Preface: this post is not an attack or meant to be an attack or any antagonism whatsoever against those of you who have joined or are in the process of joining the Eastern Orthodox Church in one of its many manifestations. This is merely an observation. If you have found your home in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I couldn’t be happier for you and don’t want you anywhere else but there. I’m not trying to get anyone to leave the Eastern Orthodox Church or to think ill of it or those who are members of it.

So I’ve noticed kind of a trend. Whenever there is an individual who is contemplating, or is in the process, or has already joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, and they are Protestant (formerly or currently), there are usually some very similar reasons for wanting to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. For the most part, there is an affection towards the Early Church; the desire is to have and practice Christianity as close to that practiced by the earliest Christians. There is nothing wrong with this, and I totally understand it. There isn’t much in modern Christianity that really closely resembles Christianity as was known earlier and history. What’s interesting to me though, is that those having these feelings and urges to be like the earliest Church are Protestants.

A brief history lesson: one of the driving factors of the Protestant Reformation, both liturgically and theologically, was a desire to go back to the ways that Christians had done things before. For the sake of brevity will call this desire primitivism. Essentially a lot of the Protestant reformers believed that the Roman Catholic Church had made additions to Christianity, theologically and liturgically, and wanted to strip away those additions and get back to the beginnings of Christianity. Did the Protestant reformers do a very great job of returning back to a more “original” form of Christianity? I wouldn’t say so. Were they correct in suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church had made significant additions to Christian theology and practice? Once again, I don’t think so. Keep in mind here that you don’t have to necessarily agree with me on my conclusions, we’re all historians here, but you have to agree that the driving force behind a significant portion of the Protestant Reformation was this desire which we can refer to as primitivism.

Now, this desire for primitivism doesn’t ever really go away in Protestantism. You have much later Protestant groups that pop up that are still trying to “do things like the early church” (some non-denom “bible churches,” some Baptists, and some Church of Christ folks come to mind).

Now, history has shown that the Reformers (as well as modern Protestants who share their inclinations) weren’t great at their history and that the thing they were rejecting (Catholicism and Orthodoxy by association) was actually closer to the “older Christianity” than what they ended up with. But the Christian primitivist inclination doesn’t go away, and I would contest is the is a core presupposition (though probably subconsciously) for a lot of Protestants.

Enter the internet age where the history of the Church is readily available 24/7, literally at our fingertips. We have access to historical realities and facts that our Protestant forebears couldn’t dream of. So if you take the Protestant inclination towards a kind of Christian Primitivism, add in a better understanding of Church history and early Church source material, and also add the latent anti-Catholicism in a lot of Protestantism (thus removing it as an option), and you find a logical end to the Protestant experiment as it has been conceived of thus far: conversion to Eastern orthodoxy.

Now, I’m not saying that this thought process is representative of all Protestants. You actually don’t see this kind of thing happening to those who find themselves within more high-church or mainline Protestant circles. Those who do usually follow this line of thought, more often than not come out of more low-church Protestant backgrounds, and upon rejecting the story of Christianity as it has been given to them (usually because of a correctly perceived mis-teaching of Church history), find solace in the arms of the “true” older Christianity, which just so happens to be Eastern Orthodoxy.

Now to restate, I have no problem with people taking this path, I’m just trying to analyze it from the perspective of competing sociological realities. What is interesting to me though is how, when you begin to examine the factors involved, the popularity of shifting from Protestantism to Orthodoxy makes a lot of sense. It is, in some ways, the most Protestant thing one can do. Therein lies my issue more than anything else.

An attentive and close reading of Scripture and Church history (an attempted, though not necessarily successful, enterprise of the Protestant Reformers) can indeed lead one to the Eastern Church. There is no denying this. But where is the line between “studying and being captivated by the beauty and truth of the Orthodox Church” and “following very Protestant presuppositions (even subconsciously) one after the other until arriving at Orthodoxy, all for Protestant reasons”?

I’m not being critical of those who have made their way out of Protestantism; I myself am on that journey. But I know that for myself, I don’t want to cease being Protestant, leaving Protestantism, because of Protestant reasons.

That’s my take. As usual, comments, concerns, criticism, and alternative points of view are welcome. I don’t take much on Tumblr personally, but please, if you feel the need to respond/reblog (and feel free to do so!), be kind to one another.

On this week’s episode of “Richard Dawkins is a Total Piece of Shit” New Atheism’s Pat Robertson suggests that mothers pregnant with children with Down Syndrome should abort.

What’s shocking to me about this whole thing (which is still ongoing on his Twitter account) is not his suggestion for a mother to abort a fetus, I expected that from him. I’m shocked by the logical conclusion of his line of thought, which is that society should take measures to decrease the population of individuals with Down Syndrome.

His language caught me off guard also. He uses the word “immoral” to describe willingly bringing a child with Down Syndrome into the world. How does he rationalize a statement like that?

entanglingbriars:

thepoorinspirit-extras:

One of the major Christian interpretive issues when reading the Jewish Law is equating “unclean” with “sinful”. While there are some places where these two overlap, they are not synonymous.

This is extremely important and is something a…

Last semester my Women in the Old Testament class had a wonderful conversation on the issue of menstruation and childbirth as they relate to ritual uncleanliness.

There’s a pretty solidly affirmed concept found in the rabbinic literature about Torah scrolls defiling the hands of those who touch them. The idea is that some things are intrinsically holy and can “defile” things in a holy way. There were certain things that had to be done both before and after touching a Torah scroll to allow one to enter back into the regular assembly.

Feminist OT scholars have wondered if the same concept can be applied to women who are menstruating or involved with childbirth. We know from Leviticus that blood is considered holy and is connected to life, thus belonging to YHWH and YHWH alone. Perhaps these women were considered “unclean” in a holy manner. Blood and childbirth were (and still are if you ask me) mystical things. The blood “defiled” things because of how it was tied to life and therefore to YHWH.

Just a thought to contribute to the discourse.

Below you’ll find this past Sunday’s sermon! For mobile users, I apologize for the length. 

Read More

"Of course the Church creates the meaning of Scripture, but that does not invite an orgy of subjectivistic arbitrariness. Rather the Church must continue to rerun to the Scriptures because they are so interesting, given the Church’s task to live as a people of memory in a world without memory. The Church returns time and time again to Scripture not because it is trying to find Scripture’s true meaning, but because Christians believe that God has promised to speak through Scripture so that the Church will remain capable of living faithful by remembering well. The more interesting the challenges facing the Church, the more readings we will need. It is for this reason that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, tests contemporary readings of Scripture against the tradition, knowing that such readings help us to see the limits of the present."
— Stanley Hauerwas, Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), 36-37.

    So, below the “read more” you’ll find this morning’s sermon. If you missed the last one I posted you can find it here. You can also, if you are so inclined, follow the tag “#scott preaches.” I’m going to have more preaching opportunities so I’ve decided to share some of my manuscripts with you, my readers. 

Read More

"North American Christians are trained to believe that they are capable of reading the Bible without spiritual and moral transformation. They read the Bible not as Christians, not as a people set apart, but as democratic citizens who think their “common sense” is sufficient for “understanding” the Scripture. They feel no need to stand under the authority of a truthful community to be told how to read. Instead they assume that they have all the “religious experience” necessary to know what the Bible is about. As a result the Bible inherently becomes the ideology for a politics quite different from the politics of the Church."

Stanley Hauerwas, Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), 15.

It’s worth noting that Hauerwas is not saying that the average person is intellectually incapable, i.e. not educated enough, to read the Bible on their own. The issue is not that people are not schooled in the most recent form of higher criticism or hermeneutics. Instead, the issue lies in how people are formed within a community.

Hauerwas posits, and I find myself agreeing with him, that people in America come to the Scriptures presupposing democratic and American values. Before people can be expected to read and encounter the Bible as Christians, they have to be taught how. American presuppositions must somehow be un-taught.

"The parable of the prodigal son is a story that speaks about a love that existed before any rejection was possible and that will still be there after all rejections have taken place. It is the first and everlasting love of a God who is Father as well as Mother. It is the fountain of all true human love, even the most limited. Jesus’ whole life and preaching had only one aim: to reveal this inexhaustible, unlimited motherly and fatherly love of his God and to show the way to let that love guide every part of our daily lives. In his painting of the father, Rembrandt offers me a glimpse of that love. It is the love that always welcomes home and always wants to celebrate."
— Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming (New York: Doubleday, 1993),108-109.
"Paul’s letter to the Romans is not an answer to the question, How can I be saved? Rather, it is his answer to the question, How will the world be redeemed, and how do I faithfully participate in that redemption? For Paul the question had great urgency, since God had already initiated the process of redemption."
— Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 252.
"In the Bible, the ethical issue becomes simply: how can a person act humanly now? Be cautioned once more that by putting the ethical question so starkly, no pretext is furnished for reading it as a private or individualistic query. Indeed, the use of the adverb ‘humanly’ renders the question political; there is, in the biblical witness, no way to act humanely in isolation from the whole of humanity, no possibility for a person to act humanely without becoming implicated with all other human beings."

William Stringfellow, An Ethic for Christians& Other Aliens in a Strange Land (Waco, TX; Word Books, 1973), 56.

I’m interested to see where he takes ideas like this further in the book. The problem which he seems to be diagnosing resembles some of what MacIntyre wrote about in ‘After Virtue’ about ten years later. For MacIntyre at least, the issue is in learning how to think and act morally, that is, ethically, in a manner which is grounded in an experience of community and growth. MacIntyre locates such a place of learning in the Church, and I feel that Stringfellow would say some similar things.