Category: Evangelicalism (Page 12 of 15)

Is the Protestant Church Fragmented? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson (2 of 2)

February 9, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 62 Comments

source: canonwired podcast 26 January 2013

In a 26 January 2013 canonwired podcast, Pastor Doug Wilson was asked about the fragmented state of Protestantism. One frequent objection to Protestantism is the fact that it has over 20,000 denominations. Pastor Wilson responded that if you look at the data in terms of tradition as opposed to independent polities, you will find Orthodoxy has 19 different traditions, Protestants have 21 different traditions (streams), and for Roman Catholics there are 16 different traditions. This answer gives one the impression that Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox are all in the same boat.

However, Pastor Wilson is confusing apples with oranges. His 21 Protestant groupings are based on theological differences among Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals etc. His 19 Orthodox groupings are based mostly on national jurisdictions, e.g., Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, Bulgarian Orthodoxy etc. National Orthodox jurisdictions are of a very different nature from doctrinal differences between Protestant denominations.

In this blog posting I will sketch Protestantism’s theological divisions. Then I will compare its doctrinal disarray against Orthodoxy’s theological unity.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Luther vs. Zwingli — Marburg Colloquy 1529

One of the first major divisions occurred over the Lord’s Supper. In 1529 Luther and Zwingli met at the Marburg Colloquy seeking to come to a common understanding of Christ’s words: “This is my body.” Luther held to the real presence, while Zwingli preferred a more symbolic understanding. Unable to come to an agreement the two went their separate ways. Calvin held to a position somewhere between the two.

This difference over the real presence in the Lord’s Supper continues to divide Protestants. Many Evangelicals and Baptists will side with Zwingli, while the more traditional or high church Protestants will side with Luther (if properly nuanced). The significance of the Marburg Colloquy is that deep divisions emerged so soon among the original Reformers despite their adherence to sola scriptura. Theological division is not a later development but present from the start.

source

Baptism was another cause for division. Lutherans and the Reformed Christians continued the practice of baptizing infants, while the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism insisting that only those old enough to understand the meaning of faith were to be baptized. The Anabaptist movement began in 1523 in Zurich and spread to many parts of Europe. The Baptists we know today can be traced to seventeenth century English Separatism. Their refusal to recognize infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling divides the Baptists from more historic Protestants. Some Protestants have experienced the pain of being excluded from Holy Communion at a Baptist church just because they had not been baptized by total immersion. And those who wish to join a Baptist church will need to be rebaptized by total immersion.

Conclusion: The majority of Protestants reject Roman Catholicism’s seven sacraments for two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The reducing of the number of sacraments to just two rather than promoting unity resulted in divisions among Protestants.

Church Government

Westminster Assembly

Under Elizabeth I the Anglican Church and the Via Media (Middle Way) was established in the mid 1500s. Via Media was a compromise between Roman Catholicism and the more radical Protestants influenced by Calvin’s Geneva. The English Puritans objected to the retention of the episcopacy and its close ties with the monarchy. Two novel forms of church government emerged from this: presbyterianism and congregationalism. Presbyterians believe that the local congregation is to be governed by presbyters (elders) elected by the people of a congregation or by a group of congregations. Congregationalists reject the notion of a state church. Following the “gathered church” principle, they insist that the church should consist only of those who responded to the call of Christ and who covenanted with Christ and each other to live as Christ’s disciples.

The Holy Spirit and Religious Revivalism

Frontier Revival in early 1800s

There is within Protestantism, especially Puritanism, a strong emphasis on a personal experience of God’s grace. The Halfway Covenant controversy that troubled the New England colonies in the mid 1600s was over whether those who professed faith in Christ and lived upright lives but had had no conversion experience were to be admitted into full church membership. In the mid 1700s there emerged a movement of New England Congregational preachers who insisted on the possibility of an instantaneous or sudden conversion experience attended by emotional and mystical features known as “New Lights.” These were resisted by those who believed that faith in Christ did not require a dramatic experience and that the baptism administered to infants was efficacious provided that it was accompanied by diligent catechesis. In the mid 1800s John Williamson Nevin in The Anxious Bench criticized the emotional approach to religious conversion being popularized by the frontier revivals. From the frontier revivals of the 1800s we see the origins of the emphasis being “born again” prominent among many Evangelicals and Baptists today.

Similar to the emphasis on instantaneous conversion was the emphasis on instantaneous or entire sanctification. The Holiness movement which emerged in the mid 1800s sought to preserve John Wesley’s teaching that through a powerful instantaneous and emotional experience, distinct from the initial conversion, one who became cleansed from inbred sin was enabled to live without conscious or deliberate sin. This emphasis gave rise to the Holiness Churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and many other smaller groups.

A new religious movement emerged from this emphasis on the Holy Spirit, Pentecostalism. This movement which emerged at the turn of the century emphasized speaking in tongues as the sign that one had received the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism has exerted a wide and powerful influence on twentieth century Protestantism. What was initially considered a bizarre sect in time became accepted in many mainline churches through the charismatic renewal. Its expressive form of worship laid the foundation for the contemporary worship services found in many congregations.

We find here three quite different approaches to Christian conversion and faith in Christ: (1) the more traditional churches that accept infant baptism and view faith as trusting in Christ, (2) those who insist that becoming a Christian requires having undergone a distinct conversion experience and that baptism is only valid for those who had such an experience, and (3) those who believe that having a born again experience while necessary is not sufficient and that one needed to have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in tongues. These differences are more than doctrinal. They touch upon the issue of who was a genuine Christian and who was not. These questions generated strong emotions on both sides often resulting in church splits and new church groups being formed.

Liberalism Versus Fundamentalism

With the rise of modern science and the Enlightenment, Western Christianity faced a new challenge, knowledge based on autonomous reason. The historical critical method of studying the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus caused many to question and rethink traditional doctrines. Many Protestant theologians, pastors, and denominational leaders began to jettison traditional beliefs like the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and even that of Jesus’ divinity!

This gave rise to theological liberalism, an attempt to forge a new theology compatible with the insights and findings of modern science. Others resisted the attempt viewing naturalism as incompatible with the traditional Christian worldview. This gave rise to conflicts between the theological conservatives that sought to hold on traditional doctrines and the theological liberals that sought to adapt theology to the new knowledge being generated by modern science. In contrast to previous theological schisms that more or less remained within the confines of Christianity, theological liberalism resulted in many churches and denominations parting ways from the historic Christian Faith.

This is not to say that ‘conservative’ Protestantism resisted the temptation to syncretism. The controversial ‘word of faith’, prosperity gospel, and holy laughter teachings, while immensely popular today have gone beyond the boundaries of historic Christianity. The contemporary Christian music and the seeker friendly/church growth movement have taken much of Evangelical worship away from the historic pattern of Christian worship. And ironically, in a post-modern reaction to the excesses of modern Evangelical worship the ancient-future movement surfaced in an attempt to reconnect with the ancient Christian tradition lost by modern Evangelicalism.

Protestantism and Orthodoxy Compared

In his attempt to describe Protestantism as consisting of 21 groupings or traditions, Pastor Doug Wilson glossed over the serious doctrinal divisions among Protestants. This is where the contrast between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is most evident.

Core Doctrine – All of Orthodoxy share in the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology as defined by the Ecumenical Councils; Protestants, on the other hand, range anywhere from the classical Reformed and Lutherans who adhere to traditional Christology to the liberals who question or even reject the divinity of Christ or seek to redefine the Trinity using inclusive language – with more than a few denominations lying somewhere in between.

Worship – All of Orthodoxy carefully follow a select few ancient liturgies received from the historic Church; Protestantism has no common pattern or unity of worship. Rather than rely on Tradition, they sought to create their own liturgies based on their reading of the Bible. Protestant worship follows a broad spectrum from liturgical Anglican and Lutheran services, to sermon focused services characteristic of Evangelicals and Baptists, to the more emotionally expressive services among charismatics and Pentecostals.

Church Government – All of Orthodoxy agree that proper church government requires a bishop who is in apostolic succession; the vast majority Protestantism have no bishops in any historic sense. Where the early Church only had one kind of polity: episcopal, Protestantism allows for all kinds: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. In a disturbing development some of the Third Wave charismatic churches have claimed to have restored the office of the apostles!

Sacraments – All Orthodox share a common understanding of the historic sacraments. They all affirm the real presence in the Eucharist. There are different understandings about the need to baptize converts from Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. Among Protestants there is no unity over infant baptism or the mode of baptism. Neither is there a shared understanding about how often a church should observe the Lord’s Supper, the real presence, and who is authorized to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

It has been claimed that Protestants do in fact enjoy Eucharistic unity. But given the widespread belief that Holy Communion is just a symbol, intercommunion among Protestants has become all but disconnected from doctrinal orthodoxy and moral discipline. In the glaring light of this fact, claims to Eucharistic unity among Protestants sound hollow to Orthodox Christians.

Conclusion: The sad fact is that Protestantism today has no unifying core beliefs, no shared pattern of worship, on top of its many denominations founded on these divisions. From what I know of Pastor Wilson, he takes doctrine seriously. However, he does his listeners a horrendous disservice by ignoring this scandalous reality. What is compelling many Evangelicals to take a serious look at Orthodoxy is not merely the fractured state of Protestant theology and the widespread apostasy among liberal mainline denominations, but also the accelerating pace of doctrinal innovations among the younger generations of Evangelicals.

Protestantism’s Doctrinal Disarray

When I was a member of the liberal mainline United Church of Christ (UCC), a friend made a joke about the fact that if you walked into a room of 30 people at a UCC conference you would find 30 theologies in that room. While intended to be humorous, the joke also underscored a very sad fact about the theological health of a denomination in decline. Similar tensions have surfaced in the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

When I studied at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary the majority of the students there were conservative Evangelicals. There was much common ground among us students but the sad fact was that there was no common worship life at Gordon-Conwell. There was a chapel service but that was sparsely attended. Once a month the students would meet with their fellow denomination members, but there was little interest in reconciling denominational differences during these meetings.

This is not to say that there are no differences among Orthodox Christians. We differ over following the new church calendar versus the old church calendar of fast and feast days. I have friends who attend an old calendar Russian Orthodox parish. But while they celebrate Christmas two weeks later than the Greek Orthodox, I can receive Holy Communion if I were to visit that parish. As far as multiple administrative jurisdictions in America, we all agree that it is contrary to canonical law. I don’t know of any Orthodox bishop or priest who believe that multiple jurisdiction is God’s will. Steps have been taken to prepare the way for another council.

The multiplicity of administrative jurisdictions has not destroyed or precluded the fundamental liturgical and Eucharistic unity among world Orthodoxy. In Honolulu I attend the Greek Orthodox Church; on occasion I will visit the nearby ROCOR parish. When I visit the mainland I usually attend an OCA or Antiochian Orthodox parish. Also, we recently had an OCA priest who moved to Hawaii and was assigned to the local ROCOR parish and who would fill in for the Greek Orthodox priest when he went on vacation. So those who point to the problem of multiple jurisdictions are overlooking the Eucharistic unity that we all share and our desire to live out our unity in Christ.

Reconciliation in Moscow 2006

Schism can be healed. When I became Orthodox in 1999, I was discouraged from visiting the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) parish. This was because ROCOR saw the Moscow Patriarchate as collaborating with the Soviet regime and broke off ties with them. That schism was healed in 2006. As far as the schism between Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox I remain cautiously optimistic. Whenever I visit a nearby Coptic church I can sense of family resemblance that I do not have when I visit a Roman Catholic or Anglican parish. One positive sign is that the Copts have been sending students to the Greek Orthodox Holy Cross Seminary. Another positive sign of possible reconciliation is the fact Coptic Christians can receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox church when there is no Coptic church in the area. This is an exception made on a case by case basis and requires the blessing of the bishop.

One could point to the various splinter Orthodox groups. A Wikipedia article on Orthodoxy has three categories: (1) those in full communion, (2) traditionalist schisms, and (3) nationalist schisms. The best way to deal with this complex situation is to ask: What do we mean by Orthodox unity? Unity in Orthodoxy is organic and relational. The Eucharistic unity that all Orthodox share in is not just in the body and blood of Christ, it is also a communion among Orthodox bishops around the world and goes back to the Apostles. It is not enough for a church group to put the name “Orthodox” on its door; it must be in communion with the ancient patriarchates. It is a sad and unfortunate fact that human nature being what it is has resulted in individuals and groups leaving the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. But based on what the Nicene Creed teaches we believe that there has always been one Church, not two parts. This view means that if one leaves the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, the Church remains intact but one has become outside the Church. One way of locating this one holy catholic and apostolic Church is to see who is in communion with the ancient patriarchates.

There was a group of sincere Christians who called themselves the “Evangelical Orthodox Church.” There is no patent, to my knowledge, on using the word “Orthodox.” Similarly, there are many cults who call themselves “Christians.” Yet as the Evangelical Orthodox grew in maturity and understanding, they learned that to be Orthodox in the historic sense meant entering into canonical communion with the historic Orthodox patriarchates. So, they did. (See chapter 10 “A Decade of Decision” and chapter 11 “Welcome Home!” in Peter Gillquists’ Becoming Orthodox.)

Inquirers will need to confront two questions: (1) Do I agree with the Nicene Creed’s “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church?” and (2) Where do I find this one holy catholic and apostolic Church? I don’t think they will find it in Protestantism.

Conclusion

When I entered into Orthodoxy I found a common faith and a common worship. I close with two quotes: one from the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons, and another from a contemporary Orthodox blogger, Vincent Martini. Irenaeus wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth (Against Heresies 1.10.2, Richardson 1970:360).

Vincent Martini wrote:

An Orthodox Christian in America can travel to any Orthodox church in Greece, Russia, or Serbia, experiencing the same liturgy, prayer, and piety that they are accustomed to in their “home” church, while sharing full eucharistic fellowship with every single one of them. (“How Many Different Orthodox Churches Are There?”)

Despite the nearly two thousand years that separate Vincent Martini from Irenaeus of Lyons, we see the same Orthodox Faith.

When we compare Protestantism against Orthodoxy we will find that very little has changed with respect to Orthodoxy. Orthodox unity is based on the stability of Holy Tradition. All Orthodox share the same core doctrines, the same worship, and the same Eucharist — as did our Fathers in the centuries before us – and as will our grandchildren in the generations to come. But Protestantism is not grounded in the stability of Holy Tradition but in the quest for a reformed church ever reforming. This has resulted in constant change and flux from the time of Luther and Calvin till now. Neither the most historic high church denominations nor its low church evangelical or charismatic counterparts will be able to guarantee that its grandchildren will worship or believe as they did.

Robert Arakaki

Should Protestants Make the Sign of the Cross? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson

February 3, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 38 Comments

In a 30 December 2012 canonwired podcast, Pastor Doug Wilson was asked what he thought about Protestants crossing themselves. Apparently, this question was asked because growing numbers of Protestants have started crossing themselves. In short, Pastor Wilson’s answer was: “It’s lawful, but it’s not appropriate at all.”

He elaborated that it would not be appropriate because it could cause confusion, that is, a Protestant making the sign of the cross might be mistaken for a Roman Catholic.

In this blog posting I will be discussing: (1) the origins of this practice, (2) why many Protestants do not cross themselves, (3) what this gesture means for Orthodox Christians, and (4) the significance of the recent interest among Protestants in this ancient Christian practice.

Fourth century icon of St. Paul

In the Early Church

The origin of the sign of the cross is unknown. It was probably first made on the forehead of those being baptized. It appears that people began to cross themselves during the early liturgies then carried the practice over into everyday life. In time this practice became emblematic of being a Christian. Based on early descriptions we can infer that the gesture was first made with one finger tracing a T or an X on the forehead. Possibly, the early Christians took their cue from Genesis 4:15, Ezekiel 9:4, and Revelation 14:1 and 22:4. Then the gesture took on more elaborate forms with two fingers used to indicate the two natures of Christ or three fingers to indicate faith in the Trinity.

While the origin of the sign of the cross is obscure, it is evident that the early Christians saw it as an integral part of an ancient tradition. The second century apologist, Tertullian (c. 160/170-215/220), defended Holy Tradition by pointing to the sign of the cross as an example of an ancient custom all Christians shared in. Tertullian wrote:

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? . . . . At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (De Corona Chapter 3)

If the sign of the cross was considered an ancient practice in Tertullian’s time circa 200, we can infer that it was in use in the first half of the second century and possibly as early as the start of the second century soon after the Apostles died.

Similarly, Basil the Great (c. 329-379) pointed to the sign of the cross as a prime example of unwritten tradition. In his On the Holy Spirit Basil wrote:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? (On the Holy Spirit Chapter 27, §66)

Basil asserted that to omit an established custom on the grounds that it lacks biblical backing or it is trivial would “injure the Gospel in its very vitals.”

In their defense of the sign of the cross Tertullian and Basil the Great anticipated and refuted the regulative principle, i.e., what the Bible does not teach is not to be allowed. The regulative principle being foundational to Reformed hermeneutics points to a fundamental incompatibility between the Reformed tradition and early Christianity. While theologically astute Protestants might point out that the classic form of sola scriptura allows for extra-biblical traditions, a Protestant would not be able to agree with Basil’s assertion that unwritten tradition “have the same force” as Scripture which is how Orthodoxy views the relation between Scripture and Tradition.

Readers who are skeptical of Holy Tradition should keep in mind that Tradition like Scripture did not fall out of the sky but is rooted in the ministry of the original Apostles. In an earlier blog: “The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition” I examined what the New Testament had to say about the process of handing down oral and written apostolic tradition. In my critique of Keith Mathison’s Shape of Sola Scriptura I argued that the early church fathers did not hold to sola scriptura but to both Scripture and Tradition.

In Everyday Christian Life

The significance of the sign of the cross can be seen in its widespread usage among the early Christians. Tertullian described how early Christians carried this practice into their ordinary day-to-day activities in an attempt to consecrate all aspects of their new life in Christ.

At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (De Corona Chapter 3)

Two centuries later, Cyril (c. 310-386), Patriarch of Jerusalem, exhorted the catechumens to incorporate the sign of the cross into the fabric of everyday life. In Lecture 4 of his Catechetical Lectures Cyril exhorted his listeners not to be ashamed concealing their faith in Christ but to be bold witnesses for Christ by signing themselves with the cross openly and publicly.

Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act. For He who was here crucified is in heaven above. If after being crucified and buried He had remained in the tomb, we should have had cause to be ashamed; but, in fact, He who was crucified on Golgotha here, has ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives on the East. (NPNF Vol. 7 p. 22)

The phrase “royal sign” points to the sign of the cross as a flag signaling the presence of the kingdom of God. Christ’s reign requires a visible sign. In World War II, when the Allies retook a town they would take down the Nazi flag and raise the flag of the original state. In Lecture 13 Cyril reiterated how the sign of the cross was to be woven into the everyday fabric of life.

Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still. Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the sake of the poor; without toil, for the sick; since also its grace is from God. It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of devils: for He triumphed over them in it, having made a shew of them openly; for when they see the Cross they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, who bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the gift; out for this the rather honour thy Benefactor. (NPNF Vol. 7 p. 92)

The phrase “on everything” points to the priesthood of all believers (cf. I Peter 2:9). Just as the Christian clergy consecrated the Eucharistic elements so likewise the Christian laity consecrated their ordinary meals and turned their mundane secular activities into sacred moments that became an extension of the kingdom of God. This fulfills Paul’s cosmic vision in Ephesians of all creation being united under Christ’s rule (Ephesians 1:19-23).

Faith In Motion

The sign of the cross is more than a ritual gesture made with the fingers, it is faith in action. John Chrysostom noted that genuine faith is needed for this gesture to be efficacious:

Since not merely by the fingers ought one to engrave it, but before this by the purpose of the heart with much faith. (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54, NPNF Vol. 10 p. 336)

In making the sign of the cross we affirm visibly and bodily our faith in the Trinity, and we confess the Good News of Christ’s death and his third day resurrection. St. John also exhorts his listeners to sanctify their minds and their souls through the sign of the cross.

This therefore do thou engrave upon your mind, and embrace the salvation of our souls. For this cross saved and converted the world, drove away error, brought back truth, made earth Heaven, fashioned men into angels. Because of this, the devils are no longer terrible, but contemptible; neither is death, death, but a sleep; because of this, all that wars against us is cast to the ground, and trodden under foot. (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54, NPNF Vol. 10 p. 336)

The sign of the cross also promotes our spiritual wellbeing. For example, being insulted can become a stumbling block but making the sign of the cross can help us maintain our spiritual balance.

Hath any one insulted thee? Place the sign upon thy breast, call to mind all the things that were then done; and all is quenched. Consider not the insults only, but if also any good hath been ever done unto thee, by him that hath insulted thee, and straightway thou wilt become meek, or rather consider before all things the fear of God, and soon thou wilt be mild and gentle. (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 87, NPNF Vol. 10 p. 518)

Oftentimes when Orthodox Christians encounter a trial or a temptation they will cross themselves and pray: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!

Making the sign of the cross provides the sincere Christian an added boost to his/her prayer. Our bodily actions affect our souls. All too often one feels like one is thinking to one’s self than talking to God but a bodily gesture like kneeling or crossing one’s self changes all that. I suspect that the Puritan attempt to reduce prayer to its bare minimum might have roots in the sola fide. “Faith alone” can be turned into an abstract intellectual faith without good works, and a faith without outward gestures like the sign of the cross or bowing one’s head in worship.

Christus Victor

In the early Church the dominant motif of salvation was Christus Victor – Christ as the one who defeated death and the Devil on our behalf. For the early Christians the sign of the cross was an act of spiritual force. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373) in his De Incarnatione Verbi Dei discussed how Christians use the sign of the cross as a way of repudiating death.

A very strong proof of this destruction of death and its conquest by the cross is supplied by a present fact, namely this. All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead. (De Incarnatione § 27)

The early Christians believed the sign of the cross was a spiritual force that defeated the influence of paganism and idolatry. As an act of faith this sacramental gesture announces that the kingdom of God has come and presents the call to repentance, i.e., to return God the true Creator of humanity and creation. The kingdom of God which has been obscured by the Fall is now made manifest. Or to use the words of the late Protestant missiologist Ralph Winter: “the kingdom strikes back.”

By the sign of the cross, on the contrary, all magic is stayed, all sorcery confounded, all the idols are abandoned and deserted, and all senseless pleasure ceases, as the eye of faith looks up from earth to heaven. (De Incarnatione § 31)

Athanasius linked the sign of the cross with the missionizing of Roman society. Paganism was being overthrown not just by verbal proclamation of the Gospel but also by the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom through the sign of the cross.

Since the Savior came to dwell among us, not only does idolatry no longer increase, but it is getting less and gradually ceasing to be. Similarly, not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer make any progress, but that which used to be is disappearing. And demons, so far from continuing to impose on people by their deceits and oracle-givings and sorceries, are routed by the sign of the cross if they so much as try. (De Incarnatione § 55)

Thus, what may look like a quaint church ritual is actually an ancient spiritual practice of considerable potency. With this simple gesture we proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God, the defeat of death, and the renewal of creation.

Summary: While the origin of the sign of the cross is obscure, early Christians regarded it as an integral part of the Christian Holy Tradition. They regarded it as more than a ceremonial gesture used in church but as a vital act of faith in Christ. They saw it as a sign of Christ’s victory over sin, demons, and death, and as a means of consecrating a fallen creation thereby restoring its sacramental character prior to the Fall.

East Vs. West

While the sign of the cross was universal in the early Church, it was by no means uniform. The way Roman Catholics make the sign of the cross is different from the way Orthodox Christians make the sign of the cross. The Roman Catholic fashion is simpler. One simply touches the forehead with the right hand, move down to the chest, then touch the left shoulder and conclude by touching the right shoulder. While making this gesture, one says: “In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Orthodox Sign of the Cross

The Eastern Orthodox style is more complex. One brings the thumb, index finger, and right hand together (symbolizing the Trinity). Then one presses the fourth and fifth fingers against the palm (symbolizing the two natures of Christ). One starts by touching the forehead, move down to the chest, then touch the right shoulder, and conclude by touching the left shoulder. While making this gesture, one says: “In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Behind the differences in the way Roman Catholics and Orthodox make the sign of the cross today is a complex history of divergent practices, misunderstanding, even excommunication!

The Early Reformers’ Tolerance of the Sign of the Cross

Stained Glass of Martin Luther

Martin Luther’s attitude towards the sign of the cross was one of acceptance. In Luther’s Smaller Catechism we find in the section on Daily Prayers that the Christian is to make the sign of the cross before commencing the Morning and Evening Prayers.

Morning Prayer

In the morning when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Then, kneeling or standing, repeat the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. If you choose, you may also say this little prayer:

I thank You, my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Your dear Son, that You have kept me this night from all harm and danger; and I pray that You would keep me this day also from sin and every evil, that all my doings and life may please You. For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things. Let Your holy angel be with me, that the evil foe may have no power over me. Amen.

Then go joyfully to your work, singing a hymn, like that of the Ten Commandments, or whatever your devotion may suggest.

The Lutheran tradition today is quite diverse, but there is a high church strand that retains and favors traditional elements like the sign of the cross, liturgical worship, and icon like stained glass windows.

John Calvin’s attitude seems to have been one of indifference or tolerance. In his Institutes the sign of the cross is mentioned in a quote by Augustine of Hippo pertaining to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. In comparison with Luther, Calvin seems to hold a disdainful attitude as evidenced by his characterizing the sign of the cross as “a superstitious rite.”

Elsewhere, explaining how believers now possess Christ, he says, “You have him by the sign of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the meat and drink of the altar” (Tract. in Joann. 50). How rightly he enumerates a superstitious rite, among the symbols of Christ’s presence, I dispute not; but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he sufficiently shows that he has no idea of a twofold body of Christ, one lurking concealed under the bread, and another sitting visible in heaven. If there is any need of explanation, it is immediately added, “In respect of the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always: in respect of the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, Me ye have not always.'” (Institutes 4.17.28)

While Calvin did not openly oppose the sign of the cross, his disdainful attitude would in time develop into outright opposition by his followers.

The Reformed Opposition to the Sign of the Cross

Where Luther and his followers had an accepting attitude towards the sign of the cross and other liturgical rites, the Reformed movement had a more hostile attitude. This hostility can be found in the Scots Confession (1560) Chapter 20 in a oblique comment made about the need to change ceremonies that “foster superstition.” In the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Chapter 27 we find a more explicit disapproval.

Therefore, we would seem to be bringing in and restoring Judaism if we were to increase ceremonies and rites in Christ’s Church according to the custom in the ancient church.

Reading between the lines we can see a rejection of rites like the sign of the cross. What is striking about the sentence above is the early Calvinists’ willingness to distance themselves from the early Church. In light of the fact that these two confessional statements were drafted just before Calvin’s passing or soon after indicates that this is not a later development but likely an expression of Calvin’s own views.

King James and Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference 1604

King James and Puritans at Hampton Court (1604)

The views of the Continental Reformers began to extend to England where the Anglican Via Media was in place. The Millenary Petition of 1603, signed by a thousand Puritan ministers and addressed to King James, called for a number of reforms in the Church of England. It called for the cessation of the sign of the cross being made at baptism and people bowing their heads at Jesus’ name during church services. This rejection is consistent with their adherence to the regulative principle in interpreting the Bible – what the Bible does not teach is prohibited, and with their desire to purify or rid the Church of England all “poperies” – anything reminiscent of Roman Catholicism. It is a little curious that the Westminster Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms do not criticize ceremonies or rites, but the fact is the Scots Confession (1560) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) are considered major confessional statements for Reformed churches.

Knowing this history helps us to understand the contours of American Protestantism. Much of American Protestantism trace their roots to English Puritanism, e.g., New England Puritanism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Baptist etc., and because of this the mainstream of American Protestantism do not make the sign of the cross. The Lutheran and Anglican traditions which favor or are tolerant of the sign of the cross tend to be on the sidelines of American Protestantism; the Anglicans because they were on the losing side of the Revolutionary War, and the Lutherans because their German ethnic and linguistic heritage differed from the Anglo mainstream. Many of the Protestant denominations that emerged in the 1800s, because they had very little or no knowledge of historic Christianity, tended to reflect the general Protestant attitude of not making the sign of the cross.

The Sign of the Cross in the Orthodox Tradition

Orthodox Crossing Themselves

A visitor to the Orthodox Liturgy will notice that Orthodox Christians make the sign of the cross quite frequently. They may wonder: When are Orthodox Christians expected to the make the sign of the cross? The answer can vary. The basic expectation is that one makes the sign of the cross whenever the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned. Some Orthodox Christians will cross themselves when the Virgin Mary is mentioned. The sign of the cross can also function as a heartfelt “Amen!” to a particular prayer being offered up.

There is no hard and fast rule as to when and how often one should cross one’s self. The main thing is that the gesture be heartfelt and directed to God. I often tell visitors not to feel obligated to make the sign of the cross if they are not Orthodox. They can do it if they wish but they are not expected to do so. One could say that making the sign of the cross is a family practice. It’s something we expect of family members, not guests.

Knowing the differences between the way Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants view the sign of the cross can be helpful. I usually sit in the back of the church on Sunday mornings because that is where many visitors like to sit. When I see a visitor or a new family I usually watch to see if whether or not they cross themselves, and if they do whether it is in the Roman Catholic fashion or the Orthodox. If the sign of the Cross ends up on the right shoulder usually it’s an indicator that the person is Roman Catholic. Usually, someone not crossing themselves in the Liturgy is a tip off that they are Protestant or that they are not Christian. If they appear to be lost I offer to help them follow the Liturgy.

Should Protestants Make the Sign of the Cross?

Pastor Doug Wilson overstated his answer when he pronounced making the sign of the cross “not appropriate at all” for Protestants. While he may have the authority to speak for his congregation and his denominational group (CREC, Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches), he has no basis to speak for all Protestants. He could claim that making the sign of the cross is inappropriate for Reformed Christians in light of the Reformed creeds.

Due to historical circumstances the vast majority of Protestants do not make the sign of the cross. I see this as a fact to be accepted, not as an error to be corrected. Protestantism has decided to walk apart from the historic churches. I recognize that a few of the more traditional or high church Protestants make the sign of the cross but they are rare exceptions. When I see someone at an Orthodox liturgy not signing themselves my first guess is that they are likely Protestant. If this individual or family were to start crossing themselves later on, I would interpret this as a sign that they are moving towards Orthodoxy.

If a Calvinist were to ask my view on their doing the sign of the cross, I would encourage them to do so. First, I would point out that the sign of the cross is not confined to any one denomination but was universal among all Christians in the early Church. Second, some of the early Protestant Reformers and some high church Protestants today (Lutherans or Anglicans) maintain this practice. Third, but because it marks a break from the Reformed movement which eschews ceremonialism and outward signs I would caution Calvinists to consider that for them to cross themselves would mark a break from the Reformed tradition. They should do it with a good conscience. And fourth, making the sign of the cross can be a first step towards becoming Orthodox. One can observe an Orthodox Liturgy as a detached observer but to cross one’s self during the Liturgy is to take the first step to active participation in the Divine Liturgy. The sign of the cross enables one to rediscover the classic Christian worldview of creation as a sacrament and the Cross as the means by which the Devil is defeated, the Fall of humanity reversed, and the cosmos redeemed.

Conclusion

The Reformed rejection of the sign of the cross is a good example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In their zeal to distance Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, many Reformed Christians were willing to distance themselves from the early Church as evidenced by Chapter 27 of the Second Helvetic Confession and the general attitude. The result has been the severing of Protestantism from its historic roots.

Many Protestants and Evangelicals today have become aware of this disconnect and are seeking to reconnect with their ancient Christian heritage. Some, in reaction to the disembodied cerebral approach to worship, have embraced liturgical worship and the sign of the cross. This interest, even among Reformed Christians, is probably what prompted the question to Pastor Doug Wilson. Not too long ago raising the issue of Calvinists making the sign of the cross would have caused consternation and puzzlement: Why would a Calvinist or a staunch Evangelical want to make the sign of the cross? Why even ask the question? But the landscape of Protestantism has shifted significantly in recent years. Evangelicals and Reformed Christians are now engaging in deep conversation with Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. These conversations are stretching the theological paradigms of many Protestants and causing some to ask questions that go beyond the usual theological parameters.

A Question For Protestants

Protestants who wish to reclaim their ancient Christian heritage by crossing themselves will need to ask themselves sooner or later how tightly they want to hold on to their Protestantism. I raise this question because as Tertullian and Basil the Great pointed out the sign of the cross is not grounded in Scripture but in Tradition. This raises the question as to whether one makes the sign of the cross for cool trendy post-modern reasons or because it is part of the ancient Christian Holy Tradition. To embrace Holy Tradition means giving serious consideration to the Orthodox Church’s claim to be the bearer of Holy Tradition.

I close with a quote from Clark Carlton on the ancient-future movement:

There is also a great difference between claiming tradition for oneself and being claimed by tradition. I, along with Webber and the contributors to his book, was perfectly willing to claim the historic Church and the liturgy for my own understanding of Christianity. Yet, I was still in control! I, in true Protestant fashion, was judge and jury of what would and would not fit into my kind of Christianity. I was willing to claim the historic Church, but I had yet to recognize Her claim on me.

Carlton, a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy, came to this startling insight:

Gradually I came to recognize the fact that Holy Tradition has the same claim upon my life as the Gospel itself, for Tradition is nothing other than the Gospel lived throughout history.

Robert Arakaki

Recommended Reading

The late Father Peter Gillquist, an Evangelical convert to Orthodoxy, devoted one chapter of his book Becoming Orthodox, Chapter 9 – “A Sign For All Christians” to the subject of the sign of the cross.

Crossing The Bosphorus

January 15, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 138 Comments

The Bosphorus Strait

With its many denominations Protestantism is no stranger to people changing churches, but there is something deeply unsettling about a Protestant family deciding to move over to a nearby Orthodox parish. The phrase “swimming the Tiber” or “crossing the Bosphorus” alludes to the deep chasm separating Protestantism from the two ancient traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Constantinople, the site of Orthodoxy’s leading patriarchal see, is located next to the Bosphorus, a narrow strait that separates Europe from Asia. Thus, there is a certain aptness to the Bosphorus as a symbol of the divide between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

In this blog posting I will discuss the significance of switching over from Protestantism to Orthodoxy. I will be using three issues to explore the Protestant versus Orthodox divide: the authority to interpret Scripture, the visible church as the true church, and the meaning of Communion. I will also discuss the reactions Protestants looking into Orthodoxy may encounter from their fellow Protestants and give advice to Protestants thinking about becoming Orthodox.

Relinquishing Sola Scriptura

Protestantism is based on the doctrine of sola scriptura (the Bible alone). A corollary to sola scriptura is “soul competency,” the notion that the individual Christian is competent to interpret Scripture for themselves because they have the Holy Spirit in them as a result of the born again experience. While historic Protestant churches have tempered this view by insisting on a learned clergy and confessional statements like the Westminster Confession, all these were jettisoned on the American frontier in the early 1800s. This gave rise to an extreme version that eschews learned clergy and creeds. This view is popular among Evangelicals and other conservative Protestants today. All across Protestantism, regardless of denomination, the authority to interpret Scripture is assumed to rest with the individual. You join a church because they have the same understanding of the Bible as you do, and because doing so is consistent with your conscience. For Protestants there is no universally binding doctrinal authority apart from Scripture.

One reason why converting to Orthodoxy is so unsettling lies in the fact one must reject the notion of soul competency which accompanies sola scriptura and submit to the Church’s teaching authority. Orthodoxy claims that because it has received and preserved the Apostolic Tradition it has the right interpretation of Scripture (II Thessalonians 2:15). This claim is supported by the lists of episcopal succession for the various patriarchates such as Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church claims that Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) was fulfilled in the formation of the biblical canon and the Ecumenical Councils. It was at the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the Christian Faith was affirmed and heresy rejected. And it is thanks to the early Church that we have the Bible we have today.

Many Protestants troubled by Protestantism’s doctrinal anarchy have reached the conclusion that sola scriptura as a theological method is unworkable. This has led them to seek doctrinal stability in the older Christian traditions. This quest for doctrinal stability has led many to the Orthodox Church. Questions about sola scriptura were what precipitated the theological crisis that led this author to Orthodoxy.

Accepting the Visible Church

The Orthodox Church’s claim to be the true Church is a second reason why Protestants crossing over to Orthodoxy is unsettling. This is contrary to the widespread belief among Protestants that the true church is the invisible church comprised of all born again Christians. Basically, it means that the true Church is everywhere and nowhere. In contrast, Orthodoxy asserts that the true Church can be found in the visible entity called the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy believes that there has always been one Church. The Church has never been divided into two or many branches. Such a notion contradicts Christ’s promise that he would build the Church upon the rock (Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Christ) and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18). For this reason the belief by some Protestants that the early visible church fell into apostasy and corruption leaving only an invisible faithful remnant is heresy. Similarly, Orthodoxy rejects the branch theory that the true Church can be found among either Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or Anglican churches.

The troubling implication here is that Protestant churches are not really churches and that to be a Protestant is to be outside the true Church. In Protestantism if one’s belief changes then one change churches through a letter of transfer of church membership. This is a common practice done all the time. But in the case of a Protestant becoming Orthodox, a letter of transfer is null and void. To become Orthodox one must go through the sacraments of conversion: baptism, chrismation, and Communion.

Recently many Evangelicals have reacted to the extremes of the invisible church view and embraced the high view of the church espoused by Calvin and other Reformers and the ecumenical movement’s vision of restoring visible church unity. Among them are some who claim to be more “catholic” than the Catholic Church! They view doctrinal differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy as arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, unnecessarily divisive and obstructive to “true” church unity. They believe that we can enter into ecumenical dialogue, negotiate our differences, and make compromises and adjustments that will result in church unity. An Orthodox Christian can only be skeptical of such a claim. To take this route is to define the Church according to what we want rather than following Apostolic Tradition. Because Orthodoxy will never compromise Holy Tradition this kind of ecumenical venture is unfeasible.

The Meaning of Holy Communion

There are two things Protestants find disturbing about the Orthodox approach to Holy Communion. One is that Orthodoxy believes that in the Eucharist we feed on Christ’s body and blood. This is something all the early Christians believed, but sadly many Protestants today believe that Holy Communion is just a symbolic reminder of Christ’s death. More traditional or high church Protestants might protest that they too like the Orthodox Church believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But this claim is highly suspect in light of the fact that they lack bishops and have no apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession there is no covenantal authority to perform the Eucharistic sacrifice.

When I was a high church Calvinist (Mercersburg Theology), I strongly believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But one day I realized: “They’re right. It’s just a symbol. It’s a symbol because it’s not the real thing. It’s not the real thing because there’s no valid priestly authority to consecrate the elements.” I was at an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student retreat when I had this realization. InterVarsity is a parachurch organization, but as I began to think about the more established Protestant churches I realized with a sinking feeling in my stomach they were in the same boat as InterVarsity – lacking proper covenantal authority that comes from apostolic succession.

Furthermore, the claim to a valid Eucharist is suspect in light of the fact that much of Protestantism is at odds with the Seven Ecumenical Councils. For example, to use the Filioque version of the Nicene Creed is in violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431) which prohibits alteration to the Creed. To refuse to honor Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God) is to reject the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431). To refuse to venerate icons is to reject the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II 787). In light of these numerous deviations from the Ecumenical Councils it is highly doubtful that Protestantism can claim doctrinal agreement with the early Church. There can be no valid Eucharist where heresy is embraced and promulgated. And even if a person or a congregation did agree with all of the above points, they would need to be in communion with the five ancient patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils (see Canon VI and VII of Nicea I (325), Canon III of I Constantinople (381), and Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon (451)). (Note: It is tragic that the Schism of 1054 has resulted in Rome’s departure from the ancient Pentarchy. While Orthodoxy disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church, it recognizes its episcopal lineage as one going back to Saints Peter and Paul.) Thus, unless one is in communion with one of the ancient patriarchates one’s link to the early Church is imagined and not real.

Another unsettling fact is that Orthodoxy practices closed communion, that is, Communion is reserved only for those who belong to the Orthodox Church. Lutherans or Anglicans who hold a high Christology and affirm the real presence in the Eucharist become upset when they learn that they are barred from receiving Communion in an Orthodox Church. They view this as a judgment on their faith in Christ but this is not the case. In Orthodoxy receiving Communion means that one accepts the Tradition of the Church and that one submits to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Orthodox Church in the person of the local bishop. For me to receive Communion at Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church in Honolulu puts me under the authority of Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco and in communion with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Therefore, communion in Orthodoxy is not just a matter of being in doctrinal agreement with the bishop but submitting to his authority as well.

Becoming Orthodox

The general pattern in the Greek Orthodox Church is for Protestants to be received into the Orthodox Church through the sacrament of chrismation and the receiving of Holy Communion. Prior to that the priest will ask for evidence or documentation that one has been baptized in the name of the Trinity, that is, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Most Protestant denominations follow this practice, but some baptize in Jesus’ name (e.g., Oneness Pentecostalism); for Orthodoxy this is not a valid baptism. Similarly, a baptism done in a liberal church using inclusive language like: Parent, Child, and Holy Spirit, will be rejected. Some Orthodox jurisdictions, like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, are especially strict and will insist that all Protestants and even Roman Catholics be baptized for reception into the Orthodox Church.

As much as one might desire to become Orthodox, the decision is made by the priest with the approval of the bishop. Some Orthodox priests will insist that one attend the Liturgy for at least a year to show one’s seriousness about becoming Orthodox and in order to learn what Orthodoxy is all about. Other priests will want you to attend a 24 week class along with regular Sunday attendance. The priest is concerned not just with how much doctrine you understand, but also with your commitment to the worship life of the Church, your willingness to accept the spiritual disciplines like fasting, and your willingness to submit to the authority of the Church.

The Orthodox attitude towards people wanting to become Orthodox is that of welcome and caution. We want people to become Orthodox, but we also want them to realize the seriousness of the commitment. We often counsel patience in the case of people who are married and have children. We prefer the whole family become Orthodox in due time rather than the father becoming Orthodox right away with the wife and the children remaining Protestant. Orthodoxy believes that God intended the family to be a spiritual unity. Conversely, a spiritually divided household falls short of the ideal. Oftentimes patient waiting can result in a greater blessing for more people. That is why sitting down with the priest is so critically important. Letting the priest guide you in transitioning to Orthodoxy is a key step in learning to humbly submit to pastoral authority (Hebrews 13:17).

Due Diligence

Warren Buffet – Investment Guru

The famous investment guru, Warren Buffet, before making a major purchase in a company does due diligence. He researches the company’s history, its performance record, as well as its assets and liabilities. To not do this is irresponsible. Similarly, with respect to having the right faith and ensuring the spiritual well being of one’s family, it is important that due diligence be done before converting to Orthodoxy.

Pancake Breakast

I recently had pleasant breakfast conversation with ‘Jim’ who was raised in an ethnic Orthodox parish. Because there was very little emphasis on explaining the Orthodox faith in that parish, he drifted over to Calvary Chapel. Recently, he started looking into Orthodoxy and was pleasantly surprised to find the spiritual and biblical depths of Orthodoxy. While strongly drawn to Orthodoxy and thinking about returning to Orthodoxy, ‘Jim’ is at the present time still a Protestant. Some of his Calvary Chapel friends became quite concerned and warned him that he might lose his salvation. In our conversation over pancakes and coffee we talked about the Bible and the Orthodox faith. He is, as he puts it, doing “due diligence” by studying Orthodoxy and looking carefully at the Scriptural and historical evidence. I admired the wisdom of his approach and recommend this for others.

Folks considering becoming Orthodox should at a minimum do the following:

- Read basic works like Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church,
- Attend the Divine Liturgy several times,
- Meet one on one with an Orthodox priest, and
- Complete a catechism class if offered.

Joining the Orthodox Church is a lifetime commitment. It is more than agreeing with a theological system; it also entails a commitment to a way of life and submission to the teaching authority of the Church. Unlike cults, clerical authority in the Orthodox Church is circumscribed by Holy Tradition. There is no secret hidden Tradition. Neither will there be a new doctrine or a new marriage ceremony coming down from the denominational headquarters. Everyone in the Orthodox Church, from the newest convert to the bishop, is constrained by Holy Tradition. And just as important everyone, both laity and clergy, is responsible for guarding Holy Tradition.

Protestants who read a lot or have gone to seminary may find it harder to become Orthodox. They have a lot more to unlearn. It took me several years to review my Protestant beliefs and come to the point where I could sincerely and intelligently renounce my Protestant beliefs. (I could not in good conscience do a theological lobotomy.) Having gone to a leading Reformed seminary and majored in church history I knew that the core of Protestant theology rested on the five solas: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. It was the questions about sola scriptura that started my theological crisis, but it was sola fide that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. When I reached the conclusion sola fide was based on a misreading of Scripture and was never taught by the early church fathers, I realized that my days as a Protestant were over.

How much does one need to know before one becomes Orthodox? If becoming Orthodox is like getting married, then the catechumenate is like courtship. During the dating phase you check out the other person, you find out what they’re like, their likes and dislikes, you spend time with them, and then you ask yourself: Do I want to spend the rest of my life with so-and-so? Becoming Orthodox is really about making a commitment to Jesus Christ the head of the Church. Everything in Orthodoxy is for the purpose of uniting us with Christ. The Liturgy is not just a beautiful ceremony; we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Whenever we behold the Virgin Mary, we see the one who said: “Do whatever He (Jesus) tells you” and whom the Church honors as the Mother of God. So the basic question is: Is this the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Many inquirers come to Orthodoxy with theological concerns. However, it is important to keep in mind that Orthodoxy is more than a theological system. It leads us into the mystery of God. Orthodoxy teaches that beyond our conceptual understanding of God is the mystical encounter that is beyond words. We come to a true knowledge of God through worship. That is why the Divine Liturgy lies at the heart of Orthodoxy. There is an ancient saying: “If you are a theologian, you will pray truly; if you pray truly, you are a theologian.” This emphasis on mystical knowledge in Orthodoxy stands in contrast to the Western Christian tradition which emphasizes scientific study of the biblical text and reliance on logic for doing theology.

Transitioning to Orthodoxy

A Quiet Border Crossing (closing scene – Sound of Music)

My transition from Protestantism to Orthodoxy was gradual and low key. My former home church had several Sunday morning services. I would often attend the 7:30 service then head over to the Greek Orthodox Church for the 9:30 Liturgy. When the priest offered an Orthodoxy 101 class on Thursday night I would go without raising any eyebrows. This is the Nicodemus stage of quiet inquiry (John 3:1-2). The main value of the Thursday night class was that I could find out whether I had a good grasp of what Orthodoxy was about.

For me the biggest obstacle to becoming Orthodox were issues like sola scriptura, icons, and sola fide. I handled the problem like any good graduate student, I wrote research papers. To my great surprise Orthodoxy was indeed biblical in its teachings. I remember the moment when sola scriptura fell apart and I said to myself: “My God! I’m going to have to become Orthodox!” When sola fide fell by the wayside, I met quietly with the leaders of the church and shared with them my decision to become Orthodox. I also gave them the opportunity to talk me out of it. Part of me desperately wanted them to talk me out of it because I knew becoming Orthodox would change our relationship in very fundamental ways. Unfortunately the Evangelical response was not a vigorous one. I remember the dean of a local Evangelical seminary responding to my paper on sola scriptura by asking: “Have you read Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God?” My response was a mildly exasperated: “Yes, I’ve read Packer, so what about my critique of sola scriptura?” I didn’t hear anything more from him. My pastor wasn’t able to rebut my critique of sola fide. I remember thinking in my head in dumbfounded amazement: “That’s it!?!? You mean I’m going to have to become Orthodox?!?!” Even now I find myself baffled and disappointed by the unwillingness of many Protestant pastors and theologians to defend the basic tenets of Protestantism.

Going Through Customs

Going Through Customs

A common experience when travelling abroad is going through customs. One purpose of customs to prevent contraband items from entering the country. When I was received into the Orthodox Church the priest asked me: “Do you renounce all heresies, ancient and modern?” This was a big question because it meant not just the ancient heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism but also Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide, dispensationalism, double predestination, congregationalism etc. I was ready for that question because I had read up on Orthodoxy, attended the Liturgy, attended the catechism class, and spoke with the priest. For me there was no surprise, I knew that there would be big changes but I was prepared. Becoming Orthodox did not mean I rejected my Evangelical past. I took with me many good things from Evangelicalism: a love for studying Scripture, the discipline of daily prayer, and a passion for world evangelism.

Once I met with a former Protestant who had converted to Roman Catholicism. For some strange reason he didn’t know about the Pope’s infallibility when he joined the Catholic Church. Later when he was reading the official catechism he learned that anyone who did not accept the Pope’s infallibility was a heretic. ‘Hank’ told me he sat there stunned with the realization that in the eyes of the Catholic Church he was a heretic, but he stayed on because of his godson. It was a short breakfast meeting, but as I drove to the airport I reflected on his perplexing story. Two thoughts came to me: (1) he was probably catechized by folks who glossed over some of the more difficult aspects of Roman Catholicism, and (2) “‘Hank’ you were snookered!” The lesson to be learned is that leaving Protestantism is going to be a costly decision and one needs to have done the necessary due diligence prior to making that change.

Border Crossings

We live in interesting times. There once was a time when hardly anyone knew about the Orthodox Church. But that is changing as growing numbers of people become interested in Orthodoxy and even go so far as to become Orthodox. But why the change? I suspect that it is due to massive changes in the Protestant landscape following World War II. Up till then, denominational lines remained stable but that began to change dramatically. Now we have Fundamentalists discovering Calvin, and Calvinists rediscovering the church fathers; we have Pentecostals becoming Anglicans, and we have Evangelicals becoming post-Evangelicals or Emergent Christians. In addition to all this confusion is the growing apostasy among the mainline Protestant denominations.

The situation today is much like the early days of the Cold War before the Iron Curtain came down. In the early days the borders were relatively open. Many families quietly packed their belongings and crossed the border in the dark of the night. But as growing numbers of people began to leave, the authorities became alarmed and finally began erecting the infamous Berlin Wall to keep their people in.

A Family Moving

Similarly, many Protestant families today quietly say goodbye to their friends and start worshiping at a nearby Orthodox parish. There are reports of a growing uneasiness in certain leadership circles. Interest in Orthodoxy or in icons and the saints is discouraged or viewed as drifting away from the true faith. People expressing an interest in Orthodoxy are warned that they could be in danger of losing their salvation. In such a situation a chill is in the air and a feeling of distrust comes between once close friends. In some churches they come under closer pastoral surveillance, pressured not to stray from the true faith, and even excluded from certain functions in the church for fear that they might infect others with their interest in Orthodoxy.

I am glad in that my former home church provided me with a warm Christ centered fellowship where I could study Scripture, and read up on theology and church history. I found it quite frustrating that many of my Evangelical friends were not able to understand the questions I had about the basis for Protestant theology. So when I became Orthodox, many were surprised and a little confused, but we remain friends. My experience has been more like a friendly border crossing. I picked up my belongings and one Sunday morning I crossed the border into the Orthodox Church.

Refugees Fleeing

I feel sad for those whose transition has been marked by suspicion and judgment. It is my hope that open relations between Protestants and Orthodoxy will not be replaced by a Cold War atmosphere marked by barbed wires and aloof guards with grim stares. Barbed wires and restricted exit are signs of defensiveness and tyranny. An open and healthy society is marked by hospitality to strangers and mutual respect among its members. More preferable is a Glasnost in which Protestants can read up on the early church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, and investigate the issues of icons, the Virgin Mary, and liturgical worship. In this period of openness curious Protestants should feel they have the freedom to visit the Orthodox worship services and come back with questions about what they saw. The best defense is not: “Those people are wrong!” but “Come and see!”

The Pearl of Great Price

Someone reading this blog posting might be thinking to themselves: “Why would someone give up all the benefits of Protestantism to become Orthodox?”

The Glorious Pearl – Domenico Fetti

My answer is Matthew 13:44-45:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it. (NIV; emphasis added)

If the Orthodox Church has kept the teachings of the Apostles intact for two thousand years, if there is only one true Church, and if the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ given for you, wouldn’t that be enough reason to come home to the Church of the Apostles?

Robert Arakaki

Category: Evangelicalism (Page 12 of 15)

Is the Protestant Church Fragmented? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson (2 of 2)

Should Protestants Make the Sign of the Cross? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson

Crossing The Bosphorus

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives