Month: February 2009

For some coming to Orthodox Christianity, the conversion is a jolting experience where the difference between one’s former way of life and the Orthodox way of life becomes suddenly clear and is a stark contrast. For such converts, and for many people who were born into Orthodoxy and have never been anything else, Orthodoxy is simply true, its rituals and prayers give spiritual strength, and not much thought is given to non-Orthodox religious experiences. There are others, however, who have been religious or spiritual their entire life, and for whom Orthodoxy is the culmination of a gradual approach towards the fullness of faith.

When Orthodoxy is the last step in a long journey of gradually turning to God, the Orthodox Church’s insistence on being the one, true Church often causes one to ponder what then to make of previous spiritual experiences. Some lifelong Orthodox, not having had experience outside the Church, see spiritual non-Orthodox and often wonder if their spirituality is of the same substance as the Orthodox way.

Those of us growing up in Western Europe or America are now trained to be relativists; each culture, belief, and way of life is seen as a choice, and the logical outcome of our rights and freedom. Orthodoxy then presents itself as the true faith, and this seems rather medieval at first glace due to our upbringing. Yet relativism is an empty philosophy which in the end has not served modern man as much as he assumed it would. The belief that all religions, cultures, and practices are equal often leaves man with an empty feeling, or in a state of constant wandering. The fact that there is an alternative, a faith which claims it is the Truth, and can provide evidence that it has remained consistent since its founding by the Lord Jesus Himself two thousand years ago, is a welcome alternative to those burnt out by this empty world-view.

The average Protestant is a also a quasi-relativist by virtue of following the invisible Church theory, whereby all true believers in the Lord are part of His body, which exists wherever His name is glorified. In practice, this means that there are true Christians in various denominations, all of which disagree with one another on many points. Appeals to Billy Graham, missionaries dying for Christ in distant lands, C.S. Lewis, and charismatic faith healings almost invariably follow. In the same way, Roman Catholics will also bring forth their many saints and miracles as testimony.

We cannot remove foreign influences such as relativism so easily, however; while intellectually we come to accept the truth of the Orthodox Church, we wonder about our emotions, our feelings, and our own unique experiences. This leads us to the question: if Orthodoxy is the true faith, then what about miracles and experiences that happen in other Churches, and may have even happened to us? There are three broad possibilities as to what these experiences could be: a creation of our own minds; the work of God preparing us to receive Orthodoxy; and demonic deception.

Most experiences we have are subjective, especially religious phenomena. Mass hysteria and group suggestion can also play a role, such that groups of people can experience something together by the power of suggestion. Our past experiences, such as feelings of intense love, awe, having a powerful dream, experiencing déjà vu, and the like can often be explained with rational explanations. Christians should be careful not to ascribe supernatural origins to every feeling and thought.

Another possibility is of course that the experience did come from God. A sinner who prays in an Evangelical Church for forgiveness and accepts Christ, and then turns his life around, quite possibly did have an experience of God’s love and forgiveness despite the venue (although this must be compared to the often unmentioned revolving door—the high turnaround in many Churches where people fall away from fervor, often getting “saved” again in another Church). God is well aware that the Orthodox Church is not everywhere, and that not all people will have equal access to it at all stages of life. For some, God may allow them to draw closer to Him, and their experiences in other Churches may be part of His will. However, this must always be seen as a condescension, and not as a normal course of affairs. In other words, the Holy Spirit, who is “everywhere present and fill[s] all things” may come to someone outside the Church in order to open them up to receive the fullness of truth later. But we must also recognize that God can act in any way He wills in any place and any time.

The final possibility is that the experience is demonic. This is most visible in the extremes, when we see televangelists preaching the “Word of Faith” gospel of material richness, or extreme Charismatics rolling about on the floor writhing in ecstasy. Such blatantly anti-Christian activities are not from God. While they could be a power of the imagination, when one gets into the area of speaking in tongues and prophecy, a demonic element is often present and leads such people further and further away from the historic Church.

This leads us to the question of measuring such experiences. Is there a way one can know which of the above options any given experience was? Is it even profitable to do so? The Orthodox response might be that it is difficult to know, and is probably not profitable to investigate. A big clue though would be the outcome; as a result of any given experience, did the person come closer to God and His Church, or slip further away? Jonathan Edwards, the famous New England preacher, had ecstatic experiences which led him to become a Calvinist. Many Mormons cite a “burning in the bosom” as proof of the Book of Mormon.

For Orthodox, however, religious experiences before conversion were often steps on the path that ultimately lead them to fulfillment—and what they experienced in Orthodoxy goes far beyond the experiences of the past. Orthodoxy builds on and completes prior experiences which while good were steps, not the end in themselves. By seeing where the person ended up—in or outside the Church—and if they died outside the Church by judging whether they came closer to it in their life (for instance from paganism to Evangelicalism) are good indicators, but again are highly subjective. It is best to leave such uncertainties to God, who is a just and merciful judge.

Orthodox spiritual experiences are never separated from the True doctrine; if we are to have a relationship with Christ, we must know Him, and that means holding firm to the teachings about Him. These teachings have only been fully maintained inside the visible Church He left, which is the Orthodox Christian Church. It is within the body of believers that spiritual experiences can be shared and evaluated, especially under the guidance of a spiritual father. When an Orthodox Christian sees spiritual experiences occurring outside the bounds of the visible Church, he can appreciate God’s boundless love for all mankind, and he should pray that it is God’s grace moving inside the heart of the person to bring him to Orthodoxy. We may be able to point to prior events in our lives as the time when God moved us closer to Orthodoxy, but we must always be aware of the other possibilities for such experiences and remain vigilant. Experiences often add a feeling of confirmation to our beliefs, but we must be cautious not to base our beliefs solely off of our subjective experiences.

As was explained in the previous article, What is the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church believes itself to be the original and true Church of Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy is not large nor is it well-known in the West, however, which often makes people wonder why they have not heard of this Church before. Much of it has to do with the events of history, and part of it is the fault of Orthodox people themselves in modern times given difficult external circumstances of adjusting to life in a new culture.

Historically, there was one united Church in both the East and the West until the late twelfth century. In the West, the most commonly known and powerful bishopric was that of Rome. In the Eastern part of the Empire, which was much more populous than the West, there were major bishoprics in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These major bishops were given the honorific title patriarch.

The Roman Empire fell in the West in the fifth century, but it continued in the East until much later. Historians often call this the “Byzantine” Empire, although no one in that time would have thought himself a “Byzantine.” Instead, they believed themselves to be Romans and their empire to be the Roman Empire, and it continued until the Turks captured it in 1453.

Because there was a strong empire in the East with large population centers across it, ecclesiastical power did not become as centralized as in the West. With the fall of the empire in the West, the patriarch in Rome, by this time called Pope, was looked upon as the glue that kept the fabric of Western civilization together. The Pope took on thus a political and cultural role in addition to his spiritual duties. Over the centuries, this resulted in the Popes seeing themselves as above the other patriarchs. There was much back-and-forth for several hundred years, culminating in several events which ended up splitting the West from the Orthodox Catholic Church gradually between 1054 and 1204.

In 1453, the Turks conquered Constantinople and the remainder of the Roman Empire fell. This lead the Christians in the East to be mostly second-class citizens, often poor, and unable to share their faith for fear of death, with some notable exceptions. At the same time, the Western powers were in the midst Renaissance and gaining fabulous wealth and strength. Their scientific advances allowed them to travel to and conquer vast amounts of land in the New World, Africa, India, and China. In each new place, the peoples were converted to Christianity via Roman Catholicism or its offshoot, Protestantism. The Orthodox expanded in Russia and through parts of Central Asia, but they were unable to penetrate deep into the Muslim lands. This is a major reason why today there are so many more Roman Catholics than Orthodox in the West.

Turning our focus specifically to the Americas, Orthodox missionaries first came to the New World through the Russian territory of Alaska in 1794, and converted large numbers of native peoples. In 1864, the first parish for Greeks was set up in New Orleans, Louisiana. Within the next fifty years, there were parishes scattered across the United States. A large number of Catholics from Eastern Europe who were familiar with Orthodoxy became Orthodox due to the work of Alexis Toth, a converted Orthodox priest. Often, however, these parishes were seen as havens for the immigrants that came there, which accounts for the second reason that Orthodoxy is not as well known in the West.

There were throughout this time notable exceptions to the ethnic character of Orthodox parishes, and liturgical and spiritual materials were translated into English. A small number of converts were beginning to enter into the Church, and the Church began to become more outward-focused, especially as the children of the immigrants became Americanized. However, it must be remembered that Orthodoxy was still seen as a foreign religion, and oftentimes many Orthodox children left the Church to become “more American.” The lack of resources and poverty of many Orthodox resulted in many of its parishes being unable to stem the tide of this loss, although it was beginning to be supplanted by the growing numbers of converts.

Another major blow to Orthodox expansion was the fall of the Russian Empire to the Communists in 1917. The Russian Empire had been providing funding to the Orthodox in America to help it grow, and when the Empire fell, this led to a large amount of chaos as the support and communications with the home Church were cut off. This placed a great deal of stress on an already stressed-out infant Church in America.

We thus see that two primary reasons why the Orthodox Christian Church is not as well known in the West are due to the vastly superior resources of the Western Churches, and the fact that the first Orthodox peoples in America were either Native Americans living in Alaska or immigrants who were trying their best to survive and fight off the loss of their faith as the pressure to assimilate mounted on them. Fortunately, since the 1960’s, the knowledge of Orthodoxy has been increasing greatly, and the number of converts to Orthodoxy has been steadily increasing. Many priests are converts, and there are parishes made up of large numbers of converts. New missions are forming in many areas which have not seen an Orthodox Church previously, and the Internet is helping to reach people in many areas as well. Now is a great time to see Orthodoxy for yourself, and we invite you to come to join us in worship and fellowship!

One of the most common questions from those looking into the Orthodox Church is, “what do I read?” While English-language resources for understanding Orthodox Christianity have thankfully increased greatly over the past forty years, they are not all of even quality. Most have a slant of one type or another, and oftentimes there are errors of fact or interpretation in the presentation.

It should also be recognized that people come to Orthodoxy for a variety of reasons. For some, the most pressing reason is that the beauty of the worship calls them in; for others the rich spiritual heritage of the Church beckons. For still others, a deep desire to find the historic and doctrinally correct Church is provoked inside them. Of course, these areas are not mutually exclusive, and true worship, true doctrine, and true spirituality are all key reasons why the Orthodox Church is the true Church. But it seems to be the case that one of these pillars usually features more prominently in one’s search than others, and for this reason, the following informal annotated bibliography has been created.

Before directly accessing Orthodoxy via Orthodox sources, it may be helpful for the inquirer to set the foundation using materials that employ a common language to most Westerner Christians. The following are a few standard works:

Henry Chadwick, The Early Church.

This is a succinct treatment of the history of the Church with copious suggestions for further reading. It will take the reader through the basic stages of the historical development of the Church. Chadwick was a famous Anglican clergyman and scholar who held appointments at both Oxford and Cambridge.

Jaroslav Pelikan, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) and Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700).

Pelikan’s history of the development of doctrine is another standard work. Whereas Chadwick’s book focuses more on the historical events, Pelikan addresses the development of ideas. The work is academic and thorough. Pelikan was at the time a Lutheran but ended his days a member of the New Calendar Orthodox Church of America.

Now that the inquirer has a basic understanding of the history of the Church, a historical work dealing with the Orthodox Church specifically by an Orthodox author:

Timothy Ware (now Metropolitan Kallistos), The Orthodox Church.

This is the most commonly-recommended treatment of the Orthodox Church available in English. It has been through several editions. It is mostly accurate, although it would be wise to note a few deficiencies in it which can be noted in the following review.

A new crop of apologetics works have arisen as well. Converts to Orthodoxy Clark Carlton and Michael Whelton provide decent arguments for why Orthodoxy is the true Christian Church, although the reader might note certain comments and styles of writing that may seem overly polemical or off-putting. These books, while engaging and thought-provoking, are of course not written as contributions to peer-reviewed, academic scholarship, but are rather popular literature.

Clark Carlton, The Way and The Truth.

The Way is geared towards explaining Orthodoxy to Protestants while The Truth is geared towards Roman Catholics, but it may be helpful to read both in order to compare and contrast.

Michael Whelton, Two Paths: Papal Monarchy—Collegial Tradition
and Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims.

Two Paths is a general account of the trends in Roman Catholicism that led to the First Vatican Council and its declaration of papal infallibility, while Popes and Patriarchs is a modest contribution to understanding the way that some Roman Catholic apologists misrepresent Eastern Church Fathers in order to imagine that they were somehow supporters of Roman Catholic claims of papal supremacy.

Now that the inquirer has understood the major themes of Church history and has a feel for the arguments as to why Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ from those who have embraced Orthodoxy, it will be beneficial to read two paradigm-changing books by Orthodox authors.

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, The Mind of the Orthodox Church.

This book will readjust one’s whole way of thinking about Orthodoxy. It is often hard to find, but is available via interlibrary loan. Excerpts.

Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.

This is a classic work that shows the interlinking between doctrine and spirituality.