Sign up for our free newsletter:

Letters on the Web

Welcome to our expanded Letters section, with new postings weekly. While we will continue to run letters in the print version of B&C, this new format will allow us to post letters in a more timely fashion. It will also allow us to carry on productive discussion—much more difficult to achieve with two-month intervals between comment and reply! This first discussion begins with responses to the editor's column ("Proselytizers") in the May/June issue. The subject is proselytism, and in the coming weeks the conversation will include voices from a number of faith communities. Please note that the most recent additions to the conversation are at the top. Click here to go to the beginning of the thread.

Proselytism: part 4
July 21, 2000

John Wilson:
We're coming to the end of the first part of this conversation (we'll continue the discussion of proselytism, but with different participants and a shift in focus), and for this concluding installment we're changing the order, since in the earlier exchanges the editor has always had the last word! So I will go first, followed by a letter from a reader; Father Ted has the last word—and a marvelous word it is. I hope many readers, whatever their faith tradition, will consider what he says below. (Frederica's further thoughts on the subject can be found in her latest column at Beliefnet.com.)

When I look back at our conversation so far, I realize how rare even a modest effort like this is—I mean, how rarely we carry on a sustained conversation with fellow Christians with whom we differ in some important respects, while acknowledging that what we share is far more important than what divides us. So I feel privileged to have been part of this, and I hope some of our readers have the same feeling.

At the same time, I have to admit that I feel a good deal of frustration. Neither of my conversation partners, so far as I can tell, has acknowledged the claims of indigenous Protestants in "Orthodox lands." Neither, as far as I can tell, has acknowledged the realities of history—the realities of a tangled past in which Orthodoxy simply cannot be cast as the eternal victim. These acknowledgments would seem to be minimum requirements if Orthodox and Protestant believers are to proceed with meaningful dialogue on the subject of proselytism.

Endeavoring to keep the bond of peace
I'm writing to voice my support of John Wilson's position. I'm an evangelical Protestant, and in college one of my best friends converted to Orthodoxy from Protestantism under the influence of a mutual Orthodox friend. The "proselytism" was carried out in a spirit of love and a desire to have this individual come into the fullness of the true church, i.e., the Orthodox Church. So I have no objections to proselytism as long as it is carried out in love and a desire to proclaim the Truth. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

I'd also like to respond to some of the remarks made by Elizabeth Scott. She wrote: "Father Ted has affirmed that evangelical Christians are considered to be Christians by the Orthodox. In the passage you quoted, he mentions that evangelicals, on the other hand, do not consider Orthodox to be Christians."

From what I understand, debate exists within Orthodoxy concerning the status of evangelicals. As Orthodox Bishop Timothy Ware writes, "But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a member. … Of course (so the stricter group add) divine grace may well be active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church" (The Orthodox Church, p. 309).

Other Orthodox apologists go further and suggest that if you reject Christ's body (the Orthodox Church), you also are rejecting Christ because Christ cannot be separated from His body (cf. The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, by Clark Carlton). As Ware writes again, "If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say" (The Orthodox Church, p. 248).

However, it seems unlikely that I could be a member of the Orthodox Church either visibly or invisibly. I'm obviously not a visible member. And how could I be an invisible member since I've been declared anathema (accursed, cf. Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8-9) by some of the ecumenical councils? Thus, the status of evangelicals from the Orthodox perspective is not so clear-cut as Ms. Scott suggests. My prayer is that we would fulfill Christ's words when he said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

Michael Pollack
Philadelpha, Penn.

Father Ted Stylianopoulos:
To conclude my part in the discussion on proselytism, I offer the following points: 1) I have no problem acknowledging the political and social right of Protestants everywhere—and much less the right of indigenous Protestants in historically Orthodox lands—to carry on as they wish, including the practice of proselytism. But I do not think that they are correct theologically.

Quite apart from geography, the problem is proselytism itself, defined as targeting, planning and aggressively seeking to draw members from one Christian community to another. This practice necessarily implies denial of the other community as a locus of grace and salvation. Such denial can only be the unending source of acrimony, hostility and polemics between Christian communities—a betrayal of Christ whom they profess as Lord and a cause of derision on the part of the unbelieving world beholding Christians proselytizing one another! 2) Nor do I reject proselytism in certain situations only, for example, in historical instances when a Christian community is in a state of suffering and weakness, which seems to be Frederica's basic position. Although exploiting the weak makes proselytism all the more odious, I would not invoke victimization as the appropriate defense for Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, if such a defense is used in part, it cannot be undercut by John's appeal to "the realities of history." Of course "the tangled past" does not find the Orthodox always guiltless. Yet the overwhelming historical testimony—the rise of Islam, the Crusades, modern Western incursions into the Middle East, and even Clinton's unjust and merciless bombing of Serbia—shows that historically Orthodox lands were and still are comparatively powerless and therefore largely the victims.

3) I reject proselytism on the basis neither of geography nor of historical vicissitudes, but in principle—for theological and spiritual reasons. John and Frederica seem to share the assumption that, if you believe that you possess the truth, you must proselytize others. Here I would draw a clear distinction between on the one hand "evangelization"—sharing the gospel with each other and witnessing to our life of faith as fully as possible—and on the other hand "proselytism" as the inner drive and policy of what amounts to be "sheep-stealing." The latter only fosters self-righteousness, suspicions, polemics, and further divisiveness among Christian communities and their members, who on the contrary should be eager to fulfill Christ's will to unity, if not in doctrine and worship, at least in spirit and hearts. I cannot imagine that the Lord is honored or very pleased by Christianity's specter of polemics and divisions—not to mention brutal violence in places—around the globe.

4) As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that there is another way. It is a way which places the accent on truth as love for Christ and love for the brethren, yet without compromising the essential intellectual contour of the witness of the New Testament—about God, humanity, salvation, gospel, church, and sacraments. As an Orthodox Christian, and for the sake of him who said "love one another as I have loved you," I will continue to announce and explain the fullness of the gospel as I understand it, but will not secretly press for the conversion of other Christians to Orthodoxy. I say to them: you are part of the larger family; let us dialogue in love and freedom of the Spirit without mutual pressures and expectations of victory; let us listen to one another; let us learn from and enrich each another, and let the risen Christ by the power of his Spirit convert us all to the wholeness of his life and truth.

In fact I would say to individuals thinking of conversion: please, do not leave your community and convert to Orthodoxy unless you truly hear the Spirit's call from within and are doing so in love for Orthodoxy and your present community. Frankly, in my most spiritually lucid moments, I believe that a similar Christian approach applies to all people on this earth.

Bush's "Death Row Massacre"
A few months back, Books & Culture editor John Wilson warned at length about rhetorical cheap shots in the context of the argument over intelligent design. I take it that his admonition is not restricted to the controversies over the science of origins. What, then, are we to make of the Charles Marsh's comments about Gov. George W. Bush toward the end of his article on Richard Rorty? ["Among the Theologians," July/August]. After taking the obligatory academic swipe at the Christian Coalition, Marsh proclaims with truly "prophetic" passion, "When George W. Bush tells us his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ, the problem is not bringing Jesus into the public square. The problem is that the Jesus he brings doesn't seem to count for much."

Mr. Marsh wasn't referring to Bush's ringing defense of faith-based organizations in addressing poverty and other social problems, or his crucial and timely defense of the Christian drug counseling and treatment organization Teen Challenge, when it was under legal and bureaucratic assault. These might plausibly count as attempts to "bring Jesus into the public square" in a responsible manner.

No, the proof offered for Mr. Bush's trivializing of Jesus is his stance on the death penalty: "If Bush allowed 'the philosophy of Jesus' to permeate his political views, he might begin to see the contradictions between Christ-centered forgiveness and the Texas death-row massacre he proudly oversees."

Given the rather hysterical rhetoric (massacre!) one might conclude that it would be impossible for a Christian to be serious about taking "the philosophy of Jesus" into the public square and still favor the death penalty. But what about someone who says something like this?

The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when he gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, "Thou shall not kill," to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.

Or what about this:

[B]oth divine and human laws command such like sinners be put to death … Nevertheless, the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover, the death penalty inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.

Here are two characters whose views are a tad different from Mr. Marsh's, at least on the moral permissibility of capital punishment. It is fair to say that Augustine and Aquinas thought a little bit on what it meant to take "the philosophy of Jesus" into the public square. But—like Governor Bush, and unlike Marsh—they didn't perceive any fundamental incompatibility between a public official's commitment to "Christ-centered forgiveness" and his belief in capital punishment.

For the sake of ecumenical balance, it is worth pointing out that even the early Anabaptists didn't speak so uncharitably of the civil magistrate's application of the death penalty as Mr. Marsh speaks of Bush. Consider, for example, this passage from the Schleitheim Articles:

Concerning the sword we have reached the following agreement. The sword is ordained by God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and kills people and protects and defends the good. In the law the sword is established to punish and to kill the wicked, and secular authorities are established to use it.

I offer these classic Christian texts simply as examples of the overwhelming moral-theological consensus of the church. As Steven A. Long says in his outstanding article, "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty" (The Thomist, Vol. 63, No. 4 [1999], pp. 511-52), "It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)." Similarly, Oliver O'Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is "almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty" (O'Donovan, "The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae," in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219) George Bush stands foursquare within that tradition.

In his apparent judgment that a belief in "Christ-centered forgiveness" is radically incompatible with the application of the death penalty, it is Marsh, not Bush, who takes a stand outside that moral-theological tradition. You might even say that Gov. Bush is far more ecumenical on this issue—if the moral-theological tradition of the church is to count for something—than Mr. Marsh.

Now, Mr. Marsh is entirely free to dissent from the Christian tradition on capital punishment. (One clever way to pull this off would be to call a "change" or a "contradiction" in the teaching a "development," which seems to be the strategy of Pope John Paul II). But wouldn't a basic respect for the "near unanimous" theological moral consensus of the church call for a more responsible, charitable, less mean-spirited, and less-partisan attack on a Christian politician who stands firmly within it?

If Mr. Marsh can't resist the "prohetic" urge to venture into the realm of partisan politics, perhaps he can employ his rhetorical skills attacking politicians who advocate and promote policies that are more clearly at odds with the Church's moral-theological tradition. You know you are living in a morally topsy-turvy world when one of the candidates for president, a professing Christian, stands up foursquare for the legalization of infanticide (partial birth abortion), and yet the primary example of a bad Christian political witness is that of the opposing candidate because he endorses the death penalty for cold-blooded murderers!

Keith Pavlischek
Fellow, Center for Public Justice
Washington. D.C.

Proselytism: part 3
June 28, 2000

Father Ted Stylianopoulos:
Continuing our discussion on "proselytism"—defined as a deliberate, planned, and tailored program to convert Christians from one Christian group to another, i.e., "sheep-stealing"—I reiterate my position that "the same principle would apply to Orthodox Christians, who are not to target other Christian groups."

It follows that, theologically, I regard as equally questionable any such proselytistic efforts by Orthodox targeting practicing Christians such as Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Evangelicals. This would include the cases of previously evangelical Christians specifically noted by John Wilson, if in fact those conversions resulted from "proselytism" as defined above. Thus I distinguish my position on "proselytism" from John Wilson's, who, perhaps typically, can write "I have absolutely no objection to Orthodox attempts to bring evangelical Protestants into the Orthodox fold." I do have certain qualified objections—theological ones.

I base my objections on the words of the Lord on the primacy of love among all those who declare faith in Him (John 14:34-35) and on His prayer that "all those who believe in me. … may all be one" (John 17:20-21). Christians who receive these dominical teachings as essential criteria of faith and life, and not as mere words, are bound to be "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit. … one hope. … one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God the Father of us all" (Eph. 4:3-5).

By the very nature of Christian obedience to Christ, the constitutive mode of conduct between Christians ought to be a spirit of convergence, not rivalry. In other words, the defining relationship between Christians, even those who are divided by serious differences, should be humble dialogue in mutual love and respect in the name of the Lord, not "proselytism" that tends to foster self-righteousness, suspicion, rivalry, hatred, group religious propaganda, and ever increasing divisions between Christians, all of which are not of the Lord.

Christian dialogue, which can occur both formally through organized efforts or informally through publications, the Internet, and other ecumenical and personal contacts, offers abundant opportunity to witness to one's own understanding of the faith—but always in mutual love and respect for the sake of Christ. A fine but extremely important distinction is properly at work here: the driving force behind the dialogue is love for Christ and for other Christians, as well as love for the fullness of the Gospel and Christian life, but not calculated designs how to convert other Christians through subtly veiled polemical or stereotypical arguments seeking to refute and/or persuade the other, no matter what.

In such dialogical contexts, where mutual love and honest self-criticism are operative, and self-righteousness and manipulation are set aside, the truth itself and the Holy Spirit emerge as the legitimate and decisive powers of conversion for each free conscience. Under such circumstances, conversions to another Christian Church or tradition, including requested help to accomplish it, are entirely legitimate and honorable—while striving to maintain the same spiritual ambiance of mutual love and understanding between all Christians for the sake of Christ and the cause of the gospel before the world. Although this vision may seem highly idealistic (no more so than seeking to raise up mature and loving Christians, rather than fanatical and sectarian ones, which is the easier task), I believe it is the vision which truly advances the gospel, promotes self-criticism and above all honors Christ.

Frederica Mathewes-Green
I appreciate the Martins' thoughtful words. These particularly leap out at me: "The question is, what are we doing with those 'Orthodox people' (who are a majority) who are only nominal believers, as their actions clearly show? If we try to speak with these people and explain to them what it really means to be a Christian, are we guilty of 'proselytism'?"

Though nominalism is not as widespread in Romania as in some other historically Orthodox lands, it is tragedy anywhere it is found. The Martins rightly ask how they should respond, since their admirable desire is to bring living faith. My hope would be that evangelical missionaries would have mercy on the debilitated Orthodox Church in formerly communist lands. Believers suffered a great deal, and of course those who suffered most died as martyrs. As the most courageous faithful died, the remainder logically was composed of an increasing percentage of the merely nominal. The believing community was being diluted by those who thought of their faith as only habit, or only an ethnic identity.

This was the case in Serbia, where only 4 percent of the "Orthodox" nation is baptized, and fewer still actually attended services—yet Orthodox crosses were sprayed on Muslim homes as an act of political taunting. Orthodox monks and believers deplored this loudly, and opposed Milosevic, but as a reduced force they were drowned out by those making political use of Orthodox identity.

I would hope that missionaries in formerly communist lands would see the believing Orthodox as their allies, and work to rebuild the struggling Church, to make Orthodoxy a living faith again. Having been stripped of lands and possessions and forbidden to teach for decades, the Church needs assistance. It is not necessary to establish new congregations in different denominations, if you believe that Orthodox are indeed Christian. Such churches would inevitably compete with struggling Orthodox parishes, and after such extended persecution Orthodox often have fewer material resources than Americans. For decades the communists tried to destroy the Orthodox Church, and it would be a tragedy if Protestant missionaries unintentionally became the force that finished the job. Instead, please partner with faithful, believing Orthodox and help the Church to rebuild.

John Wilson replies:
For the first time in this conversation, I feel that we are beginning to have real engagement. And when Father Ted writes that "By the very nature of Christian obedience to Christ, the constitutive mode of conduct between Christians ought to be a spirit of convergence, not rivalry," I heartily agree. While I am an evangelical Protestant, I do not personally seek to convince my Catholic and Orthodox friends to become evangelical—nor am I flirting with conversion to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I believe that within each of these traditions there is much that is true to Scripture, much that testifies to the living presence of the Holy Spirit, but also much that needs correction, much that has accreted over the centuries (and this is emphatically true of evangelicalism as well!) that is contrary to Truth. (Many of my evangelical friends, I should add, would strongly dissent from this characterization of evangelicalism in relation to the other Christian traditions.) My own prayer would be that Christians within these traditions would be open to learning from one another, correcting one another, in accordance with Scripture, guided by their traditions and filled with the Spirit. I have learned a great deal from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

This mutual respect, of the kind that Father Ted so movingly endorses, grounded in our common faith, is in no way inconsistent with with significant disagreement—as, for example, over the institution of the papacy. But what about Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox who, while acknowledging the need for such mutual respect, believe that their church is the true church, and that it is incumbent on them not only to witness to those outside the church altogether but also to bring their fellow Christians—the "separated brethren," as Catholics say—into the fullness of that truth by "conversion"? Do they violate the biblically mandated principles Father Ted cites? Here Father Ted's prescriptions seem rather unclear. He writes,

A fine but extremely important distinction is properly at work here: the driving force behind the dialogue is love for Christ and for other Christians, as well as love for the fullness of the Gospel and Christian life, but not calculated designs how to convert other Christians through subtly veiled polemical or stereotypical arguments seeking to refute and/or persuade the other, no matter what.

Well, certainly I can join Father Ted in deploring the sort of arguments he describes here! But wouldn't such arguments be deplorable in any setting? I don't see any necessary inconsistency between "love for Christ and for other Christians" and planned initiatives by one Christian body—say, Catholics—to "convert" members of another Christian body—say, Latino Protestants in the United States, many of whom were historically Catholic. What matters, it seems, is the spirit and the manner in which such initiatives are carried out. So again I fail to see what notions such as proselytize and target are contributing to the conversation; in fact, they seem only to introduce confusion and false rhetoric.

My friend Frederica's plea on behalf of the Orthodox in the formerly communist countries is also very moving. I wince when I recall some of the comments I have heard from Protestant missionaries who went East after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Perhaps had I not learned more of Orthodoxy through Frederica's writings and her friendship, I wouldn't have realized quite how "off" those condescending comments were.

But while sharing both her great respect for the suffering of the Orthodox under communism and her fervent hope for the revitalization of Orthodoxy in those lands, I find her comments misleading in two ways. First, as was noted when their letter was posted, the Martins are not missionaries from the West but rather indigenous Romanian Protestants. Second, it is historically inaccurate to suggest that all of the—very severe—problems of Orthodoxy in the formerly communist lands can be attributed to communist repression. Many of those problems predate the communist era. Nor can all of the problems be attributed to communist repression, plus Western arrogance (the "Latin crusaders," contemporary missionaries), plus the Ottoman Empire, and so on. Many of these problems grow out of Orthodoxy's internal dynamics. I hope we can acknowledge this, in friendship and in Christian love, and in service to the Truth.

Proselytism: Continuing the Conversation
June 21, 2000

Father Ted Stylianopoulos:
The key issue is the definition of proselytism, which, in the religious sphere, is commonly understood as targeting and seeking to convert, whether by assumed honorable means or not, a person from one religious group to another. I judge such efforts to be questionable especially among Christians themselves.

Historically, Orthodox Christians welcomed Protestant missionaries (especially as friends over against the Latin Crusaders, who left a bitter legacy in the East) in order to receive educational benefits, including knowledge of the Scriptures. Down to our own days evangelists such as Billy Graham have been invited to preach the gospel in Eastern Orthodox countries. The ill feelings were generated when it became evident that Orthodox Christians were not regarded as being Christian and were targeted for conversion into one of several Protestant religious groups—which is deliberate "sheep-stealing." What else can it be called?

Yes, by all means, preach the gospel to energize people's love for and commitment to Christ, help in the education of those less smiled upon by history, and support them in their dire material needs, but also respect their faith and culture, do not take advantage of their ignorance or need, and do not target them for conversion to your particular denomination. If in the process of your loving and unselfish witness they desire to join you of their own free will and in their own good time, so be it—but don't let this be your driving force, but only Christ and the gospel.

The same principle would apply to Orthodox Christians, who are not to target other Christian groups but can make their witness before society in general, as everybody else can too. However, permit the Holy Spirit and conscience free reign. I cannot imagine any other way that we as Christians can interface one another and a) be obedient to the task of witness, b) promote love among shamefully divided and conflicting Christians, and c) bring honor to Christ as the Truth which makes free.

John Wilson:
I am disappointed by Father Ted's latest response, which takes the moral high ground while failing to wrestle with any specific realities. So, for example, in my last message I mentioned the conversion of a number of North American Protestants to Orthodoxy. Some of these conversions—in some instances of congregations—have resulted from Orthodox efforts to bring evangelical Protestants into what the Orthodox regard as the true church. In short, they are "targeted."

From this it appears that in a setting where so-called "proselytism" is favorable to Orthodox interests, the Orthodox practice it, while decrying the practice in settings where it is deemed unfavorable to Orthodox interests. Let me say that I have absolutely no objection to Orthodox attempts to bring evangelical Protestants into the Orthodox fold. These Orthodox initiatives, insofar as I am familiar with them, are not premised on the notion that evangelicals are not Christians. Rather, they are based on the notion that in Orthodoxy, evangelicals can find the full, rich, small-"o" orthodox faith they have only imperfectly experienced heretofore.

To object to such initiatives because they "target" a particular group is silly: in this context, target, like proselytism, is a cant word, intended to paralyze thought. If you believe that that Orthodoxy is the one true church, and if you believe that within evangelicalism there are many who would be responsive to that call, naturally you want to be as fully informed as possible about the people you hope to reach. Perhaps you will have a former evangelical, now Orthodox, directing such efforts.

By the same token, Catholics in the United States, alarmed by the large number of Latinos who have moved from Catholicism to Protestantism, quite properly—given their convictions—are "targeting" such Latinos for what might be called "re-conversion."

Father Ted's message bothers me in another respect as well. Here, as earlier, he invokes history in a very selective way. In this "history," the Orthodox are always victims. This is not history; it is propaganda.

"Proselytizers"
June 6, 2000
While I concur with the spirit of ecumenical understanding and friendship between various Christians that John Wilson's editorial, "Proselytizers" [May/June], seems to advocate, the same is not served by ignoring the historical record and citing his experience of "indigenous" Eastern European evangelical seminarians in Croatia last March.

During the last several centuries Western missionaries, both Latin and Protestant, have deliberately targeted Orthodox Christians in their lands, such as Greece, where Orthodox Christianity has been embraced by nearly the total population since Christian antiquity and deserves to be appreciated as the Christianity of (yes!) an Orthodox native land. During trying historical circumstances, for example, the Islamic rule of several centuries, Orthodox Christians in Greece more often than not welcomed Western missionaries who proclaimed the Gospel, taught the Scriptures and organized schools—until they realized that they were also being asked to leave their Church as somenting fundamentally corrupt and to join any of several Western divisive denominations. They perceived first hand the meaning of "proselytizers": those who come bearing Christian gifts and end up stealing "sheep" and dividing indigenous Christians by exploiting their political weakness, poverty and lack of education.

Proselytism, whether refined or crude, whether practiced by Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox, is essentially the same: a deliberate policy and organized program of "sheep-stealing" based on notions of the other as corrupt or heretical. This is by no means a "caricature" but a fact of history which is still operative in various degrees and forms, and which Christians ought to try to overcome in obedience to Him who prayed that all Christians should be one (at least in spirit and heart!).

Fr. Ted Stylianopoulos
Needham, Mass.

I am writing in response to your editorial on "Proselytizers" and especially in regard to your criticism of Father Ted Stylianopoulos. Father Ted has affirmed that evangelical Christians are considered to be Christians by the Orthodox. In the passage you quoted, he mentions that evangelicals, on the other hand, do not consider Orthodox to be Christians. When evangelicals conduct missionary work in traditionally Orthodox countries, they often meet with hostility from local Orthodox. He notes that these "unedifying attitudes" in the plural—meaning on both sides—"are an embarrassment to Christ." His text does not require "a fair amount of translation," and I respectfully suggest that you translated it incorrectly.

So far from telling evangelicals to "stay out" of Orthodox countries, he is in fact pleading for Protestants to recognize that Orthodox are Christians! The Orthodox church in many post-Communist lands has suffered and is sick, and needs help from the other churches, not competition. I am afraid that the battle between these churches will simply result in more people being turned off from any kind of church, and cause a "bitter root to grow up" (Heb. 12:15). In missionary work, we all know that the gospel must be presented in each country using its own language and culture. If you went as a missionary to Indonesia, for example, you would study its history and Islam, and you would not be averse to using images and concepts from Islam or even tribal religions in order to talk about Christ. Why then, when evangelicals travel to Orthodox countries, do they not seek to learn about the local Christian church? Orthodoxy has a wealth of treasures for learning to know our Lord better and for living the Christian life better.

As one who has studied Russia and Georgia extensively and speaks their languages well, I became interested in missionary work there in the late 1980s, and began to explore Orthodoxy. I became convinced that the way to be most helpful to those nations was from within the Orthodox church. I also began to love Orthodoxy and became Orthodox in 1994. I have seen that Russians are much more willing to engage me in discussions about Christ now that they know I am coming at it from their side. This of course is because most Russians do not share Father Ted's openness to other Christians; nevertheless it remains a fact.

Evangelical Christians should be commended for their willingness to work hard and suffer for the sake of the Gospel. However, Protestant missions will only save individuals: to save these nations, the Orthodox church is the appropriate vehicle. There is much that could be done together. Orthodox, as well as Protestants, are at times narrow-minded; we often need each other's loving correction. Surely we need to be in dialogue with each other. Father Ted is one of the clearest voices we have in American Orthodoxy in support of contacts with other Christians. As one who sat in his New Testament class this semester, I can affirm that he is very vigorous in his approval of evangelicals' love of the Scriptures, which he often praises, and commends to us as a model. I do believe that in your eagerness to defend, you misunderstood the point he was making.

Elizabeth Scott, CNM
Certified Nurse-Midwife and MTS student,
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary
Brookline, Mass.

John Wilson replies:
I appreciate the thoughtful responses from Father Ted and from Elizabeth Scott. They raise many important issues, which I hope we will explore further as this conversation proceeds—not least, our understanding of "the church."

At the outset I want to emphasize that the intent of my column was not to single out the Orthodox for criticism, but rather to draw attention to the way the terms proselytizers and proselytize are used and—so it seems to me—abused. In recent months, apart from countless instances in print, I have heard, for example, a secular East Coast academic (referring to Christian campus groups such as InterVarsity), an Orthodox professor in America (referring to Protestants in the former Soviet Bloc), and a radio commentator in Chicago (referring to Southern Baptists) use proselytizer as a handy term of abuse. In such instances and many others, the term is a substitute for thought. This is by no means simply "an Orthodox problem."

But it is in part an Orthodox problem, as was confirmed again and again in conversations in September 1998 and in March of this year with pastors, seminarians, theologians, and other Protestant church leaders from throughout the "Orthodox lands" in post-Communist Europe. Certainly, both "sides" share the blame there—see the letter that follows, from two Romanian students at the Evangelical Theological Seminary in Osijek, Croatia.

Father Ted asserts that the meaning of proselytism is clear: it is "sheep-stealing," plain and simple. I must confess that references to "sheep-stealing" do not seem to add much clarity to the discussion. Many of my Orthodox acquaintances—including most notably my good friend, Frederica Mathewes-Green—are converts from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, many of whom have converted not as individuals but as part of a congregation or a larger church body. Is this also "sheep-stealing"?

A letter from Croatia
Thank you for the invitation to join this dialogue. We must say with regret that what Father Ted Stylianopoulos has written is in part true. Especially the older generations of Protestant Christians in Romania (Pentecostal, Baptist, Brethren) often described Orthodox believers as idolatrous, encumbered by traditions. That's part of the reason the Orthodox dislike Protestants today. Just this year, when we went home to Romania for Easter vacation, we had to attend a funeral, and one of the preachers started to speak against Orthodox tradition. Some of the people at that funeral were Orthodox, and you can imagine what they thought.

We strongly believe that this attitude toward Orthodoxy is wrong. People can be saved in the Orthodox Church as well as in Protestant churches. Our interest is not in accusing Orthodoxy of idolatry. Rather, our concern is to win as many as we can for the Kingdom of God.

We have met many Orthodox believers who are truly Christians. These people have no need to be "evangelized." The question is, what are we doing with those "Orthodox people" (who are a majority) who are only nominal believers, as their actions clearly show? If we try to speak with these people and explain to them what it really means to be a Christian, are we guilty of "proselytism"? We don't think so. To witness in this way is to accept the responsibility Paul had in mind when he wrote, "woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" (1 Cor. 9:16).

Daniel and Mirela Martin
Evangelical Theological Seminary
Osijek, Croatia

Copyright © 2000 by the author or Christianity Today International/Books & Culture Magazine. Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture. You can contact the editors at BCeditor@booksandculture.net.

				Try an Issue of Books & Culture Free! Name Street Address City/State/Zip E-mail Address No credit card required. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only. Click here for International orders. If you decide you want to keep Books & Culture coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive five more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The trial issue is yours to keep, regardless. Give Books & Culture as a gift Buy 1 gift subscription, get 1 FREE!

Free Newsletter Sign up today for the ChristianityToday.com Books & Culture Newsletter    RSS Feed   RSS Help