| В полемике с фундаментализмом представители либерального направления евангеликализма и некоторые члены фундаменталистских орг-ций создали т. н. новый евангеликализм, в общих чертах сложившийся к кон. 40-х гг. Термин «нео-евангеликализм» ввел в 1948 г. Х. Дж. Окенга. Неоевангелики критикуют фундаменталистов за сепаратизм, протестант. модернистов и либералов - за отказ от евангеликализма в угоду секулярному обществу. С их т. зр., Евангелие нуждается в новой проповеди, без новаций либерализма и крайностей фундаментализма. Они призывают к обновленной проповеди Евангелия внутри различных христ. деноминаций и провозглашают принцип: «Все, кто принимают Господа Иисуса Христа как Бога и Спасителя, являются христианами». Неоевангелики активно используют для проповеди радио и телевидение, выступают в концертных залах и на стадионах. Их печатный орган - ж. «Христианство сегодня», основанный в 1956 г. Билли Грэмом , самым известным амер. проповедником-неоевангеликом. Крупнейшие учебные заведения неоевангеликов - Фуллеровская семинария, основанная в 1947 г. радиопроповедником Ч. Фуллером в Пасадине (шт. Калифорния), Уитон-колледж (основанный в 1860) и Библейский ин-т Муди. Наиболее известны 2 орг-ции неоевангеликов. Национальная ассоциация евангеликов (National Association of Evangelicals; первоначальное название National Association of Evangelicals for United Action) была создана в 1942 г. для координации деятельности Е. в США. Ассоциация объединяет 60 протестант. деноминаций, включающих 45 тыс. общин и орг-ций (в т. ч. и пятидесятнических). «Молодежь за Христа» (Youth for Christ), основанная Грэмом в 1946 г., в наст. время имеет более 60 центров по всему миру. В России активно работают миссионерские орг-ции «Новая жизнь», входящая в состав амер. орг-ции «Крестовый поход за Христа» (Campus Crusade for Christ; 1956); «Гидеоновы братья» (The Gideon " s International), распространяющая Библию на национальных языках; «Навигаторы»; «Всемирное видение» (World Vision), которая оказывает помощь церквам Е. в различных странах; христ. центры «Возрождение», учрежденные «Евангелической ассоциацией Билли Грэма» (The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), и др. |
| May is the month for college graduations. It is a time of new beginnings for Orthodox Christian college students across the country as they transition out of campus life and into adulthood. Graduation season is also an opportunity to look at Orthodox campus ministry in America and its well-being. The health of campus ministry is a key indicator of the future health of Orthodoxy in America. College students are by far one of the most at-risk groups in the Orthodox Church today. Young men and women on college campuses are confronted with an environment that is increasingly hostile to Orthodox Christianity. Living Orthodox beliefs on a college campus often means presenting oneself as a subject of ridicule. At many colleges, an Orthodox Christian worldview is considered at best a superstitious relic and at worst a form of bigotry. The peer pressure that Orthodox Christian college students face to set aside their beliefs and remain silent about their faith has never been greater. This is the reality facing Orthodox campus ministry today On the surface, everything appears well with campus ministry. There are conferences, mission trips, and retreats throughout the year. Social media is alive with updates. One would think that college students are doing just fine when it comes to staying connected to the Church. However, appearances can often disguise more serious concerns. The Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in the United States has produced a 114-page research study of Orthodox Campus Fellowship. A study of the facts presented in this report shows a number of challenges when it comes to Orthodox college students. These issues demonstrate that the present model of Orthodox campus ministry is struggling to fulfill its mission. Compared to other Christian groups on campus, the Orthodox Church has been underperforming for years when it comes to ministering to college students. Orthodox Campus ministry efforts have been downsized considerably over the years. Today there are only two dedicated staff for North American ministry which is a 75% reduction in program staffing from June of 2012. A review of campus ministry’s strategic plan shows a series of goals that have gone unmet for years with the most significant failure being the neglect of the regional coordinator program as well as regional chaplaincies Campus ministry also provides scarce stewardship information to alumni, donors and volunteers Organizational by-laws, minutes from board meetings, annual reports, and regular financial information are all unavailable on the national website. The Board of Directors has been reduced from 19 diverse members in 2010 to 9 members in 2016 with little effort made to recruit leaders who can bring new perspectives to campus ministry. |
| Orthodox Christians can reverse this trend by creating a campus ministry environment that is willing to sail into deep waters and get messy with our culture. College students need to encounter an Orthodox Christianity that is willing to honestly wrestle with the great questions of our culture and not politely avoid them for fear of offending people. This goes beyond simple question-and-answer sessions at chapter meetings or national conferences. It means pro-actively educating young people to seek answers from the Church on life’s most important questions. It means dealing with doubt. College campuses are not neutral environments when it comes to the questions about life, and campus ministry should not be a neutral environment either. Campus ministry leaders need to confront the great questions of our culture by presenting Orthodoxy in its fullness. This means more than simply posing questions, it means giving honest answers that come from the heart of the Church’s Tradition. The Orthodox answer to questions about human life, forgiveness, marriage, sexuality, gender, work, family, vocation, love, and worship need to be compassionately and clearly presented. Why hide the Church’s most beautiful and healthy teachings when they have the power to change so many lives? Christ reminds us to “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16) The second way to reverse this downward slide is to stress the difference between information and wisdom when it comes to our Faith. Our culture is saturated with information from a variety of outlets such as social media and 24-hour news services. It is the information age. Likewise, when it comes to Orthodox Christianity, campus programs often settle for presenting information about Orthodoxy rather than the wisdom of Orthodoxy. Information about Orthodoxy limits our knowledge to facts and ritual knowledge while the wisdom of Orthodox Christianity provides us with the ability to use our faith to live our vocation as human beings. Deep down, college students yearn for an experience of faith that is more than Facebook posts and YouTube videos. They yearn for the meaning that only Christ can give and an authentic sense of community that can only be found in the hospital of sinners that is Church. |
| If a student from Middle America enrolls in today’s university, he or she may quickly discover that certain ideas on campus are not only unacceptable, they are considered dangerous or a form of hate. They may be quickly bullied or enticed into changing their speech, and learning to become part of the controlling mainstream of campus reality. This is the world of American Post-Modernism on the University Campus. It is not found everywhere, but it is found in many (perhaps most) places. I was in a University setting in the late 80’s at Duke University, where Post-Modernism was becoming all the rage. It had not yet become the dominating force of campus life, but it was beginning. It felt like an echo of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. I had a fellow student (a woman) bring charges against me for calling her “dear” in the course of a doctoral seminar. If the circumstances had been slightly different, I would have been suspended. She is probably still suffering from the intolerable pain of the “insult.” Of course a socially-based construct of reality requires a heavy dose of social interaction. The close quarters and isolation of a University’s culture provides a cocoon of sorts, an incubator for the practice of “political” theory. But the rise of social media (which, interestingly, had its beginning in the university setting) has broadened the playing field. Today, social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) is deeply integrated into the larger media experience (news outlets in all forms). With it, the world becomes a college campus, “reality” is socialized and shaped by media. It is this role of social media and its prominent (even “all-consuming”) role in youth and Millennial culture that has enabled the sudden shift of public opinion on sexual politics over the past decade. If perceptions and labels are social constructs, then the way to change them is to overpower them. Our public perceptions and politics have not changed through a careful exchange of ideas and rational discourse. They have been “over-powered” through a Post-Modern-inspired social campaign that sometimes bullies, “flames,” and simply overwhelms. The response and participation of the larger media in this process has ratified a new “social construct” and marginalized discussion and dissent. |
| He launched two ultimately unsuccessful Crusades against the Ottomans: in 1443 AD, reaching Sofia before retreating for the winter, and 1444 AD reaching the Black Sea city of Varna where he perished at the age of 20 in theBattle of Varna against the forces of Ottoman Sultan Murad II (r. 1421-1451 AD). Because of that, in Bulgaria theheroic Polish and Hungarian King is known as Vladislav Varnenchik (Wladyslaw Warnenczyk), i.e. Vladislav of Varna. The Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1396) was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1396 (although some Bulgarianestates in the west may have survived for а few more decades). In 1396 AD, Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxembourg (r. 1387-1437 AD, later Holy Roman Emperor in 1433-1437 AD), organized a crusade against the Ottoman Turks which, however, ended in a disaster for the Christian forces in the Battle of Nicopolis (today’s Bulgarian town of Nikopol). The Crusades of the Polish and Hungarian King Vladislav (Wladyslaw) III Varnenchik were the last Christian campaign against the Ottoman Empire in the Late Middle Ages that had the potential to liberate Bulgaria. With its failure, Bulgaria remained suffering for centuries, a horrific period known as the Ottoman Yoke, and was liberated only in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878. D uring his campaign against the Ottoman Empire in 1444, King Vladislav (Wladyslaw) III Jagello was in charge of an army of some 20,000 European Christian warriors, including Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Wallachians, Ruthenes (Rusyns), Bulgarians, Croatians, Saxons, Lithuanians, and Crusader Knights of Pope Eugene IV (r. 1431-1477). The young Vladislav (Wladislaw) III Jagello inherited his father King Wladyslaw II Jagello as the King of Poland in 1434, at the age of 10. In 1440, Vladislav became also the King of Hungary, after a union between the Kingdoms of Poland and Hungary designed to unite their forces against the Ottoman Turks. After the first Crusade of King Vladislav and John Hunyadi against the Ottoman Empire, which reached Sofia in the fall of 1443, the Ottoman Sultan Murad II signed a 10-year truce with Hungary, and in August 1444 resigned from the throne in favor of his 12-year-old son Mehmed II (who later became Mehmed II the Conqueror after conquering Constantinople in 1453 AD). The new Crusade was organized under the auspices of Pope Eugene IV in anticipation of a new Ottoman invasion. The preemptive Christian campaign that later became known in history literature as theVarna Crusade led the old Sultan Murad II to return to the throne. |
| K. M. Setton. Madison, 1969-1989. 6 vol.; Roquebert M. L " épopée cathare. P., 1970-1998. 5 t.; Purcell M. Papal Crusading Policy: The Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading Policy, 1244-1291. Leiden, 1975; Erdmann C. The Origin of the Idea of Crusade/Transl. M. W. Baldwin, W. Goffart. Princeton, 1977; Raedts P. The Children " s Crusade of 1212//J. of Medieval History. Amst., 1977. Vol. 3. N 4. P. 279-323; Outremer: Stud. in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem presented to Joshua Prawer/Ed. B. Z. Kedar e. a. Jerusalem, 1982; Riley-Smith J. What Were the Crusades. L.; Basingstoke, 1977; idem. The Motives of the Earliest Crusaders and the Settlement of Latin Palestine, 1095-1100//EHR. 1983. Vol. 98. N 389. P. 721-736; idem. The First Crusade and the Persecution of the Jews//Studies in Church History. Woodbridge, 1984. Vol. 21. P. 51-72; idem. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. Phil.; L., 1986; idem. Crusading as an Act of Love//The Crusades: The Essential Readings/Ed. T. F. Madden. Oxf., 2002. P. 31-50; idem. The Crusades: A History. New Haven, 20052; idem. Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land. Notre Dame, 2010; G ä bler U. Der «Kinderkreuzzug» vom Jahre 1212//Schweizerische Zschr. f. Geschichte. Zürich, 1978. Bd. 28. S. 1-14; Jordan W. C. Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade. Princeton, 1979; idem. Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and Jews. Aldershot, 2001; Friedlander A. Heresy, Inquisition, and the Crusader Nobility of Languedoc//Medieval Prosopography. Kalamazoo, 1983. Vol. 4. N 1. P. 45-67; Holt P. M. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from 11th Cent. to 1517. L.; N. Y., 1986; Nicol D. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Camb.; N. Y., 1988; Housley N. Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar. Oxf.; N. Y., 1992; idem. Contesting the Crusades. Maiden; Oxf., 2006; idem. Fighting for the Cross: Crusading to the Holy Land. New Haven, 2008; Richard J. |
| With the reestablishment of relations between the OCA and the AOCANA, the EOC had entered into the Orthodox Church peacefully despite the ordination dispute. Gillquist and the EOC had been on a long journey, one that started by utilizing the American anti-traditional tradition of restorationism and ended by entering into the Orthodox Christian tradition. The manner in which this journey commenced, however, presents the Orthodox tradition as an ironic subset of American Christian restorationism even though the Orthodox Church itself would never make such a claim for its own tradition. Nonetheless, the Orthodox tradition became precisely such a subset, functionally, in that the EOC used the Eastern Orthodox Church as a rallying point for its own independence. Having tired of «parachurch,» especially one under strict direction by Bill Bright (Campus Crusade for Christ) the group formed (ironically) an «excessively authoritarian» 400 independent denomination claiming to side with the Eastern Orthodox on questions of dogma. Through its restorationism, the EOC engaged in syncretism (in its liturgical practices and understanding of hierarchy) and claimed to be using sources such as Justin Martyr " s description of the liturgy and Photios» arguments against the filioque to establish an Eastern Orthodox church independent of the other Orthodox Churches. The EOC " s attempt to have its denomination recognized and its unwillingness to disband during the conversion process demonstrated just how difficult of a shift it was for Gillquist and the EOC to accept that they needed to do as Bernstein had done and admit they were an independent, non-Orthodox entity. Doing so meant both viewing themselves analogously to the parachurch standing they had in Campus Crusade ministry and the NCAO of the 1970s and accepting tradition as something embodied and not just spiritual. Although the narrative Gillquist constructed (along with other former EOC members) appears written to convince one that the EOC had simply been merely one evangelical denomination that came to realize the importance of tradition and started wondering where it could find the continuity of the New Testament Church, a more careful assessment reveals something different. The EOC had established itself independently, and self-consciously so, in conformity with American Christian restorationism, and attempted to use the Orthodox tradition itself in that process (by borrowing liturgical practices, certain dogmatic claims, and imitating the Orthodox hierarchical governing structure). The acceptance of the Orthodox tradition as an embodied tradition only came later after engaging that very Orthodox tradition – only after realizing that the Orthodox Churches did not view themselves through the same set of restorationist tinted glasses the EOC had been wearing. THE DECONVERSION OF THE EVANGELICAL ORTHODOX CHURCH FROM THE ANTI-TRADITIONAL TRADITION |
| Without this, both immortality and eternity are for him conditions imposed from outside. And if man once had this sense of immortality and the recognition of eternity, this occurred so long ago, that already it has atrophied under the weight of death. And truly, it has atrophied: this is what the whole mysterious structure of human existence tells us. Our whole problem lies in how to rekindle that quenched feeling, how to resurrect that atrophied recognition. People cannot do it, neither can the transcendent gods of philosophy. Only God can do this, He Who incarnated His immortal Self in the human self-awareness and His eternal Self in human self-consciousness. Christ did precisely this when He became incarnate and became God-Man. Only in Christ, and in Christ alone, did man feel himself immortal and recognize himself as eternal. Through His Person, the God-man Christ bridged the chasm between time and eternity and reinstated the relations between them. For thi s reason only that person truly feels himself immortal and truly knows himself to be eternal who organically unites himself with the God-man Christ, with His Body, the Church. Hence, for man and humanity, Christ became the unique crossing and passage from time to eternity. For this reason, in the Church, the Orthodox Church, the God-man Christ became and remained the unique way and the unique guide from time to eternity, from the self-awareness of mortality to the self-awareness of immortality, from the self-knowledge of finitude to the self-consciousness of eter nity and the unextended. The eternal living personality of the God-man Christ is precisely the Church. The Church is always the personality, and furthermore the theanthropic personality, the theanthropic spirit and body. The definition of the Church, the life of the Church, its purpose, its spirit, its program, its methods-all have been given in that wondrous Person of the God-man Christ. Therefore, the mission of the Church is organically and personally to unite all its faithful with the Person of Christ; to make their self-awareness Christ-awareness and their self-knowledge (self-consciousness) Christ-knowledge (Christ-consciousness); for their life to become life in Christ and through Christ; so that not they themselves live in themselves but Christ lives in them (Gal. |
| 1. The event of Christ must be regarded as constituted pneumatologically. I stress the word “constituted” because my intention is to say that Christ is not Christ unless He is an existence in the Spirit, which means an eschatological existence. Such a pneumatological constitution of Christology implies, from the viewpoint of ontology, the understanding of Christ not in terms of individuality which affirms itself by distancing itself from other individualities, but in terms of personhood which implies a particularity established in and through communion. 360 The implications of this for the notion of continuity are clear. In a pneumatologically constituted Christology an event can never be defined by itself, but only as a relational reality. It is this that allows the Biblical notion of “corporate personality” to be applied to Christ: 361 Christ without His body is not Christ but an individual of the worst type. Our continuity, therefore, with the Christ event is not determined by sequence or response based on distance; it is rather a continuity in terms of inclusiveness: we are in Christ, and this is what makes Him be before us, our “first-born brother” in the Pauline sense. 362 This is paradoxical but fundamental for understanding the new existence created in Christ. Christ’s priority over us 363 is not a priority like the one created by our individualized existence and characterized by temporal sequence; it is a priority of inclusiveness: the including one being prior to the included. This is so precisely because the included is already in the including. God as the Spirit, i.e. as communion, is precisely the all-embracing existence which is participated without participating. 364 In the same Spirit of God, Christ contains us in Himself, by His very constitution as Christ in the Spirit. He thus in the Spirit contains by definition the eschata, our final destiny, ourselves as we shall be; He is the eschatological Man – yet, let me repeat, not as an individual but as Church, i.e. because of our being included in Him. It is in this sense that historical existence becomes in Christ and in the Spirit a continuity which comes to us from the future and not through the channels of a divided time sequence like the one we experience in our fallen state of existence. Thus when the eschata enter into history in the Spirit, time is redeemed from fragmentation, and history acquires a different sense. |
| Paul also appeals to this concatenation of images, when he points out to those in his Corinthian community who were seduced by wisdom, that the folly of God (Christ lifted on the Cross, as the bronze snake lifted on the pole) overcomes the wisdom of the world, and, as such, Christ is the true wisdom and power of God. In another vein, but using the same scriptural, literary or inter-textual technique, Matthew describes Christ as a new Moses, going up a mountain to deliver the law, while Paul describes Christ as the new Adam, correcting the mistakes of the first Adam, whom Paul explicitly describes as being “a type of the One to come” (Rom 5:14). This is not to imply that the Gospel itself is, as Ricoeur claimed, simply “a rereading of an ancient Scripture”. The proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ is not straightforwardly derivable from Scripture. Rather, the death and resurrection of Christ acts as a catalyst, which then enables a subsequent rereading of the Scriptures (the Old Testament), providing the terms and images, the context, within which the apostles made sense of what happened, and with which they explained it and preached it, so justifying the claim that Christ died and rose “according to the Scriptures”. And this is indeed what we find in the Gospels, where, in the Evangelists’ descriptions of Christ and His activity, there is constant allusion to scriptural imagery, most explicitly in John, when Christ states: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46). Alternatively, in Matthew the same intertextuality is found in terms of prophecy-fulfilment structuring the narrative, while in Luke it appears as the hermeneutic, the principle of interpretation, taught by the risen Christ, enlightening his disciples: “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Lk 24:27, cf. Lk 24:44-49). This literary enlightening of the disciples is paralleled in John when Christ breathes on his disciples the Holy Spirit, the one he had promised, who would remind them of all things concerning Christ, leading them into all truth (cf. |
|
|
