http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1998/february9/8t2040.html

This quote may be particularly helpful:

“One is not necessarily or automatically pronouncing heresy just because the expected shibboleth comes out wrongly. G. K. Chesterton is supposed to have warned against liberal distortions of Christian truth by saying that if one wishes to draw a giraffe one can draw it many ways, but it has to have a long neck. A moment of genuine enlightenment occurred for me when I repeated this aphorism to a colleague who replied: ‘Unless one is viewing the giraffe from above.’ Before condemning a Christian thinker for not drawing the giraffe correctly, it is worthwhile to inquire into his or her perspective. Traditionalists are right to affirm that Christianity —and especially evangelical Christianity—cannot be made compatible with any and every cognitive content. On the other hand, they need to recognize that viewpoints may give equally correct affirmations diverse forms.”

Does this have something to say to us about getting along a little better? Is there more room for leeway in Jesus’ Kingdom that we are willing to give?

I have just started a series on “Alternatives to Division”. Options for unity when we don’t agree. I think it is relevant to the discussion here. The first post is on the Christian and Missionary Alliance and the role of women as elders. It looks at their 18 year debate on the issue and how they finally resolved it.

No offense taken. We may disagree (not sure even if we do yet) but I respect you, love you and I’m always open to learning something new from you.

To answer some of your questions (about my OPINIONS not my DOGMA ):

You wrote:
“Are you saying that the reason Arianism and Nestorianism and so on were even an issue was because the Arians and Nestorians and such had fallen into the trap of Platonic Dualism?”

Yes. And Mani, and other early church heretics. I won’t blame Plato for all of it, but most of it… plus maybe a little blame on Zoroaster and the Jewish Essenes. Dualism, as a metaphysical concept is always an easy trap. It seems to me that only the teachings of the God of the Old and New Testament has a universe created good in all its physical and spiritual forms (yet both sides tainted by the Fall).

You wrote:
“but I dare say it is hard to believe that a Church which confesses Christ as God and Man, which venerates the relics of Saints, which paints icons, kisses them, and adorns their churches with them, which clothes their clergy with beautiful vestments, and so on has fallen prey to the pagan dualism you speak of.”

I respectfully disagree. I do believe the core of the church was influenced, even though the saints and great Church fathers fought against such influence using such means as the councils and creeds. I think the church (East, West and Protestant) have had an on-again and off-again relationship with Dualism over the ages. I blame the Dark Ages on this unhealthy love affair with the Hellenistic philosophical orientation (this world, education, science, math . . . all worthless and only the “spiritual” was considered important). Just read Augustine. He left a very Dualistic Mani for Plato. In his “City of God,” many times he calls Plato the greatest of philosophers and other places refers to him as a De Facto Christian.

That idea (that the Church isn’t perfect) doesn’t threaten my faith in the Church. In my humble opinion the Church, in all its forms, reflects fallen man who supports it. I don’t believe there has ever been (nor will be) a perfect church (or Church) nor maybe even a good one, this side of eternity. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t continue and try.

I agree with you that Paul sounds dualistic at times (and again to define what I mean by Dualism is Platonic, metaphysical Dualism . . . not the Biblical moral dualism . . . Good vs. Evil). I wrestle with some of Paul’s statements and have different theories why they sound dualistic (won’t go into it here).

I can equally blame the goofy, cheesy TV evangelist phenomena on the modern influence of metaphysical Dualism, but that’s another long story.

In closing, I hope you understand the spirit in which I am writing this. I am not arguing with you and what you have written makes me think harder. I also am not proclaiming myself has the holder of truth. I often make mistakes in my thinking.

“A catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference to all opinions: this is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought, this being “driven to and fro, and tossed about with every wind of doctrine,” is a great curse, not a blessing, an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism. A man of a truly catholic spirit does not need to seek his religion. He is as fixed as the sun in his judgement concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine. It is true, he is always ready to hear and weigh anything that can be offered against his principles, but as this does not show any wavering in his own mind so neither does it occasion any.”

“I dare not…presume to impose my mode of worship on any other…my belief is no rule for another…Let all these things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season, my only question at present is this, ‘Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’”

(Selected quotes from “Catholic Spirit”, by John Wesley)
http://www.godrules.net/library/wsermons/wsermons39.htm

That said, I would also have to disagree with your statement that the “early Church did not heed the words of Paul.” Certainly, many individuals have gone astray (and hence we have the councils declaring heresy to protect us from further straying in these ways), but I dare say it is hard to believe that a Church which confesses Christ as God and Man, which venerates the relics of Saints, which paints icons, kisses them, and adorns their churches with them, which clothes their clergy with beautiful vestments, and so on has fallen prey to the pagan dualism you speak of.

I would also point out that St. Paul, himself, was a favorite of many Gnostics, because of his often writing about the war between the flesh and the spirit, and the distinction between faith and works. That is to say, the Gnostics obviously did not read Paul correctly, but it can be, admittedly, very easy to find such ideas in his letters.

That said, I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at with this paragraph:

“The problem with many of these doctrinal issues (and all the early controversies such as those of Arius, Nestorius) was the outward workings of this basic underlying metaphysical dilemma. Until today I still believe that this is the one of the fundamental problems of what ails the Church. So, my point with this perspective, is that if the metaphysical problem was resolved Biblically, I think many of these dividing dogmas would fade in significance.”

Are you saying that the reason Arianism and Nestorianism and so on were even an issue was because the Arians and Nestorians and such had fallen into the trap of Platonic Dualism?

I always find it hard to write on these blogs, trying to be concise but at the same time clear in my meaning. To make myself unambiguous, I want to start by saying the points which I want to make are not incongruent with your own views, but simply a different perspective or layer to this discussion. While you did an excellent job on the theological/historical perspective, I wanted to add . . . I guess what I would call the metaphysical.

If human culture is the canvas on which any new idea is painted, then of course the church was “painted” on the Greek fabric (I admit the early stages on the Jewish traditions). Culture of course, in itself, is inevitable. Culture is the natural manifestation of human history, or as I say, history is the scaffolding on which culture is perched. Culture, like all Fallen human endeavors, is a mixture of the wonderful, the amoral and the contra-scriptural or contra-productive.

I propose that at the time of the birth of the church the predominating metaphysical view of the Greek culture (along the thought lines of Pythagoras and of course Plato) was Dualism. There was an unnatural (speaking of “natural” as the way God had created things) cleavage and economy between the cosmos and the ether and the soul and the body. The “spiritual” had far more value than the “physical.” Of course some, like the Gnostic influences took it to the point that the physical was not just inferior but evil.

As I read Genesis, the natural break (or true dualism) is between the nothingness before God’s creative act and all that exist (created by God), not between the body and the soul.

The early Church did not heed the words of Paul in Colossians chapter two: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” But allowed this Hellenistic (contra-scriptural) perspective taint the way in which they viewed the world. This in turn created these strange tensions between Jesus being of the flesh and God. Or Mary (physical women) begetting God (a complete absurdity in Platonic thinking). Or the Holy Spirit being God or created.

The problem with many of these doctrinal issues (and all the early controversies such as those of Arius, Nestorius) was the outward workings of this basic underlying metaphysical dilemma. Until today I still believe that this is the one of the fundamental problems of what ails the Church. So, my point with this perspective, is that if the metaphysical problem was resolved Biblically, I think many of these dividing dogmas would fade in significance.

On a different note, I think you said it well and I will re-phrase in agreement, than many things that started in the early Church as caveats, unfortunately became dogmas in retrospect. Looking at this metaphysical problem, I feel (but may be wrong) what the early Church fathers were staking out (the edges of the cliff)to avoid the greater influence of Platonic Dualism.

Now, within Evangelicalism, things like a 6 thousand year old earth is now considered dogma, or a litmus test for true orthodoxy (with a small “o”).

However, St. Basil’s statement must be read in the context in which he lived. First of all, St. Basil lived in the time between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. At this time, there was only one Church and some schismatic sects (Arianism was still going strong). In other words, not even the non-Chalcedonians had schismed yet. So he’s writing in a context in which “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” means pretty much what the Catholics/Orthodox say.

During the time that St. Basil wrote, the two major issues, IIRC, affecting the Church were Arianism (after the First Council, the Arians claimed to affirm the Creed according to their own understanding; this was part of the reason the Creed had to be revised in the Second Council) and the Holy Spirit (i.e., is the Holy Spirit a Person of the Trinity).

He never lived to see the Nestorian controversy (where the Church declared that it is heresy to say that Mary is not the Theotokos, or “Birth-giver/Mother of God”), which was deemed a Christological error, nor did he know the Seventh Council, which refuted the Iconoclastic heresy (again, considering Iconoclasm a Christological error). In addition, he missed Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and many other heresies the Church has had to refute.

And, so, when I say that the Orthodox Church is in line with St. Basil’s principle here quoted, I mean to contrast (my understanding of) the Eastern approach to dogma with the Western.

It seems to me that, in the West, we tend to view the dogmas set forth, especially by the early Fathers, as definitive statements of belief. In other words, we’re looking at them like we’d read a dictionary: these teachings are formulae that define what we believe. As a result, Western theology has had to continuously develop these definitions, to produce a systematic, precise theology.

In the East, however, it seems that the dogmas set forth by the Church, again, especially by the early Fathers, are seen more as warning signs. They mark places where people have gone off the path and fallen into error, and they are there to keep us from making the same mistake. The sentiment in the East seems to be, “I would rather spend my time in prayer and worshiping God than in debating and arguing points of doctrine, but this doctrine has arisen and is threatening the Church, therefore, I must act.”

Anyway, as St. Basil says, “Union would be effected if we were willing to accommodate ourselves to the weaker, where we can do so without injury to souls.” I think that he would agree that, if the Church has seen fit to declare something a heresy, we cannot receive into Communion those who would continue to teach such heresy “without injury to souls”, both ours and theirs; for the purpose of declaring something “heresy” is to set up a warning sign, alerting us that going in a particular direction is perilous for our souls. If we believe it is heresy to say that Mary did not give birth to God, then how can we unite ourselves with those who teach this? If we believe it is heresy to reject the use of iconography, then how can we unite ourselves with those who condemn us for our veneration?

Anyway, this is, again, just my understanding. As I’ve said, I’ve been Orthodox for about a year, now. I’m no expert or anything; in fact, it’d be more accurate to say I’m ignorant.

I guess my point is that there seem to clearly be professing believers who you and I would have very serious disagreements with – disagreements over which we would likely separate – that would sincerely and legitimately affirm the Nicene Creed.

The idea that we can all “just get along” (i.e. express a functional corporate unity) if we simply affirm the Nicene Creed and agree to demand nothing more doesn’t seem to hold up when you actually try to apply it.

But I could be wrong…

God Bless