Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 67 of 89)

Fr. Peter Gillquist: Evangelical Pioneer for Orthodoxy

July 5, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 7 Comments

On 1 July 2012, Fr. Peter Gillquist reposed in the Lord. He is widely known as the author of Becoming Orthodox. He is also known for being part of a group former Campus Crusade for Christ leaders who led some 2000 Evangelicals into the Orthodox Church in 1987 (see video). The numerous comments on the website of All Saints Orthodox Church in Bloomington, Indiana revealed his influence on the lives of so many people in America and abroad.

There are certain people who weave in and out your life leaving a lasting impression. Fr. Peter Gillquist is one of them. Like so many others, I have been richly blessed to have known Fr. Peter. I have read many of his books but it was the personal time with him that has left the biggest impression on me. I remember this tall blonde man with a warm smile and deep soothing voice. For me and I believe for many, you left Fr. Peter knowing how much he cared about you than about how much he cared about Orthodoxy. This personal concern for the other person in many ways lies at the core of Orthodoxy.

In the reflection below I will be describing my encounters with Fr. Peter. My relationship with him is far from a simple one. We come from quite different backgrounds. His was in mainstream Evangelicalism: Dallas Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, and Campus Crusade for Christ, mine was in the Reformed tradition: conservative Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, the liberal United Church Christ, and the high church Mercersburg Theology. Eventually, our paths would converge in Orthodoxy. I close this reflection with an assessment of the contribution made by Fr. Peter and his colleagues to American Orthodoxy.

Fr. Peter’s Books

I first got to know Peter Gillquist through his books. In the mid 1970s I read Let’s Quit Fighting over the Holy Spirit. I found the book helpful and balanced giving the tensions between the Evangelicals and the Charismatics back then. Later I read Love is Now. By the late 1970s his thinking began to move in a more liturgical and sacramental direction. In The Physical Side of Being Spiritual, Peter Gillquist argues for a more traditional understanding of the sacraments and for the need for liturgical approach to worship. Fr. Peter’s The Physical Side of Being Spiritual stood alongside the Chicago Call (1977), Robert Webber’s Common Roots (1982) and Thomas Oden’s After Modernity …What? (1992).

So while I enjoyed reading Peter Gillquist’s book, he was not that influential in my theological development, mostly because we were moving along different paths during the 1980s. At the time I was reading Calvin and the Reformers, and also Mercersburg Theology. I was also deeply involved in the evangelical renewal movement in the mainline United Church Christ, while Fr. Peter was on his way looking for the original apostolic church. In 1987, I saw an odd article in Christianity Today about a group of Evangelicals joining the Orthodox Church with a picture of men in clerical suits hugging each other then forgot about it. This was a picture of Peter Gillquist and his colleagues being received into the Antiochian Orthodox archdiocese.

Personal Encounters

In 1990, I left Hawaii to study at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts. In 1993, I met Fr. Peter in person at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Newburyport which is not far from Gordon-Conwell. He spoke about his journey to Orthodoxy in the social hall in the church’s basement. At the time I was more curious than serious about Orthodoxy. But it was more than an idle curiosity because I was coming to appreciate the value of the church fathers in combating theological liberalism. I went up to Fr. Peter and asked him: “If I were to become Orthodox would I have to give up my Calvinist theology?” Fr. Peter humbly admitted that he was not familiar with Reformed theology to answer my question. I appreciated his kind honesty but was also frustrated because it meant I would have to find the answers for myself. But I did appreciate Fr. Peter’s kindness in light of the fact that I had asked Frank Schaeffer the same question and was taken aback by his in-your-face bluntness: “Yes, you would because the Synod of Dort was off the map!”

In many ways my frustration with Fr. Peter Gillquist and Frank Schaeffer planted the seeds for the OrthodoxBridge. I want this blog to be a welcoming forum where inquiring Reformed Christians could find good solid answers to questions about Reformed theology and Orthodoxy. Looking back on Frank Schaeffer’s reply I can see the validity of his reply but still do not think this was the best way to deliver the answer. Years later I still remember Fr. Peter’s kind and humble response. I like to think that the example of his courtesy in dealing with non-Orthodox has set an example for the OrthodoxBridge.

I met Fr. Peter again in 1999. He was in Hawaii recovering from a recent cancer operation. I had just become Orthodox a few weeks earlier and found myself drafted into organizing a speaking event for Fr. Peter. It was also my introduction to Byzantine politics. We had planned to have Fr. Peter speak at the local Greek Orthodox parish but that was vetoed by the church hierarchy. In desperation I called my former home church and asked if we could hold a public event there. I can still remember the feeling of being tongue tied with embarrassment when my friend asked me: “But couldn’t you have him speak at the Greek church?” To which I could only mutter: “It’s a long story.” Fr. Peter ended up speaking at a nearby United Methodist Church.

In 2003, I met Fr. Peter at an Orthodox missions and evangelism conference at the Antiochian Village. When we met he asked me: “So Robert, when are we going to have an all English Orthodox mission on Oahu?” To which I could only reply, “I’m working on it!” At this conference I also had the pleasure of meeting his son, Peter Jon, a recent college graduate and talented musician.

I saw Fr. Peter not too long ago at the Antiochian Village for the St. Stephen Course of Study in 2009 and 2010. He was leading the class sessions on Orthodox evangelism. Afterwards we would talk briefly about the prospects for starting up an all English Orthodox mission on Oahu, the main island where over half a million people live. Although there were two ethnic parishes on Oahu, there wasn’t an Orthodox parish that could effectively reach the mainstream of Hawaii’s population. As director for the Antiochian Archdiocese Department of Missions and Evangelism, Fr. Peter was well aware of the need for an all English Orthodox parish in Hawaii.

Evangelical Pioneer

Fr. Peter Gillquist and his colleagues in the Evangelical Orthodox Church opened a path for Evangelicals to become Orthodox without laying aside their American identity. Many converts to Orthodoxy even now struggle with the ethnic orientation of the local parishes but thanks to Evangelical pioneers like Fr. Peter, Fr. Jack Sparks (+2010), Fr. Richard Ballew (+2008), and Fr. Harold Dunaway (+2012) many have come to see that Orthodoxy in America can take on an American identity. It must also be recognized that Metropolitan Philip and Patriarch Ignatius IV took a bold step of faith when they decided to welcome the 2000 Evangelical Orthodox into canonical Orthodoxy. This bold step forwards would not have been possible without the visionary courage of Orthodox hierarchs like Metropolitan Philip and Patriarch Ignatius IV. (Fr. Peter wrote an informative biography: Metropolitan Philip Saliba: His Life and His Dreams.)

An Assessment

Fr. Peter Gillquist’s ministry can be summed up in the following themes: Accessibility, Contextualization, and the Task Ahead.

Accessibility. Fr. Peter and his colleagues at Conciliar Press helped make Orthodoxy accessible to many Evangelicals. Fr. Peter noted in an interview that many Evangelicals don’t quite have the background to read scholarly introductions like Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church and the Apostolic Fathers so Conciliar Press prepared versions with notes that made Orthodoxy more approachable and understandable to Evangelicals. Many people’s interest in Orthodoxy began with their reading Fr. Peter’s Becoming Orthodox.

Contextualization. The Antiochian Archdiocese’s decision to welcome Fr. Peter and his two thousand member Evangelical Orthodox denomination into canonical Orthodoxy in 1987 marked a major advance for the contextualization of Orthodoxy in America. Orthodoxy in America is no longer viewed as only an exotic ethnic religion. Anyone who has met Fr. Peter and heard him talk comes away with the feeling that one can indeed be fully Orthodox and genuinely American at the same time.

The Task Ahead. As much as people have commented on the significance of the 2000 Evangelicals becoming Orthodox in 1987, we also need to be mindful of the limitations of this breakthrough. American society is becoming increasingly diverse ethnically and culturally. The 1987 breakthrough consisted of a mostly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) group becoming Orthodox. (The term WASP is used broadly; Fr. Peter was proud of his Scandinavian ethnicity.) I once asked him about what we were doing to evangelize America’s ethnic minorities which would soon become the majority. He admitted that they were not doing much and that this lay in the future. Again while I was disappointed with the answer, I admired his humble and kind honesty.

The Road Ahead

There is still much work for us to do. The road ahead contains a number of major challenges for Orthodoxy in America. One major challenge is raising Orthodoxy’s public profile. Even now when someone finds out you’re Orthodox, the response is a blank look or a puzzled: “Orthodoxy? What’s that?” We as Orthodox need to take more intentional steps towards raising Orthodoxy’s public profile. The public needs to be aware of Orthodoxy as the ancient Christian faith holding out the eternal truths of Christ to an increasingly post-Christian society.

Another major challenge is planting Orthodox parishes oriented to the American mainstream. Reaching out to the mainstream of American society will require the planting of Orthodox churches that worships in English and whose parish life will reflect American culture. We need to respect the contribution of the ethnic parishes and we need to support the planting of more all English American Orthodox parishes.

Another major challenge is the fact for many inquirers the nearest Orthodox parish is some distance away from where they live. We need to redouble church planting efforts around the country. This will require the dedication and hard work of laity and clergy. We will need Orthodox clergy who are equipped to do pastoral ministry with a missionary mindset. We will need more clergy who can start up missions where there has been zero Orthodox presence until now. This is different from the usual pastoral ministry where the priest works to uphold the current parish life, not start a new parish.

The Three Waves of Orthodoxy in America

Orthodox evangelism can be viewed as several waves. It has been said that the immigrants brought Orthodoxy to America, but that the time is coming when we will need to focus on bringing America to Orthodoxy. In the first wave, the immigrants began Orthodox parishes as a way of passing on to their children their Orthodox faith and their way of life from the old country. These are the ethnic Orthodox parishes. In the second wave, Whites from the American mainstream began converting to Orthodoxy. Fr. Peter Gillquist was part of the second wave bringing the Orthodox faith to those for whom America is the only home they know. What began as a small trickle is growing into a significant trend. These are the all English Orthodox parishes. The third wave involves bringing Orthodoxy to the minority groups that are rapidly becoming the new majority. This trend is just on the horizon. Glimpses of this exciting future can be found on the Ancient Faith Radio series “The Illumined Heart” which features stories by people from diverse backgrounds: New Age, Witchcraft, Judaism, Lutheran, Buddhist, Hinduism, Hare Krishna, Islam, Rastafarian etc. These are the mosaic Orthodox parishes who reflect America’s increasingly diverse society.

Let us remember Fr. Peter’s life and his dedication to the Gospel. Below is a prayer used at the Conference on Missions and Evangelism.

Outreach Prayer

You who at all times and in every hour, both in heaven and on earth are worshipped and glorified, O Christ God, long-suffering, plenteous in mercy and compassion, who love the just and show mercy to sinners, who call all men to salvation through the promise of good things to come: assist us in fulfilling Your charge to gather individuals from the highways and byways of our nation [or community] so that we might fill the banquet hall of Your Church. Grant us wisdom in our conduct toward outsiders that we might make the most of the time. Let our speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that we might know how to answer every one. Awaken all men to Your salvation, and in due time make them worthy of the laver of regeneration, the remission of sins and the robe of incorruption. Unite them to Your Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and number them with Your chosen flock.

That with us they may glorify Your all honorable and majestic Name, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Robert Arakaki

Videos of Fr. Peter Gillquist:

“Finding the New Testament Church” – St. Elijah Antiochian Orthodox Church at Oklahoma City, OK in 2001.

“‘Welcome Home’ The Story of the EOC.” (You can hear Fr. Peter at 2:55 to 3:41.)

Revelation, Tradition, and Epistemological Flux — A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Who’s got the gateway drug?”

June 29, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 30 Comments

Link to Jason Stellman’s Farewell posting

In a stunning turn of events, Jason Stellman resigned from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism. Many know Mr. Stellman from his leading role in bringing charges against Pastor Peter Leithart before the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the PCA . Soon after the news broke, Leithart wrote a blog posting: “Who’s got the gateway drug?” The term “gateway drug” is a reference to criticism that Leithart’s high church Calvinism has predisposed people to convert to Catholicism. Leithart counters that it was “some of the theological assumptions and ecclesial instincts of Protestant Confessionalists provide a smooth on-ramp to Catholicism or an off-ramp from Protestantism.”

Pastor Peter Leithart

As I read through Pastor Leithart’s apologia I found myself disturbed by certain philosophical assumptions in Leithart’s apologia. At times I wondered if there was not a postmodern fluidity in Leithart’s theological method that is at odds with historic Christianity. What I intend in this blog posting is describe the contours of Pastor Leithart’s epistemological framework, and then describe the Orthodox approach to the Christian Faith.

The Contours of Peter Leithart’s Epistemology

The following statements are taken from Pastor Leithart’s “Who’s got the gateway drug?” posted 4 June 2012.

1. Leithart assumes that the Christian faith itself evolves (improves) over time.

The golden age is not lost in the unrecoverable past but ahead of us in an eschatological future.

2. Leithart assigns priority to the future over the past. He rejects the priority of Tradition over contemporary theologizing:

…what I have critiqued elsewhere as “tragic metaphysics,” the notion that the original and old is necessarily preferable to the derived and the new.

Still, essential as the past is, for Protestants the past ought never become an ultimate standard.

3. Theology for Leithart is fluid and negotiable. Even the classic Christological and Trinitarian dogmas can undergo further revision.

Even the fixed points can be freshly formulated (cf. recent developments in Trinitarian theology and in Pauline studies). Beyond those few fixed points, much remains up in the air (for Catholics and Orthodox too), and will for centuries to come, as Christians continue to pore over the Scriptures and seek unity of mind concerning what they teach.

Its Trinitarian theology and eschatology give Christian faith an open-endedness that can be unsettling.

4. Leithart vigorously affirms sola scriptura, albeit in a manner that may surprise some.

Scripture remains fixed and immovable, the test and touchstone always of everything. Our understanding doesn’t stay fixed. Protestants should be perfectly comfortable with that.

No tradition can keep God from acting in new ways and saying new things in His world; God is Word, and therefore His voice is not simply identified with the voice of the church or the voice of the past.

Gateway to Liberal Theology?

As I read Pastor Leithart’s blog posting memories of my time in the United Church of Christ (UCC) come back to me. I once took part in a UCC forum where the Evangelicals and the Liberals presented their viewpoints. We closed the meeting singing the hymn: “We limit not the truth of God.” At the end of each stanza was the refrain:

The Lord hath yet more light and truth

To break forth from His Word.

There seems to some overlap in hymn and Pastor Leithart’s blog posting. While the United Church of Christ seems worlds removed from the PCA, it is important to keep in mind that this denomination has historic roots in New England Puritanism. Before Leithart and his supporters voice their objections, I invite them to compare his statements against the UCC’s new slogan: “God is still speaking to us” and the Comma logo.

The United Church of Christ’s official site explains the meaning of the Comma logo:

The comma was inspired by the Gracie Allen quote, “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.”

For the UCC the Comma is a new way to proclaim “Our Faith is 2,000 years old, our thinking is not.”

The UCC does not overtly repudiate Scripture. What it has done is to combine its reading of Scripture with the experience and concerns of contemporary culture. Absent in both Leithart and the UCC is any notion of an authoritative and binding magisterium. It seems that the only binding authority is that of one’s conscience and Scripture.

The Comma invites us to believe that God speaks through other people, nature, music, art, a theorem, the Bible, and in so many other ways.

The Comma pin reminds us of the unusual religious freedom and responsibility to engage the Bible with our own unique experiences, questions, and ideas.

Like Leithart, the UCC does not repudiate the past but seeks to integrate the best from the past with the best of the present. It is open to change and adaptation.

The Comma reminds us to balance our rich religious past with openness to the new ideas, new people, and new possibilities of the future.

I found the similarities in the philosophical assumptions between Pastor Leithart’s “Gateway Drug” posting and the UCC’s God is still speaking slogan unsettling and a little unnerving. I am not saying that Leithart’s theological views are liberal. Pastor Leithart and his colleagues in the Presbyterian Church in America and the Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches have a history of anathematizing theological liberalism. It is highly unlikely that Pastor Leithart and his contemporaries will ever embrace theological liberalism.

Perhaps most of his students/disciples won’t either. My concern is more with his theological method. What will Pastor Leithart’s grandchildren do with his theological methods? What distinctives will be up for grabs with them? What new progressive innovations will they discover? With what kind of church doctrine and liturgy will his grandchildren (natural and spiritual) grow up in? I raise these questions because at one time the theology of the United Church of Christ wasn’t all that different from Evangelicals, but over time there took place a drift towards more radical positions.

Leithart versus the Confessionalists

As a good Calvinist Pastor Leithart affirms Scripture as the absolute norm for faith and practice. But he relativizes secondary authorities like the Westminster Confession. Relegating creeds to a secondary status is nothing new to Reformed Christianity, but the novelty lies with the extent to which Leithart is willing to go. While upholding the Westminster Confession’s authority for his denomination, Leithart views it as a human document, historically conditioned, that falls far short of the absolute authority of Scripture.

Confessionalists, after all, place a great deal of emphasis on the tradition of Reformed theology, embodied especially in Reformed confessions. Throughout the debates of the past few years, I have presented mainly biblical arguments for my positions, and kept historical concerns subordinate. My opponents have typically been much more interested in testing my views by the Westminster Confession. The touchstone of their theology is a piece of the Reformed tradition as much as, and in some cases more than, Scripture. Confessionalists claim that the Confession provides standard exegesis of Scripture, to which Reformed theologians have to submit. Confessional Reformed theology thus has a natural affinity for Rome that biblicists like me don’t share.

Leithart’s disagreement with the Confessionalists is rooted not so much in doctrine as in epistemology. The Confessionalist theological method rests on the assumption that the meaning of Scripture is clear and obvious and that confessional statements like the Westminster Confession rests on the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture. This is based on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, one of the corollaries to sola scriptura. The Confessionalist epistemology assumes a close correlation or congruence between the meaning of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. This particular approach to Christian truth leads to the belief that confessional statements like the Westminster Confession are objectively true in their reading of Scripture and universally valid; not historically conditioned and contingent as some would have it. It also assumes certain stability to the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas. Thus, the Confessionalist epistemology gives rise to stability and certitude to the way they do theology and organize church life. Leithart chafes at this epistemology preferring one that is more open ended and critically informed.

Leithart’s criticism of the Confessionalists seems to be informed by postmodern approach to truth which rejects the foundationalist notion of truth. The foundationalist understanding of truth has come under strong criticism, especially by the postmodernists who insist that our understanding of truth is historically conditioned, contingent, and at best incomplete.

For Pastor Leithart, Christian theology (Christian Truth) exists in a sort of neo-Hegelian epistemology of flux. Pastor Leithart seems to hold his Christian heritage at arm’s length, distance as theorems and hypotheses to be tested continuously in light of our study of Scripture. Theology for Leithart is more a journey than a destination. Thus, a confessional statement like the Westminster Confession is not so much a “binding address” for the faith community, but a signpost on the road we travel. Truth is not something clearly delivered once and for all time via the Holy Spirit to the Church. In Leithart’s understanding Truth is something that is approximated at best, and always unreached “out there” in the future. I want to make clear that for Leithart Truth is not denied; it is just embedded in epistemological flux. We may not have the Truth but we can nibble at it from a distance. Pastor Leithart insists that Protestants should be comfortable with this understanding of Truth.

What Scripture Teaches on Epistemology

Orthodoxy rejects the notion of an open-ended and evolutionary understanding of the Christian Faith because this not is what Scripture teaches. Scripture warns against private interpretation. We read in II Peter 1:20: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.” In the early Church, it was the bishops, the Apostles’ disciples, who were given the responsibility and the authority to teach the Faith (II Timothy 4:1-5). Is it not significant that the Apostles did not create for their well trained and proven disciples, soon to be bishops (II Timothy 2:2) a compilation of essential doctrines as well as a canon of New Testament Scriptures? Is it also not significant that the Apostles devoted much of the early years of ministry in the proclamation of the Gospel and oral instruction in the Christian Faith, rather than compiling systematic treatises on the Apostolic teachings? Instead the Apostles exhorted their spiritual children to hold fast to the Apostolic teachings and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide future generations into all truth.

Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes a distinct foundation for Apostolic Tradition. In Jude 3 we read about “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” In this short verse we learn four important lessons: (1) the definite article in “the faith” indicate that Jude is thinking about a specific body of teaching, (2) “once for all” (hapax) points to a unique onetime event like Christ’s atoning death on the Cross (cf. Hebrews 9:28), (3) “once for all” points to a unique event not a series of events, and (4) “entrusted” (paradidomi) refers to a traditioning process in which the Faith is handed on from one person to another. Doctrinal stability is seen in II Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistles.” (NKJV) “Stand fast” implies fixity and stability, as opposed to the fluid progression implied in Leithart’s epistemology.

From the standpoint of the sociology of knowledge, the Orthodox and Reformed tradition have quite different approaches to doing theology. Orthodoxy functions as a “community of memory” when it seeks hold on to the Apostolic tradition without change. Orthodoxy also follows the principle of conciliarity, that is, theological differences are resolved through the collective action of the bishops, the designated successors to the Apostles. For the most part, Protestant theology seems to deny or overlook the church as a “community of memory” preferring to stress the individual reading of Scripture and the willingness of the brave individual to challenge church authority on the basis of sola scriptura. Protestant epistemology is based on a contestable and negotiable understanding of truth. In light of the fact that there is no received Tradition, Protestants must earnestly read Scripture, collect theological data from Scripture, then weigh the merits of competing theological positions in light of Scripture. This explains why biblical studies and exegesis are given such prominence among Protestants. Lacking the principle of conciliarity, Protestantism has suffered the misfortune of theological differences becoming entrenched in a plethora denominations and aberrant sects.

The Church the Pillar of Truth

But if the Church is indeed the pillar and ground of Truth (I Timothy 3:15), and if Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth holds true then there is no reason to believe that Truth is in an evolutionary flux. Christian Truth is not a set of intellectual constructs; Christian Truth is embodied in the Church which was founded on the authority of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. This capital “T” Tradition is not so much a set of beliefs but rather the life of Church indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul in Ephesians described the Church in static terms, e.g., being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and whose cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and in dynamic terms, e.g., growing into a temple (Ephesians 3:20-22).

Protestant theology has long relied upon an incredible historical trope: (1) Apostolic Beginning, (2) Apostasy (soon after the apostles died), (3) Spiritual Darkness for over a thousand years, (4) Reformation and the Return of the Light. This particular trope has even been described by a Protestant writer as a de facto denial of Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit Blinks On and Blinks Off at different times in church history. This view of church history fosters a survivalist mentality that views the outside world as hostile and dangerous.

In the Orthodox epistemology the meaning of Scripture and the exegesis of Scripture are inseparable in the context of Holy Tradition. Where Leithart sees core doctrines like Trinity and Christology as contingent on the ongoing study and interpretation of Scripture, Orthodoxy believes that through the Ecumenical Councils the exegetical debates underlying the Christological and Trinitarian controversies were definitively and authoritatively settled.

This is based on the belief that Christ’s promise of Pentecost is real -– that the Ecumenical Councils were indeed truly guided by the Holy Spirit and that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible and binding upon all Christians. This belief in Pentecost as an ongoing reality gives Orthodox epistemology a mystical dimension that is very different from the rationalism so characteristic of Western theology. In other words the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils function more as a “binding address” for all Christians, not as theological resources to be used as one sees fit. Leithart’s open ended and progressive hermeneutics to Scripture alienates him from the underlying assumptions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Leithart upends this historical trope by using an optimistic evolutionary perspective to church history. This optimistic view of church history reminds me of Philip Schaff’s The Principle of Protestantism. However, attempts to liken Leithart’s optimistic historical vision to classic Liberalism and the Social Gospel movement, while understandable, are mistaken. Leithart’s optimistic historiography is rooted in the post-millennial reading of biblical eschatology. This particular eschatology has roots in the theology of major Reformed theologians like John Calvin and Abraham Kuyper. This view sees in Scripture the promise of Christ to be with the Church as the nations are disciples along other Scripture passages that point a Christianized world filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea, and the promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church.

Icon – Ignatius of Antioch

If Orthodoxy has a particular historical trope, it would be that of the early martyrs who held to the Apostolic Faith even in the point of dying for Truth. It recognizes that society can be hostile to the Christian message but Christ has promised that Peter’s confession – the Gospel of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God — would prevail against the gates of Hell and that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church into all truth. Orthodoxy despite being hidden from the West because of the Great Schism, living under Muslim rule and Soviet persecution amazingly safeguarded (some might even say supernaturally!) the Apostolic Tradition against external pressures like violent persecution and internal threats like innovation and heresy. Orthodoxy’s ecclesial approach to Christian Truth offers stability and solidity not found in the authoritarianism of the Roman Papacy and Protestantism’s ahistorical sola scriptura.

Epistemological Strategies

There are at least four epistemological stances one can take in the face of Pastor Leithart’s response to the collapse of Jason Stellman’s Protestant theology:

1. The eclectic Reformed catholicism taken by Peter Leithart who affirm the primacy of Scripture while taking an inclusive and eclectic approach to secondary sources, e.g., creeds, vestments, liturgy, critical scholarship.

2. The naive foundationalism of Protestant fundamentalism that ignores the dynamic fluidity of Protestant theology and shies away from critical thinking. The Confessionalist stance that Stellman once identified with seems to reflect this particular epistemology.

3. The monarchy of the Roman Papacy. This is for those who seek to find stability in the infallible magisterium of Rome. In this solution the chaos that arises from the postmodern reading of Scripture is corralled by the infallible magisterium of the Papacy.

4. The Apostolic Tradition safeguarded by Eastern Orthodoxy for the past 2000 years. This view rests upon the assumption that Christ gave the Holy Spirit to his Church and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church has preserved that Tradition against innovation and heresy.

I am not familiar with Mr. Stellman’s reasons for renouncing his Reformed views but I would like to suggest what may have motivated him was: (1) a reaction against the epistemological flux in Leithart’s approach to doing theology (Option 1), and (2) a preference for a more classic epistemology that views truth as accessible and Christian doctrine as possessing a stability that endures over time (Options 3 or 4).

Leithart is under the impression that Jason Stellman is heading to Rome because of a “postmodern recognition of the historical embeddedness and contextuality of all human knowledge.” This leads me to suspect that exposure to postmodern thought has closed off the path of naive foundationalism that underlies the Confessionalist position (Option 2). I suspect that Stellman’s preference for epistemological stability is much closer to the historic Christian Faith than Leithart’s more open ended quest version of Christian truth.

Despite their fundamental differences, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism share one important trait that makes them two peas in a pod – a developmental approach to faith and practice. The development of doctrine in the Christian West stands in sharp contrast with Orthodoxy’s determination to protect the Apostolic Tradition from innovation and heresy. While the monarchy of the Papacy may offer the promise of doctrinal stability, it should be kept in mind that it has unilaterally introduced doctrinal innovations that the Orthodox find objectionable: the Filioque clause, Papal infallibility, Papal supremacy over all Christianity, purgatory etc.

Like Leithart I find the foundationalist assumptions of the Confessionalists wanting but I have grave reservations about Dr. Leithart’s proposed remedy. (He holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University.) He may well assert: “What I and my friends offer is the antidote to and not the cause of Roman fever.” It should be kept in mind that one of the serious side effects of Dr. Leithart’s medicine is epistemological vertigo. That is enough for many to decline and go elsewhere. And as mentioned before, we need to take into consideration the possible long term consequences of Leithart’s epistemological stance.

Climate Change for Protestantism?

If Jason Stellman’s crosses the Tiber, it is sure to cause consternation within Reformed circles. But what should be even more alarming is the fact that Stellman’s defection is part of a larger trend. Just a few days earlier on 27 May 2012, Joshua Lim, a brand new graduate from Westminster Seminary (Escondido) posted his conversion to Roman Catholicism. Similar conversions are happening elsewhere. Converts also include Gordon-Conwell graduates like Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics. And then there is the resignation of the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Francis Beckwith. All this raises the question: Why are so many of the best and the brightest leaving Protestant Christianity? It appears that Protestant Christianity is undergoing a “climate change,” i.e., a fundamental shift in the intellectual atmosphere, as Protestant theologians, pastors, and seminarians question the basis for sola fide and sola scriptura.

As Protestantism undergoes an unprecedented climate change, once solid ice shelves have melted away leaving many floundering on what was once solid ground. Mainline Reformed denominations like the PCUSA and the UCC have already been heavily influenced by secular culture. Pastor Leithart and his colleagues may be able to hold the line of theological orthodoxy for this generation and the next, but how certain can they be that the generations after that will not succumb to theological liberalism? Protestants who are seeking a more stable and historic form of Christianity are faced with two choices: the monarchy of Roman Catholicism or the conciliarity of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The foundations beneath the house of Protestantism have other structural problems that we have highlighted elsewhere in this blog. Like a weakened body losing blood, Protestant Christianity is suffering a slow death by thousand cuts as new interpretations of Scriptures are propagated, church splits occur over doctrinal differences, and new denominations founded all the time. The promise of Pentecost is understood primarily in terms of personal experience, not within and for the entire Church. This has resulted in a widespread historical amnesia where Protestant Christians live their lives as if two thousand years of their Christian heritage never happened! It has also resulted in belief in an invisible “Church” and disbelief in a tangible visible Church. We invite Protestants to take seriously the Apostle Paul’s descriptiion of the Church as the “pillar and ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:15) and to consider whether that verse might be a fitting description of the Orthodox Church.

Robert Arakaki

Patristics for Baptists?

June 20, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 61 Comments

Orthodox Observations on a Recent Debate Among Southern Baptists

Church Fathers

Reformed theology has been making inroads in unexpected places. Christianity Today, in a recent article, reported on a surprising trend among Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) pastors. A 2006 survey found that only 10 percent of SBC pastors overall identified themselves as “five-point Calvinists.” However, a 2007 survey found that a surprising 35 percent of SBC ministers that graduated recently from SBC seminaries identified themselves as “five-point Calvinists.”

This has spurred a pushback in the form of a theological statement: “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”

Article Two: ‘The Sinfulness of Man’ contains an explicit rejection of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity:

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.

This statement is very close to what the Orthodox Church holds to regarding the human condition. Timothy Ware in his well known introductory work The Orthodox Church wrote:

Orthodox, however, do not hold that the fall deprived humanity entirely of God’s grace, though they would say that after the fall grace acts on humanity from the outside, not from within. Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that humans after the fall were utterly depraved and incapable of good desires. They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writes that humans are under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘human nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack freedom. (p. 223)

The Missing Factor – The Early Church Fathers

What I find striking about the theological debate described in the Christianity Today article is the lack of awareness of the early church fathers. Only one was mentioned, Augustine. Augustine is a very well known church father but he was not the only one. One of the weaknesses of Western Christianity is the narrow provincialism that resulted in reliance one just one theologian when there was a far richer theological heritage to drawn on. Eastern Orthodoxy draws on a richer and broader theological tradition. In an age of rampant hero worship, why are direct disciples of the Apostles not given the attention and respect they deserve? I am sure there are many thoughtful and scholarly SBC pastors and seminarians who would be open to investigating what the Apostles taught their disciples.

Who are the Early Church Fathers?

The term “church fathers” refers to a particular group of early Christian leaders. Not anyone who lived long ago is a church father. For Orthodox Christianity a church father is someone whose teachings are in line with the teachings of the Apostles and who lived exemplary lives. Because the early Christians believed strongly in a traditioning process – remembering and preserving the teachings of the Apostles – they viewed the church fathers as people who could exposit on the genuine meaning of Scripture.

Just before he was to die, the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy:

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. (II Timothy 1:1-14, NKJV)

For a long time Timothy was Paul’s assistant and pupil, soon he was going to graduate becoming Paul’s successor in the ministry of gospel preaching and church planting. For that Timothy had to be ordained or set apart to the ministry of bishop. Paul reminds Timothy of that momentous occasion when Timothy was made bishop of the church of Christ.

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (II Timothy 2:2, NKJV)

The translocal authority of the bishop can be seen in Timothy’s ordination. At Timothy’s ordination he was given the responsibility to pass on the Christian Faith to future generation of pastors. He was also given the responsibility to make sure that future bishops would make sure that right doctrine would be taught.

The job of the bishop is different from that of a local church pastor. A bishop inherited the authority of the apostles; he did not claim divine inspiration like the original apostles but he continued their work of shepherding the larger church. The local pastors (priests) served under the bishops. The bishop leads the church through the grace given by the Holy Spirit (see II Timothy 1:6). It is also important that we keep in mind that Pentecost, Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, began in Acts 2 and flowed on continuously guiding the church into all truth. As we study church history we find that Christ has been faith to his promises to the Church, never to abandon her but to faithfully uphold her in truth and grace.

It is important to keep in mind that at the time Paul was writing this letter to Timothy, there was no New Testament yet. What Timothy and the other pastors had to rely on were the handful of letters they received from Paul, their memory of Paul’s oral teachings, and the Old Testament. The collection of books and letters known as the New Testament would not come together until at least two centuries later.

Many, if not the vast majority, of the early church fathers, were bishops. Some of the well known church fathers include:

Ignatius of Antioch – A disciple of John the Apostle, he died around the year AD 100. Tradition has it that he was one of the children Jesus took into his arms and blessed. Ignatius served as the third bishop of the city of Antioch, the same city that sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (see Acts 13). He wrote six letters that give valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the Christians shortly after the original Apostles had passed on. His letters can be found in the Apostolic Fathers.

Polycarp – Another disciple of John the Apostle, he died a martyr’s death at the stake in AD 155. Polycarp stressed the importance of memorizing and passing on the teachings of the Apostles. The account of his martyrdom became a very early classic and can be found in the Apostolic Fathers collection.

Irenaeus of Lyons – A disciple of Polycarp, he served as bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France). He was a missionary bishop overseeing a church on the frontiers of the Roman world. He is well known for his Against the Heretics which he wrote to combat the heresy of Gnosticism. He also wrote On the Apostolic Preaching. He died around AD 202.

Athanasius the Great – He served as bishop of the city of Alexandria, one of the great cities of the Roman Empire. He played an important role in combating the heresy of Arianism which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. He wrote the well known theological classic On the Incarnation and participated in the first Ecumenical Council in AD 325. He died in AD 373.

Basil the Great – He served as bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (modern day Turkey). He wrote On the Holy Spirit against those who denied the divine nature of the Holy Spirit. He died AD 379.

One common mistake Protestants make is to assume that because he lived long ago, Origen was an early church father and looked up to by Orthodox Christians. His brilliant scholarship and enormous productivity in theological research would undoubtedly earn him a position in today’s leading seminaries. But because of certain questionable aspects of his teachings, he is not recognized as a church father by Orthodox Christians.

Reading the church fathers is far from an easy task but will be rewarding for those who want to have a well grounded understanding of the Christian faith. It is important to keep in mind that the term “church fathers” is a short hand expression for a theological movement that spanned several centuries, spanned both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire and even extended outside the Roman Empire. A good starting point for those not familiar with the early church fathers is Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition vol. 1.

The Early Church Fathers on Free Will

When it comes to doing theology, Orthodox Christians ask: What was the general consensus of church fathers? The early Christians did theology conservatively. Rather than attempt to come up with a creative solution, they sought an understanding grounded in Scripture and in line with the understanding of Scripture taught by the Apostles’ successors in ministry, the bishops.

A study of the early Church shows a broad theological consensus existed that affirmed belief in free will. J.N.D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrine notes that the second century Apologists unanimously believed in human free will (1960:166).

Justin Martyr is known as “The Philosopher.” He was not part of the ordained clergy but was a teacher much in the fashion like today’s university professors. He wrote:

For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith:

Now all such expression demonstrates that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem was patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. Jerusalem was one of the spiritual centers and preserver of the ancient Christian tradition. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, a well respected teacher in the fourth century, taught in his catechetical lectures:

For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism).

John of Damascus, an eighth century church father famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, wrote the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early church. He explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic The Ladder of Divine Ascent wrote:

Of the rational beings created by Him and honoured with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).

What is striking is that the Calvinists’ doctrines of total deprativity and double predestination were not taught by the early church fathers. The distinctive teachings of the Reformed tradition have their roots in Augustine of Hippo and the influence of medieval Scholasticism on Christian theology in the Middle Ages. This points to Calvinism (Reformed theology) not being part of the historic Christian faith, but a novel theological system invented by John Calvin in the 1500s.

An Invitation to Baptists to Read the Early Church Fathers

Christians who are by temperament conservative find a certain appeal in the early church fathers. They are repelled or disturbed by innovative doctrines that push the boundaries too far. One of the criticisms that Orthodoxy has of Calvinism is that it teaches novel doctrines like total depravity and double predestination. What John Calvin and his supporters did was to take certain ideas taught by Augustine and push the boundaries of these teachings in unexpected directions reaching unprecedented conclusions.

Many Protestants, including Baptists, have long been unaware of the rich heritage in the early church. This is probably due to the mistaken belief that there took place a massive apostasy early on and that the Christian religion fell into deep spiritual darkness until the Protestant Reformation. Ralph Winter has labeled this view: the Blinked Off/ Blinked On or BOBO theory of history. The leading scholars in church history reject this view of church history. The BOBO theory of church history also contains disturbing theological implications.

We invite Baptists to discover the rich heritage in the early church fathers. We are sure that this will help them move their faith and practice closer to the historic mainstream, and protect them from doctrinal innovations. We pray that they will find many unexpected treasures in the early church fathers and in the history of the early church.

Robert Arakaki

“Southern Baptist or Semi-Pelagian” by Doug Beaumont in Soul Device (19 June 2012). Written by an open minded Baptist seminary professor, this article has a pingback to an OrthodoxBridge blog posting.

“From First Baptist to the First Century” by Clark Carlton a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy. This is his personal story of his journey to Orthodoxy.

Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 67 of 89)

Fr. Peter Gillquist: Evangelical Pioneer for Orthodoxy

Revelation, Tradition, and Epistemological Flux — A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Who’s got the gateway drug?”

Patristics for Baptists?

See also: “Why Do the Baptists Rage?” by Vincent Martini in On Behalf of All (19 June 2012). This blog posting is written by a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. It provides an insightful analysis of the implications involved in this emergent controversy.

“Southern Baptist or Semi-Pelagian” by Doug Beaumont in Soul Device (19 June 2012). Written by an open minded Baptist seminary professor, this article has a pingback to an OrthodoxBridge blog posting.

“From First Baptist to the First Century” by Clark Carlton a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy. This is his personal story of his journey to Orthodoxy.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives