Scandal and trouble plague the entirety of the Church. Always have and always will. Lutheranism is no exception, and neither is Orthodoxy, of course. One thinks of the crisis of late in the OCA over the financial shenanigans of the hierarchy and the demands of the laity for a real accountability. But that pales in comparison to the unheard of innovation (!?!) among the Antiochians, as Metropolitan Phillip "demoted" all the bishops in the Independent Archdiocese to being "auxiliary bishops" leaving himself as the only "real" bishop of the Archdiocese. Apparently particularly under the gun is Bishop Mark of Toledo, a convert himself, and forced to deal with a rather vociferous enclave of Arab nationals who are pushing for his removal over them.
It is, I believe, unfair to suggest that those who left our jurisdiction to head East did so with the notion of escaping the trials attendant to the Church militant in her pilgrimage through this world. They knew they would have to face them wherever they sojourned. In fact, this strife was looming on the horizon before many of them converted. They simply believed that they could better be faced under a canonically ordered hierarchy. Yet it must be entirely disheartening when the office of bishop can be unilaterally yanked from its incumbents and made a political football of sorts. The very advantages to the episcopacy rising above such power plays is horridly compromised by it; and the mission of Christ's Church across the board is damaged.
I pray that the political machinations and injustices may come to an end among the Antiochian Archdiocese in a God-pleasing way, even as I pray they come to an end in my own Synod. May the Lord of His Church strengthen and uphold all incumbents of the Office of the Holy Ministry in their varied callings to proclaim His Gospel and administer His life giving sacraments to the upbuilding of His people, and may repentance be granted to all who would oppose and DEPOSE those whom Christ has called to administer His gifts for the building up of His body!
44 comments:
Here's the thing. Met. Philip didn't get away with it, did not succeed in his effort to demote the bishops. He has been overruled by the Holy Synod in Antioch (Syria).
Meanwhile, the question, "What was he THINKING?" has prompted reviews into other aspects of his ministry that he might prefer be left alone.
So while the whole thing is extremely painful, and posts such as this make it more so, it shapes up, as did the troubles in the OCA, to be in the end another example of the Holy Spirit guarding and keeping His Church. Surgery is painful, after all, but necessary.
"The voice of the people, the wrath of God" is an aphorism that seems to apply here.
P.S. An auxilliary bishop is still a *real* bishop.
...They simply believed that they could better be faced under a canonically ordered hierarchy.
I don't think you meant to say that former Lutherans (and some former LCMS pastors) became Orthodox because the Orthodox have bishops and that would in some way minimize problems...but the above sentence suggests it...so I think it is good to clear things up as not to leave an incorrect impression.
Most converts, particularly LCMS pastors, do not become Orthodox because there are bishops to deal with problems. (And most converts do not become Orthodox because of Happy Clappy music. Nor do they because Orthodox because the Orthodox use incense or do a lot of chanting.) Most converts, particularly former LCMS pastors, convert for theological reasons. They no longer believe Lutheranism is the full Truth. Full stop.
These recent problems in the OCA and Antiochian jurisdictions are, in the grand scheme of things and in the history of the Church, really like ripples on the surface of the water. This is the Church that successfully battled full blown heresies lasting hundreds of years...all the while having to manage with a few bishops who had trouble behaving. Money problems, scandals and power hoarding comes and goes, but the Church lives on due to the protection of the Holy Spirit and the Church's conciliar approach.
I think Father Stephen Freeman captures the essence of what the Orthodox do about such things in an old blog post. He writes:
…What’s an Orthodox boy (or girl) to do? ...
I would start, as an Orthodox boy, with the fact that everyone who is Orthodox has agreed to “deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ.” The ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, is found precisely in its weakness and is found there because God wants it that way. If salvation means loving my enemies like God loves His enemies, then I am far better served by my weakness than my excellence. If humility draws the Holy Spirit, then my weakness is far more useful than any excellence I may possess.
The Orthodox Church has perhaps the weakest ecclesiology of all, because it depends, moment by moment, on the love and forgiveness of each by all and of all by each. Either the Bishops of the Church love and forgive each other or the whole thing falls apart. “Brethren, let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” These are the words that introduce the Creed each Sunday, and they are the words that are the bedrock of our ecclesiology...
Bad bishops, bad laity, come and go but Christ's Church lives on forever.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
There's two places I always go to read what's going on in the Orthodox world -- Rod Dreher at "Crunchy Con" and Terry Mattingly. Both are converts to Orthodoxy and speak plainly about what ails it.
Rod Dreher is a journalist who writes for the Dallas morning news and pulls no punches.
Having bishops is not, and never will be, a guarantee against scandal or heterodoxy.
I might also add that Rod Dreher left the Catholic Church not because of the scandals per se but because of the way the bishops tried to sweep them under the rug.
I get the feeling he's going to make sure he doesn't get fooled again as an Eastern Orthodox. No mincing of words with him.
Christine
It is, I believe, unfair to suggest that those who left our jurisdiction to head East did so with the notion of escaping the trials attendant to the Church militant in her pilgrimage through this world. They knew they would have to face them wherever they sojourned. In fact, this strife was looming on the horizon before many of them converted.
Thank you. This was an important response to one person's persistent need to speak the untruth he sees as truth.
"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding" (Proverbs 17:28) - and, of course, the opposite is true, as well.
Similarly,
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." (Abraham Lincoln)
With all due respect to my dear friend, Pr. Weedon, in fact we in The LCMS heard quite a lot from a few very vocal LCMS pastor converts, one in particular, who could find absolutely nothing right in The LCMS, who went out of their way to find fault with every aspect of our church polity, who then were equally vocal in extolling all the wonderful and great virtues of the Eastern Orthodox church polity and frankly, gave many pious laypeople the impression that if they would but join them in the trek to Eastern Orthodoxy they would, in effect, be following them into the Promised Land.
This is not merely my personal opinion, but is simply the reality of what happened in certain highly public conversions.
I join pastor Weedon in his prayer that Christ would grant his peace and blessing on these communions now in such bitter turmoil, and keep His sheep within them from falling pray to the Devil, who would love nothing more than to discourage many and lead them into doubt and despair.
All doubt removed.
I know it's a straw epistle, but "the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison." (James 3:8)
I've been a member of three church bodies (RCC, WELS, now LCMS) and would maintain the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church can be found in all of them, and in EO too.
Certainly the three to which I have belonged each have scandals and troubles that work to the distraction, to say the least, of clergy and laity alike from the faith, and certainly I would hope for these matters to be resolved in a God pleasing way.
Many headed East in the wake of Vatican II from the RCC, and for a time I considered being one of them. We have two Antiochan parishes here, converts all.
Part of that full Truth they come to believe their former churches do not have, though, is the episcopacy -- or in the case of RC converts, part of that truth, and an essential part, they believe they will retain is the episcopacy.
And so PW's point stands.
And, reluctant though I am to step into controversy, I must add that, while Satan will attack any church body with any part of the Truth of Christ, the nature of the problem in these cases is that the episcopacy as understood in the RCC and the EO is itself the result of power plays and politics, and Christ has called no-one to such an office because he did not establish any such thing.
We should re-convene our Liturgy Committee to compose a prayer of thanksgiving that we do not have "bishops" so understood.
This is a power struggle. It's not as though the doctrine of the Church were at stake, nor the praxis, either, except insofar as this is a poor example of it. It's not as though the issue were whether to ordain women (or gays) or have praise bands or revamp the Divine Liturgy or re-interpret the Holy Scripture. Just a petty power struggle -- with, unfortunately, large-scale pain attached. But that's all it is. Bad is it is, it doesn't begin to compare with what has been going on elsewhere.
Oh, I'd say that there's a little more than "power plays" at work.
http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/n/controversy_envelops_antiochian_church.html
Here's the part that raised my eyebrows:
Since February, the fabric of the North American Antiochian Orthodox Church has been stretched at the seams over allegations of deception, power-mongering, and even forgery.
A longtime chancellor has resigned in protest, and some insiders are predicting that the upcoming national convention in Palm Desert, Calif., will turn into "Palm Desert Storm."
In the background, meanwhile, Bishop Demetri Khoury, the former Toledo bishop forced to retire after being convicted of sexual assault in 2004, has been quietly reinstated to active status and is listed in new church documents as a member of the board of trustees of the North American archdiocese.
I see it ain't only Catholic bishops who have some 'splainin to do.
I'm with PE. Having seen what can happen in "hierarchical" churches I agree that "We should re-convene our Liturgy Committee to compose a prayer of thanksgiving that we do not have "bishops" so understood."
I will agree, Anastasia, that one thing the EO can rejoice in is that the St John Chrysostom or other Eastern liturgies are not being cut and pasted into reworkings thereof in a deluge of missals and service books.
The best summation of this sorry trend in the West I ever heard was from an EO friend who, though coming from a tradition not generally characterised by brevity, put it in two words -- very sad.
I would concede that "Part of that full Truth they come to believe their former churches do not have, though, is the episcopacy...
It is a component of the Truth, but it is not the ultimate driver to conversion. Maybe it plays a bigger role on the RCC side since in the end they have only one guy who gets to officially make or break the rules...an ultimate authority residing in a human being. I can see how that might be appealing for those who come from less structured denominations. But that would not be the case with the Orthodox. In fact we have a joke...for those people who claim to reject "organized" religion we say we Orthodox are what they are looking for. As disorganized as it gets! :)
Another excellent perspective on the crisis from inside the Church, from the monastic front can be found here: http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2009/07/antiochian-monasticism-speaks-to.html
As an RC, one can come to see that the role and status of a particular bishop, say, Rome's, may have come to be overstated, but getting rid of the idea that there are bishops at all, ordained in succession from the Apostles and the guarantors of sacramental validity, is quite another thing.
I remember as a kid being taught that the Schism between East and West is a thousand times worse than the Reformation, because in the former, it is a split within the true church, whereas in the latter, it is a separation and revolt from it. We were always taught, pre, during and post Vatican II that the priest and sacraments across the street (literally, there was a Greek Orthodox parish across the street!) were as much priests and sacraments as ours.
Maybe it plays a bigger role on the RCC side since in the end they have only one guy who gets to officially make or break the rules...an ultimate authority residing in a human being.
Having left it my days of defending the RC are pretty much at an end but in fairness this begs pointing out that the pope's charism of "infallibility" is rarely exercised and bishops have a great deal of power in their own diocese.
Catholics pretty much live out their lives at the parish level under their bishop.
The Vatican is a long way from home.
Christine
PE,
Regardless of whether Christ actually ordained the office of the episcopacy in the actual written words of the Gospel, St. Paul speaks about that office as if it were divinely established. Read the pastoral epistles!
A polity of bishops is no less a stranger to scandal than a polity of democratically elected presidents or board trustees. You are trying to infuse an American understanding of government upon church polity. And that is ridiculous.
I didn't say the office wasn't divinely established, but that the office as understood in either the EO or RCC wasn't -- and owes no more to the Gospel or the Pastoral Epistles but to the offices of the Imperial state religion they became than the ridiculous get-ups they appear in and it isn't even Halloween.
Nor did I say that our or any church polity is immune from scandal, but rather that it takes on an additional dimension when that polity has assumed extra-christian accretions.
I may be that former LCMS clergyman that Rev. McCain is referring to, whom he claims "who could find absolutely nothing right in The LCMS, who went out of their way to find fault with every aspect of our church polity."
If so, I just want to state again clearly what I held and still do. I am not posting here to get into a back-and-forth about stuff that's old by now. Let me point out three things:
1. There are and always have been many right things in The LCMS. I'm grateful for the education I received at CTS/FW, for example, from some fine theological minds. There are many kind and wonderful people, both lay and clergy. In my own area, for example, Pr. David Fleming is everything a layman could want in a pastor--as is my successor at Epiphany/Dorr, Pr. Jonathon Krenz. I continue to hold the people of Epiphany very dear to me.
2. I did not find fault with every aspect of the LMCS 'church polity;' I merely pointed out that _by its own lights, it is not church but corporation_. (One might as well speak of the church polity of the Red Cross, as speak of the church polity of The LCMS. They're both national not-for-profit corporations.)
3. Concerning the troubles that arise from time to time within the pale of the Orthodox Church, these words of Khomiakov (originally applied to the Tsar) still ring true, mutatis mutandis, for any Orthodox Christian of any rank:
"Even now we think, as do the Greeks, that the sovereign, as head of the people in many matters touching the Church, has the right (along with all his subjects) of freedom of conscience in faith and of the freedom of human reason; but we do not consider him an oracle moved by some unseen power, as the Roman bishop represents himself to the Latinists. We think that the sovereign, being free and a man like any other man, can fall into error and that if, God forbid, such a misfortune should happen in spite of the constant prayers of the Church, then the Emperor does not lose his right to the obedience of his subjects in temporal matters; nor does the Church sustain any injury whatever to her glory and fullness, since her Head never changes. In a case like this the only thing that would happen is that there would be one less Christian in her bosom."
I make no judgment about anyone in the present distress; only to say that even if someone were to apostasize, the Church remains completely undamaged. How much less damaged is she in the present situation! I may post something more on this issue on my blog at some point.
In Christ,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
Two other things should be said:
1) Thanks to Pr. Weedon for this, on the whole, balanced post.
2) The present conflict is not an ethnic quarrel. There are Anglos (for lack of a better term) and Arabs on both sides.
Gee whiz, I used to think only the Roman church was guilty of theologizing everything to death.
I make no judgment about anyone in the present distress; only to say that even if someone were to apostasize, the Church remains completely undamaged. How much less damaged is she in the present situation!
Apostasy? Pretty minor up against keeping on a former "bishop" who is now a registered sex offender.
Christine
Originally applied to the Tsar. Or Kaiser. Or Caesar. Precisely.
BTW, that the Roman bishop represents himself to the Latinists as an oracle moved by some unseen power is a gross a misstatement of the RC understanding of "pope", pre or post Council, as I have read in quite some time.
What's going on with the Antiochians is what's going on with the LCMS - trouble at the leadership level.
Nothing new under the sun, really. It's been going on since the church began.
This, too, shall pass.
Now this is really odd. I get home, check my mail and there's an appeal from St. Vladimir's Seminary bearing signatures of Metropolitan Jonah, Metropolitan Philip, Bishop Savas of Troas, Bishop Maxim and Metropolitan Mar Barnabas.
Hey -- did someone at The Liturgical Press sell my name or something?
Never get on the mailing list of The Liturgical Press. There's no getting off it. Ever (-:
Christine
Never bought a damn thing from them, but, the Alumni Office sends me all sorts of stuff, which so far has only been useful in knowing the President, whom I knew when we were in college, died.
Well hell, we get a new Archbishop of Omaha at 1400 to-day (22 July).
Big two hour deal at the cathedral. Public ain't invited, just about 1000 invited guests. You can catch it on local access cable or a local TV station's site though, if you didn't make the cut.
Don't know if the retiring archbishop has moved into the retirement home the archdiocese paid 389K for - cash -- but there's be a hell of a lot more parking if they tore down the cathedral parish school they ain't got no money to keep open.
How wonderful we'll not be without apostolic succession here. Can't see nuttin but Christ here.
Silver and gold have I none ...
Never bought a damn thing from them, but, the Alumni Office sends me all sorts of stuff, which so far has only been useful in knowing the President, whom I knew when we were in college, died.
Ah, but there's nothing like receiving The Liturgical Press catalog to demonstrate the fruits of Vatican II! The good Benedictines at the Abtei even heartily collaborate with the ELCA!!
Well hell, we get a new Archbishop of Omaha at 1400 to-day (22 July).
Yes! His Grace, The Most Reverend George Joseph Lucas -- and what do you mean you and I didn't receive invitations?? Unmoeglich!!
Silver and gold indeed.
Yeah I didn't make the cut, and wouldn't have even if I were still Catholic. The news about it says various "religious dignitaries" were invited. Wonder if our DP is one of them?
If so, I wish I were the DP so I could decline, saying I have nothing to wear, the costume shop is all out of funny hats and magic staffs.
Fraid I'll miss the webcast too, unless I'm constipated and low on Milk of Mag.
Haven't had time to keep up with this whole thread - but did want to respond to Dixie:
It is certainly true that one never become Orthodox merely to find bishops, but the Orthodox hammering away at the Lutheran "lack" of bishops is a key feature in Orthodox proselytism of Lutheran Christians - one of the key ways to plant seeds of doubt. It has, sadly, been used to great effect.
But it's true that bad bishops come and go and that Christ's Church lives forever; we call that the perpetuo mensura - one holy Church that will be and abide forever. We disagree, of course, on what it is, but that the one Church ever exists and cannot be destroyed by the wickedness of her priests and bishops - on that we are in agreement.
"but the Orthodox hammering away at the Lutheran "lack" of bishops is a key feature in Orthodox proselytism of Lutheran Christians ..."
FWIW, it wasn't even mentioned once in my situation.
Nor was that a reason I listed when I began investigating Orthodoxy. But I suppose it could be on the list for someone else.
Doubt, however, is an interesting accusation. How can one cause doubt by saying Orthodox have bishops but Lutherans don't? Unless perhaps there is already some seed of doubt or angst about it in the first place.
Lutherans have been known to accuse the Orthodox of very serious things...that we are Pelagian, our faith is nothing but works righteousness, we are like charismatics all wrapped up in mysticism and emotion, that we are idolators because of our invocation of the saints...the list goes on. But a Lutheran saying these things to an Orthodox does not cause the slightest doubt where one is firmly planted in the Orthodox faith. And I know for a fact many Lutherans feel the same way about accusations made against Lutheranism. Bishops? No doubt, don't need 'em. Look at PE...he wants to add a prayer to the LSB to thank God for NOT having bishops!
My point is this...if there is doubt, its roots go deeper than an Orthodox comment about no bishops in the Lutheran church otherwise the comment would not take root. I would suggest that it doesn't cause doubt...but it may nurture doubt where doubt is already present. And frankly it is not a bad thing for one to take the time out to truly examine his faith and seek God in the face of doubts.
Doubt, however, is an interesting accusation. How can one cause doubt by saying Orthodox have bishops but Lutherans don't? Unless perhaps there is already some seed of doubt or angst about it in the first place.
I would contend that it caused doubt because I, as a called and ordained "Pastor" in the typical Lutheran parlance, hold what the Scriptures call the office of "Bishop". Simple as that. I am fully responsible for the spiritual care of my congregation. I tend to both the altar and pulpit of my congregation, and no one approaches those without my approval. When Paul writes to Timothy describing a bishop, he describes what I am doing. When Ignatius of Antioch describes the bishop, he describes what I am doing.
The Scriptural duty of a Bishop is to tend to the care of the Gospel (to tend to the public reading of the word even!) - and yet over time an administrative role took the fore, a role that is not divinely mandated.
Pointing to folks in that administrative role and saying, "See, we have bishops" is an implied denial of the fact that I hold the Office in its fullness.
And there is angst - there is a lot of angst over leadership, there is a lot of angst over how Synodical/corporate leaders aren't quick to remove error (I don't know why that is surprising, they are corporate, they are going to deal with money first and foremost) - and then one says, "See, if you just had a bishop, things would be much better." This tends to be a tact used more towards the clergy - which makes them doubt and forget who they are in their own office.
So, no, if one of the Orthodox says to me, "You don't have bishops" that is not merely pointing to a latent seed of truth, but is a denial of my Office and Ministry, as well as the Office and Ministry of every "Head Pastor" in the LCMS.
The lack of the episcopate in Lutheranism is, I suppose, more of an issue to those in the pastoral office than it would be to the average layperson--perhaps because pastors, unlike layfolk, are members of the corporation/Synod.
Please note: I mean to engender no controversy; just to try to figure out why it might not have been an issue for layfolk (like -C and Dixie), while it was for me.
Glad you made it back safely to Illinois, Pr. Weedon!
Father,
Next time, we'll do that beer! What a lovely place, by the bye. We got to visit Our Savior also and see the artwork. My only sadness was that it wasn't bigger artwork, but it was really amazing how that 1960's space was redeemed and lifted up.
On the bishops, thanks for chiming in. Yes, obviously it is a vital question, and for many pastors I suspect it is the key question.
Eric,
You capture it exactly. Thanks.
Pr. Weedon,
Allow me to put in a plug for the artist of the Te Deum mural, Mr. Ed Riojas. Those Lutherans who are interested in having first-rate art for their buildings should really get in touch with him. He does excellent work!
Well Dixie, two things -- the comment was meant to be one of those designed to put coffee on your monitor due to sudden laughatory eruption (hey, if we can have restless leg syndrome, why not sudden laughatory eruption), and, the prayer was to be not for not having bishops, period, but for not having bishops as understood by either the RCC or the EO.
As Pastor Brown laid out, we actually do have the office established in the NT later called bishop, and I am very grateful for that, and that it is occupied by faithful pastors such as himself.
Actually I'd rather take things out of LSB -- like DS I & II and the bleeding three year Vatican II cycle and calendar -- than put things in, although if we did that there ought to be room for collects and introits!
I think Pastor Hogg hits on a very real factor, but that it a matter of difference in degree rather than kind. For a pastor, more connected to corporate goings-on, the issue may have a greater focus on corporate leadership, but for us butts in the pew, the issue is likewise one of authenticity -- is this the fulness of the church and organically connected to the church through time, or is it, as I once thought it was, at best a maybe well-intended but misguided effort at reform resulting in only a part of that fulness and apart from the rest of it and the fulness as a whole.
As to latent doubt, I think it is less a matter of latent Orthodoxy waiting to happen than it is a matter of all of us living "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief" and therefore discenrment is needed to sort out encountering something which contributes to the growth of faith from something that is a great story but a crock.
What I'm really working on is an overture for Houston 2010 that all synodical meetings once again be held in German, those who can't so participate will be observers and we'll explain what we did to them afterwards. That should clear things up nicely! (Laptop users, remember your keyboard is much closer to your monitor than with a desktop, which will make the effects of sudden laughatory eruption worse and you have to take the whole damn machine in rather than just a keyboard.)
(hey, if we can have restless leg syndrome, why not sudden laughatory eruption),
Gott hilf mir, what if I have both at the same time ????
Christine
As to latent doubt, I think it is less a matter of latent Orthodoxy waiting to happen than it is a matter of all of us living "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief"
You know I almost went there but erased that part of my response when I posted. Truly, I don't think there is a day that goes by when I don't pray at some point "Lord I believe, help my unbelief"
I knew that your comment was meant to eject coffee onto monitors BUT I also figured that in all seriousness you didn't have a problem with the existence or definition of bishops in the LCMS. But you are a pew sitter and I am a nave stander and it appears that this specific issue doesn't hit us in the same way as the clergy. Authenticity is something we do have to deal with but not in such a personal way. We are blessed in that regard.
What's ironic is, Dixie, it was on this very blog that an EO wondered if I were a bishop of some sort, due to the term "elder", bringing on an explanation that elder in Lutheran usage is not at all the NT office sometimes translated by that word.
Actually, for me, having grown up RC, it was an issue early on -- these aren't real priests, this isn't a real Mass or Communion -- in the opposite sense you describe.
The very things we were taught about the EO having real priests, masses, bishops, and the works as much as we do are one side of the coin the other side of which is, the rest aren't no matter how many chasubles or mitres they buy.
In fact, I remember it one time being contrasted with how to address Episcopal clergy -- that EO priests are to be addressed as Father because they are fathers, real priests, whereas we should address Episcopal priests as Father too, but as a mark of respect for their beliefs yet keeping in mind they aren't really fathers, real priests.
I don't ever recall any Lutheran pastor being addressed as Father, and this in Minnesota where there's a Lutheran church on every other corner, in fact if you're not careful you may fall down the stairs of one and land straight in a plate of lutefisk, thereby needing a seven year quarantine from human society.
You're quite right: butts in pews and nave standers, when they convert, go on being plumbers, mothers, or whatever they were, whereas for clergy it means a change in employer (they rarely, however, change fields!).
Pastor Weedon,
As I did with Pastor McCain on his blog, I would also like to commend you for a very even-handed article and excellent show of pastoral concern. As a former LCMS pastor, if anyone who has made the change into Orthdoxy looking for a utopia is at this time dissolusioned, my heart goes out to them as well. The history of those who are called by Christ's name is replete with challenges and struggles-anyone living a theology of glory will never find what they are looking for.
I would however, like to fill in the blanks a bit on the Antiochians supposedly fasttracking people into the priestly ministry. At first glance this may seem true to someone on the outside, but this is not the entire picture. It is true that if whole parishes convert, the shepherd is brought in oftentimes (but not always) within a year of catechesis. He is also required to complete a three year course done by extension, since most convert priests already possess an M. Div.
I can also see why you might view this as sheepstealing. But, the day may come when those in the LCMS will reach a tipping point in larger measure where you also will not be able to remain in conscience. In such a case, another denomination (possibly newly created) may provide you a haven. No one should judge you as you follow your conscience being informed by the word and will of God. In the same way those of us who left the LCMS did so for conscience sake (for example I could no longer deny my six, four and two year old children communion as they reached their hands out to me) should not be assumed as dupes who did not count the cost, or know what were were doing.
Futhermore, regarding convert pastors who attempt to convert without a parish; the reality is that most are required to wait five years minimum in the AOC before they can attend an Orthodox seminary. Before that, they can with a blessing do the three year extension course, but today this normally translates into being a worker deacon. Interestingly, there are recent examples of the OCA and the Greek Archdiocese receiving convert clergy in a more rapid progression. I know of one convert Episcopal priest whom the OCA simply received, sent to seminary; and today is about to become a deacon with a paid salary. I also have been told that one Greek diocese accepted a few clergy and immediately found them paid positions as deacons, then after a few years they went to seminary to train for the priesthood. Of course there are always exceptions, but these exceptions are not the rule. The Orthodox church in America is replete with Protestant covert clergy who will never be ordained for a variety of reasons, but they know that they are part of the priesthood of the faithful.
In summary, those in the LCMS should be proud that they are respected so well by the Orthodox that some of their priests have been received in a fashion that requires less of a learning curve than other traditions. It is also telling that the Roman Catholic church in its "pastoral provision" accepts married pastors of a Lutheran and Episcopal flavor into its fold, and has ordained them as priests after the prescribed training has been acccomplished. This speaks well of that which is good liturgically and spiritually in the Lutheran Tradition. But be assured that neither of these historic communions are out lurking for converts anymore than LCMS pastors do. His Grace, Bishop Mark of Toledo for example does not have time to do such a thing. But everyone wants others to come into what they believe to be true and geniune; there is no sin in this. Therefore if someone wishes to speak with a bishop or pastor regarding the latter's faith, how can he not share with the person what he believes to be true. I would expect nothing less of a good Lutheran pastor or District President, and I would hope for the same courtesy this way as well.
With true regards,
Fr. Daniel Hackney
Lutheran pastors like to say that they're all bishops, especially in the LCMS.
I think that's a bad idea. It is correct to say that we hold the same divine office that bishops hold (that's what the Tractatus says).
It is correct to say that the authority that bishops have that parish pastors do not is by human and not divine right.
However, in a world where many of the most faithful church bodies with which we are in fellowship have bishops, I think it's a bit prideful for all of us mopes who serve one parish (or in my case temporarily two) to call ourselves bishops.
A bishop, in the modern world, is not exactly an Episkopos. Though I am an episkopos (using the NT definition of the term), I'm not a bishop (using the term as it is used today).
"FWIW, it wasn't even mentioned once in my situation."
Nor mine. The Orthodox priests I have spoken with only explained Orthodox doctrine to me in words I could understand. I never once heard any of them bad mouth the non-Orthodox.
Dave,
Not that I want to, but if I did want to, I could send you a list of half a dozen Orthodox priests who have badmouthed Lutheranism to my face.
I'm glad that that's not been your experience, but please understand that it has been the experience for a good many of us.
Dave,
Pr. Lehmann's experience is also mine.
Fr. Hackney,
I know of a priest in the Antiochian church who was ordained as a priest in less than a year of leaving the LCMS. I was also at a free Lutheran conference where two former Lutheran pastors were sent to recruit for the OCA among the Lutheran clergy.
Pr Lehman,
Just to clarify, I do not go around addressing myself as Bishop -- our customary title is Pastor. However, if someone says, "You guys don't have bishops" in order to denigrate our communion - I will say that we do indeed, and I am one, and more over the Apostolic Fathers would recognize myself and the office which I hold as "Episkopos".
We're a Synod - that's sort of what comes with the territory.
Oh, and when I've visited random OCA places (they tend to have nice book stores if you are interested in Early Church stuff), I've been asked if I'm planning on converting a few times myself. It happens.
Eric,
I think we still need to be very careful in throwing the term bishop around. In the situation you describe I'd say, "Well, I'm not a bishop, but I hold the same divine office that a bishop holds." I think it's more precise and more in line with how we confess the Scriptures in the tractatus.
I go to EO bookstores frequently because I like picking up new translations of patristic works that are published by St. Vlads. Many of the EO folks I meet are nice and are only interested in my money (my favorite kind of EO). Some are saddened that someone with a love for the early church is outside of it and quite likely going to hell because they are a Lutheran.
I don't think I've met a single EO priest who upon learning I was a Lutheran did not badmouth Lutheranism... two even before they entered the EO church (but don't worry, they didn't stop after conversion).
Pastor Esget,
Thank you for your comments. As I said regarding your example of an LCMS pastor being ordained within a year, "exceptions are made, but the exceptions are not the rule". Also with respect to the two OCA priests visitig a Free Conference,if it was the one in Chicago around 2004; I remember them being there (although I did not speak with them). Once again, such "recruiting" events are rare amongst Orthodox, and the opposite situation of being overly ecumenical somethime occurs.
Pastor Lehmann,
I am sorry that the priests you have encountered have bad mouthed the faith you hold dear. If they were coming out of the LCMS, perhaps they were working throught bitterness regarding what they were leaving/had left. On a broader scale, "Lutheranism" in America includes the ELCA, which is twice as large as the LCMS. With its pro-abortion, pro-sodomite stances; many Orthodox do not understand the distinction between conservative Lutherans such as yourself, and the more liberal expression. I do all that I can to educate them, for a still have great respect for men such as yourself who fight the good fight for the faith you hold dear. Also I have not forsaken my friends in the LCMS; they are brothers for eternity.
Fr Daniel Hackney
Post a Comment