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.”
The response of Gillquist is markedly different. He feels that being within the Orthodox Church will first of all aid in helping the Orthodox reach Americans; secondly, that being in the Church gives them a better strategic position from which to affect change. Regarding a married episcopate, he stated that “if a council were held today, I would argue for it.” So it comes about that the EOC has gone two separate ways, travelling two separate paths.
Despite the problems noted here, it should be borne in mind that for both Gillquist and Jensen, Eastern Orthodoxy became the most attractive option of all. Gillquist has joined officially; Jensen hopes to enter into communion with the Orthodox in the future. The problems are certainly recognized by important leaders within the various Orthodox bodies themselves. But both Jensen and Gillquist hope to have some influence using different approaches.
The challenge of the new EOC is a stiff challenge to the Orthodox churches only theoretically, for the twelve hundred EOC people would not seem to exert a very significant pressure on the canonical Orthodox. But the feelings run deep. So strongly does Jensen feel about the “Byzantine captivity” of the Orthodox that he likens the constraints that would be placed upon them as converts to Orthodoxy to a “neo-Judaizing” position. The EOC claims to have long since embraced Orthodoxy as a faith, a “conversion” which was not the result of the presence and witness of the Orthodox in the West, but rather the result of reading the Fathers—“We were evangelized by. . . St. Clement, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius. . .,” he writes. In 1980, the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, returning from a visit with EOC bishops, remarked, “They are. . .orthodox, but they don’t know it yet.”
When all is said and done, however, their reluctance to join must hinge on differing views of apostolic succession and ministry. Many view the union of the EOC with the Antiochan body in terms of entering under the historic episcopate, a type of “pipeline theory,” as described by Jensen, in which true Church is defined by its objective succession back to the first century. But Jensen sees the EOC as a ministry which rose up by divine grace outside of this succession. Paul’s commissioning by Christ apart from the Twelve is cited as an example of this possibility. Jensen points out that the EOC arose outside of “canonical orthodoxy.” Fr. Gillquist corroborates this view of the EOC’s earlier existence. He writes of an “apostolic calling to go back to the Ancient Church for the patterns of the Churches we were planting.” Again, “We believe God supernaturally called us to give our lives and talents. . . .” This calling is viewed as a charism of work of the Holy Spirit: “We believe ourselves to have a Spirit-anointed apostolate as the origin of our episcopacy to serve us in this mission,” writes Jensen.
If one were to press upon Jensen the claims of the Eastern episcopate, he would likely meet with the objection that, according to Orthodox canons, there is to be one bishop in one city—hardly the case in America with its fourteen or so canonical, overlapping jurisdictions. In Common Voice, they write: “Having a bishop in every local church is not merely a novelty or a fascination with historical curiosities. It is a necessity. So, we are committed to the restoration of the episcopate.” Once again Gillquist, not surprisingly, takes a different tack. He stated his hope that “our presence will help bring this issue of jurisdictions onto the table” for discussion and remedy. No one is comfortable with the dilemma, and pressure is felt to solve it. But it may take years. Jensen, on the other hand, has an ultimate unity in mind, but on different terms. “We must work for a ‘true communion’ with the Orthodox Church, not a ‘false union’.” He has indicated a willingness, indeed a hope, to be recognized by the Orthodox, but feels it may take a long time, and he has no intention to enter simply for reasons of jursidictional integrity, especially when that integrity is not upheld by the Orthodox themselves.
We can go one step further here; at root, the issues raise the question of what constitutes true Church. The EOC/AEOM split perhaps brings some of these questions into sharper relief. It is the ecumenical question of our day. John Coventry, in his recent book Reconciling, writes, “The broadest issue is that of ecclesiology, the theology of the church, which has been the greatest focus of theological thinking in this century.” On the issue of true Church, Gillquist concurs with a maxim spoken by some in Orthodox circles: “We can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not.” The answers to these questions are important. Most responsible theologians would reject any view of apostolic succession as a mere mechanical test for “churchness.” In discussing Anglican orders, Coventry asserts that any recognition of Anglican orders by Rome “on the simple ‘pedigree’ principle. . .assumes all kinds of theological requirements for a true Christian ministry which few theologians, Catholic or Anglican, would now uphold.” These questions are large; time will divulge how we answer them.
In the meantime, Fr. Gillquist seeks to build English-speaking congregations committed to evangelism, and “help make North America Orthodox.” Bishop Jensen, too, feels the imperative to evangelize widely, serving as a bridge for Americans to Orthodoxy. Both approaches warrant our watching closely—can Eastern Orthodoxy appeal to large numbers of Western Americans? Will either one of these bodies fulfill their felt callings? At this juncture, Jensen and Gillquist are going down two different roads; perhaps those two paths will meet again.
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
30.2—March/April 2017
on Reading Don Quixote in Its Original Christian Context by Luis Cortest
32.5—September/October 2019
Some Trivial Thoughts on the Study of Philosophy by Graeme Hunter
29.2—March/April 2016
The History of Family Strength in America May Reveal Good News by Allan C. Carlson
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
