David Galloway
#0
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this post. A reformed friend of mine sent me the link below which is a lecture describing Eastern Orthodoxy for reformed audiences.
http://www.wordmp3.com/speakers/profile.aspx?id=941
I found it very insulting and tremendously inaccurate, and wanted to see what other people make of the speaker's arguments, as I know I will have to discuss this with my friend at some point in the near future.
Personally, I think the speaker is a little bitter that so many people are finding the fullness of the faith expressed in the Orthodox Church.
Be the first person to like this.
Well, to be fair, I suspect that some of the podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio may seem insulting to Protestants and Roman Catholics. However...
So far I've only subjected myself to listen to the first one. I'll try to go through others if I have the strength... Gospodi pomeloi!
I have to admit that many details in this first podcast are presented completely wrong! What history book did this guy read? This is bizarre!
There is the, unfortunately, typical Protestant myopia concerning the early church fathers - where they see everything through the lense of their own, rather late, practices. For instance, there seems to be some confusion concerning the difference between a parish and diocese - which is not much of a surprise considering that the Reformed tradition doesn't make that distinction.
Also, his opinion that the filioque isn't really an important issue, really betrays his lack of understanding of the issue.
A lot of his perspective, is solely western. He's taken his history, hook, line and sinker, from the Roman Catholic perspective, without any consideration that there's any \"spin\" to it.
Nor does he seem to know how to pronounce \"Antiochian\" right. :)
So, in short, he's rather light in his grasp of Orthodox theology, and has bought a \"spun\" version of history apparently without any serious consideration of what he's critiquing. We often find rather bizarre versions of Orthodox history presented by non-Orthodox.
It seems he's studied Orthodoxy a (very!) little bit, but with the sole goal of finding fault with it. So, as is quite often the case when people do this, he finds theology that doesn't fit with his current beliefs, and automatically condemns it as an error, or dismisses it as \"unimportant\".
My first instinct would be to advise your friend that this persons grasp of Orthodoxy is not the best - basically, he's condemned something that he didn't fully grasp. I would then recommend that they read \"The Orthodox Church\" by Timothy Ware.
But if you check with a priest, they might give you a better answer, as they've gone through proper theological training (which I have not!).
Fr Cyprian
Be the first person to like this.
David Galloway
#3
Fr. Cyprian,
Thank you for your time and thoughts!
I've only heard a few podcasts on AFR. The podcasts I usually listen to (Matthew Gallatin, Fr. Lawrence Farley) while definitely from an Orthodox perspective don't seem as patronizing as the podcast I linked above. Of course, I *am* biased. :)
Available
Re: Online ''Discussion of Eastern Orthoxoy'' very insulting
Quick Reply Quote
Well, to be fair, I suspect that some of the podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio may seem insulting to Protestants and Roman Catholics. However...
So far I've only subjected myself to listen to the first one. I'll try to go through others if I have the strength... Gospodi pomeloi!
I have to admit that many details in this first podcast are presented completely wrong! What history book did this guy read? This is bizarre!
There is the, unfortunately, typical Protestant myopia concerning the early church fathers - where they see everything through the lense of their own, rather late, practices. For instance, there seems to be some confusion concerning the difference between a parish and diocese - which is not much of a surprise considering that the Reformed tradition doesn't make that distinction.
Also, his opinion that the filioque isn't really an important issue, really betrays his lack of understanding of the issue.
A lot of his perspective, is solely western. He's taken his history, hook, line and sinker, from the Roman Catholic perspective, without any consideration that there's any "spin" to it.
Nor does he seem to know how to pronounce "Antiochian" right.
So, in short, he's rather light in his grasp of Orthodox theology, and has bought a "spun" version of history apparently without any serious consideration of what he's critiquing. We often find rather bizarre versions of Orthodox history presented by non-Orthodox.
It seems he's studied Orthodoxy a (very!) little bit, but with the sole goal of finding fault with it. So, as is quite often the case when people do this, he finds theology that doesn't fit with his current beliefs, and automatically condemns it as an error, or dismisses it as "unimportant".
This is an excellent summation. I think I will paraphrase this when talking with my friend, assuming you're okay with that.
Thanks again!
David
Be the first person to like this.
Sure, I'm okay with it, I'm just not sure it'll get you anywhere as I'm not a terribly deep thinker.
What I meant about the AFR podcasts is that sometimes you might find people discussing something they think is \"odd\" in Protestantism, or Roman Catholicism and sharing a chuckle about it, for example: snake handling. Most folks consider them pretty odd, but any comment ridiculing them could seem prett offensive to a snake-handler.
However, AFR's target audience is people who are already Orthodox, so it is rare that non-Orthodox folks will listen to the podcasts. And, FWIW it looks like this podcast was equally intended for folks within the Reformed tradition, and probably wasn't intended for distribution to others outside their denomination, especially Orthodox.
Be the first person to like this.
#5
I haven't listened all the way through. I think I heard enough to get the \"jist\" and wanted to comment on a few things.
First I think Cyprian really hit the nail on the head with his estimation. Kudos to you once again.
Second I had a college buddy go on to become a protestant pastor from a tradition that is trying to be \"restorationists\" (the intent is to try and work towards Christian unity). While working on his MDiv he took a full semester class on Orthodoxy. They went through Ware's Orthodox Way, Philokalia, and something on the Theotokos. (excuse me if my spelling is off) They also had several Orthodox guest speakers. He told me the point was to understand Orthodoxy better. He never once heard a criticism, nor thought dis favorably towards Orthodoxy. The point is there are places of real education where churches of different faiths can actually be represented well.
Reguardless this person is not one of those, and any educated or intelligent person would see or find this, in this case. He is obviously trying to tear others down as only he has the \"truth.\"
Taking that in light I would encourage your friend to look towards motives. In my own study / observation of protestant churches I notice one of two things is generally done. The person tearing down is trying to make a name for himself for either power or money. The charasmia of the speaker should never suck one into that which isn't good for you.
Tell your friend to really look for himself, ask if what he is learning is \"manufactured\" meaning man made. Or if what he's going into is really \"godufactured\" in this case meaning God made. Then ask yourself which is really best for you.
Be the first person to like this.
#6
I am listening to it right now. I haven't heard anything inaccurate, but (after thinking for a while) I would think the primacy of the Pope of Rome would be the lead.
Be the first person to like this.
Ryan McGee
#7
I listened to the first broadcast and much of the second.
The greatest problem I had were in relation to two areas:
1) Icons
2) Original Sin
On icons, the pastor too easily conflates the Old Testament idols that people bowed before as gods, with the icons that Orthodox use in venerating the saints. He implies that in using icons, the Orthodox are exposing themselves to the danger of worshiping the saints as God. Of course, Orthodox do not worship the saints as though they were God. This said, there is a fundamental difference of belief between Orthodoxy and Protestantism that lends to how a person understands icons. Many Protestants have no problem with God become man, but they balk even at the thought of man become God (or like God). Orthodox understand that man, through the Holy Spirit, can become like God, even in this lifetime. A Protestant may see an icon of a saint and think he or she unduly has been raised to the status of a god (i.e. is exaggerated and/or misrepresented in holiness), but an Orthodox sees an icon and recognizes that the saint did in fact live a holy life, and through synergy, has become God-like in humility and love. In venerating the saint, the worshiper glorifies God for raising men to his right side.
The problem I have concerning the section on original sin is the pastor's assumption that the Orthodox too, like the West, once held to \"Original Sin\" as a central belief but have since changed their doctrines. The fact is, while the Eastern Fathers have written of Ancestral Sin, the emphasis is different--the East focusing more on corruption and mortality resulting from Ancestral Sin, than on sins springing from an inherited Original Sin. Even in his own time, St. Augustine was not universally accepted. St. John Cassian, among other saints, was critical of certain elements of St. Augustine's theology.
Be the first person to like this.
#8
One thing I like about Orthodoxy is that they do NOT change with the winds like some Protestant sects have. Many people are converting to Orthodoxy for that very reason. Others who do not convert to Orthodoxy are aligning with more conservative (and traditional) churches like some Anglican sects have in recent years in light of the move by leaders of the more liberal churches to shift away from traditional teachings of the Bible.
As for Original Sin, I believe the Orthodox view to be more correct. It just makes more sense.
Be the first person to like this.
It sounds like this person is at least giving Orthodoxy the dignity of error, which is profound. I'd much rather deal with this kind of polemic than just be patted on the head and told that Orthodoxy is true for me... If he says Orthodoxy can be wrong, that is the same as allowing it to be taken seriously.
But in another contact at least the Reformed version of understanding Orthodoxy is letting Orthodoxy fill out the details of a Reformed framework however it wants. My [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/calvinist/]An Orthodox Looks at a Calvinist Looking at Orthodoxy[/url] was a response to a Calvinist who got a D.Min. from an Orthodox seminary and put his finger on a lot of things other Reformed Christians might feel. I wrote my response because I think he was wrong, but the original text struck me as worth responding to (and is quoted in full, with permission).
[url=http://JonathansCorner.com/]Christos Jonathan[/url]
Be the first person to like this.