I recently encountered a blogsite in which a priest answered questions posed by fellow-Orthodox inquirers about the teachings of their Church. Many of his interlocutors had been attracted by Protestant (particularly Evangelical or Pentecostal) and Catholic churches, and wished to know the differences between the teachings of those churches and Orthodoxy. Sometimes the priest’s answers were sufficiently accurate, but more often they were caricatures or outright falsehoods, painting Catholic and Protestant belief not only with the blackest brush possible, but the hard dogmatic ignorance in which it is difficult not to see malice.
Most of us have seen this before in our own places, I suppose. I did as a youth among Protestant authorities, some of whom horrified us with false or distorted tales about what Catholics believed (they knew nothing of Orthodoxy, except perhaps that it was a kind of Catholicism). I was saved from taking their tales at full value by a skeptical father and by living among Catholic neighbors whose faith seemed to be, with certain oddities, the same as mine. Nor did the number of enthusiasts and cranks who gave a bad name to their religion seem, percentage-wise, any larger than our own. For every Catholic who couldn’t see Christ for Mary, there appeared a Baptist whose consuming interest in the Rapture created a similar eclipse.
Teachers of religion who would keep their inquirers in their communions are in a dangerous game, however they decide to play it. Keeping-Them-Here-Insurance based upon insouciant disregard for truth usually works in the short term, but it is risky, since one is in danger of being found out, especially by the best and brightest. If a finding-out happens, so does a crisis of faith, for if a man commits gross errors on Catholics and Protestants, why might he not be doing the same on the Creed? And what is there to keep me in such a church, particularly if I am interested in truth (or hanker after praise bands)?
On the other hand, if the truth is told, the teacher unavoidably lets in the light and beauty–and the plausible Christianity–of other communions, and is in real danger of losing members who are seeking what they have and what he hasn’t unless he can (using no more than truth) successfully defend the exclusivity or superiority of his own church in the faces of those who are becoming willing to doubt it. This means defending “old stuff” before the perennially restless young at the time of their lives when their future as Christians is made or lost. This is the narrow way, the harder way, the way along which the modification or change of one’s own views and consequent loss of authority and livelihood become fearful possibilities. It is, however, the only one a good man can take.
For every Catholic who couldn’t see Christ for Mary, there appeared a Baptist whose consuming interest in the Rapture created a similar eclipse.
Very true. It’s hard even for the innocent and well-meaning to avoid scandalizing others. And harder still to avoid scandal by overzealously promoting our own viewpoint.
Steve,
Excellent and timely, thank you! I was just thinking through some of these same issues last nigh while, on the way home from work, I listened to a certain Reformed (with a capital “R”, mind you) radio program.
Kamilla
“Sometimes the priest’s answers were sufficiently accurate, but more often they were caricatures or outright falsehoods, painting Catholic and Protestant belief not only with the blackest brush possible, but the hard dogmatic ignorance in which it is difficult not to see malice.”
Well said. This is what happens 90% of the time in interdenomenational dialogue.
I think I’ve read somewhere that American Christianity has become a bit of a “melting pot” in terms of doctrine. Because of the exposure we have to other ideas via the extension of what used to be a relatively insular culture (such as blogs like this!), people have incorporated those new ideas into their belief systems.
So, we are seeing less and less of people who hold to everything Orthodox (or Catholic or Baptist) in the areas of faith and morals. There are Catholics who attend “healing” services where they might expect a manifestation of “gifts of the Spirit”.
The writer might consider that a good thing: it’s no longer an all-or-nothing proposition. Of course, some might not see it as such: with Catholics and Protestants marrying, it will lead to an eventual watering down of the faith, followed by dogs and cats cohabitating, followed closely by complete anarchy.
Any serious Christian spirituality would see the falleness of the church to which one belongs, for it is made up of sinners rather than angels. And only a lack of faith in God’s power to work in spite of those failings would see a need to hide them and pretend to a perfection that is neither present nor possible this side of the parousia. Judgment belongs first with the house of the Lord. Christians should be willing to admit their flaws, and the failings of their own church while still maintaining their faith.
I’m an Anglican, but have never been loyal to that church but rather to Christ. My Anglicanism is an expression of my loyalty to God and I feel a special, though temporal, bound with fellow Anglicans. But greater and eternal is the bond I have with those who call Him Lord no matter the church they claim. The temporary divisions I see as merely that. I find it hard to relate to those who do not share that generosity of spirit.
“There are Catholics and many other Christians who attend healing services where they confidently expect a manifestation of gifts of the Spirit.”
There. That sentence reads far better with a complete subject, without the scare quotes and with an accurate adverb.
But at the same time all of the Sacred Texts of the entire Great Tradition of humankind are now freely available to anyone with an inter-net connection. And everything about the history of each religion and sect too, including, necessarily, all of the negative features. Plus every possible philosophical point of view too.
Meanwhile two thirds of the worlds population are not Christian. And hundreds of millions of Christians do not share your version of what it is to be a Christian either.
The problem can be sorting through that mass of data, and separating fact from fiction. This coming from a Pentecostal-raised, no longer evangelical, never was Baptist who attends a Baptist church because his wife isn’t comfortable visiting a Catholic parish Christian . The nice thing about stereotypes and the vilification of straw men is that it makes it a lot easier to be sure one is in the right place. Once you start trying to see through them, all manner of confusion ensues.
Robert, I totally understand your point, but I also believe that if someone converts from Protestantism or Catholicism to Orthodoxy or from Orthodoxy to Protestantism or Catholicism or from Cathol… well you get the point, that they should be converting to something, not just away from something. While you can see the flaws in the group that you are leaving, ultimately, it cannot be about escaping the scandals of your past affiliation, but rather embracing the tradition (or lack thereof) of what you are converting to.