Actually, this is more of a clarification/reflection. In the comments on some of the entries on the various blogs thinking online about this topic, I've been classed as something of an "Eastern Orthodox symapthizer" for my views. I'll not deny my sympathies lie with Antioch (and the rest of the East) just now, but I really have not tried so much to espouse Orthodox views so much as to espouse views of the Church pre-Great Schism. More accurately, I have very consciously attempted to align my beliefs with the doctrine and dogma of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. If that makes me "Eastern Orthodox" in my sympathies, so be it, but I rather suppose those beliefs are not limited to the Orthodox. One could witness the Tractarians (though I can't remember if they refused to accept the 7th Council on images), and not a few modern-day Anglicans. Rome accepts the Seven Councils as well, though she also adds to them the filioque, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, among others.
I suppose what I'm trying to do is maintain footing in the 21st century without jettisoning the past--as though I "know better" than did my Christian ancestors on matters pertinent to my own tiny corner of history. I'm not accusing any of my interlocutors of doing that (jettisoning the past), but maybe we present-day Protestants hold the past a little too loosely--when we don't indeed reject it outright.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to come across as whining. Nor do I reject any "guilt" by association with my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. At the same time, I want to be sure that I clearly state my intent to own my Christian past--especially the Seven Councils. The Orthodox certainly don't need li'l ol' me as their apologete. They've done it well enough on their own.
Now I know that some are chary of dogma, fearing it's divisive qualities. But truth divides. That's just how reality works. We may not be able to know everything infallibly, but there are things we can know certainly. Without dogma, Christians lose their identity. Indeed, if I understand 1 John right, they lose eternity. One either confesses Jesus as God in the flesh, or one does not. If one does not, one is not a Christian. That's John, not Clifton. Dogma is necessary.
But there is a difference between dogma and "pious opinion." And I suppose that's where the messiness of all these divisions come in. Some want to espouse their private interpretations at the expense of unity. This is where I think the Councils are a necessary tool of unity. I know, I know, as a good Protestant-raised Christian, I shouldn't be saying that. But I've seen how well sola scriptura works--it don't. We're always adding to Scripture. I suppose I want to lobby--for the sake of unity--for a tool that was once the common measurement of fellowship, the Councils. Maybe it hasn't worked since AD 1054. But maybe that's not the fault of the Councils.
Posted by Clifton at December 18, 2002 12:51 PM | TrackBack