Into the Wardrobe

Post removed by the author due to excessive sarcasm.

- Dan -

I distinctly remember people in Christendom claiming that Lewis had definitely strayed away from the mainstream when The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe became a rage. I became a Lewis fan as a child. I am a 1950s baby. I have handed down the Love for all things Lewis to my children...and now they are handing it down to their.

The fact that witches, fauns, fairies, and mythical creatures are in this books was and in some circles still a cause for concern. Having said that I wonder if the Harry Potter Books will receive the same resolution 30 years from now? The continued battle between good and evil rages on, and will rage un until that day when the "Enemy" is chained in the place that is reserved for him!

Ger

Looking at the dates, I see that this is an old post, and wonder if anyone is still checking it out. With regard to Sola Scripture, and Fundamentalism in general, this talk by a monk at All Saints Monastery gives some interesting insight:

I'm not sure his understanding of the term "fundamentalism" applies to all who claim the title "fundamentalist", but calling the Bible "only a book" is certainly an insight into differences between Evangelicals and the Orthodox church (at least his section of the Orthodox church).

- Dan -

That clears it up.
I'd explain that among canonical Orthodox churches, there are no sections; if a church breaks away, it is schismatic and no longer part of the canonical Church, whatever it may call itself. Thus, it is critical to be in communion with the Church worldwide via your regional Church (The Russian Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox, or Antiochian Orthodox Churches, for example) which your local church should be a part of (In America you actually have this weird situation where you can choose which one to be in, but it really doesn't matter - it's primarily a matter of differing languages and local practices. So for example, this organization is schismatic (despite its claim):
http://www.apostle1.com/
and this one is canonical:
http://www.oca.org/

Within the Church it is possible to have differing views on non-dogmatic issues (and not possible if there is established dogma - so you can't have a dissenting opinion on abortion or homosexual behavior and be Orthodox, but you CAN differ on whether women should cover their heads (that would fall under local practices and pious traditions based on Scripture or other Tradition, but not dogma).

I'm not sure which "fundamentalists" the monk is referring to - possibly schismatics or potential schismatics, like what happened this last year with Bishop Diomede in the Russian Church (He went bonkers in a fundamentalist way, took a few priests with him and broke off - wound up being stripped of his position). http://www.spc.rs/eng/holy_synod_russia ... ommon_monk
Basically, they place their own interpretations above established Tradition and Church leadership and concepts like recognizing one's own limitations and/or obedience and humility go out the window. They would be "sects" - literally, divisions, as that what "sect" means.

Got it. They're a sect, not a section.

- Dan -

I think so, yes.

For me, life experience (joining the Navy, seeing the world, learning different languages and cultures) taught me the unreasonableness of concepts like "the King James Bible is the only Bible" and eventually Sola Scriptura. I saw the impossibility of one man's being able to know and interpret anything on his own, even if he committed all of his life to it. It's not nearly enough to know ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic (although how many of you know even one of those languages, let alone all?). You need to know and understand the culture as well - how were marriage and divorce understood; what is the concept of family and household, what was the normal average wage of a workman, and every other question of life. It is true that one man could eventually answer many of these questions correctly. But 1) doesn't that make him a (n imperfect) authority figure and 2) where does that leave the average Joe who doesn't know all of that stuff? It turns into a kind of gnosticism, where the person who knows the most is most correct, has the best chance to really "be saved", etc... (I speak in terms of understanding Scripture - I know that Protestants believe that simple people can be saved)

But again, I learned by living in foreign places that the very bases of reality are different, and assumptions that we make in our culture and take for granted simply are not true elsewhere. Thus we blithely depict nativity scenes taking place in a western stable, little realizing that what passes for stables in those Middle Eastern parts are actually caves in the hills. Or again, we depict a young Joseph (about the same age as Mary) because we assume that if a couple gets married, they are probably both young, the same age, and plan to have children together. And that's very true - in OUR culture. Anyway, the examples are legion - I'm just pointing out what has been pointed out many times before - to tell a person to read it for himself, and interpret for himself what ancient texts from faraway lands mean, and perhaps refer to some clarifications from a wise and learned man, and then make all-important theological decisions based on those interpretations, is insane and a sure path to disagreement over interpretations, and ultimately, schism. Hardly a unified body of Christ. It results in, well, what we have today. A complete mess.

The great wisdom that everyone has a good grip on today is that people are not to be trusted - that they are by nature corrupt, and so we reject the error of blind faith in any authority that happens to come along; and so in our age we commit an opposite error- to reject all authority whatsoever except ourselves.