Page 49 of 93

Calvin and the “Fall of the Church”

January 29, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 97 Comments

Did John Calvin believe in the “Fall of the Church”? That is, did he believe that the early Church apostatized from Apostolic doctrine and worship, and that true Christianity was not restored until the Protestant Reformation? The “Fall of the Church” is widely held among Protestants but some of our readers deny that Calvin held this view calling it a “canard.”

Part I. The BOBO Theory

Fuller Seminary professor and missiologist Ralph D. Winter noticed that many Evangelicals are under the impression that Christianity “Blinked-Out” after the Apostles and then “Blinked-On” with the Protestant Reformers.

. . . “BOBO” theory—that the Christian faith somehow “Blinked Out” after the Apostles and “Blinked On” again in our time, or whenever our modern “prophets” arose, be they Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Joseph Smith, Ellen White or John Wimber. The result of this kind of BOBO approach is that you have “early” saints and “latter-day” saints, but no saints in the middle.

Winter noted that this view has resulted in Protestants having little interest in the one thousand years of church history before the Reformation because nothing spiritually important was happening between the New Testament church and the 1500s. Winter wrote about the negative effect this had on Protestants:

But this only really means that these children do not get exposed to all the incredible things God did with that Bible between the times of the Apostles and the Reformers, a period which is staggering proof of the unique power of the Bible! To many people, it is as if there were “no saints in the middle.”

The BOBO theory is crucial to Protestantism’s self understanding. Protestants believe that after the calamitous “Fall of the Church,” the Reformation marked a return to the early Church – the way it was meant to be. Without this justification, the Reformation would be a schismatic deviation. Sometimes one is presented with a more subtly nuanced version that allows for a small continuing “Remnant Church” present throughout church history that held on to the True Faith – of course assumed to be more or less Protestant. The problem with this view, aside from the lack of historical evidence, is that this supposed historic “Remnant” existed independently of any historically recognized Church be it Orthodox or even Roman Catholic.

Did Calvin Hold to the BOBO Theory?

In “Necessity of Reforming the Church” Calvin made reference to the “primitive and purer Church” (p. 215). In his Institutes Calvin saw icons, altars, vestments, ritual gestures, and other decorations as signs of the early Church’s decline and degeneration.

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations. Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. (Institutes 1.11.13, p. 113; emphasis added)

Calvin also traced the fall of the church to the emergence of liturgical worship, something that commenced soon after the original Apostles passed on. Calvin wrote in the Institutes:

Under the apostles the Lord’s Supper was administered with great simplicity. Their immediate successors added something to enhance the dignity of the mystery which was not to be condemned. But afterward they were replaced by those foolish imitators, who, by patching pieces from time to time, contrived for us these priestly vestments that we see in the Mass, these altar ornaments, these gesticulations, and the whole apparatus of useless things. (Institutes 4.10.19, p. 1198; emphasis added)

In this passage we find a succession of: (1) “the Apostles,” (2) their second generation “immediate successors,” and (3) the subsequent generations of “foolish imitators.” What Calvin is asserting here is that the Eucharist underwent considerable change shortly after the passing of the Apostles resulting in the “Fall of the Church.” That all this happened within a few decades or in the first century after the Apostles’ repose raises serious questions about Calvin’s understanding of post-Apostolic Christianity. Calvin here is implying that the Apostles’ disciples disregarded Paul’s exhortations to “preserve” and “guard” the Faith “with the help of the Holy Spirit” (see 2 Timothy 1:14). This alleged “Fall” raises serious questions about the sincerity of the Apostles’ disciples and about the Holy Spirit’s presence in the early Church. This is not a small claim but very serious accusations!

We have here two different versions of the “Fall of the Church”: (1) an immediate Fall right after the passing of the original Apostles (Institutes 4.10.19) and (2) a later Fall after the first five centuries (Institutes 1.11.13). This inconsistency makes it hard for a church history major like me to ascertain when the “Fall” took place, who instigated the “Fall,” and what was the driving force behind the “Fall.”

The Blinked-Out, Blinked-On trope is especially evident in Calvin’s essay “The Necessity of Reforming the Church”:

This much certainly must be clear alike to just and unjust, that the Reformers have done no small service to the Church in stirring up the world as from the deep darkness of ignorance to read the Scriptures, in labouring diligently to make them better understood, and in happily throwing light on certain points of doctrine of the highest practical importance. (“Necessity” pp. 186-187, cf. p. 191; emphasis added)

We maintain to start with that, when God raised up Luther and others, who held forth a torch to light us into the way of salvation, and on whose ministry our churches are founded and built, those heads of doctrine in which the truth of our religion, those in which the pure and legitimate worship of God, and those in which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in a great measure obsolete. (“Necessity” pp. 185-186; emphasis added)

Therefore, from the evidences above it is clear that Calvin did in fact hold to the BOBO theory of church history. Orthodox theologians and historians can in many ways agree with Calvin about the Roman Church’s decline. However, where many Orthodox view Rome’s decline as having occurred after the Great Schism of 1054, Calvin viewed the “Fall of the Church” as having occurred during the time of the Ecumenical Councils when Rome was in communion with the other patriarchates. This is something Orthodox Christians would find problematic. Orthodoxy believes that it has faithfully kept and preserved Apostolic Tradition for the past two thousand years and because it never suffered a “Fall” is the same Church as the early Church.

Calvin’s Dispensationalism

Calvin’s understanding of church history as discontinuous marked by ruptures is not all that anomalous. One sees a similar understanding in Calvin’s view of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. He wrote:

For if we are not to throw everything into confusion, we must always bear in mind the distinction between the old and new dispensations, and the fact that ceremonies, whose observance was useful under the law, are now not only superfluous but absurd and wicked. When Christ was absent and not yet manifested, ceremonies by shadowing him forth nourished the hope of his advent in the breasts of believers; but now they only obscure his present and conspicuous glory. We see what God himself has done. For those ceremonies which he had commanded for a time he has now abrogated forever. (“Necessity” p. 192; emphasis added)

The problem with this statement is that it is unbiblical. It contradicts Matthew 5:17 where Christ taught that he did not come to abolish (abrogate) the Law but to fulfill it. With the New Covenant came a new priesthood based on Christ’s priesthood and a new form of worship based on Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross. Here It seems is the root cause of Calvin’s mistake – he tragically transposed the Protestants’ controversy with Roman Catholicism onto the early Church.

Part II. The Historical Evidence

Calvin’s belief that the early church fell away from the Apostles’ teachings can be tested by examining the earliest Christian writings with respect to: (1) the Eucharist, (2) the use of icons in worship, (3) the Gospel Message, and (4) church government (the episcopacy). We will be using the following writings: (1) the Didache (c. 90-110), (2) the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98-117), (3) Justin Martyr’s Apology (d. 165), and (4) Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies (d. 202). These comprise the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament and thus give us valuable insights into the faith and practices of the post-Apostolic Church and allow us to ascertain the degree of continuity in faith and practice.

Eucharistic meal – 3rd century Roman catacomb

The Eucharist

One way of testing Calvin’s “Fall of the Church” theory is by examining early Christian worship. One feature that immediately stands out is the importance of the Eucharist for the early Christians and their sacramental understanding of the Eucharist.

When I was a Protestant one thing I always heard at the monthly Holy Communion service was the pastor emphasizing that the bread and the grape juice were just symbols. So when I read the early church fathers I was struck by the fact that none of the church fathers taught that the bread and the wine were just symbols. As a matter of fact, they taught something quite different. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality (Letter to the Ephesians 20:2). His belief in the real presence can be found in another letter.

I desire the “bread of God,” which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was “of the seed of David,” and for drink I desire his blood, which is incorruptible love. (Letter to the Romans 7.3; emphasis added)

Belief in the real presence can also be found in Justin Martyr.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (The First Apology 66; emphasis added)

Another early witness to the real presence in the Eucharist is Irenaeus.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal . . . . (Against Heresies 5.2.3; emphasis added)

The Eucharist was central to early Christian worship and theology. In the early church to deny the real presence in the Eucharist was to commit heresy. Ignatius of Antioch wrote regarding the heretics:

They abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ who suffered for our sins, which the Father raised by his goodness. (Letter to the Smyrneans 7.1; emphasis added)

As an Evangelical I was struck by the fact that it was the heretics who denied the real presence in the Eucharist. Just as significant is Ignatius’ insistence that the Eucharistic celebration is integrally linked to the office of the bishop. In other words, early church government was episcopal, not congregational!

Be careful therefore to use one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do you may do it according to God. (Letter to the Philadelphians 4.1)

As an Evangelical in a congregationalist denomination I was unsettled by the fact that modern Evangelicalism was much closer to the early heretics than they realize. This started me thinking: Was it the early Christians who fell away or the modern Evangelicals? Why is Evangelicalism so different from the early Church?

Thus, the evidence shows that the Eucharist was at the center of early Christian worship – not the sermon. By subtly displacing the Eucharist and putting the sermon at the center of Christian worship, Calvin detached the heart and focus of worship from its Eucharistic moorings. Those who came after Calvin would go even further and strip Christian worship of its sacramental character. One only need witness today’s Protestant worship to see the absence of the Eucharist most every Sunday – much less the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist! This has resulted in the recent move among Protestants to restore liturgical worship, but even then the sermon still overshadows the Eucharist.

Altar, Vestments, and Ceremonies

Calvin taught that the early church celebrated the Eucharist with “great simplicity” (Institutes 4.10.19). But he is arguing from silence. He seems to be assuming that because the New Testament writings had little to say about how the early Christians worshiped that their worship was devoid of liturgical rites and ceremonies.

When we read the Old Testament we find biblical support for the use of altars, vestments, and ceremonies in worship. The Tabernacle had two altars: one for burnt offering (Exodus 27:1-8) and another for incense (Exodus 30:1-10). The priests were dressed in ornate vestments of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet in accordance with God’s directions to Moses (Exodus 28:1-5). Thus, Old Testament worship was an elaborate affair with processions, music, and ceremonies – nothing at all like the stark austere Reformed worship!

When we come to the New Testament we find no evidence of Old Testament worship being abolished and the instituting of minimalist worship with bare walls. We do, however, find hints of Old Testament worship being carried over into Christianity. In Hebrews 13:10 is a cryptic statement: “We have an altar . . . .” This was a reference to the Eucharistic celebration. The Christians saw themselves as the New Israel of Christ and in that light viewed the Eucharist as the continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system. So we shouldn’t be surprised by Ignatius’ references to a Christian altar.

Be careful therefore to use one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with his blood, one altar . . . . (Letter to the Philadelphians 4.1; emphasis added)

And,

Hasten all to come together as to one temple of God as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, and is with one, and departed to one. (Letter to the Magnesians 7.2; emphasis added)

If the early Christians understood the Church as the Temple of the New Covenant then it is no surprise that they would view the clergy as the priests of the New Covenant (see Isaiah 66:19-21). All this makes sense in light of the fact that the Eucharist was central to early Christian worship. Thus, the wooden table or box (ark) where the priest celebrated the Eucharist would be considered an altar.

Orant gesture in background, Prophet Jonah in foreground – Roman catacomb painting

Icons

Calvin believed that the early churches were “completely free from visible representations” (Institutes 1.11.13). His assumption seems to be that because the New Testament had little to say about religious pictures in church buildings that icons were not part of early Christian worship.

But Calvin’s iconoclasm is weakened when we take into account the Old Testament passages about the images of the cherubim in the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31) and in the Temple (1 Kings 6:29-32).

Thus, the Old Testament places of worship were filled with visual representations: cherubim, palm trees, and flowers. Images of the cherubim were depicted on the curtain for the entrance to the Holy of Holies as well on the walls of the inner and outer rooms of the Temple. See my article: “The Biblical Basis for Icons.” In light of an absence of any New Testament passages mandating the removal of icons or the abolition of Old Testament worship we can assume some continuity between Jewish worship and early Christian worship.

Recent archaeological research found that Jewish synagogues around the time of Christ were not bare rooms devoid of images but embellished with religious decorations. See my article “Early Jewish Attitudes toward Images.” Especially damaging to Calvin’s argument are the recent archaeological findings of images in the Jewish synagogue and Christian church in the town of Dura Europos which was buried circa 250. Taken together the biblical and archaeological evidences present a strong refutation of Calvin’s “Fall of the Church” theory.

Dura Europos Synagogue. Source

Defending the Gospel Message

A study of early church history shows that the church faced numerous theological challenges: Ebionitism which affirmed Jesus as Messiah but not as divine, Docetism and Gnosticism which denied that Jesus was truly human, Marcionism which saw the Old and New Testaments as representing two different religions and deities, and Montanism a prophetic movement which held that Apostolic tradition was superseded by the new prophecies. One thing that is striking is the absence of any controversy during this period over the issues mentioned by Calvin: liturgical worship, vestments, incense, or icons. Surely if the early Church had drifted away from the Apostles’ teachings as Calvin alleged someone would have spoken up?

The Apostle Paul was not unaware that the Church would come under attack by heretics so he took steps to ensure the safeguarding of the Gospel. At Timothy’s ordination to the office of bishop he admonished:

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Jesus Christ. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (2 Timothy 1:13-14; NIV; emphasis added)

The phrases “pattern of sound words” and “good deposit” referred to a set of core doctrines to be held by all Christians. This was the basis for the theological unity of the early Church, to deviate from this doctrinal core was to fall into heresy. The early Christians were diligent in defending the orthodoxy of the Church. Ignatius warned Polycarp against tolerating those who taught “strange doctrine.” (Ignatius to Polycarp 3) A similar warning against “another doctrine” is found in Didache 11.1 and in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (7.2).

In Against Heresies 1.22.1 Irenaeus referred to the “rule of faith (truth)” by which one could determine someone adhered to the Apostolic teachings or not. In Against Heresies 2.9.1 Irenaeus remarked how the entire Christian Church received the Apostles’ Tradition. Polycarp in Letter to the Philippians 7.2 made reference to the traditioning process as well.

The early church preserved the Apostles’ teachings by means of the bishop having received a body of teaching from his predecessor, the bishop as the primary teacher of the local church, and the congregation united with the bishop at the weekly Eucharistic celebration. For Irenaeus theological orthodoxy was linked to the bishop’s role in the traditioning process.

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout the whole world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; . . . . (Against Heresies 4.33.8; emphasis added; see also 3.3.1)

Irenaeus described his mentor Polycarp’s efforts to remember accurately the teaching and example of his mentor the Apostle John.

And as he [Polycarp] remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. (in Eusebius’ Church History 5.20.7, NPNF p. 371; emphasis added)

In other words, the early Christians did not play fast and loose with the Apostles’ teachings as one might infer from the “Fall of the Church” theory. Rather, they sought to preserve and transmit faithfully the Apostles’ teachings to later generations. If anyone dared to stray from the regula fidei they would have been excluded from the Eucharist. That is why the episcopacy and the Eucharist were so critical to the theological integrity of the early Church.

Priests and Bishops

Just as the Jewish temple had a priesthood so too did the early church have a priesthood (clergy). Under the New Covenant the Eucharist was based on Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the Cross. The bishop along with the priests (presbyters) presided over the Eucharistic assembly. Ignatius was an early witness to the three orders: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ . . . . (Letter to the Magnesians 6.1; emphasis added)

He viewed this threefold hierarchy, not as optional, but as necessary.

Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as the bishop is also a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles. Without these the name of “Church” is not given. (Letter to the Trallians 3.1; emphasis added)

In his Letter to the Smyrneans 8 Ignatius stressed that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not valid unless done with the consent of the bishop. Irenaeus made a similar point as well:

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. (Against Heresies 4.26.2,)

An examination of church history shows that the episcopacy was the universal form of church governance. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that we see the emergence of novel polities: congregationalism, presbyterianism, and independent non-denominationalism.

Assessing Calvin’s “Fall of the Church” Theory

While insightful, Ralph Winter’s essay seems to have overlooked some of the startling theological implications of the BOBO theory. One implication is that the Holy Spirit was active in the early days of the church then disappeared for the next thousand years or more then reappeared with the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s! Also, Winter did not discuss Christ’s promise in John 14:26: “but the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” This has profound implications for the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in history. For Reformed Christians this gap in church history also has troubling implications for God’s ability to keep his covenant promises. How can a Reformed Christian square his belief in the sovereignty of God and covenant theology with the “Fall of the Church” theory proposed by Calvin?

For me as a church history major the “Fall of the Church” theory stems from a foundational flaw. The “Fall of the Church” theory makes sense if one reads church history with the assumption that the early Christians were Calvinists. Any hints of liturgical worship among early Christians, i.e., anything unlike Reformed worship, can be attributed to their “falling away.” But this approach is like taking a meat cleaver and hacking church history into pieces! It utterly disregards the notion of historical continuity and development. A more reasonable approach is to view early Christian worship of the second century described in the post-apostolic writings as flowing from the Christian worship of the first century described in the New Testament. In light of the evidences one can then decide whether or not early Christian worship was liturgical, simple or elaborate, with or without icons. And whether or not there was continuity or significant departures in practice or doctrine. The second century writings are more useful for understanding first century Christian worship than those from the 1500s, the time of rhe Reformers.

Calvin’s BOBO theory of church history was influential in the Reformed tradition until Philip Schaff gave his “Principle of Protestantism” address in 1844. In it Schaff proposed that the Protestant Reformation represented the flowering of medieval Catholicism. Where Calvin saw discontinuity and rupture, Schaff saw continuity and evolution. Thanks to Schaff church history became an academic discipline that stood on its own independent of theology. This allowed for the emergence of historical theology. Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition is probably one of the finest works of historical theology in the twentieth century and extremely useful for understanding commonalities and divergences in the different theological traditions. [Note: This eminent Yale historian and long time Lutheran pastor to the surprise of many converted to Orthodoxy!]

Calvin’s theological system is complex and contains contradictions. These contradictions offer points of contact between the Reformed tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy. Despite his view that early Christianity had deteriorated over time, Calvin at times held some of the early church fathers in high regard. Calvin was not averse to quoting the church fathers against his Roman Catholic opponents. In his “Reply to Sadolet” Calvin affirmed the antiquity principle asserting “our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours” (p. 231). Calvin’s arguments against the medieval church may be valid but does it likewise apply to the Orthodox Church? It has been noted that the Latin Church under the influence of medieval Scholasticism and the rise of the legal schools drifted away from its patristic roots. This suggests Calvin may have been a victim of historical circumstances. Calvin’s openness to the church fathers and the early Church laid the foundation of Mercersburg Theology in the 1800s and the attempt by Nevin and Schaff to bring back the catholic dimension to the Reformed tradition.

So while Calvin’s BOBO theory of church history is seriously flawed, he is to be commended for his willingness on occasion to draw on the early church fathers. This gives Reformed Christians an advantage over their Evangelical counterparts when it comes to engaging Eastern Orthodoxy. I found in Mercersburg Theology and the Reformed tradition a point of contact leading me to the early church and ultimately into the Orthodox Church. I am deeply indebted to Mercersburg Theology for the intellectual tools that enabled me to critically examine Reformed theology even though it had unintended consequences like my eventually converting to Orthodoxy.

Robert Arakaki

Source

Calvin, John. 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ford Lewis Battles, translator. The Library of Christian Classics. Volume XX. John T. McNeill, editor. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Calvin, John. 1964. “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” in Calvin: Theological Treatises, pp. 184-216. Editor: J.K.S. Reid. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Calvin, John. 1964. “Reply to Sadolet” in Calvin: Theological Treatises, pp. 221-256. Editor: J.K.S. Reid. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Eusebius. 1890. “The Church History of Eusebius” in Eusebius. Translator: Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. Vol. I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ignatius. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Volume I. Loeb Classical Library. Editor: Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Irenaeus. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Justin Martyr. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Polycarp. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Volume I. Loeb Classical Library. Editor: Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Winter, Ralph D. 1992. “The Kingdom Strikes Back: Ten Epochs of Redemptive History.”

Why People Convert to Orthodoxy

January 14, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 58 Comments

“Zits” by Jerry Scott & Jim Borgman

On 30 December 2013, W. Bradford Littlejohn published “The Search for Authority and the Fear of Difference” in The Sword and the Ploughshare. He began by noting how he learned second hand (??) about a longtime Reformed Christian who decided to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy because “he needed someone to submit to” (quotation marks in the original text).

It struck me that among the many evangelicals and Reformed folks converting to Rome or Orthodoxy, this was a common story. “We Protestants, we’re so divided, we’re so individualistic, we have no sense of authority, we have to make up our own minds about everything rather than submitting to the judgment of others. It’s time to stop trying to do all the thinking for ourselves, and submit to authority and tradition.” And then it struck me that, while this sounds superficially humble, pious, and mature, it starts to look considerably less laudable when you put it in other terms. “It’s time to stop taking responsibility for my own commitments and value judgments and let someone else make those difficult determinations for me.” “The commitment to faith and obedience is what’s important, not the content, so I should just leave the question of content to others and focus on relinquishing self-will.” “It’s too much work being expected to think for myself amid all these different questions and options, so I think I should just check my brain at the door, and embrace a set of ready-made answers.” Now I don’t mean to be too harsh, of course, on all those who make such moves, and there is certainly a balance; some of us are too arrogantly insistent on making up our own minds about everything, and need to learn to defer to the judgment of others on occasion. But despite how often we tell ourselves in conservative Protestant circles that this is our big problem, I am not at all convinced that it is, at least for us Reformed in particular.
(Emphasis added)

On first reading this article I was struck by Littlejohn’s quotation marks. The use of quotation marks implies that he actually heard the convert give the reason for changing churches. One of the commenters, David, asked whether Littlejohn was quoting a real live convert or was making up these quotes as a foil to make a point. The answer proved to be very enlightening.

Of course, I am not directly quoting any one convert, but I am offering what I think is a faithful composite sketch of cases I’ve encountered or read about. To be sure, I don’t pretend to be giving anything like a full phenomenology of conversion, or a one-size-fits-all account of what’s motivating everyone. That said, I am convinced that this is part of what is going on in many cases.

While I do agree with Brad Littlejohn that “checking my brain at the door” is a poor reason for converting to Orthodoxy, sadly there is no real person behind Brad’s quotes here – he just made them up. [Do Reformed converts “check their brains at the door” of their conversions, and are they prone to “deceive themselves”?]

The question I have is this: Do those who convert to Orthodoxy actually stop thinking and just submit to authority as Littlejohn claimed? Many converts will protest that they don’t quite fit his description; Littlejohn’s response is that the converts are prone to deceive themselves.

If you mean that you’ve never encountered anyone who put things in terms of the quotes further on in the second paragraph—well of course not, that’s the point. No one actually thinking that way is going to admit to themselves that that’s how they’re thinking. And so it’s not surprising to me that most converts would deny fitting my description here. To be sure, we need to listen to the reasons converts are actually giving—and I am attempting to do that here, more than many I’ve heard who have tried to diagnose the cause of such conversions—but we needn’t take those reasons at face value. Quite often we are very poor judges of our own motives, often worse than others watching us, in fact. We are very prone to deceive ourselves and make ourselves sound much more patient and objective and rational and humble than we really are. (Emphasis added)

Littlejohn’s assertion that he knows better than the converts is highly problematic. At the Final Judgment the secrets of our hearts will be revealed and each one of us will have to give an account for our life, our thoughts and deeds (Romans 2:12-16).

So the best approach is not to second guess people’s motives (or put words into our mouths in the form of quotes) but to present biblical, theological, and historical evidences for a reasoned discussion about conversions to Orthodoxy. The insinuation that people who converted to Orthodoxy “checked their brains at the door” comes close to an ad hominem attack and for that reason is to be avoided. Questioning people’s motives in effect muddies the water and poisons the well of public discourse. It is far better and more charitable if we take people at their words than to question their motives.

Why People Convert to Orthodoxy

While Littlejohn’s assertion may come across as controversial and even objectionable, the main issue here is: Does he have the evidence to back it up? Apparently not. Are there any scholarly studies out there that shed light on conversions to Orthodoxy? The answer is: Yes, there’s Amy Slagle’s 2008 dissertation “’Nostalgia Without Memory’: A Case Study of American Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania” (University of Pittsburgh, 2008). The advantage of Slagle’s dissertation is we have here solid data for evaluating Littlejohn’s argument. Note: Her dissertation is now available in book form: The Eastern Church in the Spiritual Marketplace: American Conversions to Orthodox Christianity (published by Northern Illinois University Press, 2011).

Slagle interviewed forty people who lived in the Pittsburgh area (p. 43). She used a guided questionnaire and ethnographic participant observation to gather data. In addition, she used a computerized qualitative data analysis program to code her interview transcripts (p. 37). This gives her research methodological rigor which is superior to Littlejohn’s intuitive method.

Informant emphasis, in the course of casual conversations and coffee-house interviews as discussed in chapter two, on personal choice-making and seeking is all the more striking given the high level of religious engagement and knowledge these informants possessed within decidedly Christian contexts. Many informants had served as Bible-school teachers and had acquired seminary degrees and most considered themselves “committed” Christians, yet in the end they spun narratives grounded in marketplace action and imagery (p. 277; emphasis added).

There have always been converts to Orthodoxy but what has changed is the type of convert. Since the 1980s there has been an increase in theologically driven conversions (pp. 102-103). Slagle approached conversion to Orthodoxy from the standpoint of a consumer shopping in a religious marketplace. This research paradigm is well known in religious studies and sociology of religion. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to view conversion from a broader social context. The popular “journey to Orthodoxy” trope tends to be more introspective, focusing more on the individual than the social context shaping his/her decision (pp. 60-61). It is popular in part because it resonates so powerfully with the modern quest for self authentication, i.e., finding one’s self.

One thing that struck Slagle was not just the pervasiveness of shopping going on but also people’s confidence in their choice-making abilities (p. 95).

As vital components of choice-making, active knowledge acquisition and self-reflexivity lend shape to religious conversion. At each point in their conversions, from initial religious seeking to settling into life as Orthodox Christians, Orthodox converts in Pittsburgh consistently relate a kind of on-going negotiation between self and other, as they research religious differences and experiment with practices and dogmas. Such processes virtually ensure that converts arrive at the ecclesial doors of the Orthodox Church with these marketplace, choice-making skills and attitudes fully intact and ever more deeply engrained and habitualized in their lives (p. 25).

As consumers seeking to make an informed choice, Slagle’s respondents engaged in extensive information gathering. This is far from the abject surrender to authority proposed by Littlejohn!

Protestantism’s Fractured State

As Brad Littlejohn noted, a major reason why people are converting to Orthodoxy is in reaction against the current pluralism of American Protestantism. Amy Slagle noticed a similar reaction among her informants:

First, in direct, explicit reaction against America’s marketplace culture, informants were often profoundly interested in Eastern Orthodoxy as a staid, doctrinally and historically conservative form of Christianity offering its members a profound sense of stability and continuity with imagined pasts. Many informants affirmed a strong attraction to the external, institutional qualities of the Orthodox Church as a preserver of doctrinal formulae, hierarchical (and, I daresay, patriarchal) structures, and absolute, exclusivist notions of “truth” and “tradition.” In this regard, Orthodoxy was frequently valorized as a church offering the strong doses of moral and epistemological certainty and senses of community needed to assuage the social isolation and existential uncertainty of contemporary existence (p. 200).

Slagle noted that converts joined the Orthodox Church, not because it was subjectively “true” for them, but because it was “true” in the sense of an “objective, universalized reality” (p. 206). What Orthodoxy offers these converts is “the church as a venue of moral and epistemological certainty” (p. 202). Littlejohn may deride this as mindless conformity, but one should at least appreciate the desire for theological stability on the part of some. Moreover, Orthodoxy’s conviction of absolute truth constitutes a rebuke to the relativism implicit in Protestantism’s theological fluidity.

Religious conversions take place in every age but under certain circumstances the institutional and epistemic contexts undergo considerable stress that creates windows of opportunity that lead people to reevaluate their religious options. Charles Taylor in A Secular Age wrote:

The salient feature of Western societies is not so much a decline of religious faith and practice, though there has been lots of that, more in some societies than in others, but rather a mutual fragilization of different religious positions, as well as of the outlook both of belief and unbelief (2007:595; emphasis added).

This sheds light, not only on the fractured state of Protestant Christianity, but American society overall. The pluralization of the American religious marketplace has been consequential for the epistemic standing of Protestant denominations. Their truth standing becomes tenuous and uncertain, or in Taylor’s word “fragile.” This has resulted not only in increased shopping within people’s religious traditions (from one Protestant denomination to another) but also in religious migrations, conversion to unfamiliar religious traditions (from Protestantism to Orthodoxy).

Checking One’s Brain at the Door?

Brad Littlejohn described his hypothetical convert to Orthodoxy thinking like this:

The commitment to faith and obedience is what’s important, not the content, so I should just leave the question of content to others and focus on relinquishing self-will. (Emphasis added.)

Littllejohn’s depiction of Orthodoxy as unthinking submission to the authority of the Church in reaction to Protestantism’s’ fractured state is not what Slagle found in her research. She found that while people did convert to Orthodoxy partly as a reaction to the pluralization of the religious marketplace, the reality was much more complex than Littlejohn’s “checking in one’s brains at the door hypothesis. Slagle writes:

A person, for example, converting out of a desire to escape pluralism or consumerism must somehow envision Orthodoxy as holding these traits in check. Yet, convert responses to motivational queries are manifold rather than singular, thus furnishing competing visions of what Orthodoxy might be and how it affects individual lives. Just as a plethora of choices stand side-by side for individual perusal and appropriation in contemporary American life, so converts form or choose their own definitional and experiential conceptions of Orthodoxy (p. 199).

What Slagle found in her research was not people ceasing to think theologically as Littlejohn proposed, but something more complex.

Priests, for example, often discussed the penchant for converts to try to effect change in aspects of parish life they felt deviated from Orthodoxy as it was “supposed to be,” usually as that found in other parishes of converts’ experience or through their reading and studying. Armed with their well-recognized “book knowledge” about the faith, some converts were in no way demure in offering priests unsolicited advice about the running of the parish or in complaining about ritual practices they considered incongruent with the traditions of the church, such as kneeling on Sunday or the use of icons painted in “Western” rather than “Eastern” iconographic styles (p. 175).

One of Slagle’s priest informants told her at what point an inquirer was ready to become Orthodox: “They have to be at a point where they don’t have a choice.” (p. 179) In other words, they are like Peter who said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68; OSB) The Orthodox Church is not one among many denominations; it regards itself to be the one Church founded by Christ. What you have here is not so much a “checking in of one’s brains” as the conviction that this is the capital “C” Church. This is not so much mindless conformity, but intentional submission to the ancient wisdom of the Church. This is much like an athlete training to compete in the Olympics who submits to the wisdom of the coach and conforms to the training regimen prescribed by the coach.

Probably the closest thing to “checking one’s brain at the door” in Slagle’s dissertation was the tendency on the part of some Orthodox converts to regard the local parish priest as a guru to which one submits major life decisions (p. 191). The general tendency of the priests has been to discourage the attempts by some to put them on a pedestal or to regard this idealism as perilous and inappropriate. [Note: This certainly happens in Protestantism, including some Reformed churches, where pastors assumed a dangerous status of “guru” . . . which is seldom challenged by anyone.]

What many converts found appealing about Orthodoxy was the fact that they did not have to resolve complex theological issues on their own, again and again. They did not have to revisit the thorny issues of the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the two natures of Christ that early theologians wrestled with.

In mentioning lingering doubts that occasionally arose about church practice and teaching, such as veneration of Mary and the saints, Karen hastened to add, “I accept the authority of the [Orthodox] church to make these decisions and I accept that they are the ones who are right and that I’m wrong. And I’ve just gotten to that point because I trust the Orthodox Church so much. I’m not gonna say that, perhaps, I’m the one that’s right. It’s just not true. The Orthodox Church is correct and I’m wrong” (p. 216).

Converts found unexpected benefits in converting to Orthodoxy. They were able to direct their energies away from doctrinal questions to that of personal transformation via the Church’s spiritual and liturgical disciplines (p. 228). They no longer needed to devote considerable effort to studying theological issues as they did prior to their conversion.

Converts found unexpected benefits in converting to Orthodoxy. After engaging the writings and reasoning of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, they were able to direct their energies away from doctrinal questions to that of personal transformation via the Church’s spiritual and liturgical disciplines (p. 228). They no longer needed to devote considerable effort to reexamine theological issues which they constantly did as diligent Protestants prior to their conversion.

Not only could informants dedicate themselves to such activities, but they said they could do so with the security and certainty that the Orthodox Church would never lead them astray through the impartation of inaccurate teachings. They could move about and explore their new ecclesial world uninhibited by concerns that what they might be heading in the wrong direction in their “search” for God. . . . . With the belief that the matter had been settled at the Council of Chalcedon, for instance, informants no longer had to devote their time to mulling over the nature of Christ (p. 228).

Probably, the most direct refutation of Littlejohn’s “checking one’s brain at the door” hypothesis was not by Slagle but two sociologists cited by her:

At the same time, sociologists H. B. Cavalcanti and H. Paul Chalfant maintained in their study of Orthodox converts in Boston that such individuals were “not simply robotic followers of a rigid faith” but persons who in bouncing “their individual, implicit feelings off the traditions of the Orthodox faith,” often held different interpretations regarding the nature and meaning of their newfound church (p. 199; emphasis added).

If Brad Littlejohn wants to hold on to his “checking the brain at the door” hypothesis, he will need to present solid data to up his position. As it is Slagle’s findings do not support his position in the main.

Orthodox Priests in the Conversion Process

In conversions to Orthodoxy the priest plays a significant role. The priest looks beyond intellectual assent to a willingness to live according to the teachings and practices of Orthodox Tradition. They oftentimes slowed down the conversion process to ensure people’s long term commitment to Orthodoxy. They usually require that the inquirer become involved in the life of the parish as part of the conversion process.

Nearly all the clerics interviewed reported holding regularly scheduled one-to-one conversations with potential converts to discuss inquirers’ past religious lives and experiences, motivations for possible conversion to Orthodoxy, family obstacles or objections for such a course of action, even personal problems and past traumas, religiously incurred or not. Through these conversations and observations of the catechumen in parish life (e.g., how often and consistently catechumens attend divine services, how well they develop social ties with others in the community and so forth), clerics attempted to discern the seriousness and depth of the individual’s personal commitment to conversion as well as her overall spiritual development (Slagle p. 153).

Orthodoxy is a communal faith. Becoming Orthodox entails a commitment to Apostolic Tradition. Contrary to what some may think authority in Orthodoxy is not arbitrary but highly constrained. Everyone, both clergy and laity, are bound by capital “T” Tradition. Failure by the priest to ascertain the inquirer’s commitment to Tradition runs the risk of disrupting the common life of the Church and imperiling the spiritual health of the convert. This accounts for the extreme caution exercised by many Orthodox priests with respect to reception of converts.

Shopping versus Migrating

Shopping Around

Refugees Fleeing

One criticism I have of Amy Slagle’s shopping metaphor is that it seems to downplay the high costs that often accompany conversion to Orthodoxy. In addition to the shopping metaphor, I suggest that conversion to Orthodoxy also be understood in terms of migration. Migration implies the loss of one homeland for another, which implies a fundamental recasting of religious identity. [This is where religious studies can benefit from diaspora theory.] The social cost of switching from one Protestant denomination to another is usually minimal; the social cost of switching out of Protestantism to Orthodoxy is often rather high. See my article: “Crossing the Bosphorus.”

Another weakness that jumped out to me while reading her dissertation was her tendency to view the American religious marketplace ahistorically. This is not a criticism of her fine work but to point out the complexity of the topic of conversion to Orthodoxy. I would venture that Slagle could not have done this kind of research thirty or forty years ago because conversion to Orthodoxy were infrequent back then. There has been a significant increase in numbers of Protestants opting for Orthodoxy. What has changed? I would argue that there have been radical shifts within established denominations that Slagle seems to have overlooked. For example, her informant Helen’s quixotic comment that she was “running towards” Anglicanism in her conversion to Orthodoxy (p. 66) can be understood as a coded reference to her objecting to the Episcopal Church’s adoption of liberal theology and ethics. One common lament goes: “I didn’t leave the Episcopal Church; the Episcopal Church left me!” Similar changes took place in the Roman Catholic Church. One of her respondents complained about the changes following Vatican II (pp. 210-213). One of the priest informants brought up the liberal drift prompting people to convert to Orthodoxy (pp. 167-168). As mainline Protestant denominations became increasingly liberal, theological conservatives often felt compelled to go elsewhere. What we see here is not just a pull towards Orthodoxy (attraction, shopping) but also people being pushed out (emigration, exile).

Other Findings by Slagle

One finding in Slagle’s dissertation I found significant but not all that surprising is the growing role of the Internet in introducing people to Orthodoxy (pp. 90-91). This means that how Orthodox Christians conduct themselves on the Internet is important to Orthodox outreach which is all the more reason why we need to conduct ourselves with charity and civility to others. Through the Internet people acquired information about Orthodoxy but also surprised by the beauty of liturgical music (p. 90). But even more important to the conversion process was the person-to-person contact between the inquirer and a member of the Orthodox Church (pp. 91-92).

Another interesting finding is that for many inquirers the visit to an actual Orthodox service comes late in the process. Quite often there is quite a bit of information gathering and one-on-one meeting that goes on before the first visit to the Divine Liturgy. And when one does attend the Liturgy the reaction is sometimes that of disorientation rather than infatuation (pp. 92-93).

A notable strength of Slagle’s dissertation is her focus on the conversion of spouses, i.e., when the non-Orthodox spouse decides to become Orthodox, often years after the wedding. This topic has been overlooked in the study of conversion to Orthodoxy (p. 104). One could say that one is a relational conversion while the other is a rational conversion (p. 104). Although not religious seekers, these types of converts do demonstrate sincere spiritual interests and their decision to convert deeply felt.

Slagle referenced Richard Cimino who made the intriguing observation that the strong interest among young people in conservative expressions of Christianity—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformed—exemplify a willingness to “swim against the stream” (Slagle, p. 7). This suggests that people who convert into the Reformed tradition as well as those who convert out are not are not weak minded people but strong minded individuals who are passionate about Truth and doing God’s will.

Also valuable is Slagle’s discussion of the neo-patristic revival in Orthodoxy which commenced in the 1930s and how the English translations of the church fathers influenced those searching for a church impervious to change (pp. 214-215). This insight helps shed light on how the American religious terrain underwent a significant change in the twentieth century. The neo-patristic revival helped revitalize the intellectual life of Orthodoxy and introduce a generation of Protestants to the early Church.

Concluding Thoughts

Why do people convert to Orthodoxy? Brad Littlejohn asserted that daunted by Protestantism’s fractured state and tired of working through theological issues many converted to Orthodoxy in order “check one’s brain at the door.” But Amy Slagle in her dissertation research found that many of the converts engaged in extensive research and comparison before deciding to convert to Orthodoxy. The conversion process involved not just investigating the teachings of the Orthodox Church but also an exploration of Orthodox culture. What we see here is active inquiry and an intentional embrace of Orthodoxy. Orthodox priests sought to ensure that these converts understood what it meant to be Orthodox; they took pains to avoid mindless submission to authority.

Slagle’s dissertation shows that conversion to Orthodoxy is a rich field for scholarly research. Further scholarly research is also needed with respect to the Reformed revival among Evangelicals. See: “New York Times Article on Calvinist Revival.” Is such a thing really happening? Is it widespread or confined to certain groupings? What are the social forces driving this revival? We don’t need educated guesses and intuition; we need solid research like that done by Amy Slagle grounded in the social sciences. We need more of this kind of rigorous thinking in order for the dialogue between the Reformed and Orthodox traditions to be a fruitful one.

Brad Littlejohn attributes Protestantism’s fractured state to people not taking sola fide seriously enough. In another blog posting I offered a different explanation – that the root cause of Protestantism’s fractured state lies in sola scriptura. See: “Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw.” And in another blog posting I argued that Bible does not teach sola scriptura and that what it really teaches is the traditioning process. See: “If Not Sola Scriptura, Then What? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.” My conversion to Orthodoxy was not the result of my surrendering to Orthodoxy but rather my reaching the conclusion that Protestant theology is fundamentally flawed. As a church history major at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary I found through my research that much of Evangelicalism and the Reformation diverged from the historic Christian faith, and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church today is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. Thus, there was both a push and pull factors at work. And so I became an ecclesial immigrant leaving the familiar culture of modern Evangelicalism for a new home in ancient Orthodoxy.

Robert Arakaki

New York Times Article on Calvinist Revival

January 9, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 88 Comments

Source

TULIP in the New York Times?!? Not the blooming kind but the total depravity and unconditional election kind! In an interesting turn of events Reformed Christianity (aka Calvinism) has gotten the attention of a major newspaper. On 3 January 2014, the New York Times (NYT) published “Evangelicals Find Themselves in the Midst of a Calvinist Revival” by Mark Oppenheimer.

Although some folks may find it hard to believe, the NYT article opened with a discussion of TULIP, total depravity, and unconditional election. Once obscure theological concepts are now in the national media spotlight. What caught the NYT’s attention is the growing influence of Reformed theology among Evangelicals. Below is “Nicodemus” response:

What is one to make of articles like this? Perhaps, it depends on ones spiritual context? Broad Evangelicals might panic fearing the loss of their free will, while devout Muslims nod approval. But as the article itself acknowledges, a few years ago the Emergent Church was all the rage at the fringe of Evangelicalism. And pastor Joel Osteen still has a huge following as do others of his theological inclinations. Should we not expect a more rigorous side of Protestantism to appear from time to time? If the majority of Evangelical Churches are mostly trapped in various form of the “feel-good, easily believism God who wants to help you feel better about yourself,” should we not expect a more rigorous no nonsence appeal to arise from time to time – especially for men weary of effiminante touchy-feely gospels of success?

Calvinism certainly fills the bill here. I often compared my move from the sincere but shallow end of Evangelicalism to Calvinism – as God pouring me out of an Olympic Size swimming pool into Lake Superior. It was far deeper and vast . . . bigger than just me and my individual concerns. And I swam there very happily for over 33 years, reveling in the theological rigor, logical consistancy and taste of reverent worship. In Calvinism there is also the counter cultural appeal of swimming against the modernist tide of weak and fading secularism without good answers. As with Evangelicalism, one must admit there not only an appeal, however culturally temporary, but also true grace for the lost.

Like Evangelicalism, Calvinism is not the historic Christian Tradition the Apostles repeatedly exhorted their Church-Disciples to “hold fast” and keep. If a Calvinist Reformed Faith became Lake Superior to me – Orthodoxy has become the Pacific Ocean. Despite the vastness of this deep ocean, I now swim with the heavenly host of Apostles and their myriad of disciples, marytrs, monks and theologians. Here is the Historic Church that has proven a stable ship and hospital, taking and healing the faithful for over 20 centuries.

Sunset on Pacific Ocean

Rather than a host of fads that come and go, Orthodoxy offeres the same rich Liturgical and Sacramental theology offered centuries ago. No need or call for you to invent or re-invent your Liturgy, Calendar, Vestments, Fasts, Holy Days and Saints, as if the Church had never given it much thought before you or your denominational gurus came along. No, the Orthodox Church offers you the stability of Historic Christendom in a multi-layered tapestry received from the Holy Spirit by the Apostels, guarded and handed down by the Church. It has withstood all fads. So we bid our fellow brothers wondering about in various wildernesses – forget swimming pool fads and even Lake Superior. Wade into the Orthodox Ocean!

Come to the water’s edge. Take your time and test the waters carefully, there is no rush. Learn of the Saints who swam before you and from them learn about the deep waters of Christian spirituality. Then at the right time, enter into the Church Christ Himself promised the Holy Spirit would lead into all Truth.

“Nicodemus”

See also my Plucking the TULIP series: 1, 2, 3, 4, and the all in one PDF version.

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 49 of 93

Calvin and the “Fall of the Church”

Why People Convert to Orthodoxy

New York Times Article on Calvinist Revival

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives