Faith of our Fathers: A Colloquium on Orthodoxy for Lutherans

This is some good stuff!!!

You can hear lectures online from some Orthodox academics and clergy, all of them converts from Lutheranism, on various subjects like Augustine and ecclesiology, justification, Scripture, and the Trinity.

The Reformers and the Orthodox

I had been familiar with the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople and the early Reformers of Tübingen, but still found this paper on the subject fascinating. Check it out. I hadn't known, for instance, that the Reformers actually sent a kind of "embassy" to Constantinople, or that they drew up a Greek version of the Augsburg Confession that was not just a translation, but an earnest attempt to communicate Reformation concepts to the Greek and Orthodox mind.

Evangelicals and canon

One thing which the Orthodox and many Oozers have in common is a questioning of the biblicism in the evangelical approach to Scripture. So our readers may be interested in this article at bible.org, reviewing the history of evangelicalism's wrestling with canonicity. Props to Energetic Procession for the link.

As I said in my earlier post on the history of anti-Catholicism, it's eye-opening to see where ideas that are taken for granted and stated as revealed truths actually developed at certain points in time, by certain individuals asserting them. Naturally this doesn't necessarily mean the ideas themselves are wrong, but as the article points out it can lead us to read these back in to the early church in anachronistic ways. An example discussed in the article is the widely-held assumption that there even was such a thing as a "closed canon" prior to the Reformation, whereas this simply isn't true. A careful study of history is really essential to a fully-informed faith, in my view.

In any case, this article is a good read and good historical overview, whatever your take on the subject.

Anti-Catholicism, some history

Recently on The Ooze we experienced a wave of trolling some call VV-Gate, others The Recent Unpleasantness. I think of it as The Troubles. It was a technicolor reminder of the vitriol that exists out there against anything related to the Vatican. Like the bile that comes out against George Bush from other corners, the scale and heat of it, seeming all out of proportion to reason, really puzzled me.

Recently I've been listening to a CD course on Science and Religion that mentions some 19th-century pseudo-academic anti-Catholicism, like John William Draper. This made me curious to learn more about the historical roots of anti-Catholic prejudice. I'm always intrigued by the web that history weaves, the roots of present currents of thought that may be hidden in time. After all, even though Draper and his more respected contemporary Andrew White were terrible historians whose ideas don't even make common sense, these ideas (e.g. that the Catholic Church opposed scientific progress) have rooted themselves in the popular mind as fact.

Straight off I should mention that there certainly exists Orthodox polemics against Catholicism and the papacy. It seems to be of a different character than others, however. After all, it is not the presence of a bishop or patriarch that the Orthodox take issue with, but the particular role of the bishop of Rome.

That said, it struck me as really curious to read the statements in the Westminster Confession and Book of Concord affirming as an article of faith that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. The statements declare that the Holy Spirit has revealed this to the church as a firm truth. These are statements that all conservative Lutheran synods, to my knowledge, have affirmed. It seems strange to me to assert something so particular with, dare I say, magisterial firmness, which seems rather based on historical events than careful exegesis. For instance, among the few times Scripture mentions antichrists (yes, plural!) it says they will deny that Jesus has come in the flesh; this can hardly apply to the Pope? Reading this, I was reminded that dispensationalism has earlier roots in this historicist view.

The "magisterial" Reformation lent to the popular imagination visions that soon became more apocalyptic. The only woodcuts in Luther's Bible occur in Revelation, a book he didn't even consider proper Scripture, but which allowed him to illustrate his anti-papal message. For instance, in one of them the seven-headed beast wears the papal crown. (The Counter-Reformation had apocalyptic beasts and woodcut propaganda of their own.) Thus even the illiterate got the message, and ran with it. Once the peasant rebellions and the Thirty Years' War got going in earnest, the apocalyptic visions became more grotesque and urgent. People believed it was the end times, and the Whore of Babylon was trying to usher in hell on earth.

This rather gothic element to anti-Catholicism carried on into later centuries. In the 19th century, besides Draper's novel account of the history of science, several sordid "expose's" from supposed ex-priests and nuns became wildly popular. Though these have been largely discredited as hoaxes, you still see Maria Monk or Chiniquy pop up on anti-Catholic websites as supposed "historical texts." Some commentators attribute their reception to the popularity of gothic fiction. Catholicism is still seen in horror films and movies-of-the-week as the best place to go for real evil. During The Troubles on TheOoze, some people noted the black background of the trolls' home website, in addition to their tabloid-style posting. Visit a well-known anti-Catholic website, Jesus-Is-Lord (to which I will not link, so as not to increase their search engine profile) and you'll be treated not only to black backgrounds and pronouncements of hellfire, but creepy music to boot. Then of course there is Jack Chick's cheerful macabre.

In both the 16th century and 19th century versions of anti-Catholic polemics, the papacy competed for black honors with the Jews, Muslims and the Masons or other secretive societies. Often they were seen to be in cahoots with each other, all to deceive the true faithful remnant. Some even speculated that Islam was a plot by the Vatican to deceive true Christians. This, too, is a feature you'll see in present-day anti-Catholicism, as we saw on TheOoze. The Vatican is either a front or is behind such strange bedfellows as Mormonism, the Illuminati, Unitarians, and the Emergent Church, whose anti-institutional leanings don't keep them from suspicion. In all this the Orthodox either get a strange pass (as with Draper), or are seen as a footnote to the Catholics.

To end on a positive note, we can say that if so much opposition has been cause of purification and humbling for the papacy, it is ultimately to the good. The same might be said of TheOoze, where Christians of diverse opinion were nevertheless able to recognize a kind of faith-promotion to which we do not subscribe and to unite in opposing it. God has a way of working like this.

What is "Oozerdoxie?"

I think an attempt to define what exactly we are doing here is in order. Maybe not so much for the reader, but for us! I solicit input from the other Doxies and Oozers in general.

This is a work in progress. We are an eclectic collection of Orthodox Christians, whose other connection.....and how we know each other.....is that we all post on an "Emergent Christian" website called theooze.com. What is "Emergent?" Well I point you to the Ooze's main page to help you figure that one out. But possibly, none of us would consider ourselves to be "Emergent"...I know I do not. I am very firmly placed within the Holy Orthodox Church.

So what is the appeal of "the ooze?" Perhaps in my case, it was somewhat evangelical. I was (am) a newbie Orthodox, and was excited to see people asking the same questions that had propelled me in MY spiritual journey. Some of my fellow Doxies are Orthodox partly because of things they had read on The Ooze. Two posters here met each other on The Ooze and are now married!

But I think what we really enjoy about The Ooze, is the community. Oozers don't all think alike and quite frankly, there are often some heated discussions. But there is a lot of respect and love that flows around there and we really enjoy being a part of the community.

But as a "subset" of the ooze, we were encouraged to start this blog. So here ya go. We will never be as cool as the "Conservative Reformed Mafia," but maybe we have something to offer.

So, what do you think?