New Testament Church?
Marina
Finding the New Testament Church
By Fr. Jon E. Braun
Coming off a couple of decades of heightened awareness of our need for a
personal knowledge of Christ--notably evidenced through such phenomena as
the Jesus Movement and the charismatic renewal--most thinking Christians are
realizing something else is needed: the rediscovery of the historic Church.
Often, in heated reaction to dated and dead Protestant liberalism, we would
hear evangelical preachers in the late sixties and early seventies say, "All
you need is Jesus!" Such statements often got rave reviews, but just a
little thoughtful reflection quickly showed such a simplistic religion to be
shallow and unfulfilling. More and more, that kind of existential
reductionism is being tempered with a renewed emphasis on the whole impact
of the Incarnation, the coming in the flesh of the Son of God. There must be
more to Christianity than a private, internalized individualism. If all we
needed was Jesus, why would Jesus have promised, "I will build My church"
(Matthew 16:18)? But our need for the Church begs a question, a crucial
question. Which Church? The easy answer, of course, and a correct answer,
is, "the New Testament Church." But this isn't A.D. 65, and we aren't in old
Jerusalem or Colosse. We are in the twentieth century and our challenge is
to find the New Testament Church in our day, being sure it is historically
identical to the Church of the Apostles-the one Christ Himself established.
Starting in the twentieth century with the plethora of choices available to
us is difficult. For we have hundreds of denominations and sects claiming to
one degree or another to be the New Testament Church. The Roman Catholic
Church makes that claim based on its apostolic succession. Baptist churches
are unwaveringly confident they hold to the New Testament Faith. Often a
Church of Christ will have a sign outside reading, "Founded in Jerusalem, 33
A.D.," thereby staking the claim to be the original Church. And the list
goes on. Granted, many groups have maintained, or even rediscovered,
important aspects of the New Testament Faith. But who is right? Or is the
pluralism crowd correct-that essentially everybody is in and ties for first
place?
BACK TO CHURCH ONE
There is a predictably reliable way to tackle the problem of who is right.
Rather than trying to decide which of the over 2,500 Christian groups in
North America keeps the original Faith best by studying what they are like
right now, we can start from the beginning of the Church itself and work our
way through history to the present. The birthday of the Church was
Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit descended on the Twelve Apostles in the
Upper Room. That day some 3,000 souls believed in Christ and were baptized.
When the first Christian community began, "they continued steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers"
(Acts 2:42). From Jerusalem, the Faith in Christ spread throughout Judea, to
Samaria (Acts 8), to Antioch and the Gentiles (Acts 13), where we find new
converts and new churches throughout Asia Minor and the Roman Empire. From
the pages of the Gospels and Epistles, we learn that the Church was not
simply another organization in Roman society. The Lord Jesus Christ had
given the promise of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all truth" (John
16:13). With the fulfillment of that promise beginning at Pentecost, the
Church was founded with a status far above that of a mere institution. Saint
Paul was right on target in Ephesians 2:22, where he called the Church the
"dwelling place of God in the Spirit." The Church was a living, dynamic
organism, the living Body of Jesus Christ. She made an indelible impact in
the world, and those who participated in her life in faith were personally
transformed. But we also discover in the New Testament itself that the
Church had her share of problems. All was not perfection. Individuals in the
Church sought to lead her off the path the Apostles had established, and
they had to be dealt with along with the errors they invented. Even whole
local communities lapsed on occasion and had to be called to repentance. The
Church in Laodicea is a vivid example (Revelation 3). Discipline was
administered for the sake of purity in the Church. But there was growth and
a maturing even as the Church was attacked from within and without. The same
Spirit who gave her birth gave her power for purity and correction, and she
stood strong and grew until she eventually invaded the whole of the Roman
Empire.
THE SECOND CENTURY AND ON
As the procession of the early Church moves from the pages of the New
Testament and on into the succeeding centuries of her history, it is helpful
to trace her growth and development in terms of specific categories.
Therefore let us look first at a category important for all Christian
people: doctrine. Did the Church maintain the truth of God as given by
Christ and His Apostles? Second, what about worship? Is there a discernible
way in which the people of God have offered a sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving to Him? Third, we will consider Church government. What sort of
polity did the Church practice?
1. Doctrine: Not only did the Church begin under the teaching of the
Apostles, but she was also instructed to "stand fast and hold the traditions
which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians
2:15). The Apostle Paul insisted that those matters delivered by him and his
fellow Apostles, both in person and in the writings that would come to be
called the New Testament, be adhered to carefully. Thus followed such
appropriate warnings as "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . withdraw
from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition
which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6). The doctrines taught by
Christ and His disciples are to be safeguarded by "the church . . . the
pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and are not open for
renegotiation. Midway through the first century, a dispute over adherence to
Old Testament laws arose in Antioch. The matter could not be settled there,
and outside help was needed. The leaders of the Antiochian church, the
community which had earlier dispatched Paul and Barnabas as missionaries,
brought the matter to Jerusalem for consideration by the Apostles and elders
there. The matter was discussed, debated, and a written decision was
forthcoming. It was James, the "brother" of the Lord and the first bishop of
Jerusalem, who gave the solution to the problem. This settlement, agreed to
by all concerned at what is known as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), set
the pattern for the use of Church councils. in the centuries ahead to settle
doctrinal and moral issues that arose. Thus, in the history of the Church we
find scores of such councils, and on various levels, to settle matters of
dispute, and to deal with those who do not adhere to the Apostolic Faith. In
addition to this well-known controversy, the first three hundred years of
Christian history were also marked by the appearance of certain heresies or
false teachings, such as super-secret philosophic schemes for "insiders"
only (Gnosticism), wild prophetic programs (Montanism), and grave errors
regarding the three Persons of the Trinity (Sabellianism). Then, in the
early fourth century, a heresy with potential for Church-wide disruption
appeared and was propagated by one Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt.
He denied the eternality of the Son of God, claiming, contrary to the
Apostles' doctrine, that the Son was a created being who came into existence
at a point in time and thus was not truly God. This serious error crept
through the Church like a cancer. Turmoil spread almost everywhere. To solve
the problem the first Church-wide, or ecumenical, council met in Nicea in
A.D. 325 to consider this doctrine. Some 318 bishops, along with many
priests and deacons, rejected the new teaching of Arius and his associates
and upheld the Apostles' doctrine of Christ, confirming "there never was a
time when the Son of God was not," and issued a definition of the apostolic
teaching concerning Christ in what we today call the Nicene Creed. Between
the years 325 and 787, seven such Churchwide conclaves were held, all
dealing first and foremost with some specific challenge to the apostolic
teaching about Jesus Christ. These are known as the Seven Ecumenical
Councils, meeting in the cities of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and
Constantinople. For the first thousand years of Christian history, the
entire Church, save for the heretics, embraced and defended the New
Testament Apostolic Faith. There was no division. And this one Faith,
preserved through all these trials, attacks, and tests, this one Apostolic
Faith, was called the Orthodox Faith.
2. Worship: Doctrinal purity was tenaciously maintained. But true
Christianity is far more than adherence to a set of correct beliefs alone.
The life of the Church is centrally expressed in her worship or adoration of
God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was Jesus Himself who told the
woman at the well, "the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such
to worship Him" (John 4:23). At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the
Eucharist, the Communion service, whets He took bread and wine, blessed
them, and said to His disciples, "This is My body which is given for you; do
this in remembrance of Me," and, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood,
which is shed for you" (Luke 22:19, 20). From New Testament books such as
Acts and Hebrews we know that the Church participated in Communion at least
each Lord's Day (Acts 20:7,11). And also from such first- and second-century
sources as the Didache and Saint Justin Martyr, we learn the Eucharist was
kept at the very center of Christian worship after the death of the
Apostles. And just as the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were read in the
temple worship and the synagogue in Israel, so the Church also immediately
gave high priority to the public reading of Scripture and to preaching in
her worship, along with the eucharistic meal. Even before the middle of the
first century, Christian worship was known by the term "liturgy," which
means literally "the common work" or "the work of the people." The early
liturgy of the Church's worship was composed of two essential parts: (1) the
Liturgy of the Word, including hymns, Scripture reading, and preaching; and
(2) the Liturgy of the Faithful, composed of intercessory prayers, the kiss
of peace, and the Eucharist. Virtually from the beginning, it had a
definable shape or form which continues to this day. Modern Christians
advocating freedom from liturgy in worship are usually shocked to learn that
such spontaneity was never the practice in the ancient Church! A basic
pattern or shape of Christian worship was observed from the start. And as
the Church grew and matured, that structure matured as well. Hymns,
Scripture readings, and prayers were intertwined in the basic foundation. A
clear, purposeful procession through the year, honoring in word, song, and
praise the Birth, ministry, death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and marking crucial issues in Christian life and experience,
was forthcoming. The Christian life was lived in reality in the worship of
the Church. Far from being routine, the worship of the historic Church
participated in the unfolding drama of the richness and mystery of the
Gospel itself! Further, specific landmarks in our salvation and walk with
Christ were observed. Baptism and the anointing with oil, or chrismation,
were there from Day One of the Church. Marriage, healing, confession of
siri, and ordination to the ministry of the gospel were early recognized and
practiced. On each of these occasions, Christians understood, in a great
mystery, grace and power from God were being given to people according to
the individual need of each person. The Church saw these events as holy
moments in her life and called them her mysteries or sacraments.
3. Government: No one seriously questions whether the Apostles of Christ led
the Church at her beginning. They had been given the commission to preach
the gospel (Matthew 28:19, 20) and the authority to forgive or retain sins
(John 20:23). Theirs was by no means a preaching-only mission! They built
the Church itself under Christ's headship. To govern it, three definite and
permanent offices, as taught in the New Testament, were in evidence.
a. The office of bishop. The Apostles themselves were the first bishops in
the Church. Even before Pentecost, after Judas had turned traitor, Peter
declared in applying Psalm 109:8, "his bishopric let another take" (Acts
1:20, KJV). The word "bishopric" refers to the office of a bishop and its
use obviously indicates the "job description" of the Apostles as being
bishops. Some have mistakenly argued that the office of bishop was a later
"human" invention. Quite to the contrary, the Apostles were the New
Testament bishops, and they appointed bishops to succeed them to oversee the
Church in each locality. Occasionally, the objection is still heard that the
offices of bishop and presbyter were originally identical. It is true the
terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the New Testament while the
Apostles were present, but it was the understanding of the entire early
Church that, with the death of the Apostles, the offices of bishop and
presbyter were distinct. Ignatius of Antioch, consecrated bishop by A.D. 70
in the church from which Paul and Barnabas had been sent out, writes just
after the turn of the century that bishops appointed by the Apostles,
surrounded by their presbyters, were everywhere in the Church.
b. The office of presbyter. Elders or presbyters are mentioned very early in
the life of the Church in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. It is evident
that in each place a Christian community developed, elders were appointed by
the Apostles to pastor the people. As time passed, presbyters were referred
to in the short form of the word as "prests," then as "priests," in full
view of the fact that the Old Covenant priesthood had been fulfilled in
Christ and that the Church is corporately a priesthood of believers. The
priest was not understood as an intermediary between God and the people, nor
as a dispenser of grace. It was the role of the priest to be the presence of
Christ in the Christian community. And in the very capacity of being the
presence of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ, the priest was to shepherd the
flock of God.
c. The office of deacon. The third order or office in the government of the
New Testament Church was that of deacon. At first the Apostles fulfilled
this office themselves. But with the rapid growth of the Church, seven
initial deacons were selected, as reported in Acts 6, to help carry the
responsibility of service to those in need. It was one of these deacons,
Saint Stephen, who became the first martyr of the Church. Through the
centuries, the deacons have not only served the material needs of the
Church, but have held a key role in the liturgical life of the Church as
well. Often called "the eyes and ears of the bishop," many deacons have
become priests and ultimately entered the episcopal office. The authority of
the bishop, presbyter, and deacon was not anciently understood as being
apart from the people, but always from among the people. But the people of
God were called to submit to those who ruled over them (Hebrews 13:17), and
they were also called to give their agreement to the direction of the
leaders for the Church. On a number of occasions in history, that "Amen" was
not forthcoming, and the bishops of the Church took note and changed course.
Later in history, many Church leaders departed from the ancient model and
usurped authority for themselves. In the minds of some this brought the
ancient model into question. But the problem was not in the model but in the
deviation from it. It should also be mentioned that it was out of the
ministry and life of the Apostles that the people of God, the laity, were
established in the Church. Far from being a herd of observers, the laity are
vital in the effectiveness of the Church. They are the recipients and active
users of the gifts and grace of the Spirit. Each one of the laity has a role
in the life and function of the Church. Each one is to supply something to
the whole (1 Corinthians 12:7). And it is the responsibility of the bishops,
the priests, and the deacons to be sure that this is a reality for the
laity. The worship of the Church at the close of its first thousand years
had substantially the same shape from place to place. The doctrine was the
same. The whole Church confessed one creed, the same in every place, and had
weathered many attacks. The government of the Church was recognizably one
everywhere. And this One Church was the Orthodox Church.
AFTER A THOUSAND YEARS--
A PARTING OF THE WAYS
Tensions began to mount as the first millennium was drawing to a close. They
were reaching the breaking point as the second thousand years began. While
numerous doctrinal, political, economic, and cultural factors began to work
to separate the Church in a division that would be the East and the West,
two giant issues ultimately emerged above others: (1) should one man, the
pope of Rome, be considered the universal bishop of the Church? and (2)
should a novel clause be added to one of the Church's ecumenical creeds?
1. The Papacy: Among the Twelve, Saint Peter was early acknowledged as the
leader. He was spokesman for the Twelve before and after Pentecost. He was
the first bishop of Antioch and later bishop of Rome. No one challenged his
role. After the death of the Apostles, as leadership in the Church
developed, the bishop of Rome came to be recognized as first in honor, even
though all bishops were equals. But after nearly 300 years, the bishop of
Rome slowly began to assume to himself a role of superiority over the
others, ultimately claiming to be the only true successor to Saint Peter.
The vast majority of the other bishops of the Church never questioned Rome's
primacy of honor, but they patently rejected its claim to be the universal
head of the Church on earth. This claim became one of the major factors lead
ing to the tragic split between the Western and Eastern Church which we will
soon be considering.
2. The Addition to the Creed: A disagreement about the Holy Spirit also
began to develop in the Church. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the
Father? Or does He proceed from the Father and the Son? In John 15:26, our
Lord Jesus Christ asserts, "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to
you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He
will testify of Me" (italics mine). This is the basic statement in all of
the New Testament about the Holy Spirit "proceeding," and it is clear: He
"proceeds from the Father." Thus when the ancient council at Constantinople
in A.D. 381, during the course of its conclave, reaffirmed the Creed of
Nicea (A.D. 325), it expanded that Creed to proclaim these familiar words:
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who proceeds from the
Father, who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son
. . . " But two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo; Spain
(A.D. 589), King Reccared declared that "the Holy Spirit also should be
confessed by us and taught to proceed from the Father and the Son." The King
may have meant well, but he was contradicting the apostolic teaching about
the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the local Spanish council agreed with his
error. Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures as confessed by the
entire Church at Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there
is no reason to believe anything other than that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father. Period! But centuries later, in what was looked upon by
many as a largely political move, the pope of Rome unilaterally changed the
wording of the universal creed of the Church. Such an independent action was
bound to evoke a strong response from the Eastern bishops. They saw it as a
flagrant violation of the long established practice that no universal creed
could be altered or changed apart from the corporate action of an ecumenical
council. Though this change was initially rejected in both East and West,
even by some of Rome's closest neighboring bishops, the pope eventually
convinced the Western bishops to capitulate to it. Although this change may
appear small, the consequences have proven disastrous-both from a
theological and an historical perspective. This issue represented a major
departure from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. It became another
instrumental cause leading to the separation of the Roman Catholic Church
from the Eastern Orthodox Church.
THE SCHISM
Conflict between the Roman pope and the East mounted--especially in the
West's dealings with the Eastern bishop, or patriarch, of Constantinople. It
was even asserted that the pope had the authority to decide who should be
the bishop of Constantinople--something which violated historical precedent,
and which no Orthodox bishop could endure. The net result of this assertion
was that the Eastern Church, and in fact the entire Christian Church, was
seen by the West to be under the domination of the pope. A series of
intrigues followed one upon the other as the Roman papacy began asserting an
increasing degree of unilateral and often authoritarian control over the
rest of the Church. Perhaps the most invidious of these political,
religious, and even military intrigues, as far as the East was concerned,
occurred in the year 1054. A cardinal, sent by the pope, slapped a document
on the altar of the Church of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople during the
Sunday worship, excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople from the
Church! Rome, of course, was flagrantly overstepping its bounds by this
action. Some very sordid chapters of Church history were written during the
next decades. Ultimately, the final consequence of these tragic events was a
massive split which occurred between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Eastern Orthodox Church. While some disagree that the West departed from the
New Testament Church at this point, the reality remains that the schism was
never healed. As the centuries passed, conflict continued. Attempts at union
failed and the split widened. Orthodox Christians agree that in departing
from the tradition of the Church the West had deviated from historic
Christianity, and in so doing, set the stage for countless other divisions
which were soon to follow.
THE WEST: REFORMATION AND
COUNTER-REFORMATION
During the succeeding centuries after A.D. 1054, the growing distinction
between East and West was indelibly marked in history. The East maintained
the full stream of New Testament Faith, worship, and practice. The Western
or Roman Catholic Church, after its schism from the Orthodox Church, bogged
down in many complex problems. Then, centuries after Rome committed itself
to its unilateral spirit of doctrine and practice, another upheaval was
festering--this time not next door to the East, but inside the Western gates
themselves. Though many in the West had spoken out against Roman domination
and practice in earlier years, now a little-known German monk named Martin
Luther launched an attack against certain Roman Catholic practices that
ended up affecting world history. His famous Ninety-Five Theses were nailed
to the church door at Wittenburg in 1517. In a short time those theses were
signaling the start of what came to be called in the West the Protestant
Reformation. Luther sought an audience with the pope but was denied, and in
1521 he was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. He had intended
no break with Rome. Unresponsive to Luther's many legitimate objections
concerning the novel practices of the now-separated Western Church, Rome
refused to budge or bend. The door to future unity in the West slammed shut
with a resounding crash. The protests of Luther were not unnoticed. The
reforms he sought in Germany were soon accompanied by the demands of Ulrich
Zwingli in Zurich, John Calvin in Geneva, and hundreds of others all over
Western Europe. Fueled by complex political, social, and economic factors,
in addition to religious problems, the Reformation spread like a raging fire
into virtually every nook and cranny of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman
Church's Western ecclesiastical monopoly was greatly diminished and massive
division replaced its artificial unity. The ripple effect of that division
continues even to our day. If trouble on the continent were not enough, the
Church of England was in the process of going its own way as well. Henry
VIII, amidst his marital problems, placed himself as head of the Church of
England instead of the pope of Rome. For only a few short years would the
pope ever again have ascendancy in England. And the English Church itself
would be shattered by great division. As decade followed decade in the West,
the many branches of Protestantism took various forms. There were even
divisions that insisted they were neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic. All
seemed to share a mutual dislike for the bishop of Rome and the practice of
his church, and most wanted far less centralized forms of leadership. While
some, such as the Lutherans and Anglicans, held on to a basic form of
liturgy and sacrament, others, such as the Reformed Churches and the even
more radical Anabaptists and their descendants, questioned and rejected many
biblical ideas of hierarchy, sacrament, historic tradition, and other
elements of historic Christian practice, no matter when and where they
appeared in history, thinking they were freeing themselves of Roman
Catholicism. To this day, many sincere, modern, professing Christians will
reject even the biblical data which speak of historic Christian practice,
simply because they think such historic practices are "Roman Catholic." To
use the old adage, they "threw the baby out with the bathwater," without
even being aware of it. Thus, while retaining in varying degrees portions of
foundational Christianity, neither Protestantism nor Roman Catholicism can
lay historic claim to being the true New Testament Church. In dividing from
the Orthodox Church, Rome forfeited its place in the Church of the New
Testament. In the divisions of the Reformation, the Protestants-as
well-meaning as they might have been-failed to return to the New Testament
Church.
THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TODAY
But that first Church, the Church of Peter and Paul and the Apostles, the
Orthodox Church-despite persecution, political oppression, and desertion on
certain of its flanks-miraculously carries on today the same Faith and life
of the Church of the New Testament. Admittedly the style of Orthodoxy looks
complicated to the modern Protestant eye, and understandably so. But given
the historical understanding of how the Church has progressed, the simple
Christ-centered Faith of the Apostles is clearly preserved in its practices,
services, and even its architecture. In Orthodoxy today, as in years gone
by, the basics of Christian doctrine, worship, and government are never up
for renegotiation. One cannot be an Orthodox priest, for example, and reject
the divinity of Christ, His Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Ascension into
heaven, and Second Coming. The Church simply has not left its course in
nearly 2,000 years. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It is the New
Testament Church. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it. But
Orthodoxy is also, in the words of one of her bishops, "the best-kept secret
in America." Though there are more than 225 million Orthodox Christians in
the world today, many Americans are not familiar with the Church. In North
America, the Orthodox Church until recently has been largely limited to
ethnic boundaries, not spreading much beyond the parishes of the committed
immigrants that brought the Church to the shores of this continent. But the
Holy Spirit has continued His work, causing new people to discover this
Church of the New Testament. People have begun to find Orthodox Christianity
both through the writings of the early Church Fathers, and through the
humble witness of Orthodox Christians. On a personal note, I am a part of a
group of nearly 2,000 ex-Protestant evangelicals who were received into the
Antiochian Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church in the spring of 1987 as the
Evangelical Orthodox Mission. Orthodox student groups are springing up on a
number of American campuses. The word is getting out. What does this
identity of the Orthodox Church with the New Testament Church mean as far as
the other churches in Christendom are concerned? Many have retained much of
the truth of Orthodox Christianity. Some pretend to be the New Testament
Church but are seriously off-base, leading people far astray from Christ and
the Church. Other modern churches have preserved truth in greater or lesser
degree. But groups which possess some or much of the truth are one thing;
the New Testament Church is another. What is it that's missing in the
non-Orthodox churches-even the best of them? Fullness. The fullness of the
New Testament Faith is to be found only in the New Testament Church. Being
in the New Testament Church doesn't guarantee all those in it will
necessarily take advantage of the fullness of the Faith. But it does
guarantee the fullness is there for those who do. For those who seriously
desire the fullness of the New Testament Faith, action must be taken. There
must be for these a return to the New Testament Church. Being aware of this
ancient Church is not enough. In America, people have had ample opportunity
to investigate and decide about the Roman Catholic faith, the Baptist, the
Lutheran, and so on. Not so regarding the Orthodox Church. Let me make three
specific suggestions that will provide you with a tangible means to look
into Orthodox Christianity and to decide for yourself if it is not the
Church for which you have searched.
1. Visit: Look up "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox" in the "Church" section
of your Yellow Pages. Ask for the whereabouts of the nearest Orthodox
parish. Pay a visit-several visits. Meet the priest, and ask him to help you
study and learn. And be prepared to be patient. Sometimes a portion of the
Liturgy is not in English! But the service books will help out here.
2. Read: There are a number of books and periodicals immensely helpful to
people seeking to learn about the Orthodox Church. Let me mention a few: The
Orthodox Church, by Timothy (Bishop Kallistos) Ware (Penguin); The Orthodox
Faith, by Father Thomas Hopko (4-volume set, Orthodox Christian Publications
Center); the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (several editions available);
Feed My Sheep, by Metropolitan PHILIP Saliba (Saint Vladimir's Seminary
Press); AGAIN Magazine (Conciliar Press).
3. Write: Conciliar Press (P.O. Box 76, Ben Lomond, CA 95005) can help put
you in touch with an Orthodox church and supply you with a book list
including other recommended reading. Send your name and address and a
request for information.
In a day when Christians are realizing anew the centrality and importance of
the Church as the Body of Christ, the doors of Orthodoxy are open wide and
the invitation is extended to come and see. Examine her Faith, her worship,
her history, her commitment to Christ, her love for God the Father, her
communion with the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church has kept the Faith
delivered once for all to the saints for nearly two thousand years. In her
walls is the fullness of the salvation which was realized when "God so loved
the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him
should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Used by permission. Copyright--Conciliar Press