Discussing Orthodox Faith: Playing to our Strengths

 

Originally posted on CopticNN

I am going to start this piece by saying something crazy, I am Orthodox because it is truth. I am not Orthodox because it is fun, I am not Orthodox because it is convenient, and I am not Orthodox because it suits my lifestyle. I am simply an Orthodox Christian because it is the fullness of the faith, found inside the living and apostolic Church as guided by the Holy Spirit. This is the greatest strength of the Church and the greatest weapon of the Church when confronting challenges in expressing the faith to others.

For many Christians around the world the expressing of faith to others is done through adapting the worship or making changes in expression to accommodate for a change in the audience, seeing many traditions as being outmodes or subjective, Though as mentioned in our previous article, this can often serve to only weaken to the resolve of someone seeking the faith as they would see it undervalued by those inside. In the same manner that one would not destroy or vandalise a priceless artifact, we would not dismantle or undermine the traditions passed down if we see them as apostolic or given through Christ himself to the world. This leads us to the question of the value of the faith’s apostolicity and historical significance in dialogues regarding faith and how these are indeed the greatest tools in the arsenal of the evangelist in the postmodern religious landscape.

Firstly if we speak of the historicity of the Church, we are speaking of its role in the history of Christianity from the life of Christ to today. This is something that many Christian communities cannot address, having their origins in schisms and splits from other communities or from the Church itself, since it is difficult to justify one’s belief as Christianity in the most traditional sense when ones founder rejected this faith. In the same manner many religions have strayed so far from their own historical origins that they are almost meaningless as an historical faith, such as western Buddhism which many see as an ‘alternative lifestyle,’ rejecting many of the foundational or traditional praxis or ethics for the sake of promoting itself to the new-age movement in the western world.

However this places Orthodox Christianity in a unique position, keeping its origins clear and its historical values and faith close to it. In this manner it is a beacon and living expression of the faith of the early Church, something many seek in this world of replicas and individualism, something I myself was drawn to. The historical veracity and continuance of apostolic tradition is a vital aspect of the Church in the world today as this is spoken of as vital in scripture. St Paul teaching in 2Thess 2:15, “stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” For many this simply means the words given in scripture, however from an orthodox perspective this can apply to the praxis, ethics and doctrines given by the fathers alongside scripture and its interpretation, allowing Orthodoxy to breathe in the world as a living expression of the faith of the Apostles themselves. In this way, Orthodoxy appears to those who seek the living expression of this faith.

In a similar manner the Apostolicity of the faith itself is important when expressing the Orthodox faith to others. If one is seeking the faith of the apostles they will seek the faith which accords with the faith taught by the Early Church, in this way they will be drawn to Orthodoxy. The English Catholic Saint John Henry Newman stated, “To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant,” and he was right in this. To discover the aspects of faith which were expressed in the Church at the time of the Nicene fathers and not find them in ones own Church or amongst those Christians visible in your life can be devastating to ones faith, in the same manner that one would feel ashamed to discover their parents had deceived them regarding their identity. In this manner, Orthodoxy is unique in not having this crisis of identity amongst Christians today.

In this same way, Orthodox Christianity can be seen as amongst only a few faiths which has not liberalised or culturally warped its doctrines. If we are to compare it to examples in Judaism, where we see the destruction of the temple and emergence of rabbinical Judaism then later the rise of the Chassidic movements, we see a gradual shift from anything resembling the Jewish faith two thousand years ago. In the same manner Islam has failed to be able to express its faith in the modern world in the opposite sense, enforcing doctrine without justification, which is again against its own historical praxis of incorporating Hellenic philosophy as seen in places such as early Baghdad and Damascus. Both of these serve as examples of how Orthodoxy has been able to present itself as a doctrinally, and in its ethos, the living Church of the apostles, a vital point of emphasis for one explaining why Christianity is a historical and Apostolic Faith.

So what is the message here? It is a simple one. Do not see the Church’s history as a burden or something which cannot be a point of value. Many seeking the Church today will find solace in its historical viability and clear representation of the apostolic faith as proof of its heritage in a religious marketplace fully of diverse yet unrooted traditions. As Christ himself Said of the faith of his Apostles, “on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” In the same way we must say that on the rock of the faith of the Apostles we must found our own evangelism, and if we do this then the gates of hell can never prevail over our work. 

Discussing Orthodox Faith: Audience and the dangers of pre-packed evangelism

 

Originally posted on CopticNN

Someone I often notice when speaking of my personal journey to the Orthodox faith is that people do not hear what they expect to. A number of years ago I attended a converts group and explained how I came to faith through philosophical enquiry and was told, “we don’t want to hear about philosophy, when did you open your heart to Jesus?” Needless to say, I didn’t attend the group again. However, this incident raises an interesting challenge regarding the expression of our faith to others, and that is the risk of alienating them through not speaking to their need.

In my own secular life, I work as a teacher, and the question of differentiation comes up often in my planning. We are trained to ask, ‘what level are you teaching to?’ and ‘How does the lesson link to prior learning?’ In the same manner, we need to ask the same question when speaking about our faith or trying to present it in a manner which would be meaningful to others. After all, what benefit is it to speak of the marvel the crucifixion to someone who hasn’t come to terms with the concept of the salvation it brought. Similarly, we would not spend the majority of our energies convincing a well-studied catholic enquirer of the importance of the fathers or apostolic succession. Therefore, we need to step away from the presumption that a ‘pre-packed’ view on evangelism or the position that all come to Christ in the same way,

Let us take two examples and compare these. Imagine that you have a visitor to your parish who has come from a Pentecostal background and left due to a family issue, they would be seeking to find community and a church which can provide comfort. They may also face difficulties in areas such as the veneration of the Saints, or the use of Icons in the Church. This means that anyone helping with their catechesis will need to adapt their approach to these specific needs through themselves having a comforting approach and a depth of understanding of these issues. In a similar way, if there were to be someone coming from a non-religious background and seeking to become Orthodox following some personal epiphany regarding the faith. This person may have background in addressing philosophical questions and need their entire understanding rebuilt from the ground up and need to address tough questions on theological challenges such as the nature of God. Similarly approaches may differ based on someone’s prior theological education or their own prayer life, both of which impact the approach the Church should take when introducing someone into the Church and catering for their development.

As both of these examples show, the view that someone’s spiritual and catechetical development can be presumed is an absurd one and one which the Church needs to address, otherwise we risk falling into the common danger of ‘prepacked evangelism’ which we see often amongst some communities who will take a generic and often impersonal approach to their introduction of the faith to others. This is also something we often see in our own communities where an enquirer whose needs or questions are not answered will be blamed if they do not attend again or lose their way in their journey of faith. However if we are to take an intelligent approach to this challenge it can be solved by looking to the example of Christ in his interactions with people of differing backgrounds and foundations in their faith.

In John 4 we see Christ’s interaction with the Samaritan woman, in which he refers to her concerns over the Jewish/Samaritan schism in a manner which gives us pause to think. When she asks, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (John 4:9) due to views on ritual purity he responds by pointing out, ““If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” (John 4:10). In this manner he addresses her concern though raising his divinity, leading to a discussion on his teachings and the nature of salvation. Following this he calls her to him through speaking of the end of this schism through the person of Christ, stating, “a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (Jhn 4:21). In doing this there is no dismissal of either her previous views nor a vindication, but a catering to the discussion she needed for her salvation. Applying this to the modern challenge in evangelism in a multi-faith society, we need to ask “what is their prior understanding? What needs to be stripped away, and what can be built on?” In this manner we can both take down any misconceptions and build up and need for development based on the manner of someone’s prior learning.

In its missionary and evangelism work, the Coptic Church has made strives in its approach to bringing faith to other communities and growing in the multi-faith and often postmodernist world, however without ensuring that the evangelism that appears is catered to the recognition that diversity is not simply intercommunal but also intracommunal it is bound to hit a brick wall. If we cannot speak to the individual and their own experience in our attempts to bring others into the Church, we will struggle to bring anyone into the Church. In the same manner, if we cannot cater to the individual needs of the person coming into the Church, we should not be surprised if they seek it elsewhere.    

Discussing Faith: Culture, language, and the modern Areopagus.

 

Originally published on CopticNN

As Orthodox Christians, we often bemoan the state of our missionary work in countries unreached by the faith, however these efforts have been growing recently, with missions and parishes emerging in the far-east, sub-Saharan Africa, and South America.  Recently I had the blessing to speak with a missionary association in Cairo, discussing the challenges facing those travelling around the world to share their faith, and how to counter these. One of the biggest challenges discussed was regarding cultural dialogue and the challenges of expressing the Christian faith in communities where even the most basic Christian theological terminologies were not a part of the vernacular.

Though this may sound like an obscurity, when we look at prevailing theologies outside of those areas occupied by Abrahamic faiths, we see the challenge facing those whose role it is to express our apostolic faith to others; it is often seen as being incompatible, at a theological level, with the local culture. Because of this It becomes the role of the missionary to develop a theological dialogue between themselves and an audience who have no shared concepts or vocabulary to base their discussion on.

Let us look at an example. Imagine an orthodox missionary were to travel to rural Mongolia, armed with a collection of materials and a fluent understanding of the local language. They would have the capacity to explain their belief but not to translate these in a sense that would permeate in a culture whose religious literacy is tied up largely in Buddhism and native shamanism. The challenge would no longer be one of how to begin a discussion but of how the discussion can be understood accurately and in a meaningful way. Even concepts which we largely take for granted in discussions, such as the concept of a personal (relatable in some sense) God, may become far more difficult to express to someone whose concept of God is impersonal or whose faith is traditionally deistic. In the same manner we would be required to address concepts far beyond this such as trinity, incarnation and eschatology, without risking falling into creating our own theologies or misrepresenting them.

The western Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein discussed this challenge in his theory of Language Games. He implied that the vast majority of philosophical disagreement is grounded in the differences in use of terminology and that, “Philosophical issues arise when language goes on holiday.” To get by this issue one would be expected to understand the rules and terminology regarding discussing that subject, like someone would be expected to understand and play by the rules of chess when in a game of chess. In the same manner, if someone were to engage in a theological discussion with someone whose only understanding of religion comes from non-theistic or deistic traditions they would be expected to discuss things in a way that would be meaningful to their audience, otherwise the discussion would be fruitless. This is exactly the challenge faced by missionaries, not the ability to discuss faith, but to have it understood in a meaningful way.

This dilemma may imply that I feel missionary work in such cultures is futile, however I for one relish the existence of this challenge and recognise it as having been one which the Church (both our Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox) have had to face in the past and have done so before. In the case of the Eastern Orthodox we have examples such as Cyril and Methodius who literally developed a new alphabet to allow Slavonic communities to read the Gospel. However, the greatest example can be seen in Acts 17, where St. Paul discusses the faith with Greek philosophers, applying their own terminologies and sentiments to demonstrate the nature of God, bringing many to the faith.

St. Paul’s Areopagus sermon is the perfect example of knowing your audience and their culture, allowing St Paul to engage fully in their discussions and bring them to the understanding of the faith. If we break this sermon down, we will see this in its entirety. St Paul begins by discussing their forms of worship and beliefs through the inscription to the ‘Unknown God.’ And explains, “the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.” (Acts 17:23) in doing this we see him acknowledge the personal nature of their previous theology and apply it to his words regarding the Christian faith. Following on from this, he explains to them the errors of applying their worship to this theology, using the shared belief regarding the nature of God as his basis, allowing understanding and agreement. We also, in this instance, see an area where there is no shared basis, when we are told, “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” (Acts 17:32). However in this instance, many seem to wish to continue to hear and understand, thus giving St. Paul his opportunity to continue to share based on his willingness to reference their beliefs and use them to explain the Christian faith and its truth.

With the example of St. Paul in the Areopagus, we see both the challenges and rewards which missionaries can face when expressing the faith to others. By using and referencing the ‘Unknown God’ and how He is known through Christ, St. Paul was able to win many to the faith, however he also recognised the challenge of expressing belief in an afterlife to those who do not recognise the post-mortem existence. It is in matters such as these that the modern missionary will look to establish a shared understanding of language on the nature of body, soul and spirit where available. However, topics of eschatology remain something of a challenge to express even to those within the Church at times.

Overall, the challenge of filtering the truth of our faith through differing cultural contexts is one which the Church faces increasingly as it looks outwards to missions in cultures with no prior understanding or exposure to Abrahamic faith, and especially to Christianity. However, through recognition of the need to work within the bounds and rules of the prior language and cultural or religious landmarks of those we are seeking to bring to Christ, we can break down the language barrier and allow for a more meaningful and thorough dialogue, deepening the love of Christ in those we wish to welcome into his Church. Christ called us to bring all nations to him, this will always seem a daunting task but once the first wall is broken between the Church and those it seeks to welcome, others will seem much smaller.