Two thoughts. Well, actually three.
First, While I thought I was the master of excessively long posts, yours are so long that even I have trouble keeping from getting distracted before the end. It might be better to post a less broad range of items in one post and then do more posts. Yeah, it is the same amount of data, but at least each is closer to "bite-sized" and one can stop and think about the one thing as a unit.
Second, one of the problematic things with the general descriptives, and names, revolving within the EO organizations is the word "orthodoxy." Orthodoxy is a word with a meaning. But when it becomes the name of a group, and is used adjectively to label the positions and practices of the group, then the word becomes meaningless in the broader conversation.
Why meaningless? Because by its very use as a moniker rather than as a subject to discuss and arrive at, they (and you) usurp the word to belong to you without evidence that, in its general use, you actually fit. It declares itself to be the finished product of careful study and discussion when, in fact, the discussion is still ongoing.
I will agree that there are plenty of others that throw the word around just as brashly to describe their particular doctrines and teachings. Lee and the LRC have added "ground of the church" to the core of the faith, and therefore to orthodoxy.
For me, orthodoxy is much narrower than most who wield it like a sword would have it be. From the LRC, to the Bereans (who host another site that discusses religious cults), to the RCC, to the EO, and many in between, orthodoxy is often found to include very particular and peculiar thoughts to each separate group. But either orthodoxy is so broad as to sweep in almost all reasonable variations in belief, or it must be restricted to the core of the faith — that which must be to truly be Christian. I lean heavily toward the latter.
And while I can't demand anything, it would be helpful to the fostering of discussion if you could with the general Eastern Orthodox what many of us have done with the "local churches." And that is use something different from the base term. Since "local churches" to most of us mean the various assemblies that we find nearby, and not exclusively those who do or have followed Nee and Lee, or the LSM, many of us have reserved the term "local churches" to mean what it actually means — churches in a location — and instead given some kind of alternate name to the group that this forum discusses. For many of us, that was to take the idea of "churches of recovery" and refer to them as "Lord's recovery churches" or the "LRC." For the group that has put "orthodox" in its name, to continue to insist on using your regular terms of "Orthodoxy" or "Orthodox" to refer to only those of the EO implies a claimed lock on truth — at least to the weak of mind. (And sometimes that is all of us.) Maybe "EO" could be used instead. We would understand that it is the position of your group yet those who might otherwise not take that position would not be lulled into accepting it simply by the use of the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy."
I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the name of your group, or saying that it is not orthodox. I have no problem with the name. And in some ways, all of us will find ourselves to be unorthodox and in other ways orthodox. Let's just let the discussions lead the reader where it does without the implication that the conclusion is already determined.
Last, I note this quote early in your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InChristAlone
Jesus did not come to make bad men good; He came to make dead men live.
|
This is one of those statements that gets thrown around a lot. And it sounds good. But I think it is an overly simplistic statement that I would find to be odd coming from either of the two oldest Christian groups we generally see today — the RCC and the EO. These kinds of statements sound more like the cheap grace that is often taught in some more modern evangelical groups. You know, the kind that want you to walk the aisle, say a prayer and then wait for heaven. The kind that don't think that salvation is much more than a change of underwear. I will agree that Jesus starts by making dead men alive. That is the initiation into the faith. But if it stops there, then there is a problem. We should continue in our faith and obedience to become what we were created for in this life — and that is, among other things, to be righteous. And if we do that, then we can honestly say that Jesus has made a bad man good. If we come to the end of our life and cannot say that, then there is a dark cloud over the very claim that we were ever made alive. I would not go so far as to declare that we simply were not made alive, but there is a question.