Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Practical Differences Between the Orthodox and Evangelicals
First Orthodox Cathedral built in Georgia in 1,000 years.
I am a Baptist and a missionary that was on the field for 14 years and I worked primarily in Georgia but other Orthodox countries as well. My experience with culturally Orthodox and faithful Orthodox believers are from these countries in descending order of interaction, Georgia, Russia, Romania, Ukraine, and America. I was inspired by this post from @heavywater on the conversion of the Bible Answers man to Orthodoxy. What I wanted to do here is to lay out the practical differences I found between not just the teaching of Orthodoxy and Evangelicals generally but how the teaching is put to work in the real world. I am a Baptist and I would be a Reformed Baptist, on the question of salvation, to lay down a theological marker.
I am not trying to win or even make an argument here, I am not interested in this post who better reflects the teaching in the Bible or the wishes of Christ, instead I want to lay out how the differences in the teachings of the two churches play out in the lives of people practicing the two faiths. I want to illuminate what motivates the conversions that move people from Orthodoxy to Evangelicalism and what often motivates the reverse. I intend to take a more bottom-up look at what happens here so instead of starting with theology and then working down to the people I am going to start with the people and work my way up to some insights on the theology.
Let’s get started with part of a testimony of a girl that went from Orthodoxy to Evangelicalism.
“My first doubt about my faith is when we went to sacrifice a chicken to the Lord at the local Orthodox church. We had sinned and the Priest said we needed to sacrifice a chicken to Lord to atone for it. So my parents brought the chicken and while we prayed the Priest slaughtered the chicken and threw half in a basket before the altar and then took the other half for himself. Before I could control myself, I said aloud, “That is for God, why are you taking it?” My parents were mortified but the Priest just smiled at me and said, “Christ also takes care of his Priests.”
Now any, even nominally educated, Orthodox believer will quickly tell you the above story is a mess. Orthodox theology does not need chickens, no one atones for sin with the blood of animals. Some even question whether the above incident could have even happened. No one in Georgia would bat an eye at it however, they all know it happens. I am here to tell you though that Orthodox theology does not allow the Priest to act the way he did and it is true even if the people believed the chicken was sacrificed for their sins it was only because they were taught incorrect Orthodox theology.
Even Priests in Georgia, educated ones used to foreigners, will tell you what we see here is simple folk practice. Country priests have to find various ways to supplement their income to survive and people build up stories about once simple rituals to give them greater importance and so we get bad theology. But they are also quick to assure you that it is alright and the people’s faith in the Church is justified and their salvation is secure. Why is that? Well, one more story.
My sister in law, Nino, is out on a camping trip with her girlfriend and some male cousins and friends. They are feasting on fish the boys have caught in the stream and the next day they are going to a church up in the hill country called Tetri Giorgi (White/Silver George) the church is ancient and very holy. It is said the earth all around the church is black from the tens of thousands of cattle sacrificed there over the centuries. One of the boys noticed a gold chain around her neck and said, “You better hide that or even bury it out here.” Shocked Nino responded, “No, way. Why would I do such a thing?”
The boys explained that Saint George and other Saints located at the church are very hungry for sacrifice and if they “see” the gold they will demand it from her and if she does not give it they may even curse her causing her death. Nino, then explained that the church they are going to is simply a piece of cultural heritage to her and there are no saints who do anything like they say, and that her faith is in Jesus Christ regardless and Jesus doesn’t really need nor wants her necklace.
The boys then launched into long stories about how magical the church was, how the Saints can mess with the Earth’s magnetic field and essentially tell horrifying ghosts stories with gruesome ends for those that tried to defy the Saints of the church of Tetri Giorgi. When Nino and her friend still weren’t moved and tried to explain that even according to normal Orthodox teaching what they were saying about the church was wrong. The boys were so angry the girls were frightened and asked to go home and one the cousins drove them away from the camping trip.
What to make of these two stories, stories used often when explaining to others why the people that experienced them became Baptist instead of Orthodox? Well, normally the conversation derails on high theological grounds and defenses based on the fact that the bad actors in this story were not acting as true Orthodox and who seem ignorant of basic Orthodox teaching.
I think this misses the point. The Orthodox are basically unchallenged in Georgia. They have government backing and have been free of Communist oppression for more than a generation. If the Orthodox Church in Georgia wanted to stop these practices, they certainly could. A priest or monk coming out of the church of the Tetri Giorgi and telling everyone with a cow in tow that there was no reason to kill the cow and that it would bring them no advantage would swiftly put an end to the practice. They chose not to end it. Why?
Church Authority in Salvation
The reason these practices horrify Baptists and usually get rueful shrugs from Orthodox Priests is their different views of the role of the Church in salvation. For the Orthodox, the membership in the right church brings a person to salvation. The hard work of the priest and the church hierarchy is to bring their flock into salvation the flock does not have to do much more than belong and stay members in good standing with the church to make it into heaven.
Imagine for a moment that you are a priest and strongly believe that people need salvation and that salvation is on offer in the Orthodox Church. You head out to a village or small town and start caring for the flock. As you teach standard Orthodox theology you find that many people are surprised by what you are teaching and they start questioning many of their folk’s beliefs. As you try and reassure them that their folk beliefs are wrong they begin to worry about their dead grandparents and other relatives and get upset. The flock is troubled and there is dissension in the flock with many accusing you the Priest of teaching bad or “new doctrine”. You have a big mess on your hands, you are barely paid anything, you depend on donations from the flock who are upset and angry, other Priests around rebuke you for rocking the boat, and in general your life becomes very unpleasant. What would you do?
Well, I think we can forgive a Priest for asking, “Do the people really need to know any of these things?” They are in the right church, it is your job to secure their salvation by blessing a few folk practices you make a lot of people happy and you will give them correct sacraments and really isn’t that the most important thing?
People yearn for the supernatural and the unexplained, they desire meaning in their lives and folk practices, superstitions, legends, and Saints give them something to get them through hard days and for the Priests there really is no harm done since the people are in the right church. They obey their “Fathers” and they get the correct and very powerful sacraments and that is simply enough for salvation. I should say here too that the Priests I knew of or knew personally did not, for the most part, hide their deeper theological truths from their people but they took a very God-focused approach to sharing theology. If God moved someone to really ask questions and wanted to read books the Priest would help them do those things and teach them, because they figured they really wanted to know. They were always careful to leave some wiggle room for the customs and practices of the local people however, no matter how weird. As long as the practice did not detract from the authority of the Priest or the church he served.
There is a movie that gets at this as well. It is called Leviathan. A 2014 film from Russia. In the movie a man is losing his lands to a corrupt official but the innocent man knows a lawyer so he fights back to keep his land. This land stealing has been normal for a while in the region and the corrupt official Vadim is giving some of the land to the Church and using some of his wealth to build up the church in the area. There is Bishop in the movie and he is pretty good. I could not find the scene I wanted on YouTube but when Vadim thinks he is about to be undone by his victim’s lawyer he goes to the Bishop for advice. The scene starts at the 1:11-minute mark in the movie and Vadim confesses he is feeling uneasy about his criminal behavior, he is not sure if he will succeed. The Bishop carefully keeps himself from hearing any details of crimes and instead checks in on the man’s faith. He asks if he is going to the mass and talking with his confessor and then spiritualizes the conflict for him. The Bishop says that the realms of the two men are different, Vadim is in the secular realm and must use his strength to solve his conflicts. Vadim is doing God’s work, yes? Then act like a man and don’t let the Enemy win over him. The Bishop rebukes him for being a child and having doubts and then blesses him and sends Vadim off. Sure enough, the lecture works and Vadim solves all his problems with some carefully applied violence and fear and soon all his enemies have fled, committed suicide or are in jail.
Again this is not what the great moral theology of the Orthodox theology would teach. What is shows how easy the Orthodox fall into the trap separating what happens inside and outside the church. In the Secular world, you do what you must to accomplish your goals and the “greater good” when you are in the world of the church you obey the church authority and trust in them for your salvation.
Again the point here is to not show how the Orthodox Church “really” works I am discussing flaws in the system thate convince people to leave the Church for another denomination or faith.
A Nominal Orthodox confesses her faith in Christ.
So what about the Baptists?
While I have been discussing cracks in the Orthodox practice, it has to be said that the system overall is quite popular. Things like this don’t last if they are not popular and do not appeal to a side of our human nature. Since this post is about conversion, I thought I would line up how Baptist practice, and Protestant more generally, match up against these fault lines.
The first is the practice that matters here is the emphasis on Bible reading. It is often alleged that the Orthodox don’t read the Bible because they are not allowed too. That was not what I experienced working and living with Orthodox for 14 years. There is rarely, if ever, any command not to read the Bible by any Orthodox authority. Instead nearly all Orthodox believe, especially those in Orthodox countries where I have direct experience, the Bible is challenging and confusing. Reading the Bible directly is a holy exercise that requires regular access to a Priest and a lot of time. It is troublesome to read the Bible so it is better to read the readily available and curated books that Priest have put together where you read Bible verses and/or chapters with explanation in one book. Passages that are too troublesome are just left out.
This usually meant that the normal Orthodox member you ran into wasn’t just ignorant of the Bible, most people everywhere are Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or other notwithstanding, they were shocked to learn what was in the Bible. In other words, Orthodox were often truly ignorant of the Bible but confident they were not. Reading the Bible, especially passages they didn’t know existed, would shock many Orthodox and undermine their trust in the church. I would say that of all the Georgians and others who sat down and read the Bible with me over the course time 80% of them became Baptist. Now, getting them to read the Bible with you for a period of time was very difficult but if they did they were very likely to convert.
This was not because the Bible “disproves” Orthodoxy; it was because they had been told for their whole lives that the Bible was confusing and that the Church would take care of the salvation. Reading the Bible, they did not find it very confusing and the Bible was pretty clear about having faith, yourself, in Christ to be saved. The church hierarchy didn’t seem to factor into this according to the Bible.
The second aspect of the Baptist practice that attracted people away from the Orthodox Church was fusing their normal secular lives with their faith. As a missionary, the hardest lift for me in teaching and preaching was not convincing people that Jesus loved them and they needed a personal faith Christ but that faith in Christ meant their “public” life was to match up with the “church” life. When people realized that Christ could affect their whole life, through a relationship with Him, the rituals of the Orthodox Church would feel empty or even pointless. Doing rituals to get rid of sin as you went pales in comparison to Jesus Christ who forgives all sin, once and for all so that we can love Him and love others more freely. This strikes many Orthodox as a life of greater integrity and fulfillment than one of ritual obedience to the Church. Once you believe that you are in a relationship with Christ and his Holy Spirit dwells within you the idea that Saints of any kind or Holy Water, Blessed Crosses, Holy Candles or any other aid or intercessor is necessary loses their appeal. Instead, converts felt these things distracted from Christ instead of drawing Christ closer to them. If Christ loved them instead of being angry with them, why do you need someone that Christ “really” loved, like a Saint, intercede for you?
This post is more than long enough. I will write a part II that will be up early next week where I will write an “Ode to Orthodoxy” about how the practical aspects of Baptist practice will lead people to the beauty and ancient wonder and wisdom of the Orthodox Church.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
As I see it, we discussing two different methods of evaluating claims:
[1] Evaluate each claim by itself.
[2] Evaluate each claim in the context of our background knowledge of the world, how it works.
I am using [2]. You seem to be using [1].
So, if 10 people provide to me personal testimony that they say a man flap his arms and fly, my background knowledge of the world and how it works requires me to think of this testimonial evidence as more likely representing mistaken memory rather than actual historical fact.
Rubbish. [2]. Only [2].
Given only that much, yes.
There are reasons I keep mentioning that there are criteria for high-quality testimonial evidence and salient characteristics of the Gospel testimony.
What if it isn’t the same sort of evidence?
What if one the one hand we have lots of written material from a variety of sources and one the other hand just one story?
Paul might have been an eyewitness to his own imaginary vision of seeing Jesus and he could have died for it. But this does not mean that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Remember, Christianity was already a religious movement before Paul converted from Judaism.
Perhaps Paul got caught up in the madness of crowds.
Think of all of those people who converted to Mormonism in the 19th century. They were caught up in the madness of crowds.
Christians who converted in the 1st and 2nd and 3rd centuries might have been caught up in the same madness of crowds situation.
That’s the same sort of evidence, but I grant that it is a real difference in the quality of the evidence.
Given a certain level of skepticism about testimonial evidence, it might make sense to accept that some Christians died and reject the evidence concerning particular people.
Maybe our difference here boils down to your higher level of skepticism towards historical testimony. You are apparently willing to not believe in Socrates, etc.
Once again, an insufficient explanation unless you add some allegations of filthy lying. As noted, the NT writers do not leave open the possibility of this sort of sole explanation.
But this sort of thing could nicely supplement a filthy-liar explanation, or a-hefty-dose-of-madness explanation.
Of course, as noted, there is not any evidence for any of your skeptical hypotheses, while there is some testimonial evidence for the Resurrection. (With nothing but corroboration from archaeology where available.)
Interestingly, I could write off masses of skeptical university scholars the way you wrote off ancient testimonial evidence.
But I could do it with a much less exotic hypothesis. All I’d have to do is say something about academic groupthink–mistaking the prestige of a view for evidential support.
But why bother? I’ve little use for hypotheses to explain what I don’t like. I’m interested in the evidence--the testimonial evidence, the archaeology, the arguments scholars use, and so on. I’ve little use for hypotheses to explain what I don’t like.
I am willing to consider the possibility that Socrates didn’t die by drinking hemlock and that some of the stories we have heard/read about Socrates are not true.
But this is primarily because I am not familiar with what scholars of ancient history have written regarded the best sources we have indicating that Socrates died drinking hemlock.
However, there is nothing out of the ordinary about a man like Socrates drinking hemlock. It is much more out of the ordinary that a man like Jesus is born of a virgin, walks on water, turns water into wine and rises from the dead.
In theory, just about anything is possible. In theory, I have the ability to teleport myself to London in an instant. But our background knowledge of the way the world actually works would persuade people to be extremely skeptical about my claim to be able to teleport myself to London.
Also, we do know that human beings do get caught up on the madness of crowds. Examples of this would be Mormonism, Islam and the worship of Zeus. Also, alien abductions are an example where people sincerely think that something happened to them that most of us believe did not happen.
So, with that background knowledge, in addition to our expanding knowledge regarding how the brains of human beings process information, we have reason to be even more skeptical about Jesus rising from the dead.
At least that’s how I see it.
I also think that the fact that the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire was Constantine in the early 4th century is an interesting fact to ponder. If Jesus really did rise form the dead because God raised Jesus from the dead (and Jesus was God), I would think that the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire would have existed in the 1st Century, not the 4th Century.
It seems that Christianity spread by word of mouth and by written Gospel, human to human. If God had really put his thumb on the scale, so to speak, Christianity would have spread much faster than it did.
This isn’t to say the spread of Christianity in the 1st to 4th centuries isn’t impressive. But it seems to be a natural phenomenon. It’s not like the Chinese learned about Jesus in the 1st century. And it took so long for the Christians to lock in the concept of the Trinity and Jesus being a co-equal part of that Trinity. Again, this appears to be a human concept, evolving over time.
Sure. Who isn’t?
But I’m willing to consider it like I’m willing to consider the theory that Trump is an alien lizard: It’s an idea I reject unless I come across a dramatic shift in the evidence.
Because I follow the evidence.
The evidence is plenty good, and historians know it.
On this one item, you plead ignorance of the evidence, not trusting in scholarship, even when the scholars no doubt agree, but wanting to see the evidence that convinces them. Why is that?
Indeed. And remarkable claims need better evidence. Why keep bringing it up as if we disagree?
I repeat myself: This is woefully insufficient as an explanation of the Gospel testimony, with its appeals to eyewitness testimony to what is easily verifiable. This is a fine supplement to a filthy-liars theory. All versions of your skeptical hypothesis, however, lack any evidence and neglect, for no clear reason, the existing evidence.
Why would G-d have to do things that way? He doesn’t answer to your ways or to mine. And there are reasons for humans should have a lot of responsibility for spreading the Good News.
See if you can find just one detail in the doctrine of the Trinity or in Christology that is anything more than a careful statement of what’s in the Bible.
I am not a historian and I have not evaluated the evidence regarding Socrates.
I could simply take an ancient historian’s word for it. But I am ignorant of the views of ancient historians. So, I simply say, “I don’t know.”
However, when the subject shifts towards Jesus’s alleged resurrection, I have taken the time to evaluate the evidence and the opinions of New Testament scholars and Christian Theologians.
Having done that, I believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Why, in the case of Socrates, do you refuse to trust in a scholarly consensus and insist on seeing the evidence that convinces the scholars before you state any opinions of your own?
In the case of the New Testament your pattern is consistently “Look to the scholarly conclusions!” although you almost never mention the evidence that convinces them.
How interesting. Why don’t you try talking about that for a change? After all, I’ve been asking you to for weeks. What is your reason for negatively evaluating the NT evidence?
But this presupposes that God actually did intend to raise Jesus from the dead.
We have no evidence, one way or the other, of God’s intentions, assuming God exists at all.
Did God intend the Nazi Holocaust to happen? Did God intend children to die of starvation?
We don’t know if God intended these things. We don’t even know if God exists.
Gosh. Books have been written analyzing the New Testament.
How much time I could spend trying to summarize the books I have read on these issues.
And why should I summarize these books when the books can simply be checked out of the library?
What’s the point?
The Gospels are interesting reading. But I do not believe that these stories about Jesus walking on water, exorcizing demons, turning water into wine and rising from the dead are true.
No; I’m just pointing out that this objection to the Gospel testimony is illogical. You are arguing that G-d did not do something on the grounds that if G-d did something G-d would have acted like he wasn’t G-d. It’s the same logic as “HeavyWater didn’t write this comment on Ricochet because if he had he should have written it my way.”
Think of my rejoinder as an IF-THEN. IF the Gospel is true, THEN G-d has reasons to not do things the way you describe. Not a presupposition at all.
If you’re not interested in talking about the evidence with people who care about the evidence, I concur: What’s the point?
Seriously, I care about the evidence. If you just want me to know that you think such-and-such, why not just say that and then stop?
But if you want to have a conversation about the reasons for our beliefs, the evidence matters and should be the foremost topic.
What an interesting conclusion! Do you have a premise for it?
What I am doing is comparing the way the world actually appears and the way that the world would likely have appeared if God had intervened.
You can say, as you have, that God could have wanted to make the world appear as though God had not intervened.
Maybe God likes to keep himself hidden. Maybe that’s why God allowed Islam to emerge in the 7th century, to keep people on their toes, wondering, “Gee, is Christianity the one true faith? Or is Islam the one true faith? Oh, but how about Judaism? What about Hinduism? Hmmm.”
But now we either have a God that does not exist, except in our imaginations or a God that acts (and does not act) in ways that make it appears as though he doesn’t exist.
People don’t walk on water. There are no demons and therefore there is no exorcizing of demons and people can’t turn water into wine nor can they rise from the dead.
It really doesn’t have much to do with New Testament scholarship. It’s really just a question of whether one thinks walking on water is possible and if walking on water is possible, when does it happen and why does it happen.
I don’t think these things happen, therefore, when I read a story about these things happening, I don’t believe the story is true.
Sorry. Overwrote this comment while trying to reply!
Hard to do this on a phone!
Ok, so your evidence is that you rule out the supernatural from the start, prior to experience, prior to investigation.
As for me, I am an empiricist, and I care about the evidence.
So now we have to presuppose that both the New Testament and Old Testament are true.
Sure, if we presuppose that, of course one would conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.
Two people can care about the evidence, read a story and the result can be that one person thinks the story is true and the other person thinks that the story if false.
I can about evidence. But I don’t simply accept the truth of someone’s testimony, whether that testimony is oral or written.
No. That is precisely what I am not doing. Attend please to the logic. It’s an IF-THEN.
I am talking about what you are talking about: how things would likely have gone under G-d’s guidance. We are disagreeing about which way would be more likely.
Indeed. Whoever did?
Ok, but then neither of them should rule out a conclusion prior to examining the evidence and then cite his ruling it out as evidence.
Agreed.
Exactly.
Seriously?
You’re refuting yourself.
Now why not follow through on it and become a Christian?
I have read the entire Bible and I am not convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.
I’m not going to lie to you and tell you that after reading the gospels I now believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
I remain unconvinced after evaluating the evidence.
Do you have some problem with the evidence other than the one you’ve just joined me in refuting?
Written testimony isn’t convincing evidence that a human being rose from the dead.
What an interesting conclusion! Do you have a new premise for it?