Contours of Conversion and the Ecumenical Movement

“Saint John Chrysostom advises each of us how to help those outside of the Church, “thou canst not work miracles, and so convert him. By the means which are in thy power, convert him; by showing him brotherly love, by offering him shelter, by being gentle with him, by dealing kindly him, and by all other means.” In other words, we need to reach out to those heterodox Christians outside the Church with that hospitality and love so characteristic of Orthodoxy. This means being able to see whatever virtue is present among those in error even as Saint Peter, not to mention an angel of God, saw virtue in Cornelius prior to his Baptism. The path to conversion is not an easy one, and those struggling along it need our love, concern, and support. At the same time, however, we must proclaim the “hard saying” of the Truth, even if it is painful. The truth that the Orthodox Church is the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” as well as the unique ark of salvation is “our chief cornerstone, elect and precious,” that has always been and will always be “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.”

It should not be surprising that those formerly heterodox Christians who have converted to the Church are the fiercest opponents of ecumenism. For ecumenists, converts to Orthodoxy are clearly an embarrassment, since conversion denies the existence of some middle ground between the Church and heterodox confessions. For converts, their involvement in ecumenism would be the fulfillment of the proverb “as a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” Converts are intimately familiar with the spiritual sickness and suffering caused by infidelity to the teachings of Christ and His Church in heterodox communities. They cannot be duped by soothing words about love that sacrifice the Truth or empty words about a unity that in reality does not and cannot possibly exist. Their repentance over what is wrong in those communities was by the grace of God a fount of knowledge leading to salvation. They will not let ecumenism deny this knowledge to themselves or to others.

And this position of theirs is not a negative position. On the contrary, it springs from love for Christ, love for the Church, love for the Truth, love for those within the Church, and love for those outside of Her bosom. In love, we reject ecumenism, because we want to offer those in heterodoxy precisely what the Lord has graciously given to all of us in the Holy Orthodox Church, the opportunity to become members of the Most Pure Body of Christ, “children of light” and “heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love him.”-Contours of Conversion and the Ecumenical Movement by Hieromonk Alexios Karakallinos.

Owen (The Ochlophobist) has a long but very good post concerning Ecumenicism here.

Media Bias Concerning the Cause of Global Warming

“The story of man-made climate change, or global warming, has everything a left-leaning journalist could possibly desire: It’s about the environment, always a fave topic, and it pits those who care about the earth against big bad business and the presumably insensitive, self-absorbed consumer—likewise topics about which liberals love to write. And because there are scientists out there who argue that the case on global warming is already closed—that it is definitely mankind’s CO2-spewing actions that are changing the climate—most major media outlets have shown themselves eager to run regular “news” stories that present man-made global warming as fact, insisting that no disagreement exists among scientists.

For example, a keyword search of The New York Times (April through June of 2007) resulted in 43 stories or analyses that focused on—or included—the topic “climate change,” none of which featured any substantive quotes or explanations that departed from the environmentalist party line on global warming.

A few articles did note disagreements between environmental groups over how best to deal with the problem, but none quarreled with global warming itself. And while most economic studies have tied the reduction of emissions to substantial costs for consumers, businesses, and nations, only three of the pieces in question acknowledged—not through research, mind you, but just via statements from interested -parties—some “possible” costs. In contrast, many of these articles quoted politicians who declared that fighting global warming would be just dandy for the economy.

Other articles focused on the people pushing our nation’s spy agencies to focus on climate change; how poor nations will suffer most from global warming’s fallout; the businesses that are aboard the climate-change fight; and even an artist going around New York City using blue chalk on streets and sidewalks to mark a flood line based on global warming projections.

Just in case you were wondering, it is not at all difficult to find climate scientists and experts who disagree with the absolutist position on man-made global warming. Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Here’s what the petition states:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Despite such findings, however, media outlets such as The New York Times continue to proceed as if the global warming threat isn’t a theory at all, but rather as demonstrable as gravity. Not only that, but when they are forced to admit that there are some who do disagree with such certainty, they often portray these individuals as idiots—or worse…..

According to a new Zogby poll on public attitudes in the U.S. toward global warming, 70 percent of Americans believe that man-made climate change is a fact. Clearly, media bias can, and does, influence our culture. The point here is not whether global warming is truly occurring, but whether the media covers the topic in a fair and complete fashion, which they do not. And if this is the case with global warming, on how many other issues is media bias influencing people’s views?

Thankfully, we are becoming less and less reliant on legacy media outlets. As the internet and broadband technology leap ahead, media competition and choices for the public expand, too. And in the end, more choice just might be the answer to media bias.” From Salvo Magazine.

The Protestant Presuppositions and Origins of the Modern Ecumenical Movement

“Among many Orthodox Christians today it is generally accepted that the
contemporary Ecumenical Movement began with the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” Furthermore, it is generally believed that the movement for Christian unity arose out of a search for “unity in truth” and doctrinal agreement. It will, thus, come as a surprise to many to discover that the historical record disproves both of these assertions beyond a shadow of a doubt.

History shows that the contemporary Ecumenical Movement has its roots in the Protestant missionary movement of the 19th century and its inspiration in the desire of Evangelical Protestants to achieve a “unity in fellowship” amongst themselves for greater success in the mission field. Willem Saayman, a Protestant scholar of missiology, begins his study on mission and unity with the following words: “The ecumenical movement does not derive simply from a passion for unity; it sprang from a passion for unity that is completely fused in mission.” The union of mission and ecumenism, however, was not something arrived at quickly or painlessly for the Protestant world. It grew slowly in the soil of global confessional alliances and community agreements among the Protestants in the second half of the 19th century, and continued in the international student movements and missionary conferences, becoming a new paradigm of ecclesiastical unity – for the conversion of the world. It became, from 1910 onwards, the basis upon which the Ecumenical Movement was built.

It is, thus, apparent that, long before the 1920 encyclical was sent out and the Orthodox entered into the discussion, the presuppositions and parameters of encounter were set and they did not, even in the slightest, reflect or even acknowledge Orthodox ecclesiological principles. The ecclesiological framework in which the ecumenical movement was forged, formed, developed and exists to this day is, with slight adjustments, the product of 19th century Evangelicalism.”- Fr. Peter Alban Heers

-Fr. Peter works out the details of this history in his paper The Missionary Origins of Modern Ecumenicism: Milestones leading up to 1920.