Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 6 of 17)

Guilty of Bibliolatry?

April 1, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 16 Comments

Holy Bible

FROM A READER

Recently an inquirer, interested in Orthodoxy, wrote to express his frustrations about a conversation he had with Protestants:

The problem that I kept encountering while discussing Orthodoxy with these fundamentalist Protestants is that the center of their faith is a book and not the Incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ. For example, one said: “It’s funny how he keeps trying to point to Christ and talk about how Christ is more important than Scripture. But without Scripture we don’t know Christ. He’s putting the cart before the horse. You can’t have Christ if you don’t go to God’s infallible Scripture to find Him. There is no Christ, no Christianity, no Christology, no soteriology and no other theological field of study apart from God’s infallible Word. God chose to reveal His Son through Scripture.” What is being said is only partly true, yet it is also deceptively heterodox, particularly the first sentence in red, which is what I’m calling out as iconoclastic bibliolatry! In essence, I perceive a sincere belief in the Incarnation of God the Word, yet they are saying that it is the written word that makes the Incarnation of God a reality, instead of the Incarnate Word and His theanthropic organism, the Church, that prove the veracity of Scripture; things are completely backwards and upside down, an inside out anti-Sacramental, iconoclastic bibliolatry. Please correct me if I’m wrong!

MY RESPONSE

Extreme Protestantism

What one sees in the excerpt above is an extreme form of Protestantism. The original Protestant Reformers, while they asserted sola scriptura, were also receptive to other sources of knowledge. They formulated their arguments using Scripture, philosophy, natural science, and common sense. They amply quoted the Church Fathers, especially when they supported the Reformers’ positions. Luther in his famous Here I Stand speech appealed to both Scripture and reason:

Martin Luther “Here I Stand!”

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen. (Emphasis added.) [Source]

Calvin’s Institutes is filled with citations from the early Church Fathers. So while the Reformers appealed to Scripture, their understanding of sola scriptura allowed for other sources of knowledge. What one finds in the Fundamentalists mentioned above is something different, a version of sola scriptura that excludes all other forms of knowledge. This is a radical departure from historic Protestantism and results in cultic Protestantism. They are not Protestants in the historic or normal sense of the word.

While the approach taken by the Magisterial Reformers is superior to Evangelicalism, problems remain. Under the Reformers’ seeming willingness to hear and even submit to the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils is an acknowledgment that there is wisdom greater than our own reading of Scripture. Sadly, this is not what we find happening in practice. The history of Protestantism reveals the gradual unraveling of sola scriptura. Keith Mathison’s in The Shape of Sola Scriptura notes the divergence between the classic sola scriptura of the Reformers and the later solo scriptura favored by Evangelicals. The later version eschewed all other external sources, positing instead the individual Christian interpreting the Bible for himself.

Cultic Protestantism

Sola scriptura places a heavy burden on the Christian. In rejecting the papacy, Protestantism imposes on the individual Christian the responsibility for understanding Scripture. This gives rise to an independent spirit: “Nobody tells me what the Bible means!” It also paradoxically gives rise to a spirit of dependency in which one comes to rely on the pastor, favorite radio preachers, or denomination for understanding Scripture. It is the latter that gives rise to cultic Protestantism.

The term “cult” has often been used pejoratively to refer to a religious group one does not like. For this article, I define “cult” in terms of sociological traits: (1) authoritarian in structure, (2) personalistic – centered on the group’s leader, (3) lacking accountability to an independent tradition or authority, (4) suppression of critical thinking, (5) little or no tolerance for internal diversity – group think, (6) an embattled, hostile perception of the outside world, and (7) anger and hostility directed against those who have left the group.

9 Ways Groups Become Cults

A cult takes certain elements of a healthy church and distorts them in very unhealthy ways. In terms of architectural design, both a house and a prison have walls and doors; but where a house is designed to allow easy access and exit while protecting the residents from inclement weather, a prison is designed to prevent inmates from leaving (escaping) and is designed to maximize control over their movements. Institutions like an army encampment or a monastery can bear a strong resemblance to a prison or an internment camp, but with the former the element of free will and consent are preserved. People trapped in a cult or abusive relationships are enclosed psychologically by threats of punishment or external danger. Oftentimes, all one’s close relationships are within the cult which means that leaving will result in social abandonment – life alone bereft of meaning and direction. When engaging in theological discussions it is wise to discern whether one is talking with someone who belongs to the historic mainstream or to a cultic form of Protestantism.

Cults rely on techniques of manipulation: seduction, isolation, indoctrination, and domination. This is similar to an abusive relationship in which the man dates a woman, and then gradually and subtly compels her to sever ties with friends and family. These comprise the initial stages of seduction and isolation. The stated rationale is his love and concern for her. The woman learns to see the world the same way as the man; this is the indoctrination stage. She is discouraged from thinking independently, becoming reliant on the man for news of the outside world; this is the group think stage. In time the relationship takes a downward spiral into spiritual darkness and violence; this is the domination stage. The relationship has become a prison that is very difficult to leave. Exit is not presented as an option.

I know a man who was torn between Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. He told me that one night he was walking by a park and saw a group singing and having a good time. It turned out to be a church group that met at the park and in people’s homes. He got into a discussion with the pastor (group leader) who would frequently ask him: “Where does it say that in the Bible?” This innocent question resembles the initial stages of seduction and isolation. A person who is spiritually hungry and seeking the truth is led down a one-way street in which the conversation is confined to what one sees in the Bible. Other sources of knowledge are subtly excluded. Here the rules of the game are subtly rigged without the other player knowing it. The seeker then has to contend with the pastor’s interpretation of the Bible. If one is ignorant of church history or has not had much education in critical thinking, one becomes vulnerable to the pastor’s “superior” insights into the Bible. I don’t know if this group was a cult or not. However, intellectual honesty calls for the inquirer to be made aware of the methods and sources being employed. Fairness requires that the players be made aware of the rules of the game. Healthy spirituality calls for a balance between the rational intellect and emotional/intuitive discernment, between individual freedom and collective authority.

So when I read the quote in the reader’s e-mail I was struck by the subtle psychological manipulations taking place. Rather than take seriously the inquirer’s attempt to take a Christ-centered approach to Christianity, his interlocutors belittled his theological method and attempted to steer him towards an extreme version of sola scriptura.

It’s funny how he keeps trying to point to Christ and talk about how Christ is more important than Scripture. But without Scripture we don’t know Christ. He’s putting the cart before the horse. You can’t have Christ if you don’t go to God’s infallible Scripture to find Him. There is no Christ, no Christianity, no Christology, no soteriology and no other theological field of study apart from God’s infallible Word. God chose to reveal His Son through Scripture.

What we see here is a full-fledged theological system with an implicit theological method: the Bible as the exclusive source for theology. What is not mentioned is the method by which Scripture will be interpreted. The exclusion of creeds, church history, theologians, and church fathers prevents one from being able to entertain alternative points of views. This leaves people not familiar with church history and with scant knowledge of the Bible at a disadvantage when discussing the Bible. In cultic Protestantism the “correct” interpretation of Scripture lies with the group leader. Rival interpretations are suppressed, sometimes through peer pressure or subtle sermonizing directed at the critic, other times through more open and coercive means like direct reprimand or even expulsion.

Orthodoxy offers a quite different approach to the interpretation of Scripture. I wrote several articles that deal with this. One article shows that what the Bible teaches is not the Bible alone, but the Bible in the context of Apostolic Tradition. And how the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church through the centuries in its reading of Scripture.

The Bible Alone?

Probably the best way to counter extreme Protestants is to ask them: “Where does the Bible say ‘the Bible alone’?” They will likely respond with bible verses about the Bible being divinely inspired, infallible, and authoritative, but none of these verses will say that we are rely only on the Bible to the exclusion of other sources. A careful reading of the Bible will show that God allowed people to utilize human reason and other sources aside from Scripture.

Creation

The Bible often points to the beauty of creation as evidence of there being a Creator God (Psalms 8:3-5, 19:14). Paul likewise referred to Creation’s witness to God in Romans 1:20. While Creation’s witness to God is incomplete, it is a sign of wisdom for one to learn from God’s creation. God’s gift to the Jews was the divine wisdom found in the Torah (Psalm 19:7-10). When the Jews turned away from God, God used Creation as a witness against them (Isaiah 1:2-3).

Reason

The Prophet Isaiah made this appeal: “’Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (Isaiah 1:18). This was not blind obedience but an appeal for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to think about their present circumstances and future outcomes. A careful reading of Apostle Paul’s letters shows his familiarity with the techniques of argumentation used by philosophers and religious scribes of his time. Nowhere in his letters did Paul urge on his readers blind faith.

Philosophy

In his speech before the philosophers in Athens Apostle Paul quoted two Greek philosophers: Epimenides and Aratus (Acts 17:28). Paul cites Epimenides in Titus 1:12 and Menander in 1 Corinthians 15:33. The ease with which Paul could quote the pagan Greek philosophers and poets shows his familiarity with pagan Greek culture. The Apostle Paul was a bi-cultural Jew; he grew up in the world of Hellenism and received his rabbinical training in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Paul was by no means a narrow minded Fundamentalist!

History

We find in the Bible theological arguments based on historical narratives. Stephen in Acts 7 traced the history of the Jews from Abraham to Solomon. Paul in Acts 14:16-23 traced the history of the Jews from the Exodus event to King David. In his speech before the Areopagus (Acts 17), Paul traced human history from Genesis 1 to 11. In Acts 26, we find Paul presenting his personal history to King Agrippa as a way of presenting and defending the Gospel.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we cannot learn from history after the book of Acts. As a matter of fact we would expect to see evidence of God’s sovereignty in the history of Christianity. We would expect to see the fulfillment of Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13). The argument that the Orthodox Church has kept Apostolic Tradition throughout church history is congruent with the way the Bible uses history. Extreme Protestants are loathe to argue from church history preferring to cherry pick bible passages and constructing an elaborate theological system based on the inner meaning of the Bible that they alone are privy to.

Visions and Dreams

If the extreme Protestants are right, then all it would take for Saul of Tarsus to become a Christian would be reading the Old Testament. Instead, God walloped Paul with a blinding vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-5). Apostle Peter in his Pentecost sermon quoted the passage by Joel about young men seeing visions and old men having dreams (Acts 2:17). In Acts 10, we read how it took a vision from God to convince Peter it was kosher to visit the house of the Roman centurion Cornelius. Miraculous events like these, while not typical, show that knowledge of God can take place outside Scripture. What matters is that these miraculous events were consistent with Scripture’s witness to Jesus Christ.

Tradition

When Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch if he understood the passage in Isaiah, the eunuch answered: “How can I unless someone explains it to me.” The Orthodox understanding is that Christ is the master Teacher who taught the Apostles the meaning of the Old Testament (Luke 24:44-49). Philip as an ordained deacon had the authority to give the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53:7-8 to the eunuch Acts 6:5-6). In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul exhorted the Christians to stand firm on Apostolic Tradition in both the written and oral forms. Extreme Protestants, on the other hand, will turn a blind eye on oral tradition. If pressed, they will insist that we don’t know what this “oral tradition” is and that it has been lost early on when the Christian Church fell into spiritual darkness. This is the Apostasy or Blink-On/Blink-Off theory of church history.

The Orthodox Church insists that it has faithfully preserved both oral and written Tradition from the time of the Apostles. What many Protestants overlook is the role of the Church in preserving the written Word of God before the invention of the printing press. We owe a great debt to the early Christians who faithfully copied the Bible and who protected the Bible against unbelievers who sought to destroy it. Moreover, we owe a debt to the early Church Fathers, who defined the biblical canon, ensuring that inspired Scriptures were made part of the Bible and spurious works excluded. We also owe a debt to the Church Fathers who guarded the Bible against heretics who distorted the meaning of the Bible.

To sum up, what we find in the Bible is a rich array of methods people used for discerning God’s will. We do not find the proof texting method much preferred by extreme Protestants. So, if one enters into a conversation or discussion and is asked: “Where does it say that in the Bible?”; the best reply is: “Where does it say in the Bible, ‘the Bible alone?’ And since the Bible does not teach that, this means we have the freedom to use our rational intellect to work through the evidence available to us like reason, church history, and the Church Fathers.”

Extreme Protestants have fallen into the same error as the Pharisees. In John’s Gospel we find Jesus explaining the role and purpose of the Bible. Jesus told the Pharisees:

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39; RSV)

The Bible is like a street sign that points to the desired destination; it is not the destination. The scribes and Pharisees devoted so much energy studying Scripture that when the promised Messiah arrived they failed to recognize him. Similarly, extreme Protestants have become so fixated on reading the Bible in their own way that they fail to take into account Jesus’ promise to establish his Church (Matthew 16:18), protect the Church against the powers of Hell (Matthew 16:18), guide the Church by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), and make the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). They overlook the Old Testament promises of the Eucharistic sacrifice (Isaiah 56:6-7), a new priesthood for the Messianic Age (Isaiah 66:20-21), and the worldwide offering of incense in the Messianic Age (Malachi 1:11). The priesthood, incense, and the Eucharist can be found in Orthodoxy today, but are nowhere to be found in extreme Protestantism. They can claim that they have the Bible but so too do cults like the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Seventh Day Adventists (all which originated in the 1800s). Many extreme Protestant groups have sprung up only recently. The earnest seeker of God’s truth need to ask: “Where is the Church that Christ promised? Where is the right worship of God promised in the Old Testament prophecies?

Orthodox Altar

Guilty of Bibliolatry?

Tim Challies, a Reformed pastor, noted that conservative Protestants, that is, those who affirm the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture, have often been accused of bibliolatry by theological liberals. Then he presented what he considered to be genuine bibliolatry:

In brief, I can affirm that it is entirely possible for a person to idolize the Bible. If I were to place a Bible upon an altar, light some candles around it, and bow down before the Bible, I would be worshipping a collection of paper, ink and leather (or “pleather”). I would be idolizing a created object rather than worshipping God. This would be no better than worshipping the image of a man or animal carved from wood or stone. But this is not what is most often meant when a person accuses another of idolizing the Bible. [Source]

When I read Pastor Challies’ definition of bibliolatry, I was struck with a strong sense of irony. In every Orthodox Church on the altar is the Gospel book surrounded by candles! During the Liturgy, the priest will cense the Bible, and he will bow towards the Bible showing his reverence for the Word of God. On Sunday morning, just before entering the sanctuary, I bow before the icon of Christ and kiss the Gospel book. There is a certain irony in the fact that Protestants have accused Orthodox Christians of Mariolatry but not of bibliolatry! Here Orthodoxy goes beyond Protestantism in its outward bodily reverence for Scripture. Yet these acts of reverence do not betray any sort of “idolatrous worship” of Mary or of Holy Scripture!

Historically, Scripture was understood as a sacred deposit to be safeguarded by the Church. Before the printing press very few people had their own personal copy of the Bible. One had to go to church on Sunday morning to hear the Gospel and other books in the Bible read out loud. With the advent of the printing press in the 1400s people began to have their own personal Bibles. This was good in that many could now read the Bible and become intimately acquainted with the Bible. However, the downside of this is that many began to treat the Bible as their own personal possession independent of the Church. This gave rise to an independent spirit in which one became confident one could understand the meaning of the Bible independent of the Church. In Orthodoxy, the right understanding of Scripture is maintained through Tradition, e.g., the Nicene Creed which is recited every Sunday, the Divine Liturgy, the Ecumenical Councils and the early Church Fathers. In Orthodoxy, Holy Tradition frames Scripture and for that reason Scripture cannot be understood on its own but in the Church.

Holy Tradition prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a cult: (1) every priest and parish are accountable to a bishop the recipient of Apostolic Tradition; (2) every bishop is accountable to Holy Tradition and their respective synod of bishops; (3) lengthy catechism classes ensure one understands Holy Tradition; and (4) an open door policy in which those who disagree with the teachings of the Church are allowed to leave rather than be coerced into conformity. Added to this is Orthodoxy’s reluctance to make definitive statements on specific individual’s eternal destiny.

The Church Fathers give us insight into how Christians can have the Faith apart from sola scriptura. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century Church Father, wrote about illiterate barbarians who, despite the absence of written Scripture, have received the true Faith through oral tradition (AH 3.4.2).

Conclusion

So, are these Protestants guilty of bibliolatry as my inquirer friend asked? My response is: (1) it all depends on what one means by “bibliolatry” and (2) in light of its negative connotations the term “bibliolatry” does not contribute to edifying dialogue. The term’s utility is further diminished by the elasticity of its meaning. Conservative Protestants have been accused of bibliolatry by liberal Protestants, and by Pastor Challies’ definition even Orthodox Christians can be accused of bibliolatry.

A more useful approach is to ask whether or not Christians may avail themselves of other sources of knowledge besides the Bible. If one takes the position that Christians are to rely solely on the Bible to the exclusion of other sources of knowledge, then one has adopted an extreme form of Protestantism. This opens the door to cultic Protestantism and to spiritual abuse. Healthy spirituality, while open to the outside world, also has boundaries. Orthodoxy has relied on Holy Tradition for the delineating of this boundary. Protestantism has long struggled with defining its boundaries, and as a consequence has suffered numerous splits over where the line is to be drawn between orthodoxy and heresy. Liberal Protestantism has extended its boundaries to the point where radical Enlightenment skepticism undermined basic Christian tenets. Extreme Protestantism, in contrast, constricted its boundaries so narrowly that it creates totalitarian cults. Popular Evangelicalism has eagerly and uncritically embraced aspects of popular culture into its worship and the way it articulates its beliefs.

We can be thankful that fundamentalist bibliolatry has not often plagued the more educated descendants of the Magisterial Reformation, e.g., Lutherans and Reformed Protestants. Yet the difficult question must be asked: “Who is more at fault for this willful high-handedness? Those familiar with the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, Holy Tradition, and who know the difference between sola and solo scriptura. Or, the provincial and less historically informed Fundamentalists?” This is not unlike asking who is more culpable of criminally abusing a 14-year old sexually curious girl? Her 17-year old boyfriend who loves her, or her 40-year old gym teacher? To whom much is given, much is required.

Redeeming the Time

One needs to exercise caution when entering into theological debates. Debates have a very different quality from a dialogue or conversation. In a debate one side wins and the other side loses. One wins by outwitting the opponent with an irrefutable argument or by presenting a fact that the other side does not know about. The weakness of debates is that they rarely result in people changing their minds. It takes more than one single argument for people to change their religious beliefs and affiliation. Formal debates are useful in that they present audiences different points of view for them to consider. Personal conversations are a much better way for inquirers interested in Orthodoxy. I often engage in lengthy theological discussions with inquirers at the local Orthodox parish. I do this to help people who are sincerely interested in becoming Orthodox, but have reservations. With sincere inquirers I don’t hesitate to enter into detailed bible discussions. If they are not at seriously interested in becoming Orthodox, I will seek to avoid debates.

I learned this lesson when I got into a debate with several members of Calvary Chapel. After a while, I came to the conclusion I was wasting my time and theirs. It can be fun, swapping bible verses and arguing what the verses mean, but for the most part very little serious learning was happening. It was more like a theological tennis match than a serious quest for God’s truth. The quest for God’s truth must take place in an atmosphere of holy reverence and prayer. I recently came across a quote on a FaceBook page that read: “Every hour that has passed is gone forever, and we must give an account of each minute of that hour.” This is similar to Apostle Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:16: “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” In light of the Final Judgment, we must beware of wasting our time in trivial activities like tossing bible verses back and forth for the fun of it. Jesus warned:

I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37; RSV)

A good example of people worshiping the Bible in place of Christ can be found in the Christmas story in Matthew’s Gospel. Wise men from the East guided by the star came to Jerusalem in search of the Jewish Messiah. The chief priests and the scribes quoted to them Micah’s prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Then guided by natural revelation (the star) and Scripture (Micah) the wise men found the Christ Child and worshiped him (Matthew 2:1-12). It is dumbfounding that those who knew Scripture so well did not seek out Christ. The sin of bibliolatry here was knowing Scripture but failing to do God’s will. For Protestants the danger is that of revering Scripture over the Church, “the pillar of truth” founded by Christ. Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. (ANF Vol. V p. 423)

The Bible and the Orthodox Church go together. The Orthodox Church has been reading Scripture and proclaiming the Gospel in its worship services from Day One. It has preserved and passed on Scripture for the past two thousand years. It reads the Bible within the framework of the Church Fathers, the successors to the Apostles. This preserves the inner meaning of Scripture. For the spiritually hungry seeker the Orthodox Church provides a safe haven for knowing Scripture.

Robert Arakaki

Tim Challies. 2006. “Feedback Files – Bibliolatry.” www.challies.com (5 July)

S.M. Baugh. 2008. “Is Bibliolatry Possible?” Resource Center – Westminster Seminary California.

Naomi Epps. N.D. “8 Signs Your Friend’s In An Abusive Relationship.” BlackLoveADvice dot Com

—- N.D. “9 Ways Groups Become Cults.” Criminal Justice Degrees Guide dot Com

The Apostolic Failure of the Reformed Church

February 5, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 24 Comments

Beauty so ancient and so new

Some of the readers of the OrthodoxBridge have questioned whether there is in fact a trend of Protestants converting to Orthodoxy. One important evidence can be found in “Searching for the Historic Christian Church: The Allure of Eastern Orthodoxy” by Pastor Mike Brown. The article opens with:

In the past five or six years, I have known several people who have left Reformed Christianity for Eastern Orthodoxy. Their reasons for making that decision varied. Some were mesmerized by the beauty of the Divine Liturgy. Others found Eastern Orthodoxy (hereafter EO) to offer a greater appreciation for mystery and religious experience than what they had known as a Protestant. All of them, however, were attracted by and eventually convinced of EO’s claim to be the original church founded by Christ. (Emphasis added.)

While small, the number of Reformed Christians becoming Orthodox has become a matter of pastoral concern. Among the converts are longtime seasoned elders and pastors well-read in Reformed theology. Dissatisfaction with the shallowness of contemporary worship and a hunger for a connection with the Ancient Church are compelling people to become Orthodox. Pastor Brown notes:

Many Protestants and evangelicals attest to feeling disconnected with the ancient church, and desire greater certainty that the church they attend has not been drastically changed by the world over the passing centuries.

Pastor Brown broke down the quest for the Ancient Church into three attractions: (1) continuity in worship, (2) continuity in doctrine, and (3) continuity in church government. In the first part, he gives an assessment of Orthodoxy’s claim to antiquity, then presents what the Reformed tradition has to offer. He is to be commended for his generally accurate presentation of Orthodoxy. In doing so, he avoids the fallacy of the straw man argument that often mars Reformed critiques of Orthodoxy. In the second part of his article, Pastor Brown seeks to show that “there are good reasons for Reformed Christians to be confident that they belong to the historic Christian church” and that there is thus no need for them to convert to Orthodoxy.

Part 1 – Pastor Brown’s Critique

Continuity in Liturgical Worship

Pastor Mike Brown challenges Orthodoxy’s claim to historical continuity in worship. He writes:

However, regarding EO’s claim to unbroken succession in its worship, I make two observations. First, the notion that the Divine Liturgy has been in place since the days of the apostles is misleading and grossly oversimplified. While it is true that certain components of the Divine Liturgy were present in the liturgies of the ancient church (i.e. Scripture reading, weekly communion, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and creeds, etc.), there is no evidence that the basic form of the Divine Liturgy was used by the apostles or universally practiced by churches in the first few centuries. (Emphasis added.)

I found what Pastor Brown meant by “the basic form of the Divine Liturgy” in this critique to be vague. Is he referring to a regular pattern of worship or to something specific like the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom? It seems Pastor Brown understands Orthodoxy’s claim to continuity of worship to consist in its possessing a fixed, detailed order of worship from Day One. This can be seen in the phrase “looking identical” in the quote below.

Likewise, the most reliable documents from the post-apostolic early church, such as the Didache (c. 2nd century) and Justin Martyr’s First Apology (c.155-157), provide us with evidence that worship in the ancient church consisted of Scripture reading, preaching, singing, the Lord’s Prayer, and weekly communion. These, however, show no signs of looking identical to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. In fact, the oldest surviving liturgy in use by EO today is the “Liturgy of St. James,” which dates no earlier than the 4th century. EO’s claim that its liturgy has remained unchanged since the days of the apostles is unsubstantiated and overstated. (Emphasis added.)

Orthodoxy has never made the claim for a fixed Liturgy from Day One. Nor has it claimed that the Divine Liturgy looked identical to the worship of the New Testament Church. Anyone reading early church history will soon realize that this was not the case. During the first three centuries, a general shape of the liturgy prevailed across the world, even in the midst of diverse practices. In time Christian worship became uniform and fixed in order and form. Indeed, Pastor Brown’s use of “looking identical” indicates he does NOT understand, or intentionally hyperbolizes Orthodox continuity!

The flaw in Pastor Brown’s critique is his focus on external form without taking into account the inner meaning of Christian worship. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s website article “Introduction to the Divine Liturgy” which he quoted from took care to stress the continuity in inner meaning:

But whatever were the various forms of the Divine Liturgy of the primitive Church, as well as of the Church of the final formation of the Divine Liturgy, the meaning given to it by both the celebrants and the communicants was one and the same; that is, the belief of the awesome change of the sacred Species of the Bread and Wine into the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lord. (Emphasis added.)

Pastor Brown comes close to constructing a straw man argument especially in light of the fact the article takes care to note that underneath the variation in outward form in Christian worship has been the constant belief in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

Form versus Inner Meaning

Central to Christian worship from the start was: (1) the celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection in the Eucharist, and (2) the belief in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. An examination of early Christian worship and the writings of the early Church Fathers show the universality of these two defining elements. These two elements define Orthodox worship even today. It would be unthinkable for an Orthodox parish to have a Sunday service that consists only of the Liturgy of the Word or for the priest to declare that Eucharist was just symbolic. What is not central to Orthodox worship is a long sermon in which the pastor shows off his rhetorical skill and unique exegetical insights week after week. Indeed, in the Liturgy the Orthodox priest essentially disappears behind the form of the Liturgy and attention is focused on the worship of the Trinity.

When we compare Reformed worship with early Christian worship two facts become apparent: (1) a new form of Sunday worship has emerged that is sermon-focused and (2) the rejection of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In his attempt to show how Reformed worship conforms to early Christian worship Pastor Brown brings to the reader’s attention Calvin’s Genevan Psalter of 1542, which was “according to the custom of the ancient church.” However, invoking historical documents like the 1542 Genevan Psalter or Calvin’s Institutes 4.17.44 does not negate the fact that a new pattern of worship has come to dominate the Reformed tradition. Two questions quickly reveal the flaw in Pastor Brown’s claim:

Is it the norm for Reformed churches to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday?
Is it the norm for Reformed churches to teach and affirm that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper?

In most instances, the answer will be “no.” It is interesting to note that in Note 25, Pastor Brown cites Michael Horton’s article “At Least Weekly” and Keith Mathison’s book Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to show that an attempt is being made in Reformed circles to recover historic Christian worship. What he does not realize is that this very attempt at recovery is an admission that something has been lost. It is no wonder that many Reformed Christians are feeling the loss and are looking to Orthodoxy to regain it.

The Orthodox conversions Pastor Brown is trying to halt are happening even in the most liturgical and sacramental churches in the Reformed community. Indeed, something historic has been lost, otherwise there would be little interest among Reformed folks in learning about the Liturgy and Eucharistic practices in the Early Church. This loss is compelling many to find their roots in the Orthodox Church. Retreating back only as far as Calvin and the 1500s, has not satisfied many.

Probably the greatest disconnect has been with respect to the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. The vast majority of Protestants and Evangelicals today believe that the Holy Communion (Eucharist) is just a symbol. This marks a major break from historic Christian worship. Ignatius of Antioch noted that it was the heretics who denied that the Eucharist “is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Letter to Smyrnaeans 7.1). Interestingly, John Calvin in no uncertain terms denounced the teaching that the Eucharist is symbolic as an “error not to be tolerated” (“Confession of Faith Concerning the Eucharist” in Reid p. 169). Is it not striking that nowhere in his article does Pastor Brown discuss the consecration of the bread and wine or the real presence in the Eucharist? Could it be that these are unimportant issues for him? Or perhaps too dangerous to broach?

Pastor Brown seems to think that, by following certain historic practices, Reformed churches are “preserving a connection to the worship of the ancient Christian church.”

By retaining ordinary practices such as the Lord’s Prayer, Psalmody, and weekly communion, we can be confident that we are worshiping God in the same way as the ancient church, and have not merely followed a new tradition.

All of these elements are, of course, important to historic Christian worship but are they enough? The desire for a retrun to historic worship, in reaction to the excesses of contemporary worship, is only part of the reason that people are drawn to Orthodox worship. Many are drawn to a worship that goes beyond intellectual stimulation to real communion with God. Perhaps they are drawn to the mystical reality behind the liturgical forms but overlooked by Pastor Brown? Many inquirers are tantalized by the promise given by Christ himself:

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (John 6:55-56)

Orthodoxy believes that, in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ and that when we go up for Holy Communion we actually partake of the body and blood of Christ.

Right Doctrine

Many Reformed Christians are drawn to Orthodoxy out of a need for assurance that what they believe is not man-made doctrine, but the historic Christian Faith. Pasto Mike Brown writes:

A second area where many Christians complain of feeling an historic void in their faith is doctrine. Just as they want to be confident that they are worshiping God the same way the apostles and early church did, they also want to be sure that the teachings and beliefs of the church they attend conform to that history as well.

Pastor Brown responds to this hunger for historic doctrine by criticizing Orthodoxy for its “superficial” theology. He notes:

Thus, it is difficult not to find EO’s claim to uninterrupted continuity in its doctrine to be superficial as they possess no unifying confession on matters of essential Christian doctrine beyond the seven Ecumenical Councils. It is unsatisfactory and unfair to ignore debates on important biblical teaching simply because those debates arose in the west after the 8th century. (Emphasis added.)

My response: “Why is it so important that a religious tradition have a detailed theological confession? What does it have to do with historical continuity?” Pastor Brown’s concern with detailed theological systems is historically conditioned, reflecting Protestantism’s intellectual roots in Medieval Scholasticism, e.g., Thomas Aquinas. Where Western theology seeks to understand God with the intellect, Orthodox theology starts from the understanding that genuine knowledge of God comes through prayer and worship.

Pastor Brown’s complaint about Orthodoxy’s theology being “superficial” is perplexing. Many of the original Protestant confessions have become historical curiosities that many, including pastors and elders, tend to honor only in name. In recent years, many of these detailed statements of faith have been replaced by broadly-phrased confessions of lowest common denominator. It is ironic in the face of the Reformed tradition’s plethora of confessions that Pastor Brown would complain that Orthodoxy has “no unifying confession.” There is no unifying confession for the Reformed tradition either! Where the Lutherans have the Book of Concord, there is no similar unifying confession for the Reformed tradition. While the Westminster Confession is probably the most widely known, it is not the doctrinal standard for the entirety of the Reformed tradition.

How effective are detailed confessions for preserving doctrinal orthodoxy? Pastor Brown is probably too embarrassed to make mention of the fact that his denomination, the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), was the result of a schism in the 1990s when a sizable group felt the Christian Reformed Church in North America was moving away from the truths of the Reformation. Apparently, the split resulted from tensions between theological conservatives and liberals. Those who are interested in the details of the split might be interested in reading Robert P. Swierenga’s Burn the Wooden Shoes: Modernity and Division in the Christian Reformed Church in North America (2000). Is it not telling that the so-called Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Synod of Dort) have been unable to guarantee doctrinal stability in the face of theological liberalism for the past two centuries? The lesson here is clear – even detailed, precisely-worded confessions are not strong enough to withstand the onslaught of modernity.

While Orthodoxy may not have a precise theological system like Protestantism, there is within Orthodoxy a hidden strength that most Protestants do not see – liturgical theology. In the Divine Liturgy doctrine is fused with worship. If one listens to the hymns and prayers, he will hear every Sunday the core dogmas of the Christian Faith: the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Good News of Christ’s saving death and resurrection. Although alien to Protestantism, liturgical theology is an ancient way of doing theology. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote: “But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion” (Against Heresies 4.18.5). Basil the Great in his On the Holy Spirit defends the divinity of the Holy Spirit from the trinitarian prayers used in the Liturgy. The ancient saying “Lex orandi, lex credendi” (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) describes how our worship informs our doctrine.

Continuity in Church Governance

Another reason why many Reformed Christians find Orthodoxy appealing is its claim to apostolic succession. God is the God of history. He created mankind then acted through men within human history. The historical books and the detailed genealogies in the Bible point to the importance of our roots in history. Just as genealogies were part of the Mosaic covenant community, Israel, so likewise is apostolic succession the genealogy of the new covenant community, the Church. It is proof that there exists a historic, unbroken continuity that links the present-day episcopacy back to the original Apostles. Without history, Christianity would be a philosophical system of abstract ideas, rather than a concrete way of life and a community of people.

In his critique, Pastor Brown draws on Michael Horton’s argument that the Galatian churches’ succumbing to the Judaizing heresy was enough to refute Orthodoxy’s claim that doctrinal orthodoxy is preserved by means of apostolic succession. However, the episcopacy does not stand alone, but in the context of the Church Catholic. The notion of an independent bishop is self-contradictory. If one bishop falls into error, his fellow bishops will be there to correct him. Is it not curious that Pastor Brown failed to mention the role of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in resolving the crisis that erupted in Galatia? The Jerusalem Council provided the precedent for the Ecumenical Councils. In the Councils, apostolic succession in its collective expression functioned to preserve right doctrine.

As a Reformed theologian, Michael Horton is hostile to the episcopacy. For him, apostolic succession takes place through the gospel. Reading Horton’s assertion that what counts is preaching the same gospel that the Apostles proclaimed one can’t help but wonder if by “gospel” he means the doctrine of sola fide which was supposedly “recovered” by Martin Luther in 1517. The Good News of Jesus’ death and resurrection has always been part of the historic Christian Faith, but the categories of imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness so crucial to sola fide are nowhere to be found among the early Church Fathers. It was not until after Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo set forth the satisfaction theory that the theological foundations for Luther’s sola fide was possible. If none of the early bishops taught sola fide, this makes sola fide suspect historically. It is a theological innovation alien to historic Christianity. It is no wonder then that Pastor Brown and Michael Horton are critical of Orthodoxy’s claim to apostolic succession. Disavowing the historic episcopacy gives them the liberty to read the Bible according to their Protestant convictions.

For a discussion of: (1) the meaning of imputed and infused righteousness see the Theopedia article “Imputed Righteousness,” (2) the novelty of imputed and infused righteousness see my article “Response to Michael Horton,” and (3) the novelty of sola fide see my article “Response to Theodore – Semi-Pelagianism, Sola Fide and Theosis.”

Part 2 – Pastor Brown’s Apologia for Reformed Christianity

Church Fathers

Many Christians are naturally drawn to Orthodoxy because of its historic roots in the early Church. Pastor Brown responded to this by noting that the Protestant Reformers, most notably John Calvin, drew heavily on the early Church Fathers. However, to selectively quote the early Church Fathers does not in any way prove that one shares in the same faith as the early Church Fathers. None of the Church Fathers taught sola scriptura or sola fide – the two key teachings of the Protestant Reformation. Calvin and other Reformers engaged in cherry picking the Church Fathers to legitimize their novel Protestant doctrines. While they did quote from the Church Fathers, they did not subject their theology to the patristic consensus. This was because, under sola scriptura, the Reformers’ own readings of the Bible had greater authority than the Church Fathers’. Calvin praised the early Church Fathers when they supported his views and scorned them when they differed from his views. This implied that Calvin knew better than the Church Fathers! (Rock and Sand pp. 131-132.)

Pastor Michael Brown concedes that he and his fellow Reformed ministers could do a better job of “showing Reformed theology’s continuity with ancient and medieval theology.” My response is: “They could do a better job of reading the early Church Fathers with an open mind.” When I was studying church history at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I read the early Church Fathers in order to improve my Protestant theology. Early on, I found the Church Fathers perplexing. This confusion was cleared up when I came to the realization that the early Church Fathers were not Protestant and that Protestantism was altogether different from the early Church. Facing up to this discontinuity was disturbing and disheartening, but brought clarity to my reading of the early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. The Protestant Reformation of the 1500s emerged from a different cultural and theological context. The Reformers’ theology was influenced by the medieval papacy, medieval canon law, an excessive reliance on Augustine of Hippo, the Via Antiqua of medieval Scholasticism, and far more than normally acknowledged, the Via Moderna of Renaissance humanism. Pastor Brown and others like him are mistaken if they think that selectively quoting the Church Fathers will take them back to the Faith of the early Church.

Icons

With respect to icons, Pastor Mike Brown stresses the Reformed tradition’s iconoclasm and argues that icons constitute a break from the historic continuity of Christian worship. He presents two lines of arguments: (1) patristic and (2) biblical.

For the “ample evidence” that icons were not tolerated in the early church, Pastor Brown gives three sources: (1) Irenaeus of Lyons, (2) Epiphanius of Salamis, and (3) the Synod of Elvira. The first thing to note is that Pastor Brown is being very selective with the evidence he presents to the reader. He makes no mention of any pro-icon sources. For the sake of fairness, he should at least have mentioned theological classics like John of Damascus’ Three Treatises on the Divine Images and Theodore the Studite’s On the Holy Images. Even more striking is his failure to mention the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787). Failure to mention these important evidences leaves the Reformed inquirer in “blissful ignorance.”

I was surprised that Pastor Brown cited Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the greatest Church Fathers, as being against icons. However when I read the passage cited (AH 1.26.6), I was disappointed to find that he had misread Irenaeus. Furthermore, the correct citation is 1.25.6, not 1.26.6. As a service to the reader I present the passage mentioned by Pastor Brown.

Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopate of] Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. (Emphasis added.)

A careful reading of Against Heresies 1.25.6 makes it very clear that Irenaeus is describing and criticizing the practices of the Gnostics, a heretical group. It is astonishing that Pastor Brown paid no attention to the sentence: “They style themselves Gnostics.” I suspect that this blooper is largely due his unfamiliarity with the early Church and that in his haste he unwittingly projected Reformed iconoclasm onto Irenaeus of Lyons.

Reformed apologists like to cite the story of Epiphanius entering a church and ripping down a curtain with an image embroidered. Epiphanius was no obscure figure but a recognized saint. For Reformed apologists this is major evidence in support of iconoclasm. This argument is not new. As a matter of fact it is the exact same argument made by the iconoclasts in the early Church. Theodore the Studite and John of Damascus knew of it and responded by noting that if one were to visit Epiphanius’ church one could see it decorated with images and Gospel stories. Furthermore, both Church Fathers asserted that the anecdote was a spurious forgery. Theodore the Studite in his On the Holy Icons wrote this hypothetical debate over icons:

Heretic: Epiphanius is one of them, the man who is prominent and renowned among the saints.

Orthodox: We know that Epiphanius is a saint and a great wonder-worker. Sabinus, his disciple and a member of his household, erected a church in his honor after his death, and had it decorated with pictures of all the Gospel stories. He would not have done this if he had not been following the doctrine of his own teacher. Leontius also, the interpreter of the divine Epiphanius’ writings, who was himself bishop of the church in Neapolis in Cyprus, teaches very clearly in his discourse on Epiphanius how steadfast he was in regard to the holy icons, and reports nothing derogatory concerning him. So the composition against the icons is spurious and not at all the work of the divine Epiphanius. (“Second Refutation” §49; p. 74)

A modern assessment of Epiphanius’ alleged iconoclasm can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition Vol. 2, page 102. It is important that Protestants inquirers know that even evidence like this presented by Reformed apologists their arguments are by no means slam dunks. There is another side of the story. To give the inquirers only one side of the argument is not fair to them.

But, what if the anecdote about Epiphanius is valid? What if one saint turned out to be an iconoclast? This is where the patristic consensus comes in. John of Damascus notes:

Nor can a single opinion overturn the unanimous tradition of the whole Church, which has spread to the ends of the earth. (On the Divine Images “First Apology §25; p. 32)

According to the patristic consensus, no single person’s opinion can represent the Christian Faith. This view must be expressed by the Church Catholic. Using poetic language, Theodore points out that a single swallow’s song does not mean that spring has come. It is worth noting that iconoclasm is not even a Protestant position, but peculiar to one strand of Protestantism, the Reformed tradition.

Reformed apologists like to cite the Council of Elvira as evidence against icons. The inquirer should be aware of three issues. First, Pastor Brown needs to show why we should give a minor local synod preference over an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II). An Ecumenical Council represents the ruling of the Church Catholic on a disputed issue. One cannot cherry-pick the councils on the basis of what one likes or does not like. Second, to endorse a council implies that one is willing to follow the rulings issued by that council. Pastor Brown accepts Canon 36 which seems to prohibit images, but then he ignores Canon 26 which imposes the Saturday fasts. Third, it is not clear from the original Latin whether Canon 36 stemmed from opposition to icons in general or whether it was out of concern that images painted on church walls would be vulnerable to vandalism (keep in mind that this synod was held during the height of the ferocious Diocletian persecution). The Synod of Elvira’s alleged iconoclasm stems from a faulty translation of the original Latin. Steven Bigham, an Orthodox priest, translated Canon 36 as follows:

It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls. (in Bigham p. 161; emphasis added)

To sum up, the evidence that Pastor Brown presents for iconoclasm in the early Church is scanty and weak. He misread Irenaeus of Lyons. His anecdote about Epiphanius of Salamis was deemed a forgery by two notable Church Fathers. There is evidence that Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira cited by Reformed apologists is based on a flawed translation of the original Latin. In all fairness to Protestant inquirers, Pastor Brown should have alerted them to the issues relating to his evidences and the arguments in defense of icons in the early Church. Keeping Protestant inquirers in ignorance is not doing them a favor.

For his biblical critique of the Orthodox veneration of icons, Pastor Brown invoked the Second Commandment. However, one cannot just invoke the Second Commandment. There are important exegetical issues that need to be addressed. First, it is important to read the Second Commandment in its context. The First Commandment’s monotheism suggests that the Second Commandment was directed against the worship of the pagan deities of Egypt and Canaan, not against the use of images in Israelite worship. Second, in the latter half of Exodus one finds God instructing Moses to incorporate images into the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31). The entirety of the Mosaic Tabernacle, including the images, was intended to promote the true worship of Yahweh. The use of images was continued in Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 3:7, 14). This suggests that there is indeed a biblical basis for the use of images in places of worship. Interested readers can read my article “The Biblical Basis for Icons.”

Little is known about Christian worship prior to the fourth century. Reformed Christians infer from this silence that the early Church was devoid of icons. However, if we take into account the striking images found in the Jewish synagogue and Christian church in Dura Europos that date back to the mid 200s one is confronted with positive evidence for the use of images in early Christianity. The archaeological evidences found in Dura Europos together with the biblical and patristic evidences taken together present a powerful witness in support of the use of icons in early Christianity. This is something that Reformed apologists have yet to address.

Differences in Personal Perspectives

I suspect that Pastor Brown’s enthusiasm for the Reformed tradition stems from his having been part of Calvary Chapel. In comparison to Calvary Chapel, which traces its origins to the Jesus Movement of the 1960s in California, the Reformed tradition is much more historic, going back to the Reformation of the early 1500s. Its teachings are definitely deeper in comparison and its worship more liturgical than Calvary Chapel’s informal approach. His glowing assessment of the Reformed tradition is further colored by his being part of the UCRCNA. As a new denomination that emerged in the 1990s, the UCRCNA is still a young and vigorous denomination. Sociologically, because schism functions as a method of self-selection that excludes rival views, it is not surprising that Pastor Brown has enjoyed oneness of mind among his fellow pastors and parishioners.

My personal perspective is different from Pastor Brown’s. Unlike Pastor Brown’s Reformed denomination which resulted from a schism, Congregationalism in Hawaii has a history of continuity going back to the Puritans. My being an Evangelical in the liberal UCC gave me a quite unique perspective on the Reformed tradition. This perspective was further refined when I was at Gordon-Conwell in Massachusetts, the heartland of New England Puritanism, and interacted with UCC liberals during that time. As a result of these experiences, I was able to appreciate the historic legacy of John Calvin and the New England Puritans while seeing up front the realities of liberal mainline Reformed Christianity. Unlike Pastor Brown’s unreserved enthusiasm for the Reformed tradition, my assessment was a mixture of respect, dismay, and consternation. My time in a liberal Reformed denomination caused me to question the long-term viability of the Reformed tradition, which made me open to Orthodoxy and the Ancient Church.

The Challenge for Reformed Apologetics

It seems that Pastor Mike Brown is unaware of how much the ground has shifted in the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. In recent years, new Orthodox pro-icon apologia have emerged that refute the Second Commandment argument on exegetical grounds, draw on recent archaeological findings, and critically analyze the theological basis of John Calvin’s iconoclasm. These arguments are being raised by former Protestants who are familiar with Reformed iconoclasm and who, after prolonged study of the Bible and the Church Fathers, have come to embrace the pro-icon position of Orthodoxy. Interested readers can read my earlier articles, where I have discussed in greater detail the anti-icon arguments raised by Reformed Christians. I also recommend Gabe Martini’s detailed response to Pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s iconoclasm. Questions about the formal principle (sola scriptura) and material principle (sola fide) of Protestant theology have emerged causing a number of Protestant pastors and theologians to convert to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Reformed apologists cannot simply repeat what worked in the past and ignore the newer arguments and issues raised by Orthodox apologists. They need to show that they are aware of these new arguments and are willing to engage them. Sadly, it does not appear that Pastor Brown shows a familiarity and mastery of this new material.

Christ United Reformed Church — “Reformed Worship Explained“

The Apostolic Failure of the Reformed Church

Pastor Mike Brown’s argument can be summed up: “We have the same things the Orthodox Church has. They have liturgies; so do we. They cite the Church Fathers; so do we. They have creeds; so do we. You don’t have to become Orthodox to be part of the Ancient Church. Reformed Christianity is Ancient Christianity!”

My response to all this is: “Come and see!” Visit an Orthodox Sunday Service. Experience the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which dates back to the fifth century. Talk to the local Orthodox priest. Ask him what the Orthodox Church teaches about Christ, the Trinity, and prayer. Compare the Orthodox Church of today with the early Church. Follow the guidance of the Prophet Jeremiah:

Stand at the crossroads and look;

Ask for the ancient paths,

Ask where the good way is and walk in it,

And you will find rest for your souls.

(Jeremiah 6:16, NIV; Emphasis added.)

Robert Arakaki

Recommended Reading

Robert Arakaki. 2013. “A Response to John B. Carpenter’s “Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church.” OrthodoxBridge.com (16 September)

Robert Arakaki. 2012. “Response to Michael Horton.” OrthodoxBridge.com (10 May)

Robert Arakaki. 2011. “The Biblical Basis for Icons.” OrthodoxBridge.come (12 June)

Robert Arakaki. 2011. “Calvin Versus the Icon: Was John Calvin Wrong?” OrthodoxBridge.com (19 June)

Steven Bigham. 2004. Early Christian Attitudes toward Images.

Pastor Mike Brown. 2016. “Searching for the Historic Christian Church: The Allure of Eastern Orthodoxy” in www.ChristURC.org. (9 December)

“Synod of Elvira” Wikipedia.

Gabe Martini. “Is There a Patristic Critique of Icons?” (Part 3 of 5) (Council of Elvira) 20 May 2013.

Gabe Martini. “Is There a Patristic Critique of Icons?” (Part 4 of 5) (Epiphanius of Salamis) 22 Ma 2013.

Gabe Martini. “An Orthodox Response to John Calvin on Icons: Icons and Idolatry.” Pravoslavie. 6 December 2014.

Rev. George Mastrontonis. N.d. “Introduction to the Divine Liturgy” in Goarch.com

Jaroslav Pelikan. 2011. Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons.

J.K.S. Reid, ed. 1964. “Confession of Faith Concerning the Eucharist” in Calvin: Theological Treatises p. 169.

Carly Silver. 2010. “Dura-Europos: Crossroad of Cultures.” Archaeology Magazine (11 August)

Josiah Trenham. 2015. Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings.

Review – Peter Leithart’s “The End of Protestantism”

December 19, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 17 Comments

An Orthodox Assessment

The Rev. Peter Leithart’s The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church is more than an expanded version of his well known article “Too Catholic to be Catholic.” Leithart has brought a more nuanced and sophisticated level of analysis to his critique of Protestant denominationalism by drawing on social science literature. He has done more than criticize denominationalism; he has also provided concrete examples that exemplify his vision of a reunited Christianity. His writing style – passionate, scholarly, and eloquent – while easy to read, is not lightweight.

Leithart’s book deserves attention because he is on the forefront of a movement of Protestants seeking to reconnect with the Ancient Church while also addressing Protestantism’s tragic divisions. Another reason for an Orthodox assessment is that Leithart has included Orthodoxy in his quest for Christian unity. Indeed, Pastor Leithart even addresses part of the book to Protestants who increasingly are being drawn to Orthodoxy – curiously seeking to dissuade them from re-uniting with the historic Orthodox Church!

Breaking Ties With the Ancient Church

It is widely acknowledged that one of Protestantism’s fundamental problems is its divisions. While most Protestants agree that denominational divisions are not good – division, even divisiveness has historically been its dominant characteristic – starting from the very beginning with Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. Protestants have taken several approaches to the problem of a divided Christianity. Many Evangelicals posit an invisible Church comprised of all true believers. What unites this invisible Church is not shared doctrine but the subjective “born again” experience. Another is the Branch Theory which holds that church unity is found in the three historic branches: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism.

Being a good Protestant, Leithart rejects the claims either of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy to be the true Church. As a high church Protestant, Leithart rejects the unity of the invisible Church. What Leithart proposes is that there will be a visible, unified Church in the future.

The unity of the church is not an invisible reality that renders visible things irrelevant. It is a future reality that gives present actions their orientation and meaning. Things are what they are as anticipations of what they will be (p. 19, italics in original; cf. p. 26).

This future-oriented ecumenism is not new. Gabriel Fackre – Andover Newton Theological School’s Samuel Abbott Professor of Christian Theology Emeritus – in an essay written in 1990 described the United Church of Christ’s ecumenism. This essay anticipated Rev. Leithart’s future oriented vision of church unity by 25 years.

Diversity is not the foe of doctrine. It stretches those who honor it toward catholicity. May we live out the enriching unity we have and toward a larger unity to come (Fackre p. 149; italics in original, bold added).

Pastor Leithart has an evolutionary understanding of the Church in which doctrine, practice, and worship evolve over time. The danger of Pastor Leithart’s solution is that it entails a parting of ways with the Ancient Church.

One weakness of Protestantism has been its wholesale neglect of church history, especially the first 1,000 years. The ironic tragedy of Leithart’s unified church of the future is that this church would have been rejected and excluded from Holy Communion by the early Church Fathers. Mercersburg theologian John Nevin in “Early Christianity” describes the estrangement between Protestantism and the Ancient Church:

The great Athanasius, now in London or New York, would be found worshipping only at Catholic altars. Augustine would not be acknowledged by any evangelical sect. Chrysostom would feel the Puritanism of New England more inhospitable and dry than the Egyptian desert (p. 271).

And, given the many changes that have taken place in recent decades, one has reason to wonder: How many modern day Evangelicals and Protestants would be welcome at the Eucharist in Luther, Calvin, and Bucer’s church? Readers of Leithart’s book should be aware of the high cost that comes with Leithart’s proposed solution: broken fellowship with the early Church.

A Protestant Solution

For all Pastor Leithart’s sweeping ecumenical vision, his solutions are surprisingly Protestant. Leithart gives with one hand, but then takes back with the other. At first he “retracts” certain Protestant positions then he quietly reinstates the same Protestant positions.

Mary will be honored as God-bearer. Saints will be celebrated. Church buildings will be bright and colorful. But in the reformed Catholic church, there will be no prayers to Mary, no appeals to the saints, no veneration of icons. . . . . Formerly Presbyterian and Baptist churches will paint their walls and put in stained glass (p. 32; emphasis added).

Pastor Leithart remains resolutely Protestant. This is evident in his flat out refusal to subject the Protestant Reformation to critical scrutiny.

The Reformation recovered central biblical and evangelical truths and practices that Protestants ought not to sacrifice. Even after Vatican II and the ecumenical movement, even after the joint Lutheran-Catholic statement on the doctrine of justification, many of the traditional Protestant criticisms of Catholicism and Orthodoxy (of the papacy, of Marian doctrines, of icon veneration, of the cult of the saints) hold (p. 169).

While many of the criticisms the Reformers directed against Roman Catholicism were valid, Protestants like Rev. Leithart need to come to terms with the fact that the Reformation took place in the 1500s, a long time after the early Church, and that it has introduced many doctrinal and liturgical innovations not found in the early Church. The discrepancy between Protestantism and early Christianity is something that Protestants must give account for.

So What’s New?
Reading Leithart’s book brought back memories of my former denomination the United Church of Christ (UCC). The future church which Pastor Leithart described with moving eloquence in Chapter 3 sounds much like the mild liberalism of the UCC in the 1950s and the 1960s. In line with the title of his book, Rev. Leithart calls for Protestant denominations and churches to “die,” that is, to cease to exist in their present forms in order for new forms to emerge. He writes:

We are called to die to our divisions, to the institutional divisions of denominationalism, in order to become what we will be, the one body of the Son of God (p. 165; emphasis added).

Similar language of death and rebirth as a means to church unity can be found in the UCC’s 1957 “The Preamble to the Basis of Union” which reads:

Affirming our devotion to one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our membership in the holy catholic Church, which is greater than any single Church and than all the Churches together;

Believing that denominations exist not for themselves but as parts of that Church, within which each denomination is to live and labor and, if need be, die; and

Confronting the divisions and hostilities of our world, and hearing with a deepened sense of responsibility the prayer of our Lord “that they all may be one” . . . . (Emphasis added.)

All that Rev. Leithart has done in End of Protestantism is to update the ecumenical vision of the 1950s that gave birth to the UCC. So what’s new?

The Challenge of Liberal Theology

Peter Leithart’s vision of the future church is one where church unity takes priority over doctrinal specificity. Love and inclusion takes priority over exclusivist fundamentalism. Theologically, the future church will embrace the rich multiplicity of confessions but with no one confession binding on all.

Confessions, however, will cease to serve as wedges to pry one set of Christians from another. Confessions will be used for edification rather than as a set of shibboleths for excluding those who mispronounce (pp. 27-28; emphasis added).

There is a subtle disparaging tone here in Pastor Leithart’s understanding of how creeds function to protect the Church against heresy. He decries what he calls “shibboleths,” but there have been instances when so-called minor differences have had tremendous consequences. Historically, the Nicene Creed functioned to protect the Church from heresy. While the Nicene Creed was being formulated, there was a debate over whether the Son was homoousios (same Being) with the Father or homoiousios (similar being) with the Father. The difference in just one letter – one iota – meant the difference between affirming Jesus’ divinity or denying it. (See Peter Brown’s article about the iota of difference.) Leithart’s inclusive approach to creeds, by relativizing the authority of the creeds, opens the door to heresy.

A striking similarity can be seen in the way Pastor Leithart and the UCC both sought to read Scripture in the context of the historic creeds. Leithart writes:

Confessions and creeds will remain in play. Churches will unite around the early creeds and will continue to use the treasures of the great confessions of the Reformation, of Trent and the Catholic Catechism, and of the hundreds of creeds and confessions that the global South will produce between now and then (p. 27).

The UCC’s Basis of Union “Section II. Faith” shows a similar inclusive approach:

The faith which unites us and to which we bear witness is that faith in God which the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments set forth, which the ancient Church expressed in the ecumenical creeds, to which our own spiritual fathers gave utterance in the evangelical confessions of the Reformation, and which we are in duty bound to express in the words of our time as God Himself gives us light. In all our expressions of that faith we seek to preserve unity of heart and spirit with those who have gone before us as well as those who now labor with us (emphases added).

Gabriel Fackre, one of the UCC’s leading theologians, described the UCC’s approach of using creeds to interpret Scripture in a similar way:

As the scriptures are the source of our understanding of Christ, the historic ecumenical and confessional tradition is a key resource in construing its meaning (p. 141; italics in original).

For those who grew up in the provincial sub-culture of Evangelicalism all this might sound daring but for those who grew up in mainline Protestantism this is familiar territory. Within a matter of a few decades the UCC’s inclusive ecumenism degenerated into radical liberalism. For those of us who had to struggle against UCC’s tragic apostasy from historic Christianity Pastor Leithart’s confessional eclecticism strikes us as naive.

Many Evangelicals are unaware of how insulated they are. They hold in high esteem teachers and pastors for their “unique” and “brilliant” insights into Scripture not knowing that much has been borrowed from others. What seem to be bold and innovative teachings are often drawn from one of the early Church Fathers or, worse yet, a revived heresy. This is why knowledge of church history is so important for sound theology.

One of the flaws of the UCC has been its susceptibility to theological liberalism. When my former home church voted to withdraw from the UCC, I was struck by two things: (1) how so many liberals were enraged at my home church’s decision to exercise congregational autonomy in order to hold to what the Bible teaches and (2) the casual disregard the liberals had towards the doctrinal issues that prompted my former home church to withdraw. Surprisingly, Peter Leithart devoted very little attention to the threat of Liberalism (p. 78, 178). This makes me suspect that Pastor Leithart seriously underestimates the danger of liberal theology. From my time in the UCC, I can say I’ve experienced Peter Leithart’s “reformed Catholic church.” It is like a delightful and colorful Indian summer before the cold grey and grim winter sets in.

I have several questions for Pastor Leithart:

When you described the future ‘reformed Catholic church,’ are you not reiterating the mildly liberal United Church of Christ of the 1950s and 1960s?

And given the UCC’s later apostasy, what safeguards will your ‘reformed Catholic church’ have to ensure it remains in historic orthodoxy?

Article: “Premodern Sacramental Eclectic”

Post-Evangelical Eclecticism

The Evangelical subculture in many ways is a closed off, provincial religious ghetto. Most who grow up within this bubble are all but completely unaware of this rich heritage to be found in the two thousand years of church history. When they do discover this bigger world many become enthusiastically inclusive and eclectic in their theology and practices giving rise to what many have dubbed “post-Evangelicalism.” This post-Evangelical shift can lead to a quest for church unity. Peter Leithart’s ecumenical vision reflects this optimistic post-Evangelical eclecticism.

Former Lutherans will discover fresh insights in the writings of former Mennonites and Calvinists; former Baptists will study encyclicals from Rome with appreciation; former Methodists will deepen their insights into the liturgy by studying Eastern Christian writers. . . . . Origen and Augustine and Aquinas and Luther and Barth will be remembered and honored (p. 27)

What Pastor Leithart writes above is nothing new. In my early days, I felt stifled by the literature of popular Evangelicalism, so I was delighted to discover the theological richness of the Heidelberg Catechism and Calvin’s Institutes. Later, I began to explore Roman Catholicism, reading John Paul II’s encyclicals, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, Francis of Assisi, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and GK Chesterton. To balance things out, I also read up on liberation theology: Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff; and contemporary Catholic spirituality writers like Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen. While I was reading up on covenant theology and Mercersburg Theology, I was also trying to keep up with the Charismatic Renewal. At first, all of this reading was exciting, but after awhile it became tiring. I was like a tourist constantly on the road, visiting new and exotic locations. I never really settled down for long, and when I did come back to my Protestant home, I found that the neighborhood had changed quite a bit. I felt at home with the people of my home church but did not really feel at home theologically. Many American Christians today likewise drift from one new and grand theological insight to the next, religious nomads looking for greener pastures.

Ancient Chinese Map

Our theological systems are like maps. They purport to tell us where we came from, where we are at present, and they guide us to where we wish to go – to our destination. Not all maps are accurate. As a matter of fact, bad maps will take us into great danger. One could collect maps as a hobby, but when on the road, one needs to commit to one good map to reach one’s destination. Constantly switching maps does no good if one is lost and trying to find the way home. Post-Evangelicals who enthusiastically read across religious traditions are like avid map collectors. They may enjoy seeing the wide world out there but sooner or later they will have to decide where their spiritual home is. Eventually, after reading extensively across traditions, I found myself drawn to the ancient wisdom of the early Church Fathers which helped me discover the historic Orthodox Church.

Jesus’ Prayer for Unity – An Exegetical History

One key premise of Rev. Leithart’s book is that God will fulfill Jesus’ prayer in John 17 for a future unified Church (pp. 13, 115, esp. 173). We read in John 17:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23, NIV; emphasis added)

Leithart made John 17 foundational to his quest for church unity:

We can know that God will keep his promise to make his people one as he is one with his Son. Somehow, someday, reunion will happen, because the Father gave his Son to make it happen (p. 26).

To achieve anything resembling this vision, every church will have to die, often to good things, often to some of the things they hold most dear. Protestant churches will have to become more catholic, and Catholic and Orthodox churches will have to become more biblical. We will all have to die in order to follow the Lord Jesus who prays that we all may be one (p. 36).

But does Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 apply to Protestantism’s divisions? To answer this question, we need to look at how historically the early Church Fathers interpreted this passage.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) understood this reference to unity as an affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. In Of the Christian Faith Book 4 Chapter 3 §34 he writes:

But who can with a good conscience deny the one Godhead of the Father and the Son, when our Lord, to complete His teaching for His disciples, said: “That they may be one, even as we also are one.” The record stands for witness to the Faith, though Arians turn it aside to suit their heresy; for, inasmuch as they cannot deny the Unity so often spoken of, they endeavour to diminish it, in order that the Unity of Godhead subsisting between the Father and the Son may seem to be such as is unity of devotion and faith amongst men themselves continually of nature makes unity thereof. (NPNF Vol. X, p. 266, cf. p. 227)

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) understood Jesus’ reference to his unity with the Father as an affirmation of his role as divine Mediator. In his homilies on the Gospel of John Tractate 110 §4 Augustine notes:

And then He added: “I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” Here He briefly intimated Himself as the Mediator between God and men.

But in adding, “That they may be perfect in one,” He showed that the reconciliation, which is effected by the Mediator, is carried to the very length of bringing us to the enjoyment of that perfect blessedness, which is thenceforth incapable of further addition. (Homilies on the Gospel of John; NPNF Series I, Vol. 7, §4; p. 410)

In The Trinity Augustine understood John 17:21 to be an affirmation of Jesus’ divinity and his office as mediator. He writes:

This is what he means when he says that they may be one as we are one (Jn 17:22)—that just as Father and Son are one not only by equality of substance but also by identity of will, so these men, for whom the Son is mediator with God, might be one not only by being, of the same nature, but also by being bound in the fellowship of the same love. Finally, he shows that he is the mediator by whom we are reconciled to God, when he says, I in them and you in me, that they may be perfected into one (Jn 17:23). (The Trinity Book 4, Chapter 2 §12; p. 161; Transl. Edmund Hill; italics in original, bold added; NewAdvent.org On the Holy Trinity Book 4 chapter 9)

The context for mediation here is that unity between God and sinful humanity, not a unity among rival denominations.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200/210-258) received a letter (date 256) from Firmilian, the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which contains a reference to John 17:21. Firmilian used the passage to affirm the Church’s unity in the face of geographic separation. He also understood John 17 as referring to the Christian’s union with God.

And this also which we now observe in you, that you who are separated from us by the most extensive regions, approve yourselves to be, nevertheless joined with us in mind and spirit. All which arises from the divine unity. For even as the Lord who dwells in us is one and the same, He everywhere joins and couples His own people in the bond of unity, whence their sound has gone out into the whole earth, who are sent by the Lord swiftly running in the spirit of unity; as, on the other hand, it is of no advantage that some are very near and joined together bodily, if in spirit and mind they differ, since souls cannot at all be united which divide themselves from God’s unity. “For, lo,” it says, “they that are far from Thee shall perish.” But such shall undergo judgment of God according to their desert, as depart from His words who prays to the Father for unity, and says, “Father, grant that, as Thou and I are one, so they also may be one in us.” (Epistle LXXIV §3, NPNF Series 2 Vol. V, pp. 390-391; emphases added)

The controversial Alexandrian theologian Origen (c. 185-c. 254) interpreted John 17:21 in light of Neo-Platonist philosophy. In De Principiis he describes how the end will be like the beginning. He notes that where the Fall consists of humanity and creation lapsing into complexity and diversity, the end will consist of the restoration to unity promised in John 17:21 (ANF Vol. IV, De Principiis Book I, Ch. 6 §2; pp. 260-261).

John Chrysostom (c. 344/354-407) notes in Homily 82 in the series on John’s Gospel that verse 21 refers to concord among the Christians and that verse 23 means that peace has greater ability to persuade men than miracles (NPNF Series 2 Vol. XIV, p. 304; New Advent Homily 82).

To sum up, a review of early Christian writings fails to show anyone interpreting Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23 in a manner similar to Rev. Leithart’s. This lacuna – the failure to consider other possible readings of John 17 – raises significant questions about the validity of Pastor Leithart’s exegesis. The absence of patristic precedence suggests that Leithart’s ecumenical reading of John 17:20-23 is a novelty. This in turn suggests that he has wrongly applied the Johannine passage to the Protestant predicament of division and denominationalism. The dubiety of Leithart’s exegesis turns his future-oriented ecumenism from inevitable to improbable. If the biblical basis for Rev. Leithart’s evolutionary ecumenism is flawed, then it needs to be revised or even discarded for another approach to church unity.

Is Closed Communion Divisive?

Pastor Leithart laments the “divisiveness” of closed communion (p. 170), but he should take into consideration the benefits of closed communion. Historically, closed communion, by protecting the Church against heresies, upheld the unity of the Church. Interestingly, Protestant churches have overwhelmingly (until recently) taken their cue from Calvin, Luther, and other Reformers who practiced closed communion. It was not until the 1970s that open communion became widely accepted in Protestant circles. In other words, Leithart’s call for open communion is a novelty at odds with historic Protestantism and ancient Christianity.

Receiving Communion in the Orthodox Church is a sign of one’s sharing the same faith with the Ancient Church as well as with fellow Orthodox believers today. What makes this possible is that every local Eucharistic celebration is carried out under the bishop who is part of the chain of succession going back to the Apostles. For example, the local Greek Orthodox parish through its bishop has a direct historical link to John Chrysostom and the Ecumenical Councils. The local Antiochian Orthodox parish through its bishop has a direct historical connection to John of Damascus and Ignatius of Antioch. This historic connection is something no Protestant church can claim due to the schism underlying the Reformation.

Pastor Leithart is more than welcome to partake of Eucharist at an Orthodox church providing he is willing to accept Apostolic Tradition and come under the teaching authority of the Orthodox bishops, the successors to the Apostles. But if he wishes to hold on to the doctrinal innovations of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s then he should accept the fact that he has chosen to walk in a different tradition. Protestantism and Orthodoxy are not theologically compatible. Where many Protestants view theology as negotiable, for the Orthodox Apostolic Tradition is a treasure to be safeguarded for future generations until the Second Coming.

Leithart’s Questions for Inquirers

The solutions put forward by Pastor Leithart seem to be intended for the divisions within Protestantism. He does not devote much attention to Protestantism’s differences with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. However, he looks askance at Protestants who are interested in Orthodoxy. To Protestants contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy, Leithart posed two questions:

“What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople?” and
“Are you willing to start eating at a eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome?” (p. 170)

My answers to Rev. Leithart’s questions are as follow:

With respect to the first question, I would say: “I am deeply indebted to Protestantism for introducing me to the Bible. I am looking forward to joining the Church that gave us the Bible.”
With respect to the second question, I would say: “To be Protestant is to be cut off from eucharistic fellowship with the Ancient Church. It is regrettable that Reformers have rejected certain key doctrines that were affirmed by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Your proposed solution is intrinsically schismatic, even if that is not the intent.”

What Defines Orthodoxy

Pastor Leithart is under the mistaken impression that Orthodoxy defines itself on the basis of differences with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (p. 38). The starting point for his paradigm of church history is the Church being broken into many pieces – while we all have different pieces of the puzzle; no one has the whole picture. This forms the basis for his evolutionary approach to ecumenism which assumes that the various parties should come together and negotiate theology. Implicit to this view is theological relativism; in this paradigm there is no doctrinal orthodoxy that holds across time and space.

. . . all disputants must acknowledge that we see through a glass darkly, now only in part. We should all be ready to be corrected by brothers and sisters, whatever tradition they inhabit. We should all do theology with a prayer for brighter, more comprehensive light (p. 173).

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has a different starting point. What defines Orthodoxy is fidelity to Apostolic Tradition. This is the Tradition of the Apostle spoken of repeatedly within Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 1:13-14). This is THE Faith once and for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). The phrase “once and for all” means a one-time only giving of Apostolic Tradition, not a progressive, gradually evolving of the Christian Faith. Athanasius the Great summarized the importance of Holy Tradition for Orthodox identity:

But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. (Epistle 1 to Serapion §28)

Orthodoxy insists on keeping the Apostolic Faith intact – unlike Roman Catholicism which has added to Holy Tradition and Protestantism which has rejected parts of Holy Tradition. This can be ascertained through a comparison of the Orthodox Church today with the Ancient Church. Leithart’s evolutionary approach is radically at odds with Orthodoxy’s two thousand years of safeguarding Apostolic Tradition.

To readers who find Pastor Leithart’s vision of a reunified church that includes Orthodoxy appealing, I want to say in all charity and truthfulness: “That’s not going to happen. We’re Orthodox; we don’t change.” This means that those who wish to remain Protestant should realize this means walking on a separate path from Orthodoxy. We can have friendly relations, but we will not share in the Eucharist. I am not opposed to what Leithart referred to as “strategic alliances” (p. 64). This is very much needed as we move into a post-Christian American culture.

My Assessment

Despite his commendable intentions, Peter Leithart’s End of Protestantism suffers from several serious flaws.

First, Leithart’s evolutionary approach to church history creates a division between present day Protestantism and the Ancient Church. The notion of an embryonic Apostolic Faith is nowhere to be found in Scripture or in church history. The Faith, once and for all delivered by the Apostles to the Church, was never assumed to be an infant or immature Faith that continually morphs and evolves throughout history. They understood it to be a mature Faith from the start. Many Protestants are unaware that their doctrines and worship would bar them from receiving Communion in the Ancient Church.

Second, Leithart’s book provides a dubious Protestant solution to a Protestant problem. His refusal to even consider relinquishing Protestant beliefs serves only to reinforce the schism with the Ancient Church. For example, none of the Church Fathers taught the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. While the early Church Fathers did affirm the authority of Scripture, they taught Scripture IN Tradition. With sola scriptura the Protestant Reformers introduced the novel notion of Scripture OVER Tradition. By jettisoning Holy Tradition, sola scripura opened the door to Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos and the unprecedented proliferation of denominations. It is only with the repudiation of sola scriptura and the return to Apostolic Tradition that Protestantism can find healing for its divisions. Protestants longing for the one holy catholic and apostolic Church need to break out of the Protestant paradigm of sola scriptura and embrace the paradigm of Apostolic Tradition.

Third, Leithart’s proposed Reformational Catholicism sounds very much like a repeat of the ecumenical approach taken by the United Church of Christ which has since succumbed to theological liberalism. Church history contains many valuable lessons. It behooves Pastor Leithart and readers of his book to heed the warning from the tragedy of the UCC lest they repeat the UCC’s ecumenical disaster.

Fourth, the premise underlying Leithart’s ecumenical vision – John 17:21-23, is based on a novel reading at odds with historic exegesis. Because Protestants revere Scripture as the divinely inspired Word of God, they value the right interpretation of Scripture. The questionable exegesis underlying Pastor Leithart’s ecumenical vision should give thoughtful Protestants pause.

Fifth, with respect to Protestantism’s schism with Orthodoxy Rev. Leithart’s greatly underestimates how his Protestantism sabotages any attempt to reconcile the two traditions. Protestants need to realize that they are walking in a tradition separated from Ancient Christianity. In 1672, the Orthodox Church in the Confession of Dositheus formally condemned Reformed theology. The formal conciliar nature of this rejection of Protestantism is something ecumenists like Leithart cannot avoid. Peter Leithart’s optimistic future oriented ecumenism holds that the two paths will one day meet up but this review has raised issues that call this into question. Leithart has not taken seriously the difficulty of merging Protestantism with Orthodoxy.

Indeed, Protestants must come to terms with their duplicity toward the early Church, particularly the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. One cannot at one and the same time mine gems of theological truth and wisdom from the Church Fathers then later scorn and vilify them as idolaters or immature theologians.

As a theological map Peter Leithart’s The End of Protestantism is flawed. It will likely take its users into dangerous territory and cause them to waste valuable time that could be used more productively. There are two alternative paths to the future for the reader. One is to exclude Orthodoxy from Leithart’s ecumenical vision. This is the path if one wishes to hold on to one’s Protestant identity. The other is to be willing to measure Protestantism against the Ancient Church and being open to making changes in light of Ancient Christianity. In addition to the example of Peter Gillquist’s Becoming Orthodox, there is the more recent example of Joseph Gleason in the article “A Calvinist Anglican Converts to Orthodoxy.”

“Who’s your bishop?”

A Thought Experiment

Imagine that Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons appear at Pastor Leithart’s church in Birmingham, Alabama, one Sunday morning. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch, Apostle Paul’s home church (see Acts 13:1-3). He authored several letters just before his martyrdom around 98/117. Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons, a city on the western edge of the Roman Empire. He was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of Apostle John, and wrote Against Heresies prior to his martyrdom circa 195. Both men lived in the second century shortly after the Apostles had passed on and were known for their zeal in defending the Christian Faith. What would they say to Leithart over coffee after worship?

Likely, Ignatius’ question would be, “Who is your bishop?” As a good Calvinist, Leithart’s answer would be: “We don’t have bishops. We’re Reformed Presbyterians.” Ignatius’ follow-up question would likely be: “But you do know that without a bishop’s approval you don’t have a valid Eucharist? You would know this if you read my letter to the Smyrnaeans.” Irenaeus would then chime in, “Reformed Protestants? I never heard of these words. Is this part of Tradition received from the Apostles? I was talking with one of your parishioners and he told me that the Protestant Reformation began in the 1500s!”

Bishop Alexander

Let us say that a little later bishops Ignatius and Irenaeus were to sit down for lunch with the local Orthodox priest with Pastor Leithart joining them. In the course of the meal Ignatius would ask the Orthodox priest: “Who is your bishop?” The priest would quickly answer: “His Grace Bishop Alexander of the Diocese of the South of the Orthodox Church in America.” Irenaeus would follow up with, “Do you teach the Tradition of the Apostles?” The priest would answer: “Our church home page has this statement of purpose: ‘The community is committed to keeping the Faith as transmitted by the Apostles to the first Fathers of the Church and preserved in the Holy Orthodox Church.’” At some point Pastor Leithart must reckon with the reality. First, the saints of old would find the innovations of Protestantism strange and at odds with Apostolic Tradition. Second, they would recognize the historic Tradition of the Apostles preserved and guarded in the local Orthodox parish. A sobering reality indeed for Protestants.

Protestantism’s End

We are thankful for Protestant men like Pastor Leithart who seriously seek Church unity and wonder if the title of his book tells us more than he intended? If Protestants are truly sincere about uniting with Orthodoxy, they would need to embrace the Orthodox Church in all its fullness and historicity. This, to play on the title of Leithart’s book, would mean the end of Protestantism. It can be done. Peter Gillquist’s Becoming Orthodox tells how a group of Evangelicals transitioned from Protestantism to Orthodoxy. The transition was not easy. Returning to the Faith of the Ancient Church required their relinquishing certain Protestant beliefs, but in 1987 some 2000 Evangelicals were received into the Orthodox Church. Readers who wish to know more about what is involved in transitioning from Protestantism to Orthodox will find the article “Crossing the Bosphorus” helpful on the theological and practical levels.

Robert Arakaki

References

Robert Arakaki. 2012. “Unintended Schism: A Response to Peter Leithart’s ‘Too Catholic to be Catholic.’” OrthodoxBridge (12 June).

Robert Arakaki. 2013. “Crossing the Bosphorus.” OrthodoxBridge (15 January).

Athanasius the Great. 1951. The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion. Trans. and ed., C.R.B. Shapland. Uploaded by Mark Walley 2014.

Augustine. 1991. The Trinity. Translator, Edmund Hill, OP. New City Press.

Peter Brown. 2014. “The Homoousios Controversy and Semi-Arianism.” Jesus Christ God, Man and Savior Week Six: God the Son at Nicea and Constantinople. (Version 7 updated 5 October).

Fr. Stephen Andrew Damick. 2013. “‘A Premodern Sacramental Eclectic?’: Evangelicals Reaching for Tradition.” OrthodoxyAndHeterodoxy (25 June).

Gabriel Fackre. 1990. “Christian Doctrine in the United Church of Christ.” In Theology and Identity: Traditions, Movements, and Polity in the United Church of Christ. Edited by Daniel L. Johnson and Charles Hambrick-Stowe. Pilgrim Press.

Peter Gillquist. 2010. Becoming Orthodox. Conciliar Press, 3^rd edition.

Joseph Gleason. 2013. “A Calvinist Anglican Converts to Orthodoxy.” JourneyToOrthodoxy (24 October).

Peter Leithart. 2016. End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church. Brazos Press (a division of Baker Publishing Group).

Peter Leithart. 2012. “Too Catholic to be Catholic.” First Things (21 May).

John Williamson Nevin. 1978. “Early Christianity.” Catholic and Reformed, pp. 177-310. Editors, Charles Yrigoyen and George Bricker. The Pickwick Press.

Andrew Tooley. 2007. “Emerging Church: Evangelical or Post-Evangelical Pioneer?” Catalyst ( 1 November).

United Church of Christ. “Basis of Union.”

Brian Zahnd. 2013. “A Premodern Sacramental Eclectic.” BrianZahnd.com (24 June)

See Also

David George Moore. 2016. “End of Protestantism (a review of Peter Leithart).” Jesus Creed (22 October).

Kris Song. 2016. “Is This the ‘End of Protestantism?’ A Review of Peter Leithart’s Latest Book on Church Unity.” The Two Cities (27 October).

Fred Sanders. 2016. “Does Protestantism Need to Die?” Christianity Today (21 October).

Douglas Wilson. 2016. “The Purported End of Protestantism.” Blog and Mablog (2 November).

Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 6 of 17)

Guilty of Bibliolatry?

The Apostolic Failure of the Reformed Church

Review – Peter Leithart’s “The End of Protestantism”

An Orthodox Assessment

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives