A Journey to Orthodoxy, the Faith of Dostoyevsky
I thought it would be an interesting exercise, at least for me, to consider the role that Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s writings played in my three year movement into the Orthodox Church. Those that know me well, know of my great fondness for the life, faith, and especially the writings of the great Russian literary genius. However, most do not know that my love for Dostoyevsky was not “at first sight.” In fact, there was a few years gap between my introduction to the Author and my “awakening” to his brilliance.
I was first introduced to Dostoyevsky, as many people are, through his masterpiece Crime and Punishment, which was one of the selected readings for an ethics course I was taking at Golden West College, circa 1994. Quite unfortunately, the professor described Dostoyevsky, an author I knew nothing about, as “an existentialist.” Hence, my untrained Christian mind was tainted—the well had been poisoned—and I proceeded to read Dostoyevsky as though I were reading an existentialist. When I was faced with Raskolnikov’s despair and subsequent rationalization of a double murder he was to commit, I saw little more than a man destitute of morality and conscience—in my mind, a typical degenerate, all too similar to the faceless villains common to mass-marketed murder thrillers.
Yet, looking back, I now see that my initial three year “oversight” of Dostoyevsky was much more the result of my then mindset, which was weightily influenced by the Protestant reading and Reformed Protestant culture I was immersed in. Put another way, it was Dostoyevsky’s deft presentation of the often mystical and mysterious relationship between sin, grace, belief, and existence that troubled my zealously Calvinistic, western mind to the point of apathy concerning the Russian’s writing. During this time I was entrenching myself further and further into the views of the contemporary Reformed mindset though my readings of Westminster’s catechesis, Van Til’s “Christian” epistemology, Berkhoff’s systematic theology, Murray’s soteriology, Bahnsen’s theonomy, and Hoekema’s eschatology. Looking back, it’s no surprise that the radically different, Eastern mind of Dostoyevsky struck me as rather…well, Easter, i.e., mystical, and hence, according to my dogmatic Reformed worldview, clearly flawed.
In such a state of mind I failed to read Crime and Punishment’s final pages (arguably the most important pages of the book—so far as the book relates to Christianity: repentance, redemption, et cetera), I put down the book and did not pick up any Dostoyevsky till some three years later.
In 1996, through the advice of a Christian friend I began to read undoubtedly Dostoyevsky’s pinnacle of writing genius, Brothers Karamazov, because according to my friend, “the book deals with many Christian themes.” Brothers, however, sat on my book shelf for nigh a year before I made the time to really read it, and even upon my decision to “really read it” I spent a good six months just working my way through the first several chapters. (It’s important for me to point out that my slow rate of reading Brothers had nothing to do with my lack of interest in the book, for at this time I was very much enjoying what I read, when I read—instead, I simply had too much reading at that time that I believed to be “more important” than fiction, any fiction. If I recall correctly, during that year I was studying Rushdooney’s Opus, Calvin’s institutes, Augustine’s Confessions, and anything I could dig up on preterism and postmillennialism, hence leaving myself little time for some “made up”/fictional story, no matter how intriguing I might have found it at the time (this neglect of fiction, I have only fairly recently overcome).
That all changed when I began my studies at UCLA in the Spring of 1999. The rigors of studying philosophy had me on “non-fiction/analytic/information-rich-text” overload, a fact that transformed my “free reading time” into “Brothers time.” I actually went back and started the book from the beginning, reading it (and re-reading favorite sections) at every possible opportunity (Kate knows well how often I would read my favorite quotes, which often turned into lengthy passages). Each page was a revelation, each chapter a new insight, and every section reinforced my growing realization that Dostoyevsky, if not the greatest Christian novelist, was certainly the author who wrote my Christian novel.
However, Concurrent with my joy in reading such amazing prose was a growing dissonance. How could this man, Dostoyevsky, a man of such immense faith, a man who so clearly understands the Christian struggle—who so clearly understands the sovereignty of God, who transparently demonstrates mankind’s need for Christ’s grace—how could this man so clearly portray the Christian life, when that man, Dostoyevsky, was an Eastern Orthodox…person (whatever that meant, I couldn’t even conceive of him being “Christian”. I had remembered a brief article on Eastern Orthodoxy by Michael Butler, wherein he basically describes Orthodoxy as cultic).
Yet, could I truly deny this man’s Christianity because he denied “Predestination” as Calvin understood it, or because he believed that man had free will, or because he prayed through icons, or worst of all, because he saw the Orthodox Church as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture, and all other groups were schismatic? Certainly on this last question I was convinced there had to be major problems with Fyodor’s belief, because I knew that the Reformed churches were the most biblical, most apostolic, and the truest churches on Earth. …Well, God did not leave me to grapple with Dostoyevsky alone.
Within days of beginning my time at UCLA I met a fellow classmate named Jeremy Lancy. Jeremy was soon to become a good friend during my stay at UCLA—he also turned out to be, arguably, the sharpest undergraduate philosophy student at school. Jeremy and I began what turned into a virtual two-year debate over two primary issues: the authority of the Church, and sola scriptura.
In the beginning of our relationship I was prepared. I was confident. I was determined. I was prepared to defend my Reformed theology; in fact I too much prided myself in my ability to defeat “foes” who dared oppose Calvin and (as I saw it) Paul! I was confident that whatever difficulties Jeremy did raise that I was not immediately able to answer could be answered with sufficient study of some reformed scholar or other. I was determined to have Jeremy learning the Heidelberg Catechism and joining me at my Presbyterian church in as short a time as possible.
However, debate after debate, three-hour discussion after three-hour discussion, I was the one walking away with the very real knowledge that I had not even begun to give an adequate response to his primary claims. Soon, one year of these discussions had passed, and my vociferous reading and thought did little to aid my Protestant position. Around this time I had also started reading Roman Catholic apologetic books, and listening to Roman Catholic apologetics teaching tapes (gifts of Jeremy)—though I was no where near conceding to Roman Catholicism (the Papacy alone was an insurmountable barrier. Incidentally, the Papacy was one of the few issues I was able to gain some ground while in debate with Jeremy)—I was becoming convinced that Protestantism had substantive difficulties.
Nevertheless, I was still convinced that there were sound Protestant responses, that I was simply unaware of, that would indeed vindicate my Protestant Reformed faith.
I began to question my Protestant friends with the same issues I was dealing with, Wayne being one such friend, in the hope that they would help provide me with an answer to the claims of Church authority against sola scriptura. You might have an idea how Wayne eventually resolved those Protestant difficulties. ;-) In addition to interrogating my friends I also began having informal discussions with my pastor, and elders. Their responses, in my mind, though well intentioned, aided Protestantism very little.
For personal reasons, Kate and I changed churches during my last quarter at UCLA. With the pending graduation, career decisions, and the sort, my “dissonance” with Protestantism took a back-seat. Though I found myself unable to satisfactorily answer the issues of church authority and sola scriptura, I resolved myself to give it more time—I still believed that a Protestant response existed, yet undiscovered.
My love for Dostoyevsky only grew-- commensurate with this love grew my dissatisfaction with Protestantism. In Dostoyevsky I read hints of the rich Orthodox faith, the reverence for everything holy, the remembrance of those who had come before, the wisdom of the monk, the humility in prayer, and the mystery of salvation. Granted, there was a lot in Presbyterianism that was good and true, but contrasted with Orthodoxy, Presbyterianism seemed to lack depth and richness. Before long I started checking out books by Orthodox theologians, and visiting websites on Orthodoxy. I expected to come across doctrines that would allow me to close the door on Orthodoxy forever; needless to say, I did not find what I expected.
Months later, Katherine, Wayne, and I were able to experience Holy Week (the week of preparation for the celebration of Easter) at St. Paul’s Greek Orthodox Church. Returning to Protestantism was never again an option.
God, save Your people and bless Your inheritance.
Posted by jeremy stock at March 2, 2003 12:57 PMI thought only I wrote posts that long.
A very interesting post, Jer, and I was glad to have read it.
How did I finally resolve those Protestant difficulties? :^)
Posted by: Toshikazu at March 3, 2003 02:26 PMWas that Holy Week of 2002 or 2001? I ask because my first Holy Week was 2002... and I know a number of other folks who "Saw the Light" that Pascha.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at March 3, 2003 03:27 PMWayne oh,
I know... that post was a doozie! I highly doubt many people will take the time to read it. But if they do I hope they can benefit from it. It was a really good exercise for me to think back on the general progression of my belief and learning into Orthodoxy.
Anway, I'm glad you took the time to read it Wayne Oh. Thank you.
Um... how did you resolve those Protestant difficulties? (is there something I should know?) ;-)
Huw,
Thanks for writing (and reading, even if in part). That was Holy Week of 2002. Kate, Wayne, and I have been attending St. Paul's for just about year now.
God be with you both!
Posted by: jeremy at March 3, 2003 04:01 PMFacinating journey...I, too, found "Brothers" much more powerful after I became Orthodox...
Posted by: Karl Thienes at March 3, 2003 05:02 PMI "fell in love" with FD from the very first. I started with The Idiot, then went straight to Brothers, followed by CP.
FD didn't lead me into Orthodoxy directly, but I don't think I can deny that he's laid a good foundation for when that day may come.
Me personally? I like longer blogs.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 4, 2003 07:16 AMKarl,
I believe Brothers becomes more meaningful with every read...even more so, yes, when one has experience with the faith of Dostoyevsky.
My wife and I are reading Jim Forest's Book on Confession; he has a wonderful chapter entirely devoted to confession as seen through the writings of Dostoyevsky. A very worthwhile read, especially for fans of Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky.
Posted by: jeremy at March 4, 2003 09:09 AMClifton,
I "fell in love" over and over again with each new story I would read...with the exception of The Idiot. Though there were some wonderful parts of that story, and some very memorable scenes (for example when the Prince is beheld with the painting of Christ by Holbein), I found much of the writing to be tedious. I was comforted somewhat to read somewhere that Dostoyevsky himself wrote in a letter to a friend that The Idiot was too quickly written, and it was written during a time of great financial burden (something that D seemed to struggle with throughout his life).
Other than that one novel I have truly been amazed and sometimes awe struck at D's sheer literary genius. Of his works, several stand out as having made more than a great impression on me:
The Brothers KaramazovI, like you, do not believe that Dostoyevsky led me into Orthodoxy, but I do think you put it well when you wrote, "He laid a good foundation..."
Crime and Punishment
Notes from Underground
The Insulted and Injured
The Honest Theif
I'm glad you like the longer blogs...that makes one of you. ;-)
yes, indeed: 'i' before 'e', except after 'c'...
Posted by: j at March 4, 2003 09:47 AMIs the Orthodox Church the only acceptable church in existence?
Posted by: Veive at March 4, 2003 02:36 PMI enjoyed your post, Jeremy. I think that the greatest authors and artists emerge from eras of oppression and hardship. Certainly this was the case of FD. Sometimes I wonder what that means for U.S. authors? I haven't been taken with any American author of the last century in the U.S... I just mean, I don't think there is an American author who has made me shed tears while reading almost all of his or her books. (That's my personal standard)
By contrast, my favorite classical music is written by a Russian, my favorite artist is Russian, in my opinion the best ballerinas have been Russian, and then of course there is my favorite author, who is Russian. In some ways I dislike saying "favorite" because I know I am too young to say "this is it, this is my favorite", but for now, I'm blown away by the art/literature/music/dance that has come out of Russia. Sorry to get off the point. But Jeremy, do you agree?
Check out Repin... http://www.dartmouth.edu/~russ15/russia_PI/images/repin06.jpg
Posted by: Katherine at March 4, 2003 02:47 PMalso....
http://www.rnw.nl/culture/html/revolt020220.html
Superior art has come out of Italy, France, Spain, and Greece. Better music and literature as well. Perhaps Russian dancers are the creme de la creme, but I think it's overstating it to include all of those things.
Posted by: Veive at March 4, 2003 03:32 PMWe've been reading Brothers for a class at Church, but only certain sections... it may be time for a full-on dive in to the thing.
I wonder... is there anything like FD in the Hellenic/Byzantine cultural tradition of Orthodoxy? Are those two cultures/mystical traditions all that different?
(I read the whole post: but it took me 12 years to finish my four-year degree... math is hard
:-)
"Superior art"... Hmm.
I think it's really subjective and one can only state his or her own opinion..
But, thanks for the input.
Huw,
Orthodoxy spread to Russia from Byzantium. Of course, changes and reforms occurred before the time of FD.. but I am not sure the two cultural traditions were all that different before the reforms that took place in the 14th or 15th century. I am not 100 percent positive which century it was. Sorry. Don't quote me.
It's also interesting to note that there have been those in Russia who have thought of Moscow as the "third Rome." As in, Moscow took over the cultural heritage of Constantinople after the Turkish conquest and thus the Russians "preserved Orthodoxy." That's not my view, but it has been A view of SOME.
Anyway, that was just in response to your comments on whether or not the two traditions are that different. Regarding another FD (or someone similar) Did you read my comments on Russia? I think that you probably would not find someone comparable to FD for those reasons. FD came out of an era of popular protest and revolt, he lived in poverty, etc. etc. I don't want to reduce him to a product of his culture or society, but I think the situation in Russia was so unique that in some ways you can't really separate him from it, either.
That's my two cents..but I am certainly anything but an expert.
And Veive, my response to your post was sincere, although I re-read it and it didn't sound sincere. (sorry) Really, response is always welcome...even disagreement.
Posted by: Kate at March 5, 2003 10:15 AMHey I read the whole thing! I love reading people's personal stories like this!
Hey Veive...
to answer your question I'll have to ask for more specifics: can you define what you mean by "church" and "acceptable"?
Posted by: james at March 5, 2003 09:51 PM1. Church as in denomination as in Orthodox, Protestant, etc.
2. Acceptable as in it is the only denomination that follows the Bible as it should or runs as a church of God should?
Now, if your only claim is that the Orthodox Church is your own personal preference, I withdraw the question.
Posted by: Veive at March 6, 2003 01:35 PMHi Veive...
Based on your definitions, then I'd say the answer to your question is no.
The Orthodox self understanding really cannot be understood within the paradigm of protestant ecclesiology.
peace
james
Kate... I'm thinking the Turkish Yoke might have contributed some (good or bad). Considering the religious pop (O-dox) music coming out of Greece just now, it might *still* be contributing.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at March 6, 2003 04:28 PMAll,
Sorry for the tardy response.
***************************
Sweetie,
Aesthetics is a topic where opinion and emotion often carry more weight than cold, hard fact. Yet, it cannot be denied that opinion and emotion must never eclipse the role of objectivity when juxtaposing one piece of art with another or even whole genres of art with others genres (this is, of course, my opinion). It’s a wonder the entire artistic world is not populated by egotists, for I can hardly write a paragraph about art without bringing in my opinion.
Although I am completely unqualified to write on this topic; allow me to present my opinion on the issue at hand: is some art superior to other art? Avoiding all the obvious difficulties with the question posed, i.e., defining “art” and “superior”, let me state the following. In my mind, paint that has been splattered on a canvas (randomly or not) is inferior to art that falls, for example, in the realism category, e.g., the work of Repin or Raphael. In an attempt to be more specific let me state that I believe paint splattered on canvas demonstrates God’s gift of talent to man less than a Repin or Raphael. Does this mean one is superior to another? In one sense I think it does, but in another sense, different art has different value for various reasons sometimes not related to art at all, e.g., the social, political, cultural, and educational value ascribed to art. Hence, there are sometimes legitimate factors that, in my mind, increase the “value” of a particular art piece or even an entire genre of art.
So, if it’s not already evident, I don’t really have much of value to say on this topic. But thanks for bringing it up. I do find it interesting. ;-) …and thanks for those links, sweetie. Repin is truly a master at capturing the emotion of a moment by detailing almost the very thought processes of the individuals portrayed. He’s certainly one of my favorite painters.
*******************
Veive,
your question has been interesting to answer. I have now written three responses (each time discarding the one prior-- each time tackling the issue via a different method). The one I’ve settled on is, I think, the simplest and most direct as relates to the underlying presuppositions. Here goes.
If you believe schism is sin, then it seems you would be necessitated to concede that all schismatic churches, i.e., Protestant, Oriental, and Roman Catholic churches, would have at least one property that would be “unacceptable” to God. By this criteria then, whether on theological or historical grounds, the Orthodox Church is the only schism free church, and, as such, lacks that one unacceptable property. Hence, if schism is sin, then the Orthodox Church is the only church free from that particular sin.
Granted there are many other criteria by which God might find a given church acceptable or unacceptable, yet the other criteria are issues applicable to all Christian churches: sacraments, Gospel, theology, et cetera-- these reflect, to one extent or another, on all Christian churches. Since they are applicable to all churches those issues are not relevant to deciding the “acceptability” of one Christian church juxtaposed to another. For example, the nature of the Gospel as taught in a given church seems to be one of the criteria of acceptability, but is actually a criterion for a church’s Christianity (II Corinthians 11). We must remember that your question was regarding Christian churches; therefore, matters that place one church outside the pale of Christianity are not relevant here. Thus, when we search for criteria for deciding "acceptability," among Christian churches, we are left with but few choices that are truly relevant. Allow me to conclude. History is clear: the Eastern Church was begun by the Apostles. If that one and same church has not fallen prey to schism, then the burden of proof falls onto the schismatic churches to defend their existence.
I posit that the Orthodox Church stands alone as the one Church that has not fallen prey to schism, hence the Orthodox Church is the acceptable Church of God. By contrast, all Protestant churches not only have fallen prey to schism, but indeed their very inception was a result of schism. Hence, on the issue of schism alone the Orthodox Church demonstrates its unique position among the world “churches.”
See my past posts on this topic:
Here and
Here.
It must be stated as well, that NO church is "acceptable" to God on it's own merits. "God desires not sacrifice, but a contrite heart..." Without sincere Christians, no church would be acceptable to God. Therefore, please understand that my comments above are assuming that there are faithful participants in the churches mentioned.
***********************
Huw,
We've been reading Brothers for a class at Church, but only certain sections... it may be time for a full-on dive in to the thing.I would highly recommend this! It’s an amazing story told with amazing genius…I found myself underlining quote after quote…page after page.
And hey, thanks for taking the time to read my post!
Here's something Dostoyevsky wrote to a friend*:
I'm a child of the age, a child of doubt and unbelief, and even, I'm certain, till the day they close the lid of my coffin. What terrible torment this thirst to believe has const me and is still costing me, the stronger it becomes in my soul, the stronger are my arguments against it. And despite all this God sends me moments of great tranquility, moments during which I love and find I am loved by others. It was during such a moment that I formed within myself a symbol of faith [a creed] in which all is clear and sacred for me. The [creed] is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be. More than that-- if someone succeeded in proving to me that Christ was outside of truth, and if, indeed, the truth was outside Christ, I would sooner remain with Christ than with the truth.~~A man of faith, my friends. Eternal be his memory.
*"Letter to N.D. Fonvizina," Selected Letters of Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
Posted by: jeremy at March 7, 2003 10:24 AMI appreciate your response, but I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion.
You wrote, "I posit that the Orthodox Church stands alone as the one Church that has not fallen prey to schism, hence the Orthodox Church is the acceptable Church of God." Now, I assume you base your conclusion on the research you've done and what you've learned through the Church. However, I would argue that unless you have read everything there is to read on the subject, you cannot properly reach that conclusion. Simply because YOU have not read any such record does not preclude the possibility that a smaller church was created as a result of a schism from the Orthodox Church but no longer exists for whatever reason. As history has shown on numerous occasions, there is always the possibility that records were destroyed or never made in the first place. So perhaps it would be more correct to say the Orthodox Church is *probably* the only schism free church in existence.
I suppose I prefer being a bit more cautious when making definitive statements of such magnitude.
Posted by: Veive at March 7, 2003 01:50 PMSite is totally amazing! I like you have travelled down the identical path. My current story, still evangelical pastor, former Calvary Chapel, then a former Calvinist, and most recently Orthodox in belief for the last 3 years and becoming more intense. Your story is classic, only the Spirit of God can do what He did in your heart. Blind eyes opened, still happening! My brother who is also a pastor is moving east and leaving a large Anglican church. Pray for me, my desire is to see people in the church plant I started move to the Truth.
Posted by: clarke at June 21, 2003 01:33 PMMediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.
Posted by: Sachdev Rivka at December 20, 2003 05:31 PM