Orthodoxy up against the "New Testament Church"

If I am not blogging about travel or foreign policy, chances are I am writing something to do with the Orthodox faith. By and large, I confine my comments to particular events, observations on Orthodoxy in the U.S., or some story about the plight of Orthodoxy overseas. I generally avoid doctrinal discursions or anything that is of a polemic nature. The reason for this has been-- and remains--that I am supremely unqualified to engage in such discussions. So far, this approach has served me well, and I am sticking with it.

That said, I venture to at least link to an ongoing Orthodox-Protestant dialogue that touches on the questions of sola scriptura, authority in religion and Tradition, as well as the strange notion of "restoring the New Testament church." This particular discussion is of great interest to me, as it involves the writings of Fr. Stephen Freeman, perhaps the most articulate and insightful Orthodox writer among us today (certainly within Orthodox blogdom), and on the other side, a defender of the Church of Christ, the evangelical fellowship in which I spent 25 years.

Clearly my sympathies lie with the case made by Fr. Stephen Freeman. It has been noted that converts sometimes attempt to discredit their former affiliation, perhaps out of some need for self-vindication. I am sensitive to that temptation, and would hope that that is not where I am going with this. Actually, I appreciate my Church of Christ background, as I think it has primed me and others for Orthodoxy. I think we make for an interesting and growing sub-category of converts to Orthodoxy. But that said, becoming Orthodox from any Protestant persuasion (and yes, despite their denials, the Church of Christ is Protestant) is unlike moving between different denominations. In our highly mobile society, one could easily be raised Methodist, attend Presbyterian services while raising a family, and then settle in to big-box, nondenominationalism in later years. These changes could be based on personal choice or preference, convenience, spouse's influence or any number of reasons, though none would particularly be discrediting to the former association. A move to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, however, is something altogether different and by so doing implicitly conveys a rejection of the entire underpinnings of Protestantism.

Two posts earlier, I linked to the essay of a young man in the Church of Christ, now disillusioned with Restorationist theology and considering Orthodoxy. The discussion generated considerable response, primarily from among those former Church of Christ, now Orthodox, or at least moving in that direction. One respondent defended the Church of Christ position and encouraged us to "return to the church." As it turns out, this was just the continuation of a discussion he and others had been having on Fr. Stephen's blog from the previous week, and it is that dialogue that I wish to note.

You will find the discussion to be polite and gentlemanly, if a bit one-sided. Fr. Stephen Freeman is undoubtedly one of our most gifted writers. These explanations would have been extremely helpful to me 5 years ago. My hope is that they may help those coming out of the Church of Christ and similar groups. I encourage the reading of the entire posts and comments which I have linked. Some choice excerpts follow the links, below:

At the Edge of Tradition--More Notes from the Edge

The content of the Tradition is not a set of ideas – but a reality - God with us.

And this is the problem that always accompanies attempts to reach that reality through reform. It is not our reformation that is the problem in the first place. We cannot reform ourselves into union with Christ. We can submit ourselves to union with Christ and not much else. We can cooperate with union with Christ.

Invariably, the great stumbling block faced by various attempts to “recreate” or “rediscover” the “early Church,” is that the “early Church,” is not an historical reality. It is a present reality – not simply as the “early Church” (this is not a Biblical phrase anyway). The present reality is the same as the “early Church”: it is the Body of Christ, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the true and living Way. It never ceased nor was overcome by the gates of Hell. It has lived and thrived in enough places to have picked up many languages, many customs, but always the same faith.

This always comes as a stumbling block, I believe, because the existence of the Orthodox Church stands as a stark witness to the True and Living God - not the idea of a God – but God.

Selected Comments, below:

from John (not me):

How does the Orthodox teaching on church tradition differ from the Jews tradition/oral law, which was condemned by Jesus? You are aware of the Matthew 15 text: He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? (Matthew 15:3 NKJV)

from Fr. Stephen:

The content of Tradition in Orthodox Christianity is nothing other than the living presence of the Spirit. Protestants always quote Matt. 15, but do not know the Scripture. Try reading 2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Do a word study on the Greek paradosis or paradidomi which is the word correctly translated “tradition” to “hand over or hand down”. The New Testament itself is Tradition. I did not write it – it was handed down to me by the Apostles of the Church.

St. Paul uses the word for tradition when he says, “That which I received I also delivered (traditioned) unto you, how that our Lord Jesus Christ, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks and broken it, said, “Take, eat, This is my body…” etc.

This, it seems to me differs greatly from the “traditions” that Jesus condemned.
However, the Protestant hermeneutic, forged in the 16th century battles with the Roman Catholic Church, placed blinders on itself and does not see many parts of Scripture. The New Testament teaching on Tradition is just such a blind spot.

from John (not me):

How could the tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2 refer to material that had not at that time been taught? The text refers to tradition that had been taught. Would not this be the teaching of the apostles and other inspired writers of the New Testament? Should not the 1 Corinthians 11 passage be understood in the same manner? How could these two passages have anything whatsoever to do with writings that were yet in the future? How are they relevant to a discussion of church tradition after the close of the New Testament?

from Fr. Stephen:

In the writings beyond the NT such as the Apostolic Fathers, they continued to view Tradition as the NT viewed Tradition. You are assuming that the Apostles had a Protestant view of the Bible, which they did not. It’s a mistake to read the 16th century back into the first. Read their context instead of imposing assumptions about the “Bible” on the New Testament and early Church. The Orthodox, who are the same people whom God used to give us the canon of Scripture in the first place, still remember how they have always read Scripture. They are not a modern movement but simply the same continuous Church that uses Scripture in the same continuous way.

There are a number of examples in the NT that represent fragments of early “Creeds” generally that would have been used at Baptism and for the teaching of the faith. The opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15 are just such an example. It too uses the formula, “What I received I delivered (traditioned)” and St. Paul recounts the most primitive recitation of the resurrection. But it begins with a creedal form.

Of course, since many Protestants do not have a creed, they wouldn’t recognize one even when it occurs in Scripture. It is like many things. Having separated themselves from Holy Tradition, they do not see things that are obvious and they think they see other things that are not there.

Everyone reads through some sort of Tradition. Evangelicals have a tradition, they just don’t call it that. There is some “teacher” whom various people follow, and they see his matrix of thought in the pages of Scripture. But such matrixes are without authority and do not represent the apostolic deposit of faith – only various systems invented by men. Fortunately, the text of Scripture itself can help prevent some errors – though not all. The Arians quoted Scripture, as did all the early heretics. The Apostolic Tradition, including proper historic succession in ordination, teaching and communion, was one of those marks looked for in the early Church.

The Christian Church is not something to be reinvented. It is the gift of God. It is not the following of a book, though we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. But it is of the Church that Scripture says it is the “pillar and ground of truth.” There are other such statements. The exaltation of Scripture as something apart from and over the Church is itself, not Scriptural. They are not separate. The Epistles are letters to the Church, while St. Paul says that the Corinthians are “my epistle, written on the fleshy tables of the heart.”

Those who actually knew the Apostles treated Tradition in the same manner in which the Orthodox Church does. That seems sufficient explanation.

from John (not me:)

Thank you for your response. Respectfully, I am not assuming anything. I am simply attempting to read the text with an open mind, seeking truth.

To quote the patristics from the 300’s, or even the 100’s, is irrelevant. It would seem to be begging the question. Is there a passage in the NT that authorizes using teaching beyond the NT as authoritative? Can it be shown, from the NT, that the tradition to which it refers is something beyond NT texts?

What is your understanding of “perfect/complete” in 2 Timothy 3.17? What is your understanding of “once for all” in Jude 3?

Thank you.

from Fr. Stephen:

First, I’m not sure there is anything in the NT that “authorizes” the NT. It’s authorization, if you will, is itself an Apostolic Tradition. When the NT says Scripture, it clearly means the OT. But the Church understands the NT as Scripture and authoritative. But you cannot posit the NT as prior to the Church. The verse from 2 Thessalonians, clearly sees a function for Tradition, and there is no reason to read that (from the text) that assumes that these “traditions” are somehow superseded by a text that is yet to come. They are traditions (of word or epistle).

2 Timothy is clearly a reference to the OT – the NT does not come to be described as “Scripture” until well into the 2nd century (not that its authority is weakened by that). I think perfect and complete refer to spiritual maturity and not to any sense that “now you have all the information you need there will be no use for tradition.”

The notion of the “complete” NT is a very modern idea – an interpretation put forward within fundamentalist protestantism that is simply novel in the Christian interpretation of Scripture. Thus in 1 Corinthians 13 “when that which is perfect shall come” clearly refers to the fulfillment of the eschaton, not the completion of the NT.

In Jude, once and for all, is the Apostolic deposit of faith, which certainly includes Scripture, but is also the whole life of the Church, including its Tradition (which is not an addition of later information). The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, is not a development, but a vocalization of what the Church always believed and of the Apostolic foundation, even if the Apostles would not have put it in terms of ousia and hypostasis (just to use an example).

Vestments and many things about the services are not necessarily thought of as “Tradition” in Orthodoxy. Tradition is the indwelling of the Church by the same Spirit that “raised Christ from the dead,” the “Spirit that leads us into all Truth.” There could be no reading of the Scripture and discernment of its meaning without that Spirit. Tradition is a way we describe the fact that we have the same faith that the Apostles have – and not simply a love a antiquity.

We would say that Jude 3 refers to the “faith” once and for all delivered. The “faith” generally is not used in the NT as a synonym for Scripture but is indeed the deposit of the faith (which Jude indeed mentions in 17 and 18 of that “spoken” by the Apostles (which is certainly echoed particularly in St. Paul’s pastoral epistles). But there is no evidence that the readers of Jude would as yet have any knowledge of the letters to Timothy and Titus. But they, as did all the Churches, knew the words of the Apostles, which, of course, agree with the writings of the Apostles. That faith was once and for all delivered to the saints (the Church). It was not laying around to be reinvented in the 16th century or in later centuries, but is the one faith, the same faith, which has been preserved in the Orthodox Church (from whom came the martyrs, the fathers, and the single living witness of the Apostles). In the modern world they contributed more martyrs for the faith than in all centuries prior (added together). It’s saints do indeed earnestly contend for the faith and continue to hold fast to that which was once and for all delivered to them. That faith has not been changed nor altered. This cannot be said for Protestant Churches, unfortunately. Many engage in practices unknown as little as 40 years ago or even still more recent. Its theology is a constant moving target reflecting cultural winds and various theological “movements.”

The letters of the NT, interestingly, with the sole exception of the letter to Rome (which, interestingly was in Greek like the other letters) were written to Churches’ whose address is still an Orthodox Church. Of course they are written to the whole Church – but who can claim to be in communion with those Churches and to share in the same Apostolic life which was and is theirs?

But no where do any of the Apostles sit down to write a complete treatise on the Christian faith. They write letters very often for very specific purposes. It is the Apostolic Deposit, their “word” to the Churches, that gives us the matrix for reading their writings and interpreting them correctly.

Forgive me if my tone is too argumentative. I am at a Church assembly this week and only have a limited time to read and respond for the blog. Brevity sometimes is the enemy of kindness – your questions are important, even classical in their form. And they are certainly worthy of conversation.

from John (not me):

Thank you for your detailed response.

I am not positing the NT as prior to the church. The church was established in Acts 2.

2 Timothy 3 – v 15 is surely the OT. V 16 surely could include the developing NT. Note ‘the Holy Scriptures’ vs ‘all/every Scripture.’ Is all/every of 16 limited to the reference in 15? I’m not so sure that it is. Also, if Scripture of v 16 excludes the NT, then it would appear that one could be ‘complete’ and practice ‘every good work’ (v 17) apart from the NT and apart from Christ, who is revealed in the NT. Why could v 16 not be a reference inclusive of the NT before the second century?

It seems that the way you are interpreting indwelling of the Spirit comes pretty close to claiming inspiration for the patristics, a claim which I believe you are unwilling to make.

Jude 3 – While in the vast majority of cases in the NT ‘faith’ means belief producing obedience (I imagine we would agree on that), I have always understood the Jude 3 reference to mean the gospel system of salvation by an obedient faith. You and I have somewhat different backgrounds, in that you’re Catholic and I’m not, so I’m not sure I’m hearing accurately what you are saying relative to your understanding of ‘the faith’ here. For instance, I am uncertain of exactly what you mean by ‘Apostolic Deposit.’ It seems that you are assuming that ‘the faith’ would include later tradition. I have yet to see any evidence from the NT text that later tradition should be accepted as authoritative. The fact that some of the patristics may have taught that is not sufficient proof. There must be a NT passage that demonstrates that what the NT meant by tradition was more than the teaching of the Apostles and the developing NT text.

from Fr. Stephen:

On our backgrounds – I am a former Protestant so that I am familiar with a good bit of what you are saying (though I think our Protestant experiences are different). I am not a Roman Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox which has not been in communion with Rome for over a thousand years and has a very different history and understanding of many things. I would like to continue the conversation, though I’ll probably have to take it up next week.

from Jesse:

I believe what originally led me to Orthodoxy (and I’m not there yet, not quite) and Tradition was realizing that the New Testament, to which I had attributed ALL authority, was itself a product of tradition. When I realized that the NT was finalized by the same people I had been raised to believe were in “apostasy” by about the time of Constantine, I was forced to make the choice of saying that the NT was a relatively worthless document (like much of contemporary biblical criticism) or of accepting a greater role for tradition. One could, of course, say that the NT document was the culmination and end of the Holy Spirit’s work, but that struck me as being blasphemous (what a relief after learning some more about Orthodoxy to realize that the Holy Spirit could still be alive and powerfully active in the Church!). After accepting that tradition should still be a part of the Christian’s life, it didn’t take long to realize that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics didn’t have any more claim to it than the church of Christ did (yes, I’m from the church of Christ as well, John). Thank God that the Orthodox church was slowly entering into the picture, in a variety of ways (that I just now realized might be the work of grace). That is my journey, in a very very small nutshell.

from John (not me:)

Jesse: I am not having this discussion because I am considering converting. You need to remain in the church of Christ. Our goal is to restore Christianity as practiced in the NT. I think we have the framework correct. One always needs to work on improving their individual Christian life.

I have yet to see anything offered which would justify human tradition beyond the NT. If this line of tradition were correct, the danger would be that once a divergence from the NT occurred – there would be no end to it. Should we trust our spiritual lives to a succession of men, or directly to God’s word? If this line of tradition is required, what about those who became Christians in Acts? Did they not know what they were doing?

I hope to continue this discussion, and I will be the picture of courtesy. But, my intention is to lead a pursuit of truth for us all, and this intention should not be misread. May we all humbly bow before God, and Him only, as we seek to hear, believe, and obey His word.

from Alex:

John

God’s Word is not a book. It is a person – a man. He dwells in Christians, and they in Him. He, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, is a man, not a book. So yes, if you wish to follow Him, you must follow those in whom He dwells.

The Christians in Acts had an idea of what they were doing – but did they not also hold council to resolve certain disputes not fully understood? What makes you think that nothing could possibly ever come up after the 1st council which would not need to be resolved?

And what do you think that the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem referenced? Do you think that they all sat around saying, man, too bad the NT hasn’t been written yet? Preposterous! They were guided by the Spirit of God. Do you think that this Spirit suddenly departed after the NT was completed? If so, then I have some bad news for you – you, and all the rest of us are doomed. After all, the NT does not present itself as its own canon – only the Church can do that, and it has.

However, the Lord keeps His promise, and He has sent us the Comforter. Regarding your question about inspired ‘patristics’, do you think that the Fathers of the Church are given a different Holy Spirit than the writers of the NT?

I would encourage you to investigate where the NT that you have so much respect for came from. The only reason that you can even speak of something called the New Testament, as a book, is that the Orthodox Church said so in council, many years after the Apostles fell asleep.

Therefore, your statement about ‘restoring Christianity as practiced in the NT’ cuts off the branch on which it is sitting – since you assert that the Church which wrote and compiled the NT was in and of itself in spiritual darkness. What evidence outside of the NT do you have that New Testament Christianity is any different that what we claim it is?

from J.D.:

I have spent over 60 years in the Church of Christ and was blessed in many ways and in other ways saw behavior that was embarrassing. But no one group has a monopoly on that. I converted about two months ago after four years of absorbing the ancient faith in many ways.

One of the subtle things I realized regarding the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was the obvious decision made regarding the Gentiles. The OT is chocked full of the notion that the Gentiles would one day be drawn in. It took the leadership of the church devoid of scripture to decide, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what would be the best way to achieve this to the glory of God and to grace the church and bless the “nations”. When you get over to Acts 16 it says in essence they went town to town delivering this decision (dogma) with obvious authority. The description is not additional scripture it is simply the end game of the church extolling through its authority how this should happen.

The Church of Christ has a lot of great people who love the Lord, but they got eaten up and eaten by western rationalization.

God bless them all and God bless those of you who are on the journey from Churches of Christ. When you go from trying to “figure it all out” mentally, to wanting to be in holy communion with God and experiencing what truly is Holy Communion, you will never regret entering the journey to full maturation (theosis).

from Patrick:

John,

You are quite clever at avoiding questions put to you while continuing with a line of questioning that stem from false presuppositions. Since you clearly come from a mindset that says “everything must be in the scriptures and if it isn’t in the scripture either implicitly or explicitly then it isn’t true” i.e. Sola Scriptura, then answer:

1) Where does the NT claim this authority for itself? If you’re so convinced that NT has to qualify everything, why doesn’t it come out and make it clear that the NT writings are the final and only authority for the individual christian? Everything for you about the life of the Christian has to be in the scriptures alone yet the scriptures themselves do not say this. However, the scriptures do give the Church this authority.

2) How do you trust the NT in the first place since it was canonized by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (which you consider false and apostate) in council almost 400 years after the start of the Church?

3) How did people learn the faith and become christians without a formal NT to guide them during the 400 years when there was no formal NT? Even once the NT was finalized, how did average Christians get their hands on one since there was no printing press but had to be hand copied making them expensive.

4) How is it that you follow the “tradition” of the “Church of Christ” yet reject tradition? Doesn’t the “Church of Christ” have a specific way of conducting church service every Sunday, a specific way you have of doing things, a specific order to follow every Sunday morning? Isn’t there a specific place where the pulpit sits and a specific time the sermon begins? Where does the NT give you specific directions of how to conduct your Sunday morning worship? It doesn’t. Therfore, doesn’t the “Church of Christ” have it’s own “tradition?” Did the Apostles pass on this unwritten tradition to you? Tell me, which “Church of Christ” father was around in the first century that has passed on the tradition to which you now hold? Or does the “Church of Christ” start over brand new every Sunday morning so as not to be seen as holding to tradition?

Please, I would like to know.

from David:

There are no churches of Christ or Church of Christ or any other such thing. It doesn’t exist. Though you can find many buildings around the country with such labels on the front lawn.

Rationalistic non-denominationalism is a philosophical idea. For a time, and within a certain group of naturally like-minded persons predisposed to the experiment it inspired a movement. This movement almost immediately fell off the tracks and has remained so ever sense.

There is no “there” there. When someone says, you should come back to the church, I must admit that I have no idea what they are talking about.

True Knowledge of God--Living the Tradition

from Fr. Stephen, in the comments:

1. There is no such thing as the “New Testament” Church. This is a fiction – an imaginary description of the Church that grows out of certain forms of Protestant thought. It has a particular history in 19th century America, where a number of individuals and groups set out to recreate, restore or otherwise establish the “New Testament Church.” The Mormons are an example. Joseph Smith claimed to have refounded the New Testament Church with visitations to him of John the Baptist, the Apostles, Jesus, and no less than God the Father and the Holy Spirit (complete with feathers). Other groups attempted the same thing. In Eastern Kentucky and Eastern Tennessee the so-called Restoration Movement had its beginnings as well. With them an extreme form of the Protestant Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only) was used to establish a new, restored “New Testament Church.”

But there is no such thing. The Church existed before the New Testament was written – thus to name it by something that was created through it would be absurd. The Scripture calls the Church many things: the Body of Christ, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the Fullness of Him that Filleth All and All.

The adjectives this Church came to use in subsequent centuries are noted in the Nicene Creed: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. During the centuries in which this same Church, founded by Christ, suffered to preserve the faith that had once and for all been delivered to it, it came to use yet another adjective to differentiate it from those who held false beliefs. Believers came to refer to the Church as the Orthodox Church, an adjective still in general use.

It was this very Church that was first called “Christian” in the city of Antioch, whose Patriarch continues to this day, holding the same faith as Peter and Paul and others who have graced that God-protected Church. His line of succession can be recited without fear of contradiction to this day.

2. The Scriptures are a great gift to the Church (though in the pages of the NT the word “Scriptures” generally only refers to the OT, the only “Scriptures” known to the Church of the first century. St. Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, refers to the gospels as the “memoirs of the Apostles.” But it was the Church, established by Christ, that came to accept the books that now comprise the “New Testament” as authoritative and declared them as the authoritative canon in the 4th century. They were certainly used and quoted authoritatively before that on account of their Apostolic origin. However, Christ did not command the Apostles to write books. They did write, and as with their other actions (teachings, etc.) they were treated as authoritative.

But they were Apostles (those who are sent). They obeyed Christ’s command to “go forth into the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Thus they traveled and established communities of believers, appointing leaders within those communities (Bishops, presbyters, deacons, etc.). The bishops were charged with shepherding the young communities and held the authority of the Apostles in those communities. Only those communities whose bishops were in communion (holding the same faith and practice) with other communities of apostolic origin were considered faithful Christian communities. These communities did not disappear nor did they alter the faith (or if the faith was altered, they were expelled from the communion of the one Church). They continue to this day, without disruption. What was delivered to them they kept.

It is incorrect to refer to the “New Testament Church.” It would be more accurate to say, “The Church’s New Testament.”

3. Some within the Protestant family have made of the bible a “Christian Koran,” reducing Christianity to a “people of the book.” They define Christianity and the Church by its obedience to Scripture and set themselves as the only authoritative interpreters. They have no warrant for such a claim – no appointment by the Apostles to such an office. They are an American fiction – born of the 19th century hubris of this land which considered itself the birthplace of all good things. Not content with unjust claims to an entire continent – its people sought to claim for themselves the title of “New Testament Church”.

4. The Apostles were obedient to Christ. They preached, taught and baptized. They appointed leaders (including an additional Apostle for the Twelve) according to the authority given them. They met in Council (recorded in the book of Acts) and made authoritative decisions for the Church. Their successors, the bishops, would also meet in council when necessary, and make authoritative decisions for the life of the Church and for its continued faithfulness. Those who would ask “where is the warrant in Scripture for such authority” need look no further than Titus 2:15 “Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.” Titus was a Bishop, appointed by St. Paul. Those who taught and exercised authority neither added to nor subtracted from the faith that had been delivered to them.

5. The content of that faith is Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The teachings concerning that salvation are important and authoritative – but the teachings serve a greater purpose: to communicate Christ Himself, not information about Christ. We are not saved by information but by the indwelling of Christ with whom we have been made one in Holy Baptism, by whom we have been anointed with the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, through whom the continued authority He established is confirmed in ordination, etc. But all things are for the excellency of knowing Christ, who alone is our salvation.

There were Christians who lived during the first century (part of what others falsely call the “New Testament Church”) who fell away and were lost. St. Paul himself mentions two of these: Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20). The creation of a “New Testament” Church offers no guarantees of salvation. Christ alone is our salvation – and He was not rediscovered in 19th century America.

6. There is a Church that has kept the faith. It authoritatively declared the content of the canon of Scripture for it alone knew the word of the Apostles. Its faithful labored endlessly, and copied manuscripts of the Scripture by hand (as they did everything else we currently have from the ancient Western world). Those who today arrogantly or ignorantly claim to have restored the New Testament Church do so with a book for which they did not die, did not labor, did not produce, with whose keeping they were not entrusted. They have not given the world the millions of martyrs of the Orthodox Church and yet they would steal for themselves the title of “Church.”

The simple reading of history in these matters should lead to conclusions that show such claims to be false. I believe that many hunger for a “New Testament Church” for salutary reasons, but are greatly mistaken about the nature of Christian history and the work of God for our salvation. They have a distorted understanding of what the Bible itself is, having created a “holy book” for themselves that is best compared to the Muslim view of the Koran. They may be called “Bible Christians” but they are not “Church Christians” for they cannot create for themselves something that is the creation of God alone.

These seem to me to be some points worth noting.

The Orthodox Reading of Scripture

The answer goes to the heart of the matter. What is the matrix by which you seek to interpret Scripture and by what authority do you use it? Anyone who says he just reads the Scripture and that there is no matrix by which he interprets is deceiving himself and his listeners and not admitting that he has already accepted a matrix and on its basis he selects Scripture to fit his point. There really is no other way to read.

Orthodoxy has never denied this. Instead, like Irenaeus, it points to that which it has received. Irenaeus called it the “Apostolic Hypothesis.” It has also been called the “rule of faith,” and various other names. But if you have not accepted this “matrix” you cannot interpret Scripture in the form of the Apostles or their successors or the Church that Christ founded.

Others accept as their matrix a statement of faith written 1500 years later, constructed on a matrix invented by medieval scholastics who sought to reform the Church. They had no command from God, no conversation with the Apostles, nothing but their own ideas and rationality from which to construct new matrixes. From Germany Luther gave us his “salvation by grace through faith,” and read the Scriptures accordingly. Calvin gave us his matrix of the sovereignty of God. Neither could speak with authority or true assurance and neither would have succeeded in their reform had the state not conveniently enforced it with the sword (read the history). The Reformation never succeeded without the state’s cooperation and frequently suceeded by drastically destroying property and torturing its opposition. Not that this was not followed by a war from Catholic authorities. All of these things happened apart from Holy Orthodoxy. But the myth of a popular uprising cleansing the Church of false doctrine, fostered for years by Protestant historians is simply a fabrication.

More to the point of this post – the matrix of Protestant interpretation, though frequently seeking for something like the Apostolic Hyposthesis, in many places failed to adhere to that primitive standard.

Christian doctrine is not a battle over the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura has not worked and never did. Such an approach simply leads to endless argument and confusion. Others may claim to use the “plain sense” of Scripture or some other 18th century rationalist construct. Such constructs are no more effective than other failed efforts of Sola Scriptura. Either we embrace the faith of the Apostles, once and for all delivered to the saints, or else we exile ourselves to confusion or, worse yet, to the false guidance of those who never sat in the seat of the Apostles.

Speaking With Authority

The authority of Scripture is Christ Himself – and the authority of Scripture comes only through union with Christ – crucified and risen. The authority of St. Paul (at least the authority to which he pointed) is not found in his apostleship – but rather in his weakness – his union with the crucified Jesus:

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness (2 Corinthians 11:30).

and

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20).

This, it seems to me, is a particular problem for those who would exalt a method of interpretation and the “authority” of the Scriptures over the lived reality of the Apostles and those appointed to succeed them – most of whom died a martyr’s death. The authority of the Cross, of a life lived in conformity with the crucified Christ, bears an authenticity in interpreting the word of God that is simply missing in various modern systems of rational interpretation. Where are the marks of the Lord Jesus in man-made rational systems?

Selected comments, below:

from John (not me):

Do you not need a NT text that authorizes going beyond the NT for authority? It seems to me to be essential if you are going to jump from the NT to church history. I am not aware of any such text.

On the appeal to martyrdom, what about the other religions who can introduce a long list of their own martyrs? I have had that point offered to me as an objection to Christianity. I do not believe you can prove the truthfulness of a doctrine by the martyrdom of its proponents.

We all appeal to reason every day. We would be dysfunctional without it. Why do you have such a problem with using the mind God gave us when it comes to the Bible? Did God reveal Himself so that only a few could understand His message? How do we know which “few”? We have to use reason whether we read the Bible for ourselves or allow someone else to do that for us. You can play the “Locke card” all day and all night, but you can’t escape the use of human intellect to understand God’s message, or any other communication. I ask again, Is God not capable of giving a communication that can be understood?

It is getting awkward talking with you without using your name. You know I can’t call you “Father,” and hopefully you know by now that I am not attempting to be rude. I just can’t do that. I will call you “Stephen” and please call me “John.” Also, as you know by now, I am not a prospect for conversion to Orthodoxy. However it is hoped that we both can grow by discussing Biblical teaching with the desire to trust and obey Biblical truth.

from Fr. Stephen:

John,

I understand about the use of the title “Father.” You shouldn’t violate your conscience in the matter – I wouldn’t want you to.

The absolute distinction between Scripture and the Church in which it was written is, to me, an example of a reductionist principle. The Scripture cannot be lifted out of the context of the life of the Church – it would be as though one was “disincarnating” the word of God. The life of that Church has a real history with real people whose names we know and whose testimony we know. That the Orthodox Church is that same Church is simply historically accurate. That the Scriptures are taken away from that Church to be used to serve another group, is, of course, possible. But not reasonable except according to certain a priori assumptions.

Where you and I probably differ the most is that we have very different a priori assumptions. You would say that your assumptions are “Scriptural.” I would say that the assumptions come first and have then been applied as a hermeneutic to Scripture.

As an Orthodox Christian, I would say that the hermeneutic of Scripture begins in the Church – the community founded by Christ – to whom the Scriptures were written and through whom they were and are interpreted.

There is something of a “hermeutical circle” that has to start somewhere which always gets us into a priori assumptions. Even reason has to have a tradition by which it reasons.

One of my complaints with Locke (to use the card) is that the Enlightenment understanding of reason (whether it is Locke or some other Enlightenment figure) is a cultural tradition that is mostly an illustration of its century (ies), not an absolute objective example of some God-given faculty.

Another objection to the “rational” approach to Biblical interpretation is that the Scriptures are not given in a “rational” form. The Scriptures are not a collection of syllogisms. They are letters, gospels (which is a very unique form of writing) prophetic books, poetry, Law, etc. The Church bears witness that these are the Word of God but how that functions in the life of the Church is not to treat them like syllogistic texts. A story and a syllogism are very different things.

from Brantley:

John,

If the authors of the text of the New Testament were God inspired, weren’t the ones who decided which texts to include in the canon also inspired?

And with respect to the New Testament “authorizing” some tradition outside of itself, it seems that 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 would seem to be a direct answer to your question. Any other way of reading it would seem to be a twisting of meaning to make it mean what you want it to mean. (I’m aware that you’ve already commented on this passage in another thread, but if it’s not possible for you to read those verses without honestly realizing that there were traditions that were not documented at that time, I don’t know that there’s anything anyone here can tell you that would be edifying for you.)

Not to be ironic, it seems to me that it may simply NOT be possible to encapsulate the Logos of God with words.

For example, when Luke and Cleopas were on the road to Emmaus, they talked extensively (hours!) with Jesus. Where is the record of that conversation? Did Luke and Cleopas take it to their graves? What do you suppose they talked about? Why was it not written down?

Mark Hackard on Foreign Policy

The foreign policy essays of Mark Hackard have recently come to my attention. I like what this young man has to say, particularly in regard to 2 areas of keen interest to me: Russia and Turkey, and our complicated relations with each. I always enjoy foreign policy discussions that are based on realism rather than ideology. Here is a sampling from recent months:

Re: Biden’s comment about Russia

Biden may have been “blunt”, in the words of the media, but he was also obtuse. He doesn’t merit excessive reproach, since he was simply reflecting US foreign policy consensus, which is informed by the view that economics is the determining factor in national power and even life itself…. for such men there is no higher sacrament than the financial transaction.…[they] see culture, religion, and centuries of tradition as the superstructure- merely contingent effects- of market forces.

Such an impoverished view of existence is indeed the ruling ethic in contemporary society throughout much of the world…. Biden leaves no room for cultural considerations or Moscow’s vital interests in his analysis of Russia…

Liberal ideology has long been triumphant in the West, but if Russian culture can successfully repulse these phenomena and reassert the centrality of religious truth and tradition, it could give the Occident hope for the future.

Full article, here.


Role Reversal in the new Cold War:

The United States and Russia appear to be gearing up for a second round of the Cold War….Like the previous conflict, Cold War II will be defined by ideology. But this time around, wild-eyed revolutionaries aren’t hatching plots behind the walls of the Kremlin; their offices are right inside the Beltway….The situation differs markedly from the Cold War, when Western strategic planners banked on Soviet armor crashing through the Fulda Gap as the first step in the conquest of Europe. Moscow has no such capacity today—it seeks to secure a regional sphere of influence and the energy corridors therein simply to survive. With Russia’s population projected to fall from 141 million this year to around 135 million in 2020, the Kremlin is looking to hold the line in time for the nation to regenerate. The Russians have neither the desire nor the means for extravagant foreign adventures. In the face of U.S. encirclement, Putin and his subordinates are assuming an ultimately defensive posture.

Beyond geopolitics, the antagonism between Washington and Moscow has experienced a reversal of roles in the arena of ideology….How times have changed! When Russia today opposes Kosovo independence or articulates its regional role in terms of history, culture, and ethnic solidarity, it looks downright counterrevolutionary.


Today Russia’s counterintelligence service, the FSB, maintains an Orthodox Church on the grounds of its headquarters at Lubyanka Square. It is nonetheless remarkable to see one of the Soviet Union’s top cold warriors profess Orthodox Christianity and call for the rebirth of tradition in Russian society. Nikolai Leonov wasn’t just any KGB officer; he was Moscow’s original point man for contacts with Ernesto “Che” Guevara and the Castro brothers before the Cuban Revolution….The wreckage of Communism left Russians in an ideological void, and the chaotic 1990s gave them little hope in market democracy or the oligarchs who looted the country at will. Demographic freefall, crumbling infrastructure and other socio-economic ills have their roots in the Soviets’ murderous imposition of modern ideology. What Lenin and his successors wrought, however, was only aggravated by initiatives at westernization. Wars in Chechnya, NATO expansion, and U.S. lectures on human rights and “backsliding” on democracy played a large part in Russia’s disillusionment with the values espoused by the contemporary West.

Many Russians, including influential men such as Leonov, returned to their faith and the centuries of tradition reflective of the truth it reveals. They also rediscovered the Church as the principal source of order in society. As the old spy asserts,

"Orthodoxy is Russia’s one common bond. The historic role of the Church in the fate of the country, its spiritual authority, moral legitimacy, and the deepest national roots make Orthodoxy a most important component in our ideology."

Per Russian tradition, Leonov and like-minded colleagues support a powerful state, but in light of the Soviet experience are conscious that unity cannot be imposed upon a people through administration or coercion. The harmony of a nation derives from shared culture, the source of which is the cult, man’s relation to the transcendent. (emphasis mine)

The revival of Orthodoxy and a Christian worldview in the land of the Tsars still faces formidable challenges. Corruption, hypocrisy and the abuse of authority are ever-present in Russian society, though such phenomena are hardly limited to Russia alone. Pernicious remnants of the Soviet legacy, such as abortion and the callous regard for human life it implies, create profound psychic and spiritual trauma, as well as a tortured national conscience. Modern Russians are also well acquainted with Western-style consumerism and hedonism. Yet in spite of these numerous dysfunctions, the hazy realization that men and nations form part of a divine order is becoming clearer.

As Russia returns to the status of a conservative power, the United States has enthusiastically taken up the revolutionary mantle.

In the U.S.-Soviet competition, the Bolshevik ideology was more radical than liberalism, but only in a relative sense. Both systems affirm only material realities and lead man to spiritual desolation. With the defeat of Communism, Washington could attend to the enforcement of its own transnational vision. U.S. foreign policy has functioned as an instrument of revolution, from the “humanitarian” bombing of Serbia to attempts to reform Muslim societies and Islam itself.

Living up to its revolutionary nature, liberal internationalism shares a series of practices with its vanquished Soviet rival. Most noteworthy is a heavy reliance on covert action….U.S. foreign policy is carried out under the banner of progress, not only for rhetorical purposes, but because American leadership in “expanding the frontiers of freedom” is taken as a matter of faith. A radiant future for humanity is the promise of all modern ideology, though it varies in its forms. What is constant is a materialist reductionism that divorces man from the realm of the spirit. In this way individuals and entire peoples are deprived of uniqueness, traditions, and their place in the Cosmos. Global democratic capitalism, administered by our enlightened elites, corrodes faith, family and culture just as surely as Soviet state socialism. (emphasis mine)Marx’s appeal to the proletariat has given way to the equally soulless and inane “Consumers of the world unite!”

A discussion of man’s place in the Universe might seem far afield from talk of a second Cold War, but it is intimately connected. Beneath the dynamics of US-Russian strategic rivalry is an underlying battle of ideas. However inadvertently, the conversions of former KGB men can remind us of our own religious tradition, obscured by modernity but not yet lost. The secular parody of universal brotherhood, dedicated to accumulation and enjoyment, only leaves us isolated from each other and the source of life itself.

Full article, here.


Turkey Rising

In 1914, on the very eve of the Great War, G.K. Chesterton published his humorous novel The Flying Inn. The story concerned a Turkish plot to invade England, all with the connivance of Britain’s progressive elite….Chesterton sought to convey the central truth that seemingly fantastic turns of events can come about through spiritual collapse. This assertion was proved correct outside the pages of his book. As Europeans, supremely confident of their material civilization, plunged into industrial-scale suicide, hindsight shows us that physical disaster was preceded by disaster in higher realms. Philosophers, statesmen and scientists rejected their ancient Christian faith to exalt the seemingly limitless potential of man. It is therefore ironic that the very circumstances of The Flying Inn hint at correspondence with today’s geopolitics. A century later, Turkey is ascendant, and Islamic inroads into Europe are aided and abetted by the ruling classes of the West.


The symbolic culmination of American support of Turkish power has been U.S. backing for Turkey’s accession into the European Union. In his Ankara speech, Obama explained this policy in the following terms:

“Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith- it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe’s foundation once more.”

Turkey is bound to Europe by invasion. This is the source of Obama’s pleasant-sounding “centuries of shared history.” The Byzantine Empire, longtime guardian of Christianity in the East, was conquered in a series of campaigns by the Seljuks and Ottomans, Turkic tribes that swept in from the steppes of Central Asia. History acts as a witness. Ankara could receive EU membership tomorrow, but Turkey has never been European in any meaningful sense. As the armies of Suleiman the Magnificent battered against the walls of Vienna in 1683, the city’s defenders understood this implicitly.


Identity is often less a matter of race than of religion and cultural heritage. (emphasis mine) The Bulgarians, for example, were a Turkic people that adopted Slavic ways and accepted Christianity. Magyars, horsemen from Siberia and the terror of 10th-century Christendom, under St. Stephen founded the Kingdom of Hungary. Europe, whatever the drafters of the multivolume EU Constitution might suppose, can ultimately only be defined through the origins of a common Christian culture. The Ottomans long commanded suzerainty across the Balkans and Mediterranean as conquerors, but they were never of Europe. Turkey maintains an undeniably rich and unique culture, but its core and overall character are Islamic and Asiatic.

U.S. advocacy of Turkey’s integration into Europe is just one facet of a long-held revolutionary dream that has shaped the leaders of Western societies. This vision seeks to overturn natural order in favor of an atomizing egalitarianism that can conceive of nothing above economic expediency and the whims of the sovereign will. Every measure of its progress leads individuals and entire nations further into dissolution. Sufficient tragedy has already resulted from European governing classes’ abandonment of religious tradition and its cultural vessels, from mass politics and mechanized slaughter to crime-infested third world ghettoes that abut red light districts. There is little reason to allow Turkey into Europe if a spiritually bankrupt modern West is to someday have a chance at renewal.

Turkey is an Islamic power with its own interests, its own civilization and its own cultural mission. NATO allies or not, Ankara’s Christian neighbors in Greece, the Balkans and the Caucasus know this fact well. Their peaceful acceptance of Turkish regional primacy will be unlikely….As the Turks make their return to the arena of great states, the ages-old enmity between Islam and the West will assume dimensions previously unimagined.

The U.S. embrace of Turkey is symptomatic of our secular elites’ disdain for the roots of Western culture, and their desire to replace it with something wholly alien. Such are the wages of an empty and world-flattening humanism. Rather than explore our natural bonds with the Orthodox Christian nations to better confront the challenges of Islam and China, Washington antagonizes and attempts to encircle a Russia still scarred from the ravages of Communist rule. (emphasis mine) Who will protect the tattered remnants of Christendom and aid in its recovery? Elected officials, bureaucrats, corporate executives and judges on both sides of the Atlantic are engaged in an unceasing campaign to destroy any traces of its vitality.

Full article, here.



Confronting Jihad

The effort to impose some modern notion of “stability” onto tribally based societies is indeed a counterproductive exercise in social engineering writ large…. Containment of jihadism would not entail a Cold War-style grand ideological contest between the U.S. and elements within the Islamic world. The past eight years are enough to show us that such an enterprise is worse than pointless. The U.S. may build as many new schools, medical clinics and water treatment plants in Afghanistan as it desires, but it cannot build a new culture, and culture is what counts. Attempting by material means, even with the world’s most capable military, to transform a people’s tribal and religious customs to our liking is a fool’s errand. Refraining from interference in the domestic affairs of Muslim states would diminish one of the main justifications terror groups such as Al Qaeda use to replenish their ranks.


From Los Angeles to London, signs of decadence and breakdown are only symptoms of the wider disorder wrought by the embrace of Enlightenment ideologies that have torn the West from the transcendent.

A call for the restoration of Christianity in the West seems radical only because secular thought is so entrenched after a century of total war and rejection of the moral order in every sphere of life. Although it might look unassailable, the success of modernity is leading to its unraveling as economic collapse and societal disintegration beckon. The ideals of unlimited growth and the individual sovereign will, unquestioned dogmata of the American civic religion, are beginning to bear their bitter fruits. Jihadists pose a danger to us precisely because of our civilization’s advanced state of rot.


To turn away from the path to self-destruction will demand not only smarter strategy in politics foreign and domestic, but at root a shift in faith and worldview. Wars to spread “liberty” and “human rights” are profoundly at odds with the teachings of the Prince of Peace. The cults of devotion to the phantoms of progress, material advancement, or perpetual adolescence bring ultimate ruin in their wake. No matter how disheartening the present circumstances may seem, hope can burn bright for the future through our own actions. The Truth that has been forgotten can be remembered; what spiritual treasures lost, rediscovered.

Full story, here.

.

What's a Church of Christ boy to do?

I recommend the post of a new blogging acquaintance, entitled "What's a Church of Christ boy to do?", found here. Dissatisfied with the limitations of Restorationist theology, he is contemplating Orthodoxy, among other options. Where he is now, I once was. His is a well-written essay, and he invites response. For those unfamiliar with Church of Christ issues, this is an excellent primer. By all means, check it out.

Reflections from a Road Trip: the Deep South

A new generation meets the storyteller


[This brings my summer travel posts to a close. I plan to stay home for a while.]

In 1776, the British army recruited an 18-year old German boy from northern Bavaria to fight the American colonists. After 2 years of doing that very thing, the young man followed his conscience, defected and joined the Revolutionary Army. War's end found him in North Carolina where he in turn found a wife. Johannes died in 1816 in Georgia, a modestly prosperous yeoman farmer and Primitive Baptist preacher. For the last 30 years, this man's descendants have gathered for a reunion in different parts of the South. These are my mother's people, though she gave little thought to these get-togethers. In the 30 years, I have missed perhaps three. My wife and I attended this year's event in LaGrange, Georgia, and then drove on to Savannah, where we spent a couple of days before returning home.

Without going into any great detail, I will simply post some observations from the trip, in a Best and Worst format, as follows:

Best mid-sized Southern city:

Jackson, hands down

Most picturesque small-town Episcopal church:

Church of the Holy Cross, Uniontown, AL

Most photogenic decaying Southern mansion:

behind the Church of the Holy Cross, Uniontown, AL

Most surprising:

Selma, Al, much more than the Edmund Pettus bridge, with an interesting downtown, not yet in total decline, with impressive churches and the stand-out Mishkan Temple Synagogue

Best eastbound travel tip:

Alabama police are apparently serious about the 45 mph posted along Highway 80's eternal construction

Best location for a remake of Gone with the Wind or any other moonlight-and-magnolias Southern potboiler:

Greenville, GA, with a row of authentic antebellum mansions lining the western entrace to town, culminating in a Norman Rockwall courthouse square

Most eye-catching Orthodox temple:

St. Innocent Orthodox Church, Macon, GA

Favorite Savannah squares:

Monterrey and Lafayette

Favorite Savannah view:

Cathedral of St. John the Baptist as seen across Lafayette Square from the second-story windows of Flannery O'Connor's childhood home

Silliest church sign:

seen in front of Reidsville Baptist Church, Reidsville, GA: "Youths: Confused about Jesus' Second Coming? Watch the Left Behind movies here." ho-boy

Most idyllic Southern hamlet:

Ailey, GA



























Bridesmaids in Forsythe Square


Friendliest Fruit Stand:

McGuinty's McApple Orchard, Rochelle, GA

Most beautiful Baptist Church:

First Baptist Church, Plains, GA


























Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil


Ugliest Baptist Church:

Ladonia Baptist Church, Phenix City, AL


























In Bonadventure Cemetery


Competition between old-time downtown Jackson eateries--The Mayflower vs. The Elite Cafe:

The Elite Cafe has a slight edge until The Mayflower's bread pudding is factored in, leaving it a dead-heat




























Best westbound travel tip:

If you fill up with gasoline and visit the restroom in Jackson or Vicksburg, you can make it to Texas without ever having to even stop in Louisiana

Reflections of a Road Trip: Pirates in the Piedmont

In early July, I tapped the frequent-flyer bank and spent 4 1/2 days in North Carolina. The ostensible purpose of the trip involved meeting fellow researchers at Blowing Rock, near Grandfather Mountain. Most of the time, however, I shuttled between Charlotte and Salisbury, in the heart of the Piedmont. The Appalachians are certainly beautiful, but they don't hold my interest for long. I guess I am more of a rolling-hills-type-of-guy.

My visit just happened to coincide with the Highland Games at Grandfather Mountain. While these Scottish festivals are often heavy on affectation, this one is the granddaddy of them all, as authentic, I suppose, as these sorts of things can be. I visited our clan tent, ate a Scottish meat pie, and watched some good ole-fashioned pole-tossing, duck herding and Scottish wresting (just like Turkish wrestling except that the contestants are not first slicked-down with olive oil.) And of course, there was the obligatory Celtic band (that I was never able to actually see for the crowds) and the ever-present din of bagpipes (which somehow seem appropriate here in the mountains.) That said, I still have the sneaking suspicion that the whole thing is merely an excuse for men to strut around in kilts and pretend they are laird o' the manor. Oh well, I have done worse myself.





















Charlotte epitomizes the much-ballyhooed up-and-coming New South, with little time for the quaint distinctiveness of our various regions. (Bill Kauffman has some excellent observations on this aspect of Charlotte in a recent article, here.) On my first night there, I attempted to look up a first cousin that I had never met. One of my dad's brothers was something of a ladies' man, you might say. Swarthy and handsome, with a pencil mustache, he cut a dashing figure as a young man. Just before the Second World War, he married a stunning California girl, much too beautiful for her own good. Neither my uncle nor his new wife particularly behaved themselves while apart during the conflict, and not surprisingly, their marriage was a casualty of the war. Loraine went on to other marriages (as did he), and from the look of things, did quite well for herself in a material sense. I am intrigued by a snapshot of her taken 20 years later, in 1965. Even at that time, she was a dead-ringer for Audrey Hepburn. Anyway, there were 2 children of this marriage. The daughter was murdered years ago, and the son, I learned, lived in Charlotte. I especially wanted to meet this cousin, if for no other reason than he bears my grandfather's exact name. I googled and found the address and decided to just show up unannounced--"Hi, I'm your cousin"--at the front door. When I arrived at their house, the car was in the driveway and the lights were on. I rang the front doorbell. Nothing. After a couple of minutes, the blinds parted and two eyes looked out at me for a moment, and then disappeared back into the house. I rang the doorbell again. After a while, I began to feel foolish standing there on the front porch. So, I left my card in the door and moved on. It is a bit funny to realize that others may view one as a suspicious-looking character.



The next night, I chose a restaurant downtown for supper. The meal required 2 draft Yuenglings, so I deemed it prudent to sit awhile on a bench outside before driving back to the motel. I relaxed in front of the nearby Charlotte Metro Station. I am a sucker for any train, subway or tram, and enjoyed watching the sleek new train pull into the station. The high-rise behind me was outfitted in futuristic multi-colored neon tubing running up the building. While sitting there, the lights started flashing in sequence. An audio recording accompanied the light show so that each time a neon light flashed, it triggered a creepy laugh-like soundtrack. Until then, I had been sitting in silence, admiring the train. Now I felt as if I were intruding, almost as if the building was laughing at me. Suddenly uncomfortable, I made my way back to the safety of my room. I am sure Charlotte is a lovely city, and snap initial impressions can often be misleading, but, I'm just saying....

Salisbury, on the other hand, was altogether inviting. Located midway between Charlotte and Winston-Salem, the city is far enough removed from either to avoid (so far) the sprawl inching its way. I found the town to be one of the most impressive I have visited. Salisbury is a quarter of the size of the city where I work, but its downtown is actually much larger. The beautiful old commercial buildings are still in place, functional and in good repair and housing actual businesses. The library (again much larger than in my larger city) is a beautiful Georgian brick building, in perfect harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. A graceful 3-story spiral staircase anchors the structure, with the library teeming with actual patrons instead of just warehousing the homeless. Apparently the city fathers decided generations ago to maintain and beautify their downtown, with mature trees, crape myrtles and statues lining the thoroughfares. In 1950, my city had a town square that people now would drive many miles to see. The short-sighted businessmen would have none of it and had nearly wiped it clean within 20 years. Ever since, town leaders have been fighting a losing battle to "revitalize" downtown. Would that we have had leaders of the caliber of those in Salisbury.





















The rural Rowan County Piedmont is as pleasant as any you might find: sturdy farmhouses, ancient red oaks, towering Presbyterian churches of Georgian brick every few miles, acre upon acre of soybeans, and corn reaching to the sky. My great-great-great-great-great grandfather settled here from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in the 1750s. Some brothers and innumerable cousins poured into the area between 1750 and 1785. They formed a web of connections with a half-dozen other area families that holds to this day. I suspect I could stop at most any farmhouse and in short order establish a connection of some sort. Wood Grove is the oldest surviving house in Rowan County, a 3-story country manse built by my kinsman in 1774. After 235 years, the place remains in the family. My extended kin fill the 4 most historic church graveyards in the area. When they first arrived, my Scots-Anglican family tried to establish an Episcopal church in the area. Fierce opposition from their Scots-Irish Presbyterian neighbors prevented this from ever happening. After a final attempt in 1769, my family settled in to become solid, respectable Calvinist churchmen. But my particular line did not stay here. In 1784, my ancestor moved on to the next frontier, this time in Georgia. The next generation settled the frontier in Tennessee, and the next Arkansas, and the next Texas. Nowhere did they establish the connectedness with a particular place as did those relatives who remained in Rowan County, North Carolina. My Piedmontese cousins stayed put and prospered, becoming fat and happy. Or so it would seem.




















My Arcadian idyll was tempered a bit on my drive from Wood Grove Plantation to the old Thyatira Presbyterian Church. Two observations reminded me that the region I was in the process of romanticizing was in fact, very much in the 21st-century along with the rest of us. The fields of corn parted and flowed around a 5 acre home place. The woman of the house--certainly old enough to know better--was out by the road, mowing the yard with a push mower...in a thong bikini. For all practical purposes, she was mowing the yard in the nude. Upon arriving at Thyatira Church (the oldest Presbyterian church in central North Carolina and one of the state's most historic structures), I couldn't help but notice the sign out front. The following Sunday, they were having "Contemplation Sunday." What in the Sam Hill is a Contemplation Sunday? What it told me is that the wells are drying up here as well.

Of course, religiosity is still alive and kicking in North Carolina, as befits the home of both Billy Graham and Heritage USA. Indeed, the state seems to be ground zero for AM radio religious broadcasts. I listened to a fair sampling of them on Sunday afternoon after Liturgy in Charlotte, while I wandered along the back roads of Rowan. One preacher assured his audience that the Bible would be in heaven. Somehow I never envisioned eternity sitting with a Bible in my lap, highlighting and cross-referencing proof texts. Of course, bibliolatry can even carry over into the naming of churches, such as the storefront King James Baptist Church. One probably wouldn't want to walk in there with a NIV Study Bible. Another radio evangelist illustrated his sermon with examples taken from the Civil War...excuse me, The War of Northern Aggression. He explained to his flock that the only people who referred to it as the Civil War were "Yankees and other ignoramuses" (that would be...me.) AM religious broadcasting is much more entertaining that talk radio.





















For me, the real insight came from my day in the county courthouse, pouring over old deeds, wills and estate settlements. The people I was tracking were certainly an acquisitive bunch, accumulating land and slaves at a quick clip. And they seemed a litigious group, as well, showing no hesitancy in suing the kinsmen who sat across the aisle in their Presbyterian churches. They purchased, sold and traded slaves with cool indifference. Back in graduate school, my professors warned us repeatedly of presentism, that is, the projecting of contemporary values onto the past. Much of what passes for the popular understanding of American history is simply that. And I am not unfamiliar with the type and tone of the documents I was reviewing. That said, some of them simply took my breath away. Slaves were divvied-up between children as nonchalantly as one divided the kitchen utensils. Sometimes a will would contain a provision for one heir to receive a particular slave and her children, except the 2 oldest, who were to go to another heir. A 1827 deed I remember in particular. A debtor of my most prominent kinsman deeded him 2 slaves in partial payment of his obligation. The document contained instructions to the grantee to sell the slaves as quickly as possibly to apply to the debt. The servants were identified as Clarissa age 3 years thereabouts, and Porter about 18 months.

Reading through the county histories and cemetery records rounded-out the picture for me. Prosperity and Presbyterianism characterized antebellum Rowan County. And while this continued on after the war, the society had something of a dark underbelly. A number of high-profile and grisly murders seemed to crop up far too often, the most sensational occurring as late as 1906. A tension persisted between the white over class and their former slaves, now tenants. It would seem that a thin veneer of culture, sanctimony and piety covered over what could be termed a brutish society.

On my last day there, I determined to drive back out to Thyatira Cemetery. I uncovered an intriguing story concerning the hanging of 3 pirates back in the 1700s. What pirates were doing this far inland is a mystery to me. I suspect that they might have been merely highwaymen. No matter, they were captured and strung up in quick order. The elders of Thyatira Church agreed to allow them burial in the churchyard, but with one caveat--their names could not be inscribed upon their tombstones. Only a skull and crossbones would be allowed on the stones--perhaps as a warning to future pirates. I could not leave the state without seeing these graves. Thyatira Presbyterian Cemetery covers several rolling acres enclosed within an ancient rock wall. The gravestones are aligned in the straightest lines I have ever seen in any cemetery. Maybe it is a Presbyterian thing. It took me a while to find the graves, but sure enough, there were the 3 smalls stones, each carved with a fading scull and crossbones.

In looking down the rows of monuments marking the earthly repose of these respectable planters and merchants and churchmen, I could only think of acquisitiveness, of greed, of thirst for power, of trade in human flesh, of families torn-apart, of Clarissa and Porter. Pirates all, rows and rows of pious pirates. This is not to condemn this particular community, for they were no better or no worse than their contemporaries in like circumstances...or us, for that matter. But I walked away a bit thankful my family left here before succumbing to these particular temptations (to be sure, they found others along the way.) I suddenly stopped and walked back to the pirates' graves, to do the only thing I knew to do. Before each of the 3 stones, I crossed myself and chanted the haunting and unforgettable words we sing at Orthodox funerals:

With the saints give rest O Christ, to the souls of Thy servants, where there is neither pain, nor sorrow, nor sighing, but life unending.

Larison on Cantor, the "Judea-Christian tradition" and other silliness

Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded. ~Eric Cantor

So Cantor means that he will offer support to opposition Maronites in Lebanon and work to realign U.S. policies in the Near East to favor Armenia, right? No, I guess that wasn’t quite it. When he says that policy should be “grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition,” maybe he means that we should repudiate aggressive warfare, collective punishment and indiscriminate bombing, especially when those methods also adversely affect local Christian populations. Oh, that’s not it, either? Of course, it means exactly what you would think that it does, which is that we must support Israel to the hilt with support defined as the embrace of the most hawkish, counterproductive policies possible.

As is usually the case, Dr. Larison calls it just exactly right. Read the rest of the post, here.

Die, Crocs, die!

This, I like.

h/t to Rod.

Obscure Destinies

My good friend, novelist Milton Burton, occasionally posts a short story on his blog. His latest submission is a good one, loosely based on an actual event, if I am not mistaken. You can check it out here.

Reflections of a Road Trip: In the Amish Country

It has probably been 18 years or better since I last visited Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. This region is the very heart of Amish country, or at least that which is well-known to the non-Amish. At the time it struck me just how perilous their situation was, with incredible societal pressures bearing down on them. And not just from society in general, but from the mere specifics of their particular location--in a populated area much too close to the growing city of Lancaster. I wondered how they would be able to hold out. The fact that Lancaster County is one of the most beautiful in the nation does not help matters. But upon my recent visit, I am heartened by the fact that they seem to be holding out very well indeed. The city of Lancaster sprawls out along the Lincoln Highway, sucking up the old Amish communities of Paradise, Kinzers and Gap. Tourist enterprises seemed poised to swamp Intercourse and Bird in Hand along the Old Philadelphia Pike. But the Amish agricultural world begins immediately behind the commercial strips. By the time you have traversed several hundred feet, the sense of their world begins to take over. In short, the ramparts of defense against modernity seem to be intact.

I did not venture here to gawk at the Amish. My ancestors of the surname I bear came into the Pequea Valley from Scotland in 1720. My particular forebear, a younger son, moved on to the North Carolina frontier in the 1750s, but others of the family stayed here for a number of generations. Using the wonders of modern GIS technology, I was able to overlay their 1734 land patents onto a Google Earth aerial. So doing, I was able to pinpoint exactly where their farms were located. I wanted to see this land, as well as visit the Episcopal Church they helped found in 1729 and a couple of the old graveyards where my people buried. So, the Amish aspect was incident to my main purpose. They came later and bought up the land of the original English and Scots settlers (like mine). Today, my family's original homestead in the New World is a pristine Amish farm. It couldn't be in better hands.





















Old family farm (now Amish), Lancaster County, PA

I must say that I would have made a terrible Amish person. I am too much a product of the modern world, I suppose. But it is hard to say, looking at their world from the outside. That said, I have tremendous respect for these people. Regardless of what you think about the theological underpinnings of their way of life (which I largely reject), the culture is a silent and damning rebuke to the excesses and wreckage of modernity. The contrast could not be more stark. I stayed at an old tourist court on the Lincoln Highway. Having driven from far western Michigan the day before, I was a bit fatigued and slept a little later that Saturday morning. By the time I started my day, the tourist hordes were already milling around Paradise. Taken as a whole, we were not a pretty sight--shorts, tee-shirts and flip-flops seemed to be the uniform of choice. None of us seemed to have missed many meals. After frequenting the tourist shops along the highway, many of them would probably cap-off their day in the Amish country by taking the kids to the nearby Dutch Wonderland Amusement Park, as touted by countless billboards featuring their grinning purple spokes-dragon. For you know, nothing says Pennsylvania Dutch and Amish like purple cartoon dragons.

But once you actually drove through the Amish farmlands, a different pattern of life was being played-out. This was no "weekend," but a work day like any other. The laundry was already hung out to dry on lines stretching from the farm houses to their barns. Barefoot girls were mowing the yard with manual push mowers. Men were in the fields harvesting. Young boys were moving cows from the dairy to pastures across the road. Young families were loaded into their buggies (pulled by the most beautiful horses imaginable) on quick trips into Intercourse or Bird in Hand for provisions. Everyone was brown, lean and angular. One sensed a discernible rhythm to their lives, in vivid contrast to the aimlessness of we weekenders.

I was to have supper with new friends Richard and Fran at the historic Revere Tavern that night. Their families had both lived in the area for 10 generations or so. In fact, Fran's family had owned the neighboring farm to my family back in the early 1700s. Her people had stayed put, and as a consequence she knew most everything there was to know about the area, and not only knowing everyone there, but how their family fit into the context of a 280-year local history. I found it all very European.























White Horse Tavern, Lancaster County, PA

I met Richard earlier in the day, as we walked around St. John's Cemetery, with its gravestones dating back to the 1740s. He took me on a tour of the church itself. The present structure is the 3rd, built in 1834. For lunch, we grabbed a sandwich and a couple of Yuengling lagers at the White Horse Tavern. A local family (still in the area) built this establishment in 1740. The original building survives, and most importantly, it has always been a tavern. As it is located halfway between my family's old farm and their church house, I feel confident that I was not the first of my line to put my feet under the bar there. Richard and I talked of the various pressures on their Amish neighbors. First, there is the simple fact that they have staked out a counter-cultural existence amidst the swirl of a modern world. This is exacerbated by the fact that their lands here are not isolated, but close to cities and sliced by highways. This in turn makes real estate prices sky-high, with the choice Amish land coveted for both residential and commercial development. Finally, there are simple demographics. The Amish marry young and have large families. I passed a young couple in their buggy on a back road between Paradise and Intercourse. Their very young son sat on the bench between them, while the wife held the baby. I thought it an idyllic Amish country scene. As I passed them and looked in the rear view mirror, I saw that their 3 older children were sitting on the buckboard behind. As I say, this was a young couple, and there will surely be more children beyond these 5. This is typical. Simply put, not all of these young Amish can remain here. There is not enough land for all of them to farm. So, many move on to other Amish communities in other parts of the country. Also, the young people are given a choice about the time they are 17 or 18. For a year or so, the teenagers are allowed to sample the modern world, to drink and party and experience the outside for themselves. I had seen a documentary about this before, so I was not unfamiliar with the practice. Afterwards, they choose whether they want to remain Amish or not. Richard told me that there had been tragedies. Teenage boys, trucks and alcohol are often a lethal combination. Four teenage Amish boys had been killed in a recent pile-up on the dirt road that runs beside my family's old farm. Lord have mercy.





















St. John's Episcopal Church, founded 1729

I asked Richard about one sight that caught my attention. I saw a couple of Amish men mowing their yards with new zero-turning radius riding lawnmowers. Apparently, there is some loophole, or dispensation when it comes to this sort of thing. He knew of one man who had an underground electrical line into his house which powered a washer and dryer. And, it was not unknown to see the occasional Amishman sitting at the end of the bar at the White Horse Tavern. But by and large, the center seems to be holding.

On my way out of Lancaster County, I passed along the back roads of the southern section of the county, on my way to Port Deposit, Maryland. I was interested to learn that the Amish are not merely huddled in the touristed area east of Lancaster, but are in fact scattered all over the county. Everywhere, I saw young Amish walking together in groups or taking the family buggy out for a ride together. Apparently, Sunday afternoon after church services is the free time that young Amish have to seek out their peers and hang out together, as young people are wont to do. This is how it should be.





















Family plot, St. John's Episcopal Cemetery

Reflections of a Road Trip: What I like about Missouri

On my recent travels, I spent the better part of 2 1/2 days in south-central and southwestern Missouri. I had not been in the state since a hurried visit to my aunt and cousins in St. Louis at age 14. So, I had little prejudice about Missouri, one way or the other. I think we Texans can often exhibit a Texo-centric view of things, particularly when it comes to other states. An acquaintance of mine--a stock-broker--encouraged me to outline my itinerary to his co-worker, also a college-educated broker. Upon doing so, he replied, "all blue-states, huh?" Well, yes, I guess you could put it that way. I let it pass and spared him my editorial comment on the relative merits of red-state vs. blue state (a near useless distinction, anyway.)

My paternal grandmother's paternal side settled in Missouri in the early 1840s, and my branch of the family peeled-off to Texas immediately preceding the Civil War. So, even in my genealogical musings, Missouri fits into the narrative as hardly more than a way-station to Texas. While in the state, I did visit the rural graveyard and found the marker for my 3rd-great-grandmother who died in 1855. When I am in cemeteries, I often wonder about the lives of the departed. She grew up in Litchfield County, CT where her people had lived for 150 years. After marriage, she and her husband and their ever-expanding family pushed on to Ohio by 1815, to Indiana by 1825, and as a widow to Missouri by 1845. Before her death, I wonder what she made of this, her last home in these rolling hills of central Missouri?

Two of her children pushed on to Texas in 1859. As a whole, the family was Republican, Unionist and Campbellite--only 1 of which would serve the family well in the Texas of 1861. I suppose the westering impulse had become ingrained in them, but I do wonder why they made the move. For I was to discover that this part of Missouri was both productive and not at all unpleasant in appearance. The countryside I visited was quite pretty, with rolling hills and a good mixture of forest and farm land--not beautiful in the classical sense, but in its own way, much better. The farmsteads themselves completed the picture, neat and modest--perhaps not the large farm complexes one associates the Midwest, but not at all characterized by the creeping trashiness that has taken root in much of rural America. There seemed a certain sameness to the houses in this corner of America--not that there was no diversity or character, but rather there did not seem to be the great disparity between rich and poor that one often finds in my part of the country. What this tells me is that, in some ways, society is better ordered in Missouri than in my home state.





















I started not to post this picture of the yard sign I passed on a Missouri back road, as it could be something a cheap shot, an all-too-easy opportunity to poke fun at certain elements of American society. Clearly, these folks have an agenda. "Christianity" can be a useful word when used sparingly, but it is NOT that in which we believe, or at least not that in which we should believe. Perhaps that is our problem--the substitution of belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as cited in the Nicene Creed with an all-encompassing systematic abstraction labeled "Christianity." Nor have I ever been one to wrap myself in the American flag, so to speak, and have no doubt that my views on American exceptionalism would damn me in the eyes of the owners of this sign. I have no idea what it means to "think American," but I am afraid I would not like it if I did. I could agree with the last item, unless of course it was lumped together with other items to project some ideological agenda, as is the case here. And while I take issue with each and every item, I have to admit that there is a certain plain-spoken straight-forwardness about the sign which I have to respect. I think Missouri is that kind of place, and I can certainly deal with that.

And Missouri offers up surprises along the way, for those who have eyes to see. East of Ash Grove I passed this incredible octagonal stone barn, like none I have seen before. I was not the only one stopped by the roadside for a better view. I had to chuckle a bit at the faded civic boosterism of the "Ash Grove: Home of the Ash Tree" sign. Of course this is certainly better than that of Gainesville, Missouri (located much too close to the Arkansas border, apparently) which proclaims: "Welcome to Gainesville, Home of Hootin' and Hollerin'."

Ash Grove is struggling, it appears, with its most logical future as a bedroom community for nearby Springfield. I passed through this growing city twice and stopped once. I do not have a feel for the place yet, and it would be unfair to judge. At first glance, all appeared to be shopping centers and commercial strips and mega-churches along the highways, such as the intriguingly named "Truth Church." I never found the center of the city, though there is undoubtedly one somewhere. My time was limited, so I did not linger long here. It is hard to say exactly where the South ends, but one senses that by Springfield, you have crossed over that line. Anyway, I think Springfield deserves a second look one day.

In the countryside, Missionary Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ and pentecostal churches predominate. So, you can imagine my surprise, in a particularly remote stretch of back road, when I stumbled across St. Francis Church. They billed themselves as Anglican, and "traditional Episcopal." Now what you expect in this neck of the woods. More power to them, I say.

Before leaving Missouri for points north, I had to find the grave of my cousin Mary Jane Barbee, who died in January 1884 in Ash Grove. She was related on my paternal grandmother's maternal side, the first cousin of my great-great-grandmother (though it is doubtful they ever met, considering the different worlds in which they lived.) She came of age in Jackson, Mississippi, at a time when her uncle was in the governor's mansion and her father and another uncle in the legislature. Her father, my remote uncle, was an attorney and politician, who prospered mightily in land speculation stretching from Alabama to Texas. He was most well-known, however, as an early preacher and writer for the Christian Church (note: until the late 1800s, the term Christian Church was most often used to designate the current denominations of Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ and independent Christian Churches.) His oldest daughter was educated by tutors, spoke French and was an accomplished pianist. In 1853, she married Dr. Barbee, an up-an-coming young minister in the Christian Church. He had been a medical doctor in Cincinnati, only to abandon his practice for the ministry after being converted from Presbyterianism to the Christian Church by none other than Alexander Campbell himself. Up until 1862, he pastored the Linden Street Christian Church (now Lindenwood) in Memphis. When the city fell, the Barbees decamped to her parent's farm in northern Mississippi.

The family was pretty well busted up by the war, and in its aftermath, Dr. Barbee worked as a college president, first in two institutions in Kentucky, then one in Kansas City (which he called "the ugliest city in America") and finally a new college in Ash Grove, Missouri. At each location, Mary Jane was his ever-constant and invaluable assistant, both in administration and teaching. Wherever they lived, she conducted music classes for the students and townspeople alike. Soon after arriving in Ash Grove, she succumbed to tuberculosis, and her grave became the first in the new city cemetery.

Dr. Barbee remained in demand for preaching engagements, and he traveled extensively. He seemed frustrated with the reception he received in San Antonio, Texas. Barbee was shocked by the perceived looseness of society there, where the Germans "counted beads, said 'Ave Maria' and drank lager beer." As a preacher of the Christian Church/Church of Christ persuasion, used to moving with church circles in the upper South, he was unequipped to deal with the free-spirited nature of San Antonio. Dr. Barbee died at a church convention 8 years after his wife.

By this time, the sons had located in Kansas City, where they pursued careers in insurance and journalism. A daughter, Allie, had located in San Antonio, to continue her father's work there. She was a noted church worker, in the very best sense of the word. Allie contributed articles and poetry to the various church publications of the day, and devoted her time to working in the orphanages and benevolent institutions in the city. And in her last years, she was alone, as her husband--a failed businessman given to drink and gambling--had committed suicide. Allie succumbed to tuberculosis at an even earlier age than her mother.

Only one of Allie's children married and had children, and about ten years ago I had occasion to correspond with the grandchildren of this son. He had been a successful sugar broker fairly early in life, and his family moved in the affluent country-club set. Pictures of this family shared with me seem to all revolve around golf course or pool settings, or those featuring evening gowns and cocktail glasses. The family was not large, just barely hanging-on you might say. They were unknowing and indifferent, it seemed, to anything before their grandfather established himself in the San Antonio moneyed set. Religious considerations did not really seem to enter the equation at all, much less any knowledge of the particular faith in which 3 generations of their immediate ancestors had devoted their lives. This particular faith, I might add, was once important to me as well, as it sifted down by fits and starts through 5 generations from Mary Jane's cousin to myself.

I found the later chapters in that family's saga to be all rather sad. Prosperous they were indeed, in the finest tradition of American success stories. Perhaps things would have been different had they all settled-in around Ash Grove. As it is, Mary Jane's monument stands starkly alone, devoid of any other family. I think faith can be nurtured and maintained in places like Ash Grove. I found that to be the case the Sunday I worshipped there--not in the restorationist Christian Church downtown, the church of Mary Jane's family (and once of this distant cousin), but rather in the little Orthodox temple on the outskirts of town.

Not Another Convert Story

Recent travels and work demands have preventing me from keeping up with the blogs I like to frequent. I've tried to remedy that situation this long holiday weekend. Over at Fr. James Early's excellent blog, I discovered that I had completely missed an on-going series, detailing one couple's conversion to the Orthodox faith. I heartily recommend the blog in general, this narrative in particular, and have links to each section of the story at the end of this post.

That said, conversion stories can be a bit tricky, and should come with lots of cautionary admonitions. Even the word convert comes with some baggage, but until someone comes up with a better descriptor, it will have to suffice. First, each account is obviously particular to the person affected, and their reaction will not be exactly replicated by anyone else. In 2003, I walked into a Bulgarian Orthodox church with my good friend and travelling companion. When I walked out, the course of my life had changed (though I didn't realize it at that moment). My friend was right beside me the entire time, but walked out thinking it merely quaint and colorful. That is how it works--our life-changing experience will go unnoticed by our neighbor.

Second, we are often too quick to broadcast our experiences, either out of genuine excitement about the course we have embarked upon, or perhaps exhibiting some need to validate our decision. When I first started blogging, I posted some accounts of my experience. Today, I would probably leave them unwritten. And while I have often alluded to what happened in my case, I have never given a full-throated, complete account of what actually transpired. I can tell my story--but even after 6 years, am reluctant to pontificate upon Orthodoxy itself, and am careful to steer the narrative away from that angle.

And finally, a bit of perspective often changes our narrative somewhat. As we are first constructing the story, it is hard to resist the temptation to portray ourselves always as "Noble Truth-seekers," and those from whom we come out from amongst as "hidebound and pig-headed traditionalists." In time, we come to better appreciate the foundations we received in our former communions, and the part it played in our becoming Orthodox. In time, we realize that our conversion was probably messier and less noble than our telling of it suggests. In time, we can see the part that pride played in our actions, often even to a greater degree than in the church we left behind.

But these "convert stories" are part and parcel of the American Orthodox landscape, perhaps as in no where else. Maybe this is because the change is or should be so removed from what is normative for our culture. What I have noticed is that while each story is unique, one aspect holds true for most: namely, the catalyst for pursuing Orthodoxy is some exposure to and/or experience of Orthodox worship. That is certainly the case with the story I have linked, my story, and most others I can recall. Those conversions based solely on intellectual inquiry, be it theological or historical, do not seem to hold, in my experience. Clearly this is not due to any deficiency within Orthodoxy itself, but lies rather in the motives and approach of the convert. When someone becomes Orthodox as a mere intellectual choice, one made between competing ideologies and based on their own understanding, then they are free to choose something else later on. And they often do. Simply put, the Orthodox faith is infinitely bigger than that, and choices made under those assumptions may fail to account for the cosmic dimensions of what is actually happening.

Another reason this particular story resonates with me is the fact that this couple came out of the Church of Christ, my former religious affiliation. The young man was a missionary to Estonia, where he bumped-up into Orthodoxy. Leaving the Church of Christ can be traumatic, and not at all the same as switching say from Baptist to Methodist to Assembly of God, etc. For the Church of Christ is a restorationist sect, as are the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Unlike the other two, the Church of Christ has mainstream Protestant Trinitarian beliefs (though they wouldn't use the word), but they believe that they "restored" the New Testament church in the early years of the 19th century. For them, church history begins at Pentecost and then stops cold at the end of the 1st Century, going underground (I suppose) until the early 1500s when the Reformation started out right but just didn't go far enough, and then picks back up in the early 1800s with Alexander Campbell finally figured out the correct interpretation of Scripture, thus "restoring" the church. [The irony is that the Church of Christ is distinctly ahistorical in tone, and has failed to instruct its members in even its own particular history. Consequently, modern members are uninformed, unconcerned and/or dismissive of their heritage, causing something of an existential crisis within the church. For without adherence to this narrative, the "distinctive plea," as they used to say, of the Churches of Christ becomes meaningless.] So, when one leaves the Church of Christ, the thinking is (or used to be) that one is not merely going from one Christian denomination to another, but one has in fact left the church. This understanding is not nearly as universal as it was a generation or two ago, but the thinking does persist. When one becomes Orthodox from this kind of background, it can become messy. Such was the case with me. So, this couple's story is of particular interest to me.

I now have very few remaining associations with my old Church of Christ friends (and family). Undoubtedly, there is enough blame to go around on both sides. But I do know some of them used to check out this blog to see just how far I had fallen. Perhaps some still do. It is my prayer that they read this couple's story.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

Part 19

Part 20

Part 21 (the podcast)