Customer Reviews

The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Whether you're seeking to become Orthodox or not, if you're an unhappy Evangelical Christian you should find a day to read this well-written and concise volume. It is very scripturally-based and the author does a good job of weaving his own story into the discourse. My wife, raised Freewill Baptist, found this book so stimulating that she devoured it in a few hours and had us off to Vespers at an Orthodox church within 2 days!

The Way's main failing point is that Carlton starts out nasty. Maybe, as a former Baptist preacher himself, he felt that was necessary to get our attention. But it is worth slogging past the first half-chapter and getting into his discussion. Several reviewers have dismised the volume because, well, they missed the point.

Carlton's big point is that Protestants broke from Rome and ostensibly sought to restore the original church of the apostles, but didn't even come close, and, in fact, that Church was there all along in eastern Orthodoxy. He documents this with records dating to 70AD!

Carlton's subsidiary point is that the reason for Protestant failure was that Calvin, Luther, etc. were actually strong individualists with preconceived notions and that Protestants have genrally followed their error of trying to make the church fit them, rather than the other way.

Carlton spends much time on the sola scriptura argument. While there is much to be said both ways, he does a good, meaty summary of the Orthodox position on the relationship and origins of Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. Absent, unfortunately, is a good chapter on Sola Fide; as one Orthodox priest recently told me, "You Protestants and Catholics think it has to be either-or on everything."

So, yes, buy this book. It isn't perfect but it's an excellent, thought-provoking read.

This book is on the whole quite good. However, I do agree with some other reviews in that his view of the Protestant churches is quite narrow, stemming from the fact that the term "Protestant" is such a wide definition that its almost impossible to offer a critique of Protestantism without leaving out a great number of the 30,000 denominations.

I also think he could have been far more thorough on issues such as Sola Scriptura.

Many posters seem to be making some incorrect assertions though:

1. The Coptic Church is not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is part of the Oriental Orthodox Church, which is something entirely different. The Oriental churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, etc) broke away from the Orthodox Church in 451 A.D.

2. There is no division within the Orthodox Church. There are a number of self-governing juristictions (meaning they can elect their own Bishops and govern their own internal affair) which often differ in non-essential things such as language and music style. However, they have exactly the same Bible, the same Faith, the same Eucharist, etc.

3. "But which one is it then? Catholic or Orthodox?". This is a book about Orthodoxy and Protestantism, not Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There have been written a number of books on the latter subject.

4. Tradition bears witness to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals because Rome was the Imperial city at the time. The Orthodox Church accepts this 100% and if Rome and the Orthodox Church were ever to be reunited, the Pope would once again hold such a place of primacy. However, the Pope's primacy was place of honour only. He never had juristiction over the Eastern churches, nor was he ever infallible.
Primacy not Supremacy!

As a Protestant (Lutheran background) considering/exploring the Orthodox church, I can honestly say that given all the books I've read on the subject, I can't recommend this one to those considering a conversion (at least not as a first read).

The book does contain some good information about the Orthodox church. However, it also contains some very inaccurate observations about Protestants in general (where on earth did he come up with some of this stuff?!?). I wish the author would have spent more time examining the positives of the Orthodox church rather than harping on his perceived negatives of all other denominations in existance. I believe that the author does not try to intentionally mislead. But, it is clear that his background and/or investigation of other Protestant denominations is very limited and subjective.

Despite all the above negativity in this review, I do think this book should be purchased (along with some of the author's other books). However, comments made that are not about the Orthodox faith should be taken with a grain of salt.

I appreciate an honest and blunt book. I believe this author to be very talented, but I hope that he will consider his tone in future books that he writes so as not to "turn away" those who may be genuinely interested in the Orthodox church.

Carlton does an excellent job of tracing the outline of his thought processes in his conversion to Orthodoxy, though I would have striven to be less strident and connect the dots a little better.

The "numerous factual errors" referred to by the previous reviewer are actually only disagreements between the author and the reviewer.

The author's statement that for Baptists "truth is what each individual says it is, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is a violation of individual freedom." Is perhaps strident in its tone, but IS factual; this is basic to the radical reformation. While it is true that Baptists state that truth claims must be judged against scripture, the proliferation of Baptist denominations and "non-denominational" fellowships underscores the authors point. To say that "Carlton has no idea what Baptists really believe" is simply the reviewers way of attempting to out-polemicize the Baptist seminary trained author.

The "numerous other deficiencies in this book" can be summed up by stating that the author is an Orthodox Christian and not a protestant like the reviewer.

BTW, the buttons below reviews have to do with whether the review is helpful, not whether you agree with the review.

Clark Carlton's "The Way" is a solid text with good analysis on the diferrence between Protestant denominations and Eastern Orthodoxy. Though some reviewers have critized the text about Clark's understanding of Protestantism and the Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) in particular, they have not addressed the schisms in the Baptist faith (and Protestantism) nor have they been fair to Clark's text. The groups who have left Orthodoxy are much diferrent in dynamics than the splits in Protestantism (for one, when one leaves Orthodoxy, they are no longer Orthodox; but a schismatic Protestant is still a Protestant and is the logical outworking of Protestent doctrine).

As a former Baptist, I found nothing in error with Clark's review of the SBC. His review on other issues like 'sola scriptura' and 'tradition' are above average chapters, however, his refutation of 'sola' proof texts used by Evangelicals is average and I wish more detialed analysis on the texts were used. The chapter is only 15 pages and many texts have been dealt with more througohly by some of the Catholic Apologists. I assert he goes on a red herring in saying that Paul was only asserting the Old Testament when writing about the sufficiency of scripture- yes, that is a given, but the New Testament is still inspired scripture and when he finaly deals with this, his conclusion (which I agree with) is not as forceful as it should be.

I wanted to give this book a higher approval rating because I essentially agree with him on almost all points, but the book is too small and many other essenial tenets of Orthodoxy are either not discussed or barely touched such as Theosis. This book is probably very good for someone who is just being introduced to Orthodoxy and is him or herself at wits end with the heresies and schisms of Protestantism. For the seasoned reader looking for an apologitic to aid in articulating the faith, there is much better material elsewhere.

This book is of special interest to me as I "got saved" into an Evangelical church at the age of 19. I spent years defending the Protestant view of Scripture (well, my interpretation of the Protestant view of Scripture at least).

It wasn't until I began to take seriously Paul's words that the woman should have her head covered that I began to question Evangelicalism. This growing desire for Biblical literalism led me to the Anabaptists. A group that interprets many of the passages of the NT literally including their particular takes on nonresistance, nonconformity, modest dress and so on. It was through the Anabaptists that I was introduced to the writings of David Bercot. I was sold on Bercot's writings for some time and felt there was no answer to them. That was until I began to seriously consider the claims of the Orthodox Church with an open mind. What I began to find is that there are some serious questions that Bercot and those who follow his line of thinking cannot answer. It would perhaps be too much to go into detail about that here, but one of the main questions I came up with when considering the Orthodox was this: Let me first explain Bercot's take on Constantine, and this wouldn't be unique to him. He got this idea from The anatomy of a hybrid: A study in church-state relationships by Leonard Verduin among other sources i'm sure. Anyway, his belief is that Constantine was not a Christian and that he did what he did for political interest by converting his entire empire to Christianity making Rome its headquarters. I bought this, and thought it sounded really solid. I still can see in my mind how one could easily believe this. But then I began asking the question: "If Constantine really took over the Church in this way and corrupted it, wasn't there one man to stand up and protest?" The answer usually comes that there were true believers scattered all around the world in some form a pilgrim Church (which Bercot rejects in favour of a Kingdom movement which is less doctrinally united and more united on the orthopraxy front). The main problem I found with this was that many Evangelicals including E.H. Broadbent, in his book Pilgrim Church, were using known and confirmed Gnostics such as the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathars in support of their theory. I have actually found primary sources of the Cathars online which show thier Gnostic heresies.

Bercot has studied the early Church for over 20 years now, and has come up with many novel ideas concerning the Ante Nicene Church. Ideas that find no precedence at any time throughout history. This leaves him in a predicament. If what he teaches is true, shouldn't we find people all down through history coming to the same conclusions as him? Yet we don't. He is a man of novel ideas. He has managed to find about 5 confirmed "Kingdom Movements", one of which is not 100% in line with his own interpretation of what constitutes a Kingdom Movement.

I think Carlton has answered a lot of questions for me, and tied up a lot of loose ends regarding the views and doctrines of the early Church. He has helped me rid myself of some of the last vestiges of Protestant heresy. I literally could not put this book down. He has such a deep and intricate knowledge of Protestantism and brings it all across in a very easy to understand manner. His writing style is not overly intellectual yet this man does know his stuff.

To be continued...

About a year and a half ago, I was happily Protestant, and then someone had the nerve to introduce me to the Orthodox Church. This strange church intrigued me. It definitely seemed to have been around a long time--much longer than my Protestant church. I felt the need to judge between the Orthodox Church and the Protestant churches to find out which was legitimate. This book gives an excellent comparison of the two and does so using many witnesses (i.e., Church Fathers) down through the Church's 2,000 year history.

If you are Protestant, this book is a great one to read. I suggest following it with The Faith and then The Life. These help you to better understand Orthodox theology.

The Way. The Truth. The Life. The Faith. The most annoying thing about these wonderful Clark Carlton books are the titles. Cut and boxed and simple. But as catechism material for Protestants and Catholics interested in giving the East a serious look see, these are super books. Unless you've a mind made up to stay put, to stay planted in the "other two" branches of the Christian Church tree, Protestant and Roman Catholic, stay away. You'll be offended. Carlton wants you to come down from the branches and get close to the trunk and roots. And he's a real nose bonker along the way, this guy. Speaking of "roots", come to think of it, Webber's Common Roots three decades back was my Eastern Orthodox beginning. Carlton is sort of a roots and trunk guy, too.

I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from Youth For Christ and Campus Crusade for Christ style Protestant Non Denominational (yeah, right) Evangelicalism. These four one word titled books would have helped shorten my 12 years running up to a conversion to the Orthodox Church once I began to welcome being offended and braved looking back and East. But maybe the slow way is the better way? Nothing slow here, however. Slam bam this is it and when you gonna convert sort of tone in the series. But you got to love his direct style. He never aims to be subtle.

Our Orthodox Book Club read all four and went on to spend the next year reading several books by and about Augustine, books on the East and the West, to find where we got off track with the faith. Very rewarding.

I don't know if the Carlton works are hard or simple to read but they are most certainly all about theology. What's that saying of forth century folks who used to sit in barber shops in Constantinople and talk all the time of eternally important things like the hypostatic union? Today we while away the hours on Charlie Sheen drivel.

Shoot your TV. Read this book.

I am only thru chapter 4 of this book. Interestingly, I am already a Catechumen and this book actually had nothing to do with me making that decision. Some background, I have been studying in a fairly dedicated manner, Reformed Theology and Calvinism for a couple years. I had gone through the Theology courses at www.bible.org and listened to R.C. Sproul almost everyday. Add to that the fact I am a musician, and was in a Christian Metal band in HS, and have ALWAYS played guitar in the worship band of whatever Church was serving MY needs at the time. I thought I had it figured out, that the Bible was almost like this Holy Item that just fell out of the sky and it was the ONLY thing you needed to live your life as true Christian. Don't get me wrong, it is a great start, but a lot of people forget that the Bible was created by the CHURCH, and ecumenical councils, not the other way around. I was born into a protestant family, raised protestant, went to protestant Church ranging from a home church size, Charismatic, Traditional, Mega Churches that rival Disneyland, and even went to protestant private school. Last summer, I met a new friend who is Greek and we started talking, she did not preach or anything, but I was already feeling something very wrong about the Churches I had been attending. It wasn't so much that one did something way worse than another, or one had too much music, and one had too little, that was surface stuff I used to bounced from Church to Church. It was more the attitude it seemed to encourage in myself, and most of the others attendees I observed. The problem was when I noticed that the over all goals all of the protestant churches were trying to achieve, was to be "relevant" to the modern world. This manifested itself in everything; multiple venues of music like at churches like Saddleback. Starbucks coffee in the lobbies, etc.... I am sure you know what I mean. Don't get me wrong, its a great place to bring agnostics, and they will think its "cool". Unfortunately, what initially I thought were the coolest things about the Protestant churches, the music, the resources, the endless classes, the home groups, the video games for the kids, jamming in the worship band, didn't seem to amount to a hill of beans when I started thinking in terms of a Holy All Knowing creator of the Universe. Of all the Protestant Theologians, I think RC Sproul comes darn close in his Holiness of God series. I had an epiphany one day when I realized that ALL of this was designed to satisfy the individual need. "Honey, lets try that other Church, I liked the music better there. I liked that pastors sermons better. I like the fact they don't make us stand so much. I I I I I ..... unfortunately, this is the inevitable result of the course many (not all) but many, of these Churches have taken. So not being a Baptist, I cant relate so much specifically to that, but boy, I felt at times I was reading my own experience. So, this book was given to me by a Deacon at my Parish as part of the Catechumen class. I like it so far, it is very simple, and short enough to give to family members who can't fathom why you would not want to be protestant anymore. I am hoping to get into more Orthodox Theology books in the future. A couple of quotes to end this review turned diatribe; from a Priest and Deacon at our Parish. "Luther just traded one Pope for many", and "It is not what Protestants HAVE that is the problem, it is what they are lacking". Now when I go to Church, I go not to hear a great Worship band and check out how good the guitar player is, or cute singer girls. I don't go to GET SOMETHING from the sermon. Lord knows there is plenty of Christian radio if I want to listen to that.... I don't go for the coffee. I go to give Worship in the same manner as the Christians in the 1st Century Church did. And guess what! I was SEEKING, but a seeker friendly Church is not where God guided me. Imagine that.... So, this is a great book to start with, but don't end it there. There is also a good workbook style book called Dance of Isaiah, that is more a direct line by line comparison of Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. Keep in mind Orthodox are Catholic, because they believe in one Holy and Apostolic Church. However, Orthodox are NOT Roman Catholic. Catholic means, Universal. The Church of Rome split away from Holy Orthodoxy during the great Schism. The Eastern Orthodox Church (old calendar), has remained, for the most part, unchanged. Anyway, Cheers!

As someone who left evangelical/fundamentalist protestantism over ten years ago, and then explored the christian tradition as far as Catholicism while still remaining unsatisfied, I found this book inspiring me to take yet another look into the christian tradition for truth and community. I regret now that at that time I didn't know enough to look at the Orthodox Church (or the Coptic Church, for that matter) before giving up on the christian tradition.

And having grown up attending both baptist churches and other protestant churches with strong similarities to the baptist denominations, it seems clear to me that Carlton writes with profound and clear insider insight. The readily predictable reactions of a number of baptist reviewers here certainly don't surprise me, but they strike me as being rooted in the process of psychological denial more than in a truly candid and truth-seeking evaluation of Carlton's prophetic message to their churches. To put it simply; Carlton seems to understand protestant doctrine and practice more clearly than your average baptist.