed me. We all of us need to have that vital and intimate communion with our Saviour, for we do not know what days of spiritual deprivation may come upon us in these uncertain times – we may even be in the position of having to feed others.

Postmodernism has also impacted the view of many with regard to the Bible. The deconstructing all authority – and authoritative sources – has not spared the Scriptures (postmodern deconstruction was originally directed at literary works, I believe). Persons like Bart Ehrman work in this vein to great effect, as do many others. The attraction, then, to Eastern Orthodoxy – even from professing evangelicals – is for a bulwark of certainty in a deconstructed world. If one has not a _sure_ faith – a _sure_ union and communion – with Jesus Christ, _*and*_ a sure faith in God's word, the Bible, one is vulnerable to "every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14), and may be carried away who-knows-where.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 4, 2012)

Odd flip side: I have a Coptic friend who sends people to Reformed churches where there is not an EO-type church near them, as we are 'the closest thing' to it. Might that be part of the reason? Few evangelical churches talk about Augustine, Chrysostom, and Origen. Our pastor quotes them with some frequency.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 4, 2012)

Are reformed people who convert to EO then to be considered apostates? Or erring brethren?

Among several of these the trend seemed to be for them to read federal vision stuff before departing. Is Federal Vision a "gateway drug" as one falls into Catholicism or EO?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 4, 2012)

I think the maxim found in C.S. Lewis (though I am not sure it is original to him) might be helpful in sorting through that: any road into Jerusalem, is also a road out of Jerusalem. If someone moved from atheism, Buddhism, etc., into EO the step is in the right direction: at least there is the confession of fundamental truth about God the Trinity, and the person and natures of Jesus, along with exposure to the Scriptures. But if someone moves from Westminster or Geneva or Canterbury to EO, they are accepting accretions which obscure the Scriptures, idolatry which corrupts worship, and a more flawed theology. (I have a hard time deciding whether moving from Rome to Constantinople is a purely lateral move, or if one church is fundamentally worse than the others: against Rome is of course the papacy itself, clerical celibacy, and some other points, but against Constantinople is the rejection of the _filioque_ clause -- though of course I would distinguish between someone who rejected its constitutional authority because of the manner of its introduction, as opposed to someone who rejected its meaning.) It is hard to take that step away from Christ as being anything other than, at the very least, grave personal declension, and I suspect apostasy is actually more likely. We can always pray for them, and hold out hope of a recovery (as Petrus Dathenus was recovered from a slide back into the Roman church); but it seems to me that the parallel with Hebrews, where there was the temptation to turn back to Judaism, should certainly set off some very loud alarm bells as to the consequences of turning one's back on the clarity that has been attained and the simplicity and spirituality that has been recovered. I think the influence of postmodernism is seen in that for some people it doesn't really matter what the doctrinal content of your confession is; what matters is what sort of an experience you have in worship.

It is always tragically interesting that questions of church, liturgy, continuity, and history seem to loom so large in discussions about conversions to EO and papism; but it seems that Christ is rarely the focal point (a partial exception is a person I read of who remained in Rome when the priest asked where else they could go to have the actual body and blood of Christ - transubstantiation seemed to her a way to remain close to Christ). Not that I suppose that people who go in this way are explicitly or consciously rejecting Christ; but simply that he has already been somewhat occluded in their thoughts, and so other factors gain an undue influence.

I think it would serve well as a bulwark against such conversions in our own churches, if the teaching of Hebrews and Colossians were clearly brought before the congregation, and if the consideration of Christ himself were a bigger part of our preaching and devotions. Calvin on Colossians 2 is fantastic in this regard, as for instance on v.19: 


> He condemns in the use of one word whatever does not bear a relation to Christ. He also confirms his statement on the ground that all things flow from him, and depend upon him. Hence, should any one call us anywhere else than to Christ, though in other respects he were big with heaven and earth, he is empty and full of wind: let us, therefore, without concern, bid him farewell. Observe, however, of whom he is speaking, namely, of those who did not openly reject or deny Christ, but, not accurately understanding his office and power, by seeking out other helps and means of salvation, (as they commonly speak,) were not firmly rooted in him.



I believe that "in other respects" Rome and EO both are empty and full of wind. But even if they were not, even if with regard to discipline and government and liturgy and whatever else they may wish to claim they were everything they say and more, even in that case I could not consent to embrace them, because their doctrine obscures Christ. No unbroken succession of ordination can profit me where Christ is not clearly placarded before my eyes. No massive organizational unity can give my conscience rest where the fullness of Christ for my salvation is not made plain. I suppose those may be embarrassingly evangelical statements; but Christ invited me to come to him. Yes, I know about that invitation only because of the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the church: yes, if I would have fellowship with Christ I must enter into the fellowship of the apostles; I understand that. But the point of those things is never to put Christ further away or to draw a veil over him, and if ever they do it is an abuse to be corrected, not a virtue to be embraced.

P.S. I think the FV is often a gateway drug, in three ways. One, because it does not give rest and stability to those who are insufficiently rooted. I think this may be the main way, that it does very little to establish people in the faith. That has to do not only with the contents of FV teaching, but also with the fact that it itself is unstable and developing, that some of its leaders have apparently not come to rest yet on a stable foundation, and that many of them enjoy shaking things up and making provocative remarks, without considering the effect of such actions on the unsettled. Some people pass through Reformed churches in their wanderings, and FV teaching presents an additional obstacle to them settling down with Reformed theology. Two, in that the distance between Biblical truth and Roman/EO teaching is not much emphasized: the bright line warning that the Tiber must not be crossed can get a little smudged - e.g., Doug Wilson's call for us to pray for our RC brethren when JPII died. Three, in that in some areas FV doctrine does approximate to Roman/EO views more closely. I put that one last because there are obvious incompatibilities, and I think erosion of the idea that Rome is entirely unacceptable mixed with an encouragement to flightiness and fluidity in theology probably have more to do with the conversions than because FV is simply a stop in a direction that if followed to its logical end would inevitably wind up kissing the Pope's ring or kneeling in front of an icon.


----------



## kodos (Nov 5, 2012)

I was shocked to look at some old posts on the PB, and click on an inactive member's homepage (in his signature link) to find out that he is now an EO Priest(!). What an unpleasant surprise.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 5, 2012)

Here's the text of a blog post I wrote about this phenomenon a couple of years ago:

Over the past several years, I’ve had a few acquaintances who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (hereafter EO). Others are currently drawn to it or at some point have been strongly attracted to it. Most of these are people I’ve encountered in various online discussion forums dedicated to the discussion of Reformed theology.

All of these have been folks who were at one time members of a conservative Presbyterian denomination like the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and who were often some kind of Baptist to begin with. Often, although not always, they were attracted to the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul in the mid 2000′s. The following observations may or may not apply to the same degree to Westerners from different backgrounds who go EO.​It seems to me that Westerners convert to Eastern Orthodoxy due to a few reasons or considerations:

1. They reject Roman Catholicism because they cannot accept papal infallibility, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and maybe a few other things. In general, Rome has too much baggage for many Americans and some other Westerners of a Protestant background. Due to Trent and subsequent statements, Rome’s teaching appears to be a lot more clearly defined as well. A clear marking of boundaries tends to give rise to controversy. I don’t know that the East ever experienced a scholastic phase to the extent that the West did during the Middle Ages and later with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Thus, it seems that one can look eastward and see what he wants to see to a greater degree.
​2. Many of them would have been attracted to Anglicanism in previous years. However, Anglicanism is now basically a disaster in the West, having been eviscerated by liberalism over the past 100 years and with apparently no cohesive conservative remnant. Some Calvinistic evangelical Anglicans (or what used to be called low church) may go into some kind of Reformed or Presbyterian church and a few others may affiliate with the African Anglicans that are now overseeing some parishes that have disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church USA. A good many of the high church types tend to cross the Tiber eventually unless they are hung up on the ordination of women, celibacy or Rome’s claim to authority. 

3. They have rejected Calvinism and for whatever reason cannot be Lutheran, probably because of the strong law/grace distinction and Two Kingdom theology that is found in Lutheranism. The EO types are typically into the idea of Christendom and often have an emphasis on influencing the culture. Thus, Anglicanism would have been a good fit but see #2. Lutheranism, like Calvinism, is also viewed as insufficiently apostolic by those who equate the ancient church (and thus authentic Christianity) with Rome or the East. But I find that the rejection of Protestantism on the grounds of it not being apostolic in its teaching or authority typically follows discontent with it in some other regard.
​4. Due to the conversions of Peter Gillquist and others, the easy availability of information on the internet that wouldn’t have been readily available a few decades ago and perhaps some of the American Orthodox churches becoming less of an ethnic social club, Eastern Orthodoxy is more accessible to Americans than it has ever been.​​ Quick Thoughts on the Attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy « One Pilgrim's Progress

Admittedly, this was rather off the cuff, but I think a lot of this holds water regardless. This could be accused of being somewhat superficial but it was in reaction to what appeared to me to be somewhat superficial reasons for converting.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 5, 2012)

So basically it all revolves nearly around 'tradition' being the new fashionable gig. Very general I know.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 5, 2012)

Tradition is the new fad.....ironic.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 5, 2012)

Is it just that tradition is the new fad? Or is it that worship has become so trendy without any sense of the transcendent that the Eastern Church has become a safe refuge? Some of the fellows going over to the East have lamented to me that there is no old guard Anglican Church near by to attend.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 5, 2012)

yeutter said:


> Some of the fellows going over to the East have lamented to me that there is no old guard Anglican Church near by to attend.


What?


----------



## gordo (Nov 5, 2012)

EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.

That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.


----------



## Randy in Tulsa (Nov 5, 2012)

A friend of mine left a "reformed" Presbyterian church and followed his wife and children to an Eastern Orthodox Church. When we met for lunch a few months after he had left his former church (that he had attended for 15-20 years), there were three things that stood out to me. First, he clearly was enamored with the mystical nature of the religious worship. I remember thinking that the worship he described was not too far from what had been happening at his former church, where the pastor had increasingly presented Christ in a very mystical way, and not as defined in the law and prophets and as clearly revealed in the New Testament. Second, he amazingly (within a very short time) had bought into the EO teaching that scriptures are not complete and not the final authority for faith and practice. Perhaps this also should not have surprised me so much, given that my friend had suffered from hearing poorly exposited scripture for a long time before going EO. The confessional and catechetical standards of his former church had been so deemphasized as to be largely unknown to anyone other than some of the officers of the chruch. Finally, consistent with what you suggest in your question, he was very antagonistic to Calvinism. One other thing I might mention. My friend confessed some serious sin issues, although not in a penitent way. The preaching at the prior church neither caused him to repent of the sins (no accurate preaching of the law) nor gave him hope that he could really change (no preaching of a full gospel that sanctifies and empowers as well as justifies and forgives). I think deep down he was struggling with the sin, and the EO provided an escape of sorts, an experience that he hoped would at least divert his attention from who he had become.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 6, 2012)

gordo said:


> EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.
> 
> That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.



Quite true. This is quite an allure, and I cannot blame people for joining to the extent that there is a real beauty and otherness to the worship. I have been in an EO church, and setting aside the arguments about the second commandment, the entire church has Christ-centered artwork ALL OVER. You cannot look anywhere without seeing a scene from Scripture, similar to the stations of the cross found in Catholic churches. It's visual, it's audio, its sensory (incense). In short, it immerses the worshiper completely in a way that most modern evangelicalism does not. And I'm not going to lie to you... I admire it. While I condemn their distortion of the gospel, which is far too close to Rome's, I can see the draw and attraction. It's saturated with Christendom, and really puts the worshiper in a different frame of mind.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 6, 2012)

gordo said:


> EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.
> 
> That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.



Actually, Reformed Presbyterian worship is "worshipping as [the] early Christians did." A capella Psalmody, the centrality of the Word, the observance of the sacrament at a table rather than an altar, etc. That's what we find in the Apostolic worship of the New Testament.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 6, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> gordo said:
> 
> 
> > EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.
> ...



There are some brothels full of pretty women, too.


----------



## chuckd (Nov 6, 2012)

I think it needs to be pointed out that the EO of America is not the EO of the East. The American EO church has become a mixture of West and East. 100 years ago, if you stepped into an EO church and expressed interest in joining, you would have received quite a bit of blank stares..."but you're not Greek." They are very isolating and becoming EO would mean you become Greek or Russian (obviously impossible). The melting pot of America has slowly eroded these barriers though.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 6, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> This is quite an allure, and I cannot blame people for joining to the extent that there is a real beauty and otherness to the worship.



But that's the point - you should be able to blame them, because they are setting an experience over doctrine. It's essentially the same attitude, though with different objects, as that expressed by Emily Dickinson:



> SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
> I keep it staying at home,
> With a bobolink for a chorister,
> And an orchard for a dome.
> ...



It doesn't matter whether what one chooses is high-quality aesthetics (perhaps a stellar performance of Verdi's Requiem), individual enjoyment of God's creation, or a worship service that appeals on a number of levels - none of those things have value in comparison with pure doctrine: we are called upon to hear, receive, and hold the truth. Augustine worried that his love for the melodies would distract him from the truth of the word. This is why Christian worship is plain - we don't wish to be distracted by artistic frippery, whether very skilful or wildly incompetent. The aesthetic we are seeking is one of plainness and transparency - to get the aesthetic as much as possible out of the way (it's a circumstance, it's inevitable that there will be an aesthetic element in all human societies and actions), so that the important thing can appear. Aesthetics are extremely far below sound doctrine, spiritual worship, godly living, wise discipline. After all, it is possible to be saved even if one does like country music and Thomas Kinkade.

And nothing that is in violation of the law of Christ can really be considered "Christ-centered".


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 6, 2012)

Briefly, there is another aspect to switching from Reformed (or generic evangelical, for that) to Eastern Orthodoxy: it is easier on the flesh to be "religious" and adhere to rituals and external required doings, than to bare a rent heart before the Lord and seek His grace according to His word. The flesh can do the former, but not the latter, and is averse to such "in spirit and truth" faith-cleaving to Christ.


----------



## Claudiu (Nov 6, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> Wow,
> 
> Have you guys actually talked to any of these converts, or are you just spouting off? I personally know several converts to EO - from Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran backgrounds.
> 
> ...



I think this is accurate. Many that convert to EO do so because of the supposed history, liturgy, church order, mystical elements, theosis, etc. However, much of this can be said for Roman Catholicism. I think what differentiates the EOC from the RCC is the fact that the EOC has remained mainly in the East. As Westerner's look over, they are attracted to the different aspects that the EOC offer over the RCC and Protestantism. Also, the EOC has a different past compared to the RCC. There were no big crusades, there wasn't as much abuse as in the RCC, and for the most part, the EOC was being persecuted as opposed to persecuting others. The ones who are looking for the "ancient church", thinking it's the EOC or RCC, will choose the EOC for the reasons mentioned above.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2012)

One lure that I can see is its history and tradition. As a Protestant, I often ask myself, "What happened to the Church for all those long years?" and "Where was the Church during that time." Or "Where was the true Church when Rome went astray."


----------



## py3ak (Nov 6, 2012)

Where was the true church when Ahab and Jezebel reigned in Israel? Even Elijah didn't know where to find them, but God assured him that his remnant still was there. If you want to explore a detailed Protestant answer to that question, James Durham takes it up fairly extensively in his commentary on Revelation.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2012)

I went to one EO service in college (they had a local Greek day, so I went for the baklava....surprised that more do not convert for the awesome food!)....and I was moved by the priest going down into the basement and bringing forth the bible and holding it overhead, and then recounting the persecution of the early church. I was very impressed, until the thick smell of incense started choking me and they started speaking of doing the Mass.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> But that's the point - you should be able to blame them, because they are setting an experience over doctrine.


 I wouldn't say they're necessarily setting it _over_ doctrine so much as allowing it to be an added enticement for those curious, while teaching a different gospel. It is true that experience should not be put above doctrine, but it does not necessarily follow from that that an experience should not at all play into worship (You expect Sunday morning to be worshipful in your church, I assume, as do I). 



> It doesn't matter whether what one chooses is high-quality aesthetics (perhaps a stellar performance of Verdi's Requiem), individual enjoyment of God's creation, or a worship service that appeals on a number of levels - none of those things have value in comparison with pure doctrine: we are called upon to hear, receive, and hold the truth. Augustine worried that his love for the melodies would distract him from the truth of the word. This is why Christian worship is plain - we don't wish to be distracted by artistic frippery, whether very skilful or wildly incompetent. The aesthetic we are seeking is one of plainness and transparency - to get the aesthetic as much as possible out of the way (it's a circumstance, it's inevitable that there will be an aesthetic element in all human societies and actions), so that the important thing can appear. Aesthetics are extremely far below sound doctrine, spiritual worship, godly living, wise discipline. After all, it is possible to be saved even if one does like country music and Thomas Kinkade.
> 
> And nothing that is in violation of the law of Christ can really be considered "Christ-centered".


Setting aside whether or not there is uniform agreement on RPW even among RPW adherents for a moment... if the aesthetic contributes to worship and points to the gospel, is it not a good thing? Surely you wouldn't want a complete lack of aesthetics in church. That one perceives an overemphasis on religious beauty does not mean that the solution is to turn ugly. Even the most stringent adherent to the RPW expects a degree of beauty to the dellivered liturgy, and even in the strictest sense of RPW there is a risk of the ordinaries becoming a distraction. Proper doctrine does not automatically eliminate all temptations to be encountered.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't think a genuinely _spiritual_ worship is about having a particular kind of emotional/aesthetic experience. That's what the theater is for, and the church is not the theater. Self-denial during the service is quite as worshipful as enthusiastic enjoyment.

You can't have a complete lack of aesthetics: they're common to human actions and societies, and are inevitable. But they are not an element of worship, though too many people seem to have forgotten that. And so, like every circumstance, aesthetics are to be governed by prudence, so that the management of the elements is supported rather than disrupted. If someone goes to church for the lighting, they are either quite insane, or the church is probably doing something excessive with it. If someone goes to church for the temperature regulation and restrooms, they are weird or homeless or both. But we don't think it's at all weird when people go to church for the organ or the stained glass or the show - _but we should_. That also is circumstance.

The choice is more complex than between ugly and beautiful. First you have to choose between significant and circumstantial - the Reformed choice is circumstantial. Once that choice is made, it is a question of prudence to make sure that the aesthetics are plain, unobtrusive, transparent. Ugliness can be quite obtrusive, so it's probably imprudent in most situations to be positively ugly. But you can't make the aesthetics a matter of significance ("contributes to worship and points to the gospel"); the lighting contributes to worship in that it's uncomfortable to be unable to see, but I would hardly say it points to the gospel.

P.S. - I should clarify that I do understand that an organ is not considered a circumstance by all, and I'm not attempting to weigh in on that; but those who would say that it isn't a circumstance, would definitely agree that one should not go to church for the organ, as it's an illegitimate element.


----------



## M21195 (Nov 7, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > gordo said:
> ...


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> The choice is more complex than between ugly and beautiful. First you have to choose between significant and circumstantial - the Reformed choice is circumstantial.



Why do we have to choose? It seems to me that this is one legitimate concern expressed by those who swim the Bosporus. Even just in terms of our liturgy, does the fact that reformed worship is to be simple mean that it should not be poetic and pleasing on an aesthetic level? Or are we to worship with our minds only? We have taken simplicity of worship to mean pragmatism of worship, it seems.

I think the adage here is that form follows function, and the function is to lift our hearts and minds to the worship of God, and so the forms must serve that purpose, even in simplicity. Even if we simply draw our liturgical forms from Scripture, most of the traditional phrasings and usages are drawn from Scripture. Why, if we have them, should we not make use of collects, corporate confessions of sin and of faith which our reformed forbears provided us with? 

On a visual level, I confess that I'm not sure what the gripe about visual symbolism (within the bounds of the second commandment) is, exactly. Again, the form follows the function: when you build a church it should look like a church. The fact is that you can't avoid symbolism: if you place the pulpit in the center, that indicates one thing; if the communion table, another.

I remember attending a church housed in a historic building where the leaders had disregarded the original floor plan. The building had a chancel and choir, but the seating had been arranged to face a different wall, where there was room for a worship team, and the pews had been replaced with folding chairs. The symbolism of this rearrangment told me right away where the priorities of this church were. Maybe I've just read too much about semiotics, but I think we should take seriously what our choice of circumstances says about our practical theology. Even your choices about simplicity show what you value in worship. I would argue that it's impossible for your choice (taken as a whole) of circumstances not to be a theological one.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2012)

Philip said:


> The fact is that you can't avoid symbolism: if you place the pulpit in the center, that indicates one thing; if the communion table, another.



I think that assumption needs to be challenged. Why do you assume that a central position is _meant_ to convey a message, rather than as a prudential and practical consideration? I think many criticisms of Reformed approaches fall apart precisely on that score: they attribute significance to something that on a strictly Reformed approach is not significant, it's merely circumstantial. Acoustics are more relevant to the location of a pulpit than aesthetics.

Your aesthetic choices do say something about your theology (though practical realities often mean that they say less than one might think - budget constraints, to be terribly crass, mean that things are often wildly far away from what people would dream of); but our theology should include a clear distinction between art and religion. Spiritual worship can be offered up in any circumstances and any surroundings: insisting that surroundings must be one way and not another (apart from prudential considerations) shows a failure to understand the spirituality of worship.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 7, 2012)

Perhaps this explains it. http://youtu.be/62Qfbrc1jdo


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Why do you assume that a central position is meant to convey a message, rather than as a prudential and practical consideration?



Because your practical and prudential considerations reveal your practical theology. Regardless of whether you meant it to convey a message, it still does.



py3ak said:


> Acoustics are more relevant to the location of a pulpit than aesthetics.



So would you have a problem with a split chancel?



py3ak said:


> Spiritual worship can be offered up in any circumstances and any surroundings: insisting that surroundings must be one way and not another (apart from prudential considerations) shows a failure to understand the spirituality of worship.



And I would say that failure to realize that physical surroundings affect our worship shows a less-than-adequate understanding of the spirituality of our physical bodies. And prudential considerations may well be theologically significant. If nothing else, they show where our financial priorities lie.

If I place the pulpit at the center and design the acoustics to aid that, I may be simply acting from prudential considerations. But in so doing I am also demonstrating that my understanding of worship has the preaching of the word as its center in a way that a split chancel would not.

You are right that true worship can be offered in many different settings, but does that mean that all settings (leaving aside 2nd commandment issues) are equal? Personally I would rather have a building that would declare the triune God even if it were seized and turned into a mosque. But maybe that's just aesthetic silliness on my part.

But back to the topic at hand, I would still ask what legitimate concerns with reformed churches might lead some to consider EO as an option. Because it seems to me that most criticisms have some legitimate basis even when other factors are in play, and we ought to at least identify those concerns and take them seriously. I don't quite feel qualified to address this position because I don't yet clearly see these concerns, and therefore cannot adequately address the issues.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2012)

Philip said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you assume that a central position is meant to convey a message, rather than as a prudential and practical consideration?
> ...


[/quote]

I am not so sure you can say it conveys a message unless people are insisting on taking it that way. I understand that people these days often do, but am privately of the opinion that this over analysis of circumstantial matters often results in a failure to grasp what was actually said. Circumstantial points are often subject to influences over which we have no control (I accidentally wore green on St. Patrick's day once - I forgot what day it was; I've worn green at other times because my other shirts were in the wash), or are often given very little thought. 

But be that as it may, I'm quite fine with the message being conveyed - _this is a circumstance, not an element_; it doesn't mean anything. Because that is what my practical theology of worship teaches: that I can choose fluorescent or incandescent bulbs indifferently, and if the determining factor is cost, there's nothing wrong with that.



Philip said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Acoustics are more relevant to the location of a pulpit than aesthetics.
> ...


[/quote]

No.



Philip said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Spiritual worship can be offered up in any circumstances and any surroundings: insisting that surroundings must be one way and not another (apart from prudential considerations) shows a failure to understand the spirituality of worship.
> ...


[/quote]

All settings are equal, from a spiritual standpoint (John 4 kind of makes that point): no place can be called holy to the exclusion or disparagement of another. All settings are not equally convenient or prudent. Holding a service on a tidal flat is unwise, if it can be helped, because the logistics of getting in and out before the tide returns would be quite a hassle. Settings affect what we _feel_, to some degree; but we don't attend service to _feel_ something particular, an idea which I think is at the root of a lot of church hopping. Of course some feelings are more distracting or disruptive than others, and so it is the part of prudence to avoid nauseating color schemes, for instance, or the odor of formaldehyde. But the idea that "worshipfulness" is a mood or an aesthetic atmosphere should never have gained the traction it has; or having gained that traction, it should have been exploded long ago. If Aldous Huxley and George Steiner can both recognize that being an aesthete is consistent with being a moral monster, we should have the discernment to recognize that grace and art are two distinct gifts. When we lift up our tools to smooth and beautify God's altar, we have defiled it.



Philip said:


> But back to the topic at hand, I would still ask what legitimate concerns with reformed churches might lead some to consider EO as an option. Because it seems to me that most criticisms have some legitimate basis even when other factors are in play, and we ought to at least identify those concerns and take them seriously. I don't quite feel qualified to address this position because I don't yet clearly see these concerns, and therefore cannot adequately address the issues.



Reformed churches have many failings. But some criticisms are based on nothing but ignorance, or hostility: witness the defenses Paul had to offer of his calling and ministry to the Galatians and Corinthians.


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I am not so sure you can say it conveys a message unless people are insisting on taking it that way. I understand that people these days often do, but am privately of the opinion that this over analysis of circumstantial matters often results in a failure to grasp what was actually said.



Except that in this case, where you worship actually does affect how you worship. As Winston Churchill put it, "We shape our buildings. And then, they shape us."



py3ak said:


> But the idea that "worshipfulness" is a mood or an aesthetic atmosphere should never have gained the traction it has; or having gained that traction, it should have been exploded long ago. If Aldous Huxley and George Steiner can both recognize that being an aesthete is consistent with being a moral monster, we should have the discernment to recognize that grace and art are two distinct gifts.



Indeed they are. However, I believe Bezalel and Oholiab were called upon to beautify the altar. I have heard, in various churches, a call to "prepare our hearts for worship" and I think that this is right. No, worshipping should not be affected by my mood, but it should affect my mood. No, aesthetic appeal may not be a great motivation for worship, but my worship should have aesthetic appeal. Of course these are not the primary reasons for worship, but if I am not in the right mood or not moved by the beauty of the people of God in worship, there's a problem (and yes, it's probably with me).



py3ak said:


> Reformed churches have many failings. But some criticisms are based on nothing but ignorance, or hostility: witness the defenses Paul had to offer of his calling and ministry to the Galatians and Corinthians.



Granted---but shouldn't criticism be cause for self-examination? My allegiance is to Christ's Church of which the Reformed churches are but one branch, and we should all be willing to listen to other branches and willing to take criticism, even from those who have left us. I'm the last one to compromise my convictions, but I also try to be willing to learn. I've learned that I can't adequately critique a position until I understand it, and that I don't understand it until I see its valid points (because every human position has them).


----------



## MW (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Settings affect what we _feel_, to some degree; but we don't attend service to _feel_ something particular, an idea which I think is at the root of a lot of church hopping.



I know one gentleman who feels happier in the free-will baptist church because the seats and air conditioning are more "comfy." Very sad but instructive: it shows what might actually happen if a person's aesthetic concerns are regarded as legitimate.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2012)

Philip said:


> Except that in this case, where you worship actually does affect how you worship. As Winston Churchill put it, "We shape our buildings. And then, they shape us."



If that is true, it is true through weakness. I suspect it is not true for many, because they lack the sensitivity to be much influenced by form and heft; and those with aesthetic susceptibility must learn that God is the same in a lofty vault, or an unfortunate inflatable slug of a building. As a child, I used to feel that it was impossible to be a Christian in McAllen, TX - the heat, the parking lots, the restaurants, the whole atmosphere seemed to make it a place unsuited for piety, where I, at least, would have had great difficulty being devout. And yet I found that Whataburger and spending sprees and talk radio notwithstanding, it was also possible in McAllen to read one's Bible, to pray, to go to church and endeavor to improve the means of grace. Perhaps even more remarkable, I found it was possible to read Kate Chopin!



Philip said:


> Indeed they are. However, I believe Bezalel and Oholiab were called upon to beautify the altar. I have heard, in various churches, a call to "prepare our hearts for worship" and I think that this is right. No, worshipping should not be affected by my mood, but it should affect my mood. No, aesthetic appeal may not be a great motivation for worship, but my worship should have aesthetic appeal. Of course these are not the primary reasons for worship, but if I am not in the right mood or not moved by the beauty of the people of God in worship, there's a problem (and yes, it's probably with me).


They were, but it was according to the pattern that God showed Moses in the mount. It was not left to their discretion. And in any case, all views of Christian worship must account for the principle of defilement when a human tool is lifted up on God's altar of natural stones. Of course we prepare our hearts for worship: that preparation of the heart is not found in _the labour of an age in piled stone_, but in a recollection of fundamental facts, as the authority of God's word, the distance from which we have been called, the gracious provision of a Mediator in whom our worship is acceptable, etc. Where that preparation of the heart takes place, can it genuinely be held that the things of this world in the way of our lighting and design will be strangely vivid?



Philip said:


> Granted---but shouldn't criticism be cause for self-examination? My allegiance is to Christ's Church of which the Reformed churches are but one branch, and we should all be willing to listen to other branches and willing to take criticism, even from those who have left us. I'm the last one to compromise my convictions, but I also try to be willing to learn. I've learned that I can't adequately critique a position until I understand it, and that I don't understand it until I see its valid points (because every human position has them).


I don't think there is any objection to self-examination. But self-examination must take criticisms offered and evaluate them in the light of God's word, not with a view of how to please men. The human position that Paul was subordinate to the other apostles did not have its valid points. I agree that it is very helpful if we can learn to appreciate what of value is being protected even in an erroneous position, but we must also be on guard against losing what we have already attained - the pressure to do so is often severe, and perhaps in a given congregation never more so than when people leave discontented. That is certainly an opportunity to scrutinize practices and make sure no stumbling blocks are being placed before the flock, and that the ones who are lame are being bound up, the ones turned out of the way being sought, and so forth; but certain preferences cannot be accommodated, no matter the cost.



armourbearer said:


> I know one gentleman who feels happier in the free-will baptist church because the seats and air conditioning are more "comfy." Very sad but instructive: it shows what might actually happen if a person's aesthetic concerns are regarded as legitimate.



I highly appreciated the believers I knew in Panama, where everyone was entirely drenched in sweat almost before the service began, due to the uphill walk to the church building with a metal roof and inadequate ventilation. The only item of any aesthetic value was the view through the glassless windows; but we heard of Christ in that place.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 7, 2012)

...still trying to figure out what a "split chancel" is......

*SOMEBODY CALL A DOCTOR!*


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2012)

It's where you have the lectern on one side of the church and the pulpit on the other.


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> If that is true, it is true through weakness. I suspect it is not true for many, because they lack the sensitivity to be much influenced by form and heft; and those with aesthetic susceptibility must learn that God is the same in a lofty vault, or an unfortunate inflatable slug of a building.



Agreed, but that wasn't exactly my point. My point was that some forms are better than others for worship. You keep implying that if this is true, it is because of weakness, but how are you then not saying that the body which God gave you is a weakness? 

The question here is not whether worship in a Gothic Cathedral is truer (or less true) than in a tin shack, but whether the building's construction is to be purely utilitarian. Because if it is, then we might as well go with stadium seating and a stage. After all, it's more convenient, right?



py3ak said:


> Of course we prepare our hearts for worship: that preparation of the heart is not found in the labour of an age in piled stone, but in a recollection of fundamental facts, as the authority of God's word, the distance from which we have been called, the gracious provision of a Mediator in whom our worship is acceptable, etc.



But aren't certain settings more conducive than others to this? You may consider your embodiment to be a weakness here, but I'm not sure that I do. My mind, it seems to me, is far more distracting than my body.



py3ak said:


> I agree that it is very helpful if we can learn to appreciate what of value is being protected even in an erroneous position, but we must also be on guard against losing what we have already attained



And I would humbly suggest that the best way to do that is to understand the concern and address it.



Pergamum said:


> ...still trying to figure out what a "split chancel" is......



It's when you have the communion table in the center, the pulpit on one side, and a lecturn on the other.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 7, 2012)

*Split chancel*



Pergamum said:


> ...still trying to figure out what a "split chancel" is......
> 
> *SOMEBODY CALL A DOCTOR!*


Historically in Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Churches, the Lectern is on the Epistle side and the Pulpit is on the Gospel side, with the alter on the wall in the middle. Vatican II ended that for Roman Catholics. Liberal Episcopalians and Lutherans trotted right along behind the RC like puppy dogs. 
The arrangement of the sanctuary is entirely different in Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Rite Churches.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 7, 2012)

> Agreed, but that wasn't exactly my point. My point was that some forms are better than others for worship. You keep implying that if this is true, it is because of weakness, but how are you then not saying that the body which God gave you is a weakness?
> 
> The question here is not whether worship in a Gothic Cathedral is truer (or less true) than in a tin shack, but whether the building's construction is to be purely utilitarian. Because if it is, then we might as well go with stadium seating and a stage. After all, it's more convenient, right?



The body which God gave me is a weakness at the present time - not in itself, but accidentally, on account of the corruption of sin. But that issue is a red herring. The distinction between elements and circumstances is what is vital to the discussion. God has commanded worship: he has not, in this age, commanded that worship be performed in a certain place, but has instead told us that place is indifferent. Now since we take up space, we must have a defined place and time for worship. But the type of building has no more significance than the time of day. We might set a meeting at 9:00 a.m. so as to be finished in good time for lunch; in view of the time required to travel to church, we might set it at 11:00 a.m. There's no symbol buried in the time. And if we are thinking clearly, there's no symbol buried in the place.

The worship of God executed with our bodies is not by bringing a certain catharsis to our passions, but by using our ears and brains to heed the word of God, our tongues and brains to enunciate his praise, our hands and brains to serve him in his people and in the needy, etc. 

A church can meet in a movie theater, on a riverbank, in a stadium, in a house. Size and circumstances will largely dictate what happens, and presumably the elders will exercise Christian prudence in ordering circumstances to best support edification in their particular situation. While things are conducted decently and in order, and while the elements God has commanded and no others are employed, I'm not sure what there is to be criticized.



> But aren't certain settings more conducive than others to this? You may consider your embodiment to be a weakness here, but I'm not sure that I do. My mind, it seems to me, is far more distracting than my body.



Certainly. A frozen lake during a blizzard (or a thaw!) is much more distracting than a climate-controlled training room. But I suspect that is not what you were after. To be forthright, I don't think the rather splendid _Palacio de Bellas Artes_ in Mexico City is better for worship than an uncomfortable camp-building in Kentucky. While climate control, suitable lighting, and comfortable surroundings have their advantages over stiff chairs and nasty draughts, ultimately the trappings in _Bellas Artes_ are far more likely to let me delude myself into thinking I'm worshipping the Lord when I'm actually just having an emotional massage. I have sat in a church and floated with rapturous joy while a penetrating Baroque duet went on between the piano and the organ (a visiting minister from Trinidad and Tobago once commented that listening to the music he felt like he was in heaven); but I have come to realize that this was not properly worship, anymore than it was properly worship when the singing of Ramón Vargas performing in the open air made me forget the red plastic chair beneath me and the great unwashed around me; or anymore than it was properly worship when I was so engaged with the choir I didn't see the soprano rise to her feet and the first notes of "I know that my Redeemer liveth" caught me entirely by surprise and gave me a radical case of goosebumps.



> And I would humbly suggest that the best way to do that is to understand the concern and address it.


That is only part of it. Criticism provides an occasion for reflection; not an agenda for change. That agenda must come from scrutiny of God's word. If we feel that the departure of someone always reflects a deficiency on our part, we shall be quite unstable and vacillating: in no way better off than if we smugly took for granted that all criticism or any departures stemmed from the moral or intellectual failings of the criticizing or departing party.


----------



## Philip (Nov 7, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Now since we take up space, we must have a defined place and time for worship. But the type of building has no more significance than the time of day. We might set a meeting at 9:00 a.m. so as to be finished in good time for lunch; in view of the time required to travel to church, we might set it at 11:00 a.m. There's no symbol buried in the time. And if we are thinking clearly, there's no symbol buried in the place.



I'm sorry, but yes there is. If you build your church in a strip-mall, you are sending a message. It may be unintentional, but it is there nonetheless. That's not to say that God can't be worshipped there or that other considerations may trump that message, but we should be aware of it all the same.



py3ak said:


> The worship of God executed with our bodies is not by bringing a certain catharsis to our passions, but by using our ears and brains to heed the word of God, our tongues and brains to enunciate his praise, our hands and brains to serve him in his people and in the needy, etc.



Yet worship is with the heart and in the Spirit. If I have all these things but no heart for worship, what is it then? I don't worship with my brain only, but with my heart, soul, mind, and strength.



py3ak said:


> That is only part of it. Criticism provides an occasion for reflection; not an agenda for change. That agenda must come from scrutiny of God's word. If we feel that the departure of someone always reflects a deficiency on our part, we shall be quite unstable and vacillating: in no way better off than if we smugly took for granted that all criticism or any departures stemmed from the moral or intellectual failings of the criticizing or departing party.



So shouldn't we address the concern? Is it possible that our liturgies could be made richer without ceasing to be in accordance with God's Word? Absolutely we should scrutinize God's Word---but the fact is that the Scriptures have precious little to say on how we should follow the elements of worship. Decency and orderliness dictate that there should be some regularity in our worship practices, but even so there is, it seems to me, a great deal of freedom within the regulative principle.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 7, 2012)

yeutter said:


> Historically in Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Churches, the Lectern is on the Epistle side and the Pulpit is on the Gospel side, with the alter on the wall in the middle. Vatican II ended that for Roman Catholics. Liberal Episcopalians and Lutherans trotted right along behind the RC like puppy dogs.
> The arrangement of the sanctuary is entirely different in Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Rite Churches.


Without derailing the conversation, I never knew what that is called but that is the way our church (originally a baptist church) was originally designed. Our Pastor generally preaches from the middle though using a music stand, but he still uses the taller pulpit side for on occasion some readings and the call to worship.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 8, 2012)

Philip said:


> I'm sorry, but yes there is. If you build your church in a strip-mall, you are sending a message. It may be unintentional, but it is there nonetheless. That's not to say that God can't be worshipped there or that other considerations may trump that message, but we should be aware of it all the same.



I disagree with you for more than one reason, but take simply this obvious one. _Everyone is limited by their budget and by zoning regulations._ If a church meets in a strip mall that might say something about their priorities; or it may simply say something about their possibilities. But hopefully we are not at the point of judging a church by the resources it commands, or the city in which it is located. 



Philip said:


> Yet worship is with the heart and in the Spirit. If I have all these things but no heart for worship, what is it then? I don't worship with my brain only, but with my heart, soul, mind, and strength.



Worship is in Spirit and in truth. It is intellectual and volitional, embracing the whole man, because intellection happens through the physical organs and volitions are executed in and by the body. But our frame can be, and often is, uncooperative: it is not our frame that makes worship acceptable. Listen to John Newton:



> If the Lord is pleased to keep us short of those comforts which he has taught us to prize, and, instead of lively sensations of joy and praise, we feel a languor and deadness of spirit, provided we do indeed feel it, and are humbled for it, we have no need to give way to despondency or excessive sorrow. Still the foundation of our hope, and the ground of our abiding joys, is the same. And the heart may be as really alive to God, and grace as truly in exercise, when we walk incomparative darkness and see little light, as when the frame of our spirits is more comfortable. Neither the reality nor the measure of grace can be properly estimated by the degree of our sensible comforts. Your experiences will vary, but his love and promises are always unchangeable.



Or read C.S. Lewis. In his letters and in _Christian Reflections_ he says quite a lot of what I'm saying here.



Philip said:


> So shouldn't we address the concern? Is it possible that our liturgies could be made richer without ceasing to be in accordance with God's Word? Absolutely we should scrutinize God's Word---but the fact is that the Scriptures have precious little to say on how we should follow the elements of worship. Decency and orderliness dictate that there should be some regularity in our worship practices, but even so there is, it seems to me, a great deal of freedom within the regulative principle.



I'm afraid your exegetical skills far exceed my own if you can go from my statement that there is more than one way to err in response to criticism to the conclusion that we should not respond to concerns people bring up. The response to a concern might well be an attempt at further instruction rather than an adaptation of practice: that doesn't mean the concern hasn't been heard or understood. The leap from that point to liturgical freedom is not quite clear to me - I don't recall saying anything about number of Scripture readings or at what point the sermon takes place. This side discussion started when I responded to admiration for artwork and incense. My general thesis is that at is not religion, and should not be confused with it: since aesthetics are an inevitable circumstance of human gatherings, the prudent goal is then an aesthetic of transparency: an aesthetic that does not call attention to itself, that does not pretend to have significance, or to be somehow more related to worship than circumstances of time, comfort, or convenience. Just as I would not like to make the furnace a matter of significance (or even very much prominence in the worship service), so I would rather it not be the architecture, music, or atmosphere of the church that draws people in. I realize you can't control that, and people sometimes get purely aesthetic kicks out of very odd things; but prudence dictates that no circumstance be so managed as to become a focal point, because Christ should so be the focal point and attraction that if someone is drawn in by something else it testifies to very great and obtuse oddness on their part.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 8, 2012)

py3ak said:


> This side discussion started when I responded to admiration for artwork and incense. My general thesis is that at is not religion, and should not be confused with it...



Ruben, the Bible _does_ treat visible representations (even when they are not images of God Himself) and incense as elements of worship. We see both strictly regulated in Scripture (For representations, Ex 25:18-20, Ex 26:31; For incense, Ex 30:1-9 and 30-37, Lev 10). Neither are allowed in New Covenant worship, as they are not commanded to be done.


----------



## Philip (Nov 8, 2012)

py3ak said:


> the prudent goal is then an aesthetic of transparency: an aesthetic that does not call attention to itself, that does not pretend to have significance, or to be somehow more related to worship than circumstances of time, comfort, or convenience.



And I would argue then that this goal is not achievable. Art is not religion. But neither is its absence.



py3ak said:


> prudence dictates that no circumstance be so managed as to become a focal point, because Christ should so be the focal point and attraction that if someone is drawn in by something else it testifies to very great and obtuse oddness on their part.



So Ruben, are you saying that if two churches have exactly the same draw for me in terms of biblical teaching and patterns of worship, that my criteria for choosing between them would be obtuse and odd? To me this seems to be a strange conclusion, given that we end up where we end up through a variety of circumstances, none of which are entirely logical and may strike others as odd.



py3ak said:


> Worship is in Spirit and in truth. It is intellectual and volitional, embracing the whole man, because intellection happens through the physical organs and volitions are executed in and by the body. But our frame can be, and often is, uncooperative: it is not our frame that makes worship acceptable.



And neither is it our mind that makes worship acceptable: it is the Spirit working through heart, soul, mind, and strength.

I think on the EO question, to a certain degree we have to pre-empt the discussion before it even gets to that point. If someone is exploring Eastern Orthodoxy, we should first encourage him to become familiar with the reformed confessions and reformed understandings of worship, we have to show him how to worship.



py3ak said:


> I disagree with you for more than one reason, but take simply this obvious one. Everyone is limited by their budget and by zoning regulations. If a church meets in a strip mall that might say something about their priorities; or it may simply say something about their possibilities. But hopefully we are not at the point of judging a church by the resources it commands, or the city in which it is located.



I certainly wouldn't. But if we don't have to meet in a catacomb why should we? I would consider it very odd for a church to choose a catacomb over a (simple) gothic structure if it has the resources for the latter.


----------



## Beau Michel (Nov 8, 2012)

The lure to Eastern Orthodoxy seems to be the reverence and transcendence in worship,as opposed to much of the glib,light and airy "worship"in modern Evangelical congregations.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 8, 2012)

The thread now seems to be veering off into church architecture.

Serving in a very poor country, I often wonder if EO could ever gain a foothold in these areas that cannot afford elaborate buildings, robes, icons, etc.

Also, I am suspicious of any sect which requires of its members to adopt a certain culture as well. That is the great error of Islam; to be a good Muslim, one must more and more become more like an Arab. 

Likewise, I have noticed among converts to EO or Russian Orthodoxy (and I'd love to discuss those differences as well) that they seem to gain an appreciation of Greek or Russian Cultures and often go beyond a mere appreciation and begin to admire the cultures in which these sects took root. Of course, it might be the same here with the admirers of the puritans.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 8, 2012)

Philip said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > the prudent goal is then an aesthetic of transparency: an aesthetic that does not call attention to itself, that does not pretend to have significance, or to be somehow more related to worship than circumstances of time, comfort, or convenience.
> ...



Philip, the hassles of life and preparations for upcoming commitments mean my time is limited, so this will be my last reply: besides, as Pergamum notes, we have gone a little off topic. You say here in part what I have been saying all along: aesthetics are a circumstance, because they are common to human societies and actions. Being a circumstance they are, by definition, not an element of worship: as such, their importance is strictly subordinate, and how the inevitable aesthetics are deployed is a matter of prudence. It oversteps the line to make them meaningful or symbolic, just as it would if someone suggested that 11:00 was intrinsically an holy hour because many worship services start at that time. They may well reveal something about the psychology of the congregation, or at least of the elders, though that sort of psychological deduction should not be pressed very far. But just as it is the part of prudence that we ever bear in mind the subordinate place of aesthetic concerns in our worship, so it is also prudent that in what we say or telegraph about them we should not elevate them too high.



Philip said:


> So Ruben, are you saying that if two churches have exactly the same draw for me in terms of biblical teaching and patterns of worship, that my criteria for choosing between them would be obtuse and odd? To me this seems to be a strange conclusion, given that we end up where we end up through a variety of circumstances, none of which are entirely logical and may strike others as odd.



You haven't said what your criteria are, so I'm not sure how I'm being taken as expressing an opinion on that. I'm not sure I buy that there ever exists the hypothetical scenario of all other things being equal. But we do not have to wait for that, at least, desperately rare situation to occur: at the present time there are many people moving from one church to another, in some cases going from sounder doctrine, purer worship, and more regular discipline to less well-ordered churches for reasons of aesthetics or some other circumstantial consideration which should not have so much weight with them.



Philip said:


> And neither is it our mind that makes worship acceptable: it is the Spirit working through heart, soul, mind, and strength.



You have a curious habit of contradicting things no one has asserted. With regard to what makes worship acceptable, I suspect you need to delve into the topic in more depth. You have mentioned the Spirit, yet omitted mention of the Mediator who alone makes our persons or our works acceptable. The manner of the Spirit's working must also be considered: the Spirit is not to be divided from the word.



Philip said:


> I think on the EO question, to a certain degree we have to pre-empt the discussion before it even gets to that point. If someone is exploring Eastern Orthodoxy, we should first encourage him to become familiar with the reformed confessions and reformed understandings of worship, we have to show him how to worship.



The great pre-emption of the discussion is not to tell him, or even attempt to show him, that Reformed worship offers a better experience. What people experience from aesthetic stimuli varies wildly according to their sensitivity and background. Obviously some people get deeply involved and feel wonderfully moved by things that give me a migraine. In choosing a church, attention must be directed to the marks of a church, and nothing is more important in that regard than the preservation of sound doctrine concerning the mode by which God is truly worshipped, and the source from which salvation is to be sought.



Philip said:


> I certainly wouldn't. But if we don't have to meet in a catacomb why should we? I would consider it very odd for a church to choose a catacomb over a (simple) gothic structure if it has the resources for the latter.


I didn't say we should: I said if prudence dictated that meeting place, our worship was neither better nor worse on account of it.

Tyler, I never said that visual representations or incense were not elements of worship. I took occasion from someone speaking about aesthetic attraction to worship to comment on the broader phenomenon, because the inevitable aesthetics of our worship are, of course, circumstantial.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 8, 2012)

Aesthetically EO is the most beautiful religion on earth, visually and audibly. A lot of people are convinced - and I see reasons for this - that institutionally, the EO church HAS the oldest lineage and that the Roman church broke from them, not vice versa, so you have age and the "ancient" ceremonies. So you have the emotional appeal and the intellectual appeal.

However, the liturgies HAVE changed over the centuries, and EO has run from its first love as Rome has.


----------



## Philip (Nov 8, 2012)

py3ak said:


> The great pre-emption of the discussion is not to tell him, or even attempt to show him, that Reformed worship offers a better experience.



I'll just respond to this: of course not. The goal is to show him that worship is not about an experience, but about glorifying the Triune God in the proper way because it is our duty and our joy. And if he does not yet take joy in meeting with the people of God to worship in Spirit and in truth, then the church needs to come alongside and guide him to the place where he can do so. As God reveals Himself as Father through the Son by the Spirit, so we are to worship the Father through the Son by the Spirit.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 8, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Tyler, I never said that visual representations or incense were not elements of worship. I took occasion from someone speaking about aesthetic attraction to worship to comment on the broader phenomenon, because the inevitable aesthetics of our worship are, of course, circumstantial.


 
My mistake. I thought you were lumping them up under circumstances. My apologies, brother.


----------



## gordo (Nov 8, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Also, I am suspicious of any sect which requires of its members to adopt a certain culture as well. That is the great error of Islam; to be a good Muslim, one must more and more become more like an Arab.



In my experience there was never any requirement to adopt any culture. I went to a Ukrainian Orthodox congregation and when the priest saw non-Ukrainians at the service he would incorporate more English into the liturgy, etc. The prayer books were also in English and Ukrainian. Everyone spoke English. I also wonder about using 'sect' for the EO church. No matter your thoughts on them, the EO church was around long before the Reformation. That is of course if you are using sect as splinter or break off of a larger body.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 8, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> The thread now seems to be veering off into church architecture.
> 
> Serving in a very poor country, I often wonder if EO could ever gain a foothold in these areas that cannot afford elaborate buildings, robes, icons, etc.


Eastern Orthodoxy gained a foothold among pagan aboriginal Alaskans. The Russian Orthodox had missions to Aleuts, Inuit, Ypik, and Athabascan Indians. Many of these were pulled out when the Russians sold Alaska to the States. The Russian monks made tremendous strides in Bible translation during their labors with these peoples in very primitive conditions. Often, especially in the areas bordering the Yukon, Anglicans built on the foundation laid by our Russian brothers.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 8, 2012)

The formal denial of justification by faith alone and salvation by grace has not occurred in Eastern Orthodoxy. Sovereign Grace and justification by faith may not be consistently preached in Eastern Orthodox Churches but it is not formally denied either. Rome at Trent denied the truth of the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2012)

yeutter said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > The thread now seems to be veering off into church architecture.
> ...



Wow, looks like I am goign to be googling some Alaskan history tonight! Thanks.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2012)

yeutter said:


> The formal denial of justification by faith alone and salvation by grace has not occurred in Eastern Orthodoxy. Sovereign Grace and justification by faith may not be consistently preached in Eastern Orthodox Churches but it is not formally denied either. Rome at Trent denied the truth of the Gospel.



Interesting. Thanks for the thought.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2012)

yeutter said:


> The formal denial of justification by faith alone and salvation by grace has not occurred in Eastern Orthodoxy. Sovereign Grace and justification by faith may not be consistently preached in Eastern Orthodox Churches but it is not formally denied either. Rome at Trent denied the truth of the Gospel.



Thomas, I think it is an understatement to say "it is not consistently preached". I'd be interested to hear of any evidence that it's preached at all. But leaving that aside, converting to EO often requires the renunciation of errors: on the basis of the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, that can include a specific renunciation of Calvinism. From the Service of the Reception of Converts:



> The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise:
> 
> Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?
> 
> ...



If you have to renounce these things to convert, conversion cannot be good for your soul. Perkins admins that there may be error in a fundamental point through weakness that does not conclude against salvation; but when that error is made through obstinacy, the outlook is more grim.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 9, 2012)

py3ak said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> > The formal denial of justification by faith alone and salvation by grace has not occurred in Eastern Orthodoxy. Sovereign Grace and justification by faith may not be consistently preached in Eastern Orthodox Churches but it is not formally denied either. Rome at Trent denied the truth of the Gospel.
> ...



Didn't this also occur after Cyril Lucarius was martyred for his beliefs?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 9, 2012)

The Jerusalem Synod sought to undo Cyril's Reformed influences, then denied he ever was Reformed. (Historical revisionism is nothing new!)


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2012)

Cyril Lucaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting history lesson for me today.


----------

