Tradition!

I have been participating in a conversation with a gentleman named Derek Oullette, found in the comments thread of this blog post. Derek's background is very similar to mine, and he still remains within the ambit of Arminian Evangelicalism. This particular conversation has ended, at least there, either because of the software involved or because Derek chose to cut off further comments. Well, having my own blog and, not being afraid to use it, I will continue the conversation here, and Derek, you are of course, most welcome to resume it here as well; other readers are also invited to join in if you would like.

Also, Derek, thank you for inspiring me to write another post here.

Derek, your last statement is to quote an aphorism often attributed, as you do, to Augustine of Hippo: "“In the essentials, unity. In the nonessentials, liberty. In all things, love”

Well, we of course agree on the priority of love. One should not call onself a Christian and disagree with that. After all, "GOD IS love." However, at the same time, we are called to "speak the truth in love."

Thus, I intend to continue to speak what I understand to be the truth, justifying my reasons for holding the positions that I do, "the hope that is within me," and yes, doing so in love. "The love of Christ constrains us" and "Woe is me if I do not preach the good news." But, beyond that, this aphorism really solves nothing. In the Preface to Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes, "One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point 'really matters' and the other replies: 'Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."

So, yes: I hold that these questions are essential, and in this I am in agreement with the four communions of Churches which can trace their ancestry directly back to the Apostles and their missions. These are: the two forms of Orthodoxy, Byzantine and Non-Chalcedonian; the Roman Catholic Church; and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Each of these also has certain off-shoots, schisms which, unlike virtually all of Protestantism, has largely preserved the faith and practice of its parent. I am a priest in an off-shoot of the non-Chalcedonian Indian Orthodox Church.) A great portion of Anglicanism would agree as well.

Of course, this begs the question: Why? WHY are these matters essential? Short answer: because God is communitarian and humanity, created in the image and likeness of God, is called to be a full and authentic community as well. Now, being a community requires that its members be SOCIAL, integrally related one to another. Thus, becoming a Christian in the full and complete sense of that word requires that one be a member of a visible, historical, social community which is, in fact, the re-creation of humanity as spiritual kindred of the "Son of Adam" (the "last Adam") and the "Second Eve." Christianity is not a "me and Jesus", a "me and God alone" religion any more than humanity is merely a collection of separate individuals. St. Paul writes that Christians "are members one of another". This is so because, first, the Divine Persons are "members one of another" and therefore, all of humanity is created for this end as well.

Again, these questions are: that of the nature and status of the Church and the status of its leadership; that of whether or not one is regenerated by the waters of baptism; that of the status of the consecrated bread and wine of the Lord's Supper; and the question of what Jesus means in John 20:21-23. We can also include here the need for a full account of what is prescribed in James 5:14-15: who are the "presbyters" mentioned here? How are they chosen? What is the criteria? Who ordains them and how? How is it that forgiveness of sins is connected with a ritual given for physical healing? On what basis can all of these questions be answered? And so on.

The original references from the New Testament, each addressing one (or more) of these questions, are as follows: Matthew 10:40; Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 18:18; Mathew 28:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 3:5; John 6:35-58; John 13:20; John 20:22-23; Acts 2:37-38; Romans 6:1-6; I Corinthians 10:1-22 (especially I Corinthians 10:16-21); I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 1:22-23; Ephesians 5:26; I Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:5; I Peter 3:21.

I'm kind of working backward here in dealing with Derek's last comment, but I am going to skip over the matter of "haughtiness" for a moment and take up the question of the Creeds. Derek makes what is usually considered a self-evident statement, that the Creeds (or, more precisely, THE Creed, that of Nicea-Constantinople), "have been agreed upon by ALL CHRISTENDOM, not just one wing. Those Creeds reflect the core convictions of Christianity and for that reason I take it for granted that they are in union with the Scriptures."

Okay, however: there are those who profess faith in Christ but who do not accept the Creed: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Oneness Pentecostals. We can say, as I would tend to do, that precisely because they reject the Creed, these groups are not fully and authentically Christian. I of course leave their judgment, both as to persons and communities, to Christ. However, there is an inevitable circularity there if we are going to deny that these folks are Christian. There are others who, while (usually) being at least tacitly Trinitarian, reject the notion of creeds altogether, their slogan often being, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent."

And, even, among all those who do accept the Creed, there are differences. The Filioque, for example, is perhaps the best known, largely dividing the Roman Catholic and Protestant West from the Orthodox and Assyrian East. However, when the two types of Orthodox, Roman Catholics, members of the Assyrian Church of the East, and many Anglicans profess a belief in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" they all mean something quite different from what Lutherans, Calvinists, and other Protestants mean.

While there are some disagreements between the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and the Assyrians these groups agree about the Church 95% over against the diverse opinions found within Protestantism (and the Orthodox and the Church of the East usually agree with each other over against Rome). Confession of faith in "one baptism for the remission of sins" always carries differences in meaning between those who accept the original doctrine of baptismal regeneration and those who do not.

So, it cannot really be said that all Christendom professes the Creed or that even, all who do mean exactly the same thing in doing so. And this, of course, is where the difficulties lie. You state, Derek, that the Church Fathers are of diverse opinions. I deny that the Fathers are of diverse opinions when it comes to the central questions I raise above.

That is, all of the Fathers hold that the Church is a visible historical, organization, continuous in time and space and that, however this is specified, she is infallible, meaning that if one lives within her and follows her path, one will surely be saved in all senses of that word. "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Further, the councils all presume this as well.

The same is true regarding all the other questions. On these matters, the Fathers all agree, as do the four communions mentioned above which trace their ancestry directly to the Apostles and their missionary efforts. And guess what? To a one extent or another, Protestantism, and especially, Evangelicalism, disagrees with the four iterations of the Apostolic Tradition on these matters.

Which brings us back to the beginning of Derek's last comment. I have proposed that the passages I have cited really require very little interpretation. However, I ask, if they do require interpretation, upon what basis are we to interpret them? I then suggest that authorial intent and historical context would be the proper way of understanding these passages as with any other work of literature, and this means, when dealing with the New Testament, that we have to interpret them according to the Tradition in that it is the Tradition which seals the canon of the Old Testament and which gives us both the New Testament documents and the New Testament canon itself.

Derek responds to this by, first, saying that he does not want to chuck his brain at the Church door, and with this I agree, although I would add the caveat that the first task of anyone following Christ is not primarily a task of the intellect, but of the heart and body. (See below.) He also writes, " I see Scripture (i.e. the divinely inspired Word of God or we could word it another way: The authority of God exercised through the Scriptures – which is all saying the same thing) as primary in that Tradition must always be weighted against it and if ever found wanting, must be open to correction."

Okay, but give me an example. Where do you find Tradition wanting vis-a-vis the Scriptures? I do not know of such a place. Quite the opposite. If you cannot give me an example of this being a problem, then the question is moot, is it not? Derek wants to follow the Berean method of Acts 17:11. But this must presume that Scripture speaks clearly (as evidently it does not do so completely here: what precisely are "these things" and how did the Bereans verify them from the Old Testament?); otherwise, we have two hermeneutic problems, not just one. However, if one uses the rest of the Tradition, including the Creed (the "rule", or "canon", "of faith"), the decisions of the Councils (especially Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus), the content of the historic liturgies (the "canon of prayer"), and the writings of the Fathers, to interpret the Bible, then one is going to be certain of giving the Bible its just due. The Bible is like the bricks of a building. The rest of the Tradition is the mortar. This addresses the need that we all have, as with the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8:26-40, that someone guide us as we read (vs. 30-31).

For Orthodox Christians, regardless of nationality or any other distinguishing feature, it is all about the Tradition. We define the Tradition as the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Church "leading it into all truth", and we indeed point, first, to the Bible (in its full canon, not the truncated Protestant canon) as the cornerstone and primary statement of this Tradition. However, we understand the rest of the Tradition, especially the Creed and the liturgies, to be as inspired of the Holy Spirit as the Bible itself. The fathers are secondary, yet indispensable witnesses, especially with regard to the application of the Tradition in the lives of Christians as they live it out within the Church.

So what is left to be thought about? Well, for example: "how shall we then live?" How is the good news in all its fullness to be presented in the here and now? How can the classical doctrines of the faith be restated so that their relevance is made clear to people who think in categories very different from those of the first five centuries, or even the first millenium of the Christian era? For Orthodox Christianity, doctrine is always practical. It is always related to salvation, to the communion of humans, of humanity, first, with the Triune God and then, between human persons. IOW, there is no need to reinvent the wheel of the Tradition, just as there is no need to re-write the Bible. What is necessary is putting that wheel to its highest and best use.

Then, of course, there is the question of sorting, as Vladyka Kallistos Ware puts it, "patristic wheat from patristic chaff". A closely related question has to do with distinguishing the Tradition from traditionS. The latter is complicated by the fact that traditionS, or customs, are what, in a sense, incarnate the Tradition. Thus, while one must distinguish, in theory, between the human and the Divine in Christ, one can quickly find that in so doing, the understanding of both essences is distorted.

So anyway, Derek, are you looking for some intellectual stimulation in the theological area? Got just the book for ya: It is called Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. (Unfortunately, it is apparently out of print; I found you the best price that I could.)

But beyond that, harking back to the question of what has priority, the intellect or the heart, while walking the Christian path, let me, expanding upon C. S. Lewis, offer the following suggestions to all, including both Derek and myself:

• Spend at least as much time praying as you do reading.
• Do not neglect fasting and alms-giving. They too are integral Christian disciplines.
• For every contemporary piece that you read, read two ancient pieces; this was Lewis' original recommendation upon which I am troping.
• For every secular piece that you read, read two by Christian authors.
• For every Protestant, Anglican, or Roman Catholic work that you read, read two Orthodox works.

This is applicable always, but deserves all the extra effort that one can give it during Lent.

Now, let me return to the question of "haughtiness". This is, I guess, in the eye of the beholder, and if you, Derek, feel that I am being haughty, I am sorry. That is certainly not my intention, and I do not feel that I have been writing out of such a spirit. (Albeit I have been a bit in your face if you identify yourself completely and personally with Evangelicalism. I am criticizing a theology, not any person, including you, Derek.) I have not said, nor have I thought or felt, as I myself have heard directed at me from other sources, at least in effect, "You ain't really Orthodox, so you ain't shit." Since Derek is presumably baptized and accepts the Creed, I consider him a brother in Christ. And Derek, because of this, we would indeed welcome you, invite you, URGE you even, to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament with us.

Further, I myself grew up in a spiritual millieu quite similar to his. I understand, I think, that Derek, having not yet experienced a conscious and felt need for the sacraments, has also not yet heard the call of the New Testament to live a sacramental life within a Christian community that, according to historical and Traditional standards, can call itself a ["local" or "particular"] "Church" in the full creedal and, dare I say, Biblical sense of that term.

Personally, I heard this call and experienced this need and desire at a very early age, but there were all kinds of roadblocks, existential, intellectual, and familial, which prevented me from really beginning that journey until age 19.

In any event, Derek, please know that this conversation is, for me, all about "speaking the truth in love", the truth as I have come to understand it, and as justified by, yes, the Tradition (and, in this case, that includes the experience of all who have walked this Orthodox and Catholic path before me).

I believe, I KNOW, that you, Derek, and your compatriots, are missing out on the authentic, experiential aspect of walking the Christian path in a community that is fully and authentically Church, that is called to be, and already is, an Ikon of the Most Blessed and All-Holy Trinity. If that is haughty, I am sorry. I did not create this situation. I am its beneficiary, but that through no goodness of my own. I am, with St. Paul, the "chief of sinners". "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner."

An Evangelical Appreciates "Theosis"

(Phiro tip to Orthodixie)

Evangelical scholar James R. Payton Jr., professor of history at Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ontario, has published a piece in Christianity Today entitled, “Keeping the End in View: How the strange yet familiar doctrine of theosis can invigorate the Christian life”. He is also author of Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition, published by IVP Academic.

My reaction to this article is profoundly mixed. It is good, of course, whenever anyone, especially an Evangelical, says nice things about Orthodox Christianity and the patristic tradition in general, and it is to be hoped, may it please God, that Payton’s writing here will inspire many CT readers to further investigate the apostolic Christian faith in its Eastern and Orthodox iterations. Further, to be fair, perhaps Payton’s book length presentation is more complete. One hopes so. HOWEVER…

My problems with what Payton has to say in this article begin with the subtitle: “How the strange yet familiar doctrine of theosis can invigorate the Christian life.” The major thrust of Payton’s CT piece is apparently that Christians should keep the fulness of life in Christ ever in view, that fulness, of course, being experienced only in the age to come, at the end of history, in the glorified, resurrected state. Fair enough, as far as it goes, and Payton is certainly correct in criticizing the vulgar Evangelicalism, usually connected with the semi-Calvinist belief that “once saved is always saved,” in which justification, or conversion, is effectively reduced to, as Payton says, “a get–out-of-hell-free card”; however, it seems to me that Evangelical Christianity has long been looking for “doctrines” to “invigorate” it. One could even view the beginnings of the Reformation in these terms. Luther, as is well known, latched on to “the just shall live by faith” while Calvin found his starting point in the discussion of predestination in Ephesians 1. This search for a doctrinal panacea has continued until this very moment, the most well-known current manifestation being the so-called “prosperity gospel:, “blab it and grab it”, as Mar Cassian puts it. (Fr. Jon Braun’s book, Divine Energy directly engages the shortcomings of this search for panaceas.)

But, for Orthodox Christianity, theology – doctrine – is first and foremost practical: “What must I do to be saved?” The answer, given somewhat differently in different places in the New Testament, but always referring to the same reality, is clear: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”, “repent and be baptized”, “eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man,” “put to death the deeds of the flesh,” “endure to the end”. The point is, “doctrines”, even dogmas, no matter how true, how Orthodox, in and of themselves do little or nothing: “the letter kills but the Spirit gives life”, “faith without works is dead”.

The problem here is that theosis, or deification (also called union with Christ, sanctification, regeneration, and yes, justification), is not simply about ultimate salvation, resurrection, glorification. Theosis begins here and now with conversion, incorporation into Christ by way of the Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, and participation in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is renewed in the Mysteries of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. It is pursued by way of prayer, fasting, and alms-giving. There is absolutely no mention in this article of the Mysteries, the Sacraments, nor of these classical Christian disciplines.

There is also absolutely no mention of the fact that the Christian life, begun and lived by incorporation into Christ by way of baptism into his death, is life in the Body of Christ, the Church. This is not surprising, given that the Sacraments are not mentioned. However, it is impossible to discuss the Orthodox point of view on this apart from life on the ground, life in the Church, participating in the Mysteries, practicing the disciplines, because sanctification, theosis, union with Christ, is inseparable from this life in the Church, “the fulness of [Christ] who fills all in all”.

Payton also (mildly) criticizes Orthodox Christianity for not keeping its terms straight, for supposedly confusing “justification”, “sanctification,” and “theosis”. But, as the late Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias points out, citing I Corinthians 6:11, “justification” and “sanctification” are deeply interchangeable: they are synonyms (notice also the reference to “washing”, i.e., baptism here), related one to another by way of parallelism, each word focusing on different aspects of the same reality.

In conclusion, while it is always good to read appreciations of Christian Orthodoxy in forums such as Christianity Today, Payton’s presentation here is at best incomplete. This has been, I think, the stumbling block of Wesleyanism, Payton’s jumping off point. Wesleyanism, it seems, like virtually all of Protestantism, has split into two camps, one conservative, the other, in reaction to the shortcomings of the conservative stance, liberal. Now, in theology, liberalism is not a good thing, but perhaps worse is the conservatism from which it is born. Wesley, an Anglican priest, was both a progenitor of contemporary Evangelicalism and a proto-typical Anglo-Catholic, and he certainly sought that all of his followers – converts – should come to be “partakers in the Divine nature” (and one has to got to love that lost stanza of "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" quoted at the beginning of the article). However, while he had a rather high doctrine of the Church and of the sacraments (one which, at least in the United States, did not have much effect on the development of Methodism and its Holiness and Pentecostal off-shoots), he made a very fundamental mistake: “sanctification by faith”.

In other words, Wesley failed to see the importance of the ascetic struggle, by way of prayer, fasting, and alms-giving, in the transformation of believers into the image and likeness of Christ. (He failed here, perhaps, because, like Luther, earlier in his life he had pursued an ascetic lifestyle for the wrong reasons: he was seeking God’s love and favor, which are already given to all in Christ, rather than the fulness of transformation to be found by living in union with Christ.) Thus, like conversion or "justification", sanctification also became an event, a crisis, a “second blessing”. This has led to many problems on the personal and corporate levels, unnecessary psychological distress at one’s failures after having allegedly been sanctified, often coupled with a nasty legalism. One cannot separate any of this. Life in the Church and thus, participation in the Sacraments, the Mysteries, and the practice of the disciplines, is part and parcel of the path of theosis, which is nothing other than the “normal Christian life”.

Speaking of Parables...

I am a huge fan, if that is the correct word, of Fr. Stephen Freeman's blog, Glory to God for All Things. On a recent post upon which I commented, another commenter referred me to a paper, written by an Evangelical scholar, Robin Collins, which critiques the "satisfaction" theory of the Atonement, first advanced by Anselm of Canterbury, and the closely related "penal" theory of the Reformers. The paper, a "work in progress," begins with a retelling of the story of the Prodigal Son, as informed by the above theories:

There was a man who had two sons. The younger said to his father, "Father, give me my share of the estate." So the father divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son went off to a distant country, squandered all he had in wild living, and ended up feeding pigs in order to survive. Eventually he returned to his father, saying, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me one of your hired servants." But his father responded: "I cannot simply forgive you
for what you have done, not even so much as to make you one of my hired men. You have insulted my honor by your wild living. Simply to forgive you would be to trivialize sin; it would be against the moral order of the entire universe. For 'nothing is less tolerable in the order of things than for a son to take away the honor due to his father and not make recompense for what he takes away. Such is the severity of my justice that reconciliation will not be made unless the penalty is utterly paid. My wrath--my avenging justice--must be placated.'"

"But father, please..." the son began to plead.

"No," the father said, "either you must be punished or you must pay back, through hard labor for as long as you shall live, the honor you stole from me."

Then the elder brother spoke up. "Father, I will pay the debt that he owes and endure your just punishment for him. Let me work extra in the field on his behalf and thereby placate your wrath." And it came to pass that the elder brother took on the garb of a servant and labored hard year after year, often long into the night, on behalf of his younger brother. And finally, when the elder brother died of exhaustion, the father's wrath was placated against his younger son and they lived happily for the remainder of their days.

Well, when ya put it that way...

The problems with Anselm immediately become rather clear.

Professor Collins also has other writings online here.

A.W. Tozer, an Evangelical Saint...

The illustrious Aiden Wilson Tozer was a pastor and writer of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, one of the churches of my youth. However, like C.S. Lewis (and long before both, St. Isaac of Nineveh), his influence reaches far beyond the boundaries of his particular tradition and denomination. I am convinced that had Tozer lived a few more years, been born a few year later, he, like Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Gordon Walker, Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Frank Schaeffer, etc. would have been led by the Lord to Christian Orthodoxy, in one form or another. Tozer was certainly familiar with the medieval Christian mystics and was unafraid to quote them in his writings. In googling him for a reason unrelated to this post, I found the following, a prayer he offered (in private) on the day, in 1920, when he was ordained to the ministry of the C&MA.

"For Pastors only: A Prayer by A.W. Tozer"

May our Lord raise up many more like him!

Mother Clement asks...

In response to the "Sunday of the Divine Body" post below:

What can be said to one who posits that Jesus' words - "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day" (NKJV translation) - cannot be taken literally because that would mean that all those who do not believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist have no life in them, ie. no salvation and will not be raised up at the last day.

This is essentially what some think we are saying.

Now I am sure that Orthodoxy would not 'un-church' or 'un-save' those Christians who, by virtue of their lack of understanding, cannot embrace the great Grace and Mystery of the Eucharist.

So, what would be a good way to approach this, do you think?

As you know, there are some Orthodox, especially in certain Byzantine circles, who would assert just that. We are not among them, however, primarily because we see the Holy Spirit working in the lives of Christians (and others) outside the visible boundaries of the Church.

However, knowing that the “Spirit blows where the Spirit wills”, we also know that the Spirit, “proceeding from the Father,” “rests upon the Son”. That is, the Holy Spirit is always working to move people toward Christ, and this inevitably means toward the Church, which is Christ's mystical body, the "extension of the Incarnation" in history. Thus, we have to consider both soteriology and ecclesiology here. The first consideration is that salvation is a process of transformation which occurs because one is incorporated into Christ by means of the activity of the Holy Spirit. This incorporation into Christ, however, is not simply a matter of an individual, private relationship with Christ by means of faith, prayer, and the private reading of Scripture. One’s relationship with the Church, the mystical body of Christ, is integral to one’s relationship with Christ, and participation in all of the mysteries, the sacraments, is participation in the life of Christ as found in the Church. One cannot separate the two. Therefore, if one is outside the visible, social, sacramental Church, one is cut off from privileged avenues of access to the Divine-Human life of Christ, the life, the communion, that Christ wants to share with us, the life that is itself salvation.

This is objectively true, but one will note that this account of salvation differs from that found in those quarters which hold a low doctrine of the sacraments and of the Church or ignore both altogether. For these believers, the only thing that counts is a strictly individual faith which results in one having the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, not the righteous life of Christ imparted to them. While there is no denial of sanctification, it is seen as separate from, and subsequent to, justification which is strictly forensic, a legal acquittal and which, in and of itself, is alone of the essence of salvation. In this account, the Church is merely an invisible brotherhood, made up only of those who have experienced this justification. One can see easily how such a belief system can lead to all kinds of problems, the first and foremost being that salvation is in danger of being reduced to “fire insurance”.

But can those who believe such in fact be saved? The short answer is “yes”. History shows that Evangelicalism has produced some great Saints. So how is this possible? Because Christ, through the Holy Spirit, acts by extraordinary means to save all who seek Him with a sincere heart, even in those cases where these seekers are not even aware that it is Christ they seek; these, too, are made members of the Church by invisible bonds. To account for this, the Roman Church, quite rightly, puts forward the ideas of “baptism of desire” and “spiritual communion”. However, it should be noted that “baptism of desire” contains within itself the idea of the DESIRE for sacramental baptism: if one knows of the regenerative efficacy of baptism, one would naturally desire it. For those not so aware, either because of lack of knowledge or lack of understanding, the question then becomes one of implicit desire. The same would hold true for “spiritual communion”.

Having said that, I am not about to let your interrogators off the hook all that easily. In speaking of the proverbial African natives who have never heard the gospel, an Orthodox bishop was wont to say, “The question is not, ‘can they be saved apart from a conscious knowledge of Christ?’ No, the question is, ‘can I be saved if I reject the Christ of whom I know?” Can I be saved outside the visible Church? No, I cannot. I NEED the sacraments. I NEED to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Adam. Those who question you profess to believe the Bible – every word – in a most literal way (or at least the Protestant canon thereof). My father was among their number, and he was fond of saying, “If the Bible says that Jonah swallowed the fish, I would believe it.” Unfortunately, however, their belief in the Bible is in fact a belief in a particular and one-sided reading of the Bible, one which ignores its sacramental realism and its doctrine of the visible, social, historical, authoritative Church, “the fulness of [Christ] who fills all in all” in St. Paul’s words. So, while one must acknowledge the possibility of an Evangelical being saved as an Evangelical, it must also be said that one creates unnecessary barriers to his or her “being transformed in the image of Christ” and “enduring to the end” by staying outside of the visible, historical, sacramental Church and refusing to participate in her worship and sacraments. I am reminded here of our Lord’s words in Matthew 22:1-10 and Luke 14:16-24.

You will also find the following, by Lutheran scholar Phillip Cary, relevant and useful, and hopefully your friends will as well:

Why Luther is not quite Protestant

First there was the "Onion Dome"...

Or maybe not, but I was aware of it first.

But now, I discover this (thanks, I guess, to Abu Daoud):

LarkNews.com: a good source for Christian news

which, as AD discovered, brought us this:

"Proverbs 31 husband' justifies beer habit"

"Well," thought I, "Wonder what the 'Onion Dome' is up to these days?" Whereupon I found this:

"New Catechumen Whips Lax Parish into Shape"

Which brings me to the point: you can tell a great deal about a tradition by knowing what its members argue over among themselves. Give me debates about rites, calendars, ikonography, liturgical language, and even Christology (within certain boundaries), over fights such as those occurring in the Anglican Communion these days. In the former, there are really no fundamental issues at stake.