We do an online feature at the Dallas Morning News called Texas Faith, which polls a panel of religious folks weekly on a question having to do with religion and public life. This week's poll asks the panelists what they'd tell a friend who came to them to say they were thinking of leaving the faith. A commenter in the comboxes posed a complementary question that I find equally interesting: What would you say to someone who came to you saying he wanted to convert to your faith?
If someone came to me saying they would like to become an Orthodox Christian, my first response would be: "Praise God!" But then I would try to find out how serious they were. I would tell them that Orthodoxy is a demanding religion, and in fact is much more a "way of life" than most American forms of the faith. I would begin too by saying that unless you're a theological genius and a very fast reader, you simply won't understand all, or even most, of Orthodoxy by reading books, and you shouldn't have that expectation. If you expect that you'll have to have Orthodoxy all figured out before you step over the threshold to chrismation, then you'll be on the outside for a very long time. This is even more true than with Catholicism, I find, because the Eastern Christian approach to the faith is significantly different than the Western Christian approach (the Reformed professor James Payton, who teaches a college course on Orthodoxy, has written a fantastic book, "Light From the Christian East," that is in my experience by far and away the best thing out there that explains the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity). At some point, you're going to have to make a leap of faith, trusting that the Orthodox Church is what she claims to be. I've had longtime communicants in my own parish tell me that it'll take 10 years for your mind to really start thinking in an Orthodox way. I didn't understand that when they first told me that, but I do now.
Similarly, don't think you have to be a perfect Orthodox from the get-go. It can seem intimidating from the outside, but people are really graceful, and help you learn the things you need to learn. Having said that, I would also advise this person to start living as if he were already Orthodox, keeping the fasts, attending liturgies, and so forth. See how it feels. I believe that God can save His beloved within any Christian church, and even outside of the Christian church. But I believe Jesus Christ really is the only way to salvation, and those who don't believe in him but who are still to be saved will be saved because of His mercy. I don't believe truth is relative. I believe Orthodoxy is the most truthful and best path to salvation, but on balance, I would rather someone remain a good Methodist than be a poor Orthodox. But not always: there is something to be said for the upbuilding of one's soul through reception of the sacraments, fasting, and participating in the liturgical life of the church. My hesitation comes from seeing as a Catholic the unhelpful effect of converts who came in essentially as liturgically-minded Protestants, and who had no real intention of living out the Catholic life.
A couple more things:
At our parish, the "ethnic thing" isn't a problem. But I know it is for other Orthodox. I would advise converts to avoid the rah-rah effect of coming into the church on fire for the newfound faith, and coming across to cradle Orthodox as a know it all who looks down on them. You don't know it all, and while it may be true that the ethnic folks' ardor for the faith has cooled, and that they may see the church more as an ethnic clubhouse than the church catholic, try to be patient and understanding. You can learn a lot from them. Besides, they see things changing rapidly in their church, and they often don't understand it, and may be defensive.
My bottom line is this: I would welcome a potential convert with sincere joy, but I would want them to know what they were getting into. Orthodoxy, done right, is significantly different from other forms of Christianity, and requires a higher level of commitment. My attitude would be like that of old Father Moloney, who told me on the day I showed up asking to be instructed in the Catholic faith: "You might not want to be a Catholic when I get through with you, but you'll know what a Catholic is." That's the only honest way to go about it, I think.
How would you answer the question? What would you want a convert to know if he or she came to you for advice inquiring about conversion to your church, or form of faith?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wow, if someone came to me wanting to join my "religion" I'd say, "I just turned onto this road myself," [Orthodoxy]. "Just come alongside and let's learn together." I'd have ideas for books to read to work on the Protestant mindset, but would mostly want them to just come be part.
Alicia,
I would gently submit that -- depending on where you live -- a class at an Episcopal Church might be the verst last place one ought to turn for accurate teaching on what is believed by Christians who remain in the Anglican tradition.
This is because -- again, depending on where you live -- the Episcopal Church is perhaps the one denomination of Christianity in which meaning what one says during liturgy can make one a heretic in the clergy's eyes.
In any case, the Book of Common Prayer is *itself* in large part an articulation of what is orthodox belief in Anglican Christianity.
[It's worth noting that the BCP contains The Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith which lay out Anglican orthodoxy in no uncertain terms]
The centrality of the BCP to the Anglican liturgy makes the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy a hard one to maintain.
And that's to say nothing of the role that biblical scripture plays in the liturgy.
My point is that you or anyone else who has been told that all one must do to be an Anglican is to mouth the words or biblical scripture or of the BCP without meaning -- per se -- what one says has been told *wrong.*
The fact that you or anyone else could be taught such nonsense, such cynical and dishonest hogwash, only does to show that the split you fear as "inevitable" had happened already, before you took your class, and now only needs to be formalized, so that those who wish to stay faithful to the Anglican tradition have a chance of doing so -- a chance that Schori, Robinson, Spong, and most, though not all, "liberal" Episcopalians intend to take away from as many of us as they possible can.
Re: [It's worth noting that the BCP contains The Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith which lay out Anglican orthodoxy in no uncertain terms]
While the Thirty Nine Articles are important, I'm not sure that I agree with everything in there. Articles 28 and 29 seem to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which denial I cannot agree with.
I think orthodoxy rests more on the Creeds than on the Thirty Nine Articles.
Beaumont George, you said:
"My point is that you or anyone else who has been told that all one must do to be an Anglican is to mouth the words or biblical scripture or of the BCP without meaning -- per se -- what one says has been told *wrong.*"
I didn't mean to give you the impression that we were taught that Orthodoxy was unimportant in the class on "What Do Episcopalians Believe" and I've never been taught that the meaning behind the words of the liturgy was unimportant.
It is quite possible that I misunderstood the lesson, or that it was a mistake, or simply wrong, but that doesn't mean it was a deliberate, cynical lie.
I agree with you that the split in the Episcopal Church has already occured.
Re: "Why, yes it is true. The Bible is the authority, the Church has none at all. The Bible is only an "authority" in that it contains the word of God, who is the ONLY real authority."
The Church is neither building nor institution, but the people of God gathered together in one heart, united by the Holy Spirit worshipping God. In this context (see Acts) the Apostles ("the ones sent") and the faithful who worshipped with them. It is this church living in the Holy Spirit that created the New Testament -- literally, they were the ones who wrote and received the Gospels and Epistles. It is this body of worshippers who determined which gospels and epistles were authentic and which were not. It is this body of worshippers that continued to understand salvation, worship and scripture (Old and New Testament) as the Apostles taught, and as the Holy Spirit set up His tent inside them, and as the Truth lived in their communities. This living Church, this body of worshippers has 2,000 years of continuity in the Spirit. "Real" authority comes from living humility and love, as Christ lived and taught. Jesus did not write scripture; he lived an authentically holy (not of this world, but of the next) life. We are supposed to live what he taught. Come and see.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.