3. Consistency of Theology (Part IV of IX)
Because Orthodoxy honors the present and respects the past (even enough to confront it), it can also display a greater consistency of theology.
One of the first impasses in the beliefs of my heritage churches I came to while training for the ministry. Ours was a group of churches seeking to best understand the New Testament, and the Church of Christ revealed in it, so best to believe and practice those things the New Testament Church believed and practiced. This led to an historical-grammatical hermeneutic (much like the ancient Antiochene "school" which shaped St. John Chrysostom). Our intent, and tendency, was to let the Scripture speak for itself and understand it on its own terms.
So, it will come as no surprise that our view of baptism was that it was an act of immersion done in the name of the Trinity, for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the gift (and seal) of the Holy Spirit. Though my heritage churches would have rejected the term "sacrament," nonetheless, this view of baptism is very sacramental. The view that we espoused was one which really took the Scriptural passages "on their face," as it were. However, in complete contradistinction to our view of baptism, our hermeneutic was left off to one side when it came to the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist). Here, rather than take the passages "on their face" (i. e., that consumption of the elements was consumption of the Body and Blood of our Lord, clearly stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11, for example), we took them "symbolically." The "body" Paul was referring to was the Church. When Jesus spoke about eating his Body and Blood in John 6, he was just exagerrating to prove a point. And so forth.
This was inconsistent.
When I became an Episcopalian, the inconsistencies mounted. One was ostensibly free to believe what one wanted on women's ordination, yet it was mandatory that if a woman qualified for the priesthood, then her gender could not be a factor refusing her ordination. So much the worse for one's convictions. The liturgy of common prayer was said to be the sine qua non of worship life in the Episcopal Church, but by the time I left ECUSA, there were nine different possibilities for a liturgy of the Eucharist. On any given day in any given diocese nine different liturgies could be used. Apparently, common prayer only applied to the local parish, severing ties to its sister parishes within the same diocese. So much for common prayer. Marriage, according to the prayerbook, was one man and one woman for life. But it was also legitimate to bless couples who were sexually active though not married and couples of the same sex who were sexually active. So much the worse for marriage.
This was inconsistent.
Now I fully realize that it is one thing to have a standard and not live up to it. That's one kind of inconsistency. And except where it is arrogantly willful, it is sadly the normal course of fallen humanity. We sin, repent, sin and repent.
But it's quite another to have espoused a particular theology, only to espouse another that contradicts it. One cannot, on my own heritage churches' terms, have both a sacramental view of baptism, but a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist. One cannot call it common prayer, if the only thing common about it is that everyone meets at the same time in one particular location and, at least for that day, all say the same words. One cannot claim a sacramentality of marriage, then turn right around and claim some sort of "sacramentality" (thus the "blessing" and also cf. Bishop-elect Robinson's own words about his relationship) for relationships that violate the marriage standard. One cannot proclaim freedom of conscience, but then mandate processes that cannot but violate that conscience.
The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, maintains a most dogged consistency in its theology. One cannot speak of Christ in such a way as to lose the dogmatic understanding of the Incarnation: that in the one Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the two natures of divinity and humanity were united without change, separation, confusion or division. Because if one loses the Incarnation, the whole faith unravels. No Incarnation, in short, no Church, no salvation. One cannot speak of God in such a way as to deny his Fatherhood. For in denying the Fatherhood of God, one ultimately denies the Trinity. And denying the Trinity, one denies the whole of the Christian faith. If one loses the Mysteries (or Sacraments), in some sort of Zwinglian reduction, then one loses the Incarnation. The Orthodox Church witnesses to the truth of the Faith: one cannot deny one tenet of the Faith, without ultimately denying the whole. One cannot claim an a la carte method of retrieving those ancient doctrines one prefers and claim that one is honoring the ancient Faith of the Church. It is, quite literally, all or nothing.
This is not to say that somehow the actions of individuals in the Orthodox Church are without sin or censure. Consistency of life with belief is damnably hard in our fallen state. But my point is not about the ubiquitous variety of sinners of which all churches are full. Rather, my point is the consistency of belief itself. I am attracted to Orthodoxy precisely because the Faith all hangs together of one cloth. And it is a most generous cloth, one which can cover all of one's life and destiny.
[Please note: Speaking as I must about my previous and present church experiences in light of my attraction to Orthodoxy, I must necessarily and frequently take up a critical stance to many aspects of these experiences. But I have also tried to offer honest and heartfelt positive appraisals where I can.]
Next: 4. Fullness of the Faith