www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Peter E. Gillquist ,etc..

I came across this message board. I found it interesting that these evangelicals are worried about our evangelizing. That means we must be making some headway...
http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm11.showMessage?topicID=551.topic

Hi Pani Rose,

Thanks for the link.

I know of all these well known converts.

I do like that when I have heard Hahn and Howard on television, that they do not bash their roots.

I don't think that anyone should. Their religious roots are what formed them and brought them to where they are today.

Gilquist,(who I believe is now an Antiochian Orthodox priest) is apparently angry at his past, (according to one of the posts), and that makes me feel uncomfortable. I wonder if Orthodoxy made him feel that way, or is it a hang up of his own?

Love in Christ,
Alice

The discussion you sited is amazingly tempered. They are in error in several places but at least they are willing to look at their own weeknesses and even admit that most of them know less about Catholicism than they know about their own denomination. Perhaps there is hope for the future.

Dan L

Alice,

You're correct. Peter Gillquist is an Archpriest of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese and either was or still is Chairman of the Archdiocese's Department of Missions and Evangelism. My experience of reading him is that he is definitely of the fundamentalist Orthodox persuasion, much more so than is ordinarily seen among the Antiochians. I find myself wondering if he'll stay there or move, eventually, to a more conservative jurisdiction.

Like you, I decry anyone bashing their religious roots. It is one thing to understand that where you were is not where you should have been, but to deny that your upbringing there is a vital part of what made you the person you became is a bit disingenuous and hypocritical in my mind and doesn't lend itself to an evangelistic approach that will likely bring others to where you are.

Many years,

Neil

Hmmm, I read Gillquist's book "Becoming Orthodox" and I didn't get the feeling that he was bashing his roots. Perhaps that has happened elsewhere.

It was reading such people as Hahn and Howard and others that helped me become Catholic. And I feel the same way as they do: it is wrong to attack that tradition which you were brought up in and helped you realize so many Truths (such as the divinity of Christ and the importance of the Scriptures). You can lovingly point out their errors, but it shows a lack of charity to bash them. The vast majority of Protestants have never heard the fullness of Catholic teaching - they are following Christ in the best way that they know how. It is our duty (EVERY Catholic's!) to explain these Catholic Truths to them, and the Holy Spirit's to lead them to the Church.

I'm glad that Protestants are nervous about all the converts, however - must mean it's happening a lot.

I agree, it is wrong to be upset with your roots. I know myself being a convert, I was raised Southern Baptist, that when I converted the Church brought everything I had learned a young person to life. It was as though sitting through the Divine Liturgy that Scrpitures were jumping off the page and they were walking alive. They were no longer words on a page. So for me, I don't think I would appreciate the Church or my faith as much without what my parents gave me. It is definately with me, it is kind of like Jesus saying, "I did not come to do away with but to add too." That is what he did for me, but it is so much deeper and richer than my soul could ever imagine as a young person.

Pani Rose

As a child I saw protestant evangelicals as anti-intellectual or overly emotional in their worship practices. I preferred the asceticism of Rome, but left during the Vietnam era- an event that was ironically understood by an Antiochean priest I met on the road back to the Faith.

Evangelical protestants who become Orthodox can pose difficult situations. Ethnic Orthodox are sometimes suspicious of the motives of evangelicals or indifferent to them, and sometimes with just cause. I suppose the worst cases are ones like the Ben Lomond scandal within the Antiochean Church which the Rev. Gillquist would be familiar with. Other clergy and many laity migrated to several jurisdictions from that event, some to Rome.

Jurisdictions that were not even represented in America have begun congregations in response to the perceived needs of disenchanted evangelicals, converts, and others who wanted to switch jurisdictions rather than remain where they were, e.g. the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I see that as one of the down sides of this evangelical movement.

My wife and I were converts in an OCA parish. A merger with one such group occurred. When it became clear that clashes over liturgics could not be resolved peacefully, we concluded that we had taken a wrong turn somewhere, and returned to the Church of our youth, sadder but wiser. The difference has been one of christian love, understanding, and trust, triumphant over disagreements.

Nowadays I am cautious around evangelicals of all kinds, because time and again I have found them to be too strong in charisma and emotion, and not very concerned with discernment or objectivity. I prefer not to trust in emotions, but rely on periods of careful discernment, guided by God's Grace. Otherwise, I would be too ill at ease spiritually. There should be room for both in the Church, ascetics and evangelicals, provided they are willing to work together. After all, the Church itself is not exclusively one way or the other.

So this modern evangelism is not always a good thing, depending on what is done with it. It has caused an awakening for some, and great pain for others. My wife and I have found common ground with Rome, however, and hope all can come to deeper discernment spiritually over time. We are all in this together after all, regardless of where our strengths lie.

WOW Rose, that was awesome!

I am inspired

I wonder how many of these people on that website , if they really seek to study Catholicism, from a Catholic (Scriptural, Historical, Patristic) aspect will end up embracing the faith?
For me it is a given. Having swam the Tiber years before it became fashionable to do so.
Stephanos I

Rose,

Beautifully stated.

Jim,

I agree, although I'm unsure whether you are referring to the dozen or so US parishes and the monastery that belong to the Holy GO Patriachate of Jerusalem in North & South America [jerusalempatriarchate.com] or to the (Nasrani) Patriarchate of Jerusalem [jicb.org] , an ecclesia vagante in the truest tradition of the faux "Orthodox" and "Catholic" entities that seem pervasive, particularly west of the Mississippi. The latter are particularly bothersome, often having their roots in that same rush to fill a void, but doing so with theology that is either particularly vague or particularly outrageous to the religious traditions that they purportedly espouse.

Many years,

Neil

Stephanos I wrote:
For me it is a given. Having swam the Tiber years before it became fashionable to do so.

Ok give, tell us your conversion story please.
Bless you for your service to the body of Christ.

Pani Rose

I disagree that Fr. Peter shows any "anger" all. He's quite a pleasant and charitable man, and his story in "Becoming Orthodox" relfects that.

Clearly, they are confusing him with Frank Schaefer, who tends to come off as a bit "angry," but again, I think it's more sour grapes from the Evangelicals. He was the same way when he was a Protestant. He was extremely critical of modern Evangelicalism, as was his father, who was a famous Evangelical philosopher.

Priest Thomas

Dear Father Thomas,

Bless!

Thank you Father for clarifying an untruth about a brother Orthodox and priest, Father Gilquist.

Forgive me for assuming that what I read was truth when it was infact probably hearsay.

Actually, you are probably correct in the assumption that these posters were confusing Fr. Gilquist and Frank Schaeffer. I have heard (personally said to me), from a priest involved in an Orthodox interjurisdictional group, that Frank Schaeffer can be a 'turn off' in the way he bashes his past religious affiliation...

...which makes me wonder why not celebrate what is good and positive in one's life-- and uplift and praise WITHOUT having to put down anything else. Anger is never a virtue.

Perhaps it is a personal quirk of mine, but I really don't think that those who bash others put themselves (or their particular faith tradition--in this instance) in in a positive and respectful light. Infact, sometimes, just the opposite of what is hoped for is actually accomplished.

Just some general thoughts off the cuff which are not intended for anyone in particular.

Kissing your right hand,
Humbly,
Alice

Alice,
That is not necessarily true. Chirst had a righteous indignation (anger) at the sellers and money changers in the temple.
Anger can be a virtue. How you use your anger is another matter.
Stephanos I

The scriptures say, "Be angry, but sin not," (Eph 4:26) meaning, anger can be justifiable *IF* it is not out of selfishness, but rather out of some injustice or other such situation. However, I would never counsel someone to "be angry," since I would suspect that even the greatest saints would not show anger unless it was completely justified and with a complete lack of selfishness. That is, to be angry with the same "anger" as God has over, say, sin or injustice. Maybe we could call it, "holy anger"?

Priest Thomas