The problem with Lutheranism is existential

Pillar and Ground of the Truth has a new post entitled “The Kingdom of God does not consist in talk, but in power”. Here is a quote:

"The problem with Lutheranism is existential. It is not the Church. And that is not a judgment based on Orthodox sources. It is based on the words of the Lutheran Confessions."

On Luther and the Desert Fathers

OrthoCuban has a new post entitled “On Luther and the Desert Fathers”. Here is a quote:

Meanwhile, the Desert Fathers would have not agreed with the medieval Roman calculus. Rather, they would have told Martin Luther that his sensitivity towards sin was a good thing, but that his fear that God would damn him was a bad thing. Yes, they would have told Martin that good works were important. Good works are the medicine that helps us to kill our addiction to sin. But our consciousness of sin is what keeps us from becoming like the pharisee who became proud of what he did and fell into a worse sin. If anything, the record of the Desert Fathers may call us to ask God that every bit of our sins be brought to our consciousness so that we may truly and finally grow into the image of Christ our God and avoid falling into the sin of the pharisee.

As the Liturgy goes, so goes the Faith

This is the 18th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

So far, I have highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke
2. Ezekiel
3. Benjamin Harju

This is the last in a series of posts looking at the public testimony of Fr. John Fenton, another pastor in the LCMS who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. Fenton states that he did not become Orthodox because of the problems in the LCMS. He shares:

"Please know, however, that the troubles in the LCMS are not the reason for my resignation. If I was leaving because the Missouri Synod is in trouble, I would be leaving for all the wrong reasons; I would be running when I should be protecting you; and I would be showing you great disrespect.

I tender my resignation because, over time, I have come to see and believe that the faith believed, taught, confessed and lived in the Orthodox Church is the faith of the apostles. Therefore, I sincerely believe that the Orthodox Church is the true visible Church of Christ on earth. For this reason, my family and I will seek to be received into communion in the Orthodox Church."

What was the "core issue" that caused Fr. Fenton to become Orthodox? He states:

"Your new bishop recently asked me what core issue motivated me to embrace the Orthodox Faith. It is this: The Liturgy never changes.

I don’t mean that chants or prayers or feasts are not added or subtracted gradually over time. What I mean is that no priest or bishop or congregation can decide to cut the Eucharistic Prayer or go with a new style of worship or change things to suit his convictions or the times. Why? Because the liturgy is not something smart men have created and so can modify. The liturgy is from the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Scriptures are from the Holy Spirit. In the liturgy, the Holy Spirit rightly instructs us in Holy Scripture and His presence transforms us and the gifts set forth in the Holy Eucharist. So the liturgy is the way the Faith is given, confessed, prayed and proclaimed.

As the liturgy goes, so goes the Faith together with your certainty and surety.Bad bishops and aberrant priests have and will always surface in the true Church. From time to time, they introduce novel and heretical teachings. But if the liturgy doesn’t change, then their faith-destroying words will not take hold and will eventually fade away. The bottom line, then, is that the unchanging liturgy keeps us on the straight and narrow. It keeps us both on the way to the Kingdom, and in the Way which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. And the Kingdom of heaven is the goal, and the Lord Jesus is our Life."

What is Lutheranism?

This is the 17th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

So far, I have highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke
2. Ezekiel
3. Benjamin Harju

The next several posts will look at the public testimony of Fr. John Fenton, another pastor in the LCMS who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. Fenton makes an interesting comment about Lutheranism. He states:

"If Lutheranism is nothing more than a "confessing movement within the Church Catholic" (a phrase, if memory serves, that A C Piepkorn employed), then it is either the worst form of schism (a selectively communing "church within a church") or it is an admission that, apart from self-invented concordants between local communities, there really is no trans-parochial entity called "church."

Five Deficiencies in the Book of Concord

This is the 16th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

So far, I have highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke
2. Ezekiel
3. Benjamin Harju

The next several posts will look at the public testimony of Fr. John Fenton, another pastor in the LCMS who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. Fenton discusses five deficiencies in the Book of Concord. He also identifies four correct teachings in the Book of Concord that are “denied in practice” by almost all Lutherans today.

Fr. Fenton states:

“However, I am convinced that the Book of Concord contains defective or deficient doctrines not in accord with the faith of the apostles. In simple terms, these deficiencies include the acceptance of an amended Nicene Creed, the notion that Jesus died to appease His Father’s wrath, a man-centered understanding of the church, the denial of prayers to the saints, and the idea that the liturgy is a man-made product.

In addition, there are correct Scriptural teachings in the Book of Concord that are denied in practice by nearly all Lutherans today. These include the teachings that the saints do intercede for us, the affirmation of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the proper respect due the elements in the Lord’s Supper, and the scriptural mandate that only ordained men should celebrate Mass and give the Sacraments. Because of these deficiencies and errors, I can no longer confess and teach from the Book of Concord. Therefore, I cannot be the pastor of any Lutheran congregation.”

You can't read your way into Orthodoxy

This is the 15th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. So far, I have highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke
2. Ezekiel
3. Benjamin Harju

The next several posts will look at the public testimony of Fr. John Fenton, another pastor in the LCMS who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. Fenton has more excellent advice for members of the LCMS exploring Eastern Orthodoxy. He states:

You see, there is this temptation to believe that one can read his way into (or out of) Orthodoxy. …And reading yourself into Orthodoxy is forcing the Church to be an academic endeavor when, in fact, she is body of Christ animated by the Holy Spirit in the lives of the saints and faithful.

If one pursues the course of reading one's way into the Church, then one may end up very knowledgeable about Orthodox teachings, but not yet understanding the Church or her life; and so not yet Orthodox. It's rather like reading one's way into a family or believing that taking a class in "being a good sister or faithful husband" will actually achieve that end.

Let me suggest, then, that the better way is to understand the purpose of books and teaching as these relate to the Christian faith and life. Books, catechesis and instruction exist not to impart a body of knowledge so that one might become convinced or perusaded about the correctness of a belief. Rather, books, catechesis and instruction are provided to help explain what one has already experienced in the body of Christ. The liturgy is, most chiefly and commonly, this experience of the Church. So books, catechesis and instruction in the faith exist to explain the what, the how and the why of the catholic and godly living that is the liturgy. Or, put more simply, one ought to attend regularly an Orthodox worship service (Byzantine or Western rite) and allow various Orthodox books (like those by the good Bishop) to explain why the Church worships as she does.

If you become Orthodox, do so because you want to be Orthodox.

This is the 14th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. So far, I have highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke

2. Ezekiel

3. Benjamin Harju

The next several posts will look at the public testimony of Fr. John Fenton, another pastor in the LCMS who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fr. Fenton offers great advice to members of the LCMS who are exploring Eastern Orthodoxy. He states:

During a break while walking on campus, I happened to cross paths with Bishop Kallistos Ware as he was arriving. I knew he was coming, figured out quickly it was him, and followed the two or
three people ahead of me in greeting him. No doubt, he noticed my awkwardness in the protocol of asking a blessing, and so engaged me in a brief conversation. I told him I was Lutheran, and was considering Orthodoxy.

He told me not to become Orthodox if I was upset with what’s happening in the Lutheran Church because the Orthodox Church won’t fix those problems. He told me not to reject Lutheranism, but to thank God for the good it brought me. And then he said, “If you become Orthodox, do so because you want to be Orthodox.” That was essentially the same message I heard from the few professors I spoke with (Fr Thomas Hopko and Fr Paul Tarazi among them) and from the several priests, deacons, seminary students and laymen that I met. I also heard, both explicitly and implicitly, that the Orthodox Church was not nirvana.

A summary of reasons for leaving the LCMS

This is the 13th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. The series has highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke

2. Ezekiel

3. Benjamin Harju

All three of these former LCMS pastors became convinced that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The additional issues that led to conversion are summarized below:

Thomas Palke:

• The identity problem in Lutheranism.
• The church growth movement in Lutheranism.
• The lack of unity in the LCMS.
• Liturgical chaos in the LCMS.
• Crisis in the ministry of the LCMS.
• Lack of discipline in the LCMS.
• Serious problems with Lutheran doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
• The Filioque issue.
• Infant Communion.
• Biblical interpretation issues.
• Spirituality issues.
• The doctrine of Salvation.
• The Saints.
• The issue of “What is the Church and where is it located?”
  

Ezekiel:

• Lutheran Confessions given lip service.
• Confession and Absolution are not required in the LCMS.
• LCMS abandonment of the historic Liturgy.
• Lack of focus on the visible Church.
• There should not be a Lutheran Church.
• Abandonment of the historic Office of the Holy Ministry.
• LCMS Pastors simply hired and fired by a ruling congregation.
• Lack of honor given to the Theotokos in the LCMS.
• No Bishops in the LCMS..
• The LCMS is not the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
  

Benjamin Harju:

• The Children issue.
• Multiple “worship styles” in the LCMS.
• The LCMS is really not a “synod” (by the definition of the term).
• The state of affairs of American Lutheranism in general.

Lutheranism is the best house on the Western side of the street

This is the 12th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. The series has highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke
2. Ezekiel

The next few posts will look at the testimony of Benjamin Harju, another former LCMS pastor who recently converted to Orthodoxy.

Rev. Palke stated that:

“I personally had to come to the realization that Lutheranism no longer chooses to consciously be what it was intended to be--a movement for reform in the West. And I still think that Lutheranism, as it is portrayed in its confessional portfolio is the best of the houses on the western side of the street.”

This idea of Lutheranism being the “best of the houses on the western side of the street” is shared by Benjamin. He states:

“If Lutheranism were only compared against Roman Catholicism and the plentitude of Protestant denominations, it would win hands down every time. But never can Lutheranism compare to the Truth and faithfulness of Holy Orthodoxy, and the intimacy she holds with Christ our Lord. Words can neither do justice nor exhaust the greatness of Christ in His Orthodox Church, with the Father and the Spirit ever reigning, world without end. Amen.

In the Orthodox Church my children have the very best they could ever hope to have: communion with Christ in the fullness of His grace. No; it’s better to say that my children have what they should have as Christians. They have what Christ has won for them by His voluntary suffering, death, and resurrection to life. Anything else will just not do.”

Waking from a hard sleep

This is the 11th in a series on why some LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. The series has highlighted the public testimonies of:

1. Thomas L. Palke
2. Ezekiel

The next few posts will look at the testimony of Benjamin Harju, another former LCMS pastor who recently converted to Orthodoxy.

This morning during the Liturgy at my local Antiochian Orthodox Church I had an interesting experience. For a moment I felt as if I was “waking up” or like “scales were falling from my eyes”. It only lasted a moment, but it was like everything was coming together and making sense. I then felt myself falling back into my normal frame of reference. However, this was a very exciting and interesting experience.

Benjamin Harju shares a similar experience. He states:

"It's like being born, coming into Holy Orthodoxy, or like waking from a hard sleep. Everything you once knew or experienced before birth or while asleep is suddenly removed, but in its place is simply what is real and true.

Unlike birth or a dream, though, a person must choose to wake up or to pass beyond the birth canal. Even if he is utterly convinced it must be done, he must still apply his will wholeheartedly. He will not know what that waking or birthing is like experientially, and when it begins it can be quite frightening, because it can sometimes push you along like a current. But in this way God means to bring you from sleeping into waking, from dreaming into the real of His kingdom - what the world calls the Orthodox Church."

The LCMS is not the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”

This is the tenth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The first seven posts focused on an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

This is the last of three posts examining the article "My Journey Home" by a former LCMS pastor named Ezekiel who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago.

I remember the day when my pastor shared that the LMCS is not the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and is simply a “voluntary assembly of congregations”. He then argued why our local church was a part of the invisible “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. The argument was basically that since we preach the Gospel and correctly administer the Sacraments, we are the Church.

I was then instructed that there is no need for Bishops because the Priest (pastor) is the same thing as a Bishop. When asked why we did not have any Deacons, he stated that the congregation has looked into that and we may get one someday.

I knew from my reading of history and the early church fathers that from a very early time there were Bishops, Priests and Deacons. My pastor shared that this is just one way to organize a church government, but there are other ways.

The question for me is did Jesus and the Apostles institute a specific form of church government or is my pastor correct? This will be the focus of future posts.

Ezekiel shares some of my same concerns and states:

"Lutherans are run by a congregational polity. This is to say that a local congregation has autonomy and can do pretty much as it pleases. Indeed, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod is a “voluntary assembly of congregations,” NOT the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And as such a body, it really has no bishops. It even uses language that says that every pastor (priest) is a bishop – directly contradicting the teaching of the Fathers and the Church through the ages."

From reading "My Journey Home", here is a summary of Ezekiel's reasons for leaving the LCMS and converting to Eastern Orthodoxy:

1. Confessions given lip service
2. Confession and Absolution are not required
3. Abandonment of the historic Liturgy
4. Lack of focus on the visible Church
5. There should not be a Lutheran Church
6. Abandonment of the historic Office of the Holy Ministry
7. Pastors simply hired and fired by a ruling congregation
8. Lack of honor given to the Theotokos
9. No Bishops
10. The LCMS is not the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
    

The Priesthood and the Theotokos

This is the ninth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The first seven posts focused on an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

This is the second of three posts examining the article "My Journey Home" by a former LCMS pastor named Ezekiel who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago.

In reading the early church fathers and church history, I find a different view of the Priesthood and of Mary than what one finds in the LCMS today.

Many LCMS churches view the pastor as simply a man they hired. The voter's are "in charge" of the congregation and can remove a pastor whenever they see fit. Adding to this problem are the LCMS pastors who have stopped dressing like Priests and now wear jeans, shorts or Hawaiian shirts during "service".

In regards to Mary, I read a different view of her in the Lutheran Confessions and the ancient church. The Theotokos simply does not have a place of honor in the majority of LCMS congregations.

Ezekiel comments:

“Our prayers and study continued, amidst the crumbling Lutherans. All of us were very much concerned that the Office of the Holy Ministry (the Priesthood) was more often than not not seen as ordained by Christ and given to His Church. Pastors were defined as those selected to carry out things given to every Christian to do. They were literally hired and fired. All of us were very much in the minority in our church body regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos. Most treated her ever virginity as a “pious opinion, ‘ in spite of the fact that the Church East and West confessed and taught this from the apostolic times.”

Confessional Lip Service

This is the eighth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The first seven posts focused on an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

The next three posts will examine the article "My Journey Home" by a former LCMS pastor named Ezekiel who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago.

Every week on the Steadfast Lutheran website there are articles about the serious problems in the LCMS. Many are putting their hope in Rev. Harrison and praying that he becomes the next President of the Synod. However, I don’t know if a new president can fix the problems in the LCMS.

The problems in the Synod are theological. One problem is the often massive gap between the Lutheran Confessions and actual practice in the local LCMS congregations.

Ezekiel states:

“However, within Lutheranism, particularly the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, the Confessions of the Church were given lip service, while practically speaking they were abandoned. Although Confession and Absolution were part of what Lutherans confess, the official church body didn’t require the practice. Increasing, any semblance of the historic western liturgy gave way to “pick and choose” when it came to worship. Rather than seeing improvement in these things, or any sort of repentance, things were glossed over. A number of my colleagues and I became very much concerned that Lutheranism, in particular the Missouri Synod, was akin to the Titanic. Everyone was always waiting for the next convention or the next administration to “fix” things, but it didn’t get better.

It couldn’t get better because when one asks wrong questions, one gets wrong answers. And where truth is obscured or made relative, there can be no freedom, but only a constant movement here and there. Prayers and Liturgy are replaced by high sounding doctrinal discussions which leave the people behind and which are aimed only at scoring points. And this is not what the Nicene Creed means when it says “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” That phrase of the creed has always been very important to me, and to a number of my colleagues. We believed that this Church was visible (not invisible, some idealistic hoped for reunion), alive, well – and as our Lord Christ says: the gates of hell did not prevail against it.”

The “Lutheran Church” is the consequence of a failed attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Luther did not set out to start a new church. Lutheranism is more of an “idea” than a “Church”.

Ezekiel states:

“We wrestled with the fact that seriously reading the Confessions of the Lutheran church indicated that there really shouldn’t be a “Lutheran” church at all: for the Reformers were demonstrating that they were actually one with the ancient church. Indeed, it is clear that they would hold to the ancient fathers, to that which the Church had handed down. Their claim was that Rome had ceased doing that – thus a call for Reform!”

Asceticism and being a Mask of God

What is the relationship between Luther’s view of Vocation and Orthodoxy’s asceticism?

Dixie has a great new post on her blog. She quotes a comment about asceticism and family life:

“The place of asceticism in the life of a family? If you set aside your own will on a continuing basis — if you prepare meals for the family when you would really rather sit down and read a book — if you go out to work day after day and hand over your paycheck to support the family when you were really hoping for a new set of golf clubs — if you do the supper dishes for your parents or watch your baby brother when you would really rather be on the phone with your friends — if you sit with your aging parent when you would really rather be doing almost *anything* else in the world — you don’t have to worry about asceticism in family life. Family life contains all the asceticism you need. The one thing needful is to see it all as obedience to the will of God for you, for now.”

Gene Veith comments about Luther’s view of Vocation and states:

"The ordinary routine of making a living, going shopping, being a good citizen, and spending time with one's family, are spheres in which God is at work, through human means. Luther described the various occupations - parenthood, farming, laborers, soldiers, judges, retailers, and the like - as all being "masks of God."

...In the Lord's Prayer, we ask that God give us our daily bread, which He does. He does so, not directly as with the manna to the Israelites, but through the work of farmers, truck drivers, bakers, retailers, and many more. In fact, He gives us our daily bread through the functioning of the whole accompanying economic system - employers and employees, banks and investors, the transportation infrastructure and technological means of production - each part of which is interdependent and necessary, if we are going to eat.

Each part of this economic food chain is a vocation, through which God works to distribute His gifts."

Weak on Sanctification?

The Internet Monk has a current series on Luther. There are some excellent responses to the series. One response, by Dave 138, asks some interesting questions:

• “What if it’s not so much about appeasing the wrath of the angry Father as the loving Creator who called his creation “good” and who called the creature he created in his own image “very good” restoring his creation to the pre-Fall state– “putting the world to rights” as N.T. Wright might say?”

• “But what if he has provided a way for us to experience not only forgiveness, but the beginnings of a sharing of his Trinitarian love even while still on this mortal coil?”

Here is his full response:

“I’m not going to make myself very popular here, I imagine, but am I the only one who thinks there could be something to the whole “weak on sanctification” stereotype? I’m not saying that I haven’t benefited from Walther, but I still find myself questioning whether the law/Gospel dichotomy isn’t just as much an artificial framework as the Calvinistic TULIP.

Now, trust me, I was almost destroyed by “third use of the Law” morbid introspection. In fact, it still haunts me in my search. So, I’m not advocating that by any means. Having come from a heavily Wesleyan dominated area, I’m also not arguing for a truly Semi-Pelagian “lose your salvation at any moment” Revivalism, either. I am searching for a liturgical church– that I know. However, I keep tripping over the legal framework of both the Swiss and German Reformers. Is getting forgiven really all it’s about? Is there more? I keep asking myself these questions.

Of course, I know that morbid introspection and inward looking are no good. However, I wonder if this isn’t partially the fault of a non-Sacramental worldview. When one tosses out any number of means of grace, it seems all one is left with is one’s own effort. So, then, it seems like a choice between a Mongergism that often allows one to simply rest on their laurels, whether it is their infant baptism, their answer to an alter call, a vague philosophical acceptance of the notion of “the finished work of Christ,” etc., or a Semi-Pelagianism that leaves one constantly wondering if they measure up. This is why I am still leaning Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic and do not at this time (and I could certainly be proven wrong) consider Lutheranism the most promising option.

I just keep thinking there has to be more. What if it’s not so much about appeasing the wrath of the angry Father as the loving Creator who called his creation “good” and who called the creature he created in his own image “very good” restoring his creation to the pre-Fall state– “putting the world to rights” as N.T. Wright might say? Although I know it’s not about what I want and what I find attractive, I must say that the healing and hospital metaphor prevalent in the Theosis concept of the Eastern Church and some high church Anglicans such as Lancelot Andrewes warms my heart and makes me feel that God, maybe, just maybe, might actually love me. I guess this just makes sense to me, as it seems to tie up both justification and sanctification in a beautiful, relational package which seems, at its best (and it isn’t aways), able to circumvent the Scilla and Chharibdis of both legalism and antinomianism.

Do I want to be forgiven? Of course. Do I need to be forgiven? Without question. But if I love Christ, it seems I should want more. I know, like Bunyan, that I can call myself “the chief of sinners,” and that I could certainly not advance an iota towards God had he not himself provided the way. But what if he has provided a way for us to experience not only forgiveness, but the beginnings of a sharing of his Trinitarian love even while still on this mortal coil? I’m probably not making much sense, and I’m more than just an armchair theologian– I’m a total newb. However, although I think what Luther did was probably necessary given the direction Medieval Catholicism had taken, I just have some concerns which prevent me, at this time, from pursuing this avenue. Lutheran brothers, pray for me. If I am wrong, may God open my eyes.”

It’s your fault, not Lutheran theology

When people try faith healing and are not healed, the supporters of faith healing blame the person. He or she simply did not have enough faith.

Have you noticed this dynamic with Lutherans? When someone leaves Lutheranism, it is always the ex-Lutheran’s fault? People who leave Lutheranism for Orthodoxy are always considered the problem. Have you noticed the condescension and anger toward the people who leave? It is usually assumed that there was either something wrong with that person or with his catechesis.

The idea that there could be something wrong with Lutheran theology is never considered.

I just finished a series on why one Lutheran pastor left the LCMS for Orthodoxy. I also had a few posts focusing on the experiences of one lay Lutheran named Drew.

Dixie, another former lay Lutheran, offered her experience as a Lutheran in her comment on the “Correction a Misperception” post. She states:

“I struggled for several years to understand how sanctification was supposed to work in a way that either didn’t leave me in works righteousness or leave me to my own desires. The debate just between Lutherans was sufficient for me to see that it wasn’t so clear even to seminary graduates!

As a Lutheran I was taught that if I am “in Christ” the Holy Spirit would give me everything I needed to do the good works that I needed to do. But in practice what I discovered was that on Saturday morning my neighbor may have needed my help but I wanted sleep in and the just relax around the house. If I really was supposed to help my neighbor, wouldn’t I have been given the grace to do so? But since I didn’t want to help my neighbor, that must have meant it was OK to do nothing because if I forced myself to wake up early and leave the house to help…then I would have been guilty of works righteousness. Drowning that old Adam required very real work but how much work was too much work? And maybe it was OK to just sleep in because as I heard more times than I care to quote “it wouldn’t affect my salvation” since we were saved by grace but clearly works righteousness could. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

And I never missed a communion (we had it at least twice a week), always attended a bible study, usually two each week, and I took advantage of private confession on average about every two months—although my pastor wasn’t a fan.

So admittedly, I never “got” it. Call me stupid. Call me improperly catechized. Call me unsanctified. Whatever. At this point it is inconsequential. I guess I am just one of those former Lutherans guilty of misperception.”

Adam, also a former lay Lutheran, reacted to the Drew post by stating:

“Every word of Drew's post hits home. His example of sexual sin is particularly apropos because letting God do His work in us is really hard! Sometimes a person might REALLY want to transgress God's law and he has to actively seek God and turn toward Him. This is not a passive act. It is perhaps the highest form of asceticism, for it denies the body what it really, really wants and turns toward God instead. That's not easy in the least.

Personally speaking, I know the constant fear of worrying about whether I was taking too much credit. Here's the conclusion I reached...hyper-focusing about my state of mind was just as self-centered as the worst of those synergistic moralists. They required works, but I required that a person's words and thoughts be ordered in just the precisely correct manner.

What I wish someone had told me is that I should stop worrying about the axioms and syllogisms and just pray. One helpful thing about Orthodoxy is that we're reminded of our sin every morning and night. Our prayers keep us (hopefully) humble. Humble or not, we're certainly reminded of our shortcomings which is why we pray every morning:

"O Savior, save me by Thy grace, I pray Thee. For if thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be a grace but rather a duty; yea, Thou Who art great in compassion and ineffable in mercy. For he that believeth in Me, Thou hast said, O my Christ, shall live and never see death. If then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I belive, save me, for Thou are my God and creator."

The prayers of The Church remind us continually that our salvation is entirely in Him and, by extension, that any and all progress is actually God working in us and through us. But as Orthodox Christians we don't deny this progress, and we welcome it rather than question it; both for ourselves and our brothers and sisters in the faith.”

Drew, Dixie and Adam. Was it them or Lutheran theology?

Lutheran theology frees the Christian from the requirement to be nice.

Matt, in a response on the Internet Monk blog, states the following about being a Lutheran:

"Lutheran theology frees the Christian from the requirement to be nice. “Be Nice” is the great unwritten commandment of the contemporary church. Any number of church fathers (including Paul and Christ himself) could be remarkably blunt and “divisive.” But American Christianity always has to have a smiling face, even if its phony, and our society picks up on our phoniness. Therefore, many Lutherans often come across as grumpy, argumentative and uninterested in being your pal. Some of these are quite active on the Internet!"

Someone finally speaks the truth! “Grumpy, argumentative and uninterested in being your pal” sums up much of my experience with meeting fellow Lutherans in person and on the Internet. My Lutheran church is a cold and unfriendly place. The pastor is great and there are a few people who go out of their way to welcome people. However, for the most part, no one talks to each other and the only people welcoming visitors are the “greeters” at the door.

I guess the "passive" nature of Lutheran spirituality causes Lutherans to wait around until the Holy Spirit gives them compassion and love for other people.

Here is my growing list of the potential "side effects" of Lutheran theology:

• Grumpiness
• Combative and argumentative nature
• Aloofness
• Rudeness
• Arrogance
  
• Reduced ability and motivation to resist sin
• Passive spirituality
• Short-term relief from a troubled conscience
  
• Flesh is pampered
• Loss of interest in doing good deeds
• Increased desire in splintering and creating factions

What other potential negative "side effects" have you noticed?

"Correcting a Misperception" by Rev. Weedon

Rev. Weedon has a post on is blog entitled “Correcting a Misperception” where he addresses some of the issues discussed in “Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?”.

Rev. Weedon states:

“Some former Lutherans persist in slandering our faith by saying that it is spiritually damaging - pointing especially to the teaching that we are simultaneously just and sinner. Thus, to their way of thinking, Lutherans teach that one may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness. But this is a complete falsification of our teaching.”

"Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?" is not arguing that Lutherans teach that one “may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness”. Here is Drew’s criticism of Lutheran theology:

• The Lutheran ‘Gospel” left him powerless to fight against his sin.

• The psychological benefit of ‘extra nos’ was “spiritually deceptive”, especially in regards to living in a culture “saturated by carnal sensuality”.


• When he fell into sin, the message of ‘extra nos’ did calm his “troubled conscience”. However, this was the danger for him – the “satanic delusion” he calls it. As he states, “the extra nos leaves one thinking they are 'right with God' when in fact, they may not be -- as in my case.”


• He knew that he was “sowing in the flesh, and therefore reaping corruption”. Yet, he was led to believe that he was “justified before God, righteous in His eyes” because he received the Sacrament of the Altar trusting that it was “for him”.


• He believed that God would see him “through to the end no matter what” he did in his life. However, he had a terrible prayer and thought life. His life was really no different from a non-Christian.


• His life was “centered around the passive reception of Christ’s forgiveness through Word and Sacrament”. He points out that “passive” is the key.


• Hearing sermons that Christians are really no different from non-Christians (he used sermons about the Corinthians as an example) “only pampers the flesh, and definitely does not lead to true repentance.”


• “The boogeyman of 'works righteousness' will always haunt the Confessional Lutheran. Anything that looks even remotely close to 'works righteousness' is shunned. Just bring up fasting around Lutherans and witness the debate that ensues. In fact, exhorting the Christian to do anything (besides the passive reception of Word and Sacrament) often leads to debate as well. Just go read about the Lutheran debates centered around the so-called 'third use of the Law'.”
  

I think Drew’s main point is that Lutheranism did not give him the tools to fight sin effectively. The emphasis on the "passive" reception of Word and Sacrament does not necessarily lead to significant behavior change or an increased desire/motivation to fight sin.

For example, Rev. Weedon states:

“What simul justus et peccator is rather seeking to confess is that to be a Christian is to be in a life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts. You will never advance to a point where the struggle is ended. It goes on to the very end. The fact of the struggle doesn't mean one isn't a Christian (the absence of the struggle does!). As St. Paul wrote of himself to the Romans: "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh, for I have the desire to do what it right, but not the ability to carry it out." (7:18)

Drew’s criticism of Lutheranism is that it failed to give him the tools for the “life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts”. Further, some of the tools can actually “backfire” – produce short-term relief from a troubled conscience but pamper the flesh in such a way that true repentance and effort to resist sin does not occur.

I think Rev. Weedon would agree that the “tools” for fighting sin are often hard to find in many LCMS churches. How many LCMS churches have weekly Communion? How many offer private Confession and Absolution? How many spend time during sermons and study classes discussing ways to resist temptation and fight sin?

Where is the Church today?

This is the seventh post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

What did the early fathers mean when they used the word “Church”? Where is the Church today?

Lutherans say that the Church is wherever the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments are properly administered.

Of course, what is really meant is that the Church is wherever the Lutheran take on the Gospel is preached and where the two Lutheran Sacraments are administered according to Lutheran tradition.

Rev. Palke discusses these issues when he states:

“Ultimately, for me the key issue was the Church. How did the fathers and Creed understand “one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?”

I felt that the Protestants had, to varying degrees, “gnosticized” the church. In other words, since they had broken from Rome, which claimed to be the true visible church, Protestants, in reaction, tended to spiritualize the church, emphasizing its invisible character through “faith alone.” Hence, there was no need for anything “human”--bishops, fasting, monks, liturgy, iconography, councils, etc.

Yet, few of our Protestant friends realized that the Church determined the canon of Holy Scripture in the late 4th century. It did so through application of holy tradition (rule of faith) which preceded even the writing of the New Testament. The Church formulated the Creed. The Church established canons that regulated its life (The Orthodox Church still observes these canons. For example, the canons do not permit divorced men to become clergy. This stands in sharp contrast to Protestantism, which finds itself with increasing percentages of divorced clergy.). Those who confessed and taught the faith and were in doctrinal and sacramental fellowship with other bishops (who were commemorated in the worship of Orthodox churches) and their respective flocks comprised the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” (many Church Fathers refer to the Church simply as the “Catholic Church”). Virtually every Father testifies as to those who were in the Church and those, who, due to false teaching or noncanonical practice, put themselves outside of the church.

The Creed affirms that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life. He forms a body and unites it to Christ, the head of the church. Because it is united to Christ, it is described in the book of Ephesians (1:23) as the fullness of him who fills all things. It is one. It is complete (this is primarily what the word "catholic" means). It lacks nothing. It is universal. It transcends any one culture. And it transcends any period of history. It is both divine and human at the same time. It is local and also universal. It has one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Thus, it will exist from Pentecost until our Lord’s parousia.

Protestants will be surprised that, while the Scriptures affirm the Word of God as reliable and true, the same Scriptures declare that the Church itself is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Without this pillar, everything comes crashing down. To this body the Word of God was revealed. And only this body, instructed in the apostles’ doctrine, could decide which Gospels and epistles belonged in the canon of Scripture. And this body alone, through its ecumenical councils and right-teaching fathers, is equipped to interpret the contents of Scripture. “

The Lutheran Confessions and Sola Scriptura

This is the sixth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

LCMS Lutherans teach Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). However, we also have the Book of Concord. I was taught that our Confessions are the correct interpretation of Scripture. This led me to have several questions. For example:

• If Scripture is all I need, why do I need the Book of Concord?

• If the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture, should I read Scripture through the "lens" of the BoC?
  

• If I can determine the correct interpretation of Scripture without the BoC, then why do I need it?

• How do I know if the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture?
  

Here are the answers I have received from LCMS pastors:

• Read Scripture and see for yourself that the Book of Concord accurately interprets Scripture.
  

• Scripture is clear and don't use the BoC as a "lens".
  

• Use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear parts (i.e. use Scripture to interpret Scripture).
  

• Use the BoC to make sure that all personal interpretations are correct.

Let you head go down these rabbit holes for a few hours and you will need more than an aspirin.

Rev. Palke discusses the Scripture/Confessions issue when he states:

“Lutherans, in contrast to other Protestants, seem to be inconsistent in their approach to sola scriptura. On the one hand, they support the concept of sola scriptura, yet, on the other hand, rely heavily on their confessional writings as a form of tradition. In order to explain away this inconsistency, Lutherans admit that the Scriptures are the “norms that norm” and that the confessional writings are “norms that are normed.”

The Lutherans who corresponded with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople indicated that the Scriptures were self-sufficient and clear “so that even the most simple person can understand them.” Yet, a cursory reading of the Lutheran Confessions will reveal appeals to patristic sources. It finally occurred to me that the Confessions employed patristic sources on a selective basis. For example, they utilized the Orthodox objections to the primacy of the pope. When they espoused unique teaching, the teachings of the Fathers were silenced in favor of the opinions of the theologian(s).

In Luther’s forensic understanding of justification, a lack of patristic evidence is strangely apparent. In reacting to Roman abuses of Holy Tradition, Luther may have forgotten to ask whether his teaching had been taught “everywhere, always, and by all (see the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins)” This selective use of the Fathers has also given rise to the priority of human reason. Luther, at the Diet of Worms, stood by his own teachings, unless persuaded otherwise by Scripture and reason. The use of reason has been elevated to such an extent that it has led countless numbers of Lutheran scholars of the past century to reject many of the essential doctrines of Scripture, and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves. Thus, for much of Lutheranism today, the very foundation of its faith has been questioned and even rejected. Without the Church and its holy tradition, Lutheranism, in varying degrees, will continue to flounder in the wake of mainstream Protestantism.”

Infant Communion and the LCMS

This is the fifth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

As a father of two children, I am responsible for making sure my children are fed. My children were Baptized and are now God’s children. Why does my LCMS church deny my children the Body and Blood of Jesus every other Sunday (we don’t have Communion every week)? Why do my children have to wait until some arbitrary day when they are older to be fed by God?

Rev. Palke addresses this issue when he states:

“I had always wondered why we baptized infants, bringing them to spiritual life in God's Kingdom, but withheld spiritual food from them until they reached some mythical “age of accountability.” It's a lot like watching the birth of a baby with the intention of withholding food from the child until it is able to distinguish between peas and carrots. It had occurred to me that children had participated fully in the life of the Old Covenant, including circumcision and partaking of the Passover meal. And from a liturgical point of view, I knew that the early Church baptized, chrismated, and communed the catechumens in a discernible, inter-connected sequence of sacramental actions.

If John 3:5 indicates the necessity of the new birth by water and the Spirit (baptism and chrismation), then John 6:53 (“unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no live abiding in him”) is equally clear in asserting the necessity of the Eucharist. And if children belong to the Kingdom, should they be denied the banquet table of the Kingdom? I'm not ignoring Paul's exhortation to examine oneself, which the Orthodox fulfill in sacramental confession. But shall we withhold the Sacrament from those who are not capable of self-examination, such as the retarded or the senile?

I finally came to the realization that we had been turning faith into a rational act of the mind rather than trust. And I then realized that if we were consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, we would end up denying infant baptism for the same reasons that we deny infant communion. There is only one class of Christian in the Church--those who are baptized (the Easter experience), sealed with the Holy Spirit (Pentecost experience), and partake of the Sacrament of the Kingdom. As a Lutheran pastor, I had to keep track of “baptized members” and “communicant members.” Orthodoxy makes no such distinction, recognizing the need of the “medicine of immortality” for all its members."

Avoiding the “Protestant Grid”

This is the fourth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

In a previous post I explored how a Christian in 2009 can determine Truth and the correct interpretation of Scripture by using the criteria of St. Vincent of Lerins.

However, I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of Christians, at least in the United States, don’t use St. Vincent’s criteria. People seem to have a list, either mental or written, of what they are looking for in a church. The content of the list varies, but can contain things like the personality and preaching style of the pastor, the look of the actual church building, the quality of the praise band, the number of events, the number of groups and ministries and the quality of the coffee offered on Sunday mornings.

The “evangelical” churches in America seem to have blended into a single “pop-Christianity” singing the same songs and using the same programs. There is now little difference between most evangelical churches. Denominational distinctiveness is gone. It is also apparent that theology and doctrine play little (if any) role in choosing a church today in America. Style is important not substance.

Unfortunately, Christians who do take theology seriously use a similar strategy for finding a church. They simply list all the doctrines they believe are important and try to find a church that teaches those doctrines. While a theological criterion is more sophisticated than the guitar riffs of the praise band, using a list to find a church is a bad strategy.

Confessional Lutherans upset with the direction of the LCMS try to find a LCMS congregation that meets a certain criteria. If the church uses the liturgy, has weekly Communion, practices closed Communion and is free from a praise band, it usually passes the “test”.

However, Rev. Palke argues that the use of such lists, either for the quality of music or the practice of Closed Communion, is all the same thing. He calls it using the “Protestant Grid”. The danger of such a “grid” is that it puts the person up as the “arbiter of truth”.

Rev. Palke states:

“As I had done prior to becoming Lutheran, I prayed that God would lead me into all truth. But now I had come to realize that my choice of Lutheranism in the past was based on criteria, such as infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion, and the truthfulness of the Bible, that I felt were important. Though these were weighty criteria, I now realize that I was doing what many do in searching for a church. They set up what I call “the Protestant grid.” Across the top of the page they list the particular doctrines they wish to consider. Going down the page, they list all the denominations they wish to consider. Then they get their Bibles, use their concordances, and footnotes, and place check marks in the appropriate squares for every denomination that teaches according to that individual's understanding of the doctrine in question. At the end of the exercise, the individual simply tallies up the check marks, and the denomination with the most check marks becomes the “preferred denomination.” If one chooses not to bother with this process, he can always opt for a “nondenominational church.” I have come to see the flaws in this process. The individual becomes the arbiter of truth. While Protestants so frequently lambaste the pope, they fail to see that they are simply replacing the pope with themselves, claiming that “all rights exist in the shrine of their hearts.”

Underlying this issue is the whole matter of biblical interpretation. We know from Scripture itself that “Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation,” yet this goes on all too often on the western side of the street. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, comes as a complete package. There's no picking and choosing. You either accept the teaching, worship, spirituality, iconography, canons, etc. as a complete package (this is one of the essential definitions of the word “catholic”--completeness!) or you reject it. I choose to accept it all. And now I know what possessed the Evangelical Orthodox to become Orthodox: the Holy Spirit! I am not bitter about my stay in the Lutheran Church. On the contrary, I thank God that he brought me to a church located right across the street from the Orthodox fortress. Frankly, I'm much more impressed by these former Campus Crusaders, who had a lot further to go to get to Orthodoxy than Lutherans do. The Lord had already led me to an understanding of infant baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Sacraments, confession, a liturgical form of worship, and acceptance of Orthodox Christology, among other things, during my Lutheran residency. I finally said to myself: “if a para-church group can find the Orthodox Church and enter it, then anyone can!”

What's a conscientious Lutheran to do?

This is the third post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

Considering all the problems in the LCMS, what's a conscientious Lutheran to do?

Rev. Palke has an answer. He states:

"What's a conscientious Lutheran to do, given these circumstances? Some say, stay and fight. But I'm convinced politics in the church is not the solution. I personally had to come to the realization that Lutheranism no longer chooses to consciously be what it was intended to be--a movement for reform in the West. And I still think that Lutheranism, as it is portrayed in its confessional portfolio is the best of the houses on the western side of the street.

But Lutheranism has no sense of “holy tradition” that can keep its house intact. In five hundred years Lutheranism has changed. Some Lutheran townhouses are barely recognizable as “Lutheran” when compared to the blueprint of the Confessions. In fact Lutheranism changed radically shortly after Luther's death, with unchurchly, non-sacramental Pietism and the anti- supernatural Rationalism “gutting out” the structure. And so, given these changes, even in the conservative Missouri Synod, I had to ask myself--what sort of spiritual legacy would I leave to my children? Could I be sure they would find a conservative, confessional, liturgical church somewhere? Should I leave the Missouri Synod and join a more conservative group, such as the Wisconsin Synod? If Missouri's doctrine of the ministry is shaky, the Wisconsin Synod has an even lower view of the ministry! Romophobia still afflicts Wisconsin, which recently has also become enamored with the “church growth” movement. And, believe it or not, a recent news report indicated that Wisconsin has come out with a new, contemporary hymnal that contains “inclusive language.” It appears to me that Wisconsin is copying some of Missouri's rebuilding techniques.

Or, I could join a new church body that may or may not be created when Missouri experiences another “walkout” by disaffected conservatives. This I can no longer do. This is because my experience with such “conservatives,” be they Baptist or Lutheran, is that they will later find another issue upon which to split. Their shibboleth is always “come out from among them and be ye separate.” Meanwhile, Christianity is fractured even more, in total disregard to our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one in Him as He is in the Father (John 17). And, frankly, I no longer wish to belong to a church named after one man or one doctrine. My study of church history showed me that the church was larger than one person. If Lutherans were honest, they would have to admit that they have granted to Luther, in significant measure, what they refused to grant to the pope."

Distinguishing Truth from Error

How does a Christian in 2009 determine what is Truth? There are so many denominations and so many different interpretations of the Bible.

A method of distinguishing truth was articulated by St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th Century. It is amazing how this work speaks to the current situation in Christianity today.

For example, St. Vincent of Lerins states:

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason, because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.”

St. Vincent of Lerins proposes a way to distinguish Truth. Here is his proposal:

“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.

This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”

A Lutheran may argue that Popes, councils and church fathers have erred in the past. Therefore, we can’t trust antiquity or consent. Even if “almost all priests and doctors” held a teaching, Lutherans would argue that we must only trust the Scriptures. The difficult part is which interpretation of Scripture do we use to determine the Truth? For Lutherans, the "true" interpretation ends up being the Lutheran one. This is nice and circular.

St. Vincent of Lerins has a proposal for dealing with error in antiquity. He states:

“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.”

So, the ancient General Councils and the consensus of the teachings of the majority of priests and doctors can be used to determine what is Truth.

How does a Christian in 2009 determine what is Truth and the correct interpretation of Scripture? St. Vincent’s answer is universality, antiquity and consent.

The Rule of Prayer is the Rule of Faith

This is the second post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

Many LCMS Lutherans claim that we just need to agree on the main articles of faith. Some say that the belief in justification by faith alone is sufficient for unity. How we worship (i.e. liturgy or contemporary praise) does not matter.

However, as many have pointed out, Baptists worship like Baptists because of their theology. What happens when Lutherans begin to worship like Baptists? My observation is that Lutherans start thinking and acting like Baptists. It is then just a matter of time before Baptist books and education materials are introduced into the congregation.

As Dr. Jaraslov Pelikan, a former Lutheran and one of the world’s leading church historians, stated:

"When the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod became Baptist, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America became Methodist, I became Orthodox."

Rev. Palke makes similar comments about the Rule of Prayer and the Rule of Faith.

"There are a small number of faithful, confessional pastors who believe in the principle lex orandi lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith) and lead their congregations in a substantive ministry of Word and Sacrament. However, since Lutheranism regards liturgy as an adiaphoron, something neither commanded nor forbidden by God, many regard this as a license to do what is expedient and has mass-marketing appeal. Others castrate the liturgy under the pretext that the liturgy is a hindrance to first-time visitors in church and to evangelism in general.

The confessional writings of Lutheranism generally grant freedom to churches in matters liturgical, so long as they agree in all the articles of faith (Formula of Concord, Article X). And herein lies the problem: worship appears to be disconnected from the faith. Instead of seeing worship as the faith of the church in action, Lutherans, like most Western Christians, tend to reduce the faith to mere intellectual assent. Instead of seeing music,liturgy, and art as bearers of the faith, Lutherans tend to view these things as aesthetic embellishments that establish the proper atmosphere for hearing the sermon, which itself is usually filled with many comedic and illustrative embellishments that are intended to enhance the Gospel!"

The identity crisis in Lutheranism

I am starting a series of posts looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. I will be spending several posts looking at an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

Anyone who reads the Lutheran Confessions will quickly realize that there is a large gap between the Confessions and the actual practice in local Lutheran Churches. The word “Lutheran” is practically meaningless today. It can mean anything from promoting women’s ordination to promoting a Purpose Driven Life.

Rev. Palke, 10 years ago, makes an observation that is still true today. He states:

“On the one hand, the Confessions portray an evangelical, catholic church. On the other hand, the life of the church appears to be broadly Protestant. Private confession and absolution, highly prized in the Confessions, would be the demise of any pastor foolhardy enough to institute it in his parish. The weekly Eucharist, a confessional norm in the Augsburg Confession (Article 24), is something that a few pastors have taken seriously and have been willing to take their lumps to establish. “That's too catholic” is the cry that is heard when the pastor elevates the host, chants the liturgy, wears a chasuble, makes the sign of the cross, has a Gospel Procession, uses incense, calls Mary the “ever-virgin, Mother of God”(things that Luther himself defended).

Instead of returning to the historic episcopacy, Lutherans, who view the episcopacy as of human origin, have chosen, in general, a form of church government that is, at best presbyterial, and at worst, patterned after democratic, free-church congregationalism. Lutherans are very suspicious of human authority. After all, “synods, councils, and popes have erred,” as Luther asserted. Unfortunately, Lutherans cannot see the possibility of applying that aphorism to Luther and the other Reformers. The trends in worship over the past few years in the LCMS seem to be following the pattern of “less liturgy; more rousing choruses.” People cannot do without “patriotic icons,” such as American flags, but try putting a religious icon in the sanctuary and watch the sparks fly! Flowers in church are a necessity, but try using incense and you'll get the coals dumped on your head, regardless of what Malachi 1:11 says or what goes on in heaven (Revelation 8:3)!”

“After all, “synods, councils, and popes have erred,” as Luther asserted. Unfortunately, Lutherans cannot see the possibility of applying that aphorism to Luther and the other Reformers.” This quote sums up what I am thinking about Lutheranism today. I am becoming more and more convinced that Luther and the early Lutheran reformers did “err”. Exploring this conviction will be the topic of future blog posts.

Trouble in the Antiochian Church

Cyberbrethren, a blog I read on a regular basis, had a post today entitled "Trouble in the Antiochian Orthodox Chruch".

Pastor McCain provides some commentary and a link to an article about a current issue involving the role of the American Bishops in the Antiochian church. However, he uses his blog post to attack the Antiochians on several issues unrelated to the current Bishop problem. He attacks the Antiochians on their process for making Priests out of former Lutheran pastors and their “aggressive” recruiting strategies.

Pastor McCain then attacks the Lutheran pastors who left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. He accuses them of having “starry-eyed naiveté” and believing they were entering an “ecclesiastical promised land.” He even goes so far as to offer prayer for these poor souls that they do not “leave the church” over the current affairs– as if they are so weak in their convictions and the current problems in the Antiochian Church so great that they are bound to leave.

What is most interesting is that Pastor McCain never once addresses the issues involved in the article he links to.

Here is a link to the story: "What’s going on in Antioch?"

After reading the article, here are my thoughts:

As an LMCS Lutheran, I have been taught that the office of the presbyter and bishop are the same.


So, how does the LCMS treat our presbyters/bishops?

• In 2006, an LMCS presbyter/bishop was arrested in the middle of his sermon and led out of the church by the police. This happened because of a dispute inside his congregation. He was arrested for “trespassing on church property”. Apparently, one of the “factions” in the dispute “fired” him. However, the pastor and the other “faction” dispute the firing and claim that the official process was not followed.

• We know that LCMS presbyters/bishops have been fired or removed from a church, sometimes because of their Confessional stance on an issue.

• We know that churches and entire LCMS districts resist or refuse to call presbyter/bishops who are “Confessional”.
  

What are some of the current actions of our LCMS presbyters/bishops?

• We know that there are LCMS presbyters/bishops who have alcohol or drug problems. I would also guess that there have been some who have been arrested and convicted of crimes.

• We know of LMCS presbyters/bishops teaching heresies in their church. We have LMCS presbyters/bishops teaching and practicing open communion, contemporary praise worship, speaking in tongues and “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and Arminian doctrines.
  

One just has to spend an hour or so reading the back posts on the Steadfast Lutheran website to see all the problems in the LCMS, especially with our presbyters/bishops.

The issue for the Antiochians is the same for all American Orthodox – the role of the Bishop (especially the role of “overlapping” Bishops) in the U.S. This is a complicated issue due to the history of America and the unplanned immigration of Orthodox from many different countries. This is an issue that is being addressed and is a focus of SCOBA.

So, the issue for me is not conflict or even that “problems exist” in Orthodoxy. The issue is HOW the problems are addressed. We have seen how the LMCS “handles” their problems. It will be interesting to see how the Antiochians address their issues here in America.