8/27/09

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.

8/26/09

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.

8/24/09

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.

8/23/09

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.”

8/22/09

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."

8/6/09

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

8/5/09

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.”

8/4/09

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!”

8/1/09

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