Page 73 of 94

Patristics for Baptists?

June 20, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 61 Comments

Orthodox Observations on a Recent Debate Among Southern Baptists

Church Fathers

Reformed theology has been making inroads in unexpected places. Christianity Today, in a recent article, reported on a surprising trend among Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) pastors. A 2006 survey found that only 10 percent of SBC pastors overall identified themselves as “five-point Calvinists.” However, a 2007 survey found that a surprising 35 percent of SBC ministers that graduated recently from SBC seminaries identified themselves as “five-point Calvinists.”

This has spurred a pushback in the form of a theological statement: “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”

Article Two: ‘The Sinfulness of Man’ contains an explicit rejection of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity:

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.

This statement is very close to what the Orthodox Church holds to regarding the human condition. Timothy Ware in his well known introductory work The Orthodox Church wrote:

Orthodox, however, do not hold that the fall deprived humanity entirely of God’s grace, though they would say that after the fall grace acts on humanity from the outside, not from within. Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that humans after the fall were utterly depraved and incapable of good desires. They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writes that humans are under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘human nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack freedom. (p. 223)

The Missing Factor – The Early Church Fathers

What I find striking about the theological debate described in the Christianity Today article is the lack of awareness of the early church fathers. Only one was mentioned, Augustine. Augustine is a very well known church father but he was not the only one. One of the weaknesses of Western Christianity is the narrow provincialism that resulted in reliance one just one theologian when there was a far richer theological heritage to drawn on. Eastern Orthodoxy draws on a richer and broader theological tradition. In an age of rampant hero worship, why are direct disciples of the Apostles not given the attention and respect they deserve? I am sure there are many thoughtful and scholarly SBC pastors and seminarians who would be open to investigating what the Apostles taught their disciples.

Who are the Early Church Fathers?

The term “church fathers” refers to a particular group of early Christian leaders. Not anyone who lived long ago is a church father. For Orthodox Christianity a church father is someone whose teachings are in line with the teachings of the Apostles and who lived exemplary lives. Because the early Christians believed strongly in a traditioning process – remembering and preserving the teachings of the Apostles – they viewed the church fathers as people who could exposit on the genuine meaning of Scripture.

Just before he was to die, the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy:

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. (II Timothy 1:1-14, NKJV)

For a long time Timothy was Paul’s assistant and pupil, soon he was going to graduate becoming Paul’s successor in the ministry of gospel preaching and church planting. For that Timothy had to be ordained or set apart to the ministry of bishop. Paul reminds Timothy of that momentous occasion when Timothy was made bishop of the church of Christ.

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (II Timothy 2:2, NKJV)

The translocal authority of the bishop can be seen in Timothy’s ordination. At Timothy’s ordination he was given the responsibility to pass on the Christian Faith to future generation of pastors. He was also given the responsibility to make sure that future bishops would make sure that right doctrine would be taught.

The job of the bishop is different from that of a local church pastor. A bishop inherited the authority of the apostles; he did not claim divine inspiration like the original apostles but he continued their work of shepherding the larger church. The local pastors (priests) served under the bishops. The bishop leads the church through the grace given by the Holy Spirit (see II Timothy 1:6). It is also important that we keep in mind that Pentecost, Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, began in Acts 2 and flowed on continuously guiding the church into all truth. As we study church history we find that Christ has been faith to his promises to the Church, never to abandon her but to faithfully uphold her in truth and grace.

It is important to keep in mind that at the time Paul was writing this letter to Timothy, there was no New Testament yet. What Timothy and the other pastors had to rely on were the handful of letters they received from Paul, their memory of Paul’s oral teachings, and the Old Testament. The collection of books and letters known as the New Testament would not come together until at least two centuries later.

Many, if not the vast majority, of the early church fathers, were bishops. Some of the well known church fathers include:

Ignatius of Antioch – A disciple of John the Apostle, he died around the year AD 100. Tradition has it that he was one of the children Jesus took into his arms and blessed. Ignatius served as the third bishop of the city of Antioch, the same city that sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (see Acts 13). He wrote six letters that give valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the Christians shortly after the original Apostles had passed on. His letters can be found in the Apostolic Fathers.

Polycarp – Another disciple of John the Apostle, he died a martyr’s death at the stake in AD 155. Polycarp stressed the importance of memorizing and passing on the teachings of the Apostles. The account of his martyrdom became a very early classic and can be found in the Apostolic Fathers collection.

Irenaeus of Lyons – A disciple of Polycarp, he served as bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France). He was a missionary bishop overseeing a church on the frontiers of the Roman world. He is well known for his Against the Heretics which he wrote to combat the heresy of Gnosticism. He also wrote On the Apostolic Preaching. He died around AD 202.

Athanasius the Great – He served as bishop of the city of Alexandria, one of the great cities of the Roman Empire. He played an important role in combating the heresy of Arianism which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. He wrote the well known theological classic On the Incarnation and participated in the first Ecumenical Council in AD 325. He died in AD 373.

Basil the Great – He served as bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (modern day Turkey). He wrote On the Holy Spirit against those who denied the divine nature of the Holy Spirit. He died AD 379.

One common mistake Protestants make is to assume that because he lived long ago, Origen was an early church father and looked up to by Orthodox Christians. His brilliant scholarship and enormous productivity in theological research would undoubtedly earn him a position in today’s leading seminaries. But because of certain questionable aspects of his teachings, he is not recognized as a church father by Orthodox Christians.

Reading the church fathers is far from an easy task but will be rewarding for those who want to have a well grounded understanding of the Christian faith. It is important to keep in mind that the term “church fathers” is a short hand expression for a theological movement that spanned several centuries, spanned both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire and even extended outside the Roman Empire. A good starting point for those not familiar with the early church fathers is Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition vol. 1.

The Early Church Fathers on Free Will

When it comes to doing theology, Orthodox Christians ask: What was the general consensus of church fathers? The early Christians did theology conservatively. Rather than attempt to come up with a creative solution, they sought an understanding grounded in Scripture and in line with the understanding of Scripture taught by the Apostles’ successors in ministry, the bishops.

A study of the early Church shows a broad theological consensus existed that affirmed belief in free will. J.N.D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrine notes that the second century Apologists unanimously believed in human free will (1960:166).

Justin Martyr is known as “The Philosopher.” He was not part of the ordained clergy but was a teacher much in the fashion like today’s university professors. He wrote:

For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith:

Now all such expression demonstrates that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem was patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. Jerusalem was one of the spiritual centers and preserver of the ancient Christian tradition. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, a well respected teacher in the fourth century, taught in his catechetical lectures:

For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism).

John of Damascus, an eighth century church father famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, wrote the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early church. He explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic The Ladder of Divine Ascent wrote:

Of the rational beings created by Him and honoured with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).

What is striking is that the Calvinists’ doctrines of total deprativity and double predestination were not taught by the early church fathers. The distinctive teachings of the Reformed tradition have their roots in Augustine of Hippo and the influence of medieval Scholasticism on Christian theology in the Middle Ages. This points to Calvinism (Reformed theology) not being part of the historic Christian faith, but a novel theological system invented by John Calvin in the 1500s.

An Invitation to Baptists to Read the Early Church Fathers

Christians who are by temperament conservative find a certain appeal in the early church fathers. They are repelled or disturbed by innovative doctrines that push the boundaries too far. One of the criticisms that Orthodoxy has of Calvinism is that it teaches novel doctrines like total depravity and double predestination. What John Calvin and his supporters did was to take certain ideas taught by Augustine and push the boundaries of these teachings in unexpected directions reaching unprecedented conclusions.

Many Protestants, including Baptists, have long been unaware of the rich heritage in the early church. This is probably due to the mistaken belief that there took place a massive apostasy early on and that the Christian religion fell into deep spiritual darkness until the Protestant Reformation. Ralph Winter has labeled this view: the Blinked Off/ Blinked On or BOBO theory of history. The leading scholars in church history reject this view of church history. The BOBO theory of church history also contains disturbing theological implications.

We invite Baptists to discover the rich heritage in the early church fathers. We are sure that this will help them move their faith and practice closer to the historic mainstream, and protect them from doctrinal innovations. We pray that they will find many unexpected treasures in the early church fathers and in the history of the early church.

Robert Arakaki

“Southern Baptist or Semi-Pelagian” by Doug Beaumont in Soul Device (19 June 2012). Written by an open minded Baptist seminary professor, this article has a pingback to an OrthodoxBridge blog posting.

“From First Baptist to the First Century” by Clark Carlton a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy. This is his personal story of his journey to Orthodoxy.

Unintentional Schism? A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Too catholic to be Catholic”

June 12, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 39 Comments

Victim of Climate Change?

Of late Protestantism seems to be undergoing a “climate change.” Theological positions are shifting and church affiliations are undergoing realignment in surprising ways. Reformed Christians are rediscovering liturgical worship and the church fathers. While pastors sought to enrich their Protestant heritage, they did not intend that people would jettison their Protestantism altogether and become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. These defections are raising concerns among pastors. Peter Leithart in a recent posting noted:

My friends tell me that my name has been invoked in various web skirmishes concerning Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, sometimes by people, including friends, who claim that I nurtured them along in their departure from the Protestant world. My friends also hinted that it would be good for me to say again why I’m not heading to Rome or Constantinople or Moscow (Russia!), nor encouraging anyone to do so.

Leithart’s “Too catholic to be Catholic” is an apologia for his remaining Protestant. A considerable part of the article focused on the matter of closed Communion and church unity. He argues that converting to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy does not heal divisions among Christians but rather reproduces the divisions in different ways.

Mercersburg Theology Paves the Way

I once held to this view. Prior to becoming Orthodox my theology was shaped by Mercersburg theology. Mercersburg Theology was a form of high church Calvinism in the 1800s that sought to incorporate the early church fathers and the Eucharist into Reformed Christianity. In many ways the Mercersburg theologians, John Nevin and Philip Schaff, anticipated the inclusive approach advocated by Leithart by more than a century. There is little that is new to what Leithart is advocating. There seems to be a Mercersburg revival among young Reformed scholars like W. Brad Littlejohn and Jonathan Bonomo.

Like Nevin and Schaff I believed then that through a historical dialectic the divisions between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism would be resolved. According to this view even if I were to become a Catholic, the dividing issues would still remain between the two traditions and for that reason it would be better to remain a Protestant and help Protestants recover their Catholic roots. In this way a more radical healing of the divisions would come about.

However, as I studied the early Church the more the underlying assumptions of Mercersburg Theology and the Protestant Reformation became problematic. Theology in the early Church was based upon the receiving of Holy Tradition and being in communion with its bishops. Nowhere was there any evidence of people reading the Bible for themselves. Contrary to the popular understanding of tradition as extra-biblical man-made inventions, the early Christians sought to preserve the teachings and practices of the Apostles. (See my posting on apostolic succession.) And just as surprising was the discovery that the New Testament teaches the passing on of the apostolic doctrine from one generation to the next (II Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2; II Thessalonians 2:15). (See my posting on the biblical basis for Holy Tradition.)

This historic-biblical understanding of Tradition was radically different from Mercersburg’s scholastic method which viewed the writings of the church fathers as theological resources for constructing theological systems than as part of a traditioning process. The notion of Tradition contradicts the idea of doctrinal evolution that underlies much of Western Christianity. For the early Christians then and Orthodoxy today, Holy Tradition is a body of doctrine and praxis received as a treasure to be safeguarded and preserved from alteration; it is not a jar of silly putty to be shaped and played with as we like. Furthermore, theology in the early Church was conciliar in which the Church Catholic made binding decisions on matters of doctrine and practice. This was a fulfillment of Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. (See my recent blog posting on Pentecost.) What impressed me about the early Church was the reality of church unity back then. As a Protestant I was haunted by the fact that there was so much theological diversity among Protestants and even within the same denomination. And I was troubled by the fact that Protestant Christianity seemed to bear little resemblance to the early Church.

Horizontal Unity versus Vertical Unity

Leithart posed the question: “Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome?” My response is that there are two dimensions to Eucharistic unity: horizontal unity in which one shares the same faith with others across the world in the present moment and vertical unity in which one shares the same faith with others across time, e.g., fellowship with the church fathers. As I became increasingly aware of the significant differences between Protestantism and the early church fathers I reached the conclusion that Protestants, even the original Reformers, would be barred from receiving Communion in the early Church. This led me to an awkward dilemma. Did I want to be in communion with contemporary Protestantism and out of communion with the early church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils? Or was I willing to give up my Protestant beliefs in order to be in communion with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

In other words, Pastor Leithart’s advocacy of open communion is inadvertently divisive because it sacrifices vertical unity with the historic Church for horizontal unity with the contemporary Protestant church.

Many Protestants would object: But we believe in the same things the early Christians did! I would respond: Do you really believe the same things the early Christians did?

Does your church accept the Nicene Creed as authoritative? (Many Evangelicals today never heard of the Nicene Creed.)
Does your church celebrate the historic Liturgy or is your order of worship something recently concocted? (Most Protestant churches do not celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. Those who celebrate the Eucharist regularly do not have a received liturgical tradition that goes back to the Apostles, e.g., the Liturgy of St. James, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Mark.)
Does your church accept the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood as taught by the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies? (Most Protestants today believe that the bread and wine are just symbols. The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation and the Reformed doctrine of the spiritual feeding in the Lord’s Supper have no counterpart in the teachings of the early Church.)
Who is your bishop? What is his line of succession? (Virtually all Protestants lack bishops in the historic sense.)
Does your church accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s decision about the veneration of icons? (No Protestant denominations and none of the Reformers venerated icons as decreed by Nicea II.)
Does your church reject the novel doctrines of sola fide (justification by faith alone) and sola scriptura (the Bible alone)? (None of the early church fathers taught these Protestant doctrines.)

The gap between modern day Protestantism and the early Church is considerable. The early Church did not subscribe to the view that if one accepted Jesus as Savior one was automatically a Christian and therefore a member of the body of Christ. Becoming a Christian in the early Church was a fairly lengthy process in which one faithfully attended the Sunday liturgies for at least a year and learned the Creed by heart. Conversion in the early Church meant undergoing the sacrament of Baptism in which one was born anew in Christ, received the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Chrismation, then brought before the altar where one received the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. (See Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, especially Lectures XIX to XXIII.)

Pastor Leithart is critical of the notion of closed communion. He wonders what the difference is between the Catholics, Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, or the Continental Reformed? For Pastor Leithart this is a rhetorical throw away question. But actually, this is a very useful question to ask. Another way to pose the question is to ask: What does Communion mean for this particular body? What does Communion tell me about the boundaries for their faith? How a church body practices Communion brings to light how they define the parameters of doctrinal orthodoxy, i.e., how it distinguishes right doctrine from heresy. It shines a spotlight on the theological core of the church body. A church body without a theological core is like a person without an identity (a very unhealthy situation to be in!).

Communion in Roman Catholicism means: (1) that one accepts the infallible teaching authority of the Pope and (2) that one accepts the Catholic Church’s dogma on transubstantiation. Communion in the Orthodox Church means: (1) that one has received the “pattern of sound teachings” (II Timothy 1:13-14) passed on from the Apostles through the bishops (II Timothy 2:2) to the church of today, and (2) that one has placed one’s self under the authority of the bishop the guardian and teacher of Apostolic Tradition (II Timothy 4:1-5). In the case of the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, to be in communion means that one accepts the distinctive Lutheran doctrines as found in the Book of Concord. Even Baptists practice a form of closed communion; only those who have been baptized by total immersion are granted access to the communion table.

What Pastor Leithart is doing with his rhetorical question is not only trivializing the Eucharist by detaching it from doctrinal authority but isolating the Eucharist from the historic church be it Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. He seems to be saying we all should be giving communion to each other regardless of our doctrines or regardless of our what our faith tradition teaches. Is he implying that there are no core doctrines? And that communion is to be given to all without condition? And that there is no such thing as wrong doctrine (heresy)? I’m sure that Pastor Leithart does have doctrinal standards that he applies when he celebrates Holy Communion. Once he spells out what the preconditions are then he in effect declares what he considers to be the boundaries of his church tradition.

A Critique of the Branch Theory of the Church

Leithart’s criticism of closed communion is apparently based upon the branch theory of the church. The branch theory of the church believes that despite the outward divisions, the various denominations (branches) remain part of the one true Church. This view holds that despite the differences we are all one and that we need to recover a visible expression of our underlying oneness. In its original version, the branch theory encompassed the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox traditions; then somewhere along the way it was broadened to include Lutherans, Reformed Christians, Baptists, and born again Evangelicals! Given Protestantism’s inability to find common theological ground, the attempt is made to substitute orthodoxy with inclusiveness. Such an approach is radically at odds with historic Christianity. Furthermore, the branch theory calls into question Christ’s promises that the gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. (See my recent blog posting: Pentecost and the Promise of God Fulfilled.)

Orthodoxy rejects the branch theory on several grounds. One, none of the church fathers taught this doctrine. Historically, it was invented by the Anglican theologian, William Palmer (1803-1885), and then popularized by the Oxford Movement in the mid 1800s. Two, the branch theory assumes that heterodoxy is compatible with the one true Church. Three, the branch theory assumes that each of the branch (denomination) has a part of the Truth but no one branch (denomination) has retained Apostolic Tradition intact. This implies that the original Apostolic Tradition is no longer intact but exists only in broken fragments. On the grounds that it has faithfully preserved the Apostles’ teachings for the past two thousand years, Orthodoxy is compelled to reject the branch theory. The irony and tragedy here is that Leithart’s position on open communion seems to have roots going back to the 1800s, not to the ancient Church.

Is denying Communion to Protestants a Bad Thing?

Orthodoxy is not a social club but a covenant community entrusted with safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition. This is the teaching and practice of the Apostles handed down from generation to generation with care and diligence; much like how the crown jewels of the British monarchy are treated with great respect and care. Protestants are denied Communion because they do not share in the historic Faith but hold to a novel theological system that none of the church fathers taught.

By denying Protestants Communion Orthodoxy is actually doing Protestants a favor by making visible Protestantism’s alienation from its patristic roots. We invite Protestants to become part of a historic Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles. We invite Protestants to leave behind their doctrinal innovations and embrace the historic Christian Faith. But it should be made clear that Orthodoxy will not endorse a cheap ecumenicism that jeopardizes our ties with the historic Church. The Eucharist is not just a symbol but a genuine receiving of Christ’s body and blood. Eucharistic union with the Orthodox Church means being in communion with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.

Learning From Ignatius of Antioch

Icon – Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98/117)

Let us give heed to Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch who was martyred circa 117. Tradition has it that Ignatius was one of the children Jesus took into his arms and blessed. It is important to keep in mind that Antioch was the Apostle Paul’s home church (Acts 11:25-26, 13:1-2). This means that Ignatius was discipled at one of the spiritual capitals of the early Church. Orthodoxy can claim a direct historic link to Ignatius through the Patriarchate of Antioch which still exists today. The church Antioch continues today under the leadership of the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV.

Ignatius wrote:

Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Letter to the Smyrneans VIII)

For Ignatius the Catholic Church was evidenced by two things: the Eucharist and the bishop. The Orthodox Church holds to the same view as Ignatius. It is surprising that Pastor Leithart feels free to ignore the very point that Ignatius stressed over and over as he faced death as a martyr for Christ. Ignatius also has stern words of warning:

“Be not deceived,” my brethren, if any one follow a maker of schism, “he does not inherit the kingdom of God;” if any man walk in strange doctrine he has no part in the Passion. (Letter to the Philadelphians III)

What we read here from Ignatius is not a call to doctrinal inclusiveness but to doctrinal orthodoxy. “Strange doctrines” refers to any teaching not taught the Apostles and their successors, the bishops. Because they lack bishops Protestants have been vulnerable to strange teachings. The novelty and Protestant assumptions underlying Pastor Leithart’s article “Too catholic to be Catholic” becomes stark when compared against Ignatius of Antioch’s letters. The two positions are too different to be reconciled. Leithart’s “Too catholic” article cannot be squared away against Ignatius’ teachings. One has to accept the one and reject the other. This means that one must choose between communion with contemporary Protestantism or communion with the historic Church via Eastern Orthodoxy.

Conclusion

Pastor Leithart misses the mark when he makes inclusiveness and doctrinal diversity the basis for being “catholic.” What Leithart is proposing is a Protestant solution (doctrinal inclusiveness) for a Protestant problem (denominational divisions and doctrinal innovation). Ironically, Leithart’s attempt at ecumenicism exacts a high price – schism from the historic Church. To conclude, Leithart’s “catholicism” is unintentionally schismatic.

Robert Arakaki

See also: Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick’s response: “Too catholic to be Catholic”: Communion With Idolators?

Called Together

June 5, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 23 Comments

Fr. Isaiah and Beth Gillette

Folks, I invited Fr. Isaiah to write this blog posting for couples. I met Fr. Isaiah when he was stationed at Schofield Army Barracks in Hawaii. He is currently stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas. He serves under Bishop Basil, Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America, Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese. Robert

I wish to write briefly about the importance of husbands, on the way to Orthodoxy, to be patient with reluctant wives, to love them unconditionally, pray fervently, and demonstrate the positive and life-changing influence of the Orthodox faith in their lives. I would now also like to say something about helping wives understand something about the reason for seeking such a change. The acceptance of the Orthodox Church can be seen as the fulfillment of the road we are already on.

My wife and I converted to the Orthodox faith in 1991, after several years of searching. We were both raised in the evangelical wing of the United Methodist Church, and met at Asbury College. After attending Asbury Theological Seminary, I went on to serve as a pastor in United Methodist churches for 11 years. During that time, we proudly identified ourselves as evangelicals; it was our commitment to an evangelical view of Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church that eventually led us to search for a home in historic Orthodoxy.

It was shortly after we left the United Methodist Church, during our first few weeks as Orthodox catechumens, that a conversation took place after the Liturgy. One of our new Orthodox friends was asking us some questions about our life, back “…when you used to be evangelicals.” In the car on the way home, my wife asked me, “When did we stop being evangelicals?” We talked through the idea that terms mean different things in different contexts. To us, “evangelical” had always meant the opposite of “liberal,” with reference to our conservative theological commitments. Thus, our movement to Orthodoxy was the fulfillment of our evangelicalism. But to our Orthodox friend, “evangelical” meant “Protestant,” as it does in Europe, where you can be “evangelische” and still be as liberal as the day is long. Thus, to someone with a more European outlook, our coming to Orthodoxy was a leaving behind of evangelicalism.

This was an important conversation for my wife and me. It served to emphasize that, even though we were entering a new world, our entry to Orthodoxy did not represent the abandoning of everything we had believed in. Rather, we were following our hearts, and God’s call, to live our evangelical faith to its logical fulfillment. There is a balance, in the Gospel, between continuity and discontinuity. Christ, who said, “Behold, I make all things new,” also told His disciples that He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

For all of those considering the Orthodox Church, there is something about their spiritual quest, for which Orthodoxy is the fulfillment. For many modern Roman Catholics, for example, the Roman church is not Catholic enough. Coming to Orthodoxy, for them, is a returning to the ancient Catholic faith, to a Church more like the one their grandparents knew. It is the fulfillment of their Catholicism, not its negation. Much the same could be said of those coming from the Anglican tradition. To be sure, there are great differences which need to be dealt with, doctrines and practices which need to be brought into line with Orthodox theology and ecclesiology.

For those like my wife and me, coming from Protestantism, the continuity and fulfillment experienced in the move to Orthodoxy have more to do with finding an unchanging Church, faithful to Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles, after being set adrift by ever-changing social policies and make-it-up-as-you-go doctrine. We were delighted to find so many direct links between the Church of the New Testament and the Orthodox Church; not just Apostolic Succession, but the apostolic faith and practice, here and now.

As I work with new converts, both enthusiastic and reluctant, I find it most useful to find out where they are coming from, on this spiritual quest, and build on the strengths already there. Enthusiastic husbands with hesitant wives should first appreciate their wives’ hesitation. Reluctance to jump ship is a good thing! Gently and patiently help her to see that this move is in the direction of truth (the Truth), faithfulness, authentic worship, deeper spirituality, and life-long transformation in the likeness of Christ. In other words, what she is longing for. Tell her what it is that excites you about Orthodoxy. Most of all, this move must be a movement toward something, not just away from something.

Couple on Bridge – New York

I hope in another installment to give some more practical advice, about when and how to adopt Orthodox practices into the home.

For that, it would be good to have some input from guys who have made this journey with their families. How did you handle the sign of the cross, a prayer corner, prayers at meals, attendance at Orthodox worship services, etc., while you were still on the way?

The blessing of the Lord and His mercy!

Fr. Isaiah Gillette

See also:

Father Isaiah Gillette “Family Concerns and Converting to Orthodoxy”

Frederica Mathewes-Green “In the Passenger Seat”

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 73 of 94

Patristics for Baptists?

See also: “Why Do the Baptists Rage?” by Vincent Martini in On Behalf of All (19 June 2012). This blog posting is written by a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. It provides an insightful analysis of the implications involved in this emergent controversy.

“Southern Baptist or Semi-Pelagian” by Doug Beaumont in Soul Device (19 June 2012). Written by an open minded Baptist seminary professor, this article has a pingback to an OrthodoxBridge blog posting.

“From First Baptist to the First Century” by Clark Carlton a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy. This is his personal story of his journey to Orthodoxy.

Unintentional Schism? A Response to Peter Leithart’s “Too catholic to be Catholic”

Called Together

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives