The Evangelical Orthodox
by James M. Kushiner
On various occasions in the past few months I have been asked if I have heard of the Evangelical Orthodox Church. I have been aware of their existence from about the time they formed in 1979; I brushed up against one of their bishops in 1980 while attending a conference of the Orthodox Church in America in Detroit as an unofficial observer. Since then, theirs has been a very interesting story.
Briefly, the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) was formed by evangelicals from various backgrounds who in the mid-sixties began looking for an expression of Christian faith and worship which had deeper historical roots in the early Church. Through a prolonged period of study of the post-apostolic period and the ecumenical councils, they became convinced that the Eastern Orthodox Churches best preserved the tradition of the early Church in ecclesiology, theology, and worship. A gradual conversion took them from “low church” non-sacramental evangelicalism to a “high church” sacramental, liturgical faith. As the story has been reported, they felt compelled to enter into union with the orthodox churches and their bishops, whom they regarded as legitimate successors to the apostles and bishops of the early church. All that remained to do was to make a decision how and when to effect this union.
So, earlier this year we witnessed the EOC’s arrival in the bosom of the Antiochan (Orthodox) Archdiocese of North and South America. Christianity Today noted its historic significance—the first time ever a denomination has entered one of the Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. Again magazine, the official organ of the EOC (and now the official organ of the AEOM—the EOC’s new name, “Antiochan Evangelical Orthodox Mission”) printed a round of congratulatory letters from a wide range of ecclesiastical roosting places—from Bishop Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Church of Pittsburgh, Robert Webber (Episcopalian from Wheaton College), to Thomas Howard (author and recent convert to Roman Catholicism).
It is a newsworthy story, but some of its significance has been missed. The EOC’s joining with the Orthodox is significant—but what is truly remarkable is that a group of American evangelicals should have embraced Orthodoxy at all. This emphasis placed on the official organizational move at the expense of the revolution in religious thinking which occurred and is occurring among these American evangelical Christians is unfortunate. This reflects our preoccupation with mere organizational views of the Church. I say this to take nothing away from the move of the EOC into Antioch—I admire the journey and all that it suggests.
So, earlier this year some two thousand members of the EOC, under the leadership of Presiding Bishop Peter Gillquist entered the Orthodox church and became the AEOM. What has not been widely reported is that a sizeable group of EOC members and clergy chose not to enter into the union process. Gillquist noted in Again magazine those who had made contributions to the EOC but had “stepped aside.” Elsewhere he stated: “Besides these [who had joined the EOC along the way] there were a number of others under the leadership of Kenneth Jensen of Indianapolis, Indiana, who made significant contributions to our development and understanding of Orthodoxy, but decided not to enter canonical Orthodoxy with us.” According to Jensen, these numbered about 1,200; Gillquist puts them at 700.
My first question is whether this disagreement is just the result of the legacy of centuries of a lingering Protestantism of the EOC folks. Is this just another church split, or do the causes of the rift lie along very fragile lines of tension that exist—not in evangelicalism—but in American Eastern Orthodoxy itself?
On the surface, the impression was that it was simply a split over a single issue. I was informed by the office of the Antiochan Orthodox Christian Archdiocese that the group represented by Jensen had elected not to join because there had been “some disagreement” over the issue of married bishops. An Anglican clergyman I met recently who has been following the story gave me the same impression. The EOC had all along permitted married bishops. Since this is uncanonical in the Orthodox churches, upon entering the Antiochan jurisdiction, the Gillquist group accepted this restriction. Although they had earlier appointed their own bishops (a move which Gillquist admits was “very uncanonical”), they surrendered their claim to any episcopal titles and were first ordained to the diaconate, and then to the priesthood. Presiding Bishop Gillquist became simply the Reverend Gillquist. He assured me that, after his experience to date, he has no ambition to become a bishop: “Local pastoral ministry is quite enough.” Yet is the married episcopate the real issue? It is unlikely that anyone would have expected to retain their “episcopal” office under the new Antiochan oversight.
So, what are the real issues here? Both Gillquist and Jensen give different reasons for the falling-out, and they are issues which have deep implications both for Orthodoxy in the West and for ecumenism in general. Gillquist felt that one fear of Jensen was that entering the jurisdiction of one of the Eastern churches would serve as a limitation on their ability to “evangelize freely.” Bishop Jensen wrote of the current EOC’s reluctance to enter “under the subjugating hierarchy of some foreign ethnic jurisdiction.” Jensen feels the Orthodox Church is entrenched in what some of its own writers call a “Bzyantine captivity” regarding its canons and the related jurisdictional morass plaguing its effectiveness in the West. Gillquist stated that they would have entered Orthodoxy several years earlier had it not been for the jurisdictional confusion about which church to join.
One example of canonical disagreement? Here we can go back to the original issue of married bishops. Gillquist and Jensen appear to have similar views on this. They both feel that the times dictate a return to a more ancient practice of allowing married bishops. But their responses to this need differ markedly. In a position paper Jensen takes the Orthodox to task. He first cites the Scripture allowing for a married “episcopos” or bishop (1 Tim. 3:2). Giving a “worst case” scenario, he writes: “If the Orthodox Church is unwilling to even seriously consider the possibility of returning to a married episcopate; then it would seem that their canon of ‘economia’ [i.e., a canon which arose out of historical circumstances which are not necessarily applicable in every age] has now become the canon of ‘exactness’ [i.e., a canon whose wording and essence can be traced directly to the Holy Scriptures], and the Holy Scriptures have become inferior and to be regarded in an ‘economic’ fashion.”
Certainly the problems the EOC finds in the Orthodox go beyond the one issue of married bishops. In Common Voice, the new EOC’s newsletter, they write of the need to “allow each church body the freedom to bring forth charismatic expressions of worship during the various services of the church.” They do not feel this element of worship is welcome in the canonical Orthodox churches. The matter of duplicative, ethnic jurisdictions in the West would certainly be another concern. Jensen’s response to these problems? He writes, “In the face of being denied communion with many of our Orthodox brethren because of our canonical irregularlities, we will have to show some courage and patience. We will need to believe that to return to a ‘living tradition’ and ‘ecclesiology’ is worth being ostracized.” He further states his belief that “the Holy Spirit is using the development of Orthodox bodies such as the Evangelical Orthodox Church to stir the Church to reconsider its canonical viewpoint.”
James M. Kushiner is the Director of Publications for The Fellowship of St. James and the former Executive Editor of Touchstone.
A Journal of Mere Christianity—Delivered to Your Door
- Essays on theology, culture, and the Church
- Contributors from across the Christian traditions
Six print issues (one year) of Touchstone, plus full online access and PDF downloads for only $39.95.
Get a one-year full-access subscription to the Touchstone online archives for only $19.95.
bulk subscriptions
Order Touchstone subscriptions in bulk and save $10 per sub! Each subscription includes 6 issues of Touchstone plus full online access to touchstonemag.com—including archives, videos, and pdf downloads of recent issues for only $29.95 each! Great for churches or study groups.
Transactions will be processed on a secure server.
more on orthodox from the online archives
more from the online archives
26.5—Sept/Oct 2013
The Perils of Pragmatism in Christian Attitudes Toward the Liberal Arts by Robin Phillips
30.3—May/June 2017
on the Misuse of Property Rights to Justify Slavery & Abortion by Robert Hart
31.6—November/December 2018
Victimhood Culture Scapegoats Its Very Source by Michael P. Foley
calling all readers
Please Donate
"There are magazines worth reading but few worth saving . . . Touchstone is just such a magazine."
—Alice von Hildebrand
"Here we do not concede one square millimeter of territory to falsehood, folly, contemporary sentimentality, or fashion. We speak the truth, and let God be our judge. . . . Touchstone is the one committedly Christian conservative journal."
—Anthony Esolen, Touchstone senior editor
