A few of my readers have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy or find it a viable alternative to Anglicanism. It appears that a number of Lutherans are also attracted to it.
However, Lutheran pastor Mark Henderson from Australia (a former Anglican) cautions against making such a move in ‘Orthodoxy in the West: the Eastern Rite Mainline?’
Pastor Henderson says:
According to Fr Gregory Jensen, an academic and priest of the ‘Orthodox Church in America’ (the denomination with Russian immigrant origins that former Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan joined) Eastern Orthodoxy in North America on the ground – as opposed to how it appears from behind the rose-coloured spectacles of prospective Protestant converts – is rapidly becoming as liberal as the Protestant mainline churches many of those converts are fleeing. So much so that he says the Orthodox Church in all its ethnic branches in the US looks increasingly like ‘the Eastern-Rite Mainline’.*
How so? Support for abortion and gay marriage runs disturbingly high among the laity, politicians of Orthodox background publicly support positions which stand in stark contradiction to the Church’s moral teaching and priests are ‘not effectively communicating the [Christian] moral tradition’, thus surrendering the laity to the forces of secularisation and cultural barbarism. Not to mention, and Fr Gregory doesn’t, but anyone who keeps a ‘weather eye’ on the Orthodox Church will know, that the various sexual and financial scandals among the Orthodox hierarchy in the US have clearly demoralised many of the devout clergy and laity.**
Asterisks indicate footnotes in the original post.
Pr Henderson observes (emphases mine):
… most articulate Orthodox – especially Western converts – that I have come across have a strong animus against the Christian West, with Augustine being their favourite whipping boy. In their eyes the great North African Father is to blame not only for Roman Catholicism but also, by way of reaction, for Luther and hence ‘Protestantism’ (and in speaking about ‘Protestantism’ the Orthodox tend to make no distinction between a snake-handling Pentecostal and a confessional Lutheran, thereby only displaying their ignorance of the heritage of the Christian West after the Reformation).
A big part of Orthodoxy’s problems, in my view, stem from the reality that it is not actually a ‘confessional’ church, but a ‘big tent’ church. The question for Orthodoxy now is just how big is its tent, given that they now have their own vocal and prominent proponents for recognition of the right to abortion, women’s ordination and even revision of the church’s teaching on homosexuality?
Finally, I think we are witnessing yet another confirmation of Dr Sasse’s [a prominent Lutheran theologian of the 20th century’s] prescient observation of 50 or so years ago that in the modern world all the great Christian communions will face the same theological problems, without exception. The obvious moral for small ‘o’ orthodox Western Christians in all of this – especially Lutherans – who might think that Constantinople offers a safe haven from the destructive winds of modernism that have wrought such havoc in our own churches, is to look before you leap into the Bosphorus.
His post is well worth reading in its entirety.
Before changing denominations, know what you are getting into.
28 comments
December 16, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Sue
My mother who was German by birth, was a Lutheran and so were the whole of that side of my family. However, as she married an Englishman, we were brought up Christians.
I must admit to knowing nothing about them…
LikeLike
December 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm
churchmouse
Hello, Sue — Great to hear from you!
I’m assuming that you mean knowing nothing about the Orthodox? Better to be Lutheran or Anglican (or Calvinist) — doctrinally speaking.
LikeLike
December 17, 2011 at 12:53 am
Cyril Ignatius
Nice article. I am very fond of the the Eastern Orthodox musical tradition but hadn’t delved far into its theological trends. This is a nice cautionary tale to keep my admiration primarily focused on the musical side of things.
LikeLike
December 17, 2011 at 1:05 am
churchmouse
Yes, Cyril, their rituals (an aspect of what, theologically, is termed ‘adiaphora’) appeal to us all. However, behind that might lie something else.
Our family had very close Greek friends (from Greece, not Cyprus). I never once saw this conflict between Orthodoxy and Catholicism crop up. We were all close friends between generations.
However, I have seen it here in the UK, only a few years ago, when someone I knew who was a Greek Cypriot Orthodox thought that all other Christians — Catholic or Protestant, no matter — somehow had it ‘in’ for them. This extended into the attitude towards working with others. As this person was more Mediterranean, their outlook was, shall we say, overlooked.
I wish I had a simple answer, but, unfortunately, I do not.
LikeLike
December 17, 2011 at 11:00 am
Linda
“Eastern Orthodoxy….is rapidly becoming as liberal as the Protestant mainline churches many of those converts are fleeing.”
‘Liberal” and emergent churches are flowing into a syncretized ‘fellowship’ that includes Buddhists, Druids, goddesses, Gaia-worshippers, Luciferian Theosophists, etc. Along with ‘gay’ rights, abortion,sustainable development and population control (key aspects of social justice), the Interfaith Alliance lifts its hands up to Hecate and Lucifer.
Ex-Marxist Lee Penn sheds light on this growing movement here:
The United Religions Initiative
http://fatima.freehosting.net/
LikeLike
December 19, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Thom Nickels
Fr. Seraphim Rose, an Orthodox monk and convert from atheism and Marxism, now deceased, wrote a book on Augsutine. The book’s title is Blessed Augustine. Rose takes issue with Orthodox thinkers who downplay or otherwise “condemn” Augustine. Augustine is considered ‘Blessed’ in the Orthodox Church.
At least the Orthodox have not modernized their liturgy, which is much more than I can say for the Novus Ordo-driven Catholic Church.
LikeLike
December 19, 2011 at 9:57 pm
churchmouse
Thank you for that welcome antidote!
Oh, the Novus Ordo — I’ve written many posts on, or shall we say ‘against’, Vatican II and the ‘new Mass’ which ended up (along with other reasons) driving me out of the Catholic Church.
I do believe the liturgy and very traditional adiaphora — e.g. vestments and chants — have a lot to do with the appeal of the Orthodox to other Christians!
All best wishes for Christmas and the New Year!
LikeLike
December 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth; Calvinist by the Grace of God
Dear Brother:
Thank you for the article. I am placing a link to it in my Facebook status since I have a few former-baptists-then Pentecostals-then Calvinists-now Lutherans-who are sympathetic and open to the Eastern Church. Astoundingly enough a few of them are graduates of Calvin College in my dear Grand Rapids, Michigan! This article, I hope, will, at least, re-kindle their ability to reason!
Thanks again!
LikeLike
December 21, 2011 at 10:22 pm
churchmouse
Hello, Milton —
Good to hear from you! I would be most honoured if you linked this article to your Facebook page — many thanks!
Graduates from Calvin College interested in Eastern Orthodoxy? Whatever next? That’s unimaginable. Are they fans of the New Perspectives on Paul and Federal Vision, one wonders?
By the way, if you are enjoying a cup of Pele Forte coffee tomorrow morning (one of our favourites here at home), may you savour it in good health and with much happiness. It’s one of God’s gifts to mankind — adding a bit of joy to our depraved world, especially on a cold winter’s morning.
May He continue to bless you in your ministry.
LikeLike
December 21, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth, Calvinist by God's Grace
This is exactly how it starts: first NPP, then the F.V. then a mix of both, then they prefer Luther’s method of interpretation (I am 98% Calvinist and a 2% Lutheran because of the explicit/implicit text and I tend to side with Luther on the explicit first then we interpret, but I think maybe every Calvinist is like me) but then they find that Luther is not “Roman Catholic enough” then they say, well, I don’t want to be a Roman Catholic, so what is my only other choice? And voilá: Eastern Orthodoxy…
By the way brother, I apologize, but I never asked you name, so I found it funny (although kindly so…) to call you “churchmouse” because such thing is quiet and shy and you don’t strike me as such. So, what’s your name?
Thanks brother! I will resort to the suggested Pele Forte… I think it is just about time today!
LikeLike
December 21, 2011 at 11:18 pm
churchmouse
Thank you for the explanation — just as I’d thought. FV and NPP have a lot to answer for. The other day, I read a Lutheran priest citing a certain well-known NPP / FV proponent on his blog as a ‘Presbyterian pastor’ (the words ‘highly respected’ were implied). Hmm. Not good.
Many of us in the UK go under blogging pseudonyms for religious and secular reasons. Some still feel able to blog under their real names; others of us do not believe we have that liberty any longer. My sincere apologies.
In any event, enjoy the coffee! 🙂
LikeLike
December 22, 2011 at 4:28 am
Anonysquirrel
Don’t even start thinking about Orthodox Church politics. It’s revolting and brutal.
If you are content to discover that the Moscow Patriarchate is always trying to find some legal subterfuge to undermine your parish, your diocese, your Patriarch – and promote its selfish narrow brand of Russian nationalism – and you’re o.k. about that – then Orthodoxy is for you.
Otherwise, find a quiet corner of Western Christianity where you can flourish.
LikeLike
December 22, 2011 at 11:07 pm
churchmouse
Thanks for that, Anonysquirrel!
Another commenter on here several weeks ago said the same and was concerned that some of the C of E’s links with the Moscow Patriarchiate might be a bit too close for ecclesiastical comfort.
I appreciate your contribution!
LikeLike
December 22, 2011 at 5:08 am
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth, Calvinist by the Grace of God.
No problem! I perfectly understand! I used to blog with the pseudonym of Grace Ambassador…
With me worked out the opposite. Because I do take a minimal Lutheran position, which includes issues regarding Homolegumena and Antilegumena adiaphora, etc., and specifically Luther’s Bible Commentary on James, and the statement he made later in his life that “he would give up his Doctor cap to anyone who would reconcile Paul and James”. I had to disclose who was this “monster” who was trying to tell people that there were some “disputed books” and “undisputed books” and explain that this is an issue that is as old as Church History and that I wasn’t bringing up anything new. That led me to revealing that the Grace Ambassador, who would not accept the “justified before man and before God” explanation on James 2 was the same Milton Almeida who otherwise defended and DEFENDS the MAJOR and MOST IMPORTANT orthodox precious doctrines of the Reformation.
(Please, don’t be the next one to avoid me for my conscious decision to take this position on the book of James, for which I am in total peace with the Lord. I vow NEVER to use your space to bring up this issue other than this brief mention here. If anyone who reads this comments want to openly discuss this with me in brotherly love, they can write to me directly. As Luther I do not extol it but I do not break fellowship with anyone for believing it is fully authoritative, and believe that God’s Sovereignty caused it to be in the Canon and to that I submit. I am still teachable!).
“I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men.”
Martin Luther
Blessings!
LikeLike
December 22, 2011 at 11:16 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Milton!
If I remember rightly, it was a Calvinist’s exegesis on James which convinced me that this book was not contradictory. (It might have been Matthew Henry — I’m not sure.) He said that it was the sign of a lively faith by God’s grace working through us that James was conveying. When I think of it that way, James’s letters make sense.
However, you are correct — James’s letters are confusing to many and appear Arminian / Catholic, even though they are not.
I appreciate your comments and knowledge in this area. Please feel free to comment as and when — this blog is not unknown for its occasional controversies. 😉
All blessings to you and your family as you remember our Saviour’s coming to us here on Earth.
LikeLike
December 26, 2011 at 3:55 am
Pr Mark Henderson
Hi churchmouse!
Thanks for drawing wider attention to my concerns re Orthodoxy.
A blessed Christmas to you and yours.
LikeLike
December 26, 2011 at 8:56 am
churchmouse
You’re most welcome, Pastor Mark!
Thank you for your Christmas greetings! I hope that you and your family had a good Christmas, too.
May God continue to bless you in your ministry.
LikeLike
December 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Reader Gregory
Merry Christmas!
I’d like to add my (visibly sorely lacking) voice to this discussion, if that’d be all right. I am an Orthodox Christian in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), now part of the Moscow Patriarchate. Although baptized Orthodox in infancy, I was never raised in the Church, and only came to Her through the grace of God at around 14-15 years of age. I feel this gives me a touch of an outsider’s perspective, since I chose to “re-enter” the Church of my own volition. I recently enrolled at an Orthodox seminary, and am surrounded almost exclusively by converts, mostly former Protestants. They are much more well-informed (most more so than I) than the author and commentators seem willing to give them credit for.
As a member of ROCOR, I often viewed the OCA negatively, or with some suspicion – even after ROCOR’s reunification with Moscow in 2007, I prayed that this would not mean communion with the OCA. I was wrong then, and am happy that we have since recognized the oneness of our Church. Although badly off and fairly liberalized, the OCA is not NEARLY so as the citation in the above article would lead one to believe – there is no question, not even a whisper, of legitimizing homosexuality, permitting abortion, or recognizing female ordination. That is lunacy – no Church Council (“Sobor”) has even entertained the notion, despite what some misguided members of the laity may want (and they are in the minority). The Orthodox Church is indeed a “big tent” Church – She has been since the time of Christ, and this is part of Her strength and ability to persevere under the most trying of circumstances. The OCA is liberal compared to its Russian, Georgian, Serbian, or (especially!) Athonite counterparts, but less so than the Antiochian or Greek-American jurisdictions. I did find it disturbing, though, that the author warned of “abortion, women’s ordination and even… homosexuality” – even homosexuality? Heavens! ..I think our priorities are out of order when that concern is a greater fear than the Church potentially legitimizing the murder of infants. But it’s moot – there is no question of any of those three coming to pass in any mainstream Orthodox Church. It’s simply a straw man.
I’d be happy to converse with anybody on here about Orthodoxy, but I especially feel that I should combat people’s prejudices here, since they lead to some patently false, overly exaggerated, or simply out-of-context claims and comments.
God bless!
LikeLike
December 29, 2011 at 2:23 am
churchmouse
Thank you, Gregory, for your testimony in favour of the Orthodox.
It’s not so much a question of ‘people’s prejudices’ as it is what the New Testament (as well as the Old) says on the topic of sexual impurity, which includes straights and gays:
9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not become partners with them; (Ephesians 5:5-7)
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)
8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)
If it were up to us on Earth, most would not care. However, the Epistles, as ordained by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit caution us against certain sexual acts, are a warning against carnality.
It appears that the Orthodox are not in favour of Scripture trumping Orthodox writings, however, many of us favour the Bible over any contradictory statements.
Whilst we love our brothers and sisters of whatever persuasion and bear them no ill will, we would also counsel them gently to consider obeying the teachings of the New Testament.
LikeLike
December 29, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Reader Gregory
I fear you’ve misunderstood me, brother, but also the Orthodox position. To wit:
1) I did not attempt to justify homosexuality OR softening the Church’s position vis-à-vis homosexuality. I merely noted that to make a bigger deal out of homosexual behavior than out of abortion (or rampant divorce, for that matter, which destroys a far greater number of individual lives and families) betrays a case of misplaced priorities.
2) All Orthodox writings are based on Scripture. Orthodox teaching does not and cannot (and would not want to) contradict Scripture. Orthodox teaching supplements, expands, and elucidates Scripture, but never challenges or seeks to “correct” It, because It needs no correction.
LikeLike
December 30, 2011 at 1:19 am
churchmouse
As to your first point, the blog author seemed to place an equanimity between abortion and homosexuality — along with women’s ordination.
In one of my posts about Pelagianism, please note this Eastern Orthodox quotation:
‘God is not a judge in a courtroom, and Christ did not pay the legal penalty or “fine” for our sins. His redemptive work was not completed on the Cross, with the Resurrection as a nice afterword. The eternal Son of God took on our fallen human nature, including our mortality, in order to restore it to the possibility of immortality.
‘ … the traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church; this is true in spades of particularly the forensic notion of justification, and of its consequent bifurcation of faith and works. Sola scriptura means little to the Orthodox … ‘
My advice, Reader Gregory, is to take up further discussion with the original authors of the posts which I have cited.
LikeLike
December 30, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth, Calvinist by the Grace of God.
Churchmouse:
Thank you for linking the article above. I read the article and when the defense of a “synergistic” salvation appeared, using a scripture singled out exclusively to make a point, without regard for the very next verse, I decided that any warning, soft or hard, as long as it is not slanderous, made within the scope of theology, against the Eastern Orthodox Church, is valid.
Whereas The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that “Where there is no freedom, there can be no love”, I say that this is a misconception of both notions: of love and freedom. If I serve a “god” who gives me open and unbridled freedom which includes, but is not limited to, abandoning him, then I will have a hard time understanding what kind of love he really has for me.
Allow me to repeat the verse cited in the bottom of the article and add the very next (and neglected) verses:
“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;” – Phil 2:12-15.
The command to work out our salvation with fear and trembling is referring to a voluntary and heartfelt obedience to the Apostle Paul in his absence.
God will cause it to happen anyway,whether one wants it or not, so Paul admonishes them to do it without murmuring, complaints and disputes so that they may be a testimony among the wicked.
Salvation here is not the issue, but Apostolic obedience. So this text IS NOT teaching a synergistic Salvation, whether it be in the sense explained in the article or in the Pelagian sense. In my humble view,we protestants do not use or render any notion of “synergy” in a pejorative way as the author of the article suggests, but we reject it based upon the Biblical context of the teaching of how our salvation works and how our continuing relationship with God develops. For a church who claim orthodoxy, whose theologians are deemed to be the most prepared of all Christian denominations, the twist of the verse above to justify even the mildest form of synergism, speaks volumes!
LikeLike
December 30, 2011 at 6:53 pm
churchmouse
An excellent observation, Milton — and many thanks for the missing verses from Philippians 2 to make that point.
This is the difficulty once one begins ignoring Scripture or prooftexting for convenience to promote personal comfort instead of ‘Apostolic obedience’.
Your last sentence is worth repeating time and time again:
Thank you!
May God grant a very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to you and your family!
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Darren Bailey
As an ex-Anglican minister who converted to the Greek orthodox faith I find myself scratching my head at some of the more outlandish portrayals of the Church in these comments. The Church is One. The Church remains faithful to he teachings and practices of the Early Church. There is only one Church established by Christ through the Apostles. I left Anglicanism because I could not be sure I was part of that One body (there were other problems i had with the liberalism of Anglicanism, but I won’t sling mud). I now know, with absolute certainty that I am part of the sacramental life of the One true Church. Belonging to a Christian movement that had only existed for four hundred years I could not make that assertion. The faith of the Church is unchanged. Our worship is ancient and beautiful – we do not chase after the tastes and fashions of the times.
I am not going to tell you to do or believe anything, but invite you to ask yourself if you can truly believe that your Lutheran or Calvinist or Baptist etc etc group could claim to be the One Church established two thousand years ago at Pentecost. It is not a matter of just individualised personal faith. The sacramental life of the Church binds us. Those outside this life are trying to survive and live what they perceive as a Christian life without the grace of the sacramnets.
I offer these words simply to balance some of the more critical things being said here about Christ’s Church.
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Darren.
In our fallen state, we are interpreting Scripture and Church doctrine as we see fit. I won’t say one denomination is better than the other, however, I am suspicious of the Orthodox diminution of Scripture in favour of their Church fathers, some of whom were Universalist and very unlike St Augustine of Hippo.
I criticise many denominations on this blog, including my own (Anglicanism), so would encourage readers to not think this is ‘having a go’ specifically at one church.
Yes, I, too, deplore the route Anglicanism has taken, but Satan is in most churches now operating in different ways, encouraging ‘tickling ears’ who hear what they want to hear and promulgating carnality in various ways through Church Growth, Islamic-style family control, mystical experiences and more.
If you wish to debate more about what Pastor Mark has had to say on the subject of Eastern Orthodoxy, I would encourage you to comment directly on his blog.
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Darren.
In our fallen state, we are interpreting Scripture and Church doctrine as we see fit. I won’t say one denomination is better than the other, however, I am suspicious of the Orthodox diminution of Scripture in favour of their Church fathers, some of whom were Universalist and very unlike St Augustine of Hippo.
I criticise many denominations on this blog, including my own (Anglicanism), so would encourage readers to not think this is ‘having a go’ specifically at one church.
Yes, I, too, deplore the route Anglicanism has taken, but Satan is in most churches now operating in different ways, encouraging ‘tickling ears’ who hear what they want to hear and promulgating carnality in various ways through Church Growth, Islamic-style family control, mystical experiences and more.
If you wish to debate more about what Pastor Mark has had to say on the subject of Eastern Orthodoxy, I would encourage you to comment directly on his blog.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 2:08 am
Briva
As a former Roman Catholic-turned-Baptist-Pentacostal-non denominational-house church-Presbyterian(OPC)-Lutheran(LCMS) and considering Eastern Orthodox (many of my friends have converted)…Where should I then go? Is there a church that truly is Sola Scriptura? I am tired of leaving churches because of ill-educated pastors’ dogma that is unscriptural and leaning on misguided historical ‘reformers’.
At least in the Eastern Orthodox church I see people genuinely worshipping God and truly trying to live a godly life. I did not see that in any of the churches I have been to before.
Godspeed,
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 10:23 am
churchmouse
Sounds as if you are happy in the Eastern Orthodox church.
May God bless you, too!
LikeLike