Monotheism and the “Branch Theory” of the Christian Church

by Archimandrite Sergius [Yazadzhnev]

Former Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Theology, University of Sofia, Bulgaria

 

 

In March of 1986, Pope John Paul II appealed to Jews, Muslims, and Christians to unite under One God. On October 16, 1998, the Pope repeated his appeal for the unification of the three monotheistic religions under the auspices of the Papacy, in conjunction with the forthcoming celebration of the year 2000 in Jerusalem—the “City of Monotheism."

Such exhortations are reminiscent of the notorious “Branch Theory" of the Christian Church put forth by the ecumenists, which heretofore applied on “Christian" ground to the three Christian creeds: Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism (including all the denominations thereof).

It is easy to understand why the ecumenical theory in question is untenable; indeed, it is a theory which has been severely criticized from the standpoint of Orthodox Christianity. At its foundation is the erroneous idea of pluralism, that is, that there exists a variety of religious doctrines which, allegedly, mutually enrich each other.

Holy Scripture, however, speaks of only “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism," [1] one Holy Tradition, [2] and one Christian Church. [3] The contention that there is a legitimate variety in the doctrinal principles of the individual “Christian" creeds inevitably leads to the relativization of God's Truth. [4]

Under the guise of “reconciliation," this erroneous “Branch Theory" actually equates truth with falsehood and occasions the illusory prospect of a future ecumenical “church" that will unify all existing faiths and creeds, which, in turn, will retain their respective differences. [5] The three “branches" are represented as being of equal worth, and the differences between them are considered the products of mere earthly circumstances rising out of differences between human cultures. [6]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, nevertheless, argues quite to the contrary. Near the beginning of his major work, Against Heresies, he observes:

The Church, although spread all over the world, has accepted this Faith from the Apostles and their disciples.... The Church, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves this faith and tradition; and all people are at one with the Church, as if they had one heart and one soul [cf. Acts. 4:32]. The Church, therefore, proclaims these [points of doctrine], teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the Mediterranean regions. But like the sun, this luminary of God which shines all over the world, so also the preaching of the Faith shines everywhere and enlightens all those who want to come to knowledge of the truth [I St. Timothy 2:4]. [7]

The “Branch Theory" is untenable in practical terms, as well. There cannot exist several branches of equal value; one of them must be the trunk of the tree; namely, the Orthodox confession, from which Roman Catholicism deviated and fell away, Protestant and sectarian denominations, in their turn, also disassociating themselves, subsequently, from Roman Catholicism.

Despite this historically and logically clear paradigm, Papism presumes to claim that it is supposedly the genuine Christian Faith and that Orthodoxy separated from it, rejecting the “legitimate" power of the Roman Pope.

Judaism makes a similar accusation against Christianity, according to which the Christian Faith of the New Testament allegedly betrayed the faith of the Old Testament and established itself as a separate Christian “sect." That is why the adherents of Judaism speak about “religions descended from Judaism" and “religions which derive from Judaism." These religions supposedly “have as their mission the preparation of mankind for the advent of the Messianic [sic] age cited in the Bible." [8] With these very words, the Great Rabbinate in France officially voiced its opinion in a commentary endorsing the “Pastoral Directions of the French Episcopate Concerning the Position of Christians With Respect to Judaism." They actually referred to Christianity and Islam as succeeding Judaism chronologically.

With regard to the “merits" of Judaism in creating Islam as a monotheistic religion, it is well known that Mohammed was educated by his Jewish relative, Varakh, who taught him the Old Testament and instilled in him a hatred for Christianity—a hatred that was transmitted from the Talmud to the Qur’an. But Judaism wrongly exploits this precedent in taking credit for the rise of Christianity, which allegedly owes its origin to Judaism. Thus, the Branch Theory, in its monotheistic aspect, was created on a Judaistic foundation that stresses the chronological priority of Judaism.

***

The principal exponent and propagandist of the “Branch Theory" of the Church was the German writer Lessing (1729-1781), who put it forth in his play, Nathan the Sage, written and published in 1779 and commissioned by the Masonic lodge to which he belonged. [9] In the preface to the text of his play, Lessing states that its underlying purpose is to make it clear that there have always been good people, regardless of what faith they professed. [10] Lessing illustrates this idea by depicting a confrontation between representatives of the three monotheistic creeds in the historical context of the Crusades in Jerusalem, where a Muslim sultan and a Christian knight meet as enemies. Between them, as a “peacemaker," comes Nathan the Jew, whom Lessing extols as a “sage," but who is actually a cunning person. In answer to a question put by the sultan—“Which faith is the right faith?"—, Nathan tells him the parable of the three rings.

Unlike the Gospel parables, in which the “Father" is God Himself, in the parable which Lessing expounds by way of his protagonist, Nathan, the Devil himself appears under the guise of a father of three sons who owns a magic ring. From the very beginning of time, the Devil proved to be a murderer and a liar, [11] and he revealed himself as such when he beguiled our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. [12] In Nathan's parable, the Devil reveals himself as a magician, attributing mystic power to a ring that makes its holder “beloved and pleasing to God and people alike"; that is, predisposing him to a position which stands in defiance of God. In a similar way, the Devil tried to persuade Eve to believe in the “magical" power of the tree, through which man would supposedly become godlike, coming to know good and evil. [13]

The Devil is actually a “liar and the father of lies" and “abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." [14] Nathan's parable, then, is based on deceit: the Devil-father deceives his three sons, bequeathing to each of them a counterfeit ring and thereby making them quarrel with one another. The judge to whom the three sons appeal for help calls them “deceived deceivers." But the main conclusion reached by the judge is that the genuine ring was lost while the Devil-father was reproducing counterfeits, and therefore that objective or impartial truth does not exist, since it has been lost and mixed with deceit. It is in this way that the Devil succeeds in rendering truth relative and eventually invalidating the truth revealed to man by God, putting forth, further, the idea of the equality of the three monotheistic religions.

In place of God's truth, relativized and rejected, the Devil proposes the principle of “love," when, through the judge's words, he appeals to the three sons to express love in their mutual relations and, in this way, prove that they have a right to possess the lost ring.

However, this is not the true love which emanates from love for God, but a humanistic love, which is the fruit of man's vain selfishness and homage to the modem idol of public opinion. In this scheme, “love" for others is actually love for oneself. [15]

Thus, a movement—ecumenism and religious relativism—which had as its starting point an all-embracing “love" for an abstract “mankind" has turned this “love" into the selfish “love" characteristic of modem egotism.

***

It is a well-established fact that the Second Vatican Council, in its declaration Nostra Mate (October 28, 1965), “remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the New Covenant to the stock of Abraham” and stresses that "Christians and Jews have... a common spiritual heritage.'' [16] This phrase was quoted by Pope John Paul II when he commemorated the twentieth anniversary of Nostra Mate. Shortly before, in a speech which he delivered, in 1980, at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Mainz, in the presence of the local Chief Rabbi, the same Pope called Abraham our “common father," without even the slightest mention of Christ!

Recapitulating all of these assertions, in their "Declaration of Repentance to the Jews" (1997), the French bishops spoke about “the Jewish roots of Christianity," emphasizing that "Christianity is linked to Judaism like a branch to the trunk which has borne it." [17]

These words quite clearly allude to the "Branch Theory," which has been deliberately imposed by linking Christianity to Judaism. There is nothing odd about the fact that the author of the aforementioned “Declaration" by the French bishops is Cardinal Fustiger, the Archbishop of Paris, a Polish Jew. [18] In his 1983 interview with two Israeli journalists, Fustiger states: “I very much wish Christians would not forget that they are a branch grafted onto the root. And the root is Israel," [19] Further on in the same "Declaration," emphasizing that “the Jewish people's fidelity throughout its history to the one God," the French bishops conclude that “the ‘original separation,' dating back to the first century, became a divorce.’’ [20]

It is no wonder that contemporary Judaism has been acknowledged as the legitimate religion of the Old Testament and one which shares a common tradition with Christianity. (The Vatican has already transferred its dialogue with Judaism from the Pontifical Council for Interfaith Dialogue to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity!) Herein lies the root of the modem opinion that “the first Great Schism after the Nativity of Christ was allegedly a divorce between Judaism and Christianity." [21]

Pope John Paul II is now trying to reconcile “Church" and “Synagogue" under his own aegis, recognizing the chronological priority of Judaism over Christianity, without even mentioning the problem of Christ the Messiah. [22] At this point, however, there arises a crucial question: Do we Christians have the same God as the Jews and the Muslims? [23]

This question was raised even in the twelfth century by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenos with regard to the formula which converts from Islam to Christianity had to pronounce. They were to abjure Islam by saying: “Anathema to the deity preached by Mohammed"! The Emperor, believing that this referred to the same Christian God, proposed to restrict the anathema to Mohammed personally, and convoked a council on this issue. However, the Bishops, headed by Patriarch Theodosios, refused to sign the Emperor's decision or to recognize the “Mohammedan deity" as the true God. [24]

***

Having demonstrated the untenability of the “Branch Theory" from the perspective of both Christianity and monotheism, let us now compare both of these entities. We have two triads: the Christian and the monotheistic. The former encompasses Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism (Papism), and Protestantism, the latter Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

As we have already demonstrated in another essay, [25] Papism is in many respects akin to Judaism, first and foremost in its earthly centralization and leadership, which are alien to the Heavenly centralization of Christ's Church, as a Theanthropic body, headed by the glorified God-Man, our Lord Jesus Christ. [26] The Papacy's earthly leadership is inconsistent with the authority of Christ both in Heaven and on earth. [27]

In its turn, Protestantism, being itself a reaction against Papism, is similar to Islam, while the latter is an offspring, albeit a disobedient one, of Judaism. One of the basic points of similarity between Islam and Protestantism is the idea of fatalism, that is, the unconditional predestination of men either to salvation or to perdition. From this fatalistic notion, we can logically deduce both the notoriously lax ethical standards of Islam, as evidenced in its approval of polygamy, and the liberalism of the Protestants, as illustrated by their denial of the significance of good deeds for salvation. It is quite understandable that, since man has been predestined, according to this notion, either to salvation or to perdition, he may act according to his own will with regard to morality. Such an understanding is contrary to Christianity.

Now that we have critically examined the respective members of the triads in question and dismissed any possibility of their being of common origin and form, the next step, logically speaking, is to identify Orthodoxy and Christianity: to affirm that they are identical. As we have proved in our article “Christianity and Orthodoxy," “Orthodoxy is not just one of the many forms of Christianity, alongside other legitimate, non-Orthodox forms of Christianity; our Orthodox Faith is Christianity itself in its most pure and one and only authentic form." [28]

 

Notes

1. Ephesians 4:5.

2. II Thessalonians 2:15.

3. St. Matthew 16:18.

4. Archimandrite Seraphim and Archimandrite Sergius, Orthodoxy and Ecumenism [in Bulgarian] (Sofia: 1992), Vol. I, p. 47.

5. A. Vedernikov, “The Temptations of Ecumenism" [in Russian], Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No. 4 (1954), p. 69.

6. Archimandrite Seraphim and Archimandrite Sergius, Orthodoxy and Ecumenism, Vol. I, p. 49.

7.1.10.1-2; Patrologia Graeca, Vol. VII, cols. 552-553.

8. See my article, “Papism and Judaism," Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 3 [1995], p. 14.

9. See Constantin Galabov, Lessing (Sofia: 1957).

10. Ibid., p. 398.

11. St. John 8:44.

12. Genesis 3:4-5.

13. Genesis 3:5-6.

14. St. John 8:44.

15. Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), Sermons [in Russian] (Sofia: 1944), p. 26.

16. Article 4; cited in 1998 Nostra Aetate Awards Ceremony and Lecture (Tuesday, October 20, 1998) (Fan-field, CT: The Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, Sacred Heart University, 1998).

17. Ibid.

18. See my article, “Is Cardinal Lustiger a Christian?" Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 2 [1996], p. 13.

19. Ibid., p. 16.

20. 1998 Nostra Aetate Awards Ceremony and Lecture,

21. “Concerning International Consultations in Athens" [in Russian], Russkiy Pastyr, No. 24 (1996), p. 36.

22. Henri Tincq, The Star and the Cross: John Paul II and Israel [in French] (Paris: 1993).

23. See “Do We Have the Same God as the Jews and the Muslims?" [in French], La Lumiere du Thabor, Nos. 41-42 [1994], p. 175.

24. These data are drawn from the Ecclesiastical History of Nicetas Choniates; see Notes on the History of the Byzantine-Eastern Church [in Russian] (Moscow: 1878), pp. 249-253.

25. “Papism and Judaism," p. 11.

26. St. Matthew 28:18.

27. Ephesians 1:10.

28. Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XV, No. 4 [1998], p. 3.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII (2000), Nos. 2-3, pp. 74-78.