Lutherans - What is it that keeps you from becoming Orthodox?

[Randy_Carson]

You would have bet wrong. But it seems to me to argue that because there is a cultural quality to the orthodox church is amongst the worst arguments to not join. What matters is if the church is the true church.

There is a cultural quality to all churches, but in the case Orthodoxy, it is an impediment to its ability to fulfill the Great Commission. Failure to do that is strong evidence that the EO are not what they wish everyone to believe - the one, true Church.

You are, by virtue of your baptisms, Christians and therefore members of the Catholic Church albeit imperfectly, but you, as Orthodox, are not the Church. IOW, if one is looking for formal, full communion with the true Church, one begins by locating the Rock upon which it was built.

It is telling, IMO, that I have read posts in this forum by EO who expressed literal fear of Rome.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Fear.

And yet, these same folks would think nothing of insisting that the Orthodox in America must be submitted to a Patriarch in RUSSIA of all places. Boy, there’s a culture and society that is known for its openness and freedom from heavy-handed authoritarian interference by the State.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What I’m getting out of this thread is that because of the Orthodox church’s difficulty in handling a western rite, that this is the major reason Lutherans will not convert? I don’t think that is the case at all and I brought up what I thought one of the actual reasons is. The issues run much further than what liturgy you celebrate, at the very heart of it you have two very different theologies. I think its a mistake to over play the liturgy card, when the real difference is the theology itself.

Using my own experience as someone thoroughly ingrained in western culture and western Christendom I became Orthodox despite the cultural barrier. Why did I become Orthodox?Because I am convinced that the theology of the church is true and that it is the true church, and that overrides any difficulty I might have in practising in the church. Surely the main reason Lutherans or protestants will not become Orthodox is because of the theology, not the liturgy of ethnic character of the church.

Two different theologies you say. What exactly are the differences?

 

[Cavaradossi]

And yet, these same folks would think nothing of insisting that the Orthodox in America must be submitted to a Patriarch in RUSSIA of all places. Boy, there’s a culture and society that is known for its openness and freedom from heavy-handed authoritarian interference by the State.

I frankly do not think much of “submitting” to some foreign patriarch. I submit to my bishop. The purpose of primacy above the level of bishop in an Orthodox ecclesiology has fundamentally nothing to do with submission, as Schmemann points out in his essay on primacy.

As for Russia’s lack of freedom, America isn’t so far behind. This nation is already functionally an oligarchy with an illusory two party system (one progressive party and another progressive party which is ten or twenty years behind the other), where both parties are funded by (and thus beholden to) the same special interests. The American populace is free in theory yet disenfranchised in practice through a clever combination of campaign contributions and propaganda. Russia is simply more honest about how it is not a liberal democracy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As for Russia’s lack of freedom, America isn’t so far behind. This nation is already functionally an oligarchy with an illusory two party system (one progressive party and another progressive party which is ten or twenty years behind the other), where both parties are funded by (and thus beholden to) the same special interests. The American populace is free in theory yet disenfranchised in practice through a clever combination of campaign contributions and propaganda. Russia is simply more honest about how it is not a liberal democracy.

Your profile states that you are a student.

What are you studying, if I may ask?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In my original post I did point out that there are both theological and cultural reasons why I will not become Orthodox. I then mentioned two of these reasons, and the first one was theological – that I actually believe in the Filioque.

I suppose I would ask is the filioque that important to you? Do you believe it should still be on the creed despite it being added by western Christians and later confirmed by the Pope alone apart from the rest of Christendom? Or is it merely the theology of filioque that you agree with?

But let me ask this. Supposing you agreed with our theology but disliked the foreignness of the church. Would that stop you from converting?

 

[benjohnson]

What keeps me from being Orthodox would be that I’d firstly have to find my church lacking - specifically in proclaiming the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. Until such a time.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Finally, what GOOD thing (related to our faith, of course) would you say is found in Orthodoxy but NOT in either Catholicism or Protestantism?

That’s easy; meaningful lay ascesis.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Latin and English rather than Greek and Russian. Is that so much to ask?

Orthodox liturgies in the US are almost uniformly in English.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

And yet, these same folks would think nothing of insisting that the Orthodox in America must be submitted to a Patriarch in RUSSIA of all places. Boy, there’s a culture and society that is known for its openness and freedom from heavy-handed authoritarian interference by the State.

Ah, Russophobia. AS IF the Patriarch was a puppet of the Russian government. AS IF true spiritual authority can’t exist in a country with less than Christian principles. The Church of Rome during the pagan Roman Empire, for instance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s easy; meaningful lay ascesis.

Would you consider that a doctrine, a discipline (of the Church) or a private devotion?

I was anticipating answers like Eastern monasticism (v. western), and various devotions, so this is interesting. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, Russophobia. AS IF the Patriarch was a puppet of the Russian government. AS IF true spiritual authority can’t exist in a country with less than Christian principles. The Church of Rome during the pagan Roman Empire, for instance.

I’m sure that “true spiritual authority” can exist in a country with “less than Christian” principles because it’s increasingly possible that I may now be living in one. In fact, as the darkness deepens, I think we ALL are.

However, in a totalitarian state, the Church may often be forced into a fortress mentality in order to survive. This breeds a distrust of outsiders resulting in a closed church which is not receptive to newcomers and does not actively seek them.

I’m not faulting Orthodoxy for this in that this was the hand the Church in the East was dealt by world events, and maybe it was God’s will. But the inward focus which has enabled the Russian church to survive has also prevented it from making disciples of all nations.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m not faulting Orthodoxy for this in that this was the hand the Church in the East was dealt by world events, and maybe it was God’s will. But the inward focus which has enabled the Russian church to survive has also prevented it from making disciples of all nations.

I would like to know your criteria for what qualifies as “making disciples of all nations?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to know your criteria for what qualifies as “making disciples of all nations?”

Here are a few random thoughts:

Matthew 28:16-20
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Notice that Jesus is speaking to a small, select group in this passage and not to a large crowd out on a hillside as was the case with many of His other discourses. The Eleven, the proto-Magisterium of the Catholic Church are being given authority and direction.

"All authority". has been given to Jesus, and as the Father has sent Him with that authority, so now Jesus sends His Apostles with that same authority.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! And because nations rise, fall and disappear, how would it be possible for them to make disciples of ALL nations over what has now been 2,000 years? Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

**“I am with you always.” **How could Jesus fulfill this promise if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Clearly, Jesus intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

The facts of history present us with only two candidates which may claim to be the true Church and to have fulfilled the Great Commission: Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Which of these two scenarios is more likely:

1. Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the divine institution of the papacy, while Catholicism is a schismatic church despite it being far larger, having evangelized far more cultures, not having internal full communion problems, and having the institution of the papacy.

OR

1. Catholicism is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God’s providential guidance, while Orthodoxy is the body in schism.

 

[Peter_J]

What keeps me from being Orthodox would be that I’d firstly have to find my church lacking - specifically in proclaiming the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. Until such a time.

Please picture, at the beginning of this post, an emoticon of me shaking your hand. I always say that if I were Orthodox (and who knows, maybe it will turn out that I am after all ) then I wouldn’t switch to anything else; but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to convert to Orthodoxy.

(Of course, the question was directed to you Lutherans, not to members of the Roman Communion (MOTRC) such as myself. )

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Would you consider that a doctrine, a discipline (of the Church) or a private devotion?

I was anticipating answers like Eastern monasticism (v. western), and various devotions, so this is interesting. Thanks.

I would consider it an essential part of the “right glory” (Orthodoxy) that is due God and part of the “Way” as the ancient Church termed it. So of course it is a disciple of the Church (not just of monastics, although theirs is stricter). In Orthdooxy theology is integrated with practice and vice-versa. There is no Orthodoxy without orthopraxis, and vice-versa. As for being a “private devotion”- absolutely not. Read St. Paul’s verses about “training the flesh”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would consider it an essential part of the “right glory” (Orthodoxy) that is due God and part of the “Way” as the ancient Church termed it. So of course it is a disciple of the Church (not just of monastics, although theirs is stricter). In Orthdooxy theology is integrated with practice and vice-versa. There is no Orthodoxy without orthopraxis, and vice-versa. As for being a “private devotion”- absolutely not. Read St. Paul’s verses about “training the flesh”.

I have. Many times.

Is there a good article on ascesis online that you would recommend?

Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your profile states that you are a student.

What are you studying, if I may ask?

I suppose you could say that I am an academic refugee of sorts. I was in a liberal arts program for several years before I switched to doing mathematics and computer science.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I suppose you could say that I am an academic refugee of sorts. I was in a liberal arts program for several before I switched to doing mathematics and computer science.

Impressive. Not everyone can do both liberal arts and heavy math. Your job prospects may be a bit better, though.

Did you have a team in this year’s bowl games?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Did you have a team in this year’s bowl games?

Other than UH, nothing in particular. Like any proper Houstonian, I can never root for UT or TAMU (incidentally, half of Houston would probably tell me that them’s fightin’ words) but other than that, I’m rather easy-going. I was, of course, happy to see our own UH pull off a victory over Pittsburg.

I assume you’re a Georgia Tech fan?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Other than UH, nothing in particular. Like any proper Houstonian, I can never root for UT or TAMU (incidentally, half of Houston would probably tell me that them’s fightin’ words) but other than that, I’m rather easy-going. I was, of course, happy to see our own UH pull off a victory over Pittsburg.

I assume you’re a Georgia Tech fan?

:yup: