Justin Kissel wrote:Um, can you think of anything more substantial and orthodox than telling me to go to a secular source to find out what a Christian is?
What could be more orthodox than looking in the dictionary for the meaning of the word?
The question is not, after all, whether Protestants are good Christians.
You often hear someone say, "Although I don't go to Church, I am a Christian". For me there is a contradiction here, but for many who make such statements being a 'nice' sort of person equates with being a Christian.
My understanding is that to be a Christian means you have been baptised and follow the teachings of the God-man, Jesus Christ. So, if there is no baptism outside the Orthodox Church protestants are not Christians?
From my limited contact with present day protestants and their writings it is easy to come to the conclusion many of them have only the 'weakest' of claims. Any teaching which conflicts with 'the goal of achieving personal happiness' or which contradicts any fashionable life-style is discarded, without problem. After all the God-man lived in 'backward' times and things have moved on since then???????? Others appear to to uphold many of those things dear to traditional Orthodox believers. I have in mind a Baptist writer, one whose book on the history of the early Church was written at the ROCOR monastery at Brookwood, Surrey, England.
I recall a recent survey of belief among Anglican clergy. It appeared to show that were surprising numbers who did not believe in:
God
The Virgin Birth
Miracles
The Resurrection
Even more astonishing than coming across a Physicist who doesn't believe in Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or an ecologist who doesn't believe in the concept of 'Global Warming'. Astonishing!
sgjspencer wrote:My understanding is that to be a Christian means you have been baptised and follow the teachings of the God-man, Jesus Christ. So, if there is no baptism outside the Orthodox Church protestants are not Christians?
'Do you believe in infant baptism?"
Baptist preacher: "Believe in it? I've seen it done!"
I have to suspect that someone with the surname of "Spencer" from England has not only seen Protestant baptism but has experienced one themselves. Well, maybe a Roman Catholic baptism, but that's no improvement by your standard. Beyond that, I have to suspect that someone named "Spencer" who posts as an Orthodox Christian on this board has rejected his former church on the basis of his own faith. For I almost never hear on these sort of boards, "I was lost, but now I am found" but rather, "my old parasynagogue turned away from my faith; therefore I dispised them."
It's easy enough to come up with spiritual frauds and bankruptcies in any religion. Orthodoxy has its phylites and its legalists and its petty clerical squabbles. Comparing the worst among all the competing sects and denominations is not a very interesting contest-- and comparing mass murderers in the former Yugoslavia to neo-unitarian Anglican bishops is likely to persuade the bystander to junk the whole thing, tossing Jerry Falwell while they're at it.
One would expect from a survey of scripture to find that most people execute their religion poorly. The only worthwhile comparison is between those who execute it well.
Oh, dear, a personal attack........ I must be getting something right.
Yes, I live in England and bear a surname upon which my attacker draws great inferences. But like many or most of my neighbours, (the locality has a small white minority population), I ain't from 'round here.
I have never been a protestant, CGW, and I have never thought that to be one is 'bad'! Nor do I have gout!
A question was asked originally that is very serious. Sadly, and I regret this, it was phrased in a way I find unhelpful. That is neither my responsibility nor yours, CGW. I have no intent of getting into a 'knock about' session with you. There is no profit in it. I have approached this painful question with an honest answer, one that accords with the statements given previously by a professor of theology and priest of the Church of Greece, various Orthodox Patriarchs and synods. On the other hand you appear to have not even read the quote properly? The sentence finishes with a question mark (?) and not a full stop. Therefore I am not making a statement but rather offer a further question.
The answers to questions given by some Anglican clergy both astonished and saddened me, they gave no satisifaction nor did they 'confirm' anything other than that written by other Orthodox commentators, including Saint John of Kronstadt, Archimandrite Justin Popovich and Father Seraphim Rose; on the 'events' of our times.
Despite all the so-called 'ecumenical' activity of the many the message of the Gospel is diluted more and more, more Christians have been killed in the past 100 years than in all history, and many who enjoy position and influence as supposed Christian pastors do not even believe the basic tenents of Christianity. It is as if a soldier had taken the Queen's shilling and then refusing his proper service continued to campaign for advancement.
Mine is not an 'attack' but a 'cry from the heart' and a painfully honest response to a question poorly phrased.
What the deuce Yugoslavia and someone or something "Jerry Falwell" has to to do with anything I wrote is beyond me! As with many other questions or subjects, offered within the various forums, I try to approach them with reflection and sobriety.
Furthermore, CGW, I give my whole name and not hide behind my initials. I do not indulge in phantasies about other people, nor take responsibility for what others may have or have not written in their posts, whether they are Orthodox or not. If you have a 'beef' with other contributors take it up with them, 'cos this fella ain't interested, and does not intend interacting with you further on this or any other topic. It had puzzled me why other contributors sometimes get so cross with you. Now, regrettably, I know. :ohvey:
(Maryland, so beautifully dedicated).
sgjspencer wrote:Oh, dear, a personal attack........ I must be getting something right.
If the shoe doesn't fit, by all means don't put it on. And I do apologize for trying to fit it to you.
A question was asked originally that is very serious.
We will have to disagree here. If a Protestant were to ask the same question of Orthodox Christians, and in the same manner, I have no doubt but that it would be construed as a hostile act. And I think those that viewed it so would be correct.
And while I regret the misintepretation of your question mark, surely you must see that a sarcastic reading is not beyond reason.
But on to the Anglican clerics. It still does not seem to me to be fair to pit the worst Protestants against the best Orthodox. Nor would it be fair to Orthodoxy to contrast C.S.Lewis with the petty legalism and fractiousness that seems to be Orthodoxy's preferred foible.
It seems to me that the only worthwhile question is whether writers such as Lewis or, more importantly, the Niebuhr brothers teach what Jesus would have them teach. Arguing about whether they are Christians is a political posture, because clearly they intend to be Christians, and they intend to teach what Jesus would have them teach. I don't see the point of arguing whether John Spong is a Christian, because it doesn't take much examination to determine that, if he is a Christian, he is a bad one, and that his thinking (not to mention the context of its presentation) is not persuasive. Likewise, being a Christian but not going to church is simply a matter of bad practice, though it is also a symptom of bad parishes!
I do not "hide" behind initials. If it matters who I really am, then I don't see how the issue of personal attacks can really be an issue. In the interest of sufficient disclosure, I'll state again what most here already know: I am an Episcopalian with a long history of exposure to Orthodoxy. And it is one thing to engage me personally about Anglicanism and about how I live it out. What irritates me is how often in religious forums, of any flavor, talk falls into hand-wringing (if not denunciation) of the foibles of other groups who are not parties to the discussion and whose participation would be strictly limited if they were parties. (For example, I cannot commend Anglicanism here, nor attack Orthodoxy for not being Anglican.) I really don't see the point of a group of the Orthodox discussing faithless Anglican clerics. They are my problem, not yours, and it seems that such discussion tends inevitably to lead to a round of self-congratulation that Orthodoxy doesn't have faithless clerics. But surely there are such clerics.
