Theism Part One: The Argument from Change

Just as I'm doing a series on the papacy, examining a complex and multifaceted issue in "smaller" chunks, so I'd like to compose a cumulative case for the existence of God.  Note that, for the Orthodox, none of these are THE reason we believe in God.  We believe (both in the sense of "believing in existence of" and "trusting") in God because of the revelation of Jesus Christ and our direct experience of God's presence in prayer and sacrament.

However, there ARE some DECENT arguments pointing towards God's existence, and in a world like ours where secularism is assumed (and religion viewed as mere personal choice), an apologetic argument or series of arguments in favor of God's existence can be helpful.  In particular, it shows that belief in God is not mere mythology nor mere psychology, but ALSO intellectually probable and reasonible.  This will matter more for some than for others, but its good to have these arguments in your toolbox if the right situation happens to arise.

This post assumes basic familiarity with syllogistic argumentation (two or more premises leading to a logically necessary conclusion).  If someone doubts one of the two premises, then it becomes necessary to defend that premise with an additional syllogism or as an axiomatic necessity.

The argument from change comes after the jump:

On the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness & the Atonement

This is one of the more difficult subjects to address, as there are significant differences between modern evangelical protestantism and orthodoxy on this exact point.  To say that the doctrine of imputed righteousness formed a cornerstone for non-Anglican protestantism (starting with Luther) would be an understatement.  Alongside sola-scriptura, it is one of the few things that virtually all protestants have in common (historically). 

The doctrine, in essence, goes like this: we are born with a sinful nature (so that sinning is as unavoidable and natural to us as having eyes or feet).  We cannot avoid this, and, due to sin, owe to God an unpayable debt.  In Christ, through Christ's faithfulness, the ultimate and unpayable debt for our sins is absolved as, on the Cross, Christ accepted the punishment which was due to us for our sins.  When we place our faith in Christ, then, God views us through "Christ-tinted-glasses" - He sees not our sinfulness, but rather imputes Christ's righteousness (including Christ's payment of our debt) to us. 

More after the jump.

On the Coptic-Armenian-Ethiopian Churches

Orthodox Christians frequently complain about the way that our popular culture categorizes Christians as either "Catholic" or "Protestant."  We hasten to point out that a third category (Orthodox) also exists.  Yet, in using three categories, we do a disservice to the fourth "branch" of Christianity: the non-Chalcedonian churhces.  These are the churches that reject the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD, which defined the Church's current language about the Incarnation.

I intend, at some point, to post some material from different scholars about the controversial actions of that council.  In the mean time, I want to offer an overview for Orthodox Christians on what it is that separates our communion from the largest of the non-Chalcedonian communions: the Copts.  The Coptic communion, which includes Armenians, Ethiopians and some Syrians, holds around 50 to 60 million members (about 60% as large as the worldwide Anglican communion).  The majority of these (around 40 million) are Ethiopian.  Of ALL the non-Orthodox communions, they are the closest to us and the most likely to be reunited to Orthodoxy within our lifetimes. 

What is it that still separates us?  Continue reading!

On the Importance of Missions

Christ is Risen!

I'm on the mailing list for St. Vladimir's Seminary, so every once in a while they send me a request for donations.  Once a year, they include a small theological tract with the mailing.  This year, that tract spoke to the missional vocation given to all Christians through baptism.  I found it highly encouraging, and wanted to share a few thoughts from it with you all.

The pamphlet's author, Fr. Hatfield, has spent significant time in missions - first as a Protestant (in South Africa) and then with Orthodoxy (on the board of the Orthodox Christian Missions Center, and as a co-chair of the OCA Department of Evangelism).  He's working on an expanding set of courses in missiology for St. Vlad's. 

He opens with an audacious quote: "Christian initiation and its attendant rite of baptism is the proper and primary business of the Church."

Think about it for a minute.  Yes - we would say the Eucharist holds center, but the early church tended to view the Eucharist as the continuation of the Baptismal regeneration.  We are indeed commanded to eat the bread and drink the cup often, but Christ's final words to His community as His ascension were "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  After the Church had gained ascendency over the empire, Baptism became less of a focus and Eucharist (especially in the West in the 800's) rose dramatically in its centrality.  This is not to say that either one has been dismissed by the Church at any time - both are vital.  But, as Fr. Hatfield explains the quote, "The Orthodox Church is in the business of making converts."  He quotes Archbishop Anastasios of Albania as saying: "A Church without mission is a contradiction in terms... Indifference to mission is a negation of Orthodoxy."  Hatfield then makes the strongest claim in the text, expanding the idea to say: "A Christian not engaged in mission is simply not a Christian."

More after the jump

On the Validity of the Papacy, Part II

This is a continuation of part I.  You can read this post on its own, but some of the assumptions I make here (about what must be true for the papacy, as currently utilized by the Roman Catholic Church, to be a valid doctrine) are argued in that prior post.

In this post, I want to examine the tradition of the papacy in the earliest church (AD 33 - 180).  Why this time period?  Well, the number of sources are limited enough to examine in one post and, as the earliest time period of the church, we ought to expect the papacy (if it is Holy Tradition) to at least appear in seedling form during this time.  In other words, based on the definition of catholicity given in part I, this is a critical time period to examine for the case for the papacy.

Christ is Risen!

Christ is risen!
Let's eat meat!

On Food Laws

We, today, often neglect Leviticus.  The book is regarded as a collection of esoteric cultic rules for Judaism, smattered with a few ethical laws that still have bearing for mainline Christians.  The food laws, in particular, seem hard to understand from a Christian perspective.  However, this need not be the case.  The forbidding of certain foods fits very very nicely into a few typological understandings of Leviticus.

First, Jews were only allowed to eats "pure" animals - that is to say, animals which were the best example of their 'type.' They couldn't eat shellfish because a shellfish wasn't a "fishy fish" - it didn't have the backbone of a true fish. Similarly for animals which do and don't chew the cud or have hooves.

Why would such a thing matter? Only typologically! Jews were the 'type' of humanity - the truly 'human humans' thanks to the ethical law. The food laws symbolized that and gave a constant reminder to the Jews of who they were - God's chosen, those set apart by the revelation of the covenant to be His true humanity. The food laws were a sign of how Jews were separate and different from the Gentiles - they were a racial designation (like physical circumsition)

The second explanation is that not eating certain foods provides a consistent ascetic discipline that circumcizes the heart - that is to say, by learning to obey God in the eating of food one is reminded to obey God in all things and one is tutored to obey God in all things (as the law is a tutor). By denying our desire for a shrimp we die to our old self - the ancient Israelites however, not having baptism, did not have Christ's transformed human nature to provide a new self, so you see how the Law was merely a tutor and not salvation itself.

In short, the food laws are a form of ascetic fasting.

So why don't we follow those today? Well, how can we fast when the bridegroom is with us? And, since Christ has broken down the wall of enmity, how can we racially set ourselves apart? There is nothing WRONG with creation or certain animals - God has taken on matter and flesh to sanctify all matter and flesh. The physical world is GOOD, and refusing to eat foods once God has lifted the ban (as is evidenced in the NT) would be blasphemous.

Back to the fasting for a moment, because there's a really fantastic typological moment here. Before Christ, the bridegroom was not with Israel (racial Israel), and so they fasted constantly (with their food laws) and would fast more extensively for specific purposes. When Christ was on this earth during His ministry, the bridegroom was directly with Israel (racial and spiritual) and so there was no fasting for His disciples (this is noted in Matthew and Mark). Now, after Christ's glorious resurrection and ascension, the bridegroom is not with us (so we fast) and yet IS with us (in particular in the Eucharist, but also in His Church in in the union we have with Him by His activity and grace), therefore we don't fast.

So now, we fast and we don't fast. How do we do that?  If you look at the Orthodox Church's calander, exactly half of the year (including the W/F fast) is fasting, and the other half feasting. Right now, the Kingdom is already but not yet here, so we feast for Christ's salvation and fast for our repentance and to die to our old self.

This also forshadows the second coming, when the bridegroom will reside in the New Jerusalem and give light to all the world, and then there will be no need for fasting at all.

So that is why we don't follow Jewish food laws. To do so would be to blaspheme the commands of God through His apostles (in the NT) and would be tantamount to saying that Christ is NEVER with us in this life - in short to denying that Christ accomplished anything on this earth. Since we, as Christians, can say neither of those things, we fast ascetically (though from different foods from the Jews) and only off and on throughout the year, feasting to celebrate Christ's salvation.

Happy feasting!  CHRIST IS RISEN!

In the hope of the feast of the resurrected Christ,
Macarius