Why go to Church?

So, it's been a while since I've posted. I've quit feeling guilty about it honestly; I've come to realize that it's just part of life.

I do, however, endeavor to be more active on here because as of late I've found I have ideas I'd like to flesh out. So here's the topic of the day and it's a big one that I've been kicking around for some 9 months, give or take.

Why go to church?

Before diving in, I'd like to remind the reader that this blog is specifically my open letter to the Christian church, so I'm not going to be discussing arguments for or against Christianity or religion per se. Instead my question is looking more at why a believer should go to a formal church at all. To begin, let me display some of the basic arguments/counter-arguments that many bring to the conversation. I'm going to give these in the form of affirmative statement (AS) - rebuttal (R):

AS1: Christians need community with other believers in order to reaffirm their faith and gain encouragement, correction, growth, etc. in the Christian life

R1: As a believer, one can find community with other believers in ones life without going to a formal church institution. This can be done through social groups, both formal and informal and not always in the same physical location, thanks to technology.

AS2: Christians need a church to help them learn more about the Christian life and how to live out Christ's message, usually via sermons, Sunday school classes, etc.

R2: There is nothing that a church/pastor can teach you that can't be learned by studying on your own, either at a library or online. The church doesn't hold special knowledge that can't be learned elsewhere, though to learn it elsewhere requires a certain level of self-motivation.

AS3: Believers need a place to worship God, both corporately and individually.

R3: One doesn't need to attend a formal church gathering to worship individually OR corporately. Several world religions (including Christianity) have long-standing traditions of worshiping solo and informally with other believers. The institution is simply not necessary.

So where does this leave us? 

Well I'm not certain, to be honest. I for one love going to church because I see a lot of value in the liturgy and tradition of being anchored to the catholic (little "c") church; of course this is an insufficient reason in and of itself, but it's one of my main reasons. Others are because I feel I have something to offer other congregants in the way of instruction and wisdom due to my years of study in theology and the church, but those are of course not all of the reasons.

Mainly, I wanted to point out with this brief article that there is a slew of arguments for and against being a part of or even just casually attending a formal church. I think this topic does take on new impetus for re-visitation in the current religious environment in the west as denominations are dying out and Christians of a new generation are exploring new ways to embody Christ in the world.

I'd love to hear the readers thoughts on the topic; if you are a member or even a regular attendee of a church, why do YOU go? or if you've left the formal institution that is Christianity, why did you leave?

pax,
CM

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Hello all! Again, here is a short history-related post so as to expand your horizons, so to speak. This post is about Eastern Orthodoxy. For those of us in the west who have little to no experience with it, let this be a primer. I've included several sources so that you can find some other people who are more qualified than I to give you information about our Eastern Christian family.

 The Eastern Orthodox Tradition

While it may be easiest for American Christians to look back at history and reflect with the assumption in mind that events surrounding and following the Protestant Reformation were the bulk of what was relevant between the 1500’s and modern times, it must be remembered that the Church is much larger than many Western minds acknowledge. In the East – particularly Russia – there were many exciting things happening. Men like Alexis Khomyakov and St. Innocent of Alaska were leaving their mark on how the Eastern Orthodox Church understood Christian worship and community. The Church in the East was contributing to the larger Christian tradition which may have greater implications in the next stage of Christian development here in the 21^st century.

Evolutions in the Orthodox Tradition

            The contributions and figures from the Eastern Orthodox tradition which are examined here all come after the fall of Constantinople and focus on Russian Orthodoxy as this was the major source of Orthodox theology for most of the period leading up to modernity. The first man of note is St. Innocent of Alaska (1797-1879) who was commissioned by the Academy of Kazan to increase missionary presence there.[1] Specifically, this married priest was sent to the Aleut people and was so enthralled with their way of life that he strove to learn the language and translate the Bible into Unagan which was the primary Aleutian dialect. In 1838 he lost his wife and after taking the vows of a monk was made Bishop of a rather large area which included the Aleutian Islands, the Kamchatka Peninsula and more. Eventually he became the head of the Moscow Synod in 1868.[2]

            The many achievements of St. Innocent, while impressive in themselves, must be seen as part of a larger movement towards a simple and grounded faith. This movement was largely catalyzed by the publication of a book entitled Philokalia, translated as “the love of beauty”. This text was essentially a compilation of Eastern mystical texts that helped bring ascetic life back into vivacity in the Orthodox tradition. In order to get a quick look at how this movement developed, one can merely observe the growth from 452 functioning Orthodox monasteries in 1812 to 1045 monasteries in 1914.[3] This movement was also heavily founded on the Hesychist tradition which, as defended by St. Gregory Palamas in the 14^th century, is founded on a mystical notion of returning to oneself with the understanding that the Spirit of God is indwelling in the person. This largely gave theological worth back to the carnal parts of a human and made practical ministry vital to Christian living and thus Orthodox Christianity.[4]

            Along those same lines, Eastern Orthodox theology became more clearly articulated in contrast to the rival Protestant and Catholic explanations. The uniqueness of Orthodoxy is in the primary understanding that ecclesial function should begin with the Eucharist – that is, worship – and the ascetic tradition. The former of these two foundational points included traditional liturgy and the latter contained the elevation of the lay-theologian.[5] Along with the lay-theologians who were responsible for many road-side chapels which were constructed in this period, there was also an influx in ascetic spiritual leaders known as Startsi which translates as “old man”. Rarely receiving a formal education or ordination, these confessor-counselor-wise men were theologically on par with Catholicism’s ordained theologians.[6] These spiritual leaders in combination with the Hesychist influence and missions work such as that accomplished by St. Innocent all gave Eastern Orthodoxy a large measure of substantiality and longevity in practical Christian living.

A Balanced Theology

            The second man to be mentioned  is Alexis Khomyakov (1804-1860) who, as a Slavophile under Tsar Nicholas I strove alongside his companion Ivan Kireyevsky to establish Eastern Orthodox as the middle ground between Protestant and Roman Catholic extremes.[7] Part of this effort was motivated by Nicholas’ views of Russian Orthodoxy as a defense against “westernizing”. Khomyakov’s basic thesis, then, was that Orthodoxy already held within its theology the freedom which many turned to Protestantism for as well as the unity in the church which Roman Catholicism was known for.[8] This both/and position essentially set the stage for later developments in ecumenical theology which was more than a cheap truce among traditions and more than a mere defining of lines which are not to be crossed.[9] Instead, the work of Khomyakov and company was to reread history in light of the many different perspectives of Christianity and to try and renew Orthodoxy as valuable to the rest of the Christian tradition.

Concluding Thoughts

            The Eastern Orthodox tradition is often overlooked by westerners and, in light of all that has been written here, it seems that this should not be so. The church today is in the middle of evolving into whatever it will be next and as we progress in a world that is incredibly secular, it may be advantageous to look to how the Russian Orthodox tradition maintained its distinctness in the midst of a changing world. With a commitment to traditional worship and personal piety, the Orthodox Church has largely succeeded in being a good representation of Christian community in the spiritual heritage of Christianity. The next generation of leaders in the 21^st century would do well to give this tradition its well-deserved attention for the sake of the future Church.

References

Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987.

Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007.

Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.

Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.

Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

---

[1] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[2] Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007. 219-220.

[3] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[4] Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.106-108.

[5] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 120-126.

[6] Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.

[7] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[8] González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987. 424-425.

[9] Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. 7-9.