6. Historicity and Validity of the (Orthodox) Church's Claims (Part VII of IX)
When I began my inquiry into Orthodoxy, I was immediately confronted with an alien terrain. Not that the Orthodox Church lacked all the proper evangelical points of theology. There was grace, the Cross and Resurrection, baptism, witness, and so forth. But rather, in Protestantism, I was used to the posture of defense and response. I was used to the idea of giving a reason for why my particular churches were who and what they were, and, indeed, why I was a Protestant as well. But on coming to the Orthodox Church I was shocked that the Church was not all that interested in arguing for its own existence. It just simply was. The Orthodox Church didn't hope that I would feel at home in the Liturgy--though I was told to make myself at home, and did feel at home, during coffee hour and Sunday School. There was no talk of my felt needs. I wasn't promised relevance. There was just the simple invitation: Come and see.
The allusion to Christ's invitation to the first disciples is intentional. For this is precisely what the Orthodox Church claims of itself: that it is in a unique way the one and very Body of Christ.
This claim is, in the present climate, quite controversial. It's controversial to Protestants because the very invitation calls into question their very existence. For if what Orthodoxy claims of itself is true, there was no need for a Reformation, only a reunion. The Orthodox Church's claims are controversial to Roman Catholics, too, not merely because Rome claims for herself that which Orthodoxy claims--to be the one Body of Christ--but because these claims call into question the supremacy of the Roman see, and thereby critiquing Rome's administrative ecclesiology.
The claim is controversial to the non-Christian world as well, at least to the degree that the non-Christian world listens to and takes seriously the claims the Orthodox Church makes. For here is a seemingly merely human body claiming the grace of infallibility on the teachings about life and death, the nature of what it is to be human, the ordering of human relationships, and the nature of authority. The world of Orthodoxy's birth was discomfited enough that it sought to liquidate this rival organization. And this was repeated during the Moslem conquests and the Communist purges. Most of the controversy in the affluent global north and west revolves around Orthodoxy's claims to speak infallibly with regard to human morals.
But there it is: the Orthodox Church says of itself, "We are the Body of Christ." Everyone else says, "Prove it." Orthodoxy merely replies, "Come and see."
I have accepted that invitation, and, remarkably, I have found the "proof" others demand. I use the scare quotes around "proof" not because I think the historical and theological validity of Orthodoxy's claims is not sound and persuasive. Rather I seek to highlight that these things are not about apologetics. No one has become Orthodox by way of a reasoned argument. Those of us who have sought out Orthodoxy, and those who have in time become Orthodox, have only done so because of the demonstration of the powerful grace and mercy of God evidenced by the life lived by the Orthodox Church.
That being said, the historical and doctrinal evidence is all on the side of the Orthodox Church. When one traces the pre-Schism Church, its life and doctrine, especially in the highpoints of the Ecumenical Councils, and then makes comparison to the Orthodox Church, one can do almost nothing else but conclude that this is the same Church. When one traces the history of local Churches like that found in Thessaloniki, and realizes that this very Church has been in existence since the late AD 40s/early AD 50s, another point is added to the truth of Orthodoxy's claims.
My heritage churches and my home parish in the Episcopal Church would claim to have recovered the purity of the apostolic doctrines, purified of the accretions of Roman Catholic abberrations. But where is the twice-weekly fast? Where, in the evangelical church, are the sacraments? Where is the apostolic polity for governing the Church? Where is the teaching on theosis and struggle?
Rome would counter that she has all these things missing from the Protestant churches. But Orthodoxy would ask, where in the ancient councils is the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope? Of papal infallibility? Of supererogation? Rome may have retained the important teachings and life practices of the ancient faith (though one could ask where is the twice-weekly fast in Rome, as well), but why has Rome added to the deposit of faith? Who gave her this authority?
I cannot do much but outline some of the important points of history and doctrine. In essence the Orthodox claim is she alone has unbroken continuity not only with the historical Church of the New Testament (something Protestants most obviously lack) as well as unbroken fidelity, neither adding to nor taking away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints (something Rome and Protestants both fail in).
But my stating this will not convince you. Even studying important works like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition will not ultimately convince. The only thing that will make a difference is to "Come and see."
[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: 7. Unity of Home and Family in the Faith