Customer Reviews

Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There is a kind of Christian who says to other professing Christians, "If you don't embrace my doctrinal framework totally, you are beyond the pale." Leading Orthodox prelates have had this posture toward the entire Western Church for about a thousand years now, and Catholicism has returned the favor to Orthodoxy and adopted the same attitude toward Protestants. Not to be left out, most Protestants, particularly the Magisterial Reformers, had a similar attitude toward Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and that mind is alive and well in Evangelicalism today. The disappointed Orthodox reader above is just another example of this attitude.

RECLAIMING THE GREAT TRADITION, however, draws the boundaries around the Tradition more tightly than the disappointed reader does (who seems to make it co-terminus with Orthodoxy itself). Is the book's less expansive understanding of the Great Tradition (including, by the way, the totality of the Scriptures) large enough for Christians of all three types to stand together in witness to the world? That is the question explored at a conference sponsored by the Fellowship of St. James at Rose Hill in 1996, and this book is a collection of the papers and responses delivered at that conference. The speakers -- Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox -- do not ignore their disagreements, as the responses to the papers clearly shows. However, in their interactions with one another, they demonstrate that the shared foundation of Christian belief among them all is far roomier than the common man in the pew is apt to know (or to be told about by his clergy).

I heartily recommend this book to anyone who wants to see an approach to ecuminism among Christians which avoids two errors -- negotiating a least-common-denominator of belief, or demanding a wholesale capitulation to the views of one party in the dialogue.

Chapter two is an excellent overview of ecumenism in the past and where it is leading today by Fr. Neuhaus. Chapter four, by that "recent" convert (!) Fr. Patrick Reardon, deals beautifully with the trinitarian theology of the east, as well as a strong dose of proper apophaticism. Chapter five, by Bishop Kallistos Ware, deals further with the trinitarian nature of Christianity. The other essays, six in all, are well worth reading as well. Each essay is followed by a response which is either critical or supportive- usually both. Carl Braaten, a Lutheran scholar, provides a summary that is quite insightful and useful.

I had written a review a few weeks ago that was not accepted. This is the second attempt, so I toned it down. This is a book which all Christians can benefit from. As an Orthodox, I flatly reject the circle-the-wagon mentality of some who say that this book is anti-Orthodox. It is a conference of thinkers and theologians and obviously not an Ecumenical council in the true sense; just dialogue. No one compromised anything. See for yourself.

I, too, am thoroughly impressed with this book; it is interesting to read that as of the time of writing this review, the only detractors are those hard-line Orthodox who see themselves as having the fullness of truth - a claim that would be hard to justify using the Church Fathers. After all, isn't the whole point of the icon - so vital to Orthodox spirituality - recognizing that the boundaries that we draw cannot be the totality of revelation but instead operate as an open door - a window - to an experience of the Holy? I find the hard-line Orthodox views expressed below to be disappointing; having heard Fr. Peter Gillquist speak at the University of Florida recently, I am glad to know that not all Orthodox feel the same way about other Christians. As one Church Father put it - and it has become a rule of thumb in many Orthodox circles, as well as for those outside of Orthodoxy - "We know where the church is; we do not know where the church is not."

Of course, the Orthodox below raise a good point about the nature of ecumenism and the crisis that has come about in many ecumenical discussions: in looking for a common ground, many end up sacrificing all that makes them distinctive and one is left with something of a theological mush rather than anything substantive. Fortunately, the differences here are mentioned, just as the similarities are. Real discussion about real issues - such as the filioque - are discussed by both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians; one gets a feel for both sides of an issue that remains divisive today.

The book falls short, though, in two ways. Firstly, the Evangelicals are, in my opinion, not shown in the best light. That is, they do not portray themselves in the best light. J. I. Packer leaves much to be desired; Carl Braaten does the same. Perhaps the problem, though, is what Mark Noll discusses in his book _The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind_: there is no Evangelical mind. Evangelicals consistently portray themselves to have less and less to really offer other than a simplistic - and oftentimes uninformed - Biblicism; there is no real engagement with any tradition or history and this lack of roots results in a lack of creative engagement with the problems of the day. A notable exception is the work of someone such as Stanley J. Grenz; perhaps future ecumenical writings will consider including him as he may be one of the best - or at least most informed - minds in Evangelicalism today.

Secondly, this book does little to represent Anglicanism. Although J. I. Packer is (= calls himself?) an Anglican, his theology is so un-Anglican that one might rightly wonder what, if anything, his Anglicanism really means. Some say, perhaps rightly, that there is no Anglican theology proper but that there is Anglican worship proper and that Anglican worship proper is contained in the Book of Common Prayer. Hence, the Book of Common Prayer should feature heavily in discussions of Anglicanism. However, for Packer it does not and since Packer is the only Anglican in the book, this means that Anglicanism as such figures little into these discussions when Anglicanism - despite the problems in the American church - really ought to figure far more prominently (it is, after all, the second largest Christian church in the world!).

Caveats aside, this is a great book. Although hard-line Orthodox may see any participation in ecumenism as "betrayal", such hard-liners are at the margins of Orthodoxy and offer little to the world at large. This book provides a great introduction to the main differences between three large Christian churches - Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical - as well as an introduction to common ground between them. Highly recommended.

This book is the outcome of a conference between traditionally minded Christians several years back- Orthodox, Roman and Protestant.

Chapter two is an excellent overview of ecumenism in the past and where it is leading today by Fr. Neuhaus. He is the editor of First Things and a leading apologist for the rationality of the Faith. Chapter four, by Fr. Patrick Reardon, deals beautifully with the trinitarian theology of the east, as well as a strong dose of proper apophaticism. It is one of the better essays that I have read on the subject. He is also the author of Christ In The Psalms which is a fantastic devotional companion to the prayer book of the Church. Chapter five, by Bishop Kallistos Ware, deals further with the trinitarian nature of Christianity and is, like his other works and lectures, full of insight and faithfulness to the Orthodox tradition. Ware's Orthodox Way and Orthodox Church are standard introductions to Orthodoxy in the western world. The other essays, six in all, are well worth reading. Each essay is followed by a response which is either critical or supportive- usually both. Carl Braaten, a Lutheran scholar and editor of Pro Ecclesia, provides a summary that is quite insightful and useful. If you would like information about how to get the actual audio recordings of the conference, let me know via "about me" and I'll send you some numbers.

This is a book from which all Christians can benefit. As an Orthodox, I flatly reject the circle-the-wagons mentality of some who say that this book is anti-Orthodox. It is only a conference of thinkers and theologians and obviously not an Ecumenical council! Just dialogue. No one compromised anything. See for yourself. If you think so strongly that you have the truth, share it in a spirit of love and patience. Not everybody has to agree with you and do not forget that your need to be right all the time may have very little to do with love for the truth. Moreover, we can believe the right things for very wrong reasons. Talking to people who don't see things "our way" is one of the best measures of charity and a sure path to understanding. That is the underlying message of this collection of essays. Not all ecumenical activity is trying to sell the farm to create the rainbow universe of "it doesn't matter". Open your minds.

With contributions from the likes of J. I Packer, Harold O. J. Brown, Richard John Neuhaus, Peter Kreeft, and Bishop Kallistos Ware, this volume is an interesting collection of essays based on presentations made at a theological conference in '94. The contributors seek to wrestle with the "Great Tradition" of the Christian Church that is shared and recognized by most Christians today. The authors discuss such issues as the doctrinal formulation of the Trinity and orthodox Christology.

For the Orthodox Church, discussions such as this one are essentially (warning: politically incorrect term to follow) anathema. That is why one rarely sees books about them that do not feature recent converts to Orthodoxy. (This book is no exception in this regard.)

It is difficult for the Orthodox to tell the Evangelicals and the Roman Catholics that the latter two groups DO NOT SHARE in the Great Tradition, but anyone who denies this truth is denying one of the central claims of Orthodoxy. Most Evangelicals accept iconoclasm and are crypto-Nestorians (at least), while Roman Catholics who accept their group's dogmas _in toto_ must reject several canons of the Ecumenical Synods -- such as that which proscribes alteration of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed. Further illustrations of the Roman Catholics' and Evangelicals' errors could be multiplied to the limit of a 1,000-word article, but the point is clear: Orthodoxy is The Church, and all else is error.

When the Church Fathers anathematized subscribers to various heresies, they did so for the good both of the tempted and of those who sympathized with them in their error; it is hard to see conscientious men fall away from Truth. However, our Lord said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear," and He did not explain why some did not have such spiritual readiness. We must continue to proclaim the Truth, not discuss the extent to which Truth and Falsehood are alike. Any other course may lead those who err to doubt that their errors are truly grave.