www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Right Belief in a Left-handed World

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/right-belief-in-a-left-handed-world.html


Right Belief in a Left-handed World - Priest Martin Swanson

In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Your grace, fellow clergy, and brothers and sisters in Christ.

A few days before Jesus was given over unto crucifixion, he said the last parable of his public ministry: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. � Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels �. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

And on his right hand was the thief who believed in Christ's kingdom, acknowledged his own sinfulness, and asked for mercy. And Jesus said to him " Today you will be with me in paradise." Many have stood on Christ's right hand over the last two thousand years. Sheep who have joined themselves for our Lord's flock -- the Orthodox Church. For, is not the church the body of Christ? And is not the name proclaimed "right belief?" But many are on the left hand of Christ. Like the sinister thief, they blaspheme him, and they stand in direct opposition to His church. Thus on the right hand, we have the faithful who have made the church their abode. And on the left hand we have those who are separated from the church, and have chosen the world as their home. There has always been an opposition between the church and the world. For, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. The world is ruled by Satan, and throughout history he has tried to lure Christians to his bosom. How then, do Orthodox Christians live in the world without becoming of the world? Or, in other words, how do we practice right belief in a left-handed world?

To be Orthodox is extremely difficult today. In the heterodox world, everything is a denial of the truth which was once delivered by Christ to the saints. In the past, Christians were persecuted by pagan rulers who had absurd ideas about what Christians actually believed. In the modern world a persecution more insidious is being carried out against true Christians. Today, a significant part of the world calls itself Christian, builds churches, and reads the Bible. But it's all a sham, a shadow, it is appearance, apostasy. But there is a pernicious warfare being waged which is directed at the destruction of our souls. Our Lord said, "Fear him which is able to destroy the both your soul and your body in hell."

And that is exactly what we are being offered today. For today, every apostasy has entered into every nook and cranny of our existence. At the root of all apostasy is the ancient evil of humanism. In order to understand the anti-christian chaos in which modern man finds himself, it is necessary to understand historically how humanism evolved, and the disastrous impact that it has had on our society, and in the lives of Christians. The core of humanism is as old as man. Satan himself, in the garden of Eden, infected Eve with the disease which forms the essence of humanism. And the serpent said to Eve: "Ye shall not surely die if you eat of the fruit, but your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God -- knowing both good and evil." As soon as our first parents believed this lie of Satan, they began to breathe evil and be puffed up with the wind of pride. This was the beginning of man's preference for himself over God.

The term humanism first appeared in the vocabulary of the early Greeks to describe a great importance to man of human values. The word was used by early Christians. It is implicit in the fifth century heresy of Pelagius, which taught that man had perfect freedom of will and could achieve righteousness on his own; and is therefore, not dependent upon God for his salvation. St. Augustine, in his own over-reaction to Pelagianism, developed a whole mosaic of theological errors including the false notion of pre-destination, which was later to find its way into the teachings of the Protestant reformer, John Calvin. By the sixth century, humanism destroyed the exalted relationship of man to God. In the eleventh century, the Latin West apostatized from the church of Christ, and the bishop of Rome proclaimed himself to be Pontiphus Maximus, the supreme Pontiff, and the vicar of Christ on earth. In the year 1274, an Italian Dominican by the name of Thomas Aquinas, had not only given formal credibility to some of Augustine's erroneous teachings, but has also elevated man's reason to almost celestial heights. His major work, Sumatheologica, gave birth to scholasticism with its reliance of human wisdom, and spurred the growth of the great universities of Europe.

Scholasticism still dominates our intellectual culture today. By the end of the middle ages, we notice that that which is human has been exalted above all that which is nature. This trend is obvious by 1500, and can be seen most explicitly in western art. Typical of this period is the Work of Michaelangelo. It is in it, for example, that we can see the sharp contrast between an eastern icon of the prophet Moses, in which he appears as meek and mild -- depicted as a humble servant of God, and in Michaelangelo's sculpture, commissioned for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, in which the same Moses has become a fierce and war-like God, fashioned after Zeus, a literal god among us.

Towards the end of the 16th century, a German Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, rebelled from the authority of his religious order. His disobedience was as much as his own pride and self-will, as is was a result of the innovations of the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, the Protestant reformation which he started, spread the seeds for contemporary humanism, which provide the foundation for the building of the kingdom of man on earth. Protestantism, with its hydra-headed branches, not only radically altered the true understanding of Christianity, rejected the dogma of the church, and made man himself his higher authority, but also dismissed Jesus Christ as the founder and head of the church.

The Renaissance marked a transition from the Middle Ages to modern times. In outlook, the Renaissance brought new importance to individual expression, self-consciousness, and worldly experience. It was based on the denial of Christianity, and on the return to the ideals of paganism and the deification of human reason. The Renaissance served to usher in a period of the so-called enlightenment which fostered a rational scientific approach to political and social issues, and gave rise to a belief in the state as the instrument of human progress. Among the fruits of the enlightenment were both the French and Russian revolutions of 1789 and 1917 respectively. Another product of the enlightenment is our own American political system which dresses political freedom and the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The United States evolved out of a constitutional base which developed under the influence of the Scottish and English Protestant enlightenment. The first puritan settlers established the foundation for the development of a secular humanistic and Protestant society.

Of necessity, this description of the history of humanism has been incomplete, and perhaps, even a bit tedious. However, a realistic understanding of the concept is necessary to grasp the situation in which Christians find themselves today in the modern world. Humanism is clothed in appealing rhetoric about individual human dignity and self-worth, but it is tragically deceptive. For individuals, as history has shown, who stand in the way of humanist's agenda, are at least ostracized and, at most, deposed for the social good. In the words of the late Alexander Kalomiros, humanists can be characterized as loving mankind, and hating their neighbor; especially when their neighbor disagrees with them. The contemporary agenda of humanism excludes traditional Christian values, and replaces them with those of self-actualization, self-creation, and self-love. Humanism speaks of love and compassion, consideration of dignity co-mingled with charity. It holds that the ultimate goal of man is worldly happiness, freedom and progress, which can be achieved through science and man's innate ability to solve his own problems. Pushed to extremes, it denies the very existence of God, pointing instead to the age-old axiom that man is his own god.

Most Americans accept humanism unwittingly, for it is the air that we breathe. Humanistic thinking and its offspring, the new age, are supported at all levels of government, and invade our schools, entertainment industry, media, and our jobs. It is found in main-line Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches. Society is thought to be responsible for its own social problems, and not individuals. As a result of this, we live in a land in which abortion is not only legally performed, but condoned by a majority of its citizens. Marriage, home, and family rearing are no longer seen as a balance of rights and responsibilities, but rather as an experience in self-actualization -- a psychological euphemism for selfishness. Because parents and teachers now expect children to actualize themselves, they no longer discipline. Throughout our society, emphasis on rights are maximized, while emphasis on responsibilities are minimized. Short of harming others, individuals are free to express themselves in any way they wish -- even unto the most uncivilized sexual proclivities and life-style choices of their own fallen inclination.

Peace and unity are the by-words of our new-age order, giving added strength to the appeal of the heresy of ecumenism. The assumption being that Christian love demands unity, and somehow requires one to ignore the truth to avoid offending anyone. The delusion of unity and peace has served to ensnare even the church in the net of papal authority. On the one hand in Protestant, syncretism on the other. Thus, we hear talk of sacramental communion between Orthodox and the Roman Catholics by the year of 2000. We note that in a letter to the pope concerning Patriarch Bartholomew's recent visit to the Vatican, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of North and South America described the occasion as a God-sent mission, and stressed the need for unity in Christendom. Archbishop Iakavos went on to say, and I quote: "I pray with all my strength, faith, and soul that this meeting is completed with a triumphant announcement that Christendom is one."

The church has pandered to Protestants by participating in the world council of churches, praying with them and accepting Protestant baptism as effectual. Is peace and unity at the price of truth justified in any way? Is not truth the gift that Christ gave to his church, and the dearest thing to Orthodox Christians? Can truth be bartered away for the price of a lie which is offered by Satan himself? We have a pearl of great worth in the teachings of the church, and it cannot be compromised at any price. But Orthodox Christians living in the world should find themselves at odd is not surprising. Today in every way the message is blurted out from every media, "feel good about yourself, for you deserve it." Even in the midst of sin and corruption, we still hear the cry loud and clear, "feel good about yourself, you deserve it." Considering the general despair in our society, the loneliness, the drugs, the alcohol and substance abuse, the suicide rate, the aids epidemic; does anyone really believe that we profit from self-indulgence?

Apparently we do. We continue in our faith and mammon. In a recent best-selling book entitled Searching for Wisdom in America, the author asked a cross-section of Americans to describe their greatest personal individual personal concerns. The vast majority responded that they had run up against the limits of the American dream. Life had lost its meaning, and that they felt empty. Then he asked them, "What would a perfect solution to the problems?" Most prevalent answers were, "Seek out multiple messages and teachers from diverse philosophies and religions. Trust your desires and your dreams. And most important of all remember that you have the skill and the power to heal yourself whenever you suffer physical, psychological, or spiritual illness." These findings go hand in hand with what the psychologists had been telling us. "If you want to feel good about yourself, and your beliefs will not let you, then change your beliefs."

Yet this is not the Christian way. For to Orthodox Christians, sin is the cause of unhappiness. We are healed with the help of God through repentance. Our sinfulness, and not our faith must change. Our society despises any Christians, even though Christians have done nothing wrong to the world. It hates them because they set apart and aside its pleasures. In the same way, the world hated Christ, so it hates us.

Our secular society will tolerate Orthodoxy, but only if the church makes accommodations to humanism. Among the demands are that the church be one among a plurality of equally valid faith traditions. She will be expected to re-interpret herself in the light of American culture. Can the demands of society be tolerated? They cannot. For first and foremost in this age of apostasy, we must hold fast to the tradition delivered to us. For the church exists to change man's heart, and not to be changed by the hearts of men.

Be wary, fellow Christians, that the whole world lieth in wickedness. Draw away from evil, for what communion does light have with darkness? Or what part has the believer with the infidel? As true Christians, we must keep watch over ourselves or we will be drawn into the whirling torment of Apostasy. We must cling to the church as our only ark of salvation. For, by clinging onto the church, our spiritual life is preserved by Jesus Christ himself.

But, of course, simple membership in the church is not enough. We must be as living members of the body of Christ. For this, it is necessary to church our personal and family lives. One must be of the church, following its rules, decrees, customs, and traditions --not allowing ourselves to be subsumed by the unholy environment which surrounds us. Instead, we must live every jot and tittle of the faith. For everything, even the smallest detail, is important. We should neglect nothing, making compromises and concessions in nothing. Every compromise which we make, weakens our faith, and contributes to apostasy. In essence, what we have said is that we must live an Orthodox way of life if we are to successfully combat the corruption of the world. And, I add that if at all possible, we should do so in close knit Christian communities in order to insulate ourselves from the evil influence of our humanistic culture.

To develop and Orthodox way of life, we must first commit every fiber of our being. The Christian life -- the faith must become our elementary reality -- becoming as much a part of us as the air that we are breathing. This is developed only through prayer and through fasting. Second, we must learn to live our lives in piety, holding what is God's with awe, and with greatest honor. This is an external aspect of the Orthodox way of life, and is encouraged in its development by love of neighbor, charity and worthy participation in the mysteries of the church. When we have experienced both the first and the second elements, we have begun to live an Orthodox way of life, which is not only outward ritual in custom, but the whole of our being -- the center of all that we do and of all that we think.

Most of us are somewhere in the process of becoming. Our journey is advanced by sharing with others, by forming Orthodox spiritual communities around the church and its divine services, becoming one in mind and soul with fellow strugglers. An Orthodox community involves constant struggle, bearing of one another's burdens and hardships. If we cease struggling, however, the world will approach upon us and steal our treasure. Those who do not live the Orthodox way of life, centered around an Orthodox community cannot imagine the joy, the peace, and the quietness which it brings. To the world, it seems pointless. We must be on our guard against success, however. For with success, often comes a loss of fervor, discord, and decline. When the source of warmth perishes, then the life of the community will cease.

When you all leave here this Sunday, leave with the warmth of faith full of the Holy Spirit. Do not return to your parishes. I repeat, do not return to your parishes. Let us ban that word from our vocabularies. Rather go home to a community, prepared to begin living an Orthodox way of life. Take the tools which you will acquire here, and apply them to the growth and edification of your community. Be prepared for a tax both from the left, and from the right. The world will do all in its power to seduce you. Insulate yourself from the world by avoiding worldly entertainment: books, movies, televisions, and parties. For all of these things reek of the world and have the stench of Satan about them. Prepare yourself for reception of the mysteries by keeping the vigil. Never go out on a Saturday night or on the eve of feasts. Rather prepare yourself for the King coming. Avoid undue socializing, gossip, and participation in the affairs of the world.

And most importantly, my brothers and sisters, do not send your babies to public or private schools. The American education system has become the breeding grounds of neo-paganism. It is saturated with humanism. Children are indoctrinated into our materialistic culture under the pretense of helping them develop social and psychological skills and growth. The result is that they grow up ready to assume their places in our neo-pagan society. In addition, they are exposed to all manner of evil, sexual permissiveness, and substance abuse. Even the strongest Christian family finds it difficult to compete with the lure of a vanishing vapor, which their children's contemporaries offer. Homeschool your children, and use your children, and use your Christian community to form community schools.

Many parents don't have the skills, the patience, the time or the disposition to homeschool their children. But the Christian community can. It causes me to wonder when I see parishes in which several parishioners are independently homeschooling their children. Could not so much more be gained if we pulled our skills, and collectively develop community schools? I know that this is not always possible. But it certainly, in this world today, if we wish to protect our children, be something which we must strive. Be prepared also for a tax from the right, from fellow Orthodox Christians. Be prepared to be criticized and called "old fashioned -- out of sync with the 20th century", and with world Orthodoxy, un-American and even fanatical, for protecting your faith and practicing it as the church has always believed in all times and in every place.

Reverend Fathers, don't give in to worldly demands -- to trade your ryassa for a Roman collar, or your beard for a shaven face. Preserve the dignity of the priesthood and live the Orthodox way of life yourselves, and be a model to your community. Brothers and sisters, keep the fasts, adopt a rule of prayer, and give obedience to the teachings of the church. Demand that the whole services be served, despite the appeal of worldly objections. Believe me, serving a truncated service will not attract members to your church. Instead, make your services full, and allow people to participate to the degree of their strength. Serve the services on feast days during the week. And if people say, "But Father, we have to work!" Serve the services at 7 am; serve the services at 6 am. And those same people who say they have to work, will still not attend. Don't violate the typicon of the church. Serve no vesperal liturgies on days when they are not called for. For this is unknown to the church, and a violation of our integrity. Avoid innovations and changes that have never been known in the church. Never adapt the Orthodox church to fit American culture. Rather work to change the culture to fit the requirements of the church.

And if your community grows, which it may if you don't compromise, don't be surprised. For, there are many who thirst for the truth. Thank God, and do all that you can to preserve fervor. On the other hand, if your community fails to grow, don't despair, but preserve what God has given you. Thank God, for in the end time men's hearts will grow cold, and very few will follow the truth. Live in the world sanctifying time. Be of the church. Prepare yourself to wage spiritual warfare against the sinister evil of our time. And take heed; for blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. For great is your reward in heaven.

Amen. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Fr Martin is the pastor of St. Basil the Great Orthodox Church , St. Louis, Missouri. He may be reached at: rmswanson@primary.net


Alexandr

Jimmy Akin's counterpoint view to which to give some thought:

"Why I am not Eastern Orthodox" from This Rock magazine...


At a certain point in my life it became clear that I could not remain a typical American Evangelical. But where would I end up? One option I considered was becoming Eastern Orthodox.

For an Evangelical discovering more traditional forms of Christianity, accepting certain Catholic beliefs (purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc.) is very difficult.

Catholicism also has things to attract a rightly disposed Evangelical: the liturgy, the Eucharist, confession, confirmation, Sacred Tradition, apostolic succession.

To an Evangelical, Orthodoxy can seem like a way to have the latter without having to accept the former.

Why, then, didn�t I become Orthodox?

One practical hurdle was that in the South, where I grew up, there weren�t many Orthodox around. But that wouldn�t have deterred me. I couldn�t decide on the one, true faith based on which churches are in the local yellow pages. I would have to decide on theological grounds.

The other practical hurdle was a lack of theological resources. There have been more books published since, and much information is available on the Internet (which wasn�t commercially available then), but at the time I was limited to a few books on Orthodoxy by Jaroslav Pelikan and Timothy (now Bishop Kallistos) Ware.



Word Fights


When I began looking at the issues separating Catholics and Orthodox, it turned out that a lot of them were more semantic than substantive. If I became Orthodox, I would have to accept more Catholic things than I at first thought: purgatory, for example. Orthodox don�t traditionally use the word purgatory for the purification that happens after death, but they acknowledge that such a purification happens. They pray for the souls of the departed, which makes sense only if those prayers can help the departed in some way.

Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10�15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of "toll houses" on its road to heavenly glory. It�s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory.

This seemed to put the question of purgatory in the category of the "word fights" that Paul warns us against (cf. 1 Tim. 6:4�5; 2 Tim. 2:14). It doesn�t matter if the word purgatory is used to describe a particular post-death reality or if precisely the same image is used to allow us to imagine it. The fundamental reality is the same, as is its most obvious practical implication in this life: prayer for the dead. I would have to accept that whether I became Catholic or Orthodox.



Filioque

One of the most-cited issues separating the two churches is the so-called filioque controversy. This term is Latin for "and the Son," and it refers to the clause in the Nicene Creed that says the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son."

"And the Son" isn�t in the original Greek version of the Creed. It was inserted later by Western Christians and eventually authorized by the pope. Orthodox often criticize this on various grounds:
Including the word makes the Creed inaccurate.
The Creed is inviolable and cannot be changed.
The pope doesn�t have the authority to change the Creed.
If the Creed is to be changed, it should be done in union with the East (meaning specifically the Orthodox).
The last point seemed arguable. Perhaps, for the sake of Christian unity, the Nicene Creed shouldn�t have been changed until such time as unity with the Orthodox was restored. But the inclusion of the filioque in Latin versions of the Creed is a historical fact, and the question of whether it was prudent to add it in that way did not tell me anything about whether the Catholic Church had the authority to do it. The Catholic Church does not claim that its pastors will use their teaching authority in the most prudent manner but only that they are protected from error when they use its full measure.

The criticism of the filioque clause based on the authority of the pope also didn�t help me, as papal authority was a separate issue that I had to work out.

The claim that the Creed was inviolable and can never validly be revised seemed implausible on its face. The Nicene Creed was created to fight heresies, and heretics didn�t stop inventing new ones after it was penned. Even if the Nicene Creed was sufficient to meet the theological challenges of its own day, changing circumstances might call for the creation of new creeds or even a revision of the Nicene Creed itself�for example, if heretics found an insidious way of misinterpreting some of its clauses.

Indeed, that�s how we got the Nicene Creed: It is a revision done in 381 by one ecumenical council (Constantinople I) of a previous creed written in 325 by another ecumenical council (Nicaea I). Heretics were misinterpreting the former creed�s clause concerning the Holy Spirit, so the fathers of Constantinople I revised it to prevent them from doing so.

It thus seemed that the Church�s magisterium has the authority to revise creeds of this nature. The question was whether it did so in the most prudent manner.

This still left me to consider whether the Holy Spirit does proceed "from the Father and the Son." It might seem like a small matter, but it pertains to the inner life of God, and that makes it important.

I recognized the force of the Catholic arguments concerning the subject. Various Bible passages taken together suggest that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father (cf. Matt. 10:20; John 15:26; Acts 2:33; Gal. 4:6).

Ultimately, though, I recognized that it was not up to me to decide this question; it was up to the Church. On a subject this far from human experience, my feeble mind could not be relied upon. I would have to rely on the Holy Spirit�s guidance of the Church, which put me back to considering which Church was Christ�s.

(Much more can be said on this subject, including the way it is possible to harmonize the Catholic and Orthodox positions on the matter, but this reflects what I could see at the time. For more information, see the Filioque tract online at www.catholic.com. [catholic.com.])



The Papacy

The other most-cited reason for separation between Catholics and Orthodox is the papacy. Orthodox do not recognize the pope as having the kind of teaching and governing authority that the Catholic Church claims.

When I was an Evangelical considering Catholicism�and previously, even when I was quite anti-Catholic�I recognized that there is a certain logic to the office of the papacy.

Organizations need leaders if they are to hang together, and if Christ�s Church is a "visible" Church, then it needs a single earthly leader. It was because I then thought of Christ�s Church as an "invisible" union of all true believers that I didn�t recognize its need for a pope.

The absence of a pope from Eastern Orthodoxy clearly had negative effects. With no pope to call or recognize ecumenical councils, the Orthodox haven�t had one in centuries. As Kallistos Ware virtually admits, there is no practical way for the Orthodox to call or agree upon an ecumenical council (cf. The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 255�8).

The absence of a pope has led to a kind of magisterial paralysis on the part of the Orthodox, and this concerned me very much as I recognized the need for Christ�s Church to have a functioning teaching authority capable of settling new theological controversies.

I also recognized that if Peter were the rock Christ speaks of in Matthew 16:18, this would make him the earthly leader of the Church in Jesus� absence. I just didn�t yet recognize him as the rock. I even recognized that Scripture had in it things that look like an echo of papal infallibility. In the Old Testament the high priest could inquire of God via the urim and thummim (sacred lot), and if God chose to answer, the answer would be correct (cf. Ex. 28:29�30).

There was also the incident in which Caiaphas unwittingly prophesies about the death of Christ. John specifically tells us that "he did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation" (John 11:51).

There thus seemed to be some kind of special teaching charism associated with the earthly leader of God�s people in the Old Testament. While the era of new public revelation is now closed, it wasn�t unreasonable that there be a special teaching charism associated with the office of the earthly leader of God�s people in the New Testament age. "It�s a good thing the Catholics are wrong about Peter being the rock," I used to say. "Or they�d have an interesting argument for papal infallibility here."

It emerged in my reading that many Orthodox were prepared to make two key concessions regarding the papacy: that Jesus did give Peter a form of primacy over the other apostles (though this was conceived of "first among equals" role) and that the bishop of Rome is in a special sense the successor of Peter, though other bishops also may in some sense be Peter�s successors. These concessions seemed decisive to me.

The minute it is admitted that Peter has some kind of primacy given to him by Jesus, it becomes very hard to sustain the idea that this was only a kind of "first among equals," ceremonial authority (such as that of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).

First-century Palestinians had a theocratic view of government�literally. It was the first-century Jewish historian Josephus who coined the term theocracy to describe the Palestinian Jews� belief that God was the King of Israel and its earthly leaders were his proxies. The political institutions the apostles were familiar with didn�t have people who had figurehead positions. Rulers in the East were strong men. If God gave you authority, he gave you authority.

The early Church certainly understood Christ�s ministers as having authority over laity (cf. Heb. 13:17), and if Jesus put one particular minister over the others, it would be understood that he had authority over them. In answering the question of which of the apostles is the greatest (Luke 22:24), Jesus may have stressed the principle of servant leadership (22:25�27) and stressed that all the apostles would have authority (22:28�30), but he identified Peter as the one with pastoral charge concerning the others (22:31�32).

The concession that the bishop of Rome is in a special sense the successor of Peter also had important implications. It meant that both groups could admit that the pope has a special authority based on his connection to Peter. The point of dispute was the kind of authority. While it is understandable that people in the East would be more comfortable with a pope who had a ceremonial role in presiding over the other bishops of the world, I had concluded that this kind of figurehead role was unlikely to be what Jesus gave Peter.

Another consideration presented itself: If God set up the institution of the papacy, which group was he more likely to guide into a correct understanding of it: the group that possessed it or the group that was in separation from it? Common sense would suggest that God is more likely to guide the group that possesses an institution to a correct understanding of it. Biblical precedent would suggest this. When the Northern Kingdom seceded from the South in Israel, a question arose about the Jerusalem temple. God had designated this temple as uniquely his. It was the proper place for Hebrews to worship, including the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom (cf. Deut. 14:22�26; 1 Kgs. 11:36).

It was the Southern Kingdom that properly understood the role of the Jerusalem temple, and the Northern Kingdom came to worship at other, unauthorized sites.



Fractured Unity

As I learned more about Orthodoxy, another set of factors seemed to weigh against it.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics say the Nicene Creed�s affirmation that the Church of Christ is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic," but which has the better claim to those notes? I couldn�t say one was holier than the other. Both have great holiness and great wickedness in their histories, and making a judgment based on the variable tides of history would be unwise. Both are apostolic in the sense that they both have apostolic succession.

But the Orthodox communion has an issue when it comes to being "one." I�m not referring to the dissent and division that has been part of every Christian community since the beginning. I�m referring to the fact that not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other. There are situations in which church A is in communion with church B, and church B is in communion with church C, but A is not in communion with C. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is in communion with some Orthodox churches but not others (notably the Russian Orthodox church).

The Eastern Orthodox also have an issue in the degree to which they display catholicity. Compared to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox tend to be confined to a few ethnicities (Russian, Greek, etc.). The Catholic Church, by contrast, embraces far more ethnicities.

This is not an argument by itself, as catholicity is not simply measured by how many cultures a church embraces. Originally, it embraced only one. But Christ gave the Church a mandate to preach the gospel to all peoples (cf. Matt. 28:19�20), and it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has fulfilled this mandate more effectively than the Orthodox church has.

It was also worth noting the size difference between the two. A little over half of all Christians are Catholic, while a little under a quarter are Orthodox. Again, this is not an argument by itself, but it contributed to an overall impression that raises the question: Which of the following is easier to accept?

1. Church A is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the admittedly divine institution of the papacy, while church B is a schismatic church despite it being far larger, having evangelized far more cultures, not having internal full communion problems, and having the institution of the papacy.

2. Church B is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God�s providential guidance, while church A is the body in schism.

It seemed to me that it was easier to explain matters if one accepted the second possibility: The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Orthodox are, regrettably, in schism at present. It would be much harder to maintain that the Catholic Church is a false superchurch that dwarfs the true Church. Protestants might be able to argue that case by labeling it the Whore of Babylon and attributing all kinds of evil doctrine to it, but that argument would not work for the Orthodox, who are in near-total agreement with Catholic doctrine.

I concluded that I would have to bite the bullet and accept the "hard sayings" of the Catholic Church. After all, Jesus had some hard sayings himself.

This article, "Why I am not Eastern Orthodox" prooves many points in Father Martin's article about humanism. Father Martin points out that self-gratification, self-worth, focusing on selfish needs and desires is humanism and affects our society down to the core.
This article by Jimmy Akin posted by NW Mike is just that, he appears to be "shopping" for a church that will fit his needs and desires and his dreams of having the perfect church for him.
It is akin to buying a new car. Which one looks the best, has the most power, but is fuel efficient, does it have a good warranty...
Shopping not out of necessity is our modern phenomenon. The person focuses so much on trivial products that do not make his life any better, rather these products give him self-gratification.
In light of this, in the Akin's article, he is doing such humanistic rationalization, but applying it to his beliefs.
Choosing the right church isn't one that "fits" you. Prayer is how you find your place, not looking at the "options" (think back to my example of buying a car... does the church have fun skiing trips, does it accomodate my personal needs, is it air conditioned, does it have a starbucks, is it too Papal or is it too new age....).
When someone is considering finding the true light, he should pray pray pray and go where the Holy Spirit leads him. This should be down with out any selfish needs, submitting yourself to the will of God, trusting him to lead you where He wants you.. do his will.
This idea seemingly runs contrary to how many people look at picking a church... or as Father Martin says perfectly, joining a community.
Being Christian is about putting others needs before yours, no questions asked, being humble, meek, love for community, a family. It isn't about wheter or not the community has a rock band and whitewater trips and isn't papal or "out of the times."
It is about God's will, submit yourself all ye nations, for God is with us.
More often than not I have to endure many conversion stories. I have written on this topic here before. I don't tell my story, sure I have fallen into that once, someone asked why I went Orthodox from Byzantine Catholic, and I answered, but left it at that, basically the answer is simply, prayer, fasting, listening, led me there, a spiritual conversion, not an intellectual one that would seemingly satisfy my personal humanistic needs.
In light of non-humanistic tendencies, when a man becomes a member of the church of Rome or the Orthodox church, they often tell stories such as the one here by Jimmy Akin.
Truth be told, when someone joins the flock, we are glad to have you join the community. At some level it is about blossoming your spiritual growth, but many times people do it because they've shopped and weighed their personal options and picked the one that fit (much like buying a new car or a stereo or etc.., like a shopping trip to find a church based on selfish needs an individual wants to satisfy and is looking for the place to meet his humanistic goals.
So anyway, we should submit ourselves to the will of the Father, let him guide out lives, we should be meek, humble, really care about our communities, make our communities a family, one that doesn't just show up for Liturgy and then leave.
Early Christianity was based on these communities that stuck together and helped each other at all levels... we can't be saved by faith along.

I don't intend to single out Mr. Akin. I hear these stories all the time from those who have join the Orthodox church. I do not support the word convert, we are all converts, every day we have to affirm our beliefs and re-commit ourself to Christ. Everyone is a convert, as we weren't born members of the Church of Christ, baptism, chrismation, affirmation of the Nicene Creed, they bring us in to the church. The term convert creats divisions in the church community, if we are all baptised, christmated and in good standing with the church we are all one, unified. Labelling people converts or cradles creates rifts and divisions in the parish, even though they may work together on key functions of the Church community. But the division also creates factions and tears at that unity. I love to see people join the Church. I am glad you are here, but be humble, we're just glad you found the true Faith. We don't need these in-depth manifestos about how a person came into the church, such as the Akins article posted above. The community should be glad the person joined the ranks, what happened in the past that lead you up to joining the Church of Christ is a personal issue, and we all know it is one with many challenges and bumps in the road, But giving detailed stories which sometimes can be equated with a church shopping expedition, need to be left out of general conversation. One you are binded to the Church of Christ, you are no longer a convert, you are brethren, equal, to all memebers. There is no individualism, it is communal, we worship together, partake in the Most Precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which unites us, equals in the church, no one is a convert or a cradle, instead what we are is Christians, unified, regardless if you were Methodist or Quaker or born Greek ORthodox, everyone is equal and a member of the church of Christ.
One more note, Faith is the keystone, follow the Holy Spirit, do not make decisions on humanistic ideals seeking to serve your personal needs, but have Faith and trust Jesus, He will lead you.