When the Homily is about Immunology

The Church that never changes
Scathing article on Orthodoxy (Part four…my gosh, really? Four parts! Like a fricken mini-series!)

Coffee again folks…welcome, come on in. I promise, this weekend we will break out something more “spirit filled”

I am guessing that close to 7 years ago, Grace Community Church in Arlington became Saint Andrew Orthodox Church. Apparently there was a long process of discernment for the people of this then “non-denominational” (you know, that is really such a silly word – but if makes those who use it feel better, then whatever) protestant church to sort through many issues. Numerous times, various local Orthodox clergy came to visit the people of the congregation and give a presentation…frequently there would be a period of questions and answers following. I have been privy to hear the recordings of these events and they are really fascinating to hear. I recall one of the local Greek priests (his name escapes me) being asked by a woman: “But what I need (her choice of word as I recall) to know is whether the apostles venerated icons?”

Funny thing is, I cannot for the life of me remember how the good father answered her sincere question…but I know how I’d answer it: we don’t know for sure, but it seems likely that they did not…BUT, so what? The Apostles continued to go to Temple and Synagogue…do we? They were unfamiliar with “Amazing Grace”, Keith Green, Organs, Robert Tilton, Television, Rock Music, books, copy machines, overhead projectors, and a little something we like to call the NEW TESTAMENT, are we? One of the mistakes I think many “post-mod” protestants make is in trying to “get back to an Acts model church” because inevitably the question that arises is: Which Acts church? The one before deacons? Or the one after deacons but before the issue of circumcision was decided? How about the one that only ministered to Jews? You get the point…there is no such thing as a church that does not change – at least in some way.

How we as Protestants can hold the Bible in our hands and cling to the doctrine of sola scriptura, claiming that this book is the sole source of authority in the Church and then say that we are in perfect continuity with the Apostles is simply beyond me. And then to say that we Orthodox are wrong to venerate icons because the Apostles did not do so?!?!?! Ummm…hello! Wake up and smell the coffee…mmmm coffee!

So what do we mean when we say that the Orthodox Church does not change? Well, what we mean is that the Faith, the Holy Tradition is the same…it is very much like a living person: it grows up and it matures, but it is still the same person. Holy Tradition is alive - as we often say, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The same life, which guided the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, also guides the Church still today. This is the key! The question is NOT whether venerating icons was done in the earliest church, but rather whether or not it fits in the grand scheme of the Church’s life.

Recall that at the great FIRST council of Nicea (which it seems NO “o”rthodox Christian takes issue with) it was terribly controversial to use the term “homoousia” because it was thoroughly an innovation. Many a skeptic will point to the fact that the early fathers say vitrually nothing about the Trinity (certainly the term was a late comer) or some other foundational Christian doctrine...but so what? BUT, these things fit the faith and tradition that was handed down to them. Indeed all of the councils did this very same thing – they clarified what was handed down, no more and no less. They examined issues that had arisen and compared it with the living Tradition of the Church and either embraced it or repudiated it. EXACTLY how it was done in Acts 15.

The issue of authority is not neat and clean, it is not decided simply because a bunch of “men in stoles” get together and come to a decision. No, the authority of the Church is more organic than that. Many a “council” has come together and the Church has either immediately or sometime thereafter failed to recognize it as speaking the mind of the Church. This should not surprise us…on the contrary what should surprise us is that many of us have fallen into the trap of thinking that individuals are the ultimate source of authority – for this is the beating, indeed bleeding heart of protestant hermeneutics.

Let me cite an example: Whiskey. I’ve been reading A LOT of reviews from the “experts.” Truly their sense of taste amazes me, but one thing I notice is that different reviewers frequently differ on ascribing high or low marks to a given product. And the same is true for me…the Highland Park Scotch we had the other night received rave reviews from one author, and yet I was not very fond of it. Taste, like beauty, is in the tongue of the beholder…wait, that didn’t sound right…oh well, you get my point.

Protestant hermeneutics are in the brains of the thinker. Yes, agreement can be found, but come on…30,000 different “bible-believing” church denominations! Sola Scriptura is an experiment that has utterly failed…because it hides from that most necessary ingredient – the Church.

I could argue, if I were so inclined, that the establishment of a New Testament canon was a complete innovation and stood against the practice of the early church – which was to simply use the Septuagint as her scriptures. Asking the question: “Did the Apostles venerate icons?” is exactly the same as asking “Did the Apostles have New Testament Bible Studies?”

Now friend, before you shrug this point off as being absurd (because it is on the surface, I admit) I implore you to dig a little. How do you know that the “Shepard of Hermes” is not supposed to be apart of what Protestants like to call the “Word of God”? How do you know for sure that the “Didache” should not be apart of the New Testament? Are you absolutely SURE that the epistle to the Hebrews belongs in the New Testament? How about my patron’s epistle (Saint James)…because as you likely know Martin Luther had his doubts!? The Bible in your hand is a product of the Church…its existence and the authority you and I both ascribe to it SCREAMS in testimony to the authority of the Church. It is THAT authority which we MUST affirm (as does Scripture), which we must hope in, which we must believe in…for to do otherwise leaves us in a whirlwind of personal opinion and ultimately leads us to…ummm…well, to 30,000 denominations and the likes of “Christian” churches ordaining bishops that deny the Resurrection of Jesus.

It is a matter of faith. Faith in the community of believers and not in ourselves. Faith that God has preserved something more than a book (which He Himself never promised to establish) What He did establish, however, was a Church. A visible body of believers who have kept, guarded, and handed down the faith through the centuries. This is what we Orthodox believe…and it is the hinge upon which any question about iconography ultimately swings. It may sound crazy, I know…but is it any crazier than talking donkeys, magical healing cloths, resurrecting power in bones, miracle snake oil in the form of a bronze statue, or a God-Man? It may sound arrogant to imply that one particular body of believers are the inheritors of this faith…but is it any more arrogant of a Jew to say that God “chose” his or her particular race to be “His” people?

Hmmm….guess I went a little long here…my coffee is cold.

Further regarding the women’s question about the apostles venerating icons: the Orthodox Church is not exactly like the Acts Church, we never claimed to be. But, we do claim to BE that Church…all grown up…okay well, as my friend Basil says…maybe we are more like a teenager now.