Isn't this picking your religion for utilitarian purposes? This seems backwards. Religion picks you when you acknowledge the fundamental truths which it espouses. This is why all man made religions are cheap failures.
I am a RC because I believe it is the true faith. Not because it is practical to accomplish my worldly goals.
You are right about this. But worldly kingdoms have to think about the practical side. The point of the article is that the choice needn’t be between modern Protestantism and abandoning America’s Evangelical past.
That "old-time" religion isn't old at all, and therein lies the issues. It is novel, it is a break with history, it is a break with the continuity of the faith once and for all delivered. It's the first step onto the train of unshackling ourselves from Christ and the Church; and once you're on the train, much like liberalism, you can't just pull the rope and bring the train to a halt at the 1950 stop. You have to ride it all the way to the end of the line. The end of that line is destruction. Jump off the train. Visit your local Orthodox church.
Would that be the Russian, Antiochian, Ethiopian, Greek…? Or perhaps the True Orthodox?
As the sainted Orthodox Deacon Michael told the Blessed Reformer when comparing the Evangelical tradition with his Orthodox experience, they were of the same spirit. Perhaps this is why most Orthobro proselytizers have Protestant background! If only they had returned to their true Evangelical roots rather than other ethnic sects.
And painfully ironic is the fact that Old-Time religion practitioners in the mold of evangelicals of the final generations of the last millennium would've been condemned as rank heretics by the magisterial Reformers you appeal to.
There are some admirable qualities of earnest evangelical Protestant, just as there are some admirable qualities of all sorts of groups who are misguided. I have zero ill-will towards anyone just because they may not be correct. It's usually not their fault, and we know God is merciful and loves mankind. We sing it every week in the Divine Liturgy.
I'm far from an Orthobro. I'm just a regular guy trying to live out my faith. The True Orthodox are a tiny schismatic sect that no one considers a part of the Church, though we pray for their return. This is a non-sequitar.
Russian, Antiochians, etc.? Surely you realize we're all in communion. The prefix simply states were the bishop for that particular church resides. Aside from a few superficial cultural differences (which should be encouraged), we have the same faith, the same Liturgy, the same saints... We're the same Church. Even the rift between the EP and the MP doesn't affect the laity one iota.
Would you call Christ and the Apostles ethnic sectarians because they weren't Western? Nothing about the Divine Liturgy is inherently Eastern other than the fact that it arose in a particular place. It's simply the Truth, and universally so. Logically, you shouldn't even be a Christian, since, you know, it's an "Eastern" religion. Think your thoughts through to their logical conclusion.
As for ethnic clubs, do you mean the same way that Protestant and RC churches were all ethnic clubs in their infancy in the New World? There's still a Lutheran Church in my town that is filled with Schmidts and Reinhardts. There's a Korean Presbyterian church in my little hillbilly town in Appalachia, for goodness sakes. Using my own parish as a microcosm, the laity are 90 percent Anglo and the priest is a third gen Anglo Orthodox priest. Not very Greek.
Well said. The new evangelicals are just as much a part of American history and are far more relevant than a Lutheran sect that is, by admission, now represented by heretics. A picking and choosing between them is purely arbitrary, and they both are branches of the same spiritual root in the Reformation. Any Truth that you can find in them is far surpassed by the fulness possessed by the Orthodox.
If we must play the hemo-theism game, the English were born as a unified people under the (pre-schism) universal Church, that is to say, the Orthodox Church (sorry papists). So why not choose to return to the Church of Alfred and Bede?
Precisely. Lutheran's and Anglicans of the "high church" variety certainly don't fit into the Old-Time Religion TM mold a'la the Great Awakening or low church (insert 20th century sect). They were condemning them as heretics in the Old World.
We can't let clinging to our identity as Americans above all else form the basis of our faith; so much so that we'll throw away the truth for it. If that's the case, Mormonism it is.
Lutheranism didn't exist in 1500, but that's neither here nor there. Christ Jesus wasn't Lutheran, nor were His Apostles, nor were the Church Fathers, nor was any Christian for over 1500 years (nor did they believe in any of the unique doctrinal aspects of Lutheranism). I'm not sure I'd want to stay onboard a train that has led to atheism in all of the lands that it spread to (Germany, for instance).
Magesterial mainline Protestantism has been dying a slow and agonizing death for more than a century, and won't exist in any meaningful way in another century. Surely you've noticed that to be a traditional Lutheran you have to join ever-smaller subsets (like the Missouri Synod). Much like Anglicanism, this will continue until it schisms out of existence.
I'm a 9th generation Appalachian who loves cornbread and soup beans. That certainly doesn't mean I'm going to sacrifice the fullness of the faith once and for all delivered to become a Southern Baptist. I'd just as soon pluck out my eyes. The good news is the Christian faith doesn't preclude us from loving beer and sauerkraut, or beans and cornbread.
The heresy of ecumenism will never appeal to the Orthodox; it's one of the many reasons why the churches under Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have fallen out of communion.
I have an appreciation for the historical beauty of American religion, but much like American liberalism, it contains the death node of Protestant presuppositions.
I know you mean well, but like all heterodox, including the Latins, your assumptions about the nature of Christianity (the Orthodox don't even truly recognize the non-Orthodox as Christian) are faulty.
If you learn more about Orthodoxy you will see why what you are advocating is anathama.
I am not opposed to an Americanization of the Orthodox parishes in America (this has already been happening for years), but it will never come in the form of Protestantism.
“The Orthodox…” Which would those be? I’ve heard of Antiochians who basically say Protestant Sacraments are valid while the Russians deny the validity of even some non-Russian Orthodox Baptisms (so much for One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism!).
FWIW, I’m not advocating for ecumenicism, but rather a reassessment of the true Evangelical tradition, which shares much in common with classical Eastern theology without later popish accretions.
I have no idea what strange heretics you were talking to, but that is not the Orthodox position.
Autochephly was established in the first millennium of the church, so there is no issue with cannonical Orthodox jurisdictions under their own bishops. Russian, Serbians, Romanians, Antiochians, even OCA and others all share the same communion.
Christ is the head of the church, and every head has only one body, that body is Holy Orthodoxy.
There is no shared tradition between Orthodoxy and Protestantism, historically or theologically, to connect us.
"Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings"
by Fr. Josiah B. Trenham (Antiochian) is a good place to start.
Isn't this picking your religion for utilitarian purposes? This seems backwards. Religion picks you when you acknowledge the fundamental truths which it espouses. This is why all man made religions are cheap failures.
I am a RC because I believe it is the true faith. Not because it is practical to accomplish my worldly goals.
You are right about this. But worldly kingdoms have to think about the practical side. The point of the article is that the choice needn’t be between modern Protestantism and abandoning America’s Evangelical past.
That "old-time" religion isn't old at all, and therein lies the issues. It is novel, it is a break with history, it is a break with the continuity of the faith once and for all delivered. It's the first step onto the train of unshackling ourselves from Christ and the Church; and once you're on the train, much like liberalism, you can't just pull the rope and bring the train to a halt at the 1950 stop. You have to ride it all the way to the end of the line. The end of that line is destruction. Jump off the train. Visit your local Orthodox church.
Would that be the Russian, Antiochian, Ethiopian, Greek…? Or perhaps the True Orthodox?
As the sainted Orthodox Deacon Michael told the Blessed Reformer when comparing the Evangelical tradition with his Orthodox experience, they were of the same spirit. Perhaps this is why most Orthobro proselytizers have Protestant background! If only they had returned to their true Evangelical roots rather than other ethnic sects.
And painfully ironic is the fact that Old-Time religion practitioners in the mold of evangelicals of the final generations of the last millennium would've been condemned as rank heretics by the magisterial Reformers you appeal to.
There are some admirable qualities of earnest evangelical Protestant, just as there are some admirable qualities of all sorts of groups who are misguided. I have zero ill-will towards anyone just because they may not be correct. It's usually not their fault, and we know God is merciful and loves mankind. We sing it every week in the Divine Liturgy.
I'm far from an Orthobro. I'm just a regular guy trying to live out my faith. The True Orthodox are a tiny schismatic sect that no one considers a part of the Church, though we pray for their return. This is a non-sequitar.
Russian, Antiochians, etc.? Surely you realize we're all in communion. The prefix simply states were the bishop for that particular church resides. Aside from a few superficial cultural differences (which should be encouraged), we have the same faith, the same Liturgy, the same saints... We're the same Church. Even the rift between the EP and the MP doesn't affect the laity one iota.
Would you call Christ and the Apostles ethnic sectarians because they weren't Western? Nothing about the Divine Liturgy is inherently Eastern other than the fact that it arose in a particular place. It's simply the Truth, and universally so. Logically, you shouldn't even be a Christian, since, you know, it's an "Eastern" religion. Think your thoughts through to their logical conclusion.
As for ethnic clubs, do you mean the same way that Protestant and RC churches were all ethnic clubs in their infancy in the New World? There's still a Lutheran Church in my town that is filled with Schmidts and Reinhardts. There's a Korean Presbyterian church in my little hillbilly town in Appalachia, for goodness sakes. Using my own parish as a microcosm, the laity are 90 percent Anglo and the priest is a third gen Anglo Orthodox priest. Not very Greek.
Well said. The new evangelicals are just as much a part of American history and are far more relevant than a Lutheran sect that is, by admission, now represented by heretics. A picking and choosing between them is purely arbitrary, and they both are branches of the same spiritual root in the Reformation. Any Truth that you can find in them is far surpassed by the fulness possessed by the Orthodox.
If we must play the hemo-theism game, the English were born as a unified people under the (pre-schism) universal Church, that is to say, the Orthodox Church (sorry papists). So why not choose to return to the Church of Alfred and Bede?
Precisely. Lutheran's and Anglicans of the "high church" variety certainly don't fit into the Old-Time Religion TM mold a'la the Great Awakening or low church (insert 20th century sect). They were condemning them as heretics in the Old World.
We can't let clinging to our identity as Americans above all else form the basis of our faith; so much so that we'll throw away the truth for it. If that's the case, Mormonism it is.
Orthodox, buddy my family has been pure German lutheran since 1500. That is my train sure as I love beer and saurkraut.
Lutheranism didn't exist in 1500, but that's neither here nor there. Christ Jesus wasn't Lutheran, nor were His Apostles, nor were the Church Fathers, nor was any Christian for over 1500 years (nor did they believe in any of the unique doctrinal aspects of Lutheranism). I'm not sure I'd want to stay onboard a train that has led to atheism in all of the lands that it spread to (Germany, for instance).
Magesterial mainline Protestantism has been dying a slow and agonizing death for more than a century, and won't exist in any meaningful way in another century. Surely you've noticed that to be a traditional Lutheran you have to join ever-smaller subsets (like the Missouri Synod). Much like Anglicanism, this will continue until it schisms out of existence.
I'm a 9th generation Appalachian who loves cornbread and soup beans. That certainly doesn't mean I'm going to sacrifice the fullness of the faith once and for all delivered to become a Southern Baptist. I'd just as soon pluck out my eyes. The good news is the Christian faith doesn't preclude us from loving beer and sauerkraut, or beans and cornbread.
I want me the old time religion, organs, suits, casserole potlucks and all.
The heresy of ecumenism will never appeal to the Orthodox; it's one of the many reasons why the churches under Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have fallen out of communion.
I have an appreciation for the historical beauty of American religion, but much like American liberalism, it contains the death node of Protestant presuppositions.
I know you mean well, but like all heterodox, including the Latins, your assumptions about the nature of Christianity (the Orthodox don't even truly recognize the non-Orthodox as Christian) are faulty.
If you learn more about Orthodoxy you will see why what you are advocating is anathama.
I am not opposed to an Americanization of the Orthodox parishes in America (this has already been happening for years), but it will never come in the form of Protestantism.
“The Orthodox…” Which would those be? I’ve heard of Antiochians who basically say Protestant Sacraments are valid while the Russians deny the validity of even some non-Russian Orthodox Baptisms (so much for One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism!).
FWIW, I’m not advocating for ecumenicism, but rather a reassessment of the true Evangelical tradition, which shares much in common with classical Eastern theology without later popish accretions.
I have no idea what strange heretics you were talking to, but that is not the Orthodox position.
Autochephly was established in the first millennium of the church, so there is no issue with cannonical Orthodox jurisdictions under their own bishops. Russian, Serbians, Romanians, Antiochians, even OCA and others all share the same communion.
Christ is the head of the church, and every head has only one body, that body is Holy Orthodoxy.
There is no shared tradition between Orthodoxy and Protestantism, historically or theologically, to connect us.
"Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings"
by Fr. Josiah B. Trenham (Antiochian) is a good place to start.
Hymns and the Civil War
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hymns+and+the+civil+war.-a0345277232