hey toews, sorry for the my procrastination in responding. customary

delinquency, that's what keeps me going.

Christ is risen! happy Easter! i dont celebrate it until next week, but

that means little.

my response to you has become a long email indeed; apologies.

i agree with most of what youve said in this email, about the silliness of

denominational differences, and the claims of each denomination to be the

'true church.' a lot of it is petty feuds over things that really are not

the essential aspects of the faith: to follow Christ, and grow closer to

God.

i do, however, feel, that there is a great distinction between orthodoxy and

any protestant denomination. in russia, people kept thinking that i was

catholic, and when i tried to explain that i was protestant, they never

could could quite grasp it-- they tended to understand the various

protestant denominations as catholic sects. while i was offended at the

time, i've actually come to agree with this, more or less.

my conviction that the orthodox church is the unswerving "holy, catholic and

apostolic Church" which has held to the essentials of the faith, neither

adding nor subtracting, is based largely on history, so bear with me. until

the council of chalcedon (i forget the year), it could truly be said that

the body of believers and the physical, earthly Church were the same thing.

all Christians were of the same confession, all communed freely with one

another. there had been the occasional (and sometimes prominent) bishop who

professed a belief that was eventually denounced by the church council as

heresy, but in general the followers of errant beliefs accepted the

decisions of the Church, and came back in line with correct doctrine. as

the word "orthodox" means "correct doctrine," i'll call this early church

the Orthodox church. of course, as the word "catholic" means "universal,"

it was also the Catholic church. but not the Roman Catholic church-- the

bishop of Rome had yet to claim doctrinal supremacy over the other bishops.

then came some nasty politics. the roman/byzantine empire of the north

mediterranean was trying to regain political control over the south

mediterranean (especially egypt); and the empire was influential enough that

it got some prominent bishops to denounce the bishop of alexandria as a

heretic. there had been an earlier heresy, nestorianism, which denied the

unity of Christ's humanity and divinity; in essence saying that God

inhabited a human body, but was fully separate from that human. there are

actually still nestorian Christians around today, mostly in Iraq, but

they've always been small enough in number that this earliest of schism was

more the excommunication of a small number of heretics than a formidable

split in the body of those who called themselves Christians. anyhow, the

bishop of alexandria, in reaction to nestorianism, used language emphasizing

that Christ's divine and human nature are inseparable. under influence from

northern politics, many roman/byzantine bishops denounced this as a denial

of Christ's humanity, calling it "monophysitism"-- the claim that Christ has

one, not two, natures. the northern church, the "diphysites," emphasized

the two natures of Christ, divine and human, inseparable but fully

distinguishable. the southern church, to my understanding, believed

precisely the same thing, but used slightly different language, and

political clout was able to aggravate this grammatical quibble into a

full-fledged schism, at the council of chalcedon. this allowed the

roman/byzantine empire to persecute the africans (especially egypt but also

all of north africa in addition to ethiopia) and others who had not been

present at the council-- notably indian and armenian Christians. this

basically separated european and arabian Christians from the rest of the

Church.

anyhow, that was the first major schism in the body of believers (and in my

view the most tragic, exacerbated more by politics than by genuine doctrinal

concerns), the first real evidence of denominationalism within the Church.

nonetheless, much of the laity seemed to understand the petty nature of the

quibble, and chalcedonians and non-chalcedonians frequently treated one

another (and still do) as if they believed the same thing and were in full

communion.

then (i forget the precise year) came the Great Schism, in 1054. the church

had traditionally recognized the importance of certain cities to the

Christian faith-- alexandria, jerusalem, antioch, constantinople, and rome.

thus the bishops of these cities held special prominence, and were called

(in jerusalem, antioch, and constantinople) patriarchs and (in rome and

alexandria) popes. they had a special place at Church councils (though each

had one vote, same as the bishop of the lowliest and most distant diocese),

and when the entire Church was at council, the pope of rome presided-- rome

being the first capitol of the roman empire.

rome, however, was the only ancient Christian metropolis in western europe,

and over the years had gained more and more control over the dioceses of

western europe, and Christians of western europe came to regard the pope of

rome, rather than the Church in council, as the sole arbiter of doctrinal

matters. this was basically completed in 1066, when william the conqueror

invaded britain and brought the believers in the british isles fully under

the roman sphere of influence.

a local council in toledo, spain, many centuries earlier (500s i think), had

made a notorious change to the nicene creed-- the confession of faith,

drafted by the council of nicea, which united all Christians-- the creed

states the essential doctrines of all Christianity, and the idea is that

anybody who confesses this creed is in full communion with the Church. the

first half of it was drafted at the council of nicea; some centuries later

the need was seen to further explicate the role of the Church and the Holy

Spirit, and so the creed was expanded at the council of constantinople. i'm

sure you know the creed, you'll remember that one article (as you've been

taught it) reads: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son

together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

the nicene-constantinoplean creed, as agreed upon by the bishops of the

Church in council and adopted universally by the laity, reads: "I believe

in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father,

who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who

spoke by the prophets." it was the council of toledo that had added "and

the Son" (latin "filioque") to the creed.

this addition was used more and more commonly in western europe, was adopted

by charlemagne, was rejected several times by the pope of rome, but

eventually rome adopted it, and later the eastern church began to be accused

of heresy for "omitting" the filioque!

its a petty detail, and silly. some orthodox argue that the filioque

amounts to a change in the doctrine of the Trinity, creates a hierarchy of

Father--> Son--> Holy Spirit that subverts the equality of the three Persons

of the Trinity. others simply say that it doesnt make a bit of doctrinal

difference, but because it was not adopted by the Church at council it is

not canonical, so to accuse those who do not confess it of heresy is

wrongheaded-- in fact, heretical.

at any rate, in 1054 an emissary from rome came to the great cathedral of

the holy wisdom (hagia sophia) in constantinople, and officially

excommunicated the patriarch of constantinople. this was uncanonical and

heretical for two reasons-- one, the previously discussed filioque, and two,

it was a claim that the pope of rome, rather than the Church at council,

held the authority to excommunicate anybody, it gave rome an authoritarian

role over the rest of the Church, rather than the pope of rome simply being

the "first among equals" at Church councils.

by now you've seen what, to my mind, is the most distinguishable tenet of

orthodoxy-- the supreme canonicity of the Church. roman catholics say the

pope of rome alone is infallible, protestants claim that infallibility rests

only in Holy Scriptures. orthodox believe that the Bible is infallible and

canonical because it was created by the Church in council-- that is to say,

the Church in council sorted through all the epistles, gospels, and

spiritual writings that were being circulated among Christians, and selected

the ones which agreed in every aspect with the essential beliefs of

Christianity-- through God's divine guidance, the council was able to

distinguish those texts which had been inspired by God Himself, from those

which were either incorrect or simply lesser. thus the infallibility of

Holy Scripture is fully grounded in the infallibility of the Church.

of course, the Church is not merely the bishops in council-- it is the body

of all believers. in the 1400s, the byzantine empire desparately needed

support from the west for protection against muslim invasion. the emperor

of constantinople coerced the bishops of the eastern Church to meet with the

bishops of the western church, for the council of florence. at that

council, the bishops of the east adopted the filioque, and accepted the pope

as the sole arbiter of doctrine.

but the Christians of the east rejected this flat-out. they recognized it

as political concessions rather than canonical agreement, deposed their

bishops, refused to adopt the filioque and refused to submit to rome. so,

although the council of florence was ratified by the bishops of the Church,

the laity (and parish priests) of the Church recognized it as heresy and

rejected it. thus affirming that infallibility rests only in the entire

Church-- laity and bishops.

and of course we recognize that any claim of infallibility or canonicity

comes exclusively by the grace of God, the All-knowing.

anyhow, we're nearly to the reformation by now. you're familiar with the

mass corruption in the medieval roman catholic church, the selling of

indulgences, the use of latin to make knowledge of the Bible and of the

faith inaccessible to laity, et cetera, et cetera. for the most part, these

problems were exclusively western problems. orthodoxy clung much more

stubbornly to the essentials of the faith, and has been much more reluctant

than the roman catholics to espouse dogma on a variety of issues.

essentially, orthodoxy's only dogma is the nicene creed-- all other

teachings are doctrine, which one cannot be excommunicated for disagreeing

with-- unless one asserts that an opposing viewpoint is in fact dogma. this

was not always carried out, and there has been a good deal of problems with

the goverment attempting to seize control over the Church hierarchy (in

russia, peter the great abolished the patriarchate and appointed a

bureaucrat to rule the council of bishops; this was not reversed until

1917), but it had negligable effect on ordinary believers.

anyhow, the outcome of the reformation was the formation of essentially

national churches. lutherans in germany/scandinavia, later on anglicans in

england, and even later presbyterians in scotland. because the unity and

canonicity of the Church had been rejected, churches were split by doctrinal

squabbles, up to the point we have today of basic pluralism-- whatever you

decide Christianity is, that's what it is for you and you don't have to obey

anything but your own conscience, so find a congregation that's "right for

you," and if you can't find any, then start your own. you recognize that

i'm exaggerating. evangelicals at least recognize the canonicity of Holy

Scripture, so the supreme arbiter of doctrine becomes not individual taste

but individual interpretation of the Bible. but still, the essence is "do

what's right for you," which is why every church you'll go to sings their

own praise choruses or hymns and has a different rock band, chamber

orchestra, or baptist choir leading the worship.

that's not to say that most protestants and catholics arent Christians; i

certainly believe they are. and evangelicalism in particular has kept the

faith from becoming superficial, based solely on tradition and physical

action. protestantism, i feel, has tended to hyper-spiritualize the faith,

all but rejecting that the body as well as the soul must worship God-- but

the good aspect of that is that it keeps us from forgetting the importance

of the spiritual aspects of worship.

so i do feel that protestant denominations are incorrect because they reject

the canonicity of the Church; reject that the Church can be a physical, not

merely invisible, presence on earth, in unbreached succession from the very

first believers at the Pentecost. i find it ironic that many attempts to

get back to the fundamentals of the early Church are based on the Bible,

which wasn't collected and distributed until several centuries after the

Church began-- and before and after that, most Christians were illiterate,

their faith founded on the teachings of the Fathers and their daily

spiritual practice, rather than by text.

but God saves those whom He will save. i believe that the Orthodox Church

is the physical manifestation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,

on the basis of a direct, unswerving connection, through apostolic

succession, with the very first believers, that it is in fact not merely

_like_ the early Church but it _is_ the early Church.

but nobody can tell who is invisibly a part of the Church. "believe on the

Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." those who truly believe in

Christ (though some of their doctrine/practice may be errant) may be visibly

separated from the canonical Church, but are invisibly part of the Church.

and likewise, there are plenty of orthodox "christians" who follow the rules

but not the Lord, are visibly part of the Church but invisibly separated.

so i dont believe in ecumenical pluralism. i dont think that mennonites,

pentecostals, catholics and orthodox all follow equally valid expressions of

Christianity. catholics have rejected correct doctrine and the authority of

the universal Church; protestants have rejected some of the catholic

heresies but have remained disunited. if nothing else, i think that the

continued unity of the orthodox Church and the fact that it has had no major

schism since the roman catholics broke from the faith a thousand years ago,

is evidence that orthodoxy has something that all other sects lack. it is

primarily this historical argument which convinces me. the nonchalcedonian

and chalcedonian orthodox are on the verge of reunion (i'm certain it will

happen within the next century; after 1500 years of separation that's a

blink of the eye), because while there's bad blood between them there's no

disagreement in dogma. the catholics are drifting farther and farther away,

and protestants are shooting in all directions, united by nothing but

abstractions-- these days, not even united by a belief that Jesus Christ was

an actual person, much less that He is the Son of God born of the Virgin

Mary who was crucified for our sins and conquered death by rising from the

grave.

but, all that said, i know many genuine and committed Christians who are

protestant and catholic, and i have no desire to encourage them to change

confession and join the orthodox Church. once i became convinced of

orthodoxy's canonicity, i had no choice but to join. but a person can fully

be a Christian, fully work for the Lord, accept Christ's redemptive work,

and strive to become the perfect image of God, without ever making a step

towards joining the visible orthodox Church.

which is why, in a way, i feel bad about sending this email to you. you're

a committed believer, and you're following Christ. i encourage you to go to

the midnight Paskha service at the seoul cathedral not because i want to

pressure you towards orthodoxy, but because i think it will be a fascinating

cultural experience, that you'll see a dramatically different version of the

same worship that all Christians practice. but i hope that this email is in

no way proselytizing. as long as Christ is in our midst (and He has

promised to be with us always), His work will be done by those who follow

Him, regardless of their sect or denomination.

whew, that was a nice break from paper-writing. all the best to ye,

james