Fear of the Unknown
The title of this post seems rather ominous and almost out of place on an Orthodox blog site. Nevertheless, fear is real, and I’m not necessarily referring to the sort of fear one encounters in a horror film, or while being mugged. In both of these instances you pretty much know what’s causing your fear. I’m talking genuine fear of the unknown.
When I was in the third grade I won the class spelling bee. This meant that I was supposed to go on and compete against the other third grade classes in school, on stage in front of everyone. That was the first — and last, now that I think about it — time I suffered from stage fright. I had no previous experience that gave me good reason to not want to go on stage. In fact, I had no idea at all what it would be like. Nevertheless, I chickened out, and the person from my class who took second place went in my stead. The person didn’t do too well, and my class was none too pleased with me. I regretted it immediately. I’m pretty sure that moment helped shape me into who I am today; someone more willing to confront the fear instead of running from it, and always willing to speak publicly if called upon. That experience also allows me to recognize that same type of fear when I see others confronted with Orthodoxy.
I’ve had more than my fair share of clumsy attempts trying to explain what Orthodoxy is. For all of you who are Orthodox, you know that’s like trying to place the ocean in a bucket (if you would allow me to borrow, dear St. Augustine). Orthodoxy, for me, can best be explained as “the fullness of the Christian faith”. That’s it. Bingo. Spot-on. Can’t capture it any better. Nevertheless, regardless of how true this phrase may be, it’s pretty much impossible to use without giving off an air of “my faith is better than yours” or at least being perceived as doing such. Then one is stuck trying to give historical example after historical example of why the Early Church did what it did, while reminding folks that the Early Church was, in fact, one Church. A lot of my Protestant friends have a hard time looking at the Church through anything other than the glasses their own culture gave them. It is during these times I have to remember that I wasn’t very different before I converted to Orthodoxy.
I’m part of a young adults Bible study that’s ecumenical in its format. In fact, I’m the only Orthodox member of the group. I want to say from the beginning that this group is comprised of some people that I would categorize as unabashedly gung ho for Jesus, and love Him very, very much. Their knowledge of the Bible is impressive, and something I wish more European Orthodox would pursue. We were recently having a comparative look at the Old Testament canons of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Bibles. I was mentioning that we in Orthodoxy had a larger number of books in our canon of Old Testament (the Septuagint. Click here for the list) that we consider Scripture. I also mentioned that the Old Testament apocrypha should not be confused with the New Testament apocryphal books that are often mentioned (think Dan Brown “Da Vinci Code”-type hidden gospels), when a member of the group said that they hoped we wouldn’t be reading from any of those “extra” books in the Old Testament. I hadn’t planned on doing anything like that at all, but couldn’t help but ask “Why not?” The response was a cross between they didn’t consider them Scripture (because of their church’s tradition) and they simply didn’t want to. It was like they were afraid they would be possessed at the very reading of them. The expression on the person’s face, and the tone of voice they used reminded me very much of someone I was very familiar with: me in the third grade. The person had never read any of the books before, or at least ever admitted reading them, yet they seemed fearfully bent on avoiding reading them at all costs. The fact that Orthodoxy has been around since Christ and the Apostles didn’t seem to matter, nor did it matter that the Orthodox canon of Old Testament Scripture I was referring to is the very one that Christ and His Apostles quote in the New Testament. Then that hard, honest side of me kicked in. It was one thing to have someone who follows Christ fear of the unknown, but it was another thing altogether knowing some of my atheist friends would show more willingness to hear about the entire Old Testament canon of Orthodoxy than some Protestants I know. That was both sobering and personally jarring.
I have no happy ending or clever comeback I gave to write about. If anything I’ll close with an admission of realization. As much as I want the world to know about Orthodoxy, I realize I must be prepared for rejection not only from non-believers, but believers of other traditions inside Christianity as well. Such a thing must’ve been exactly what Sts Irenaeus and Tertullian wanted to avoid, and why they fought heresies with as much vigor as they did. I say, “Lesson learned”. I will walk more gingerly in this area. Indeed I must.
God Bless.
i’ve read most all (if not all…) of the OT apochryphal books. you are right, they are very different from (more common) NT apochrypha.
the books of NT era apochrypha are often heretical–with the exception of books like “the didiche”, “shepherd of hermas” the “epistle of barnabas”. reading the gospel of thomas, or the gospel of peter is tantamount to reading the book of mormon. these NT era books are called psuedepigripha (“fake name”. as in, thomas and peter didn’t write the books attributed to them)
thus, most protestant’s association with books outside what we recognize as Canon, reflects a (healthy) fear. they are correct to be suspicious about books they haven’t been taught about, just as you would be if a mormon asked you to read what they recognize as inspired (i, of course, see a world of difference between the books you are talking about and the book of mormon and gnostic gospels…).
many of the OT era books (and the non-psuedepigraphal NT era books) are excellent and uplifting reading. while i dont’ recognize them as being inspired (as in “God-breathed”) and worthy to be in the Canon, they are inspiring.
i would take exception to some of your description in this essay…there is very little NT quotation from apochryphal books (jude has one…paul seems to use the LXX as he quotes from the OT)…but, suffice to say, most of these books are not harmful/heretical.
so, in talking about these books, i would say it this way “did you know that for centuries many of these books have been considered Canon by a large portion of the church?” or something to that effect. then separate them from those unhealthy books…and encourage them to read good spiriutal material in the same manner as they would read lewis or tozer or someone else.
Hi Jake. Good to hear from you again, and thanks for your comments.
You are right to take exception to my description in this essay. It was not my intention to give the impression that New Testament is chocked full of quotes from the Old Testament apocryphal books, but to show that these books are very important. So important that the early Church Fathers quote from them more than a little. But here is where one of the problems lie. Trying to get folks to understand the value of history by referring to a history they have likely missed out on and have little interest in is quite frustrating.
I wasn’t smart enough to phrase how a large portion of the church views them as well as you have, but I will try and remember for the next time. My weaknesses become more and more obvious over the years thanks be to God, but through His grace I’ve learned to be glad in this as well.
My desire is for them to see the importance of these books as well as their value. The very same importance that the Church Fathers gave them. I often hear some of them mention how they are familiar with the works of some of the Church Fathers (e.g. Sts Irenaeus, Basil, Chrysostom, and others), but I can’t help but wonder how much they actually know of what they read. I believe getting them to connect the Church Fathers and the New Testament is critical both historically and spiritually. Once they allow this then they can see for themselves how the Fathers saw and explained the foretelling and the arrival of the Savior through their Scriptures of the time, the Old Testament, as you well know. However, they will also be exposed to apologetic works of the Fathers who have dealt with heresies in ways that I don’t see anyone today approaching. St. Irenaeus alone pretty much took care of the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, as well as many others in his works. But enough of my telling you what you know.
In plain speak, I simply want them to know their history and not try and reinvent what’s been so wonderfully done for them already.
reminds me of a line from a van morrison song:
“well it’s out on the highway and on with the show;
always telling people things they’re too lazy to know;
it will make you crazy, it will drive you insane;
tell me why, must i always explain”