...
These thoughts are summarized here: http://www.pravmir.com/what-is-not-church/
In summary this article mentions that we know where the Church is, IE the orthodox church, its sacraments, etc, but I don't know where the Church is not.
Here is a quotation from the article which succicently summarises the succinctly summaries that prevalent thought:
| QuoteOfTheDay |
|---|
...
| Quote |
|---|
| “The |
...
| Wind |
...
| blows |
...
| where |
...
| it |
...
| will,” |
...
| Jesus |
...
| said, |
...
| “you |
...
| hear |
...
| the |
...
| sound |
...
| of |
...
| it, |
...
| but |
...
| you |
...
| do |
...
| not |
...
| know |
...
| where |
...
| it |
...
| comes |
...
| from |
...
| or |
...
| where |
...
| it |
...
| is |
...
| going.” |
...
| I |
...
| know/know |
...
| of |
...
| very |
...
| Christian |
...
| men |
...
| and |
...
| women |
...
| who |
...
| are |
...
| not |
...
| Orthodox, |
...
| yet |
...
| the |
...
| “sound” |
...
| of |
...
| the |
...
| Holy |
...
| Spirit |
...
| in |
...
| their |
...
| lives |
...
| is |
...
| so |
...
| loud |
...
| that |
...
| I |
...
| am |
...
| almost |
...
| ashamed |
...
| to |
...
| call |
...
| myself |
...
| a |
...
| Christian |
...
| in |
...
| comparison. |
...
| I |
...
| can |
...
| criticize |
...
| aspects |
...
| of |
...
| their |
...
| faith |
...
| and |
...
| practice |
...
| and |
...
| certainly |
...
| point |
...
| out |
...
| that |
...
| they |
...
| are |
...
| not |
...
| Orthodox, |
...
| but |
...
| to |
...
| say |
...
| that |
...
| they |
...
| are |
...
| not |
...
| somehow |
...
| part |
...
| of |
...
| the |
...
| Body |
...
| of |
...
| Christ, |
...
| the |
...
| Church, |
...
| I |
...
| cannot say. |
Although he admits that he knows "Very Christian people", yet he can not confidently say that they are part of the Body of Christ, the Church. Another quote
| Quote |
|---|
| I am not saying that a heterodox group is the True Church because it produces a true saint. What I am saying is that even within heterodox Christian assemblies, there remains something of the True Church. How much remains, how Grace functions in it, what does or doesn’t take place in their sacraments, I do not know. Like I said, I don’t know what the Church isn’t. |
The term "True Church", "Mysteries", "Body of Christ", etc are used, which makes it hard to argue against this type of thoughts. And when these thoughts are echoed by the Church leaders: Bishops, priests, it gives it very heavy authority, which becomes hard to oppose.
This is very troubling to me. Mainly because of the implications of what this line of thought leads to. The "True Church" which is what he uses in the article to refer to the Orthodox Church, can not through the Holy Spirit discern other members of the same Body outside its own stream.
Furthermore, this leads to a further problem, the True Church has very "strict" (is the word I would use) set of rules that are meant to be adhered to in order to be even considered for Salvation. If you go to a Coptic Orthodox Church, they'll say, you'll have to:
- be baptized and confirmed in the Coptic Orthodox Church
- You'll need to take communion to remain part of the Body of Christ
- You'll have to confess your sins to a priest in order for the priest to intercede on your behalf in front of God, so that God can forgive you your sins.
- Other people would say, the priest doesn't forgive your sins, but you're confessing your sins to God in front of the priest as a witness
- However without the witness of the priest, then God will not accept your confession, IE: no forgiveness of sins, and thus no Salvation.
The implications of these rules are clear (at least to me); If you do not participate in these sequence of practices, then you're not going to see the Kingdom of God.
(A side note: I'm not referring here to universal salvation thoughts. I'm concentrating only at Christianity)
But going back to my point above, the implication of this line of thought means if there isn't a strict adherence to the 3 steps/rules above, then there is no Salvation.
The argument given by priests and laymen who defend this line of thought is this: This is the way we've received the faith and this is the way we must pass it on. We do not have the power or authority to make any changes.
I have to admit that (and this is very hard for me to expose) I have certain experiences in my life which has cast doubt in my heart regarding step 3 and by extension the authority of the priesthood. In #3 above (and in fact in all 3 rules, because these are sacraments to enter the church - be the body of Christ) the priesthood is the gateway. You have to be baptized by a priest. You have to take communion by a priest and you have to confess to a priest. And if you don't do any of these then you are derelict and not part of the Body in the true sense.
Admittedly (again very hard for me), I have no particular issue with #1 and #2. Mainly, because they are functional areas. Someone has to baptize. Someone has to give communion. So why not a priest. "Someone" has to carry out the physical action. And it makes sense to me that there ought to be a dedicated group of people who carry out that function. Organizationally speaking, it makes sense. You want to maintain order. You don't want just haphazard things happening.
However #3 strikes me as something which is not functional. It seems to me it's something which has been superimposed. Again defenders will say: the absolution, a prayer the priest recites on the person after confession, needs to be done physically in order for the Mystery of the forgiveness of sins to be complete. And I'm having a lot of trouble with that. Again, this could be due to my "trauma" which I went through, but I honestly can't intellectually accept the explanations given there.
I have spoken with several people about this from within the Coptic Church, and I have not received a convincing answer. My fear is this: Am I rejecting this idea because of my personal trauma? As a wise woman said: "throwing the baby with the bathwater". Or is my resistance to the idea objectively valid? What bothers me even more, is I know if I go to the Catholics or Orthodox they'll say, you must confess. And if you go to the Protestants, they'll say you don't have to. Who is right?
Now, I know that there are some useful aspects of talking to a person about your sins and weaknesses. We all need accountability and advice. And in essence a priest can fulfill that role. However, in my experience, a priests (at least the ones I've met) do a generally horrible job regarding accountability and advice. I have not met a priest who genuinely cares, or follows a long with me (here comes my personal experience, which could form a bias and I admit that). So to me, there are plenty of people out there who can provide accountability for you and give you better advice, Christian counsellors for example.
The problem is that the coptic orthodox church doesn't say that confession to a priest is there to help the sinner overcome their sins, or at least this is not the point they highlight. What they say is that this is the only way for God to forgive your sins, irregardless if you're actually "healed" or not. My perception (and again it could be painted by my bias) is that the reason you have to confess to a priest, is that so you can have forgiveness to your sins. God's forgiveness is blocked by the priest "remitting your sin" and God's forgiveness can not complete without the priest's express remission of sins.
They usually refer to a particular verse from John 20:22-23:
| John 20:22-23 |
|---|
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. |
And they couple this with their argument for the Traditions of the church which Jesus has passed on to the disciples orally, but were not written down. This an argument of the "Holy Traditions". For example they claim that Jesus taught the disciples the "Liturgical prayers" and other types of prayers. So although they admit that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, they also say that there are other aspects, verbally passed down, which are also part of the teaching of Christ.
With these arguments they affirm the necessary role of the priesthood in the forgiveness of sins. They use other arguments such as: God has setup the Church through people. And they refer to Old Testament Church, etc. I've searched on this and I have seen people debate about the "verb tense" used in John 20:22-23. Here is an article which summarizes this view: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/forgiveness/john-20-23/. Their conclusion is that the authority given to the disciples is to recognize the completed action of Christ (IE forgiveness of sins of the truly repentant). So they aren't forgiving sins, rather they are recognizing that a truly repentant man has had his sins forgiven already by Christ.
However, this argument relies on specific linguistic facts, which I do not have the knowledge to accept or refute. I have read papers which support this argument and others which refute it.
Again the reason this is important to me, is because it is tied closely to Salvation and Hope in Salvation. Someone might tell me then, why don't you just do it and be done. I have very strong rejection to this. Mainly due to the fact that it shows to me a God who has chosen to put a human (and I don't mean Christ) intermediary between Him and I. The question which arises then is if God requires a priest to forgive sins, what about my personal relationship with Him? Is that even possible? As far as I can tell a personal relationship with Christ revolves around the free sacrifice of Christ to forgive our sins and the acceptance of this gift by the individual. From their the relationship can flourish. However, if a priest is required to have this forgiveness of sins, then can there exist any actual meaningful relationship with God outside of the inter-mediation of the priest? It shows to me that God doesn't really care about me as a person. He only cares if I follow some rules. It shows to me that God is not interested in having a personal relationship with me. He doesn't even want to forgive me my sins unless I go to a priest and confess them. Well, I'm sinning all the time. It creates in me this sense of anger or rebellion against this god who puts arbitrary rules and says, if you don't follow those rules, then sorry, you're lost. I can not reconcile this in my mind with a personal loving God. (I don't want to get in an argument about God's love and Justice etc)
This is honestly, giving me such a hard time.
To tie it back with how I started this article, the lack of ability to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in people who do not belong to the Orthodox church also implies that the people within the orthodox church who just do not follow the rules are also not part of the body (or at least no one can confidently say they are part of the body). Am I then a part of the body of Christ? Or am I a fallen branch who'll be gathered and burned at the end?