Eastern Orthodoxy is booming in the United States. Young men especially are converting in droves. Protestants have a reckoning coming their way, or so we are told. The hype around Eastern Orthodoxy—fueled by YouTube debates, podcasts, and a number of high-profile conversions—would have one believing that there is some kind of non-denominational-to-Eastern Orthodox farm system. I want to explore that claim and then consider what might be behind the trend that so many have been talking about.
The Flood that Was Not
The claim that Orthodoxy is on the rise was repopularized in a 2024 New York Post article titled, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves.” That article says that Orthodoxy in America has experienced a 78% growth in the last few years compared to pre-pandemic levels. The study they cite is from the Orthodox Studies Institute, which concluded there is a current boom in Orthodox conversions; they nearly reached 200 total converts in twenty parishes (geographical regions) in 2022.[1] If we assume all the parishes are growing in proportion to these twenty, then there are nearly 20,000 converts each year to Eastern Orthodoxy in America.
1. Matthew Namee et al., “Converts to Orthodoxy: Statistics and Trends from the Past Decade,” Orthodox Studies Institute, Saint Constantine College, July 2024.
But we need to put that number in context. Alexei Krindatch is a leading researcher for Eastern Orthodoxy in America, and according to his data, “between 2010 and 2020, the number of all Eastern Orthodox Church adherents dropped from 816,653 to 675,765 (-17%), and their number of regular attendees declined from 212,212 to 183,020 (-14%).”[2]
2. Alexei Krindatch, “US Religion Census 2020: Dramatic Changes in American Orthodox Churches” (2020 US Religion Census, 2021), 5.
To merely replace the adherents that were lost from 2010–2020 (140,888) would require all of the 2,000 Eastern Orthodox parishes to sustain this growth rate for seven consecutive years and also not lose any of their existing adherents. Furthermore, when compared to a group that is widely considered to be struggling, the comparison is striking. In 2023 alone, five Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) state conventions posted numerical membership gains, “Florida (43,334 increase over 2022), Texas (30,667), North Carolina (22,850), Alabama (22,119) and Tennessee (19,732).”[3] That is a combined increase of over 138,000 from just five state conventions in a single year.
3. Aaron Earls, “Southern Baptist Membership Decline Slows, Baptisms and Attendance Grow,” Lifeway Newsroom, May 7, 2024.
With all of the talk online, one might be surprised to learn that, according to recent data, Orthodoxy accounts for 1% of professing Christians in America.[4] This means that this flood of converts is more like a trickle. Like when it gets cold in the winter and you have to leave the water running so your pipes don’t freeze. There is certainly water moving through the pipes, but nobody is calling the plumber to report that the house is flooding.
4. Pew Research Center, “Religious Landscape Study: Orthodox Christian.”
Restless in Protestantism
Even though the numbers do not support the claim that Orthodoxy is booming, that doesn’t stop people from claiming it is the case. From 2021 to 2026 especially the conversation has been raging in the online space. There is a clear push from various priests and online influencers to make it seem like the Orthodox Church is growing. “Perception has a way of becoming reality,” so the saying goes. This is likely an effort to make them seem like an increasingly viable option for those who have grown restless in various Protestant traditions.
Anecdotally, some are considering Orthodoxy, converting to Orthodoxy, and there exists more than a few stories of former Protestant pastors becoming Orthodox. If we can understand the why behind the trickle, then we can learn from those leaving Protestantism. The two main claims are that Orthodoxy is more historically stable and that Orthodoxy is a more masculine expression of Christianity. Let us look at both of those stated reasons in turn.
The Unbroken Tradition
The case for Orthodoxy’s historical stability typically runs something like this:
Protestant Churches change with the times, they have no liturgy, and it is nothing more than a glorified Bible study. They use lights, fog, screens, modern instruments, modern songs, and a whole host of other new things. This is not the one true ancient church. It is merely a modern innovation which is meant to keep up with the times.
If you just go to an Orthodox liturgy, you will notice it feels ancient. Surely, this means it is the Church of the Apostles. This sentiment is articulated by Fr. Josiah Trenham when discussing his conversion to Orthodoxy: “I came very clearly to realize that if I couldn’t identify my church in the first century, in the fourth century, in the eighth century, in the twelfth century, in the sixteenth century, and in the twentieth century, it wasn’t the church.”[5]
5. Lila Rose, “Ancient Faith & Modern Persecution: Orthodox Christianity w/Fr Josiah Trenham,” The Lila Rose Show, episode 201, April 1, 2025.
There is a problem with going off the feel. The subjective sense that something is ancient is, well . . . subjective. If I dust off a typewriter from my basement and try to have someone write with it, they might remark that it is ancient. A Gothic cathedral would feel ancient to most who walk into it. Yet both aforementioned things come from after the twelfth century AD. But even setting aside the feel—even granting that the Orthodox Church is genuinely old—age and apostolicity are not the same thing. The Roman Catholic Church is old. The Coptic Church is old. The Gnostic heresy is old. Age is not the argument. The claim that Orthodox beliefs and practices are unchanged from the apostles is what must be demonstrated.
However, when one seeks to demonstrate that Orthodoxy is synonymous with the ancient Church, it is important for Eastern Orthodoxy’s sake that one not look too closely. They would rather you only read the approved councils and fathers that adhere to the modern practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church—and not the councils that ruin the narrative.
Iconodulia
Consider the practice of icon veneration (iconodulia)—showing a reverence towards painted depictions of Biblical characters and events—that pervades their liturgy and their worship spaces. This practice was not codified until the Second Council of Nicaea in the eighth century. So, to use the criteria of Fr. Josiah Trenham, where was this practice of the Orthodox Church in the fourth century?
6. Father Moses, “Why You Aren’t Orthodox, Yet!,” YouTube, March 17, 2026, 4:19–4:27.
Contrary to the claims of Orthodox YouTuber Father Moses when he says, “historically speaking the church always venerated icons,” the practice was heavily disputed up until its ratification.[6] For example, Epiphanius of Salamis (310–403) is considered a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and he famously wrote about an incident where he tore down an icon in a Church he was visiting, “Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s Church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person.”[7]
7. Epiphanius of Salamis, “To John, Bishop of Jerusalem,” Epistle 51.9.
This is clearly an example of a man who did not share the modern dogmatic views of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Furthermore, what the Eastern Church approves of at Nicaea II is explicitly condemned in Scripture. The Orthodox make a distinction that they encourage veneration for icons and prohibit worship of icons. But the very word Nicaea II employs to describe approved veneration of icons is προσκύνησις is the same word used for the action of John in Revelation when he falls at the feet of the angel and is sharply rebuked: “Don’t do that!” (Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9). The council codified as devotion what Scripture rebukes.[8] And the council further anathematizes (condemns to hell) anyone who refuses to kiss icons.[9]
8. For more reading on this see: Ben Jefferies, “All That is Not True About Nicea II,” The North American Anglican, January 23, 2020.
If icon veneration is the unchanging tradition handed down to us by the apostles, then the Eastern Orthodox need to demonstrate where it is to be found. If it cannot be demonstrated, then it must not be claimed, and if it cannot be claimed, then a central element of liturgy in every Eastern Orthodox Church is an accretion rather than an apostolic tradition.
9. “To those who apply to the sacred images [icons] the sayings in divine Scripture against idols [like the second commandment prohibition in Exodus 20], anathema! To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!” See Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020), 111–112. This is one reason why Evangelicals reject this Second Council of Nicaea, while accepting the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
The Canon of Scripture
Perhaps an even greater historical inconvenience is the Eastern Orthodox canon. The Eastern Orthodox bodies acknowledge the same Old and New Testament books as Protestants do, but they also acknowledge a number of additional books (some of them acknowledged by Catholics), and then a few more on top of that. A classic talking point from various Orthodox influencers is that Martin Luther removed books from the Bible. But once again, this must be demonstrated, and it cannot be.
St. John of Damascus (675–749), the great defender of icons, holds a very Protestant-looking canon list. After listing again the sixty six books that Protestants acknowledge—plus a book called Canons of the Holy Apostles—he writes, “On the canon: There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.”[10] This is striking precisely because Damascus is the figure Orthodox believers invoke to defend icon veneration. And yet he denies the very books that the Eastern Orthodox asserted were canonical at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672! St. John of Damascus is one of the most significant theologians that Eastern Orthodox claims, yet on the canon, he sounds remarkably Protestant.
10. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, bk. 4, ch. 17, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S. D. F. Salmond (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899). Emphasis mine.
And he is not alone. Athanasius (296–373), the great defender of the Trinity who attended the First Council of Nicaea, articulated a similar position: “I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.”[11]
11. Athanasius, “Letter 39: For 367,” §7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald Robertson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892). Emphasis mine. See also: Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmina Dogmatica 1.1.12, PG 37:471–474.
If you want an accurate understanding of how the canon of Scripture is discerned over time consider reading The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity by Edmon Gallagher and John Meade.[12] It is a careful examination of the evidence that come to us from history.
12. Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). For an interactive resource see: Bible Canon.
What I am demonstrating, to those who have been taken in by the arguments made online by Orthodox-popularizer Jay Dyer and others,[13] is that the claim of an unbroken tradition is a baseless claim. In only a few paragraphs, I have given several examples of deviations from that tradition by major figures within Orthodoxy itself. So, for those currently on the road to Constantinople, on May 12, when you honor Epiphanius of Salamis, remember that your church would condemn his iconoclastic position as heresy four centuries later. On December 4, when you venerate St. John of Damascus, remember that his canon of scripture contradicts the Eastern Orthodox canon.
13. Jay Dyer, “Jay Dyer on Eastern Orthodoxy,” YouTube, December 12, 2023, Dyer Clips. See also: Jay Dyer’s his ongoing YouTube debate series with Protestants on Orthodox apostolic continuity, e.g., “Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.”
So again, for the Eastern Orthodox, it is important that when you speak of the unbroken tradition that Orthodoxy holds to, you wave your hands quite a bit and don’t get too specific. Keep moving along, there isn’t anything to see down there in the annals of history. But the historical record does not support the claim of unbroken antiquity.
The Masculine Vibe
14. For example, see Michael Horton, “Is Contemporary Worship Becoming Self-Critical?” Modern Reformation.
The second commonly given reason for moving to Orthodoxy is that it is a more masculine expression of the faith than Protestantism. It values disciplines like fasting, it has robust liturgies which are non-therapeutic, and the worship is focused on God rather than emotionalism. On many of these critiques, I agree. Protestants have been critiquing such expressions of worship for as long as they have been around.[14] This drift is real. Ever since the seeker-sensitive movement of the last few decades, the Protestant church has been dealing with a number of embarrassing and irreverent worship practices. When the lights dim, the smoke machines fire up, and the same chorus is sung in an endless loop, it is clear that something has gone awry.
15. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8, Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation (1892; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 237.
But the solution to the problem is not to go East. It is to remember that Protestantism has never been without its own answer to this problem. As Reformed Christians we can look back to a long lineage of masculine defenders of faith. William Farel (1489–1565) is described as, “A born fighter; he came, not to bring peace, but the sword. He had to deal with priests who carried firearms and clubs under their frocks, and he fought them with the sword of the word and the spirit. Once he was fired at, but the gun burst, and, turning round, he said, ‘I am not afraid of your shots.’”[15] John Calvin (1509–1564) placed his own body between the Lord’s Supper and unworthy partakers, and on a separate occasion, calmed a stirring mob by baring his chest against armed men and defying them to shed his blood first.[16] John Owen (1616–1683) called men to the mortification of their sin and self-discipline in the pursuit of godliness.[17] J.C. Ryle (1816–1900) exhorted young men to virtues like self-control, Christlikeness, and diligence.[18] Hughes Oliphant Old (1933–2016) wrote much in defense of worship that is ordered, reverent, and grounded in Scripture rather than sentiment.[19] The Reformed tradition, the careful cadence of confessional liturgy, and the vibrant preaching of the Word are not the inventions of a feminized church. They are the inheritance of a tradition that has always known the difference between genuine devotion and emotional manipulation.
16. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8, Modern Christianity, 496, 507–508.
As for the specific claim that Orthodox worship is more masculine, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Masculinity in worship is not an aesthetic. It is not incense and beards and a feeling of antiquity. It is reverence, substance, and the formation of men into the image of Christ. Protestantism has the resources for all of that. And whatever else might be said about Protestant worship at its worst, none have made the kissing of various male icons a portion of their worship gatherings. Whatever that is, it cannot be called masculine.
17. John Owen, “Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers,” in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6, Temptation and Sin (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967), 1–86.
Conclusion
18. J.C. Ryle, Thoughts For Young Men, (1886; repr., Moscow: Canon Press, 2020).
The restlessness driving young men toward the East is not a problem that requires a new address. The faith once for all delivered to the saints has been carefully received, defended, and articulated in the Reformed Protestant tradition. That tradition affirmed the early ecumenical creeds and then built upon them to more clearly define and defend the faith. We should make these a central part of our worship and our discipleship. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Three Forms of Unity, the London Baptist Confession, and the Thirty-Nine Articles are anchors. What young men are searching for—stability, masculinity, and depth—is already here. We do not need to go looking for it in Constantinople. We need only open our hands and receive what we have already been given.
