Orthodoxy
I first began to seriously consider Orthodoxy last summer after a few emails and a long discussion with a Lutheran pastor. The pastor belongs to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), and is a traditionalist. He embraces liturgy, and holds fast to many of the teachings of Luther, including the perpetual virginity of Mary. Yeah, Luther believed in that; I've heard that Calvin did too, but don't quote me on that. The pastor's theology/methodology causes some tension with the LCMS, which has begun to lean more in the direction of other mainstream protestant groups. While still theologically conservative, they are finding less and less use for the liturgy, and the sung liturgy in particular. Anyhow ...
I asked the pastor "If you had to recommend a place to worship other than your church, where would you recommend?" He said "If I were not a Lutheran pastor, I would become Orthodox." And thus began a long conversation. He recommended that I visit an Orthodox parish which happens to be very close to my house. I've been, oh ... maybe 4-5 times. It is an experience that I think every Christian should have, at least once. Especially if they can find the Divine Liturgy in their native language. If it's in Greek, Serbian, or Arabic, and you don't speak those languages, you might just end up enjoying some good music and incomprehensible chanting.
Orthodoxy is foreign to me. I find so many aspects beautiful, but strange. I disagree with some of the theology, but more often I find that I just don't understand the theology. The Orthodox use terms like divine energies, and theosis. They ask the saints for intercession, but most of the saints aren't the ones with whom Westerners are familiar. Not that I feel comfortable asking a saint to intercede for me in the first place.
Orthodox theologians seem to be irritated (offended maybe?) by the language used by western theologians (i.e. Roman Catholics and Protestants). Here's an example: regarding the efficacy of the crucifixion for man's redemption, the Orthodox position seems to be that "Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins." Instead, they embrace the notion that "Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation."
I can't say that I really see a substantial difference between the two positions, but the Orthodox seem to see an important distinction. I wonder who feels equipped to articulate the difference between those two positions, and to weigh the difference in terms of importance.
I suspect that the difference isn't terribly important, but I still want to understand it. I long for clarity. I'm realizing that I like rules, and predictable results. Things are safer that way. Or at least more comfortable.
I see shades of gray, and lots of them. It seems like Truth should be either black or white.
I asked the pastor "If you had to recommend a place to worship other than your church, where would you recommend?" He said "If I were not a Lutheran pastor, I would become Orthodox." And thus began a long conversation. He recommended that I visit an Orthodox parish which happens to be very close to my house. I've been, oh ... maybe 4-5 times. It is an experience that I think every Christian should have, at least once. Especially if they can find the Divine Liturgy in their native language. If it's in Greek, Serbian, or Arabic, and you don't speak those languages, you might just end up enjoying some good music and incomprehensible chanting.
Orthodoxy is foreign to me. I find so many aspects beautiful, but strange. I disagree with some of the theology, but more often I find that I just don't understand the theology. The Orthodox use terms like divine energies, and theosis. They ask the saints for intercession, but most of the saints aren't the ones with whom Westerners are familiar. Not that I feel comfortable asking a saint to intercede for me in the first place.
Orthodox theologians seem to be irritated (offended maybe?) by the language used by western theologians (i.e. Roman Catholics and Protestants). Here's an example: regarding the efficacy of the crucifixion for man's redemption, the Orthodox position seems to be that "Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins." Instead, they embrace the notion that "Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation."
I can't say that I really see a substantial difference between the two positions, but the Orthodox seem to see an important distinction. I wonder who feels equipped to articulate the difference between those two positions, and to weigh the difference in terms of importance.
I suspect that the difference isn't terribly important, but I still want to understand it. I long for clarity. I'm realizing that I like rules, and predictable results. Things are safer that way. Or at least more comfortable.
I see shades of gray, and lots of them. It seems like Truth should be either black or white.
posted by Wordsmyth at
11:54 PM
2 Comments:
i see a big difference in the spirit of the thing--but wow, i will have to think about how to articulate it. and i am firmly on the side of orthodoxy on this one.
the only thing i can think of that this reminds me of is where c. s. lewis talks about how hell isn't PUNISHMENT for sins or our bad behavior, so much as the NATURAL RESULT of them. when we live lives separate from God, the end result is that we are separate from him, and that separation is the essence of hell.
understanding that just seemed so much more of a seamless, unified, logical and un-arbitrary and capricious in its portrayal of THAT WHICH IS.
i'm not trying to be dogmatic with the caps, just don't know how to do italics in these comments. :)
thanks for posting about this.
Yeah. There is a giant difference in whether we believe in a God who likes to punish, or a God who wants love.
I was raised to be tolerant of God's alleged ruthlessness, as it was directed toward bad people. Was his Old Testament "wrath" an emotional reaction, an exercising of His "right" to do this, or was it actually a form of hard-to-ignore communication with humans, including us now who read it "for our learning"?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home