But why the Orthodox Church?

Recently I was baptized into the Orthodox Church. For me it was a Blessing; for most of
my friends and family, it appears from my perspective that it was a non-event or an issue
best not raised or discussed. Or maybe the message was never received. However, in an
effort to improve my communication with anyone who may be interested (something I am
very poor at), I offer the following short essay on one particular aspect my choice.

Ten years ago I was introduced—through a library book in Hawaii no less—to concepts like
the Church Fathers (these are people who are recognized by most of the Church as having
written, e.g., a proper interpretation or explanation of otherwise hard-to-understand
Biblical Truths) and Ecumenical Councils (meaning meetings of representatives from the
entire Christian community, and not the current use of the term) from the early centuries
of the Church. I do not recall having ever heard or read of people like Saints John
Chrysostom, Athanasius, Gregory the Great, Anthony the Great, and the like before. From
today's perspective (although I did not recognize it as such at the time) this was a first
step out of Protestantism into Orthodoxy.

The next obvious milestone for me came ca. 1996 when the non-denominational church
we (my family and I) were attending created a formal membership program and asked me
to join; for some reason this raised a "red flag" and I began earnestly searching the Bible,
studying, and praying about this issue. It seemed to me then (and now) that one's attitude
toward membership in a church could take on a variety of meanings, such as provided in
the following examples: It is not important, but it might be something OK if all your
friends or family are doing it. It may be like membership in a club. It is only important if
you want to hold some type of office, but holds no deeper meaning. Or it is something
deeply profound, and is a declaration of what you believe in within your heart of hearts.
The first options are acceptable attitudes for me when considering purely social
organizations. However, in regards to Faith, I believe joining a church is a very serious
business, and the last attitude has to be applied. Joining a church is a Scriptural act that
involves both submission to authority and a path for deepening our knowledge of Truth
(cf. Heb 13:17). Therefore it behooves us to be careful to select both legitimate authority
and teachers of Truth!

The short answer is that I came to believe that the Bible clearly and unambiguously
teaches the concept of Apostolic Authority, Apostolic Tradition, and Apostolic Succession
(in terms of Types in the Old Testament and Antitype in the New). Like the existence of
Church Fathers and Ecumencial Councils, this was a new idea to me. Of course the church I
was attending was not Apostolic (nor is any Protestant church for that matter). Once I
made my beliefs known I was ostracized and even told in all seriousness by the leadership
that I was clearly possessed to think such things. Eventually the belief that things
Apostolic should be foundational to any Church led me to the Roman, Anglican, and
Eastern Orthodox Churches, the last being where I have ended up (but more on this
below).

A digression is in order before continuing, however. One thing I ask you to keep in mind
when reading this essay is that I am not trying to come across as judgmental about your
personal beliefs (cf. St. Luke 6:37)—truly, that is the last thing I want to be. From a New
Testament perspective we know that only the Shepherd (Jesus) knows His sheep (cf. St.
John 10:14), and, as He is the only True and Righteous Judge (cf. 2 Tim 4:8), who am I to
define what the Christian Church is or who is included within its folds (cf. St. James 5:9)?^† In
fact, we may all be surprised at who enters the Kingdom (cf. St. Matt. 25:31-46). From an
Old Testament perspective (here the words are those of St. Maximos the Confessor):
"When the people in Babylon worshipped the golden idol, the Three Holy Youths
condemned no one. Their concern was not for the doings of others, but that they
themselves should not fall away from piety. When Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he
did not condemn those who, obeying Darius, failed to worship God, but kept in mind his
own duty. He preferred to die rather than sin against conscience and transgress God's law.
God forbid that I should judge anyone or say that I alone will be saved! Nevertheless, I
would rather die than violate my conscience by betraying the Orthodox faith in any
particular." Unfortunately, in order to answer the question of why Orthodox over the other,
more numerous choices available in the U.S., the answer may come across as judgmental
because of my own deficiency in finding other ways to express myself; please forgive me if
this is so.

So then which church? The last time I checked, there were 341 different churches who
were members of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Recent polls (in the last decade) in
the U.S. found over 1,500 Christian denominations (by lumping non-denominational
groups together) that could be classified in several different ways including: (1) the meta-
groups Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican; (2) by "wing" of conservative,
mainline, or liberal; (3) by theological belief system (Calvinism, etc.); (4), by religious
family (Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.); or (5), by historic roots. If each independent,
non-denominational group is considered, this count reaches numbers (depending upon
the survey consulted) that range from 30,000 to 40,000, and is rapidly growing! Why are
there this many different church groups? Twelve hundred years ago it was clearly one. A
thousand years ago it split to become two. Five hundred years ago one of those two (the
Roman church) split into several parts. Then the several split again, and again, and again,
and again, and so on into what has clearly become an exponential growth pattern (started
off slow and is growing faster and faster with passing time). In due course at the present
rate of division, everyone in the U.S. will be a church unto themselves!
On the face of it, there appears to be two basic options when presented with such a
plethora of choices. Either the particular choice doesn't really matter (leaving it up to
individual preference)—the point being only to choose—or the choice does matter. In
either case some set of criteria will have to be selected and applied to identify the church
one should join.

To lean toward the first is to take at least one step on the path toward a minimalist
approach—like the members of the WCC who believe that the only creed required is to
"confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour". But why stop there? (That is, ask
yourself if once compromise takes place, once relativism begins to set in, is there a sure
way to stop a continuing slide away from Truth—which, of course, assumes you believe
such a thing exists to begin with.) Recent activities of the WCC and many of its prominent
members suggest that this creed does not mean that Jesus is the only Way, just a way; the
important thing is to belong to a religious group of any kind (at least if it promotes world
peace; the ultimate "I'm OK, your OK" belief)! Given that you find a church with a basic
creed that is acceptable, another possible consideration is for the Bible used (contents and
version), what credence or authority it is given, how it is interpreted, and where the focus
is placed (e.g., from a complete and balanced consideration to careful selection of
Scriptures thought to have application for today). Or it might be important for you to
identify the particular focus or approach of the group (e.g., is it named after someone
important, is it focused on social work in the community, on evangelism, on healing, etc.,
and how does it deal with equal rights, homosexuality, and other popular social issues of
our times). Interestingly, rather than belief, for the typical christian in the U.S. (69%
according to a recent PBS survey) the most important thing is spiritual experience (which is
appropriate considering we live in an "if it feels good do it" society). Of course other
criteria might also be important, such as belonging to the biggest church (the "majority
rules" or "might makes right"), the nicest church, the prettiest church, the family church,
the closest church, the church with the most programs, and on and on.

I have come to believe, however, that there is something quite insidious in all of this (or,
what happened to the call to be one?). I will agree that the Roman church, cut off from the
rest of Christianity, began to drift further and further into heresies that merited
corrections and which eventually resulted in the Reformation and Counter-reformation.
The problem as I see it is in the result. Setting issues related to politics and economics to
the side, I see the Reformation history of the church in the West as being driven by the
philosophical movements of the West (particularly prevalent in the U.S., and basically
unknown in the East), which are engrained or embedded so deeply in our society that we
are almost blind to the choices they influence us to make. In a very, very abbreviated
summary, I am referring here to the "Renaissance", the `Enlightenment", "Modernism", and
now "Post-modernism" movements and their offspring. These ideas basically advocate
throwing off all tradition and authority, relying instead on "self-evident truth", individual
"common sense", and other such notions, and, in the end, decrying that there is no such
thing as Truth, but many truths (relativism). In simple terms, if you disagree with the
church you belong to, you have every right to start your own. The other side, the Counter-
reformation, corrected many of the problems that led to the Reformation to begin with,
but ended up with a purely autocratic system of governance of self-decreed infallibility
(i.e., basically no protection against heresy). Neither side really tried (or even considered
the possibility) to reconcile itself with the question of why was it different from the rest of
the Church found in the East.

I will say it again. I am trying not to judge anyone nor even the fruit of the work of these
churches. If they are truly proclaiming Christ, then, like St. Paul, I rejoice (see Phil 1:15
-18). Or, as when the disciples found someone who was not a disciple casting out demons
in Jesus' name, Jesus said "Do not stop him, for he who is not against you is on your side"
(Luke 9:49-50). However, there is also a dire warning from the Old Testament in this
regard (read Num 16): Korah and his followers tried to set up a priesthood over and
against Aaron, but God consumed some of them by a fire and had the others swallowed up
by the earth; note, however, the works (offerings) of these men were Holy in the sight of
God. Only God can see into the heart of man and judge their actions as being for Him or
against Him. But for my part, I would rather be counted as following Paul, the disciples
(Apostles), or the priests of Aaron (as a Type) as opposed to Korah or those separated
from the Church or Christ, regardless of the works that may be in evidence (especially as
we have no way to judge the origin of such works on their own).^†

Perhaps my biggest problem is that I believe in the existence of Truth and not many
truths. How ever hard it may be, I have made a conscious decision to reject the so-called
Renaissance, Enlightenment and other such human philosophies and their practices
insofar as people might try to apply them (consciously or not, the later being more
prevalent in people in my limited experience) to things spiritual and Christian. In the Bible
I find a Type of authority set up by God at the time of the Exodus that foreshadowed the
antitype found in the Apostles of the New Testament. And in the Bible I find that there is
an overwhelming call for us to seek after Truth, Knowledge, and Wisdom (as opposed to
experience), but provision is not made for personal interpretation of Scripture; rather, it is
the understanding delivered to the Apostles by Jesus and the Holy Spirit that is entrusted
to the Church and to which we are to hold (Tradition). In simple terms, we have the
responsibility to place ourselves under the Authority of someone of Apostolic Succession
(a legitimate bishop) who is upholding Apostolic Tradition. Having done so, if they
knowingly and unrepentantly replace Tradition with some "truth" of their own devising
(heresy), we are also responsible to separate ourselves from them (i.e., this is not to be
blind trust in authority—but this also assumes we are fulfilling our call to Truth and not
following some private interpretation lying outside of Tradition as well). That is, as I said
in the introduction to this essay, I have come to believe (I did not grow up in this) that the
Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches the concept of Apostolic Authority, Apostolic
Tradition, and Apostolic Succession.

But where did this leave me (other than ostracized)? As one who has prayed over this
matter so many times, one who for years has made it an explicit part of his daily prayers
to be led by the Lord into His Truth, should I turn back or forget? Or should I do my best
to place my will into our Lord's hands and follow where He leads? I chose (and continue to
choose) the later. But this meant that I needed to find a Church which still holds to the
True Catholic Faith (in the proper sense of the word, and not a reference to a
denomination) that has been held always, everywhere, and by all (not some particular
sect), here using the words of St. Vincent of Lerins (ca. 445). Setting aside the (BIG) issue
of particular heresies vs. Truth, three groups—Roman, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox—
claim to represent things Apostolic. By active participation for a number of years in the
Episcopal church I learned first hand that the majority of Episcopalians in the U.S., and
much of the Anglican hierarchy worldwide, have lost at least Apostolic Authority and
Tradition, and portions of the communion have even given up Apostolic Succession. (I am
making sweeping statements in general here and not referring to the beliefs of particular
individuals.) By training through classes taught under the authority of the Roman church
and by personal research I also came to find out that its hierarchy has—de facto if not by
overt, open declaration—given up many points of Apostolic Tradition for its own
traditions, and is seriously into relativism (any god or religion will do). (Again, I am not
passing judgment on individual believers within this church.) Unfortunately, many
branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church I investigated (these are for the most part duly
formed branches and not schisms like the various Protestant churches, although there are
a few of those too) are beginning to be influenced by and follow man's philosophy like
their Western "cousins". In the very few New Mexico orthodox churches that exist (I
attended them all, some many times) I found evidence of such things as rejection of
Tradition (e.g., selective rejection of canons that had been established and accepted by the
Ecumenical (worldwide) Church prior to the initial schism of one-thousand years ago) and
even acceptance of relativism in matters of our means of salvation (i.e., the American
Indians knew God before the Europeans ever brought the Christian message of salvation)
by a member of the clergy in one case. Through prayer, fasting, Providence, and the
working of the Holy Spirit I believe I was finally led to an Orthodox Church (whose
Archbishop is based in Colorado) that still holds the ideals of things Apostolic in the
highest regard, and it was into that Orthodox Church I was baptized.

PLEASE NOTE: this has nothing to do with making any claim of finding a Church filled with
perfect (or all-knowing) people, nor would any of them so claim, least of all me. Everyone
here on earth remains a sinner. Rather, it comes down to what are you doing to follow the
Master once you hear His voice? Do you stop with nothing more than a belief that "once
saved always saved" (and even enjoy some sinning if you follow Martin Luther's advice)? Or
is that the lukewarm that is only to be spewed out (Rev 3:16)? Given the chance (i.e., those
of us not making a "deathbed" conversion like the thief on the cross beside Jesus), another
response to Christ's Love is to pick up our cross and actively follow Him (i.e., we don't
enter the gate and stop) along the narrow path to salvation. I personally believe the latter
is the Scriptural way—a race in St. Paul's terms (cf. 1 Cor 9:24-27), a violent fight in Jesus'
words (cf. St. Matt. 11:12)—and that it includes an active search for Truth (as mentioned
above, this idea is repeated many times in Scripture). And it is this seeking for Truth that
eventually brought me to a belief in the ideas of Apostolic Authority, Tradition, and
Succession as being Scriptural. Either I could reject them, ignore them, or embrace them in
an effort to follow Him as best I can through whatever Grace He has given me. Having put
my hand to the plow, I am not about to turn back (cf. Luke 9:62). And that is where I am
on my journey (just beginning from a certain point of view, although it has taken 50 years
to get here!).

He is risen!
Holy Pascha 2005
Symeon Anthony (David) Beck

^† Afterword: With this essay I did not intend to mince words. Lest someone might be confused and come to think that I believe salvation is available in any church, the question being of how to pick a church that is right for you, let me speak more plainly. Regarding the faith of a single individual, God alone knows the heart and is alone the Just Judge when it comes to salvation! However, regarding Truth and "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), this is not found outside of Apostolic Tradition, and thus is not containted within the so-called churches outside of the Orthodox Church. What do I mean by outside? I mean those who have cut themselves off from the Vine that is Christ. As Archimandrite Justin (Popovich) wrote:

From time to time, heretics and schismatics have cut themselves off and have fallen away from the One and indivisible Church of Christ, whereby they ceased to be members of the Church and parts of Her Theanthropic Body. The first to fall away thus were the Gnostics, then the Arians, then the Macedonians, then the Monophysites, then the Iconoclasts, then the Roman Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Uniates, and so on—all the members of the legion of heretics and schismatics. ("Attributes of the Church," Orthodox Life, Vol. XXXI, No. 1 [Jan.-Feb. 1981], p. 29)

While it is almost a certainty that one can hear preaching from the Holy Sciptures concerning Christ in these so-called churches, the Gospel has been perverted to a greater or lesser degree such that it is another gospel that is being preached (cf. 2 Cor. 11). Truth plus falsehood does not equal some other kind of truth, but a different faith. And if Christ's words are no longer heard, no longer received, no longer believed as Christ meant for them to be, then such have no true love for Christ, God does not abide in them, and they have thus determined their own judgment on the last day (cf. St. John 12-14). To say it another way, I reject the notion of the Branch Theory that originated with William Palmer (1803–1885) which has lately been extended to claim that all churches are part of Christ's Body; to be a branch on the Vine is to be Orthodox, and to be cut off ultimately means to be withered and cast into the fire and burned (cf. St. John 15).

TO THOSE who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, ANATHEMA. (1983 ROCOR Anathema Against Ecumenism )

Yet I write, speak or repeat these words not as condemnation or in judgment but in concern and love for all those who have yet to find true Orthodoxy. In the words of Saint Maximos the Confessor:

I write these things not wishing to cause distress to the heretics or to rejoice in their ill treatment—God forbid; but, rather, rejoicing and being gladdened at their return. For what is more pleasing to the Faithful than to see the scattered children of God gathered again as one? Neither do I exhort you to place harshness above the love of men. May I not be so mad! I beseech you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming all things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray you to be wholly harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to cooperating with them or in any way whatever supporting their deranged belief. For I reckon it misanthropy and a departure from Divine love to lend support to error, that those previously seized by it might be even more greatly corrupted (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c).

As when "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him, 'We have found the One of Whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote—Jesus the son of Joseph, Who is from Nazareth'" (St. John 1:45), I say, come, I have found the true Faith as given by Christ to His apostles and handed down faithfully to us of today!

Leave-taking of the Meeting of the Lord, 2010
Symeon, priest