Anastasios Hudson

Category: Traditional Orthodoxy

Just One More Step…
For many people, converting to the Orthodox Christian Church is a tough process. Whether coming from a secular background and having to deal with basic questions of faith, or coming from a Western Christian background and having to give up previous ways of thinking and familiar hymns and practices, the transition is often difficult. Add to that the rather uneven quality of experiences one finds in Orthodox parish life in the Western world, and it is remarkable when someone “crosses the finish line” and is received into the Church finally.

There exists a schism in the modern Orthodox world between those who belong to Churches which follow the New Calendar and/or practice Ecumenism with other Christian denominations and religions, and those who belong to Churches which follow the Old Calendar and do not participate in the Ecumenical Movement. These latter are often referred to as Traditionalists, Old Calendarists, or True/Genuine Orthodox, while the Churches which are involved in the Ecumenical movement together with those who switched to the New Calendar often refer to themselves as the “Canonical” Orthodox, while being referred to as New Calendarists, Ecumenists, or “World Orthodoxy” by the other party. It must be noted that there is not a schism “in” the Church, as the Church cannot be divided, but as the two Churches both consider themselves Orthodox and have a shared history and culture, it is therefore possible to speak of a schism or division within the Orthodox world. This division often is painfully felt within families and in local communities.

I became somewhat well-known in Orthodox circles on the Internet due to my participation in various forums and blogs, and also my YouTube channel where I produced missionary content while I served as an Orthodox priest (2008-2013). Because of this, numerous people contacted me weekly, and while the flow has decreased now, it still continues to do so today. Many of these are people who have converted from Protestantism or Roman Catholicism to one of the so-called Canonical Orthodox Churches, and who have now discovered the Orthodox Traditionalists and their positions. Others are still going through the conversion process, and are now rethinking their ultimate affiliation.

In both cases, there is often a shell-shock. People have assumed that they knew what they were getting into, that they had found the True Church, that they were home, and then they realize that there is “something else out there” making claims which contradict what they’ve already learned and experienced. For many, it’s just too much emotionally for them to confront, and they shut these thoughts down before they have time to develop. Such people often remark that, “there’s just no way God cares about a calendar!” and imagine they have just stated something profound and previously unconsidered.

However, there are those who take it a step further, and actually make contact with members and clergy of the Traditionalist Orthodox Church. They usually have great questions, are fair-minded, and are rigorous in their approach. After some back-and-forth, sometimes they decide to come over to the Traditionalist Church, based on principle. Yet other times, seemingly with one foot out of the door of the New Calendar Church, they turn back. Their reasons are often disappointing to hear, and not as much based on a sober analysis of the facts, but on other factors.

Some common non-theological reasons I often heard for not joining the Traditionalist Orthodox Church are:

1)      There is no parish close to me, so I will have to travel, and won’t have a regular parish life.

2)      My wife had a hard enough time coming to the New Calendar; I can’t ask her to make another move.

3)      It’s just too small of a Church.

4)      They’re just too strict.

5)      I don’t want to celebrate Christmas on a different day.

6)      People will think I am weird/crazy.

7)      God wouldn’t let His Church get so small.

8)      My kids won’t have any friends at the Church.

What perplexes me is this: oftentimes, the same people who make such excuses for not joining the Orthodox Traditionalists have already make great sacrifices to join the New Calendar Church. Some of these people moved to be closer to a parish, or travel by car once a month to the nearest parish. Some gave up family relationships, jobs, and completely re-oriented their lives in order to accept what they thought was the Orthodox faith in its pureness. The myriad practical reasons one would have for not leaving a Protestant Church did not impede them from joining the New Calendarists, but suddenly, the thought of joining the Traditionalist Orthodox produces a slew of practical objections.

In Wilmington, North Carolina, there is a sign which states that Barstow, California is 2,554 miles away—at the other end of Interstate 40. It must be an exciting thing to drive from one coast to another, and I am sure that every year, there are more than a few people who do it. Imagine, though, that one were to drive 2,550 miles, and simply stop, before seeing the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps the car broke down, and one would have to get a rental car, or walk, or take a bus, to go those extra four miles. No matter what reason there might be, it seems to me that any excuse not to figure out a way to go those extra four miles would be met with disbelief by friends and family inquiring about the trip afterward.

It would be as if the whole trip were a waste, if one did not make it to the ultimate destination. So with the conversion to Orthodoxy: why stop at the compromised Church, when the fullness of Orthodoxy is just a few steps further? Could any further obstacle be too much to surmount, after having traveled so far? Will people really think one is “more weird”? Does the relative size of the Church really matter? Does God not bless the effort that those who commute long distances to a parish put in to reaching it?

All of these “practical considerations” are temptations from the Evil One to keep us out of the Truth. Perhaps it’s easier to psychologically dodge this fact by assuring oneself that the differences between the two Churches are not that great, in reality. Having all the trappings of Orthodoxy such as nice liturgy, pretty icons, well-produced Patristic works, and Ancient Faith Radio assuage a troubled conscience into compromising and staying with the New Calendar Church. It was such a disappointment to me to see so many people wake up to the problems of the New Calendar and Ecumenism, only to later rationalize staying in or joining this body for reasons other than principle.

The purpose of this article is not to judge the hearts of those who have had trouble joining the Traditionalist Orthodox Church, but to encourage and exhort the many people who have contacted me over the years about joining us, and who then backed out, to rethink their decision. It is also to provide a warning to those who are at present pondering what to do, that they not compromise at the last step. Recall the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent—at the top of the ladder, monks are still falling off! They went so far, but didn’t make it. Don’t become one of those who fell at the top, but complete the journey.

Even if some of the objections were to come true, we must follow the Truth wherever it leads, and accept it with no regard for the consequences. I did it, and I never looked back. When I first converted, I had to fly to New York four times a year for the Holy Mysteries! But eventually God provided an opportunity for me locally, and I believe He will for you, too. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, then He can build up healthy, vibrant, traditional parishes in the Western world. If the Holy Spirit is “everywhere present and filleth all things” then that includes your home if you live far from a parish. The ball is in your court. Follow through on your instinct and don’t sell yourself and your faith short. We are waiting to welcome you!
Related posts:
April 29, 2014
My Joy Over the Recent Church Union
The Holy Synod on the Day of Union

This week, traditional Orthodox Christians rejoiced as a 30-year division ended; the Synod in Resistance united with the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. This union is something I had prayed for and hoped would happen, but the many obstacles to it made me think that it would only be a dream. I had worried as well that maybe only part of the Synod in Resistance would unite with us, or perhaps some of our bishops would not accept the union, but in the end, all twenty-six bishops have entered into full communion with each other, forming one Synod that already has been administratively integrated.

Any historical, canonical, or dogmatic analysis of the Union would be interesting on its own merits, but as I often do on my blog, I would like to offer some reflections from a personal angle. From the beginning of my investigation into Orthodoxy around 1998, I was aware of the Old Calendarists and their positions regarding ecumenism and the Church Calendar, and I was always attracted to them; however, it would be some years before I would conclude that I also needed to become a part of the Old Calendar Church. My research at that point was primarily via the Internet, because in Raleigh, North Carolina, there were no Old Calendarists at the time.

When I moved to New York in August 2002 to study theology at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, I began to visit various parishes of every Orthodox jurisdiction, as I was looking for my permanent Church home. I also investigated the Old Calendarist parishes in the area gradually. In addition, our seminary library had an extensive collection of periodicals, including almost every back issue of Orthodox Tradition, the journal published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, which was the English-language publishing house of the Synod in Resistance. I read them all, and got a good feel for the Synod in Resistance and its positions.

I was beginning to prepare for my thesis at seminary, and naturally I decided to do it on something related to Old Calendarists, as I had already spent so much time studying them. I remember writing to Etna and inquiring about their position vis-à-vis the so-called Synod of Milan, whose founding bishop had been a co-consecrator of Archbishop (now Metropolitan) Chrysostomos of Etna. They replied in a polite but firm way that they would not engage in inter-Old Calendar polemic and wished me well.

Next, I began to correspond with Bishop Ambrose of Methone, because I was extremely impressed by the Synod in Resistance’s missionary work in Africa. By some reports, they had as many as 40,000 faithful in Congo, DR Congo, Kenya, and various other places. We have enjoyed now a ten-year occasional correspondence, although I have not written him in the past year or so. He always provided me with information and even sent me a signed photograph of Metropolitan Cyprian one time when I requested it. While I was gradually drawing closer and closer to joining the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, whose American hierarch at that time was Metropolitan Pavlos, I still respected the missionary activities of the Synod in Resistance.

In 2005, I moved back to North Carolina, and I heard that Archbishop Chrysostomos would be in the Washington, DC area for a few months. I began contact with him in the hopes of arranging a meeting, which did not come to fruition. However, from that time, we have corresponded from time to time, and I have enjoyed his insights on various subjects.

On August 5, 2006 (n.s.), I was baptized into the Orthodox Church by Bishop Christodoulos at St. Markella’s Cathedral, and a few months later I was assigned to a business trip in San Jose, California. I made arrangements to visit St. Gregory Palamas Monastery in Etna, California and the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, which is centered there. After flying for around eight hours with a stopover in Texas, I arrived in San Jose, rented a car, and drove six and a half hours to Etna, where I arrived seventeen hours after leaving my house. I was exhausted, but taken to the Church, where a service was in progress. Afterward, Fr. Akakios, the abbot of the monastery, took me to the refectory and served me a delicious meal.

The next morning, there were services, and afterward, I was taken to my guest quarters and a few minutes later, there was a knock on the door. A monk delivered a cappuccino on a silver platter. He also gave me some theological texts and documents to read, which I did. Finally, I was granted an hour-long audience with Archbishop Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios, where we discussed many things, including my desire to see a union between the jurisdictions. My time spent at the monastery was a great pleasure, and I enjoyed meeting other Old Calendarists outside of my own jurisdiction.

While I chose to join the Church of the GOC because I accepted its historical and canonical arguments, and eventually its ecclesiological position, I always maintained a great deal of respect for the Synod in Resistance for its theological texts, presentations, missionary work, and my personal contacts with its bishops. Seeing this union of their bishops with ours has raised my spirits greatly this week.

When people look at the Old Calendarists from the outside, they initially see various groups with lots of infighting; while it was relatively straightforward for me to go through the various claims and make a decision as to who was ultimately “right,” it was not always so easy for others, especially those living further away from any parish or institution, and as such, the divisions were more troublesome to them and certainly have kept some from joining our Church. In addition, while the division did not weaken my conviction that the Old Calendar Church is the true Church, seeing the divisions caused me a great deal of heartache. The obliteration of this division has eliminated one of the great stumbling blocks for those looking in to the Old Calendar Orthodox Church, and I rejoice in that.

The way forward is filled with great possibilities. Having so many more bishops in the Synod will make its work run more efficiently. Having more parishes and more priests will increase the number of people who are able to encounter Orthodoxy the way most people still come into contact with it: by being invited to a parish by their friends or family. Our Three Holy Hierarchs School can begin to collaborate with the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies to increase the educational opportunities available to our priestly candidates. The union with the Synod in Resistance’s sister Russian, Romanian, and Bulgarian Churches will increase the catholic witness of our faith. May the Lord be praised!
Related posts:
March 21, 2014
New Calendarism, Vaganteism, and the True Orthodox Church
In the last century, a new heresy permeated the Orthodox world, the heresy of ecumenism. This umbrella term encompasses several related problems that have been eating away at Orthodox life for more than eighty years. For the purposes of this article, we will use ecumenism as an umbrella term to refer to the problems of the branch theory, which imagines that the sacraments of the Church are present in various Churches that are not united and do not share the same faith, and modernism, which is at its root the assumption that modern man has the ability to diagnose the development of the Church’s tradition and make modifications as necessary, ignoring the organic development of the past several centuries.

From the beginning of this heresy, Orthodox have resisted it. These Orthodox are known by various names: True Orthodox, Genuine Orthodox, Traditionalist Orthodox, Old Calendarists, and Anti-Ecumenists, for instance. In the beginning, Athonite monks provided the sacraments to those in Greece who refused to follow the first tangible aspect of ecumenism in the life of the common people: the calendar change of 1924, when the patristic calendar was jettisoned in favor of a crude hybrid Julian-Gregorian calendar (a calendar so flawed that in several thousand years Christmas and Pascha will coincide). Later, in 1935, several bishops returned to the patristic calendar. Later, as ecumenism increased, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) also experienced an awakening of anti-ecumenism. In the 1960’s, the ROCOR and the Old Calendarist Greeks began to cooperate in witnessing traditional Orthodoxy: the ROCOR even provided the Greek Old Calendarists with bishops after the last Old Calendarist bishop reposed.

In lands where Orthodoxy is not established, there is generally more confusion as to what constitutes authentic Orthodoxy. With the heresy of ecumenism, the lines have become even more blurred. Anti-ecumenism exists in North and South America, but what constitutes valid resistance to this heresy is not always obvious. Due to the influence of false western ecclesiological ideas, such as the idea that apostolic succession exists outside the Church (and thus anyone ordained a bishop by “valid” bishops is himself a “valid” bishop as long as he can prove his “lines” of succession), combined with pride and ambition, and a desire for money, there have arisen a class of pseudo-Orthodox clergy who claim to be priests and bishops of the Orthodox Church.

These bishops, called episcopi vagantes in Latin ecclesiological terms, sometimes pretend to be Roman Catholic, sometimes Orthodox, or sometimes even combinations of their own creation. Among the New Calendarists, these people are rightly rejected as being false clergy, but the problem becomes acute when innocent people begin to resist ecumenism and look for a new home. This is because when searching for a traditional Orthodox parish, one often encounters these episcopi vagantes who claim they are Old Calendarists too. Those looking for traditional Orthodoxy then end up farther away from it than when they started. Therefore, one must understand the difference between a True Orthodox Church and a false Church staffed by episcopi vagantes, which we hope to make more clear by pointing out several indicators of a Church being false.

The first clear indicator of a false Orthodox Church is one which appeals to “valid orders,” “valid apostolic succession,” or “ordination from valid bishops” and in this context oftentimes usually considers anyone from the Orthodox or Catholic Churches to have this “valid succession.” A traditional Orthodox bishop would not appeal to such concepts because an Orthodox bishop is not made a bishop by those claiming descent from Roman Catholic bishops, or from bishops who he never communes with again, or made an independent bishop. An Orthodox bishop must be part of a Synod which confesses Orthodoxy in an unbroken community, not simply a line of one bishop ordaining another—if a bishop breaks from other bishops and consecrates bishops, these ordinations are meaningless. A bishop can only be created in the Church and for the Church, by people still in communion with the Church and with each other.

Some would argue that because Old Calendarists are not in communion with the so-called “mainstream” Orthodox (i.e. the New Calendarists and those professing ecumenism, or those who are in communion with such persons), they are falling under their own judgment for not being in communion with the Church. We must point out, however, that one of the criteria of true apostolic succession is bishops are ordained in the context of the Orthodox community, and not in schism or heresy. Ecumenists, by their heresy, have cut themselves off from the Church, and as such, we must not have communion with them. An episcopi vagante often does not have concerns about ecumenism, or traditional Orthodoxy, but rather is separate because of personal problems with the “institutional Church” or flaunt their “independence”—but do not resist any heresy. What reason, then, do they need to be separated from New Calendarists, since one can only separate for questions of faith, and not for personal controversies?

Some episcopi vagantes are anti-ecumenist, but then the question arises, why are they not in communion with the Orthodox Church (i.e. the True Orthodox)? Again, one can only separate for reasons of faith, and yet some of these false bishops accept that ecumenism is wrong, and that the True Orthodox are right in their position, and they may even present themselves as True Orthodox, but they do not commune with the True Orthodox nor do they belong to a Synod of True Orthodox bishops? One cannot be Orthodox and be independent of the Church. If one is opposed to ecumenism, he should join the True Orthodox Church—not start his own.

The other major problem of these false Orthodox are ambition and immorality. Some are so interested in becoming clergy that they will do anything to be ordained. When they are turned down from ordination in the New Calendar Church, suddenly they seek out alternatives to ordination. Sometimes they briefly join the Old Calendar Church and successfully feign piety long enough to be ordained and leave. But more often, they rush towards the most sure and quick way to be ordained: by seeking out episcopi vagantes, who are eager to ordain so they can build up their numbers on paper. This double lust for worldly glory leads to disastrous results.

Other clergy are simply immoral, and have been defrocked by other Churches; these people, having nowhere else to go, start their own Churches. Sometimes, there are priests that are not immoral, but wish to become bishops while being married. This is another sign of a false Church: married bishops. No Orthodox Church has married bishops, and there are no exceptions to this rule. A false Orthodox Church will often have more clergy than parishioners, or its clergy will claim grand titles, like “Metropolitan Archbishop” when they only have one parish. While size is not the main factor in determining legitimacy, having a consistent lack of parishioners while maintaining a large number of clergy, or having a consistently changing population of people (i.e. many coming and many leaving, so that at any given time most people are not the same people that attended a year ago) are other clues of being a false Church.

Thus, if one is seeking the answer to ecumenism, he will find it in one place: the True Orthodox Church. In Greece, this is headed by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens. In America, there is an Eparchial Synod under the presidency of Metropolitan Pavlos of North and South America.
Related posts:
March 22, 2013
Old vs. New Calendar: Frequently Asked Questions
Q. I’m Greek Orthodox but I’ve never heard of the “Old Calendar.” Could you please explain what this means?

A. All Orthodox in the world used the Julian Calendar, which is currently thirteen days behind our modern civil calendar, until March 1924. At that time, the bishops of the Church in Greece unilaterally converted their dioceses to the New Calendar, by deleting thirteen days at once, so that the religious calendar would coincide with the civil. This means that Orthodox Christians across the world were now celebrating the important celebrations of our faith out of sync with each other, which impacted the unity of the Orthodox Church. The majority of the Orthodox in the world did not accept this change, as is still the case in places like Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem, and Georgia.

Q. So the majority of the Orthodox in the world did not accept this change. Why did the Greek Church promote it, then?

A. Greece had just suffered the Catastrophe in 1922, and was destabilized internally between factions. Those in power believed that the only way Greece could survive was to ally with the Western powers such as Great Britain. The adoption of the New Calendar was seen as a way to cement ties with the Anglican Church and make the Greek people look more akin to Western Europeans to ensure greater political and cultural integration.

Q. Had the Calendar ever been an issue discussed before?

A. Yes. In the 16^th century, when Pope Gregory XIII instituted the New Calendar, he wrote to the Orthodox to encourage them to accept it. They refused, and condemned the Calendar on three separate occasions. One of these Orthodox councils resulted in a document called the Sigillion of 1583, which condemned the New Calendar as incompatible with the Orthodox faith.

Q. Did anyone in Greece resist this change?

A. Yes. About 25% of the people and many of the priests in Greece at that time did not accept this change. Many more priests were unhappy with the change, but they were threatened with loss of livelihood since the Church in Greece is not separate from the State (and, indeed, to this day, many Old Calendarist priests work a secular job and take little or no salary from their parish). Monks from Mt. Athos, the center of worldwide Orthodox monasticism, came to serve them. Some of the bishops who originally went along with the change tried to get it overturned privately, and when in 1935 they saw this was not going to happen, returned to the original Julian Calendar (now called the “Old”). They ordained new bishops, and formed a Synod that maintained the traditional Calendar. The State of Greece persecuted them, calling them “Old Calendarists” (Παλαιοημερολογίτες) which they meant as an insult. The Old Calendarists preferred to call themselves Genuine Orthodox Christians (GOC), because they did not alter even one Tradition of the Orthodox Church. These bishops travelled to other Orthodox countries to solicit support, but due to the volatile nature of the world at that time, none came. These bishops eventually died, were exiled, returned to the New Calendar under threats, and one isolated himself and refused to commune with the others, forming a faction. The last Greek bishop on the Old Calendar died in 1955.

Q. I thought a Church can’t exist without a bishop? What happened then?

A. That is true, and for this reason, the priests formed a committee and approached the Russian Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) for help. Eventually, ROCOR bishops helped consecrate bishops for the Old Calendar Greeks. Some of it had to be done secretly as the State of Greece would try to arrest anyone being ordained. By 1969, though, once the situation was stable, the ROCOR issued all the necessary paperwork to demonstrate it accepted these ordinations and maintained full communion with the GOC.

Q. Why didn’t the other Churches help the GOC?

A. Over time, other changes were introduced into the Orthodox Church to make it more modern, and attempts were made to reach out to other Christians in a process called Ecumenism. Ecumenism started off as a noble idea—try to get Christians back together—but being completely outnumbered and often intellectually overpowered, the Orthodox delegates (many of whom had studied in the West) gradually began to agree more and more with the non-Orthodox positions, rather than convincing the non-Orthodox to become Orthodox. The Orthodox Church confesses that it is the original Church of Christ, and therefore, there can be no compromise in matters of faith. These meetings were acceptable when it was simply people trying to overcome misunderstandings, but once joint prayers and joint statements began, the Orthodox delegates should have ceased. They did not, and began to more actively support such bodies, such as the World Council of Churches.

Q. You mentioned the Russian Church Outside Russia, but what about the one Inside? What did they have to say about this, since they stayed on the Old?

A. In the Soviet Union, the Church there had been overtaken by the Communists, and those who refused to cooperate went underground, living in secret. We consider these people the “Catacomb Church” and accept that they were Genuine Orthodox Christians as well. The State-controlled Church there was used as a tool to promote the Communist party, and as such could not be recognized as a truly Orthodox body. For all of these reasons, no support came to the Old Calendarists. In fact, the Communists intended to eventually change the Calendar there, too; it was switched in Bulgaria in 1968 as a test case, but the formation of an Old Calendar Church there in reaction made them postpone the plans.

Q. Communism ended though. Why is that still an issue?

A. Indeed, communism ended, but those bishops who had been installed by the Communists for the most part did not resign or repent. Generic “mistakes were made” type statements were issued, but no concrete repentance followed. Most communist-appointed bishops continued to participate in Ecumenism, and those nominally on the Old Calendar continued to support the New Calendar in places where it had been adopted.

Q. So it’s not just about a Calendar then.

A. No, it’s about a general process in the 20^th century to Westernize and modernize the Orthodox Church, and to push it in to union with the non-Orthodox Churches by means of political compromises. The Calendar was in many respects the frontline of the battle; in fact, an Encyclical written by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920 “To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be” outlined the change of calendar as just one of several points in a modernization scheme. The Calendar, Ecumenism, and modernistic practices together have diminished the Orthodox faith, reducing it in many places to a purely secular and cultural phenomenon and hurting its spiritual power.

Q. Are you not recognized by the Greek Archdiocese (GOA), then?

A. The question might be posed in reverse: “do we recognize the Greek Archdiocese?” because we are, after all, the ones who remained faithful and did not change anything. But no, there is no mutual recognition between the GOA and GOC. Differing bishops and jurisdictions have differing views on the Old Calendarists from tacit support to sympathy to disdain. We do not base ourselves off of their recognition, however, since again we are the ones who kept the faith purely, and our ordinations were conducted by and canonically recognized in 1969 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which no one could deny was a valid Orthodox Church.

Q. What would I have to do to become a member of this parish?

A. You can speak with our priest about this in private. Our Church approaches the reception into communion of those coming from the New Calendar Church on a case-by-case basis. The process varies because the people vary. Our goal is to build up the Orthodox faith in you, which you may not have been taught completely elsewhere. We’re not interested in criticizing your past, but instead on taking the foundation you’ve received and helping you grow in the Orthodox faith. We have to get to know you a little in order to do that.

Q. I can see this is a vibrant community and the people seem spiritually happy. I’m just not ready to commit because this is a lot of information I’ve never heard before. What do you recommend?

A. We are here for everyone, regardless of his or her affiliation. Christ teaches us to minister to one and all. You are welcome to attend liturgy, and participate as much as you are able as a guest. We do ask that you not approach communion in our Church until you’ve had a chance to make a decision and have spoken with the priest, but you are welcome to receive antidoron (blessed bread) at the end of liturgy. We are also happy to pray the Mnimosino or other prayers for you and your family. Take your time to get to know us, and we can provide you with any additional information you need.

This was a booklet that I originally prepared to distribute to those visiting my mission parish from a New Calendar background, many of whom by this point were unaware that there even was such a thing as the Old Calendar Church. Its focus is pastoral in nature, rather than historical/doctrinal.
Related posts:
March 18, 2013