I'd like to hear from others who felt disenchanted with the Orthodox experience and how the came to Anglicanism.
It's probably very rare because the churches are so similar. Maybe one of the biggest differences across the board is veneration of relics and deceased saints in Orthodoxy, but I suppose you could be an Orthodox and just not do the veneration. In other words, you wouldn't be compelled to venerate them. It seems like just this one issue would not be strong enough to push someone out. John Wesley, who remained Anglican (although the progenitor of Methodism), even boasted that an Orthodox bishop, Erasmus, had made him a cleric. Had the churches been so strongly different, I think Wesley would not have boasted of this. Erasmus of Arcadia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_of_Arcadia
I'm one such, from long ago. I got incredibly turned off by the non-intellectual theology among the EO, really an absence of a theology altogether, absence of any kind of apologetics or engagement with reason or science, coupled with a high and incredibly overbearing clericalism. It didnt help that they often teach heresy, deny original sin, and in the past have tried to canonize Pelagius (I kid you not).
Perhaps you found non-intellectual theology amongst the EO you were with, but I have certainly read some very intellectual theology in various articles and on various EO forums that I have been on. You say they teach heresy, they would say that Anglicans are heterodox - although in much I have read, they do make a distinction between heterodoxy and heresy. By all means say what you did not find comfortable about Orthodoxy, what you did not like about the worship or the clerical hierarchy and what you did not agree with, but be careful how you phrase things - "they often teach heresy, deny original sin" - if you read the Orthodox beliefs carefully, you will find a lot of differences are in the way concepts are expressed and, as another poster says in his posts, there is more that unites us than keeps us apart. If you visit any Orthodox forums you will find many Anglicans who have become Orthodox for a variety of similar reasons - it works both ways. No Church is perfect. No Church's teachings will be the full/whole truth. RC, EO, Anglican will all have nominal members and even regular members and who believe something different to what that Church says in its official doctrines or Priests/Vicars/Lay members who interpret those doctrines differently. Different Anglican Churches (low, high in the UK) have different beliefs. I am not a Calvinist, but some Anglicans on this forum are - difference in belief. I prefer liturgical worship, some evangelical Anglicans think this is stifling individual espression in Church worship. There are, indeed, differences in belief between EO and Anglicanism, but just as often there are differences in interpretation that may not be as important as they might first seem when you get underneath them. And yes, I do understand that EO do not have the same interpretation of Original Sin as Anglicans and RC, and do not call it Original Sin, but they do believe that because of Adam all men sin.
You also say the tried to canonize Pelagius - I'm sure they probably did as you will have researched this. Whilst I can't, through lack of knowledge, immediately quote something back that Anglicans have done or thought to do that would have been wrong, I am sure there are examples out there! I am a regular member of an Anglican Church.
I guess one of the things about EO that never seemed right to me, was a total lack of outreach to the unsaved, those who do not know and follow the Lord . It seems the EO main area of focus is bringing other Christians, non-EO, into Orthodoxy. What about the lost sinners? Shouldn't they be a top priority? The other Christians know the Lord,maybe they lack the "fullness of the faith"but they are Christians! Bringing Christ to a broken world should take precedent over bringing one's Church to other Christians who are not of said church. It may not be like that everywhere but that is the case in my neck of the woods.
Theology in the western sense of the term, of building a system of doctrine on the basis of revelation, doesn't exist in Eastern Orthodoxy to the best of my knowledge. If you can find widely-read and well-respected books of systematic exposition of doctrine, from prolegomena to central hypotheses, employing exegesis and interpretation to produce a whole logically-consistent body of doctrine, which then outpours into social and personal and moral ramifications -- if you can show me something like that, which is bread and butter in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Romanism, then I'd have to amend my post. What I think you'll find among the EO is a lot of esoteric and in-crowd language -- all that talk about apophasis, and Gregory Palamas, and hesychasm, but that's not theology in the systematic sense in which the word is used. Sure. We have lots of issues in our camp that come out of the confrontation with modernism, and liberals within our own walls pose a danger no doubt. However I can clearly identify a Western liberal Christian and know that he speaks no truth. Are you as comfortable as identifying an 800-year old EO belief as not being true? The antiquity of some EO errors is such that it is now a core of their identity. For example this rejection of original sin. Or this rejection of theology. There was a time, in the period of John of Damascus, when the EO still understood and believed in the fruits of having a theology, but with the advent of Gregory Palamas the EO train of thought becomes subverted by mysticism, apophasis and unreason. Oh I'm not trying to say the EO are totally bad or anything. Obviously Islam is much worse... I'm just conveying my reasons for why I'm not an EO... right, isn't that what the OP asked? --- Yeah this ties directly with my point about the absence of apologetics. The EO don't know HOW to bring someone into the Church, because they don't believe in the appeal to reason or proof. The highest expression of EO evangelism is to withdraw even deeper within, to start a monastery somewhere, to start praying even more incantations of the Jesus Prayer and whatnot. An outward expression of the faith, a contest of wits where the EO theologian emerges supreme, has very little precedent in all of the EO history. When the people turn against them, the EO roundly surrender and retreat, as eg. in the Soviet period. If you don't believe that you can actually speak to others, that your faith has reasons, and that the other person must accept them... why and how can you evangelize?
Hello, Christina. Based on various comments Stalwart made on this thread (like claiming Orthodox have "really an absence of a theology altogether"), can you really make this assumption? For example, if the Orthodox, pre-schism church collectively wanted to canonize Pelagius, and collectively tried to do so, what would have stopped them? In order to make such a claim, it seems one would have to say that the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria supported this, or their Christian populations did collectively. But does that seem likely? "Pelagius and Caelestius were declared heretics by the First Council of Ephesus in 431." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius#Pope_Zosimus This is an ecumenical council of the EO church. One would do well to have major skepticism about unfamiliar hostile claims, against Orthodoxy or for that matter against Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism, particularly by "Reformed"-leaning Protestants.
Hello, Christina. Based on various comments Stalwart made on this thread (like claiming Orthodox have "really an absence of a theology altogether"), can you really make this assumption? For example, if the Orthodox, pre-schism church collectively wanted to canonize Pelagius, and collectively tried to do so, what would have stopped them? In order to make such a claim, it seems one would have to say that the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria supported this, or their Christian populations did collectively. But does that seem likely? "Pelagius and Caelestius were declared heretics by the First Council of Ephesus in 431." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius#Pope_Zosimus This is an ecumenical council of the EO church. One would do well to have major skepticism about unfamiliar hostile claims, against Orthodoxy or for that matter against Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism, particularly by "Reformed"-leaning Protestants.
You know, just on another thread today on the forum I commented on a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who had studied at St Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary. Not sure what he did all that time if they had no "theology altogether". Also rather odd to hear from an Anglican that the Church Fathers do not count as "theology". My understanding was that the Church Fathers and Church Tradition were a major authority in Anglicanism.
There was an attempt to canonize him in Greece a few years ago. Come on, you know this. You can consult the degree requirements for an Mdiv on the SVOTS own page: http://www.svots.edu/master-divinity-mdiv It is topics like Liturgics, Church History, some reading from the Bible, and Pastoral counseling. In other words everything other than theology, the Study of Revelation. Concepts such as prolegomena, exegesis, logic, dogma, normative value ethics don't form a core part of the curriculum. This also help explain the lack in apologetics. Once you banish reason, logic, and structure from your belief system, you cannot explain or prove it to the unbelievers.
I wouldn't even attempt to answer all the points you raise, but I expect if you were to post this on an EO forum, you would get a lot of responses! There is a guy called Eric Jobe that I have come across - will find a link to his blogs, which he debates with both Orthodox and non - who has studied Orthodox theology. Funnily enough I fell away from the Anglican Church for many years, what brought me back to God now was the outreach of St Aidan's Orthodox Church in Manchestee UK - look st their website. Their Orthodocy for Absoulte Beginners has a section on Witness and outreach. I know that this may not be typical of all EO Churches. I appreciate you were conveying your thoughts - but heresy? Surely EO built doctrine from the Church Fathers and the 7 ecumenical councils? Their doctrine essentially hasn't changed. There are some things that you can't have a doctrine about as we just don't know and when Christians debate the matter they come up with different views or doctrines.
Yeah heresy is a very extreme accusation. I can't think of anything the EO teaches that is even remotely heretical. After all, they adhere to all the Councils' Christological definitions.
There's a lot more to heresy than Christology, though. Think of it this way, if you came along and said hey, you don't believe in the definition of Original Sin, saying that now it means "X", some new definition, that would be heresy. The same should apply to the EO. Or likewise on the hesychasm which was condemned as a Quietist/Quakerite heresy in the west. Or, their approach to reason, which if not heretical is at least heterodox, because it prohibits any systematic formulation of doctrine. Literally, try this experiment, as @jay says, go to a nearby EO priest and ask him to demonstrate to you the whole body of EO belief and doctrine, beginning from atheism and ending with a proof of the finest points of EO belief... he couldn't do it. In the West we know how to do it, that's how/why we combat atheism and evangelize the world. Not really. I'm not trying to paint them as really bad, just pointing out their problems and why I am not one of them. In my experience their doctrine is built on Gregory Palamas and some other Late-Byzantine thinkers, with very little rooted in the likes of St. Basil or St. Cyril or Athanasius. Historic Anglicanism is much more based in the Fathers, the Greek as well as the Latin. Not for nothing was Bishop William Laud called the Anglican Cyprian. The Church Fathers were systematic and logical, and the ecumenical councils are examples of that mighty intellect on full display. Today's EO, even if gathered all together, wouldn't be able to craft the same creeds or the council canons, because of a very different approach to mental precision from what the Fathers had. For example, in the Creeds: "...Begotten, NOT made..." "...Being of one SUBSTANCE..." Hypostatic union. Homoousion. Perichoresis. What are all these terms and distinctions? The fathers had them all defined, in a systematic hierarchy of doctrine from top to bottom. Just as the Western church today still does. But the Eastern church no longer thinks this way. Anyway, I don't really want to get into a whole discussion... I'm merely answering OP's point of why I'm not an EO and what the problems I perceive to be in it are.
Christina, You may note that a few messages ago Stalwart said that St Vladimir's doesn't include theology in its requirements for graduating and gave a link. If you actually go to the link you see the requirements: 《《 15 credits in 100-level “foundational” theology courses: Church History 110, Liturgical Art 101, Liturgical Theology 102, New Testament 102, Old Testament 100, Pastoral Theology 101, and Spirituality 101. These courses serve as introductions to the fields in question. They are designed to provide sufficient background for all higher-level courses. 33 credits in 200-level courses, which include higher-level courses in the academic areas mentioned above and courses relating to the practice of ministry: Applied Theology (Canon Law 203, Christian Education 204, Homiletics 204, Homiletics 205, Pastoral Theology 205, Pastoral Theology 208), Biblical Studies (New Testament 203), Historical Studies (Church History 200, Patristics 204), and Systematic Theology (Systematic Theology 201, Systematic Theology 202). 》》 Note also how he said before that the EO Church tried to canonize Pelagius, who is banned by the council of ephesus. Now he is just saying that there was "an" attempt "in" Greece, rather than the Greek church actually trying to do this. This is why you need major skepticism about high claims by Reformed depicting EO or RC beliefs, even though sometimes their claims about RCS are ones we agree on. It is kind of like Joseph Smith making claims about Mormonism, or Jack Chick tracts, or charismatics teaching prosperity gospel if you give them 1000$. They enjoy making up claims, in this case defamatory ones against EOs.
I've never been a member of Orthodoxy, so I'll bow out of the conversation so as not to get far off topic. But to address the "heresy" of Orthodoxy denying original sin, here's something that might be helpful: "The consequences of this revolt against God, which the West calls "original" and the East "ancestral" (propatorikon) sin, are that man lost his original innocence; the image of God in him was tarnished, and even became distorted; man's reason was obscured, his will weakened, the desires and passions of the flesh grew wild; man suffered separation from God, the author and source of life. He put himself in an inauthentic kind of existence, close to death. The Fathers speak of "spiritual death" which is the cause of the physical one, and which may lead to the "eschatological," eternal death: for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6: 23)." -From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038
To Stalwart To be honest, I'm not sure I really even understand some of what you trying to say - I'm not being rude, just honest. "Proof of the finest points of EO belief"? I don't think any Church can give "proof "of the finer points of their beliefs - only now they have arrived at them. And, as mentioned before, different Anglican Churches have different beliefs anyway. But, as you say this is really another discussion as Jay asked the question why others had left the EO Church and I understand your basic answer to this question, given in the first paragraph of your first post in this thread, as the reason why you left, as this is how you found the EO Church(es) you attended.
Thanks CWJ. As far as I am concerned we all agree that man sins and that it is only because of Christ's victory over sim and death on the cross and by.His resurrection that man can have salavation and eternal life - that's enough for me! However, the difference in belief, from articles I have read, seems to be: EO Ancenstral sin - humanity inherited the consequences of Adam's sin only and not his guilt. Original sin - humanity inherited the consequences of both Adam's sin and Adam's guilt. If you are interested in reading more about this, try this - https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...riginal-and-ancestral-sin-a-brief-comparison/ It is an orthodox resource and I am sure that there are probably RC or Protestant resources coming st the discussion from another point of view.
Stalwart Here's the link to Eric Jobe's blogs I mentioned. http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/ Described as a Biblical Studies Blog exploring the intersection of modern academia and Orthodox Theology.