In our last article, I (Christian) raised the example of some Evangelicals engaging with Eastern Orthodoxy without knowing about its increasing internal battle with socially progressive positions. I did not intend for this to be a “gotcha” revelation; rather, I believe it’s essential for Evangelicals considering Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) to realize that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. In fact, EO often struggles with the same issues as Protestantism, and, at times, to a greater extent.
The Grass isn’t Greener on the Other Side
To explain this point, I will respond to the “taglines” (i.e. oversimplified online narratives) I hear repeated by Evangelicals considering EO or from fresh converts to EO: (1) EO is united whereas Protestantism is divided, (2) EO is ancient and unchanging whereas Protestantism is novel and constantly changing, and (3) EO stands above politics whereas Protestantism started as and has been largely co-opted by political actors.
In response to each one of these points, I will not work to excuse or defend Protestantism, especially my evangelical tribe, from these claims; I would be among the first to admit that evangelical Protestantism needs a lot of work! Instead, my goal here is to communicate that jumping ship is not a pathway to greener pastures.
A United Church?
None of this will be new information to the most studied of Protestant inquirers into EO. Likewise, I want to assure any Eastern Orthodox readers that I’m familiar with the distinction between theological and ecclesiastical conflicts (while the nature of that distinction should warrant serious scrutiny). Here, I am simply informing the Evangelical considering EO that EO is not a united church; in fact, it has historically and currently been home to significant internal schisms.
As many people are aware, EO is not a single centralized church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope. What is officially known as the Orthodox Catholic Church is actually a communion of autocephalous (hierarchically independent) Churches, divided on national, geographical, or ethnic lines. The history and the ecclesiology are complex, but the Eastern Orthodox Church is a family of churches that includes: the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which covers parts of Greece and Turkey; the Patriarchate of Antioch, which covers much of the Levant; the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which covers Africa; the Russian Orthodox Church; the Serbian Orthodox Church; the Church of Greece, and so on. While these Churches are divided in governance (which can be dizzying when you consider the ethnic and geographic overlap among various jurisdictions in North America), this is not the noteworthy source of division. In theory, these Churches could be united in doctrine and practice, as reflected by the Pan-Orthodox Councils and the first-among-equals leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, when you move beyond theory, claims to church unity become severely strained in practice:
From 2014-2023, the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch were in schism over jurisdictional control of Qatar. From 1967-2022, the Macedonian Orthodox Church was in schism from the rest of “World Orthodoxy” due to its assertion of independence from the Serbian Orthodox Church. Then, of course, there is the major ongoing schism between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church over control of Ukraine.
These are just a few high-profile examples of issues that divide the Eastern Orthodox worldwide. This does not account for individual conflicts between bishops, parishes, and monasteries, nor does it account for various theological disagreements and conflicts over issues of ecumenism (whether other Christians are truly Christian), rebaptism, the church calendar, and Christ’s atonement.[1] Moreover, I have not included the violent, internal Eastern Orthodox schisms of the past. I do not want to overstate or misrepresent present-day internal differences. Still, Evangelicals considering EO because they believe it is one happy, united Church should be aware of realities on the ground.
An Ancient and Unchanging Church?
One of the most common appeals that I have seen among Evangelicals considering Eastern Orthodoxy is the claim that it is the ancient, unchanging Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. In one case, this took the form of a person in an online chatroom claiming that the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem is the exact same institution established by the Apostles after Pentecost. More often than that specific claim, however, the general contrast between ever-reforming, ever-changing Protestantism and utterly changeless, timeless Orthodoxy appears frequently in online and in-person dialogue. In response to that line of discussion, I often like to raise the writing of Eastern Orthodox theologians themselves to show that EO is not as unchanging as lay discourse assumes.
While taking doctoral seminars on theological methodology, I was introduced to and critically engaged with the writings of Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958) and Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), two leading Eastern Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century. Ironically, the claims that Eastern Orthodoxy is unchanging arise from the novel reactions of these theologians against what they considered massive downgrades in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Allow me to explain briefly:
Lossky and Florovsky were a part of a movement of Eastern Orthodox theologians who, after experiencing Soviet hostility to the intelligentsia, established themselves in Paris at the St. Sergius Institute (founded in 1925). In exile, freed from many of the institutional constraints of both Tsarist and Soviet Russia, they could publish their genuine thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy. In this context, two seminal works were published: Florovsky’s The Ways of Russian Theology and Lossky’s The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.
Wading into the nuances of Palamism, hesychasm, and theosis in Lossky’s work requires a longer article. Thus, I will focus on Florovsky’s contribution in The Ways of Russian Theology. In this work, Florovsky argues that for 300 years, the Russian Orthodox Church was hijacked by Western ways of thinking, such as scholasticism and Pietism found among Roman Catholics and Protestants.[2] Relying on a historically and theologically questionable dichotomy between Western and Eastern theology, Florovsky sought to purify the Eastern Orthodox Church from its “pseudomorphosis” with Roman Catholic and Protestant theology and free the Church from its centuries-long “Western Captivity”.[3] Thus, in response, Florovosky developed what is now widely known as the “Neo Patristic Synthesis” which, in a way ironically similar to the ad fontes impulse of the Protestant Reformers, worked to purge the Eastern Orthodox Church of developments which had crept in over centuries by returning to the pure theology of the Church Fathers, free from uncritical dependence upon Western paradigms.
While Florovsky’s project was part of broader European religious trends (e.g., the Nouvelle Théologie of the Roman Catholic Church) and major internal conflicts among the exiled Eastern Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century, his vision seems to have transfixed many recent or would-be converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. Where Florovsky sought to reform Eastern Orthodoxy along patristic lines, many shaken Evangelicals or fresh Eastern Orthodox converts today wrongly assume that EO represents a pure, unfailing theological line to the church fathers, free of the scholasticism and rationalism that supposedly corrupted Western Christian traditions. Yet, as one considers the history, which is well known among Eastern Orthodox scholars, such claims falter. None of this is meant to dispute Eastern Orthodox claims to dogmatic continuity with the early Church (that would be another article); rather, it challenges the lay assumption that Eastern Orthodoxy today exists as an undisturbed, static theological tradition extending, unchanged, back to the early Church.
An Apolitical Church?
Frankly, this claim was new to me, but I recently heard it presented by a young former Protestant who explained his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy. The idea that the Eastern Orthodox Church, relative to Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, is free from and above political machinations seems to be a unique product of the current American political environment. For Protestants exhausted with the experience that mainline or historical black Protestant churches are showpieces of the political Left, and evangelical Protestant churches are the cheerleaders of the political Right, EO might appear to be a refreshing, uninvolved third party: an ecclesial institution that transcends political polarization and party allegiances and offers a traditional voice not beholden to politicians.
My response to this thought and claim can be very brief: consider history and look at Eastern Europe. For centuries, a main mark of EO was its identity as the imperial church of the Eastern Roman Empire. It was a feature, not a bug, that the Emperor would call and preside over church councils and exercise significant influence on ecclesial affairs. This relationship often led Eastern Orthodox clergy to take and defend theological positions in response to imperial ambitions or political anxieties. Similarly, consider the well-documented alignment between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian State today. Just because Eastern Orthodoxy is currently a tiny minority in North America, and therefore does not attract politicians’ interest or make great political noise, does not mean that Eastern Orthodoxy is above party politics. Frustration with Protestantism’s involvement in politics should not be a reason to be shaken by or to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy; rather, it should be a reason to delve into historic Protestant (specifically Baptist) doctrines, such as the separation of Church and State.
Before I hand things over to Scott for his pastoral counsel, I want to re-emphasize that none of the points raised are meant as polemical arguments against EO. Even if some Eastern Orthodox read these points and disagree with my tone or framing of the issues, I don’t think they would dispute the facts about current EO internal relationships or history. Rather, my message is a simple one to Evangelicals encountering EO: the common taglines you hear and perhaps repeat do not represent the actual reality of EO. Please don’t be shaken by mantras repeated in YouTube comment sections. The grass is not all that greener on the other side.
One Pastor’s Cautions Before Leaving Evangelicalism
Before I offer some cautions, I want to affirm the impulse for reform I often see in evangelicals considering EO. The desire to reform the church according to scripture aligns with Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to “hold on to the pattern of sound teaching” because sacred scripture “is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Likewise, the desire to retrieve the past to renew the contemporary church is one I share. There are real concerns in evangelicalism that folks like you help us address. I also want to be clear that I am speaking generally and not addressing situations where there has been abusive leadership or moral failing among the elders.
At the same time, I’m concerned about the way people sometimes go about changing tribes. There can be a tone of pride, as though we are the first ones to make such a discovery, and now we have all the answers. Sometimes, I have noticed a tendency to bury good people who loved and supported us as though all they did was hold us back. I’m sure this is not always true, and it may not even be applicable to your situation. Still, I want to raise three cautions about the way you handle considering leaving Protestantism.
The big idea is simple: act like a Christian. Here are three cautions to consider before leaving your evangelical church.
Be cautious about declaring your discoveries.
Since humility and charity are two marks of growing in godliness, we must guard against any tone of triumphalism. It’s easy for excitement about what we discover to degenerate into pride and cynicism toward others who are ignorant of or opposed to our newfound love. Theological reflection that does not cultivate humility and love misses the mark of biblical Christianity.
Romans 9:3-4 is a remarkable passage when you consider how strongly Paul speaks about his fellow Jews’ rejection of Jesus: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the benefit of my brothers and sisters, my own flesh and blood” (Rom 9:3-4). Paul’s words betray the honest humility of someone overwhelmed by grace (See 1 Tim 1:15). Understanding grace guards us from exalting ourselves, especially over people we disagree with.
A key to walking with integrity and godliness, therefore, is the humility to recognize that you are not the first person to consider EO as the true alternative to Protestant evangelicalism. Only fifty years ago, around the time Star Wars first took over cinemas, a group of evangelicals formed a communion that eventually became part of the Orthodox Church, known as the Evangelical Orthodox Church. This movement was driven toward EO by desires for meaningful continuity with the ancient church, a more sacramental worship experience and spirituality, and a clearer, more meaningful connection/unity between church congregations. Similarities between these concerns and those of folks today moving from Protestantism to Orthodoxy run deeper than surface level.
This isn’t new, and that’s a good thing. Thoughtful Christians have raised your concerns before. And thoughtful Christians have offered wise and careful responses, similar to Christian’s work in the first section of this article. Before you strike a match to Protestantism, tearing yourself away from the so-called barrenness of evangelicalism, consider how your criticisms were addressed when others raised them decades ago.
Rather than portraying your story as a tale of finally gaining freedom from the shackles of evangelicalism, have the humility to thank God for the people who loved you as a young Christian. Be careful to heed Paul’s warning to the Galatians: “But if you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you will be consumed by one another” (Gal 5:15). Don’t abandon humility and charity simply because you’re tired of evangelical Protestantism or pulled towards Eastern Orthodoxy.
Be cautious about sounding like an expert.
Tone matters. How you communicate is a critical part of what you communicate. I find it odd when someone announces that they are leaving the tradition they grew up in with a tone that betrays an assumed expertise, before spending any significant time in the new tradition. It’s an unearned and unhelpful arrogance.
Two issues this kind of arrogance often manifests are church unity/authority and the worship experience. Asking whether the form of unity in the Orthodox church is the best representation of unity in the body of Christ is a legitimate question. I have no concerns discussing whether institutional unity under the authority of a Patriarchate is a better application of scripture than the Protestant emphasis of a spiritual unity formed by a common faith in Christ and commitment to the gospel. These are good questions that merit thoughtful reflection. But the issue cannot be settled by simply citing abuses of authority and moral failings of evangelical leaders. As Christian has shown, issues with moral failings of leaders are not unique to evangelicalism. There are years of historical consideration of this question, so be generous in your tone. It’s fine to say you believe something is the best representation of Biblical ecclesiology, but be careful not to cloak yourself with garments of an authority you don’t have.
Perhaps the strongest pull is the desire for a richer worship experience. A common criticism I’ve heard is that evangelicalism doesn’t take worship seriously, and no one is talking about it. The concern is legitimate, but the tone is deeply misguided. Evangelical theologian Stanley Fowler stated in an insightful essay analyzing this aspect of the Evangelical Orthodox church movement in the seventies: “That these are legitimate concerns demanding active response would be admitted by evangelicals across the spectrum, but many would argue these matters can be (and in fact are being) addressed within the structures of Protestant evangelicalism.” Just because you might not hear people addressing the shallowness of worship in many churches does not mean that evangelicals do not care.
To sum up this second caution: Even if you choose to leave your evangelical church, do so with the posture of a disciple seeking to learn and not a Pharisee pronouncing judgment. Consider the best representation of both sides and go slower than you want to.
Go deep in your local church before you leave.
One piece of counsel I always give to people considering a different branch of Christianity is to go deep in their local church first. Instead of spending the bulk of your time in Discord chat groups and binge-watching YouTube debates, join a Bible study, offer to set up chairs and pass out bulletins. Buy the elderly brother lunch and listen to his stories. Sit under the leadership of godly elders devoted to preaching the Bible. Bear one another’s burdens, and partake in the sacraments in communion with a local church. Perhaps the reason you don’t think evangelicalism “works” is because you aren’t committed to the local body of believers. Be cautious about shifting traditions without ever investing in your church, faithfully loving and serving its members, submitting to the elders, and participating in its mission.
In other words, learn to love the local church like Jesus loves the church. Sure, it will be messy, and there will be issues you have to put up with. But learning to love the church will guard you from the deceptiveness of arrogance and bitterness towards those you consider leaving behind.
As Christian said, our aim here is not polemical but pastoral. We want you to consider the current issues on both sides with clarity and accuracy. We want you to wrestle with the best representation of each tradition. We want you to think through the big questions in fellowship with godly men and women. And we want you to honour Christ in the way you disagree with others.
Resources
For the sake of cultivating wisdom and clarity, here are resources we find helpful for evangelicals considering the Orthodox church.
Engaging EO as a Protestant
Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham
Stanley Fowler, “The Evangelical Orthodox Church: An evangelical appraisal,” in the Collected Works of Stanley K. Fowler Vol. 2, 143-162.
Understanding Protestantism
In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis by Kenneth Stewart
What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church by Gavin Ortlund
Reformation Theology: A Reader of Primary Sources with Introductions edited by Bradford Littlejohn and Jonathan Roberts
History and Sacramentology
The Church Fathers as spiritual mentors: Faith is illumined by Michael Haykin
Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church by Michael Haykin
For an evangelical treatment of the sacraments as more than mere symbols and memorials, The Center For Baptist Renewal put together a reading list on Baptist Sacramentalism.
[1] I regularly read and appreciate the writings of and videos featuring Fr. John Whiteford, an insightful voice working from a Russian Orthodox perspective.
[2] See Paul L. Gavrilyuk’s Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance for a detailed analysis of this development.
[3] A similar project was undertaken among the Greek Orthodox, led by John Romanides.
