The ongoing discussion of all things Orthodox goes on here at Precipice. Since my recent interview with Frederica Mathewes-Green, she and I have been continuing to dialog about the similarities and differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and thrusts within the emerging church conversation. After my recent post, suggesting the emerging journey can ultimately be seen as an attempted synthesis of Eastern and Western conceptions of faith, Frederica wrote back with some of her own thoughts about that possibility- from an Orthodox perspective. Following Frederica's comments are some further responses of my own.

Frederica Mathewes-Green: I like what you say and think you're expressing Orthodoxy well. I think the one factor most likely to block Orthodoxy from accepting this new synthesis is the factor of *time* in the working of the Holy Spirit. That is, when Jesus said he'd send the Spirit to lead us into all truth, he didn't intend that promise to go unanswered for 2000 years. It almost sounds narcissistic, to think that the fullness of the truth, the full presence of the Holy Spirit and the light of Christ dwelling in his followers, was not accessible to any previous generation. Jesus was saving it this whole time, just for us in 2007. You know what I mean?

You're aware, I'm sure, of the "Vincentian Canon," the test enunciated by St Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century, to "tell true doctrine from falsehoods." Most Christians of any brand "get it" when they hear that the true doctrine is determined by looking for what has been believed "always, everywhere, and by all." (Tom Oden does a great job explaining this in his "Rebirth of Orthodoxy.") Christians instinctively get that the truth will be what's won consensus from all believers in all places, from all time. The Holy Spirit would be evident where that unity comes forward.

Here's the problem, though. They get "all places" and "all people," but discard "all time." They think that the truth is what is affirmed by all Christians in all places *today*. EG, a synthesis of what's best in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism today.

Orthodoxy is going to uphold the faith as it was understood in the early centuries, and be consistently resistant to beliefs that didn't emerge until the year 1000 or later. To state it the other way, those would necessarily be beliefs that were *not* held by all Christians, everywhere, in all times. They would be new beliefs. They might even be outright contradictions of the earlier consensus (eg, the assertion that the Eucharist should be merely a memorial meal, and not the Body & Blood of Christ). Or they might be supplemental ideas that had never taken root previously, and which might do some subtle damage by throwing things off-balance (eg, name it & claim it Pentecostalism).

But to revert to the doctrine vs pneumatology split, the reason for Orthodox insistence on the original consensus is that it *works*, not merely that it is "true." The early consensus is not a theory but a therapy. It is validated by the transformed lives of those who practice it. Indeed there is much that we could not enunciate at any great depth--it is unnecessary to state it all out in propositional terms. It's not about doctrine, ultimately. What's necessary is to live it and see that it works (which is why we read the lives of the saints every day, for encouragement and example).

I know it's easy to see this resistance on the part of Orthodox as stubborn or triumphalistic, but its rooted rather in this expectation that the true faith will be the one that works, and this has proved itself over the centuries. If it worked for the Desert Fathers and Mothers, then it will work for me.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Darren King: I guess it's a given that you (as an Orthodox), myself (as an "emerger"), and a third individual (as an evangelical Protestant), are all - to some extent - going to disagree about this particular discussion. Why? Because we're all beginning from different points of view.

When you became Orthodox you chose to adopt the worldview therefore prescribed. And so, understandably, you're going to answer questions from within that paradigm. It has something to do with what you mentioned in the interview- about Orthodox scholarship being about agreeing with the past- as opposed to striking off in new directions.

I would point out that not all emergers (I use this term - as opposed to Emergents - to differentiate from Emergent Village- which is again, just one stream within the EC conversation) are striking out in new directions just for the sake of being able to cover new ground. We're not all self-identified theological pioneers! :)

The EC conversation began rather, out of a sincere sense that something seemed out of balance in our Western paradigm of reality.

The tricky thing with paradigms is that they not only determine the available answers- but also the available questions.

Now, while I know that Orthodoxy is largely exempt from the Enlightenment-experiment critique that the EC crowd has leveled on the Protestant and Catholic streams, it still has its own philosophical starting points that are perhaps, problematic- at least to those of us within the EC.

Ah, worldviews... They're so exclusive, aren't they?

I guess I say this more to point out that these kinds of discussions are always going to be difficult. Its like we're sitting on a ledge, describing a canyon vista- but doing so while looking over different canyons.

Let me touch on one such a priori assumption as an example. The Orthodox Church (along with the Roman Catholic) believes itself to be the TRUE church because of apostolic succession. The Pope said as much (for the Roman Catholics) in his recent declaration about what is and isn't a "church".

<INSERT **Here it should be noted that Frederica wrote back to clarifiy that, within Orthodoxy, apostolic succession isn't just about a linear connection from Peter to the present, but has to do with the fact that the Orthodox of today "are practicing the same faith as the early Christians. It's apostolic in the sense of having the same content as the apostles' teaching." **END INSERT>

I, for one, believe this to be a rather weak argument. Jesus himself said that God can raise up sons of Abraham from stones- if necessary. As an extension of that basic premise I believe that he can also, and actually has also, risen up new churches (within the Church) whenever necessary.

Now I know that the visible and the invisible Body of Christ are not necessarily the same thing within Orthodox theology. And I appreciate that. As an emerger I simply take that same argument one step further.

I like your point about the fact that TRUE religion should actually be measured not in abstract "rightness", but rather by the weight of changed lives. Many westerners spend seeming eons debating ideas without even thinking to look at the "incarnational evidence" manifest in the lives of various groups of believers. That seems, at best- foolish, at worst, to be completely missing the forest for the trees.

We in the emerging conversation have referred to this by saying that its important to be good, as well as "right". This should be self-evident. But for many fundamentalist Protestant evangelicals it clearly is not. I'm sure you would agree.

I actually made this very point to an Orthodox friend of mine several years ago. I said that if Orthodoxy "works" so well, then it should be clearly evident in the lives of its followers. I guess my question for you is: is it? Overall, do you think that Orthodoxy produces more "per-capita saints" than do other streams? And if not, what does this mean? I know this takes measurement to an almost utilitarian, Modern extreme, but you get the point.

I know it might sound like pure narcissism for the EC crowd to suggest it can possibly find something today, circa 2007, that has been "missed" or "overlooked" up until now. But I guess I would look at it a little differently. I see progressive revelation manifest in the history of Yahweh in relationship with His people. And I don't see that progressive revelation as being done. The way I see it, the Holy Spirit came, and continues to come- in order to lead us into all truth.

And here I would lean towards Orthodox Armenian tendencies. I believe that part of God's plan is to let us "work out our own problems" - so to speak. Take this as another outworking of deification- but on a global, as well as individual scale. 

Is this slow going? You bet. And that's why I can be so presumptuous as to assume that new synergy can emerge 2000 years after Pentecost.  

I know that Orthodox are understandably concerned that without the grounding offered in historic identity, that all Christianity becomes is a ship adrift at sea- blown to and fro by the ever-shifting winds of culture. I certainly know that an evangelical or a Catholic would be concerned for the same thing; although the Catholics would look to Papal identity and the evangelicals to sola scriptura to find their mooring.

I tend more towards the view (partially shared by Orthodoxy) that God (moving within the invisible Church) is the anchor. And because He said He sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, I trust He is doing just that. Is the process messy? Yes. But again, this is where I think our collective "working out of salvation" comes into play. God is in the process of growing us up; one step of progressive revelation and collective incarnation at a time.

**Read a transcript of my original interview with Frederica Mathewes-Green.