Why am I becoming an Orthodox Christian? - By Ruth Obadiah

Today, I have the privilege and pleasure to share with you the life experience, her reasons for reverting, of Ruth Obadiah, guest writer for today's post. Ruth comes from an agnostic back ground, but later on through a series of events transitioned into evangelical Christianity, and had been for about 4 years. Now, in a matter of 16 days she will, as she likes to say, "be going home" to Orthodoxy. She is preparing for her baptism into the British Orthodox Church, which is a part of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. Please keep her in your prayers as she continues her walk with Christ. 

I have been a Christian for only around 4 years and I was a member of a local evangelical non-denominational Church.  Right from the beginning I had a love of Church history. I loved reading about the Apostles, the Early Church and the Church Fathers.  This was a major factor that led me to the doors of the Orthodox Church.

But, why do I want to become an Orthodox Christian?

Well, I truly believe that the Orthodox Church is the Original Church – the Church that Christ established through His Apostles. History proves this, and that her teachings have remained the same since the first century. Recorded evidence shows that the theology of the Orthodox Church is that of the Early Church, everything is fully available to those that seek.

Orthodoxy is for everyone – it is for the ordinary everyday person. I am an ordinary woman, born into an ordinary working-class family; in an ordinary working-class part of the UK. A quick look at the history of the Early Church in my own country shows that England was fully Orthodox in its doctrines for almost the first 11 centuries of Christianity. During this time, Orthodoxy was practiced by ordinary average people, just like me.

The Orthodox Church was responsible for compiling and approving the New Testament. In my eyes, this provides an enormous sense of reliability and trustworthiness, something I have not found anywhere else.  This is extended into the uniformity of the teachings of the Orthodox Church, it doesn’t matter which Orthodox Church I visit, or which Orthodox priest I speak to (and I have spoken to many), the teachings do not vary. This is such a refreshing blessing.   I love the fact that the Orthodox Church is Apostolic, and that every priest can physically trace back his ancestry through the Church directly back to the 12 Apostles.

One of the major attractions for me regarding Orthodoxy is that it not all about “me, me, me” “I, I, I”. It is all about God.  Everything about Orthodoxy, from the doctrines to the worship – are all about glorifying God in His fullness – about worshiping the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

I also love the emphasis that Orthodoxy places on the Divinity of Christ, fully God, fully Man – always.  This is unsurprising, considering how many times this was defended against heresies in the first few centuries – and how many Orthodox Christians died defending the Faith.    Orthodoxy aims to actually “make” us holy, not to simply appear to be so.

One of the great blessings I found in the Orthodox Church is that it meets you where you are, and guides you by the hand on a life-long journey.  Orthodoxy does not teach that you must be Orthodox to be “saved”, or that all Orthodox Christians are “saved”.  Nor does it teach that it is the only way to reach God, we reach God with our heart.  This is refreshing and contrasts somewhat with many modern evangelicals who often base ones salvation on who jumps around the most, waving arms and speaking in “tongues”. This is emotional worship, not spiritual. To think that a person is uncomfortable or standoffish with the Holy Spirit for not wishing to worship in this way saddens me greatly, and shows an incredible level of shallowness and ignorance.

In Orthodoxy, the worship is breathtakingly beautiful, and mysterious. There is an unbroken continuity in the style of worship, with a reverence and holiness unlike anything I have experienced before. It stimulates all my senses simultaneously. It hasn’t tried to rationalize it - as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, nor has it tried to remove it in the way that Protestants have. It is simply unchanged heavenly worship, with more Scripture per service than you can shake a stick at.

During my initial research into Orthodoxy, my only real challenge was a common one amongst Protestants, and that is the intercession of the Saints. But, after much prayer, study and many in-depth discussions with many Orthodox clergy – I soon overcame this hurdle and I now have no theological problem with it.

I have struggled accepting just how far in general Christianity has drifted from the Early Church, so much has changed. The gifts of the Holy Sacraments have become mere “symbols” and the theology varies depending on who is reading the Scriptures and how they interpret it.

No.  God does not change, and neither does His teachings. That is why He chose His Disciples and gave us His Church.

My journey into Orthodoxy has seen me lose many friends on the way, I will always pray for them. For hearts, minds and eyes to be opened – so that they can see this beautiful treasure for what it truly is.

The narrow path is very narrow. As a person, I feel I have changed a lot since my journey into Orthodoxy first began. I have matured, and I am more aware of my (many) faults and I try (usually unsuccessfully) to address them.

It is very exciting to wonder what the future will hold for me, an Orthodox Christian.  I don’t wish to simply “read the Gospel”, I wish to “live the Gospel” – the first century Gospel.

I am saved, I am being saved – I will be saved. 

Ruth Obadiah.  - Reverting Protestant 

Intercession of the Zombies (Saints)

The first Orthodox Christian Tradition that I bumped heads with when I started to look into Orthodoxy was that of the intercession of the Saints. It didn't make sense to me that it would be permissible by God for us to talk to the dead, and much less in the spirit of prayer. For a Protestant, the dead are dead; they can't hear us nor can they see us. And what's more, it's forbidden.

Or so I thought.

Being Protestant, I am big on Sola Scriptura (or so I was...erhm). It is what defines the faith of the Protestant Christian. Without the Bible, there is no Gospel. Without the Bible, there is no Word of God; no truth to abide by. The Bible is the manual to every day living. Man-made traditions do not override the Bible; they are beneath the Bible. And if they contradict the Bible, one must throw the tradition out!

 And intercession of the Saints to me (such as I was taught) was such a tradition; one that I thought was wrong and should be thrown out. I believed it to have been something that arose centuries later after the conception of Christianity. I did not believe it to come from Christianity.

 However, after a few discussions here and there with a friend of mine who at time was also looking into Orthodoxy (and is now a catechumen - soon to be baptized... yay!), a little research on early Christianity (more on that later), I began to see that there was something deeper in that tradition - not only theologically, but spiritually as well.

The usual arguments are as follows:

"It's forbidden to talk to the Dead. Necromancy was actually punishable by death in the OT."

"Only God can hear and answer prayers. No one else is omnipresent and omniscient."

"Only Christ is our intercessor. There is no other than him."

"The Bible says that people are destined to die only once, and after that to face judgment. And that during that time, people are asleep. Daniel says that too..."

To be continued...  

  

 

The Prayer Letter - Part 3 - Apathy: Consequence of Church Structure

Continuation of The Prayer Letter. For part 1, click here. For part 2, click here.  

The last few things that I touched based in the letter were my thoughts on fasting, festivities, and praying. As I wrote this last part of the post, I realized that it would get pretty extensive. So, I decided to cut this part 3 short, and will later on expand on each point as a separate post.

I must confess that as a Christian, I have never fasted. Sure, I've skipped a few meals here and there. And at times, my church leaders occasionally encourage fasting. But it isn't something we practice as a congregation, something I believe that would be helpful if we did.

In my congregation, as most Protestant Christians make habit of, we celebrate Easter and Christmas to commemorate the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, similarly to the Orthodox. We don't, however, commemorate the deaths of the Christian martyrs on a daily basis, honoring them for having denied themselves, for having picked up their cross, and imitating them just as they imitated Christ. Paul said, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor 11:1, NIV) For a while, it seemed to me strange to honor someone I've never spoken to or seen, and much less a 'dead' person. But gradually, it started to make sense to me. If Paul calls us to imitate him as he imitated Christ, then what difference is there in imitating others (who are actually alive in Christ) who imitated Christ as well?

Like all normal people, I go about my daily living, but like all normal Christians, when do I stop to pray to God and consistently make him the focal point of my life? Which goes to the final point: prayer. In many Protestant Churches, prayer is suppose to come from the heart. Repeating other people's prayers is considered vain, and often times the words of Christ are used to resonate against such a practice: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." (Matthew 6:7, KJV) However, I came to the conclusion that when Christ mentioned 'heathens' he certainly wasn't talking about pious souls in search of unity with God in holiness, something I see in the Orthodox Church. Further more, another conclusion that I have come to is "What difference is there in memorizing Bible verses and memorizing the prayers of others?" We are encouraged to memorize the prayers of King David (Psalms); if the prayers of other people reflect our own emotions and needs, than why not?

When I came to the end of the prayer letter, I came upon a very sad conclusion. I don't pray like I should. I don't fast. In all honesty, I don't imitate Christ, and much less honor those who have. I don't take Holy Communion every Sunday (and haven't done so in three years since the last time I partook in it), and I don't confess my sins on a daily basis, nor am I held accountable for my sins. What fruit am I producing as a Christian?

Indeed, is this the fruit of a Christian? If I were living in the 1st century, and lived this life equivalent to one of 1st A.D., would I be considered a true Christian? We all know the answer, and it's a big NO! Of course, with this I am not saying that all Protestants are like me, or have experienced their faith as I have. But the fact that I am the daughter of a Protestant minister of more than 20 years, born and raised as a Protestant Christian, bring these questions into light, "Is apathy a consequence of the structure of a church?" "Considering that the Orthodox Christian doesn't teach Once Saved, Always Saved, what does this say in regards to my salvation?"

Exploring Christian Orthodoxy and considering to become Christian Orthodoxy? May I suggest that when you consider Christian Orthodoxy, evaluate your spiritual life in the context of Christian Orthodoxy. A Prayer Letter might do the trick...   

The Cross, the Nativity, and Iconoclasm

Today I was reminded of the emphatic need to examine myself in what I believe. "Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Test yourself." (2 Corinthians 3:5) It's amazing how many Christians have a different perception of what the truth is, and what interpretation they use to examine and test as genuine faith. And today, all it took was a small box with simple stamps of simple Nativity caricatures to highlight this notion. 

Today, my beloved, hard-core Protestant, wife of a minister, grandmother said, "That of the Nativity is satanic." When she uttered such nonsense, my stomach churned and a taste of intense disgust emerged in my mouth. You might wonder in what context she uttered such blatant blasphemy? Let me convey to you the general context of such a comment. 

The women in my family have an immense love for thrift stores. And whenever we get together, the possibility of going thrift shopping is without fail. Today was no exception. However, on this occasion, I decided not to go. We were visiting family out of town, and near their house, downtown, one can find a few Christian Protestant thrift stores where Christian material is abundant. My mother, my aunts, and my grandmother went to scout them out while I stayed back at my relative's house. An hour later, they came back to the house, we said our goodbyes, and then departed back to our house. 

On our way back home, my family commenced to talk about their shopping, and my mother commented that in a box that my grandmother bought with stamps contained icons. "Icons?" I asked surprised, looking up from a book I was reading. My mother chuckled (she is one of the few people in the family who knows about me exploring Christian Orthodoxy), and said, "yes, icons." I paused and asked, "grandma, can I see?", hoping to see some elaborate handiwork of Christian Orthodox icons. My grandmother paused (she doesn't know about my interest, at least I don't believe so...) and said, "what for?" I persisted, and she reluctantly handed me the box. 

I opened the box, eager to find maybe an icon of some sort, expecting really Roman Catholic icons, as it would be highly unusual to find Christian Orthodox icons in the area where I live. But I found nothing of that sort; just stamps of the Nativity scene of individual cartoon-like characters of the Three Wise Men, the shepherds, the Nativity Star, and among these unrelated but Christian stamps as well as a stamp of a simple Cross.

"Grandma, these aren't icons..." I said bewildered, closing the box, and handing it back to her. "They are!", she said emphatically. "They are just stamps of the Nativity scene..." I said, as she took the box back. "It doesn't matter. There is a Cross in there too. I'm going to burn them.", she answered as she placed the box next to her. My heart literally jumped. Burn them?!, I thought to myself, incredulous. And then, with a voice of displeasure, she said,

"That of the Nativity is satanic." 

I looked up sharply, my eyes widening in disbelief at the back of her head as I was sitting in the back seat. Satanic? The Nativity? Even my mother turned her head to the side to look at her mother, and said, "Satanic? Mom, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the Nativity. In fact, we should celebrate it every day, not just Christmas..." The conversation trailed off into the background as I frowned and shook my head in disgust at the audacity of my grandmother's comment, and went back into my own world of musings, and wondering how my grandmother, who says she is a Christian, would find it ok to burn a stamper of the Cross? 

Of course, I know that those stamps are actually icons, because they are images in themselves. But when I think of icons, I think of images of the Saints with elaborate symbolism embedded in them, conveying holiness. Not a child's box with simple stamps of cartoon characters of the Nativity scene, which even so in a sense hold a holy significance because of what they represent in their simplicity. Even before I started learning about Orthodoxy and getting the gist of the beauty of icons, I don't believe I have ever had such a negative view of images conveying Biblical truths 

So, to hear such words come from my own grandmother's mouth shocked and displeasured me. To me, in that instance she desecrated something that is holy by saying she will burn those icons, along with the Cross, and topped it off with calling the Nativity satanic. From where will I now draw my respect for her? Obviously, I will continue to respect her, but believe me when I say it will be harder to take her seriously in regards to the spiritual.   

Iconoclasm is prevalent in my family. And the foundation for such virulent belief comes from the Ten Commandments,

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God... "
-Exodus 20:4-5 (ESV)

Never mind that icons have a profound and special place in the Bible, and that their place in the history of the Church has been for centuries. Never mind that it was a Christian practice to have icons of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Saints. Never mind that the illiterate learned from such precious images. Images are forbidden in the Bible, it's satanic! And that's that! (Please note, sarcasm...)

How to test yourself if you are in the faith when you think that the Nativity is satanic? And go as far as to say that because of icons? It's not in my place to contemplate what that could possibly mean for my grandmother as I know that I too have a sinful heart that needs to be cleaned. But it is alarming and scary to have heard those words come from my own grandmother's mouth.

And I ask myself now, "What will grandma say if one of her grandchildren reverted back to what she considers pagan?" Good question. Let's not think about that now. 

Through Much Tribulation

I haven't posted much during these past few weeks due to school, family matters, and unfortunately, internal conflicts that I've been having to face in my discovering Orthodoxy. In this post, I'd like to quickly share my thoughts of what has been generally going on.

Recently, my journey to Orthodoxy has been somewhat halted. A few certain people, a couple of family members, and one other person that I had considered to be a very close friend, have collided with my desire to learn about and my desire to share the richness of Orthodoxy, and have begun to project aversion towards me, and ultimately, Christian Orthodoxy. Their aversion is not so much directed towards me , but it is clear that they have an aversion towards Orthodoxy, and  it's enough to instill a sadness and confusion that leaves me to become silent and somewhat absent in spirit when in their presence.  

I had anticipated interest from these people. I had anticipated a participation with me in discovering Orthodoxy together as people who claim to love Truth. Unfortunately, instead I have encountered the opposite I had expected; disinterest, distrust, aversion, and even manipulation. And furthermore, I have recently encountered an insensitivity that has been projected by one of those certain people that I thought would take the time to understand me, and walk with me in searching the truth about Christianity. In addition to that, the possibility of losing this person has added weight to the discomforts of walking towards Orthodoxy.  

On a personal level, it is to my dismay that up to this point I have no one to share this burning desire in discovering Orthodoxy and her richness without feeling like an apostate. I have no one to talk to and share with excitement, conviction, and awe of the depth of Christian Orthodox mysticism, and the width of her theology.  It seems to me that loneliness is very becoming of me, and I am going to have to be willing to embrace it if I am to continue my walk on the path of the Way.   

In writing this, I am not trying to retrieve pity from readers or invoke an image of a frail person with no true will to persist in their journey to Orthodoxy, which is and will be a journey of hardships. Rather, I write this as an acknowledgment that what I am facing now are just small bumps on the dirt trail that I have barely just begun. And that it is nothing in comparison to what I will come to confront as I continue on. This is only the beginning, and I understand that I must prepare myself for such hardships and even harder ones. I have read the stories of many people who come from a similar Protestant background as I do experience similar tribulations, and many others face even worse of a fate in pursuing Orthodoxy.

May this serve as a reminder that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of heaven (Acts 14:22).   

30,000+ Church Traditions: Which One is the Right One?

As someone who is trying to make sense of why Orthodoxy is the true faith, I look to aspects in her which I find are in conflict with my own Protestant faith. And the one that stands out the most is that of tradition. In my personal experience as a Protestant, I was taught to see tradition as not necessarily bad, but not something that should be seen of equal importance to the Bible. Like many Protestant Christians, I equated traditions as 'man-made'; now, as someone who is exploring Orthodoxy, I start to see the irrevocable place that tradition has, especially in the context of faith. In this post, I will direct my point towards why we should consider church tradition when considering 'which is the true faith?'

When people look for a church in which to congregate with, they do it on the basis of 'what tradition does this church follow?' It's inevitable to do so, because in the context of faith, church tradition is what defines what one is to believe and how they are to practice their beliefs. If a tradition appeals to you, it's what you're going to want to adopt as your own. This is especially true for the Protestant Christian, despite the claim that many Protestant Christians and groups make that they don't follow any man-made traditions, just the Word-of-God.

For the Protestant, the only tradition that they subscribe to is 'Sola Scriptura'. Yet, here we must point out that in the Protestant Church, while many mainstream groups have similar core beliefs, we have 30,000+ denominations with their distinct traditions and names. Why, one may ask? All of these denominations (including the ones that claim to not be denominations) are subject to the interpretation and traditions of one man or woman, who started a movement; each with their own idea of tradition and interpretation of Scripture. Examples would include Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Seven Day Adventist, and the list goes on; and within those denominations we would find subset denominations with variances to what its founder(s) originally had in mind; tweaked with as to improve its theology, often times to better suit the understanding of the tradition being propagated. And a lot of times, these tweaks can be and are issues of conflict within congregations, sometimes resulting in even more splits. 

How is it that most claim 'Sola Scriptura' and yet arrive to different doctrinal differences? Many would contend that actually isn't the case, that the majority of those denominations coincide in the essential doctrines. However, aside from this notion of 'coinciding essential doctrines' (that in truth ignores the disagreements and divisions that arise from these essential doctrines) this in turn leads to the important question of whether the essential doctrine that these modern day Christian groups supposedly share are in essence the same essential doctrine that was taught in the early Church during its first centuries before becoming championed by the Emperor Constantine (a point in history to which many Protestant Christians attest that Christianity became infused with diabolical corruption at its union with the State at the hand of Constantine). A quick look at the history of the early Church, the writings of the early Church fathers, and the history of the Bible will lead us to the answer that such assumption that what Protestant Christian groups believe to be the same as the early Christians is actually a false one. And should push us to continue to investigate what the early Church actually believed.  

Of course, one must be aware that many, after taking a look at early Church history and what the early Church fathers wrote about, would contend, "The early Christians were right on some things, but they were also wrong. We may be wrong on some things, but what they had wrong, we know better now know because of logic." Personally, I find such a notion ludicrous. If that is their justification for continuing in what they consider to be the 'right tradition', I would consider it to be a poor one. 

To anyone who makes such a justification, I ask "What makes the founders and leaders of what we have as a 30,000+ denominational Protestant Church more special and more authoritative than the early Church leaders and disciples who, despite their imperfections, fought for unity in the traditions of the Church, and had received their teachings from the disciples of the Apostles, and the Apostles who in turn received their teachings from Jesus Christ himself?" If one considers the importance of the traditions in the Church, one can not ignore that while it's certainly true that the Orthodox Church underwent internal schisms, their traditions (including their theology) are unified. The same cannot be said about the Protestant Church.   

The Prayer Letter - Part 2

The second thing that I'd like to touch that I wrote about in my letter was the Eucharist, referred to as Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper in Protestant congregations. I can count with one hand the number of times I have received the Lord's Supper since I was baptized at the age of 9. Three times and I am now in my early 20's.

I suppose we could say that is the danger in looking at the Eucharist as only symbolic. As a child of a Protestant ordained minister, attending most services and church activities, I have had the ample opportunity to participate in those types of things. But even so, due to many reasons, I have only received the Lord's Supper three meager times, and as something entirely symbolic, on top of that.

The irregularity of taking the Eucharist/Lord's Supper has been for different reasons. But quite recently I have heard a strange reason why at my congregation we don't do the Lord's Supper every Sunday as how the first Christians did. One of the church leaders was giving a bible study on the Book of Acts, and the topic of the Lord's Supper arose. He had said, "It is very important to take the Lord's Supper, also known as Holy Communion in other churches, because it is mandated by the Lord. We are to do so in remembrance of him, symbolically. Depending on the Church, some will do the Lord's Supper once a month, every three months, and so on. We need to start doing it as well but one of the reasons why we don't do it every Sunday is so that it doesn't become a ritual."

The irony is that this congregation is staunchly Sola Scriptura. While it doesn't consider itself Protestant (due to misinformation), it is Protestant vastly to the letter. Funny how we say that our aim is to live by Sola Scriptura and live like the first Christians, and yet we don't hold Communion every Sunday so that it doesn't become a ritual?

For the Orthodox Christian, I have come to understand that the sacrament of the Eucharist is life and the center of worship. It is an extremely important part of the liturgy of the Church, which according to my reading, it is ancient and without or very little reform. For the Eucharist/Lord's Supper to not be taken with such seriousness causes much concern to me. Why are we avoiding the practice of "the breaking of the bread" every Sunday just so that it doesn't become a ritual?

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."  - John 6:53,54

To be continued...