Okay, so ecumenical might be a tad pretentious for the discussions on this blog. But the recent dust-up has me thinking about the value of these sorts of discussions in general.
First, there's no arguing for first principles. And that's where so many of the conversations go sailing past each other - and I'm as guilty of it as anyone. So I wonder if it is worthwhile to really seek to engage each other on that level? It seems inevitably to come across as attack. No, the Orthodox don't think we're Church. Rome doesn't either. We find that horribly offensive, because we know that they both ARE and we too. But we'll never agree then on what "Church" actually denotes. We can talk about it forever, but nothing will make a Lutheran adopt an Orthodox or Roman understanding of Church, short of becoming Orthodox or Roman, and similarly with an Orthodox or Roman adopting a Lutheran understanding of Church, short of becoming Lutheran. So, if this Lutheran writes on Church, you can expect it to be from a Lutheran perspective, and there's no need to try to "correct" this. Should I write on the Orthodox understanding of Church and totally flub it up, it would be more than appropriate for you to comment: "You've got that wrong, dude." I think as long as we recognize that about each other, it can be helpful.
Second, discussion of the interactions of piety and doctrine seem to be to be most beneficial. I was struck in the conversation on "What are You Afraid Of?" that the most intriguing part (at least to me) was Christopher's statement that he didn't think of or use Scripture in the way I was describing - for repelling demonic assaults. I would love to explore that whole area more. It left me wondering: is that a unique Lutheran experience? Or is it only among certain Lutherans? Why didn't Christopher experience this as a Lutheran growing up in WELS? What gives? The demonic assault strikes me particularly as LIE. They use words to tell you a story that is a lie. And if they can get you to believe the lie, they've got you. You battle their story with another Story - the Story that is of God's telling. You counter their assaults with TRUTH. And the truth beyond all truths is the truth that the Spirit inspired witnesses wrote down in the Scriptures about the Word Made Flesh, Crucified, Risen, Glorified, and Returning. More discussion along the lines of things like that would help us all, I can't help but think.
What do you guys think?
9 comments:
I thought what was most interesting (or at least thought provoking for me) was thoughts on Sola Scriptura - how the Eastern Characterization wasn't what I hold to (Pr. Weedon, the idea of focusing on it as the sole norm of the faith is a great approach).
But now I'm scared to post on your blog. . . because I'm a Gadfly and there's a frog there now. . . and I don't want to be eaten!
I wouldn't be too worried about what they are teaching in the WELS. Remember, I too was raised up in the Wisconsin Synod, my father was a Wels pastor, and I attended Northwestern Prep and College before transferring to C-SP.
Could it be that some LC-MS pastors also do not have a proper understanding of the use of Scripture to fend off the attacks of the devil and his lies? Or do you think it's just a WELS thing...
Former Vicar
The importance of ecumenical dialogue is not in persuading one another of anything. Its importance is in getting to a place where we can at least understand and respect each other’s viewpoints. To respect does not mean to agree. Rather it means we can look at a confession held by another and see the Christian logic in it and, this being an important point, give thanks for how it informs and strengthens our own faith. Orthodox need to hear this as much as Lutherans do. For Orthodox to say, for instance, that the Lutheran Reformation did not have any positive effect on Orthodoxy is simply naïve. Listen carefully to the nuances in most Orthodox preaching and one quickly picks up the influences. They’re there. The Lutheran tradition has much to offer the Christian world. Living in a Church that occasionally struggles to separate the wheat from the chaff we can learn from Lutheranism’s unwavering desire and ability to focus in discerning the heart of the Gospel. Lutheranism has a lot to offer. Orthodox should not think otherwise.
Having said that, Orrologion’s posts have been excellent in explaining Orthodoxy. You may not agree with him, with us. That’s fine. But perhaps in hearing why we believe what we do you may also be enriched to some degree in your own faith. Perhaps?
Brian
Mark,
No disrespect intended against WELS in that comment; but surprise on Reader Christopher's comment, that's all. Certainly WELS has a strong tradition in many ways, though I rue the influence of the Wauwatosa theologians.
Fr. Brian,
God bless you for sharing such insight. I couldn't agree more - and yes, I think that Lutherans too can be enriched (and especially taught to value certain aspects of their own tradition) by listening to the Orthodox describe their faith and experience. I can personally testify that it was the Orthodox teaching on theosis that sent me searching back in Lutheranism only to discover the much, much neglected mystical union theology of our earlier dogmaticians and teachers.
I am a frequent reader who almost never comments but just wanted to say how absolutely fruitful and edifying I have found the discussions. I don't mind at all when the various parties say "you've got that wrong" because it usually means that they're speaking pretty clearly about what they themselves believe.
The more I learn about Orthodoxy, the less attractive I find it. But I still love learning about it. And not just because it makes me appreciate the Lutheran Confessions more than I ever imagined possible. Somewhat conversely, sometimes just the language differences alone help me understand various doctrinal points through a new or deeper means.
Yes, everyone could think a bit more about what they're trying to accomplish in a given debate and everyone could surely be a bit more charitable, but for myself, I love these debates.
One thing I do wish is that some Orthodox advocates would use a few more citations or appeals to authority. Perhaps this is my Lutheran bias where we have this very clear systematic theology but I hate how sometimes people will say "We believe this" and another will say otherwise and they either cite conflicting Fathers or don't cite anyone at all. I'm not sure if that makes any sense.
But I really appreciate all the comments here -- from everyone. It's a very interesting discussion and assuming resolution won't happen any time soon, I hope it continues for a long time.
Thanks to Pr. Weedon and all the commenters for the time and effort put in here.
...the most intriguing part (at least to me) was Christopher's statement that he didn't think of or use Scripture in the way I was describing - for repelling demonic assaults.
I'm not able to say a lot on this topic, but thought I would at least say this. It isn't that Scripture is not or cannot be useful in such instances, it's just that I have not found the need so much as an Orthodox Christian. As a Lutheran I don't actually remember ever being attacked 'demonically' and falling back on Scripture to defend myself. It could be that I simply did not often notice I had been bested by a demon, so hadn't even thought to unlock the armory.
As an Orthodox Christian, I wonder if we are talking about the same thing when discussing 'demonic assault'. What do you (all) mean by it? Is it something different than a temptation? Is it tied up with such un-Orthodox beliefs as complete surety of salvation? Or, are you talking about literal, enfleshed demons taunting and assaulting?
For that matter, what are we really talking about when we say we 'fall back on Scripture'? Are we even meaning the same thing?
I have been blesses to have never had a serious questioning of the lovingkindness of God, his will for my salvation, and the like. Perhaps falling back on Scripture in such instances is even more necessary. Then again, I think you hit on something important regarding authority and source in a comment to the previous post that brought all this up:
"...to [the Orthodox] the Spirit that inspired the Scriptures is the very same Spirit that guides and directs the Body of Christ always. So when a practice is established within (as they see it) the Church, it is established by the very same Spirit who gave the Scriptures in the first place and thus derives from the same 'authority'"
So, the touchstone in these sorts of things isn't the word inspired by God in the Holy Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit who has inspired them thus revealing the Word Himself. However, the Word can also be communed with beyond a basis in Scripture alone. I think is something more like what I was meaning to point out.
Mollie wrote: "One thing I do wish is that some Orthodox advocates would use a few more citations or appeals to authority. Perhaps this is my Lutheran bias where we have this very clear systematic theology but I hate how sometimes people will say "We believe this" and another will say otherwise and they either cite conflicting Fathers or don't cite anyone at all. I'm not sure if that makes any sense."
I was having a conversation with a Roman Catholic student of mine and he said that Orthodoxy was inherently illogical because it doesn't have a magisterium. What you have said Mollie and what he said are two sides of the same coin.
Protestants will locate Truth strictly in the Scripture whereas Roman Catholics will locate Truth and authority in the Pope and the magisterium. Both are wrong. In both instances, Truth becomes divorced from the Truth and Head of the Church namely Christ Himself and He is replaced by an infallible book or an infallible person. Either way, the Faith is reduced to the whim of an individual or a group of individuals.
Systematic Theology is inherently foreign to Orthodox thought. How can theology be a system? This is clearly the influence of Aristotle on the Western Church, the need to divide, sub-divide and put things into nice, neat little categories which can be easily indexed and referenced. To me, personally, I find that to be an extreme lack of humility towards the Godhead.
This is why Orthodox thought has always spoke in apophatic terminology because God is inherently and in essence incomprehensible to the human mind because of our fallen state.
There is authority in the Orthodox faith. It is not localized in one place. It is found in the Creed, the Liturgies and Divine Offices, holy Writ, the writings of the Fathers, the Councils, the Canons, and the Iconography. All of these have Christ at the Head.
As long as RCs and Protestants continue to move away from Christ the Word as Head of the Church, the source of all authority, then there is no point in continuing with ecumenical dialogue. Protestants will insist, nay demand, that everything be guided only by the Bible where as Roman Catholics will demand that everything be determined by the authority of the Pope. Both are untenable to the Orthodox and that is why, God willing, we will continue our non-communion with both.
Both are wrong.
Not to nitpick on anyone - especially a co-religionist - but I think phrases like this are what tend to ignite informal 'ecumenical conversations' such as this. It is one thing to say, 'this is what I believe' or 'Orthodoxy [Lutheranism] would say' or 'my understanding of the Orthodox [Lutheran] position is', it is another to say the other side is wrong.
Definitive proclamations of what the [my] side teaches or why the [your side] are wrong are bound to fall afoul of the trap that someone, somewhere on the [my, your side] is going to have said something directly contradictory or that can sound as if it is contradictory.
As to the Orthodox side of things, I like the early 2nd-century Letter to Diogenes on how we should approach forcing another to our point of view, whether that force is verbal or physical: "God persuades, He does not compel; for violence is foreign to the divine nature." (Bp. Kallistos Ware was quoted as saying this in Markides' "Gifts from the Desert", but I found I had also seen it in Ware's own "How to Read the Bible").
Force of argument does not persuade anyone, really. It helps to remove obstructions or barriers to being formal conversion of mind/heart, but is not the root of true, spiritual persuasion which usually has preceded all this. As my priest's wife says: "I don't convert, that's the Holy Spirit's job". Meaning, she focuses on living an Orthodox life of prayer, repentance and virtue "acquiring the Spirit of peace", as St. Seraphim of Sarov told Motovilov, so that "thousands around [her] can be saved".
The most we can hope for here, I think, is to understand each other a little better. As I told the infamous "John" of the old pestering blog, we disagree on enough already without resorting to making stuff up. It's good to sweep away the straw men. As Pr. Weedon pointed out so well, "there's no arguing for first principles. And that's where so many of the conversations go sailing past each other". It's good to understand that we look at the world different, and how. It may cause us to think, question, doubt, convert or act as impetus to a more fully thought out apologia for our faith.
I've been thinking about what it is that I have found interesting, or discovered, in this conversation. I think it boils down to: "I don't trust the Church because I trust the Bible, I trust the Bible because I trust the Church". I think the former is at least more of a Lutheran POV as even the Sacraments are such only because of the promises found explicitly in the Bible - same with the effectiveness of prayer, etc.
"The importance of ecumenical dialogue is not in persuading one another of anything. Its importance is in getting to a place where we can at least understand and respect each other’s viewpoints. To respect does not mean to agree. Rather it means we can look at a confession held by another and see the Christian logic in it and, this being an important point, give thanks for how it informs and strengthens our own faith."
This is most certainly true. Thank you Fr. Andrew.
Post a Comment