What is the recent lure of Eastern Orthodoxy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Why have several folks that I am aquainted with fled to Eastern Orthodoxy? What is the lure and what explains the upsurge in conversions to orthodoxy? The link with history? Hatred towards overly systematic calvinism? An interest in Greek or Russian culture?

And how do we treat these who have departed? As erring brothers or as apostates?

What is the best way to engage them, what are the best links to show the errors of Orthodoxy, and what books would you recommend?
 
Its rather mysterious and they claim to have the unbroken chain of apostolic succession. I think its the feel of this so called tradition in their liturgies that are appealing. After all this day in age doctrine doesn't matter only the feel of unity and tradition.Westminster Seminary California
 
I suspect that some of the EO growth is from exiting and former RC's who are disgusted by the child molester cover-ups. Similar liturgy to the papists may be the key drawing factor. I hope the phrase "swim the Volga" doesn't get used as much as "swim the Tiber". It is a sad journey, to watch someone make, either way. People are easily duped by tradition and pageantry. Were the people you know recovering RC?
 
Another argument I have heard is that Christianity is an eastern religion since the Hebrews came from the east therefore they say that they think like the Hebrews not like the over judicial western Romans.
 
It is all post modernism's fault.

With the rise of post modernity, people have severed their epistemological connections with authority systems that infringe upon their autonomy. Systems that are very much oriented around dogmatic assertions and careful reasoning are particularly odious to the post-modern mind. So they are abandoned for less cognitively demanding systems.

In short, people go there because it wows the senses, scratches the religious itch, makes few dogmatic assertions, and because it isn't clearly and precisely thought out (it's "fuzziness" is actually attractive to many).
 
SolaScriptura said:
It is all post modernism's fault.

With the rise of post modernity, people have severed their epistemological connections with authority systems that infringe upon their autonomy. Systems that are very much oriented around dogmatic assertions and careful reasoning are particularly odious to the post-modern mind. So they are abandoned for less cognitively demanding systems.

In short, people go there because it wows the senses, scratches the religious itch, makes few dogmatic assertions, and because it isn't clearly and precisely thought out (it's "fuzziness" is actually attractive to many).
Click to expand...

I'm glad this one wasn't hung on G. Bush ;)
 
Along with "tradition" and supposed authority, I think a part of it is the mix of Eastern mysticism/occultism that is in the Eastern churches. That stuff is alluring our entire culture, in and outside the Church.
 
Rich Koster said:
SolaScriptura said:
It is all post modernism's fault.

With the rise of post modernity, people have severed their epistemological connections with authority systems that infringe upon their autonomy. Systems that are very much oriented around dogmatic assertions and careful reasoning are particularly odious to the post-modern mind. So they are abandoned for less cognitively demanding systems.

In short, people go there because it wows the senses, scratches the religious itch, makes few dogmatic assertions, and because it isn't clearly and precisely thought out (it's "fuzziness" is actually attractive to many).
Click to expand...

I'm glad this one wasn't hung on G. Bush ;)
Click to expand...

Nice.....:lol:
 
Wow,

Have you guys actually talked to any of these converts, or are you just spouting off? I personally know several converts to EO - from Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran backgrounds.

On a social level, the answer is fairly obvious. EO has had virtually no presence in the USA until recent decades. They've just now gotten together some seminaries, a publishing house, and some network, so their influence is just now being felt.

But we're probably talking mostly about personal justifications. Here are some reasons I've heard:

1. Unity - converts to EO generally believe in the ideal of a single church, but don't buy the arguments for papal supremacy

2. Historical Liturgy - Many EO churches still have rites demonstrably similar to ancient (3-5 cent.) rites, thus reinforcing the idea of doctrinal continuity

3. Aesthetic Liturgy - Many converts to EO vigorously deny the "spiritualism" of Calvinism, asserting on incarnational grounds that the material is the proper channel for mediating the spiritual; they see Protestant (Calvinist) worship as bypassing the material and as being overly logo-centric

4. Anthropology/Soteriology - Many converts to EO see the West as being preoccupied with theories of original sin, merit, and consequently justification, and believe that their system of deification manages to avoid this; you might say that the East rejects both sides of the Augustine/Pelagian controversy

Lutherans seem to be getting hit particularly hard. I was talking to a Lutheran to EO convert and he said that at least 12 of his colleagues from seminary (LCMS) went East. Part of this may have been because of a surge of scholarship connecting Luther to certain Greek patristic theologians.

I think postmodernism is way off the mark as an explanation. Many EO's view postmodernity as being a Western problem. Catholics have a history of blaming Protestants for modernism, and the EO's have co-opted that line of argumentation to blame the whole West for the whole mess. Even some Westerners agree. The late Colin Gunton articulated this; see his The One, The Three, and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity. A recent work by an evangelical critiquing this narrative is Bradley Green, Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine. I have a published book review in Augustinian Studies.
 
CharlieJ said:
Wow,

Have you guys actually talked to any of these converts, or are you just spouting off? I personally know several converts to EO - from Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran backgrounds.

On a social level, the answer is fairly obvious. EO has had virtually no presence in the USA until recent decades. They've just now gotten together some seminaries, a publishing house, and some network, so their influence is just now being felt.

But we're probably talking mostly about personal justifications. Here are some reasons I've heard:

1. Unity - converts to EO generally believe in the ideal of a single church, but don't buy the arguments for papal supremacy

2. Historical Liturgy - Many EO churches still have rites demonstrably similar to ancient (3-5 cent.) rites, thus reinforcing the idea of doctrinal continuity

3. Aesthetic Liturgy - Many converts to EO vigorously deny the "spiritualism" of Calvinism, asserting on incarnational grounds that the material is the proper channel for mediating the spiritual; they see Protestant (Calvinist) worship as bypassing the material and as being overly logo-centric

4. Anthropology/Soteriology - Many converts to EO see the West as being preoccupied with theories of original sin, merit, and consequently justification, and believe that their system of deification manages to avoid this; you might say that the East rejects both sides of the Augustine/Pelagian controversy

Lutherans seem to be getting hit particularly hard. I was talking to a Lutheran to EO convert and he said that at least 12 of his colleagues from seminary (LCMS) went East. Part of this may have been because of a surge of scholarship connecting Luther to certain Greek patristic theologians.

I think postmodernism is way off the mark as an explanation. Many EO's view postmodernity as being a Western problem. Catholics have a history of blaming Protestants for modernism, and the EO's have co-opted that line of argumentation to blame the whole West for the whole mess. Even some Westerners agree. The late Colin Gunton articulated this; see his The One, The Three, and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity. A recent work by an evangelical critiquing this narrative is Bradley Green, Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine. I have a published book review in Augustinian Studies.
Click to expand...

I've heard most the things you list. My comments were my analysis and summary of the real reason. Simply put, post-modernism has created an atmosphere hostile to the dogmatic precision required by Reformed thought and the "fuzzy" pseudo-theology of the East is a lot more amenable. Additionally, the aesthetic of the East appeals to that sensual side that has been reaffirmed by post-modernism.

In short, post-modernism has planted WITHIN THE CONVERTS THEMSELVES, the epistemological seed that is watered by the East.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Simply put, post-modernism has created an atmosphere hostile to the dogmatic precision required by Reformed thought and the "fuzzy" pseudo-theology of the East is a lot more amenable. Additionally, the aesthetic of the East appeals to that sensual side that has been reaffirmed by post-modernism.

In short, post-modernism has planted WITHIN THE CONVERTS THEMSELVES, the epistemological seed that is watered by the East.
Click to expand...

I am not certain how often post-modernism is the cause of conversions to Eastern Church. Post-modernism has become so ubiquitous in our culture I do not wish to dismiss it as a cause.

I know former Episcopalians, former Roman Catholics and former evangelical Reformed types that have went over to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Episcopalians and Roman Catholics left because their Churches had become liturgically sloppy and vague. The homilies were not connected to Scripture readings appointed for that day. One man told me "I don't recognize the Episcopal Church anymore. Some alien creature has taken over the Church edifice." For ex Roman Catholics, Western Rite Orthodoxy gives them the core of the old liturgy without the Vatican II silliness.

At least one of the reformed men that went over to the East was not comfortable with some of the dogmatic precision that is part of our reformation heritage.
 
I know the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox pretty well. When my wife came to Christ it was a good while before she felt sure in her new faith and left attending GO services (we would alternate between Redeemer PCA in Manhattan and the GO Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, also in Manhattan). I had a copy of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in English / Greek so I could read it and follow along. I have a hard time believing a born-again person would be able to swallow replacing a Reformed order of worship with the GO liturgy, though I suppose it could happen. Finally, after Pola going to the GO worship for many months a girlfriend of hers there said to her, "If you don't believe this anymore why do you keep coming here?" For she had come to hold to the robust worship of Redeemer as the genuine worship of God. It was at that point she ceased going. When her father found out about it he didn't talk to her for about three years (and to me for about ten – for he held me responsible for her conversion). With the Greeks – and especially Greek Cypriots – it is part of their identity, not just what they believe.

With regard to post-modernism, it is perhaps the relativizing tendency of that worldview – there are no absolutes, only many culturally constructed truths – that has shaken the "faith" of many in the newer Christian communions, seeing them as illegitimate upstart breakaways from "the ancient and sure original faith". I lived among the purest form of Greek Orthodoxy (which the Greeks say is in Cyprus) for nine years, and did not personally run across any GO whom I thought to be born-again.

One Eastern Orthodox poet, Scott Cairns, said of American Christianity, that it is "the thinnest of soups". There is some truth in that; I myself have known it to be so. I learned early on one must seek the Lord for themselves and not depend on church services to sustain one. That might seem radical, but consider: we bring our faith to worship, and expect to meet the Lord there, but in some churches we are disappointed. A godly church, and an anointed pastor, is a real blessing from God. Only in vital Reformed churches is the "soup" rich. When I planted and pastored a Reformed church in Cyprus, I had to seek and find the Lord for myself, so as to be able to feed others with what He fed me. We all of us need to have that vital and intimate communion with our Saviour, for we do not know what days of spiritual deprivation may come upon us in these uncertain times – we may even be in the position of having to feed others.

Postmodernism has also impacted the view of many with regard to the Bible. The deconstructing all authority – and authoritative sources – has not spared the Scriptures (postmodern deconstruction was originally directed at literary works, I believe). Persons like Bart Ehrman work in this vein to great effect, as do many others. The attraction, then, to Eastern Orthodoxy – even from professing evangelicals – is for a bulwark of certainty in a deconstructed world. If one has not a sure faith – a sure union and communion – with Jesus Christ, and a sure faith in God's word, the Bible, one is vulnerable to "every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14), and may be carried away who-knows-where.
 
Last edited:
Odd flip side: I have a Coptic friend who sends people to Reformed churches where there is not an EO-type church near them, as we are 'the closest thing' to it. Might that be part of the reason? Few evangelical churches talk about Augustine, Chrysostom, and Origen. Our pastor quotes them with some frequency.
 
Are reformed people who convert to EO then to be considered apostates? Or erring brethren?

Among several of these the trend seemed to be for them to read federal vision stuff before departing. Is Federal Vision a "gateway drug" as one falls into Catholicism or EO?
 
I think the maxim found in C.S. Lewis (though I am not sure it is original to him) might be helpful in sorting through that: any road into Jerusalem, is also a road out of Jerusalem. If someone moved from atheism, Buddhism, etc., into EO the step is in the right direction: at least there is the confession of fundamental truth about God the Trinity, and the person and natures of Jesus, along with exposure to the Scriptures. But if someone moves from Westminster or Geneva or Canterbury to EO, they are accepting accretions which obscure the Scriptures, idolatry which corrupts worship, and a more flawed theology. (I have a hard time deciding whether moving from Rome to Constantinople is a purely lateral move, or if one church is fundamentally worse than the others: against Rome is of course the papacy itself, clerical celibacy, and some other points, but against Constantinople is the rejection of the filioque clause -- though of course I would distinguish between someone who rejected its constitutional authority because of the manner of its introduction, as opposed to someone who rejected its meaning.) It is hard to take that step away from Christ as being anything other than, at the very least, grave personal declension, and I suspect apostasy is actually more likely. We can always pray for them, and hold out hope of a recovery (as Petrus Dathenus was recovered from a slide back into the Roman church); but it seems to me that the parallel with Hebrews, where there was the temptation to turn back to Judaism, should certainly set off some very loud alarm bells as to the consequences of turning one's back on the clarity that has been attained and the simplicity and spirituality that has been recovered. I think the influence of postmodernism is seen in that for some people it doesn't really matter what the doctrinal content of your confession is; what matters is what sort of an experience you have in worship.

It is always tragically interesting that questions of church, liturgy, continuity, and history seem to loom so large in discussions about conversions to EO and papism; but it seems that Christ is rarely the focal point (a partial exception is a person I read of who remained in Rome when the priest asked where else they could go to have the actual body and blood of Christ - transubstantiation seemed to her a way to remain close to Christ). Not that I suppose that people who go in this way are explicitly or consciously rejecting Christ; but simply that he has already been somewhat occluded in their thoughts, and so other factors gain an undue influence.

I think it would serve well as a bulwark against such conversions in our own churches, if the teaching of Hebrews and Colossians were clearly brought before the congregation, and if the consideration of Christ himself were a bigger part of our preaching and devotions. Calvin on Colossians 2 is fantastic in this regard, as for instance on v.19:
He condemns in the use of one word whatever does not bear a relation to Christ. He also confirms his statement on the ground that all things flow from him, and depend upon him. Hence, should any one call us anywhere else than to Christ, though in other respects he were big with heaven and earth, he is empty and full of wind: let us, therefore, without concern, bid him farewell. Observe, however, of whom he is speaking, namely, of those who did not openly reject or deny Christ, but, not accurately understanding his office and power, by seeking out other helps and means of salvation, (as they commonly speak,) were not firmly rooted in him.
Click to expand...

I believe that "in other respects" Rome and EO both are empty and full of wind. But even if they were not, even if with regard to discipline and government and liturgy and whatever else they may wish to claim they were everything they say and more, even in that case I could not consent to embrace them, because their doctrine obscures Christ. No unbroken succession of ordination can profit me where Christ is not clearly placarded before my eyes. No massive organizational unity can give my conscience rest where the fullness of Christ for my salvation is not made plain. I suppose those may be embarrassingly evangelical statements; but Christ invited me to come to him. Yes, I know about that invitation only because of the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the church: yes, if I would have fellowship with Christ I must enter into the fellowship of the apostles; I understand that. But the point of those things is never to put Christ further away or to draw a veil over him, and if ever they do it is an abuse to be corrected, not a virtue to be embraced.

P.S. I think the FV is often a gateway drug, in three ways. One, because it does not give rest and stability to those who are insufficiently rooted. I think this may be the main way, that it does very little to establish people in the faith. That has to do not only with the contents of FV teaching, but also with the fact that it itself is unstable and developing, that some of its leaders have apparently not come to rest yet on a stable foundation, and that many of them enjoy shaking things up and making provocative remarks, without considering the effect of such actions on the unsettled. Some people pass through Reformed churches in their wanderings, and FV teaching presents an additional obstacle to them settling down with Reformed theology. Two, in that the distance between Biblical truth and Roman/EO teaching is not much emphasized: the bright line warning that the Tiber must not be crossed can get a little smudged - e.g., Doug Wilson's call for us to pray for our RC brethren when JPII died. Three, in that in some areas FV doctrine does approximate to Roman/EO views more closely. I put that one last because there are obvious incompatibilities, and I think erosion of the idea that Rome is entirely unacceptable mixed with an encouragement to flightiness and fluidity in theology probably have more to do with the conversions than because FV is simply a stop in a direction that if followed to its logical end would inevitably wind up kissing the Pope's ring or kneeling in front of an icon.
 
I was shocked to look at some old posts on the PB, and click on an inactive member's homepage (in his signature link) to find out that he is now an EO Priest(!). What an unpleasant surprise.
 
Here's the text of a blog post I wrote about this phenomenon a couple of years ago:

Over the past several years, I’ve had a few acquaintances who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (hereafter EO). Others are currently drawn to it or at some point have been strongly attracted to it. Most of these are people I’ve encountered in various online discussion forums dedicated to the discussion of Reformed theology.

All of these have been folks who were at one time members of a conservative Presbyterian denomination like the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and who were often some kind of Baptist to begin with. Often, although not always, they were attracted to the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul in the mid 2000′s. The following observations may or may not apply to the same degree to Westerners from different backgrounds who go EO.
​
It seems to me that Westerners convert to Eastern Orthodoxy due to a few reasons or considerations:

1. They reject Roman Catholicism because they cannot accept papal infallibility, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and maybe a few other things. In general, Rome has too much baggage for many Americans and some other Westerners of a Protestant background. Due to Trent and subsequent statements, Rome’s teaching appears to be a lot more clearly defined as well. A clear marking of boundaries tends to give rise to controversy. I don’t know that the East ever experienced a scholastic phase to the extent that the West did during the Middle Ages and later with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Thus, it seems that one can look eastward and see what he wants to see to a greater degree.

​
2. Many of them would have been attracted to Anglicanism in previous years. However, Anglicanism is now basically a disaster in the West, having been eviscerated by liberalism over the past 100 years and with apparently no cohesive conservative remnant. Some Calvinistic evangelical Anglicans (or what used to be called low church) may go into some kind of Reformed or Presbyterian church and a few others may affiliate with the African Anglicans that are now overseeing some parishes that have disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church USA. A good many of the high church types tend to cross the Tiber eventually unless they are hung up on the ordination of women, celibacy or Rome’s claim to authority.

3. They have rejected Calvinism and for whatever reason cannot be Lutheran, probably because of the strong law/grace distinction and Two Kingdom theology that is found in Lutheranism. The EO types are typically into the idea of Christendom and often have an emphasis on influencing the culture. Thus, Anglicanism would have been a good fit but see #2. Lutheranism, like Calvinism, is also viewed as insufficiently apostolic by those who equate the ancient church (and thus authentic Christianity) with Rome or the East. But I find that the rejection of Protestantism on the grounds of it not being apostolic in its teaching or authority typically follows discontent with it in some other regard.

​
4. Due to the conversions of Peter Gillquist and others, the easy availability of information on the internet that wouldn’t have been readily available a few decades ago and perhaps some of the American Orthodox churches becoming less of an ethnic social club, Eastern Orthodoxy is more accessible to Americans than it has ever been.
​

​
Quick Thoughts on the Attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy « One Pilgrim's Progress

Admittedly, this was rather off the cuff, but I think a lot of this holds water regardless. This could be accused of being somewhat superficial but it was in reaction to what appeared to me to be somewhat superficial reasons for converting.
 
So basically it all revolves nearly around 'tradition' being the new fashionable gig. Very general I know.
 
Is it just that tradition is the new fad? Or is it that worship has become so trendy without any sense of the transcendent that the Eastern Church has become a safe refuge? Some of the fellows going over to the East have lamented to me that there is no old guard Anglican Church near by to attend.
 
EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.

That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.
 
A friend of mine left a "reformed" Presbyterian church and followed his wife and children to an Eastern Orthodox Church. When we met for lunch a few months after he had left his former church (that he had attended for 15-20 years), there were three things that stood out to me. First, he clearly was enamored with the mystical nature of the religious worship. I remember thinking that the worship he described was not too far from what had been happening at his former church, where the pastor had increasingly presented Christ in a very mystical way, and not as defined in the law and prophets and as clearly revealed in the New Testament. Second, he amazingly (within a very short time) had bought into the EO teaching that scriptures are not complete and not the final authority for faith and practice. Perhaps this also should not have surprised me so much, given that my friend had suffered from hearing poorly exposited scripture for a long time before going EO. The confessional and catechetical standards of his former church had been so deemphasized as to be largely unknown to anyone other than some of the officers of the chruch. Finally, consistent with what you suggest in your question, he was very antagonistic to Calvinism. One other thing I might mention. My friend confessed some serious sin issues, although not in a penitent way. The preaching at the prior church neither caused him to repent of the sins (no accurate preaching of the law) nor gave him hope that he could really change (no preaching of a full gospel that sanctifies and empowers as well as justifies and forgives). I think deep down he was struggling with the sin, and the EO provided an escape of sorts, an experience that he hoped would at least divert his attention from who he had become.
 
gordo said:
EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.

That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.
Click to expand...

Quite true. This is quite an allure, and I cannot blame people for joining to the extent that there is a real beauty and otherness to the worship. I have been in an EO church, and setting aside the arguments about the second commandment, the entire church has Christ-centered artwork ALL OVER. You cannot look anywhere without seeing a scene from Scripture, similar to the stations of the cross found in Catholic churches. It's visual, it's audio, its sensory (incense). In short, it immerses the worshiper completely in a way that most modern evangelicalism does not. And I'm not going to lie to you... I admire it. While I condemn their distortion of the gospel, which is far too close to Rome's, I can see the draw and attraction. It's saturated with Christendom, and really puts the worshiper in a different frame of mind.
 
gordo said:
EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.

That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.
Click to expand...

Actually, Reformed Presbyterian worship is "worshipping as [the] early Christians did." A capella Psalmody, the centrality of the Word, the observance of the sacrament at a table rather than an altar, etc. That's what we find in the Apostolic worship of the New Testament.
 
J. Dean said:
gordo said:
EO worship is beautiful. The divine liturgy of st John of Chrysostom has been used for 1500 years so there is a certain charm to knowing you are worshipping as early Christians did. I can see the draw.

That said I have looked into Orthodoxy twice and didn't join.
Click to expand...

Quite true. This is quite an allure, and I cannot blame people for joining to the extent that there is a real beauty and otherness to the worship. I have been in an EO church, and setting aside the arguments about the second commandment, the entire church has Christ-centered artwork ALL OVER. You cannot look anywhere without seeing a scene from Scripture, similar to the stations of the cross found in Catholic churches. It's visual, it's audio, its sensory (incense). In short, it immerses the worshiper completely in a way that most modern evangelicalism does not. And I'm not going to lie to you... I admire it. While I condemn their distortion of the gospel, which is far too close to Rome's, I can see the draw and attraction. It's saturated with Christendom, and really puts the worshiper in a different frame of mind.
Click to expand...

There are some brothels full of pretty women, too.
 
I think it needs to be pointed out that the EO of America is not the EO of the East. The American EO church has become a mixture of West and East. 100 years ago, if you stepped into an EO church and expressed interest in joining, you would have received quite a bit of blank stares..."but you're not Greek." They are very isolating and becoming EO would mean you become Greek or Russian (obviously impossible). The melting pot of America has slowly eroded these barriers though.
 
J. Dean said:
This is quite an allure, and I cannot blame people for joining to the extent that there is a real beauty and otherness to the worship.
Click to expand...

But that's the point - you should be able to blame them, because they are setting an experience over doctrine. It's essentially the same attitude, though with different objects, as that expressed by Emily Dickinson:

SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.

Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.

God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether what one chooses is high-quality aesthetics (perhaps a stellar performance of Verdi's Requiem), individual enjoyment of God's creation, or a worship service that appeals on a number of levels - none of those things have value in comparison with pure doctrine: we are called upon to hear, receive, and hold the truth. Augustine worried that his love for the melodies would distract him from the truth of the word. This is why Christian worship is plain - we don't wish to be distracted by artistic frippery, whether very skilful or wildly incompetent. The aesthetic we are seeking is one of plainness and transparency - to get the aesthetic as much as possible out of the way (it's a circumstance, it's inevitable that there will be an aesthetic element in all human societies and actions), so that the important thing can appear. Aesthetics are extremely far below sound doctrine, spiritual worship, godly living, wise discipline. After all, it is possible to be saved even if one does like country music and Thomas Kinkade.

And nothing that is in violation of the law of Christ can really be considered "Christ-centered".
 
Briefly, there is another aspect to switching from Reformed (or generic evangelical, for that) to Eastern Orthodoxy: it is easier on the flesh to be "religious" and adhere to rituals and external required doings, than to bare a rent heart before the Lord and seek His grace according to His word. The flesh can do the former, but not the latter, and is averse to such "in spirit and truth" faith-cleaving to Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Office Hours
  • Locked
Office Hours: Mike Horton on The Lure of Eastern Orthodoxy
Replies
0
Views
2K
Office Hours
Office Hours
B
  • Locked
What is radical orthodoxy
Replies
1
Views
1K
crhoades
crhoades
Mr. Bultitude
  • Locked
Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism's communication of attributes
Replies
3
Views
2K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Y
  • Locked
Evangelican Conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy
Replies
20
Views
4K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
C
  • Locked
General church history/theology question (Eastern Orthodoxy)
Replies
16
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Back
Top