Okay, so for a long overdue update to this little corner of the blogosphere I'm going to cheat a little. This post was originally a reply to a question on the OrthodoxChristianity.net forum, the original thread of which can be found here. As will be seen, this is a fairly old (in internet terms) piece, which was (in a redacted form answering only the second part of the question) posted to my Facebook account. I recently came across it again while searching through my online profile in response to a school assignment on how we present ourselves online, and decided to add it to this more search-friendly venue. I have also taken some time to add to and edit the original post. The middle portion is entirely new.
In Response to the Question “How does one differentiate what is true and what is not?”
In some cases we can ascertain what is true by mere observation: 2+2= 4 because every time you take two of something and add another two you end up with four. This is good for physicists and forensic analysts, assuming all the data is correct (i.e. assuming cops haven't planted that bloody glove or that "universal constants" are in fact universal and not a localized phenomenon of our area of the solar system).
It gets trickier when trying to determine whether another person is (intentionally or unintentionally) lying about something, whether it be a mere statement of historical "fact" or in relaying some statistical fact. If Bob, who was a teenager and young adult during the Sixties, adamantly maintains to his children that he never touched "grass" his children might believe him at least until their uncle lets slip that their dad used to be the "highest person at the commune". Who is normally more trustworthy- dear old Bob, or Uncle Harry who hasn't climbed out of a bottle since 1973? If Grandma and Grandpa further maintain that Bob never went to a commune, indeed never had time to visit one what with his weekend visits home during college then we may conclude that Bob is telling the truth. But if Bob is well known for glossing over details of his past out of a misguided sense of "setting a proper example for his kids", if he had previously done things like say "We're going to Disneyland" in order to get all the kids into the car for a trip to the dentist, if he had constantly promised raises in allowance only to back out, then the kids might want to start checking the old Woodstock movie for the footage of their dad. There is of course a third possibility- if Bob is normally trustworthy but his children decide to do some digging and uncover from various sources that their father was indeed quite the party animal back in college (an old yearbook, talking with old college friends, an arrest report) they may conclude that Bob was indeed lying. This may lead them to wonder what else Bob lied about.
Certain statements meant to be taken as factually true depend upon the presuppositions of the person stating what they believe to be true. These presuppositions can color the way a person interprets data. It is because different presuppositions lead to different interpretations of data that we have debates over issues of politics, historical events, economics, and even sciences such as biology and quantum physics. A fact- there was a mass public shooting- can lead to very different conclusions depending on whether one is or is not in favor of gun control.
Some Christians mistrust the findings of scientists in regards to evolution- not necessarily due to a fundamentalist adherence to the Bible as the "Superliteral, completely and totally inerrant Word of God"- but because they know that some scientists are working from a false position. By assuming that no supernatural events can occur they automatically interpret their evidence in any way that doesn't allow for a supernatural explanation. A paleontologist might make the statement that the Great Flood of the Bible (and every culture across the earth) is absolutely impossible because there is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth was covered in water. The same Paleontologist will be addressing a conference a week later on that time 20,000 years ago that the Earth was covered in ice!
So determining truth from lie comes down to several things- does the statement go directly against what one has observed for oneself? How trustworthy is the source of information? If the statement regards an extraordinary event that isn't easily repeatable or observable does/did it have some sort of extraordinary effect upon the world (just because something hasn't been seen before doesn't mean it won't ever be seen, especially if the proper circumstances are introduced. A feather always falls slower than a lead ball- except in a vacuum)?
The Christian Truth Claim
In order to arrive at what is broadly considered (by the adherents of the various Christian denominations) to be “Christianity” one must consent (whether consciously or as a result of upbringing) to a few presuppositions. The first is that there is indeed a God. The second is that this God is able to be known personally- that is, he is not some abstract and impersonal entity. One must allow that this God not only knows of, but cares about humanity. This God must also be allowed to interact with the physical world.
Finally, this God has to have cared about and loved humanity so much that he was willing to put aside his god-hood, to empty himself and humble himself and take on human limitations. He must have been willing to subject himself to hunger, thirst, weariness, pain, and even death.
If none of these beliefs are met, then one will have a hard time interpreting a significant piece of data- that of the empty tomb. How these beliefs are met does not matter. Some people have arrived at these beliefs after examining the evidence for the Resurrection. Others have arrived at the Resurrection after first assenting to the various beliefs, step by step. A very few have come to accept all the beliefs after a personal encounter with God. To examine the empty tomb without already having all of the beliefs, or to examine the empty tomb without coming to all the beliefs, to stop short at any point along the way, is to stop short of Christianity.
What Christianity does is claim a momentous truth hinging on a single fact. The truth is that God became Incarnate; born of a Virgin; lived as a man, experiencing all our hopes, fears, pains, and temptations; was crucified; rose again; ascended into heaven; and will return. The fact is, of course, the (nearly) empty tomb. Were the body of our Lord still in the tomb, then all the post-death appearances to the Apostles and beyond would mean nothing. If the body still lay there, the bizarre biological curiosity of a virgin birth, if believed at all, would only be worthy of a footnote in Ripley’s. Jesus of Nazareth would just be another Jewish prophet (as Muslims and some of the more charitable adherents of Judaism claim)- or might as well have been. Further, if Jesus was indeed God, and yet his body still lay in the tomb, the return for judgement would be moment of fear and terror for all humanity- the destruction of this world is only a moment of joy because of the promise of Resurrection for the cosmos.
The First Step Into the Truth of Orthodoxy
Let's assume that the central claim of Christianity is correct- that Christ rose from the dead and that this means mankind can be saved from death and damnation. Now, we have several views as to how this affects the Church of which I'll give the main ones- (1) that the Church is one and indivisible (the Orthodox and Roman Catholic position), (2) that the Church is one and follows the lines of Apostolic Succession to various historical churches (the Anglican branch theory), (3) that it doesn't matter which church one belongs to, so long as one believes that Christ died for our sins and rose from the Dead (Evangelical ecumenical approach), (4) that it doesn't matter which church one belongs to so long as the Bible is the sole source of authority (standard Evangelical position), (5) that it matters very much which church one belongs to, the original church became corrupt right away, and the only true modern church is this one that was founded anywhere from yesterday to 600 years ago.
(5) is ridiculous almost out of the gate- it ignores every promise Our Lord made to His Apostles, ignores the history of the martyrs during the Roman Persecutions, and condemns the entire population of human history from 100 A.D. to the founding of their church to hell. The burden of proof for such a ridiculous claim lies very heavily upon them and the sheer numbers of sects that make this claim are too unwieldy to debunk one at a time in this thread (or even in one book!).
(4) is interesting, it seems to offer a single standard by which all denominations might be judged- obviously the denominations that deviate from the Bible aren't true. So, why so many different denominations? Why does one "Biblically based" denomination practice Baptism by immersion and another by sprinkling; one baptizes in the name of the Trinity, the other in the name of Jesus alone; one speaks in tongues at every gathering, the other claims that all miracles ended with the Apostles; one claims "once saved always saved" while the other claims it's possible to apostatize; and where did all this pre-trib Rapture stuff come from? A good number of them do not believe that the words of Christ "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and will raise him up at the last day" are meant to be taken literally, but woe unto thee if thou dost not believe in a 6 day creation. Don't even get me started on grape juice and crackers. By the very criteria of biblical basis are these claims shown to be false.
(3) seems to be charitable, after all every man is going to interpret the Bible differently, but isn't the important part the Christ died for our sins? Anyone who believes that and is baptized is surely in the Church, right? Except no one believes just that. Reformed Christians believe Christ died for just those who were predestined to salvation, some Evangelicals believe not even baptism is important so long as you pray this little prayer, and even the most ecumenical of conservative Christians believes that one must believe in the Trinity as well (liberal Christians are a different matter entirely and will argue against even the necessity of believing in the Resurrection. It doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you believe in something. This is not an affirmation of a truth so much as the denial that any truth can exist). There is also the fact that historically this doesn't hold water- the Resurrection is the foundation of our faith, but the Church from the earliest rejected incorrect interpretations of who Christ Is. Unless one is willing to allow Arius and the Apollinarians and Sabellians into historic communion (3) doesn't have any weight.
(2) seems reasonable at first. After all, isn't the separation of Rome and the East just due to political shenanigans? Doesn't the Anglican church proclaim the same truths as the undivided Church? This seductive proposition isn't limited to Anglicans, it can be detected within certain Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as well (though usually to the exclusion of the Anglican Communion- sorry guys, thanks but no thanks). This is the way point I think most Protestants come to, and I'm sure more than a few converts to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy hold this belief, at least at the point of conversion. But really (2) is just a slightly more exclusive version of (3) [tradition and Apostolic Succession as opposed to the Resurrection]. The division between the churches as to who has proper authority is more than merely political. Christ told His Apostles "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". It is absolutely essential to determine who has this power to bind and loose- the Pope as in Roman Catholic ecclesiology; the bishops in synod as in Orthodox; or-ummmm-hmmmmm-indaba! (which in a Western context apparently means an endless circle of discussion, as in the Anglican Communion). Every difference in belief between Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism can be traced to this source.
(1)Assuming that the Church is indivisible and one, which of the two historic Churches (I will discount Baptist landmarkism because it traces it's succession through various heretics- Donatists, Catharists, Novatians, etc) can lay claim to the title? When I found myself in (2) and was trying to determine which Church to join (or whether or not to go back to 3) I asked the question- between Rome and Orthodoxy which one was wrong, which one deviated from Tradition? That's not exactly true, I approached the question believing that both Churches had to be wrong, because I believed that in any division both parties had to be somewhat to blame. It is possible that the seeds of the Schism had been planted by a Patriarch who was more motivated by politics than theology and ecclesiology, but when the dividing point came down to ecclesiology who was wrong? Who had the power to modify the Creed that proclaimed the belief of the Catholic Church and in the event of heresy who had the power to declare proper belief? Rome was, perhaps, within her rights to add the filioque in her own particular area of jurisdiction, given the heresies she had in her backyard (though the wisdom of the addition can be called to account, given the confused beliefs that could spring from an unqualified "and the Son" in the procession), certainly the Nicene-Constantinople Creed wasn't the only creed in her repertoire (to this day Romans and other Western Christians recite the Apostles' Creed, which the East never objected to). But did she have the power to excommunicate Constantinople for not having the filioque in the Creed?
We could argue that Rome had the best of intentions in this matter, that she truly believed that the filioque was a traditional part of the Creed and that the East had somehow removed it. We could argue that Cardinal Humbert was mistaken in excommunicating Patriarch Michael because he didn't have the authority to do so with Pope Leo IX dead. We could argue all these things but there remains one fact- the acceptance of the filioque and papal supremacy became the demands for all subsequent attempts at reunion, Cardinal Humbert may have been working for a dead pope, but he was pope nonetheless. Regardless of whether or not Rome was mistaken in her claim or Cardinal Humbert was mistaken in his actions "Roma locuta est". Rome might have been mistaken, but she was infallibly mistaken it seems.
This should provide a good starting point for research into the history of the Great Schism and the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. As you read keep the following questions in mind- Did Rome at any point have power to dictate to the entire Church what its beliefs and practices must be? Did St Peter have power to dictate to the other Apostles what they must believe? What was the point of all those Ecumenical Synods, anyway?
Addendum
It might be noted in the above section that I left out the Oriental Orthodox from the (1) and (2) categories. This is mostly due to the context of where I was posting- that particular board of the forum is more in-tune with specifically Chalcedonian Christianity. Another reason is that the Oriental Orthodox position on Church authority is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox. The main difference between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox is the acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon. The decision I left the post in, between Rome and Orthodoxy, could easily be taken a step further if/when one arrives at the Orthodox answer. Does one believe the Chalcedonian definition of Two Natures in One Person to be true?
No comments:
Post a Comment