Question about Dr Brad Nassif on Orthodoxy and Evangelical Protestantism

[Robert Hegwood]

I am not sure this is the correct forum area, but it seems close and I have a question that I hope someone can answer.

From time to time I listen to Ancient Faith Radio podcasts and have found them on the whole very helpful and beneficial. I had several occacions to point others to particular podcasts that provide valuable insights on questions they have asked of me. However the comments of Dr. Nassif from time to time make me cringe and wonder about the broader effect of his teachings. This is especially so in his most recent podcast concerning the life and teaching of Fr. Alexander Schmemen. If what he says is true concerning what Fr. Alexander taught then when it comes to issues outside the Holy Eucharist and Divine Liturgy I can understand better some of the remarks I've encountered over the years that do not regard the whole of his ministry with equal enthusiasum.

To boil it all down even though it is not said explicitly I get the feeling that Dr. Nassif would be much happier with Orthodoxy if it was a lot more like evangelicalsim in mindset and a little more like them in practice. That is to say a lot of our traditional practices would be labeled as culturally irrelevant and minimized if not discarded all together. That our liturgical ritual would be pared down and popularized to the minimalist bone and that in all other things we would conduct our church life like an Evangelical Bible study.

The trouble is it is hard to disagree with what he actually says (on the whole). It would be good if more Orthodox studied scripture and developed a more engaged and lively faith. However, the things said of this nature often seem couched in such a way as to hint that the Orthodox faith is in need of a little of the Reformation. It strikes me as sometime valid critique that proceeds from an invalid place (to wax forensic).

Perhaps I'm overreacting and misjudging what I'm hearing, but what I'm hearing sounds just shy of saying Orthodoxy needs to morph into some new kind of Evangelicals with a Divine Litugy. I could be very wrong, all I know is that when I listen to the other podcasts on AFR I feel I'm am listening to other Orthodox Christians growing in the faith and sharing the fruits of their labors, but when I listen to Dr. Nassif it so much that reminds me of Protestant teaching and mindset...I wonder and continue to cringe a little. And I cringe the more after listening to his latest sharing of his impressions of the life and teachings of Fr. Alexander. I can't say I've read a lot of Fr. Alexander's writings, some but not a lot, and did not know him, but I do know he is generally held in high regard especially for liturgical teachings. I also know he had critics though I know little about them beyond the bare fact of their existance. But now I wonder what to think both about Fr. Alexander's teaching outside the Eucharist and about Dr. Nassif's teachings concerning the Church.

So if anyone has any corrections or insights I would appreciate them.

[Rick H.]

Dear Robert,

I don't think I have any corrections or insights really, but I can share that it may be helpful to know where Nassif is coming from.

He contends "there are no core disagreements between evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox over the issues that define the evangelical movement, issues that are also presented in the Eastern Orthodox Church (Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism pg. 29)".

In fact Robert, it comes to mind that you had some concerns about some of Nassif's statements back in the good ol' American Orthodoxy? thread, as we considered his article in Christianity Today. Here's a link to your last post about Nassif for review:

An American Orthodoxy? - Page 11 - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=40969&highlight=nassif#post40969)

Whether one appreciates Nassif or not, what I like about his works that I have read (as shown in the above book 'Three Views') is that he usually solidly supports what he says. Actually this may be a good read for you, if you haven't already Robert. Again in this book, in his first contribution, he shares initially what he hopes to accomplish, in terms of a three point objective/goal, next shares what his method is, and what the desired outcomes are, and then he is off. Also, I appreciate the fact that he feels that the East can learn from the West, as the West can learn from the East.

Nassif is grateful or actually "deeply indebted," as he says, to 'evangelical Christians who helped bring him into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ during his high school years.' And, he unembarrassedly defines the common ground between Eastern Orthodox and Protestant evangelical theology. In short, Nassif has a perspective, manner, and insights that I think are very valuable, and not easily found--but what do I know I love Schmemman's works very much. Actually, the works of Nassif, Schmemman, and Zizioulas were very instrumental in my journey to Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

While I certainly agree that some adjustments to the minds and attitudes of some people to be more open to evangelization, I am not so sure that we need to "adjust" the Traditions of the Church to be more "popular". All we have to do is look to other churches who have "sanitized" and shortened to see how "fruitful" that approach has been. I think we need to keep the beauty and the awe and the reverence, but we can certainly add openness and outreach. We shouldn't have to give anything up of the "fullness" to make things appear more "palatable". We don't need to become a MacChurch.


http://www.monachos.net/forum/memberimages/4762471752560eef0.jpg

[Owen Jones]

Once an evangelical, always an evangelical. There is a certain evangelical protestant tone that spills over into the commentaries on ancientfaithradio. It usually centers around the "personal relationship" doctrine of protestantism. But I think behind that are certain philosophical/theological fallacies embedded in protestantism going way back. One is the fallacy of voluntarism, which reduces Grace to God's will, and, in turn, our salvation becomes an act of our will. Our decision...

The other fallacy is that of nominalism. Nominalism argues that the idea of universals are only names referring to collections of things. It is a reaction to the primacy of universals as abstract intellectual concepts.

Orthodoxy does not reduce Grace to an act of God's will or salvation to an individual decision. Nor does it get bogged down in a debate over universals.

True Orthodox evangelism has always been associated with the ascetic virtues. When a person voluntarily (not to be confused with the fallacy of voluntarism) pursues the virtues of poverty and chastity, he becomes an eschatalogical sign of the world to come, and enters into that world, at least to the degree possibly while still in the world. So the idea of in an-between world is key to understanding and participating in the Orthodox theological realm. Salvation is not just something that happens when you die. Or some kind of guarantee of what will happen when you die. It is now. Here.

So Orthodox evangelism is not an argument about anything. It is a demonstration of life as it is designed to be lived. One need not be a monastic to live the ascetic virtues. But the monastic is the standard as well as the sign of Truth. Truth is not a position about something. It is a realm of existence.

I also cringe when I see monastics make statements about the political/social environment, as this is a distraction from the true path.

[Maria Murray]

Hello Robert!

I am not qualified to offer any real insights or corrections, but I just wanted to say I know what you mean - his message doesn't feel very typical for an AFR program. While I can appreciate some of his suggestions, it's amazing to me how different people can come up with different ideas about the same thing. After I read a book by Fr. Alexander (only one though), I was convinced by him that the Church didn't need any reformation! Aparently, Dr. Nassif, a much more educated person than me, draws a different conclusion from the same author.

Yes, my own Orthodox experience testifies that the is a problem with nominalism and following religion just for the sake of culture and not Christ, but, as our priest was saying yesterday, if you think a church (or someone else) doesn't look spiritual, it's just you describing what you see in the mirror! So I think we should criticize ourselves (what we see in our mirror) when we wish to criticize someone else's spirituality or the Church in general.

Does anyone remember who it is that said "If you want to reform the Church, become a saint"? This is the way I need to learn to think.

[James Blackstock]

. If what he says is true concerning what Fr. Alexander taught then when it comes to issues outside the Holy Eucharist and Divine Liturgy I can understand better some of the remarks I've encountered over the years that do not regard the whole of his ministry with equal enthusiasum.


Dear Robert:

Here is an article you might be interested in

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx

[Celinda Grace]

I am only vaguely familiar with Dr. Nassif but in regards this whole issue I think a good question to ask is

“What is it that attracts people like Dr. Nassif to Protestantism? My answer is that it gives them something the monastic culture can’t give them - an example of how to live the ascetical life in modern American society as opposed to in a monastery.

Isn’t the heart of monasticism and the impetus to asceticism a personal striving to know God as the result of a conversion of desire? This is exactly what the evangelical PC is full of. The dynamics of the evangelical movement quickly weed out those whose religion is merely a cultural heritage and the ones left are those who have had some definite conversion and are actively living for Christ’s sake. St. Seraphim says “...every good deed done for Christ’s sake gives us the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

This is St. Theophan’s recommended cure in his Path to Salvation.


Thus we must now seek out the works and activities which God Himself through His scriptures or truth the teachings of His saints has chosen for us as a means for healing our powers and restoring to them their lost purity and wholeness.

I. THE THREE POWERS OF THE SOUL AND THEIR CURATIVE EXERCISES

In the soul we find three powers: the intellect, the will, the heart, or, as the Holy Fathers say, the intellectual, desiring and incensive powers. Each of them is assigned particular curative exercises by the holy ascetics. These related excercises are both receptive and conducive to grace. They need not be contrived according to some theory, but rather chosen from tested ascetic labors particularly suited to a given power:

For the mind

1) Reading and hearing the Word of God, the writings of the Holy Fathers and the lives of the God-pleasers. 2) Studying and impressing upon yourself all the God-given truths in brief statements (the catechesis). 3) Asking questions of those older and more experienced. 4) Mutual informative discourse with friends.

For the will

1) Submission to the whole church rule. 2) Submission to civil order, or to family duty, for they are conduits of God’s will. 3)Obedience to God’s will as manifested in your fate. 4) Obeying your conscience in the doing of good deeds. 5) Subjecting yourself to the spirit that is zealous to fulfill its vows.

For the heart

1) Attending holy Church services. 2) Prayer, as specified by the Church; home prayer rule. 3) Using holy crosses, icons and other sacred substances and objects. 4) Observing holy customs established and promoted by the Church.
It is precisely this prescription adapted to living in modern American society that the evangelical PC has built its culture around. The prescriptions for the heart are one of the main differences one might note but elsewhere in his book the saint has other prescriptions for the heart that do exist in the PC culture. Certainly being separated from the wisdom of the Fathers there is a lot of stumbling around and misdirection that happens in the PC, and maybe the Orthodox who are adopting what they see in the PC are doing so without the needed discernment from their own spiritual tradition, but that doesn't negate the fact that something of value does exist within the Protestant tradition.

(PS Owen, I think voluntarism is not as widespread as you propose at least not on a practical level. There is a large degree in which many in the PC are living an Orthodox practice that does not coincide with their stated belief. The core problem of PC doctrine is that it is wholly separated from experience)

[Owen Jones]

American protestants are going to increasingly have to find another way of living the Christian life, as American culture becomes increasingly hostile to anything remotely Christian. The attempts to change American government to become more pro-Christian is doomed to failure. This new direction will require a different kind of sacrifice, a different kind of commitment. It has to do with a focus on the internals of the spiritual life, rather than the externals, and an admission of powerlessness over the world and the culture and history. American protestantism is too historical and too intrinsically wedded to the idea of historical progress and historical evolution. It has the same intellectual roots as secular nihilism. It will have to rediscover the transcendent.

[Celinda Grace]

Owen,

The whole push toward political action is just one syptom of the deeper disease of looking for meaning in the wrong place. The PC puts far to much emphasis on doing something for God rather then being in relationship with God.

One of Dcn Matthew's favorite quotes would be outrightly rejected as invalid because a meaninful Christian life is looked at in terms of usefulness rather then love.


'When you have become God's in the measure he desires, then he himself will bestow you upon others; unless, to your greater glory, he choose to keep you all to himself.' — St Basil the Great

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

Trying to attract the world wasn't never the way for Christianity in all almost 2000 years of existing.

And although many think to do a good work by trying to redefine Orthodoxy to popularity, they are only serving Satan and they are to be named as such!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Robert Hegwood]

I can't say I hear a prevalant protestant tone for all AFR podcasts, though to be sure there is a little chattiness in places. But I can live with that so long as the thrust is to speak to people many of whom may not be Orthodox in terms/modes of presentation that they understand so as to help them better understand...and bridge back to an Ortodox understanding and mindset. In short a kind of invitation to taste and see even if that invitation at times is couched in what some might hear as theological pidjin. It was just such bridges that helped me and many others discover Orthodoxy and fall in love with Christ and His body as we found them in the ancient faith.

Along with Rick I too can credit my formative years within evangelical denominations with my initial turning to and trusting in Christ. And I do think a number of us from evangelical backgrounds miss seeing a certain expression of "enthusiasm" for Christ at the personal level in a number of Orthodox parishes (the whole convert vs cradle zeal thing). We are puzzled when we have by God's mercy discovered such riches of faith, grace, and beauty to find those raised in it so often indifferent...or seemingly so. And I think this is where some of Dr. Nassif's apparent pining for aspects of evangelicalism come into play. And this is my cringe point.

One of the more helpful books I read on my journey into Orthodoxy was the Arena by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Since I came from a Charismatic background it opened my eyes to a great deal of what must have surely been delusion in my former walk. But that said, since I had come to love the love, read the scriptures, and eventually discovered Orthodoxy, there must have been some current of grace that shepherded me through those years and nourished me....but how to look back and tease apart the threads of grace from the web of delusion, that I could not figure out how to do, so I made a decision: Thank God for His mercy in getting me here, and stop trying to figure out what was Him and what wasn't with regard to the Christian faith during that journey, rather, now that I was within the fold of Orthodox, the past would be left behind and if there was anything of value from it to carry forward then the Lord could return those things to me from within the bosom of the Church.

But the mindset I see active...perhaps mistakenly so, in the commentaries of Dr. Nassif is too overtly protestant....the fallible interpreter individualistically deciding based on his best lights what is or isn't the faith, what should and should not be discarded as "not biblical enough". And while this mindset is softpedeled on the podcasts, its presence is still very much felt. And this saddens me because there are some valuable things Dr. Nassif is discussing. To put my feelings another way, its like being presented with a bowl of perfectly good soup garnished with a scorpion....a small scorpion to be sure, but a scorpion none the less...and if it is not a scorpion then it is a masterwork of tromp d'oeil.

The idea Rick puts forward on behalf of Dr. Nassif that the East can learn from the West is one that I am wary of. Like my own past experience as a protestant, the good is so entanged with delusion that only God can sort it out and it is best theologically that we leave it be and let the Holy Spirit through the Church sift what the West has and retain or give again those things that please Him. It is enough that we can admit that there is good in what the West has and that God has not utterly abandoned those who lived in western cultures and preserved much for them as oasises in the midst of that theological wasteland. But having seen the broad pastures and forests of Orthodoxy I'm not inclined to miss the desert for the sake of a couple of date palms here and there. And this is not to say all is the peaceable kingdom yet in Orthodoxy, there are still lions on the plain and wolves enough in the wood to make one proceed with caution.

While I may not yet be willing to go quite so far as Fr. Seraphim of blessed memory in eschewing all things western, I am much closer to him than I am to what seems to be the teaching of Dr. Nassif. Perhaps it is triage mindset. Just cut the gangrenous flesh away rather than risk the life of the patient on a very iffy chance of recovery. I am willing to take the criticism that as Orthodox we need greater zeal, greater love for the Lord, greater engagement with our faith, greater knowledge of the Scriptures, but I am not willing to make Protestantism the apothecary for those ills. Rather we have the example and teaching of the Saints that we can turn to more vigourously.

But we've diverged. Is Dr. Nassif's reflections on the life and teaching of Fr. Alexander accurate? And if so what is the substance of the critices of the teachings of Fr. Alexander and those of like mind on those subjects where his teaching is in dispute?

Also I'm not looking to attack Dr. Nassif but agree or disagree to get a better handle on where he is coming from and how to evaluate what he has to say.

[Rick H.]

Also I'm not looking to attack Dr. Nassif but agree or disagree to get a better handle on where he is coming from and how to evaluate what he has to say.




Dear Robert,

The older I get, the more I see that the events and circumstances that have shaped and molded our lives provide the lens for which we interpret things in the present. I think it is possible that this is true more than any of us want to admit.

But, as it relates to this and your above most admirable starting point I would like to share "A Personal Word" from Bradley Nassif for your review, as he writes:





If postmodernism has taught us anything, it has made us aware that we always interpret reality through he eyes of our own history--our family upbringing, educational background, cultural context, and religious community. My background is deeply rooted in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. I am a Lebanese Christian who grew up in America in the Antiochian Orthodox Church (formally named the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, whose partriarch resides in Damascus, Syria). It is among the most ancient and revered patriarchates in the Orthodox world, dating back to the great christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries--and even back to the first century, where the New Testament reports in Acts 11:26 that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The late Father John Meyendorff was my doctoral mentor with whom I specialized in Greek patristic theology and exegesis.



He then goes on to share a list of the leading Evangelical seminaries where he has spent the last ten years (94'-'04), as a visiting instructor or professor of Orthodox studies including Fuller, Regent, Trinity (Chicago), and Southern Baptist (Louisville). At these seminaries much of his work was introducing students and faculty to the riches of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Before this, in the early '90's he founded a Pan-Orthodox, Pan-Evangelical organization named the Society for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. Since this time, they have held annual meetings "to explore areas of convergence and divergence between the two traditions."

Nassif says there have been plenty of negative experiences that he could point to during these meetings in the past in terms of 'bigoted actions and the deep and widespread ignorance of Orthodox Church members concerning their own faith.' As well, he says he has witnessed 'the hubris of some evangelical Christians, which is often tied to historical amnesia and an idolatrous self-confidence in their own exegetical skills.'

And, possibly this is enough for now, but one thing that I started to allude to above is that he is most interested in increasing the level of theological communication between the two estranged communities. I think this is very important to understand about him because it can possibly explain "why" he writes like he does for the Evangelical periodicals (viz. the CT article from last spring). In that article, for example, while he may come across as a more polished version of Frank Schaeffer to an Orthodox, he speaks in a way that his intended audience can relate and understand what he is saying. He is not writing to impress, as we see too much these days, he is writing to "communicate." And, I don't want to go off on a tangent here . . . but the point I'm trying to get across in this last paragraph is he wants people to come to the table to talk and to learn and to increase communication. So many times, as we see, somewhat, in the Patriarch of Constantinople thread, the one who wants to bring folks together is the one who is accused of being divisive. So possibly this may be a factor in how Nassif is viewed. Because he clearly is interested in dispelling ignorance via initially laying a common ground for at least mutual exploration and to increase the level of communication.

And, sometimes this requires a style of writing that does kind of jolt people out of an introverted (and as Owen said last night 'solipsistic') slumber. Or, at times this requires a pulling back of the covers, and who likes that?

But, even here Robert, as I type this post, I think I am seeing some themes that occur over an over, in many of the threads here (which I am starting to think are pretty representative of Orthodoxy today). And, in this light, it may be that one's views of Nassif will ultimately be formed by our backgrounds, religious communities, etc., as well as whether we are disposed to sitting down at the table or pushing away. The ones who are more inclined to get up and leave a table (if it is not filled with folks just like them), will most likely be the ones to attack Nassif; however, others who may be more inclined to sit and listen regardless of the company he keeps, may instead be inclined to offer to buy Nassif a cup of coffee, or a sandwich.

For that matter, it occurs to me now, as it relates to this discussion of Nassif and his methodology, how many times did Jesus storm away from the tables and groups of people he encountered? I can think of one day, when He turned over a table or two in the Temple. But, characteristically, was our Lord known for promoting communication, or was he known for introverted and fearful behavior?

In Christ,
Rick

[Andrew]

The core of the Orthodox tradition of ascetical-sacramental life is burning, divine eros for Our Lord. I do not see this in a lot of protestantish writings within the Church, but I sure do see it in the Fathers, especially recent ones like Elder Joseph, Saint Silouan, and Elder Porphyrios. Just yesterday an Athonite archimandrite gave me this advice... "Love God! Love. Read the Gospels so that you can look at His life more and turn yours to His. Be like the early saints, with their burning love for Jesus Christ. Pray ceaselessly." It didn't hit me much until I walked away.

Conversion of our hearts away from sin and self love towards God! We are all converts. And we are all "cradles," because before the Creation of time God has loved us, has brought us into existence, and nurtures us with His grace. We need to look at the heart and Heaven and not at reformism or whatever agitation rises up.

If there are saints, Christ is risen from the dead! And there are. The creation of holy men and women is the greatest evangelical tool.

Again I ramble.

But again, it is good to reach people where they are at, and in that sense a lot of the Conciliar Press/Antiochian stuff pointed towards evangelicals can be extremely helpful. But at the same time, it shouldn't become a spiritual ghetto. People need to move on into the Church, to her riches! It is sad to go to a Church and see people who ceaselessly talk about how messed up things are in their former Protestant denominations, and by the way, are you a convert? What were you? What church did you go to? Elders? Saints? You know, those Greeks and Russians need to read their Bibles more! They don't know anything about the Church! We need to be balanced in our spiritual lives... we must see the teachings of the Church in the light of reason, like that stuff about the Dormition of the Theotokos, or the creation of man in Genesis, etc. Is that traditional teaching mandatory belief? Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? Monasticism? What use is that to us in the US? St. Gregory Palamas is sort of obscure... we need to read John Meyendorff and Fr. Sergei Bulgakov. We need to get on with a new Ecumenical Council! We need Orthodoxy unity now, how we want it! I wrote on a blog how we can do it! Etc.

None of this is pointed at Dr. Nassif... I'm sure his writings have warmed people's hearts for prayer and love of God. I think I've read articles by him that I found helpful, and others that I completely disagreed with on many levels.

[Fr. David C.]

Well said! I am continually amused at people who say something like, "we are taking this country back", which means they want it to return to the days when Christianity was not scorned and diminished to the degree that it is and has been in recent years. These well intentioned people also desire a return to the time when there was more of a sense of morality and decency among its citizens. It only takes 15 minutes in front of a television with a remote control to see how depraved this nation has become. Our government and society are becoming more antagonistic to all things Christian,public schools,colleges,universities and the media are indocrinating our children to reject Christianity. What we'll see in the future is a persecution of churches,clergy and people of faith. We see the beginning of it in hate-crime(speech) legislation,criticism of those who denounce unGodly behaviour and lifestyles,and threats to withdraw tax-exempt status from certain outspoken clergy and churches. Too many people in this country may someday find that persecution for your faith no longer happens only overseas.