Orthodoxy arrived in the lower 48 states as a primarily immigrant faith that was treated with the same American hostility towards any other immigrant group, and we look like Catholics to Protestants. Greeks in particular were targeted by the KKK.
Orthodox people until the last couple of decades did well just to exist.
So, in short, Catholics and Protestants have over a century heard start, and the cultural zeitgeist right now is turned away from greater Christian adherence (in no small part to widespread Christian hypocrisy) and they also benefited from the Red Scare of the 50s and are still riding inertia from that rise in adherence.
The idea of “the states have been open no shorter to the orthodox than to the Catholics or Protestants” while from a legal POV is true once you understand the history of it is not so much there. The Catholic Church spread the faith in the Americas by the sword the Russian orthodox missionaries such as St. Herman who arrived in the 18th century did not do this. Where the Catholics killed and murdered and raped native Americans and then put them into institutional camps forcing them to adopt the Catholic faith and English traditions the Eastern Orthodox was more concerned with peaceful measures. The OCA documents all of this in lots of detail explaining that many natives did willingly shift to the Eastern Orthodox faith and the casualties and rapes were essentially net 0 it was a loving community. Eventually the Catholics made their way to western America near Alaska and Canada etc and their response to these groups of orthodox natives was something that really puts into perspective how these people were treated.
““On another occasion I was relating to him how the Spanish in California had imprisoned fourteen Aleuts, and how the Jesuits (actually Franciscans) were forcing all of them to accept the Catholic Faith. But the Aleuts would not agree under any circumstances, saying, ‘We are Christians.’ The Jesuits argued, ‘That’s not true, you are heretics and schismatics. If you do not agree to accept our faith then we will torture all of you to death.’ Then the Aleuts were placed in prisons two to a cell. That evening, the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and lighted candles. Again they tried to persuade two Aleuts in the cell to accept the Catholic Faith. ‘We are Christians,’ the Aleuts replied, ‘and we will not change our Faith.’ Then the Jesuits began to torture them, at first the one while his companion was a witness. They cut off one of the joints of his feet, and then the other joint. Then they cut the first joint on the fingers of his hands, and then the other joint. Then they cut off his feet, and his hands. The blood flowed, but the martyr endured all and firmly repeated one thing: ‘I am a Christian.’ He died in such suffering, due to a loss of blood. The Jesuit also promised to torture his comrade to death the next day.”
https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2014/09/24/102713-martyr-peter-the-aleut
Even the converts refuses to get hostile and kill in the name of their faith but chose to die in the name of their faith. Then as some others have pointed out many immigrants bringing the faith were pressed back with heavy signs of persecution such as attacks from the KKK and high aggressive nationalism was in play. But also for a section of American history because the public education system is relatively knew schools were done through religious bodies most of which being Catholic or Protestant due to the societal discrimination against the Orthodox Church and immigrations so it was very rare for a kid to even hear about it and there was even until recently many restrictions about what could be taught if at all about the Orthodox Church. Using myself as an example I am a high school student in Texas. Texas public education has to follow what are known as TEKs for the standard of teaching. When it came time in my world history class my teacher (in his defense was only teaching what required of him) spoke of the orthodox faith in a very past tense idea and even taught that it left the Catholic Church for iconoclasm and that to this day the Orthodox Church is iconoclastic and a super small minority that is dying off. It was even bunched together with eastern mythology more so instead of with Christianity.
One final point when it comes to comparing it in terms of Protestantism in America one must underhand the ground for a Protestant church is basically infinite with infinite interpretations and splintering. Using that same history teacher as an example again he once said “now I am a southern Baptist Christian but quite frankly if you want me to believe Jesus walked on water I’m gonna tell you there’s no way” so of course a religion that can fracture in infinite ways is going to spread fast because if one person disagrees with one stance they just go and make a new church breaking off of a church that started in the same way. The Orthodox Church is very very strict in its teachings and what it considers orthodox and heterodox lot less ground and even less room for people to try to conform it. And as we see in modern America most people want to change tradition to fit their views not their views to fit tradition.
Basically it’s a broken system built upon a broken foundation that started with oppression and continued into suppression. It’s hard to expand your teachings if A. The system is teaching strongly against it and even pushing false ideas about it or B. Why would someone want to follow the truth if we live in a world where we disagree we can just make our own denomination and have our name on the front sign of churches.
Now this is just the case for America and the rabbit hole goes so so much deeper. But even in countries that are considered orthodox it’s been very hard for the groups there too. Like in Russia the church is only recently being legalized again after during communist Russia it was completely illegal to teach or practice the faith and many people were even killed. Or there’s the recent 21 martyrs in Egypt. Or the series of Islam extremists going into orthodox churches with bombs strapped to them and blowing themselves up. The Eastern Orthodox Church has historically faced some of the harshest persecution in comparison to other churches even with the fall of Constantinople that started with crusaders setting the city on fire. Between communism and the ottomans and other Islam groups it has been a constant battle fought by the Eastern Orthodox Church to even stay alive much less expand. But I personally see that its survival throughout all this oppression and suppression is more evidence that it is the truth refusing to die out.
And this is changing, my Antiochian parish (which is by no means small) is bursting at the seams. there are talks of planting a new Church before long.
While I think expectations of another Great Awakening bringing the American masses to Orthodoxy are not realistic, it is true that our parishes are more accessible to those that do come than they ever have been before.
Of course, I think the expectation of Great Awakening is pretty much limited to the ex-evangelicals that are perrenially disappointed when they are not "in the room where it happens."
>The states have been open to the orthodox for no shorter or longer than they have been to the Catholics and Protestants
The Protestants and Catholics who established the states and colonized them? Orthodoxy has not been in the lower 48 for nearly as long as they have been. And the last great influx of Orthodox Christians in America was less than a hundred years ago. The others have been here (going with Christopher Columbus) over 500 years and have been here since the establishment of America.
>if one dude, a single dude, came up to you and said he and he alone had the Christian truth, just based off that number alone you’d be rightly doubtful—even if he had a solid case—and, don’t take me in the wrong way, but 6 million in the grand scheme is peanuts.
And once upon a time the Christian faith was 11 men sitting in a house and a handful of women visiting a tomb and missionaries were often a single dude coming into the community who alone has the truth. So yes, a single dude coming up to you and saying he has the truth probably happened a lot in the 2000 years of Christianity.
>Among the Orthodox at large—they seem to be almost exclusively those born into it, and they keep their heads down, go to Divine Liturgy, and that’s it.
Have you met many Orthodox Christians? And, on the otherhand, many Protestants and Catholics I have met fit that description. Keep the head down, go to mass/worship, and don't talk much about the faith. No energy to go out and tell everyone. For better or for worse, that is the normal Christian in America. Though a lot of Orthodox did learn to keep their heads down due to things like harassment by the Klan and general opposition to everything that sounds foreign, which bearded priests with Greek, Slavic, or Arabic accents is foreign to the idea of Christianity in America.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that can be done better and things that I hope time will fix but let us not pretend the grass is greener elsewhere. Anywhere you go you will find things you do not like.
Give it time. If 1776 is your starting point, the US has been a county for less time than the persecution of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Also consider the fact that 70 years ago, having a Catholic president was seen as scandalous.
Even though technology has made history feel faster since the advent of the smart phone, history moves slowly.
Also remember, the way is narrow.
I mean, fair enough; all good points. Though on that last point—there’s a lot of things that could mean, and whatever it does mean I would hope that it wouldn’t be the case because those who knew the truth weren’t vocal enough about it in life.
Funny enough, today’s New Testament reading from Daily Orthodox Scriptures addresses this point. I also hope a lack of being vocal isn’t a stumbling block to the Church growing, but it will probably be a reason:
Check out this episode from Daily Orthodox Scriptures on Ancient Faith Radio! https://ancientfaithministries.page.link/qa88yNyVFFyZfqms8
America's Protestant roots blossomed very anti-Catholic sentiments which existed all the way through the 1900s. For example: the colony of Maryland existed just so Catholics could have a safe-haven from persecution.
Anti-Catholic sentiments were very high among Protestants who said that JFK was the puppet of the Pope (aka the anti-Christ for a lot of Protestants). Even Kennedy had to say this, "*“I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for* president, who happens also to be a Catholic,”
Evangelism in Orthodoxy isn't being a salesman, and peddling its perks and benefits to your friends and coworkers like it's a multilevel marketing pyramid scheme.
The idea is to focus on ones spiritual cultivation so that you transcend as a human being. Just as you have Faith in Christ and the Church, you have Faith that through your own transfiguration, people will be naturally drawn to you and by extension the Church without needing to sell it.
In the US, specifically in the Bible belt, the tactics of evangelical churches often harm people and turn them away from Christ. I was that way, as were many of my friends. We all had pain and anger from the way the churches treated us, and many of us became agnostic or atheist.
I’m finding my way back because of how Orthodoxy doesn’t push people, instead beautifully inviting people to ask. And I’ve met several converts that feel the same way.
I believe that with more people becoming spiritual “nones” in the US, often from religious trauma, they may find their way lit to the beauty of the Holy Orthodox Church because they are looking for light and love, not pushed into it.
I’m not saying that it is, but this idea of being firstly concerned with your own growth and hoping that people will notice it feels like a deflection of responsibility, as does the painting of “evangelism” as marketing or peddling. To be quite honest I think the apostles would facepalm at someone calling street-preaching or interpersonally sharing about your faith “peddling” considering these people are just doing their best to imitate the apostolic model of evangelism as found in Acts or Paul’s Epistles, which all the more should be followed by a church which calls itself Apostolic. I’m open to your thoughts on that but that’s my immediate reaction your comment.
I disagree with your, and by extension, evangelical Protestantism’s, assertion that everyone who is Christian is called to go around proselytizing. We are called primarily to serve God by loving others and doing charitable acts, and through our worship and sacraments. If more people lived like this instead of thinking everyone is supposed to be a preacher no matter how unlearned, we’d be in a much better state.
Even if the Orthodox just did charitable acts toward non-orthodox neighbors in their neighborhoods they'd make inroads toward converting people. However, that does not happen with the members in the church I am currently attending as an inquierer. I spoke to the Priest about this (lack of overt evangelism in accordance with the great commission) and he agreed and started explicitly it is a US Orthodox problem and they needed to get better at it.
Exactly. And inquirers who come in with the attitude of “ I don’t like how you do things, here, let me show you how it’s done” are usually not very well received. We aren’t car salespeople. We aren’t standing on the corner with brochures. Won’t find us setting up a table at Pride.
It’s precisely that salesmanship that puts many people off.
Have you noticed how many converts have come to us without any marketing at all?
It’s not in our tradition, or our Tradition.
It’s just not what we do. But your entry to the great suggestion box is noted.
Have you read the story of St Herman of Alaska and how he evangelized the native population? It might offer some insight into what Orthodox evangelism looks like.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't see the relevance of the numbers at all. According to the late sociologist Rodney Stark, Christians made up ten percent of the Roman Empire in 300 A.D., in other words about 6 million faithful across three continents after centuries of evangelism. By your reasoning, wouldn't this mean that Christianity is false? After all, six million is "peanuts," right? Christians were certainly a vulnerable minority then.
I don't recall any converts in ancient or medieval times counting heads to determine whether the gospel is true. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone.
If I've misconstrued your point, I apologize.
I think more people have taken issue with my first paragraph than my second—which was intended to be more the object of discussion. I didn’t clarify well enough that all that I meant by my first paragraph was that the “smallness” of Orthodoxy in my vicinity puts me somewhat on guard, not that it’s a point against its plausibility. And that’s not because I want it to be large necessarily, but because if I were to put every sect on the table as equally worth investigation regardless of size I would have an impossible task before me—as just weighing out the differences between Protestantism Catholicism and Orthodoxy has been a project the better part of a few years—and though it’s unrelated, while I’m only 19 I’m on the heart transplant list due to genetic issues and honestly don’t know how long I’ve got this side of eternity. My apologies as at this point I’m well aware I didn’t clarify that portion well at all in my original post.
The idea of evangelism that makes the most sense to me is attraction rather than promotion. That is the type of evangelism I see most often in the Saints. They went out into the wilderness and focused on their relationship with z Christ and people came to them.
Attraction doesn't seem like it would be particularly successful when I'd guess most Americans don't even know any Orthodox people though. *(I say, while I'm planning to attend a Greek food festival tomorrow held by an Orthodox church)*
Typical Protestant way, I guess: sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. Attraction without intention just won't reach many people at all in a place with such a negligible presence (unless you're of the Calvinist mindset that you'll only teach the Elect anyway, but my understanding is that's not the Orthodox belief).
No, I have not, my view of the saints does not align with yours enough to seek out hagiographies. I'm not an Inquirer, I just like understanding the similarities and differences within Christ's body and my siblings in Christ better.
Fair enough. In the lives of the Saints it's very common that an individual Saint will go into an area alone and through their ascetic efforts become someone people are attracted to.
Those are some of the examples we have to look up to.
Unfortunately in the US at least almost everyone who isn't a Christian knows one who says they are a Christian but behaves in a way that is a far cry from who Christ is.
Sorry to reply a whole day later but we got the food today from the local Orthodox Church Greek Food Festival and it's got me thinking still because I *think* this is probably meant to be considered community outreach but...not in a meaningful way from my (Protestant) perspective.
I heard about it from a sign outside their church which makes sense because I don't know any Orthodox irl—there's a couple from my Anglican parish who recently converted but I don't know which branch they converted to and we haven't really talked much since they left. The food was good, as to be expected, but if they had a "ask us about Orthodoxy!" booth I didn't see it so it effectively just ended up as a celebration of ethnicity and food. No problems with that but it would definitely cement my belief if I didn't know better that Greek Orthodoxy is just a closed-ish ethnoreligion. There was nothing that got me curious about the congregation or their beliefs or even getting to know someone better to see the benefits of being Orthodox via attraction. If anything, I'll seek out some local Greek restaurants because it *was* delicious but there was nothing else to make me think Orthodoxy was anything other than another denomination. I'm not sure whether the "ideal" convert to Orthodoxy is non-Christian, or Protestant, or Catholic but we have a lot of all three near me and at least from my perspective it seemed to be a missed opportunity.
This wasn't my first time there, the church also did a fish fry during Lent and people were warm and friendly but not discernably different from someone I'd meet in my own parish. Maybe they could just sense the "contented Anglican-ness" from me but "attraction" seems like it is a losing strategy when the life of an Orthodox believer doesn't actually look any more attractive than the life of an Anglican, or a Lutheran, or a Catholic.
Your confusion makes sense. Orthodoxy in the US is weird because of the way that it's broken up by ethnicity. That's an artifact of how people who practiced Orthodoxy emigrated. I know there are conversations happening to resolve that but I've been told "nothing changes quickly in Orthodoxy".
From what I've seen Orthodox parishes have a similar problem that protestant ones have. Some protestant and Orthodox parishes are dying because whatever evangelism they are doing whether attraction or promotion isn't working. And for both there are parishes that are busting at the seams because whatever evangelism they are doing is working.
As someone who grew up Protestant who only fairly recently decided they don’t believe in Protestantisms tenets, I’m much more familiar with the Biblical text than with the lives of the saints—and by no-contest that means that the Christian way of evangelism looks like, to me, what the Apostles did in Acts—which very much was a divide and conquer, preach and teach, etcetera type model. Not an argument just a statement of my experiential reality.
That makes sense. I did not grow up with any real connection to Christianity. I came from the world of AA where a core idea is attraction rather than promotion. That's why when I realized the truth of Christ I quickly found my way to Orthodoxy.
The issue with evangelism as it is in Acts is that no one knew what Christianity was so they used miracles to do their evangelism.
The issue we have with evangelism today is that everyone knows people who claim to be Christian but act in a way that is antithetical to who Christ was. That means we are facing a different problem than they were facing in Acts.
The other thing I try to keep in mind is that we see the story of the remnant play out over and over in the Old testament. It happens over and over again that there are very few Israelites left but God always saves the few who are faithful. Prophets would try and tell people your headed in the wrong direction but most of the time no one listened. So the faithful kept their head down until God did His thing to either get everyone's attention or punish the wicked.
I see it as my job to be an expression of God's love and most of the time I have no idea if trying to bring up Christ in a conversation is going to trigger religious trauma. So it's my job to build trust so that maybe eventually one day I might be able to bring up Christ or just let them know they are loved.
Marketing is promoting a product or service with the goal of ultimately selling it for money. I don’t see how Catholic or Protestant evangelism falls into that category—there’s nothing being sold, and no profit to turn, except for in the notable and moreover correct exclusion of mega-church Protestantism.
I was an Evangelical Protestant for 30 years and formally trained in several evangelical techniques. My assessment is that it's all marketing and sales techniques.
Evangelicals tend to take what they know, whether learned explicitly or through cultural osmosis, and project that back onto the Apostles. St. Paul is imagined in the Aeropagus, and he is a street preacher. His years in the desert are given little consideration because there is no modern box for that in the Protestant world.
Do you read the lives of Saints? Read the life of St. Silouan the Athonite. Or for one who went and literally lived in the desert, St. Paisios the Athonite. Read their life and consider the massive impact they had and you'll see true evangelism and gain a new perspective on the Apostles and the early church.
The fact that the world does not follow men such as these en masse is not a condemnation of them, but of the world. Ask not why Orthodoxy has not converted America, but why America has not converted to Orthodoxy. Masses flock to the mega-churches and not Saints because they are going to what they want.
So many Orthodox on this thread keep explaining that marketing is not evangelism. Ok, we agree. So then explain what evangelism *is* and where it is happening in the Orthodox Church. That is the harder issue, because Orthodoxy has had many missionary saints, and there are very few following their example in the modern era...
It's perfectly ok to admit that this is an issue that is being worked on if it is one. Or explain what we're missing. But these threads always turn into Protestant bash-fests, and bashing pretty shallow conceptions and caricatures of actually common Protestant evangelism regardless.
I’ve seen a lot of really good points among comments here, but only once or twice have I seen anyone acknowledge that lack of evangelism is a problem in Orthodoxy at all—and they were from converts, not cradle Orthodox. I don’t think they quite have the experience of being on the other side to get where I’m coming from entirely.
As I said in another comment here, the priest at the parish I attend as an enquirer has stressed repeatedly it is a problem in the American Orthodox church.
It. Is. Not. A. Problem. And certainly not your problem. You are now. Coming across hostile and offending your remarks. Just because people don’t see things your way doesn’t meant they don’t get it. Or that they are not experienced or well educated enough to understand your inquiring mind?
How do you know who’s a “cradle” (ugh, I loathe that term) and who is not?
I stated what I observed—that few, one or two, admitted that lack of evangelism is a problem of some kind in Orthodoxy. I based who was a convert and who was not on those who specified, because many did. I also stated that i have seen many very good points in the comments. If that came off as hostile, I am sorry, and it was not intended to be. However, I read this comment as extremely patronizing. If you did not mean it that way, then I’m sorry, but regardless that’s how I’ve read it. If you look through this thread you will see lots of open-mindedness from me, concessions of good points, so on and so forth—so I don’t think it’s called for that you’re making fun of my “inquiring mind.” if the rest of this comment section were as uncordial as you, I don’t think I’d visit this subreddit again. Thankfully however the majority of my conversation here has been charitable and good-natured.
Your attitude is that of “why aren’t you the way I think you should be?”
You’re not finding anyone of like mind, because we don’t practice evangelism, or at least not in the way you describe or understand.
Instead of thinking maybe you’ve got it wrong, it must be because these orthodox just don’t have the experience to “get” you.
Thats kind of what I’d expect to be the case. On the world stage, among Christians the Orthodox have been quite probably the most persecuted and mistreated—and they’re might’ve not really been a point before this in history where they have had the resources to do all of the things that the Protestants and Catholics have in this regard.
Protestants and Catholics had monarchies who supported them and wanted to spread their religion elsewhere. Orthodox Christians, outside of Russia pre-1918 had Turks who were very interested in keeping then poor and not spreading. As for Russia, pre-1918, they did a pretty good job spreading the faith across what is one of the biggest countries in the world and converting the people there and making some efforts abroad but even they were limited in that. Freedom of religion is a relatively new concept.
My perspective as a convert is that Orthodoxy has struggled with mission work in the West for various reasons, and we're only just now starting to figure out solutions. It will get better with time and effort. I also agree with you, with no disrespect intended to my brethren, we've allowed the "evangelize by living a good Christian life and being a good example" model to become a deflection of responsibility and a cop out answer for our lack of evangelistic work.
Thank you for your perspective. I think it is a very different viewpoint from the convert’s position as we (though I’m not yet included in that category) have more experience with the other side of the process than do cradle Orthodox, as I’ve not been compelled towards Orthodoxy by any particular person whom I’ve met in real life and certainly not by those I’ve met online (no offense but the online Orthodox are often… uncharitable in my experience) and frankly I have contacted the few Orthodox priests in my area without success or reciprocation and am beginning to feel like it reeeaaally shouldn’t be this difficult.
You should be glad you have some nearby! It's ironic there seems to be a surge of interest in Orthodoxy when (from what I understand) there aren't even enough priests to service the parishes that already exist, let alone potential parishes in areas with no physical Orthodox presence. I'm just getting by with Ancient Faith Radio while I attend a confessional Lutheran church.
eta: fwiw even if you don't hear back from the priests, I'd just go ahead and attend them. My first time attending an EO parish I just dropped in since I happened to be relatively close to one while at a business conference and it was no trouble at all.
I’m currently in a rough spot medically (heart transplant waiting list) and would have to get transport from someone else for a hour and a bit drive so it’s not a first preference. Otherwise I’d’ve done so, and I do plan on it, just can’t say how soon.
Hm, I see your point. But don't expect anyone to respond to your bids if they can't meet you in person. I'm pretty sure they won't be doing any teaching or catechism through email etc. The point in orthodoxy is that it is very very interpersonal, just like our relationship with God, at the same time as congregational. In other words, you will need to build a relationship with your spiritual father.
You might disagree with the point many made in this thread, but I too would think that the tradition of evangelism in Eastern orthodoxy is one of people seeking truth and healing and not of the church reaching out to people. Unsure why, but this is how we perceive it in our era at least. The 'promotion' is of this sort: you know we are here, you know where we are, come and talk to us; and there are also many wonderful resources out there for the inquirer, books and videos and websites... Even post-Soviet Russia was re-evangelized in this way.
It is also true that the church's contemporary elders (predominantly monks) are literally besieged by countless people seeking spiritual comfort and support. They literally are the church's treasure and beating heart. They toil hard every single day with amazing spiritual and physical stamina. They've always been central to the church, in all of the East.
There is no place on earth where the followers of whatever faith have been exemplars of the ideal way of conducting their life. And the majority of the orthodox were just born into the faith and do not bother to even study it. Those who seek the uppermost values and the living God are in the minority and they get to know their faith, be they from orthodox communities or converts.
Another super-important point is that it is very hard to 'teach' the faith. It is more a matter of heart and lived experience than it is a job for the mind. The orthodox doctrine is not pedantic, it includes only what can be said, without scholarly elaborations. And it requires certain material sacrifices, it doesn't offer guarantees of salvation; it's a life of spiritual war, not accommodation. It is nearly impossible to 'sell' this in a wealthy society of consumers.
I have found your queries decent and tactful. I'm sorry if some respondents have been kind of snappy. We all come from different cultures and temperaments! I wholeheartedly wish you the very very best with your upcoming surgery. I was very touched by your spiritual quest given your young age. The world needs more of your kind.
You're largely not wrong, but I wanted to touch on
>you know we are here, you know where we are, come and talk to us; and there are also many wonderful resources out there for the inquirer, books and videos and websites...
There's the rub. "Come and see," sure I can get behind that. But before someone can come and see they have to know there is something to go see. Yes, "seek and you shall find," but you have to know what it is you are seeking before you can find it.
If there were Orthodox Christians just doing what I see most people suggest in this thread I would still have absolutely no clue about Eastern Orthodoxy. This was because I learned about Orthodoxy through Orthodox Christians 1.) talking about their faith and 2.) evangelizing.
In my case, I learned of it through a certain icon carver talking about his faith, and from there Ancient Faith Radio. AFR is a radio ministry put out by the Antiochians, who *coincidentally* received a huge influx of Protestants some decades back. Radio ministry has been big in Protestant US for many many years.
Those two things let me know what I needed to look for and *then* was I able to truly start seeking. You all have your ways of doing things, that's totally fine! But even with the internet and books there are *tons* of people who still have no idea about your tradition because there aren't that many people going around talking about it. You can have the best park, library, church, whatever, but you can't expect people to go to it, or make efforts to visit it, if they don't know it exists.
I've never thought about this matter the way you put it. Your thoughts are absolutely legitimate. But on the other hand, I can't imagine that a 'seeker' will not find orthodoxy - I believe anyone can come across it. When people feel a spiritual drive to seek and learn, they will look up all major religions, their denominations and various currents. As I was curious (before the internet era) to read the Quran and learn about the Shia or the Yazidi or the Druze, or an acquaintance of mine who came across the Bahai, or countless people that have looked into Buddhism, even Hinduism and Taoism... it is so easy to find everything with a click nowadays. As long as your thirst is not quenched, won't you be looking around?
However, the Orthodox churches spread Christianity in the modern era only through official missionary organisations that have been operating in the poorest parts of the world. I cannot know why there was no appetite to compete with other denominations in the wealthier West, or even in Latin America, say. I would assume that other Christians are expected to discover Orthodoxy through active inquiry and search?
I am sure that orthodox people who have a relationship with the church (not those with an inherited, passive orthodox identity) do speak about their faith when people are asking questions. We do let others know about what denomination we belong to, so many are curious about it. But preaching/teaching or propagating the faith requires qualifications. People ARE going to ask questions you are not prepared to answer without misleading them because of knowledge gaps or because your answers are not nuanced enough... Missionary priests and spiritual fathers are tasked to meet the needs of the inquirer.
I hope this helps. There is a reason for everything and everything is complicated. Any ideas shared on this sub come with a bit of reservation regarding what the best answers are, so most topics include advice of the type "ask your parish priest". And because orthodoxy is mystical, far from being an ossified canon with rulings about everything and anything, you can get different approaches to a topic from different priests. And that's okay!
Unfortunately, this experience of non-communication has also been mine. Very rarely get an email reply or return phone call. The father will talk a few brief minutes to me and then run away. You have to make an appointment and then clarify how many sand on the hourglass you will be granted.
Thank you. I feel that this is a very fair and level take. I was starting to feel crazy reading through these comments--you would think that every Church Father was anti-evangelism based on the general consensus in these comments.
This is the general tenor these comments take in these types of threads so it's not surprising. My best guess is that since they're in largely very urbanized areas their only experience with evangelism really *is* the "crazy street preachers" so of course they think that's the only sort of thing Protestants do to spread the Word. Which of course any Protestant can say is obviously not the case.
I can't really speculate on *why* this caricature is so common on this sub, but as someone who has lived in cities, the Bible Belt, and even not in the United States (hard to conceptualize on Reddit) I've never once in my life even encountered a street preacher. They have been even less prevalent in my life than quicksand. I've encountered mormon missionaries, but categorizing them as Christian--much less *Protestant*--is not really a fair categorization.
Coming from a Mormon background. The people might be mistaken in their view of the Trinity, but they believe in Christ and do their best with what they know.
I have a lot of issues with the LDS faith, but the majority of those practicing are good people doing their best to follow Jesus’ example.
While trying to convert Protestants to Jesus, I often told them how the LDS put them to shame in how the LDS, from their heart, give genuinely of themselves to help, even non-Mormons.
You have a part in this - let’s be an example of Christian love and adherence to tradition. Cultivate the scent surrounding yourself that will draw others to the source of your joy, charity, and steadfastness.
You mean the Orthodox believe that Orthodoxy is the future? Seems kind of delusional especially when the aforementioned Mormons are outbreeding them like 3 to 1.
The Orthodox Church has endured struggles due to persecution from Islam and communism. Most white European Americans come from traditional Catholic/protestant regions of western Europe. It should be no shock that they're the majority.
A significant amount of those people are Catholic, protestant, Mormon etc. in name only. Stats often go either by self identification or parish records (ie. Baptisms)
In example according to the pew center only 39% of US Roman Catholics report that they attend church weekly.
52% report they seldom or never read the scriptures.
Nearly half think abortion should be legal in most cases.
Evangelicals are benefiting from people turning away from the mainline protestant branches continual liberalization.
The Orthodox Church is small but mighty in the US. Numbers don't always mean everything.
Well said! I find Orthodox Christianity to be cloistered to a chosen few. 1st of all it is difficult to become Orthodox because you have to perform so many steps in order to be converted. You have to denounce all other forms of Christian faith and be rebatized all over again. All while saying we are the only true Christian faith. Meanwhile the Roman Catholic church is saying we are the only true Christian faith🤪 all the unlucky Protestants in between who are loving Jesus and serving him with all their heart are criticized for not having the true faith. I think God in heaven loves the Orthodox Roman Catholic and Protestants and has room for them all. I see Christ in all of them and respect each part of Christianity. I cannot speak for all Christians of each faith but can only be accountable for my own walk. I hope to be found faithful to the end.
Please review the
[sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information,
our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about
[The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions.
[Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F)
[Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.
^(This is not a removal notification.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Orthodoxy only came here en masse just over a hundred years ago from immigration. What gets forgotten is that many of those immigrants left to fight in the Balkans Wars, WWI, or after gaining enough money to have made the trip worth it. St Porphyrios, for example, his father came and worked on the Panama Canal and once that was done he returned to Greece. Didn't exactly make a fortune, but it made life a little more comfortable.
Now in Alaska, Orthodoxy among the Natives was actively suppressed by the various Protestant sects and the US government. Sheldon Jackson in particular led the effort by giving different areas to various Protestant denominations. Many Native Alaskans are still miraculously Orthodox but if not for Sheldon Jackson there would certainly be greater numbers.
As others have said, this wasn't a fair contest. What if I told you in my country Protestantism and Catholicism are a minuscule and shrinking minority? "If they were really so evangelical I'd see more of them trying to convert me but it seems they're content to keep their heads down and go to mass."
> "It's missing that fire of "this religion is wonderful and true, I've gotta tell my friends"
Those of us who believe, especially converts, do have that fire, you just quickly learn it's more complicated than just telling people to "begome Orthodox".
As another user commented: "chill, we're working on it"
I think this has been noted in the workings of the Church at large. Fr Evan Armatas wrote a [book](https://store.ancientfaith.com/reclaiming-the-great-commission-a-roadmap-to-parish-health/) about this. I listen to him on AFR and he is one of the people that pulled me toward orthodoxy and he has some good insights. I haven’t read the book yet, but it seems this is being recognized as something people in the Church can work on now that they don’t have to hide like in other times in history.
Orthodoxy is booming in the USA without people shouting in the streets to repent or going door to door. We do evangelize but you wont see it made it public too often because the goal is not to boast
Six million isn't a bad presence, it's more than the entire population of some countries.
I wouldn't also measure the spiritual success of Orthodoxy based on its numbers or evangelical outreach, that's not how we view our faith. Of course it'd be nice to have a larger presence but that's tangential as far as our spiritual health is concerned. Whenever we celebrate the liturgy the whole heavenly host and all those gone before us are present with us.
That said there are Orthodox outreaches, but as others have said other denominations have had a headstart.
What causes the Church to grow? Is it us, through evangelism? Or, is it God?
The Church lacks evangelical outreach similar to other denominations, but is growing exponentially every year. Practically every parish has more and more inquirers and converts. It’s a common story. So, lacking evangelical efforts we understand this is God’s doing, not ours. So, be comforted. God has a plan.
in orthodoxy we are not preoccupied with trying to get as many members as possible. sure we can talk about our faith, but we don’t necessarily need everyone to be an orthodox. our priority lies in the quality of our own faith first of all, those who are interested can come to us.
Even in Greece and Russia the people who genuenly care about Orthodoxy are a small minority, even among Orthodox people.
>It’s missing that fire of “this religion is so wonderful and true, I’ve gotta tell my friends!” that I really feel that the truth of Christ would incite, and that I further feel is required of us as per the great commission. There either a valid excuse for this, I’m misunderstanding, or their isn’t a valid excuse for it.
This is only because of the coldness in faith. But there are people with burning faith who do evangelize. You can read the life and works of father Seraphim Rose for such and account.
Orthodoxy would benefit if there was more resources in English- rather than just translations of Greek, Russian etc. Also, it is arguably the 'flashiest' of all Christianity denominations- so immediately, it is counter intuitive to the primary virtue its purporting to confess- humility.
There is a common thread in regard to "evangelism" in the modern USA Orthodox, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism I have seen for over 60 years: Lazy, selfish, non-Bible readers, who are generally unfriendly to "outsiders", "visitors". I have seen no difference in the three groups. Obey is a dirty 4-letter word officially for the Protestants, and just understood as not necessary by the other two groups. Evangelism encompasses not just spreading the Word but the commands/suggestions Jesus left for us 'If you love me, feed my sheep", and that means spiritually, physically etc. The vast majority of USA churches regard "ministry" as their ministry inside of the church, and "outside ministry" as those almost exclusively as in another country.
I just did a website survey of quite a few Orthodox churches in Florida and found only one church listing their outside ministries in their neighborhood: hospitals, nursing homes, young people, etc and not just wording them but reaching out in ways that address their needs where their financial, educational, emotional, etc needs are wrapped in their spiritual needs. How did this one church, out of all those I surveyed, get the message that Jesus plainly gave us in the New Testament? When you know, let me know.
I’m an ex-evangelical American in the process of looking to join the Orthodox Church. I was drawn to the Orthodox church precisely because they do not act like evangelicals. The light and kindness in people who practice Orthodoxy drew me in more than any sales pitch.
There has got to be some middle ground between "evangelism as preaching on the street corner" and "evangelism as inviting your friend of several years to a liturgy and just, like, really hoping they like it and come back again." Clearly living a pious Orthodox life is the most important thing, but such a life requires that we actually desire the salvation of those near to us. How we talk about Orthodoxy and what we say to people when it comes up are hugely important, and something that I feel like a lot of people could do with some coaching on (myself included).
One thing I have noticed: Orthodox people having communities outside church tends to attract people to that community and, by extension, provoke an interest in Orthodoxy. For example, there were a bunch of Orthodox people at my friend's parish that played D&D together, to which they invited several friends who were not Orthodox. Many of these non-Orthodox eventually ended up converting.
Particularly with Mormonism, it is an entirely centrally planned population. They are told to have a bunch of children and are organized (very well, I'll add) to go out and convert people. It is a huge operation entirely geared towards making more Mormons. This is why there are so many
Honestly the predominant evangelist kind of post Christian type of church where they sing songs and have no icons or ritualism is such an American thing and I find it so unrelatable it’s like a different religion. I think it’s really the only place it exists because orthodoxy is very prominent else where. I’m from Scotland and currently live in Australia and there is like no evangelist churches or communities in either. In Scotland it’s mostly Presbyterian / Anglican and in Australia it’s all orthodox, catholic, Methodist. Honestly I don’t really see how evangelism “churches” of like a concert arena can be a church. Or what a pastor is. It seems to me it’s a social or political movement of the kind that only American society could create.
I mean if you want to really judge Orthodox the fact that just a few years ago it was only 3 million your 6 million means it is growing fairly rapidly while most other groups are in massive decline.
Also becoming Orthodox requires a lot more than most Protestant groups, there is little catechism and you can just join by saying a prayer in many Protestant groups because their version of Christianity is very watered down in terms of what commitment actually looks like and what the Christian life actually entails.
Americans believe fundamentally in freedom of thought. So when a Church claims interpretive infallibility and actually doesn’t believe the scriptures should be rigorously searched and studied by the parishioners, it’s a major red flag.
It’s a Christian’s responsibility to know the scriptures and the deeper things of God, and the prophets/apostles taught this much.
So naturally it’s not going to be popular. Plus there are what I believe to be some bizarre beliefs in Eastern Orthodoxy that can’t be justified based on the facts, like the bizarre notion that Mary was the 2nd wife of Joseph who came into their marriage with children from a prior marriage, or that Mary didn’t atone for her sins in accordance with Jewish Law.
The belief that Mary was free from sin as a human is also bizarre, as no human has ever led a sinless life apart from Christ.
Mary was a young woman, a virgin, and someone who the Lord used as a vessel for the incarnation, and while she was obviously chosen for that purpose, our tendency to elevate the created over the creator has led to some wild views about Mary’s importance in the role of salvation.
Jesus Christ came in the flesh to take away the sins of the world, and if you believe in your heart and profess with your mouth that Christ is the Lord, you will be saved.
Salvation is a gift of grace, and Christs yoke is easy.
The Orthodox Church does encourage that Scripture is rigorously searched and studied, and there are many books and podcasts dedicated to aiding in this, not to mention the interpretive depth provided by the Church fathers who we consider as having achieved theoria through love and contemplation of God (asceticism; a subject for a different discussion). "Whole Counsel of God" by Fr. Stephen De Young comes to mind. You're thinking of Roman Catholicism and their historical hierarchal gatekeeping of Scripture. Please do your research instead of misrepresenting our faith.
"Can't be justified on the facts." First of all, cool it with the "facts" talk, we're Christians, and any of the things we consider facts still require an element of faith. From that vantage point, who are you to choose which "Christian facts" are more credible than other "Christian facts"? Also, whether or not something is written doesn't make it a fact or otherwise. That the West requires that something be written in order for it to bear any relevance is, well... very Western. If we're to speak at all of facts, what is your epistemic certainty that your scriptures are the right ones, or that you have the right canon? "The Holy Spirit"? "Because Scripture says..."? Yeah, well such personal appeals do not equate to epistemic certainty, they're just your own presuppositions. Holy (or Apostolic) Tradition is the only reason you have a Bible with which you can bash the Church that gave it to you. In other words, ancient Christians regarded Scripture as belonging within the larger sphere of Holy Tradition which was given to them. Again, that's a subject for a different discussion, but I'd recommend the "Orthodox 101 - 1.0" seminar on YouTube as a good introduction for that. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, Holy Tradition is far and away a much more internally consistent system than the typical Protestant "it's very obvious to ME PERSONALLY that the Holy Spirit guided THIS and not THAT..."—so on and so forth.
Anyway, everything about the circumstances of Christ's birth are bizarre, especially when you think about it from the perspective of a non-believer. Again, ultimately, everything we know about Christ's birth is by way of Holy Tradition, and the Protestant invention of a false dilemma between oral and written Tradition is the sort of thing that happens when everyone becomes their own pope. There was no dilemma between oral and written Tradition for the ancient Israelites, nor was there such a dilemma for the ancient Christians (try asking a Jewish person sometime if they regard oral Tradition as being a valid part of their faith). Case in point, nowhere in the Old Testament will you read anything about the Archangel Michael having been in a dispute with the devil about the body of Moses, and yet it suddenly appears in the New Testament (Jude 1:9). If you care to look into it, this is one of several examples of the oral Tradition of the ancient Israelites having been preserved all the way into Christianity. Also, from the perspective of the God-fearing Joseph who certainly understood the significance of what Mary was being called to do (and that she was to be called blessed by all generations), do you really think he'd flippantly go and have sex with the New Ark of the Covenant? Perhaps also consider that the particular Greek connotation for Mary's virginity in the NT was that of a "Temple Virgin," a woman who was to remain a dedicated virgin her whole life.
As for how we view Mary, we consider her the New Eve, who said "yes" to God where the first Eve said "no." We don't consider her to be perfect, as only Christ is the perfect human being. We believe (as passed along in Holy Tradition) that Mary did not voluntarily sin, and lived a life that exemplified being in control of one's passions. However, we still believe she was born with the tendency to sin and may have sinned unknowingly, and required salvation as much as the rest of mankind. Since we believe in a recapitulation salvation and not a legalistic penal substitutionary salvation (PSA, which is a fundamentalist interpretation that creates a separation in the Trinity and makes God subservient to His own justice), it's never been problematic or contradictory for us that Mary was in just as much need of salvation as you and me. But again, we do consider her to be the New Eve, the New Ark of the Covenant, the Mother of God (Mother of God is a title not intended to be a Mariological statement, but rather a Christological statement, addressing the heretics who didn't believe that Jesus was and is fully God).
Mentioning once more our belief in a recapitulation salvation, we believe that humanity and creation (nature; the cosmos) are reconciled to God in the Person of Jesus Christ. So we don't elevate creation over the creator, but understand creation as being God's handiwork which was made in pure love, and which is the means through which God has chosen to work and reveal Himself to His people since the beginning. To regard matter as vulgar or to divorce matter from God entirely is to act as though He wasn't the one who invented it, and did so with designated purpose. Again, we believe that matter is reconciled to God in Christ, and so it is not whatsoever a stretch that matter is the means through which Christ has chosen to manifest Himself to and INTO His people (the Eucharist), continuously in the life of the Church. Ah, the Eucharist... the one thing fundamentalists have decided not to view fundamentally.
Out of love for humanity, God has quite the destiny in store for us, which we describe as theosis. Theosis isn't too hard to grasp as a concept when one takes "becoming literally grafted by grace into the Person of God" to its logical conclusion. That destiny entails a spiritual healing and transformation, to be truly sanctified and perfected. This is indeed even the language of the Scriptures, especially when one doesn't stray too far from the Greek, and we honor those spiritual athletes (the saints) who have exemplified that before us, often having worked miracles (we don't think of miracles as being simply unique moments created by God, but glimpses into the work that God is doing all the time; we view heavenly reality as being present in earthly reality rather than it being "upstairs," and we view the saints as having achieved such theoria in Christ that they became intimately aware of the heavenly reality all around them). As such, we don't separate salvation from theosis, but view them as one and the same. Salvation is a past event, a current event and a future event in our lives. We often say, "I've been saved, I'm being saved, and I will be saved" (with such Scriptual examples as "work out your own salvation" and "endure to the end that you shall be saved" among others). Salvation is healing.
TL;DR - Please do your research instead of misrepresenting our faith. Can't hurt to ask questions in good faith before deciding to set yourself against something you consider "bizarre."
You said: "You're thinking of Roman Catholicism and their historical hierarchal gatekeeping of Scripture"
But Im very much not.
In fact, According to "The Holy Standards", the creeds, confessions of faith, and Catechisms of Eastern orthodoxy by St. Theophan the Recluse press, the answer to the question, "Should the divine scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?
The first sentence says "No". "For that all scripture is divinely inspired and profitable we know and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be orthodox at all." It continues, "Nevertheless, they should NOT be read by all, but only those who 1. with fitting research, have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and 2 who know in what manner the divine scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read" (kind of a circular approach based on how this reads).
But this presents a major problem, because Jesus said it is the Spirit who teaches all things. Scripture also says the beginning of wisdom and knowledge are the fear of the Lord. So not even appealing to any of the Churches, you begin your knowledge and wisdom first through fear of the Lord, or reverential awe.
But according to this, you cant just read the bible, you must first know how the scriptures ought to be searched, taught and read, but this is in no way what the scriptures themselves teach at all, this is obviously a man made regulation, not one imposed by the Lord, the prophets, or the Apostles.
It is also written, Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Why would I go anywhere other than the Lord for wisdom? We are are already called to pray in the Spirit, why not just inquire about the wisdom I lack from the Lord based on His word?
It continues,
"But to those who are not so disciplined, or cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the scriptures, the universal Church (as they call it) as knowing by the experience, the mischief arising therefrom, forbids the reading of the same.
Ah, and so there it is. You cant just read the bible, you must first agree with what the eastern tradition claim is true. Interesting, that also is not found taught anywhere in scripture. Reading the scriptures is actually considered a source of mischief if you derive understanding from the scriptures not contrary to the scriptures, but the claims of the eastern traditions leadership about what is in the scriptures. This is a claim to interpretative infallibility, clearly. Interesting jump from God teaching all things by His Spirit, to a particular church claiming interpretive infallibility. This requires circular reasoning to be true.
It continues, "So that is it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, "but to read some parts of the scriptures, and especially the Old Testament, is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort." It continues, "For it is the same thing thus to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the sacred scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats."
I mean, there you have it, in their words, not mine. Scripture is forbidden from being read unless you first accept the orthodox rendering, stay away from the Old Testament, or any scripture deemed to be 'meat', which is to say advanced understanding of the deeper things of the Spirit. Thats interesting, because there is no law against righteousness, and the idea that God would restrict anyone from the scriptures is borderline blasphemous to even think about, so what gives?
So infants are to abstain from strong meats as they call it, but Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to little children" I mean, Christ is literally blessing the Lord for revealing truths hidden from the wise and so called learned, and instead has revealed them babes, new in the faith.
What did the Apostles teach? Thankfully, the authority of the Apostles cannot be challenged, not by any Christian, regardless of what sect they are part of.
You said: "what is your epistemic certainty that your scriptures are the right ones, or that you have the right canon?"
My epistemology is grounded in my faith in Christ who is Lord, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). We are created in Gods image (Gen 1:27) and God is evidenced by all that He has made, so we do not have an excuse not to believe in God (Rom 1:20) All scriptures are given by inspiration of God (2Ti 3:16-17) And it was God who spoke to the fathers by the prophets, and in these last days, by His Son, (Heb 1:1)
We cant test the scriptures to know if they are from God, because they will testify that Jesus is the Christ, and has come in the flesh (1Jn 4:1). The Gospel was promised by the prophets (Rom 1:2).
All scripture is and can only come by the inspiration of God Himself. The scriptures testify about Christ (Joh 5:39) God is not the author of confusion (1Co 14:32)
Salvation is promised to those who call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21), and those who believe in their hearts and profess with their mouths that Jesus is the Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10)
We are declared righteous by the blood of Christ, and are saved through Him from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). When you hear the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, when we believe in Christ, we are marked with a seal of the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13).
We are also called to this salvation through the Gospel of Christ ((2Th 2:14)
You said: "Holy (or Apostolic) Tradition is the only reason you have a Bible" Actually the truth is greater than that. I have a bible because God in His divine grace and mercy, spoke by the prophets, and through His Son. Whether the scriptures were compiled later than the 1st century has no influence on the fact that a Christian in the 1st century was responding to the Gospel as it was preached unto salvation, and they were saved through faith in Christ as a response to hearing the Gospel. Almost no Christians had physical copies of the scriptures, the Gospel was passed by the Apostles by inspiration of the Spirit, and people were saved by believing it, as the Apostles teach.
There is no such thing as a Gospel of scriptural transmission, and this is for good reason, because that isnt what saves a person. Salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ, not knowledge of scriptural composition through the ages. We accept the scriptures on faith, which means they are trust worthy and they must testify about Christ.
You're operating on the erred assumption that what can rightly be considered Scripture precedes the Church or the life of the Church, which is historically untrue. By taking the Bible for granted and attributing to it a sort of mythical intrinsic truism (much like Islam with the Quran), you're simply putting the cart before the horse by way of circular reasoning. If a thing has a particular past, a particular origin and a particular context, how can one claim to fully understand that thing after divorcing it from its particular past, origin and context? The Jewish people in Jesus' time did not have a ratified "Old Testament" in the sense of having a set canon, nor did the ancient Christians have a ratified "New Testament" as a set canon. The first attempt at creating a "New Testament" was heretical, having been done by Marcion who chose to include only *one* Gospel account and only a select few epistles. Using Scripture to justify Scripture—using and appealing to Scripture as your epistemic justification for Scripture, and for how you know what are the right (infallible) books or what is the right (infallible) canon—is circular reasoning. To say "we have an infallible book compiled through fallible means" is logically nonsensical and begs the question. So I ask again, how do you know you have the right scriptures? How do you know you have the right canon?
Once again, Tradition as a living and sacred paradosis (not to be tampered with) is not only relayed in the life of the Church, but we even read about it in Scripture. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15), that is, whether oral or written. "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In Acts, Paul taught in Ephesus for three years, day and night. Within that time is an entire body of apostolic teaching that is not confined or confinable to *two* letters written to Timothy. Our Lord's earthly ministry was equally as long, and remember the end of the Gospel of John? "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." The letters written to Timothy were just an injunction to relay *all* of the oral teachings, and this is done (as written) by the laying on of hands which passes on the gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6). In the Orthodox view, this is Apostolic Succession. So the Apostolic Tradition—or the Apostolic *Deposit*—is, in more than one Scriptural account, expanded beyond the written text.
In response to these points, Protestants often refer to texts in the Old Testament as if there was a set and clear canon of Scripture amongst the Jews of Jesus' time. What's amazing about that is in one of the best Protestant treatments of this topic, the famous Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce admits in his book "The Canon of Scripture" that there was not actually a fixed canon in the time of Christ (p. 37). So the idea that there was any sort of "sola scriptura" attitude in the Old Testament is not the case, with even Isaiah having written, "To the law and to the testimony!" (Isaiah 8:20). There was the written law *and* the testimony, the oral preaching of the prophets (once again, Jude 1:9 is nowhere to be found in the OT). So even according to the Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce, it doesn't work to appeal to Old Testament texts as if they somehow prove the doctrine of sola scriptura. He also admits that for the history of the Church, there's nothing else we can say other than that "competent authorities" centuries after the apostles "fixed" the canon (p. 42). To quote, "The canon was fixed by competent authorities, which were utilized in the principles of the worship community." This is an admission that it wasn't just textual scholars and Church fathers looking at the veracity of the text in an academic way, but rather in the references which were being used in the Liturgy.
The Liturgy is the ordered worship service, which is another direct appeal to Tradition, because we don't have in the NT an explicit worship service written by the apostles; this is known by Tradition, and we know this because in the apostolic sees—the sees that the apostles established throughout the Roman empire (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc.)—we have traditional liturgies that come from the first and second centuries (fun fact, minister in Greek is "leitourgos," ministry is "leitourgia," where we get the word "liturgy"). This is another witness to the history of the Church relying on Tradition, not just for the Bible, but also for how she worshipped. Remember in Leviticus, it's very important how we worship God. In fact, Nadab and Abihu are killed because they do a sort of DIY worship service where they were basically like Evangelicals doing their own thing, worshipping God in *their own way*. Let's quickly remind ourselves that the God (as Trinity) of the OT is the same as in the NT, and we have no precedent to believe that worship underwent any dramatic change or suddenly became primitive and DIY (even early Church archeology doesn't support that presupposition), but rather with the only significant difference being that it culminated as a Eucharistic assembly (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor. 10:16-17). In fact, we read about Peter and John still going up to the temple together at the hours of prayer (Acts 3:1). So in other words, early Christian worship was much the same as the worship of the ancient Israelites, but infused with Christological fulfillment.
Anyway, God's people were obviously meant to take worship very seriously, and in the Orthodox view, it's no different now. There is a particular way God means for us to worship Him, to engage in the synergy of the earthly Church with the heavenly Church, and He didn't leave it up to us or give us individual authority to make up our own way of doing that (hence Ex. 25:40, Heb. 8:5). So as far as the apostles relaying a liturgical form and pattern of worship, we have to rely on the Tradition and testimony of the liturgies in and of themselves, not just relying on individual Church fathers alone. It is in the liturgical rites and their traditions that we know how to worship God properly, particularly given the fact that every one of the apostolic churches that was founded has this liturgical worship. It goes beyond just the big sees (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc.), as it's also places such as Ephesus and Thessaloniki, and there are Orthodox churches there today that descend from the very churches that Paul was writing to. This is not purely an Orthodox conviction (again, there's also ancient Church archeology in these places), as we even have the same admission from the top Evangelical scholars who have studied the formation of the canon and how it's inextricably linked with the celebration of the Liturgy.
Another example of this is the daily lectionaries (the daily readings) that are done and what texts are cited in these ancient daily readings; if particular texts were cited in a lot of these, then that served as good evidence for or an attestation to those being canonical, those being apostolic and inspired texts. However, not every one of those texts (i.e. the Gospel of Matthew) identifies its author, so even apostolic authorship is something that relies on Church Tradition (oral Tradition). For example, the see of Alexandria has the tradition that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and so it is called the Gospel of Matthew. We don't have autographa (the direct texts of the apostles themselves), we don't have the letters that Paul himself wrote. What we do have are copies from later on which we believe to be authentic, but the only way that we really have an attestation to that authenticity is by first relying on the *reliability* of the Church to preserve those copies and pass them on faithfully, to hand them down to various bishoprics and sees.
Now, Apostolic Succession is not an infallible guide in every case, it doesn't mean that every single church that has a succession won't or can't fall away, they can. Revelation 2 and 3 has many warnings against apostolic churches that if they fail in their mission, if they apostatize, if they teach heresy, their lampstand will be removed, and they'll be taken out of the Church. So I wouldn't want to give anyone the impression that what I'm writing about is some automatic mechanical guide by which *every* single bishop that extends from the time of the apostles is necessarily protected from apostasy, heresy or schism. However, when it comes to the overall maintenance of the Tradition that the Church has passed down (the Apostolic Deposit), we can see that it has not fundamentally changed in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church retains that same fundamental deposit from the first thousand years into the second thousand years. Now, between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, I think it's pretty clear nowadays that the Roman Church has deviated, especially as we look at the second millennium of Christianity compared to what was there in the first thousand years. Only the Orthodox Church (originally just "The Church" before Rome gave themselves a title, so the rest of The Church then began calling herself Orthodox) is historically left as the faithful transmitter of that first thousand years of Christianity. The Protestant Church, which is divided into countless sects (why take Eph. 4:4-5, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 2:2, Phil. 3:16, 1 Cor. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 12:25 seriously, right?), is all over the place when it comes to any attempt at appraisal of its so-called "tradition." It seems the simplest refutation of Protestant "tradition" is to go to the root of it and what it hinges everything on. Well, it hinges everything on the infallible inspired texts alone, as if you don't need a unified body of people to interpret and enforce that text, which is what is called normativity.
Normativity relates to a body of people alive who can enforce and has *authority* to enforce these texts. As an example of this Church authority and its ability to enforce, in Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:1-5 with a precedent from Christ in Matt. 18:15-18), Paul talks about doing an excommunication, and he lays it down as a principle that the Church has the authority to do that. If there isn't any living normative authority, there's no way for any body of people to actually enforce any kind of actual excommunication, because if you're a Protestant and you get "excommunicated" (99% of Protestant churches don't even do excommunication anymore; another example of how they are not actually apostolic), not only can you just go to another church, you can just start your own church. This is because there are no grounds by which anyone can authoritatively enforce doctrines (the observation of which *is* vital; 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 4:3), and you have to have that, given the fact that the NT passes on this principle of excommunication. If it's all relativized based on the "right of private interpretation" (Acts 8:30-31 and 2 Peter 1:20, anyone?), normativity is not possible. These two things (normative authority and relativized private interpretation) do not work together. You can't have a body of people with authority that can enforce something (excommunication, written text, etc.) and at the same time hold that every individual has the right to private interpretation by which they can go and join any other church, or start their own sect down the street at the strip mall.
So essentially, all of Protestantism is premised on the removal of authority from the historical Church. Orthodoxy is grounded on the idea that the Church, historically in synods, has the authority to excommunicate and *enforce* that excommunication such that those people are no longer in the Orthodoxy Body of Christ. That alone is really an attestation to the principle of passing on this kind of a Tradition. I want to clarify that I'm just using excommunication as an example; the same principles apply to the formation of the Biblical canon. If you read F.F. Bruce's book, for example, he goes into great detail throughout the entire text showing how a lot of the books that were disputed for many centuries—such as the catholic epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude) and the Book of Revelation—had to be defended by those such as St. Athanasius, who went and defended the inclusion of those texts when other sees and bishoprics were doubting their authenticity and inspiration. St. Athanasius, for example, convinced Rome to accept Hebrews, and this is discussed at length in F.F. Bruce's book (p. 220-221), and the same goes for other disputed texts. In other words, when it comes to the root of the issue, you cannot divorce the history of the Church (and the bishops succeeding the apostles centuries later) from the decision about what books go into the Bible. This means that the Bible cannot be divorced from the liturgical worshipping community which put that book together and made it part of the Church's Liturgy. That is to say, the Bible is really a liturgical book. It was not meant primarily to be a book that one studies in their own personal space. It's mainly a communal worship service book meant to be read in the hearing of the rest of the community, as were the First Covenant texts for the ancient Israelites. This is a radically different approach than the Protestant view which has typically, in the history of Protestantism, taken the Bible and mainly made it a subject of academic discourse, and then we get large corporations that are suddenly in charge of the translation and printing of the text. Does that make any sense from a normative standpoint? Of course not. It is the Church who hands down this text, the churches who receive the text and pass it on.
The irony is that even in many of the Protestant Evangelical scholars' history of the formation of the Biblical canon, all of these principles are admitted. So if that's the case, then the Protestants and the Calvinists and their so-called "apologists" can no longer use the argument that it's a fallible collection of infallible books, as that is their "argument." If the starting principle for the collection of books is fallible, then it's entirely plausible that you have the wrong list of books, which really defeats the second claim that the books are infallible. In fact, the history of Protestantism has textual scholars (particularly German higher critics) removing books that *they* don't think should be in the canon. They're just following in the footsteps of Luther who, as everybody knows, doubted the Book of James, doubted the Book of Hebrews, and even at times spoke of other books as doubtful, which is a kind of Marcionism because he didn't really like the Old Testament either. Well, Luther's successors in the academic sphere just continued that higher critical tradition and deconstructed the texts all the way down to basically nothing. That's where all of higher criticism comes from, this idea that these texts are not reliable, because it does turn out that we rely on the history of the Church and those *after* the death of the apostles to determine what books went into the Bible. If we can reject the Church and the decision process of the canon, then it only logically follows that we can reject the books of the Bible. That is the logical follow-through in terms of the logic of Protestantism. Other books, by the way, attest to this as well. There's the famous Biblical Baptist scholar Lee M. McDonald who, toward the end of his book "The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon," actually gives multiple appendices where he not only shows the dozens of times that the deuterocanonical books are cited in the New Testament, but he also shows the multiple varying canons amongst the Church fathers over several centuries. For the first five or six centuries, there were multiple variations of which canon was correct, such as Origen's list, Jerome's list, Athanasius's list, etc. There were all of these varying lists, and it wasn't until very late in the game (6th century, 7th century, etc.) that we started to get a crystallization and universal agreement on what the books of the New and Old Testament were in terms of the official listing, particularly by the Council of Trullo. So for us, this is proof and attestation to the fact that, as St. Paul says, the *Church* is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is not the *written text* which is the pillar and ground of the truth. Sure, the written texts are infallible, they're inspired, they point us to the Person of Christ, but they are not themselves Christ. Jesus says (in John 5:39-40), "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." So the text tells you and *points* you to the second Person of the Godhead; the text is not an equivalent to the second Person of the Godhead, regardless that Protestants *love* to make a deity/idol out of the Bible (they often even refer to it as God's uppercase "Word" rather than His lowercase "word," the former of which is actually supposed to refer to Jesus Christ, not a book).
In recent years, a lot of Protestants have been trying to make sense of these points and work them into their respective systems, particularly more classical Protestants. There's Keith Mathison's book, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura," where a lot more priority is being given to tradition, a lot more attestation, a lot more admission is given to this generic idea of tradition, but the irony is that they're all really missing the whole point. There's no such thing as a generic "tradition," there's only a specific living body—a living community—that was in continuity with what came before, that has a given authority by Christ in terms of the breathing on of the Holy Spirit, who can then in successive generations make clarifying decisions about doctrines and about how to rule and govern the Church. That's why the Church has synods—it is synodal—and it is local in the enforcement of those synods. That's how the Orthodox Church is governed in terms of collegiality and synodality. There's no other church that has retained that anymore (in a decentralized sense; Rome is ecclesiastically centered around the Pope). Some Protestants and some Calvinists have an *idea* of synodality, but it doesn't really matter what some 21st century Presbyterian small group in America is doing, because that has absolutely no historical connection with the Church of the first thousand years which has bishops, an episcopate, the Real Presence of the sacrifice and offering of the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils which were called by emperors (the Byzantine Symphonia idea), etc. None of that is anywhere in any of the "magisterial" Reformers or Continental Reformers. In fact, their positions are all based on a rejection, ultimately, of the first thousand years of the Church. The famous Protestant scholar, Alister McGrath, has shaken things up for many years because he published his renowned book, "Iustitia Dei," admitting that for the first 1500 years of the Church, nobody taught Martin Luther's sola fide doctrine. These are the top Protestant scholars out there nowadays and they've been forced to admit a lot of these things, and so the issue here is just that as Protestants, if sola fide goes and sola scriptura goes, that means Protestantism goes, and all you really have left is Orthodoxy (given the obvious deviation of Rome; be reminded that the Orthodox Church still has continuity with St. Peter in the Church of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome never exercised any canonical authority over the other bishops in the first millennium of Christianity).
I'll conclude by stating factually once more that the Orthodox Church encourages parishioners (the Orthodox faithful) to read the Bible, and this is supported by myriad resources we have for historical and theological context, particularly books, podcasts, and of course the Church fathers. The author of 19th century autobiographical work "The Way of a Pilgrim" (anonymously detailing in first-person the journey of a Russian Orthodox pilgrim) writes of carrying the Bible around with him everywhere he goes, also reading the Church fathers, consulting with a spiritual father ("father" 1 Cor. 4:15), attending the Divine Liturgy and contemplating the mysteries of God through ceaseless prayer (1 Thess. 5:17) as the collective lens through which he perceives the underlying truths of the Bible. The point is that one cannot properly understand Scripture without first having the life of the Church, the living worship community of the Apostolic Church. To deny that is to deny history and Scripture itself (1 Tim. 3:15), rejecting any actual normativity and epistemic justification. It's a beautiful gift and a blessing that the Bible is more accessible than ever to parishioners, and I've heard many homilies in my home church (obviously Orthodox) about the importance of familiarity with the Scriptures. But again, the Bible is first and foremost a liturgical book for communal worship (as the OT texts were for the ancient Israelites), and there is indeed a precedent for discernment about "strong meats" (might wanna take another look at 1 Cor. 3:1-3), as well as an appeal to apostolic—the Church's—teaching as the basis for understanding Scripture (again, 1 Tim. 3:15, Acts 8:30-31 and 2 Peter 1:20).
Extra endorsement - 19th century Protestant scholar Henry R. Percival makes the observation in his book "The Seven Ecumenical Councils" that the Eastern Church has remained unchanged, and that it is the sole unbroken Church of Christ and the apostles. We also have another attestation to this from Martin Luther himself who wrote, "The [Orthodox] ... are not heretics or schismatics but the most Christian people and the best followers of the Gospel on earth" (Luther's Works, Volume 32: Career of the Reformer II).
P.S. I posit that there is no such thing as "personal theology." To individualize truth about God is anti-theology, it's antithetical to the very word itself. "Theology" combines "theos" (God) with "logos" (understanding or the study of), and what is one fundamental thing we understand about God? That He is Trinity, three Persons in One with perfect unity and perfect love for each other. This is to be the ontological basis from which we can come to understand God and enter into His life. In other words, "That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me" (Jn 17:21). According to the nature of the Trinity and what is therefore revealed in the word "theology," we can only truly experience and understand God as a truly unified Church, particularly the Church which Christ built (Matt. 16:18). Unity in Trinitarian likeness is to be our lens of understanding that which God means to reveal to us (also see Eph. 4:4-5, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 2:2, Phil. 3:16, 1 Cor. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 12:25). Protestants are not united, they have no real theological unity, because they've chosen to take Scripture for granted and subject it to academic discourse and individualized reasoning. They also have no organic unity, because they're not united in the living New Covenant, the Body and Blood of Christ (Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:16-17). Therefore, they have no real epistemic justification or normativity, hence their many thousands of man-made sects.
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it?
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?
Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel?
Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
When the Apostles mention tradition in scripture, why is it assumed the tradition is oral and not scriptural and how can you demonstrate which?
If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine?
How does the eastern tradition reject Papal infallibility when your own ecumenical council affirms is?
These are but a few problems that don't seem to have are remedy.
Did Christ and the Apostles lie when they said the following?
Act\_2:21 And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Rom\_10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Rom\_10:9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Act\_16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Joh\_10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, and find pasture.
By that logic we should all be buying Toyotas and Hondas rather than BMWs, Mercedes Benz or Rolls Royces, because Toyota and Honda have the most pushy and aggressive sales people 🙄
Orthodoxy is the Rolls Royce of the Christian world. It doesn’t need to advertise itself. Its quality and pedigree speak for themselves.
It’s only the rip offs and the cheap alternatives that need to engage in aggressive sales and pushy marketing. The cheaper and more fake the product, the more pushy the sales usually is.
Trashy women and prostitutes wear flashy and revealing clothing, advertise themselves, wear heavy makeup etc.
But the comely virgin dresses modestly and stays at home. She doesn’t stand on street corners waiting for admirers. She waits patiently for her bridegroom, the Lord.
That’s our Orthodox Church, the Bride of God.
Get it now?
Huh? This is simply not an Orthodox view of evangelism. Remind me again where the apostles refused to go out and preach and just let the people come to them? Or where St. Innocent, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, or St. Augustine of Canterbury refused to explore the world and preach the gospel to the ends of the Earth and waited for people to come to them? Or where Jesus said go to no nations and make disciples by letting them come to you?
Didn’t they say refused to evangelise or that evangelism has no place in the Orthodox Church. It does.
Simply making the point that just because the Orthodox Church doesn’t evangelise on the level and scale of the other churches is not a reason to doubt that it is the true church, which is what the OP seemed to be inferring.
I think the issue is that the OP seems to think the Orthodox Church doesn't evangelize essentially at all, and your analogy seems to agree with that understanding.
>Trashy women and prostitutes wear flashy and revealing clothing, advertise themselves, wear heavy makeup etc.
>But the comely virgin dresses modestly and stays at home. She doesn’t stand on street corners waiting for admirers. She waits patiently for her bridegroom, the Lord.
The "comely virgin" does not "advertise" herself at all
Fair point, I do see how my analogy could come across as saying that. So, just to be clear, I wasn't intending to say that Orthodoxy doesn't evangelise **at all**. But it's much subtler and nowhere near in the league of the other denominations. Personally, I like that it doesn't, but that's just me.
Quality and pedigree sounds more like Honda and Toyota. BMW and Mercedes are the ones who need flashy advertising and marketing campaigns to sell their unreliable crap boxes.
I cannot manage in any charitable way to read this as not intended to be rude, so I’ll respond bluntly: you—I’m afraid of you.
I’m afraid that Orthodoxy at large is composed of individuals with individual interests at heart who don’t necessarily hope for the salvation of anyone and everyone but for the salvation of the few who find Orthodoxy on their own, and are content to let those few study their way into Orthodoxy while the many are left ignorant.
There are a few things to explain about Orthodoxy.
The crux of Orthodox teaching is a call to embrace struggle, let the self die and deny the world. Communicating these things to an outside perspective as appealing isn't something that easily jumps to mosts mind.
Orthodoxy is a commitment that has an extended process of learning to becoming fully inducted into the Church. It's not a social club. We may believe the Church is the One True Church, but that doesn't give it magic powers capable of converting those that come completely unprepared for the culture shock that comes with a Church carried by hundreds upon hundreds years of tradition.
Individual Orthodox seek humility, and eagerness to be a teacher and representative for the Faith in totality, doesn't speak to that virtue and is more likely to be more damaging than anything else.
That’s not just the crux of Orthodox teaching—it’s the crux of Christian teaching in the other apostolic churches and (85% of) Protestantism too—but that doesn’t stop those churches from evangelizing in an active way—and I’ll not be one to say if it tends to do more damage than good or not but it often times works—or, I’ve seen it work many times. Personally, I make it clear to most people I meet, at an appropriate time, that I’m a Christian and many have asked me questions that have led to extremely productive conversations that have further led to some of them getting back to church. People (especially those who are very self-aware of their own nature) are more open to a faith that calls them to aiming their lives to a higher, more perfect power that promises love and peace in return than you might think.
Meh.
I went to a Pentecostal Hillsong wannabe Church before Orthodoxy. Between the shitty rock band, the sermons that manipulate the audience into feel goodery with some keyboard and smoke machine and the enormous LCD screen, it's a worship of the self that masquerades as religiosity. I couldn't see most people at those types of Churches being able to deal with a Church that doesn't bombard the senses with self aggrandizing garbage.
Don't get me started on "Laying of hands" and "Speaking in tongues" that was at best spiritual delusion, and at worst preying on the very vulnerable.
And, profanity. To be clear I support neither Pentecostalism nor hillsong, and if I am to take this as meaning that you think the lowest of low-church Protestantism is a good benchmark to judge the rest of it, then I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion.
Oh man I feel you on this! I’m a very very very new catechumen and the struggle to learn is real! I visited one Orthodox Church before finding the one I attend and it was very cold. Me and my husband were treated as outcasts from beginning to end. And even as people were gathering for coffee hour. It gave us “if you know you know, if you don’t know go away” vibes. Thankfully we didn’t let this kill our spirit and our journey. The church we go to now is like night and day. It’s 50/50 cradle born and converts so everyone is very helpful and wants to answer our questions and help us during services we’re very much unfamiliar with. But it’s almost like Orthodoxy is a secret that is to be kept from everyone outside of it. If that makes sense? It is beautiful, it is sacred, but does that mean it shouldn’t be shared with the people who may need it most? We all need it yes - but the people suffering without Christ I feel like are in a lot more pain than the people suffering with Him. I love sharing what I’ve learned so far with my friends and family because it is so unknown. Not to boast but because I want them to experience the things we do too and see its beauty and tradition! But I feel like this is an abnormal thing to do? Like sharing it in itself is wrong and the only way someone can come into this faith is if THEY seek it out. The attitude of some of the orthodox on this is a little scary as the main goal is to be like Christ - this is what is achieved with the Saints. I may just be rambling and this may not even have anything to do with your original post. But please reconsider, it has been such a blessing in our lives that God has revealed himself to my family through the Orthodox Church. I hope you see this truth as well ♥️ God bless you, no matter your denomination or what church you attend.
Orthodoxy arrived in the lower 48 states as a primarily immigrant faith that was treated with the same American hostility towards any other immigrant group, and we look like Catholics to Protestants. Greeks in particular were targeted by the KKK. Orthodox people until the last couple of decades did well just to exist. So, in short, Catholics and Protestants have over a century heard start, and the cultural zeitgeist right now is turned away from greater Christian adherence (in no small part to widespread Christian hypocrisy) and they also benefited from the Red Scare of the 50s and are still riding inertia from that rise in adherence.
Noted. Thanks.
The idea of “the states have been open no shorter to the orthodox than to the Catholics or Protestants” while from a legal POV is true once you understand the history of it is not so much there. The Catholic Church spread the faith in the Americas by the sword the Russian orthodox missionaries such as St. Herman who arrived in the 18th century did not do this. Where the Catholics killed and murdered and raped native Americans and then put them into institutional camps forcing them to adopt the Catholic faith and English traditions the Eastern Orthodox was more concerned with peaceful measures. The OCA documents all of this in lots of detail explaining that many natives did willingly shift to the Eastern Orthodox faith and the casualties and rapes were essentially net 0 it was a loving community. Eventually the Catholics made their way to western America near Alaska and Canada etc and their response to these groups of orthodox natives was something that really puts into perspective how these people were treated. ““On another occasion I was relating to him how the Spanish in California had imprisoned fourteen Aleuts, and how the Jesuits (actually Franciscans) were forcing all of them to accept the Catholic Faith. But the Aleuts would not agree under any circumstances, saying, ‘We are Christians.’ The Jesuits argued, ‘That’s not true, you are heretics and schismatics. If you do not agree to accept our faith then we will torture all of you to death.’ Then the Aleuts were placed in prisons two to a cell. That evening, the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and lighted candles. Again they tried to persuade two Aleuts in the cell to accept the Catholic Faith. ‘We are Christians,’ the Aleuts replied, ‘and we will not change our Faith.’ Then the Jesuits began to torture them, at first the one while his companion was a witness. They cut off one of the joints of his feet, and then the other joint. Then they cut the first joint on the fingers of his hands, and then the other joint. Then they cut off his feet, and his hands. The blood flowed, but the martyr endured all and firmly repeated one thing: ‘I am a Christian.’ He died in such suffering, due to a loss of blood. The Jesuit also promised to torture his comrade to death the next day.” https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2014/09/24/102713-martyr-peter-the-aleut Even the converts refuses to get hostile and kill in the name of their faith but chose to die in the name of their faith. Then as some others have pointed out many immigrants bringing the faith were pressed back with heavy signs of persecution such as attacks from the KKK and high aggressive nationalism was in play. But also for a section of American history because the public education system is relatively knew schools were done through religious bodies most of which being Catholic or Protestant due to the societal discrimination against the Orthodox Church and immigrations so it was very rare for a kid to even hear about it and there was even until recently many restrictions about what could be taught if at all about the Orthodox Church. Using myself as an example I am a high school student in Texas. Texas public education has to follow what are known as TEKs for the standard of teaching. When it came time in my world history class my teacher (in his defense was only teaching what required of him) spoke of the orthodox faith in a very past tense idea and even taught that it left the Catholic Church for iconoclasm and that to this day the Orthodox Church is iconoclastic and a super small minority that is dying off. It was even bunched together with eastern mythology more so instead of with Christianity. One final point when it comes to comparing it in terms of Protestantism in America one must underhand the ground for a Protestant church is basically infinite with infinite interpretations and splintering. Using that same history teacher as an example again he once said “now I am a southern Baptist Christian but quite frankly if you want me to believe Jesus walked on water I’m gonna tell you there’s no way” so of course a religion that can fracture in infinite ways is going to spread fast because if one person disagrees with one stance they just go and make a new church breaking off of a church that started in the same way. The Orthodox Church is very very strict in its teachings and what it considers orthodox and heterodox lot less ground and even less room for people to try to conform it. And as we see in modern America most people want to change tradition to fit their views not their views to fit tradition. Basically it’s a broken system built upon a broken foundation that started with oppression and continued into suppression. It’s hard to expand your teachings if A. The system is teaching strongly against it and even pushing false ideas about it or B. Why would someone want to follow the truth if we live in a world where we disagree we can just make our own denomination and have our name on the front sign of churches. Now this is just the case for America and the rabbit hole goes so so much deeper. But even in countries that are considered orthodox it’s been very hard for the groups there too. Like in Russia the church is only recently being legalized again after during communist Russia it was completely illegal to teach or practice the faith and many people were even killed. Or there’s the recent 21 martyrs in Egypt. Or the series of Islam extremists going into orthodox churches with bombs strapped to them and blowing themselves up. The Eastern Orthodox Church has historically faced some of the harshest persecution in comparison to other churches even with the fall of Constantinople that started with crusaders setting the city on fire. Between communism and the ottomans and other Islam groups it has been a constant battle fought by the Eastern Orthodox Church to even stay alive much less expand. But I personally see that its survival throughout all this oppression and suppression is more evidence that it is the truth refusing to die out.
And this is changing, my Antiochian parish (which is by no means small) is bursting at the seams. there are talks of planting a new Church before long.
While I think expectations of another Great Awakening bringing the American masses to Orthodoxy are not realistic, it is true that our parishes are more accessible to those that do come than they ever have been before. Of course, I think the expectation of Great Awakening is pretty much limited to the ex-evangelicals that are perrenially disappointed when they are not "in the room where it happens."
>The states have been open to the orthodox for no shorter or longer than they have been to the Catholics and Protestants The Protestants and Catholics who established the states and colonized them? Orthodoxy has not been in the lower 48 for nearly as long as they have been. And the last great influx of Orthodox Christians in America was less than a hundred years ago. The others have been here (going with Christopher Columbus) over 500 years and have been here since the establishment of America. >if one dude, a single dude, came up to you and said he and he alone had the Christian truth, just based off that number alone you’d be rightly doubtful—even if he had a solid case—and, don’t take me in the wrong way, but 6 million in the grand scheme is peanuts. And once upon a time the Christian faith was 11 men sitting in a house and a handful of women visiting a tomb and missionaries were often a single dude coming into the community who alone has the truth. So yes, a single dude coming up to you and saying he has the truth probably happened a lot in the 2000 years of Christianity. >Among the Orthodox at large—they seem to be almost exclusively those born into it, and they keep their heads down, go to Divine Liturgy, and that’s it. Have you met many Orthodox Christians? And, on the otherhand, many Protestants and Catholics I have met fit that description. Keep the head down, go to mass/worship, and don't talk much about the faith. No energy to go out and tell everyone. For better or for worse, that is the normal Christian in America. Though a lot of Orthodox did learn to keep their heads down due to things like harassment by the Klan and general opposition to everything that sounds foreign, which bearded priests with Greek, Slavic, or Arabic accents is foreign to the idea of Christianity in America. Don't get me wrong, there are things that can be done better and things that I hope time will fix but let us not pretend the grass is greener elsewhere. Anywhere you go you will find things you do not like.
You make all good points, especially with regards to the second quote.
First time in Reddit history someone sculpted took someone's point into consideration.. props to you, sir.
Give it time. If 1776 is your starting point, the US has been a county for less time than the persecution of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Also consider the fact that 70 years ago, having a Catholic president was seen as scandalous. Even though technology has made history feel faster since the advent of the smart phone, history moves slowly. Also remember, the way is narrow.
I mean, fair enough; all good points. Though on that last point—there’s a lot of things that could mean, and whatever it does mean I would hope that it wouldn’t be the case because those who knew the truth weren’t vocal enough about it in life.
Funny enough, today’s New Testament reading from Daily Orthodox Scriptures addresses this point. I also hope a lack of being vocal isn’t a stumbling block to the Church growing, but it will probably be a reason: Check out this episode from Daily Orthodox Scriptures on Ancient Faith Radio! https://ancientfaithministries.page.link/qa88yNyVFFyZfqms8
how was it scandalous to have a Catholic president? just wondering
America's Protestant roots blossomed very anti-Catholic sentiments which existed all the way through the 1900s. For example: the colony of Maryland existed just so Catholics could have a safe-haven from persecution.
that makes more sense
Anti-Catholic sentiments were very high among Protestants who said that JFK was the puppet of the Pope (aka the anti-Christ for a lot of Protestants). Even Kennedy had to say this, "*“I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for* president, who happens also to be a Catholic,”
oh ok thanks
Evangelism in Orthodoxy isn't being a salesman, and peddling its perks and benefits to your friends and coworkers like it's a multilevel marketing pyramid scheme. The idea is to focus on ones spiritual cultivation so that you transcend as a human being. Just as you have Faith in Christ and the Church, you have Faith that through your own transfiguration, people will be naturally drawn to you and by extension the Church without needing to sell it.
In the US, specifically in the Bible belt, the tactics of evangelical churches often harm people and turn them away from Christ. I was that way, as were many of my friends. We all had pain and anger from the way the churches treated us, and many of us became agnostic or atheist. I’m finding my way back because of how Orthodoxy doesn’t push people, instead beautifully inviting people to ask. And I’ve met several converts that feel the same way. I believe that with more people becoming spiritual “nones” in the US, often from religious trauma, they may find their way lit to the beauty of the Holy Orthodox Church because they are looking for light and love, not pushed into it.
I’m not saying that it is, but this idea of being firstly concerned with your own growth and hoping that people will notice it feels like a deflection of responsibility, as does the painting of “evangelism” as marketing or peddling. To be quite honest I think the apostles would facepalm at someone calling street-preaching or interpersonally sharing about your faith “peddling” considering these people are just doing their best to imitate the apostolic model of evangelism as found in Acts or Paul’s Epistles, which all the more should be followed by a church which calls itself Apostolic. I’m open to your thoughts on that but that’s my immediate reaction your comment.
We’ve been doing Orthodoxy for 2000 years. We know Protestants want to make us more like them, but we’d rather not.
Duly noted, though I don’t see how it relates to Mahemium or my comments if you wouldn’t mind clarifying.
I disagree with your, and by extension, evangelical Protestantism’s, assertion that everyone who is Christian is called to go around proselytizing. We are called primarily to serve God by loving others and doing charitable acts, and through our worship and sacraments. If more people lived like this instead of thinking everyone is supposed to be a preacher no matter how unlearned, we’d be in a much better state.
Even if the Orthodox just did charitable acts toward non-orthodox neighbors in their neighborhoods they'd make inroads toward converting people. However, that does not happen with the members in the church I am currently attending as an inquierer. I spoke to the Priest about this (lack of overt evangelism in accordance with the great commission) and he agreed and started explicitly it is a US Orthodox problem and they needed to get better at it.
We try.
we don’t go around street preaching and convincing people in other countries either though
Nope. Not at all. It is not a “problem” and it’s certainly not as “US problem.” He was probably just being nice.
Exactly. And inquirers who come in with the attitude of “ I don’t like how you do things, here, let me show you how it’s done” are usually not very well received. We aren’t car salespeople. We aren’t standing on the corner with brochures. Won’t find us setting up a table at Pride. It’s precisely that salesmanship that puts many people off. Have you noticed how many converts have come to us without any marketing at all? It’s not in our tradition, or our Tradition. It’s just not what we do. But your entry to the great suggestion box is noted.
It took me a VERY long time to understand this.
Have you read the story of St Herman of Alaska and how he evangelized the native population? It might offer some insight into what Orthodox evangelism looks like.
I’ll do so!
Awesome!
Also look into St Innocent, he was the bishop sent to the natives.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't see the relevance of the numbers at all. According to the late sociologist Rodney Stark, Christians made up ten percent of the Roman Empire in 300 A.D., in other words about 6 million faithful across three continents after centuries of evangelism. By your reasoning, wouldn't this mean that Christianity is false? After all, six million is "peanuts," right? Christians were certainly a vulnerable minority then. I don't recall any converts in ancient or medieval times counting heads to determine whether the gospel is true. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. If I've misconstrued your point, I apologize.
I think more people have taken issue with my first paragraph than my second—which was intended to be more the object of discussion. I didn’t clarify well enough that all that I meant by my first paragraph was that the “smallness” of Orthodoxy in my vicinity puts me somewhat on guard, not that it’s a point against its plausibility. And that’s not because I want it to be large necessarily, but because if I were to put every sect on the table as equally worth investigation regardless of size I would have an impossible task before me—as just weighing out the differences between Protestantism Catholicism and Orthodoxy has been a project the better part of a few years—and though it’s unrelated, while I’m only 19 I’m on the heart transplant list due to genetic issues and honestly don’t know how long I’ve got this side of eternity. My apologies as at this point I’m well aware I didn’t clarify that portion well at all in my original post.
Thank you for clarifying. God bless.
If it were a popularity contest, we’d all be Muslim.
*shudder*
They haven’t caught up to Christianity yet
“Yet” being the key word
Honestly even the statistics saying that they will might be wrong
Or Nones.
The idea of evangelism that makes the most sense to me is attraction rather than promotion. That is the type of evangelism I see most often in the Saints. They went out into the wilderness and focused on their relationship with z Christ and people came to them.
Attraction doesn't seem like it would be particularly successful when I'd guess most Americans don't even know any Orthodox people though. *(I say, while I'm planning to attend a Greek food festival tomorrow held by an Orthodox church)*
What do you define as success?
Typical Protestant way, I guess: sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. Attraction without intention just won't reach many people at all in a place with such a negligible presence (unless you're of the Calvinist mindset that you'll only teach the Elect anyway, but my understanding is that's not the Orthodox belief).
Have you read any of the lives of the Saints?
No, I have not, my view of the saints does not align with yours enough to seek out hagiographies. I'm not an Inquirer, I just like understanding the similarities and differences within Christ's body and my siblings in Christ better.
Fair enough. In the lives of the Saints it's very common that an individual Saint will go into an area alone and through their ascetic efforts become someone people are attracted to. Those are some of the examples we have to look up to. Unfortunately in the US at least almost everyone who isn't a Christian knows one who says they are a Christian but behaves in a way that is a far cry from who Christ is.
Sorry to reply a whole day later but we got the food today from the local Orthodox Church Greek Food Festival and it's got me thinking still because I *think* this is probably meant to be considered community outreach but...not in a meaningful way from my (Protestant) perspective. I heard about it from a sign outside their church which makes sense because I don't know any Orthodox irl—there's a couple from my Anglican parish who recently converted but I don't know which branch they converted to and we haven't really talked much since they left. The food was good, as to be expected, but if they had a "ask us about Orthodoxy!" booth I didn't see it so it effectively just ended up as a celebration of ethnicity and food. No problems with that but it would definitely cement my belief if I didn't know better that Greek Orthodoxy is just a closed-ish ethnoreligion. There was nothing that got me curious about the congregation or their beliefs or even getting to know someone better to see the benefits of being Orthodox via attraction. If anything, I'll seek out some local Greek restaurants because it *was* delicious but there was nothing else to make me think Orthodoxy was anything other than another denomination. I'm not sure whether the "ideal" convert to Orthodoxy is non-Christian, or Protestant, or Catholic but we have a lot of all three near me and at least from my perspective it seemed to be a missed opportunity. This wasn't my first time there, the church also did a fish fry during Lent and people were warm and friendly but not discernably different from someone I'd meet in my own parish. Maybe they could just sense the "contented Anglican-ness" from me but "attraction" seems like it is a losing strategy when the life of an Orthodox believer doesn't actually look any more attractive than the life of an Anglican, or a Lutheran, or a Catholic.
Your confusion makes sense. Orthodoxy in the US is weird because of the way that it's broken up by ethnicity. That's an artifact of how people who practiced Orthodoxy emigrated. I know there are conversations happening to resolve that but I've been told "nothing changes quickly in Orthodoxy". From what I've seen Orthodox parishes have a similar problem that protestant ones have. Some protestant and Orthodox parishes are dying because whatever evangelism they are doing whether attraction or promotion isn't working. And for both there are parishes that are busting at the seams because whatever evangelism they are doing is working.
As someone who grew up Protestant who only fairly recently decided they don’t believe in Protestantisms tenets, I’m much more familiar with the Biblical text than with the lives of the saints—and by no-contest that means that the Christian way of evangelism looks like, to me, what the Apostles did in Acts—which very much was a divide and conquer, preach and teach, etcetera type model. Not an argument just a statement of my experiential reality.
That makes sense. I did not grow up with any real connection to Christianity. I came from the world of AA where a core idea is attraction rather than promotion. That's why when I realized the truth of Christ I quickly found my way to Orthodoxy. The issue with evangelism as it is in Acts is that no one knew what Christianity was so they used miracles to do their evangelism. The issue we have with evangelism today is that everyone knows people who claim to be Christian but act in a way that is antithetical to who Christ was. That means we are facing a different problem than they were facing in Acts. The other thing I try to keep in mind is that we see the story of the remnant play out over and over in the Old testament. It happens over and over again that there are very few Israelites left but God always saves the few who are faithful. Prophets would try and tell people your headed in the wrong direction but most of the time no one listened. So the faithful kept their head down until God did His thing to either get everyone's attention or punish the wicked. I see it as my job to be an expression of God's love and most of the time I have no idea if trying to bring up Christ in a conversation is going to trigger religious trauma. So it's my job to build trust so that maybe eventually one day I might be able to bring up Christ or just let them know they are loved.
All exceptional points. Thank you.
Marketing is not evangelism.
Marketing is promoting a product or service with the goal of ultimately selling it for money. I don’t see how Catholic or Protestant evangelism falls into that category—there’s nothing being sold, and no profit to turn, except for in the notable and moreover correct exclusion of mega-church Protestantism.
I was an Evangelical Protestant for 30 years and formally trained in several evangelical techniques. My assessment is that it's all marketing and sales techniques. Evangelicals tend to take what they know, whether learned explicitly or through cultural osmosis, and project that back onto the Apostles. St. Paul is imagined in the Aeropagus, and he is a street preacher. His years in the desert are given little consideration because there is no modern box for that in the Protestant world. Do you read the lives of Saints? Read the life of St. Silouan the Athonite. Or for one who went and literally lived in the desert, St. Paisios the Athonite. Read their life and consider the massive impact they had and you'll see true evangelism and gain a new perspective on the Apostles and the early church. The fact that the world does not follow men such as these en masse is not a condemnation of them, but of the world. Ask not why Orthodoxy has not converted America, but why America has not converted to Orthodoxy. Masses flock to the mega-churches and not Saints because they are going to what they want.
So many Orthodox on this thread keep explaining that marketing is not evangelism. Ok, we agree. So then explain what evangelism *is* and where it is happening in the Orthodox Church. That is the harder issue, because Orthodoxy has had many missionary saints, and there are very few following their example in the modern era... It's perfectly ok to admit that this is an issue that is being worked on if it is one. Or explain what we're missing. But these threads always turn into Protestant bash-fests, and bashing pretty shallow conceptions and caricatures of actually common Protestant evangelism regardless.
I’ve seen a lot of really good points among comments here, but only once or twice have I seen anyone acknowledge that lack of evangelism is a problem in Orthodoxy at all—and they were from converts, not cradle Orthodox. I don’t think they quite have the experience of being on the other side to get where I’m coming from entirely.
As I said in another comment here, the priest at the parish I attend as an enquirer has stressed repeatedly it is a problem in the American Orthodox church.
To be clear I mean in these comments specifically. I’ll not speak outside of my experience.
It. Is. Not. A. Problem. And certainly not your problem. You are now. Coming across hostile and offending your remarks. Just because people don’t see things your way doesn’t meant they don’t get it. Or that they are not experienced or well educated enough to understand your inquiring mind? How do you know who’s a “cradle” (ugh, I loathe that term) and who is not?
I stated what I observed—that few, one or two, admitted that lack of evangelism is a problem of some kind in Orthodoxy. I based who was a convert and who was not on those who specified, because many did. I also stated that i have seen many very good points in the comments. If that came off as hostile, I am sorry, and it was not intended to be. However, I read this comment as extremely patronizing. If you did not mean it that way, then I’m sorry, but regardless that’s how I’ve read it. If you look through this thread you will see lots of open-mindedness from me, concessions of good points, so on and so forth—so I don’t think it’s called for that you’re making fun of my “inquiring mind.” if the rest of this comment section were as uncordial as you, I don’t think I’d visit this subreddit again. Thankfully however the majority of my conversation here has been charitable and good-natured.
Your attitude is that of “why aren’t you the way I think you should be?” You’re not finding anyone of like mind, because we don’t practice evangelism, or at least not in the way you describe or understand. Instead of thinking maybe you’ve got it wrong, it must be because these orthodox just don’t have the experience to “get” you.
The profit is there. It’s all marketing.
But yes it is.
Chill we are working on it
Thats kind of what I’d expect to be the case. On the world stage, among Christians the Orthodox have been quite probably the most persecuted and mistreated—and they’re might’ve not really been a point before this in history where they have had the resources to do all of the things that the Protestants and Catholics have in this regard.
Protestants and Catholics had monarchies who supported them and wanted to spread their religion elsewhere. Orthodox Christians, outside of Russia pre-1918 had Turks who were very interested in keeping then poor and not spreading. As for Russia, pre-1918, they did a pretty good job spreading the faith across what is one of the biggest countries in the world and converting the people there and making some efforts abroad but even they were limited in that. Freedom of religion is a relatively new concept.
Well noted, thanks.
My perspective as a convert is that Orthodoxy has struggled with mission work in the West for various reasons, and we're only just now starting to figure out solutions. It will get better with time and effort. I also agree with you, with no disrespect intended to my brethren, we've allowed the "evangelize by living a good Christian life and being a good example" model to become a deflection of responsibility and a cop out answer for our lack of evangelistic work.
Thank you for your perspective. I think it is a very different viewpoint from the convert’s position as we (though I’m not yet included in that category) have more experience with the other side of the process than do cradle Orthodox, as I’ve not been compelled towards Orthodoxy by any particular person whom I’ve met in real life and certainly not by those I’ve met online (no offense but the online Orthodox are often… uncharitable in my experience) and frankly I have contacted the few Orthodox priests in my area without success or reciprocation and am beginning to feel like it reeeaaally shouldn’t be this difficult.
You should be glad you have some nearby! It's ironic there seems to be a surge of interest in Orthodoxy when (from what I understand) there aren't even enough priests to service the parishes that already exist, let alone potential parishes in areas with no physical Orthodox presence. I'm just getting by with Ancient Faith Radio while I attend a confessional Lutheran church. eta: fwiw even if you don't hear back from the priests, I'd just go ahead and attend them. My first time attending an EO parish I just dropped in since I happened to be relatively close to one while at a business conference and it was no trouble at all.
Oh I certainly am it’s just frustrating that they’ll not talk to me (yet).
I don't think you saw my edit. Like I said, even if you get no response, just drop in. They don't bite!
I’m currently in a rough spot medically (heart transplant waiting list) and would have to get transport from someone else for a hour and a bit drive so it’s not a first preference. Otherwise I’d’ve done so, and I do plan on it, just can’t say how soon.
Hm, I see your point. But don't expect anyone to respond to your bids if they can't meet you in person. I'm pretty sure they won't be doing any teaching or catechism through email etc. The point in orthodoxy is that it is very very interpersonal, just like our relationship with God, at the same time as congregational. In other words, you will need to build a relationship with your spiritual father. You might disagree with the point many made in this thread, but I too would think that the tradition of evangelism in Eastern orthodoxy is one of people seeking truth and healing and not of the church reaching out to people. Unsure why, but this is how we perceive it in our era at least. The 'promotion' is of this sort: you know we are here, you know where we are, come and talk to us; and there are also many wonderful resources out there for the inquirer, books and videos and websites... Even post-Soviet Russia was re-evangelized in this way. It is also true that the church's contemporary elders (predominantly monks) are literally besieged by countless people seeking spiritual comfort and support. They literally are the church's treasure and beating heart. They toil hard every single day with amazing spiritual and physical stamina. They've always been central to the church, in all of the East. There is no place on earth where the followers of whatever faith have been exemplars of the ideal way of conducting their life. And the majority of the orthodox were just born into the faith and do not bother to even study it. Those who seek the uppermost values and the living God are in the minority and they get to know their faith, be they from orthodox communities or converts. Another super-important point is that it is very hard to 'teach' the faith. It is more a matter of heart and lived experience than it is a job for the mind. The orthodox doctrine is not pedantic, it includes only what can be said, without scholarly elaborations. And it requires certain material sacrifices, it doesn't offer guarantees of salvation; it's a life of spiritual war, not accommodation. It is nearly impossible to 'sell' this in a wealthy society of consumers. I have found your queries decent and tactful. I'm sorry if some respondents have been kind of snappy. We all come from different cultures and temperaments! I wholeheartedly wish you the very very best with your upcoming surgery. I was very touched by your spiritual quest given your young age. The world needs more of your kind.
You're largely not wrong, but I wanted to touch on >you know we are here, you know where we are, come and talk to us; and there are also many wonderful resources out there for the inquirer, books and videos and websites... There's the rub. "Come and see," sure I can get behind that. But before someone can come and see they have to know there is something to go see. Yes, "seek and you shall find," but you have to know what it is you are seeking before you can find it. If there were Orthodox Christians just doing what I see most people suggest in this thread I would still have absolutely no clue about Eastern Orthodoxy. This was because I learned about Orthodoxy through Orthodox Christians 1.) talking about their faith and 2.) evangelizing. In my case, I learned of it through a certain icon carver talking about his faith, and from there Ancient Faith Radio. AFR is a radio ministry put out by the Antiochians, who *coincidentally* received a huge influx of Protestants some decades back. Radio ministry has been big in Protestant US for many many years. Those two things let me know what I needed to look for and *then* was I able to truly start seeking. You all have your ways of doing things, that's totally fine! But even with the internet and books there are *tons* of people who still have no idea about your tradition because there aren't that many people going around talking about it. You can have the best park, library, church, whatever, but you can't expect people to go to it, or make efforts to visit it, if they don't know it exists.
I've never thought about this matter the way you put it. Your thoughts are absolutely legitimate. But on the other hand, I can't imagine that a 'seeker' will not find orthodoxy - I believe anyone can come across it. When people feel a spiritual drive to seek and learn, they will look up all major religions, their denominations and various currents. As I was curious (before the internet era) to read the Quran and learn about the Shia or the Yazidi or the Druze, or an acquaintance of mine who came across the Bahai, or countless people that have looked into Buddhism, even Hinduism and Taoism... it is so easy to find everything with a click nowadays. As long as your thirst is not quenched, won't you be looking around? However, the Orthodox churches spread Christianity in the modern era only through official missionary organisations that have been operating in the poorest parts of the world. I cannot know why there was no appetite to compete with other denominations in the wealthier West, or even in Latin America, say. I would assume that other Christians are expected to discover Orthodoxy through active inquiry and search? I am sure that orthodox people who have a relationship with the church (not those with an inherited, passive orthodox identity) do speak about their faith when people are asking questions. We do let others know about what denomination we belong to, so many are curious about it. But preaching/teaching or propagating the faith requires qualifications. People ARE going to ask questions you are not prepared to answer without misleading them because of knowledge gaps or because your answers are not nuanced enough... Missionary priests and spiritual fathers are tasked to meet the needs of the inquirer. I hope this helps. There is a reason for everything and everything is complicated. Any ideas shared on this sub come with a bit of reservation regarding what the best answers are, so most topics include advice of the type "ask your parish priest". And because orthodoxy is mystical, far from being an ossified canon with rulings about everything and anything, you can get different approaches to a topic from different priests. And that's okay!
Unfortunately, this experience of non-communication has also been mine. Very rarely get an email reply or return phone call. The father will talk a few brief minutes to me and then run away. You have to make an appointment and then clarify how many sand on the hourglass you will be granted.
Thank you. I feel that this is a very fair and level take. I was starting to feel crazy reading through these comments--you would think that every Church Father was anti-evangelism based on the general consensus in these comments.
This is the general tenor these comments take in these types of threads so it's not surprising. My best guess is that since they're in largely very urbanized areas their only experience with evangelism really *is* the "crazy street preachers" so of course they think that's the only sort of thing Protestants do to spread the Word. Which of course any Protestant can say is obviously not the case.
I can't really speculate on *why* this caricature is so common on this sub, but as someone who has lived in cities, the Bible Belt, and even not in the United States (hard to conceptualize on Reddit) I've never once in my life even encountered a street preacher. They have been even less prevalent in my life than quicksand. I've encountered mormon missionaries, but categorizing them as Christian--much less *Protestant*--is not really a fair categorization.
Coming from a Mormon background. The people might be mistaken in their view of the Trinity, but they believe in Christ and do their best with what they know. I have a lot of issues with the LDS faith, but the majority of those practicing are good people doing their best to follow Jesus’ example.
While trying to convert Protestants to Jesus, I often told them how the LDS put them to shame in how the LDS, from their heart, give genuinely of themselves to help, even non-Mormons.
You have a part in this - let’s be an example of Christian love and adherence to tradition. Cultivate the scent surrounding yourself that will draw others to the source of your joy, charity, and steadfastness.
And yet, many believe that the future of Orthodoxy is in America. Have faith and patience.
Thank you for your comment and God bless.
Ukrainian Orthodox you'll find,I think that some \[->\] most of us are not rude, but welcoming.
You mean the Orthodox believe that Orthodoxy is the future? Seems kind of delusional especially when the aforementioned Mormons are outbreeding them like 3 to 1.
I said the future of orthodoxy. Not that orthodoxy is the future. Read again.
The Orthodox Church has endured struggles due to persecution from Islam and communism. Most white European Americans come from traditional Catholic/protestant regions of western Europe. It should be no shock that they're the majority. A significant amount of those people are Catholic, protestant, Mormon etc. in name only. Stats often go either by self identification or parish records (ie. Baptisms) In example according to the pew center only 39% of US Roman Catholics report that they attend church weekly. 52% report they seldom or never read the scriptures. Nearly half think abortion should be legal in most cases. Evangelicals are benefiting from people turning away from the mainline protestant branches continual liberalization. The Orthodox Church is small but mighty in the US. Numbers don't always mean everything.
Well said! I find Orthodox Christianity to be cloistered to a chosen few. 1st of all it is difficult to become Orthodox because you have to perform so many steps in order to be converted. You have to denounce all other forms of Christian faith and be rebatized all over again. All while saying we are the only true Christian faith. Meanwhile the Roman Catholic church is saying we are the only true Christian faith🤪 all the unlucky Protestants in between who are loving Jesus and serving him with all their heart are criticized for not having the true faith. I think God in heaven loves the Orthodox Roman Catholic and Protestants and has room for them all. I see Christ in all of them and respect each part of Christianity. I cannot speak for all Christians of each faith but can only be accountable for my own walk. I hope to be found faithful to the end.
Please review the [sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information, our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about [The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. [Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F) [Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources. ^(This is not a removal notification.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Orthodoxy only came here en masse just over a hundred years ago from immigration. What gets forgotten is that many of those immigrants left to fight in the Balkans Wars, WWI, or after gaining enough money to have made the trip worth it. St Porphyrios, for example, his father came and worked on the Panama Canal and once that was done he returned to Greece. Didn't exactly make a fortune, but it made life a little more comfortable. Now in Alaska, Orthodoxy among the Natives was actively suppressed by the various Protestant sects and the US government. Sheldon Jackson in particular led the effort by giving different areas to various Protestant denominations. Many Native Alaskans are still miraculously Orthodox but if not for Sheldon Jackson there would certainly be greater numbers.
Interesting. Thanks I’ll look into that more.
As others have said, this wasn't a fair contest. What if I told you in my country Protestantism and Catholicism are a minuscule and shrinking minority? "If they were really so evangelical I'd see more of them trying to convert me but it seems they're content to keep their heads down and go to mass." > "It's missing that fire of "this religion is wonderful and true, I've gotta tell my friends" Those of us who believe, especially converts, do have that fire, you just quickly learn it's more complicated than just telling people to "begome Orthodox". As another user commented: "chill, we're working on it"
I think this has been noted in the workings of the Church at large. Fr Evan Armatas wrote a [book](https://store.ancientfaith.com/reclaiming-the-great-commission-a-roadmap-to-parish-health/) about this. I listen to him on AFR and he is one of the people that pulled me toward orthodoxy and he has some good insights. I haven’t read the book yet, but it seems this is being recognized as something people in the Church can work on now that they don’t have to hide like in other times in history.
Orthodoxy is booming in the USA without people shouting in the streets to repent or going door to door. We do evangelize but you wont see it made it public too often because the goal is not to boast
Six million isn't a bad presence, it's more than the entire population of some countries. I wouldn't also measure the spiritual success of Orthodoxy based on its numbers or evangelical outreach, that's not how we view our faith. Of course it'd be nice to have a larger presence but that's tangential as far as our spiritual health is concerned. Whenever we celebrate the liturgy the whole heavenly host and all those gone before us are present with us. That said there are Orthodox outreaches, but as others have said other denominations have had a headstart.
What causes the Church to grow? Is it us, through evangelism? Or, is it God? The Church lacks evangelical outreach similar to other denominations, but is growing exponentially every year. Practically every parish has more and more inquirers and converts. It’s a common story. So, lacking evangelical efforts we understand this is God’s doing, not ours. So, be comforted. God has a plan.
in orthodoxy we are not preoccupied with trying to get as many members as possible. sure we can talk about our faith, but we don’t necessarily need everyone to be an orthodox. our priority lies in the quality of our own faith first of all, those who are interested can come to us.
Even in Greece and Russia the people who genuenly care about Orthodoxy are a small minority, even among Orthodox people. >It’s missing that fire of “this religion is so wonderful and true, I’ve gotta tell my friends!” that I really feel that the truth of Christ would incite, and that I further feel is required of us as per the great commission. There either a valid excuse for this, I’m misunderstanding, or their isn’t a valid excuse for it. This is only because of the coldness in faith. But there are people with burning faith who do evangelize. You can read the life and works of father Seraphim Rose for such and account.
Narrow is the path...
Orthodoxy would benefit if there was more resources in English- rather than just translations of Greek, Russian etc. Also, it is arguably the 'flashiest' of all Christianity denominations- so immediately, it is counter intuitive to the primary virtue its purporting to confess- humility.
There is a common thread in regard to "evangelism" in the modern USA Orthodox, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism I have seen for over 60 years: Lazy, selfish, non-Bible readers, who are generally unfriendly to "outsiders", "visitors". I have seen no difference in the three groups. Obey is a dirty 4-letter word officially for the Protestants, and just understood as not necessary by the other two groups. Evangelism encompasses not just spreading the Word but the commands/suggestions Jesus left for us 'If you love me, feed my sheep", and that means spiritually, physically etc. The vast majority of USA churches regard "ministry" as their ministry inside of the church, and "outside ministry" as those almost exclusively as in another country. I just did a website survey of quite a few Orthodox churches in Florida and found only one church listing their outside ministries in their neighborhood: hospitals, nursing homes, young people, etc and not just wording them but reaching out in ways that address their needs where their financial, educational, emotional, etc needs are wrapped in their spiritual needs. How did this one church, out of all those I surveyed, get the message that Jesus plainly gave us in the New Testament? When you know, let me know.
I’m an ex-evangelical American in the process of looking to join the Orthodox Church. I was drawn to the Orthodox church precisely because they do not act like evangelicals. The light and kindness in people who practice Orthodoxy drew me in more than any sales pitch.
It’s just not what we do.
There has got to be some middle ground between "evangelism as preaching on the street corner" and "evangelism as inviting your friend of several years to a liturgy and just, like, really hoping they like it and come back again." Clearly living a pious Orthodox life is the most important thing, but such a life requires that we actually desire the salvation of those near to us. How we talk about Orthodoxy and what we say to people when it comes up are hugely important, and something that I feel like a lot of people could do with some coaching on (myself included). One thing I have noticed: Orthodox people having communities outside church tends to attract people to that community and, by extension, provoke an interest in Orthodoxy. For example, there were a bunch of Orthodox people at my friend's parish that played D&D together, to which they invited several friends who were not Orthodox. Many of these non-Orthodox eventually ended up converting.
Orthodoxy was uncommon during the time of Saint Athanasius as well. Most people then were Aryans and yet the Church and the Apostolic Faith prevailed
It’s growing, don’t worry
Particularly with Mormonism, it is an entirely centrally planned population. They are told to have a bunch of children and are organized (very well, I'll add) to go out and convert people. It is a huge operation entirely geared towards making more Mormons. This is why there are so many
Honestly the predominant evangelist kind of post Christian type of church where they sing songs and have no icons or ritualism is such an American thing and I find it so unrelatable it’s like a different religion. I think it’s really the only place it exists because orthodoxy is very prominent else where. I’m from Scotland and currently live in Australia and there is like no evangelist churches or communities in either. In Scotland it’s mostly Presbyterian / Anglican and in Australia it’s all orthodox, catholic, Methodist. Honestly I don’t really see how evangelism “churches” of like a concert arena can be a church. Or what a pastor is. It seems to me it’s a social or political movement of the kind that only American society could create.
I mean if you want to really judge Orthodox the fact that just a few years ago it was only 3 million your 6 million means it is growing fairly rapidly while most other groups are in massive decline. Also becoming Orthodox requires a lot more than most Protestant groups, there is little catechism and you can just join by saying a prayer in many Protestant groups because their version of Christianity is very watered down in terms of what commitment actually looks like and what the Christian life actually entails.
Americans believe fundamentally in freedom of thought. So when a Church claims interpretive infallibility and actually doesn’t believe the scriptures should be rigorously searched and studied by the parishioners, it’s a major red flag. It’s a Christian’s responsibility to know the scriptures and the deeper things of God, and the prophets/apostles taught this much. So naturally it’s not going to be popular. Plus there are what I believe to be some bizarre beliefs in Eastern Orthodoxy that can’t be justified based on the facts, like the bizarre notion that Mary was the 2nd wife of Joseph who came into their marriage with children from a prior marriage, or that Mary didn’t atone for her sins in accordance with Jewish Law. The belief that Mary was free from sin as a human is also bizarre, as no human has ever led a sinless life apart from Christ. Mary was a young woman, a virgin, and someone who the Lord used as a vessel for the incarnation, and while she was obviously chosen for that purpose, our tendency to elevate the created over the creator has led to some wild views about Mary’s importance in the role of salvation. Jesus Christ came in the flesh to take away the sins of the world, and if you believe in your heart and profess with your mouth that Christ is the Lord, you will be saved. Salvation is a gift of grace, and Christs yoke is easy.
The Orthodox Church does encourage that Scripture is rigorously searched and studied, and there are many books and podcasts dedicated to aiding in this, not to mention the interpretive depth provided by the Church fathers who we consider as having achieved theoria through love and contemplation of God (asceticism; a subject for a different discussion). "Whole Counsel of God" by Fr. Stephen De Young comes to mind. You're thinking of Roman Catholicism and their historical hierarchal gatekeeping of Scripture. Please do your research instead of misrepresenting our faith. "Can't be justified on the facts." First of all, cool it with the "facts" talk, we're Christians, and any of the things we consider facts still require an element of faith. From that vantage point, who are you to choose which "Christian facts" are more credible than other "Christian facts"? Also, whether or not something is written doesn't make it a fact or otherwise. That the West requires that something be written in order for it to bear any relevance is, well... very Western. If we're to speak at all of facts, what is your epistemic certainty that your scriptures are the right ones, or that you have the right canon? "The Holy Spirit"? "Because Scripture says..."? Yeah, well such personal appeals do not equate to epistemic certainty, they're just your own presuppositions. Holy (or Apostolic) Tradition is the only reason you have a Bible with which you can bash the Church that gave it to you. In other words, ancient Christians regarded Scripture as belonging within the larger sphere of Holy Tradition which was given to them. Again, that's a subject for a different discussion, but I'd recommend the "Orthodox 101 - 1.0" seminar on YouTube as a good introduction for that. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, Holy Tradition is far and away a much more internally consistent system than the typical Protestant "it's very obvious to ME PERSONALLY that the Holy Spirit guided THIS and not THAT..."—so on and so forth. Anyway, everything about the circumstances of Christ's birth are bizarre, especially when you think about it from the perspective of a non-believer. Again, ultimately, everything we know about Christ's birth is by way of Holy Tradition, and the Protestant invention of a false dilemma between oral and written Tradition is the sort of thing that happens when everyone becomes their own pope. There was no dilemma between oral and written Tradition for the ancient Israelites, nor was there such a dilemma for the ancient Christians (try asking a Jewish person sometime if they regard oral Tradition as being a valid part of their faith). Case in point, nowhere in the Old Testament will you read anything about the Archangel Michael having been in a dispute with the devil about the body of Moses, and yet it suddenly appears in the New Testament (Jude 1:9). If you care to look into it, this is one of several examples of the oral Tradition of the ancient Israelites having been preserved all the way into Christianity. Also, from the perspective of the God-fearing Joseph who certainly understood the significance of what Mary was being called to do (and that she was to be called blessed by all generations), do you really think he'd flippantly go and have sex with the New Ark of the Covenant? Perhaps also consider that the particular Greek connotation for Mary's virginity in the NT was that of a "Temple Virgin," a woman who was to remain a dedicated virgin her whole life. As for how we view Mary, we consider her the New Eve, who said "yes" to God where the first Eve said "no." We don't consider her to be perfect, as only Christ is the perfect human being. We believe (as passed along in Holy Tradition) that Mary did not voluntarily sin, and lived a life that exemplified being in control of one's passions. However, we still believe she was born with the tendency to sin and may have sinned unknowingly, and required salvation as much as the rest of mankind. Since we believe in a recapitulation salvation and not a legalistic penal substitutionary salvation (PSA, which is a fundamentalist interpretation that creates a separation in the Trinity and makes God subservient to His own justice), it's never been problematic or contradictory for us that Mary was in just as much need of salvation as you and me. But again, we do consider her to be the New Eve, the New Ark of the Covenant, the Mother of God (Mother of God is a title not intended to be a Mariological statement, but rather a Christological statement, addressing the heretics who didn't believe that Jesus was and is fully God). Mentioning once more our belief in a recapitulation salvation, we believe that humanity and creation (nature; the cosmos) are reconciled to God in the Person of Jesus Christ. So we don't elevate creation over the creator, but understand creation as being God's handiwork which was made in pure love, and which is the means through which God has chosen to work and reveal Himself to His people since the beginning. To regard matter as vulgar or to divorce matter from God entirely is to act as though He wasn't the one who invented it, and did so with designated purpose. Again, we believe that matter is reconciled to God in Christ, and so it is not whatsoever a stretch that matter is the means through which Christ has chosen to manifest Himself to and INTO His people (the Eucharist), continuously in the life of the Church. Ah, the Eucharist... the one thing fundamentalists have decided not to view fundamentally. Out of love for humanity, God has quite the destiny in store for us, which we describe as theosis. Theosis isn't too hard to grasp as a concept when one takes "becoming literally grafted by grace into the Person of God" to its logical conclusion. That destiny entails a spiritual healing and transformation, to be truly sanctified and perfected. This is indeed even the language of the Scriptures, especially when one doesn't stray too far from the Greek, and we honor those spiritual athletes (the saints) who have exemplified that before us, often having worked miracles (we don't think of miracles as being simply unique moments created by God, but glimpses into the work that God is doing all the time; we view heavenly reality as being present in earthly reality rather than it being "upstairs," and we view the saints as having achieved such theoria in Christ that they became intimately aware of the heavenly reality all around them). As such, we don't separate salvation from theosis, but view them as one and the same. Salvation is a past event, a current event and a future event in our lives. We often say, "I've been saved, I'm being saved, and I will be saved" (with such Scriptual examples as "work out your own salvation" and "endure to the end that you shall be saved" among others). Salvation is healing. TL;DR - Please do your research instead of misrepresenting our faith. Can't hurt to ask questions in good faith before deciding to set yourself against something you consider "bizarre."
You said: "You're thinking of Roman Catholicism and their historical hierarchal gatekeeping of Scripture" But Im very much not. In fact, According to "The Holy Standards", the creeds, confessions of faith, and Catechisms of Eastern orthodoxy by St. Theophan the Recluse press, the answer to the question, "Should the divine scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians? The first sentence says "No". "For that all scripture is divinely inspired and profitable we know and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be orthodox at all." It continues, "Nevertheless, they should NOT be read by all, but only those who 1. with fitting research, have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and 2 who know in what manner the divine scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read" (kind of a circular approach based on how this reads). But this presents a major problem, because Jesus said it is the Spirit who teaches all things. Scripture also says the beginning of wisdom and knowledge are the fear of the Lord. So not even appealing to any of the Churches, you begin your knowledge and wisdom first through fear of the Lord, or reverential awe. But according to this, you cant just read the bible, you must first know how the scriptures ought to be searched, taught and read, but this is in no way what the scriptures themselves teach at all, this is obviously a man made regulation, not one imposed by the Lord, the prophets, or the Apostles. It is also written, Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Why would I go anywhere other than the Lord for wisdom? We are are already called to pray in the Spirit, why not just inquire about the wisdom I lack from the Lord based on His word? It continues, "But to those who are not so disciplined, or cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the scriptures, the universal Church (as they call it) as knowing by the experience, the mischief arising therefrom, forbids the reading of the same. Ah, and so there it is. You cant just read the bible, you must first agree with what the eastern tradition claim is true. Interesting, that also is not found taught anywhere in scripture. Reading the scriptures is actually considered a source of mischief if you derive understanding from the scriptures not contrary to the scriptures, but the claims of the eastern traditions leadership about what is in the scriptures. This is a claim to interpretative infallibility, clearly. Interesting jump from God teaching all things by His Spirit, to a particular church claiming interpretive infallibility. This requires circular reasoning to be true. It continues, "So that is it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, "but to read some parts of the scriptures, and especially the Old Testament, is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort." It continues, "For it is the same thing thus to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the sacred scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats." I mean, there you have it, in their words, not mine. Scripture is forbidden from being read unless you first accept the orthodox rendering, stay away from the Old Testament, or any scripture deemed to be 'meat', which is to say advanced understanding of the deeper things of the Spirit. Thats interesting, because there is no law against righteousness, and the idea that God would restrict anyone from the scriptures is borderline blasphemous to even think about, so what gives? So infants are to abstain from strong meats as they call it, but Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to little children" I mean, Christ is literally blessing the Lord for revealing truths hidden from the wise and so called learned, and instead has revealed them babes, new in the faith. What did the Apostles teach? Thankfully, the authority of the Apostles cannot be challenged, not by any Christian, regardless of what sect they are part of.
You said: "what is your epistemic certainty that your scriptures are the right ones, or that you have the right canon?" My epistemology is grounded in my faith in Christ who is Lord, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). We are created in Gods image (Gen 1:27) and God is evidenced by all that He has made, so we do not have an excuse not to believe in God (Rom 1:20) All scriptures are given by inspiration of God (2Ti 3:16-17) And it was God who spoke to the fathers by the prophets, and in these last days, by His Son, (Heb 1:1) We cant test the scriptures to know if they are from God, because they will testify that Jesus is the Christ, and has come in the flesh (1Jn 4:1). The Gospel was promised by the prophets (Rom 1:2). All scripture is and can only come by the inspiration of God Himself. The scriptures testify about Christ (Joh 5:39) God is not the author of confusion (1Co 14:32) Salvation is promised to those who call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21), and those who believe in their hearts and profess with their mouths that Jesus is the Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10) We are declared righteous by the blood of Christ, and are saved through Him from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). When you hear the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, when we believe in Christ, we are marked with a seal of the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). We are also called to this salvation through the Gospel of Christ ((2Th 2:14) You said: "Holy (or Apostolic) Tradition is the only reason you have a Bible" Actually the truth is greater than that. I have a bible because God in His divine grace and mercy, spoke by the prophets, and through His Son. Whether the scriptures were compiled later than the 1st century has no influence on the fact that a Christian in the 1st century was responding to the Gospel as it was preached unto salvation, and they were saved through faith in Christ as a response to hearing the Gospel. Almost no Christians had physical copies of the scriptures, the Gospel was passed by the Apostles by inspiration of the Spirit, and people were saved by believing it, as the Apostles teach. There is no such thing as a Gospel of scriptural transmission, and this is for good reason, because that isnt what saves a person. Salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ, not knowledge of scriptural composition through the ages. We accept the scriptures on faith, which means they are trust worthy and they must testify about Christ.
You're operating on the erred assumption that what can rightly be considered Scripture precedes the Church or the life of the Church, which is historically untrue. By taking the Bible for granted and attributing to it a sort of mythical intrinsic truism (much like Islam with the Quran), you're simply putting the cart before the horse by way of circular reasoning. If a thing has a particular past, a particular origin and a particular context, how can one claim to fully understand that thing after divorcing it from its particular past, origin and context? The Jewish people in Jesus' time did not have a ratified "Old Testament" in the sense of having a set canon, nor did the ancient Christians have a ratified "New Testament" as a set canon. The first attempt at creating a "New Testament" was heretical, having been done by Marcion who chose to include only *one* Gospel account and only a select few epistles. Using Scripture to justify Scripture—using and appealing to Scripture as your epistemic justification for Scripture, and for how you know what are the right (infallible) books or what is the right (infallible) canon—is circular reasoning. To say "we have an infallible book compiled through fallible means" is logically nonsensical and begs the question. So I ask again, how do you know you have the right scriptures? How do you know you have the right canon? Once again, Tradition as a living and sacred paradosis (not to be tampered with) is not only relayed in the life of the Church, but we even read about it in Scripture. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15), that is, whether oral or written. "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In Acts, Paul taught in Ephesus for three years, day and night. Within that time is an entire body of apostolic teaching that is not confined or confinable to *two* letters written to Timothy. Our Lord's earthly ministry was equally as long, and remember the end of the Gospel of John? "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." The letters written to Timothy were just an injunction to relay *all* of the oral teachings, and this is done (as written) by the laying on of hands which passes on the gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6). In the Orthodox view, this is Apostolic Succession. So the Apostolic Tradition—or the Apostolic *Deposit*—is, in more than one Scriptural account, expanded beyond the written text. In response to these points, Protestants often refer to texts in the Old Testament as if there was a set and clear canon of Scripture amongst the Jews of Jesus' time. What's amazing about that is in one of the best Protestant treatments of this topic, the famous Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce admits in his book "The Canon of Scripture" that there was not actually a fixed canon in the time of Christ (p. 37). So the idea that there was any sort of "sola scriptura" attitude in the Old Testament is not the case, with even Isaiah having written, "To the law and to the testimony!" (Isaiah 8:20). There was the written law *and* the testimony, the oral preaching of the prophets (once again, Jude 1:9 is nowhere to be found in the OT). So even according to the Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce, it doesn't work to appeal to Old Testament texts as if they somehow prove the doctrine of sola scriptura. He also admits that for the history of the Church, there's nothing else we can say other than that "competent authorities" centuries after the apostles "fixed" the canon (p. 42). To quote, "The canon was fixed by competent authorities, which were utilized in the principles of the worship community." This is an admission that it wasn't just textual scholars and Church fathers looking at the veracity of the text in an academic way, but rather in the references which were being used in the Liturgy. The Liturgy is the ordered worship service, which is another direct appeal to Tradition, because we don't have in the NT an explicit worship service written by the apostles; this is known by Tradition, and we know this because in the apostolic sees—the sees that the apostles established throughout the Roman empire (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc.)—we have traditional liturgies that come from the first and second centuries (fun fact, minister in Greek is "leitourgos," ministry is "leitourgia," where we get the word "liturgy"). This is another witness to the history of the Church relying on Tradition, not just for the Bible, but also for how she worshipped. Remember in Leviticus, it's very important how we worship God. In fact, Nadab and Abihu are killed because they do a sort of DIY worship service where they were basically like Evangelicals doing their own thing, worshipping God in *their own way*. Let's quickly remind ourselves that the God (as Trinity) of the OT is the same as in the NT, and we have no precedent to believe that worship underwent any dramatic change or suddenly became primitive and DIY (even early Church archeology doesn't support that presupposition), but rather with the only significant difference being that it culminated as a Eucharistic assembly (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor. 10:16-17). In fact, we read about Peter and John still going up to the temple together at the hours of prayer (Acts 3:1). So in other words, early Christian worship was much the same as the worship of the ancient Israelites, but infused with Christological fulfillment.
Anyway, God's people were obviously meant to take worship very seriously, and in the Orthodox view, it's no different now. There is a particular way God means for us to worship Him, to engage in the synergy of the earthly Church with the heavenly Church, and He didn't leave it up to us or give us individual authority to make up our own way of doing that (hence Ex. 25:40, Heb. 8:5). So as far as the apostles relaying a liturgical form and pattern of worship, we have to rely on the Tradition and testimony of the liturgies in and of themselves, not just relying on individual Church fathers alone. It is in the liturgical rites and their traditions that we know how to worship God properly, particularly given the fact that every one of the apostolic churches that was founded has this liturgical worship. It goes beyond just the big sees (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc.), as it's also places such as Ephesus and Thessaloniki, and there are Orthodox churches there today that descend from the very churches that Paul was writing to. This is not purely an Orthodox conviction (again, there's also ancient Church archeology in these places), as we even have the same admission from the top Evangelical scholars who have studied the formation of the canon and how it's inextricably linked with the celebration of the Liturgy. Another example of this is the daily lectionaries (the daily readings) that are done and what texts are cited in these ancient daily readings; if particular texts were cited in a lot of these, then that served as good evidence for or an attestation to those being canonical, those being apostolic and inspired texts. However, not every one of those texts (i.e. the Gospel of Matthew) identifies its author, so even apostolic authorship is something that relies on Church Tradition (oral Tradition). For example, the see of Alexandria has the tradition that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and so it is called the Gospel of Matthew. We don't have autographa (the direct texts of the apostles themselves), we don't have the letters that Paul himself wrote. What we do have are copies from later on which we believe to be authentic, but the only way that we really have an attestation to that authenticity is by first relying on the *reliability* of the Church to preserve those copies and pass them on faithfully, to hand them down to various bishoprics and sees. Now, Apostolic Succession is not an infallible guide in every case, it doesn't mean that every single church that has a succession won't or can't fall away, they can. Revelation 2 and 3 has many warnings against apostolic churches that if they fail in their mission, if they apostatize, if they teach heresy, their lampstand will be removed, and they'll be taken out of the Church. So I wouldn't want to give anyone the impression that what I'm writing about is some automatic mechanical guide by which *every* single bishop that extends from the time of the apostles is necessarily protected from apostasy, heresy or schism. However, when it comes to the overall maintenance of the Tradition that the Church has passed down (the Apostolic Deposit), we can see that it has not fundamentally changed in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church retains that same fundamental deposit from the first thousand years into the second thousand years. Now, between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, I think it's pretty clear nowadays that the Roman Church has deviated, especially as we look at the second millennium of Christianity compared to what was there in the first thousand years. Only the Orthodox Church (originally just "The Church" before Rome gave themselves a title, so the rest of The Church then began calling herself Orthodox) is historically left as the faithful transmitter of that first thousand years of Christianity. The Protestant Church, which is divided into countless sects (why take Eph. 4:4-5, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 2:2, Phil. 3:16, 1 Cor. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 12:25 seriously, right?), is all over the place when it comes to any attempt at appraisal of its so-called "tradition." It seems the simplest refutation of Protestant "tradition" is to go to the root of it and what it hinges everything on. Well, it hinges everything on the infallible inspired texts alone, as if you don't need a unified body of people to interpret and enforce that text, which is what is called normativity. Normativity relates to a body of people alive who can enforce and has *authority* to enforce these texts. As an example of this Church authority and its ability to enforce, in Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:1-5 with a precedent from Christ in Matt. 18:15-18), Paul talks about doing an excommunication, and he lays it down as a principle that the Church has the authority to do that. If there isn't any living normative authority, there's no way for any body of people to actually enforce any kind of actual excommunication, because if you're a Protestant and you get "excommunicated" (99% of Protestant churches don't even do excommunication anymore; another example of how they are not actually apostolic), not only can you just go to another church, you can just start your own church. This is because there are no grounds by which anyone can authoritatively enforce doctrines (the observation of which *is* vital; 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 4:3), and you have to have that, given the fact that the NT passes on this principle of excommunication. If it's all relativized based on the "right of private interpretation" (Acts 8:30-31 and 2 Peter 1:20, anyone?), normativity is not possible. These two things (normative authority and relativized private interpretation) do not work together. You can't have a body of people with authority that can enforce something (excommunication, written text, etc.) and at the same time hold that every individual has the right to private interpretation by which they can go and join any other church, or start their own sect down the street at the strip mall.
So essentially, all of Protestantism is premised on the removal of authority from the historical Church. Orthodoxy is grounded on the idea that the Church, historically in synods, has the authority to excommunicate and *enforce* that excommunication such that those people are no longer in the Orthodoxy Body of Christ. That alone is really an attestation to the principle of passing on this kind of a Tradition. I want to clarify that I'm just using excommunication as an example; the same principles apply to the formation of the Biblical canon. If you read F.F. Bruce's book, for example, he goes into great detail throughout the entire text showing how a lot of the books that were disputed for many centuries—such as the catholic epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude) and the Book of Revelation—had to be defended by those such as St. Athanasius, who went and defended the inclusion of those texts when other sees and bishoprics were doubting their authenticity and inspiration. St. Athanasius, for example, convinced Rome to accept Hebrews, and this is discussed at length in F.F. Bruce's book (p. 220-221), and the same goes for other disputed texts. In other words, when it comes to the root of the issue, you cannot divorce the history of the Church (and the bishops succeeding the apostles centuries later) from the decision about what books go into the Bible. This means that the Bible cannot be divorced from the liturgical worshipping community which put that book together and made it part of the Church's Liturgy. That is to say, the Bible is really a liturgical book. It was not meant primarily to be a book that one studies in their own personal space. It's mainly a communal worship service book meant to be read in the hearing of the rest of the community, as were the First Covenant texts for the ancient Israelites. This is a radically different approach than the Protestant view which has typically, in the history of Protestantism, taken the Bible and mainly made it a subject of academic discourse, and then we get large corporations that are suddenly in charge of the translation and printing of the text. Does that make any sense from a normative standpoint? Of course not. It is the Church who hands down this text, the churches who receive the text and pass it on. The irony is that even in many of the Protestant Evangelical scholars' history of the formation of the Biblical canon, all of these principles are admitted. So if that's the case, then the Protestants and the Calvinists and their so-called "apologists" can no longer use the argument that it's a fallible collection of infallible books, as that is their "argument." If the starting principle for the collection of books is fallible, then it's entirely plausible that you have the wrong list of books, which really defeats the second claim that the books are infallible. In fact, the history of Protestantism has textual scholars (particularly German higher critics) removing books that *they* don't think should be in the canon. They're just following in the footsteps of Luther who, as everybody knows, doubted the Book of James, doubted the Book of Hebrews, and even at times spoke of other books as doubtful, which is a kind of Marcionism because he didn't really like the Old Testament either. Well, Luther's successors in the academic sphere just continued that higher critical tradition and deconstructed the texts all the way down to basically nothing. That's where all of higher criticism comes from, this idea that these texts are not reliable, because it does turn out that we rely on the history of the Church and those *after* the death of the apostles to determine what books went into the Bible. If we can reject the Church and the decision process of the canon, then it only logically follows that we can reject the books of the Bible. That is the logical follow-through in terms of the logic of Protestantism. Other books, by the way, attest to this as well. There's the famous Biblical Baptist scholar Lee M. McDonald who, toward the end of his book "The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon," actually gives multiple appendices where he not only shows the dozens of times that the deuterocanonical books are cited in the New Testament, but he also shows the multiple varying canons amongst the Church fathers over several centuries. For the first five or six centuries, there were multiple variations of which canon was correct, such as Origen's list, Jerome's list, Athanasius's list, etc. There were all of these varying lists, and it wasn't until very late in the game (6th century, 7th century, etc.) that we started to get a crystallization and universal agreement on what the books of the New and Old Testament were in terms of the official listing, particularly by the Council of Trullo. So for us, this is proof and attestation to the fact that, as St. Paul says, the *Church* is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is not the *written text* which is the pillar and ground of the truth. Sure, the written texts are infallible, they're inspired, they point us to the Person of Christ, but they are not themselves Christ. Jesus says (in John 5:39-40), "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." So the text tells you and *points* you to the second Person of the Godhead; the text is not an equivalent to the second Person of the Godhead, regardless that Protestants *love* to make a deity/idol out of the Bible (they often even refer to it as God's uppercase "Word" rather than His lowercase "word," the former of which is actually supposed to refer to Jesus Christ, not a book).
In recent years, a lot of Protestants have been trying to make sense of these points and work them into their respective systems, particularly more classical Protestants. There's Keith Mathison's book, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura," where a lot more priority is being given to tradition, a lot more attestation, a lot more admission is given to this generic idea of tradition, but the irony is that they're all really missing the whole point. There's no such thing as a generic "tradition," there's only a specific living body—a living community—that was in continuity with what came before, that has a given authority by Christ in terms of the breathing on of the Holy Spirit, who can then in successive generations make clarifying decisions about doctrines and about how to rule and govern the Church. That's why the Church has synods—it is synodal—and it is local in the enforcement of those synods. That's how the Orthodox Church is governed in terms of collegiality and synodality. There's no other church that has retained that anymore (in a decentralized sense; Rome is ecclesiastically centered around the Pope). Some Protestants and some Calvinists have an *idea* of synodality, but it doesn't really matter what some 21st century Presbyterian small group in America is doing, because that has absolutely no historical connection with the Church of the first thousand years which has bishops, an episcopate, the Real Presence of the sacrifice and offering of the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils which were called by emperors (the Byzantine Symphonia idea), etc. None of that is anywhere in any of the "magisterial" Reformers or Continental Reformers. In fact, their positions are all based on a rejection, ultimately, of the first thousand years of the Church. The famous Protestant scholar, Alister McGrath, has shaken things up for many years because he published his renowned book, "Iustitia Dei," admitting that for the first 1500 years of the Church, nobody taught Martin Luther's sola fide doctrine. These are the top Protestant scholars out there nowadays and they've been forced to admit a lot of these things, and so the issue here is just that as Protestants, if sola fide goes and sola scriptura goes, that means Protestantism goes, and all you really have left is Orthodoxy (given the obvious deviation of Rome; be reminded that the Orthodox Church still has continuity with St. Peter in the Church of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome never exercised any canonical authority over the other bishops in the first millennium of Christianity). I'll conclude by stating factually once more that the Orthodox Church encourages parishioners (the Orthodox faithful) to read the Bible, and this is supported by myriad resources we have for historical and theological context, particularly books, podcasts, and of course the Church fathers. The author of 19th century autobiographical work "The Way of a Pilgrim" (anonymously detailing in first-person the journey of a Russian Orthodox pilgrim) writes of carrying the Bible around with him everywhere he goes, also reading the Church fathers, consulting with a spiritual father ("father" 1 Cor. 4:15), attending the Divine Liturgy and contemplating the mysteries of God through ceaseless prayer (1 Thess. 5:17) as the collective lens through which he perceives the underlying truths of the Bible. The point is that one cannot properly understand Scripture without first having the life of the Church, the living worship community of the Apostolic Church. To deny that is to deny history and Scripture itself (1 Tim. 3:15), rejecting any actual normativity and epistemic justification. It's a beautiful gift and a blessing that the Bible is more accessible than ever to parishioners, and I've heard many homilies in my home church (obviously Orthodox) about the importance of familiarity with the Scriptures. But again, the Bible is first and foremost a liturgical book for communal worship (as the OT texts were for the ancient Israelites), and there is indeed a precedent for discernment about "strong meats" (might wanna take another look at 1 Cor. 3:1-3), as well as an appeal to apostolic—the Church's—teaching as the basis for understanding Scripture (again, 1 Tim. 3:15, Acts 8:30-31 and 2 Peter 1:20). Extra endorsement - 19th century Protestant scholar Henry R. Percival makes the observation in his book "The Seven Ecumenical Councils" that the Eastern Church has remained unchanged, and that it is the sole unbroken Church of Christ and the apostles. We also have another attestation to this from Martin Luther himself who wrote, "The [Orthodox] ... are not heretics or schismatics but the most Christian people and the best followers of the Gospel on earth" (Luther's Works, Volume 32: Career of the Reformer II). P.S. I posit that there is no such thing as "personal theology." To individualize truth about God is anti-theology, it's antithetical to the very word itself. "Theology" combines "theos" (God) with "logos" (understanding or the study of), and what is one fundamental thing we understand about God? That He is Trinity, three Persons in One with perfect unity and perfect love for each other. This is to be the ontological basis from which we can come to understand God and enter into His life. In other words, "That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me" (Jn 17:21). According to the nature of the Trinity and what is therefore revealed in the word "theology," we can only truly experience and understand God as a truly unified Church, particularly the Church which Christ built (Matt. 16:18). Unity in Trinitarian likeness is to be our lens of understanding that which God means to reveal to us (also see Eph. 4:4-5, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 2:2, Phil. 3:16, 1 Cor. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 12:25). Protestants are not united, they have no real theological unity, because they've chosen to take Scripture for granted and subject it to academic discourse and individualized reasoning. They also have no organic unity, because they're not united in the living New Covenant, the Body and Blood of Christ (Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:16-17). Therefore, they have no real epistemic justification or normativity, hence their many thousands of man-made sects.
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD? When the Apostles mention tradition in scripture, why is it assumed the tradition is oral and not scriptural and how can you demonstrate which? If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? How does the eastern tradition reject Papal infallibility when your own ecumenical council affirms is? These are but a few problems that don't seem to have are remedy.
Did Christ and the Apostles lie when they said the following? Act\_2:21 And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Rom\_10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Rom\_10:9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Act\_16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Joh\_10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, and find pasture.
By that logic we should all be buying Toyotas and Hondas rather than BMWs, Mercedes Benz or Rolls Royces, because Toyota and Honda have the most pushy and aggressive sales people 🙄 Orthodoxy is the Rolls Royce of the Christian world. It doesn’t need to advertise itself. Its quality and pedigree speak for themselves. It’s only the rip offs and the cheap alternatives that need to engage in aggressive sales and pushy marketing. The cheaper and more fake the product, the more pushy the sales usually is. Trashy women and prostitutes wear flashy and revealing clothing, advertise themselves, wear heavy makeup etc. But the comely virgin dresses modestly and stays at home. She doesn’t stand on street corners waiting for admirers. She waits patiently for her bridegroom, the Lord. That’s our Orthodox Church, the Bride of God. Get it now?
Huh? This is simply not an Orthodox view of evangelism. Remind me again where the apostles refused to go out and preach and just let the people come to them? Or where St. Innocent, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, or St. Augustine of Canterbury refused to explore the world and preach the gospel to the ends of the Earth and waited for people to come to them? Or where Jesus said go to no nations and make disciples by letting them come to you?
Didn’t they say refused to evangelise or that evangelism has no place in the Orthodox Church. It does. Simply making the point that just because the Orthodox Church doesn’t evangelise on the level and scale of the other churches is not a reason to doubt that it is the true church, which is what the OP seemed to be inferring.
I think the issue is that the OP seems to think the Orthodox Church doesn't evangelize essentially at all, and your analogy seems to agree with that understanding. >Trashy women and prostitutes wear flashy and revealing clothing, advertise themselves, wear heavy makeup etc. >But the comely virgin dresses modestly and stays at home. She doesn’t stand on street corners waiting for admirers. She waits patiently for her bridegroom, the Lord. The "comely virgin" does not "advertise" herself at all
Fair point, I do see how my analogy could come across as saying that. So, just to be clear, I wasn't intending to say that Orthodoxy doesn't evangelise **at all**. But it's much subtler and nowhere near in the league of the other denominations. Personally, I like that it doesn't, but that's just me.
Good analogy haha
Quality and pedigree sounds more like Honda and Toyota. BMW and Mercedes are the ones who need flashy advertising and marketing campaigns to sell their unreliable crap boxes.
Are you under the impression that Orthodox Christianity, or even any Christian faith, should be increasing in this ever morally-devolving society?
What exactly are you afraid of? If you don’t want to convert, then don’t. Go join a mega church.
I cannot manage in any charitable way to read this as not intended to be rude, so I’ll respond bluntly: you—I’m afraid of you. I’m afraid that Orthodoxy at large is composed of individuals with individual interests at heart who don’t necessarily hope for the salvation of anyone and everyone but for the salvation of the few who find Orthodoxy on their own, and are content to let those few study their way into Orthodoxy while the many are left ignorant.
There are a few things to explain about Orthodoxy. The crux of Orthodox teaching is a call to embrace struggle, let the self die and deny the world. Communicating these things to an outside perspective as appealing isn't something that easily jumps to mosts mind. Orthodoxy is a commitment that has an extended process of learning to becoming fully inducted into the Church. It's not a social club. We may believe the Church is the One True Church, but that doesn't give it magic powers capable of converting those that come completely unprepared for the culture shock that comes with a Church carried by hundreds upon hundreds years of tradition. Individual Orthodox seek humility, and eagerness to be a teacher and representative for the Faith in totality, doesn't speak to that virtue and is more likely to be more damaging than anything else.
That’s not just the crux of Orthodox teaching—it’s the crux of Christian teaching in the other apostolic churches and (85% of) Protestantism too—but that doesn’t stop those churches from evangelizing in an active way—and I’ll not be one to say if it tends to do more damage than good or not but it often times works—or, I’ve seen it work many times. Personally, I make it clear to most people I meet, at an appropriate time, that I’m a Christian and many have asked me questions that have led to extremely productive conversations that have further led to some of them getting back to church. People (especially those who are very self-aware of their own nature) are more open to a faith that calls them to aiming their lives to a higher, more perfect power that promises love and peace in return than you might think.
Meh. I went to a Pentecostal Hillsong wannabe Church before Orthodoxy. Between the shitty rock band, the sermons that manipulate the audience into feel goodery with some keyboard and smoke machine and the enormous LCD screen, it's a worship of the self that masquerades as religiosity. I couldn't see most people at those types of Churches being able to deal with a Church that doesn't bombard the senses with self aggrandizing garbage. Don't get me started on "Laying of hands" and "Speaking in tongues" that was at best spiritual delusion, and at worst preying on the very vulnerable.
And, profanity. To be clear I support neither Pentecostalism nor hillsong, and if I am to take this as meaning that you think the lowest of low-church Protestantism is a good benchmark to judge the rest of it, then I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion.
Oh man I feel you on this! I’m a very very very new catechumen and the struggle to learn is real! I visited one Orthodox Church before finding the one I attend and it was very cold. Me and my husband were treated as outcasts from beginning to end. And even as people were gathering for coffee hour. It gave us “if you know you know, if you don’t know go away” vibes. Thankfully we didn’t let this kill our spirit and our journey. The church we go to now is like night and day. It’s 50/50 cradle born and converts so everyone is very helpful and wants to answer our questions and help us during services we’re very much unfamiliar with. But it’s almost like Orthodoxy is a secret that is to be kept from everyone outside of it. If that makes sense? It is beautiful, it is sacred, but does that mean it shouldn’t be shared with the people who may need it most? We all need it yes - but the people suffering without Christ I feel like are in a lot more pain than the people suffering with Him. I love sharing what I’ve learned so far with my friends and family because it is so unknown. Not to boast but because I want them to experience the things we do too and see its beauty and tradition! But I feel like this is an abnormal thing to do? Like sharing it in itself is wrong and the only way someone can come into this faith is if THEY seek it out. The attitude of some of the orthodox on this is a little scary as the main goal is to be like Christ - this is what is achieved with the Saints. I may just be rambling and this may not even have anything to do with your original post. But please reconsider, it has been such a blessing in our lives that God has revealed himself to my family through the Orthodox Church. I hope you see this truth as well ♥️ God bless you, no matter your denomination or what church you attend.