			+-----------------------+
			 ICXC  THE           
			 --+--  ORTHODOX      
			 NIKA  CHRISTIAN NET 
			+-----------------------+

This material is copyrighted by Conciliar Press, Ben Lomand, CA and is made 
available on electronic Christian BBS systems by special permission of 
Conciliar Press. It may not be modified in any way, but can be transmitted 
on electronic BBS systems for the edification of those wishing to know more 
about the Orthodox Church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		      Finding the New Testament Church
			      by Jon E. Braun

     Coming off a couple of decades of heightened awareness of our need for 
a personal knowledge of Christ--notably evidenced through such phenomena as 
the Jesus Movement and the charismatic renewal--most thinking Christians are 
realizing something else is needed: the rediscovery of the historic Church.

     Often, in heated reaction to dated and dead Protestant liberalism, we 
would hear evangelical preachers in the late sixties and early seventies say, 
"All you need is Jesus!" Such statements often got rave reviews, but just a 
little thoughtful reflection quickly showed such a simplistic religion to be 
shallow and unfulfilling. More and more, that kind of existential 
reductionism is being tempered with a renewed emphasis on the whole impact 
of the Incarnation, the coming in the flesh of the Son of God. There must be 
more to Christianity than a private, internalized individualism. If all we 
needed was Jesus, why would Jesus have promised, "I will build My Church" 
(Matthew 16:18)?

     But our need for the Church begs a question, a crucial question. Which 
Church? The easy answer, of course, and a correct answer is, "the New 
Testament Church." But this isn't A.D. 65, and we aren't in old Jerusalem or 
Colossae. We are in the twentieth century and our challenge is to find the 
New Testament Church in our day, being sure it is historically identical to 
the Church of the Apostles--the one Christ Himself established.

     Starting in the twentieth century with the plethora of choices available 
to us is difficult. For we have hundreds of denominations and sects claiming 
to one degree or another to be the New Testament Church. The Roman Church 
makes that claim based on its Apostolic succession. Baptist Churches are 
unwaveringly confident they hold to the New Testament faith. Often the sign 
outside a Church of Christ reads, "founded in Jerusalem, 33 A.D.", thereby 
staking the claim  to the original Church. And the list goes on. Granted, 
many groups have maintained, or even rediscovered, important aspects of the 
New Testament faith. But who is right? Or is the pluralism crowd correct--that 
essentially everybody is in and ties for first place?

BACK TO CHURCH ONE
	
     There is a predictably reliable way to tackle the problem of who is 
right. Rather than trying to decide which of the over 2,500 Christian groups 
in North America keeps the original faith best by studying what they are like 
right now, we can start from the beginning of the Church itself and work our 
way through history to the present.

     The birthday of the Church was Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit 
descended on the Twelve apostles in the Upper Room. That day some 3000 souls 
believed in Christ and were baptized. When the first Christian community 
began, "they were continually devoting themselves to the Apostles' teaching 
and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42).

     From Jerusalem, the faith in Christ spread throughout Judea, to Samaria 
(Acts 8), to Antioch and the Gentiles (Acts 13), where we find new converts 
and new Churches throughout Asia Minor and the Roman Empire.

     From the pages of the Gospels and Epistles, we learn that the Church was 
not simply another organization in Roman society. The Lord Jesus Christ had 
given the promise of the Holy Spirit "to lead you into all truth" 
(John 16:13). With the fulfillment of that promise beginning at Pentecost, 
the Church was begun high above a merely institutional status. Saint Paul was 
right on target in Ephesians 2:22, where he called the Church "the dwelling 
place of God in the Spirit." The Church was a living dynamic organism, the 
living Body of Jesus Christ. She made an indelible impact in the world and 
those who lived in her life in faith were personally transformed.

     But we also discover in the New Testament itself that the Church had her 
share of problems. All was not perfection. Individuals in the Church sought 
to lead her off the path the Apostles established, and they had to be dealt 
with along with the errors they invented. Even whole local communities lapsed 
on occasion and had to be called to repentance. The Church in Laodicea is a 
vivid example (Revelation 3).  Discipline was administered for the sake of 
purity in the Church. But, there was growth and a maturing even as the Church 
was attacked from within and without. The same Spirit who gave her birth gave 
her power for purity and correction, and she stood strong and grew until she 
eventually invaded the whole of the Roman Empire.

THE SECOND CENTURY AND ON

     As the procession of the early Church moves from the pages of the New 
Testament and on into the succeeding centuries of her history, it is helpful 
to trace her growth and development in terms of specific categories. 
Therefore let us look first at a category important for all Christian people: 
doctrine. Did she maintain the truth as given by Christ and His Apostles? 
Second, what about worship? Is there a discernible way in which the people of 
God have offered a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to Him? Third, we 
will consider Church government. What sort of polity did the Church practice?
	
     1. Doctrine: Not only did the Church begin under the teaching of the 
Apostles, but she was also instructed to "stand fast and hold the traditions 
which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (II Thessalonians 
2:15). The Apostle Paul insisted that those matters delivered by him and his 
fellow Apostles, both in person and in the writings that would come to be 
called the New Testament, be adhered to carefully. Thus followed such 
appropriate warnings as  "in the name of Jesus Christ...withdraw from every 
brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he 
received from us" (II Thessalonians 3:6). The doctrines taught by Christ and 
His disciples are to be safeguarded by "the Church, the pillar and support of 
the truth" (I Timothy 3:15) and are not open for renegotiation.

     Midway through the first century, a dispute over adherence to Old 
Testament laws arose in Antioch. The matter could not be settled there, and 
outside help was needed. The leaders of the Antiochian Church, the community 
which had earlier dispatched Paul and Barnabas as missionaries, brought the 
matter to Jerusalem for consideration by the Apostles and elders there.  The 
matter was discussed, debated, and a written decision was forthcoming.

     It was James, the brother of the Lord, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, 
who gave the solution to the problem. This settlement, agreed to by all 
concerned, at what is known as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) set the 
pattern for the use of Church councils in the centuries ahead to settle 
doctrinal and moral issues that arose. Thus, in the history of the Church we 
find scores of such councils, and on various levels, to settle matters of 
dispute, and to deal with those who do not adhere to the Apostolic faith.

     In addition to this well-known controversy. the first three hundred 
years of Christian history were also marked by the appearance of certain 
heresies or false teachings such as super-secret philosophic schemes for 
"insiders" only (Gnosticism), wild prophetic programs (Montanism), and grave 
errors regarding the three Persons of the Trinity (Sabellianism).

     Then, in the early fourth century, a heresy with potential for Church-
wide disruption appeared and was propagated by one Arius, a presbyter in 
Alexandria, Egypt. He denied the eternality of the Son of God claiming, 
contrary to the Apostles' doctrine, that the Son was a created being who came 
into existence at a point in time and thus was not truly God. This serious 
error crept through the Church like a cancer. Turmoil spread almost 
everywhere. To solve the problem the first Church-wide, or Ecumenical, 
council met in Nicea in A.D. 325 to consider this doctrine.  Some 318 
bishops, along with many priests and deacons, rejected the new teaching of 
Arius and his associates and upheld the Apostles' doctrine of Christ, 
confirming "there never was a time when the Son of God was not," and issued a 
definition of the Apostolic teaching concerning Christ in what we today call 
the Nicene Creed.

     Between the years 325 and 787, seven such Church-wide conclaves were 
held, all during first and foremost with some specific challenge to the 
Apostolic teaching about Jesus Christ. These are known as the Seven 
Ecumenical Councils, meeting in the cities of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and 
Constantinople.

     For the first thousand years of Christian history. the entire Church, 
save for the heretics, embraced and defended the New Testament Apostolic 
faith. There was no consequential division.  And this one faith, preserved 
through all these trials, attacks, and tests, this one Apostolic faith, was 
called the Orthodox faith.

     2.  Worship: Doctrinal purity was tenaciously  maintained.  But true 
Christianity is far more than adherence to a set of correct beliefs alone. 
The life of the Church is centrally expressed in her worship or adoration of 
God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It  was Jesus Himself Who told the 
woman at the well, "the  hour is coming, and now is, when the true 
worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is 
seeking such to worship Him" (John 4:23).

     At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist, the communion 
service, when He took bread and wine, blessed them, and said to His 
disciples, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance 
of Me" and "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you" 
(Luke 22:19 and 21). From New Testament books such as Acts and Hebrews we 
know that the Church participated in communion at least each Lord's Day 
(Acts 20:7,11). And also from such first and second century sources as the 
Didache and Saint Justin Martyr, we learn the Eucharist was kept at the very 
center of (Christian worship after the death of the Apostles.

     And just as the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were read in the 
Temple worship and the synagogue in Israel, so the Church immediately gave 
high priority to the public reading of Scripture and to preaching in her 
worship, along with the Eucharistic meal.

     Even before the middle of the first century, Christian worship was known 
by the term "liturgy" which means literally "the common work" or "the work of 
the people." The early liturgy of the Church's worship was composed of two 
essential parts, (1) the liturgy of the word, including hymns, Scripture 
reading, and preaching and (2) the liturgy of the faithful, composed of 
intercessory prayers, the kiss of peace, and the Eucharist. Virtually from 
the beginning, it had a definable shape or form which continues to this day.

	Modern Christians advocating freedom from liturgy in worship are 
usually shocked to learn that such spontaneity was never the practice in the 
ancient Church! A basic pattern or shape of Christian worship was observed 
from the start. And as the Church grew and matured that structure matured as 
well. Hymns, Scripture readings, and prayers were intertwined in the basic 
foundation. A clear, purposeful procession through the year, honoring in 
word, song, and praise the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and 
ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, and marking crucial issues in Christian 
life and experience, was forthcoming. The Christian life was lived in reality 
in the worship of the Church. Far from being routine, the worship of the 
historic Church participated in the unfolding drama of the richness and 
mystery of the Gospel itself!
 
     Further, specific landmarks in our salvation and walk with Christ were 
practiced.  Baptism and the anointing with oil, or chrismation, were there 
from day one of the Church. Marriage, healing, confession of sin, and 
ordination to the ministry of the Gospel are early recognized and practiced. 
On each of these occasions, Christians understood, in a great mystery, grace 
and power from God were being given to people according to the individual 
need of each person. The Church saw these events as holy moments in her life 
and called them her mysteries or sacraments.

     3.  Government:  No one seriously questions whether the Apostles of 
Christ led the Church at her beginning. They had been given the commission to 
preach the Gospel (Matthew 28:19-20) and the authority to forgive or retain 
sins (John 20:23). Theirs was by no means a preachmg-only mission! They built 
the Church itself under Christ' s headship. To govern it, three definite and 
permanent offices, as taught in the New Testament, were in evidence.

     a. The office of bishop. The Apostles themselves were the first bishops 
in the Church.  Even before Pentecost, after Judas had turned traitor, Peter 
declared in applying Psalm 109:8, "Let his bishopric another take" 
(Acts 1:20).
 
     The word "bishopric" refers to the office of a bishop and its use 
obviously indicates the "job description" of the Apostles as being bishops. 
Some have mistakenly argued that the office of bishop was a later "human" 
invention. Quite to the contrary, the Apostles were the New Testament 
bishops, and they appointed bishops to succeed them to oversee the Church in 
each locality.

     Occasionally, the objection is still heard that the office of bishop and 
presbyter were originally identical. It is true the terms are sometimes used 
interchangeably in the New Testament while the Apostles were present, but it 
was the understanding of the entire early Church that, with the death of the 
Apostles, the office of bishop and presbyter were distinct.  Ignatius of 
Antioch, consecrated bishop by A.D. 70 in the Church from which Paul and 
Barnabas had been sent out, writes just after the turn of the century that 
bishops appointed by the Apostles, surrounded by their presbyters, were 
everywhere in the Church.

     b. The office of presbyter. Elders or presbyters are mentioned very 
early in the life of the Church in Acts and the Epistles. It is evident that 
in each place a Christian community developed, elders were appointed by the 
Apostles to pastor the people.

     As time passed, presbyters were referred to in the short form of the 
word as "prests," then as "priests," in full view of the fact that the Old 
Covenant priesthood had been fulfilled in Christ and that the Church is 
corporately a priesthood of believers. The priest was not understood as an 
intermediary between God and the people nor as a dispenser of grace. It was 
the role of the priest to be the presence of Christ in the Christian 
community. And in the very capacity of being the presence of the Chief 
Shepherd, Jesus Christ, the priest was to shepherd the flock of God.

     c. The office of deacon. The third order or office in the government of 
the New Testament Church was the deacon. At first the Apostles fulfilled this 
office themselves. But with the rapid growth of the Church, seven initial 
deacons were selected, as reported in Acts 6, to help carry the responsibility 
of service to those in need. It was one of these deacons, Saint Stephen, who 
became the first martyr of the Church. 

     Through the centuries, the deacons have not only served the material 
needs of the Church, but have held a key role in the liturgical life of the 
Church as well. Often called "the eyes and ears of the bishop," many deacons 
have become priests and ultimately entered the episcopal office.

     The authority of the bishop, presbyter, and deacons was not anciently 
understood as being apart from the people, but always from among the people. 
But the people of God were called to submit to those who ruled over them 
(Hebrews 13:17), and they were also called to give their agreement to the 
direction of the leaders for the Church. On a number of occasions in history, 
that "Amen" was not forthcoming, and the bishops of the Church took note and 
changed course. Later in history, many Church leaders departed from the 
ancient model and usurped authority for themselves. In the minds of some this 
brought the ancient model into question. But the problem was not in the model 
but in the deviation from it.

     It should also be mentioned that it was out of the ministry and life of 
the Apostles that the people of God, the laity, were established in the 
Church. Far from being a herd of observers, the laity are vital in the 
effectiveness of the Church. They are the recipients and active users of the 
gifts and grace of the Spirit. Each one of the laity has a role in the life 
and function of the Church. Each one is to supply something to the whole 
(I Corinthians 12:7). And it is the responsibility of the bishops, the 
priests, and the deacons to be sure that this is a reality for the laity.

     The worship of the Church at the close of its first 1000 years had 
substantially the same shape from place to place. The doctrine was the same. 
The whole Church confessed one creed, the same in every place, and had 
weathered many attacks. The government of the Church was recognizably one 
everywhere. And this One Church was the Orthodox Church.

AFTER  A THOUSAND YEARS--A PARTING OF THE WAYS
	
     Tensions began to mount as the first millennium was drawing to a close. 
They were reaching the breaking point as the second 1000 years began. While 
numerous doctrinal, political, economic, and cultural factors began to work 
to separate the Church in a division that would be the East and West, two 
giant issues ultimately emerged above others: (1) should one man, the Pope of 
Rome, be considered the universal bishop of the Church? and (2) the addition 
of a novel clause to the Church's creed.

     1. The Papacy: Among the Twelve, Saint Peter was early acknowledged as 
the leader. He was the spokesman of the Twelve before and after Pentecost. He 
was the first bishop of Antioch and later bishop of Rome. No one challenged 
his role.

     After the death of the Apostles, as leadership in the Church developed, 
the bishop of Rome came to be recognized as first in honor, even though all 
bishops were equals. But after nearly 300 years, the bishop of Rome slowly 
began to assume to himself a role of superiority over the others, ultimately 
claiming to be the only true successor to Saint Peter. The vast majority of 
the other bishops of the Church never questioned Rome's primacy of honor, but 
they patently rejected its claim as the universal head of the Church on 
earth. This power grab on the Roman pope 's part became one major factor in 
rending the Roman Church, and all those it could gather with it, from the 
historic Orthodox Church.

     2. The Addition to the Creed: A disagreement about the Holy Spirit also 
began to develop in the Church. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father? Or, does He proceed from the Father and the Son?

     In John 15:26, our Lord Jesus Christ asserts, "But when the Helper 
comes, Whom I shall send to you from the father, the Spirit of truth Who 
proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me" (Italics mine). This is the 
basic statement in all of the New Testament about the Holy Spirit 
"proceeding," and it is clear: He "proceeds from the Father."

     Thus when the ancient council at Constantinople in A.D. 381, during the 
course of its conclave, reaffirmed the Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325), it expanded 
that Creed to proclaim these familiar words: "And in the Holy Spirit, the 
Lord and Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who is worshipped and 
glorified together with the Father and the Son...."

     But two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo, Spain (A.D. 
589), King Reccared declared that "the Holy Spirit also should be confessed 
by us and taught to proceed from the Father and the Son." The King may have 
meant well, but he was contradicting the Apostolic teaching about the Holy 
Spirit. Unfortunately the local Spanish council agreed with this error.  

     Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures as confessed by the 
entire Church at Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there 
is no reason to believe anything other than that the Holy Spirit proceeds 
from the Father. Period!

     But centuries later, in what was at least partially a politically 
motivated move, the Pope of Rome unilaterally changed the universal creed of 
the Church without an ecumenical council. Though initially rejected in both 
East and West, even by some of Rome's closest neighboring bishops, the Pope 
managed to eventually get the West to capitulate. The consequence, of course, 
in the Western Church has been the tendency to relegate the Holy Spirit to a 
lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. The change may appear small 
but the consequences have proven disastrously immense. This issue, with the 
Pope departing from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, became another 
instrumental clause separating the Roman church from the historic Orthodox 
Church, the New Testament Church.

THE SCHISM
	
     Conflict between the Roman Pope and the East mounted--especially in the 
Pope's dealings with the bishop, or patriarch, of Constantinople. The Pope 
even went so far as to claim the authority to decide who should be the bishop 
of Constantinople, something violating historical precedent, and which he had 
no business doing. The Pope, no longer operating within the government of the 
New Testament Church, was seeking by political means to bring the whole Church 
under his domination.

     Weird and bizarre intrigues followed one upon the other as a series of 
Roman popes pursued their unswerving policy of attempting to control all 
Christendom. Perhaps the most incredible incident of these political, 
religious, and even military shenanigans, as far as the East was concerned, 
occurred in the year 1054. A Cardinal, sent by the Pope, slapped a document 
on the altar of the Church of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople during the Sunday 
worship, excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Church!

     The Pope, of course, had no legitimate right to do this. But the 
repercussions have been staggering. Some not very pretty chapters of Church 
history were written during the next decades. The ultimate consequence of the 
Pope's schemes was that the whole Roman Catholic Church ended up dividing 
itself from the New Testament Church. The causes for leaving the Orthodox 
Church behind were complex--and my explanation is admittedly brief.  But the 
reality remains, and the schism has never been healed.

     As the centuries passed conflict continued. Attempts at union failed and 
the Roman Church drifted farther and farther from its historic roots. There 
are inevitable consequences in deviating from the Church. The breaking away 
of the Roman Church from the historic Church would prove no exception.

THE WEST: REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION

     During the succeeding centuries after A.D. 1054, the growing distinction 
between East and West was indelibly marked in history. The East maintained 
the full stream of New Testament faith, worship, and practice.  The Western 
or Roman Church, crippled because of its schism from the Orthodox Church, 
bogged down in many complex problems. Then, centuries after Rome committed 
itself to its unilateral spirit of doctrine and practice, another upheaval 
was festering--this time not next door to the East, but inside the Western 
gates themselves.

     Though many in the West had spoken out against Roman domination and 
practice in earlier years, now a little-known German monk named Martin Luther 
inadvertently launched an attack against certain Roman Catholic practices 
that ended up affecting world history. His famous Ninety-Five Theses were 
nailed to the Church door at Wittenburg in 1517. In a short time those theses 
were signaling the start of what came to be called in the West the Protestant 
Reformation. Luther sought an audience with the Pope, hut was denied, and in 
1521 he was excommunicated from the Roman Church. He had intended no break 
with Rome. Its deviant governmental system unable to work properly, Rome 
refused to budge or bend. The door to future unity in the West slammed shut 
with a resounding crash.

     The protests of Luther were not unnoticed. The reforms he sought in 
Germany were soon accompanied by demands of Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich, John 
Calvin in Geneva, and hundreds of others all over Western Europe.  Fueled by 
complex political, social, and economic factors, in addition to religious 
problems, the Reformation spread like a raging fire into virtually every nook 
and cranny of the Roman Church.  Its Western ecclesiastical monopoly was 
greatly diminished and massive division replaced its artificial unity. The 
ripple effect of that division continues on even to our day.

     If trouble on the continent were not enough, the Church of England was 
in the process of going its own way as well.  Henry VIII, amidst his marital 
problems, replaced the Pope of Rome with himself as head of the Church of 
England.  For only a few short years would the Pope ever again have 
ascendency in England.  And the English Church itself would be shattered by 
great division.

     As decade followed decade in the West, the many branches of 
Protestantism took various forms. There were even divisions that insisted 
they were neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic. All seemed to share a mutual 
dislike for the Bishop of Rome and the practice of his Church, and most 
wanted far less centralized forms of leadership. While some, such as the 
Lutherans and Anglicans, held on to a basic form of liturgy and sacrament, 
others, such as the Reformed Churches and the even more radical Anabaptists 
and their descendants, questioned and rejected many biblical ideas of 
hierarchy, sacrament, historic tradition, and other elements of historic 
Christian practice, no matter when and where they appeared in history, 
thinking they were freeing themselves of Roman Catholicism. To this day, many 
sincere, modern, professing Christians will reject even the biblical data 
which speaks of historic Christian practice, simply because they think such 
historic practices are "Roman Catholic." To use the old adage, they "threw 
the baby out with the bath water," without even being aware of it.

     Thus, while retaining in varying degrees portions of foundational 
Christianity, neither Protestantism nor Catholicism can lay historic claim to 
being the true New Testament Church. In dividing from the Orthodox Church, 
Rome forfeited its place in the Church of the New Testament. In the divisions 
of the Reformation, the Protestants--as well meaning as they might have 
been--failed to return to the New Testament Church.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TODAY

     But that first Church, the Church of Peter and Paul and the Apostles, 
the Orthodox Church--despite persecution, political oppression, and desertion 
on certain of its flanks--miraculously carries on today the same faith and 
life of the Church of the New Testament.  Admittedly the style of Orthodoxy 
looks complicated to the modern Protestant eye, and understandably so. But 
given the historical understanding of how the Church has progressed, the 
simple Christ-centered faith of the Apostles is clearly preserved in its 
practices, services, and even its architecture.

     In Orthodoxy today, as in years gone by, the basics of Christian 
doctrine, worship, and government are never up for renegotiation. One cannot 
be an Orthodox priest, for example, and reject the divinity of Christ, His 
virgin birth, resurrection, ascension into heaven, and second coming. The 
Church simply has not left its course in nearly 2000 years. It is One, Holy, 
Catholic, and Apostolic. It is the New Testament Church. The gates of hell 
have not prevailed against it.

     But Orthodoxy is also, in the words of one of her bishops, "the best 
kept secret in America." Though there are more than 225 million Orthodox 
Christians in the world today, many Americans are not familiar with the 
Church. In North America, the Orthodox Church until recently has been largely 
limited to ethnic boundaries, not spreading much beyond the parishes of the 
committed immigrants that brought the Church to the shores of this continent. 

     But the Holy Spirit has continued His work, causing new people to 
discover this Church of the New Testament.  People have begun to find 
Orthodox Christianity both through the writings of the early Church Fathers, 
and through the humble witness of Orthodox Christians. On a personal note, I 
am a part of a group of nearly 2,000 ex-Protestant evangelicals who were 
received into the Antiochian Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church in the spring 
of 1987 as the Evangelical Orthodox Mission. Orthodox student groups are 
springing up in a number of American campuses. The word is getting out.

     What does this identity of the Orthodox Church with the New Testament 
Church mean as far as the other Churches in Christendom? Many have retained 
much of the truth of Orthodox Christianity. Some pretend to be the New 
Testament Church and are seriously offbase, leading people far astray from 
Christ and the Church. Other modern Churches have preserved truth in greater 
or lesser degree.

     But groups which possess some or much of the truth are one thing; the 
New Testament Church is yet another. 

     What is it that's missing in the non-Orthodox C'hurches--even the best 
of them? Fullness. The fullness of the New Testament faith is to be found 
only in the New Testament Church. Being in the New Testament Church doesn't 
guarantee all those in it will necessarily take advantage of the fullness of 
the faith. But it does guarantee the fullness is there for those who do.

     For those who seriously desire the fullness of the New Testament faith, 
action must be taken. There must be for these a return to the New Testament 
Church. Being aware of this ancient Church is not enough. In America, people 
have had ample opportunity to investigate and decide about the Roman Catholic 
faith, the Baptist, the Lutheran, and so on. Not so regarding the Orthodox 
Church.  Let me make three specific suggestions that will provide you with a 
tangible means to look into Orthodox Christianity and to decide for yourself 
if it is not the Church for which you have searched. 

     1.  Visit: Look up "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox" in the "Church" 
section of your Yellow Pages. Ask about the whereabouts of the nearest 
Orthodox parish. Pay a visit--several visits. Meet the priest, and ask him 
to help you stucly and learn. And be prepared to be patient.  Sometimes a 
portion of the Liturgy is not in English! But the Service Book in the pew 
will help out here.

     2.  Read:  There are a number of books and periodicals immensely helpful 
to people seeking to learn about the Orthodox Church. Let me mention a few:  
The Orthodox Church, by Kallistos Ware (Penguin); Bible, Church, and 
Tradition, by Georges Florovsky (Saint Vladimirs Seminary Press);  the 
writings of the Apostolic Fathers (several editions available); Feed My 
Sheep, by Metropolitan PHILIP Saliba (Saint Vladimirs Seminary Press);  AGAIN 
Magazine (Conciliar Press).

     3.  Write:  Conciliar Press (P.O. Box 106, Mt. Hermon, CA 95041) can 
help put you in touch with an Orthodox Church and supply you with a book list 
including the publications I have mentioned. Send your name and address and a 
request for information.

     In a day when Christians are realizing anew the centrality and 
importance of the Church as the body of Christ, the doors of Orthodoxy are 
open wide and the invitation is extended to come and see. Examine her faith, 
her worship, her history, her commitment to Christ, her love for God the 
Father, her communion with the Holy Spirit.

     The Orthodox Church has kept the faith delivered once for all to the 
saints for nearly two thousand years. In her walls is the fullness of the 
salvation which we realized when "God so loved the world that He gave His 
only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life."





