Orthodoxy in America Has a Convert Problem

49 comments:

1. Father Bless,
   Your post is succinct and timely. I, too, am a convert and can understand and appreciate what is required to be converted. Your concerns are not unique to Orthodoxy. I graduated from a Protestant Seminary with an M Div with emphasis on two disciplines: Evangelism and Christian Education. I wrote a research paper dealing with the subject of conversion. I discovered that every denomination, independent church and even the Roman Catholic s had all of their emphasis on getting people to commit to Christ and very little after their acceptance into the church of their choice.
   I found that generally Sunday School was not a formal “continuing education” bit generally a haphazard system mostly guided by the whims of the teacher of every class. Some denominations had formal written materials but these programs were mostly ignored. Since my acceptance into Orthodoxy, I find the same issue haunts us. My Priest and I have discussed this and we both agree there is a need to offer “continuing education” to help people grow in their faith and spirituality but nobody in our parish seems to want to attend. I decided to start a class to look at the Nicene Creed (as a tool to explain the faith). I had 15 participants but within a few weeks (there were many excuses) I had one student who was awaiting acceptance into the Church and he stuck it out to the end.
   I can see the problem, as you have outlined it, but I am still trying to find a good answer to it. You have illumined a problem that begs to be solved but greater minds than mine will need to address it.

   1. Thank you for your message, Nicholas. For those faithful in the Church, who would like to see their children grow up as believing Orthodox Christians, I firmly believe that the answer is catechesis in the home. Church cannot be a Sunday-only phenomenon. Parents must pray with their kids and talk openly about the importance of the faith. I know that some parents feel ill-equipped to do so, which is why many don’t do it at all. The parents’ feelings of insecurity should not prevent them from teaching the Faith to their kids. They can ask their priests for clarification. Indeed, it would be wonderful if there was a single place where parents could gather resources to help teach their children. This is something I am working on right now.

      1. Father,
         I agree completely. We must disciple our children in the home as well as in services and by that I do not mean only at the Divine Liturgy on Sundays. As it says in Deuteronomy: “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” The Lord has commanded us to teach our children the faith. For us who convert as adults it is our task to seek the Lord’s face with the same intensity.

2. Interesting article. At the same time we should note that Christianity and churches in the U.S. face an increasing anti-religion populace… I have Catholic friends here in PA that tell me they “dropped” out 20 years ago. And some local mainline Protestant churches in our small towns in PA are closing doors.

   Not sure how to fight this trend but for sure the Orthodox need some new life. I realize that one drawback is when :Greek or some other name is part of a church name… but have found that those churches are usually very welcoming to outsiders… and dropping any “ethnic” part of a church name might be a challenge.

   1. I realize that one drawback is when :Greek or some other name is part of a church name… but have found that those churches are usually very welcoming to outsiders… and dropping any “ethnic” part of a church name might be a challenge.
      _____________
      it concerns the leaders of the Church as in Russian,Serbian,Greek Orthodox etc.
      Indeed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic CHURCH with their established leadership reflective of the locations.
      The drawback remains generations of misinformation on Orthodox teachings and the Bible only “branches” unwilling to simply accept history and discover their church is a man made church versus the Church established by Christ Himself while still on earth.
      and these bible only churches refusing to adhere to JOHN 6 etc where it is declared truly THIS IS MY BODY etc.
      That has always puzzled me as they persist in a pure adherence TO Scripture only, LOL

3. Excellent post, Father. Many thanks!

   I discovered that every denomination, independent church and even the Roman Catholic s had all of their emphasis on getting people to commit to Christ and very little after their acceptance into the church of their choice.

   I completely agree and this is, at least in part, supposed to be addressed during catechism. I know our priest usually meets with catechumens for at least a year and I find this very wise. But the issue remains.

   The fact that the Church is slow to address many changes in society-at-large, leaving many in it unable to adequately respond when they are challenged with various questions, also adds to the problem. Not everyone is wise enough to remain silent until they can discuss an issue with their spiritual father or priest and this can cause a great deal of confusion. Then again, the slowness of the Church to speak on some matters is also a blessing; knee-jerk reactions are rarely beneficial.

   My priest has stated that the Liturgy itself teaches and I believe this to be true. It may be that a formal “Sunday School” education situation is not the real answer. We seek to obtain a humble and loving heart before God and others; that is a lesson that takes a lifetime to learn. Just thinking out loud. May God bless.

4. Father,
   Thanks for the article. As a Lutheran struggling with the issue of converting to Orthodoxy, I appreciate it. However, would it not have been helpful to include some statistics on conversions to Orthodoxy within various communions (over and above the one stat on how many in the OCA and Antiochian churches are such) as well as some comparative data for how many folks convert to, say, Catholicism?
   Thanks.
   Tim Furnish

   1. Tim,
      This may be late (considering it is now July 2018) but I had the same conversation(s) with the president of my church as well as my priest. Father sent me the following link: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
      It has exhaustive data up to 2014, and one can see clear trends between 2007 and 2014.
      Aside from that there are a few other links:
      http://www.millennialevangelical.com/adapt-and-die-liberal-churches-accept-everyone-still-decline/

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/04/liberal-churches-are-dying-but-conservative-churches-are-thriving/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a03d6577774f

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13644-016-0255-4
      In general, newer articles describe a small, but noticeable migration from liberal, protestant churches over to Orthodoxy. In one of the articles, the sentiment was described as: “Mainline Protestantism will reach a certain point where it will appeal only to Wiccans, vegetarians, sandal-wearers, and people who play the recorder. No one will feel at home there if they believe in God.”

5. I am an Roman Rite Catholic-I felt drawn to the Greek Orthodox Church in my area and attended for several months. I love the liturgy and the teachings but the bridge to “convert” to the Eastern side seems too great. I wish I could go to an Eastern Rite Catholic church but they are too far away from me. So I made the decision to stay in my Roman Rite church and adopt Eastern Orthodox prayers and practices in my devotional life. It is sad that we are divided!!

6. My experience as a convert to Orthodoxy from High Church Anglicanism might be of some relevance here, although I’m loath to suggest that this anything other than a minority report.

   My journey to Orthodoxy took place over a number of years and had reached a position of irrevocable commitment before I ever set foot in an Orthodox Church. That might be an unusual process, but perhaps not.

   Immediately on starting to attend an Orthodox Church I met with the priest to share the process I had been through and what I believed the Lord had been doing with me during the previous few years. I was received with great warmth by both priest and congregation, as one would hope. I was left somewhat perplexed, however, in learning that the diocesan bishop had mandated that all converts would be required to be attached to a local church for a period of two years before being considered for chrismation. I shall leave both jurisdiction and diocese undisclosed.

   Far be it from me to question an episcopal decision, but it did seem a rather curious way to go about receiving converts, particularly when the specific congregation had, perhaps, 20 members and was in need of new blood. From the convert’s perspective, to deny long-standing Christians participation in the sacraments of the Church for this arbitrary period should be self-evidently problematic. The same provisions were applied in the case of another convert into that congregation, who had served as a Lutheran pastor for more than 20 years. They were not, however, seen as necessary in the case of the converting husband of a cradle Orthodox wife, whose chrismation proceeded apace.

   Again, whether this is anything other than minority report, I will leave others to judge. Whatever the bishop’s motivations, and I wholeheartedly believe that they were well-intentioned, this approach to enthusiastic converts seems somewhat counterproductive and, potentially, spiritually harmful if one takes participation in the sacramental life of the Church seriously. Surely it would have been more beneficial to deal with each case on its own merits, with the bishop himself being prepared to conduct one on one interviews to assess the spiritual condition and commitment of new adherents.

   A barrier to easy conversion to Orthodoxy might have benefits on paper, but arbitrary policies do not necessarily make for good pastoral care.

   1. Peter,
      Perhaps it was as in my case. The Orthodox Church was trying to see how serious I really was. I had done all the academic work and had adopted an Orthodox Prayer Rule (even though I was still a Pastor in an evangelical Protestant Denomination). I was told I could become a catechumen after I had regularly attended Divine Liturgy for a year and then after two or three years be accepted into the Church. I made the leap, resigning from my previous Church and giving up the income only to find that through diligence, determination and through the Grace of our Lord, the whole process took nine months.
      One of the saddest things I have seen since conversion is others who come in, get received and then disappear in a few months. I am fairly certain what you were told was not arbitrary but a way to shift out those who were not that serious or dedicated. In the Early Church in the latter First Century up to the acceptance as the State religion in the Fourth, the catechumen process was several years. One of the things that jump started Monasticism in the Fourth Century was the easy “conversion” of so many pagans who really did not convert.
      Obviously, you had the drive and the Lord gave the Grace to receive you in quicker fashion. Sometimes it is our answer to the “maybe later” that shows our true grit and determination to convert. In any case, you and I are both in the Church and remain so.

      1. Nicholas – It sounds as though your experience was not altogether dissimilar from a combination of my own and that of my former Lutheran pastor friend. To relinquish one’s ministerial offices – not something I had to do – is an enormous step of faith.

         Your clearly articulated position is precisely that of my bishop, and it’s one I understand and appreciate. I mentioned my experience here only because, against the backdrop of Fr. Photius’ article, I thought it had some relevance to the convert issue. Having been through it, I would never go back; and I’m sure that all those who convert for spiritual and theological reasons would say the same thing.

         I have nothing against conversion being a process that requires the demonstration of genuine and long-lasting commitment. Orthodox Christianity is demanding upon the faithful and no one should be under any misapprehensions about the rigor of the Orthodox Christian life.

         A very long period as a catechumen was indeed followed in the early centuries, although I might add that there is a substantive difference between catechizing converts from paganism and the reception of those who have already been Christians for several decades, have attended theological colleges, and have served in ministry in various categories. At least, I hope that there is!

         May you be abundantly blessed by our Great God and Savior and find much useful work in your parish.

         I would just add that I’m a firm believer in spiritual formation and education within the local church. I would like to see more enthusiasm for evangelistic outreach and Biblical study within the Orthodox community. This is an area in which we lag far behind Evangelicalism. Your experience in wrestling with the appetite (or lack of it) for teaching in the Orthodox local church is not uncommon, although some priests around the country seem to have been successful in fostering the desire to grow among the faithful. How long it took them, and what had to be suffered during the effort, is probably something for another interesting article.

         1. Peter
            In this and your more recent post your thinking is, I believe, quite on target. I know in my own Parish our Priest is very discerning on who goes from seeker to Catechumen and when they are full received. I know he has a great desire, as I am sure do all, to make sure people do not fall away after conversion.
            It would be nice to be able to do outreach more successfully than my experience has been. With my training in evangelism, I tried to convince people of the truth of Orthodoxy. I have had to reject everything I learned in my Protestant Seminary and learn the Orthodox way.
            The Orthodox way is slow, steady and experiential. I had to learn to just invite people to services and let the Lord handle the rest. As I am now in the OCA, we are not ethnic (not that there isn’t a need for that in Orthodoxy in America) and we seem to be able to attract people a little easier. My main concern is based on my own experience. I have been scholarly in the past and have read extensively of Western Theology and now Eastern. I had to unlearn my mode of thinking as a Western Christian and “swim the Bosporus” as the saying goes. I have found much a more profound connection to Christ through the theology of worship and prayer than I ever did from reading. It is hard for a Westerner to make that change of mind.
            I do think, however, that being aware of the issues is a great first step and your suggestion of knowing some statistics would seem to be of great benefit to those in the Hierarchy. One of my greatest challenges in learning the Orthodox phrenoma was to learn to let the Church take the lead. I am way too small a fish to stick my nose in things that are way above me.

7. Thank you for this enlightened post. Our Greek Orthodox Church, Saint Paul’s in Irvine, CA has a very large number of converts. Most of them continue beyond the 8 month “Orthodoxy 101” weekly class, lead by our Pastor, Father Steven Tsichlis. We offer two bible studies, an Orthodoxy 102 course as well as a weekly prayer group and a Women’s Study Fellowship. Many of our converts become very committed and active parishioners. We are involved in many outreach projects and welcome visitors and converts with open arms. Our pastor reminds us all that one need not be Greek (or Russian or Romanian, etc.) to be an Orthodox Christian. Many converts hear about us during the tours of our church during the Greek Festival. Our priest as well as one of our parishioners, Dr. Eve Tibbs (PhD Theology) give a presentation which explains who we are and how we worship. They invite them to learn more by attending the Orthodoxy 101 class. It’s a start, but there is always more work to do for Christ and His Orthodox Church.

8. Great article Father. I will soon be crismated and become a member of the Orthodox Church after two years. Being from a family that has lived in America since virtually the beginning, I have no ethnic roots to speak of……we simply think of ourselves as Americans and that is it. I think the first issue at hand is that many non-ethnic Americans really have never heard of the Orthodox Church. I have been an active Protestant (Lutheran and evangelical SBC) for almost 45 years, even attended Liberty University for a semester for a Masters of Div. degree (did not finish degree due to other issues), yet Orthodoxy was foreign to me. Just to make my point, if 5 years ago you would have asked me to make a list of every Christian denomination I could think of, Orthodoxy would not have made that list…..never heard of it. It was only through my own research and seeing one NFL player cross himself that made me realized what the Orthodox Church was.

   The ethnic side of the Church can be a turn off. As I desired to attend an Orthodox Church, and looked at websites…written in Romanian, Serbian, and Russian….I thought that maybe the Orthodox Church wasn’t for me. I did find an OCA and GOARCH Church website in English. The Greek Orthodox was the closest so I went to that one. I thought everyone was very inviting and do love that church, yet often in the beginning many people that came to me, the first thing they would ask is, “are you Greek”? I never received anything negative when I said no, but it does make one uncomfortable. I never once was asked where I stood with faith in Jesus Christ, meaning where I was in my journey, except by the priest. Everyone else just seemed to want to know if I was or wasn’t Greek. That seemed very wierd to me for a Christian church.

   I say all this because it did not deter me since I knew what I was searching for, what I found, what was revealed to me, but I do believe it would scare away my fellow family members.

9. I am a bit confused by the article as it seems at the beginning there is an inference that the problem is with the Orthodox Church, as if it were her fault that people do not commit themselves to the Holy Trinity in general, much less the time tested and well-worn path of Orthodoxy. That the emphasis is on getting converts. That makes me cringe as it is not about numbers, it is about people coming into true relationship with the Holy Trinity. God gives the increase when the Church is doing it’s job faithfully of worshipping, teaching the ancient faith, speaking the truth and living in love, walking upright yet with humility. Then, further in the article, its clear that it supports standing by the Faith as handed down. As a liturgical/sacramental Christian, who has by the Grace of God believed Orthodox all my life, and is now finally able to live where there is an Orthodox Church and join with the Ancient Faith, I can tell you that assuring people know the faith and go through instruction is crucial. Each person comes with different baggage, some are on the rebound from another faith, some are drawn only by the mystical sights and sounds of worship, etc. Our Lord’s parable of the sowing of the seed comes to mind. Everyone learns and grows at different spiritual rates and a wise priest measures that growth and determines when one is ready. I am entering the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church, which is more a place name than ethnicity in the title. There is nothing wrong with those designators in the name, as long as the people who are Greek or Russian think outward welcoming all people and not inward as an ethnic only social club. However, any church can find something to be cliquish about, and the priest has nurture the culture of the parish to be about the Lord’s work. In the end it is not about numbers. Lord have mercy.

10. Father, bless:

    How can it be “sheep stealing’ if one chooses to attend a church? Last time I looked Orthodox Christians didn’t actively prosyltize the way you see many Protestant churches do. This idea of ‘switching’ church buildings’ is also a rather ignorant statement which only demonstrates that those who say such things know nothing about Orthodoxy and how it is unique within Christianity. As for Mr. Heimbaugh, I would say that the only true ‘convert’ problem here would be if his name is continually attached to Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox Christians are not avowed racists and it’s a shame that some want to tar the church with the Heimbaugh brush. I’d say he speaks for himself, not for most Orthodox Christians and definitely not for the African American converts like myself who know that Orthodoxy existed in Africa long before it was ever in Russia!

11. Did anyone here actually read this great article, or just the headline?
    The article isn’t about people converting to The Church, but for some reason, that’s what most of the comments so far pertain to.

    “……and look at the Church in our country, we begin to see that the failure to convert is actually fairly common for many Orthodox Christians who remain in the Church’s communion.”
    This is a challenging, but great line Father. Thank you.

12. Thank you for this thoughtful essay. I think, however, that your characterization of people who question the what is the received tradition of the Church is a bit unfair. First, it’s not just people who have grown in the Church who are doing so, it is also Orthodox Christians who have converted from another faith. So, your making it seem that it is just born-and-bred is inaccurate. Second, you conflate abortion and gay marriage, as if every person who questions the Church on one also does so for the other. That is also inaccurate. Moreover, it’s not the only issue–what of women’s ordination? You give the impression that there is a group out there, which is infected by liberalism and challenging the Church on these issues. Again, it’s more complex than that. For example, there are those who would question the Church on women’s ordination but be very much anti-abortion and against blessing of gay marriage. On this point, you fail to clarify more clearly that the “gay marriage” is a twofold issue: a) how the Church should respond to legalization by the state and b) whether the Church should offer some blessing. Those who argue for legalization get conflated with those asking for blessings and that is also not precise. Finally, you give the impression that those raising questions to the Church’s received tradition on issues are only doing so out of concern for ‘enlightenment’–again, unfair. There are those who are doing so for deep theological reasons. They are engaging these issues theologically, fully aware of the complex questions of hermeneutics in relation to the Biblical, canonical, patristic, dogmatic, conciliar and liturgical tradition. They share the same sources of authority, but the debate is really about how to interpret those sources. It’s not enough to say “the Church has said”; one must offer explanations that cohere with what the Church proclaims dogmatically about the union of the divine and the human in Christ, and, correlatively our struggle for theosis. Even Athanasius against Arius never rested on “the Church has said,” but offered reasons for why affirming the full divinity of Christ is more reasonable than the Arian position (He uses such words as ‘aprepes’ and ‘eulogon’ in “On the Incarnation”). The basic issue is really this: what does it mean to be a living Tradition? The dogmatic tradition is non-negotiable, but is that really the case for other issues, such as women’s ordination? The dogmas did not intend to stifle conversation, but provide the parameters for discussion of issues that the Church knew would emerge in ways unforeseen. We are all faithful Orthodox Christians trying to interpret the Tradition the best we can. Rather than engaging in ad hominems, or dividing us in the-truly v. the-not-truly converted, we should recognize that there is a serious debate about interpretation within our Church, and focus our attention there.

    1. Allow me to address your points.

       You write:

       “I think, however, that your characterization of people who question what is the received tradition of the Church is a bit unfair.”

       It is not my desire to mischaracterize those who question the received tradition of the Church. I have thoroughly questioned the received tradition of the Church for the sake of understanding it better. The Orthodox Faith cannot be one’s own unless one has questioned every aspect of it. I have done so and find no fault in either the Church’s dogmatic, doctrinal, or moral teachings.

       You write:

       “First, it’s not just people who have grown in the Church who are doing so, it is also Orthodox Christians who have converted from another faith. So, your making it seem that it is just born-and-bred is inaccurate.”

       Read the article again. I never said that the phenomenon of people who try to harmonize the faith with their own paradigms was a “born-and-bred” phenomenon. Did you miss the paragraph about Matthew Heimbach?

       You write:

       “Second, you conflate abortion and gay marriage, as if every person who questions the Church on one also does so for the other. That is also inaccurate.”

       Mentioning the two issues side by side is not the same as conflating them. I do not conflate the issues. I simply mention them as two popular issues, which certain people have called upon the Church to “engage in dialogue.”

       You write:

       “Moreover, it’s not the only issue–what of women’s ordination? You give the impression that there is a group out there, which is infected by liberalism and challenging the Church on these issues. Again, it’s more complex than that.”

       Liberalism is not the only thing warping people’s perspectives on the teaching of the Church. Conservatism is doing it just as much. As to women’s ordination, it is curious that the question is never raised in the Church in any serious capacity until the second half of the Twentieth Century with the rise of Second Wave Feminism in the West. Forgive me if I think it unlikely that those desiring “dialogue” on the issue are genuinely doing so out of a desire to “understand the Tradition more clearly.” It is positively clear from our history that the roles of the bishopric, presbytery, and diaconate have evolved. They have, however, only done so in degree; not in kind.

       You write:

       “For example, there are those who would question the Church on women’s ordination but be very much anti-abortion and against blessing of gay marriage.”

       I am well aware of that, and I have friends who hold this position. Again, it is not an issue of equating errors or discouraging free thought. I want people to ask honestly both what the Church proclaims and why. With this, we can examine our own beliefs and why we hold them.

       You write:

       “On this point, you fail to clarify more clearly that the ‘gay marriage’ is a twofold issue: a) how the Church should respond to legalization by the state and b) whether the Church should offer some blessing. Those who argue for legalization get conflated with those asking for blessings and that is also not precise.”

       I am aware of this, as well. I did not clarify the distinction, because that was not the point of the article. However, I am happy to address the distinction. The “gay marriage” phenomenon is an historical anomaly with no precedent in any society, even though homosexuality exists in every society. Consider the world into which the Church was born—the Roman Empire. Homosexual behavior was far from taboo. It was quite normal, but the Romans never considered affording homosexual couples the ability to marry, which they believed was reserved for a man and a woman for the sake of procreation. A man could engage in as much sodomy with other men and young boys as he liked, but if he desired to marry, it was a woman he must choose. Fast forward to America in the Twentieth Century. Gay culture was/is not predominantly expressed in monogamous unions. It was/is expressed primarily in the likes of the Castro Club in San Francisco. When gay activists began advocating for marriage as a solution to the ravages of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, they were initially met with resistance in the gay community. “That is not how we live,” many gay men objected. And yet now, “gay marriage” is an institution. The political opinions of Orthodox Christians regarding the acceptability of gay marriage as a civil institution are really neither here nor there. The question as to whether or not the Church can bless such unions is of great importance. However, even a cursory study of the Church’s unambiguous position on homosexuality renders the answer to that question rather quickly.

       You write:

       “Finally, you give the impression that those raising questions to the Church’s received tradition on issues are only doing so out of concern for ‘enlightenment’–again, unfair. There are those who are doing so for deep theological reasons. They are engaging these issues theologically, fully aware of the complex questions of hermeneutics in relation to the Biblical, canonical, patristic, dogmatic, conciliar and liturgical tradition. They share the same sources of authority, but the debate is really about how to interpret those sources. It’s not enough to say “the Church has said”; one must offer explanations that cohere with what the Church proclaims dogmatically about the union of the divine and the human in Christ, and, correlatively our struggle for theosis. Even Athanasius against Arius never rested on “the Church has said,” but offered reasons for why affirming the full divinity of Christ is more reasonable than the Arian position (He uses such words as ‘aprepes’ and ‘eulogon’ in “On the Incarnation”).”

       I could not disagree more that those raising such questions are doing so “for deep theological reasons.” Obviously that is the banner they fly, but it is really only about the fact that the Church teaches one thing, they believe another, and they want the Church to accommodate them. Their desire to determine what the sources “really mean” is nothing more and nothing less than looking for loopholes. I agree that it is not enough to say, “The Church has said,” thus and such. We must know why. But the why is evident. It is this party who pretends that it is not.

       You write:

       “The basic issue is really this: what does it mean to be a living Tradition? The dogmatic tradition is non-negotiable, but is that really the case for other issues, such as women’s ordination? The dogmas did not intend to stifle conversation, but provide the parameters for discussion of issues that the Church knew would emerge in ways unforeseen. We are all faithful Orthodox Christians trying to interpret the Tradition the best we can. Rather than engaging in ad hominems, or dividing us in the-truly v. the-not-truly converted, we should recognize that there is a serious debate about interpretation within our Church, and focus our attention there.”

       To say that someone is in error about one thing or another is not tantamount to an ad hominem attack. I agree that the dogmas of the Church are not meant to crush discussion but that they provide a framework within which to understand our faith. But that framework does indeed have limits. If we can question whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful, what is stopping us from questioning whether or not pedophilia is sinful? As long as it is consensual? And what do we mean by “consent”? If the roles women have occupied in the history of the Church are nothing more than the result of cultural norms dictated by a repressive patriarchy, why are we only addressing the injustices between the sexes? Why not address the injustices between the ages? Why can’t a child guide an entire Church community? After all, it is only bias that has kept them from holding such offices. Thus, we fall into the endless regress of nominalism, whereby knowledge is impossible, and a thing is only what we call it.
       To be an Orthodox Christian is to surrender one’s life to Christ—to be shaped by the Tradition whereby Christ was first made known to us.

       1. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. In your response to your “I could not disagree with you more” how can you make such a judgement? For example, on women’s ordination to the priesthood, there are those who have, such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who for theological reasons has not foreclosed the possibility. To dogmatize women’s role is simply to define Orthodoxy in self-opposition to anything liberal. Orthodoxy is not negative self-identification; it’s not a distorted apophaticism. To say that people are motivated simply by accommodation is to indicate that you have already predetermined what is and what is not up for discussion. Therefore, even if one were to try and give theological reasons consistent with the dogmas of the Church, you would accuse them of accommodation. So, my question is: what is exactly up for discussion?

          To equate every form of homosexual relationship, especially long-term committed relationships, with pedophilia is simply ridiculous and absolutely not convincing. It indicates a certain grasping-at-straws argument.

          The Fathers understood clearly that Orthodoxy pertains to beliefs. That’s why morals were never dogmatized, because they knew that what was dogma was the understanding of the God-world relation in terms of divine-human communion. They knew clearly that realizing that communion required discernment. Yes–there are rules; but they knew that discernment was required to best move one toward the presence of God.

          Finally, I absolutely could not agree more with you that to be an Orthodox Christian is to surrender one’s life to Christ. And that means a struggle toward theosis as, in the words of St. Maximos the Confessor, a learning how to love, especially the enemy and the stranger. It also means a struggle to discern the meaning of the Incarnation in the face of new questions and circumstances. It means having the humility to recognize that even the Other may have a point.

          1. Let me stop you right there. How did the message of Jesus Christ come to us in the first place? Through the Apostles. Of all the Apostles, no one of them writes more about Our Lord Jesus Christ than St. Paul. How can we, in one breath, praise what he says about the Crucified and Risen Christ, and in the next breath describe his prescriptions for a life lived in proper response to the saving work of Christ as “temporary” or “fluid” or “subject to the progressing enlightenment of the human race”? Christian morality is directly informed by dogma. If it is not, then dogma is merely a source of comfort with no real implications as to how to live our lives, and the only real sins are those we prefer to demonize. Dogma demands nothing of us according to you.

             With regard to pedophilia, who are you to judge the sexuality of hundreds of millions of people? After all, Jesus never talked about it, and the entire patristic witness is entirely silent on the matter. And what is not condemned must be permissible, yes? Who is to say that such unions cannot be blessed? If we can ask, “What is gender that it should separate two people who want to commit themselves to one another?” it logically follows that we can ask, “What is age?” After all, did not the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wed ‘Aisha (ABPWH) when she was but a child of six years and consummate the marriage when she was nine? And did she not go on to become the greatest of his advocates? If you advocate monogamous sodomy, you cannot condemn monogamous pedophilia.

             Your agenda is naked. You seek to fashion the Church in your image, after your likeness.

             1. I sincerely, and without any sarcasm, don’t understand your response in the sense of I cannot comprehend what you are trying to tell me. I affirm Christ as the revelation of God as the one who is God; I affirm the faith of the Church as expressed by the seven Ecumenical Councils. We share the same sources of authority; again, I think where we disagree is how we understand Tradition. The morality of the Church is not simply reducible to Jesus’s commandments (the highest being to love God and neighbor); it can’t be–what did Christ say about stem cell research, or women’s ordination? Studying its history will show that the Church discerned moral principles that best move us toward theosis. Let me repeat: we need moral rules; but morality is not dogma. Morality derives from the interpretation of the dogma. I never said dogma demands nothing of us. In fact, I affirmed that it demands a lot in terms of learning how to love–stranger and enemy–in our struggle toward theosis.

                I can understand how you might accuse and judge me of a naked theology, fashioning Church in my image, etc. The limitations of this format inevitably lead to misunderstandings that personal conversation could probably clear up. But, as the one who is truly converted, before you judge me–the not-truly-converted-born-and-bred Orthodox with naked theology–you should at least take the time to read some of my other writings: https://fordham.academia.edu/AristotlePapanikolaou. The stuff on virtue and violence may especially interest you. At the very least, listen to my Ancient Faith Radio podcast in “Everyday Theology.”

             2. Thank you Father! More people need to see the real agenda of the Fordham crew and said agenda needs to be exposed.

             3. The purpose of my last message was to call into question your logic regarding both the prescribed response to the work of Christ as set forth by the Apostles and your assertion as to the virtue of monogamous homosexual relationships. I apologize if that was unclear, but as you observed, this format has limitations. To clarify, it is not your theology I called “naked.” It is your agenda. I am more than happy to read your work.
                Again, I would have to say that I disagree that “the morality of the Church is not simply reducible to Jesus’ commandments (the highest being to love God and neighbor); it can’t be—what did Christ say about stem cell research, or women’s ordination?” The morality of the Church is based upon the very person of Christ Jesus, Who said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17). Our morality no other foundation. Not Locke. Not Hume. Not Nietzsche. Not Heidegger. Not Gloria Steinem nor Hugh Heffner. If we pretend that our morality does have some other foundation, we inevitably seek one that is most pleasing to us. While we doubtlessly face new questions with the passage of time (particularly those of bioethics), many questions currently being raised by those unhappy with the Church’s teaching have already been answered—those of homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, etc.
                The Orthodox Church has never subscribed to John Henry Cardinal Newman’s notion of “Progressive Revelation.” To do so would be to deny that Jesus Christ Himself is the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind. Our morality, like our theology, does not evolve, because it is based upon Our Lord Jesus Christ “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). To be sure, ecclesiastical crises have demanded that our theology be more precisely articulated through the ages, but our theology has not fundamentally changed. So it is with our morality. Times change, but people, apart from the saving work of Christ, do not. The same things that were good for us at our origins are still good for us, and the same things that were bad for us at our origins are still bad for us. What was wrong does not with the stroke of a philosopher’s pen or by popular demand become right.

             4. I understand. Thank you. Hopefully, we’ll have the occasion to continue this discussion in person.

       2. Abortion, LGBQTP+ advocacy, women’s ordination do all seem to travel together. Would one add belief in theistic evolution and remarried clergy? Has anyone done any study of the clustering of such beliefs? Like geese do they fly together in formation?

13. Having now read the article through several times, perhaps we need more data on the phenomenon of conversion to Orthodoxy. Who converts? From where do they come? What is it about their prior church affiliation that causes them to seek pastures new? And what is it about the Orthodox Church that is found to be conducive to a deeper and more fulfilling Christian life? And what, if anything, might give coverts pause?

    Without the essential data, it’s a little difficult to determine the roots of the problem, to the extent that there is one. And pastorally, there appears to be.

    I don’t have empirical data on the dynamics of Orthodox conversion to state anything with scientific certainty, so everything I say is subject to that caveat. But my personal experience of converts to Orthodoxy is that they are typically serious Christians who have read and studied and thought about their spiritual needs. They have often spent quite some time in studying church history and liturgy and have thought rather penetratingly about what the Church is, should be, and have found in the Eastern Church a freedom from the winds of cultural change that is refreshing and comforting. Converts are likely to be more conservative in their approach to the Bible, as reliable testimony to God’s dealings with mankind. They are more likely than not to be suspicious of doctrinal innovation. They see the historical continuity of doctrine and tradition as a distinct positive.

    I doubt whether many church-shoppers have the essential commitment to the Orthodox Faith to remain long within the Orthodox Church, even if they were ever to find themselves within an Orthodox Church.

    Yes, there are those who see in Orthodoxy through the lens of its historical grounding in national churches, for political reasons, but these are not converts. For such people, Orthodoxy is an adjunct to their nationalistic agenda. This cannot be, and is not, a notable phenomenon in the West. Whether it is a driver of increasing Orthodox adherence in Eastern Europe is a question only time will tell. Spiritual commitment to the Orthodox Church will ultimately be measurable in Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc.

    Examining the Western conversion phenomenon is essentially about the spiritual journeys of individual converts. I’ve spoken at length with converts from Pentecostalism, Calvinism, Anglo-Catholicism, Methodism, and various Baptist expressions. All have shown a deeply reflective understanding of their spiritual journey to Orthodoxy. Again, I can’t represent this as a statistically representative sample; but my experience suggests that becoming truly Orthodox in belief and praxis is not a problem for converts of this type.

    Perhaps we just need to become more discriminating in whom we accept as a convert. This convert to Orthodoxy comes about by the working of the Holy Spirit upon conscience in individual lives. This is not necessarily a phenomenon that can be or should be induced.

    Should we not, therefore, concentrate more of our efforts on the lost, through evangelism and outreach? The willing desire of mature Christians to come to the Orthodox Church is God’s work. The Spirit blows where He wills. Our growth in numbers should come from faithfulness to our sense of mission: to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to those presently outside Him. That mandates hard work, but the fields are ripe for the harvest.

    We should focus more assiduously on the conversion of sinners to Christ and perhaps worry less about the transition of those who are already Christians, who yet lack the fullness of Christ. Shouldn’t we rely on the Almighty God to do His work in that first dimension, and concentrate upon the real converts we long to make: those who have never heard the Gospel?

    1. “I can’t represent this as a statistically representative sample; but my experience suggests that becoming truly Orthodox in belief and praxis is not a problem for converts of this type.”
       I would submit that you could not be more wrong in this assessment.
       The fact of the matter is it is far easier for an atheist to become truly Orthodox in belief and praxis, than the “mature Christian” who has spent most of their life internalizing a myriad of theological errors. People who flee to Orthodoxy to avoid the “winds of change” (and let’s face it, these “winds” often have far more to do with empty moralism rather than a true theological metanoia- after all Lutheran theology, for example, was in grave error LONG before the ELCA allowed women to become pastors) are far too often quick to fashion an “Orthodoxy” of their own imagining, rather than doing the difficult work of rejecting their former error and beginning anew.

14. Father, Bless

    Your article I think addresses two groups of people with the same problem, those people who grow up in the church as children, who tend to be ethnic, and those who convert in adulthood.

    I would propose both groups have to “convert” in the sense that no one is born a Christian; we are all baptized at one time or another. God is no respecter of persons. For those who grow up in the church, the challenge is to maintain fidelity, to remain converted, and to not drift into various states of apostasy or opposition to the Church driven by politics. For those who join the church as refugees from the Episcopal Church, USA, or other increasingly liberal mainline Protestant churches, which are dying off, or from evangelical churches which are superficial, the challenge is to not overreact or view the Orthodox Church as just another denomination, albeit one less likely to change and embrace gay marriage, et cetera. This is also where the politically passionate conservatives come into the picture – I myself am a conservative, but some Christians, for example, Al Mohler of the SBC, or the writer of Pen and Pulpit (who penned some amusing anti-Orthodox tirades, which I can’t even call polemics, as they were too silly, after the Bible Answer Man was chrismated earlier these year), or the late Rev. Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, seem to conflate political positions with the church, whereas the Orthodox Church, while not apolitical, is not supposed to be politicized. We did manage to get gladiatorial combat, the Olympics, the abandonment of infants, and other cruelties of the Roman Empire suppressed, but the political activity of the church should be focused on only the most vital issues concerning abortion, the freedom of our clergy to read the Gospel and deliver homilies and catechtical instruction on issues such as homosexuality without fear of reprisal or criminal penalties, and the freedom of our church and the safety of our people, particularly in the suffering lands of Iraq, Syria and Africa. Thus, we have to avoid being, to use a British phrase, “party political” but rather work “across the aisle” to ensure our safety.

    It has been my experience, in the four years I have been blessed to have been in the Church, that most advocates for liberalization or the ordination of women or gay marriage are “cradles”, although Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who I much admire, did in the 1990s participate in an interview in which he implied a lack of opposition to the ordination of women to all levels of the hierarchy, and has also said on more recent occasions that he feels we must do a better job explaining why we do not ordain women. I have my own opinions on the matter, some of which he rejected in a lecture as theologically inadequete, such as the bishop being male because of the need to act in persone Christi, and the priest being male in order to vicariously represent the bishop, and the binding force of tradition, which is set out in Canon 73 of St. Basil the Great. This canon, which establishes Holy Tradition as a precedent which we must follow, would seem to rule out the modifications required to the liturgy in order to ordain women to the major orders. The other objection I have is that the Prothesis is a very intense part of the liturgy, and I am not sure I would feel comfortable with a woman who could endure performing that portion of the liturgy, which is very specifically focused on the death of our Lord (to the point Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that in the Prothesis, the bread and wine became the dead body of Christ, which was then resurrected in the Anaphora, a strange and probably incorrect view, but one which does point to the very passion-centric, sacrificial nature of the Prothesis in all of the Eastern Churches, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrians, who still use Theodore’s liturgical recension. My mother suggested to me that some of the liturgical actions of the priest in the Prothesis, and on Good Friday, would cause her to faint, and I think this is indicative of a healthy piety following the example of the Theotokos. Also, our offering of hyperdoulia to the Theotokos alone, and our venerating Sts. Mary Magdalene and Nino the Evangelist of Georgia as Equal to the Apostles, seems to rule out the charge of feminism.

    Perhaps we could bring back deaconesses, women of at least 60 years, widows or celibate, to assist with the baptism of adult and adolescent women, not for reasons of modesty, a problem solved by the baptismal robes, but rather to protect our male clergy from spurious charges of sexual harassment. However, we would need to ensure that there were measures in place to preclude deaconesses from serving in the same capacity as deacons, for example, denying them use of the dalmatic and stole and issuing stern directions precluding them from entering the altar without a specific blessing from the bishop, or reading the Gospel except in a Reader Service Matins or Typika.

    The issue of homosexuality has also been frightening. Outside the canonical church, we had the tragedy of Elder Panteleimon of HOCNA, who left ROCOR and set up his own jurisdiction to thwart a ROCOR investigation into allegations of him engaging in exploitation of novice monks. This is particularly depressing as he was a spiritual son of St. Joseph the Hesychast, and at one time a spiritual brother of Elder Ephrem of Arizona, who I have met and love greatly, despite the fact that the language barrier prohibited our communication in words. What makes incidents like that, which happen outside the church, but still very close to home, more frightening is the stance implicitly taken by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, and also the priest of the OCA cathedral in Boston, who I believe your diocese of Texan priests wrote a letter of abuse to. So even clergy sometimes miss the mark or fail to convert, as was the case with Elder Panteleimon of Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Other legitimate clergy, such as His Eminence Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, have in the past expressed views that risk legitimizing these errors.

    So I feel that conversion is not an event but a process; everyone in the Church has to continually repent and convert, via the mysteries of reconciliation and the Eucharist, to remain healthy.

    Some posters have reporter a challenging 2 or 3 year conversion process,except for those betrothed to an Orthodox person. This sounds to me like a disorganized approach worse than the rather cookie-cutter approach of the RCIA. I feel that priests should be able to work with individual catechumens to guide them into the mysteries as quickly as can be allowed given their spiritual health; the long catechumenate of the early Church it must be remembered was for the benefit of Pagans. We have it in the historical record that thenearly Church received Nestorians and even Arians merely by confession, not even chrismating them, as oikonomia, and I propose, Fr. Photius, that to increase conversion, the Church should recognize the varying levels of spiritual maturity, and catechize people based on the extent to which they are in need of it, and not basednon arbitrary criteria such as a two year catechumenate. I met a Jewish convert to Orthodoxy who initially attended a parish in one jurisdiction whichnwanted him, before beginning the catechumenate, to read a peculiar confession from the Trebnik in which he would denounce Judaism as entirely false, something he felt he could not do, because the Christian Bible contains the Old Testament, and the somewhat clumsy formula, which would have also been embarassing as a public statement, almost an act of ritual humiliation, did not seem to differentiate between ancient Judaism and the Rabinnical and Karaite Judaism which has grown up in opposition to the Church. I referred him to an Antiochian parish in his area where the priest was himself a Jewish convert, and that solved that problem. A longer catechism is still needed there tomfully explain concepts like the Trinity, and to shoe how the Old Testament makes much more sense as a prophecy of the new than as merely a collection of books containing the laws, hymns and history of ancient Israel; it is that, but every one of those events, every Psalm, every law, and the history, points to our Lord.

    Many non Orthodox Christians understand that. I think we need to recognize the extent to ehich the former church of a convert has prepared them for conversion. For example, with Ukrainian Greek Catholics or Melkite Catholics, they are basically Orthodox, in most cases having benefitted from substantial de-Latinization since Vatican II, their sole error being acceptance of Papal Supremacy and certain related RC doctrines; Greek speaking Greek Catholics do not even recite the filioque, Rome receives us into their Uniate churches by confession, but we make it harder for a Uniate to join us through lengthy catechumenate periods and the requirement of chrismation, when most Uniates who desire Orthodoxy worship using our liturgies, are taught about theosis, et cetera, by priests increasingly free from the constraints of Scholastic theology, and in most cases, actively encouraged to teach Orthodox theology except where we reject Papal supremacy. These Uniates know, in most cases, ehat it is in their churches they eant to get away from, and I think we should be prepared to receive one at any time with a simple private interview and confession with the parish priest, to make sure they understand the difference and know why they are converting; if they do know, I think we should receive them immediately with a profession of faith. The two or three year catechumenate should be for those born into Hinduism or Atheism or Buddhism, or other non-Christian faiths, who have a desire to cinvert but only superficialmknowledge and a prompting of divine grace regarding our beliefs, pushing them to convert,

    Please pray for me a sinner, and for my mother, who will shortly have cancer surgery,

    1. God bless and preserve you, and may He heal your beloved mother.

    2. William,

       I am not Orthodox, but about five years ago I switched from wanting to have all my children baptized when they professed faith or “had a conversion experience” to having all my children baptized at the same time (7 year old, 6 year old, 4 year old, new born). The reason I did this is for much the same reason that Ron gave – that Jesus said, “Let the little children come, and do not forbid them.” The Methodist Church I was attending allowed the children to take communion first, but I wouldn’t let my children because they hadn’t been baptized. I increasingly felt that if Jesus were truly present in the sacraments in any way, I could not forbid them. So if the eucharist was their access to Christ, and if baptism was a prerequisite, how could I prevent their being baptized so that they could partake of the eucharist? Recently, my son asked me what I thought of infant baptism vs. believers and I asked him what he thought. He felt believers made sense. So I gave him my reasoning for why we did what we did and I asked him if he ever remembers a time that he didn’t believe in Christ. He said he didn’t. So I told him that one doesn’t have to have some special conversion experience later in life to become a Christian. We also discussed ‘rebaptism’ and the different church traditions, but I won’t get into that.

15. Well said, Father.

    Not only does Orthodoxy need more converts, she needs more converted converts.

16. I come to the Eastern Orthodox (EO) way at age 60, after having wandered aimlessly from Fundamental Baptist to Mormon to Buddhist to Atheist, and back to Christianity. This time, in coming back to Christianity, I decided to attend no church, but embark upon a very intense personal study and exploration of the scriptures. I did so by first studying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), along with Jewish background of the Bible. With that in hand, I studied the scriptures anew and came to the conclusion the Orthodox way is the right way.

    So, you can understand that it is very hard to just submit to authorities and stop questioning. It is my questioning mind, thirst for knowledge and truth, and I believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that brought me out of the error of my ways and to the true church.

    Do I acknowledge that some of my beliefs might be wrong and the EO might be right? Certainly! How could I not, knowing how many times I’ve changed my mind before when confronted with better arguments? Still, I’m 98% in agreement with Orthodox doctrine. Some, I’m still struggling with – primarily because the church’s arguments are feeble. Take infant baptism, for example. Citing that the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailor, Stephanus, and Crispus were all baptized serves no one. To say, “Well, at least one of those families probably had children” is not proof, but conjecture, and leaves one saying, “Is that your best shot?”

    To this point, I have long agreed with Origen on the interpretation of Matt 16:

    ” Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession: Simon became the ‘rock’ on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: ‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter…for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’ According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first ‘believer,’ and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can ‘imitate’ Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the ‘Petrie’ logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature…Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98).”

    If therefore the rock upon which the church is built is actually “faith in Christ” as Peter had just expressed in chapter 16, then the church is built upon personal testimony, from God, that Jesus is the Christ. Creating “cultural Orthodox” members, by baptizing babies, seems to defy what Jesus wanted to build His church upon – those who truly had received this witness from God, as Peter had.

    That’s just one example. The problem that exists within Orthodoxy, when you are supposed to simply submit your intellect to the leaders, is that those who have done so, because they never had to struggle to find the true church, but were born to it (as most EO are), they make extremely poor exegetes. And that is manifest in even many leaders ability to explain doctrines to those of use who found our way to you via an unrelenting questioning mind.

    One final point, EO would have more converts, perhaps, if it realized people are looking for Christ. We don’t care to adopt the Greek culture – not the language, not the dances, etc. Well, yes, I love the food. So, let’s keep that. But, remember the mission here. It’s the gospel – not being the Greek chamber of commerce for cultural affairs.

17. One of the reasons baby’s are baptized has to do with Orthodox Christianity not having the doctrine of original sin. Babies are born good. Christ called children to Himself, and did He ever put an end to that call?

    Israel circumcised baby boys into Judaism. The child didn’t have a say in this but parents were expected to raise the child in the Synagogue.

    God called certain children to be set aside as Kings and Prophets.

    To be clear, we as Orthodox do believe in ancestral sin which is quite different than original sin. We are being restored from our disfigured image into what Christ always intended for us through Him.

    I’m a Convert in a primarily Convert Church (I’ve been Orthodox 24 years). My Priest (Fr Evan Armatas who is on Ancient Faith Radio) is Greek. Boy have we learned from each other! He never imagined what Protestants believed 10 years ago! We have benefited from a Priest that has deep roots in Orthodoxy! The best of both worlds is when we get along and listen. Without those sweet Ethnic Orthodox, I never would have found the Faith that I love.

    1. Yes, I have also heard the comparison to circumcision, but I believe it is a faulty one. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham. The difference here is a clear one. First, God chose Abraham and his descendants, through Isaac, to be His chosen people. Second, it was not an individual choice wherein those who comprised God’s people chose Him; rather He chose them. We see that this choosing was even forced upon those old enough to make up their own mind, and yet they were not permitted that choice.
       27 All the men of his household, who were born in the house or bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him. – Ge 17:27.
       We see again in Joshua 5 that the Lord commands all the children of Israel, born in the wilderness, to be circumcised. There’s nothing there to indicate a choice.
       So, if one is going to use the circumcision of 8 day old babies to prove infant baptism is acceptable, then one must also accept that forcing your employees to be baptized is equally a valid method for obtaining new converts to Christendom. One would have to conclude that a parent who converts to Orthodox faith, should also force anyone living in his household (e.g., spouse, adult children, perhaps daughters-in-law, etc) to be baptized.
       Again, if the EO are going to use the faulty argument of “Well, they circumcised 8 day old babies in Israel”, then you have to account for these discrepancies I mention above, and answer why you are not in favor of those forced baptisms as well, since that would correlate to forced adult circumcision of the OT.
       While the Abrahamic covenant was one of God choosing a people, the new covenant is one of mutual selection:
       20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. – Rev 3:20.
       And per my citing of Origen’s interpretation of Matt 16, it was clear Jesus wanted His church to be built of those who had received that personal witness from God that Jesus is the Christ. Babies are incapable of that. Even the EO acknowledges the need for voluntary participation when they delay Chrismation for several years. And, since the EO acknowledges that a baby who dies without baptism is not condemned to hell, then there is no justifiable need for forcing a sacrament upon those unable to participate willingly. Why not wait to do it at the time of Chrismation?
       The Orthodox also cite, “But Jesus said let the little children come unto me.” First, it’s a misquote. He said, “do not hinder them from coming to me.” But they were simply brought by the parents so that Jesus could lay hands on them to pray for/bless them. They were not brought for baptism. Second, when Jesus said, “for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”, He was not saying that the kingdom belongs exclusively to children, but it belongs to those who exhibit the faith and trust of a child. This is a bit more clear in the Greek text:
       τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
       Mt 19:14.
       which is better translated, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Nowhere does it say it belongs to the children. Otherwise, adults would be excluded, were it not simply speaking of a quality that characterizes those of the kingdom. The Tyndale, NKJV, KJV, Emphatic, Geneva are Bible versions that use this more accurate translation.

18. I am curious where you have gotten the idea that Chrismation and Baptism are separate
    d from one another. You say the EO delays Chrismation for several years after baptism. I have not attended every Orthodox Church but it is not something that is done any place I have ever attended or served. The Sacrament of Baptism service books have the two inseparably joined as they are in the Book of Needs.

    I submit that we all, as parents, make many choices for our children during their first decade of life and these are not characterized as forcing. The parents choose their clothes, their diets etc and no one thinks ill of that. Selecting the faith of one’s child is no more forcing then to feed them fruits. Your argument that the Church must be made up of willing believers as is weak. Saint Paul was anything but willing until he was chosen by the Lord to bear the Gospel to the Gentiles. It would be fair to say that he was forcefully “convinced” on the road to Damascus. Relying only on Origen for an interpretation of Matthew 16 does not lend much credence to the position that the Church must be built by people who have made an informed choice. Human brains develop slowly and are not fully developed until sometime after the age of 25. Following the logic of believer’s baptism, all must wait until after the age of 25 to be baptized and that is illogical.

    The Church has baptized infants from the beginning and will continue to do so. We are charged by the Lord to teach our children the Faith and bringing them up in it is the way prescribed in Deuteronomy 6. Baptism is the first step along the difficult and narrow path that leads to salvation. It does not mark the end, but rather the beginning of working out one’s salvation in fear and trembling. Why in the world would we ever want to keep anyone from beginning the journey even if they don’t fully grasp the significance and consequences of their start on the journey? That would mean that unfortunates who suffer from conditions that affect their mental abilities could never be baptized because they may never really understand what they are doing.

    1. You are right. That’s what happens when I type so late at night. I typed Chrismation where I meant Communion (Eucharist), which is of course the central point of the Divine Liturgy and that sacrament that binds the body of Christ together.

       Your citation of St. Paul’s conversion as support for forced conversion is quite flawed. You have fallen into the logic fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. Saul’s conversion fits the model of the Lord inviting and the man accepting, as in “Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man open the door …”

       Notice in Acts 22:10, Saul states τί ποιήσω, Κύριε; (“Lord, what shall I do?”). The Lord did not tell Saul to do anything until this question was posed. So, it’s a specious argument that Saul had no choice but to convert. On the other hand, I will admit that the Lord, being omniscient, would not have appeared to Saul had he foreseen a rejection of the call. Foreknowledge does not necessarily mean predestination, unless you’re a Calvinist. So, the logic of saying it is “fair to say that he was forcefully ‘convinced’ on the road to Damascus. ” falls apart. The children of Israel, during the Exodus, were forcefully convinced, but many still chose evil over the Lord.

       The next problems with your argument is to say that since a parent chooses many things for their children (e.g, food, clothing, education, etc), that it is then fair to make their choice for them to choose Christ. Yes, a parent chooses many things for a child, but we typically leave lifelong choices up to the child: marriage partner, profession. Typically, any choice that a child has to live with, for the rest of their lives, long after they’ve left home, is left till later in life when the child can choose for himself.

       I’ll leave your straw man argument of” everyone must wait till age 25 to convert” alone as I think most readers will see that it falls under its own weight without a counter-argument.

       You state, “We are charged by the Lord to teach our children the Faith and bringing them up in it is the way prescribed in Deuteronomy 6. ” So, tell me, do you also abide by Deut 6:8-9? Do you make your children wear a tefillin, as these verses indicate? Do you attach a mezuzah over your door post as these verses indicate?

       Yes, you are commanded to bring up your children in the way of the Lord, but you are not commanded to choose the Lord for them. You also educate your children, but you do not choose their profession. You educate in both instances, hoping they will eventually choose the right path.

       Choosing the Lord is of eternal consequence. If you feel you can make that choice for the child, then why not choose something of much less eternal import, such as the child’s spouse? After all, you want him to have a happy marriage right? And we know young adults sometimes make very bad decisions; so let’s make it for them.

       You state, “Why in the world would we ever want to keep anyone from beginning the journey even if they don’t fully grasp the significance and consequences of their start on the journey?”

       Again, the flaw in this logic is that waiting until a child is old enough to choose is the same as preventing them from beginning a journey. Do you apply the same logic to other lifelong decisions of less eternal consequence, such as marriage and profession?

       I have no doubt the the EO will continue infant baptism. They’ve been doing it for a very long time. I have no delusions about being the one to change anyone’s mind. And it is certainly not a deal breaker in my current conversion to EO.

19. You are also incorrect in saying that a child is not communed for years after Baptism and Chrismation. Baptism is generally done before the Divine Liturgy and during the liturgy the first people communed are those that were just baptized regardless of age. Infants are welcomed immediately into the fullness of the faith and all of its mysteries.

    You reject the idea of human mental development but it is well known in insurance circles that people under 25 are far more likely to be involved in accidents because they cannot yet always accurately determine outcome from action. What eight year old really understands the consequence of choosing the faith? When is the age when they truly understand? Is it really possible in any point of life to truly understand what we are choosing eternally? I submit that decisions on faith are done in the Western world of Christianity these days mostly on emotions. I have preached enough sermons at revivals to know how to emotionally manipulate people into altar calls. The whole point of a revival is to stir emotion and draw people into making emotional decisions on faith. I grew very uncomfortable with that approach, which is one of many reasons why I left Protestantism and converted to Orthodoxy.

    I also reject the idea that parents have nothing to do with all of the important decisions in life. It has only been in the last two centuries that the majority of marriages were not by parental consent and I know many today who have giving guidance to their child about possible spouses and careers. Fewer parents are involved these days and the results speak for themselves, however.

    No, I don’t wear Jewish items, but when my children were growing up, I did instruct them whenever the opportunity arose. I know many who have deliberate plans of how to disciple their children and what they desire them to know, to believe and to do when they reach age 18. I have found this method very successful in the families that do this. The point of the binding of the Law on their wrists and foreheads in Deuteronomy is not that wearing such items is required, but that remembering the faith is required. I often have my prayer rope wrapped around my wrist and when I am not using it it reminds me of my faith which is the point of wearing those Jewish items.

    We will continue to choose the Lord for our children and guide them into the fullness of the faith as they grow. Although my children have all grown and have children of their own, don’t think for a minute that I have lost sight of my responsibility to guide them. Today, it is mostly by the example of my life versus me making decisions for them, but they do ask me for advice on many topics.

    1. Per the Orthodox catechism:

       “The contrition that comes from a sense of one’s own sinfulness is a necessary condition for Communion.”
       See http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#44

       Not sure how a baby is able to comply with this “necessary condition for Communion.”

       Thankfully, I am way past the age of parenting children. So, this is not a matter that is of high importance to me, although I do disagree with the practice.

       1. I’ll close out this thread with the following, since it (this thread) was only meant to provoke thought, but certainly not discord.

          Beyond the scriptures, which no where sanctions the baptism of children, our earliest record of apostolic teachings is the Didache:

          4 And before the baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others that are able; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.

          Notice requirement to fast one or two days beforehand.

          Again, Justin Martyr, in Apology i. 61, states:

          “And we have received from the Apostles the following reason for so doing: Since we were ignorant of our first birth … and were brought up in evil customs and wicked training, in order that we might not remain the children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge; and that we might obtain in the water remission of the sins that we had formerly committed, there is spoken over him who chooses the new birth and who repents of his sins the Name of God the Father and Lord of all things; and calling Him by this name alone we bring this person to be washed to the laver.… Now this washing is called Illumination,* because they who learn the meaning of these things are enlightened in their mind. And in the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost who by the prophets foretold all these things about Jesus, does he who is enlightened receive his washing.”

          Notice “but of choice and knowledge” and “who chooses the new birth and who repents of his sins” and “Now this washing is called Illumination,* because they who learn the meaning of these things “.

          In Justin’s same book, chapter 66:

          “And this food is called among us a Thanksgiving or Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake save him who believes the truth of our doctrines, and who has been washed in baptism for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and who lives even as Christ directed us.”

          Notice that no one should participate in the Eucharist except those capable of believing and then living the teachings.

          Thanks for the lively debate.

          Ron Grimes

          1. None of these cases addresses children. And why would Justin, who is addressing the emperor of Rome, be discussing children? In Roman society, children aren’t even really persons.

             As to whether the Scripture sanctions the baptism of children, it says that whole households were baptized. Why does “including children” need to be there for that to be considered sanction? Don’t households always include children?

             What seems odder to me is that parents would deliberately exclude their children from the household of faith, especially in the first century where there seemed to be a fervent expectation that the end was quite near. Would they really risk that their children would enter into the eschaton unbaptized?

             1. Fr. Damick,

                You’ll be happy to know that I came to terms with infant baptism by taking the opposite side of the debate to see if I could convince myself, since none of the explanations I’ve been given seemed to satisfy.
                See my article at https://www.facebook.com/thestreetcalledstraight/posts/1858749914183911

20. It comes with time and discipleship. That is why children have God Parents and parents to help them grow in the faith. Salvation is a journey of growth in the faith and even an adult takes time to really begin to experience the faith and come to know it and thereby see the need for contrition and repentance. Ron, the Church has been baptizing newborns for 2,000 years and is not going to change the way it lives out the Faith Once Delivered.
    Orthodoxy is not a faith learned from books and systematized in texts. It is a faith that one comes to know over time through experience. It is an entirely different way of thinking about faith reality and life. The Hebrew word Yada is very appropriate in understand Orthodox faith. Yada means to know by experience and it is the very word that is used in Hebrew Scripture to describe Adam coming to know Eve. We know our faith by experiencing it, not studying and debating it.
    The Church in its wisdom gained from the Holy Spirit has been baptizing newborns and welcoming them into the faith to grow in experiencing it for nearly 2,000 years. Using logical argument based on human reason is not going to change the Church’s way of doing things. Instead, we, as obedient Sons and Daughters of the Church, adapt to the Church’s teachings and ways. We learn the Faith by doing it.

21. This is an old thread, but I have a few thoughts to share about OCA recruitment and retention.

    As an infant I was baptized because it was a trend at the time. None of my siblings were baptized and I did not grow up in any church as my parents were godless during my upbringing and my mother showed active contempt for Christianity.

    17 years ago an event in my life left me no where else to turn. At that moment God entered the door that I no longer had the strength to hold closed. I surrendered completely, and God led me out of the darkness. This was the first time that I had ever found faith in something-someone that I could not physically prove.

    Recently I watched a Christian apologist film, “The Case for Christ”, and it floored me. As a man who looks up to no mortal man as God, I never accepted Jesus as any more than a good man with a good heart. It took another skeptic who appealed to my logic and demand for evidence to finally get me to understand that the Resurrection is a fact not a myth. My understanding of who Christ was and is profoundly changed.

    My wife is Methodist, and she became disheartened with the church’s accelerating acceptance of all forms of behavior and causes. As a result, she has joined our local OCA mission to get closer to the words of the disciples/apostles.

    Along with my wife, we have begun what amounts to a Sunday school for adults at our local OCA mission, led by our mission’s Father. I am reading an Orthodox children’s book 🙂 and a more dense Orthodox text. My eyes are wide open and I’m learning.

    There is no rush to earn my stripes as catechist or chrismation or to be re-baptized. These things are up to my mission’s Father, who will determine all things in good time. I am as surrendered to his wisdom as I am to that of Christ’s . My wife and I intend to be re-married in the Orthodox church.

    The time it takes to become an Orthodox Christian is irrelevant to me because of the richness of the love of the church is immediate and profound. Let my progression proceed apace with God’s will.

    I will wrap up with a suggestion for the OCA: Figure out a way to advertise what you represent. Understand that many Jews are returning to the Orthodox temples for the same reason that my Methodist wife came to the OCA. What you offer is undiluted access to the essence of Christ as spoken by He and His apostles. No Pope…just Christ and the Apostles and the veneration of the Saints.

    I think that our Mission captures what the OCA offers to those struggling spiritually everywhere:

    “The Orthodox Church isn’t non-denominational – it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.

    If you are looking for the timeless Christian faith…
    If you are looking to strengthen your faith…
    If you are searching for what God has in store for you…
    If you need a place to call home…
    If you have nowhere else to turn…
    Then please join us!”

    Please consider enthusiastically advertising what the OCA represents. Some will be disappointed that certain behaviors are not going to be embraced by the OCA, however, many, many more will have finally found the right church.

    May The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit guide us in all that we do, and may we have the wisdom, humility and grace to listen.

22. I was told by a priest when I inquired about joining the Orthodox Church near me that they were very selective about who they let in, hinting in a not-so-subtle way that I was not welcome. They were basically an ethnic church, Greek I believe, that wanted to remain that way most likely although the priest was an American convert. I wonder if it was because I was a single woman as well. Regardless, I don’t think I will try again with another Orthodox Church, not because of this one incident, but because I believe the Orthodox Church doesn’t really need converts. It might be better for them to concentrate on their own sheep. It’s hard enough saving a few souls. I lost nothing by trying though, that’s all anyone can do.

    1. If it was an ethnic discrimination thing then that is a very specific sin called philetism. It has been condemned by the church. I do hope you will try again. My rocor church is half convert and very welcoming of converts like myself.

23. I am sorry you had such an experience. No parish I have ever been to or served in would treat you that way. I suggest visiting an Orthodox Church in America (OCA) parish. We are mostly converts and most just plain Americans. We are not an ethnic church and welcome all who come to ours doors.

24. Thank you for sharing that. I am truly sorry that you were made to feel unwelcome in any Orthodox parish. It is a dreadful shame that some who belong to the Apostolic Church treat it like an ethnic club, particularly since such an ethos is directly at odds with the Lord’s command to “make disciples of all nations.”

    As a convert from Roman Catholicism, I can say that coming into the Orthodox Church is the single most wonderful thing that has happened to me. The Church is ready to receive all who hunger for Christ and seek to be transformed by him.

Comments are closed.