What do you think?
Rate this book
Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith
This revised edition includes a new epilogue, "Coming up on Twenty-Five Years" since the entry of the Evangelical Orthodox into the Holy Orthodox Church. This is the story of a handful of courageous men and their congregations who risked stable occupations, security and the approval of life-long friends to be obedient to God's call.It is also the story of every believer who is searching for the Church. Where Christ is Lord. Where holiness, human responsibility, and the sovereignty of God are preached. Where fellowship is more than a covered-dish supper in the church basement. And where fads and fashions take a backseat to apostolic worship and doctrine.This is a book, for Orthodox Christians, looking for ways to bring new life to their own Churches. It's also a book for those completely dissatisfied--those on their own search. And it's a book for Orthodox Christians, looking for renewal.
191 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 1989
106 people are currently reading
847 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
March 4, 2011
I think this book does the best of all I have read of addressing the many issues Protestant converts and their families would face. Gillquist does it in a manner that is very down to earth and easy to read. I think this is also just a great book for Christians to read in general even if they are not remotely considering Orthodoxy. There is a lot to be gleaned from these pages. The book specifically addressed several things that have come up as walls for me, but was very brief and as such unfortunately silent about many other things.
While I appreciate and like many things about the Orthodox church and now feel a greater understanding of my faith and the practice of that faith as it relates to church history and tradition, I am still not convinced about specifically cultural practices in the Orthodox church from music styles, to Byzantine chanting for reading scripture and praying, to interpersonal greetings and such. I just find much of it very Eastern and not at all like Western culture or appealing to Western culture. It isn't that these cultural practices offend me or that I think people are wrong for practicing them, they just are not my culture.
One of the things I learned as a communications major about interpersonal communication, particularly when you are going to be communicating with those of another culture is you learn about them and adapt to their preference. Everything from approximate personal space preference, to proper titles, forms of address, mannerisms, proper clothing, colors, expectations of gifts, etc is studied prior to communicating with those of another culture on a business level.
I think some Protestant churches in many ways have done an excellent job of this in missions and learning about another culture before sending people out (to be sure they have made made serious mistakes, but I'm just saying my own experience has seen otherwise). I think the Orthodox church is failing miserably in this even with the efforts of Gillquist and others involved in the AEOM. Our experience in Orthodox churches in the last few months has found them to be still very Eastern. We are not Eastern!
I think if the Orthodox church wants to be more effective they need to stop trying to preserve the cultural identities of the jurisdictions like Antioch, Greece, Russia, etc. and embrace and realize that American culture is different and that it is OK (I am not saying they should embrace all of American culture because we all know that has its problems).
I am not of Byzantine heritage, so why do I need to chant my prayers and scripture in the Byzantine style? Most American music is in the major scale and that is what we are used to, why at church do we need to submit to the harmonic minor scale in order for it to be proper worship to God? Because I don't think these really are the things that make or break the faith. Some may argue then why not submit to them while I argue why should I.
While I appreciate and like many things about the Orthodox church and now feel a greater understanding of my faith and the practice of that faith as it relates to church history and tradition, I am still not convinced about specifically cultural practices in the Orthodox church from music styles, to Byzantine chanting for reading scripture and praying, to interpersonal greetings and such. I just find much of it very Eastern and not at all like Western culture or appealing to Western culture. It isn't that these cultural practices offend me or that I think people are wrong for practicing them, they just are not my culture.
One of the things I learned as a communications major about interpersonal communication, particularly when you are going to be communicating with those of another culture is you learn about them and adapt to their preference. Everything from approximate personal space preference, to proper titles, forms of address, mannerisms, proper clothing, colors, expectations of gifts, etc is studied prior to communicating with those of another culture on a business level.
I think some Protestant churches in many ways have done an excellent job of this in missions and learning about another culture before sending people out (to be sure they have made made serious mistakes, but I'm just saying my own experience has seen otherwise). I think the Orthodox church is failing miserably in this even with the efforts of Gillquist and others involved in the AEOM. Our experience in Orthodox churches in the last few months has found them to be still very Eastern. We are not Eastern!
I think if the Orthodox church wants to be more effective they need to stop trying to preserve the cultural identities of the jurisdictions like Antioch, Greece, Russia, etc. and embrace and realize that American culture is different and that it is OK (I am not saying they should embrace all of American culture because we all know that has its problems).
I am not of Byzantine heritage, so why do I need to chant my prayers and scripture in the Byzantine style? Most American music is in the major scale and that is what we are used to, why at church do we need to submit to the harmonic minor scale in order for it to be proper worship to God? Because I don't think these really are the things that make or break the faith. Some may argue then why not submit to them while I argue why should I.
November 12, 2007
For those who think that the early church is no more, look again. The earliest traditions have continued for two thousand years through the Orthodox church. If you are curious about it, here is the book for you.
August 9, 2007
BECOMING ORTHODOX is a personal testimonial by Fr Peter Guilquist written to track the conversion of nearly a thousand Evangelical Protestants to Orthodox Christianity in 1987. This mass conversion was one of the biggest events in modern American Orthodoxy, and Fr Guilquist's book paints a vivid picture of the theological wrestling and jurisdictional complications which ended in the reception of the converts in the Antiochian Orthodox Church.
Fr Guilquist and many other leaders of this movement started their Christian occupations in the 1950s and 1960s as activists for Campus Crusade for Christ. They travelled widely, trying to organise rallies at such universities as the uber-liberal Berkeley and Roman Catholic Notre Dame. Their focus was entirely on bringing young people to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not on building community, which they saw as denominationalism. Over time, however, they became jaded by their work, because many converts fell away after the initial dedication. They understand the need for a Church which would provide lasting support. Yet, they had no idea what such a church should look like.
In the early 1970s these former CCC leaders came together to begin a study of what the Church looked like in the decades after Pentacost, using only the Bible and early Fathers, so that they might form a community mirroring it entirely. They found that the early Church was liturgical, retaining a Judaic structure of worship after the expulsion from the synagogues, and that it was built around the Eucharist, which was seen as no mere commemoration but as a true mystery of faith. They discovered that the Church had a three-tiered division of authority, with bishops defending the faith, and priests and deacons serving the flocks of faithful. In the end, they felt that the only place today that this ancient Church was continued and contained fully was the Orthodox Church. Over time, they discovered that many of the exotic qualities of Orthodox Christianity, such as veneration of Mary and icons, and the liturgical use of incense, were entirely in keeping with the Gospel that gave them strength.
However, they had no personal experience with the Orthodox Church, which in the North America of the time was still seen as an ethnic conclave, in spite of a steady stream on individual conversions. They attended various offerings at Orthodox churches, met with Orthodox apologists such as the famed Fr Alexander Schmemann, and tried themselves to follow Orthodox traditions in their own worship. For a long time they were unsure of how to enter the Church which seemed to fulfill the discoveries of their investigations, and the division of Orthodoxy in North America along numerous ethnic lines was a sad complication. The Greek Orthodox Church was disapproving of their entering the Church, afraid that so many Americans would "dilute Greek traditions", a shameful blot of nationalism on the Church. Their attempt to meet the Patriarch of Constantinople for guidance was shrugged off. In the end, many of them were losing hope that Orthodoxy could provide a lasting home for them. Then, the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America invited them to enter under his guidance, and wished that they would all come in within only a few months. The book ends with a recounting of the mass charismations and ordinations which brought these travellers home after a journey of over a decade. A new afterword written in 1992 talks about the victories made by these converts and their fellow Orthodox in the years since.
Fr Guilquist's writing is entertaining and smooth-flowing. Theological arguments are not very deep, but friendly to Evangelical Protestants without much formal training. I am reluctant to criticise a work of such admirable zeal and which is so spiritually uplifting. I wish, however, that the book could have enjoyed some tighter editing and academic typesetting. There is a profusion of exclamation points and italics, and the formatting of the text is not up to professional standards. As it is, the work looks unfortunately amateurish.
If you are curious about the Orthodox Church, an academic work like Kallistos Ware's THE ORTHODOX CHURCH (a modern classic) is a must. However, personal testimonials like BECOMING ORTHODOX are also worth reading, and many readers will Fr Peter Guilquist's story quite inspiring.
Fr Guilquist and many other leaders of this movement started their Christian occupations in the 1950s and 1960s as activists for Campus Crusade for Christ. They travelled widely, trying to organise rallies at such universities as the uber-liberal Berkeley and Roman Catholic Notre Dame. Their focus was entirely on bringing young people to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not on building community, which they saw as denominationalism. Over time, however, they became jaded by their work, because many converts fell away after the initial dedication. They understand the need for a Church which would provide lasting support. Yet, they had no idea what such a church should look like.
In the early 1970s these former CCC leaders came together to begin a study of what the Church looked like in the decades after Pentacost, using only the Bible and early Fathers, so that they might form a community mirroring it entirely. They found that the early Church was liturgical, retaining a Judaic structure of worship after the expulsion from the synagogues, and that it was built around the Eucharist, which was seen as no mere commemoration but as a true mystery of faith. They discovered that the Church had a three-tiered division of authority, with bishops defending the faith, and priests and deacons serving the flocks of faithful. In the end, they felt that the only place today that this ancient Church was continued and contained fully was the Orthodox Church. Over time, they discovered that many of the exotic qualities of Orthodox Christianity, such as veneration of Mary and icons, and the liturgical use of incense, were entirely in keeping with the Gospel that gave them strength.
However, they had no personal experience with the Orthodox Church, which in the North America of the time was still seen as an ethnic conclave, in spite of a steady stream on individual conversions. They attended various offerings at Orthodox churches, met with Orthodox apologists such as the famed Fr Alexander Schmemann, and tried themselves to follow Orthodox traditions in their own worship. For a long time they were unsure of how to enter the Church which seemed to fulfill the discoveries of their investigations, and the division of Orthodoxy in North America along numerous ethnic lines was a sad complication. The Greek Orthodox Church was disapproving of their entering the Church, afraid that so many Americans would "dilute Greek traditions", a shameful blot of nationalism on the Church. Their attempt to meet the Patriarch of Constantinople for guidance was shrugged off. In the end, many of them were losing hope that Orthodoxy could provide a lasting home for them. Then, the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America invited them to enter under his guidance, and wished that they would all come in within only a few months. The book ends with a recounting of the mass charismations and ordinations which brought these travellers home after a journey of over a decade. A new afterword written in 1992 talks about the victories made by these converts and their fellow Orthodox in the years since.
Fr Guilquist's writing is entertaining and smooth-flowing. Theological arguments are not very deep, but friendly to Evangelical Protestants without much formal training. I am reluctant to criticise a work of such admirable zeal and which is so spiritually uplifting. I wish, however, that the book could have enjoyed some tighter editing and academic typesetting. There is a profusion of exclamation points and italics, and the formatting of the text is not up to professional standards. As it is, the work looks unfortunately amateurish.
If you are curious about the Orthodox Church, an academic work like Kallistos Ware's THE ORTHODOX CHURCH (a modern classic) is a must. However, personal testimonials like BECOMING ORTHODOX are also worth reading, and many readers will Fr Peter Guilquist's story quite inspiring.
January 23, 2023
Notes:
+ The church was liturgical from the start
- Acts 13:2 - Strong’s G3008 “leitourgeō” translated as “ministering” or “worshiping”
- While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
- https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/a...
+ The church was hierarchical, including positions of authority like bishops
- Acts 1:20 - Strong’s G1984 “episkopē” translated as “office”
- For it is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office.’
- https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/a...
+ Debate over baptism’s relationship to the forgiveness of sins
- Acts 2:38 - Strong's G1519 “eis” translated “for”
- And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’
- https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/a...
+ The eucharist was seen as both symbol and substance by the early church
- church fathers left this as a mystery and didn’t seek to explain the “how” with terms like transubstantiation until much later
Potent Quotables:
Neither Christ without church nor church without Christ will carry you for the long haul. [paraphrase]
In reality, someone always ends up being in charge… Ultimately, one person will march at the head of the column… In the trinity itself, with three persons fully sharing the divine nature, the Father is the fountainhead and the source of the unity.
Neither Protestantism nor Catholicism can lay historic claim to being the fullness of the New Testament church. In dividing from the Orthodox church, Rome forfeited its place as the genuine historic expression of the church of the New Testament. In the divisions of the Reformation, the Protestants - as well meaning, zealous, and correct as they may have been - failed to return to the New Testament church.
How did the church know which books were doctrinally sound, and thus to be included in the canon? On the basis of the doctrines passed down through holy tradition. There is no way to take the scriptures and trash tradition - they come to us as a package. To try to separate the Bible from tradition is to divide the work of the Holy Spirit into approved and disapproved categories, and that sails dangerously close to the winds of unforgivable sin.
Rome stepped away from apostolic tradition in 1054. She left 1,000 years of unity in the church behind. No, she’s not all wrong, not for a moment, but she is saddled with a collection of dogmas that simply do not square with holy tradition.
Whereas Rome generally has added to the faith, Protestantism has subtracted from it. In an effort to shake off Roman excesses, modern Protestants have sorely over-corrected their course. The reductionism that results cripples Protestant Christians in their quest for full maturity in Christ and in steering a steady course in doctrine and worship. Mary has become a no-name; Holy Communion a quarterly memorial; authority and discipline in the church a memory; doctrine a matter of personal interpretation, constantly up for renegotiation. Name one established Protestant denomination that has held on fully to the faith of even its own founders, to say nothing of its adherence to the apostolic faith.
We must say more than “we believe the Bible,” because the Jehovah’s Witness at your door also carries a Bible and says he believes it. Tradition is there, not just to preserve the Bible, but to interpret it. Without the church there to interpret, to shed the light of holy tradition on those chapters and verses, you and the Jehovah’s Witness are in the same dead heat - his interpretation versus yours. The church is thus our guardian of the truth.
We who have lived apart from the worship and the sacrament of Christ need his holy touch. You may go to this church or that, seek the teaching of this preacher or that, this spiritual experience or that, but the truth is you will never find real worship - heavenly worship - anywhere, anywhere apart from the life-giving grace of Christ at his Holy Eucharist. I and thousands of others know; we tried and we consistently came up short.
Someone at Holy Cross had made a prediction that after all was said and done, the door through which we would enter Orthodoxy would be that of Antioch.
There is a misconception that the Orthodox Church does not proselytize. This is the furthest thing from the truth… What America needs today, especially after the collapse of the electronic pulpit, is an Orthodox evangelism based on the true interpretation of the scripture, the apostolic and patristic teachings, and the liturgical and sacramental life of the church.
+ The church was liturgical from the start
- Acts 13:2 - Strong’s G3008 “leitourgeō” translated as “ministering” or “worshiping”
- While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
- https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/a...
+ The church was hierarchical, including positions of authority like bishops
- Acts 1:20 - Strong’s G1984 “episkopē” translated as “office”
- For it is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office.’
- https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/a...
+ Debate over baptism’s relationship to the forgiveness of sins
- Acts 2:38 - Strong's G1519 “eis” translated “for”
- And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’
- https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/a...
+ The eucharist was seen as both symbol and substance by the early church
- church fathers left this as a mystery and didn’t seek to explain the “how” with terms like transubstantiation until much later
Potent Quotables:
Neither Christ without church nor church without Christ will carry you for the long haul. [paraphrase]
In reality, someone always ends up being in charge… Ultimately, one person will march at the head of the column… In the trinity itself, with three persons fully sharing the divine nature, the Father is the fountainhead and the source of the unity.
Neither Protestantism nor Catholicism can lay historic claim to being the fullness of the New Testament church. In dividing from the Orthodox church, Rome forfeited its place as the genuine historic expression of the church of the New Testament. In the divisions of the Reformation, the Protestants - as well meaning, zealous, and correct as they may have been - failed to return to the New Testament church.
How did the church know which books were doctrinally sound, and thus to be included in the canon? On the basis of the doctrines passed down through holy tradition. There is no way to take the scriptures and trash tradition - they come to us as a package. To try to separate the Bible from tradition is to divide the work of the Holy Spirit into approved and disapproved categories, and that sails dangerously close to the winds of unforgivable sin.
Rome stepped away from apostolic tradition in 1054. She left 1,000 years of unity in the church behind. No, she’s not all wrong, not for a moment, but she is saddled with a collection of dogmas that simply do not square with holy tradition.
Whereas Rome generally has added to the faith, Protestantism has subtracted from it. In an effort to shake off Roman excesses, modern Protestants have sorely over-corrected their course. The reductionism that results cripples Protestant Christians in their quest for full maturity in Christ and in steering a steady course in doctrine and worship. Mary has become a no-name; Holy Communion a quarterly memorial; authority and discipline in the church a memory; doctrine a matter of personal interpretation, constantly up for renegotiation. Name one established Protestant denomination that has held on fully to the faith of even its own founders, to say nothing of its adherence to the apostolic faith.
We must say more than “we believe the Bible,” because the Jehovah’s Witness at your door also carries a Bible and says he believes it. Tradition is there, not just to preserve the Bible, but to interpret it. Without the church there to interpret, to shed the light of holy tradition on those chapters and verses, you and the Jehovah’s Witness are in the same dead heat - his interpretation versus yours. The church is thus our guardian of the truth.
We who have lived apart from the worship and the sacrament of Christ need his holy touch. You may go to this church or that, seek the teaching of this preacher or that, this spiritual experience or that, but the truth is you will never find real worship - heavenly worship - anywhere, anywhere apart from the life-giving grace of Christ at his Holy Eucharist. I and thousands of others know; we tried and we consistently came up short.
Someone at Holy Cross had made a prediction that after all was said and done, the door through which we would enter Orthodoxy would be that of Antioch.
There is a misconception that the Orthodox Church does not proselytize. This is the furthest thing from the truth… What America needs today, especially after the collapse of the electronic pulpit, is an Orthodox evangelism based on the true interpretation of the scripture, the apostolic and patristic teachings, and the liturgical and sacramental life of the church.
October 3, 2023
I have a friend who is exploring the orthodox church and I wanted to read what she’s read to engage in further discussion. It’s a pretty simple read and was interesting to read about his experience and consider how well the modern church is keeping the traditions of the early church. It’s a good introduction to the practices and stance of orthodox christianity. Many of his arguments for the doctrine of the church are lacking though. He discusses how it took him years of studying to come to accept these new beliefs as true but he presents his conclusions so briefly without reference to the scripture or historical texts he claims support them. Considering that such arguments are a make or break decision for joining the orthodox church, it would’ve been beneficial to provide more thorough evidence.
July 24, 2018
Growing up, and spending most of my young adult life in, American Evangelicalism, Fr. Gillquist’s book was a great read while on my inquiry into Orthodox Christianity. If you’ve ever been around evangelicals that talk about getting back to the “ancient church” or the ��church in Acts” but you feel like, more often than not, something just isn’t quite right with the execution, read this book. Like Fr. Gillquist and so many former evangelicals, you may find (to steal a quote from a Roman Catholic priest) that “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Fr. Gillquist holds no grudge against his former religious tradition, and simply, kindly, tells his story, or to borrow the familiar term, his testimony. Good stuff.
August 17, 2018
The most interesting section was the first section describing how so many Campus Crusade for Christ staff reverse engineered Apostolic Christianity by analyzing primary sources with an open mind.
The second section argued many theological points in pretty simplistic terms. It was tough for me because I believe the things Fr. Gilquist was arguing, but didn’t think the arguments were particularly intellectually honest or charitable.
The third section, which details the assumption of the EOC by the Antiochian Orthodox Church, was also rather interesting (though it dragged at times. It was moving to read about how all these spiritual wanderers finally found peace and fulfillment in the Orthodox Church.
The second section argued many theological points in pretty simplistic terms. It was tough for me because I believe the things Fr. Gilquist was arguing, but didn’t think the arguments were particularly intellectually honest or charitable.
The third section, which details the assumption of the EOC by the Antiochian Orthodox Church, was also rather interesting (though it dragged at times. It was moving to read about how all these spiritual wanderers finally found peace and fulfillment in the Orthodox Church.
February 3, 2025
Not exactly the book I was looking for, but that's okay. The story is of a group of evangelical pastors who evolved into orthodoxy, but my view of it was somewhat colored by the later finding out that they did it in many ways on their own terms rather than truly joining what was already there. The doctrinal parts are interesting but not in depth. The most important aspect was the middle of the book, where the group of pastors took many months to research aspects of faith and doctrine of the early church and all independently ended up in orthodoxy.
Two listens-through = one read-through
Two listens-through = one read-through
February 6, 2020
An extraordinary journey told extremely well. The first and third parts are story - how did they get from Campus Crusade to Antiochian Orthodox Church - and the middle third is theology - the big issues for Evangelicals when interacting with Orthodox Christianity.
November 16, 2025
This is an interesting book to review as it is a person's life story, a work of apologetics and an advertisement for a religion.
So this book is split up into 3 parts that I will give my thoughts on separately. (part 2 is by far the longest of my thoughts) Generally though this is the story of Father Peter Gillquist who founded The Evangelical Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada in the 1970s. It's the story of how he came to find Orthodoxy and the difficulties of becoming part of the Church as a group of American outsiders.
Part 1: the opening section of the book is an backstory of Gillquist and the other leaders he would eventually establish his church with. This section is very fast paced as he establishes his credentials in past experiences prior to starting his first home Church. It then reached a point where Gillquist and his contemporaries set out the task to find and replicate the practices of the church immediately after the death of Jesus. They did this by studying scripture and history to find when and where things had changed or didn't change. After that they asked if there was a church body that followed those teachings and they found Orthodoxy.
Part 2: Gillquist the takes a break from the narrative to defend the more touchy practices of the Orthodox Church such as use icons, the deific nature of the Virgin Mary, calling eachother father, a strick appeal to tradition, etc. This is probably the section I had the hardest time reading as Father Gillquist was a well educated man and opened many of his arguments well researched but in almost every point dropped the ball before the conclusion of the topic.
For the use of icons he made good arguments of why the use of icons wasn't wrong, but failed to say why they were proper.
He makes a great argument for giving the mother of Jesus more honor and that she can be seen as the true first Christian, but then he uses a lot of if/then fallacies to say why she should be so much better. Example: If the Bible didn't outright say that Joseph slept with his wife then she must have been a virgin her whole life.
The appeal to tradition ties largely into the appeal to nostalgia fallacy. Gillquist highlights many early church fathers and paints all they do as correct and should be followed but is different sections points out the imperfect nature and practices of those same men. He also give a history of the faith over the ages but for some reason stops talking about the development of the Eastern church (Orthodox) after it's split from Rome (Catholic) and just continues to illustrate how the Roman church went down hill with the Eastern church apparently did nothing during the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Arab occupation. In fact Gillquist almost goes out of his way to try to paint a lack of change when he speaks of going to Constantinople in part 3, rather than saying Istanbul other than once to clarify and once later on when speaking about the cosmopolitan of Istanbul. There was quite a bit of evidence of cherry picking the things he liked.
As well as other problems that I will restrain myself from ranting about. I'm sure if I were to speak to Father Gillquist he would be able to finish his thoughts to my satisfaction but he passed 13 years ago and all I have is this book and it fell short.
Part 3: Gillquist picks back up with his narrative of becoming part of the Orthodox Church as a whole. It was actually an interesting story that I believe Gillquist did not leave parts out of. He spoke of the struggles he had and even of the churches they lost along the way. He spoke of rejection and mercies afforded to him. Over all I don't have anything to say about part 3. It seems to be an honest recount of a man's story.
So yeah I don't have too much to say on the recounting of events, they seem genuine it was more the apologetic sections that I struggled with.
So this book is split up into 3 parts that I will give my thoughts on separately. (part 2 is by far the longest of my thoughts) Generally though this is the story of Father Peter Gillquist who founded The Evangelical Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada in the 1970s. It's the story of how he came to find Orthodoxy and the difficulties of becoming part of the Church as a group of American outsiders.
Part 1: the opening section of the book is an backstory of Gillquist and the other leaders he would eventually establish his church with. This section is very fast paced as he establishes his credentials in past experiences prior to starting his first home Church. It then reached a point where Gillquist and his contemporaries set out the task to find and replicate the practices of the church immediately after the death of Jesus. They did this by studying scripture and history to find when and where things had changed or didn't change. After that they asked if there was a church body that followed those teachings and they found Orthodoxy.
Part 2: Gillquist the takes a break from the narrative to defend the more touchy practices of the Orthodox Church such as use icons, the deific nature of the Virgin Mary, calling eachother father, a strick appeal to tradition, etc. This is probably the section I had the hardest time reading as Father Gillquist was a well educated man and opened many of his arguments well researched but in almost every point dropped the ball before the conclusion of the topic.
For the use of icons he made good arguments of why the use of icons wasn't wrong, but failed to say why they were proper.
He makes a great argument for giving the mother of Jesus more honor and that she can be seen as the true first Christian, but then he uses a lot of if/then fallacies to say why she should be so much better. Example: If the Bible didn't outright say that Joseph slept with his wife then she must have been a virgin her whole life.
The appeal to tradition ties largely into the appeal to nostalgia fallacy. Gillquist highlights many early church fathers and paints all they do as correct and should be followed but is different sections points out the imperfect nature and practices of those same men. He also give a history of the faith over the ages but for some reason stops talking about the development of the Eastern church (Orthodox) after it's split from Rome (Catholic) and just continues to illustrate how the Roman church went down hill with the Eastern church apparently did nothing during the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Arab occupation. In fact Gillquist almost goes out of his way to try to paint a lack of change when he speaks of going to Constantinople in part 3, rather than saying Istanbul other than once to clarify and once later on when speaking about the cosmopolitan of Istanbul. There was quite a bit of evidence of cherry picking the things he liked.
As well as other problems that I will restrain myself from ranting about. I'm sure if I were to speak to Father Gillquist he would be able to finish his thoughts to my satisfaction but he passed 13 years ago and all I have is this book and it fell short.
Part 3: Gillquist picks back up with his narrative of becoming part of the Orthodox Church as a whole. It was actually an interesting story that I believe Gillquist did not leave parts out of. He spoke of the struggles he had and even of the churches they lost along the way. He spoke of rejection and mercies afforded to him. Over all I don't have anything to say about part 3. It seems to be an honest recount of a man's story.
So yeah I don't have too much to say on the recounting of events, they seem genuine it was more the apologetic sections that I struggled with.
June 29, 2023
This book was my first on the topic of the Orthodox Church. It came recommended by several Orthodox Christians, and I agree that it‘s a great place to begin.
The book follows several “star” Campus Crusade for Christ leaders and their quest to discover Christ’s Church.
“The group of campus evangelists decided to separate, and research the question independently; at an appointed hour, they would then meet again to share their findings. When they met together to exchange their information, to their amazement, they were all in agreement.” - Forward
“For nearly 2 decades of my adult life, I had evaluated worship in categories such as: Does it hold me? Is it exciting and invigorating? Is it fresh and creative? Does it meet my needs? But as we studied the biblical roots of Christian worship, starting way back in the Old Testament, those categories, of course, were not there. Instead, we were confronted with such questions as: Is this worship conducted in spirit and in truth? Is it pattern after things in the heavens? Does it glorify God? I embraced, liturgical, and sacramental worship, not for its exhilaration or ecstasy, but because it was right. It is as though I have come home to worship. The reality of this worship has opened for us the door to a fullness of salvation we did not know existed. It has brought about a sense of wholeness for our people we did not have before.” - pg. 175
I resonated so much with their challenging questions and have found that I, too, desire more than anything to *do* what is right over and above what I *feel* like is right based on my narrow-minded Christian upbringing.
Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV
“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?”
The book follows several “star” Campus Crusade for Christ leaders and their quest to discover Christ’s Church.
“The group of campus evangelists decided to separate, and research the question independently; at an appointed hour, they would then meet again to share their findings. When they met together to exchange their information, to their amazement, they were all in agreement.” - Forward
“For nearly 2 decades of my adult life, I had evaluated worship in categories such as: Does it hold me? Is it exciting and invigorating? Is it fresh and creative? Does it meet my needs? But as we studied the biblical roots of Christian worship, starting way back in the Old Testament, those categories, of course, were not there. Instead, we were confronted with such questions as: Is this worship conducted in spirit and in truth? Is it pattern after things in the heavens? Does it glorify God? I embraced, liturgical, and sacramental worship, not for its exhilaration or ecstasy, but because it was right. It is as though I have come home to worship. The reality of this worship has opened for us the door to a fullness of salvation we did not know existed. It has brought about a sense of wholeness for our people we did not have before.” - pg. 175
I resonated so much with their challenging questions and have found that I, too, desire more than anything to *do* what is right over and above what I *feel* like is right based on my narrow-minded Christian upbringing.
Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV
“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?”
October 8, 2025
Roughly the first third of the book is Fr Peter recounting his time working for Campus Crusade for Christ, and he and his peers' beginning to investigate the historical church. The second third of the book is a brief, high level apologetic for the Orthodox Church. The third third is the culmination of the story of Fr Peter and his peers coming into the Church.
The first and third parts of the book are interesting enough read if you have an interest in Fr Peter's story in particular, or have a history with Campus Crusade for Christ, or have been influenced by Ancient Faith Publishing/Radio, or are a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. All of the above were true for me, so it was a pretty interesting and helpful read, mostly to learn the story of those who have gone before me. It is a good thing not to take your forefathers for granted, even if only a generation or two back. I find myself feeling overwhelmed and grateful for the journey of these men, as they have impacted me greatly, and I didn't even know it until now.
The second part of the book was fine as far as it goes, but I've read better, more thorough treatments of the subjects presented. If you are looking for pure apologetics about Orthodoxy, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.
The first and third parts of the book are interesting enough read if you have an interest in Fr Peter's story in particular, or have a history with Campus Crusade for Christ, or have been influenced by Ancient Faith Publishing/Radio, or are a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. All of the above were true for me, so it was a pretty interesting and helpful read, mostly to learn the story of those who have gone before me. It is a good thing not to take your forefathers for granted, even if only a generation or two back. I find myself feeling overwhelmed and grateful for the journey of these men, as they have impacted me greatly, and I didn't even know it until now.
The second part of the book was fine as far as it goes, but I've read better, more thorough treatments of the subjects presented. If you are looking for pure apologetics about Orthodoxy, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.
May 28, 2021
Fascinating story of a group of Campus Crusade staffers that lead 2,000 Evangelical Christians into the Orthodox Church. 2/3 of the book is the story of how the whole thing went down and 1/3 is an introduction to Orthodox theology. This is a great place to start for an overview of Orthodoxy. Peter’s writing style is engaging and easy to understand.
October 28, 2025
Very interesting perspective and story. It helped me with my basic questions about orthodoxy, and now I feel confident that I can learn more from the Orthodox Church. Even if some of us are not called to join orthodoxy, I think many of us may be called to hold an orthodox faith.
January 8, 2024
Interesting perspective
November 22, 2014
More than just an apologia for becoming Eastern Orthodox, Peter Gillquist’s book is an important chapter in the history of American Evangelicalism. Gillquist details his theological journey from the early days of Campus Crusade and its structured chaos to the Evangelical Orthodox Church till his “homecoming” in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. If one wants a thorough, rigorous defense of key Orthodox practices, this book will disappoint you. If one wants an engaging (and sometimes moving) account of a man’s life, this is the book for you.
Gillquist’s book can be evaluated on three levels: Agreement, Maybe...but, and Disagreement. It isn’t fair to attack him for not going over an issue in depth, but one may raise counter-questions and analyses of issues he did address--which is what I’ll do.
His first few chapters detail his Campus Crusade background, his growing disillusionment with the lowest of low-church Evangelicalism, and his structured study of early church history. It’s a fairly interesting section and I have no real beef with it, save a few corrections. He states that it was Athanasius’s defense and usage of homousios at Nicea that won the day. However, one can question whether Athanasius was even at the council (it would have been odd if he were, given his youth; even if he were, he wasn’t a bishop at that time so he wouldn’t have mattered) and he didn’t begin using homousion until much later.
Gillquist then examines the usage of bishops. He doesn’t deal with all the texts that equate episkopos and presbuteros, nor can one seriously entertain his claim that Ignatios of Antioch was bishop well before the end of the 1st Century. Ironically, there are much better defenses of episcopacy than what Gillquist offers.
Tradition: This is the most contentious section of the book. He gives the most argument for his beliefs in this section. He begins by correctly noting two different usages of tradition in the NT (62). Few Protestants would disagree so far. Gillquist, however, is aware of the real problem: how do you know this practice/dogma is part of the “real tradition” (64)? His answer “Holy Tradition.” He backs up this particular claim with two more claims: one being Jesus’s promise to the church and the other a sort of transcendental argument based on the canon. Per the first claim: Jesus said he would preserve his church (65). He wants to assert--without argument--that his traditions today are what have always been the case. Nobody believes that Jesus promised perpetual infallibility to the church on this point (even Rome doesn’t even say that). How does it follow, then, that the myriad of small practices that aren’t in the NT are part of apostolic tradition? Appealing to apostolic tradition simply begs the question.
Elsewhere, Gillquist rightly claims that proper tradition is what the apostles taught (72). This raises a question: if a practice is demonstrated to have arisen later in history, can it seriously claim to be apostolic tradition?
Gillquist’s second argument is if tradition is wrong, then how can we trust the canon? (He hints--correctly---that the table of contents page in the Bible is also tradition). The best approach to this challenge is to simply say, “Yeah, so?” If the Protestant holds that the canon is a magical depository from heaven apart from human reception, then it’s pretty hard to argue with Gillquist. If we say that it is a fallible collection of infallible texts, then Gillquist’s challenge evaporates.
His section on liturgy was mostly good, though he does jump to a lot of conclusions. The rest of this section is a defense of peculiar Orthodox practices. Since these practices aren’t themselves arguments pro or con the Orthodox position, I will leave it at that.
The final part is an explanation of how his Evangelical Orthodox Church (imagine a jurisdictionless group of Evangelicals pretending to be Orthodox) became Orthodox. It’s actually a fairly engaging read. His trip to Instabul has elements of a spy novel in it. (I was saddened at the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s rejection of the EOC coming into Orthodoxy en toto. Not that I really care what happens to them, but it does show why the Ecumenical Patriarchate his hemorraging members worldwide: the desire for Hellenism and Greek-ness seems to trump more basic issues like Galatians 3:28). By contrast, the Antiochians seemed like swell people.
Gillquist, who seemed like a noble gentleman and one who certainly had the gift of evangelism, is an excellent example of why the loosey-goosey, low church model is so disastrous. It cannot feed the soul and is divorced from the entirety of Christendom. While the Evangelical Church has done a better job today recovering biblical preaching, it must also reach back to the earlier liturgies of the Reformation (which, with a few exceptions, were based on elements of the Sarum Rite and others).
November 9, 2022
Potent Quotables:
It was not until the Synod of Carthage, which met in AD 397, that we find the final list of the biblical canon as we know it today… If we can trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in discerning the books to be included in the canon of Scripture, then we can trust that He has led the Church in her other decisions as well! And remember, how did the Church know which books were doctrinally sound and thus to be included in the canon? On the basis of the doctrines passed down through holy tradition! There is no way to take the Scriptures and trash tradition. They come to us as a package. To try to separate the Bible from tradition is to divide the work of the Holy Spirit into approved and disapproved categories.
There is one thing more I wish to say about bishops, a very comforting thing. After years of attempting to live under less leadership, at last we know who is in charge. It is an honor to bend down and kiss the hand of our Archbishop, Philip, with whom I am equal as to our brotherhood in Christ, yet to whom I willingly submit as the hierarch who keeps watch over my soul. Not many years ago I would have vehemently objected to what I just said: “Well, that’s fine, but what if you get a bad bishop!” First, Orthodox Christians help select their own bishop. Secondly, each bishop is accountable to a synod of bishops and ultimately to the patriarch. For that reason, when we’ve had some bad ones, they have been removed. (The heretic Nestorius held the highest office in the Eastern Church, and even he was replaced.)
God uses even the wrath of men to praise Him. For out of apostasy comes a hunger for the fullness of the New Testament faith, for new life in Christ, for the worship of the Holy Trinity, for the Church herself. What is it that we who are Orthodox Christians want? What is our vision, our desire? Simply this: We want to be the Church for all seriously committed Christian people in the English-speaking world. Christians in North America, for example, have had the opportunity to decide if they want to be Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, or even Independent. Very few have been given the chance to decide if they would like to be Orthodox. We wish to make that choice available and to urge people to become part of this original Church of Jesus Christ.
May 14, 2012
This book is one that keeps to a very simple purpose and executes it well. It’s casual, easy reading that at times can be cheesy, but there lies the book’s genius. It lends itself to a surprisingly greater level of take-away on major theology tenets separating Orthodoxy and Protestantism, whereas other books, for me at least, I find myself bunkered down carefully slaving over every paragraph like it were an Orthodox treatise. Fr. Gillquist discusses these tenets subjectively as it relates to his group’s journey from a contemporary, culturally-influenced Protestant organization (Campus Crusade for Christ) to discovering the authentic New Testament church, which they found in Orthodox Christianity. What’s remaining is a desire to further pursue the topic of Orthodoxy and the theological issues raised even further. Thus, it is a good book from which to begin one’s reading on Orthodoxy, especially if it’s a whole new world like it is for me.
May 2, 2017
Light Read And Yet Surprisingly Powerful!
As an Orthodox Christian, I found this book an interesting read; it was refreshing to see the journey to the Ancient Faith as described by the Author. I would recommend this to any protestant who is interested in the Ancient Faith. The Author has a way of getting across the most relevant information in a clear and direct manner. High level points were well made, diving only deep enough to have a sufficient understanding of these points, provides the reader with just enough context to understand the authors perspective as he describes his journey to the Ancient Faith.
As an Orthodox Christian, I found this book an interesting read; it was refreshing to see the journey to the Ancient Faith as described by the Author. I would recommend this to any protestant who is interested in the Ancient Faith. The Author has a way of getting across the most relevant information in a clear and direct manner. High level points were well made, diving only deep enough to have a sufficient understanding of these points, provides the reader with just enough context to understand the authors perspective as he describes his journey to the Ancient Faith.
March 12, 2011
What do you get when a sentimental and provincial Protestant (Gillquist was a Campus Crusade director in the 60s), ignorant of his own tradition, falls in love with the smells and bells of Eastern Orthodoxy? This testimony. Protestants really need to recover the beauty and maturity of the liturgy and our ancient church. Sadly, Eastern Orthodoxy believes it's the only true church and cuts of fellowship (and communion) from other churches. Which of course, like other spots and blemishes, will be loved away one day by Jesus.
August 12, 2020
Anecdotally engaging but lacking in academic rigor and real depth. It's the story of Peter and his friends, who wanted to find the new testament church. This admirable journey culminated in joining the Orthodox Church. Much better authors to read instead for the seeker after The Orthodox Way- Frederica Mathewes-Green, Metropolitan Ware, Schmemann.
April 6, 2025
Okay, here is my review:
1- I think the author did a good job of describing the journey of evidence from Protestant to Orthodox and educating me on the history of the Great Schism and how Roman Catholics diverged from Orthodoxy and how the Protestant Reformation came about.
2- The author made good arguments for many of the practices of the Orthodox Church, from incense to the sign of the cross to images and the purpose of liturgy.
However, I have a few complaints.
1- I felt like the end of the book talking about how they went straight to the Orthodox Church and how they were rejected was a bit discouraging and confusing. I still don’t understand why all these bishop names are being dropped. They made one comment on how there’s supposed to be a certain number of bishops per city but it was almost an afterthought sentence.
2- I don’t understand the structure of the Orthodox Church yet or why there were all these roadblocks to getting there. I don’t know the difference between bishop or pope or deacon and it wasn’t explained. I only kind of know because of orthodox friends. I felt like there was a big jump between part 2 and part 3. Like another chapter was needed.
3- I was not convinced about Mary through this text. There may be a point there that Protestants don’t give her enough honor. But I’ve often felt that Orthodox/Catholic give her too much honor. The book acknowledges that there’s a line to discuss regarding how much to honor her, and it didn’t explain why the line is the way it is for the Orthodox faith.
4- There were good points about Mary being blessed, being Theotokos/God-bearer, was pure and obedient to God, and should be blessed as such. But I still have questions regarding a few things. Calling her an intercessor is one. I’m sure all of heaven prays for humanity to come to Christ. But asking her specifically to pray on our behalf? The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is our human and God intercessor and that there is no one else. If we feel God is “distant,” that’s why we have Christ, to bridge the gap. I wrote down “why pray to the dead for intercession when we have an intercessor who’s alive and conquered the grave?” I don’t feel this was answered in the book.
5- I also have a hard time with the “Ever-Virgin.” The 2 arguments about the translation of “until” and “brothers” are actually valid. But what this does is put in question whether or not she remained a virgin, not proof that she certainly was. So proof would still need to be acquired before making a theological decision on that.
But it doesn’t seem all that important anyway. As they say, “don’t scream where scripture whispers.” She was a virgin when she had Jesus, which is something we all agree on. Even sex within marriage is still pure. Perhaps it’s seen as more admirable if she abstained, like a nun. But I have a hard time venerating her as more perfect than she is. She still sinned. At least the book agrees with this, that there is no scriptural basis for immaculate conception. So again, the discussion is regarding where is that line?
6- I had a problem with the list of things that “save” like baptism and prayer. I believe Jesus said very specific things about what is necessary for salvation (faith, belief, repentance) without denying the importance of the others. So saying Mary saves was an interesting take. I’ve been taught that salvation is through Christ alone. However, I could acknowledge that she, like all believers, pray for salvation for unbelievers and we can only hope their prayers are powerful.
…..
I still have so many questions. How do we know the liturgy used is the same as the New Testament church fathers? What’s the purpose of the chanting?
In this journey, I’m learning that every denomination feels that they have the scriptures “right.” Seventh Day adventists emphasize the sabbath more along with no immediate ascendancy to heaven/hell after death; pentecostal emphasizes long hair and not cutting it and not wearing makeup, whereas orthodox emphasizes the head covering from the same verse. Baptist and some others emphasize baptism as necessary to salvation.
But the goal is to be unified in Christ, as they were in Acts 2. That should be our overall goal as Christ followers. And perhaps God can use these different denominations to reach different kinds of people! I hope to not allow the arguments around the whispers of scripture to harden hearts of the unbelievers we claim to love and desire to see enter the Kingdom of God. Ultimately, knowing we need Jesus is huge, and a relationship with Him of utmost importance!
1- I think the author did a good job of describing the journey of evidence from Protestant to Orthodox and educating me on the history of the Great Schism and how Roman Catholics diverged from Orthodoxy and how the Protestant Reformation came about.
2- The author made good arguments for many of the practices of the Orthodox Church, from incense to the sign of the cross to images and the purpose of liturgy.
However, I have a few complaints.
1- I felt like the end of the book talking about how they went straight to the Orthodox Church and how they were rejected was a bit discouraging and confusing. I still don’t understand why all these bishop names are being dropped. They made one comment on how there’s supposed to be a certain number of bishops per city but it was almost an afterthought sentence.
2- I don’t understand the structure of the Orthodox Church yet or why there were all these roadblocks to getting there. I don’t know the difference between bishop or pope or deacon and it wasn’t explained. I only kind of know because of orthodox friends. I felt like there was a big jump between part 2 and part 3. Like another chapter was needed.
3- I was not convinced about Mary through this text. There may be a point there that Protestants don’t give her enough honor. But I’ve often felt that Orthodox/Catholic give her too much honor. The book acknowledges that there’s a line to discuss regarding how much to honor her, and it didn’t explain why the line is the way it is for the Orthodox faith.
4- There were good points about Mary being blessed, being Theotokos/God-bearer, was pure and obedient to God, and should be blessed as such. But I still have questions regarding a few things. Calling her an intercessor is one. I’m sure all of heaven prays for humanity to come to Christ. But asking her specifically to pray on our behalf? The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is our human and God intercessor and that there is no one else. If we feel God is “distant,” that’s why we have Christ, to bridge the gap. I wrote down “why pray to the dead for intercession when we have an intercessor who’s alive and conquered the grave?” I don’t feel this was answered in the book.
5- I also have a hard time with the “Ever-Virgin.” The 2 arguments about the translation of “until” and “brothers” are actually valid. But what this does is put in question whether or not she remained a virgin, not proof that she certainly was. So proof would still need to be acquired before making a theological decision on that.
But it doesn’t seem all that important anyway. As they say, “don’t scream where scripture whispers.” She was a virgin when she had Jesus, which is something we all agree on. Even sex within marriage is still pure. Perhaps it’s seen as more admirable if she abstained, like a nun. But I have a hard time venerating her as more perfect than she is. She still sinned. At least the book agrees with this, that there is no scriptural basis for immaculate conception. So again, the discussion is regarding where is that line?
6- I had a problem with the list of things that “save” like baptism and prayer. I believe Jesus said very specific things about what is necessary for salvation (faith, belief, repentance) without denying the importance of the others. So saying Mary saves was an interesting take. I’ve been taught that salvation is through Christ alone. However, I could acknowledge that she, like all believers, pray for salvation for unbelievers and we can only hope their prayers are powerful.
…..
I still have so many questions. How do we know the liturgy used is the same as the New Testament church fathers? What’s the purpose of the chanting?
In this journey, I’m learning that every denomination feels that they have the scriptures “right.” Seventh Day adventists emphasize the sabbath more along with no immediate ascendancy to heaven/hell after death; pentecostal emphasizes long hair and not cutting it and not wearing makeup, whereas orthodox emphasizes the head covering from the same verse. Baptist and some others emphasize baptism as necessary to salvation.
But the goal is to be unified in Christ, as they were in Acts 2. That should be our overall goal as Christ followers. And perhaps God can use these different denominations to reach different kinds of people! I hope to not allow the arguments around the whispers of scripture to harden hearts of the unbelievers we claim to love and desire to see enter the Kingdom of God. Ultimately, knowing we need Jesus is huge, and a relationship with Him of utmost importance!
December 28, 2023
The first part of the book, which tells the story of how a group of 2000 former Campus Crusade for Christ leaders and participants, looking for the true church, started a non-denominational network of house churches that eventually became interested in Eastern Orthodoxy, and ultimately united with the Orthodox Church over a 10-year period, is fascinating. As a convinced Protestant I felt that, in their idealistic search for "the true church," they were a bit too quickly and easily persuaded by the Orthodox interpretation of early church history. I found the second part of the book, the case for the Orthodox Church as the one true church, less persuasive.
I confess I received the book with a bit of skepticism. It was originally written within just a couple years after the author and his followers had joined the Orthodox church. The honeymoon wasn't even over. The 2022 printing I read does include an epilogue written more recently in which the author reflects on the post-conversion experiences of himself and his ex-Protestant cohorts over the last 25 years. They never regretted "becoming Orthodox."
Still, I found it interesting that here was a brand new convert writing a book that was supposed to be an expert defense of the Orthodox Church, making a case for why you, too, should convert to Orthodoxy. It's a bit like a newlywed extolling the bliss of marriage. I'm glad you've enjoyed the honeymoon but come back in 25 years and convince me then. It seems a bit ironic for a newbie to be acting as an expert (though now, with the more recent edition of the book, they aren't newcomers anymore). The one advantage was that, because of the author's Protestant background he was able to speak uniquely to Protestants about Orthodoxy, which, of course, is the main purpose of the book.
I found myself wondering what lifelong Orthodox leaders thought of the author and his works, so I looked up some reviews online. The reaction from longtime Orthodox leadership to this former Protestant upstart's writings was mixed. Some were skeptical and others felt his Protestant-like take on Orthodoxy misrepresented the church.
So I take the book with a grain of salt. At the same time, one thing I took note of was the way in which at least some Orthodox leaders readily and wholeheartedly embraced Gillquist and co. as full members of the fold, and invited them to dive in to ministry and even to speak to and for the Orthodox Church. It says something that these Orthodox leaders were willing to embrace the newcomers so completely.
All in all it's a very interesting book, and a pretty quick read.
I confess I received the book with a bit of skepticism. It was originally written within just a couple years after the author and his followers had joined the Orthodox church. The honeymoon wasn't even over. The 2022 printing I read does include an epilogue written more recently in which the author reflects on the post-conversion experiences of himself and his ex-Protestant cohorts over the last 25 years. They never regretted "becoming Orthodox."
Still, I found it interesting that here was a brand new convert writing a book that was supposed to be an expert defense of the Orthodox Church, making a case for why you, too, should convert to Orthodoxy. It's a bit like a newlywed extolling the bliss of marriage. I'm glad you've enjoyed the honeymoon but come back in 25 years and convince me then. It seems a bit ironic for a newbie to be acting as an expert (though now, with the more recent edition of the book, they aren't newcomers anymore). The one advantage was that, because of the author's Protestant background he was able to speak uniquely to Protestants about Orthodoxy, which, of course, is the main purpose of the book.
I found myself wondering what lifelong Orthodox leaders thought of the author and his works, so I looked up some reviews online. The reaction from longtime Orthodox leadership to this former Protestant upstart's writings was mixed. Some were skeptical and others felt his Protestant-like take on Orthodoxy misrepresented the church.
So I take the book with a grain of salt. At the same time, one thing I took note of was the way in which at least some Orthodox leaders readily and wholeheartedly embraced Gillquist and co. as full members of the fold, and invited them to dive in to ministry and even to speak to and for the Orthodox Church. It says something that these Orthodox leaders were willing to embrace the newcomers so completely.
All in all it's a very interesting book, and a pretty quick read.
August 30, 2023
Going to high school in the 1960s, I attended a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting at school. I wanted to follow Jesus, and did -- through many twists and turns, seeking Him in many Protestant Denominations, even going to seminary and working in inner city ministries.
There was a paucity of spiritual disciplines that I yearned for. As I looked into Ancient Church history, I was surprised to find the Orthodox Church. But the leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ has found it decades earlier. During the Jesus Revolution, when thousands were coming to faith in Christ through them, new converts asked the leaders, "OK. We believe. Now where should be go to church?"
That's a difficult question to answer in a country where there are over 30,000 different churches, each claiming to have the truth.
So, five of the Campus Crusade for Christ leaders did a serious inquiry. They examined the Early Church: it's history, tradition, beliefs, liturgical form of worship, apostolic authority, Bishops and Church Councils. Each of the men took a different topic to study and when they reconvened at an island retreat, each had come to the same conclusion: the true Church was the Orthodox Church. They themselves converted from Evangelical Protestantism to Orthodoxy and became priests. Around 2,000 others converted with them.
If you have ever wondered about Orthodoxy, this engaging and very readable book will answer many of your questions. As for me, after 60 years in the Protestant world, I am now converting to Orthodoxy, the Ancient Church, still here, still unchanged. It has been a great joy to find it, and I am filled with peace and joy, and am now surrounded by a loving family of my brothers and sisters in Christ. They take community seriously. Every person is welcome and every person is encouraged to seek repentance and holiness. You will be most welcome if you attend an Orthodox Church. Saturday vespers at 6 pm is a lovely service to begin your own exploration of Orthodoxy. May God grant you peace and joy on your journey.
There was a paucity of spiritual disciplines that I yearned for. As I looked into Ancient Church history, I was surprised to find the Orthodox Church. But the leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ has found it decades earlier. During the Jesus Revolution, when thousands were coming to faith in Christ through them, new converts asked the leaders, "OK. We believe. Now where should be go to church?"
That's a difficult question to answer in a country where there are over 30,000 different churches, each claiming to have the truth.
So, five of the Campus Crusade for Christ leaders did a serious inquiry. They examined the Early Church: it's history, tradition, beliefs, liturgical form of worship, apostolic authority, Bishops and Church Councils. Each of the men took a different topic to study and when they reconvened at an island retreat, each had come to the same conclusion: the true Church was the Orthodox Church. They themselves converted from Evangelical Protestantism to Orthodoxy and became priests. Around 2,000 others converted with them.
If you have ever wondered about Orthodoxy, this engaging and very readable book will answer many of your questions. As for me, after 60 years in the Protestant world, I am now converting to Orthodoxy, the Ancient Church, still here, still unchanged. It has been a great joy to find it, and I am filled with peace and joy, and am now surrounded by a loving family of my brothers and sisters in Christ. They take community seriously. Every person is welcome and every person is encouraged to seek repentance and holiness. You will be most welcome if you attend an Orthodox Church. Saturday vespers at 6 pm is a lovely service to begin your own exploration of Orthodoxy. May God grant you peace and joy on your journey.
November 17, 2021
I think this is a great book for evangelicals or anyone who is ortho-curious ( or as my friends say, "doxing").
The journey of this group of believers into the church, has so many parallels to my own journey. It has helped me to better express my newfound faith to my peers and given me confidence to engage in conversation with them when pressed on specific issues.
Here are a few key quotes:
"He went on to describe all the special musical numbers, the choral arrangements, and the words to those songs that centered on the 'me' whose needs are met, rather than on our Triune God before whom we bow in worship. We have lost true worship in modern Christianity, and we must by the grace of God get it back!'" p79
"What we do about Mary is connected directly to what we do about the Church. The community of Christ's followers is call t oact together. Taking action with regard to Mary is not simply personal or private; it has to do with responding as the Church...As Christians we do not live by feelings we live by faith. Let us once for all rise above thsoe fears the devil has sown in our hearts to neutralize us against this precious woman who gave birth to our Savior. Bless her in the midst of God's people. Follow her example in exalting Christ. Confess her as the Mother of God. Come home to the Church that has kept intact our holy faith..."p.109-110
"While it is true that all teachers of Christ's doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy Scriptures, it is also true that they should give the correct and true interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly teachers and fathers of the Church, especially in the seven councils."
The journey of this group of believers into the church, has so many parallels to my own journey. It has helped me to better express my newfound faith to my peers and given me confidence to engage in conversation with them when pressed on specific issues.
Here are a few key quotes:
"He went on to describe all the special musical numbers, the choral arrangements, and the words to those songs that centered on the 'me' whose needs are met, rather than on our Triune God before whom we bow in worship. We have lost true worship in modern Christianity, and we must by the grace of God get it back!'" p79
"What we do about Mary is connected directly to what we do about the Church. The community of Christ's followers is call t oact together. Taking action with regard to Mary is not simply personal or private; it has to do with responding as the Church...As Christians we do not live by feelings we live by faith. Let us once for all rise above thsoe fears the devil has sown in our hearts to neutralize us against this precious woman who gave birth to our Savior. Bless her in the midst of God's people. Follow her example in exalting Christ. Confess her as the Mother of God. Come home to the Church that has kept intact our holy faith..."p.109-110
"While it is true that all teachers of Christ's doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy Scriptures, it is also true that they should give the correct and true interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly teachers and fathers of the Church, especially in the seven councils."
May 17, 2019
Becoming Orthodox chronicles one man's journey from the Protestant church to the Orthodox faith. It is beautifully written and the audible version plays much like a fireside chat with an old friend. Don't let the age of this timeless book fool you, It is just as relevant today as it was decades ago.
Peter Gillquist did a fantastic job detailing the timeline of his spiritual journey to the Orthodox Church. Being neither a deeply theological book nor a broad-stroke reading, this book weaves its way through the questions, discovery, longings, and emotions of his path to the faith. I love how each section addresses the why's of what the evangelical movement was looking for and the answers that were found. I appreciate his writing style and that this book truly lives up to its name on his personal journey to Becoming Orthodox.
So who should read (or listen to) this book? The answer is simple, Anybody. Whether it is a cradle Orthodox who is wanting to learn why the converts are now joining the church or someone interested in discovering a deeper faith with God, there is something for everyone to take away. It is a regular read for me to remember my own journey to the faith years ago.
I purchased a hard copy prior, but I jumped at the opportunity to review the Audible version. Becoming Orthodox is an easy listen. The reader has a strong calming voice. You could easily understand what he was saying up to 2x's speed. I found the sweet spot to be 1.5x's speed. I love having the audible version to share with my children and play in the car. It also made a great before bedtime audible book.
Peter Gillquist did a fantastic job detailing the timeline of his spiritual journey to the Orthodox Church. Being neither a deeply theological book nor a broad-stroke reading, this book weaves its way through the questions, discovery, longings, and emotions of his path to the faith. I love how each section addresses the why's of what the evangelical movement was looking for and the answers that were found. I appreciate his writing style and that this book truly lives up to its name on his personal journey to Becoming Orthodox.
So who should read (or listen to) this book? The answer is simple, Anybody. Whether it is a cradle Orthodox who is wanting to learn why the converts are now joining the church or someone interested in discovering a deeper faith with God, there is something for everyone to take away. It is a regular read for me to remember my own journey to the faith years ago.
I purchased a hard copy prior, but I jumped at the opportunity to review the Audible version. Becoming Orthodox is an easy listen. The reader has a strong calming voice. You could easily understand what he was saying up to 2x's speed. I found the sweet spot to be 1.5x's speed. I love having the audible version to share with my children and play in the car. It also made a great before bedtime audible book.
Read
August 29, 2021Review of Becoming Orthodox:
A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith
by Peter E. Gillquist
This book is a great book for orthodox evangelization. It explains orthodoxy very simply to protestants. I think that every new convert into the orthodox church should read this book. Because it really helps to know that there are other people out there that have been through the same process that you have.
I myself went through a similar process as Fr. Peter did. The only difference being I did it on my own and he did it with his church. This is truly an amazing book. It tackles all the big questions that a person has about orthodoxy. It is amazing. It covers everything from the dogmas about Mary to making the sign of the cross. But I think my favourite part about this book is that it doesn't bore you with theology. It explains orthodoxy in a story format. Taking us along the journey with Fr. Peter.
In my opinion there are no real downsides to this book. But I have heard some people dislike certain things in the book. But this is just people nit-picking. This book has no major flaws that I can find.
I was lucky enough to meet somebody who grew up in one of Fr. Peter’s churches. His father had converted to orthodoxy along with one of Fr. Peter’s churches. So after having read this book I was able to relate much better to his story. Overall this was a great book. I read the second edition and I loved it. I want to ask all of the people who read this to please keep Fr. Peter (who has recently reposed) in your prayers. May his memory be eternal.
A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith
by Peter E. Gillquist
This book is a great book for orthodox evangelization. It explains orthodoxy very simply to protestants. I think that every new convert into the orthodox church should read this book. Because it really helps to know that there are other people out there that have been through the same process that you have.
I myself went through a similar process as Fr. Peter did. The only difference being I did it on my own and he did it with his church. This is truly an amazing book. It tackles all the big questions that a person has about orthodoxy. It is amazing. It covers everything from the dogmas about Mary to making the sign of the cross. But I think my favourite part about this book is that it doesn't bore you with theology. It explains orthodoxy in a story format. Taking us along the journey with Fr. Peter.
In my opinion there are no real downsides to this book. But I have heard some people dislike certain things in the book. But this is just people nit-picking. This book has no major flaws that I can find.
I was lucky enough to meet somebody who grew up in one of Fr. Peter’s churches. His father had converted to orthodoxy along with one of Fr. Peter’s churches. So after having read this book I was able to relate much better to his story. Overall this was a great book. I read the second edition and I loved it. I want to ask all of the people who read this to please keep Fr. Peter (who has recently reposed) in your prayers. May his memory be eternal.
April 3, 2021
Fr. Peter Gillquist's account of his journey from evangelical Protestantism to Orthodoxy has much to offer to anyone at any point in his spiritual quest. It is especially helpful for anyone seeking a primer on the distinctions between American denominational Christianity and canonical Orthodoxy written in plain spoken terms. While I understand and appreciate his concern that the retention of the various traditional cultures and languages of the many Orthodox jurisdictions in America presents challenges to evangelizing a secular English speaking country, I hold a more sanguine view. The secular rallying cries for multiculturalism and diversity are mostly fake and hollow. While the Church does offer the possibility of a real unity in Christ, I believe that the preservation of traditional languages also offers a hope for a multiculturalism that goes beyond platitudes.
February 10, 2022
I see no reason to comment heavily on this book. Much of what is written on the back cover IS exactly what this is. Divided into 3 sections, 2/3's are biographical--explaining the "physical" journey from evangelical Protestantism to union with the Orthodox Church. One third is devoted to scripture and theology influencing Gilquist and his peers towards orthodoxy. This section is good, but would have liked some expansion when addressing some of the points. No real arguments with this section, just a desire for more thorough content. This is written with the audience in mind-those from his former "camp"(to show reason and soft evangelism) and perhaps a handful in the Catholic(Orthodox, and perhaps Roman) expressing gratitude for the journey home.
May 5, 2020
A book following a group of Protestants looking for the true New Testament Church. They found Catholicism to essentially be Church without Jesus, and Protestant churches to be Jesus without the Church. After examining various aspects of the early church, such as history and early worship they found themselves leading to the Orthodox Church. They were scared initially by "Romophobia" or the fear essentially of being too Catholic. But ultimately they found that things like liturgical worship (as opposed to "rock music worship"), the adoration of Mary and many other things were consistent with the early church founding and further confirmed by the Bible.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews