The forest around Herman’s cell, which you say feels like it is itself praying, is a perfect example of what traditional cosmology insists upon: creation is not neutral matter but a language of symbols. To those with eyes to see, the trees, moss, and silence gather heaven and earth into a meeting place of meaning.
In the language of the Fathers, this recalls our calling to live as “sojourners,” suspended between heaven and earth. We are placed in the world, yet our true home is elsewhere, so every place becomes a temporary icon of the Kingdom.
The porpoises escorting the boat, the gull shadowing you on your way home. These are not coincidences but signs and reminders that creation is charged with purpose. Somehow always pointing beyond itself.
Perhaps this is why one can feel “at home” in such places while knowing we are not yet truly home. The forest of prayer is both a shelter for the pilgrim and a signpost toward the City not built by hands.
The forest around Herman’s cell, which you say feels like it is itself praying, is a perfect example of what traditional cosmology insists upon: creation is not neutral matter but a language of symbols. To those with eyes to see, the trees, moss, and silence gather heaven and earth into a meeting place of meaning.
In the language of the Fathers, this recalls our calling to live as “sojourners,” suspended between heaven and earth. We are placed in the world, yet our true home is elsewhere, so every place becomes a temporary icon of the Kingdom.
The porpoises escorting the boat, the gull shadowing you on your way home. These are not coincidences but signs and reminders that creation is charged with purpose. Somehow always pointing beyond itself.
Perhaps this is why one can feel “at home” in such places while knowing we are not yet truly home. The forest of prayer is both a shelter for the pilgrim and a signpost toward the City not built by hands.
What a precious experience to share with your family Paul. Before reading this I had just finished reading my daily online Christian meditations. I must confess, 'daily' does not always happen. A line stood out. Immediate , unmediated contact with the moment is the closest path to divine union. It seems that there are some places that call us to this present moment spiritual experience. I think you found one there.
Just listened to a conversation (John Vervaeke/Jordan Hall/Guy Sengsen(?)/christopher Maesterpietro) which touched on this theme and came to a similar conclusion. -> being fully present in the moment when the moment has a depth dimension to it (=earth and heaven touch) +(present and past and future "memories" coincide) is like getting(=experiencing humanly) a glimpse of eternity. What a fantastic world our God created.......!!!
Don't get any ideas of retiring as a monk. We need you in the world Paul, writing about the beauty and serenity of places such as these, especially in these discordant times.
I get those ideas a few times a day, but my wife and children then remind me why they are only ideas. Also, I would be a terrible monk. I love visiting them though. Places like this remind me of what I aspire to spiritually.
That was a lovely read. It really put me in mind of Lothlorien in Lord Of The Rings, when Frodo first sees Cerin Amroth: ‘It seemed to him that he had stepped through a high window…..A light was upon it for which his language had no name’ I think I read that Tolkien, in a way, saw the advance of Mordor as the advance of technology, seeing it as something that ‘coerced’ people into the will of ‘the machine.’ I know he deeply regretted the invention of the internal combustion engine!!
Paul, you convey so well the ‘feel’ of these places. Thank you for taking me back there like this and reminding me of my own pilgrimage there in 2018. Transformative, otherworldly, holy, wholly beautiful and restorative. Glad you were able to make it!
What a beautiful place ; thank you for telling me about it, Paul, and showing it to me a little. Yes, it brings hope to know that places like this exist, and maybe, that the monks and nuns praying for the world in these places have their work to do too.
And it is priceless to know that the wildness is still there, in the world (or outside of it ?).
"as if we have been here longer than a day".. a wonderful telling here today.
Beringia, the other side of Eden by moderation of the sea and a subtle compost of the soil... redemption?
There are very few places where I have experienced a place I could stay like that. though I have heard tell of others and seen glimpses elsewhere where I guess good lives sufficiently persist long after they have gone. 'Our ancestors still pray for us' might be more than a poetic conceit?
This is a great and beautiful meditation! Thank you. Only one editorial suggestion before this makes it into a book. There is one passing jab at western Christianity (sounds like a jab at Catholics in particular) which, given the Orthodox history with empire and nationalism, is distracting and question-begging. This jab at the west can easily be omitted and the essay would lose little: “though a lot of Christians, especially in the West, have tried to fudge the matter…”
Or maybe there are a host of other questions.. “which Christians?” Charismatics, Presbyterians, LDS? And so on. What does he mean by fudging? Some of us by nature want to go further down the trail.. best to be careful with potential distractions. If we didn’t care what you think, Paul, it wouldn’t be so tempting to try to figure it out.
I was mainly referring to the post-Reformation, and mostly (though not exclusively) Protestant desire to 'immanentise the Eschaton', or to turn Christianity into a kind of social justice NGO (on the left) or nationalistic idol (on the right.) I didn't say more because it was a distraction, but I wanted to say something. I do think that the Reformation was a turning point in this regard. But mainly I wanted to write about the forest.
I should also add that I never (or I try never) to make 'jabs' at any other types of Christian. I rarely write about any of this, precisely because I think that dwelling on our divisions, let alone arguing about them, is counter-productive and unspiritual. Sometimes I do need to say what I think though - and when I criticise 'the West' it is coming from a man of the West - and it's important that we stand by what we believe and be prepared to say why we do. One day I might write about why specifically I became Orthodox, though it's never quite seemed the right time for that. But I probably will some day. Only when I'm sure I can do it in a spirit of love, though.
This beautiful essay about Saint Seraphim and his Bear by Michael Warren Davis @michaelwarrendavis perfectly articulates what brought me specifically to Orthodoxy. I would be surprised if it did not strongly resonate with you as well.
I respect your desire to avoid jabs at other Believers. It is too easy to engage in strawmanning, if not deliberately, out of ignorance. I see that on occasion in Rod Dreher's writing (which I respect and enjoy.) You both enjoy pot shots at the Reformation which generated no more error and foolishness than the RC or Orthodox institutions it left behind. And like those to some extent, it is a broad field not easily pigeonholed.
Slight correction here -- the Reformation didn't leave any "Orthodox institutions" behind, because it had little if anything to do with them. The Reformers' primary concerns had to do with what they perceived as RC errors, not Orthodox ones. Of course in some areas there was overlap, but this wasn't true regarding some of the major points of contention (the Papacy, indulgences, etc.).
Well, the Orthodox perspective on this is that the 'Reformation' is essentially a civil war within the Western church. The east-west split in 1054 came about due to what the Orthodox regard as Roman errors, and those errors are also what led to the Western church's division 500 years later. It's notable that both Orthodox and Protestants share the biggest critique, which is of the assumed power of the Pope of Rome, and his claim to supremacy over the church.
Giving reasons for what are important issues of doctrine does not constitute 'jabs at other believers', in my view. Or it shouldn't. It's not personal and it doesn't mean any disrepect to another believer; nor does it question whether or not that person is a 'genuine Christian' - only God knows who is a genuine Christian and who isn't (although one might be tempted to an educated guess when it comes to some celebrity converts who are shoved in our faces by the Mockingbird media!).
I mentioned Tudor Alexander already - he's quite clear about this. He is Romanian by birth and went to the US with his family. His parents are Orthodox and he was brought up in that tradition and still occasionally goes to church with them. He was really 'religious', but now sees the difference between 'religion' and faith, and - after a hiatus during which he got quite far into the New Age/self-improvement deception - returned to Christ without the 'religion'. The defence of faith in the Gospel, pure and simple, against man-made tradition, is an important part of his work.
Returning to the Reformation, one thing I now think they got wrong was in not returning to Sabbath keeping. Observing the oxymoron of a 'Sunday Sabbath' is entirely a result of pagan Constantine declaring in 321AD that no-one in the Empire should labour on the Venerable Day of the Sun. I believe the Orthodox church keeps the Sabbath? And the Celtic church kept the Sabbath until the 11th century, when it was dragged into line with the RCs by Margaret.
I don't take pot shots but I do sometimes make critiques. I wrote an entire essay once about how the Reformation had paved the way for modernity, and this is not an original observation. I've no doubt that what Luther started ended up - unintentionally - in a total revolution which would lead to liberalism and modernity. 'The Unintended Reformation' by Brad Gregory is a good book which makes this claim.
From the Orthodox perspective, of course, the Roman Catholic church was always going to generate some kind of conflict of this sort, because of its overweening power claims. So perhaps it was baked in.
None of that is to say that the Orthodox east does not have plenty of problems of its own, now or in history.
I'm certain you don't mean to suggest that had Luther not reacted to the corruption of Rome nor to what he was seeing in Scripture the world would be a better place. The Reformation was a reaction to events rather than a cause. It certainly made waves that washed distant shores as do all events in history; as did the rebellion against Rome by Jon Huss 100 years before Luther. Rome would have burned Luther as it did Huss had God not intervened. Who knows what today might look like in that scenario.
Who knows what the world would have been like? The power of the Roman Church, and its corruption, had been challenged for centuries on and off, so something was going to give at some point. I think what is clear is that the particular form that the Reformation(s) took led to an emphasis on individualism which created the world we have today. In England in particular, which I know about more than other nations, the form the Reformation took was immensely spiritually destructive and I think was the beginning of the end for English Christianity.
But really this is that age-old question about whether there are tides in history or not. I tend to think there are.
I'm not sure it matters whether you call the varieties of churches denominations, traditions or something else. Neither the Roman Catholic church nor the Orthodox church nor the Presbyterian church nor the Baptist church is the Church. The Church is the invisible network of Christ's people, all over the world, wherever they go or don't go on a Sunday (or occasionally Saturday). None of the churches I listed resembles the first-century Church, which was not a building or an institution or an empire or a set of rituals. It was a fellowship of believers, with only elders to guide them, through the Holy Spirit. There were no priests and no altars, because the Sacrifice was made once for all time. So 'individualism' wasn't brought in by the Reformation. It was brought in by Christ. But it was individualism (an individual relationship with Christ) with the benefit of fellowship. It doesn't mean believing what you like. It means believing the Gospel, with nothing added and nothing subtracted (as specifically instructed). Obviously Satan was going to mess with that, from Day One.
Just my opinion. I'm still learning, like everyone else.
Well, the point about the first century church is not really correct. Deacons are already being mentioned in the book of Acts. The church had a structure and teachings from a very early point. The Orthodox liturgy, for example, contains prayers from those very early centuries. Much has changed, of course.
The problem with talking about 'the Gospel' as you do here - which is a very protestant notion - is that the church as an institution is what created the Bible in the first place. The Gospels are the root of it all, of course, but without the wider tradition of the Church, and the teachings of the Fathers, there is no agreement on how to read the Gospels. Hence the 10,000 different 'churches' in America alone.
So we need - in my view - the Church and its traditions.
It’s like the Reformers wanted to get back to Apostolic Christianity but ended up creating a version of the faith perfectly suited to Modernity. As a Presbyterian I know we need to extricate ourselves from that if possible. I am probably delusional about that ever happening. (Btw, I have admired Fr Herman ever since I first learned about him.)
I was reared in a German Baptist community (Detroit MI). (How many German Baptists were there in Poland before WW2???) I thought the German Baptists had the corner on the truth.
The best thing that happened to me was that I 'found myself' outside the tradition in which I grew up– not that there weren't some wonderful things in that tradition. Since then (my university days) I have been in Non-denominational churches, Southern Baptist, Brethren, Missionary, Presbyterian, and now find myself in an Anglican Church/fellowship (Kansas). There are God's chosen, true believers and followers of Christ, in each of those traditions.
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts." Mal. 1
"There are God's chosen, true believers and followers of Christ, in each of those traditions."
Amen to that. One of the greatest sins of 'denominations' generally is Pride - the belief that you have to be in their denomination to be saved. The RCs are the absolute worst for that - it's hardly a secret.
The Catholic and Orthodox position though is that there are no 'denominations.' That's a post-Reformation, protestant concept. There is only the Church, founded by Christ. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the church is now split in two, and both sides accuse the other of engineering the split and teaching heresies. Despite this, both recognise the other side as a part of the historic church of Christ. They don't recognise protestant denominations as such. You may see this as pride, and I understand why. But from the perspective of the original church it is not pride, but a need to defend the church from endless splits. After all, if anyone can claim to be 'the church' whatever they teach, what meaning does that word have?
I totally agree (see my longer comment above, which should have been here).
Just out of interest, here is Tudor A's take on the End Times (if it doesn't happen you can prove him wrong! I find him interesting because he knows Orthodoxy inside out but now learns from Scripture and History. So (I'm just the messenger!):
- Orthodoxy will re-merge with Catholicism;
- Protestantism is already self-immolating because of wokery, Jesuit infiltration and false teachings like the prosperity gospel and dispensationalism;
- there is currently a minor explosion of converts, mostly to RC and Orthodoxy, (a) because people are fleeing the nonsense versions of protestantism and (b) because people are always tempted by ritual over Scripture;
- the Jews are going to be thrown under the bus, which will further collapse protestantism (especially in the US, where the dispensationalists tend to be);
- many Jews, protestants, Muslims and atheists will convert to catholicism.
- the Christian Nationalist movement will increase the power of the RC church and bring back the alliance between church and state (this will start in the US, which is identified as the 'image of the beast' in Revelation, with Rome being the beast itself);
- we will be back to the situation that that the RC church enjoyed for hundreds of years, where it becomes an empire again and will again kill Christians who will not bow to it.
- final stage - Christ will come back and put an end to it.
You may find it a more difficult proposition than you think. I remember well why I became Orthodox at the particular time and way I did, but increasingly there are layers and layers to that. More and more I just want to say "Because of Pascha" and then let it be.
If you listen to the video clips in this article by Terry Wolfe (Winter Christian Substack) - even just the shorter 8-minute one - you will see Catholic social-justice theology laid out in detail by the late Pope Francis. It's right up there with 'you will own nothing and be happy'. Jesuitry at its most insidious. They already practised their socialist theocracy with the Guarani Indians in Paraguay. They're not going to stop now - the Catholic church is up to its eyes in the New World Order. As prophesied in Revelation.
Tudor Alexander (raised Romanian Orthodox, now non-denominational) is very good on all of this in his Dance of Life Podcast. He has several videos on Orthodoxy and a series of many hours on Catholicism, as well as on various misguided protestant denominations and ideologies. I listen to everybody, but I also believe at this point that non-denominationalism is the way to go. The Gospel is the Gospel. And a lot of the add-ons are simply paganism by another name.
My dad was there in '42; one of his concluding comments about a tragic interaction (for the bear) with a Kodiak that wandered into the Seabees' camp was "... but this damn kid from Iowa got scared- if he'd just left it alone, it would've gone about its business and wandered on..."
Wonderful stuff. I really must get there someday.
There are No words to say what I feel after reading this ... I feel the peace and beauty of such a place. What a blessing!
The forest around Herman’s cell, which you say feels like it is itself praying, is a perfect example of what traditional cosmology insists upon: creation is not neutral matter but a language of symbols. To those with eyes to see, the trees, moss, and silence gather heaven and earth into a meeting place of meaning.
In the language of the Fathers, this recalls our calling to live as “sojourners,” suspended between heaven and earth. We are placed in the world, yet our true home is elsewhere, so every place becomes a temporary icon of the Kingdom.
The porpoises escorting the boat, the gull shadowing you on your way home. These are not coincidences but signs and reminders that creation is charged with purpose. Somehow always pointing beyond itself.
Perhaps this is why one can feel “at home” in such places while knowing we are not yet truly home. The forest of prayer is both a shelter for the pilgrim and a signpost toward the City not built by hands.
The forest around Herman’s cell, which you say feels like it is itself praying, is a perfect example of what traditional cosmology insists upon: creation is not neutral matter but a language of symbols. To those with eyes to see, the trees, moss, and silence gather heaven and earth into a meeting place of meaning.
In the language of the Fathers, this recalls our calling to live as “sojourners,” suspended between heaven and earth. We are placed in the world, yet our true home is elsewhere, so every place becomes a temporary icon of the Kingdom.
The porpoises escorting the boat, the gull shadowing you on your way home. These are not coincidences but signs and reminders that creation is charged with purpose. Somehow always pointing beyond itself.
Perhaps this is why one can feel “at home” in such places while knowing we are not yet truly home. The forest of prayer is both a shelter for the pilgrim and a signpost toward the City not built by hands.
What a precious experience to share with your family Paul. Before reading this I had just finished reading my daily online Christian meditations. I must confess, 'daily' does not always happen. A line stood out. Immediate , unmediated contact with the moment is the closest path to divine union. It seems that there are some places that call us to this present moment spiritual experience. I think you found one there.
Just listened to a conversation (John Vervaeke/Jordan Hall/Guy Sengsen(?)/christopher Maesterpietro) which touched on this theme and came to a similar conclusion. -> being fully present in the moment when the moment has a depth dimension to it (=earth and heaven touch) +(present and past and future "memories" coincide) is like getting(=experiencing humanly) a glimpse of eternity. What a fantastic world our God created.......!!!
I’m sure you were reading Richard Rohr s daily meditation as I was all about living in the present moment ……
Yes Jane I had just finished reading it.
Such beautiful photos! Thank you for them, too.
Don't get any ideas of retiring as a monk. We need you in the world Paul, writing about the beauty and serenity of places such as these, especially in these discordant times.
Indeed. 'Doing the work he's been given to do.'
I get those ideas a few times a day, but my wife and children then remind me why they are only ideas. Also, I would be a terrible monk. I love visiting them though. Places like this remind me of what I aspire to spiritually.
That was a lovely read. It really put me in mind of Lothlorien in Lord Of The Rings, when Frodo first sees Cerin Amroth: ‘It seemed to him that he had stepped through a high window…..A light was upon it for which his language had no name’ I think I read that Tolkien, in a way, saw the advance of Mordor as the advance of technology, seeing it as something that ‘coerced’ people into the will of ‘the machine.’ I know he deeply regretted the invention of the internal combustion engine!!
Paul, you convey so well the ‘feel’ of these places. Thank you for taking me back there like this and reminding me of my own pilgrimage there in 2018. Transformative, otherworldly, holy, wholly beautiful and restorative. Glad you were able to make it!
This piece makes me so want to visit this blessed island, I felt something of it as you related it!
What a beautiful place ; thank you for telling me about it, Paul, and showing it to me a little. Yes, it brings hope to know that places like this exist, and maybe, that the monks and nuns praying for the world in these places have their work to do too.
And it is priceless to know that the wildness is still there, in the world (or outside of it ?).
"as if we have been here longer than a day".. a wonderful telling here today.
Beringia, the other side of Eden by moderation of the sea and a subtle compost of the soil... redemption?
There are very few places where I have experienced a place I could stay like that. though I have heard tell of others and seen glimpses elsewhere where I guess good lives sufficiently persist long after they have gone. 'Our ancestors still pray for us' might be more than a poetic conceit?
Reading your description of this place made me breathe deeper, sit quieter and "dream" (reach into the unknown) bolder. Thank you!
You took me there in your writing as the journey unfolded step by step . Deep into the calm with each moment of wonder like a guided meditation.
This is a great and beautiful meditation! Thank you. Only one editorial suggestion before this makes it into a book. There is one passing jab at western Christianity (sounds like a jab at Catholics in particular) which, given the Orthodox history with empire and nationalism, is distracting and question-begging. This jab at the west can easily be omitted and the essay would lose little: “though a lot of Christians, especially in the West, have tried to fudge the matter…”
Or maybe there are a host of other questions.. “which Christians?” Charismatics, Presbyterians, LDS? And so on. What does he mean by fudging? Some of us by nature want to go further down the trail.. best to be careful with potential distractions. If we didn’t care what you think, Paul, it wouldn’t be so tempting to try to figure it out.
I was mainly referring to the post-Reformation, and mostly (though not exclusively) Protestant desire to 'immanentise the Eschaton', or to turn Christianity into a kind of social justice NGO (on the left) or nationalistic idol (on the right.) I didn't say more because it was a distraction, but I wanted to say something. I do think that the Reformation was a turning point in this regard. But mainly I wanted to write about the forest.
I should also add that I never (or I try never) to make 'jabs' at any other types of Christian. I rarely write about any of this, precisely because I think that dwelling on our divisions, let alone arguing about them, is counter-productive and unspiritual. Sometimes I do need to say what I think though - and when I criticise 'the West' it is coming from a man of the West - and it's important that we stand by what we believe and be prepared to say why we do. One day I might write about why specifically I became Orthodox, though it's never quite seemed the right time for that. But I probably will some day. Only when I'm sure I can do it in a spirit of love, though.
This beautiful essay about Saint Seraphim and his Bear by Michael Warren Davis @michaelwarrendavis perfectly articulates what brought me specifically to Orthodoxy. I would be surprised if it did not strongly resonate with you as well.
https://open.substack.com/pub/spruceisland/p/argumentum-ad-ursos
I respect your desire to avoid jabs at other Believers. It is too easy to engage in strawmanning, if not deliberately, out of ignorance. I see that on occasion in Rod Dreher's writing (which I respect and enjoy.) You both enjoy pot shots at the Reformation which generated no more error and foolishness than the RC or Orthodox institutions it left behind. And like those to some extent, it is a broad field not easily pigeonholed.
Blessings.
Slight correction here -- the Reformation didn't leave any "Orthodox institutions" behind, because it had little if anything to do with them. The Reformers' primary concerns had to do with what they perceived as RC errors, not Orthodox ones. Of course in some areas there was overlap, but this wasn't true regarding some of the major points of contention (the Papacy, indulgences, etc.).
I understand your niggle though in broad terms RC and Orthodox are in similar camps; not products of the Reformation.
Well, the Orthodox perspective on this is that the 'Reformation' is essentially a civil war within the Western church. The east-west split in 1054 came about due to what the Orthodox regard as Roman errors, and those errors are also what led to the Western church's division 500 years later. It's notable that both Orthodox and Protestants share the biggest critique, which is of the assumed power of the Pope of Rome, and his claim to supremacy over the church.
Well yes -- they couldn't be, since both antedate it.
Giving reasons for what are important issues of doctrine does not constitute 'jabs at other believers', in my view. Or it shouldn't. It's not personal and it doesn't mean any disrepect to another believer; nor does it question whether or not that person is a 'genuine Christian' - only God knows who is a genuine Christian and who isn't (although one might be tempted to an educated guess when it comes to some celebrity converts who are shoved in our faces by the Mockingbird media!).
I mentioned Tudor Alexander already - he's quite clear about this. He is Romanian by birth and went to the US with his family. His parents are Orthodox and he was brought up in that tradition and still occasionally goes to church with them. He was really 'religious', but now sees the difference between 'religion' and faith, and - after a hiatus during which he got quite far into the New Age/self-improvement deception - returned to Christ without the 'religion'. The defence of faith in the Gospel, pure and simple, against man-made tradition, is an important part of his work.
Returning to the Reformation, one thing I now think they got wrong was in not returning to Sabbath keeping. Observing the oxymoron of a 'Sunday Sabbath' is entirely a result of pagan Constantine declaring in 321AD that no-one in the Empire should labour on the Venerable Day of the Sun. I believe the Orthodox church keeps the Sabbath? And the Celtic church kept the Sabbath until the 11th century, when it was dragged into line with the RCs by Margaret.
I don't take pot shots but I do sometimes make critiques. I wrote an entire essay once about how the Reformation had paved the way for modernity, and this is not an original observation. I've no doubt that what Luther started ended up - unintentionally - in a total revolution which would lead to liberalism and modernity. 'The Unintended Reformation' by Brad Gregory is a good book which makes this claim.
From the Orthodox perspective, of course, the Roman Catholic church was always going to generate some kind of conflict of this sort, because of its overweening power claims. So perhaps it was baked in.
None of that is to say that the Orthodox east does not have plenty of problems of its own, now or in history.
I'm certain you don't mean to suggest that had Luther not reacted to the corruption of Rome nor to what he was seeing in Scripture the world would be a better place. The Reformation was a reaction to events rather than a cause. It certainly made waves that washed distant shores as do all events in history; as did the rebellion against Rome by Jon Huss 100 years before Luther. Rome would have burned Luther as it did Huss had God not intervened. Who knows what today might look like in that scenario.
Who knows what the world would have been like? The power of the Roman Church, and its corruption, had been challenged for centuries on and off, so something was going to give at some point. I think what is clear is that the particular form that the Reformation(s) took led to an emphasis on individualism which created the world we have today. In England in particular, which I know about more than other nations, the form the Reformation took was immensely spiritually destructive and I think was the beginning of the end for English Christianity.
But really this is that age-old question about whether there are tides in history or not. I tend to think there are.
I'm not sure it matters whether you call the varieties of churches denominations, traditions or something else. Neither the Roman Catholic church nor the Orthodox church nor the Presbyterian church nor the Baptist church is the Church. The Church is the invisible network of Christ's people, all over the world, wherever they go or don't go on a Sunday (or occasionally Saturday). None of the churches I listed resembles the first-century Church, which was not a building or an institution or an empire or a set of rituals. It was a fellowship of believers, with only elders to guide them, through the Holy Spirit. There were no priests and no altars, because the Sacrifice was made once for all time. So 'individualism' wasn't brought in by the Reformation. It was brought in by Christ. But it was individualism (an individual relationship with Christ) with the benefit of fellowship. It doesn't mean believing what you like. It means believing the Gospel, with nothing added and nothing subtracted (as specifically instructed). Obviously Satan was going to mess with that, from Day One.
Just my opinion. I'm still learning, like everyone else.
Well, the point about the first century church is not really correct. Deacons are already being mentioned in the book of Acts. The church had a structure and teachings from a very early point. The Orthodox liturgy, for example, contains prayers from those very early centuries. Much has changed, of course.
The problem with talking about 'the Gospel' as you do here - which is a very protestant notion - is that the church as an institution is what created the Bible in the first place. The Gospels are the root of it all, of course, but without the wider tradition of the Church, and the teachings of the Fathers, there is no agreement on how to read the Gospels. Hence the 10,000 different 'churches' in America alone.
So we need - in my view - the Church and its traditions.
"The Church is the invisible network of Christ's people, all over the world, wherever they go or don't go on a Sunday (or occasionally Saturday)."
That's an invention of Luther's, and does not represent the early Church's own self-understanding.
It’s like the Reformers wanted to get back to Apostolic Christianity but ended up creating a version of the faith perfectly suited to Modernity. As a Presbyterian I know we need to extricate ourselves from that if possible. I am probably delusional about that ever happening. (Btw, I have admired Fr Herman ever since I first learned about him.)
That seems like a good summary. For all its flaws, Orthodoxy somehow seems to retain the early church spirit, at least at its best.
I was reared in a German Baptist community (Detroit MI). (How many German Baptists were there in Poland before WW2???) I thought the German Baptists had the corner on the truth.
The best thing that happened to me was that I 'found myself' outside the tradition in which I grew up– not that there weren't some wonderful things in that tradition. Since then (my university days) I have been in Non-denominational churches, Southern Baptist, Brethren, Missionary, Presbyterian, and now find myself in an Anglican Church/fellowship (Kansas). There are God's chosen, true believers and followers of Christ, in each of those traditions.
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts." Mal. 1
"There are God's chosen, true believers and followers of Christ, in each of those traditions."
Amen to that. One of the greatest sins of 'denominations' generally is Pride - the belief that you have to be in their denomination to be saved. The RCs are the absolute worst for that - it's hardly a secret.
The Catholic and Orthodox position though is that there are no 'denominations.' That's a post-Reformation, protestant concept. There is only the Church, founded by Christ. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the church is now split in two, and both sides accuse the other of engineering the split and teaching heresies. Despite this, both recognise the other side as a part of the historic church of Christ. They don't recognise protestant denominations as such. You may see this as pride, and I understand why. But from the perspective of the original church it is not pride, but a need to defend the church from endless splits. After all, if anyone can claim to be 'the church' whatever they teach, what meaning does that word have?
"There is only the Church, founded by Christ."
I totally agree (see my longer comment above, which should have been here).
Just out of interest, here is Tudor A's take on the End Times (if it doesn't happen you can prove him wrong! I find him interesting because he knows Orthodoxy inside out but now learns from Scripture and History. So (I'm just the messenger!):
- Orthodoxy will re-merge with Catholicism;
- Protestantism is already self-immolating because of wokery, Jesuit infiltration and false teachings like the prosperity gospel and dispensationalism;
- there is currently a minor explosion of converts, mostly to RC and Orthodoxy, (a) because people are fleeing the nonsense versions of protestantism and (b) because people are always tempted by ritual over Scripture;
- the Jews are going to be thrown under the bus, which will further collapse protestantism (especially in the US, where the dispensationalists tend to be);
- many Jews, protestants, Muslims and atheists will convert to catholicism.
- the Christian Nationalist movement will increase the power of the RC church and bring back the alliance between church and state (this will start in the US, which is identified as the 'image of the beast' in Revelation, with Rome being the beast itself);
- we will be back to the situation that that the RC church enjoyed for hundreds of years, where it becomes an empire again and will again kill Christians who will not bow to it.
- final stage - Christ will come back and put an end to it.
You may find it a more difficult proposition than you think. I remember well why I became Orthodox at the particular time and way I did, but increasingly there are layers and layers to that. More and more I just want to say "Because of Pascha" and then let it be.
I think that's precisely why I haven't written it! Every time I try, the words on the page seem just too reductive.
If you listen to the video clips in this article by Terry Wolfe (Winter Christian Substack) - even just the shorter 8-minute one - you will see Catholic social-justice theology laid out in detail by the late Pope Francis. It's right up there with 'you will own nothing and be happy'. Jesuitry at its most insidious. They already practised their socialist theocracy with the Guarani Indians in Paraguay. They're not going to stop now - the Catholic church is up to its eyes in the New World Order. As prophesied in Revelation.
https://winterchristian.substack.com/p/the-vatican-british-royalty-and-the
Tudor Alexander (raised Romanian Orthodox, now non-denominational) is very good on all of this in his Dance of Life Podcast. He has several videos on Orthodoxy and a series of many hours on Catholicism, as well as on various misguided protestant denominations and ideologies. I listen to everybody, but I also believe at this point that non-denominationalism is the way to go. The Gospel is the Gospel. And a lot of the add-ons are simply paganism by another name.
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/8cd2a10a0/view/video/16714321940009?sync_id=16714321700009#j6eaxvtw-p6bejis7-qpswiw7h-9wbzk3vm
I wonder how they deal with the Kodiak Bears? Id be scared to walk outside. Im happy places like this exist.
No bears on Spruce Island! Luckily for them. There are plenty on Kodiak island itself though.
My dad was there in '42; one of his concluding comments about a tragic interaction (for the bear) with a Kodiak that wandered into the Seabees' camp was "... but this damn kid from Iowa got scared- if he'd just left it alone, it would've gone about its business and wandered on..."