orthodox mission

cyril · July 2014

On a side note has anyone heard about this thing called clericalism? It's apparently just as much a distortion as congregationalism (to claim that we don't need priests or that priests must do what the masses dictate).

Fr Alexander says:

"A false idea of clericalism as absolute power for which the priest has no account to give. In fact, the priest in the Orthodox Church must be ready to explain his every opinion, decision or statement, to justify them not only "formally" by a reference to a canon or rule, but spiritually as true, saving and according to the will of God. For again, if all of us, laity and clergy, are obedient to God, this obedience is free and requires our free acceptance: "I call you not slaves, for a slave knows not what his Lord does; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard, I have made known to you" (John 15;15) and "ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). In the Orthodox Church, the preservation of truth, the welfare of the Church, mission, philanthropy, etc.— are all a common concern of the whole Church, and all Christians are corporately responsible for the life of the Church. Neither blind obedience nor democracy, but a free and joyful acceptance of what is true, noble, constructive and conducive of the Divine love and salvation."

"Clergy and Laity in the Orthodox Church"
http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/clergyandlaityinthechurch.html

Remnkemi · July 2014

"Another form of "simple is better" can be a slight variation: "Taeta and Gido don't know the hymns and they are not shamas kabeer...But they are simple and therefore saintly."

Or "Taeta and Gido are not theologians they're simple and don't need to have all these arguments and big terms"

You're missing the point. It is not simple is better. Rather the simplicity is a layer of the complex theology. They are one and the same. Taeta and Gido know the hymns therefore they know complex theology (without knowing they know it). And by living a theology, they are therefore saintly. You are correct in that they don't need to have all arguments and big terms. But you are incorrect in stating Taeta and Gido are not theologians. They are, simply by the fact that they partake of the Eucharist and recite theology in the prayers. Their lex orandi is their lex credendi. We cannot separate theology from hymnology, piety from intellectuality, faith from deeds.

But what about the question of not worrying about the means as long as the people love God? Like as long as we're bringing them to the Church it doesn't matter what material we use right? As long as the means are not sinful of course and can be identified as Christian.

This is the fallacy of modernity. Pluarlism is heresy. The point of the Gospel is not merely to include everyone regardless of the means. After all, even Christ was adamant that faith was integral in reaching eternal life. Had Christ only cared to bring everyone to God only, he would not have stood firm in John 6 about the Bread of Life. In fact, when most of his disciples left, he invited the 12 to leave also. Rather, the goal of missionology is to invite everyone to journey on the narrow road leading to eternal life, finding comfort and freedom in that choice through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is how one is identified as Christian. It is not to make the road wider to include everyone. This in essence makes the road "wide and leading to destruction".

cyril · July 2014

These are very good points Rem. The one about taeta and gido is really fascinating and beautiful.

About the using of any means can't we still use any Christian source? That wouldn't be pluralism if it is Christian right? Again as long as it brings people to the Church isn't that more important?

It appears that the mission churches are trying to do the best they can and making things accessible and seeker friendly. And they're popular with the youth. And the Abounas have probably done their research and know what they are doing. Plus didn't HH Pope Shenouda III bless missions?

Evangelism and Mission (English) - H.H. Pope Shen…:

cyril · July 2014

Also say the churches still teach about the importance of the holy mysteries and also of the fathers, couldn't they also allow these other sources because they would bring people to eventually learn the deeper stuff after they get introduced with the simple stuff? Like we might not be comfortable with praying like evangelicals but if that brings people to know God what's wrong if we use that as long as it's not in liturgy? Same with modern worship music like hillsong, at least people come to our church and learn about Christ in an Orthodox Church, doesn't the end goal (their and our salvation and getting as many people into heaven) justify the means?

Also what if Abouna or servants made sure the material didn't say anything directly bad against the Church? If the books are being suggested in our abounas' sermons they're obviously good and beneficial to people. OK so some books don't mention our sacraments but they don't say they're bad either so can't we just supplement what they don't say with what is needed? It's not like reading the books or hearing the sermons will make us protestant overnight.

EsmoEpchois · July 2014

Remnkemi, you make many good points. Just to see your opinion, what if one of these missionary churches were to open and their priest actually preached orthodox sermons? Do you think it would be successful in terms of bringing people to the true faith? Would you consider it just another church?

EsmoEpchois · July 2014

Also, forgive me for my ignorance, I'm really very new to all of this.

Remnkemi · July 2014

No that would not be pluralism if it is Christian. But not everything done in Christian churches is Christian. The means do not justify the ends here because the end itself is not Christian. Just using anything to bring people to Church without a conscious strict adherence to theology is nothing more than evil prostylization. Using evangelical like prayer may seem helpful to bring people to know God but the reality is that they will come to know a God who caters to emotions, rather than God who transforms humans into divine beings (theosis) as revealed in the Gospels and in the Church. The same is true for books. Simply suggesting a book that doesn't mention sacraments is not a benign matter. Such books only serve to distract people from the God of sacraments and attract them to a God who is anti-Christian through anti-Church polemics. It becomes a cancer in the Orthodox way of life. Like all malignant cancers, it is a slow process, completely asymptomatic until it is too late. I can take this example a step farther. Do we suggest it is ok to supplement normal physical anatomy with a malignancy? Why do we see the need to run after something known to cause malignancy (even though it is esthetically pleasing) all the while ignoring the beauty of original, normal being and arguing the original is lacking. All it is lacking is the malignancy. There is no problem with Orthodoxy that we have to use Protestant malignant tactics.

Esmoepchois,

Simply opening missionary churches does not guarantee any success. Returning to what RO said, we are building on a dichotomy that is false. All churches are missionary. There is no missionary church vs. non-missionary church. Period. If you're talking about field work in deserted areas, well that's called Orthodox monasticism. If you're talking about field work in urban areas, well that's called diocesan Orthodoxy. If you're talking about shifting focus of a church to bring converts instead of tending to a cultural people, well that's called pastoral racism. So I don't see why we are so focused on mission-priests, ignoring the fact that all priests are mission-priests because they have Apostolic succession.

And don't apologize for anything.

cyril · July 2014

Hi everyone, also like to point out that if you look at the websites or youtube videos the missions are still strongly Coptic

In the liturgy they sing Coptic hymns in English and preserve the notes, therefore they also teach the theology of the Coptic Hymns
Church rituals, feasts and rites are observed very obediently
Tasbe7a and asheya are prayed
They use Coptic Icons so they are also teaching Coptic Icon theology
All the Sacraments are taught and given and received
There's always solidarity with the whole Church (ie. any protests or political discussions that the Church chooses will have support from all the Churches)
Immigrants from Egypt are welcomed and encouraged to attend
Strong community love is expressed
In some churches there are Arabic missions too to cater to the arabic speakers and those who want to evangelize
Youth groups are awesome!!!
All conventions are supported and encouraged
The churches are involved in Mahragan al-keraza

And many more!!!

Also the churches also make sure teaching is pro-Coptic while being multicultural and using other Christian resources. Even if sometimes modern worship music is used outside the liturgy it is the same anyways in other Coptic churches and at conventions. If you go to the churches there is no Eastern Orthodox influence or teaching, rather Coptic teaching is always emphasized first. Again if some of the sources are of different material it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, the souls saved are in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

There is even corrective teaching on one of the many heresies of the Eastern Orthodox, where the EO claim that the humanity must be completely and totally dissolved in the divinity of God. If you looked I'm sure you could find at least twelve or more heresies but this one is the biggest one that needs to be addressed and it is important we tell people so that they're careful. Abouna recently spoke about this teaching and made clear distinction about where our Church differs in understanding: http://smsv.ca/sermons/partakers-divine-nature/

The talk is theological so I'm not sure where everyone is claiming that the mission churches don't have good Orthodox teaching. This kind of teaching and theological talk is also good because it keeps things Christian and not pluarlistic. And the teaching is simple so that people are not confused or caught up in theories. The Abounas are very well trained and they do defend the Coptic Church so why are we saying that they can't use other material, they have read it and if they teach it it's probably ok and safe right?

Plus instead of judging and being muta'3asib shouldn't people go and see and try to understand first? And they're also trying to save people so why should we object to that? If you saw a drowning person would you let them drown? would you stop someone from trying to save them just because they don't swim butterfly or backstroke but freestyle? Does it matter what technique we use? If the end goal is that someone is saved haven't the churches done their job? Plus if it were an issue the Synod would have said something.

minasoliman · July 2014

I don't understand this idea that the EOs believe "we are totally dissolved into the divine nature". If anything, I recently heard a talk by Fr. Bishoy Salama that completely misunderstands and denies deification. It is in my opinion some Coptic clergyman do not have an Orthodox understanding of deification. I talked about this in another area where I criticized the belief that the Holy Spirit only dwells in us by "works" and not the very hypostasis of the Holy Spirit Himself. The denial that the very hypostasis of the Holy Spirit dwells in us is to me heresy and a very serious issue. It simply means that any part in the Bible that mentions the dwelling of Christ or the Holy Spirit in our hearts, it doesn't really happen.

Furthermore, we do partake of the divine nature in a real way. Virtues lead us to partake of the divine nature, but virtues does not equate partaking of the divine nature. Some Coptic clergy seem to think that "partake of the divine nature" means "doing good deeds". That is completely false. Doing good deeds is a means to partaking of the divine nature. It was St. Athanasius himself who even said, by the Holy Spirit we are "interwoven into the Godhead". EOs simply repeat this idea, and then I hear Coptic clergy, the successors of St. Athanasius, accuse this language of "dissolving our nature into divinity"??? This is ridiculous, and it is actually a remnant of Protestant theology mixed into our Coptic Orthodox traditional thoughts. It is one of the reasons perhaps Bishop Suriel is very concerned about these so-called "missions".

cyril · July 2014

Are you sure the EO don't believe that? They say we will become gods.

HH Pope Shenouda III said

"That man becomes a god means that he becomes holy and infallible. That man becomes a god means that he is not created and is not subject to death; for God is eternal, without a beginning, and is immortal! Who then dare ascribe these attributes to man?!"

And could it be that the EO are misreading St Athanasius?

HH Pope Shenouda III (and I think Abouna refers to his books on the topic) also says:

"The Divinity of Christ is fought by one of two means: Either by lowering the Lord Christ to the level of a human being -as the Arians did; or by lifting mankind up to the level of Christ- as the advocates of deification do, or as said about the unity between a divine nature and a human nature on the Day of Pentecost! In this way there will be no difference between man and Christ, and the Divine Incarnation will not be the miracle that belongs solely to the Lord Christ; for the apostles, and thereupon the whole church, will have resembled Him in that."

So wasn't St Athanasius fighting the Arians and the wrong ideas about Christ?

And how does this apply to missions anyways? It's all theology. There are people who need saving and all these ideas like confuse people.

EsmoEpchois · July 2014

Thank you Remnkemi.

But Cyril, I sort of disagree with your point. Just because they still do things in the coptic tradition does not add or take away to their Orthodoxy. Someone please correct me if im wrong but although they may use the coptic tradition, if nobody understands and the priest doesn't think it's important to explain it, what use is that and how does that teach people about orthodoxy? Being coptic, to me at least, doesn't make me higher or less than any other oriental Orthodox Church.

I guess this brings me to the question, how would/can The Church add another church like American Orthodox? I saw on LAcopts.org they have a newly opened American Coptic Orthodox Church, what do you guys think of this? Can we ever have an American Orthodox Church?

ReturnOrthodoxy · July 2014

We can make the statement that Bishop David supports Abouna Antony. He said it himself. If, as you say, Rem, that implies he supports protestantism, so be it. And for the record, by calling Fr. Pishoy Salama the Pastor of his church, I was not at all trying to draw a connection between his Pseudo-Evangelical theology and the Evangelical term "pastor." I mean that as in the head priest of his church. I would rather just come out and say he is a protestant theologian.

Bishop David has, on more than one occasion, shown to play both sides of the field. Its like halftime of a soccer game sometimes. At times, he will be a stalwart defender of Orthodoxy. At other times... meh. Of all the things that discouraged me was (what I saw as a tactful play) to get Fr. Antony vindicated from the frequent attacks against him by Orthodox minded people. Bishop David hosted the one conference in 2012 where he invited Fr. John Behr as keynote. The next year, he invited Fr. Antony Messeh. Note that while one is an Orthodox Father with the mind, spirit, and heart of Cyril the Great, the other is not (he may be holy, but not an Orthodox theologian.) By inviting one after the other, it gives the illusion that Fr. Antony and Fr. John are comparable. The both are equipped to keynote an inter-orthodox discussion of bright minded, theologically driven individuals. This turned me off tremendously from attending the One Conference.

@minasoliman

Deification is not spoken of in our churches except by those valiant older priests who have experienced the truth of deification before it could be corrupted in the past years. A woman asked me after liturgy once if I could let her sick son wear Abouna's tonia after liturgy for blessing. When she told me he took communion, I asked her, "What will cloth do for him that the divinity which runs through his veins?" I was smacked by Abouna who asked me how I could every say that we eat divinity when communing.

RO

cyril · July 2014

Thanks EsmoEpchois.

Doesn't Coptic Theology teach itself. Like singing the hymns has theology in the notes? It's a mystical and mysterious thing which is why the mission churches keep it too and they are preserving Coptic tradition.

cyril · July 2014

ReturnOrthodoxy would you say that people connected with Fr Anthony more? And people didn't get all the theological stuff that Fr John was speaking about? Wasn't there a bigger turn out the year after Fr John came? More people probably found Abouna's talk more practical and relatable so they might have gotten deeper in their relationship with God. All that theology and academic stuff just takes away from simple piety no?

minasoliman · July 2014

Dear Cyril,

Yes, God became man so that men might become gods. Christ said "Ye are gods". St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, the Cappadocian fathers all said this. St. Ephrem the Syrian said, "He gave us divinity, we gave Him humanity." And yes, man does become holy. Do we not call each other "saints"? Do we not say "the Holy for the holies"? We participate in God's eternal nature. We are to share in incorruption, which makes us protected from death.

Proponents of "anti-deification" have two problems and roots of the problems of their theological fight. One is an Islamic concept of divinity. The other is the Western-Protestant concept that agrees with this Islamic concept. This Protestant concept is also a Nestorian concept, also a forerunner of Islam. To deny deification is to be a Nestorian. Why do you think our Church fathers reject Chalcedon? If Christ is not one, we cannot be one with God. If Christ's humanity is not a vehicle by which the fullness of the Godhead is made communicable to us, we cannot say as St. Paul said, that we are "filled with the measure of all the fullness of God."

The difference between us and God is that we are not by nature holy, incorruptible, or divine. Christ is by nature these attributes. We on the other hand do receive these blessings of the divinity in us, and we partake of it freely inasmuch as we do it "through Christ Jesus our Lord". By grace, we receive the Holy Spirit to dwell in us as it eternally dwells in Christ our Lord by His very being. The distinction is the word "grace". We do not become equal to God by nature. We do not lose our created nature, but we do acknowledge that we partake of the uncreated gift of the Holy Spirit, blessing us to be sons of the Most High, that we may be worthy to say "Abba Father" to our God.

cyril · July 2014

Thank you minasoliman. Isn't accepting deification more Nestorian because the EO teach it and they accepted Chalcedon? Also if the EO say that humanity is dissolved isn't that monophysitism?

Also are you suggesting grace is deification? Isn't it just an unmerited gift? Grace is being saved from wrath of God and covered by the Blood.

Again how does this idea which the EO have apply to mission? Isn't it safer not to think about these things like natures and terms and just focus on salvation?

minasoliman · July 2014

I have read some of the accusations made against EOs. Most of these accusations, as is attested even by the teachings of EOs themselves, are baseless and gross misreading of the texts. Simply thought, if one reads the Alexandrian Church fathers based on these accusations, one would be scandalized by them because they had different comprehension of thought about the divinity.

The divine nature is not something we can be equal to. We cannot essentially become divine. Our nature does not change, but is glorified with the divine nature. It bothers me how many people misunderstand this and then accuse people of saying that we "consume" or "eat" the divine nature. That is completely far from the truth and not at all what is being said. People who believe in deification do not equate our level with the level of Christ based on divinity. Christ our God is in level with us however because we are fully consubstantial with Him in His humanity. Thus, the blessings He accomplished in His own human nature He accomplishes in ALL human nature.

It is a great embarrassment that many Coptic clergy say this, especially clergyman who do lead "mission churches", and we need to return to the Church fathers for this to be rectified. Sadly, either we are called "extremists" or "new ageists", which is simply their straw man arguments.

minasoliman · July 2014

Is grace an unmerited gift? Yes! But what is this gift? The gift is God Himself dwelling in us. The grace of God is the presence of God, by which we react in various ways. Read Fr. Tadros Malaty's book "the grace of God". So yes, grace=deification

Deification is also taught by our anti-Chalcedonian fathers as well. The reason why we are pursuing unity with Chalcedonians is that despite some of the polemics against Chalcedon, they ended up confessing the "one Christ" in agreement with the theology of St. Cyril. And St. Cyril is also a strong proponent of deification. It's all over his writings. The fact that they have a strong tradition of deification protects them from Nestorianizing tendencies.

cyril · July 2014

Wow. That means we have to reevaluate mission theory I think....and also how we see the EO

If this teaching is correct then it also impacts how we understand salvation! And that means that also impacts how we do and live and understand mission.

minasoliman · July 2014

I invite you to read this thread, where I have provided patristic evidence, and this only skims the surface.

http://tasbeha.org/community/index.php?p=/discussion/14739/oopnevma-vs-pipnevma/p1

cyril · July 2014

minasoliman I should probably actually try reading St Cyril one day since I'm using his blessed name as my forum handle and all :s

You know the old joke that says, "sure we honour the fathers but Je Nai Nan if we have to actually read what they wrote!"

:p

cyril · July 2014

So a sort of related, sort of off thread question:

What DOES the teaching of deification mean for Orthodox mission?

Remnkemi · July 2014

Cyril, are you trying to press mina's buttons? Rather than diverting the talk here on missionary, maybe someone can reference the last thread since we discussed already. But suffice it to say Orthodoxy is theosis. No one is misreading St Athanasius.

Secondly, your list of missionary activities only proves my point that missionary churches are nothing more than "non-missinary churches" just labelled erroneously. The problem is not the existence of missionary churches, but the need and perpetuation of missionary churches as something separate or different than traditional Coptic Churches. It seems to me that everyone wants to define missionary churches as one or more of the following:

1. Acultural Coptic Churches. Put another way, non-Coptic Coptic Churches.

2. Field work churches with a specialization in love of neighbor

3. Independent church not subject to a diocesan authority but the patriarch himself. (this is actually listed in one of those websites)

4. Charismatic anti-traditional churches that want to shift focus of Orthodoxy.

I think #1 is so idiotic, it doesn't deserve an answer. But this is the core of arguments against traditional churches and church services. It is actually very unbiblical and very malignant when you examine it deeper. Acultural churches (regardless of location) is anti-Christian. Christ came to be part of humanity, to be part of a culture, to be like us in every way except sin. We want churches for the non-Egyptian only. How can we say we have communion if we separate ourselves because cultural purism.

#2 is also a misunderstanding of God's love and a misunderstanding of ecclesiology. I already explained why this is a fallacy but people seem to believe that is how missionary churches are supposed to work.

#3 is interesting. It illustrates the idea where some believe that missionary churches are not subject to a diocese but the patriarch. They fail to see that such thinking divides the Church against itself. The reality is all churches are missionary and ecclesiastical authority is an issue that has nothing to do with missionology. It only comes up when someone wants to subvert ecclesiastical authority (which is a defining characteristic of Protestantism).

#4 does not need any additional information. I simply reiterate that Charismatic anti-church customs are malignancies. It's time to call it for what it is.

EsmoEpchois · July 2014

Remnkemi, what is your opinion on the British Orthodox Church? Why can they not have the same thing in America? Just want to see your reasons and stuff

cyril · July 2014

Thanks Remnkemi, la la minasoliman answered it beautifully and the question of this teaching is raising questions about what Orthodox Mission is...

That's also such an interesting statement that "Orthodoxy is theosis"

minasoliman, would you consider expanding on that thread with more patristic sources?

Remnkemi · July 2014

I believe the development of the British Orthodox Church into the Coptic Orthodox Church was based on much more complex issues than a simple missionary projects. The BOC was never meant to be Coptic, but British Orthodoxy under the umbrella of Coptic Apostolic succession. Should it happen in America? I'm not sure. I don't see the benefit of it and there are complex undertones that would occur. For example, an American Coptic Orthodox Church would not need to come under Apostolic succession, since it already has it. So what is the point. It seems to me that one would advocate an American Orthodox Church in order to be separated from their Egyptian counterpart. This leads to division, not salvation. In addition, once separated, it is all the more easy to adopt more liberal and foreign teachings and customs. Since this already happening in the COC, why bother with separate churches? It's like having a Cairene Orthodox Church separate from an Upper Egyptian Orthodox Church because both see Alexandrian Copts as aliens. It is idiotic at this level. And I think the BOC is suffering in this respect. But an American Coptic Orthodox Church may have other benefits that I can't see myself.

EsmoEpchois · July 2014

That makes a lot of sense, thank you.

minasoliman · July 2014

The BOC started as a mission from the Syrian Orthodox Church in the 1800s, and grew quite successfully, with some revival of ancient Celtic Christian traditions and saints. They then lost communication with the Syrian Church. Communion was reestablished under the Coptic Orthodox Church. The problem is the ecclesiology being promoted by the Coptic Church now separates the BOC and the Coptic dioceses, while in the same geographical areas, under different racial groups. This is something that is not commendable, but it is a problem that is not only existent in the Coptic Church, but in other Orthodox churches as well that try to resolve different racial entities immigrating into the West. The problems we face is that when we racially divide Christians, we are already making it okay to say that a Church can be made under a race, and that is how we get the false dichotomy of "mission Church" and "Coptic Church." The BOC was there before the Coptic Church was, so in my personal opinion, any Coptic Church established should be under the leadership and auspices of His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim.

cyril · July 2014

That's a good point. (Also the idea of having one metropolitan or bishop from the Oriental family oversee all the local Oriental Orthodox Churches would be fascinating. Like first of the sister families to be established would then oversee the pastoral care for all others, no parallel jurisdictions :) )

"Inculturation is the planting of the gospel, the seed, the presence of Christ, in the unique soil of new culture, and allowing it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to mature at its own pace, to produce ultimately a new, indigenous church."
Fr Michael J. Oleska, Evangelism and Culture, http://www.fatheroleksa.org/

But the denominational/jurisdictional idea sort of resists formation of an indigenous Church no?

"If one is in a permanent state of Diaspora, there can be no compelling reason to have unity, since one's real home is somewhere else....Denominations, like the transplanted national churches from which they originate, he said, “are separated and kept distinct [more] by differences of language and of habitual modes of thought” than by “physical traits, and the former are only incidentally rooted in the latter.”..Nationalism in the churches when they are transported to America is the seed from which sprouts the denomination."

"The American denomination is frequently the “religious” residue of the disappearing ethnic church."
http://www.writeurl.com/publish/xqeeisnjokhcob2zcith

Also if you look at the list mentioned before, the Mission Churches are very Coptic and share many things as other Coptic Orthodox Churches and they keep the traditions. They are not a new denomination or indigenous church but are Coptic Orthodox and are expanding on behalf of the Church using whatever means that makes that expansion more accessible.

mabsoota · July 2014

remnkemi,

this:

"You're missing the point. It is not simple is better. Rather the simplicity is a layer of the complex theology. They are one and the same. Taeta and Gido know the hymns therefore they know complex theology (without knowing they know it). And by living a theology, they are therefore saintly. You are correct in that they don't need to have all arguments and big terms. But you are incorrect in stating Taeta and Gido are not theologians. They are, simply by the fact that they partake of the Eucharist and recite theology in the prayers. Their lex orandi is their lex credendi. We cannot separate theology from hymnology, piety from intellectuality, faith from deeds.

But what about the question of not worrying about the means as long as the people love God? Like as long as we're bringing them to the Church it doesn't matter what material we use right? As long as the means are not sinful of course and can be identified as Christian.

This is the fallacy of modernity. Pluarlism is heresy. The point of the Gospel is not merely to include everyone regardless of the means. After all, even Christ was adamant that faith was integral in reaching eternal life. Had Christ only cared to bring everyone to God only, he would not have stood firm in John 6 about the Bread of Life. In fact, when most of his disciples left, he invited the 12 to leave also. Rather, the goal of missionology is to invite everyone to journey on the narrow road leading to eternal life, finding comfort and freedom in that choice through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is how one is identified as Christian. It is not to make the road wider to include everyone. This in essence makes the road "wide and leading to destruction". "

and your previous post are golden posts. this is exactly the issue.

the hymns and the church life teach vital and correct theology, even if those who sing them do not fully understand it.

but i don't like too much discussion about 'this bishop says this' and 'that priest teches that' as we are not always the best people to give theological guidance to our leaders.

the best things we can do is always to bring orthodox hymns and theology to be shared and to live a good orthodox Christian life; loving one another and praying for our enemies.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

orthodox mission

Comments