Page 72 of 94

Defending the Vincentian Canon “Everywhere, Always, and By All” — A Response to Outlaw Presbyterianism

July 10, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 76 Comments

On 3 July 2012 the blog site Outlaw Presbyterianism criticized the OrthodoxBridge for its use of the Vincentian Canon. It’s sad to see a friendly inquirer take a more antagonistic stance towards Orthodoxy, but a number of points were raised that can help further Orthodox-Reformed dialogue.

He writes:

The one common refrain at OrthodoxBridge is that Protestants can’t find any of their distinctives in the early Fathers of the church. This charge bothers some people. However, like a judo artist, I will redirect the blow. This will not prove that Protestantism is correct, but it will show that if the charge is correct, not only is Protestantism false, but so is Orthodoxy.

Because Outlaw criticized our use of the Vincentian Canon, this blog posting will focus primarily on the Vincentian Canon. I hope to show that the Canon reflects the historic Christian faith and as such is integral to Orthodoxy. Part I will contain my response to the criticisms made by Outlaw Presbyerianism in his posting and Part II will discuss the challenge that the Vincentian Canon poses to Protestant theology.

Background

The oft quoted “Vincentian Canon” is the Latin phrase: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all). It comes from The Commonitory (ch. 2) by Vincent of Lérins.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. (Commonitory ch. II, §6; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

The word “canon” refers to a standard or measuring stick. It provides three criteria by which one can determine whether a doctrine was orthodox or heretical. Vincent did not invent the “canon” named after him. He summed up in elegant Latin the longstanding theological method used by the early Christians.

Icon – Vincent of Lerins

The author of the Commonitory used the pseudonym “Peregrinus”; he was later identified as Vincent of the monastery of Lérins, a group of islands near present day French Riviera. Vincent’s living in the Western half of the Roman Empire would explain why the Commonitory was written in Latin. He lived in the fifth century and was a contemporary of Augustine. He wrote the Commonitory in protest against what he considered to be novelty of Augustine’s teaching on predestination (see Pelikan Vol. I pp. 319-324). It should be noted that Vincent lived long before there was a Protestant vs. Roman Catholic split. When Vincent wrote about the Catholic Church, he had in mind the undivided Church founded by Christ, not the later Roman Catholicism that Luther and the Reformers protested against. In its original sense, “catholic” meant “according to the whole.”

Part I.

Criticism #1: Did Pelikan Criticize the Vincentian Canon?

The OrthodoxBridge frequently cited the Vincentian Canon in its assessment of Protestantism. This approach examines a doctrine by asking three questions: (1) Was this doctrine held by early Christians? (the test of antiquity); (2) Was this doctrine widely held among early Christians? (the test of ubiquity); and (3) Was this doctrine affirmed by the church as a whole? (the test of catholicity). Many have found the Canon helpful for demonstrating the novelty of certain Protestant distinctives, e.g., sola scriptura, sola fide, and their understanding the Eucharist. For example, if the evidence for sola scriptura is found wanting among the church fathers then one has to wonder whether sola scriptura is part of the historic Christian faith or a later addition.

Apparently, this critique is having an impact among our Protestant visitors. Outlaw attempts to blunt our critique by invoking the well respected Yale historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, against the Vincentian Canon:

In volume 5 of his series on the History of Christian Doctrine, Jaroslav Pelikan openly challenges the adequacy of the Vincentian canon (it’s in the second to last chapter). At best it can only read, “What is [usually] believed by [many] people in [most] places.” (emphasis added)

The first thing to note is that volume five of Pelikan’s magnum opus deals with Christian doctrine in the modern era. If one wants to understand how Pelikan understood the Vincentian Canon the better place is volume one (pp. 333-339) where he discusses the Canon in its proper context.
In this particular subsection of volume five (pp. 255-265) cited by Outlaw, Prof. Pelikan was not discussing the Vincentian Canon per se but how applying the Canon was problematic for John Henry Newman (p. 258). The historian in Newman would concede that the Filioque as not a Catholic dogma in the early Church but the theologian in Newman needed to affirm that the Church always held the doctrine (p. 258). Western theologians, Protestant and Roman Catholic, were finding it increasingly difficult to invoke the Vincentian Canon in light of scholarship showing the progressive evolution of their respective doctrines. For them, the Vincentian Canon had become a “Gordian knot” with a “defect in its serviceableness” (in Pelikan Vol. 5 p. 259). It should be noted that the words in quotation marks are from Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (p. 12). In other words, it was John Henry Newman who was challenging the adequacy of the Vincentian Canon, not Jaroslav Pelikan.

I suspect that Outlaw fell victim to a hasty superficial reading of Prof. Pelikan’s profound scholarship and that he believed he found a convenient quote in support of his Protestant position. The lesson here is that in dealing with church history and patristic theology one must take care to read the text carefully and in its proper context.

The Vincentian Canon functions best as a rule of thumb, not as a precise formula that produces uniform results. If the OrthodoxBridge has (despite our best efforts to the contrary) implied that Holy Tradition is a nice neat, tidy consensus of all the Fathers in perfect unanimity — then Outlaw is right and we have grossly overstated the case. No, Church history is not so perfect. And we have never intended to pretend all the Fathers are in perfect agreement with each other.

Orthodoxy consists of Holy Tradition, a complex matrix of beliefs and practices. Because it is a living reality, it is marked by a certain messiness. Orthodox tradition cannot be reduced to a system of propositions devoid of internal inconsistencies. Understanding Orthodoxy means believing the Holy Spirit works in the messiness of history in the Church, the body of Christ.

Criticism #2: Where’s the Evidence for Catholicity?

I find Outlaw’s skeptical attitude and his expectation for evidentiary support troubling. He writes:

Evidentially, especially in the earlier days of the church, it’s almost impossible to prove that the people in India believed in the same thing as the people in North Africa. And if the evidence is missing, how can you make the case?

It would be great if a Gallup poll was conducted of the early Christians but it is not realistic, nor fair to impose modern twentieth century scientific expectations on the early Church. There is evidence but it is not overwhelming, nor exact. One supporting evidence can be found in Irenaeus of Lyons who was born in Smyrna, Asia Minor, studied under Polycarp, then moved to western frontiers of the Roman Empire in Gaul. He wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. (AH 1.10.2; Richardson 1970:360; cf. ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)

What we have here is a Christian leader who traveled from one part of the Roman Empire to another and who found a common faith across the vast Roman Empire.

Another witness can be found in Eusebius’ Church History. This fourth century work describes Christianity’s beginnings, contains lists of bishops for various areas, and describes how the early church struggled against various heresies. A broad theological consensus in the early Church can be seen in the ancient liturgies and in the creedal formulas that were ordered along Trinitarian lines. Lucien Deiss’ Springtime of the Liturgy which contains texts of early Christian worship is recommended for readers interested in examining the evidence for themselves.

Criticism #3: The Church Fathers Contradict Each Other!

In his attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of the Vincentian Canon Outlaw pits one patristic authority against another with respect to the one will versus the two will controversy. He notes how applying the Canon yields contradictory results.

Even worse, as Lars Thunberg points out, St Cyril affirmed “one will and energy” of Christ (Pseudo-Dionysius said the same thing). The whole point behind St maximus’s theology is the very opposite of this. Yet, if one were to “go to the earlier fathers,” would one necessarily come away with dyotheletism? Even worse, St Maximus himself hints that the greatest of all theologians, St Gregory Nazianzus, used language that was disturbingly similar to monotheletism.

The Orthodox response is that this controversy was resolved at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Orthodoxy recognizes that church fathers as individuals may err but as a collective witness they bear witness to orthodox truth.

Quite often the Vincentian Canon has been understood only with respect to the church fathers but it is broader in scope than that. Vincent appeals to the general councils as one important means of ascertaining doctrinal orthodoxy (ch. XXIII, §59; ch. XXIX, §78). The phrase “by all” in the Vincentian Canon had several meanings: (1) the consensus held among the bishops, (2) the decisions made at councils, or (3) the devotional and liturgical practices among the laity (Vol. 1 pp. 338-339). Pelikan notes: “A special mark of the universality and the authority of the church was the ecumenical councils” (Vol. 1 p. 335). The bishops present at the councils were mindful that they were part of the undivided Church. When they made decisions they did so conscious of their responsibility to safeguard the sacred Deposit of Faith. They did not have the liberty to cherry pick what they found useful or progressive.

Outlaw makes reference to Lars Thunberg’s Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor to bolster his argument that the church fathers contradicted each other. The book is a fine piece of scholarship but it was not written from an ecclesial point of view. This is not a criticism of Thunberg but to make the reader aware of the genre being presented. In the early Church much of the theologizing was not done through the medium of academic discourse but through the liturgical life of the churches. The majority of the church fathers were bishops, not academic scholars. Outlaw seem to be using the church fathers much like the way Protestants use the writings of the Reformers and seminary professors to resolve doctrinal controversy.

My question for Outlaw is: Why is it that your blog posting makes no mention of the Sixth Ecumenical Council? Do you accept the decisions of that Council? By what method are you going to resolve the monotheletisim controversy as an independent Protestant or as a member of the Church Catholic?

Criticism #4: Orthodoxy as Syllogism?

Outlaw attempts to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning behind the Orthodox reliance on the church fathers by presenting this approach as an Aristotelian syllogism.

The problem is this with Orthodox internet apologists:

P1: Our practice today is part of the ancient tradition of the church.

P2: We thus appeal to this church father to prove this.

Therefore, the early church taught this and this is the tradition.

What’s the problem with this argument? The problem is that there is an epistemic gap between P2 and the conclusion. How do we know that this father is the tradition, or that tradition is thus and so (and most of the time, I don’t even grant P2. A lot of times these fathers aren’t event talking about 9/10ths of the practices that are now considered “tradition”)?

Even granting P2, at best the syllogism’s conclusion only reads: one Father of the church taught this. (emphasis added)

I find Outlaw’s reduction of Orthodoxy to a syllogism simplistic and objectionable. I don’t recall making the case for Orthodoxy with the model presented above. This is a straw man argument.

One serious flaw in the syllogism presented is the minor premise which contains the assumption that citing a single church father suffices in Orthodoxy. The emphasis on church fathers in the singular in the above excerpt is striking. When it comes to citing the church fathers, Orthodox stresses the patristic consensus, i.e., plurality. It is not enough to quote a single church father. Orthodoxy has recognized that the Fathers can err in particulars and for that reason it looks to the patristic consensus as a witness to the catholic faith. It makes me wonder: Where did Outlaw get the idea that citing a single church father suffices for Orthodoxy? Furthermore, Outlaw’s complaint that all too often appeal is made a single church father for particular tradition is vague and dubious. Perhaps he can be more specific in his complaint in a future blog posting.

Summary

There are a number of problems with Outlaw’s 3 July blog posting: (1) he misreads Jaroslav Pelikan, (2) he seems to understand Orthodox tradition narrowly as arising solely from the writings of the church fathers, (3) he makes no reference to the patristic consensus, (4) he makes no reference to church councils, and (5) his bizarre syllogism misrepresents the Orthodox theological method.

Part II.

An examination of the Commonitory will show that the Vincentian Canon is rooted in a rich theological heritage. Studying the theological method described by Vincent of Lérins will enable to us to compare the theological method of Protestantism against that of Orthodoxy.

Scripture With Tradition

Icon – St. Vincent of Lerins

Vincent argues that Scripture and Tradition are both needed for distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy. He writes:

That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretic as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law (Scripture), and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. (Commonitory ch. II, §4; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132; emphasis added)

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon (Scripture), and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. (Commonitory ch. XXIX, §76; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 153; emphasis added)

This passage shows that the early Church was biblical but not Protestant in its theological method. It viewed Scripture as normative for doctrine but it did not follow sola scriptura. Vincent anticipated and refuted sola scriptura in a hypothetical scenario presented below.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands is words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. …. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. (Commonitory ch. II, §5; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Here Vincent anticipates the potential pitfall of sola scriptura, multiple competing interpretations of Scripture. The solution to this problem is to read Scripture not individually, but corporately in solidarity with the Church. The early Church viewed Scripture and Tradition not in tension with each other but as congruent. Prof. Pelikan notes:

It was inconceivable to the exponents of the orthodox consensus that there could be any contradiction between Scripture properly interpreted and the tradition of the ancient fathers; or, more precisely, Scripture was properly interpreted with tradition. (Vol. I pp. 336-337; emphasis added)

Orthodoxy as Catholicity

In early Christianity the premium was placed on ecclesiology, not biblical studies. This is the recognition that Scripture could only be properly understood within the true church. This is the opposite of the Protestant approach which asserts that only by Scripture alone could there be a true church. Prof. Pelikan notes:

The criterion of universality required that a doctrine, to be recognized as the teaching of the church rather than a private theory of a man or a school, be genuinely catholic, that is, be the confession of “all the churches . . . one great horde of people from Palestine to Chalcedon with one voice reechoing the praises of Christ.” (Vol. 1 p. 333)

The stricture against private theory can be levied against Luther’s innovative doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura, and Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity and double predestination.

Vincent also seems to have anticipated the Protestant tendency to split off and form new churches. Then again, it may be that Protestantism reprises the theological method of the ancient heterodox who abandoned communion with the true Church. He writes:

What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? (Commonitory ch. III, §7; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Orthodoxy as Antiquity

In the early Church antiquity was held in high regard because it indicated apostolic origins. Vincent held to a nuanced understanding of “antiquity.” Antiquity by itself was not enough. Ancient orthodoxy was to be preferred over ancient heresy (Vol. 1 p. 338). Antiquity as a standard meant the rejection of doctrinal innovation. Vincent viewed doctrinal innovation as a serious threat to the life of the church.

What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty. (Commonitory ch. III, §7; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Doctrinal innovation was understood, not just in terms of new ideas but also in terms of modifications made to a theological system, e.g., giving up or relinquishing certain teachings, or by mingling the ancient with the novel (ch. XXVIII, §58). The latter seems to stand as warning to modern day Protestants who seek to graft ancient Christian practices onto their Protestant system. He writes:

…if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors (Commonitory ch. XXVIII, §58).

Orthodoxy does not mean historical stasis. Vincent has a dynamic understanding of orthodoxy. He writes:

But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. (Commonitory ch. XXIII, §54; NPNF Series II Vol. XI pp. 147-148)

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does or lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine…. (Commonitory ch. XXIII, §58; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Orthodoxy as Eucharist

Eucharistic unity played an important part in how Vincent understood orthodoxy. He poses a hypothetical scenario in which one is confronted with a doctrinal novelty then sketches the appropriate response.

But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation. (Commonitory ch. III, §8; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

The recommended response is that one gives weight to authorities in Eucharist communion with the Church (see also ch. XXVIII, §72 and ch. XXIX, §77). Right doctrine cannot exist apart from Eucharist union with the right Church. The implication here is that the remedy is a return to communion with the Church Catholic, not doctrinal triangulation.

The Locus of Orthodoxy – Right Doctrine versus Right Church

Protestantism has a different approach from that of the early church to identifying the locus of orthodoxy. Protestantism situates orthodoxy in doctrine, but the early Christians placed it in the church. Again Prof. Pelikan notes:

To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (οικουμενη).

This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. (Vol. 1 p. 334; emphasis added)

Just as the early Church believed that one could not be orthodox in doctrine unless one was in Eucharistic union with the true Church, so likewise the Orthodox Church today insists that doctrinal orthodoxy cannot be separated from Eucharistic union with her. It is hoped that our examination of the Vincentian Canon and its proper context, the Commonitory, shows how the Orthodox Church adheres to the three fold criteria of ubiquity, antiquity, and catholciity, and how Protestantism is found wanting on the basis of these criteria.

Conclusion

Part I argued: (1) Outlaw’s allegation that Jaroslav Pelikan criticized the Vincentian Canon is based on a misreading of Pelikan, (2) his demand for evidence of the catholicity of ancient Christian doctrine unfair and unrealistic, (3) his understanding of “by all” seems to be confined to just the church fathers and excludes other sources of tradition like early councils and the early liturgies, and (4) his reduction of Orthodoxy to an Aristotelian syllogism is simplistic and rests on an erroneous premise of his own making.

Part II examined the Commonitory showing that: (1) orthodoxy consisted of Scripture interpreted within received tradition; (2) orthodoxy consisted of Eucharistic union with the church catholic; (3) heterodoxy and schism are interrelated; and (4) while progress is allowed, innovation is forbidden.

In conclusion, the Vincentian Canon reflected the rich theological tradition of the early Church. What is amazing is how much the Commonitory anticipates the theological methods of Protestantism: (1) its tendency to doctrinal innovation, (2) its propensity for schism, and (3) its disregard for Eucharistic communion as a mark of orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church of today continues to draw on this rich tradition while Protestantism is found to be wanting in light of the three markers of: ubiqutiy, antiquity, and catholicity.

I urge Outlaw and my Protestant readers to recognize that the Vincentian Canon is truly rooted in the historic Christian Faith and as such the Canon is useful for distinguishing orthodoxy from heterodoxy.

Robert Arakaki

Fr. Peter Gillquist: Evangelical Pioneer for Orthodoxy

July 5, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 7 Comments

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

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

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

Fr. Peter’s Books

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

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

Personal Encounters

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

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

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

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

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

Evangelical Pioneer

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

An Assessment

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

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

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

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

The Road Ahead

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

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

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

The Three Waves of Orthodoxy in America

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

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

Outreach Prayer

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

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

Robert Arakaki

Videos of Fr. Peter Gillquist:

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

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

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

June 29, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 30 Comments

Link to Jason Stellman’s Farewell posting

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

Pastor Peter Leithart

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

The Contours of Peter Leithart’s Epistemology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gateway to Liberal Theology?

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

The Lord hath yet more light and truth

To break forth from His Word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leithart versus the Confessionalists

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

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

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

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

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

What Scripture Teaches on Epistemology

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

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

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

The Church the Pillar of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

Icon – Ignatius of Antioch

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

Epistemological Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change for Protestantism?

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

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

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

Robert Arakaki

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 72 of 94

Defending the Vincentian Canon “Everywhere, Always, and By All” — A Response to Outlaw Presbyterianism

Fr. Peter Gillquist: Evangelical Pioneer for Orthodoxy

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

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives