As an adult convert to Catholicism I think the Real Presence is the absolute clincher. Ofc I believe it is real but I think it's extremely difficult to dispute the historicity of that belief going back to the earliest church traditions. Once I started learning about it I knew I could never believe anything else
Thank you Kelly. I was a lifelong Evangelical and became EO as an adult. I try not to bag on Evangelicals as I'm grateful for my upbringing. I also deeply appreciate my RC brothers and sisters. Your comment is spot on . The centrality of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, was central to all Christians for 1,500 years. Martin Luther believed that to his dying day (he famously debated Zwingli on this issue). Again, thank you.
Yes! I’ve seen similar points made as shared in this post and I’m confounded because it’s so much deeper than that. Yes, Catholicism/Orthodoxy provides structure, beauty, belonging, etc., but most of all they provide the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Where else could I go? I don’t want to have my cake and eat it too, I want what’s real. I’m sorry but Evangelicalism could never offer that in the fullest sense.
AMEN! I'm so with you. My experience in life is that sadly, most people aren't willing to sacrifice in order to pursue the truth or what's real (to use your term). They would rather remain in a comfortable environment that makes them happy.
I want this, too, but I can't find it. my soul is stirred for more and it just makes me feel "picky"... but I want what's real, too—not the performance.
I wrote one of my most important college papers on this exact topic, Luther vs Zwingli on the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. I was at John Brown University at the time. I am a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. That was one of the critical times when I realized that though I believed the evangelical protestant bible only paradigm, I found my own group refusing to face Scripture objectively for fear of having to admit that traditional historical positions were more biblical. I changed my mind not for history, not for the democratic view of the majority of ancients. I changed it because the Bible teaches the divine presence plainly. I discovered the Bible's plain teaching, the teachings of Christ and Paul, through the staunch dogma of Luther due to the discipline of church history. I believe people leave evangelicalism for RC and EO because they are looking for a place they can land without being ostracized and don't find one. When they realize that, they begin to ask what the benefit of being protestant is. I am firmly not RC or EO for different reasons.
I've seen the Eucharistic miracle in O Cebreiro Spain and I was within inches of the Eucharistic miracle in Santarém Portugal. Oh, is it ever real! If this doesn't make you Catholic, nothing will.
Hello Kelly Garrison, my question would be - and I hope you can hear this as a genuine inquiry - what difference does the Real Presence make on the life of the believer? I ask because of the basic observations I make of my Catholic and Evangelical friends and family. Some are RC and they have little fruit in their life. Some are Evangelical and they have little fruit in their life. Some are RC and they have much fruit in their life. Some are Evangelical and they have much fruit in their life. Hope that makes sense as something I’m trying to process.
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
I appreciate the way you broke this down. I’m not a kid (definitely not in Gen Z at almost 40!) but I find myself in this exact stage of being attracted to the Orthodox Church. The historical and traditional richness is enticing. The Divine Liturgy seems foreign yet biblical (I haven’t attended yet). Maybe there’s a way to bridge the chasm?
Glad this resonated with you. Is the chasm you're looking to bridge Protestantism and Orthodoxy? If so, it's an interesting idea. I've seen a few Episcopal churches, for instance, that use the Byzantine rite which is a fascinating combination to me.
My apologies about my question. Maybe it comes from being a cradle Catholic. Is what you know about the faith about all the exteriors? Is it about in the end the spectacle of liturgy? To borrow from Aristotle, the liturgy is just an expression of a form. Catholicism has many liturgies, including Byzantine. (That's why we are not all Roman Catholics, there are Marion Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, etc.) The Catholic faith also has Anglican liturgy through the Ordinariate. But they are all accidents, not the substance of that form. Is there ever a pursuit of truth here, that's worthy of a high cost? I sincerely hope why Gen Z Evangelicals are abandoning ship is not for the smells and bells, but the truth and the love of God. The liturgy only takes people so far, if that's all they love.
If something is not true it isn’t going to be worth the cost of discipleship. My overriding question along my way has always been is this true? If something is true it’s from Jesus and if not it isn’t.
Yeah, there’s a lot that I resonate with in the Orthodox Church structure and theology that I think resists the current progress and liberalism of society. Maybe romanticism and idealism so I’m trying to take my time studying it and visiting it soon
By all means take your time, but don't fall in love with the liturgy. It's about truth. It was always about truth. The Orthodox are our brothers in Christ, but they don't have Peter, the rock of Christ. They don't have the fullness of truth. Don't be scared of Catholicism because the Orthodox are the safe choice in Protestant America in 2026.
I don’t think it’s kind to call us the safe choice. It has felt anything but safe to have much of my world turned completely turned upside down due to becoming Orthodox. It would have been much, MUCH easier to become Catholic in Midwest America! Let us seek Christ together without resorting to being demeaning. Much love!
If your family and/or social circle is either actively or culturally Protestant, Orthodoxy is 100% the safe social choice, comparatively. It's not about numbers of parishes. Protestantism by dogma can only agree on being Not Catholic. There can be a very steep cost involved even in 2026 with a conversion to Catholicism. Living in the some areas of the mid-West can dampen that effect, but it just depends.
I agree, sometimes it seems (to me) that rejecting the Barque of Peter, but embracing Orthodoxy is done more out of pride than reason- in the ilk of "anything but the Catholic Church" protestant mentality. (Again, my opinion).
These sentiments I would at least suspect of being accurate but here’s my experience. Within Catholicism is the idea of continuing conversion. Like peeling an onion there are layers and layers so Orthodoxy is very often a stage on the journey not the destination.
In my case it took me 35 years to get from the Catholic baptismal font as a baby to hedonism to practicing Evangelical and back to Catholicism. I think I grew at each step and gained all that is good within each except hedonism of course.
In my opinion, this is why the church has opted for referring to Protestants as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. If God works through constant conversion, then the issue is one of willingness and cooperation with where God takes you. I went from Episcopal to Baptist to Catholic. I never agreed with the Baptists, but I learned a great deal about authority and trust and obedience in a very internal way while I was there, and those were all things I needed in order to be Catholic.
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy. ☦️ converted with my family 3 years ago and our lives as a family have been transformed. I can’t even imagine being not being orthodox now, so thankful the Lord brought us here, to himself within the Orthodox Church. Blessings on your journey!
This is similar to the reasons why my husband became disenchanted with evangelicalism. He started to look into Lutheranism and Catholicism in response. On the other side of our marriage, I had become agnostic and then was dabbling in neopaganism. Strangely (and mercifully!), Orthodoxy was the only option we could agree on once our first children led us to try going to church again.
We were able to visit a Western Rite church, which is a Western expression of the Orthodox Church (at opposed to Russian, Greek, etc.) I would recommend this flavor of Orthodoxy especially to anyone having trouble with the foreignness of the aesthetics of EO.
Just a thought on this from the other side of the Tiber (Catholic). I've seen some traditional Anglicans (or "Anglo-Catholics") argue that they should be considered the same sort of church as the Orthodox and be in communion with them. That might be a "bridge"...? Sort of?
There's also Catholic churches out there that seem rather Evangelical-- there's a parish in Maryland that presents itself and runs a lot like a typical non-denom mega church. I do think there's room for liturgical tradition and protestant culture to meet in interesting ways.
As a recent Catholic convert, I really do believe there’s a way to bridge the chasm. I wrestled with that same tension for years. What changed things for me was choosing to learn Catholic theology on its own terms (by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church) instead of through what I’d been taught about it (from Evangelical pastors and authors). I was genuinely surprised by how deeply scriptural and coherent it is.
I realized most of my assumptions had come secondhand from Protestant sources, and the bias there is stronger than we often realize. Reading the Catechism for myself was a turning point.
If you’re feeling that pull, I’d encourage you to explore it firsthand. I’ve just started writing on Substack about my journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism- I’d love for you to read along if you’re curious.
I think what Orthodoxy offers and the author missed is a spiritual life that recognizes the mystical reality of the world we live in. You can only get that with Orthodoxy. (I’m a convert myself—albeit from Catholicism.)
Or as another example, The Great Prokeminon that is chaned during the Presanctified Liturgy of St Gregory the Great, is Usually Psalm 140 (Or 141 of you are using Masoretic Bibles like KJV), and Verse 2 is the refrain, reading
"Let My Prayer Arise in thy Sight as Incense, and Let the Lifting up of My Hands, be an Evening Sacrifice"
I appreciate this reflection, as a catholic missionary in a secular college in Washington, the Gen Z is turning Catholic/Orthodox is far from the truth. Instead going out to find the one lost sheep, it feels as though we are going to look for the 99. On campus, there is a healthy dialogue with our Protestant brother and sisters to present the Gospel and to form disciples, showing unity where it matters most. The reasons you said above are the ultimate reasons people choose Catholicism, they feel as though they are not in continuity to historical Christians. Young people want to be connected to their ancestors as they are with their peers.
I always appreciate your work, it has helped me be more ecumenical on campus with the other churches.
There are Catholics and EO who follow Jesus, and there are “evangelicals” that follow Jesus. There is beauty in honoring the Church Fathers and Mothers who were our forbears. There is foolishness in pretending “everything prior to the Reformation was wrong.” There is room in the body for its diverse and beautiful expressions without the awful pendulum swing that animates much of history.
In this world, we are all wayfaring pilgrims. We can learn from each other. It is okay.
I don’t think it is possible to follow Jesus in a church that doesn’t confess a real Eucharist. Jesus told us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no life in us.
I understand where you’re coming from. I guess for me, I always think back to the experience of someone who was tortured for his testimony of Jesus, Richard Wurmbrand. He said that in prison, there are no Catholics or Protestants, but only those who follow Christ. Our distinctive differences are beautiful and diverse, but at the end of the day, when the body of Christ is persecuted, we suffer as one body. Jesus said that there will be one flock and one Shepherd. We are united by and through Jesus, only. He is what we hold in common. May we all be found as One as Jesus and the Father are One.
I also see where you are coming from. Indeed, in times of great suffering it appears that Christ is moved to provide extraordinary grace. The thief suffering next to him on the cross was promised paradise. The Holy Spirit is not constrained by any institutions or rules.
At the same time, I believe in our daily lives that Jesus gave us a template for how to live, and how to be united with him. And that includes Baptism, through which Paul tells us we are united to Jesus' death and resurrection. And that includes Eucharist, where we physically take Christ's body and blood into our own. In such practices there is a deifying grace that enters the life of a Christian.
Christ tells us if we do not eat his body and drink his blood, we have no life in us. This is a command for how we ought to live in ordinary practice. At the same time, we know that he visits those in prison and facing death and gives them his life.
I think that Christians should humbly follow the teachings and practices of Jesus and his apostles, and not demand exceptional grace. We glorify him for his great mercy toward the ignorant or disobedient, and at the same time we show him our love through our obedience to the instructions he gave us for our benefit.
There are Christian groups that reject the practices Christ taught and his disciples followed. I pray that He show them mercy. But as for me, I am going to try to follow the Way he taught.
This article keeps trying to turn Catholicism into an aesthetic upgrade, a lifestyle choice or mood. An aesthetic upgrade. A way to get “structure" or “grounding" and some medieval atmosphere with incense because guitars feel shallow. You're wrong. People become Catholic because Christ founded a Church with authority, sacraments, and continuity, and once you see that, there's no going back. Reducing conversion to “smells and bells,” “sacramental vibes,” or “historical depth” is psychological cope. It’s displacement. When a worldview is threatened, you reframe the attraction as emotional or cultural so you don’t have to deal with the real question.Are Catholic claims true??? Did Christ establish a Church that has authority over me?That’s the question this article keeps dodging. You say “You don’t have to abandon Protestantism if you’re drawn toward sacramental worship.”False. Flatly false.
Sacramental theology is not modular. You cannot bolt Catholic sacramentality onto Protestant ecclesiology like an aftermarket upgrade. Sacraments require apostolic authority, priesthood, valid orders and ontological mediation. Protestantism denies these at the root. By definition. So when a Protestant discovers sacramental reality, they are not discovering an optional style. They are discovering that their theological house has no plumbing. No pipes. No infrastructure for what the sacraments actually are. You don’t “add” Catholicism to Protestantism. Catholicism replaces the framework that made Protestantism possible.And then we get the “Evangelical Brain Drain” framing. That’s a defensive story. It treats this like a competition of talent pools. Like Catholicism is siphoning off the smart kids.
No.What’s happening is not sociological. It’s structural. People are discovering Protestantism cannot ground authority, unity, sacramentality and continuity. And intelligent people feel structural fractures first. Not because they’re superior. But because they touch the load bearing beams before the walls fall. This isn’t elitism it's more like early detection.
As a Catholic, I'd like to ask you to elaborate on what you have in mind by "ontological mediation." Are you referring to the priesthood, or something broader, and in either case, can you explain?
In Catholic theology grace comes through things that Christ has actually changed in their being ( especially the priesthood which is changed by ordination to act in the person of Christ). Protestants replace this sacramental reality with a system based on declaration alone where grace is announced and received by faith but not given through anything that has been objectively changed by God. That’s why Catholic sacraments truly transmit grace while Protestant “sacraments” can only function as symbols.
Glad you are thinking about this issue, and I certainly benefited from these reflections. At my parish (just down the street from Moody), we've had several of their undergrads end up becoming Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church. I wonder if there isn't something particular about this kind of spiritual journey from Moody to a Mainline parish where a thick relationship to the past is sought? You seem to hint at this. It is not just that the introduction to the fathers, the liturgy, and the sacraments are intoxicating—certainly this! As it should be! But also, as Kathryn Tanner said in her Costan Lectures and as people like Bulgakov and Aristotle Papanikolaou have also pointed out, one discovers in the fathers a remarkable freedom and inventiveness and willingness to press questions into unfamiliar territory—a freedom that is in no way in contradiction with the dogmatic inheritance of the Church but fueled and enabled by it. This type of discovery of the fathers seems distinct from one where people find in the fathers a bastion against a confused modernity. It is the difference between ressourcement and repetition, perhaps. Which is not to deny that the Church needs people who take the latter course. They will perhaps ensure that the ressourcement people keep their feet on earth.
These are tremendous additions to the conversations, and I'm delighted to hear that Moody students are finding their way to your parish. The distinction you make between freedom and inventiveness in the Fathers versus a bastion against a confused modernity is absolutely wonderful. It's one I've felt deeply. In part, I think that's what has led me to the Episcopal Church. As someone who's deeply indebted to the Fathers, I appreciate the flexibility in the Anglican tradition (though admittedly at times I'd like a little more emphasis on "in no way in contradiction with the dogmatic inheritance of the church"). As you say, perhaps we need both types of people.
I have read that no doctrines are defined till violated which forces deeper thinking and insights to ferret out truth. I always thought Origen was short changed because he had some erroneous views. H didn’t have the centuries of doctrinal development we now have.
The divergence of brain and heart in American Christianity struck a chord.
I’ve been reflecting on that phenomenon lately as I watch my historically Anabaptist hometown church in Kansas take on a non-denom veneer to attract younger families, while the CRC church I attend in Western NY during my undergraduate tenure looses quite a few regulars for sticking to the decisions of Synod to reinforce their (conservative) confessional identity.
There is a deep fracturing of shared meaning and purpose in society right now, and our communities of faith are taking the brunt of it.
I went to a Baptist Bible school and became Catholic. My interest in bookish theology promptly tanked and I have become more interested in praying, participating in the church, and also became more obedient to my Pastors and God. Protestantism especially Baptist/Evangelicals could not give me any answers for theological questions and their disdain for grounded, physical expressions of faith made me feel disconnected from God. The lack of history and butchering of the Church Fathers (we had a whole class on them) gave me further catalyst to leave. Also the Eucharist as the Roman Catholic's teach it, is the most literal way to take Christ's words so my Baptist hermeneutics class is also to blame I guess.
In a time of rapid change, and with our (speaking from the U.S.) political climate swinging wildly from left to right, I am just so very tired and would like to cling to a church that has outlived empires rather than endure a church that won’t outlive the next election cycle. I want to go to a church that proclaims “Jesus is King” and not “God wants *you* to vote for a sex offender! And if you don’t, you’re evil!”
My husband and i were chrismated and baptized into the Orthodox church in 2020. We already had eight children and over a quarter century of marriage. We'd attended "whichever church seemed to love Jesus the most". But when we found Orthodoxy, time stood still. I loved Jesus when he was a caricature in a Chick tract, but i always knew there had to be more. And now i have it - the "more". And i will probably not have time in the years left to me to learn all i could have learned and put into practice in all those decades.
I had one of my good friends at our Orthodox parish tell me, in response to my not understanding the Horologian we were working with, "Relax. It will take you at least ten years to become fully Orthodox."
I think it’s a little unfair to lump the RC and the EO together, but I understand why you did it. Protestantism arose out of a desperate need for reform of the RC, not the EO. If the RC had never split off from the rest of the Christian world in 1054, it is unlikely that the Protestant Reformation would have occurred because it would have been unnecessary. After the RC split from the eastern church it spent the next few centuries going off the rails because it had no check from the rest of the church. It did whatever it wanted and that led to disaster. Furthermore, the RC made an all out effort, quite successfully, to erase pre-schism history so that its members would know nothing about the eastern church, and thus would not ask difficult questions like the ones being asked now, now that the eastern church has finally begun to overcome that erasure in the West.
I would recommend that rather than attempting to stem the tide of young Evangelicals gravitating towards the RC and EO churches, we all acknowledge first and foremost that we are all Christian brothers in Christ and that our only real differences lie in our theology. Hopefully we are all seeking the Truth above all, because our God is Truth. Satan is the Deceiver who seeks to divide and conquer. Nothing false has ever come from our God. Nothing true has ever come from Satan. If Protestantism is the ultimate theological truth, then it will eventually win out. If not, then may it gracefully submit to the truth and let whatever happens, happen.
I’m not here to advocate for Orthodoxy, although I am Orthodox. Each one of us has to come to it on his own. I love all of my Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of their theology and I hope to know them all one day in Heaven.
I totally support the approach of first and foremost recognizing we're all Christians. Amen! In fact, that's a large reason why I'm not all that interested in being a Protestant apologist. As far as lumping them together, that's probably a fair critique as well. In this case, they were simply lumped together because that was the context in which the request was being made of me (i.e., help us understand why students are interested in these traditions).
Thanks for the thoughtful contributions to the conversation!
It is true that the Soviet Union made communication with the eastern church very difficult, but not all of the eastern church was behind the Iron Curtain. Regarding language barriers, those have existed from time immemorial and exist to this day and they have never really been a problem, even within the eastern church, which represents many different nations with many different languages.
Here is a brief AI-generated summary of the beginning of the erasure:
The Fourth Crusade, originally intended to recapture Jerusalem from Muslim control, ended in the sack of Constantinople in April 1204—a catastrophic betrayal of Christian unity. Driven by financial debts to the Republic of Venice and political intrigue, the Crusaders diverted from their goal, besieging and capturing the Byzantine capital. After the fall, the city was looted for three days, with churches, monasteries, and palaces desecrated and destroyed. Hagia Sophia was stripped of its treasures, and a prostitute was said to have danced on its altar. The Latin Empire of Constantinople was established, with Baldwin of Flanders crowned emperor, while Venice gained significant territorial and economic control.
The sack devastated the Byzantine Empire, which never fully recovered. It led to the fragmentation of Byzantine territories into successor states like Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus, and deepened the East–West Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The event is widely regarded as a turning point in medieval history—accelerating the decline of Byzantium and paving the way for the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Pope John Paul II expressed sorrow for the event in 2001 and 2004, acknowledging the pain it caused the Orthodox world.
I haven’t verified all of this, but it is pretty much in line with everything else I’ve read about the Fourth Crusade. The Soviets didn’t take over Russia until the 20th century, giving the West plenty of time to acknowledge the eastern church, but since the schism, the RC had no reason to do so. The RC and the EO had excommunicated each other. The fact that so few westerners know what the OC is or anything at all beyond the seven Ecumenical Councils, even now, is a pretty solid piece of evidence that the RC, at a minimum, ignored the existence of the eastern church to the point where it is only now starting to become known by a few in the west.
I’ll concede that maybe the word “erase” is a little too strong, but I haven’t read a whole lot about this topic, yet. I’ll just point out that the RC had no motivation to promote the existence of the OC, which was maybe all it needed to do for it to be forgotten in the west.
I thought that Western ignorance of the Eastern Church stemmed chiefly from speaking different languages and being located on other sides of the world in a milieu where travel was much more difficult and communication all the more difficult, or am I missing evidence of a deliberate campaign to knowingly erase pre-schism history?
This article, and your other articles, and all the very measured and thoughtful comments here from committed Christians always makes me ask - what can we do to end the protest? To be one as Christ and the Father are, and as Christ prayed? Why can’t these excellent Christians at Moody teach the bible excellently and have the richness of the full Christian tradition? In your previous article you mentioned the strict doctrinal statement that Moody students had to sign and support that seemed to me more than anything else an anti Catholic / Orthodox prophylactic, and perhaps they need look no further than that to understand how their own prohibitions are creating what they seek to abjure. I would love to see a Church in which there is a place for every orthodox (small o) Christian and we don’t have to retreat to our militarized theological camps. The sin of our age, and I speak firstly of myself, is pride.
"I would love to see a Church in which there is a place for every orthodox (small o) Christian and we don’t have to retreat to our militarized theological camps." Yes and amen!
Figuring out how to pull this off is difficult (but a worthy task!). I think what makes it so difficult is that it seems like a moving target. The reasons for the continued divisions keep morphing and changing. It seems wild that Lutherans and Catholics could agree on Justification and that do nothing to heal the schism, but that's the world we live in. I wish I had the answers!
Quite right - and the same could be said for the Catholic Orthodox divide. Ask anyone and they will passionately tell you what it's all about, but it is always something quite different, and different than it was originally. I have found that sitting down with committed christians and being willing to dream or even imagine a future together is a good start.
I just did - must have pressed publish just before - I was listening to an Anglican Bishop who had entered full communion, and he had an interesting thought which he attributed to an anglican poet - perhaps Malcolm Guite - I don't quite remember - but that there could be a trinitarian aspect to the reunited church - the Evangelicals representing the Spirit, the Anglicans the Son and the Catholics the Father. I would love to see a trinitarian reunification in which uniformity did not destroy the parts and the parts did not break the unity...
A beautiful thought! But I think it should also be said that everything good, true, and beautiful in Anglicanism or Evangelicalism already exists within full communion with the Catholic Church. The Church is already universal, though of course we should continue to push her toward fuller catholicity. It's an already-but-not-yet.
In any case, the shortest and safest path to Christian unity is for individuals to bring themselves and their unique gifts into full communion with the bishop of Rome.
I do, of course, fundamentally agree, as I am a Catholic Priest. So perhaps I was not clear enough. What I would love to see would be each tradition preserve its essence, but that all are united in the One Church. And here I think there is a need for more diversity. As Benedict has pointed out, in her search for unity the Church in the West has at times fallen into pathological uniformity…
I’m sorry it was kind of a throw-away comment. There is a story (I’m not sure if it’s true or apocryphal) going around some years ago about a priest who was leaving the church. He may have been a Jesuit - known, as I assume you would know, for their rigorous intellectual training.”
His friend asked, “So are you going to be a Protestant?”
“Good Lord, no!”he exclaimed. “I may have lost my soul but I haven’t lost my mind.”
Having moved from NYC some 25 years ago into the heart of fundamentalist Christianity (we lived a mile from Bob Jones University) my sense of the Baptists in Greenville, SC was that there was really not much heart (some pretense of mind) but kind of a “thinking” with the gut.
I really didn’t mean anything profound by it; just a little dashed off comment.
Let’s see - anything serious from this? The Episcopalians, among all Protestants, seem the most serious about supporting contemplative prayer, which is my deepest interest in Christianity. As someone drawn mostly to Indian spiritual traditions, I notice that most Westerners who meditate have left Christian churches where they can’t relate to God as personal.
On the contrary, the Indian spiritual traditions has never opposed the Personal to the Impersonal, which I love. The only place in Christianity I find this kind of integration of something very close to Indian spirituality and rich devotion is in the contemplative prayer movement started by Thomas Merton. Since I miss that devotion in Western Buddhist and Hindu circles, I end up attending contemplative prayer meetings at Methodist, Baptist (really!), Episcopalian and Catholic Churches!
Sorry if this is a digression from your main theme.
I attended the first ever “Centering Prayer” mass in lower Manhattan, in 1981. I was in my first of 10 years as music director of a Spanish Catholic Church. The priest leading the mass had studied with Thomas Merton.
It began a lifelong love of the Christian contemplative tradition (Brother Lawrence, Thomas Kelly, The Sacrament of the Present Moment, the Cloud of Unknowing, Julian of Norwich, to name a few)
I’ve always had the impression that Protestant evangelicals deeply reject contemplative practices. Perhaps I’m wrong?
I do wonder if the inter spiritual movement of Father Thomas Keating and others has something we all need to take heed of - for the future of humanity, a revival of contemplative living, one which sees the uniqueness and specialness of each spiritual traditions yet sees an underlying unity (as Swami Vivekananda recommended in his 1893 address to the World Parliament of Religions) may be necessary.
For examine, I just glanced at Father Sternhagen’s latest substack post, in which he suggests we haven’t seen Jesus. But Jesus - in his uniqueness - CAN be met and seen in contemplative prayer. Do mainstream Christians not realize this? So can Gautama, Sri Krishna, Rumi, and others….. could this be the revolution we’re all waiting for?
I like this a lot - so interesting that Pope Leo just mentioned that Brother Lawrence is his favorite modern spiritual author (no one questions that its Augustine overall)
When i was in the Pentecostal/Apostolic world (i sang background vox for "prophetic and prayer cds", listening prayer was one of many trends. The speaker we had who had a real impact on me was Brad Jersak, who seems to have converted to Orthodoxy, while still holding on to his Universalism. Not sure how that will end up for him, but he made me understand the contemplative tradition much better, even if i don't hold to most of the theology he espoused at the time.
Very interesting Don. I benefited greatly by reading New Seeds of Contemplation by Merton . I would say the other tradition that combines personal and impersonal in prayer /meditation is the Carmelite tradition. Oddly enough the best contemporary book on that is by a Benedictine Monk. And the Carmelites recognized the value of this book as their Institute published it. Here is a link
Here are a few of my favorite prayers, from Mirra Alfassa:
December 5, 1912
Translated by Sri Aurobindo or revised and published under his guidance.
In Peace and Silence the Eternal manifests; allow nothing to disturb you and the Eternal will manifest; have perfect equality in face of all and the Eternal will be there.... Yes, we should not put too much intensity, too much effort into our seeking for Thee; the effort and intensity become a veil in front of Thee; we must not desire to see Thee, for that is still a mental agitation which obscures Thy Eternal Presence; it is in the most complete Peace, Serenity and Equality that all is Thou even as Thou art all, and the least vibration in this perfectly pure and calm atmosphere is an obstacle to Thy manifestation. No haste, no inquietude, no tension, Thou, nothing but Thou, without any analysis or any objectivising, and Thou art there without a possible doubt, for all becomes a Holy Peace and a Sacred Silence.
And that is better than all the meditations in the world
December 7, 1912
Translated by Sri Aurobindo or revised and published under his guidance.
Like a flame that burns in silence, like a perfume that rises straight upward without wavering, my love goes to Thee; and like the child who does not reason and has no care, I trust myself to Thee that Thy Will may be done, that Thy Light may manifest, Thy Peace radiate, Thy Love cover the world. When Thou willest I shall be in Thee, Thyself, and there shall be no more any distinction; I await that blessed hour without impatience of any kind, letting myself flow irresistibly toward it as a peaceful stream flows toward the boundless ocean.
Thy Peace is in me, and in that Peace I see Thee alone present in everything, with the calm of Eternity.
December 10, 1912
Translated by Sri Aurobindo or revised and published under his guidance.
O Supreme Master, Eternal Teacher, it has been once more granted me to verify the unequalled effectivity of a full confidence in Thy leading. Thy Light was manifested through my mouth yesterday and it met no resistance in me; the instrument was willing, supple, keen of edge.
It is Thou who art the doer in each thing and each being, and he who is near enough to Thee to see Thee in all actions without exception, will know how to transform each act into a benediction.
To abide always in Thee is the one thing that matters, always and ever more and more in Thee, beyond illusions and the deceptions of the senses, not drawing back from action, refusing it, rejecting it—a struggle useless and pernicious—but living Thee alone in the act whatever it may be, ever and always Thee; then the illusion is dispelled, the falsehoods of the senses vanish, the bond of consequences is broken, all is transformed into a manifestation of the glory of Thy Eternal Presence.
So let it be. Amen.
and finally, this one:
MIrra originally wrote this prayer in English and then translated it into French the following day. Later Sri Aurobindo translated the French version into English.
O Thou whom at first sight I knew for the Lord of my being and my God, receive my offering.
Thine are all my thoughts, all my emotions, all the sentiments of my heart, all my sensations, all the movements of my life, each cell of my body, each drop of my blood. I am absolutely and altogether Thine, Thine without reserve. What Thou wilt of me, that I shall be. Whether Thou choosest for me life or death, happiness or sorrow, pleasure or suffering, all that comes to me from Thee will be welcome. Each one of Thy gifts will be always for me a gift divine bringing with it the supreme Felicity.
This point often goes unmade in online apologetics, but I converted from non-denom because in Catholicism I found what was truly the most catholic (Austin recently used the term "capacious") worldview on offer. After 14 years as a practicing Catholic, I can absolutely confirm Chesterton's observation that the Catholic Church is far larger from the inside than it is from the outside. All of what is true in Protestantism is contained in Catholicism, alongside all other truths. Fundamentally, Catholic epistemology rings true because, over the past 2,000 years, it has taken in every aspect of natural and revealed truth and integrated it into a coherent narrative, all under the lordship of the Divine Logos. I wouldn't trade this gift for anything.
I’m a former Southern Baptist raised by a Northern mother who revered the Moody Bible Institute. I’ve been an Episcopalian for 40 years and am on a path to ordination to the priesthood. I so appreciate your views and your assessments of what is drawing young Evangelicals towards the ancient liturgical traditions. When I read your thoughts around Moody students observing Morning and Evening Prayer I literally gasped. How wonderful it would be if we could build these kinds of bridges between the traditions, all of which hold truths, but none of which hold all the truth.
I think that if you really get to know Catholicism, you'll see that it does hold all the truth. Everything that is good, true, and beautiful in the Protestant and Orthodox traditions can be found in Catholicism.
As an adult convert to Catholicism I think the Real Presence is the absolute clincher. Ofc I believe it is real but I think it's extremely difficult to dispute the historicity of that belief going back to the earliest church traditions. Once I started learning about it I knew I could never believe anything else
Thank you Kelly. I was a lifelong Evangelical and became EO as an adult. I try not to bag on Evangelicals as I'm grateful for my upbringing. I also deeply appreciate my RC brothers and sisters. Your comment is spot on . The centrality of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, was central to all Christians for 1,500 years. Martin Luther believed that to his dying day (he famously debated Zwingli on this issue). Again, thank you.
Yes! I’ve seen similar points made as shared in this post and I’m confounded because it’s so much deeper than that. Yes, Catholicism/Orthodoxy provides structure, beauty, belonging, etc., but most of all they provide the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Where else could I go? I don’t want to have my cake and eat it too, I want what’s real. I’m sorry but Evangelicalism could never offer that in the fullest sense.
AMEN! I'm so with you. My experience in life is that sadly, most people aren't willing to sacrifice in order to pursue the truth or what's real (to use your term). They would rather remain in a comfortable environment that makes them happy.
I want this, too, but I can't find it. my soul is stirred for more and it just makes me feel "picky"... but I want what's real, too—not the performance.
To recall a famous line from Jesus, “Come and see.”
I wrote one of my most important college papers on this exact topic, Luther vs Zwingli on the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. I was at John Brown University at the time. I am a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. That was one of the critical times when I realized that though I believed the evangelical protestant bible only paradigm, I found my own group refusing to face Scripture objectively for fear of having to admit that traditional historical positions were more biblical. I changed my mind not for history, not for the democratic view of the majority of ancients. I changed it because the Bible teaches the divine presence plainly. I discovered the Bible's plain teaching, the teachings of Christ and Paul, through the staunch dogma of Luther due to the discipline of church history. I believe people leave evangelicalism for RC and EO because they are looking for a place they can land without being ostracized and don't find one. When they realize that, they begin to ask what the benefit of being protestant is. I am firmly not RC or EO for different reasons.
Slippery slope, indeed. I’ll be confirmed this Easter vigil.
The Real Presence brought me into the Catholic Church, as well!
I've seen the Eucharistic miracle in O Cebreiro Spain and I was within inches of the Eucharistic miracle in Santarém Portugal. Oh, is it ever real! If this doesn't make you Catholic, nothing will.
Hello Kelly Garrison, my question would be - and I hope you can hear this as a genuine inquiry - what difference does the Real Presence make on the life of the believer? I ask because of the basic observations I make of my Catholic and Evangelical friends and family. Some are RC and they have little fruit in their life. Some are Evangelical and they have little fruit in their life. Some are RC and they have much fruit in their life. Some are Evangelical and they have much fruit in their life. Hope that makes sense as something I’m trying to process.
John 6:54-56:
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will ponder this.
I appreciate the way you broke this down. I’m not a kid (definitely not in Gen Z at almost 40!) but I find myself in this exact stage of being attracted to the Orthodox Church. The historical and traditional richness is enticing. The Divine Liturgy seems foreign yet biblical (I haven’t attended yet). Maybe there’s a way to bridge the chasm?
Glad this resonated with you. Is the chasm you're looking to bridge Protestantism and Orthodoxy? If so, it's an interesting idea. I've seen a few Episcopal churches, for instance, that use the Byzantine rite which is a fascinating combination to me.
My apologies about my question. Maybe it comes from being a cradle Catholic. Is what you know about the faith about all the exteriors? Is it about in the end the spectacle of liturgy? To borrow from Aristotle, the liturgy is just an expression of a form. Catholicism has many liturgies, including Byzantine. (That's why we are not all Roman Catholics, there are Marion Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, etc.) The Catholic faith also has Anglican liturgy through the Ordinariate. But they are all accidents, not the substance of that form. Is there ever a pursuit of truth here, that's worthy of a high cost? I sincerely hope why Gen Z Evangelicals are abandoning ship is not for the smells and bells, but the truth and the love of God. The liturgy only takes people so far, if that's all they love.
If something is not true it isn’t going to be worth the cost of discipleship. My overriding question along my way has always been is this true? If something is true it’s from Jesus and if not it isn’t.
Yeah, there’s a lot that I resonate with in the Orthodox Church structure and theology that I think resists the current progress and liberalism of society. Maybe romanticism and idealism so I’m trying to take my time studying it and visiting it soon
By all means take your time, but don't fall in love with the liturgy. It's about truth. It was always about truth. The Orthodox are our brothers in Christ, but they don't have Peter, the rock of Christ. They don't have the fullness of truth. Don't be scared of Catholicism because the Orthodox are the safe choice in Protestant America in 2026.
I don’t think it’s kind to call us the safe choice. It has felt anything but safe to have much of my world turned completely turned upside down due to becoming Orthodox. It would have been much, MUCH easier to become Catholic in Midwest America! Let us seek Christ together without resorting to being demeaning. Much love!
If your family and/or social circle is either actively or culturally Protestant, Orthodoxy is 100% the safe social choice, comparatively. It's not about numbers of parishes. Protestantism by dogma can only agree on being Not Catholic. There can be a very steep cost involved even in 2026 with a conversion to Catholicism. Living in the some areas of the mid-West can dampen that effect, but it just depends.
Thanks for the thoughts and encouragement
I agree, sometimes it seems (to me) that rejecting the Barque of Peter, but embracing Orthodoxy is done more out of pride than reason- in the ilk of "anything but the Catholic Church" protestant mentality. (Again, my opinion).
These sentiments I would at least suspect of being accurate but here’s my experience. Within Catholicism is the idea of continuing conversion. Like peeling an onion there are layers and layers so Orthodoxy is very often a stage on the journey not the destination.
In my case it took me 35 years to get from the Catholic baptismal font as a baby to hedonism to practicing Evangelical and back to Catholicism. I think I grew at each step and gained all that is good within each except hedonism of course.
In my opinion, this is why the church has opted for referring to Protestants as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. If God works through constant conversion, then the issue is one of willingness and cooperation with where God takes you. I went from Episcopal to Baptist to Catholic. I never agreed with the Baptists, but I learned a great deal about authority and trust and obedience in a very internal way while I was there, and those were all things I needed in order to be Catholic.
Welcome home!
I attended an Episcopal church for 25 years that intentionally borrowed much from the Eastern rite. A powerful liturgical experience
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy. ☦️ converted with my family 3 years ago and our lives as a family have been transformed. I can’t even imagine being not being orthodox now, so thankful the Lord brought us here, to himself within the Orthodox Church. Blessings on your journey!
Amen! 🙏
This is similar to the reasons why my husband became disenchanted with evangelicalism. He started to look into Lutheranism and Catholicism in response. On the other side of our marriage, I had become agnostic and then was dabbling in neopaganism. Strangely (and mercifully!), Orthodoxy was the only option we could agree on once our first children led us to try going to church again.
We were able to visit a Western Rite church, which is a Western expression of the Orthodox Church (at opposed to Russian, Greek, etc.) I would recommend this flavor of Orthodoxy especially to anyone having trouble with the foreignness of the aesthetics of EO.
Thanks so much for sharing your journey
Just a thought on this from the other side of the Tiber (Catholic). I've seen some traditional Anglicans (or "Anglo-Catholics") argue that they should be considered the same sort of church as the Orthodox and be in communion with them. That might be a "bridge"...? Sort of?
There's also Catholic churches out there that seem rather Evangelical-- there's a parish in Maryland that presents itself and runs a lot like a typical non-denom mega church. I do think there's room for liturgical tradition and protestant culture to meet in interesting ways.
For whatever that's worth. ((shrug))
https://www.churchnativity.com/
I actually made a video at that church! I live nearby. Fascinating place.
It’s worth a lot…thanks for replying and sharing!
As a recent Catholic convert, I really do believe there’s a way to bridge the chasm. I wrestled with that same tension for years. What changed things for me was choosing to learn Catholic theology on its own terms (by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church) instead of through what I’d been taught about it (from Evangelical pastors and authors). I was genuinely surprised by how deeply scriptural and coherent it is.
I realized most of my assumptions had come secondhand from Protestant sources, and the bias there is stronger than we often realize. Reading the Catechism for myself was a turning point.
If you’re feeling that pull, I’d encourage you to explore it firsthand. I’ve just started writing on Substack about my journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism- I’d love for you to read along if you’re curious.
So good! I’ve actually been doing just that
I think what Orthodoxy offers and the author missed is a spiritual life that recognizes the mystical reality of the world we live in. You can only get that with Orthodoxy. (I’m a convert myself—albeit from Catholicism.)
I just finished divine liturgy this morning as an adult convert and I get what gou mean.
For example, if you read the Liturgy of St John Chrystosom, (Especially the Anaphora), much of the text is taken from/refences the gospel.
As an example, what the Priest/Bishop Chants during the Fraction of the Newly Consecrated Eucharist (before the distribution).
"Holy Things are for the Holy"
Or as another example, The Great Prokeminon that is chaned during the Presanctified Liturgy of St Gregory the Great, is Usually Psalm 140 (Or 141 of you are using Masoretic Bibles like KJV), and Verse 2 is the refrain, reading
"Let My Prayer Arise in thy Sight as Incense, and Let the Lifting up of My Hands, be an Evening Sacrifice"
Here's an example of it being chanted
https://youtu.be/YMsuYkzEE4o
That’s Rev 8:4. 😇. Oops my bad. Rev 4 says “ the incense rising aloft was the prayer of God’s people on earth.” Same idea different verbage. 😇
Come visit an Orthodox Church. During Lent there are many services to choose from.
I’m planning to and can’t wait!
It's extremely biblical .....check it out
https://youtu.be/WXHOzp1WBTk?si=rnzYcyOF223-gGVv
Amen 🙏
I’m planning multiple visits during Lent
I appreciate this reflection, as a catholic missionary in a secular college in Washington, the Gen Z is turning Catholic/Orthodox is far from the truth. Instead going out to find the one lost sheep, it feels as though we are going to look for the 99. On campus, there is a healthy dialogue with our Protestant brother and sisters to present the Gospel and to form disciples, showing unity where it matters most. The reasons you said above are the ultimate reasons people choose Catholicism, they feel as though they are not in continuity to historical Christians. Young people want to be connected to their ancestors as they are with their peers.
I always appreciate your work, it has helped me be more ecumenical on campus with the other churches.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I’m so glad my work has been helpful for you! May God bless you in your ministry.
I’ve just arrived at this place:
There are Catholics and EO who follow Jesus, and there are “evangelicals” that follow Jesus. There is beauty in honoring the Church Fathers and Mothers who were our forbears. There is foolishness in pretending “everything prior to the Reformation was wrong.” There is room in the body for its diverse and beautiful expressions without the awful pendulum swing that animates much of history.
In this world, we are all wayfaring pilgrims. We can learn from each other. It is okay.
This seems like a wise perspective to me
I don’t think it is possible to follow Jesus in a church that doesn’t confess a real Eucharist. Jesus told us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no life in us.
I understand where you’re coming from. I guess for me, I always think back to the experience of someone who was tortured for his testimony of Jesus, Richard Wurmbrand. He said that in prison, there are no Catholics or Protestants, but only those who follow Christ. Our distinctive differences are beautiful and diverse, but at the end of the day, when the body of Christ is persecuted, we suffer as one body. Jesus said that there will be one flock and one Shepherd. We are united by and through Jesus, only. He is what we hold in common. May we all be found as One as Jesus and the Father are One.
I also see where you are coming from. Indeed, in times of great suffering it appears that Christ is moved to provide extraordinary grace. The thief suffering next to him on the cross was promised paradise. The Holy Spirit is not constrained by any institutions or rules.
At the same time, I believe in our daily lives that Jesus gave us a template for how to live, and how to be united with him. And that includes Baptism, through which Paul tells us we are united to Jesus' death and resurrection. And that includes Eucharist, where we physically take Christ's body and blood into our own. In such practices there is a deifying grace that enters the life of a Christian.
Christ tells us if we do not eat his body and drink his blood, we have no life in us. This is a command for how we ought to live in ordinary practice. At the same time, we know that he visits those in prison and facing death and gives them his life.
I think that Christians should humbly follow the teachings and practices of Jesus and his apostles, and not demand exceptional grace. We glorify him for his great mercy toward the ignorant or disobedient, and at the same time we show him our love through our obedience to the instructions he gave us for our benefit.
There are Christian groups that reject the practices Christ taught and his disciples followed. I pray that He show them mercy. But as for me, I am going to try to follow the Way he taught.
I definitely believe we should celebrate communion whenever the body of Christ is together, in remembrance of Him. Grace and peace to you.
This article keeps trying to turn Catholicism into an aesthetic upgrade, a lifestyle choice or mood. An aesthetic upgrade. A way to get “structure" or “grounding" and some medieval atmosphere with incense because guitars feel shallow. You're wrong. People become Catholic because Christ founded a Church with authority, sacraments, and continuity, and once you see that, there's no going back. Reducing conversion to “smells and bells,” “sacramental vibes,” or “historical depth” is psychological cope. It’s displacement. When a worldview is threatened, you reframe the attraction as emotional or cultural so you don’t have to deal with the real question.Are Catholic claims true??? Did Christ establish a Church that has authority over me?That’s the question this article keeps dodging. You say “You don’t have to abandon Protestantism if you’re drawn toward sacramental worship.”False. Flatly false.
Sacramental theology is not modular. You cannot bolt Catholic sacramentality onto Protestant ecclesiology like an aftermarket upgrade. Sacraments require apostolic authority, priesthood, valid orders and ontological mediation. Protestantism denies these at the root. By definition. So when a Protestant discovers sacramental reality, they are not discovering an optional style. They are discovering that their theological house has no plumbing. No pipes. No infrastructure for what the sacraments actually are. You don’t “add” Catholicism to Protestantism. Catholicism replaces the framework that made Protestantism possible.And then we get the “Evangelical Brain Drain” framing. That’s a defensive story. It treats this like a competition of talent pools. Like Catholicism is siphoning off the smart kids.
No.What’s happening is not sociological. It’s structural. People are discovering Protestantism cannot ground authority, unity, sacramentality and continuity. And intelligent people feel structural fractures first. Not because they’re superior. But because they touch the load bearing beams before the walls fall. This isn’t elitism it's more like early detection.
As a Catholic, I'd like to ask you to elaborate on what you have in mind by "ontological mediation." Are you referring to the priesthood, or something broader, and in either case, can you explain?
In Catholic theology grace comes through things that Christ has actually changed in their being ( especially the priesthood which is changed by ordination to act in the person of Christ). Protestants replace this sacramental reality with a system based on declaration alone where grace is announced and received by faith but not given through anything that has been objectively changed by God. That’s why Catholic sacraments truly transmit grace while Protestant “sacraments” can only function as symbols.
That's great: I learned something today! 👍🏻🙏🏻 Thank you!
Glad you are thinking about this issue, and I certainly benefited from these reflections. At my parish (just down the street from Moody), we've had several of their undergrads end up becoming Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church. I wonder if there isn't something particular about this kind of spiritual journey from Moody to a Mainline parish where a thick relationship to the past is sought? You seem to hint at this. It is not just that the introduction to the fathers, the liturgy, and the sacraments are intoxicating—certainly this! As it should be! But also, as Kathryn Tanner said in her Costan Lectures and as people like Bulgakov and Aristotle Papanikolaou have also pointed out, one discovers in the fathers a remarkable freedom and inventiveness and willingness to press questions into unfamiliar territory—a freedom that is in no way in contradiction with the dogmatic inheritance of the Church but fueled and enabled by it. This type of discovery of the fathers seems distinct from one where people find in the fathers a bastion against a confused modernity. It is the difference between ressourcement and repetition, perhaps. Which is not to deny that the Church needs people who take the latter course. They will perhaps ensure that the ressourcement people keep their feet on earth.
These are tremendous additions to the conversations, and I'm delighted to hear that Moody students are finding their way to your parish. The distinction you make between freedom and inventiveness in the Fathers versus a bastion against a confused modernity is absolutely wonderful. It's one I've felt deeply. In part, I think that's what has led me to the Episcopal Church. As someone who's deeply indebted to the Fathers, I appreciate the flexibility in the Anglican tradition (though admittedly at times I'd like a little more emphasis on "in no way in contradiction with the dogmatic inheritance of the church"). As you say, perhaps we need both types of people.
Yes, I sense we are after the same thing. It is very difficult to achieve. We will need prayer and much forgiveness.
I have read that no doctrines are defined till violated which forces deeper thinking and insights to ferret out truth. I always thought Origen was short changed because he had some erroneous views. H didn’t have the centuries of doctrinal development we now have.
The divergence of brain and heart in American Christianity struck a chord.
I’ve been reflecting on that phenomenon lately as I watch my historically Anabaptist hometown church in Kansas take on a non-denom veneer to attract younger families, while the CRC church I attend in Western NY during my undergraduate tenure looses quite a few regulars for sticking to the decisions of Synod to reinforce their (conservative) confessional identity.
There is a deep fracturing of shared meaning and purpose in society right now, and our communities of faith are taking the brunt of it.
That last line is so poignant. These are difficult times for the church!
I went to a Baptist Bible school and became Catholic. My interest in bookish theology promptly tanked and I have become more interested in praying, participating in the church, and also became more obedient to my Pastors and God. Protestantism especially Baptist/Evangelicals could not give me any answers for theological questions and their disdain for grounded, physical expressions of faith made me feel disconnected from God. The lack of history and butchering of the Church Fathers (we had a whole class on them) gave me further catalyst to leave. Also the Eucharist as the Roman Catholic's teach it, is the most literal way to take Christ's words so my Baptist hermeneutics class is also to blame I guess.
In a time of rapid change, and with our (speaking from the U.S.) political climate swinging wildly from left to right, I am just so very tired and would like to cling to a church that has outlived empires rather than endure a church that won’t outlive the next election cycle. I want to go to a church that proclaims “Jesus is King” and not “God wants *you* to vote for a sex offender! And if you don’t, you’re evil!”
Mark Noll was my gateway drug to church history, theology, and ultimately leading to Orthodoxy.
Noll is excellent
My husband and i were chrismated and baptized into the Orthodox church in 2020. We already had eight children and over a quarter century of marriage. We'd attended "whichever church seemed to love Jesus the most". But when we found Orthodoxy, time stood still. I loved Jesus when he was a caricature in a Chick tract, but i always knew there had to be more. And now i have it - the "more". And i will probably not have time in the years left to me to learn all i could have learned and put into practice in all those decades.
I had one of my good friends at our Orthodox parish tell me, in response to my not understanding the Horologian we were working with, "Relax. It will take you at least ten years to become fully Orthodox."
I think it’s a little unfair to lump the RC and the EO together, but I understand why you did it. Protestantism arose out of a desperate need for reform of the RC, not the EO. If the RC had never split off from the rest of the Christian world in 1054, it is unlikely that the Protestant Reformation would have occurred because it would have been unnecessary. After the RC split from the eastern church it spent the next few centuries going off the rails because it had no check from the rest of the church. It did whatever it wanted and that led to disaster. Furthermore, the RC made an all out effort, quite successfully, to erase pre-schism history so that its members would know nothing about the eastern church, and thus would not ask difficult questions like the ones being asked now, now that the eastern church has finally begun to overcome that erasure in the West.
I would recommend that rather than attempting to stem the tide of young Evangelicals gravitating towards the RC and EO churches, we all acknowledge first and foremost that we are all Christian brothers in Christ and that our only real differences lie in our theology. Hopefully we are all seeking the Truth above all, because our God is Truth. Satan is the Deceiver who seeks to divide and conquer. Nothing false has ever come from our God. Nothing true has ever come from Satan. If Protestantism is the ultimate theological truth, then it will eventually win out. If not, then may it gracefully submit to the truth and let whatever happens, happen.
I’m not here to advocate for Orthodoxy, although I am Orthodox. Each one of us has to come to it on his own. I love all of my Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of their theology and I hope to know them all one day in Heaven.
I totally support the approach of first and foremost recognizing we're all Christians. Amen! In fact, that's a large reason why I'm not all that interested in being a Protestant apologist. As far as lumping them together, that's probably a fair critique as well. In this case, they were simply lumped together because that was the context in which the request was being made of me (i.e., help us understand why students are interested in these traditions).
Thanks for the thoughtful contributions to the conversation!
It is true that the Soviet Union made communication with the eastern church very difficult, but not all of the eastern church was behind the Iron Curtain. Regarding language barriers, those have existed from time immemorial and exist to this day and they have never really been a problem, even within the eastern church, which represents many different nations with many different languages.
Here is a brief AI-generated summary of the beginning of the erasure:
The Fourth Crusade, originally intended to recapture Jerusalem from Muslim control, ended in the sack of Constantinople in April 1204—a catastrophic betrayal of Christian unity. Driven by financial debts to the Republic of Venice and political intrigue, the Crusaders diverted from their goal, besieging and capturing the Byzantine capital. After the fall, the city was looted for three days, with churches, monasteries, and palaces desecrated and destroyed. Hagia Sophia was stripped of its treasures, and a prostitute was said to have danced on its altar. The Latin Empire of Constantinople was established, with Baldwin of Flanders crowned emperor, while Venice gained significant territorial and economic control.
The sack devastated the Byzantine Empire, which never fully recovered. It led to the fragmentation of Byzantine territories into successor states like Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus, and deepened the East–West Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The event is widely regarded as a turning point in medieval history—accelerating the decline of Byzantium and paving the way for the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Pope John Paul II expressed sorrow for the event in 2001 and 2004, acknowledging the pain it caused the Orthodox world.
I haven’t verified all of this, but it is pretty much in line with everything else I’ve read about the Fourth Crusade. The Soviets didn’t take over Russia until the 20th century, giving the West plenty of time to acknowledge the eastern church, but since the schism, the RC had no reason to do so. The RC and the EO had excommunicated each other. The fact that so few westerners know what the OC is or anything at all beyond the seven Ecumenical Councils, even now, is a pretty solid piece of evidence that the RC, at a minimum, ignored the existence of the eastern church to the point where it is only now starting to become known by a few in the west.
I’ll concede that maybe the word “erase” is a little too strong, but I haven’t read a whole lot about this topic, yet. I’ll just point out that the RC had no motivation to promote the existence of the OC, which was maybe all it needed to do for it to be forgotten in the west.
I thought that Western ignorance of the Eastern Church stemmed chiefly from speaking different languages and being located on other sides of the world in a milieu where travel was much more difficult and communication all the more difficult, or am I missing evidence of a deliberate campaign to knowingly erase pre-schism history?
This article, and your other articles, and all the very measured and thoughtful comments here from committed Christians always makes me ask - what can we do to end the protest? To be one as Christ and the Father are, and as Christ prayed? Why can’t these excellent Christians at Moody teach the bible excellently and have the richness of the full Christian tradition? In your previous article you mentioned the strict doctrinal statement that Moody students had to sign and support that seemed to me more than anything else an anti Catholic / Orthodox prophylactic, and perhaps they need look no further than that to understand how their own prohibitions are creating what they seek to abjure. I would love to see a Church in which there is a place for every orthodox (small o) Christian and we don’t have to retreat to our militarized theological camps. The sin of our age, and I speak firstly of myself, is pride.
"I would love to see a Church in which there is a place for every orthodox (small o) Christian and we don’t have to retreat to our militarized theological camps." Yes and amen!
Figuring out how to pull this off is difficult (but a worthy task!). I think what makes it so difficult is that it seems like a moving target. The reasons for the continued divisions keep morphing and changing. It seems wild that Lutherans and Catholics could agree on Justification and that do nothing to heal the schism, but that's the world we live in. I wish I had the answers!
Quite right - and the same could be said for the Catholic Orthodox divide. Ask anyone and they will passionately tell you what it's all about, but it is always something quite different, and different than it was originally. I have found that sitting down with committed christians and being willing to dream or even imagine a future together is a good start.
I wonder if the non denominational churches are neither the head nor heart but the gut.....
What an excellent thought - and as it happens - a human needs all three!
If you saw my elaboration at Austin’s request, I hope it wasn’t too far from your comment!!!
I just did - must have pressed publish just before - I was listening to an Anglican Bishop who had entered full communion, and he had an interesting thought which he attributed to an anglican poet - perhaps Malcolm Guite - I don't quite remember - but that there could be a trinitarian aspect to the reunited church - the Evangelicals representing the Spirit, the Anglicans the Son and the Catholics the Father. I would love to see a trinitarian reunification in which uniformity did not destroy the parts and the parts did not break the unity...
A beautiful thought! But I think it should also be said that everything good, true, and beautiful in Anglicanism or Evangelicalism already exists within full communion with the Catholic Church. The Church is already universal, though of course we should continue to push her toward fuller catholicity. It's an already-but-not-yet.
In any case, the shortest and safest path to Christian unity is for individuals to bring themselves and their unique gifts into full communion with the bishop of Rome.
I do, of course, fundamentally agree, as I am a Catholic Priest. So perhaps I was not clear enough. What I would love to see would be each tradition preserve its essence, but that all are united in the One Church. And here I think there is a need for more diversity. As Benedict has pointed out, in her search for unity the Church in the West has at times fallen into pathological uniformity…
Agreed! And nice to find you here, Father Dominic. I'm the guy in South Jordan who gave you a couch that one time. Hope you're well!
What a wonderful vision!
I'm intrigued! Say more
I’m sorry it was kind of a throw-away comment. There is a story (I’m not sure if it’s true or apocryphal) going around some years ago about a priest who was leaving the church. He may have been a Jesuit - known, as I assume you would know, for their rigorous intellectual training.”
His friend asked, “So are you going to be a Protestant?”
“Good Lord, no!”he exclaimed. “I may have lost my soul but I haven’t lost my mind.”
Having moved from NYC some 25 years ago into the heart of fundamentalist Christianity (we lived a mile from Bob Jones University) my sense of the Baptists in Greenville, SC was that there was really not much heart (some pretense of mind) but kind of a “thinking” with the gut.
I really didn’t mean anything profound by it; just a little dashed off comment.
Let’s see - anything serious from this? The Episcopalians, among all Protestants, seem the most serious about supporting contemplative prayer, which is my deepest interest in Christianity. As someone drawn mostly to Indian spiritual traditions, I notice that most Westerners who meditate have left Christian churches where they can’t relate to God as personal.
On the contrary, the Indian spiritual traditions has never opposed the Personal to the Impersonal, which I love. The only place in Christianity I find this kind of integration of something very close to Indian spirituality and rich devotion is in the contemplative prayer movement started by Thomas Merton. Since I miss that devotion in Western Buddhist and Hindu circles, I end up attending contemplative prayer meetings at Methodist, Baptist (really!), Episcopalian and Catholic Churches!
Sorry if this is a digression from your main theme.
This was wonderful! I really appreciate you expanding on this. Very good food for thought
Well,then, I do have a follow up question.
I attended the first ever “Centering Prayer” mass in lower Manhattan, in 1981. I was in my first of 10 years as music director of a Spanish Catholic Church. The priest leading the mass had studied with Thomas Merton.
It began a lifelong love of the Christian contemplative tradition (Brother Lawrence, Thomas Kelly, The Sacrament of the Present Moment, the Cloud of Unknowing, Julian of Norwich, to name a few)
I’ve always had the impression that Protestant evangelicals deeply reject contemplative practices. Perhaps I’m wrong?
I do wonder if the inter spiritual movement of Father Thomas Keating and others has something we all need to take heed of - for the future of humanity, a revival of contemplative living, one which sees the uniqueness and specialness of each spiritual traditions yet sees an underlying unity (as Swami Vivekananda recommended in his 1893 address to the World Parliament of Religions) may be necessary.
For examine, I just glanced at Father Sternhagen’s latest substack post, in which he suggests we haven’t seen Jesus. But Jesus - in his uniqueness - CAN be met and seen in contemplative prayer. Do mainstream Christians not realize this? So can Gautama, Sri Krishna, Rumi, and others….. could this be the revolution we’re all waiting for?
I like this a lot - so interesting that Pope Leo just mentioned that Brother Lawrence is his favorite modern spiritual author (no one questions that its Augustine overall)
When i was in the Pentecostal/Apostolic world (i sang background vox for "prophetic and prayer cds", listening prayer was one of many trends. The speaker we had who had a real impact on me was Brad Jersak, who seems to have converted to Orthodoxy, while still holding on to his Universalism. Not sure how that will end up for him, but he made me understand the contemplative tradition much better, even if i don't hold to most of the theology he espoused at the time.
Very interesting Don. I benefited greatly by reading New Seeds of Contemplation by Merton . I would say the other tradition that combines personal and impersonal in prayer /meditation is the Carmelite tradition. Oddly enough the best contemporary book on that is by a Benedictine Monk. And the Carmelites recognized the value of this book as their Institute published it. Here is a link
https://a.co/d/4UMldWl
Fascinating. Will look into it.
Thank you for this!
Here are a few of my favorite prayers, from Mirra Alfassa:
December 5, 1912
Translated by Sri Aurobindo or revised and published under his guidance.
In Peace and Silence the Eternal manifests; allow nothing to disturb you and the Eternal will manifest; have perfect equality in face of all and the Eternal will be there.... Yes, we should not put too much intensity, too much effort into our seeking for Thee; the effort and intensity become a veil in front of Thee; we must not desire to see Thee, for that is still a mental agitation which obscures Thy Eternal Presence; it is in the most complete Peace, Serenity and Equality that all is Thou even as Thou art all, and the least vibration in this perfectly pure and calm atmosphere is an obstacle to Thy manifestation. No haste, no inquietude, no tension, Thou, nothing but Thou, without any analysis or any objectivising, and Thou art there without a possible doubt, for all becomes a Holy Peace and a Sacred Silence.
And that is better than all the meditations in the world
December 7, 1912
Translated by Sri Aurobindo or revised and published under his guidance.
Like a flame that burns in silence, like a perfume that rises straight upward without wavering, my love goes to Thee; and like the child who does not reason and has no care, I trust myself to Thee that Thy Will may be done, that Thy Light may manifest, Thy Peace radiate, Thy Love cover the world. When Thou willest I shall be in Thee, Thyself, and there shall be no more any distinction; I await that blessed hour without impatience of any kind, letting myself flow irresistibly toward it as a peaceful stream flows toward the boundless ocean.
Thy Peace is in me, and in that Peace I see Thee alone present in everything, with the calm of Eternity.
December 10, 1912
Translated by Sri Aurobindo or revised and published under his guidance.
O Supreme Master, Eternal Teacher, it has been once more granted me to verify the unequalled effectivity of a full confidence in Thy leading. Thy Light was manifested through my mouth yesterday and it met no resistance in me; the instrument was willing, supple, keen of edge.
It is Thou who art the doer in each thing and each being, and he who is near enough to Thee to see Thee in all actions without exception, will know how to transform each act into a benediction.
To abide always in Thee is the one thing that matters, always and ever more and more in Thee, beyond illusions and the deceptions of the senses, not drawing back from action, refusing it, rejecting it—a struggle useless and pernicious—but living Thee alone in the act whatever it may be, ever and always Thee; then the illusion is dispelled, the falsehoods of the senses vanish, the bond of consequences is broken, all is transformed into a manifestation of the glory of Thy Eternal Presence.
So let it be. Amen.
and finally, this one:
MIrra originally wrote this prayer in English and then translated it into French the following day. Later Sri Aurobindo translated the French version into English.
O Thou whom at first sight I knew for the Lord of my being and my God, receive my offering.
Thine are all my thoughts, all my emotions, all the sentiments of my heart, all my sensations, all the movements of my life, each cell of my body, each drop of my blood. I am absolutely and altogether Thine, Thine without reserve. What Thou wilt of me, that I shall be. Whether Thou choosest for me life or death, happiness or sorrow, pleasure or suffering, all that comes to me from Thee will be welcome. Each one of Thy gifts will be always for me a gift divine bringing with it the supreme Felicity.
13 January 1932
This point often goes unmade in online apologetics, but I converted from non-denom because in Catholicism I found what was truly the most catholic (Austin recently used the term "capacious") worldview on offer. After 14 years as a practicing Catholic, I can absolutely confirm Chesterton's observation that the Catholic Church is far larger from the inside than it is from the outside. All of what is true in Protestantism is contained in Catholicism, alongside all other truths. Fundamentally, Catholic epistemology rings true because, over the past 2,000 years, it has taken in every aspect of natural and revealed truth and integrated it into a coherent narrative, all under the lordship of the Divine Logos. I wouldn't trade this gift for anything.
I’m a former Southern Baptist raised by a Northern mother who revered the Moody Bible Institute. I’ve been an Episcopalian for 40 years and am on a path to ordination to the priesthood. I so appreciate your views and your assessments of what is drawing young Evangelicals towards the ancient liturgical traditions. When I read your thoughts around Moody students observing Morning and Evening Prayer I literally gasped. How wonderful it would be if we could build these kinds of bridges between the traditions, all of which hold truths, but none of which hold all the truth.
I think that if you really get to know Catholicism, you'll see that it does hold all the truth. Everything that is good, true, and beautiful in the Protestant and Orthodox traditions can be found in Catholicism.