Re: Church Hierarchy
Thank you for your prayers and for the thoughts you shared. The
insights are much appreciated.
--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay
>Concordia Ft. Wayne.
> I am an Orthodox subdeacon, formerly LCMS, graduated with MA from
>Lutheran bodies quite often have had bishops! In fact, the Swedes
> One thing American Lutherans have to remember is that historically
always have, as far as I recall.
>Anglican church, that was one professor's main objection, believe it
> When I left seminary for an abortive venture in the Continuing
or not; not doctrine or liturgy.
>stems from CFW Walther and the political ethos in which he lived...not
> I asked another prof about this anti-bishop bias, and he said it
anything inherent in Lutheran theology. (This was a dogmatics prof,
by the way.) Anti-hierarchy-ism stems in a broader sense from the
secular currents swirling around in the time of the French
Revolution....it certainly isn't found anywhere in Scripture.
>the Orthodox; but still, why is it OK for them to have bishops but not
> The Lutheran understanding of the office bishops is different from
>were over everyone, and they appointed regional overseers to take care
> The earliest church in the NT was clearly hierarchical; the apostles
of local clergy and churches. St. Paul commands Titus, the overseer
of Crete, to appoint clergy and maintain the apostolic teaching (Titus
1:5). St. Ignatius, one of the earliest writers we have after the New
Testament, discusses the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons
in some length.
>institute the diaconate....but the hierarchs (i.e., apostles) didn't
> As someone in this discussion mentioned, too, Christ did not
see this as a problem, since they realized the Church is the body of
Christ...they went ahead and created the office.
>term "adiaphoron" quite freely (usually to justify a more pop-style
> One thing I've noticed is that some Lutherans will bandy about the
worship or remove some aspect of reverence from the liturgy), along
with the "solas." However, this does not come from Scripture. You
don't find it in the NT anywhere. It's a made-up thing.
> But I digress....
> My prayers will be with you,
> In Christ,
> Subdeacon Randy
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: adam_roe <adam_roe@...>
> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:29:02 PM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Church Hierarchy
> Hello to All,
> I am an LCMS layman who is brand spankin' new to considering
> Orthodoxy, so please forgive and correct me when I write in a manner
> that betrays my ignorance of the Orthodox Church and her ways. I
> suspect that will be happenings lots in the coming months (years???).
> I have a question about the historical difference between the offices
> of priest and bishop. I wasn't aware of just how big an issues this
> was until I mentioned my consideration of Orthodoxy to my pastor. He
> turned me toward an article which went into great detail in explaining
> how Christ instituted only one office. The crux of his argument is
> that The Church (by Lutheran definition) is not bound to recognize the
> separation between offices; a position that allows him to conclude
> there is no need for loyalty to a bishop and/or a succession of
> Do Orthodox Christians believe that the different offices were
> instituted by Christ or do they believe something else? It occured to
> me that the author's conclusion still has problems if the apostles saw
> fit to create a separation in offices. Jesus' reminder that "whatever
> you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on
> earth will be loosed in heaven" is a reminder that it isn't necessary
> for every authoritative thing within The Church to come directly from
> the mouth of Jesus. I'm not certain, though, that my observation is
> Orthodox on this issue.
> Any help via explanation is much appreciated; as is a recommendation
> of Orthodox resources that address the issue.
> Thank you,
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]