jody's question: orthodoxy?

i am leading a reflection on the old testament readings of the easter vigil at the local united methodist church on wednesdays during the great 50 days. usually it is only on thursday that i am able to think of good answers to the very good questions people have asked.

jody asked last wednesday, "what do you mean by orthodoxy?" i had said rather off-handedly that if one has not experienced orthodox worship, one has no idea of what real worship is like. by that i mean, at the least, that orthodox worship happens in heaven. we ascend with christ as christ's body to the heavenly realm. most western worship, especially in the reformed tradition, is definitely worship here on earth.

but there is the bigger meaning of "orthodox," and as i thought about that, i came to the conclusion that i mean the church as described in the second chapter of acts: "and they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (v. 42) certainly many folks who consider themselves christians have consciously departed from the apostles' doctrine. indeed another person in the group was rejoicing that modern united methodists have a wide variety of teachings and practices from which to choose.

that this is a source of rejoicing rather than repentance comes, i think, from our adoption of the a modern (in the sctrict hobbesian/lockian sense)worldview, in which god perhaps cannot but certain does not actually reveal his self to us. the scriptures, the liturgy, the church, are all human inventions, not gracious gifts from the holy one. the thanks that we give in the liturgy of sts. addai and mari, which i have received in my apostolic tradition, for the "form of worship which we have received from you [the father] does not make sense to many modern christians.

therefore for many modern christians it does not seem possible that what orthodox christians consider stedfast continuity is even possible. yet it also seems that many modern christians have accepted some sort of infallibility that comes not from god but from our own imaginations.

we reject the possibility of there being real access to truth in the orthodox traditions of the holy catholic church, but we put our faith in the "institutes" of calvin or luther's single-minded rejection of a millenium and a half of tradition, even accepting his shortened canon of scripture. or we consider the bible infallible, confusing a book about the word of god for the incarnate, eternal word of god himself. how odd that some who hold that position find the infallibility of the pope incomprehensible.

so i find myself often seeming to be the fogey, the silly old man who thinks god loves us enough to self-reveal to us. i find not only great comfort but great truth in the oft-repeated address in the orthodox liturgy, "thou art a man-befriending god." i find continuity between the holy one's desire to be friends with moses and his desire to be friends with us. this i think is a completely orthodox understanding of the beloved one. thanks be to god for his unspeakable gift!