Why I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian

I converted to Eastern Orthodox Church because it is the Early Church. It maintains the Early Church's traditions and expresses a genuinely sublime theology that pre-dates the doctrinal innovations of both the Roman and Protestant tradition. It is the fullness of truth.

I was led to Eastern Orthodoxy due to the antiquity of its traditions, that most reflects the Early Church that the Protestant church claims to represent. However, I was raised so to speak to accept Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) , one of the two main tenants of the Protestant Reform, the other Sola Fidelis (Faith Alone). However at the beginning of my journey I was simply questioning I wouldn't have considered the Roman Catholics (and the Eastern Church if I knew it existed at the time) with their almost alien beliefs. Yet, unlike many Protestants over the centuries I didn't hold them to be apostate or unchristian, more like a different flavor. I like Texas Swing and you like Rachmaninoff kind of a thing but still a bit misguided it would seem. But being very much a ecumenicalist I could heartily accept them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

My ecclesiastical thought journey started with a simple idea that the inspired Scripture of God doesn't say a thing about watching TV or watching Movies, R rated say or ... lots of things concerning leisure activities in modern life. It's been considered by more than a few Christians in the last century that attendance at a movie theatre or listening to secular popular music on the grammaphone was detrimental and dire to ones soul. The Bible doesn't say a thing against these activities directly. The scriptures speak to moral absolutes not picayune details; furthering my thinking on this I guess this limitation can be extended back to the beginning of the Christian era. So can one wear makeup? Fine jewelry? Fur coat?Drive that fancy car? What about the house, larger than we need? Can the teenagers pleasure themselves without "penetration" and not be considered fornication? Bible can give guidelines but does not address every situation . So the Bible doesn't speak to all the details of moral life, rather to moral absolutes: stealing, adultery and murder. So one would look outside the Bible for additional guidance on these questions.

Sometime later I came across the verse in 1st Thess. 3:15. It reads the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. .....But my church tells me its the Scriptures! Now mind you this didn't set off a bombshell just a corrosive thought.



In addition the idea that the Church represents the body of Christ with Christ at the head began to mean more to me. Christ has authority over the Church. The Church is described in Ephesians 5: 17 as "having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing: but that she would be holy and blameless". So this is not merely a social organization but a spiritual body. And as I see today with Christ at head of the Church, ultimately I don't have spiritual authority. This belies the unspoken tenant of current Protestantism as well; each one of us has spiritual authority in the proper rendering of scripture and this was taught at the lectern (pulpit). The pastor would say as an aside in his sermons, check me out; vet me against those Scriptures. So the church of which I was a member didn't claim to be authoritative.



Then I was made aware of other verses no where discussed in my Protestant tradition. John 16:12-13 was the first. "I have many more things to tell you but you can not bear them. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes. He will guide you into all the truth. for he will not speak on His own initiative..." Jesus, Our Lord, is speaking to his Apostles here, meaning to say that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit through the centuries. Another verse Matt. 16:19b, "...whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound on heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." This clearly says that the church is promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit and authoritative on earth and heaven. This doesn't sound like my local community Bible church; they simply claim at the best an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Still with an eye on the Early Church I began to look for a Church that most resembled it. Once again Protestants claim to reform Christian belief back to the early church to those house churches holding Bible studies. Of course there's a problem there; there was no "Bible" to study until much later. What books were to be in the Bible wasn't settled until the late 4th century. Rather the Early Church was centered on Communion or the Eucharist, that is the ceremonial partaking of the Christ's Body and Blood. There is much literature that documents the Early Church, Owen Chadwick's The Early Church and J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines for example in contrast to using ones imagination as to what was taking place; both were written by Protestants. Not to mention the first century writing of the Early Church, the Didache discovered a little more than a century ago. All show the centrality off the Eucharist.



Of course the Bible plainly tells us about the meaning and importance of the Eucharist, once again with verses we skipped over as a Protestant. 1 Corinthians 10: 16 reads "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" The next verse speaks to the Church as one body united in the Eucharist: " Since there is one body; for we all partake of the one bread". A spiritual union mentioned above not simply an assembly of like believers. The Gospel of John confirms the belief of the real presence and its importance in verse 53: "So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you have no life in yourselves." At the time many who heard were repulsed it would seem; they took him literally and there was a great falling out. Jesus did nothing to parse what he had said, saying in verse 63 that the flesh (human sinful condition) profits nothing but the Spirit gives life not meaning His "Eucharistic" Flesh ... Ofttimes this verse is used to contradict all of what He had said earlier in the chapter. Those hearing it at the time did not see Jesus as speaking symbolically, otherwise I presume there wouldn't have been such a hard time understanding it and such a big falling away. Note Luther knew the true meaning of this (63) verse as well, as referring to flesh, as the human sinful condition.

The Eastern Orthodox Church can trace itself back to the earliest times and holds to the practices of the Early Church. Confession for absolution of sins is still practiced. Confession in the early church consisted of getting up in midst of the Church and confessing ones sins, literally confessing one to another. In fact a re-enactment of this just happen at my wife's Protestant church recently where someone felt compelled to confess publicly to some unnamed sexual sins that were destroying his marriage. This is of course a very rare event indeed. Of course Protestant churches would be appalled at the thought you could connect this behavior with the idea of confession to a Priest. By the way which method of confession would you prefer speaking privately to a priest or to a whole congregation? Note the Churches of Christ hold to a form of confession to the congregation, I understand, mostly practiced in the breech. Note EO even retains the ritual of foot washing described in the "Upper Room" in the Gospel of John, which gets re-enacted during Easter (Pascha) services.




Incidentally as early as the beginning of the Second Century, St. Ignatius, a disciple of the apostles, said where goes the Bishop goes the Church. Whatever you make of that there was a recognition the Church was one of authority and structure not simply individual home bible studies.


The Liturgy of St. James, whose current variation of the Liturgy is largely derived, is known to have been practiced as early as the late 2nd Century and is practiced at least once a year at my little Church. No rock bands, no big screens just heavenly reverence, praise and petitions to God, and celebration of the Body and Blood of Christ. So the style of worship is indeed ancient, and we can see the Early Church.


Baptism is understood as the Early Church understood it as a washing and remission of sins and a mystical birth into spiritual life, not simply a statement of faith. St. Peter says in Acts 2:37-38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". And as the Early Church baptism is practiced with full immersion. Baptism is a means of Grace so to speak.




EO is not only a repository of the traditions of the Early Church. I was especially touched by the profundity of their theological truth. The Eastern Orthodox see our human condition as corrupted and profoundly sinful but created in the Image of God. Unlike most modern thought EO looks upon us as more than naked apes. We are made in the image of God, capable of perfection, but in a woeful sinful state. Augustine's original sin is absent. We are not guilty until we sin. There's no limbo for babies who die before baptism. We are born into a corrupted and stained state, slaves to our passions and pursuits, but our nature is capable of perfection and partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The Reformers, Luther and Calvin, saw us a utterly depraved but redeemed by the Grace of Almighty God. And for the most part the contemporary christian would concur that efforts to strive to be Holy are not only futile but heretical "works" salvation. But there's a level of complacency in that thinking that resigns oneself to a fairly low level, still largely subject to passions and pursuits. (Please don't let me give you the idea I consider myself some holy man ,far from it. )



EO looks at the Atonement (how we, as sinners, are reconciled to God, the Most Holy) in a entirely different way. No God didn't simply beat up Christ to pay the debt He did not owe for a debt I could not pay. This is the Anselmic formula, a Scholastic of the 11th century. Rather, Christ, in his perfect humanity, came to reconcile and unite our corrupted humanity with his divinity. The atonement is incarnational and involves Christ's whole life on earth in the Epiphany (Baptism), Transfiguration, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. In some mystical way Christ's death destroyed death, freeing us from spiritual and bodily death. Jesus becomes the one who took away the sin of the World (John 1:29). Even before Christ is crucified, we see him forgiving the sins of the paraplegic and the Mary Magdelene, the prostitute. The parable of the prodigal, who spends his inheritance to pursue a dissolute life, describes the act of atonement best, the brother isn't beaten up for the sins of the prodigal, rather the Father runs to the prodigal in forgiveness. Yes, in some way it took the death of the God/man to restore us. But it wasn't simply a legal transaction, that leaves us fully in possession of saving grace. Salvation is by God's great mercy and we run the Christian race of life by graces continually renewed in repentance and confession and petitions of forgiveness and prayer and scripture reading and fasting and almsgiving and partaking of the Eucharist and attendance at Liturgy.





Our contemporary world desperately needs and seeks a mystical reality, and ofttimes it looks outside the civilization to the exotic transcendental religions of the Orient. Unbeknowst to all, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a living mystical tradition. There are Orthodox Monasteries in many places in the world including the most famous Mount Athos in a mountainous part of Greece. This mystical truth can be read about in the 4 volume Philokalia, which speaks to the prayer of the heart (the meditative centering Jesus Prayer), the importance of the watchfulness of the mind, ascetic struggle and acquiring the virtues. This is a mystical tradition that sees ordinary consciousness much as a sinful construct if you will; caught up in its own pursuits and profoundly steeped in spiritual corruption. The Christian life is a journey of perfection; "be holy as I am holy" the Scriptures admonish. This journey is carried on in humility and love and once we begin, we see how easily we fall and how much of a struggle against our selfish pursuits we have. But I must mention the basics of this journey; we are prone despite our best efforts to fall into sin, which leads to repentance, confession (God's mercy can take place anytime, confession being the most assured method of receiving absolution) then we are able to receive God's grace. Somehow repentance is left out much too often in today's Christianity; big revivals with Contemporary (rock) music inspiring speakers and a decision for Christ suffice but no true walk.





Only a precious few will arrive at holiness or perfection of course; a few of the Saints will have experienced what is termed the Uncreated Light. That is to say in co-operation with God's grace the Eyes of their Hearts were fully opened and were able to fully partake of the divine as received as supernatural light and warmth just as was demonstrated in the Transfiguration. In this mystical journey our godly image, our true nature, gets sanctified by God's grace. But we need the virtues, as well. And acquiring the virtues requires suffering, asceticism in some degree or other. Not suffering for sufferings sake but as means to acquire the virtues. Modern folk like ease and comfort and distraction and entertainment (by the way I have a most decidedly modern inclination). One of the Beatitudes preached on the Sermon on the Mount says, the pure in heart will see God; none of us can attain perfection without the virtues, but these can only be acquired by God's Grace. Grace comes by repentance and asking for mercy in confession if need be. This is basis of any Christian spiritual journey.





Of course most seeking Oriental Religions, do so because it gives them the prospect of some transcendental experience without moral constraints or suffering the virtues. Richard Gere, the Buddhist aficiando, will be bedding his next co-star literally or figuratively while adhering to the Eight Fold Path, he seems to think. Little does Mr. Gere know that The Eight Fold Path is a means to attain the virtues without which the participant would never begin any kind of transcendence of this world of suffering and bedding co-stars is probably not part of that path. Neither is going to foreign countries and violating their social norms, as he did when he kissed a Bollywood star on the mouth in public, which in this country would be like talking about Jesus in public then being asked to leave the TV show. Do I need to mention Madonna's fascination with Kabbala? Prancing seductively on stage must be part of that mystical path as well it seems, according to Ms. Madonna. Ok, these are easy marks; people whose burning ambition was to be world famous and fabulously wealthy and now want to enter some kind of spiritual nirvana the cheap way. Ooops!! Did we gain the world but lose our soul? Ok, that was unkind and mostly irrelevant but I can't resist beating on those types. Like shooting fish in the barrel.

But we see this fascination with the mystical journey elsewhere in Hollywood. But they are so wrong headed. The Fountain, featuring a scientist, who at various times as he time travels, is a conquistador and a monk, meditating under something that looks like Buddha's Banyan tree. Of course the scientist as conquistador works for the beautiful, sexy Queen of Spain against the evil, benighted Inquisitor. At one point under the Banyan Tree our hero the scientist becomes transmogrified into the plant life about and of the tree, telling us that we're all one with nature I presume, something Buddha would thoroughly contest as being enlightenment. The persecuted Spanish Queen (persecuted by the Inquisitor) aspect of the plot plays ridiculously with history, similar to having a movie about America bombing Pearl Harbor and our hero working for those poor Japanese chaps. The conveyor of enlightenment to the conquistador in part is a Mayan Priest, who would as we know rip out the beating hearts of his sacrificial victims as his main occupation. Make note the Royalty of Spain lead the Spanish Inquisition.

Carl Sagan's Contact with Jodie Foster, the irascible scientist who insists on going to this journey through space and time, using a huge expensive and complex multi-billion dollar device to encounter this transcendental experience and meet her dad. It was explained to me that this transcendent experience was the initial step aliens used to contact us; so even the transcendent experience is essentially a fraud. The movie makers are somehow obsessed with the fully sceptical scientist, virtually the last person capable and inclined to a mystical transcendence, as the seeker of mystical experiences and participant in this reality. The Matrix uses that same technological approach to the spiritual but not quite as wrong headed. Come to Orthodoxy and experience truth and sanctity and a way to begin a mystical journey I say.


In contemporary life virtues, the acquiring of good habits at the least, are scoffed at. And in large part this started with the Reformers, Luther and Calvin; mankind was deemed utterly depraved and incapable of a good work. Today, we are a naked ape as evolution tells us. Good habits or virtues are simply social constructs, anthropologists tell us. Freud would argue, civilization restrains us and inhibits and constrains us. But there is a moral tradition at least as old as Socrates, mind you, that called you to moral excellence and the acquisition of the virtues. The EO harkens to it in the journey.

Of course the biggest criticism to the Eastern Orthodox church is it's lack of relevance to modern life. Alas, alack and anon they are right. Just as the Early Church wasn't relevant to the Roman Empire and suffered persecution. In this modern society a monstrous crime is happening before us; the slaughter of the innocents, that is through abortion. Something less than 40 millions have been murdered since the infamous Roe v. Wade. You might turn the question around, what relevance should the Early Church have with this society? In this society whose attention span is in the seconds the EO liturgy would be considered long and boring not meditative, solemn and reverential. This society has begun to legalise homosexual marriage and euthanasia. The Judeo-Christian ethical society that was began to be established by Constantine in the early 4th century has began to unravel. EO must hold to the practices, traditions and truths of the Early Church in the face of the cultural tsunami; the time for accommodation with the society unfortunately seems to be passing. I dearly hope I am wrong. Sorry for the cursing the darkness, as you can tell, I fall easily into that.

In conclusion Eastern Orthodoxy encapsulates a great pearl of truth, and is an ancient guide to a mystical path. Let me say one last thing I've made several criticisms of Protestantism; these are meant to be made as to a brother not in hatred or hostility. We have much in common and without the many believing Christians, Roman and Protestant, the society would be far worse off.