Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Emerging church and Orthodoxy revisited

Published by

Matt Stone

2007-06-18

Steve Hayes has posed some pertinent reflections here on the differences between Protestant and Orthodox ecclesiology and implications for the Emergent Church … from an Orthodox perspective. I have always welcomed Steve’s contributions to this site and I think it’s posts like this that demonstrate the need for genuine ecumenic dialogue (as opposed to one way eclectic borrowings). I am Protestant in ecclesiology myself, and struggle with the Orthodox perspective here more than anywhere else, but struggle with it we must if we are ever to move closer towards understanding and unity.

For those interested in reading further I would recommend Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective by Daniel B. Clendnin as a useful introductory book that explores some of the issues from a Protestant perspective. Steve, I’ll lay down the gauntlet for you to suggest some Orthodox books!

Tags Orthodox

4 responses to “Emerging church and Orthodoxy revisited”

Steve Hayes

2007-06-18

Hi Matt,
Thanks for the mention and comment. I did give the book to read in my posting, though. Another is The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike Lowe

2007-06-19

Thanks Matt, I have a great interest in Orthodox spirituality along with Celtic spirituality – probably because both are imbued with a sense that the Spirit is at work everywhere (your point about the filoque clause in an earlier posting was spot on).
Steve Hayes mentions the ‘H’ word (heresy) which always makes me think of Archbishop William Temple’s observation that heresy is a failure to embrace both sides of a paradox. In trying to get my head around this particular issue of ecclesiology I have found it helpful to distinguish between two types of authority – power (political) and influence. (This distinction is explored by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his book The Politics of Hope) The institution of the Church has both kinds of authority and both are necessary. Jesus, on the other hand, had no power, only influence.
Where I agree with the Orthodox position that there can be only one Apostolic Church is in the sense of the continuing influence of Jesus through the church(es). There is only one Jesus, only one God, and therefore only one authority in this sense of influence.
However, where political power comes into play (and most schisms, I suspect, have been more about politics than anything else) I believe there is room for many distinct institutions serving the diverse peoples of the earth.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2007-06-19

“…heresy is a failure to embrace both sides of a paradox” Oh, how I wish Calvanists and Arminians could kiss and make up over the human responsibility and divine sovereinty argument! The Bible supports both! Not a bad observation, though I would need to test its universality against quite a few heresies before I could accept it as a complete definition.
On the power issue. As a former Catholic, I have had more experience than I would like with monarchial styles of church government and am quite critical of it, yet the fracturous nature of Protestantism is problematic in its own way. Though I lean in a Protestant direction and like yourself see room for many institutions grappling with these ecclesiological paradoxes is indeed important.

LikeLike

Reply
Steve Hayes

2007-06-20

Mike,
I find the distinction between “power” and “influence” interesting, and have commented more fully on my original post, as I don’t think it has much to do with ecclesiology, though I think it is helpful in distinguishing between the three-fold ministry and the five-fold ministry.
Concerning heresy, yes, I suppose Chalcedon tried to take into account both distes of the Nestorian-Monophysite paradox.

LikeLike

Reply