My story so far:
Church - A Man made idea?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/17729
Diversity in faith teachings - Accept them all?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/17757
Continuing my quest for clarity.
So if the Lord did establish a Church on earth, and that Church had
one teaching, and that Church tolerated no other contradictions in
its teachings, where is that Church? Surely the Lord did not create
so many denominations. Surely he will not pick and choose from among
the denominations for inducting into HIS CHURCH. So where is the
Lord's Church today?
Inorder to look into this, I will need to move away slightly from
Scriptures, as the last book in the Scriptures we have was probably
completed by the end of the first Century - 19 centuries ago. So how
has the Church been in the last 1900 years?
Premise:
-------
If the Church that the Lord established is still present in the world
today, it is our duty to follow that Church, because that is THE
CHURCH, the Bride of the Lord. If on the other hand, this Church of
the first Century Christians died away a few years after the Apostles
time, then we need not follow any Church, instead we must try to
revive the First Century Church - where the Holy Spirit worked
wonders.
History and Tradition:
---------------------
Church History of the Malankara Orthodox Church points to a legacy
handed down by the Apostle St. Thomas. It specifically holds that the
faith and precepts of the Early Church was handed down, most probably
by word of mouth and living witnesses and much later in written
format to form what we see around us today. The faith of the Three
great Ecumenical Synods is protected with great vigour and passion in
the Church even today.
The tradition of over 2000 years is a great testimony. It shows a
Christian heritage in India as old as Christianity itself.
There are umpteen quarrels and fights in the Church today, but none
regarding the age old faith precepts of the Church. The faith is not
open for discussion, it is not something up for debate - it can only
be lived by.
My understanding:
----------------
The Church could not have died away. Because the Lord himself is the
cornerstone of HIS CHURCH. He gave the assurance that 'the gates of
Hades will never overcome (THE CHURCH)'. He is trustworthy. His words
will never fail. His words are the blessed assurance for us.
History does not contradict the evidence glaring out of the
traditions and cultures of St.Thomas Christians. The Church in India
is as old as Christendom. The fact that she survived in this land and
is witnessing her faith to the world today in unambiguous terms
through the lives of many thousand Malankara Christians the world
over, is nothing but the power of the Holy Spirit working in the
Church.
Whenever questions arose against the faith, and heresies arose, there
was struggle - and many have separated from the Mother Church, but
the Mother Church continues her witness, even though impoverished by
the separation of her children. It is my faith and understanding that
this Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Church is part of THE CHURCH that
the Lord built by giving his blood and so I cling onto her with all
passion and all hope. And I can see no other so called 'Churches' or group or
place in the same manner. [If I am found in the wrong in this aspect, I hope to
be shown mercy as St.Paul was even though he persecuted the Lord's Church
(because he was 'of good conscience' - Acts 23:1), but I choose to stay clear of
the appeasement philosophy of 'all are the same'. All definitely are not the
same. Pray that the good Lord has mercy on me.]
The other side:
---------------
That was the conservative side. There is another more liberal side to
these thoughts, that I must share, in the same breath. Just like I am
passionate about what I see as THE CHURCH, I must allow for another
person (say a Marthomite) being as passionate, if not more, about his
Church, which he/she considers as THE CHURCH. I do not agree with
him, but I can relate to where he is coming from. (This is why I can
relate to what the Pope said recently about his Church being THE
CHURCH). I have differences with them, and I cannot agree beyond a
limit, but that does not matter - allowing and accomodating for the
other person is an integral part of Christian duty. By the same
token, we must allow for the reasoning of people of other faiths too.
I think this is how religion is intended to be. Without this subtle but critical
balancing act, our passion for THE CHURCH of our Lord disintegrates into
fanaticism and therin lie the roots of the worst abuses of religion in the world
today. That leads me to the
next thought in my mind. Thanks for reading so far.
NEXT: The role of Ecumenism.
Regards,
Mathew Samuel,
Albany, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/17823
Church - A Man made idea?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/17729
Diversity in faith teachings - Accept them all?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/17757
Continuing my quest for clarity.
So if the Lord did establish a Church on earth, and that Church had
one teaching, and that Church tolerated no other contradictions in
its teachings, where is that Church? Surely the Lord did not create
so many denominations. Surely he will not pick and choose from among
the denominations for inducting into HIS CHURCH. So where is the
Lord's Church today?
Inorder to look into this, I will need to move away slightly from
Scriptures, as the last book in the Scriptures we have was probably
completed by the end of the first Century - 19 centuries ago. So how
has the Church been in the last 1900 years?
Premise:
-------
If the Church that the Lord established is still present in the world
today, it is our duty to follow that Church, because that is THE
CHURCH, the Bride of the Lord. If on the other hand, this Church of
the first Century Christians died away a few years after the Apostles
time, then we need not follow any Church, instead we must try to
revive the First Century Church - where the Holy Spirit worked
wonders.
History and Tradition:
---------------------
Church History of the Malankara Orthodox Church points to a legacy
handed down by the Apostle St. Thomas. It specifically holds that the
faith and precepts of the Early Church was handed down, most probably
by word of mouth and living witnesses and much later in written
format to form what we see around us today. The faith of the Three
great Ecumenical Synods is protected with great vigour and passion in
the Church even today.
The tradition of over 2000 years is a great testimony. It shows a
Christian heritage in India as old as Christianity itself.
There are umpteen quarrels and fights in the Church today, but none
regarding the age old faith precepts of the Church. The faith is not
open for discussion, it is not something up for debate - it can only
be lived by.
My understanding:
----------------
The Church could not have died away. Because the Lord himself is the
cornerstone of HIS CHURCH. He gave the assurance that 'the gates of
Hades will never overcome (THE CHURCH)'. He is trustworthy. His words
will never fail. His words are the blessed assurance for us.
History does not contradict the evidence glaring out of the
traditions and cultures of St.Thomas Christians. The Church in India
is as old as Christendom. The fact that she survived in this land and
is witnessing her faith to the world today in unambiguous terms
through the lives of many thousand Malankara Christians the world
over, is nothing but the power of the Holy Spirit working in the
Church.
Whenever questions arose against the faith, and heresies arose, there
was struggle - and many have separated from the Mother Church, but
the Mother Church continues her witness, even though impoverished by
the separation of her children. It is my faith and understanding that
this Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Church is part of THE CHURCH that
the Lord built by giving his blood and so I cling onto her with all
passion and all hope. And I can see no other so called 'Churches' or group or
place in the same manner. [If I am found in the wrong in this aspect, I hope to
be shown mercy as St.Paul was even though he persecuted the Lord's Church
(because he was 'of good conscience' - Acts 23:1), but I choose to stay clear of
the appeasement philosophy of 'all are the same'. All definitely are not the
same. Pray that the good Lord has mercy on me.]
The other side:
---------------
That was the conservative side. There is another more liberal side to
these thoughts, that I must share, in the same breath. Just like I am
passionate about what I see as THE CHURCH, I must allow for another
person (say a Marthomite) being as passionate, if not more, about his
Church, which he/she considers as THE CHURCH. I do not agree with
him, but I can relate to where he is coming from. (This is why I can
relate to what the Pope said recently about his Church being THE
CHURCH). I have differences with them, and I cannot agree beyond a
limit, but that does not matter - allowing and accomodating for the
other person is an integral part of Christian duty. By the same
token, we must allow for the reasoning of people of other faiths too.
I think this is how religion is intended to be. Without this subtle but critical
balancing act, our passion for THE CHURCH of our Lord disintegrates into
fanaticism and therin lie the roots of the worst abuses of religion in the world
today. That leads me to the
next thought in my mind. Thanks for reading so far.
NEXT: The role of Ecumenism.
Regards,
Mathew Samuel,
Albany, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/17823
No comments:
Post a Comment