Converted to the Past: The appeal of Orthodoxy

After 15 years as an Episcopalian priest, Gary Mathewes-Green could no longer tolerate being under the authority of apostate bishops. He and his wife, Frederica, both adult converts to Christianity who had attended seminary together, began looking for a denomination that still honored the traditional creeds and moral principles. The dissident Anglican branches wouldn't do, because Gary "felt he couldn't climb further out from the branch to a twig; if anything, he had to return to the trunk." The couple briefly considered the Roman Catholic Church, which allows married priests in Gary's situation, but they were repelled by some of the theology, by the authoritarianism, and by the prospect of working under the supervision of people whose thinking resembled that of the Episcopal bishops whom they were fleeing.

Gary eventually came to the Orthodox evangelist Fr. Peter Gillquist, who answered his theological questions, convincing him that Orthodoxy taught salvation by grace, not works. Frederica remained reluctant for a while to desert the sinking ship of liberalized Anglicanism, reasoning that there was a special need for chaplains on the deck of the Titanic. She also says that it is typical among couples converting to Orthodoxy for the husband to be gung-ho from the start, and for the wife to take more time getting used to the idea. True to form, Frederica now can't imagine ever not being Orthodox, writing that she "tasted and saw, and nothing can compare."

"Facing East" gives readers a chance to taste Frederica's experience and to compare it with their own. It is the story of a year in the life of Father Gary's young missionary congregation (Antiochean Orthodox) in the Baltimore area, a family diary of a liturgical year. I found it sufficiently charming to read aloud to my wife over several weeks in our after-dinner routine. We are Presbyterians who are just as satisfied with our local church (but not our denomination!) as Frederica is with her Orthodox community. Although our ship isn't sinking, we still found much in her account to admire.

For one thing, Orthodoxy provides a magnificent aesthetic experience. Worshipers absorb the faith not by hearing about it but by reliving the gospel and the Passion in the liturgy. This gives them a sense of contact with the historic Christian tradition that is often missing in services that are centered on the sermon and more closely tied to contemporary culture.

Second, Orthodoxy is demanding. Participating in the fasts and in the long services (often standing) discourages the attitude, so prevalent among Protestants, that going to church should be something like watching television.

Finally, the Mathewes-Green parents seem to have persuaded their daughter and two sons to share a good deal of their enthusiasm. I need to hear of no further wonders. Those children are potentially more impressive answers to prayer than a thousand miraculously renewed icons.

Did I say that Orthodoxy as practiced by the Mathewes-Green family is demanding? Not if you compare it with the disciplined life of Seraphim Rose, a character straight out of the days of the Desert Fathers.

Born Eugene Rose in San Diego in 1934, he came to San Francisco in the 1950s to seek wisdom of the gnostic kind, studying Oriental lore under Alan Watts. Eugene had the makings of a superior academic mind, including an amazing gift for learning languages. He also had a devotion to seek Truth rather than fashionable knowledge, and to live for God rather than for a career. This inherent sanctity made him unsuitable for a life in the mind games of academia. In fact, it made him unsuitable for a career even in the Orthodox Church, where he was constantly in conflict with manipulative bishops.

Eugene had virtually stumbled into Orthodoxy, falling under the influence of a saintly prelate called "Archbishop John." Able to see straight through his church's flawed exterior into the patristic understanding of Christianity at its heart, he never looked back. With his friend Gleb (later Abbot Herman), he founded a monastery in the Northern California mountains west of Redding, living there an arduous life of monastic asceticism and scholarship. As Father Seraphim, he died of an intestinal infection in 1982, at the age of 48, leaving volumes of inspired but loosely organized writings, mostly in the form of lecture notes or articles published in the journal Orthodox World.

I cannot even begin to evaluate his achievement in this brief essay, except to say that I have rarely encountered so penetrating an intellect combined with so generous a spirit. His biography by a brother monk may seem overlong for some readers, but it is packed with fascinating details I wouldn't have wanted to miss.

One common criticism of Orthodoxy is that it reflects a "Dark Ages" mentality. Father Seraphim would have been proud to admit that he was trying to recapture the mindset of the early Christian centuries. I was taught to see pre-Reformation church history as the story of the Church of Rome, with Augustine and Aquinas leading to Luther and Calvin. From the Orthodox viewpoint, the main story is not Rome, but a turbulent, glorious millennium of church councils and inspired patristic scholars, followed by a tragic second millennium of schisms and decline. Frederica summarizes it eloquently:

When the unity of Christendom was broken, and papal autocracy substituted for collegial deliberation, the Western Church was free to develop in a direction that led to such disasters as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the sale of indulgences. The Protestant Reformers meant to return to the roots of Christian belief, but their formula of sola Scriptura failed to prevent waves of further schisms.

Whatever Protestants may think of specific Orthodox doctrines and practices, we should respect the motives that brought people like the Mathewes-Greens and Seraphim Rose to Orthodoxy. At bottom, they are the same motives that launched the Reformation. There is a passion to dig beneath centuries of accumulated accommodation to the spirit of this world, to rediscover the treasure of authentic gospel truth that was proclaimed and defined at the beginning. Whether Orthodoxy has all the right answers or not, it is profoundly attractive to people who are asking the right questions, and who want to find the trunk of the tree rather than to crawl further out on a branch.

One thing we can learn from Orthodoxy is to take the long view of Christian history, seeing the Reformation as one episode in a much bigger story. Throughout the twentieth century, Christianity seemed doomed to wither away under the devastating critique of scientific investigation and the vast social changes that rendered faith (so the experts explained) simply irrelevant. In the end, it is materialism that has withered.

What name shall we give the third millennium? I like to think that we are coming to an Age of Reconstitution. Christianity is not dead or dying, but poised for a new beginning in a world that needs the Good News more than ever. We need to stop multiplying schisms, to set aside the tools of worldly power, and to give the Holy Spirit a chance to help us rediscover the truth that once united us. Those of us who are not inclined to join the converts to Orthodoxy can nonetheless rejoice to have them as worthy partners in that great work of healing.

Phillip Johnson is professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is Defeating Darwinism -- by Opening Minds (InterVarsity).

Submitted for Discussion with massive reservations on the part of FReeper "OP".

Some criticisms:

We are Presbyterians who are just as satisfied with our local church (but not our denomination!) as Frederica is with her Orthodox community. Although our ship isn't sinking, we still found much in her account to admire.

queer

Whether Orthodoxy has all the right answers or not, it is profoundly attractive to people who are asking the right questions, and who want to find the trunk of the tree rather than to crawl further out on a branch. -- which begs the Question: what is the Trunk of the Church? "Profoundly attractive" as Orthodoxy may be, Protestants have never located the "trunk" of the Church either in Roman Papal Succession or in Orthodox Ecclesial Succession. For Orthodox Protestants, the "the line of my people, back to the beginning" has always been located in the Succession of Biblical Doctrine:

We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church -- a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects. -- The Belgic Confession of the Reformed Faith, 1561

This is a major Protestant objection to both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims of being the "One True Church". Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics claim that their Church is the eldest representative of the True Church, each claiming to be 2000 years old. To Orthodox Protestants, this Claim itself represents a declaration of Ecclesial Error -- claiming one's Church to be 2000 years old amounts (in the Orthodox Protestant Mind) to hanging a Neon Sign over one's sanctuary announcing, "We're NOT the True Church!" The Church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects. Any Church, whether Roman or Eastern, which claims to be a mere 2000 years old, claims itself to be a novelty and an invention -- and therefore NOT the One True Church.

As I said: submitted with massive reservations, but submitted for discussion.

Johnson's article here doesn't compare to his brutal and devastating critique of evolution. In terms of doctrine, he's pulling his punches.

Actually, I don't think that Johnson is "pulling his punches" so much as failing to identify the field of combat. I am reminded of Charles Colson's embrace of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together". Is Charles Colson a heretic? I don't bloody well think so. Has he been a great witness of the Evangelical Protestant faith to the Imprisoned and Forgotten sinners in our criminal justice system? He bloody well has indeed.

Has he correctly indentified the field of theological combat between Romans and Protestants? It is evident in the declarations of ECT, that he has not.

Chuck Colson and Phillip Johnson. Two devout Evangelical Protestants; two brilliant Legally-trained Logicians; two men who don't really understand the Reformation -- Colson in terms of Roman Catholics, Johnson in terms of Eastern Orthodox.

Is Charles Colson a heretic? I don't bloody well think so. Has he been a great witness of the Evangelical Protestant faith to the Imprisoned and Forgotten sinners in our criminal justice system? He bloody well has indeed.

I think Colson's (and others' cheerleading for ECT) marks them as blind guides at the very least. But strictly speaking, it is almost a definition of heresy for any Prot to embrace Rome.

It seems to me that Johnson here failed to distinguish the lesser problem that westerners should have with the Orthodox's eucharistic practice and icons. He really papered that over, not even very smoothly. Johnson can be excused his warm view of the Orthodox but, given that his reputation rests upon refuting evolution with cold hard fact, he fell down on the job here. His reputation as a tough legal mind in fighting the falsehoods and arrogance of the evolutionists inevitably buttresses his little pillow-fight over the theological differences between the Orthodox and Prot/Baptist/evangelical churches.

Just a thought: we might skip the word 'bloody' in religious threads. It could offend devout British readers (what few might remain). The blood in 'bloody' is, in my understanding, a British reference to the blood of Christ. Besides, a good Teuton like you should have some nice German phrases. ; )

I think Colson's (and others' cheerleading for ECT) marks them as blind guides at the very least. But strictly speaking, it is almost a definition of heresy for any Prot to embrace Rome.

I'll grant your first observation, but reserve the following on your second observation -- Heresy, to my mind, is the teaching of false doctrine, most particularly doctrines directly affecting Salvation (i.e., as distinguished from Baptist-Presbyterian debates over the Mode of Baptism or Lutheran-Calvinist debates over the Nature of the Eucharist -- all of which are important, but which do not themselves abrogate Protestant agreement on Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, etc).

It probably should be a "definition of heresy" for any Prot to embrace heresy; but I rather doubt Colson (and maybe even Johnson) could precisely define their own beliefs, let alone "heresy".

Colson may well indeed be (in fact, is) leading Protestants astray, but (if this constitutes any mitigation of the case, not certain it does) entirely out of "Good Intentions" marked by ignorance of his own Confessions.

So, I'll see your "blind guides", and call the hand. ;-)

It seems to me that Johnson here failed to distinguish the lesser problem that westerners should have with the Orthodox's eucharistic practice and icons. He really papered that over, not even very smoothly. Johnson can be excused his warm view of the Orthodox but, given that his reputation rests upon refuting evolution with cold hard fact, he fell down on the job here. His reputation as a tough legal mind in fighting the falsehoods and arrogance of the evolutionists inevitably buttresses his little pillow-fight over the theological differences between the Orthodox and Prot/Baptist/evangelical churches.

That is something I had thought about as well. Johnson, like Colson, is in essence "lending his reputation" to an Ecumenicist tendency which is not necessarily beneficial to the exacting pursuit of Absolute Truth.

On reflection, that's one of the reasons I posted the article -- it is Phillip Johnson, he is a "Big Name", and people do pay attention to what he has to say. Ergo, what you said.

Just a thought: we might skip the word 'bloody' in religious threads. It could offend devout British readers (what few might remain). The blood in 'bloody' is, in my understanding, a British reference to the blood of Christ. Besides, a good Teuton like you should have some nice German phrases. ; )

Fair 'Nuff. Heck, the entire German Language sounds like a string of cuss words. ;-)

Personally, as I have said before: I think that American conventions on "cuss words" are pretty arbitrary ("jerk", an abbreviation for "jerk-off" or Onanism, is generally thought of as "mild" or not even a "cuss word" at all; whereas various words for animal manure -- which is not an "evil" in any sense, in fact it's a positive good at planting season -- are considered the basest profanities), but some of Ye Olde Merry English "cuss words" do have a liguistic origin in what could be called "profane", so I'll happily abstain therefrom at your recommendation.

best, OP

PostScript -- As you probably already guessed, ignore #5 entirely. I had composed a coupla paragraphs on CS Lewis (he of the "Great Hall with many Rooms" ecclesiology), which I ultimately decided to delete as being Redundant to my argument. Running out the door to Sunday Service, it occurred to me that Lewis' training was not the same as Johnson and Colson's anyway, and posted an addendum to that effect -- nevermind that I had already deleted the entire section on Lewis. Oops... and D'oh.

So, I'll see your "blind guides", and call the hand. ;-)

Okay. I guess I can't make the 'heretic' charge stick. No need to gather wood for a bonfire just yet.

Personally, as I have said before: I think that American conventions on "cuss words" are pretty arbitrary ("jerk", an abbreviation for "jerk-off" or Onanism, is generally thought of as "mild" or not even a "cuss word" at all; whereas various words for animal manure -- which is not an "evil" in any sense, in fact it's a positive good at planting season -- are considered the basest profanities), but some of Ye Olde Merry English "cuss words" do have a liguistic origin in what could be called "profane", so I'll happily abstain therefrom at your recommendation.

Actually, I always thought that 'jerk' came from 'soda jerk'. But perhaps Presbys have a different take on that matter.

However, I've suspected that a number of words considered blasphemous in the usual Carrie-Nation circles actually orginated in some hellfire-and-brimstone writings and/or sermons. I think, for instance, that 'god-damned' probably orginated from a clergyman inveighing against the evils of ______ (Rome, dancing, card-playing, etc.). However, when generally applied, it sounds blasphemous and often is blasphemous. The same may be true of the British use of 'bloody'.

Naturally, I like to imagine the problem of blasphemous phrases originates in denominations that practice infant baptism and have a central denominational authority. But I could be biased...

Actually, I always thought that 'jerk' came from 'soda jerk'. But perhaps Presbys have a different take on that matter.

Actually, "lapsed Lutherans" in this case (my understanding of the etymology of the term "jerk" employed as an insult derives from my dad, who didn't much favor the term either). I suppose that it's possible that the insult derives instead from "soda jerk" -- except that I can't really see anything insulting about a "soda jerk" unless jerk is already assumed to be an insult of some sort.

Would the term "soda dispenser" be considered insulting, unless "dispenser" were already considered a form of insult?

(Shrugs). I probably shouldn't be overly adamant about the Etymology of Slang (in which it's entirely possible that we both are right, some Slang having multiple origins); Me, I'm not much bothered by many commonly-reviled "four letter words", but I don't favor the term "jerk" (which is considered "mild" by most). Go figure. ;-)

Naturally, I like to imagine the problem of blasphemous phrases originates in denominations that practice infant baptism and have a central denominational authority. But I could be biased...

Well, of course -- the problem almost certainly had to originate therein, seeing as we were around before y'all, and all that... (Parry, and riposte; you may remise in opposition, good suh -- grin)

Interesting that this thread is so quiet. I thought it an interesting article... Oh, well -- perhaps wiser heads than mine are availing themselves of a nice afternoon nap...

This is a major Protestant objection to both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims of being the "One True Church".

The church of Christ is simply that, those whom Christ recognizes as His, whether they are part of the Orthodox church or not.

As to the claim of being 2000 years old, I believe the Orthodox church makes this claim to show historical continuity - of the Orthodox church, not the church of Christ. The problem so frequently becomes that of defining the word "church", even down to the simple levels. As in a Sunday school lesson in our parish from last year where the children were taught with a hands-on lesson to understand the idea that "church" is defined not as the building we drive to for liturgy, or even the faith outlined in the Nicene Creed we say, but the people who worship Christ.

To address the nature of the word "true" which is used in Orthodoxy, becomes even more tricky. Orthodoxy is so far from logical and so empirical that this becomes really impossible. My best attempt at it would be to say that the Orthodox church feels she has retained a more "full" version of Christianity and a different ethos - that of ascetism and a strong emphasis on love. She feels she has the "whole" truth. Often the whole truth requires apparently contradictory statements - God is one nature but three persons; Christ is one person but two natures. So I would say that we feel we have the truth and at the same time we recognize that others within the church of Christ also possess the truth.

You could stand as a perfect example of my point above, OP. It was not surprising to me that in your initial posting you chose to criticize the presbyterian church of today, as you frequently post here on FR with a spirit of humility and love. In fact it is often what I consider to be a perfect spirit of humility and love, obviously of Christ, so from my very empirical viewpoint you must possess the truth. And to come full-circle and complete this thought, in your post you did exhibit qualities of ascetic thinking, humility, and love for others, which are the things we believe define the Orthodox church as filled with truth. :-)

Using this post to you to also ping katnip, instead of posting another empty one and typing "ping"....

It seems to me that Johnson here failed to distinguish the lesser problem that westerners should have with the Orthodox's eucharistic practice and icons.

Having given the book away and never had it returned I cannot speak with accuracy, but I don't recall the book discussing much about the eucharist.

As for icons....our theology about them goes deeper than simply surrounding ourselves with "windows to heaven".

As Mama Fred herself said in the book, "Still, there seems something shocking about using representations of Jesus in our worship. It is the same shock that is sometimes called "the scandal of particularity"--that God who is ineffable and invisible, who commanded that no image of him be made, took flesh and became a baby. He became visible, concrete, with shocking specificity: a man of a certain height, build, and eye color, eating a real roast fish on a Sunday afternoon."

Our theology of icons is about the representation in the flesh of God here on earth, or Christ. And we are all "icons of God", made in His image.

A writing you may find enjoyable here. I laugh every time I read the line about the Orthodox leaning against the barriers.

Having given the book away and never had it returned I cannot speak with accuracy, but I don't recall the book discussing much about the eucharist.

Well, I was not so much criticizing the eucharistic belief of the Orthodox (shared with Rome and with Lutheran Protestants) as I was commenting that Johnson seemed to entirely dismiss it as a relevant topic. Johnson is sharper than this.

As for icons....our theology about them goes deeper than simply surrounding ourselves with "windows to heaven".

The icons thing goes along with the statues of saints or of Mary found in the Roman churches. The Roman church at the time of the Reformation led its ignorant followers to literally worship these idols. Protestants (including Baptists and evangelicals) have always had a horror of this practice. They oppose it as the creation of a graven image of God and the worshipping of a false god. At any rate, I just thought that Johnson, as a Protestant, really soft-pedalled these differences.

Now, having said the preceding, I don't think the Eastern churches ever came close to what Rome did in the West in these practices. So Johnson failing to note this is not a great mistake. In truth, no Protestant can ever have the kind of attachment for an icon or statue or other artistic work or reliquary as does the Roman church, and to a far lesser extent, the Orthodox. But a Protestant should still at least indicate the difference in theology, tradition and culture. To read Johnson's article, one might come away thinking that the Orthodox are just a rather colorful Protestant church.

There are, after all, distinctive theological principles and practices that many tens of thousands of people have died to protect and preserve. It seems to me that we are obliged, inasmuch as they are our forbears, to at least acknowledge the differences in an honest way.

Not being familiar with the author at all, perhaps he was just trying to be kind and state that he enjoyed the book. Mama Fred, as we call her, can be quite fun to read - she herself is not one to deal heavily in philosophy but tends to present the light side of being Orthodox, often she has me laughing and laughing when I read her stuff.

Mama Fred has written most positively of many Protestants, which is how I came to personally enjoy the writings of Howard Finster, to whom she devotes an entire chapter in the book described here. In reading this Finster writing in her book I was deeply moved to tears, and for some time I had it posted on my FR page.

"If You Only Had One Sweet Son And You Gave His Life To Save Ten Wicked Men. And And They Returned And Denied That You Gave Your Only Son For Them And Said You Child Never Exist No One Died For Us. Please Go Right Now And Call You Child To You And Measure You Love For Him And Turn And Look At The Most Sinful Man You Know And Think If You Would Trade Your Presus Son For Him. God Is Love"

I also found it most interesting that Howard Finster devoted so much of his life to using *image* to express his deep devotion to Christ, which is probably why Mama Fred went to meet and spend time with him. Because of her, I have become so fond of Mr. Finster that I am planning to purchase one of his painting/prints and put it right on the wall with my icons. They go for no small amount of money on ebay, so I have yet to choose the one I want....but I find Howard's writings to be so very Orthodox personally. One thing he wrote in particular stays with me on a daily basis - "dying a little every day is harder than dying", and my quote may not be exact, and another thing he wrote was breathtaking to me, about why he created the garden he did. When I find it I will post it.
Anyway, sorry for the regression...

In another chapter, this from memory...again...I recall Mama Fred's description of an Orthodox priest invited to a very down-home spiritual revival and being called to the microphone and not knowing what to say. So he prayed the Trisagion, allowed by us, and I was laughing so hard in reading that chapter. The priest at the microphone saying "Holy God" and all the pentecostals in the audience crying out in response "Holy, Holy, yes Holy!"
Anyway it's a funny chapter, which I am certain I cannot give credit to here. The Trisagion is one of the very serious parts our liturgy, a prayer we stop and give great reverence to when we come to it. ("Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us").
Again, regressing I suppose, but the book is a light one and at times very fun to read. Your writer here may simply be commenting on that fact by writing lightly about the book's message.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.