Authority is HUGE! HUGE!

A contributor to the blog and I continue to discuss Orthodoxy and in keeping with the spirit of Orthodoxy, I do not claim the right to interpret the scripture independently of the traditional teaching of the Church. I will leave that up to the individuals who have felt some intellectual affinity with one of the 25,000- plus denominations that the protestant paradigm has produced. I prefer to present the questions that "ruined my religion" and trust the sincerity and dogma-free intellect of the seeker to find the truth.
The blogger has very quickly and clearly summed up the core dilemma in finding true doctrine with this following statement:

"I think the crux of our differences are really going to be around the idea that tradition is authoritative (if that is what the Orthodox believe, which I think it is). And that is a HUGE subject. While I definitely feel that tradition should be considered and respected, I also know that man is fallen, and fallen man makes mistakes. I don't see the scriptures describing the church and its traditions as an infallible, incorruptible entity. Rather I see the opposite: discord, disagreements among the church leaders, and a great hope for the day "When the Perfect comes" a day "when we will no longer see as through a mirror dimly, but we shall see face to face." And that is the Parousia (second coming) of Christ."

Blogger, your adequate statement encompasses several questions. But first let's define"tradition". The orthodox view of tradition and therefore the historic view is:
"an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action and behavior; the handing down of information, beliefs and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction."

1. While I might resist your usage of the word "feel" in relation to seeking ascertainable truth, I would have to ask: to what extent will you "consider and respect tradition"? Moreover, if men are so sinful, why would you consider or respect tradition at all? Doesn't this paradigm, which extends out of the western philosophies of the Reformation, remove the existence of any certainties? The idea being that the visible Church became so evil and tainted that it needed to be reformed and, although Martin Luther and his associates gave it a good try, we will only really ever see through the mirror brightly at the end of the age? So, there is truth out there somewhere but we will never be able to find it? Does this paradigm not present a hopeless, dismal estate and does it not fly in the face of "the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth"? The question is, How does the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth?...by millions of individual's private interpretations or through the Body of Christ as a visible entity via the preserved tradition of the Apostles.

2. Are we talking about men or the Church and are they one in the same? You point out very well that men are"fallen" and "make mistakes". Jesus endured having to pray alone in the garden while the Apostles slept, and how about that rock-of-a-man Peter who denied even knowing him. One might suggest that Jesus himself made a mistake in choosing such fallen creatures. But, alas, could it be that Jesus wasn't deterred from leaving these mere men in charge- not as individuals, but as a body of men, and that He gave them "authority"?
"So now I say to you: You are Peter and on this rock will I build my church (ekklesia). And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19)
" 'As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.' After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained" (John 20: 21-23)

3. What is the definition of "Church"? You have pointed out well the sinful propensity and untrustworthiness of the nature of men, but haven't you confused "men" with the "Church"? Men are individuals. The Church is a body-the Body of Christ. It has been so for over 2000 years. Herein lies the conflict of paradigms. One views the Church as being made up of millions of individuals who are connected mystically, each having the right to biblical interpretation and being a mystical priest unto themselves. In this paradigm, this Church will somehow, someway, unite all of these individual thinkers and make them one purified bride before Christ returns. This paradigm seems an impossibility, viewing the reality of the divisions today in the Protestant world. So, others choose a third view, taking up a "unity of the Church only when Jesus returns" attitude. In the Historic paradigm, the Church catholic (meaning universal) has always accepted that Christ's prayer that the Church be ONE has been preserved and fulfilled now in the visible, unbroken, orthodox body of Christ that is still here preserving the original doctrines and teaching of the Apostles for over 2000 years.

A great Catholic theologian once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." History shows the visible church in action even after the Apostles died up to the present day. There was only one Church for 1054 years with the same faith and the same doctrine. Then there was one Church in schism- those in the east and the one in the west. We see the leaders of the Church-the Bishops, meeting together in seven councils. We have their writings. We know what flocks they pastored and in what region or city. We know their names. As each Bishop died, he was replaced by the laying on of hands as the Apostles taught (See the replacing of Judas with Matthias and the scriptural phrase "let another his office (bishopry) take". Why did they have to replace Judas?)

4. So, is the Church "infallible and incorruptible" and can this idea be found in scripture? I present to you a qualified yes. The Church "yes", individuals within the Church, "no". I was once asked what I thought was the pillar and foundation of all truth. My answer was a very typical Protestant one, "the scriptures", until I discovered the zinger: "..the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:14-16). So, it is the Church that contains and preserves the truth. It is the truth that is infallible and incorruptible and the visible Church has been given the authority by Jesus to "bind and loose the truth." Binding and loosing is a term referring to the practice of the rabbis and teachers of the law in Jesus day. It describes their role of authority to interpret the scriptures and to discipline by it. The Church has always practiced and taught that this rabbinical term used by Jesus, established two things:
1) The Church was given the authority to grant entrance to the Kingdom of God through the Christian community. One is "bound" (condemned to) or "loosed" (absolved from) excommunication. (Study what the "keys" represent, who holds the keys, and to whom Christ gave them. The "keys" are an Old Testament termed used by Jesus to illustrate the function of the Church Leaders. See Is. 22:22 for an allegory of the authority of the keys. Opening and closing the doors of the king's palace was one of the functions of the Egyptian Chief Minister. He physically wore the keys of the king's palace on his shoulder as a visible sign of his authority.)
2) In Doctrinal ('knowledge or system of belief') or jurisdictional ('the power, right, and authority to interpret and apply the law') matters, the Church has always assumed the authority to determine whether an opinion is "bound" (forbidden) or "loosed" (allowed).

5. Can one find men, women, priests, and even Bishops who were "fallen" and made "mistakes"? With certainty, history documents the internal struggle of the Church in that regard. That is the very reason for the Seven Ecumenical Councils! To make a unified stand against heresies in the Church and to, with the authority and one voice of the Body, define doctrines and practices faithful to the Apostles' teachings. One of those Councils gave us the canon of scriptures that we call the Bible. If we believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God ( I assume you do) and knowing that these mere men are the ones who decided what would be included and what wouldn't, then why is it difficult to believe they also have the authority to interpret the same Bible? Which came first, the Bible or the Church? Would it surprise you to know that there was no "Bible" as we know it until the year 397 A.D? The undisputed Bishops of the Church at the Council of Carthedge met in North Africa giving us the full list of New and Old Testament Books. It was the Church itself who proclaimed and preserved the Teachings (Traditions) of the Apostles both by letter and by word. The Church preceded the Bible. The Church proclaimed the Bible. The Church preserved the Bible. They didn't make it up, they preserved it as the authoritative Pillar and unshakable Foundation, and "the gates of the underworld have not overpowered it." How were they able to do this? Because they had AUTHORITY to.

So where is this same Church today? The underworld has assaulted, but hasn't overpowered the Church. A quick history summary: In 1054 the Bishop of Rome (west) asserting an unprecedented claim of sole supreme authority over all of the Church and its Bishops (east), broke the 1000 year old unity. For 600-plus years after that, the Church of Rome through its Bishops, continued to have their own councils and make decisions regarding doctrines and traditions apart from the rest of the Bishops in the east. Then came the "Reformers". It is from these excesses and new independent doctrines and practices that the Reformation sprang. The Reformation was in many ways warranted, but in rebelling against the fallen, fallible, and corruptible individual Church leaders in the west, the Reformers went the wrong way! Rather than returning to the sanctified authority of the unbroken, unified "Church of the Living God" abiding in the east, they rebuffed all corporate authority and replaced it with individualism and autonomy. In essence they replaced the idea of one authoritative pope with the idea that everyone is his own authority-every individual is a priest, or his own pope and the invisible church was born. I have illustrated this point by highlighting just how far the culture of the individualized invisible church has strayed from the Church of the Apostles. Look at this brief list of some of the founders of the over 25,000 Protester churches all claiming to have the correct truth. You can study further each one's vastly differing doctrines:
1905 - Alliance - Albert Benjamin Simpson
1693 - Amish - Jakob Amman
1519 - Anabaptist - Grebel (after Ulrich Zwingli)
1534 - Anglican (Church of England) - King Henry VIII
1914 - Assemblies of God - 300 preachers in Arkansas
1605 - Baptist - John Smythe
1708 - Brethren (split from anabaptists) - Alexander Mack
1536 - Calvinists - John Calvin
1969 - Children of God - David �Mo� Berg
1857 - Christian Reformed - Gysbert Haan
1879 - Christian Science - Mary Baker Eddy
1920 - Church of God - Joseph Marsh
1907 - Church of God in Christ - Charles Mason
1560 - Church of Scotland (presbyterian) - John Knox
1620 - Episcopalians - Samuel Seabury
1950 - Evangelical Free - E A. Halleen
1918 - Foursquare - Aimee Semple McPherson
1528 - Hutterite - Jakob Hutter
1979 - International Church of Christ (Boston Movement) - Kip McKean
1852 - Jehovah's Witness - Charles Taze Russell
1517 - Lutheran (split from catholic) - Martin Luther
1653 - Mennonite - Menno Simons
1744 - Methodist (split from C of England) - J and C Wesley
1727 - Moravian - Count Zinendorf
1830 - Mormon - Joseph Smith
1954 - Moonies - Sun Myung Moon
1895 - Nazarene - Phineas F Bresee
1900 - Pentecostal - C F. Parham (methodist)
1560 - Presbyterian (calvinism) - John Knox
1570 - Puritans - T Cartwright
1647 - Quaker - George Fox
1628 - Reformed - Jonas Michaelius
1865 - Salvation Army - William Booth, M Jones
1954 - Scientology - Ron L. Hubbard
1846 - Seventh-day Adventist - Ellen G. White
1741 - Shakers - Ann Lee
1794 - Unitarian - Joseph Priestley
1457 - United Brethren (moravians) - Huss
1934 - Worldwide Church of God - Herbert W. Armstrong

So authority is huge. Where is the authority? Is it in the individual or in the original undivided Body of Christ? The answer to these questions determine what you will believe about doctrine, worship, tradition, as well as your world view.

To illustrate this "huge subject" as you so correctly call it, I have included below, the names of all of the Bishops of my Church all the way back to Peter and Paul. Keep in mind that this is just the line of succession from the original Orthodox Christian Church of Antioch. You can also find similar lists of the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, and the other original, unbroken, unified "Sees" still preserving the unaltered faith the Apostles. All of the current Bishops are still in communion with one another today. I would be interested to know, as you peruse this succession, which of these Bishops fell into corruption, "discord" and "disagreement", as you say, to the extent that the Apostles' true faith and doctrine was adulterated and lost until the time of the Parousia. I would also be interest to know where, in any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, have you determined that the Church, as a Body, became fallible and corrupt and forfeited its authority. We do still have the notes or "minutes", if you will, of those Councils, documenting what they discussed and what was decided. Several of the following names were present a one or more of the Seven Councils.
My Pastors:
Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch (Orthodox Succession)
1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.
2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.
3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.
4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.
5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.
6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.
7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.
8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.
9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.
10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.
11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.
12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.
13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.
14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.
15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.
16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.
17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.
18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.
19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.
20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.
21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.
22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.
23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.
24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.
25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.
26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.
27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.
28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.
29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.
30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.
31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.
32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.
33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.
34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.
35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.
36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.
37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.
38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.
39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.
40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.
41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.
42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.
43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.
44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.
45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.
46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.
See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451
47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.
48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.
49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.
50 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.
51 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch.
52 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.
53 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch.
54 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch.
55 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch.
56 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch.
57 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch.
58 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch.
59 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch.
60 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch.
61 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch.
62 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch.
63 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch.
64 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch.
65 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.
66 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch.
67 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.
68 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch.
69 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch.
70 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch.
71 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch.
72 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch.
73 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.
74 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch.
75 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch.
76 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch.
77 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch.
78 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch.
79 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch.
80 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch.
81 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.
82 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch.
83 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch.
84 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch.
85 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch.
86 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch.
87 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch.
88 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch.
89 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch.
90 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch.
91 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch.
92 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch.
93 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch.
94 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch.
95 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch.
96 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.
97 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch.
98 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch.
99 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch.
100 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch.
101 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch.
102 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch.
103 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch.
104 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch.
105 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch.
106 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch.
107 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch.
108 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch.
109 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch.
110 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.
111 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch.
112 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch.
113 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch.
114 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch.
115 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople.
116 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople.
117 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople.
118 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople.
119 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople.
120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.
121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.
122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.
123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.
124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.
Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342
125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.
127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.
128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.
129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.
130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.
131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.
132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.
133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.
134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.
135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.
136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.
137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.
139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.
140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.
141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.
142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.
143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.
144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.
145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.
146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.
147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.
148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.
149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.
150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.
151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.
152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.
153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.
154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.
155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.
Separation of the Melkites. The Greek Patriarchs
156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus.
157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus.
158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus.
159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus.
160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus.
161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus.
162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus.
163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus.
164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus.
Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs
165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus.
166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus.
167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus.
168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus.
169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus.
170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus.

This is referred to as Apostolic Succession. It is documented, verifiable, cohesive evidence that the Orthodox Church is the original and still existing Church of the living God preserving truth for all times. Compare this with the origins of the new and foreign denominations with their myriads of varying, evolving doctrines and practices. Authority is Huge! Huge!

Definition of Orthodox: "right teaching" or "conforming to established doctrine"

NOTE: Used alone, the word "Orthodox" in this post is used as an adjective not a noun. Thus, orthodox Christianity is Christianity that comforms to the established doctrine of the Apostles.
Eastern Orthodox commonly refers to the orthodox churches who have their origin in the geographical east. Those Eastern Orthodox Churches established in the west through mission efforts are called "eastern" because they are in communion with one of the Eastern Patriarchs.

Where is the Church? Comments to a new friend.

I recently visited the BLOG of a new friend. I found our journey to truth to be of the same heart. I found this post by Nathan Lee McIntyre (yes another Nathan Lee! ) and added my Comment on his BLOG. I thought the discourse valuable enough to share as a post on my BLOG.

Posted By Nathan Lee McIntyre on his BLOG

"In the beginning God created man, and from there man repeatedly messed up a good thing. I must admit I keep another blog. This one will be treated a bit differently. I am a recovering minister. Born in the church, I left it although there every Sunday. I now find myself curiously enough facing a desire to come back, but to what, I'm not sure. I had to leave the church to find it, and it is this search that now I am consumed with. I am a Christian...the definition of which I hope to one day discover."

Comments By Nathan Lee Lewis

"Thanks for the invite to your BLOG. Your honesty and willingness to bear your soul's yearnings is refreshing. I share your epiphany of just now coming to grips with the fact that you know very little. That does not mean, however that the truth is not obtainable, it may just mean that we have been looking in or were born in the wrong place. I, too, am a recovering minister. The first open sore being the arrogance that comes with the job. "Knowledge puffs up". I am just now learning not to say "I" (Please excuse the irony of this sentence). My approach to truth took on a profound redirect when I switched from the current-to-the-past approach and started with the origins of the Church working my way forward. What I have found so far is more than profound, the least not being the fact that in the ethos of the undivided Church of the apostles there never existed the Reformed view that an individual has the right to interpret scipture or tradition on his own. All truth and tradition stemmed cohesively from the visible Body of Christ as represented by the bishops "in the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth." (1Tim. 3:16) So, I am no longer interested, nor do I ask what I believe or what anyone else "believes", I ask, "what has the unified visible church always believed and taught in all places at all times?"

The answer to this pivotal question is found in the documented history of the church contained in the writings of the Early Church Fathers who bled and died to preserve the teachings of the Apostles. "

Where I blew it with my children- A father's recompense

My wife and I were blessed with five healthy daughters. "Yes" they were all ours and "No" we were not Catholic. I guess we just didn't read the right books and never figured out what was causing our fruitfulness. Nevertheless, we didn't fight it too much and received every one of our daughters with love and hope. As a man of faith in God, I determined that I would raise them to fear God all the days of their lives. What I did not know was that I had a skewed idea of what it meant to "fear" God. I set out to teach my children a set of principles, rules, and conduct that the tenants of Christianity dictated was necessary to make God pleased with them. My method was to reward good deeds and punish the bad deeds. Surely, in this way they would learn the simple lesson that to do God's will gains God's pleasure and to not do God's will gains God's punishment. After all, isn't this why Jesus came in the first place, to take the ultimate punishment for our sins? God's dealing with the sin of man goes something like this, "God wasn't mad. He got mad. He isn't mad anymore." Every transgression demands satisfaction! Doesn't it? Well, I was successful. My daughters learned to "fear" God. They also learned to "fear" me and the weak link in this fine theology is the fact that if they do sin, fall, screw up, they feel so useless, so much the failure, so guilty, that they just can't face that fearsome, angry, punishing God. Now my daughters are having to learn to love God and the fact that God loves them. The same goes for their relationship with me. I blew it. I skewed it. And now I must make recompense.

One of the first illuminations I received when entering the truth of the Orthodox faith was the fact that there is no room in the Christian faith for an angry, punishing God. When I was a young boy in my protestant church where my father was the pastor, I heard a visiting protestant evangelist preach the sermon, "God's Three Deadlines". In the sermon, he illustrated the point that God had a standard of rules that you had better obey, that God would give you a chance or two, but you had better do right before he lost patience with you and you crossed that third deadline. If you crossed God's third deadline it was all over and God's judgement on you would be harsh. My father liked the sermon so much that he it picked it up and preached it once a year after that. I also grew up having heard famous protestant preacher's sermons like "Payday Someday" and "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". Naturally, loving my own children like I did, I wanted no harm to befall them, so I made sure they got the same message. The only problem was that it was a false message birthed out of the Western Theology of the Reformation and not the faith of the apostles or of the early church fathers.

I have been amazed, delighted, and shocked to discover that what I have believed to be the core purpose of Salvation was one that was not consistent with the historic faith...and millions have suffered, including my children. There is a stark difference between the Western and Eastern Soteriology (study of salvation). [When I say "Western" I mean Roman Catholicism and all that evolved from it, including culture, philosophies, doctrines, religious movements, organizations, ministries, and protestant denominations. When I say "Eastern" I refer to the Orthodox Christian Church and its 2000-year-old unchanging apostolic doctrines, structure and unity.] Here is what I should have taught my children concerning salvation and their relationship with their heavenly father:

1. I taught them: that the fall of man was the transgression of divine law.

I should have taught them: that the fall of man was the loss of communion and relationship with God and that it was the loss of a state of being not a loss of an ethical standing.

2. I taught them: that man inherited original sin, was guilty of it and deserved punishment for it through death and hell.

I should have taught them: that man inherited the ancestral consequences of sin, that man is influenced by his environment, and that death and hell are the consequences of sin through the separation from God. I should have taught them that Christ removed the consequences of sin so that we can return to our original relationship with him.

3. I taught them: that baptism was just a symbol or that it washed our original sin away.

I should have taught them: that baptism actually and sacramentally washes away the consequences of ancestral sin and is the door, the theosis, to restoration with God, thus baptism does save you.

4. I taught them: that man was totally depraved with no redeeming value.

I should have taught them: that man is "damaged" but not totally depraved because he is made in the image of God.

5. I taught them: that transgression demands satisfaction, that Christ's sacrifice was "required", that God needed to be appeased to keep from killing us all, and that this was a principal to which God was bound.

I should have taught them: that Communion needs restoration, that Christ's sacrifice was a "voluntary" act of love, and that God is not and has never been mad at us.

6. I taught them: that because of Christ's sacrifice, men are saved from punishment.

I should have taught them: that because of Christ's sacrifice, man has communion with God.

7. I taught them: that you get holy by being good-this is "sanctification".

I should have taught them: that you get holy by communion with God- this is "theosis".

8. I taught them: that Christ's sacrifice satisfies "original sin" but "temporal sin" must be punished on this earth and in the afterlife with the motivator being "Do good and don't break the rules."

I should have taught them: that Christ's sacrifice overcomes all sin once and for all, that salvation is about communion, that the consequence of temporal sin is the loss or prevention of our theosis with the motivator being "To better commune with God."

Daughters, this is the faith. This is the heavenly father's love in its purest form given to us by way of the traditions of the Apostles and preserved in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church for over 2000 years. Yes, I blew it, but so did my father and his father before him. We were born into a western religious culture of blended doctrines, philosophies and practices. It was not the pure faith and not the faith of the early church, though it contained elements of truth and, by God's grace, paths that led to truth. Here is what I want you to know. God is not mad at you, has never been mad at you. He loves you and wants to talk with you. Come with us on this Journey to Orthodoxy. There is life here and maybe even restoration of relationships. This is my recompense-to have the heart of my Heavenly Father and to have you see Him in me the rest of my days.

The Girl's First Eucharist Photos

Here is Cynthia and the girl's first Eucharist on Holy Saturday. What a moment that was. We wept together.

Other Chrismation Photos

Here are some other Chrismation photos. Chloe Anne, our youngest daughter, Cynthia, my faithful and brave wife of 25 years, and Casey our 16 year old. Applying the Holy Oil is Father Steven Rogers, Senior Priest of St. Ignatius Antiochian Orthodox Church in Franklin, Tennessee.

The 50 Year Journey To Orthodoxy

On April 12th, 2006 I celebrated my 50th birthday. Several of my closest friends were able to make their way to Tennessee to join me personally while several others called or sent greetings and congratulations. It was a wonderful time of hope and gratefulness for the preceding years. Much was put into perspective. Ten days later, on April 22, 2006, Holy Saturday, I was chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church. "So what's a good former Southern Baptist boy doing in a place this? And after 50 years of life shouldn't you know better?...by the way what is the Eastern Orthodox Church?" I have yet to meet one person in casual conversation who knows what the Orthodox Church is. I always give this 60 second explanation. "The Orthodox Church is the original church of the Apostles. There is the Roman Catholic church in the west and then there is the Orthodox Church in the east. The Orthodox church has over 250 million members and is the second largest Christian group on the planet although there are currently only about 6 million members in the United States. For 1054 years there was only one united church on the planet with five main locations, Rome (Italy), Constantinople (Turkey), Jerusalem (Palestine), Antioch (Syria),and Alexandria (Egypt), each pastored by a Bishop. Then the Bishop of the Roman church in the west claimed he had full authority and jurisdiction over the whole church. This unprecedented move was not well received by the rest of the church in the geographical east. The churches in the east remained in communion and unity while the Roman church in the west broke from that unity and became an independent body- the Roman Catholic Church. All existing protestant denominations, some 25,000 of them in the United States alone, extend out of the Reformation period almost 600 years after the Schism."

Recently one of my five daughters asked me of our move to Orthodoxy. I told her I have been asking the same question of God since I was 17, "Where is the church?" That desire to find and be a part of the true church has led me on a path with many forks and deadends. From Baptist, to Independent Bible Churches, to Charismatic Churches, to the Jewish Synogogues, to Messianic Fellowships, to the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and to the Roman Catholic Church. My puzzled Southern Baptist Father once referred to my journey as "the religion of the month" club. Perhaps now that I have traveled this road and am familiar with the paths and the deadends, I can, in some humble way, be a pathguide for others who are coming this way, and coming they are. Seeking evangelicals who, like me, have no idea or concept that they were born into a religious world with doctrines and practices that look very little like the church of our fathers. I have a degree in Religion from a Southern Baptist University and yet not once in any of my studies was I required to read or even informed of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. These were the men who formed and shaped the church, who knew and were ordained by the Apostles themselves, who continued to pastor the churches of Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the other disciples after their deaths. In fact I was advised against reading anything other than that which was contained within the pages of the bible, the mantra being "sola scriptura", the bible alone. To look at church history or "tradition" was not necessary. The day I decided to consider what men such as Ignatius, Clement, Iraneus, and Justin Martr wrote, preached, and shed their blood to preserve, was the day my religion was ruined. But MY religion needed to be ruined, for it was not the faith of our fathers. Could it be that my protestant university knew that if I read the writings of those so close to the apostles that I would discover a different church, a different doctrine, a different shape of worship, a different history than was being espoused in the institutions and churches throughout evangelical protestantism which was birthed only 400 years prior? God forbid. Ignorance is much more easily accepted than intentional deception.

So come on in. Let us reason together. But I will tell you right now that your closely held doctrines of the church, authority, salvation, the eucharist, veneration of Mary, baptism, shapes and forms of worship, music, gifts of the spirit, and many other things will be challenged. You might get uncomfortable, angry or afraid. You may even feel sorrow for me personally, that I am so deceived. At the very least, let your concern for the salvation of my soul prompt you to join in the discussion on this BLOG. In the mean time I will continue to step deeper into the faith of our fathers, the Orthodox Christian Church, with peace and rest. It has been a long Journey and I am so thankful that I am finally home.

Important UPDATE June 30, 2009
Read: "Why We Left... Where We Went"