The
Status of an Emerging Global Dialogue
Bradley
Nassif, Ph.D.
Professor
of Historical and Systematic Theology in the Antiochian House of Studies
(USA), a graduate program of St. John of Damascus Seminary, Balamand
University (Lebanon); Founder, Society for the Study of Eastern
Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.
Introduction
In November of 1999
the American Academy of Religion hosted its first Joint Dialogue between
the “Eastern Orthodox Studies Group” and the “Evangelical Theology
Group.” The
respondent, Robert Jenson from Princeton University, summarized their
relations by declaring, “I know of no two groups of Christians who
pose a greater challenge to ecumenical unity than the dialogue between
Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Christians.
It boggles the mind to conceive just how two such different
groups can ever bridge their differences.
They have both a remarkable unity and remarkable divergences.
But as Jesus said, ‘With God, all things are possible!’”
The purpose of this article is to identify and describe the most
important dialogues and scholarly exchanges that have emerged around the
world over the past decade between the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant
Evangelical traditions. These
include the work of academic societies, individual scholars, ecumenical
agencies, seminaries, and mission organizations.
The previous two hundred years of Orthodox-Evangelical history
before 1990, and the increasing number of personal pilgrimages to
Orthodoxy by Evangelical believers in recent days, will be touched upon
in a general way below, but are too numerous and complex to trace in any
detail here. As a result of
this survey from 1990 to the present, readers hopefully will be given
fresh and vitally important information on a potentially momentous
turning point in Orthodox and Evangelical relations in modern church
history.
Past Relations
The
history of relations between the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant
Evangelical traditions has never been written.
One does not have to search very far, however, to see that their
past relationships have been predominantly characterized by a long
negative history of proselytism, persecution, mutual suspicion,
hostility, fear and ignorance.
Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the
Middle East, Orthodox Christians were viewed as objects of conversion
during a period of Presbyterian missions to the Arab lands. Thousands of
Arab Christians left the Orthodox, Melkite and Syrian Jacobite churches
and took up residence in newly founded Presbyterian communities.
Less successful were Protestant missions to Russia and Greece.
In Russia, prior to the Communist Revolution in 1917,
“Orthodoxy, nationalism, and autocracy” were the Slavic slogans of
Orthodox nationalism which socially disadvantaged and oppressed Russian
Protestants in the name of “Holy Russia.”
In Greece civil laws were passed outlawing “proselytism” by
Protestant missionaries, the violation of which was punishable by fines
and/or imprisonment. Throughout
the 20th century, hundreds of Protestant missionaries
suffered sporadic persecution and disgrace under the hands of Greek
Orthodox law.
In
America, thousands of Orthodox peoples arrived on American shores from
Syria, Lebanon, Russia, Greece and parts of Europe during the
immigration period of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. Unlike the
national unity some Orthodox once enjoyed in their homelands, America
now presented a new external challenge of religious pluralism.
During this time the church did not fare well.
Second and third generation Orthodox immigrant children
hemorrhaged out the doors of the church in large numbers due to the
church’s apparent irrelevance to their lives and their inability to
pray the liturgy in the English language.
A number of those parishioners (difficult to quantify) joined
Protestant churches after being (re)converted to Christ through Evangelical outreach via the
Billy Graham Crusades, Young Life, Campus Crusade for Christ and other
parachurch organizations, as well as through the personal witness of
individual believers. In
some cases, former Orthodox believers became socially ostracized by
their families after leaving the church.
Such were the general conditions between Orthodox and Evangelical
Christians.
Emerging
Global Dialogue
Tradition,
historical connection, and liturgy.
I have in mind the movement of people like Robert Webber
and
Walter Dunnett into the Episcopal and Anglican Churches.
An even more radical step is the
movement
of evangelicals into the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Peter Gillquist, a major leader in this movement, has described
the journey of two thousand evangelical Protestants toward Eastern
Orthodoxy. One issue of his
magazine Again featured the
testimonies of recent evangelical converts to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Among the more conspicuous is Franky Schaeffer, son of the late
Francis Schaeffer. A few,
such as Thomas Howard, have even been attracted to Roman Catholicism.
This
movement is small, but it is real and of potentially great influence
because it includes young people who could be the leaders of the
evangelical movement in the years ahead.
Unless mainstream evangelicalism finds ways to meet the needs of
young people desiring some tie with the historic faith and with more
formal worship, more of them will leave for denominations that offer
real alternatives to popular experience-centered worship.
Erickson’s
reference to Peter Gillquist describes the former Campus Crusade for
Christ leader who led approximately 1700 followers into the Antiochian
Orthodox Church in 1987.
The remaining 500 of his followers broke ranks with the group and
remained a separate denomination called “The Evangelical Orthodox
Church.” A few years
later, Franky Schaeffer, son of the late Francis Schaeffer, joined the
Greek Orthodox Church. Though
Gillquist and Schaeffer are quite serious in their call for to
discipleship,
by their own admission neither possesses a substantial theological
education as reflected in their educational histories and often
oversimplified their interpretations of church history and theology. It is also worth noting that in the UK, Michael Harper
recently converted to Orthodoxy in response to the doctrinal erosion of
the Anglican Church.
Alongside
these popular trends, there are a variety of professional forums through
which Evangelicals and Orthodox have begun to engage each other over the
past decade. Most are aimed at establishing friendly relations with each
other while only a few have engaged in substantive discussions of
theology. In the following
paragraphs I will attempt to document and assess the work of academic
societies and mission organizations, individual scholars, and seminaries
and universities. In so
doing I am certain that I will have left out important people and
projects due to the weaknesses of my own limitations.
What follows is my best effort to locate all the major players,
insofar as I am able to see them.
Academic Societies and Mission
Organizations
Over
the past thirteen years there have been three leading organizations that
have been working on Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue from different
angles. There are no
formal relations between the organizations since each was formed with
its own purpose independently from the others.
At times, however, each de
facto compliments or overlaps the work of the others.
As a primary focus the first organization deals with theological
subjects, the second with church life, and the third with attitudes and
practical relationships between the two groups.
In addition to these organizations, I will also comment on
situational dialogues that have been created for only a limited duration
and purpose, as well as the work in Romania where the second largest
population of Orthodox reside.
The
most serious and sustained effort to understand the areas of theological
convergence and divergence between the Orthodox and Evangelical
traditions that is being undertaken today comes from the Society
for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (SSEOE).
This is a learned group that was founded in the United States in
1990 by the present author along with six other Orthodox and Evangelical
scholars (James Stamoolis, Fr. George Liacopoulos, Andrea Sterk, Barbara
Nassif and Dale Allison). All
had personal experience and academic training in both traditions in
varying degrees. Through
its annual meetings and unpublished papers,
the SSEOE seeks to make the two traditions known and understood in
relation to each other’s history, doctrine, worship and spirituality.
It thus serves both the academy and the church.
Until 1999, the organization met annually at the Billy Graham
Center on the campus of Wheaton College, and now meets in different
regions of the United States. Past themes of the annual meetings have been:
“Proselytism or Conversion?
An Orthodox and Evangelical Exchange” (1991), “Scripture,
Tradition and Authority” (1992), “Salvation by Grace” (1993),
“The Kingdom of God and the Role of the Church in Salvation” (1994),
“The Role of Theology in the Spiritual Life” (1995), and
“’Outside the Church There is No Salvation:’ An Orthodox and
Evangelical Exchange” (1999). Keynote
speakers from North America have included, among others, Orthodox
theologians Stanley Harakas, Leonid Kishkovsky, Theodore Stylianopoulos,
Emmanuel Clapsis, George Liacopoulos, Michael Prokurat and Edward Rommen;
Evangelical theologians have been J.I. Packer, Thomas Oden, Gerald Bray,
Donald Bloesch, Grant Osborne, James Stamoolis, Kent Hill, Thomas
Finger, Harold O.J. Brown, Craig Blaising and Dale Allison.
The format consists of a single annual theme that is addressed by
two keynote speakers from each side, followed by audience participation
and a summary of the conclusions that have been reached at the end of
the conference. The purpose
of the SSEOE is not to convert people from one side to the other, though
most members would view theological conversion as a legitimate
consequence of the dialogue. Its
main purpose is to enrich participants by removing false barriers which
have divided them while also identifying continuing differences. In the words of the Constitution, the SSEOE seeks “to
promote fellowship and mutual enrichment among scholars engaged in these
activities, and to coordinate the work of such theologians in North
America and abroad.” Membership
includes a wide cross-section of Evangelical denominations and Orthodox
jurisdictions. Institutions
represented by students and faculty include Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School (IL), Wheaton College, Eastern Nazarene College, Eastern
Mennonite Seminary, Southern Baptist Seminary (KY), Dallas Seminary,
Fuller Seminary, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, Holy Cross Greek
Orthodox Seminary, and others. Evangelical
and Orthodox endorsements of the SSEOE have been conferred by Kenneth
Kantzer, J.I. Packer, Ward Gasque, Kent Hill, Bill Bright, Bishop
Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, Father Stanley Harakas, the late Father John
Meyendorff and Metropolitan Philip Saliba of the Antiochian Orthodox
Church of North America.
The
second organization that is dedicated to Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue
is Evangelicals for Middle East
Understanding (EMEU) based at North Park University in Chicago,
Illinois. According to its
mission statement, “Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding is an
informal fellowship of North American Evangelical Christians committed
to dialogue which seeks mutual understanding, respect and friendship
between Middle Eastern and Western Christians.”
Much of their work seeks to raise the level of consciousness
among Evangelicals of North America and to foster a sense of solidarity
with Arab Christians of the Middle East. The churches which are involved in EMEU include Presbyterians
and other Protestants in their relations with the Orthodox and Oriental
Orthodox Churches of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq,
Southern Sudan and neighboring Arab countries.
By organizing educational travels for American Evangelicals to
the Middle East, and hosting consultations in the Middle East and North
America, EMEU is forging a vital link between East and West.
Unlike the SSEOE, which centers primarily on theological issues,
EMEU focuses on the practical, pastoral and regional realities of the
Orthodox Churches in Islamic lands.
The SSEOE and EMEU nevertheless compliment each other’s
ministries by exploring both the doctrinal and practical realities of
contemporary church life.
The
third organization is the World
Council of Churches (WCC).
It is widely known that the WCC has been in existence since
the turn of the century, but only since 1993 has it made a concerted
effort to create a series of dialogues between the Eastern Orthodox and
Evangelical communities. There
were two historic events which prompted this new ecumenical venue by the
WCC. First, in 1991 at the
WCC’s Canberra Assembly, heretical trinitarian prayers were offered
during one of the plenary sessions in which a pagan female
“spirit-goddess” was evoked rather than the Holy Spirit of the
Triune God. Similar
syncretistic religious expressions occurred during the Assembly and this
caused the Orthodox to voice their objections.
Evangelical “observers” responded similarly which, in turn,
prompted the Orthodox and Evangelicals to take notice of each other for
a potential defensive alliance. Two
years later a small handful of Evangelical leaders and church
representatives from the Ecumenical Patriarchate (i.e. the Orthodox
Church of Constantinople) convened in Stuttgart, Germany to discuss the
possibility of holding a joint conference.
The impetus for an Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue included the
mutual reactionary discovery of each other in the Canberra Assembly of
the WCC, but also the recent fall of communism and the ensuing flood of
Western missionaries to the formerly Orthodox lands of Russia and
Eastern Europe. Tensions
and hostilities had been rapidly rising in those parts of the world
between Orthodox nationalists and Protestant missionaries who had
operated on the assumption that there were few true believers in those
lands and thus set as part of their missionary task the conversion of
Orthodox Christians. After
Stuttgart, discussions and contacts continued, especially within the
framework of the Central Committee of the WCC.
Eventually, the WCC sponsored two international
Orthodox-Evangelical dialogues. The
first was hosted by the Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, Egypt from
July 10-15, 1995 where forty participants gathered from around the
globe. Its proceedings were
published in the book Proclaiming Christ Today.
The second dialogue was convened at the Missionsakademie an der
Universitat Hamburg, Germany, March 30-April 4, 1998 with proceedings
published in the book Turn to God,
Rejoice in Hope! Orthodox-Evangelical Consultation.
The international composition of the meeting included
representatives from Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Romania, Russia,
Bulgaria, Albania, Sweden, UK, United States and other countries.
Neither of the consultations, however, engaged in what could be
described as “substantial theological dialogues.”
Instead, they would more accurately be characterized as
“relational meetings” that were primarily designed to break the ice
and foster good will between the two communities.
In
addition to these efforts by organizations, other attempts at dialogue
have been more occasional in nature.
In the UK, dialogue between Evangelicals and Orthodox is
currently being carried out by a study group under the aegis of ACUTE,
the theological commission of the UK Evangelical Alliance (with input
from other Evangelical bodies). ACUTE
sponsors a number of such groups dealing with pertinent theological
issues. The study group on
Orthodoxy sought to elucidate the extent of shared convictions and
differences, with special reference to the concerns of Evangelical and
Orthodox constituencies in the UK. The group met during 1999-2000 for discussion of papers
dealing with matters of doctrine and spirituality, and was recently
collected and edited as a published report titled, Evangelicalism and
the Orthodox Church (ACCUTE, an imprint of Paternoster Pub., Cumbria,
UK, 2001). This report
should serve as a stimulus to further contact between Evangelicals and
Orthodox in the UK and elsewhere. The
group’s aim is to introduce Evangelicals and Orthodox to each other,
and to clear away some of the misunderstanding and lack of awareness of
one another’s beliefs and practices.
While they are aware that fundamental disagreements between each
other will remain, they are convinced that the two constituencies have
much to learn from each other.
Elsewhere
in the world, a conference in Prague on “Baptists and Orthodoxy”
took place from August 2-8, 2002. It
was sponsored by the International Baptist Theological Seminary, a
postgraduate institution under the wing of the European Baptist
Fellowship. It brought
together Baptists from several European countries, and one lone Orthodox
(though they tried to get many more, they were unable to attend).
Also, the Church Mission Society (CMS), the main missionary arm
of the Church of England, was involved in a conference that took place
in Moscow at the invitation of Metropolitan Kyril from April 24-30,
2001. It was one of a
series arranged by CMS with partner churches around the world with
representatives from twelve Orthodox Churches (Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian)
from Europe, the Middle East and India.
The papers were published by CMS and are available in Russian and
English.
The Patriarch’s foreword indicates that, for the Russians, a
major concern was the issue of proselytism.
A repeated concern such as this from the Moscow patriarchate
causes us to wonder whether the Russians see dialogue more as a means of
dealing with proselytism more than genuine dialogue.
It is also worth noting also that Eastern and Western
participants in dialogue (even from the same tradition) often have quite
different concerns.
In
1999 in the United States, the American Academy of Religion (AAR) held
its first joint session between the Eastern
Orthodox Theology Group (EOTG) and the Evangelical
Theology Group (ETG). Serving
as the co-chair of the EOTG with Anna Williams of Cambridge University,
I proposed in 1998 that such a dialogue take place within the AAR at the
next annual meeting. Dr.
Williams and the Steering Committee of the EOTG accepted the proposal
and extended an invitation to the ETG which enthusiastically accepted.
The joint session was titled, “Eastern Orthodoxy and
Evangelicalism in Dialogue.” The
topics for discussion centered on Charismatic and Orthodox
understandings of the spirit of tradition, Evangelical and Orthodox
worship, and the sacramental notion of “participation” in Karl Barth
and St. Gregory Palamas. A
sizeable turnout of 100 scholars attended the session.
Students and professors from Duke Divinity School and Loyola
University of Chicago presented papers followed by a response from
Professor Robert Jensen of Princeton University. The very existence of such a session in the halls of the AAR
demonstrates the growing relevance of Orthodox-Evangelical studies in
North America and abroad, and adds further testimony to the fact that
the subject has now grown to the point of being affirmed by religion
scholars as a legitimate object of academic inquiry.
The
country of Romania deserves special attention in this article given its
religious history and strategic place among the Orthodox churches.
Romania contains the largest population of Orthodox Christians in
the world today second only to Russia.
Although historic difficulties remain in the areas of
communication and religious freedom between Orthodox and Evangelical
believers in Romania, small steps of progress are slowly being made in
the wake of the post-communist era.
The country holds much promise for constructive relations. At present, however, the “dialogue” in Romania
remains weak and indirect consisting mostly of a growing awareness of
the need to explore the points of contact between each other.
Academically speaking, there are more Evangelical students of
Romanian Orthodoxy than there are Orthodox students of Romanian
Evangelicalism. Some of the
leading proponents on the Evangelical side of the Romanian dialogue
include Silviu Eugen Rogobete who heads the Areopagus
Centre for Christian Studies and Contemporary Culture located in
Timisoara. Part of the
Centre’s mission is to build bridges with the local Romanian Orthodox
Church through cultural and religious dialogue.
The Centre is housed in a relatively small building with a
library, classroom and office space.
Other Evangelical leaders who are attempting dialogue include
Paul Negrut (Principal of Emanuel Bible Institute in Oradea), Emil
Bartos (the Dean), and Danut Manastireanu (World Vision; Dr.
Manastireanu has had a formative influence on opening doors with the
Orthodox for World Vision over the past four years though there is much
work yet to be done). On
the Orthodox side are Fr. Ion Bria (now retired but an active
participant in the WCC’s Orthodox-Evangelical dialogues), Vasile Mihoc
(Professor of New Testament at Sibi University and Director of World
Vision Romania), and Stelian Tofana (Professor of New Testament at Cluj
University). A truly
exciting theological renaissance of theses and doctoral dissertations on
Orthodox theology is now underway among Romanian Evangelical students of
the Orthodox Church. The
writings of the great Romanian Orthodox theologian, Fr. Dumitru
Staniloae, have become a special object of Evangelical interest due to
Staniloae’s popularity and enduring influence in Romania and abroad.
Beyond Staniloae, wider Evangelical interests have begun to
explore Orthodox approaches to Scripture, authority and soteriology.
Although Evangelicals are in a distinct minority in Romania, the
new and creative interest in Orthodoxy that is on the rise among the
younger generation of scholars -- coupled with the changing attitudes
toward Evangelical theology by a small group of Orthodox leaders --
makes Romania the most fertile soil in Eastern Europe for the growth of
an emerging global dialogue.
What it needs to succeed and flourish is for the Orthodox to
initiate a stronger public stance in reaching out to Evangelical
institutions and churches at all levels – from the ecumenical
department of the Romanian Patriarchate down to the grass roots levels
of local Orthodox priests and laypeople. These initiatives may include setting up special
ecumenical dialogue commissions, creating faculty exchanges in which
Orthodox and Evangelical history and theology may be taught in each
other’s schools, the creation of theological journals in which both
sides can participate in a shared forum, and personal visits to each
other’s local churches in an atmosphere of Christian love.
Clearly the Orthodox are in a stronger position of influence than
are Evangelicals and therefore they bear the heavier weight of
responsibility for achieving Christian unity in Romania.
Nothing less than courageous initiatives by Orthodox leaders, lay
and ordained, can break the decades of hatred, fear and ignorance toward
Evangelical Christianity which continue to dominate the perceptions of
the Romanian Orthodox peoples. Similarly,
nothing less than bold initiatives by Evangelical leaders, lay and
ordained, that may risk offending their Protestant constituency will be
able to move Evangelicals beyond their doctrinal misconceptions of
Orthodoxy and the offensive behavior tied to popular abuses of the
Orthodox faith by the Orthodox themselves.
Scholars
There
is a small but growing number of individual scholars who are slowly
beginning to publish works on Orthodox and Evangelical theology.
It appears that there is more activity on the side of Evangelical
interest in Orthodoxy rather than vice versa.
A surprising number of Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy in
America over the past 15 years has caught the Evangelical community off
guard and recently prompted a few well-known conservative writers to
respond to the growing losses within their ranks. Representatives of this group would be R.C. Sproul,
a theologian at Reformed Theological Seminary in Florida, and Hank
Hannegraaff,
also known as “The Bible Answer Man,” a popular radio apologist and
cult-watcher who succeeded the late Walter Martin.
Beyond
these reactions from the Evangelical right, more informed and balanced
Evangelical theologians are aggressively widening their perspectives on
Orthodoxy through a study of ancient and modern writers of the Christian
East. Their motivation
appears to be rooted in a healthy self-awareness of the deficiencies and
gaps which are currently present in modern theology, and the laudable
desire for growth. Some
proceed in their studies with an awareness that patristic and Byzantine
theology are foundational not only to historic Christianity in both East
and West, but are especially formative to the contemporary identity of
the Eastern Orthodox Church. A
brief survey of selected scholars and their works will show the
direction in which Evangelicals are charting their studies of the
Christian East.
Gerald
Bray, a British Evangelical now working in America, is one of the most
knowledgeable and linguistically competent researchers in Eastern
Orthodoxy today. The
breadth of his linguistic skills puts Bray at the forefront of
Evangelical scholarship. He is fluent not only in the biblical languages of Hebrew and
Greek, but also in Latin, Byzantine Greek, modern Greek and Russian.
A specialist in historical theology and Anglican canon law, Bray
teaches courses (among many others) in Greek and Latin patristics and
has written on theological topics which are central to Orthodoxy in the
ancient and modern worlds. A
selection of his writings include “Eastern Orthodox Theology,”
“Justification and the Eastern Orthodox Churches,”
“The Filioque Clause
in History and Theology”
and the books The Doctrine of God
(which deals extensively with Orthodoxy as well as early Christian
thought), Biblical Interpretation:
Past and Present,
and his patristic commentaries in the Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture
(ACW) (Romans, 1,2 Corinthians,
and James to Jude, to be discussed below under the work of Thomas Oden).
Bray characterizes his stance toward Orthodoxy as follows:
My
stance vis-a-via Orthodoxy is sympathetic but not uncritical.
I do not share the fascination with
Orthodoxy
which characterizes some people in the West (after living in both Greece
and Russia it is hard to romanticize the Orthodox Church) but I am very
sympathetic to the underlying theological concerns of Orthodoxy and
believe that there is a lot of common ground with Evangelical
Protestants (and others, of course) which we need to explore.
I suppose you could say that I am in the C .S. Lewis tradition of
‘mere Christianity’ - - looking for what unites us across the
cultural and historical differences, and concentrating on that.
What
sets Bray apart from other Evangelicals in the “C. S. Lewis
tradition,” however, is his concentration on the Orthodox faith as
vitally central to that tradition.
While others, such as Lewis and G. K. Chesterton, have explored
“orthodoxy” through the Fathers, creeds and councils of “historic
Christianity,” Bray has linked much of that “historic
Christianity” to the ongoing institutional and spiritual life of the
Orthodox Church. In
this way, Bray does not deal with a
disembodied orthodoxy but an orthodoxy that has largely been the
achievement of the Byzantine Orthodox Church and the theological legacy which it has
bequeathed for much of Protestant and Catholic orthodoxy today.
Donald
Fairbairn’s recent book titled, Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western
Eyesdeserves
special notation. Dr.
Fairbairn served as a Baptist missionary who worked in Russia and
Eastern Europe during the early 1990’s.
He is also a patristics scholar with a Ph.D. from Cambridge
University where he centered on the christology of St. Cyril of
Alexandria. He has written
several important essays on missionary work among the Orthodox and the
place of Evangelicalism in that context.
Of all the books and articles I have read on Orthodoxy and the
West, none surpasses Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes.
It is balanced, judicious and extremely well informed on the fine
points of patristic theology as well as on the practical, grassroots
level of Russian Orthodox life and thought.
(Readers should note that there are regional differences between
Orthodox Churches. The
Orthodox in Russia and Eastern Europe are often more rigid than Orthodox
in the Middle East and America where attitudes are generally more open
and flexible). I
believe it should be required reading not only for missionaries
preparing for evangelistic work in Orthodox countries, but also in
theology classes in Orthodox and Evangelical seminaries.
His critiques and affirmations of the Orthodox Church will help
Orthodox and Evangelicals to better understand the genuine areas of
common agreement and disagreement.
The Orthodox especially need to hear what Fairbairn has said
about us because he helps keep our eyes on what is truly central to
Orthodox identity. He shows
us how our own faith is deeply evangelical at heart and thus largely
compatible with the core of Protestant Evangelical identity, if properly
defined. In only a few
theological topics would I have interpreted them differently than
Fairbairn. The book is, by definition, provincial since it is limited to
the Russian and Eastern European contexts.
The Arab Orthodox communities of the Middle East are quite
understudied and are noticeably different than the Russian Orthodox
Church. So some of
his conclusions are not applicable to the pan-Orthodox community.
For instance, his treatment of “The Orthodox Vision and Its
Distortions” contains excellent material coming from Russian folk
religion. Some of the
religious distortions do, of course, apply to other Orthodox communities
but readers must be careful not to transpose the Russian experience on
all Orthodox Churches. Nevertheless,
the book is absolutely first-class reading for anyone interested in the
relationship between Orthodox and Evangelical theology.
In fact, Orthodox readers should read it if for no other reason
than to have a better understanding of their own faith and the dangers
of doctrinal distortions that have resulted from the influence of
popular folk religion.
Another
important scholar working between the traditions is Thomas Oden.
According to Oden,
In
Agenda for Theology (1979) I proposed a program of post-modern paleo-orthodoxy
which would seek
to
reground contemporary theology in the consensual classic Christian
sources. Everything I have
done
since
has sought to develop that premise.
The three volumes of Systematic
Theology, of course, have
constant
reference to patristic sources, as do Pastoral
Theology and the four volume work on
Classical
Pastoral Care.
Oden
utilizes a theological method which proceeds from the conviction that
the consensus of the Church Fathers during the first millennium of
Christian history constitutes a normative status for defining Christian
orthodoxy. This doctrinal history includes the decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils (A.D. 325-787), the consensus
patrum, the church’s lex
orandi, pastoral theology and other expressions of
“catholic” Christianity.
In addition to the works cited above, a recent project which
reveals Oden’s premise most decisively is his editorial work on a new
27-volume collection of patristic commentaries on the entire Bible.
Titled the Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture, this series is the first modern
patristic commentary of its kind from the pen of a leading Evangelical
theologian and leading Evangelical publishing house (InterVarsity
Press). Oden describes the
nature and purpose of the project in the “General Introduction.”
The
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture has as its goal the
revitalization of Christian teaching
based
on classical Christian exegesis… This series provides the pastor,
exegete, student and lay reader
with
convenient means to see what Athanasius or John Chrysostom or the desert
fathers and mothers
had
to say about a particular text for preaching, for study and for
meditation. There is an
emerging
awareness
among Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox laity that vital biblical
preaching and spiritual
formation
need deeper grounding beyond the scope of the historical-critical
orientations that have
governed
biblical studies in our day. Hence
this work is directed toward a much broader audience
than
the highly technical and specialized scholarly field of patristic
studies.
Clearly
this is an intentionally ecumenical project whose team of volume editors
originates from Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars and who,
under Oden, designed the project to edify those audiences.
The fact that the series is not being manufactured and sold by a
Roman Catholic or Orthodox publishing house, but InterVarsity Press,
shows how remarkable a renaissance of patristic studies is now underway
among Evangelicals the world over.
The impact which this series will very likely have on future
Orthodox and Evangelical dialogue is potentially enormous.
Since the Church Fathers played a formative role in shaping the
identity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the series will naturally
encourage readers to think beyond the ancient Christian commentators
themselves to the church which has most deeply appropriated those
sources. Inevitably,
it will prompt Evangelicals to explore in much greater depth the
christological, trinitarian, ecclesiological and sacramental themes of
the early Church Fathers and that of the Orthodox Church, the Fathers’
heir apparent. This
does not mean that the Fathers gave us a single authoritative
interpretation of every verse of the Bible.
As the series makes evident, there are varied patristic
interpretations on any given text of Scripture.
Oden is under no illusion of concocting a uniform exegetical
tradition by all the Fathers on any given text of Scripture.
He recognizes that that there are many varieties of
interpretations within almost every pericope.
Yet it is also evident that there are central exegetical motifs
that correspond to the great themes of Eastern Orthodox theology.
By letting the Fathers speak for themselves, the ACCS series
reflects the Fathers’ wide differences in cultural expression and
theological creativity while at the same time yielding a remarkable
consensus on central themes of divine Revelation.
Such a discovery can only lead Evangelicals into a deeper
appreciation of Orthodoxy while at the same time accentuating its
similarities and differences with the Catholic and Protestant
traditions.
By virtually all
accounts, J.I. Packer is one of this century’s greatest Evangelical
statesmen. As he reaches
the golden years of his career we notice that he has begun to take a
serious interest in conservative Christian dialogue with the hopes of
forming a common agenda for the church’s unified witness in the modern
world. His work in
“Evangelical ecumenics” (to coin a phrase) began most visibly in his
dialogue with Catholics in 1995 which led to his signing the document
“Evangelicals and Catholics Together.”
Although his interest in Orthodoxy began much earlier, it was not
until 1995 that it took concrete expression at a conservative ecumenical
gathering of Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals called the “Rose
Hill” conference. It
was there that Dr. Packer and the present author worked as formal
dialogue partners. At Rose
Hill, Packer delivered a paper titled, “On from Orr: Cultural Crisis,
Rational Realism and Incarnational Ontology,” to which I responded
with “An Eastern Orthodox Response to J.I. Packer.”
The dialogue was followed up in 1997 when Packer and the author
team-taught a course at Regent College titled, “Eastern Orthodoxy and
Evangelicalism in Dialogue.”
This dialogical course was an historic first of its kind among
Evangelical seminaries in North America.
Given Packer’s distinguished stature and the constructive
theological purpose of the course, the class proved that such a dialogue
between Orthodox and Evangelicals was not only possible, but that it
could actually achieve a common witness without requiring either to
compromise the doctrinal integrity of their positions.
Then in September 1999 Dr.
Packer
advanced the Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue in America by being the
featured Evangelical speaker at the annual meeting of the Society
for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.
The theme for the conference was, “’Outside the Church There
is No Salvation’: An Orthodox and Evangelical Exchange.”
The conference turned out to be the largest gathering of Orthodox
and Evangelical Christians to date with approximately 200 people in
attendance.
In
addition to Bray, Oden and Packer, the work of other scholars should
also be mentioned, if ever so briefly.
They come from Calvinist, Anglican, Anabaptist, Free Church,
Nazarene, Mennonite, Weslyan, Pentecostal and other denominations.
Included in this list would be Miroslav Volf,
Grant Osborne, Harold O.J. Brown,
Daniel Clendenin,
James Stamoolis, Donald Bloesch, Kent Hill,
Mark Noll,
Kenneth Kantzer, Randy Maddox,
Thomas Finger, T. F. Torrance, Elaine Storkey, Vinay Samuel,
David Dockery
and others
whom no doubt I have missed.
It would be claiming too much to say that each of these
individuals are experts on the Christian East, but each in their own way
has begun to lead the Evangelical community into a more advanced level
of academic dialogue than ever before.
In fact, Zondervan, a leading Evangelical publishing house, has
very recently acknowledged the study of Orthodoxy as a lacuna which
needs to be filled in Evangelical scholarship today.
In July 1999 the Academic Editors commissioned the publication of
a new book in their “Counterpoint Series” which will be devoted
exclusively to this subject. It
is tentatively titled, Orthodoxy
and Evangelicalism: Conflict or Compatibility?, edited by James
Stamoolis (forthcoming, ? 2003/4).
Theology is not the only field of Evangelical scholarship which
is engaging the Orthodox Church today.
Evangelical psychologists are also appropriating insights from
the monastic Fathers of the Byzantine, Syrian and Coptic Orthodox
Churches. Without
minimizing the essential role which theology must play in healing the
wounds between Orthodox and Evangelical believers, there is also great
practical value in enlisting the resources of Orthodox anthropology into
the service of Christian psychology.
One scholar who has been working specially in this area is Dr.
Janice Strength, a professor of family therapy at Fuller Seminary’s
School of Psychology.
She is also the co-founder of a graduate school of Christian
psychology in Moscow whose leadership and student body is overwhelmingly
Orthodox. More recently,
however, the school’s American board has discontinued their
relationship with the school in Russia due to some very different values
regarding marriage. Nevertheless
the school continues under Christian auspices with both Orthodox and
Protestant professors teaching there.
In a chapter titled “From Conflict to Love: Suggestions for
Healing the Christian Family,” Strength offers the Orthodox and
Evangelical communities a very sensitive analysis of the dynamics of
human nature and conflict resolution along with guidelines for
Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue in Russia from a family therapist’s
point of view.
When
turning to the Orthodox side of the dialogue, we regret to report that
with but a few notable exceptions,
theologians in Russia and Greece have little or no contact with
Evangelicals and are even disdainful of them mainly because of
Evangelical missions -- which are frequently successful in Russia but
often unsuccessful in Greece.
Outside of Russia and Greece, Orthodox theologians are working to
build bridges with Evangelicals at a variety of levels.
I am reluctant to speak about myself, but I have been honored to
devote a portion of my scholarship to this area as an Orthodox
theologian. I have already
noted three contributions in the above paragraphs: the SSEOE, the
rejoinder chapter “An Eastern Orthodox Response to J.I. Packer,” and
a team-taught course at Regent College with Dr. Packer on “Eastern
Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism in Dialogue.”
In addition are the following chapters and essays: An
introductory guide to the study of Eastern Orthodoxy written specially
for Evangelical students of theology can be found in my chapter “New
Dimensions in Eastern Orthodox Theology.”
Though intended for a North American audience with little
familiarity with European languages, it serves as an introduction to the
principal features of Orthodox theology and the methodological pitfalls
to avoid when studying it. A
suggested missiological strategy for Evangelicals who are ministering in
Orthodox lands such as Russia and Eastern Europe is outlined in the
essay “Evangelical Missions in Eastern Orthodox Lands.”
Also in the field of missiology see the brief article on
“Orthodox Mission Movements” in the Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. Charles van Engen et
al. (Baker, 2000). See
also “What Orthodox Christians Can Learn From Evangelical
Christians” in the Global Missions Report (2003) of the
East/West Institute of Samford University under Dr. Mark Elliot.
In the area of comparative spirituality, the author delivered a
public lecture at Regent College on “Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical
Spirituality: The Core of a Common Agenda.”
On the international scene, I was privileged to serve as a
featured speaker for the Orthodox-Evangelical consultations sponsored by
the World Council of Churches in Alexandria, Egypt and Hamburg, Germany, as noted above.
I am also preparing a chapter for the forthcoming book Orthodoxy
and Evangelicalism: Conflict or Compatibility?, ed. James Stamoolis
(Zondervan, as noted earlier) titled The Evangelical Theology of the
Eastern Orthodox Church. There
I hope to set forth my past 30 years of theological study and experience
in Orthodox and Evangelical theology by arguing why I believe they are
compatible in key areas yet incompatible in others.
These works are supplemented by several graduate courses on
Orthodox history, theology and missions which I teach in both Orthodox
and Protestant Evangelical seminaries throughout North America (to be
discussed below under “Seminaries”).
Other Orthodox theologians have contributed occasional papers
offering specific direction on the Church’s relationship to
Evangelical scholarship. Such
publications are by no means abundant but the scholars themselves and
what they are calling for is highly significant due to their strategic
ecclesiastical positions within the Orthodox Church.
These theologians are Frs. Stanley Harakas, Theodore Stylianopoulos, Emmanuel Clapsis, Bishop Kallistos Ware, Archbishop Philip Saliba,
Edward Rommen,
Eusebius Stephanou,
and a small but growing number of local Orthodox priests
across North America. A
sample of Orthodox endorsements of the SSEOE will indicate the strength
of Pan-Orthodox interest in Evangelical dialogue:
mutual
enrichment among those engaged in your activities.
We hope that you will be fruitful and multiply in membership so
that the message of Jesus Christ according to the biblical and apostolic
teachings will be known to all. –
Archbishop Philip Saliba, Primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North
America
The
SSEOE is fulfilling a vital role….How much we have to gain from
listening to each other! May
Jesus
Christ, our common Lord and Saviour, bless your work. – Bishop
Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, Oxford University.
In
the post-Soviet world, with the opening of traditionally Orthodox
nations to the potential for open proselytism, Evangelical and Orthodox
relations can go in one of two directions: either return to the dangers
of a pre-ecumenical era, or change the course of history.
The SSEOE has already begun addressing this important theological
and practical missiological question.
Much good can come of such a scholarly dialogue. – Fr. Stanley
Harakas, Professor of Theology and Ethics, Emeritus, Holy Cross Greek
Orthodox Seminary.
Of
special importance are the remarks by Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos, a
seasoned Professor of New Testament at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox
Seminary (Brookline, MA). As
Stylianopoulos has matured over the years, he has become openly bold and
forthright in his desire to interface with Evangelical scholarship in
the area of theology and biblical studies.
Apparently this has been the result of years of interaction with
Evangelicals in the Boston area, including cooperative work with Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary (an evangelical consortium school of Holy Cross),
visits to Gordon McDonald’s church in the Boston area, an active
participant in the Society for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and
Evangelicalism, and similar Orthodox-Evangelical contacts.
He states,
Many
Evangelical scholars such as Donald G. Bloesch, Gordon D. Fee, and James
I. Packer, appear to have the closest affinities to Orthodox scholars,
at least pertaining to Scripture. These
and other Evangelicals form a kind of ‘golden mean’ between
fundamentalism and liberal Protestantism, working out their own kind of
‘neo-patristic synthesis’ within the diverse world of Protestantism.
To be sure, such Evangelicals need to rethink the ‘ecclesial
principle’ as expressed by the Orthodox tradition, and some are doing
so. However, pertaining to
the ‘scripture principle’…these Evangelical scholars…appear to
be even more ‘patristic’ than many Orthodox who think of the
patristic heritage as their own inheritance.
Again
I would stress that, if the ‘ecclesial principle’ as well is brought
into play, Orthodox and Evangelical scholars can support each other in
substantive terms on the basis of their unanimity on classic Christian
doctrine as a summary of abiding biblical truth.
Their theological commitments and contemporary circumstances
drive them together to work toward a common witness and common biblical
hermeneutics….
those
who affirm the authority of Scripture and seek to live and work with
some balance between faith and reason, will continue to gravitate toward
a consensus that is called either ‘evangelical catholicity’ or
‘catholic evangelicalism’ as the enduring Christian option of the
third millennium.
These
comments by a scholar of Stylianopoulos’s stature should not be
glossed over as ecumenical rhetoric.
His call for mutual support is clear, specific and authoritative.
If Stylianopoulos is correct, then Orthodox and Evangelical
biblical scholars and churchmen have no other option but to take this
invitation seriously and respond to it with specific and decisive
action. Such action might include creating joint biblical
consultations, exploring faculty exchange programs (which can break down
caricatures and sterotypes), initiating collaborative writing projects
in the areas of ecclesiology, canon formation, tradition, and Scriptural
hermeneutics, and other
projects.
From
the perspective of the big picture, then, if one were to ask where,
geographically, the Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue is being most
fruitfully nurtured in the world, the answer would be found in the
United States. This should
come as no surprise to readers since North America is saturated with
Evangelical Christianity and it is precisely because Evangelicals enjoy
a position of religious dominance in American culture that the American
Orthodox have been forced to respond to its influence.
That response has contributed in part to the rise of what may be
termed an “American Orthodox theology.”
By that I mean that Orthodox theologians in America have been
forced to draw upon the rich theological resources of their own
tradition in order to respond creatively to the challenges of American
religion – including American Evangelicalism.
Just as there are characteristic theological emphases in Greece,
Romania, Bulgaria and elsewhere due to the political, historical,
geographical, and religious questions which have faced the Orthodox
Church and required it to address itself to the special challenges of
those given contexts, so also have the Orthodox in America begun to
slowly offer theological responses which are culturally and
theologically relevant to them. But
here lies an interesting irony. Whereas
in places like Russia and Eastern Europe, the Orthodox Church has
occupied a position of religious dominance over Evangelical churches, in
America the Evangelical community enjoys the position of dominance over
the minority of Orthodox churches. These simple facts bear significantly on the question of why
the Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue is fairing better in the US than
anywhere else in the world. One
could offer several explanations to account for it but perhaps the most
significant reason is due to the American tolerance of religious
pluralism. In America Christians enjoy the constitutional privilege of
“freedom of religion.” Orthodox
leaders in Russia and Eastern Europe should take note of this fact
because it contradicts the cherished assumption that only a legally
imposed protection of Orthodoxy can ensure the spiritual health of the
Orthodox people. In fact
just the opposite has been true in America.
It is precisely because of our religious freedoms that an
increasing number of Evangelicals want to explore the Orthodox Church
independently from the cultural imposition of an offending legislation.
Put simply, the only Orthodoxy worth joining is the one that has
been freely explored and understood.
Likewise, the few influential Orthodox theologians in America who
have an informed knowledge of Evangelical scholarship understand that
these believers are not at all to be lumped together with cults and
sects as if they were part of one great sea of undifferentiated
darkness. On the contrary,
they see its followers as true believers who live in dynamic Christian
communities which possess a respectable intellectual heritage of
scholarship.
What
is happening in the American dialogue thus brings exciting possibilities
for reallignment and renewal in the mother Orthodox countries.
This should not be construed, however, as a demeaning of the
mother Orthodox Churches outside America since they will always remain
highly valued by the American Orthodox people.
Nevertheless it seems hardly debatable that the mantle is falling
to their spiritual children in the United States to achieve the kind of
constructive approach to Evangelicalism which the older lands have not
been able to accomplish as effectively thus far.
That being said, however, it would be quite misleading to paint
an overly optimistic portrait of Orthodox-Evangelical relations in
America. To be sure, not
all is rosy in the United States. Major
challenges and obstacles remain for both the academy and the church,
challenges to which we shall now turn.
Seminaries and Universities
On
the missiological front, walls of tension and hostility between Orthodox
and Evangelicals have been rising in pockets of Russia and Eastern
Europe since the fall of communism.
A staggering number of approximately seven hundred Western
missionary agencies have been documented as presently at work in these
countries.
Very few missionaries, however, are prepared to operate with even
a basic grasp of the countries’ history, culture or language.
There is almost a total lack of missionary preparation being
given to Evangelical students who minister in those countries.
It is no wonder why Orthodox believers are insulted that some
Protestant missionaries have come into their country on the assumption
that Russia (or other Eastern European block countries) is a heathen
nation with no presence or history of the gospel.
Some hold evangelistic meetings with only a superficial concern
for discipling new believers. As
a result Orthodox leaders have shown increasingly strong resentment
toward missionaries who have attempted to convert or proselytize their
parishioners. Yet Western
Evangelicals are equally offended that some Russian Orthodox churchmen
have confused them with a cult or sect.
They are astonished and angry that the Orthodox would take such
extreme measures as to outlaw their ministries in the country.
They are bewildered by the behavior of right wing nationalists
who have burned the bridges for dialogue by doing such things as holding
a literal bond fire to destroy the theological books of ecumenists John
Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann and George Florovsky who by nearly all
accounts are ranked among this century’s greatest Orthodox
theologians.
I am only skimming the surface of these problems which I trust
are well known to the reader. For
those on the mission field they are lively issues which sometimes
impinge upon their very survival. What
all this underscores is the fact that if Orthodox and Evangelicals want
to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph.
4:3) they must begin by widening their comprehension of each other’s
theological history. This means that there are no shortcuts, no easy ways
out, no painless paths to
follow, but only the cross of Christ.
Each must study at each other’s seminaries (or at least make
friends with each other’s faculties so a conversation can begin),
share bibliographies, visit each other’s churches, and spend time
together in worship and fellowship.
Two traditions which are so vastly different in some ways, yet so
closely alike in others, cannot be understood from the inside apart from
the sacrificial gifts of time and respect each can give to the other.
The dialogue must be that important
to people before any real progress can be made to heal the wounds of
Christian division.
Given
these pressing realities both sides must ask themselves the hard
question, “What is being done in our seminaries and Christian
universities to address these vital issues in modern theology and
missiology?” The answer
is not very heartening. In
general, Evangelical seminaries are doing more than the Orthodox
seminaries to rectify the imbalance.
But while some Evangelical seminaries are beginning to offer a
small number of courses on the Orthodox Church, almost no Christian
colleges or universities offer even a single introductory class in their
history or religion departments. A
survey of specific schools will document these general conclusions and
give an up-to-date assessment of the current state of the field.
In
American Evangelical seminaries we can happily report that over the past
thirteen years a small number of courses on the Orthodox Church have
been introduced as a new part of the curricula.
All such courses are noteworthy since, historically, Evangelical
seminaries previously offered them on an “on demand” basis only.
A study of actual course offerings shows that at least one class
on the Orthodox tradition has been taught at Fuller Seminary, Southern
Baptist Seminary (Louisville, KY), Gordon Conwell Seminary, and Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School (IL) to name only a few of the
better known in the US. Until
recently, other Orthodox adjuncts and myself had offered several
elective courses at Fuller Seminary on such topics as “Eastern
Orthodox Theology,” “Eastern
Church Fathers,” “Theology
and Spirituality of Icons” and others.
In fact Fuller hired Samuel Gantt who became a full-time Orthodox
faculty member for many years.
Fr. Sam is an Antiochian priest who served as Fuller’s Director
of Biblical Language Instruction and Instructor in Biblical Languages.
He was one of the most revered professors among students for over
twenty years. The present
author also served as a full-time administrator at Fuller Seminary for
two years (1997-1999) as the Director of Academic Programs for the
Orange County extension site. The
position itself was surprisingly eliminated in 1999 under the protest of
national Christian leaders such as J.I. Packer, Thomas Oden, Robert
Webber, Richard John Neuhaus and others.
There are now no Orthodox faculty or administrators left at
Fuller Seminary. Trinity
Divinity School has also offered occasional elective courses in their
Mission department on “Evangelical Missions in Orthodox Lands,”
“Eastern Orthodox Theology and Practice” and “Introduction to the
Orthodox Church.”. In the
UK, London Bible College has offered occasional courses in the field, as
does a newly formed Evangelical college in Odessa in the Ukraine under
President Sergei Sannikov. In
general, schools in the UK have not closed ranks against the Orthodox as
they have here in the U.S. (see below).
This is simply because they have never yet opened the doors.
This creates a hopeful situation because it does not come from
any settled opposition. On
the contrary, there appear to be a number of Baptist theologians who are
willing to interact with Orthodoxy theology and that is creating an
increasing openness to dialogue. What
is most needed in the UK and elsewhere is a substantive encouragement
from the Orthodox. Part of
the problem, however, is created by the decentralized nature of
Evangelicalism. With whom
do the Orthodox communicate in such a diverse group?
How do they know which individuals/organizations to contact?
Here the SSEOE has been helpful because it is both pan-Orthodox
and pan-Evangelical. Perhaps
readers of this chapter will wish to start a chapter in their own
respective countries. Still,
the bishops need to be more aggressive in enlisting the help of others
who can offer informed guidance on how to proceed with the dialogue.
Fuller
Seminary has been regarded by some as the “flagship” school of
Evangelicalism as it traveled into the stormy winds of controversy
throughout its history, so its relationship with the Orthodox Church
deserves special attention for the purpose of this article.
To contextualize this relationship an historical summary of key
turning points in Fuller’s history is in order.
Fuller was born out of a controversy which centered in part on
the relationship between the gospel and culture.
The school was founded with the intention of engaging the culture
at all levels with the gospel of Christ, as opposed to the cultural
isolationism of separatist Fundamentalists of the 1940’s.
The next major debate came in the 1970’s concerning the
inerrancy of the Bible with Fuller taking an essentially errantist
position. Then in the 1980’s Fuller entered into controversy over the
role of women in the church and ended up concluding that the school
would actively support the full inclusion of women in ministry. In the 1990’s one of the key issues before Fuller was its
attitude toward ecumenism. To
what extent would Fuller join itself with other Christian bodies in
advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Over the course of Fuller’s 50-year history the school was
already practicing a de facto
type of ecumenism by openly welcoming students from all historic
branches of the Christian church. It
is this openness which has made it one of the largest
interdenominational seminaries in the world today.
But what was to be its posture towards the Orthodox?
Could it embrace the full inclusion of Orthodox students and
professors into its ranks as part of the Evangelical family?
There
are three educational alliances which Fuller has attempted to achieve
with the Orthodox over the past thirteen years with varying degrees of
success and commitment. First,
in Fuller’s School of Psychology, as noted earlier, family therapist
Dr. Janice Strength founded a counseling school in Russia which is named
the Moscow Christian School of Psychology.
Most of its student body consists of Russian Orthodox Christians
and its faculty permits both Orthodox and Evangelical professors.
A second educational ministry is Fuller’s extension-type
program based in St. Petersburg, Russia.
I have not been able to update recent developments for this
chapter so things may have changed over the past few years.
Dr. James Bradley, the Faculty Coordinator for the program,
describes its work as of 1998.
St.
Petersburg Theological Academy was founded in 1990 by Dr. Sergei
Nikolaev with the support of Dr. Arthur DeKruyter, pastor of Christ
Church of Oak Brook, Illinois and Trustee of Fuller Seminary.
In consultation with the President and Dean of Fuller Seminary,
it was agreed that Fuller would serve in an advisory capacity to the new
institution, and that we would send four professors each year to teach
intensive, two week courses. From
the Spring of 1990 through September 1998, the School of Theology at
Fuller has involved fourteen of its own faculty persons (one-third of
the School of Theology Faculty) and three graduate students in this
project and together they have taught a total of fifty-six courses.
Professors normally teach two courses over a period of two weeks
with thirty contact hours with students per week.
The
experience for the Fuller faculty involved in this endeavor has been
uniformly positive and enriching. Participation
has enabled School of Theology faculty to experience the church in a
cross cultural context….While our faculty are used to the rich
cultural and ethnic diversity of students in Los Angeles, the diversity
of backgrounds represented by students from the Russian republics is, of
course, even greater. Good
ecumenical relations with the Russian Orthodox Church have been
maintained; currently two Orthodox priests serve as adjunct faculty and
teach specialized courses at the academy. (emphasis mine)
Fuller’s
third venture with the Orthodox tested the seriousness of the school’s
stated mission of
church
renewal but it proved to require more from Fuller than it was willing or
able to give. It was
a landmark proposal in the history of Orthodox-Evangelical relations.
In 1995 the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America (perhaps
the most progressive of all Orthodox Churches) initiated contact with
Fuller Seminary to propose a joint educational alliance for Orthodox and
Evangelical seminarians. Never
before in either the history of Evangelicalism or in the history of
Orthodoxy had an ecumenical proposal of such magnitude ever been
discussed, let alone proposed, by an Orthodox Church, especially one of
such great historical distinction as the ancient Patriarchate of
Antioch. Fr. Michel Najim
(a Syriac scholar, Dean of St. Nicholas Orthodox Cathedral in Los
Angeles and former Dean of St. John of Damascus Seminary in Beirut,
Lebanon) and myself were appointed as official representatives of the
Antiochian Church to Fuller. We
worked with and under the direction of Fr. Joseph Allen, Chair of the
Theological Commission which was overseen by Archbishop Philip Saliba
and Bishop Demetri Khouri. The
proposal sought to provide a Pan-Orthodox program of studies leading to
the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree granted by Fuller Seminary in
conjunction with the Antiochian House of Studies (an American graduate
program of St. John of Damascus Seminary in Balamand University, Beirut,
Lebanon). It was intended
to be an ecumenical program with an Orthodox emphasis that would be
based in Pasadena but made available to Orthodox and Evangelical
students in America and throughout the world by using classical and
contemporary methods of theological education (including media
technologies over the internet and Individualized Distance Learning
courses). Greek and Russian
bishops from the Greek Orthodox Church and Orthodox Church in America
agreed to participate as Orthodox professors in the program, and the
Coptic Orthodox Church in Los Angeles was in the early stages of
discussing their involvement with the Antiochians as well.
As
the engineer for the curriculum, I performed several revisions in
consultations with both parties involved while seeking to achieve a
balance between the theological demands of an authentically Orthodox
curriculum and the Evangelical distinctives of Fuller Seminary.
The final curriculum appeared to be a unique ecumenical
achievement which created an authentic synthesis between our theological
traditions without resulting in doctrinal compromise or a theological
hybrid. It also offered
Fuller’s own students the opportunity to study with Orthodox
professors at one of the world’s largest and most progressive
interdenominational Evangelical seminaries.
Eastern Orthodox students would have been asked to grapple with
the theological emphases of the Reformation, and Evangelical students
would have been asked to do the same with Orthodox theology. Both would have found Fuller as a safe place to learn each
other’s history and theology while actually witnessing Christian unity
in action for the good of the body of Christ.
In this way the joint program would fulfill Fuller’s own stated
“Mission Beyond the Mission,” a goal dedicated to the renewal of the
entire Christian church including the historic “catholic” traditions
such as “the Orthodox Church” among others.
Despite
the numerous prior contacts with Fuller administrators, Fuller’s
faculty had been given only one introductory opportunity to listen to
our proposal and respond. Fr.
Michel Najim and I presented a general overview of the reasons and goals
of the program without reference to the specifics in the curriculum.
A few did not feel they could do a responsible job in the area of
Orthodox-Evangelical cooperation since they were already over-committed
to other projects. However,
others (notably Miroslav Volf who has since moved to Yale) felt the
proposal was of enormous significance, were eager to support it, and
felt honored to be involved in such an historic ecumenical moment. Afterwards the Dean (William Dyrness) and faculty felt they
should turn it over to the higher levels of Fuller’s administration to
move the process forward. A
very ambiguous stage in the dialogue ensued after that between the
faculty and administration over whether and how to go ahead with the
proposal. Despite many of
the faculty’s readiness to move ahead with advanced union
negotiations, the Dean later provided a written statement to me in which
he explained that the administration/Board of Trustees (i.e. President
Richard Mouw, Provost Russell Spittler and the Board) failed to provide
the faculty with a clear signal to proceed.
Thus an historic program of enormous ecumenical import tragically
died.
Should George Marsden’s book on the history of Fuller Seminary
(Reforming Evangelicalism)
ever be revised in the future, the story of Fuller Seminary ought to
include a detailed narrative of this missed opportunity in modern church
history.
When turning to an evaluation of Orthodox seminaries that offer
courses on Evangelicalism, it is obvious that they are behind their
Evangelical counterparts. Nevertheless,
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary makes Evangelical courses available
to its students through its sister consortium school Gordon-Conwell
Seminary. In 1980 a
dialogue on preaching was held at the campus of Holy Cross between its
faculty and Gordon-Conwell’s. The
papers were published in the book God’s
Living Word: Orthodox and Evangelical Essays on Preaching.
Several of its
faculty members have also been featured speakers at the annual SSEOE
conferences (i.e. Frs. Stanley Harakas, Emmanuel Clapsis and Theodore
Sytlianopoulos). St.
Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary (Crestwood, NY) has shown verbal signs of
interest in Orthodoxy’s relationship with Evangelicalism among several
of its faculty and students but so far no concrete action has been taken
to implement such courses or to engage Evangelicals in academic
conversation. Saint Nersus,
its sister school from the Armenian Orthodox Church, invited an Armenian
Evangelical, Joseph Alexanian from Trinity International University
(Deerfield, IL) to teach a course on evangelism in the book of Acts in
the summer of 1994. In
August 1995 Metropolitan Philip Saliba of the Antiochian Orthodox
Archdiocese took a bold step forward to raise seminarians level of
knowledge by offering an annual comparative theology course for his
Antiochian students on “Orthodoxy and American Evangelicalism” in
the Antiochian House of Studies (Ligonier, Pennsylvania) taught by the
present author.
Many of these
attempts can be regarded as progressive. Still one must be honest enough to view them only as a good
beginning and that not nearly enough is being done to fill in the gaps
in our respective curricula. Nevertheless,
for over a decade Evangelical schools were doing more to rectify the
situation than were the Orthodox seminaries. Now,
however, neither side appears to be reaching out to the other.
Clearly of late Evangelical schools in the U.S. have not had a
very constructive relationship with the Orthodox Church.
In the past four years, two schools in particular have gone
through some very difficult times when trying to determine what to do
with their Orthodox faculty. They
are Biola University (La Mirada, California) and Columbia International
University (Columbia, South Carolina).
Biola
University is a very conservative Evangelical school with a
denominationally diverse student body.
In
1997-1998 three Orthodox employees of the school endured the possibility
of termination as a result of a vocal minority of students who portrayed
the Orthodox faculty as members of a heretical sect.
One professor occupied the chair of a highly successful R.A.
Torrey Honors Program, another professor was head of the Art Department
and the third an ordained Orthodox priest who served as the Dean of
Students. By all
accounts, including Biola’s students and administration, each
performed their jobs with honorable distinction.
In the name of academic freedom, the vocal student minority was
allowed to express their views but took advantage of their privileges
and soon became disruptive to the professors and institutional life of
the school. The students
increased the tension by posting anti-Orthodox messages throughout the
school and, to put it lightly, generally demeaned the Orthodox Church.
As a result, a theological commission of three was set up from
the school’s adjacent Talbot School of Theology to write a report on
Eastern Orthodox theology and its compatibility with Biola’s Statement
of Faith. If the two
were compatible the professors could remain at the school; if not, they
would have to be let go. To
help facilitate the dialogue two outside Orthodox theologians were
invited to Biola for an evening’s discussion with the members of
Talbot’s theological commission.
After meeting for several hours the Provost, Sherwood
Lingenfelter (who, ironically, is now the Provost at Fuller Seminary),
concluded that there were no major breaches with Biola’s Statement of
Faith and that the Orthodox professors could remain in their jobs.
The face-to-face dialogue between Orthodox and Evangelical
theologians which occurred at Biola University was originally
constructive. As time
passed, however, the school reaffirmed that it is indeed a Protestant
Evangelical school and therefore any faculty member outside that branch
of Christianity is to be excluded.
Currently, the university suggests that there is no blacklisting
of church affiliation and that it is possible for sincere Christians of
whatever affiliation to be employed.
But all such Christians are required to sign the school’s
pre-millennial statement of faith. In the past few years, one original Orthodox employee
resigned, one part-time faculty member in the communication department
who became Orthodox was let go, and a senior Orthodox faculty member
overseeing the R.A. Torrey section was told he would not qualify for
tenure because of his church affiliation.
The latter’s wife also sought to take classes at Talbot School
of Theology but was denied admittance because of her Orthodoxy.
A similar incident
of an Evangelical backlash against Orthodoxy occurred at another
conservative school with the same negative results.
One of mission professors at Columbia International University,
Dr. Edward Rommen, joined the faculty after serving as a tenured
professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL).
Rommen grew up in the Evangelical Free Church and spent 14 years
as a missionary and seminary professor of that denomination in Germany.
He possesses a doctorate in Theology and Missions and studied
with Wolfhart Pannenberg at Munich, Germany.
His most recent book was co-authored with David Hesselgrave
titled, Contextualization: Meanings, Methods and Models.
After many years of studying and searching for a deeper
church life, in 1997 Rommen left the Evangelical Free Church
denomination and joined the Orthodox Church. As a result of his conversion, he was almost immediately
asked to resign from his new teaching post at Columbia International
University in 1998. While
the majority of professors and administrators seemed to support Rommen,
two or three top administrators appear to have engineered a quiet
dismissal. He is now an
ordained Orthodox priest and new President of the SSEOE.
Another example of a more quiet form of an Evangelical reaction
against Orthodoxy can be seen in the case of Wheaton College.
Here one needs to distinguish between Wheaton’s public
Statement of Faith and its private
stance against the Orthodox. There
is nothing in Wheaton’s Statement of Faith which any Orthodox
theologian could not sign. What
Wheaton hopes for, however, is that such theologians would object to
what is not contained in it (e.g. the "real presence” of Christ
in the Eucharist). According to Robert Weber, Wheaton operates on a rule of
thumb that only Protestants can speak in chapel or be hired as faculty
members. However, this is
only an “oral” tradition among most (not all) of the faculty, not a
“written” prohibition.
Such a posture, however, is curious in light of the fact that
Webber himself is an Episcopalian, which is nearly identical with the
Orthodox tradition barring differences over the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed and a few other similar
technicalities that are not vital for faculty signatures at Wheaton.
Also there are more Episcopal students attending Wheaton College
than at any other time in the school’s history.
Another irony lies in the contradictory message one hears when a
renowned Orthodox speaker was asked to grace the christening of one of
Evangelicalism’s most distinguished institutions.
During the 1980’s the renowned Orthodox philosopher, educator
and theologian, Charles Malik, was invited to give the prestigious
dedication speech for the new Billy Graham Center which is located on
the campus of Wheaton College. The
late Charles Malik was a theologian of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in
Lebanon and the United States, a founding member in the United Nations,
a member of the Board of Trustees of Harvard University, and personal
friend of Carl Henry and Bill Bright.
Though the Billy Graham Center is functionally distinct from
Wheaton College, Wheaton wholeheartedly embraced the honor of Malik’s
presence.
In
sum, there have been a number of well-qualified Orthodox candidates and
faculty members who have suffered persecution of one kind or another in
Evangelical schools in the U.S. The
presence or potential of Orthodox faculty in Evangelical schools has
begun to challenge the adequacy of public Evangelical Statements of
Faith and privately held faculty opinions.
The Statements of Faith were often forged as an historical
reaction against Tridentine Roman Catholicism and the once rising tide
of Protestant liberalism. Orthodoxy
was not even on the radar screen of Evangelical schools at the time of
drafting their Statements. Today
Evangelicals in America are having to re-evaluate their identity in
light of their relationship with Orthodoxy on an “as needed” basis.
There is not a large movement in this direction but the problems
outlined above reveal that the Orthodox Church in America is indeed
having a discernable impact on Evangelical schools, and that such
schools are struggling to understand the true identity of Orthodoxy as
well as their own Evangelical identity in light of that discovery.
Oftentimes their understanding of the Orthodox Church is mediated
simply through introductory books which do not adequately deal with
Evangelical questions, through conversations with theologically
unsophisticated Orthodox leaders, or through fellow Evangelical
professors who themselves have only a superficial knowledge of the
Church’s tradition. Few
Orthodox or Evangelical scholars are able to speak each other’s
language fluently or build bridges based on an authentic grasp of each
other’s theological history.
This adversely impacts the private opinions of Evangelical
faculty members who are at the helm of the hiring process when reviewing
job applicants of Orthodox scholars.
Often Evangelical faculties do not currently possess the
conceptual categories in which to fit the Orthodox as they appear as
neither fish nor fowl. However
as more of the younger generation of Evangelical scholars complete
doctoral degrees in Greek patristics, liturgical studies and
Byzantine/modern history, the Evangelical institutions which hire them
may become increasingly open to acquiring the rich intellectual
resources of Orthodox faculty members in the coming decades.
Clearly, however, that will not happen in the near future.
In fact, American Evangelicalism is moving in the opposite
direction! The irony is that most of these Evangelical schools have
aspired to greatness but lack the courage to take the associated risks.
One can only humbly pray for the day when Evangelical schools
will welcome Orthodox theologians into their Evangelical ranks with full
faculty status as valued brothers in Christ.
Sadly, Orthodox
schools fair no better. Orthodox
institutions only number five in all of North America.
It would be wrong to expect them to open their doors to
Evangelicals to the same degree that Evangelicals should be able to do
with the Orthodox due to the nature of the two being compared:
Orthodoxy is a church which makes no claim to being
interdenominational or theologically inclusive.
Evangelicalism, on the other hand, is not a church but a
spiritual movement. As such
its theological distinctives are comprised of a core of spiritual and
theological beliefs which embrace and transcend a wide range of
denominational boundaries. These
differences do not excuse the Orthodox from seriously engaging and
uniting with Evangelicalism in vitally important areas, but it does
legitimize the limits of their cooperation so that there is a rational
imbalance of what can and cannot be achieved with integrity.
Conclusion
The
sum of these developments demonstrate that we are only at the start of
an emerging global dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical
communities. The Orthodox
tradition is fast becoming a vital issue in modern theology and world
missions. An unprecedented opportunity for growth, reallignment and
renewal now lies before us. The
historic dialogue and ecumenical encounters that occurred at all levels
during the decade of the 1990’s between Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism
has grown strangely quiet at the turn of the 21st century. We now lie in the wake of a broken courtship initiated
chiefly from the Evangelical side.
What was once a promising engagement has cooled into an estranged
relationship. Evangelical
seminaries that have the foresight to develop curricular emphases in
Eastern Christianity will be better able to offer a fuller perspective
on global theology and thus will be on the cutting edge of the future of
theological education. Orthodox seminaries must do the same with Evangelicalism.
While the fledgling dialogue is fraught with potentially fatal
hazards, it is my conviction that if our relationship is patiently
nurtured with humility, courage, determination and the laying aside of
personal and ecclesial pride it may well turn out to be one of the most
fruitful and significant ecumenical encounters of all at the beginning
of the third millennium. If
Allister McGrath is correct in asserting that Evangelicalism will
increasingly become the most viable theological option on the religious
landscape in the coming years,
I humbly believe that Eastern Orthodoxy, despite its human frailties and
current weaknesses, may very well end up as the dialogue partner which
can offer Evangelicals the greatest abundance of fresh theological
resources to nourish its ongoing maturity and creative relevance
throughout the 21st century.
However, in this dialogue Evangelicals will need to develop a
strategy for dealing with the poor external conditions of contemporary
Orthodoxy -- conditions which are partly due to a legacy of Islamic and
Communist domination over the Orthodox as well as plain religious
snobbery and the lack of desire to understand and communicate with the
Christian West.
A
renowned British Byzantinologist said that the 21st century
will be the century of the Orthodox.
This should not make the Orthodox boast but rather it should make
us feel even more strongly the immense responsibility placed on our weak
shoulders to witness to the Church’s faith.
The theological treasures of Byzantium are just beginning to be
discovered by Colin Gunton’s reappropriation of classical Byzantine
christology, and by Miroslav Volf’s and the Torrance brothers’ work
on Cappadocian trinitarian theology, to name just a few of the better
known Evangelicals. It
must also be said as it so often happens in Protestant encounters with
Orthodoxy, that Evangelicals may well end up feeling disappointed with
the quality of their conversation with some contemporary Orthodox
dialogue partners, many of whom lack a sophisticated appreciation for
the theological emphases of the Reformers and their children.
But it is precisely at that moment of disillusionment, when
Evangelicals will be tempted to turn away from the Orthodox, that
Evangelicals must summon the intellectual courage to move beyond the
sins and weaknesses of modern Orthodoxy and go back to the primary
sources themselves which have formed the Church’s faith, no matter how
much or how little the modern Orthodox are able to help them with the
journey. The fortress
mentality that now dominates Evangelical institutions will need to be
overcome by the truth of the gospel, a truth which the Orthodox Church
invites Evangelicals to explore in greater depth.
I am personally convinced that the reasons why Evangelicals have
rejected the Orthodox are due to their own unsophisticated grasp of
Orthodox theology, as well as the failure of Orthodox pastors and
scholars to make their faith known and understood in terms that satisfy
the legitimate concerns of the Protestant Reformers and their modern
children. In short, what is
lacking is theological knowledge, effective “bi-lingual” theological
communication skills, patience, dedication, love and, above all,
humility. Mutual repentance
is needed on both sides for the sins and failures for which we are all
responsible. The future is
only as hopeful as the depth of our own repentance.
The
decade of the 1990’s laid the foundation for a new beginning. The stalled communication and negative conclusions we have
drawn has now put us in danger of returning to the isolationist
conditions of a pre-ecumenical era.
I can only urge Evangelicals not to give up on their dialogues
with the Orthodox, but to go back to the table and explore more
thoroughly the borders of their Evangelical identity.
Likewise the Orthodox need to return to the table with a deeper
knowledge of the evangelical identity of their own faith and how it
relates to that of their Evangelical brethren.
Turn to God, Rejoice in Hope! Orthodox-Evangelical
Consultation, ed. Huibert van Beek and George Lemopoulos (WCC
Geneva, 1998).
Dr. Edward Rommen was the
lead Orthodox speaker. Rommen
is a former tenured professor in the Missions Department at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. His conversion to the Orthodox Church was reported in Christianity
Today (August 11, 1998).
Unpublished paper on
“The Holy Spirit in the Eastern Church Fathers” given at a
Pentecostal-Orthodox dialogue in Prague, 1998.
