The draw of EO and Orthodoxy for men.

[RadMan]

In the age of "relevancy", within our churches, men are more drawn to a masculine religion rather that the lovey-dovey "being everything to everybody" type of feminine influence that has invaded many mainline denoms. Does anyone think that advancing the idea of women deacons or eyeing the possibility of women pastors is going to get men back in the church? I don't see the problem of women majority as much in the Lutheran church and many denoms but the scales seem to be tipping more in the womens favor.

"The Church long ago quit leavening the culture; it is the culture that poisons the modern Church. It is unfortunate, but most women, confronted by a man that tries to 'take up the role that God intends him to have' fight them tooth and claw and, with help from the almighty state, win more often than not - witness the appalling divorce rate among professing Christians."

So with more male involvement I can see why there would be more of a draw for men to EO, and even Lutheran, influence. After all, we're Orthodox also. That's why I'm concerned in the direction the LCMS is heading in being "relevant". It might be heading in the wrong direction.

If there had been an article that had used the Lutheran church as an example I would have used it instead because I think truly confessional churches adhere to the Orthodoxy issue. But since there isn't an article like that I use the EO article instead to show the draw of Othodoxy on men.


Why Orthodox Men Love Church

Many men may not love church, but Orthodox men do. Frederica Matthewes-Green asks them why. Frederica Mathewes-Green (http://www.beliefnet.com/author/author_32.html)


In a time when churches of every description are faced with Vanishing Male Syndrome, men are showing up at Eastern Orthodox churches in numbers that, if not numerically impressive, are proportionately intriguing. This may be the only church which attracts and holds men in numbers equal to women. As Leon Podles wrote in his 1999 book, "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity," "The Orthodox are the only Christians who write basso profundo church music, or need to."

Rather than guess why this is, I emailed a hundred Orthodox men, most of whom joined the Church as adults. What do they think makes this church particularly attractive to men? Their responses, below, may spark some ideas for leaders in other churches, who are looking for ways to keep guys in the pews.

Challenges. The term most commonly cited by these men was "challenging." Orthodoxy is "active and not passive." "It's the only church where you are required to adapt to it, rather than it adapting to you." "The longer you are in it, the more you realize it demands of you."

The "sheer physicality of Orthodox worship" is part of the appeal. Regular days of fasting from meat and dairy, "standing for hours on end, performing prostrations, going without food and water ...When you get to the end you feel that you've faced down a challenge." "Orthodoxy appeals to a man's desire for self-mastery through discipline."

"In Orthodoxy, the theme of spiritual warfare is ubiquitous; saints, including female saints, are warriors. Warfare requires courage, fortitude, and heroism. We are called to be 'strugglers' against sin, to be 'athletes' as St. Paul says. And the prize is given to the victor. The fact that you must 'struggle' during worship by standing up throughout long services is itself a challenge men are willing to take up."

A recent convert summed up, "Orthodoxy is serious. It is difficult. It is demanding. It is about mercy, but it's also about overcoming oneself. I am challenged in a deep way, not to 'feel good about myself' but to become holy. It is rigorous, and in that rigor I find liberation. And you know, so does my wife."

[B]Clear Disciplines. Several mentioned that they really appreciated having clarity about the content of these challenges and what they were supposed to do. "Most guys feel a lot more comfortable when they know what's expected of them." "Orthodoxy presents a reasonable set of boundaries." "It's easier for guys to express themselves in worship if there are guidelines about how it's supposed to work—especially when those guidelines are so simple and down-to-earth that you can just set out and start doing something."

"The prayers the Church provides for us--morning prayers, evening prayers, prayers before and after meals, and so on--give men a way to engage in spirituality without feeling put on the spot, or worrying about looking stupid because they don't know what to say."

They appreciate learning clear-cut physical actions that are expected to form character and understanding. "People begin learning immediately through ritual and symbolism, for example, by making the sign of the cross. This regimen of discipline makes one mindful of one's relation to the Trinity, to the Church, and to everyone he meets."

A Goal. Men also appreciate that this challenge has a goal: union with God. One said that in a previous church "I didn't feel I was getting anywhere in my spiritual life (or that there was anywhere to get to—I was already there, right?) But something, who knew what, was missing. Isn't there SOMETHING I should be doing, Lord?"

Orthodoxy preserves and transmits ancient Christian wisdom about how to progress toward this union, which is called "theosis." Every sacrament or spiritual exercise is designed to bring the person, body and soul, further into continual awareness of the presence of Christ within, and also within every other human being. As a cloth becomes saturated with dye by osmosis, we are saturated with God by theosis.

A catechumen wrote that he was finding icons helpful in resisting unwanted thoughts. "If you just close your eyes to some visual temptation, there are plenty of stored images to cause problems. But if you surround yourself with icons, you have a choice of whether to look at something tempting or something holy."

A priest writes, "Men need a challenge, a goal, perhaps an adventure—in primitive terms, a hunt. Western Christianity has lost the ascetic, that is, the athletic aspect of Christian life. This was the purpose of monasticism, which arose in the East largely as a men's movement. Women entered monastic life as well, and our ancient hymns still speak of women martyrs as showing 'manly courage.'"

"Orthodoxy emphasizes DOING. …. Guys are ACTIVITY oriented."

No Sentimentality. In "The Church Impotent," cited above (and recommended by several of these men), Leon Podles offers a theory about how Western Christian piety became feminized. In the 12th-13th centuries a particularly tender, even erotic, strain of devotion arose, one which invited the individual believer to picture himself or herself (rather than the Church as a whole) as the Bride of Christ. "Bridal Mysticism" was enthusiastically adopted by devout women, and left an enduring stamp on Western Christianity. It understandably had less appeal for guys. For centuries in the West, men who chose the ministry have been stereotyped as effeminate. A life-long Orthodox layman says that, from the outside, Western Christianity strikes him as "a love story written for women by women."

Read the rest of the article here....................
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/224/story_22439_1.html

[BabyLutheran]

If not for my wife running kicking and screaming out of the first EO service I dragged her to, I would be EO. It is just so manly a religion. I think it is appealing that we need to do things, not for our salvation of course, but just for the discipline of it. I think church is too comfortable. It is an easy trap when we rely on grace (which I believe in my heart is 100% correct), to also start becoming lackadaisical and rationalize sins, laziness in spiritual disciplines, etc all because we go "God's grace covers it all."

[LutheranChick]

I have no statistics, but have heard anecdotally, that the more women get involved in leadership roles in church, the fewer men come to that church. All the more reason for us to 'stick to our guns' and listen to, and follow what God says about the roles of men and women in the church.

[BabyLutheran]

Of course I have heard the opposite anectdotally: women have to be leaders because men shirk their responsibilities.

[RadMan]

I have no statistics, but have heard anecdotally, that the more women get involved in leadership roles in church, the fewer men come to that church. All the more reason for us to 'stick to our guns' and listen to, and follow what God says about the roles of men and women in the church.

Of course I have heard the opposite anectdotally: women have to be leaders because men shirk their responsibilities.Actually what both of you say is true while LC addresses the problem of what happens when women get involved and BL addresses what is the source of the overall problem. LC ascribes it to women and BL ascribes it to men when both are at fault for letting it happen in the first place. .

[LutheranChick]

Actually what both of you say is true while LC addresses the problem of what happens when women get involved and BL addresses what is the source of the overall problem. LC ascribes it to women and BL ascribes it to men when both are at fault for letting it happen in the first place. .
That is very true. It's a problem with both sexes.

[filosofer]

Real men are Lutherans! :)



(and not bench-sitters, either)

[RevCowboy]

Of course I have heard the opposite anectdotally: women have to be leaders because men shirk their responsibilities.

I find this to be such a sad reality. There are far too many single mothers in church, when the father is at home sleeping in or fishing or golfing.

There are all sort of studies that point to the fact that when fathers are involved and active at church, children are more likely to continue being involved in church into their adult lives. And its a huge percentage like 80 or 90%. But, when its just mothers that are active, the retention of children in the church is very low.

I think that if my own father hadn't been active in our congregation growing up I wouldn't have been on the path I am no now. He never expressed his faith much in conversation with me, but he was at church every Sunday and never complained. He served on church council for things like the property committee or audit committee. My mother (being a preacher's kid) was the one who told me the bible stories, who talked to me about faith, who made sure I went to youth group, who made my sister and I play our brass and strings along with her while she played the organ. But if my father hadn't also been along showing his approval in action, I think I would have quit all the stuff pretty quickly.

So, I can't personally fault any woman for being involved in church leadership, because the vast, vast majority of the time she is filling in for her husband. I am willing to bet that most wives and mothers would desperately love their husbands to be more active and I know that this is often a source of tension in many marriages.

[LutheranChick]

I find this to be such a sad reality. There are far too many single mothers in church, when the father is at home sleeping in or fishing or golfing.


And why didn't mother jerk him by the shirt collar and drag him to church? ^_^ (J/k) but- seriously, folks- it is definitely a vicious circle. Dad doesn't feel like going so Mom takes the kids, then there isn't enough men to fill the positions so the women step in, then the men see they aren't 'needed' and even more don't come....

Personally, I have a bad 'rep' at my house. If someone doesn't want to go to church, they had better have a VERY good reason. Like a fever, or throwing up. I don't let them off the hook very easy- including my husband. Yes, my husband is the head of the household- but, when he sometimes thinks he is 'too tired' or for whatever reason he doesn't want to go, I remind him that HE is the man, and he is expected to be in church, just as I am. Sorry if I sound like the church lady- I don't mean to- but I take church seriously. Yes, we should be there because we want to be, but then again- we are all sinners, and like naughty children, don't always want to do what we know we should. :)

[DaRev]

I believe that if one were to look at statistics, when women assume leadership roles in a congregation, it tends to decline. Men need to be involved in the church, not only for the sake of the Church as a whole, but also for the sake of the children. When fathers are involved in the church, children tend to also remain active in the church as they get older.

I've always said, behind every good man is a good woman kicking him in the rump. Our women should be encouraging the men to do their God-given duty instead of assuming it themselves.

[RevCowboy]

Personally, I have a bad 'rep' at my house. If someone doesn't want to go to church, they had better have a VERY good reason. Like a fever, or throwing up. I don't let them off the hook very easy- including my husband. Yes, my husband is the head of the household- but, when he sometimes thinks he is 'too tired' or for whatever reason he doesn't want to go, I remind him that HE is the man, and he is expected to be in church, just as I am.

Reminds of that joke or funny story:

A wife stands at the foot of the bed in which her husband is sleeping in:

Wife: Time to get up for church dear!
Husband: But I am too tired to go today, I just want to sleep in.
Wife: You have to get up and go!
Husband: But its the weekend and I am tired...
Wife: But dear, you are the pastor!

[filosofer]

Men need to worship regularly and be in Bible study because they are Christians who are to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18). Secondarily they are to lead their wives, and third, to teach and serve as examples for their children. We gotta get the first one first, or the rest is just emotional responses to the Law.

[DaRev]

Men need to worship regularly and be in Bible study because they are Christians who are to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18). Secondarily they are to lead their wives, and third, to teach and serve as examples for their children. We gotta get the first one first, or the rest is just emotional responses to the Law.



This is most certainly true. My point was made with the first one being a given.

[filosofer]

This is most certainly true. My point was made with the first one being a given.


But that seems to be exactly the problem. If we assume that as a given, then we have to address that, rather than assume it.

It is just like teaching Adult Instruction; I know most pastors assume that people "know" how to use a Bible. In Adult Instruction classes I have taught over the past 20+ years most of the people have never used a Bible -- they couldn't tell the difference between a chapter, a verse, or a horse whip. So, I start them out using page numbers, teach them about chapters and verses, etc. until a few weeks in we can begin using those helpful devices (chapters, verses) in our study.

So, with bringing men to maturity, we have to start with their own relationship and growth, then move them into other areas where their spiritual growth will guide them to proper responses, whether in the church or in the home.

[RadMan]

But that seems to be exactly the problem. If we assume that as a given, then we have to address that, rather than assume it.

It is just like teaching Adult Instruction; I know most pastors assume that people "know" how to use a Bible. In Adult Instruction classes I have taught over the past 20+ years most of the people have never used a Bible -- they couldn't tell the difference between a chapter, a verse, or a horse whip. So, I start them out using page numbers, teach them about chapters and verses, etc. until a few weeks in we can begin using those helpful devices (chapters, verses) in our study.

So, with bringing men to maturity, we have to start with their own relationship and growth, then move them into other areas where their spiritual growth will guide them to proper responses, whether in the church or in the home.

Thank you. I've been bustin' my chops for years trying to get this point across. I though I was the only one that thought this was important. Well there are others but they are few. At least within my frame of reference.

[DaRev]

But that seems to be exactly the problem. If we assume that as a given, then we have to address that, rather than assume it.

It is just like teaching Adult Instruction; I know most pastors assume that people "know" how to use a Bible. In Adult Instruction classes I have taught over the past 20+ years most of the people have never used a Bible -- they couldn't tell the difference between a chapter, a verse, or a horse whip. So, I start them out using page numbers, teach them about chapters and verses, etc. until a few weeks in we can begin using those helpful devices (chapters, verses) in our study.

So, with bringing men to maturity, we have to start with their own relationship and growth, then move them into other areas where their spiritual growth will guide them to proper responses, whether in the church or in the home.



Thank you. I've been bustin' my chops for years trying to get this point across. I though I was the only one that thought this was important. Well there are others but they are few. At least within my frame of reference.


So...


...should I resign?

[RadMan]

So...


...should I resign?Actually from the your posts that I've read in the last few years you are "feeding the sheep". You've expressed that many times. I fall into the same trap. I sometimes think the milk of the Word is a given. I take things for granted.

[DaRev]

Actually from the your posts that I've read in the last few years you are "feeding the sheep". You've expressed that many times. I fall into the same trap. I sometimes think the milk of the Word is a given. I take things for granted.

I just think the public chastisement was uncalled for, especially who it came from.

[filosofer]

I just think the public chastisement was uncalled for, especially who it came from.


I hope that you didn't take it that my post was directed at you. Rather it was for all of us to examine the assumptions we make and addressing the underlying issues.

[Tetzel]

"The term most commonly cited by these men was "challenging." Orthodoxy is "active and not passive.""

And Theologia Gloriae rears its ugly head.

"Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an active capacity."

"He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ."

"The law says, "Do this," and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this," and everything is already done."

--- Heidelberg diputations

[AngelusSax]

I believe that if one were to look at statistics, when women assume leadership roles in a congregation, it tends to decline.

It depends on the church, actually. Some grow, some shrink.

[jamescarvin]

Tetzel said




"The term most commonly cited by these men was "challenging." Orthodoxy is "active and not passive.""

And Theologia Gloriae rears its ugly head.

"Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an active capacity."

"He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ."

"The law says, "Do this," and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this," and everything is already done."

--- Heidelberg disputations

I at some point in my walk decided to convert from Prebyterian, (which was imposed as a child and never actually my faith), to RC, and then to EO. I skipped over the Lutheran Church lopping it together with all Protestantism at the time.

I think I did myself a disfavor. I remember picking up a Lutheran priest in my taxi cab. On the way to the airport we talked about faith and communion. He remarked that I would feel very comfortable in the Lutheran Church.

When I was first a convert to Orthodoxy I'll admit that the arduous warfare was an attraction to my manly competitive spirit. All that works until you realize you're in a Marathon and not a sprint.

Sooner or later we realize who the weaker vessel is. We can appreciate the bride image. And we suddenly have hope again.

This is a little diffucult for us men to accept. But hey, we're not God. Let's face it. Ok?

Now for me, receiving communion is a feminine act. It anticipates the consumation of all things as it presents the fullness of Truth in the presence of the I Am. And when the two become one flesh I am reborn in the masculine from above. So I get the power by reception.

But going back to this idea of being at home in the LC, I'd have a lot of questions, realizing that I really skipped over the entire reformation so that I could get communal in Christ - maybe in my very masculine longing for power. Dying to self, to gain abundance? Becoming feminine to gain the full potential of masculinity. I never thought of it that way.

Anyway, it was my desire for the body of Christ that was the greatest attraction to EO for me of all. Actually, in going from RC to EO what I was doing was broadening my vision. I liked to see outward manifestation of Truth. That there were many apostolic successions gave me a sense of being more closely connected to Christ through the apostles and their successors. My acquisition of Orthodoxy was to gain 300 million members into the body of Christ I loved and wanted to recognize as such.

Call it being greedy for the visible church. And that hasn't changed. My sense of the body of Christ doesn't easily limit itself to RC or EO, especially when I run into their legalism. I am hearing many of them say they are it, but the others are not. And that kind of ruins things for me. Oh, yes, they don't judge anybody they say, but they know who is canonical and who is anathemetized and who is not. I'm a little tired of their mind games. Little gods running around binding and losing with their canon. I can't swallow that. I sense the Lord is very displeased.

What intrests me is Christ, the communion of saints, and truth. But I'm not just going to believe that what someone says is true because they say it is so. I won't take Luther's Heidelberg Disputation as my authority. I won't take their canon's as my authority. I won't take a papal bull as it. Calvin isn't it. Zwingli isn't it, nor Spurgeon.

I will take the church as the authority, but only in its common confession (1Tm 3:15b-17). What I'm longing for is Jesus Christ. I would like to see Him manifest Himself in His saints both in their charity and in their honest search of an proclomation of truth.

So on the tip of that Lutheran priest in that taxi cab, could you help me with some things? I've got all sorts of questions.

For one thing, I'm reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I'm doing this partly for my Mom. It's hard reading for me. But I want to give everyone a fair shake. What are the primary differences between the thought of Calvin and the thought of Luther?

Here is another question. I know this may seem off topic but … Is there any hope of reconciiliation?

[Tetzel]

A fellow cab-driver!

Difficult questions, and I need to get home, in fact I'm very busy in general lately and need to go do some research, but I thought I owed you some kind of response.

Take a look at the Heidelberger disputation. I quoted the theses, but Luther makes arguments to back up the points. The way I presented it doesn't do justice to the arguments, but it works well as a reminder to fellow Lutherans. As always, read the fine print.

But on a more serious level, while I understand the appeal of a visible church, I think you are correct in desiring Christ even more. What bugs me about the idea of a visible church is that it seems to be superfluous in the same way that a child's protest against the invisible God. God's promise is salvation, but it is not that we're going to be part of a top-notch organization that will go from victory to victory through time. Just as God never promised to make all things nice for us, God does not promise us a world in which institutional affiliation is easy.

On the Calvin, I can't help you much. The biggest differences in my experience are that Calvin denies the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament, Calvin teaches double predestination while Lutherans hold to single predestination, an offshoot of that is that Lutherans think that one can get themselves damned but not saved.

As far as reconciliation: all who have hope in Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of sins will be reconciled forever.

[jamescarvin]

On the suggestion that I begin my journey to giving Lutheranism a "fair shake" it was suggested that I begin with the Heidelberg Disputations. I must confess that reading this work did very little to convince me that I missed anything important in my move towards Orthodoxy without stopping back to look seriously at the works of the reformation. To preface, I should say that I am interested in reformation within Orthodoxy. Many would disagree that it stands in any such need. The Forum System will only allow me to include the first 15000 characters of my notes on this so I'll stop at point 20 of 28. And if anyone is interested I will copy over the others.


MY COMMENTARY ON Martin Luther’s …

Theological Theses

(my comments are in red)
Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, "Do not rely on your own insight" [Prov. 3:5], we humbly present to the judgment of all those who wish to be here these theological paradoxes, so that it may become clear whether they have been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul, the especially chosen vessel and instrument of Christ, and also from St. Augustine, his most trustworthy interpreter.
I am here. Here is my judgment..

The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him. I’m not sure what "salutary" means. I don’t necessarily agree that the law hinders man., unless the meaning is the vain attempt to be approved by God based on it. The Law seems to advance man on his way to righteousness by being a teacher. So I would have to disagree with the statement, while acknowledging some truth in it.
Much less can human works which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end. Since the obvious meaning here is as to achieving any progress in heaven through works I will agree.
Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins. First, the works of man do not always appear attractive or good. Second, the term mortal sins does not register with me. It sounds like a term that means going to hell on the basis of some sin or being unpardonable. But to me the judgment of God is of the heart and I simply need a Savior so that He can birth in me that contrition which cries out for help. While I can count some sins worse than others I stand before Him knowing me need, with or without various sins to consider on the basis of my failure to love as I know I will when I am fully glorified in Him.
Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits. First, the works of God do not always seem unattractive and appear evil. Second, I’m not sure what merits are about. The statement is odd coming from Martin Luther, whom I did not think thought about merits because to me merits and works seem related if not synomous. I don’t ever think about my heavenly rewards, or the merits of this life. I think about my need for Him that I might be more like Him by the power of his Grace (Holy Spirt and Grace are the same in my view).
The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes. I think I understand this to mean that the works of men are unfruitful and account to nothing more than sin, but are not crimes, since they are legal and appear good.. However, I thought Luther said in (3) that they were mortal sins. Here he is saying they are not. I am left confused as to his meaning.
The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless. I am not sure what this means. It appears he is equating merits with sinlessness or non-sin, anyway. He speaks too much of merits as if there is some sort of divine bank account judging our lives. I agree that the works of God are not merits. They are very simply the works of God. I beg that he does His works through me. I do not look to earn anything thereby other than the gratification I receive from His kingdom and His Presence.
The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God. I hear in this statement Paul saying that all our righteousness is filthy rags and rubbish. When he then says we might fear them as mortal sins this is very radical. It’s one thing to disregard something as morally nutral though it may be a good thing. It is another to regard it as extreme evil when in truth it is a good. Frankly this seems dishonest.
By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security. I can certainly appreciate the fear of the Lord and the impiousness of self-security, especially in good works.Consider the publican and the sinner. However, the word "mortal" only conjures up Catholic constructs for me, which I do not see in the Bible or early church fathers, probably because it has no significance to God.
To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God. Again this word "mortal" associated with works.. If "mortal" means being deserving of hell then I am ok with the term in itself, though I do not understand eternal torment as justice. But rather in not just the fear but also the worship of God I do not understand divine judgment in any way whatever, other than the hope I have in His mercy. I do say that works are dead, with or without Christ in terms of their relevance to judgment, or at least I pay no attention to them as if by them I could earn something other than human dollars as an exchange within the framework of capitalism. But the saying is ambiguous because it could be construed either as the works being without Christ, as if to say that Christ was not the author of them or the person doing the works being without Christ.
What is being missed here is that the Kingdom is not about us. It is about Him If a work is of Christ then it has everlasting value in the Kingdom. If it is not of Christ it burns up because it is perishable. But the fact that the work is not an eternal work does not mean that I am condemned to hell eternally by it. Hell is not a concept I understand, but the fear of God is. When I look at myself I see a sinner. I don’t and can’t comprehend the depth of my sin in the eyes of God. The concept of total depravity is also a construct. I may have good in me in the eyes of God. I certainly pray to be created by Him daily. So if there is no good in me, then it is because He has not answered my prayer to be united and reborn in Him. I understand that He may not have finished this work in me yet.
Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin. Well, I think I have just explained how in (9).
Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. To boast of works would be arrogance. But to say of works that they may cause us condemnation seems a leap of reason. To say that true hope cannot be present without the fear of condemnation is the essence of salvation, where we cry out for our Savior seeing our need of Him. However, the statement is made again in connection with works. This actually introduces a form of piety I haven’t previously considered. I do pray that the Lord would have mercy in every breath. I have not considered praying that the Lord would have mercy in every work. But just as I fail to cry out for mercy in every breath, so also am I certain that I will fail to do so in every work. The piety will not save me. And besides it is nothing more than a work in itself. It is clear I am not fully transformed in Him. What will save me is Him in His mercy. I will trust in His fidelity to the hope He has placed in me.
In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal. Having read some Catholic Catechisms I understand this distinction between venial and mortal sins. However, the statement begins with an assumption I can’t make, and that is "the sight of God." Why did Martin Luther think that he could comprhend the sight of God? How could any man comprehend either His judgment or His mercy? But if by "venial" he means forgiveable and by "mortal" he means unforgivable and the assumption is that men are going about arrogantly trusting in their works for salvation rather than counting them as rubbish, then in that situation I can understand his statement. It is a statement that would have made sense in his own historical framework. The Catholics were at that time emphasizing merits, which was a concept they had invented. I see Catholics placing less emphasis on this today. There does not seem to be any of this in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin. This seems to be another statement of total depravity. By the Lord’s Grace given in the plea of the sinner to be born again from above, free will can and does unite with divine will, both before and after the fall. It is not simply in name only. It very often and perhaps in more cases than not, fails to be united with the Divine will, but to suggest that everything it wills is unpardonable so that there does not truly exist free will is to deny that we are made in the image and likeness of God in any way. The thought in the heart which turns to God in hope and faith is not always deprived of an answer. Tears, in fact, do pour from the heart at times, in the presence of the Savior and in the knowledge of the Spirit, not because of works, but because of Grace in action.
Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an active capacity. This is untrue. For instance, to give blood to save a life is an act of good will which is good. This is an active capacity and it is a good. It does not earn anything for the doer of the good thereby, of course. But that is not what I would dispute concerning the statement.
Nor could the free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in its passive capacity. I would assume here that by "passive capacity" is meant the work of the Lord.and that the free will spoken of is the ability of the will after the fall, with all its decay. But it seems plain to see that the free will after the fall is not only capable of doing good, but doing so actively. For instance, it is good show kindness. What the fallen will can’t produce for itself is innocence. Only the rebirth in the great mercy of God can produce this where it does not already exist.
The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty. As I see it this statement is a contradiction in terms because I see Grace as belonging to and being the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther uses this term to denote remission from judgment. By his own definitions I would accept his statement as true. The one who believes that in his own power he can obtain remission from judgment is certainly ignorant of his need for God. The words "doubly guilty" I will take for their rhetorical impact directed towards those who measured merits and penalties on a scale in his day, rather than as a literal measure of impunement he accepted himself. Or I can also see them as meaning "in two ways" and not as a measure. But if this last thought is what he meant then I disagree because the one who is ignorant of the law is free from it. And the teaching of Paul and Martin Luther were not in the minds of the Catholics he accused by this saying.
Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ. This seems to be the raison d’etre of the disputations.
It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ. This is true in the sense that to pray for salvation to a Savior necessarily means understanding one’s need for a Savior, lest the prayer be insincere.
That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1.20]. True. God’s incomprehensibility requires this. However, the incarnation of Christ does teach that the events of history can indeed .contain the uncontainable in an image. This is central to our worship and our reflection in the eucharist, wherin it was not said, "this contains my body" but "this is my body."
He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. And the incarnate Logos.

[RadMan]

I at some point in my walk decided to convert from Prebyterian, (which was imposed as a child and never actually my faith), to RC, and then to EO. I skipped over the Lutheran Church lopping it together with all Protestantism at the time.

I think I did myself a disfavor. I remember picking up a Lutheran priest in my taxi cab. On the way to the airport we talked about faith and communion. He remarked that I would feel very comfortable in the Lutheran Church.

When I was first a convert to Orthodoxy I'll admit that the arduous warfare was an attraction to my manly competitive spirit. All that works until you realize you're in a Marathon and not a sprint.

Sooner or later we realize who the weaker vessel is. We can appreciate the bride image. And we suddenly have hope again.

This is a little diffucult for us men to accept. But hey, we're not God. Let's face it. Ok?

Now for me, receiving communion is a feminine act. It anticipates the consumation of all things as it presents the fullness of Truth in the presence of the I Am. And when the two become one flesh I am reborn in the masculine from above. So I get the power by reception.

But going back to this idea of being at home in the LC, I'd have a lot of questions, realizing that I really skipped over the entire reformation so that I could get communal in Christ - maybe in my very masculine longing for power. Dying to self, to gain abundance? Becoming feminine to gain the full potential of masculinity. I never thought of it that way.

Anyway, it was my desire for the body of Christ that was the greatest attraction to EO for me of all. Actually, in going from RC to EO what I was doing was broadening my vision. I liked to see outward manifestation of Truth. That there were many apostolic successions gave me a sense of being more closely connected to Christ through the apostles and their successors. My acquisition of Orthodoxy was to gain 300 million members into the body of Christ I loved and wanted to recognize as such.

Call it being greedy for the visible church. And that hasn't changed. My sense of the body of Christ doesn't easily limit itself to RC or EO, especially when I run into their legalism. I am hearing many of them say they are it, but the others are not. And that kind of ruins things for me. Oh, yes, they don't judge anybody they say, but they know who is canonical and who is anathemetized and who is not. I'm a little tired of their mind games. Little gods running around binding and losing with their canon. I can't swallow that. I sense the Lord is very displeased.

What intrests me is Christ, the communion of saints, and truth. But I'm not just going to believe that what someone says is true because they say it is so. I won't take Luther's Heidelberg Disputation as my authority. I won't take their canon's as my authority. I won't take a papal bull as it. Calvin isn't it. Zwingli isn't it, nor Spurgeon.

I will take the church as the authority, but only in its common confession (1Tm 3:15b-17). What I'm longing for is Jesus Christ. I would like to see Him manifest Himself in His saints both in their charity and in their honest search of an proclomation of truth.

So on the tip of that Lutheran priest in that taxi cab, could you help me with some things? I've got all sorts of questions.

For one thing, I'm reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I'm doing this partly for my Mom. It's hard reading for me. But I want to give everyone a fair shake. What are the primary differences between the thought of Calvin and the thought of Luther?

Here is another question. I know this may seem off topic but … Is there any hope of reconciiliation?Your analogy of feminization of the "church" (fellowship of believers) seems to have connotations which you haven't really explained. You seem to equate the "bride" ideology to emasculation in one breath and then crave the masculine in another. The "bride" of Christ only gains significances in the same comparison as the husband being the spiritual head of the wife and family. If you are looking for a masculine church then why are you neutering it? The RCC and EO haven't even expressed the feminine aspects but thoroughly incorporate the "incarnational" through not only the sacrament of Holy Communion but also the "church" itself. I don't see anything feminine about that.

The Jews needed signs and wonders because of their hard-heartedness. It seemed to be the only way to break their stubbornness and disbelief. You seem to express this desire also instead of just relying on faith.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You have mentioned that you want to totally depend of the church fathers for their interpretations of the Word and therein lies the basis of conservative/confessional Lutheranism. We lay in the middle of the differences between the protestants and the RCC/EO. Everyone Christian religion has a different idea of what "Sola Scriptura" means. Simply put the protestants believe in their innate understanding of the Bible through their own interpretation through the Holy Spirit. That leads to vast confusion and 1000's of different denoms. The RCC/EO leave the interpretation totally to the church fathers. We lay in the middle, hence we put the Bible first and then the BOC as an explanation.

[BigNorsk]

jamescarvin,

For differences between Calvin and Luther, the basic one is that Calvin was a denier of supernatural things that contradicted his foundation in the philosophies of man.

For instance, I believe it's in the Institutes where he speculates that when Jesus appeared suddenly among the Disciples in the upper room that Jesus caused a door to appear and walked in.

See Calvin had no trouble with Jesus doing miracles, but his philosophical foundation said a physical body couldn't just appear or be transported. So he tried to come up with a workaround the text.

That same thing is evident in his denial of Jesus' body and blood being really present in the bread and wine of Communion. He could accept a spiritual presence but physical, well Jesus' body was in heaven seated next to the father and a physical body couldn't be supernaturally in more than one place; therefore, the real presence was impossible based not on the biblical text but on philosophies of men.

The other difference is in the material principles. With Luther, one must keep in mind the doctrine of justification. Justified by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone. If you don't keep that in mind when you read Luther, you will get him wrong.

Calvin's material principle is said to be the sovereignity of God, but it's actually predestination. Calvin takes predestination to the point where God loses his sovereignity. Under Calvin God loses his sovereign right to remove people from his books.

Luther stuck very hard to the Bible, the goal wasn't a systematic theology that fit together logically but faith that what God revealed is true.

That would be the basic differences I've seen.

And one comment on what you wrote. I don't know who taught you that mortal sins are unforgivable. You seem to equate the two and they most certainly are not. A mortal sin is one which leads to death.

How can the works of man be a mortal sin. Because in them, man becomes his own god and trusts in his works. He looks to himself and says certainly I am saved, I give money to the poor, attend service every time it is held and so on, I am a good man and thereby worthy. Such is a mortal sin.

Giving money to the poor is no good work but rather a mortal sin if you turn away from Christ and towards yourself in doing it.

Marv

[Tetzel]

Norsk,
In discussion of Motal sin at the time of the disputation, we should also remember that this was early, before the concept of mortal vs. venal sins could be questioned.

[RevCowboy]

Wow James, your work with the Heidelberg Disputation is thorough!
But perhaps I can give some context. The Heidelberg Disputation is about Justification or Salvation, thus all the these are presented in reference Justification.

Just to give an example, I will explain the first one. But it would probably be helpful to read the explanations of the Heidelberg Disputations which can be found here: Heidelberg Disputation (http://www.catchpenny.org/heidel.html#E008). Click on the little blue numbers at the end of each thesis.



MY COMMENTARY ON Martin Luther’s …

Theological Theses



The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him. I’m not sure what "salutary" means. I don’t necessarily agree that the law hinders man., unless the meaning is the vain attempt to be approved by God based on it. The Law seems to advance man on his way to righteousness by being a teacher. So I would have to disagree with the statement, while acknowledging some truth in it.

In this thesis Luther is pointing to Romans 3. Even if we could be righteous under the law (and when Luther uses the term righteous you could substitute "just" or "Salvation"), we would not be counted as righteous before God. Only God can declare us righteous.

Therefore as Luther continues to point out in the following theses, the works of human beings only serve to fool us into thinking we justifying ourselves, or letting us believe that we are God in God's place. And therefore God actions in offering us salvation appear evil to the us because our sinful selves desires to be God.

The Heidelberg Disputation is a bit a tricky for a first foray into Luther. If you are looking for a more systematic work of Lutheranism, I would start with the Augsburg Confession (even if it was written by Philip Melancthon).

[jamescarvin]

I really thank you all for your replies. They are very helpful. OK, so "mortal" means "leads to death," not "is unforgivable." Got it. It's been so long since I was a Catholic that I had forgotten that, but you've reminded me. The Orthodox don't make these distinctions.

I'm going to have to take all this one step at a time. I'm young - just 49. It can be done and would be worthwhile, I think.

I should turn to some things radman said …

Your analogy of feminization of the "church" (fellowship of believers) seems to have connotations which you haven't really explained. You seem to equate the "bride" ideology to emasculation in one breath and then crave the masculine in another. The "bride" of Christ only gains significances in the same comparison as the husband being the spiritual head of the wife and family. If you are looking for a masculine church then why are you neutering it? The RCC and EO haven't even expressed the feminine aspects but thoroughly incorporate the "incarnational" through not only the sacrament of Holy Communion but also the "church" itself. I don't see anything feminine about that.


The feminine/masculine thing is not really what drives me to Orthodoxy. What interests me most is revelation. On gender associations it simply comes as a mixed package. I am the bride of Christ. When I receive communion I am the weaker vessel receiving the strong King and being made whole by a Him. To me that seems feminine and when I coniser marriages, that blesses me. If I was a woman, it might bless me more. I don't know. But whether something is masculine or faminine or not is not what drives my thinking. There are some who claim God could be validly called "she" or "it." He has feminine qualities. He loves Israel like a mother. But He reveals Himself as a He. With respect to this all I can go by is what is given to me.

My choice for Orthodoxy was not one that considered other options. It was a desire to be better connected to the apostles via the visible church through a successive annointing. It would not have occurred to me at the time of my conversion to Orthodoxy eighteen years ago to consider that Lutheranism might provide a more masuculine theology. A masculine theology was not what I was searching for. What was masculine was the practice. But with respect to this I very quickly realized that I was the weaker vessel, which I think I alluded to in my post.

RadMan also said …
You have mentioned that you want to totally depend of the church fathers for their interpretations of the Word and therein lies the basis of conservative/confessional Lutheranism. We lay in the middle of the differences between the protestants and the RCC/EO. Everyone Christian religion has a different idea of what "Sola Scriptura" means. Simply put the protestants believe in their innate understanding of the Bible through their own interpretation through the Holy Spirit. That leads to vast confusion and 1000's of different denoms. The RCC/EO leave the interpretation totally to the church fathers. We lay in the middle, hence we put the Bible first and then the BOC as an explanation.
This needs to be relative. Some Orthodox feel I am heterodox because I place greater weight of authority on earlier confession, most especially Scripture. I also feel that Orthodoxy stands in need of reform. The fathers are very useful for interpretation, but what is of greater interest to me is what I see in Malachi 4:5-6, where the children are restored not to the fathers, but to the hearts of the fathers. I believe this restoration is to the repentance, heart and mind of Christ. This was the faith of the apostoles, our fathers in the faith in the apostolic age.

So just to clarify - that is what I am searching for, most especially in myself, but it is also what I preach.

That the Lutherans see themselves as falling somewhere between the EO/RC is interesting and should be looked into. Part of the restoration of all things, as I see it, involves a reuiniting of these great historical churches from the grass roots. And I suspect that in many ways the answer does rest in the middle somewhere. As St. Thomas said, virtus en medio stat. No institutional body should be unwilling to look at their errors and recognize the unity of the one body of Christ on earth. Anathemas have been proclaimed - mutually. It's a mess. But God can fix it. And who knows, maybe even little people like us can take part.

[LilLamb219]

My choice for Orthodoxy was not one that considered other options. It was a desire to be better connected to the apostles via the visible church through a successive annointing.

Do you still find that to be so important?

I am at a Lutheran church because I know it is where the Word is properly preached and I feel that is far more important, but that's my opinion.

[jamescarvin]

Do you still find that to be so important?

I am at a Lutheran church because I know it is where the Word is properly preached and I feel that is far more important, but that's my opinion.


Given the level of apostasy in both the RC and Orthodox "visible" churches I can really appreciate this statement. That the Truth is proclaimed, the Logos becoming flesh in the form of the Word of God in the Spirit of Love and Truth, this is equally as important to me.

Visibility is somewhat limited until the consumation of all things because of so much apostasy. But yes, it is still important to me the same sense that it would be important for me to publicly proclaim a marriage, rather than do so strictly privately or legitimately by law.

In fact, I was married with a dispensation from a Catholic bishop, at a Pentecostal Church of God. I had more to do with the wedding planning than most husbands-to-be do. I selected the songs. I selected the readings. We lit unity candles to the song "Undivided" - not a song the Catholics would ever sing. I tried to get a black Gospel choir to add diversity. The thought of two becoming one was a theme throughout.

When I converted to Orthodoxy I was forced to remarry by the Antiochian Church, who would not acknowledge my Roman Catholic wedding. Rather than get upset that they might think that my marriage was illegitimate, I took a both/and approach rather than either/or and was happy to be blessed a second time. The interesting difference was that in Orthodox thought the priest is the one who marries the couple, while in Roman Catholic thought the couple marries the couple. The material of the sacrament in RC thinking is the vows. The material of the sacrament in Orthodox thinking is the priesthood of God as unity in Christ.

We put wreaths above our heads, which signified both our royalty in Christ together and our victorious martyrdom in Him, as we danced around the pulpit (ambo), to proclaim that together we were the Word of God in sign for the world to see. Visibility and the Word of God made flesh as Church was one and the same to the extent that God was the author of the moment and of our continuing matrimony, which is a sign.

I am sometimes wrongfully accused by Orthodox Christians of not believing that the church is the visible body of Christ on earth. I do believe this. But I also believe that that visibility is very hazy. And frankly, we are seeing a very bad marriage and lack of bond between Christians - even a willingness to divorce without any intention of reconciling differences. She's wrong. He's wrong. That's that. Going to a Counselor about it is out of the question. And so the unity which makes me what I am as a Christian is frustrated between these two lovers as they quarrel.

None of this stops me from either communing with other Christian believers either within these major bodies or outside of them, or digging deep into the Scriptures and communing with the prophets and apostles through their words.

We have visited many churches in our time. But we have not visited Lutheran churches or really explored the theology of Martin Luther. So I'm spending some time here thinking that it may be fruitful in the restoration of all things, which I feel is what the Lord wants for all his church at this time, prior to His return.

The fundamental problem I find with RC and EO Churches is they make the mistake of thinking that they can bind on earth what is bound in heaven through their canons and retention of sin and that they can loose in heaven what they loose on earth through their absolution and resolutions to lift these anathemas. They may full well have such power, just as prayer does have effective power for all the church, and as bishops they have a responsibility to wield these things to build up the whole house of God. However, if the Spirit of God does not lead them in their pronouncements, it matters very little whether they have their mitres on their heads or their epicatrelions and homophorions on. There words are both meaningless and powerless.

That is to say that visibility is not such a simple issue, though as far as I'm concerned it isn't rocket science either. At the heart of things we have a problem with ecclesiology. They can bind and loose, but they just need to be walking in the Spirit as they do it. They can not tell God where to go and what to do unless God has already determined that that is where He is going to go and that is what He is going to do. He rules them. They don't rule Him. It's quite elementary.

I'm all in favor of vicars of Christ on earth. I wish that everybody would be one of them. Paul stated that we were the Lord's epistles. I believe in infallibility too, but only when the Christian fills his office - his high calling as a priest of the Most High God (1 Pt. 2:4,9). If we are called to be clothed in Christ then we are called to be clothed in Truth. When we fill this calling we are infallible.

The difference with bishops is that they are entrusted with this calling by direct succession in a way that is physically manifest through an oil of anointing. the fact that they are called visibly gives them greater responsibility to follow the Spirit in the love of the Truth and to safeguard all of the mysteries of salvation.

They have failed. But they can be restored. I see in Luther one who first desired to restore the church, rather than depart from it. He was excommunicated. I don't think that he wished to be excommunicated or that he asked for it.

It's like coming home to my wife and finding myself locked out. Fortunately, that hasn't happened to me, but I don't view Luther as schizmatic. I view the Church as apostate and in need of reform and unrelenting. I'm certainly not in disagreement about much of what is said about justification. I'm not so certain I would read into it the extremes he did from what I have read so far. But I am hear to learn. Thank you all for this conversation!

[Korah]

There are all sort of studies that point to the fact that when fathers are involved and active at church, children are more likely to continue being involved in church into their adult lives. And its a huge percentage like 80 or 90%. But, when its just mothers that are active, the retention of children in the church is very low.

True in my case. I was in the Charismatic Renewal, sang in the choir, took up-front roles in worship (lector, etc.), and both my daughters are active church-goers, even with husbands who were not initially interested in church. I raised them Roman Catholic, but they're both Protestant even though I switched back to "Protestant" (I don't consider my Episcopal 12 years Protestant) after they were both adults. It's not the indoctrination of dogma, it's the example of the father making no apologies about going to church and walking the walk.
Their mother was never really interested in church, only converted to RC because I did, and she stopped
going to church when she divorced me in 1990.
Korah

[ThePilgrim]

It's worth noting that Jamescarvin, wonderful man that he may be, is not actually a member of a canonical Orthodox Church. That means that according to the ecclesiological understanding of the Orthodox Church, he is not an Orthodox Christian.

Please be aware of that when reading his opinions, that he may or may not represent us.

Grace and peace,
John

[seajoy]

It's worth noting that Jamescarvin, wonderful man that he may be, is not actually a member of a canonical Orthodox Church. That means that according to the ecclesiological understanding of the Orthodox Church, he is not an Orthodox Christian.

Please be aware of that when reading his opinions, that he may or may not represent us.

Grace and peace,
John
hmmm...interesting, having a disclaimer for certain folks. Could come in useful now and then....not a bad idea.

[Korah]

It's worth noting that Jamescarvin, wonderful man that he may be, is not actually a member of a canonical Orthodox Church. That means that according to the ecclesiological understanding of the Orthodox Church, he is not an Orthodox Christian.
Please be aware of that when reading his opinions, that he may or may not represent us.
Grace and peace,
John
I havn't read the whole thread, John,
But if he's "Antiochean Orthodox" (and I saw only his words "Orthodox" and "Antiochean" separately, all the Orthodox who post on TWeb regard that jurisdiction as being as valid as any other, whether OCA or any other non-Russian EO, excepting only ROCOR which itself has apparently recently become fully accepted. So someone, which "Antiochean" is Jamescarvin that no EO considers EO?
Korah

[ThePilgrim]

Oh, certainly the Antiochian Church is as Orthodox as any other. However, James is not Antiochian. He's part of some odd group that claims to be Ukrainian Orthodox but that is neither recognized nor in communion with anyone else.

He is not currently an Orthodox Christian.

Which isn't to say that he can't contribute anything of value to any of your discussions... but just bear in mind that his opinions are not those of a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Grace and peace,
John