Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion

by Frank Schaeffer

Book by Schaeffer, Frank

Genres: Religion, Christianity, Theology, Nonfiction, Biography

327 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1994

About the author

Frank Schaeffer is a New York Times bestselling author of more than a dozen books. Frank is a survivor of both polio and an evangelical/fundamentalist childhood, an acclaimed writer who overcame severe dyslexia, a home-schooled and self-taught documentary movie director, a feature film director of four low budget Hollywood features Frank has described as “pretty terrible.” He is also an acclaimed author of both fiction and nonfiction and an artist with a loyal following of international collectors who own many of his oil paintings. Frank has been a frequent guest on the Rachel Maddow Show on NBC, has appeared on Oprah, been interviewed by Terri Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air and appeared on the Today Show, BBC News and many other media outlets. He is a much sought after speaker and has lectured at a wide range of venues from Harvard’s Kennedy School to the Hammer Museum/UCLA, Princeton University, Riverside Church Cathedral, DePaul University and the Kansas City Public Library.

Reviews

[Ирландский Дьякон · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have two perspectives on this book. One, as a convert coming from an astonishingly similar angle into Orthodoxy, this is a kind of "you are not alone" affirmation. Yes, Mr Schaeffer is deeply critical of evangelicalism. Yes his critique is damning. Of course he has earned the right to be critical, having walked the evangelical walk for quite some time. Evangelicals disregard his perspectives at their peril. The other, as a more experienced and hopefully slightly more mature Christian than I was 17 years ago, the book now seems somewhat shallow, to me. Then again, it really is only about a personal journey into Orthodoxy and stops there. It is a book about the transition. Life only begins where the book ends. So I think it isn't fair to expect any great spiritual depth or insight into living an Orthodox life from this volume. That's not what it's about.


Having said that, this is most definitely not a book I would recommend to any of my evangelical friends. Mr Schaeffer was, after all a "Wittenburg Door" kind of evangelical, and anyone who has read that particular publication will understand that means he isn't going to pull any punches. If you are trying to explain your Orthodox faith to your evangelical Protestant friends, this book is more likely to alienate than build any bridges. For that reason, it's a book that an Orthodox person looking to understand evangelicals should approach with care, also. Mr Schaeffer assumes a certain degree of familiarity with American evangelicalism, which many Orthodox brought up in the Church will not have. And for many evangelicals, his critiques will strike hard at their experience of faith and is not likely to win many friends - unless, that is, they are already at a point in their own lives where they are grappling with these same issues.


So, I would say, for Orthodox people, read with a pinch of salt. And certainly don't allow this book to influence how you interact with any evangelical friends - it is polemical. For evangelicals bear the same in mind. This is the anatomy of a single persons journey to Orthodoxy. It's a roller coaster ride that very few of us who have been through can look back on without discomfort. I certainly cannot for my part. And if you choose to read this book, brace yourself. It won't leave you with warm fuzzies.

[Philip Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

This account gives a great amount of history and information on the Protestant Reformation and offers a very critical analysis that many could stand to look into with an open mind. The greater speculation on culture and society as a whole is also very interesting, though the latter part about Orthodoxy is nothing special alongside most Catechisms. The writing was average and good enough, but several parts were written too offensively. While it doesn't bother me on a personal level, I can see it turning away many who might be drawn in to this book due to the author and where he comes from.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER’S SON RECOUNTS HIS CONVERSION FROM EVANGELICALISM TO ORTHODOXY

[NOTE: This 1994 book was written after Schaeffer had left the evangelical religion per se, but long before he wrote his post-evangelical books such as “Crazy for God,” “Sex, Mom and God,” “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God,” etc.]

He wrote in the Acknowledgement section, “I began to write this book in mid-1988, two years before I converted to Orthodoxy, and completed it in 1994. I am a novelist and film director, nor a historian or theologian. I have no research staff. I am not a scholar. I offer this book merely as the record of a personal journey, from Protestantism to the Orthodox Church, not as a work of history, theology scholarship.”

He further explains in the Introduction, “This book is a map of a journey of intellectual and spiritual curiosity and discovery… that took me from the Evangelical Protestant community, to which I once belonged by default, to the Orthodox Church, which I chose on the basis of the conclusions described herein… My journey to Orthodoxy began unwittingly around 1978 when I started to ask questions about what seemed to me to be the evident spiritual bankruptcy of Protestantism and the intensely secularized pluralistic culture it had produced… The more I read, the more I realized that I had not been introduced to the historical Christian church at all even though I had grown up in an informed, even ‘intellectual’ Evangelical Protestant home. Nor had I ever experienced the forms of sacramental worship that had been taken for granted by countless generations of Christians before the relatively recent Protestant revolution against history and tradition… then I had to choose between the Protestant world view and the Holy Tradition. What was obvious was that they were not one and the same.”

He asserts, “all---the secularists, the religious, the political leftists and rightists---are united in their faith in the American civil religion and its sentimental utopian vision … They may disagree on the means to achieve the ‘American Dream’ but, at heart, all sides are largely materialist and utopian… Our problems are not related to sinful behavior, let alone individual moral accountability to God or His law, but to social, political and psychological causes.” (Pg. 12)

He outlines, “This then, I believe, is the real underlying reason for the persistent division between Eastern and Western Christendom. The East wanted to retain the faith of the early church. The West wanted to build ‘creatively’ on the apostolic tradition…The East remained opposed to a rationalistic, intellectualized approach to Christian truth. The West added layer upon layer of scholastic ‘explanations’ of the faith… The East saw God as standing OUTSIDE of time and space, OUTSIDE of rationalistic description… In the West theologians became philosophers and spent centuries endlessly worrying the subject of God’s sovereignty … In the East, the Holy Mysteries … were allowed to remain Holy Mysteries. In the West, the Church became a political, dogmatic institution, corrupt and stripped of mystery and awe.” (Pg. 69-70)

He observes, “The whole of the Religious Right’s enterprise petered out in a morass of infighting, between various politico-religious groups, scandal, money grubbing and empire building by various leaders of the movement. The final debacle was the failure of the Religious Right’s President, Ronald Reagan, to realize even ONE POINT of the Religious Right’s social agenda during an eight-year presidency. His successor, George Bush, also failed to use the prestige of the presidency on behalf of any of the Religious Right’s moral concerns, beyond expedient political grandstanding and the sanctity of life and prayer in school issues. Pathetically, the Religious Right’s ascendancy ended with a rather ludicrous presidential campaign by Pat Robertson, one of the empire-building televangelists of the day.” (Pg. 145)

He admits, “As a new convert to Orthodoxy, I found confession embarrassing and frightening. Yet nothing in my spiritual life has been more helpful to me, or has given me more true peace, than regular confession to my spiritual father… The idea of confession is foreign to the people of our day. Ours is an age that has placed a premium on self-esteem, self-realization, self-image… and egocentric intellectual pride… There is no substitute for confession to a priest in our ascetic struggle to be saved---to subdue our self-esteem… to change the content of our characters, to curb our passions in order that we may find Heaven heavenly.” (Pg. 230-232)

He suggests, “The absence of historical legitimacy… in the counterfeit ‘worship experiences’ of the non-Orthodox ‘denominations’ today is, I believe, one reason why so many sincere Christians have a sense of being cheated by their self-intended, commercialized and trendy ‘liturgies.’ Many Roman Catholics and Protestants seem to know they are participating in a sham. But they are not sure why this is so. Many bewildered Roman Catholics and Protestants long for a deeper, more eternal spirituality that is awe-inspiring, respectful of God, has majesty and a sense of changeless dignity about it. Yet they are unable to find such depth in the irreverent entertainments or dry sermonizing that have come to constitute ‘church.’” (Pg. 272)

He acknowledges, “Since becoming Orthodox, I have not discovered ‘perfection’ in the Church. In fact the Orthodox Church is as full of problems as it is of people… The remarkable thing is that IN SPITE of the problems that beset the Church, its altars are clean of theological corruption and its chalices are undefiled… let me speak frankly to my friends who may be seriously considering the historical claims of the Orthodox Church… The Orthodox Church in the United States is, at present, in a state of considerable disarray… Th Orthodox Church claims to be the TRUE Church but not the PERFECT Church.” (Pg. 297) He adds, “some Orthodox Churches seem to be more like ethnic social clubs than missionary-minded, evangelical representatives of the universal, ancient Church.” (Pg. 299)

He concludes, “As the collapsing secular world looks for hope the Orthodox Church must be distinguished, not by its ‘modernism,’ ‘ecumenism’ or ‘political correctness,’ but by its STEADFASTNESS, PURITY, and SPIRITUAL LIGHT. The Orthodox Church must be seen to have stood firm when all else was shaken, changed, and swept away… We Orthodox Christians must defend our children …. by striving to become living examples or Orthodox piety and observance… Those lost and confused secularists, Protestants, Roman Catholics and others who are looking for something transcendental, sacred, and steadfast in a confused, desacralized world, must be invited into the Church… I believe that the ‘program’ of the Orthodox Church is therefore to BE ORTHODOX!... turning our immigrant church into a missionary church… evangelizing America with authentic Orthodox Christianity for the first time in history.” (Pg. 314-315)

Schaeffer continues to attend the Orthodox Church services, but (seemingly) with much less FERVOR than he had when writing this book many years ago. Nevertheless, the book will be of keen interest to those following Schaeffer’s continuing development, or an interesting perspective on the Orthodox Church in America.

[David Galloway · Rating 1 out of 5]

Given Schaeffer's early life, it's no wonder he wrote such a book. It seems to be a catharsis for him, and is more concerned with how wrong other Christian communions are than with how right Orthodoxy is. I hear in recent years he's let go of some of his bitterness toward his past. I hope that is the case.

[Lisa Wuertz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was better and more well-researched than *Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells* by Matthew Gallatin, which I had just read prior to this.

Schaeffer's views definitely seem shaped by his prior involvement with the Evangelical Right political and religious movement. There were some parts I was extremely turned off by because they have that same tone and context.

While billed as such on the back cover and in the interviews I watched that led me to the book, it is not really a testimony of his own personal journey, like Gallatin's, but more a compilation of historical and theological research with his critiques and analysis stringing it all together.

He is pretty harsh in his treatment of Protestantism as a whole, or rather the acts of rebellion in the Great Schism and later the Reformation. In Schaffer's view, the Great Schism as the first act of rebellion, first put Christianity, Christian authority, Holy Tradition and truth into question which led to each successive movement building on itself from the Reformation to Enlightenment, to Romanticism, to Deism, to Humanism, to Relativism and finally Atheism.

"Barely eighty years after the beginning of the so-called Reformation, the various Protestant sects had already split into more than 280 denominations. Even the most committed Protestant must have been grieved to see one thousand years of essential sacramental Christian unity destroyed in less than eighty... In hindsight, however, it is abundantly clear that the Reformers like Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and company started a historical process of revolutionary proportions, the consequences of which they could never have understood nor to which they would have ultimately subscribed... It seems to me that the Enlightenment can only be understood as the secularized bastard child of three reactionary movements, all of which came about because of the corruption of the Western Latin Church: the Scholastic movement, the Renaissance and the Reformation. As such the Enlightenment was a movement led by men who rejected the teachings of the Roman Catholic historical church and borrowing a rationalistic rebellious page from the Renaissance and the new religion of Protestantism, began to question all authority even the idea of the divine order itself. What Renaissance scholars began in their questioning of the Holy Tradition ended as a rejection of that Tradition. What the Protestants began as a revolt against papal corruption ended as a rebellion against God. What started as a rejection of the sacramental authority of the Church ended in a rejection of the sanctity of human life. What began as the debasement of Holy Mystery, by the rationalistic Scholastic movement, ended in the setting up of mortal men and women as new "gods." At the end of the Reformation, Western culture stood on the brink of loosing its sense of the sacred. The Enlightenment philosophers gave people the final shove over the precipice of doubt... The [Enlightenment] philosophers taught that people did not need transcendent, God-given truth, nor the guidance of historical Christian Holy Tradition. They believed that people could better decide moral questions unaided by religion, Church authority or God. They held, moreover, that those who embraced a traditionally religious view of life were in fact an impediment to human progress and reason... The Reformers had rejected the ancient Holy Tradition of the Church and replaced it with the slogan of "Sola Scriptura!" They said that they needed no tradition by which to interpret the Scriptures. They held that by using their reason alone, the Bible was intuitively self-explanatory. The philosophers of the Enlightenment took the ideas of the Reformers further--they rejected not only the historical Church, liturgical worship, the Holy Mysteries, the sacraments and the Holy Tradition, but the Bible as well. All they were left with was the Reformer's faith in the individual's intuitive ability to interpret life's big questions unaided. They reduced the Reformer's slogan "Sola Scriptura," to merely "Sola!" ... Indeed why not invent a whole new world and redeem mankind through art, social engineering and science rather than spiritual renewal? ... Both the parent, Protestantism, the child, the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment's derivative, the Romantic movement, were dominant in early American thinking, in which a climate of rebellion against Holy Tradition, sacramentality, hierarchy, community, patriarchy, the teaching of the historical Church, repentance from greed and self-indulgence and finally God, thrived. The real focus of the American Protestant spirit soon became one that held that no authority exists outside of the individual."

It is in this look at history and where it has led us--in Schaeffer's view morals and truth seen as relative--that he suggests a return to the ancient Orthodox Church that has remained the same for over 2,000 years rather than continuing with any one of the 23,000 different denominations of Protestantism (possibly more now as that statistic was from 1989 and they were growing at a rate of 5 per year). Admittedly, I don't completely think Schaeffer's assessment is fair. Sin, atheism, moral relativism, rebellion, etc all existed prior to The Great Schism and the Reformation. That does not mean, however, that his argument is completely debunked or that these events did not contribute to the current situation.

Schaeffer also rejects the idea that one can simply turn to a more conservative line of Protestantism to solve these problems.

"...the differences between 'conservative' Protestants and 'liberal' ones is superficial. Both equally reject the authority of the historic apostolic Church established by Christ. Without the guidance of Holy Tradition, both are left with little more than personalized, deconstructed and subjective readings of the Scripture on which to base competing theological and moral claims... Today, confused and well-meaning Protestants of all denominational persuasions, having little or no historic foundation at all, take Scripture--in other words, *their* interpretation of Scripture--as their only source of spiritual authority. They replace the historic Church's Holy Tradition with themselves--personally. Each individual becomes his or her own 'ecumenical council,' 'bishop' and 'priest.' Each is a law unto himself as he reads the Bible and claims, 'God is speaking to me.' This fervor of individualized faith is practiced outside of the context of the historical Church. Each Protestant claims to base his or her ideas--which are often contradictory one of another--'on Scripture.' ...A high price has been paid for egocentric, self centered, individualistic Protestant style of 'spirituality' which has ignored the wisdom of the ages. Protestant 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' have not succeeded in achieving agreement, even among themselves, as to what the Bible 'says.' What began with the brave cry 'away with bishops, Sola Scriptura!' ends in the realization that the Bible, taken out of context of Holy Tradition, liturgy, sacramental worship and prayer 'means' whatever each person says it does. Ironically, Protestant theologians are the fathers of deconstructionism. It is they who abandoned both the historic and spiritual context from which the Bible came. Modern Protestantism has rendered the meaning of the text unintelligible beyond individual emotional responses. And so the circle of subjectivity is completed. Faith is now personalized into a 'born-again experience.' The Church 'lives in our hearts,' the sacraments are 'mere symbols,' and finally the Bible's 'message' turns out to be a message of the sort madmen 'hear' in their minds when secret voices 'speak' things to them that no one else can hear... This type of spiritually arrogant, anti-communitarian, 'intuitive' reading of the Bible, without regard for history, liturgical worship, context or interpretation by the historic Church reduces the Bible to personalized mush, not very different from the astrological charts printed daily in the tabloid newspapers... It is also the most damning testimony available to the secularistic scoffer; Biblical Christianity is an irrational religion for the emotionally unstable and gullible... Ironically, some Protestants, including those who call themselves 'Fundamentalists,' while paying lip service to 'biblical inerrancy' and while believing they are sincerely 'looking to the Bible' as their 'sole source' of spiritual guidance, nevertheless, by taking verses out of the historic context of Holy Tradition and liturgical worship, de-historicize the Bible. Thus fundamentalist Protestants are in this sense no less liberal than the Liberal Protestants they loudly denounce and loathe. Both manage to effectively reduce the Bible's historical authority to zero by removing it from the context of the community of faith: the Orthodox Church. Let us remember the roots of this type of subjective Biblical interpretation go back to the very beginning of the Protestant rebellion. It was Martin Luther who wanted to drop various books of the Bible not in accordance with his personalized, subjective theology. These included First and Second John, James and Revelation. And it was Calvin in his *Institutes,* who wrote that intuitive feelings, rather than Consensus Fidelium (the Holy Tradition), are the hermeneutical principles by which sacred tradition must be replaced. Just as Martin Luther had the audacity to add words to the Bible in his German translation, and to suggest the elimination of whole Biblical books, so today's Protestants continue in Luther's unholy anarchy by further personalizing Bible study and further removing it from the context of sacramental communal worship. As a result, Protestants routinely misinterpret verses about healing, prosperity, blessing and priestly authority. Blinded by faulty self-serving 'Bible study,' of the kind Calvin said was better than dependency on Holy Tradition, Protestants have traveled far from historic Christianity... Cut off from historical tradition and precedent, legitimate apostolic Church hierarchy and God-given, legitimate sacramental worship, Protestant pastors have become their own self-appointed individual 'popes.'They have assumed the mantle of the teaching authority of the whole Church without being answerable to the doctrines of the historical Church of ages... Unwilling to personally submit to the discipline of spiritual fathers, they can hardly call others to moral accountability... Some may call themselves 'Conservative,' but such claims ring hollow in the context of a reactionary Protestantism that has failed to honor--let alone conserve--the essentials of Christian worship, order, unity, discipline and Holy Tradition. The spiritually impoverished parishioners in most Protestant congregations have no one to appeal to and thus can either abide the make-it-up-as-you-go-along teaching of their mini-popes--the Protestant empire building 'pastor' or leader--or find another local 'church.' Once again, this 'church' will be just one more island of Protestant individualism adrift from historical Christianity. If they do not like any 'local church,' Protestants can start their own 'churches,' even whole denominations."

And now I understand why some label Schaeffer a "hard-liner."

[Socrate · Rating 3 out of 5]

În America oamenii se consideră credincioşi, dar în acelaşi timp se comportă precum ateii. Judecaţi chiar şi după tradiţionalele reguli de purtare creştină, cu greu s-ar putea spune că americanii sunt un popor creştin.
În comparaţie cu alte culturi, noi, americanii suntem poporul cel mai materialist, mai desacralizat din câte există. Însă potrivit părerii noastre despre noi înşine, am fi un popor 'religios' şi chiar 'bun'. Cine încearcă să ne judece îşi poate forma părerea fie după ce spun americanii despre ei înşişi, fie după ce în realitate fac. Ei spun că-şi iubesc familiile, dar jumătate din căsnicii sfârşesc în divorţ. Spun că-şi iubesc copiii, dar aproape o treime din copii sunt avortaţi (1,6 milioane pe an), iar alte milioane de nou-născuţi sunt abandonaţi unui sistem de învăţământ falimentar, sau lăsaţi pe mâna tribunalelor, asistenţilor sociali şi orfelinatelor.
Din perspectiva adevărului istoric al creştinismului, problemele morale care ne înconjoară nu sunt atât rezultatul lipsei de religie în societatea noastră, cât consecinţele credinţei exagerate în false religii. Trăim într-o lume care se consideră profund religioasă. Cu toate acestea, trăirea religioasă, credinţa în învăţătura istorică a Bisericii (creştinismul Ortodox) sunt desuete în America. Sunt desuete atât în cercurile secularizate ale lumii educate (cum au fost denumiţi intelectualii, personalităţile mass-media, profesorii şi educatorii,judecătorii şi personalităţile din lumea afacerilor care împreună formează standardele intelectuale politice şi sociale din societate) şi nu mai putin în fiecare din comunităţile Protestante, care de care mai arogante. Cele dintâi au abandonat creştinismul istoric împreună cu toate ideile metafizice şi transcendente, pe care le-au înlocuit cu un ideal secular după care şansa oarbă şi natura, nu Dumnezeu, îl face pe om. Celelalte mai păstrează un fel de credinţă, dar este o credinţă extrem de subiectivă, prezenta în toate confesiunile de Protestanţi 'născuti din nou'. Personal cred că o astfel de 'credintă' este mai mult o formă de psihoterapie decât o trăire potrivit creştinismului istoric, potrivit căruia omul trebuie să-şi acorde viaţa cu un cod sacramental şi ascetic.

[Doug Sullivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was. difficult read. Even if I agreed with Schaeffer--and I don't--his style in making the case for a return to Orthodoxy is to wear you down on his subjective take on church history, which inevitably leads you to his conclusions on why he switched his faith based on the merits of Orthodox worship and practice, but against such a slanderous view of Protestant faith it is embarrassing to read. I suppose I can't disagree with the author's personal experience, but to characterize all Protestant faith by such narrow views ruins the credibility of the opinion. Thus this was interesting, but far from compelling or even credible.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by the son of Francis Schaffer, one of the beacons of scholarly evangelicalism, the book begins with the author's disillusionment with American Protestantism's rejection of its historical rational and spiritual roots. The author's spiritual journey leads him to rediscover a faith which has been flying under the radar of Western history for 2000 years.

[Mike Simmons · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like the intensity of this book, but it won't be for everyone. Schaeffer goes overboard here and there, but I can't really argue with his critique of western Christianity as it is found in America.

[Bill Vinhage · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched but a bit harsh in its tone. Still as someone seriously considering converting to Orthodoxy I found it very useful and informative. American Christianity is largely unveiled for the grotesque mutation it has become.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horrendous.

[Richard Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Too bad I so profoundly dislike Frank Schaeffer. This is a pretty good book on Eastern Orthodoxy.