Before you read this post, please take a look at my interviews with Theron and John. Theron has left evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy. John has left Eastern Orthodoxy for evangelicalism. I now hope to point out some of the interesting parallels and contrasts between the two interviews.
1. The Influence of Folk Religion on Religious Adherents
Theron’s conversion took place in the buckle of the Bible belt, an area of the United States where a majority of people adhere (loosely) to some form of evangelical religious beliefs and would consider themselves “born again.” John’s conversion took place in Romania, where more than 90% of the population is Eastern Orthodox (mostly by birth). Conversions from one denomination to another seem to often take place in areas where one religious affiliation dominates. No one would assume that all the people claiming to be “evangelicals” in the deep south are true believers; neither would we claim that those who are, by birth, Eastern Orthodox in Romania faithful followers of their religion. In a society where one religious form dominates, minority denominations flourish, as challenges to the status quo.
2. The Search for the New Testament Church
Both Theron and John admitted that they were attracted to their respective denominations because of their closeness to what they understand the New Testament church to have been like. John sees the Eastern Orthodox Church, with all its traditions, rituals, and icons as being a perversion of the True Church. The simple worship services and plain churches of the Baptists appear to be more in line with the early church. On the other hand, Theron’s reading of the Patristics led him to see evangelicalism’s lack of ecclesiastical authority as being far from the early church. Instead of seeing in Baptist life a picture of pristine, New Testament Christianity, he took the trail to Constantinople.
3. Sola Scriptura
In the final analysis, the main difference between the Orthodox and evangelicals is the doctrine of sola Scriptura. John became a Baptist after reading Scripture and becoming convinced of Scripture’s authority – even over the church he had been a part of. Theron left evangelicalism once he abandoned his belief in Scripture as the final authority. “Once I reached that point, it was a fast track. That’s the house of cards. At that point, I had to find another authority.” Theron’s testimony should serve as a warning to Baptists who toy with the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Without Scripture as the final authority, Theron is right. One has to find another authority. Unfortunately, most of the people that reject sola Scriptura do not find their authority in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church. They prop themselves up as the authority and head down the road of Protestant Liberalism. When sola Scriptura goes, it’s a “fast track” in most cases to liberalism.
4. What the Eastern Orthodox Can Learn from Evangelicals
One of the major problems facing the Eastern Orthodox, especially in countries where it is the state religion, is religious apathy. Evangelicals in these countries are vibrant and passionate about their faith. Baptists like John are seeking to convert their friends, often with tears and pleading. The Eastern Orthodox would do well to renew the fervor among their own church members, converting their own flock – many of whom never darken the door of the church.
The liturgy of an Orthodox worship services stresses God’s transcendance, often to the point of making God seem distant and aloof. A renewal of the liturgy and an emphasis on the personal “relationship” aspect preached by evangelicals would help church members to a more biblical view of the God we worship.
5. What Evangelicals Can Learn from the Orthodox
Evangelicals should admire the stability of the Orthodox Church, even if we disagree with the church structure and emphasis on tradition. We are too often moving from one fad to the next, in a never-ending merry-go-round of “the next big thing!” These fads are not only distracting, but they hurt our witness to those around us.
If the Orthodox can learn from the “immanence of God” shown in evangelical worship, surely we can learn to show the “transcendence of God” in worship. Too often, God is presented as a best friend, a life coach, a buddy to have in time of need. We need the picture of God in His majesty and holiness that an Eastern Orthodox service provides. We should be trying to strike a biblical, healthy balance between these two.
Trevin hit the nail on the head with this one. Sola Scriptura may be the major dividing line.
I do have a couple of comments, but I’ll be brief. I may write an larger article on this subject for my blog.
1. I don’t think the rejection of Sola Scriptura necessarily leads to Liberalism. In fact, Protestant liberalism seems an extension and logical end of Sola Scriptura. While most conservatives will hold to Sola Scriptura, they allow the broad traditions of Christian theology to form their understanding and interpretation of Scripture. However, liberals having taken Sola S. to its logical end. They are merely interpreting Scripture the way they understand it.
2. Where does Scripture itself affirm this doctrine? What does Scripture say is the “pillar and ground of truth”?
3. The Church existed for 300 yrs without a firm and official canon of Scripture, yet it was able to function and hold to true doctrine.
This doctrine of Sola Scriptura rarely is thought about or discussed, yet it is the linch pin that holds together the Protestant experiment.
Thanks Trevin. Perhaps we can discuss further.
Comment by Theron Mathis — November 10, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
Theron,
I don’t believe that rejecting sola Scriptura always leads to liberalism. After all, in your case, it did not. But most Protestants who reject sola Scriptura are placing themselves on the throne; therefore, for many Protestants, rationalism takes over and liberalism isn’t far away.
I do not believe that we have the canon because the Church decided which books were Scriptural. There’s a difference between recognizing authority inherent in the text, and the Church bestowing authority on a text. I believe that both are true, but they came in this order. The church 1. recognized the authority in certain letters and Gospels and then 2. pronounced them canonical, thus making sure they would continue to be recognized as authoritative.
Your argument seems to go the other way. The church pronounced which books were canonical and that is why we recognize them as authoritative, when I believe that the books were authoritative before the Church officially called them such.
You mentioned in our interview that you felt the need to find an authority outside yourself, because you felt like with sola Scriptura, your own interpretation was authoritative. You needed help interpreting the text, so you turned to the Church Fathers and church tradition. My question is: Who helped you interpret what the Church Fathers said about the Bible texts? Why is it you needed someone to help you interpret Scripture, but you didn’t need someone to help you interpret “the interpreters” of Scripture you read? Eventually, you wind up back with your own interpretations (though they are the same as your Church’s); you’re just a step farther removed from the text itself.
Hope that wasn’t too confusing.
Trevin
Comment by trevinwax — November 11, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Trevin,
Thanks for writing this series, and the spirit with which you’ve approached it.
What strikes me after reading both Theron’s interview and then the one with John is that the only thing they have in common is switching to the other’s tradition.
Here’s what I mean. I’ve known Theron for almost a decade. We met at a Baptist church we both attended, and while I was on staff there, he even did his required SBTS supervised ministry experience under my supervision. I’ve never doubted Theron’s commitment to his faith regardless of when he was Baptist or now when he is part of the Orthodox Church. His enthusiasm for his beliefs has remained intense regardless of the tradition through which he worships. It seems to me that his journey has been one that is both ecclesiological and doctrinal.
John, on the other hand was a nominal Christian before his conversion–a cultural Christian at best in what he describes as essentially a dead church.
I wonder whether John would have converted if he had been in an Orthodox Church that offered some depth or even a setting here in the US as a member of the Orthodox Church. I know that they do study the Bible at Theron’s church because he teaches a Bible study there.
To me part of the problem comes when the church is so identified with the culture (or in John’s case, even the state) that to simply be a citizen is to be a Christian.
That’s not all that different from some Bible belt communities where to be born there is to be Baptist. I’ve also known a handful of folks over the years who converted to another tradition because their Baptist church seemed to lack spiritual depth, and no doubt this happens in many different traditions. But you and I both know that the Baptist tradition has depth and can offer a genuine sense of spirituality, but sadly, some congregations are simply not alive for whatever reason.
It’s interesting that both of your interviewees claim to be part of the “true” church. Such language makes this Protestant cringe, but I, too, grew up with folks who held to that idea as well. I do believe in a Church Universal (that lower-c catholic) that in my mind transcends institution and denomination and is defined by one’s faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.
I do know that when I talk to Theron, we have wonderful conversations about the Bible, faith, church history, and how these are integrated into one’s life.
I don’t think the quality of our conversation is affected so much by our individual doctrines as it is that we both try to live out our faith. As a Baptist myself, I imagine I would have more in common with someone who is Orthodox (or Catholic or Pentecostal etc.) who takes his or her faith seriously than your average nominal Baptist who attends church to go through the motions of an external spirituality.
Comment by R. Mansfield — November 11, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
Thanks, Rick, for your comments. I’m glad you enjoyed the posts. Believe me, I tried to be fair. I too have enjoyed getting to know both Theron and John during this process.
It is difficult for me to imagine Theron as a Baptist in Romania becoming Orthodox, just as it is hard for me to picture John as a faithful Orthodox believer in America turning to the Baptists. The importance of culture in these discussions cannot be underestimated, but that doesn’t mean that it all boils down to culture.
Comment by trevinwax — November 11, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
Trevin,
My thoughts rest on your third point as well. What do you mean by “Scripture as the final authority”? From your comment, I sense you misunderstood Theron’s point, at least as you summarized it in your interview. I cannot connect the things he said to the conclusion you draw from it. Nor do his words which you quoted actually seem to say to me what you assert in this post. Rather, Theron seemed to be making the statement that he came to recognize that it was not actually ’scripture’ he was holding to as ‘authority’, but his own personal interpretation and understanding of scripture, often as shaped by the interpretation and authority of others (not least the teams of interpreters that provide us the various english translations). Nevertheless, he was the final authority in that he could pick and choose the interpretation of scripture he would hold.
I’m Protestant, but that is an accurate description of the core of ’sola scriptura’. The phrase at the reformation actually meant the reformers rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic magisterium to interpret Scripture and asserted their own right to do so. Theron is essentially correct that that is what it means to be Protestant. And that path carries great danger and risk. Witness the abuses and splintering of the Protestant tradition. They are not the same dangers and risks (though often strikingly similar) as the other two great traditions carry, but I’m not convinced they are any less in degree.
We lie to ourselves and twist our own interpretations just as easily (sometimes moreso) as any external authority. Scripture must be interpreted. And the interpretation you choose to support illustrates the authority you have chosen.
A more chastened statement would be that the Holy Spirit exercises its authority over the Church in part through Scripture. And I believe that view is more consonant with our own text than attempts to turn our faith into a religion of sacred writings, as so often seems to happen to people in our culture.
Comment by Scott M — November 12, 2006 @ 10:52 am
A quick comment: Orthodox Christianity could not be more immanent in its worship. And its emphasis on God’s transcendence is just as great as that of any Protestant sect. Since God is both immanent and transcendent Christians should emphasize both. Icons, for an example, are a great stumbling block to Protestants who are almost Gnostic (like I was as a Protestant) in their view of God. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are sacramental “to the bone” (relics – forgive the pun). Also, there is no need to interpret the Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture. Many questions are raised by those who take God’s inspired word seriously, and those questions were answered by centuries of gifted, holy men (and women) brooding over the Scriptures. When the questioned is raised whether the Son was a created being or not and the Church answers, “No”, there is no need for further “interpretation”. Just my reflections.
Charles
Comment by sergius — March 6, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Of course, we all know there is no such thing as a “Baptist Church.” Some Baptist Churches are Calvinistic and think all the others are damned. Some are liberal (women can cut their hair and become pastors) and there are Charismatic Baptists, and on and on… Even the definition of “faith in Christ” is debated among differing Baptist churches.
Orthodoxy has dead churches just as Baptists have dead churches. In fact, there were “dead churches” from the beginning as we read in the book of Revelation where Christ calls these churches to return to their first love – to revive their devotion.
What happens if you are in a “dead Church” but have a living faith? Do you abandon the true doctrines in favor of a church that has false doctrines, but a more zealous following?
I don’t know, what group has more martyrs for Christ?
Comment by Max — March 12, 2007 @ 12:05 am
I am a Romanian Orthodox currently living in the USA.
I personally know about ten former Romanian evangelicals (Pentecostals and Baptists) become Orthodox. All of those are from a town with a population under 6000. These people were born to parents that left the Orthodox Church in the sixties or seventies; their extended families however still had many Orthodox members. And it is probably here where they differ from the Western Protestants that became Orthodox. For these people that I know, returning to the Orthodox Church, besides coming to what we believe is the Church of Christ and of the Apostles, also meant returning to the faith of their own families: ancestors, great-grand parents, grand-parents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc.
I also know some similar cases in Timisoara where, as I heard, a former Pentecostal and a former Baptist are now Orthodox priests. So, it wouldn’t be fair to assume that in the Orthodox countries the conversions only run one way, from the OC to the various evangelical denominations. Even there they run both ways, and I wouldn’t be surprised that one day the very existence of the Eastern European Evangelical Churches would be challenged because of the return of their members to the faith of their ancestors, that is the Orthodox faith.
Comment by I. N. C. — March 13, 2007 @ 1:06 am
The whole Idea of sola scriptura is rediculous. If you put ten people in a room with a bible verse, they will most probably tell you ten different interpretations of the same verse. Sola Scriptura is not only unbiblical, it sets up ones own authority over that of the God established authority of the church when he gave it the keys of the kingdom. Sola Scriptura makes you out to be your own pope; now you are infalible. It is just as rediculous as the romans with their papal infalibility crap; two sides of the same coin. Lets face it, the Bible itself never once says or implies scripture alone. On the contrary, it does say to hold fast to the Traditions of the church (paul and the apostles) wether oral or written in letters. Come on, Martin Luther might have been an alright guy, (maybe-he did say some weird and hateful things about jews and others)but he was not being logical enough when thinking through his doctrines or rewriting the Bible. Sorry yall, not trying to sound so negative, but I just love the early church fathers! :)
Comment by Herman — August 26, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
The big difference I see between Theron and John is emotionalism. John walked into a Church and was emotionally attached to the Church. Yes, he started reading the bible, but it was more of an emotional reaction, rather than reading the bible first and then realizing baptist theology was correct. Theron was baptist. He went to seminary. He studied Church History. He read his bible regularly. He was a very established Christian and knew his faith very well. In the process of researching Church History he came to know the Orthodox Church. From there, he realized the Truth in it and converted.
I guess the big question is how different would things be if John was ingrained as deep into Orthodoxy as Theron was Baptist? If John did what the Church Fathers tell us to do. To treat the family as the “Little Church” and pray regularly with one’s family. To constantly read the scriptures. If he went to all the services and listened to the entire Psalter being read through every week. If he read the Church Fathers. If he participated in the Divine Liturgy regularly. The Truth is, if one participates in the entire weekly cycle of the Church, more scripture is recited in one week, than one hears in a year in a baptist Church.
John knew nothing about his faith. He knew the motions, but he didn’t understand the depth Orthodoxy has. I don’t doubt in the slightest that John is reading the scriptures now and going regularly to services. The thing is, he didn’t give Orthodoxy that chance before concluding that Orthodoxy was just plain wrong.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.
Comment by Sam Leathers — September 6, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
A lot of people do that; they take one glance at the Eastern Orthodox Faith and they think they know all about it. I have been in the Orthodox Church for years now, and I still am learning about the depths of Orthodoxy. When you have something that is literally two thousand years old, you can’t know it completely in one glance or one visit. Many protestants and evangelicals think that orthodoxy is just dead rituals, strange mysticism, and basically Catholic without the pope. How very sad this is, that they would not even give it a real chance. How much splender would they find! As they say, “Orthodoxy is the hidden treasure.”
Comment by Herman — September 21, 2007 @ 11:59 am
[...] a former Eastern Orthodox believer who has become Baptist. On Friday, we will look at the parallels between the two accounts and hopefully better understand these two traditions, and why people are converting from one to the [...]
Pingback by Theron’s Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy « Kingdom People — October 8, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
I know this is an old post, but I got here from a discussion forum where a Romanian Orthodox poster linked to you. I’m a convert along the same lines as Theron — my conversion story is linked to at my website — and I’d like to offer up a criticism of something you said, Trevin.
“John became a Baptist after reading Scripture and becoming convinced of Scripture’s authority – even over the church he had been a part of.”
I think it would be better said that John became a Baptist after reading Scripture as interpreted and taught by the Baptist confession. Sola scriptura is not so much an incorrect practice as it is a non-practice; it is, I would posit, impossible to engage Scripture apart from some kind of traditional interpretive rule, whether from the Reformed West or from Constantinople. John — a victim of parents who did not do for him what parents should do (make the home a “little church” where Christ, His Church, His saints, and His Scripture are exalted, and make attendance at “big church” a regular, cherished practice) — heard the kerygma of the Christian faith from the Baptists: “Repent and live the gospel.” That he did not hear such from his family and church will be on their heads at the Judgement Day. But to say that the pure, unadulterated influence of Scripture is what turned him, well…I would say it’s all about who tells you what that Scripture says.
Ah, one more thing (forgive the length)…you asked how our use of Tradition in interpreting Scripture solves the interpretive problem. I would simply point to the few number of churches where Tradition is used to interpret Scripture, as opposed to the many confessions (hundreds? thousands?) that jettison the Great Tradition in favor of trying to “reform the wheel,” as it were.
All that having been said, you did a very fair, very amiable job of interviewing our brother in Christ.
Comment by David Bryan — October 15, 2008 @ 12:16 pm