Category: Evangelicalism (Page 9 of 15)

Other Discussions on the Future of Evangelicalism

June 6, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 10 Comments

The recent “Future of Protestantism” hosted by Biola University on 30 April 2014, is not the only forum where the issue has been raised. A similar conversation took place between Stanley Hauerwas and Albert Mohler in 2012 titled “Nearing the End.”

Prof. Stanley Hauerwas

Stanley Hauerwas, a widely respected theologian, is in Mohler’s words a “high church Mennonite.” Albert Mohler is President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisvilee, Kentucky.

This conversation between a Baptist and an Anabaptist makes for an interesting contrast to the “Future of Protestantism” panel which was comprised mostly of Reformed theologians.

Evangelicalism in a Buyer’s Market

Prof. Hauerwas used the metaphor of the religious marketplace to describe the contemporary situation of American Protestantism.

But I suspect it’s true in most places because basically a buyers’ market, that very description, reproduces the presumption that you live in a demand economy that says that the buyer is supreme and they get to buy what they want and therefore… (Emphasis added.)

This leads to a number of interesting insights. Hauerwas observed that because American Evangelical congregations are in a buyer’s market it is very difficult to form a disciplined congregational life. Albert Mohler concurred noting:

When Stanley Hauerwas talks about the buyer’s market for religion in America, he’s onto something that evangelicals ought to notice and notice very carefully. And that is in fact that that is indeed an apt metaphor for our society at large, but it also, if we’re not very careful, a dynamic that is experienced by many churches and denominations, not only in the Protestant mainline, where he mentions all those brand-named denominations jockeying to retain their membership and a declining membership base, but it’s also the case that there are many in American evangelicalism who basically think of the gospel as something to be packaged and sold. (Emphasis added.)

American Protestantism with its free church tradition has given rise to a multiplicity of denominations. Membership is a matter of individual choice; one is not bound to a particular church body. One can move one’s membership as one sees fit. With the recent erosion of denominational identity, church hopping and church shopping have increased among Protestants. Within this frame outreach is the equivalent of marketing outreach, the Gospel as a commodity, and church members as clientele. Evangelical churches that are non-confessional in doctrine, built around the popularity of a charismatic pastor, independent of the larger church, and ministries designed to meet people’s needs can be likened to a shopping mall; designed to maximize the influx of clients or attendees. This has resulted in church staff being under “the pressure to produce results.”

The religious market place has also contributed to a minimalist approach to the Christian faith. Downplaying doctrinal distinctives makes a church more accessible to prospective members (potential customers) and lowers the cost of joining. However, doctrinal minimalism has hidden costs. It weakens the sense of theological identity as well as commitment to the local church. This explains the appeal of the recent neo-Reformed revival among Evangelicals. The neo-Reformed emphasis on theological rigor and doctrinal precision can be seen as rooted in a need for theological identity. Their stress on covenant and disciplined church life can be seen as a reaction to libertarian individualism rife in popular Evangelicalism.

If Hauerwas’ metaphor of Evangelicalism being in a buyer’s market holds true then the question needs to be raised as to whether Peter Leithart’s Reformational Catholicism can ever expand beyond being a niche market. Leithart’s call for “Pentecostals attuned to the Christian tradition” (20:14), “Baptists who love hierarchy” (20:17), “liturgical bible churches” (20:22) runs against the grain of specialization and niche marketing that underlie Protestant denominationalism. Asking churches to give up their distinctives is tantamount to their surrendering their identity. Many would lose members and end up closing their doors.

What Hauerwas referred to as a buyer’s market is largely the result of Protestantism’s response to two aspects of modernity: urbanization and consumerism. The resultant incoherence of Protestantism has caused many Evangelicals to investigate the early Church, the church fathers, and liturgical worship. This in turn has resulted in growing numbers to exit Protestantism altogether for historic traditions like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. See: “A Protestant Exodus?”

Orthodoxy in the Religious Marketplace

This raises the question: How does Hauerwas’ religious marketplace metaphor apply to Orthodoxy? In many ways Orthodoxy is a latecomer to the American religious market. Many of the Orthodox parishes originated in the waves of immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s: Greece, the Balkans, Serbia, Ukraine, Russia, and Palestine. Designed to meet the spiritual needs of the immigrant communities, many ethnic parishes ended up perpetuating the culture of the “old country.” Oftentimes, this was not so much niche marketing as it was a closed shop. This state of affairs began to change with the influx of converts in the 1980s and 1990s. Today Orthodoxy in America is at the cusp of change, from ethnic Orthodoxy whose identity is rooted in the culture of the “old country” to an Orthodoxy whose identity is rooted in American culture. And from a closed shop to evangelistic communities committed to fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).

Turbo Qualls becoming Orthodox

What many Protestant converts find appealing about Orthodoxy is its ancient faith and liturgy. It can be expected that Orthodoxy will hold fast to Apostolic Tradition into the twenty second century and beyond, while Protestant denominationalism will continue to mutate and morph into forms barely recognizable to those living today. The future of Orthodoxy in the twenty first century depends on it being able to enter into the mainstream of the religious market. This depends on Orthodoxy’s cultural accessibility (all English liturgies) and geographic accessibility (at least within an hour’s driving time). There are signs that Orthodox evangelism is bearing fruit resulting growing numbers of converts. Saint Barnabas Antiochian Orthodox Church in Costa Mesa, California, is one example of effective outreach and catechumenate. With no special program for outreach but ordinary parish life, Saint Barnabas has reached out not just to Evangelicals but also to the younger generation brought up on punk rock, tattoos, and turned off by an overly materialistic American culture. See: “Christian Tattoo Artist Turbo Qualls: An Interview for the Two Cities.”

Discipleship and Catholicity

Like Peter Leithart, Stanley Hauerwas touched on Evangelicalism’s need to regain the catholic dimension of Christianity. Another concern of Hauerwas was the way Evangelicalism made church secondary to Christian discipleship.

…. But one of the great problems of Evangelical life in America is evangelicals think they have a relationship with God that they go to church to have expressed but church is a secondary phenomenon to their personal relationship and I think that’s to get it exactly backwards: that the Christian faith is meditated faith. It only comes through the witness of others as embodied in the church. So I should never trust my presumption that I know what my relationship with God is separate from how that is expressed through words and sacrament in the church. (Emphasis added.)

Where Protestantism emphasized the individual, the catholic dimension emphasizes the Christian life in community. Hauerwas noted:

I need to read the Bible with other people. And that has pretty much been lost. Let me say in that regard that one of the other things that worries me about evangelicalism is I’m afraid it’s got the Bible and now, and exactly how it is that you reconnect evangelical life with the great Catholic traditions, I think is part of the challenges for the future because you need to read the fathers reading Scripture as part of our common life if we are to sustain a sense that we don’t get to make Christianity up. We receive it through the lives of those who have gone before and that just becomes crucial for us to be able to survive in which we find ourselves. (Emphasis added.)

Like Peter Leithart, Dr. Hauerwas saw the recovery of the Eucharist as critical to the future of the church.

Well, let me say one of the things I would have us to go is a much richer, liturgical life than I think is the case in many evangelical and Protestant mainstream churches. I think a recovery of the centrality of Eucharistic celebration and why it is so central is just crucial for the future of the church. (Emphasis added.)

It is interesting that for someone who comes from the Anabaptist tradition; Stanley Hauerwas has some kind words about the First Ecumenical Council!

Well, I want to be careful with that word rational because I think nothing is more rational than Christian Orthodoxy. I think the Nicaea account of Trinity is an extraordinary development that is a tradition thinking through its fundamental commitment in a manner that is intellectually compelling.

However, the Nicene Creed is more than the product of rational intelligence. Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Spirit guided the bishops in their defense of the Gospel against the heresy of Arianism. Because the Nicene Creed represented the mind of the Church (and not individuals), it was able to unify the early Church.

Hauerwas’ call for the recovery of catholicity, the Eucharist, and the Nicene Creed has much in common with Pastor Leithart’s “Reformational Catholicism.” The similarities between Hauerwas and Leithart is significant in that it shows a similar concerns being voiced not just in Reformed circles but also among the Baptists and Anabaptists. This points to a widespread hunger for catholicity among Protestants.

Michael Spencer — “Internet Monk”

Michael Spencer aka “Internet Monk”

The late Michael Spencer’s “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” written in 2009 represents another part of the conversation. Originally a blog posting on the Internetmonk.com the article was later published by the Christian Science Monitor giving it a much wider circulation. Where Stanley Hauerwas is a high profile theologian, the late Michael Spencer worked as a youth minister then as a Baptist pastor. In 2000, he began to blog and in time became one of the most popular Evangelical bloggers. Part of Michael Spencer’s popularity is due to his ability to give voice to a quiet shift taking place in the Evangelical subculture, the emergence of post-Evangelicalism. While not as measured and erudite as Stanley Hauerwas, Michael Spencer wrote boldly from the frontline of Christian ministry.

We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

He used bold unguarded language in his famous article.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

He also predicted an anti-Evangelical turn in American culture.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

Michael Spencer did not claim to be a prophet. He wrote as an observer who saw both dangers and promise in the Evangelical movement. It is now five years since the article was first published in 2009. There have been some notable shifts, e.g., the rapid and widespread legalization of same-sex marriage and reports of the growing percentage of Americans who identify as unchurched, nothing as dire or cataclysmic as Michael Spencer predicted. But if current trends continue, his 2009 article may well prove prescient.

Dr. Hauerwas view of Evangelicalism’s future is just as grim as Michael Spencer’s.

I think evangelicalism is destined to die of its own success and it will go the way of mainstream Protestantism because there’s just—it depends far too much on charismatic pastors, and charisma will only take you so far. Evangelicalism is constantly under the burden of re-inventing the wheel and you just get tired.

In terms of the religious market we can expect to see three trends. One, the continued decline of mainline Protestant denominations into obscurity. Two, this will be followed by the decline of Evangelicalism. Evangelical Protestantism is already at its peak; its growth rate has stalled for the past several years, a sign that its decline may have already started. There is a recent report that the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest Protestant denominations, has been experiencing declining membership since 2005. But the decline of Evangelicalism is not likely to become a major trend until the 2050s. Three, the next Protestant wave may come from the charismatics and Pentecostals. But the wild card factor that hasn’t yet received much attention is the implication of the shift to a post-Christian society for the American religious market.

The Larger Conversation

The recent Biola forum is but one among many going on among Evangelicals today. What I find intriguing is the fact that there was a time not too long ago when Evangelicalism’s existence and future was an unquestioned given. That so many are discussing the matter seriously points to something in the air. It is like the uneasiness that animals sense before the onset of a great calamity. I had this foreboding premonition about Protestantism after my studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the 1990s. I was deeply troubled by the improbability of bringing biblical renewal to historic mainline denominations on the one hand and the unchecked trendiness of Evangelicalism on the other. The pervasive maladies of modernity that afflicted Protestantism in both its liberal and evangelical expressions caused me to look into the early Church. What I found was a unity of faith that spanned the Roman Empire and continued to endure in the Orthodox Church. I found in Orthodoxy a catholicity of faith that Leithart and Hauerwas are longing for.

It also struck me that Orthodoxy being rooted in Tradition is capable of riding out a hostile and increasingly post-Christian society. One of the images used to describe the Orthodox Church is that of Noah’s Ark.

I found comfort in the stories of the early Christian martyrs. But I was also impressed that the Orthodox Church of the twentieth century managed to survive Communism, despite the systematic destruction of churches, slaughter of faithful clergy and laity, and many who collaborated with the Soviet regime.

This has implications for the recent warnings about a post-Christian society. I suspect that many Christians, Protestants and even Orthodox, are not ready for this new hostile religious market. We need to heed Jesus’ warning:

As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. (John 9:4; NIV)

Robert Arakaki

Further Readings

“The Post-Evangelical Option: An Interview with Michael Spencer” in Modern Reformation. Eric Landry and Michael Spencer.

“The Nature and Future of Protestantism” in The Calvinist International. Peter Escalante.

“Back to the Future for Protestantism?” in OrthodoxBridge. Robert Arakaki.

“Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw” in OrthodoxBridge. Robert Arakaki.

“Christian Tattoo Artist Turbo Qualls: An Interview for the Two Cities” in TheTwoCities.com. Nathaniel Warne and Turbo Qualls.

Back to the Future for Protestantism?

May 5, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 21 Comments

Future of Protestantism: Peter Leithart, Peter Escalatante, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman

Future of Protestantism: Peter Leithart, Peter Escalante, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman

On 29 April 2014, Biola University hosted “The Future of Protestantism,” a panel discussion comprised of Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman. Brad Littlejohn gave the introduction and Peter Escalante moderated the discussion. The event was prompted by Leithart’s essay “The End of Protestantism” which appeared in First Things in November 2013. The essay generated quite a bit of discussion among Evangelicals and this event was designed for Leithart to have a face to face discussion with some of his critics.

The video is long – two and half hours. To save time one can skip Brad Littlejohn’s 5 minute introduction. Pastor Leithart’s presentation is only 15 minutes. He is followed by Fred Sanders and Carl Trueman whose talks are about twenty minutes each. This is the first hour. The second hour consists of dialogue among the panelists. The last half hour consists of questions from the audience.

I am writing this response from the viewpoint of a former insider who is both critical and sympathetic towards contemporary Evangelicalism.

Leithart’s “Reformational Catholicism”

Pastor Leithart’s presentation is a vision of what future Protestantism could look like. It is based more on theological imperatives than on social analysis. It is more about what Leithart wants to see happen than what he thinks will happen. I imagine that if he had more time he might have brought in sociological analysis. This is not to fault him, but it leads to questions that Leithart will hopefully attempt to answer down the road.

In many ways what Peter Leithart called for is nothing new. It may be new, even startling, for modern Evangelicals but for those who know something about the original Reformation of the 1500s Leithart’s prescription will sound quite familiar. Basically, what Leithart calls “Reformational Catholicism” is classical Reformation, one that Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, Bucer and others would have been very comfortable and familiar with. Furthermore, Leithart’s attempt to reappropriate the early church fathers resembles the Mercersburg Theology and Oxford Movement of the 1800s.

Like most Christian bloggers I usually categorize Evangelicals as Protestants. However, this understanding must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Many of the original Reformers would question whether present day Evangelicals are Protestants. Martin Luther abhorred the notion of rejecting infant baptism and strongly believed in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. Luther expected Christians to recite the Apostles Creed daily and to make the sign of the Cross in their morning devotion. John Calvin strongly condemned those who held to a “bare symbol” understanding of Holy Communion and affirmed the visible church as our Mother. I became aware of all this when I went beyond popular Evangelical publications and began to read up on the Reformers. The discrepancy between modern day Evangelicalism and the original Reformation caused me to wonder: Are Evangelicals even Protestant? If one takes a rigorous theological approach one could deny low church Evangelicals and their Pentecostal brethren are Protestant. Charity and intellectual flexibility are needed to classify modern Evangelicals as Protestant.

If Pastor Leithart is calling for Evangelicals to return to their Reformational roots one has to ask why they do not join up with the church bodies with the most direct ties with the original Reformation, the mainline denominations. The answer is: For the most part mainline Protestant denominations have become apostate. Many mainline liberals deny the divine inspiration of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, and even his bodily resurrection. One has to ask: Why have so many of the mainline Protestant denominations and seminaries succumbed to the anti-supernaturalistic rationalism of the European Enlightenment? In military terms it would be like an embattled battalion retreating to a position that has been taken over by enemy forces.

Evangelicals are the offspring of conservative Protestants who lost the denominational wars in the early twentieth century. The raging controversies over biblical inerrancy stemmed from the emergence of a new source of knowledge: the autonomous reason of the European Enlightenment and modern science. In the late twentieth century modern scientific rationalism found itself being displaced by postmodernism. Will modern day Evangelicalism and Leithart’s Reformational Catholicism be able to withstand the coming onslaught from postmodernism? I expect that postmodernism will take its toll leaving only a few congregations and seminaries unscathed. I expect the Protestant brand will still be around by the year 2100, but the content of that future Protestant brand will have been redefined to the point that many of us today will not be able to recognize them as Protestants or even Evangelical!

My pessimism is rooted in what I call Protestantism’s fatal genetic flaw. Lacking a stable binding hermeneutical framework (Holy Tradition) sola scriptura gives rise to multiple readings of Scripture. This gives Protestant theology a fluid quality, one that results in theological incoherence. It also results in numerous church splits as evidenced in Protestantism’s fractured and decentered denominational landscape. Leithart’s failure to address the sociological consequences of sola scriptura constitutes a serious weakness in his presentation.

The implications for the future of Protestantism are troubling. The more conservative, classical Protestantism of Luther and Calvin has no future. It will continue on in declining isolated pockets, while the ahistoric low church Evangelicalism that Leithart deplores will increasingly dominate the Protestant landscape. Evangelicalism will continue to mutate and adapt to post-modern American/Western society while oblivious to its Reformation heritage. Pastor Leithart rightly waxes eloquent about the need for Christians to band together but there is little evidence of this becoming a broad trend among Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

Getting There From Here

Pastor Leithart’s call for a Reformational Catholicism is fraught with practical difficulties. He failed to inform his audience how to get there from here. One, isn’t it likely that a Baptist pastor who institutes weekly communion services and accepts as valid infant baptism will be fired by the church board? Two, how many independent congregations would be willing to come under a higher church authority with the possibility that they might be forced to embrace foreign or exotic teachings and practices? Three, who will have the authority to determine doctrine and worship where Scripture is silent or ambiguous?

Engaging Former Protestants

One thing that struck me about the conversation was the frequency with which Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy came up. This raises the question: Can Reformational Catholicism have a future if so many of its best and brightest are converting to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy? The numbers may be small but the caliber of their intellect is impressive. We are talking here of pastors and theologians exiting Protestantism! I wish Peter Leithart had spoken on the irony and significance of Jason Stellman who sought to try Leithart on grounds of heresy only to soon after become Roman Catholic! Then there is Scott Hahn, a Gordon-Conwell Seminary graduate and Presbyterian seminary professor, who converted to Roman Catholicism. Francis Beckwith was president of the Evangelical Theological Society until he stepped down as a result of his conversion to Catholicism.

Then one has to wonder about Jarsolav Pelikan, a Lutheran pastor and eminent professor of church history, who late in life joined the Orthodox Church. The group of former Campus Crusade for Christ staff workers and their followers numbering two thousand joined the Orthodox Church in 1987. Frank Schaeffer, the son of the famous Francis Schaeffer, became disenchanted with Evangelicalism and became Orthodox. Michael Harper, who worked with the leading Anglican theologian John Stott, converted to Orthodoxy. Many other younger, bright and serious men (some being Leithart’s students) have headed to Orthodoxy. Rarely a month goes by without hearing of another settled, mature, thoughtful Protestant church leader who after studying the church fathers headed to Orthodoxy. (See Journey to Orthodoxy)

Thus, Pastor Leithart’s call for ecumenical cooperation and engagement with historic Christianity – Reformational Catholicism — while admirable will likely have unintended consequences for the very cause he so dearly cares about. The growing permeability and fragmentation along the borders of Evangelicalism while it enriches also allows for easier exits. The wave of the future may lie, not with Leithart’s Reformational Catholicism, but with people exiting Protestantism altogether for the ancient communions of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. This I suspect is the blessing of exposing young Evangelicals to the rich heritage of ancient Christianity.

Moving the Conversation Forward

The “Future of Protestantism” is part of an ongoing conversation taking place among those concerned about the future of Christianity in America. This conversation needs to be continued and also expanded. A wider range of people need to be brought into the conversation. “Future of ProtestantIsm” was a Protestant event; one could even say that it was primarily an Evangelical event. All the discussants hailed from small off shoot denominations: Leithart from the Presbyterian Church of America, Trueman from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and Sanders from the Evangelical Free Church of America.

Missing from the conversation were representatives from mainline Protestant denominations. I would suggest that Leithart and his fellow panelists ask their mainline Protestant brethren: What accounts for the theological collapse of the church bodies that have the most direct ties to the Reformation? And, what lessons does the mainline debacle have for Pastor Leithart’s vision of a Reformational Catholicism?

Also missing were former Protestants who have become Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Due to their bicultural theological backgrounds they can speak knowledgably to Leithart’s vision of Reformational Catholicism. They could also answer the following questions: After reading the early church fathers why didn’t you remain Protestant? What compelled you to leave Protestantism altogether? What compelled you to discard the Protestant principle of sola scriptura? Many of these converts still regard themselves as Evangelicals and would be quite interested in being part of the conversation.

Robert Arakaki

Which Path to Church Unity? Recognition vs Reception

April 6, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 19 Comments

Beauty so ancient and so new

From time to time my friends and I get into a discussion about Christian unity. Anglicans and Roman Catholics seem to be especially eager to reunite with the Orthodox and I have to explain why such efforts are difficult, if not improbable. This position is often met with frustration and perplexity: Why can’t we just be one? What’s the hang up? I began to notice that we seem to be speaking past each other. As I reflected on this impasse I realized that we were operating from different paradigms. One is what I call the recognition paradigm and the other, the reception paradigm.

The recognition paradigm involves the mutual recognition of the validity of the other church’s baptism, their clergy’s ordination, their doctrines, and allowing for inter-communion among their members. The reception paradigm involves one church body accepting the other church’s doctrines and practices as normative, and being received or incorporated into the other church body. Understanding the difference in paradigms can go a long way in helping Christians understand each other.

Invisible or Visible Church?

The question of church unity depends on how we understand the Church. When I was a Protestant Evangelical I was taught that there was the visible local congregation and the invisible universal capital “C” church which consists of all true “born again” Christians. Thus, the ideal Church existed in heaven above all the scandalous divisions among Christians here below.

But when I reflected on the Apostle Paul’s teachings in I Corinthians 12 about the body of Christ I began to see a contradiction between what Paul taught and what modern Evangelicals believed. An invisible body is essentially a ghost, not a genuine body. This notion of an invisible body of Christ also ran contrary to I John 1:1-3 which taught that Jesus’ tangible and visible body was the core of the Gospel. This led me to question whether Evangelicalism’s invisible capital “C” church was theologically sound.

I began to move towards the idea of a visible Church as I started reading about the early Church. I was haunted by Irenaeus of Lyons’ description of the early Church:

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; emphasis added)

The early Church shared the same faith and worship all across the Roman Empire. This was so different from Protestantism’s many denominations. The early Church was remarkably free of denominationalism, why wasn’t the same true of Protestantism?

I was also struck by the early Christians’ emphasis on the importance of belonging to the visible Church. Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. (On the Unity of the Church §6)

My view changed further as I reflected on the Nicene Creed’s line: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” The word “one” means that there is only one Church, not two churches, nor two halves. Nor does it mean the branch theory Anglicanism proposes or the multitude of denominations as is the case with Protestantism. The problem with the Anglican branch theory is that it substitutes the church catholic with the church comprehensive. Anglican comprehensiveness superimposes liturgical uniformity on doctrinal pluralism. Because there is no precedent for this in the early Church, this approach is highly suspect. Likewise, I began to see that if one took the idea of the visible Church seriously then Protestant denominationalism is like Humpty Dumpty all broken up in pieces waiting for someone to make him whole again.

In Orthodoxy I encountered a different paradigm: the Orthodox Church IS the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church wrote:

The Orthodox Church in all humility believes itself to be the ‘one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, of which the Creed speaks: such is the fundamental conviction which guides Orthodox in their relations with other Christians. There are divisions among Christians, but the Church itself is not divided nor can it ever be. (p. 307)

For Orthodoxy there has always been one Church. There may have been people and groups that fell into heresy and schism: they have left the Church but the Church always retained her unity. A leaf may fall from a tree or a branch may break off, but there still remains one tree. Theologically speaking, it is heretical to believe that where there was one Church there is now two or more churches, or that the one Church is now broken into several fragments, or that one Church is now invisible. For Orthodoxy the one Church has never been lost. It has never gone away because it is here in the Orthodox Church.

Many Western Christians are offended by the Orthodox position. They interpret this to mean that Orthodoxy is superior to other religious traditions, or that God’s grace is found only in Orthodoxy and absent outside. The irony of the Orthodox understanding of visible church unity is that it has been regarded as schismatic, especially by Protestants! This can be seen for example in Gordon-Conwell adjunct professor Preston Graham Jr.’s paper on ecumenicism. Of the Orthodox understanding he noted:

This option seeks to express visible unit by limiting the church to what is in reality only one denomination or “tradition” based on one interpretation of the meaning of apostolic order/succession such as to exclude all dissenting views of apostolic order/succession. The sum effect of this option is to seek after visible unity by means of schism! (p. 26)

Protestant Egalitarianism

Prof. Graham’s rejection of Orthodox ecclesiology is rooted in Protestantism’s almost dogmatic insistence upon egalitarianism. There is a certain appeal to Protestantism’s ecclesial egalitarianism; all churches are equal therefore Orthodoxy is just one denomination among many. This insistence on the equality of all church bodies likely stems from the Reformers’ rejection of the Roman papacy. It also conforms to the modern mindset which favors individual liberty and equality for all. If all men have an inherent right to an equal liberty, who’s to say that one Church structure and Tradition should be favored over any other?

Protestant ecclesial egalitarianism can also be found in the Anglican branch theory. An interesting take on the branch theory is the stance that no one branch is the true Church therefore we all need each other. There is a certain humility in this stance but it also opens the door to theological relativism. It is a sad fact that Anglicanism today is theologically incoherent and increasingly fractured.

In addition to Protestant ecclesial egalitarianism, there is corollary epistemological egalitarianism. This takes the form of all Christians being equal with respect to the interpretation of Scripture. This is a consequence of the Reformers’ rejection of the papacy. In light of the supremacy of Scripture (sola scriptura), they feel free to reject or disregard what they call “manmade doctrine.” More recently, Protestant egalitarianism took a postmodern turn with the Emerging Church movement criticizing the traditional church’s “captivity to Enlightenment rationalism.” (see O’Brien 2009) The Protestant disbelief in a supernatural capital “T” Tradition makes discussion of reunion highly problematic. Here we see two disparate paradigms for the source of doctrine. For Protestants it is Scripture Alone; the church plays an auxiliary role but not a determinative role in the making of doctrine. The belief that there is no capital “T” Tradition, only manmade traditions, implies a disbelief in Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church (John 16:13).

But for Orthodoxy, the Church is the recipient and guardian of Apostolic Tradition. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit she preserves and expounds Scripture for the generations to come (John 14:26, Ephesians 4:11). Theological controversy is best settled through the conciliar method. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 provided the precedent for the Ecumenical Councils. Just as the Jerusalem Council was guided by the Holy Spirit, so also the Ecumenical Councils.

Some of my Anglican friends are appreciative of small “t” tradition, but they view certain Orthodox positions, e.g., Mary as the Theotokos or the veneration of icons, as too extreme. They see themselves as a moderating center between Orthodoxy and low church Evangelicalism. But I noticed that like their low church brethren, Anglican Evangelicals reject all supernatural notion of Apostolic Tradition. The presupposition of sola scriptura held by Protestants, whether low church or high church, constitutes a major obstacle to church reunion. If Anglicans desire reunion with Orthodoxy they need to be willing to renounce sola scriptura and embrace the very same Holy Tradition passed on by the Apostles.

Scripture Alone does not exclude other sources like ancient church councils and church fathers. Evangelicals seeking to engage Orthodoxy are often enthusiastic practitioners of ressourcement. They appropriate from the early Church while blithely ignoring its authority. This cherry picking approach is fundamentally flawed. Augustine of Hippo summed up the matter aptly when he wrote:

If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe but yourself.

Some Evangelical pastors love to pepper their sermons with quotations from early church fathers but they do this selectively. Few Protestants have come to grips with the fact that while they embrace certain church fathers as individuals, they ignore the fathers’ Church. For example, Augustine wrote:

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Manichees, Chapter 5)

Here Augustine was warning against an individualistic Christianity divorced from the visible Church. This is something that Ancient-Future Evangelicals are reluctant to grapple with. So my question to Protestants seeking church unity is: Are you willing to put sola scriptura on the table? In a Facebook thread I described what this approach would entail:

If you really want to put sola scriptura on the table consider whether you would be willing to accept the Council of Nicea’s Creed as authoritative, binding on all Christians, and an infallible guide for understanding what Scripture teaches. For me this conciliar hermeneutics provides the basis for theological unity. A departure from conciliar hermeneutics will result in doctrinal pluralism and relativism. Accepting this position wouldn’t necessarily make you Orthodox but it would provide for a common basis for discussion with Orthodox Christians.

It is good to see Evangelicals develop an interest in the church fathers and the early liturgies. I would also encourage them to learn from the way the early church fathers read Scripture and to see how the conciliar hermeneutics differ from later Protestant hermeneutics. A patristically informed biblical hermeneutics can help build bridges between Evangelicals and Orthodox. (See Scot McKnight’s posting “Patristics and the Bible.”)

Horizontal and Vertical Unity

There are two critical dimensions to church unity. Horizontal church unity consists of unity among churches across space; vertical church unity consists of unity across time – being united with the ancient churches founded by the Apostles. Key to vertical unity is apostolic succession through the office of the bishop. It is through the local bishop that the local Orthodox parish is linked to the early Church. Reading the writings of the early church fathers or using early liturgical texts do not suffice for vertical unity. The office of the bishop is one key difference between Protestant and Orthodox approaches to unity.

For Orthodoxy horizontal and vertical unity are both critically important. They are found in the Eucharist and in the bishop who presides over the Eucharist. Receiving Communion in Orthodoxy means sharing the same faith as other Orthodox Christians around the world today. And through its bishop the local Orthodox parish can trace a direct historical link to the “breaking of bread” mentioned in Acts 2:46!

Christians interested in church unity need to understand Orthodoxy’s distinctive understanding of Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is key to understanding Orthodox ecclesiology. Bishop Kallistos Ware recounted Father Lev Gillet’s definition of Orthodoxy:

An Orthodox is one who accepts the Apostolic Tradition and who lives in communion with the bishops who are the appointed teachers of this Tradition. (The Inner Kingdom p. 14; italics in original)

The key here is the crucial role played by the bishop in Apostolic Tradition. At the time an Anglican, Ware found this to be an eye opener. He recounted:

Orthodoxy, so I recognized in a sudden flash of insight, is not merely a matter of personal belief; it also presupposes outward and visible communion in the sacraments with the bishops who are the divinely-commissioned witnesses to the truth (The Inner Kingdom p. 15; emphasis added).

So with respect to Orthodoxy’s claim to be the true Church, the question is not superiority versus inferiority, but rather fidelity to and continuity with Apostolic Tradition.

In the early Church the bishop was more than an administrator, as the successor to the Apostles he presided over the Eucharist and guarded the doctrinal purity of the Church. This understanding of the crucial role of the episcopacy to the integrity and unity of the Church is an ancient one. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

This is true Gnosis: the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient institution of the church, spread throughout the entire world, and the distinctive mark of the body of Christ in accordance with the succession of bishops, to whom the apostles entrusted each local church, and the unfeigned preservation, coming down to us, of the scriptures, with a complete collection allowing for neither addition nor subtraction, a reading without falsification and, in conformity with the scriptures, so interpretation that is legitimate, careful, without danger of blasphemy. (Against Heresies 4.33.8; emphasis added)

Augustine had a similar high view of the episcopacy. He wrote:

The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. (Against the Fundamental Epistle of the Manichees, Chapter 5; emphasis added)

Many Protestant churches do not have bishops or if they do have bishops are unable to trace an unbroken lineage back to the Apostles. The concept of apostolic succession is alien to Protestant theology. Much of the efforts at church unity by Protestants have been focused on horizontal unity with little attention given to vertical unity. This is the greatest flaw in the mutual recognition approach to church unity. In its pursuit of horizontal unity it has sacrificed vertical unity.

A local Orthodox parish cannot modify its liturgy or doctrine unilaterally. If a local Orthodox parish were to do so in order to have unity with their Protestant neighbors they will have severed their connections with the Orthodox Church worldwide not to mention their ties with the early Church. Moreover, no Orthodox bishop would permit a local parish to stray from Apostolic Tradition. The bishop’s job is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Church.

There are two types of church bodies: those whose episcopacy can claim linkage to the original Apostles (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the Non-Chalcedonian churches) and those whose leadership cannot make that claim (Protestantism). Recognition to one degree or another is possible with these church bodies that can claim historic ties to the early Church (see Ware The Orthodox Church pp. 311-316). But in the case of Protestants who have broken off from the papacy recognition is ruled out as an option. This means that union with the Orthodox Church is through reception.

Western Ecumenicism

It seems that for Western Christianity church unity is a problem that needs to be solved, that church unity has been lost and needs to be restored. There seems to be a certain eagerness and anxiety in the West’s endeavors to achieve unity with Orthodoxy. When it comes to unity among Christians two important issues need to be addressed: (1) the nature of the unity we seek and (2) and the path we are to take to get there.

For example, my Anglican friends insist that they are part of the “catholic church” confessed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. They note that they use the “same” Nicene Creed as the Orthodox and that they too can claim apostolic succession. In the course of numerous discussions I began to realize that while my Anglican friends don’t hold to Orthodox doctrine or follow Orthodox practices, what they want is for Orthodoxy to recognize the validity of their Anglican doctrines, rites, and clergy. In other words, they are seeking mutual recognition between Anglicans and Orthodox even with the disparity in doctrine, worship, and polity.

Mutual recognition is also the strategy that Roman Catholics are using with Orthodoxy. Pope John Paul II adopted the branch theory when he spoke of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as two lungs breathing together. They are not asking any changes in Orthodox doctrine and practice; “all” they are asking for is for Orthodoxy to come under the authority of the Bishop of Rome which for Orthodoxy is a deal breaker.

Related to the mutual recognition paradigm is interfaith dialogue. Many in the ecumenical movement approach interfaith dialogue much in the spirit of labor versus management negotiations: We will give a little on this, if you give a little on that. They believe that doctrine, worship, and polity are all “on the table.” Another ecumenical tactic is to redefine or reframe theological issues so that both sides, once at odds with each other, can now sign a joint statement. Orthodox priest Georges Florovsky called this “doctrinal minimalism.” This approach to ecumenicism is based on an ecclesial pragmatism and theological relativism, or a theological reductionism that seeks to frame doctrine in broadest possible terms.

But for Orthodoxy Holy Tradition is the fullness of the Faith and therefore not negotiable. The Church is not a social construct but a divine creation founded by Christ himself (Matthew 16:18). Thus, one of the major impediments to ecumenical dialogue is that we differ significantly on the goal (the kind of unity we seek) and the means (the path to unity).

Christian Collaboration in a Pluralistic Society

There are two kinds of goals for Christian unity. One goal is Christian unity in the form of one family. The family model of Christian unity is based on the assumption that we are all related to one another and that we live under the same roof. Given the Orthodox understanding of church unity, union with Protestants through the recognition paradigm is unfeasible. The only viable path to unity is through reception.

But what if Protestants are not ready to give up their core Protestant beliefs, what then? I suggest that there is an alternative approach to Christian unity available to Orthodox and non-Orthodox. That is Christian unity in the form of being friendly neighbors. We live next door to each other but we live under separate roofs. We coexist peacefully and work cooperatively on important projects in the name of Christ.

March for Life 2014

We need to encourage and support friendly cooperative relations across the Christian traditions. We can respect each others’ different traditions as we seek to work together for a Christian witness in a pluralistic, post-Christian American society. The annual March for Life in which Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox come together is a good example interfaith cooperation.

In Hawaii I am happy to be part of a monthly get together of “mere Christians” comprised of Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. We come together in Christ’s love from our different church traditions for a common meal and a talk on faith and culture.

Unity through Coming Home

Reception of the Evangelical Orthodox (1987)

What is the reception method like? In the 1970s a group of Evangelicals became interested in the early Church. They discovered to their great surprise that early Christian worship was liturgical and sacramental so they became liturgical and sacramental in their worship. They found out that the early Church was creedal so they adopted the Nicene Creed. Along the way they found out the early Church had priests and bishops, so they ordained each other as priests and appointed their own bishops! They even went so far as to make altars and put up tiny postcard size icons behind their altars. They thought of themselves as “orthodox” until they came face to face with Eastern Orthodoxy. Peter Gillquist tells the story how this group of Evangelicals was received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church in his book Becoming Orthodox. But in terms of numbers this paled in comparison with the reception of some twenty thousand Uniates into Orthodoxy in the late 1800s.

There is a great hunger among Protestants today for the early Church and for church unity. This has led to many rediscovering the early church fathers and seeking to bring back liturgical worship. This hunger for ancient Christianity manifested itself in the 1800s in the Mercersburg Theology in the US and in the Oxford movement in England, and more recently in the Federal Vision movement and the Ancient-Future worship movement. This recent enthusiasm for church unity and the ancient faith is very commendable but carries a high price tag. If one wishes to enter into Eucharistic unity with the ancient Church one must be prepared to give up aspects of Protestantism that are at odds with the ancient Christian Faith. Reception should not be viewed as an obstacle but an open door. Thousands of Protestants have already taken this bold step and hopefully many more in the days to come will unite themselves with the one Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.

Robert Arakaki

Other articles:

Former Church of England priest Michael Harper‘s conversion story

“A Calvinist Anglican Converts to Orthodoxy” Interview: Joseph Gleason with Mark Bradshaw — Journey to Orthodoxy (24 October 2013)

“Episcopal congregation embracing Orthodox faith” by Carla Hinton NewsOK (7 July 2007)

“St. Alexis Toth – Confessor of the Orthodox Faith in America”

Service Text: “Service for the Reception of Converts” (denver.goarch.org)