The Limits of Convergence: An Orthodox Critique of A Convergent Catholic Companion

Introduction & Context
A Convergent Catholic Companion is a relatively brief book (approximately 156 pages) that seeks to offer a “trusted guide for prayer, formation, and shared life” across lines of liturgical, evangelical, charismatic, and sacramental Christianity. Metropolitan John Gregory (Kenneth von Folmar) situates the work within what his Communion calls the “Convergent Catholic” tradition: an attempt to draw together elements from ancient liturgical tradition, charismatic renewal, evangelical zeal, and a posture of inclusion. 

In short, the book is not offered as a theological system, nor as a rigorous academic treatise, but as a spiritual companion, a guide to help “pray with the Church, think with the tradition, and live the Gospel.” Given this framing, an Eastern Orthodox reader approaches it less as a competitor than as a dialogue partner: what does this “convergent Catholic” project offer, and how does it compare with the theology, spirituality, and ecclesiology of Orthodoxy?

I will first summarize the main thrusts of the book, then assess its strengths, challenges, and tensions with Orthodox thought, and finally offer some concluding reflections: what Orthodox readers might receive or carefully navigate in this work.

Summary of the Book’s Vision
Because the text is relatively short, the author organizes his vision into major axes or themes rather than into voluminous systematic chapters. The key threads include the following:

1. Wholeness in a Fractured Church
   Gregory sees Christianity today as deeply fragmented: liturgical communities divorced from Spirit‑filled movements, theological traditions that seem cold to lived experience, ecclesiastical structures that feel disconnected from mission. His aim is to sketch a path toward “wholeness”—an integrated way of being Christian that does not suppress the tensions but brings them into a coherent posture of faith.
2. Sources, Tradition, and Authority
   He grounds his approach in Scripture, the ecumenical creeds, the consensus of the saints, and the working of the Spirit in our day. The idea is that the “sources of belief that shape us” must be both ancient and living. He is, thus, cautious about theological novelty divorced from continuity, while also refusing to treat tradition as ossified.
3. Rhythm, Worship, Formation
   Worship (especially liturgical worship) is central: Gregory affirms that Christian formation is shaped most deeply by liturgical rhythms, daily prayer, sacrament, the cycle of feasts and fasts, the corporate participation in the mysteries. Belief is not first propositional and then ritual; instead, ritual helps form belief and being. The Companion encourages readers to let liturgy shape the imagination, and then allow that formation to flow into mission.
4. Justice, Mercy, and Mission
   Worship is not an end in itself; it must send the community out into mercy, justice, care for the marginalized, and social engagement. The “call to justice and mercy that sends us” is an integral strand of wholeness. The contemplative and active lives must not be divorced.
5. Shared Leadership, Communion, and Unity
   A prominent concern is how the Church is led. Gregory advocates for shared leadership, milder hierarchicalism, and participatory governance. The ecclesial polity should reflect the unity in diversity: holding tensions without collapsing them, and enabling local contexts without disintegrating communion.

Gregory also acknowledges that the book will not fully answer all difficult questions; in many places he intentionally “holds space” for questions, ambiguity, and growth. The Companion is a meditation, not a final manifesto.

Strengths from an Orthodox Perspective
While there are significant areas of divergence (which I will address), the book offers several aspects that resonate positively with Orthodox sensibilities:

1. Liturgical and Mystical Emphasis
   Orthodox Christianity always emphasizes that theology is “worship in words.” Gregory’s insistence that formation is shaped by liturgical rhythms, prayers, feasts, fasts, and sacramental life is entirely congenial to Orthodox spirituality. His attempt to re-center Christian life around worship is a corrective to overly protestant or pietistic models that reduce Christianity to belief + ethics.
2. Non-reductionism of Experience and Doctrine
   The Convergent Catholic approach resists reducing faith to merely social action or to purely intellectual assent. Gregory holds space for doctrine, prayer, moral life, and spiritual experience together. This holistic posture is closer to the Orthodox vision of synergy among God, liturgy, asceticism, and virtues.
3. Desire for Unity amid Diversity
   In an age of fragmentation, Gregory’s anguished desire for wholeness, and his attempts to integrate rather than polarize, reflect a noble ambition. The Orthodox tradition likewise desires unity in truth and communion, and the attempt to mediate differences, if done faithfully, can be respected even when one disagrees with some of the methods.
4. Awareness of Tension and Humility
   The author does not present his work as a polished, infallible system. He acknowledges open questions, the weight of mystery, and the need for ongoing growth. Such humility is rare in many modern theological works, and is consistent with Orthodox caution about overconfident schematism.
5. Call to Social Witness as an Outflow of Worship
   The integration of liturgy and mission is a necessary corrective to forms of Christianity that confine faith to the private or purely ritual domain. Orthodox social ethics, rooted in theosis (divinization) and kenosis (self‑emptying), would applaud efforts that see justice and mercy not as add-ons but as extensions of the Christian liturgical life.

Major Points of Tension or Critique from an Orthodox Lens
While there is much to affirm, a number of conceptual, theological, and ecclesiological tensions arise when the Convergent Catholic project is measured against the Orthodox tradition. Below I highlight major concerns, some inevitable in any cross‑tradition dialogue, others more serious.

1. Authority, Tradition, and Innovation
   • In Orthodoxy, tradition is not merely a reservoir of past wisdom but a living, embodied continuity, transmitted through the apostolic succession, the consensus of the Fathers, canonical norms, and the sacramental life of the Church. The Convergent Catholic emphasis on openness to ongoing “voice of the Spirit today” risks a kind of theological voluntarism, allowing novelty to override continuity unless rigorously constrained.
   • Gregory writes of “holding space” for questions and contemporary voices, which is admirable, but without clear criteria for distinguishing legitimate development from novelty, there is a danger of fragmentation or relativism.
   • The lack of a sustained account of apostolic succession, conciliar authority, and the binding norms of ecumenical councils makes the Convergent approach vulnerable to subjectivity. An Orthodox critic might ask: how do we prevent doctrinal drift or ecclesial disintegration?
2. Ecclesiology and Sacramental Integrity
   • In Orthodoxy, the Church is not a voluntary association but the Body of Christ, manifest in visible networks of bishops, synods, canonical order, and sacramental economy. The Convergent emphasis on “shared leadership” and lighter hierarchical forms may be well-intended, but it raises questions: how are disputes adjudicated? Who retains the final authority in matters of doctrine or liturgy?
   • The book does not appear to deeply wrestle with the question of sacramental validity, boundaries of communion, or the perils of universalism unchecked. From an Orthodox perspective, you cannot simply assume that all sacramental expressions are equally valid; questions of intention, apostolic lineage, canonical context, and orthopraxis (right practice) matter deeply.
3. Theological Depth and Dogmatic Precision
   • Because the book is relatively short and aimed at a spiritual audience, many deep doctrinal issues are touched upon lightly. For instance, issues such as Christology (how the divine and human relate), the Filioque, the nature of the Trinity, or the relationship of grace and free will are not handled with the depth one expects in Orthodox dogmatics.
   • Some of Gregory’s positions (particularly around openness to innovation) may remain under‑nuanced. An Orthodox reader might yearn for more rigor on how to safeguard dogmatic truth while welcoming growth.
4. Mysticism, Deification, and Asceticism
   • The Orthodox path is deeply ascetical: inner purification (praktiki), constant prayer (hesychasy), and theosis (union with God). Although Gregory speaks of prayer, formation, and worship, the book does not give sustained treatment to ascetic struggle, spiritual warfare, or the path of purification and illumination that the Fathers emphasize.
   • A related worry is that a Convergent approach might, in some contexts, underplay the necessity of renunciation, repentance, and mortification, elements central to Orthodox spirituality.
5. Ecumenism, Relativism, and Boundaries
   • The impulse toward convergence across traditions must be careful not to flatten essential distinctions. Orthodoxy holds that unity must be built up in truth, not at the cost of doctrinal integrity. If convergence becomes mere syncretism, the result is ecclesial confusion.
   • Gregory’s inclusive posture (which aims to welcome many voices) may risk underwriting a “big tent” approach in which theological boundaries become vague. An Orthodox critic would ask: what are the non-negotiables, and how are they safeguarded?
6. Lack of Engagement with Orthodox Tradition as Source
   • Ironically, a Christian project trying to “converge ancient and modern” would seem an ideal place to engage the Eastern Fathers deeply (Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Gregory Palamas, Gregory the Theologian, etc.). Yet in this work, the engagement with Eastern Patristic tradition seems modest or indirect. An Orthodox reader might hope for more explicit dialogue with that rich tradition as a source of continuity, not only as a decorative resource.

What Orthodox Readers Might Gain, and What Caution They Should Exercise
Even though I have raised several critiques, that does not mean the work has no value for Orthodox readers. Some possible gains, and cautions to keep in mind:

Gains

1. Stimulus for Ecumenical Self-Reflection
   Orthodox communities often suffer from insularity or suspicion of other Christian expressions. A book like this can challenge us to articulate more clearly why we stand where we do, and also to discern truly convergent impulses (where they honor truth) from superficial compromises.
2. Renewed Emphasis on Worship as Formative
   The stress on liturgical formation, rhythm, and the shaping power of worship is healthy. Orthodox parishes might benefit from reflecting on how liturgical life forms disciples not only in external ritual but in interior transformation.
3. Pastoral Imagination and Openness
   The “holding space for questions” attitude can prompt Orthodox ministers and catechists to be more pastorally sensitive: acknowledging doubt, struggle, and growth in ways that do not overprotect or over-control.
4. Integration of Mission and Liturgy
   The insistence that worship should not remain inward but should fuel social engagement, mercy, and justice is consonant with Orthodox social ethics, though the articulation may differ. It is a useful corrective to forms of ecclesial life that isolate liturgy from engagement.
5. Dialogue Partner
   For Orthodox Christians interested in dialoguing with Convergence, emergent Catholic, charismatic, or ecumenical movements, this book offers a helpful window into one such project. Seeing where the Convergent Catholic tradition seeks wholeness can sharpen the Orthodox critique and refine communicative bridges.

Cautions

1. Guard the Boundaries of Truth
   Always measure convergent claims against the norm of the unbroken patristic tradition, the ecumenical councils, the consensus of the Fathers, and the liturgical tradition of the Church. Novelty must be tested, not simply welcomed.
2. Ask About Ecclesial Authority
   If you are drawn by the spiritual forms in this work, continually ask: by what authority are boundaries set? How is doctrinal accountability maintained? Who adjudicates disputes?
3. Discern the Role of Innovation
   Not every fresh theological or liturgical idea is healthy. Use discernment: some innovations may be pastoral and benign; others may subtly erode doctrine. Be especially wary of innovations that undermine classical Christian categories (e.g. altering the Trinity, Christology, sacraments) without clear safeguards.
4. Do Not Skip the Ascesis
   If you engage this work, do not neglect the ascetic, purification, and discipline elements essential to the Orthodox path. The spiritual life, properly understood, involves struggle and renunciation; convergence should not dilute that.
5. Use This as a Dialogue, Not as Replacement
   An Orthodox reader should see this work as a conversation partner, something to be engaged, critiqued, adapted, or rejected in parts, not as a replacement of one’s own theological tradition.

Conclusion
A Convergent Catholic Companion is a earnest attempt to hold together multiple streams of Christian life, liturgical, charismatic, evangelical, sacramental, into a more unified posture for today. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, it offers much that is promising: a renewed centrality of worship, a holistic vision of formation, and a humble openness to the Spirit’s work.

Yet, the book also raises fundamental questions that are especially critical for Orthodox theology: How are theological boundaries preserved? How is ecclesial authority constituted? What is the role of continuity and the patristic tradition? And how is the ascetic, mystical path safeguarded against dilution?

For Orthodox Christians willing to engage deeply and critically, the Companion can serve as a helpful stimulus, provoking renewed clarity about one’s own tradition, sharpening ecumenical perspectives, and inspiring renewed liturgical formation. But such engagement must always be accompanied by discernment, fidelity to the patristic tradition, and care not to let convergence become a compromise of essential truth.