Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Frank Schaeffer's " Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion " is a challenging book. Not necessarily because of it's effective reasoning but because of its flaws.

Like many other converts, Schaeffer is attracted to the most " traditionalist " theology and has become a bit of an extremest. I found a great deal of his writing to be overly strident and often repetitive. I agree with many other reviewers that believe that this books cries out for editing. I think he could have made his points very effectively in a book half its size. There are places where he seems to be ranting. His attacks on homosexuality, abortion and feminism are lacking in depth and poorly fashioned.

It is important to state that, contrary to how this book is presented, it is not about one mans journey to Orthodoxy. Rather it is a lengthy presentation of the authors belief in the errors of thinking that typify the theological underpinnings of Protestantism, and to a slightly lesser extent Roman Catholicism.

I am, like Schaeffer, a convert to Orthodoxy. However, though I fundamentally agree with much of what he has written, but I do not like the anger that his writing reflects. I also was very disappointed that he didn't write a single word about the Orthodox view of capital punishment. What he does offer is a very descriptive ( but hardly unique ) critique of the history of the Reformation.

I was taught by my father to never pin your adversary down ( in a debate, formal or otherwise ) with no wiggle room. The most successful approach to persuasiveness is to let your competition agree with you in a manor that doesn't insult their dignity. This book possesses no such tact, and as a result I suspect that a non Orthodox individual might quite reasonably feel insulted and put on the defensive by its aggressive nature.

I believe that this is not a good introductory book on Orthodoxy. Its ideal audience might be individuals who have been born into Orthodoxy or whose conversion is complete. Sadly, I think that Schaeffer has forgotten to describe the extent to which Orthodoxy is a faith of deep compassion, with an unshakable foundation built on the unconditional love of God for his people. It is a tradition that has tolerated dissent within its ranks and has been ( at its best ) highly reluctant to pass judgment on others.

Frank Schaeffer's book is an excellent introduction for those interested or curious about Eastern Orthodoxy. As the son of perhaps this country's most famous Protestant theologian, Francis Schaeffer, Mr. Schaeffer's book is instructive on a number of levels. The book is part testimonial, part explanation and defense of Orthodox theology, and part cultural critique of contemporary American culture. Mr. Schaeffer sets out to explain why our individualistic, feel-good social ethic has compromised many denominations and why Orthodoxy offers an organic, living form of worship and piety that is Christianity in its completest form. Mr. Schaeffer references Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils in his explanation of Orthodox doctrine in his defense of Orthodoxy's claim to being the living, True Church of Christ. This may upset or surpise some who accept today's ecumenical claim that all the denominations taken together are branches of the one true Church; but, as Mr. Schaeffer points out, you cannot have a number of Churches who all claim different things that contradict the claims of each other comprising the one True Church: this is a contradiction that makes no sense. Mr. Schaeffer's book will be of particular interest to anyone interested in Orthodoxy, whether he be Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic. This is important since Mr. Schaeffer IS NOT saying (nor does the Orthodox Church teach as much) that you can only be saved or please God if you are Orthodox; the mystery of a man's salvation is something man cannot judge and is for God alone to know. However, Mr. Schaeffer is interested in establishing the historical and theological case that establishes Orthodoxy as the one True Church of Christ that possess the fullness of Christ's Truth that other churches that split from Her do not possess. In a world where many traditional forms of worship and piety have been forgotten or dismissed, where other liturgical churches have abandoned or gutted their liturgies, taking a serious look at Orthodoxy might be of value for those disaffected with modernist denominations and parishes.

When Frank Schaeffer spoke at the Festival of Orthodoxy in Dallas in February 2005, he said that he was too harsh in this book, and that were he able to do it over, he would rewrite half of it. I don't know which half or which parts he would rewrite, but I agree with him about the harshness of his tone, which to me seriously degrades the value and trustworthiness of this book. It's interesting, but Schaeffer's jeremiad makes for wearisome reading after awhile.

I found this book to be stunning. There are two main theses I see in the book. One is how first the Catholic Church and then especially the Protestant Church are responsible for the malaise of today's Western culture (the Catholic Church is primarily responsible because its excesses caused the Reformation backlash). The other thesis is his attempt to show that the Orthodox Church is the one true church.

Schaeffer does not mince words in this book; he writes with a hard-hitting style that has no problems with giving out devastating criticism. He goes after both the political Left and Right in America; some prominent figures in church history that he levels harsh criticism against include St. Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Charles Finney, and Billy Graham. He attacks Anabaptists harshly, accusing them of anarchy, and gives Quakers a similar rough treatment. If you get offended easily, don't read this book.

I find his thesis that Protestantism is the cause of the secularization and moral downfall of Western civilization to be convincing in itself, although I can't help but wonder if the same secularization might have eventually occurred anyway even if the Reformation hadn't happened. It was enlightening to me because I had always attributed the sad state of our society, dominated by the idea of relative truth, as going back to Darwin, since the elimination of a Creator God meant man could do whatever he wanted. But this book convinced me that the roots of our current cultural war go back way, way before Darwin, to the early centuries of the Christian church, although the biggest changes were brought on by the Protestant Reformation.

The second thesis of the book I find to be less convincing. In itself, his argument that the Orthodox Church is the one true church is relatively convincing, but when I step away and consider where the Orthodox Church is today, and compare it to the vitality of the Protestant church, I have a hard time agreeing with Schaeffer that the Protestant church is a scourge to Christianity and separated from the body of Christ.

On the other side of the coin, his book has created in interest within me to do more research about the early church and about the Orthodox Church in particular, since I know virtually nothing about it, apart from what I've read in this book.

This book would get a 5-star rating because of its ability to radically change my way of thinking and outlook on history and the church. What drops it down to the 4 level: 1) This book badly needs a competent copywriter. There are way too many spelling and punctuation errors, which are distracting, especially in a book with such heady material. (My copy has a different cover from the one pictured, though, so I hope there is a new edition that took care of all the spelling and punctuation errors.) 2) The font is distracting. 3) The book seems a bit unorganized. For example, there is a chapter on abortion thrown in between chapters describing the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Why is it there, rather than with the rest of the chapters on societal issues? So these weaknesses drag the book down to a 4 level, but 4 in my book is "Excellent." (See "About Me" for a full description of my ratings.)

If you want to be challenged in your thinking and can take someone hitting you over the head with their beliefs and the butchering of sacred cows, go for it. This book will certainly engage you.

Considering the author's willingness to lay bare aspects of other people's lives in his autobiographical novels (_Portofino_ and _Saving Grandma_), his reticence in discussing personal aspects of his conversion from evangelical Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy suprised me.

In many evangelical quarters in the United States (and perhaps to some extent in Europe), the surname "Schaeffer" carries a particular intellectual and spiritual cachet. On the former, this book does not disappoint. As neatly and thoroughly as ever his father fileted and dissected secular humanism, Frank Schaeffer carves up the failure -- in his perhaps less than completely objective view; see his novels -- of evangelicals to push back against the incursions of modernism.

Some people will find this approach sufficient; I did not. First, as I have already indicated, Mr Schaeffer does not to my thinking adequately -- or, really, at all -- address the personal quest that is the foundation of religious seeking. He tars evangelicals and Roman Catholics with a broad brush, without explaining the effects that his own steeping in this kind of "old time religion" had on him, his marriage, his work, and his parenting. He has gone over to Mount Athos, in a sense, without a personal explanation, rather like a young man who drops out of school and enlists in the army unbeknownst to his parents because "there's a war on". Well, yes. But there's always war _someplace_ in the world; what were YOUR reasons for enlisting now? In this book, we read the philosophical, historic, and ultimately political reasons. I don't think Mr Schaeffer addresses, even obliquely, the personal reasons for his enlistment.

Yet Mr Schaeffer in his foreword frames this as a personal work and thus begs to reference all his mentions of American history, for instance, to a single source. This I could understand and even accept if he were to address the often painful issues that accompany any kind of religious conversion. But I don't think he does. He makes grand arguments and draws conclusions based on patently (and self-admittedly) limited sources, which in some ways represents the greatest weaknesses of his father's works.

I would welcome a more introspective work on this subject and I suspect that many readers would anticipate this being such a book. It is not. In a Greek sense, broadly one might say that this is far more Thucydides than Herodotus: lots of speeches, little conversation. Some readers, as evidenced by other reviews, find that approach more than satisfactory. I did not.

At first read, Frank Schaeffer's diatribe against Protestantism is unsettling. It would be simple to write off his fervor as pent-up anger if his subject was anything else. However, Mr. Schaeffer is writing of the ONE, TRUE, CHURCH <sic>, which he has come to believe is the Orthodox faith. The correct tone when instructing others in a serious matter in which they are mistaken is staunch authoritarianism, mixed well with compassion and personal relevance. Mr. Schaeffer combines these elements well, and takes the reader on a soul-wringing trip through history.

In the first section of the book, Mr. Schaeffer documents the history of Protestantism and draws connections between its strayed theology and many of society's ills. Though this section is dry if you are not a history buff, it is necessary to set up the argument for the Orthodox Church.

I grew up in a very Protestant home, and after a period of soul-searching and questioning, motivated by the desire to be "different and separate", I chose a Protestant church home. What characterizes Protestantism above all else is incessant questioning-a personal proof of faith based on what the individual chooses to believe and how they interpret scripture. I have yet to lose this knack for picking and choosing, so in my very Protestant way, let me tell you what I like about Orthodoxy as Mr. Schaeffer describes it:

1. Orthodoxy is a sure thing! If I'm right, and in the spirit of democracy, you are right, then I end up being wrong. Not so in the Orthodox Church. There: "this is right, this is what the Church has always taught."

2. I have always believed the Bible to be the infallible word of God, protected and passed down to us through the ages. The Orthodox Church didn't even have the canon of the New Testament when it began. That part of the Bible grew out of the tradition and development of the Church!

3. Who is the Orthodox Church to say they have the ONE TRUE WAY ?!? Well, they do have documentation of the succession from the apostles, and Christ gave special dispensation to those MEN to carry out the work of the church. Ok, well, who's to say that they haven't had outside influence and that their worship is just as different from the New Testament Church as Mine is?!? Ok, but the apostles to whom Christ gave those special powers and instructions to start THIS Church said, "...The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

I received this book as gift from my step-father (who I love, and who loves me as real as you can get!) He sent this book from Amazon.com via post while I was making wedding preparations (and almost got me in trouble for spending money on-line!) and then called two days later to see if I had read it, and what I had thought. I hadn't even touched it yet. I did get to read it in the Mojave on my Annual Training with the Texas Army National Guard. I can't say that I am converted because I have yet to do all of the research (and there isn't an Orthodox Church where I live). But it has certainly made points I can not ignore. Frank Schaeffer continues in his father's footsteps as an insightful theologian, sensitive to the evil of relativism in our society.

Frank Schaeffer, a.k.a. Franky, was an inspiration to many evangelicals in the 80s. The opening chapter of his book "A Time for Anger", in which for several pages he documents the lunatic contradictions of advances in prenatal medicine contrasted with pro-abortion militancy is one of the most brilliant and compelling satires I have ever read. But Franky became disillusioned with the wishy-washy response of evangelicals to the issues of the day, Evangelical provincialism related to the arts and soon seemed to fade from sight.

This book documents that disillusionment, as he studied the early church with others and eventually embraced Orthodoxy.

He provides many insightful critiques of the shortcomings of Evangelicalism. His methodology follows in father's, in many respects, seeing roots of ideas in earlier eras which blossomed into worldviews that ran counter to essential Christianity. Why did Frank wind up in a different place than Francis?

Francis was often accused (unjustly) of reductionism, condensing complex historical movements into tidy little compartments. But Francis was at least careful to hedge his conclusions and tended to connect the dots well. Frank, on the other hand, speaks in bold and sometimes condescending terms, and frustratingly makes huge leaps of logic. He builds a foundation from A to B to C, then leaps all the way to Z and pronounces his conclusion inevitable.

Hence, where Francis Schaeffer lamented the rise of rationalism and its effects on secular and Christian thought, Frank instead blames rationalism on Augustine and the Reformers. It is as if all ideas which have developed in the Western world are constructions of confused Western theology and no ideas sprung from thought outside the church. He criticises virtually everything in the west, democracy included, and lays the blame for every ill from rampant abortion on demand to even theological excesses within the American Orthodox church on Protestantism. The key point, hammered mercilessly, is that rationalistic theology led to individualism, individualism led to endless division, and endless division led to pluralism and a lack of any solid moral compass. Western Christianity was not influenced, then, by secular and anti-Christian philosophies, rather Protestanism caused those philosophies by cutting theology away from "holy tradition".

It is not that his logic from A to B to C is faulty or that his base points are not well taken. In fact some of the early points are rather compelling. But his leaps from C to Z is so outrageous as to make every previous point irrelevant.

Daniel Clenendin's, or Kallistos Ware's books on Orthodoxy are much more worthwhile for a Protestant who wants to understand the Eastern Church. If you are just curious to know what happened to Franky Schaeffer, this is the definitive answer.

Frank Schaeffer well articulates the tensions, frustrations, heartbreaks, and yes, the anger, felt by many pious Christians of Protestant Confessions whose Churches never 'fed' them very well, and then left them entirely for the stagnant pools of political 'correctness' and wanton secularism.

I read this book after having left Protestantism, as practiced by the Episcopal Church of the USA. I was exploring Orthodoxy in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. I found Dancing Alone to be enormously instructive in that the author's focus, logic, and sound research articulated why I had become so ill-at-ease with my former church, and why the Orthodox Church has offered (for nearly 2,000 years) that which I sought.

A rather glaring drawback of this book is the lack of editorial intervention. Mr. Schaeffer makes his points over and over again within the respective chapters, often coming close to beating the proverbial dead horse. Once you have gotten the argument in a chapter, and read enough substantiating evidence, you may proceed to the next chapter without fear of missing new material.

I was baptized into the Church on Transfiguration Day 1997.

As a new convert to Orthodoxy from absolute athieism, I was thrilled to read this book. Yes, Frank seems a bit bitter, but so am I. I went to a "Christian" school and learned the wonders of Luther and Calvin and how the end justified the means, no matter how abrasive their tactics were. Church was tedious and either entertaining or incredibly dull and life was a series of listening to the latest Christian band or of reading the latest book, always modernised and changing. I ran from Protestantism, screaming and pulling out my hair.

Orthodoxy was different. As I began relating my experiences to one of my parishners, she suggested I read Schaeffer's book as I'd connect with him. He so blatantly uncoveres the mediocrity to which modern day Protestantism and Modernised Roman Catholics adhere to. He shows how Christianity is an adjective that anyone can use in these faiths, but how there is One True Church that has not changed in almost 2000 years.

He shows where we as an American society started to go wrong and how we are more concerned with feeling good than in working on getting closer to our Creator.

He just doesn't slam Protestants, he shakes up many Orthodox churches that are no more than ethnic Elks Clubs. Frank searches for authenticity and he has a right to be upset where his anger shows.

In "Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion", Frank Schaeffer argues that the Orthodox Church is the only church that has remained faithful to the ancient Christian Church. All of the evils that we are experiencing in America today are a result of the paganism of our culture on the one hand and the relativism generated by an array of false religions on the other hand. Noteably, these false religions include the Roman Catholic Church and its invention of a "papal dictatorship" and the various schismatic Protestant churches who have "rebelled against the Holy Tradition of the Church". The cure for much of the evil that we are currently experiencing is for Roman Catholics and Protestants to return to the Truth and the true worship of Jesus Christ which can only be found in the Orthodox Church.

Faithful Protestant and Catholics would agree with Mr. Schaeffer's critique of the immorality of our generation and the need for people's lives to be transformed by Jesus Christ. But as a person whose life has been changed by Jesus, whose faith has been established and nurtured in one of the Evangelical Protestant churches, it might not come as a surprise that I can't accept all that Mr. Schaeffer has to say.

While his viewpoint is theoretically possible, it fails an important test: it doesn't agree with reality, that is, the reality of God's Spirit working in the other Christian churches. If the exclusive claim he makes for the Orthodox church was true, we should not see the things that we do see occurring outside of the Orthodox church: people trusting in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord when such faith did not exist before, people acquiring a thirst for the Word of God when it did not exist before, people displaying the fruit of the Spirit when it did not exist before, relationships being healed that were broken before, people being physically healed who were previously afflicted with disease or disability. For example, our church supports a native missionary in India who has witnessed tens of thousands of Hindu converts to Christ in his lifetime. In some cases, entire villages have been converted as the result of physical healings by the Holy Spirit. Seeing the fruit and power of this ministry is like witnessing scenes right from the book of Acts. These observations remind me of Jesus comparing the Holy Spirit to the wind. The Spirit operates in a mysterious way that is not subject to human control or the exclusive claims of men.

Mr. Schaeffer addresses many doctrines of the faith but the dispute over authority in the church is the heart of all of the issues. Mr. Schaeffer argues that because the Protestant churches cannot trace a physical succession of Christian leaders back to the apostles they are not legitimate inheritors of apostolic authority and are rightly characterized as "false churches".

Let me compare the Orthodox view of authority, as it has been vigorously stated by Frank Schaeffer, with the Evangelical view of authority that I have been instructed in. There is a tendency in people to elevate form over substance. To insist that a church must be a part of a physical succession of Christian leaders going back to the apostles before it can be regarded as having apostolic authority is one example of elevating form over substance. For example, John the Baptist rebuked the Jewish leaders who prided themselves as being physical descendents of Abraham. He said, "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." (Luke 3:8) The substance of the matter is this: having apostolic authority is contingent on fidelity to the apostle's teachings as they are revealed to us in the Scriptures.

Evangelicals do not throw out the authority of the Church, the Apostle's, Nicene, and Chalcedonian creeds, or the wisdom of previous generations of Christians. The dispute between the two viewpoints concerns the relationship between the authority of the Church and the authority of the Scriptures. The Orthodox view of authority is that the Church and the Scriptures are intimately related sources of authority standing together on the same plane. Moreover, the canon of Scripture was established by the Church when she accepted certain books and rejected others. By contrast, Evangelicals understand that the Church's authority is always subordinate to the authority of the Scriptures. For example, the creeds of the early Church are authoritative because they are in agreement with the Scriptures. Evangelicals understand the canon of Scripture in this way: Just as Isaac Newton did not create the law of gravity, the Church did not create the canon of Scripture. The Holy Spirit enabled the Church to recognize the canon of Scripture that God had already sovereignly determined. Therefore, God and His inspired Word is always the primary and absolute authority. The Church's judgments are authoritative when she speaks and acts in agreement with His inspired Word. For example, Saint Paul asserts "but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8) This passage implies that the gospel message itself has an antecedent authority to the apostle who delivers the message.

Both Orthodox and Evangelical Christians esteem the Scriptures as the Word of God. But I choose the Evangelical viewpoint because it does not deny the work of the Spirit that is indisputably present in other Christian churches. I don't disrespect the Spirit's work in the Orthodox church. But I am unpersuaded that the exclusive claim that Frank Schaeffer makes is true.