Converting to Russian Orthodox

[Kuna]

I'm not doing it just yet... but I'm seriously thinking about the options.

I'm Lutheran but not "practicing" (i.e. I don't go to church weekly).

Now we've got a little one coming along I've been thinking about which denomination it'll be introduced into, Lutheran or Russian Orthodox.

My Wife has "suggested" Lutheran may make more sense because the holidays are in-line with Australian holidays but I don't think she is verbalising all of her thoughts yet.

I'm not going to push the discussion because I don't understand enough at this point... therefore I'd like to pose a question to those who understand more than me.

Have you converted to Russian Orthodox?  (I know some here have)

What differences do you find between RO and protestant religions?

What thoughts/advice/observations would you offer?


Thanks in advance,

Kuna

[Gator]

Kuna,

What matters is that children have experience with spiritual thinking, and I firmly believe that religion helps to solidify the family unit. 

Does the denomination matter that much?  I was raised as a Southern Baptist and have converted to non-participating, non-denominational, yet imprinted in me are "love" and "forgiveness." 

If I were selecting a church, I would focus more on what I felt about the priest-pastor-leader and the congregation.  So why not visit a few churches over the next few months and see how you feel?

[WmGO]

Kuna,

Gator made some good comments. I would add:

You asked about the main differences between
RO and Protestant churches. The differences are
similar to the differences between RC and Protestant:

1. RO (and all O ) and the RomanCC both claim to be the
"one true church" and that only members of their
denominations can be saved true Christians. As such,
why join such a denomination (to be sure, there are a few
Protestant sects that make the same claim such as the
Church of Christ denomination)?

Scripture says that man is saved
by *receiving* Christ ALONE, and not works, not denominational
affiliation, not tradition, and not rituals. Why join a denomination
that teaches otherwise?

2. Traditional Protestantism emphasizes the authority of Scripture
over man and man-made traditions.  OC and RCC claim man made
tradition (and hence everything they say or do) is EQUAL to the Scriptures.
Obvious bs. Why subscribe to it?

Go with a Church that empasizes the authority of Scripture, preaches
and teaches Grace *equally* with Law, and where Golden Rule principles
are emphazied. Also one where you feel like you are getting a significant
spiritual infusion. For some people this is high church style, for others it
is liturgical style (as in Lutheran) for others it is raising hands and running
the ailes while engaged in "holy laughter". Just make sure fundamental
Bible *doctrine* is correct:

1. Authority of Scripture.
2. Salvation by Grace through Faith, not Works.
3. Doctrine of the Trinity (see Nicene and Apostle's Creed).
4. Church Pastor and leaders are accountable.


Oh yeah, most important - this is something you *pray* about
intensely also.  Pray to the Father in the name of the Son
for His leadership and guidance in this area - together with your
wife.

Good luck.

[Misha]

Have you converted to Russian Orthodox?  (I know some here have)

Kuna

Don't know as I was never Protestant. However, there are some visible differences between RO and Catholicism:

• In Catholicism confession is a private matter with in that you are alone with the priest and god when you confess your sins. In RO, you confess before the congregation, usually in preparation for Communion;
• In RO, the altar is separated by the wall of icons (the Iconostasis);
• The sign of the cross is done from right to left instead of left to right;
• The Holy Communion differs in that it is not given to all the parishioners as it is necessary to confess one sins before receiving communion (a piece of bread dipped in wine and received from the chalice with the spoon. Those who receive communion will confess their sins prior to the service or the night before. It is also necessary to fast before receiving communion (i.e. from midnight onwards).

[I/O]

Kuna: A couple of comments FWIW. If she is typical of most easterners, she will be, when push comes to shove, quite fiercely RO and won't have a clue why. RO, much like any ritulistic Church operates largely on a fear basis. (Fear to wrong the system, rather than a fear of God.)

The Lutheran Church (Where I also was brought up) is much less evengelical and much more ritulistic in it's modern form than I imagine Luther intended, (Not that he ever intended to develop a "Lutheran" Church as such) however at the roots of both, the primary difference is one being based largely on ritulistic rites and the other on evangelical faith.

Frankly speaking, unless you are fluent (and fast) in Russian, you won't have much clue as to what is happening in the RO Churchs in Brisbane during a Church gathering, meeting, service, whatever you like to call it. More importantly (For your purposes) neither will the child for years to come, if ever.

I am not involved in the Lutheran Church these days, so I feel I can comment from something of an objective position. If you are looking for interaction for the child at a childrens level, you will not find any Church (I've been involved with a few over the years) in Australia which provides the level of involvement and or activities for children, both within and out of the Church as does the Lutheran Church.

I have my doctrinal views on this subject, but unlike previous posters, I'll spare you the lecture as, for one, I don't think that's what you are seeking and two, I don't think it is the place of this board to get sidetracked into religious debates, which is all too easy.

I/O   

[BC]

Don't know as I was never Protestant. However, there are some visible differences between RO and Catholicism:

• In Catholicism confession is a private matter with in that you are alone with the priest and god when you confess your sins. In RO, you confess before the congregation, usually in preparation for Communion;

Before anyone gets the wrong idea here, we're not talking about open speeches to the congregation but whispers at one side of the Iconostasis or other less frequented part of the church. Folks in the congregation tend to keep proper distance when someone is confessing. A positive aspect for folks with claustrophobia. There might be a short line of folks wanting to confess so keeping it simple seems quite ok.

The ceremonies are quite long with few or no pews but nobody seems to care if one steps out for a smoke break or remains only for a portion of the ceremony.  Our priest was kind enough to supply translations of the Liturgy so we could follow along with the Slavonic parts.  Content is not that different than services offered by other 'flavors'.  Lots of interesting rituals and incense that may make you feel a bit woozy.

For the big celebrations like Christmas and Easter, we usually go to the church where relics of St Nick are kept just an hours drive from here.  Catholics do their services in the main part of the church and Orthodox down in the crypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

[viking]

In many religions, the birth mother establishes the religion. So these children are raised in the religious beliefs of the mother, at least until they are old enough to make their own decisions about religion, spirituality and so forth.  I  believe that they should have some firm basis in which to be raised and to "select" a new religion now would be a disservice to them as the lessons learned by the parent(s) during their childhood would be lost.

[BC]

Viking,

I'm a bit lost with your thoughts

[goforit]

Have you converted to Russian Orthodox?  (I know some here have)

Yes I converted in June of 2005 after dilly dallying with it for about 14 years.

What differences do you find between RO and protestant religions?

The gaps are large and wide. IMO, the better question is what is the difference between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, because that is where you find the ultimate divide. While Protestants and Catholics have their differences, they are ultimately asking the same questions, just with different answers. One says "a" the other says "not a" but "a" still is the common factor.

The Orthodox are asking and giving answers to an entirely different set of questions.

What thoughts/advice/observations would you offer?

Lots of Protestants have crossed the eastern divide. An interesting book is Becoming Orthodox: Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith, http://snipurl.com/20bza, about a group of approximately 2000 Protestant Christians who converted to Orthodoxy at the same time back in the 1980's. I think you might find that more helpful than interacting with some of the things I see posted in this thread, some of which isn't accurate and will only lead to more debate.

[Jazzyclassy]

[Jet]

Viking,

I'm a bit lost with your thoughts

He said his vote is for Orthodox 

[philb]

Kuna,

I have not converted, but I have spent a considerable amount of time studying both Orthodox and Lutheran Theology (I am Lutheran, my wife is Orthodox).

To be honest, I think that Lutheranism and Orthodoxy have more in common than Lutheranism and most branches of Protestantism. 

Some of the similarities would include, both baptism and the Lord's Supper as means of grace and the true presence in the Lord's Supper. These are just two that come to mind.

The major difference has always centered around the understanding of justification and the role of works.

There are other differences too, the role of tradition and the icon (seen as having the same authority as scripture in Orthodoxy), understanding of original sin, etc..

In spite of the differences I find much that is admirable in the Orthodox Church.  Because of the Orthodox understanding of tradition, I know I will not see go-go dancers for Christ performing at the same alter one will be communing at  five minutes later.  I exaggerate only a little by saying this is a sad reality in some Lutheran Churches.  I also find the depth of their liturgical tradition truly awesome.

For a fairly simple outline of areas of agreement and disagreement, I would suggest reading both a Lutheran and an Orthodox catechism. 

[goforit]

In the interest of accuracy and not debate, I thought I would clarify some of the Orthodox positions below.

Again I'm not interested in debating who is right and who is wrong, but only that the proper view of Orthodoxy be given.

You asked about the main differences between RO and Protestant churches. The differences are similar to the differences between RC and Protestant:

Actually the gap between Romanism and Orthodoxy is in many ways larger than the gap between Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

For example both Protestants and Orthodox reject the office of a universal Bishop of the Church, i.e. the Pope, something which is foundational to Romanism. In fact many of the foundational beliefs of the Roman system that Protestants reject Orthodox would reject as well.

There was a Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue in the 16 century - http://snipurl.com/20evb. The Reformers were interested in reforming the Church, not starting a new one. Some of the Reformers saw in Orthodoxy the true Catholic (meaning universal) Faith without the Roman abuses and accretions. That dialogue served to highlight both the similarities and the differences, although I don't think Patriarch Jeremias took it all that seriously at the time, which, while understandable, is unfortunate.

1. RO (and all O ) and the RomanCC both claim to be the "one true church" and that only members of their denominations can be saved true Christians.

Orthodoxy draws no judgment as to the final destination of those who profess to be Christian. It simply says it knows where the Church is, but it makes no claims as to where it is not. No doubt there are many outside the ontological boundaries of the Orthodox Church who are nonetheless mystically related to it.

As such, why join such a denomination (to be sure, there are a few Protestant sects that make the same claim such as the Church of Christ denomination)?

Denominationalism is a phenomenon of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Without going into a lot of details Orthodoxy is rightly viewed as pre-denominational. In fact Orthodoxy generally looks at the Roman church as the "first Protestants" because of the Pope's break with the Apostolic Faith, marked historically as the Great Schism but beginning really about 200 years before in the 9th century.

Scripture says that man is saved by *receiving* Christ ALONE, and not works, not denominational affiliation, not tradition, and not rituals. Why join a denomination that teaches otherwise?

The Orthodox Church believes that salvation is by the grace of God and that merit cannot be added to salvation.

2. Traditional Protestantism emphasizes the authority of Scripture over man and man-made traditions.  OC and RCC claim man made tradition (and hence everything they say or do) is EQUAL to the Scriptures. Obvious bs. Why subscribe to it?

Orthodoxy rejects 100% the idea of man-made traditions as being equal to the Scriptures.

Go with a Church that empasizes the authority of Scripture, preaches and teaches Grace *equally* with Law, and where Golden Rule principles are emphazied. Also one where you feel like you are getting a significant spiritual infusion. For some people this is high church style, for others it is liturgical style (as in Lutheran) for others it is raising hands and running the ailes while engaged in "holy laughter". Just make sure fundamental Bible *doctrine* is correct:

1. Authority of Scripture.
2. Salvation by Grace through Faith, not Works.
3. Doctrine of the Trinity (see Nicene and Apostle's Creed).
4. Church Pastor and leaders are accountable.

Several of the things in your list above are the product of Holy Tradition, rightly understood. You won't find the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed in the Bible. While the Apostles Creed was simply a local western baptismal creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is a formulation of the Orthodox Church and is recited in every Orthodox Liturgy around the world.

The Scriptures themselves were gathered and put together by the Church in the 4th century. No one was running around with a Bible in their hand during the first few centuries of the Church. The version you most likely read from today is probably not even the version the Protestant Reformers read from.

Most of the Orthodox Liturgy is Scripture, especially the prayers, unadorned with anyone's interpretation, so anyone who believes in the authority of the Bible will get more of it every Sunday in an Orthodox Liturgy than they ever would in a typical Protestant service.

Orthodoxy means "right worship" and thus the Orthodox Church rejects the idea that services should be made to fit someone or fulfill some perceived need. In the Orthodox view, that completely stands on its head the purpose of worship.

I'm not arguing as to whether these things are right or wrong but they are a matter of historical fact.

[2tallbill]

I'm not doing it just yet... but I'm seriously thinking about the options.

I'm Lutheran but not "practicing" (i.e. I don't go to church weekly).

Now we've got a little one coming along I've been thinking about which denomination it'll be introduced into, Lutheran or Russian Orthodox.

My Wife has "suggested" Lutheran may make more sense because the holidays are in-line with Australian holidays but I don't think she is verbalising all of her thoughts yet.

I'm not going to push the discussion because I don't understand enough at this point... therefore I'd like to pose a question to those who understand more than me.

Have you converted to Russian Orthodox?  (I know some here have)

What differences do you find between RO and protestant religions?

What thoughts/advice/observations would you offer?


Thanks in advance,

Kuna

Kuna congratulations for the little one on the way!



Bill

[BC]

I am very open minded about any religion and have observed services of quite a few.

One major difference (and an aspect that helped convince me to convert) is that at RO services I don't feel 'preached at' -and I like that.

Surprisingly quite a few young adults attend.  Have seen them drive up in a souped up BMW get out gangster style each covering the other's back, enter the Church, light candles, kiss their favorite icon and move on.

Reminded me of some of the old mafia films.

[Simoni]

In the interest of accuracy and not debate, I thought I would clarify some of the Orthodox positions below.

Again I'm not interested in debating who is right and who is wrong, but only that the proper view of Orthodoxy be given.

Excellent post, GoForIt. 

Thanks for correcting the information that was posted earlier.

I have a good friend who converted to Orthodox, and now has started a church for fsu people in NJ.   She was the one who studied the Orthodox faith in depth and who educated me, clearing many misconceptions.

Faith is an important part of our relationship, and something that draws Marina and me closer together.

We are part of a non-denominational fellowship here, and Marina loves the positive, joyful times together.  She also enjoys the children and families we meet at church.

[mendeleyev]

My kudos also to "goforit" for the clarification. 

Personal experience was what the original post asked for:  I grew up the son of Protestant evangelical missionaries, attended a Christian college for two years and after graduation from a University with my journalism degree studied Hebrew and theology at Dallas Theological Cemetery, a place most evangelicals consider amongst the 'premier' theological schools.

During a big part of my life I was a board member of several independent evangelical churches and then also including a small conservative Presbyterian denomimation's board.

Then about 12 years ago I began to read and research church history even further as this has always been a favourite topic for me.  Soon I became Anglican, knowing that for me I had to leave much of evangelicalism behind.  The searching continued until I finally made the move into the Orthodox Church. 

At our church here in the USA the service is about 97% English.  We sing a token few anthems and Scriptures in old Slavonic and most of those we do in a 'trinity' of English-Slavonic-English so that nobody is lost in what we sang.  As goforit also pointed out, the liturgy we use is primarily Scripture being sung back and forth between the priests & deacons to/from the congregation & choir.  We maintain a home in Moscow for business reasons and our RO church there uses no English obviously but I understand Russian.  Today's modern Russian evolved from old Slavonic so understanding it is easy.

Orthodoxy makes no apologies for claiming to be the historic true church.  But we do not teach that we are the only church--big difference.  The men who decided which books would be in the canon were primarily Orthodox church fathers.  History, both church and secular history is pretty detailed and there isn't a whole lot for evangelicals to hang on to in the early centuries of the church.  We accept Christian brothers as just that, brothers.  We of course hope that someday they will see things as has the church thru history.  But even if they don't, we can fellowship and work together in areas of common agreement.  After all, we believe that all those who profess saving faith in Christ will spend eternity together. 

[2tallbill]

Go 4 it made an excellent post.

I only disagree in with a few small things.

Catholics and Orthodox have more similarities than differences. Catholics and Orthodox are much
more similar than Catholics and most protestants.

Catholics and Orthodox allow each other to to marry and to exchange sacraments. (Catholics can marry
other Christians as well), but communion (Eucharist), Reconciliation, and attending mass are both allowed
between the two. There are more similarities than there are differences.

Many have made a big point of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church but actually both Churches have a head
leader.

Bill

 

[mendeleyev]

2 Tall, yes there are a lot of things which make the east and west close, we started out together.  And I agree that we have more history in common than with Protestants.  But we do not yet share communion.  Orthodox don't have reconciliation and in regards to attending mass, it is susposed to be only as a "last resort" for an Orthodox Christian.  Orthodox Christians don't even call it a mass because of the technical/theological sense of the term.  I don't think it possible to compare the head guys either.  The Pope has authority.  An Orthodox Patriarch has very limited authority, he can only make a decree if a council of Bishops agree.  The Ecumencial Patriarch in Turkey is a figurehead only and the only function he can do over the entire church is to call a church council of all Patriarchs--and any of the other Patriarchs can veto such a call.

Respectfully,
Mendeleyev

[SANDRO43]

studied Hebrew and theology at Dallas Theological Cemetery, a place most evangelicals consider amongst the 'premier' theological schools.

Are Evangelicals that morbid ?

[2tallbill]

2 Tall, yes there are a lot of things which make the east and west close, we started out together.  And I agree that we have more history in common than with Protestants.  But we do not yet share communion.  Orthodox don't have reconciliation and in regards to attending mass, it is susposed to be only as a "last resort" for an Orthodox Christian.  Orthodox Christians don't even call it a mass because of the technical/theological sense of the term.  I don't think it possible to compare the head guys either.  The Pope has authority.  An Orthodox Patriarch has very limited authority, he can only make a decree if a council of Bishops agree.  The Ecumencial Patriarch in Turkey is a figurehead only and the only function he can do over the entire church is to call a church council of all Patriarchs--and any of the other Patriarchs can veto such a call.

Respectfully,
Mendeleyev

Yes the Roman Pope has more authority than the Orthodox Pope. But not nearly as much as many protestants believe.

The two churches are very similar and reconciliation is different but both of us have it.

I don't know enough to say more. Except to go back to the original thread and wish Kuna Good Luck and success!!!!!!!

Bill

[mendeleyev]

2 tall, perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but there is no Orthodox Pope.  Each major country has a Patriarch, who is head of a council of bishops.  The Ecumencial Patriarch is really a position of honour, not of rank.  For example the Ecumencial Patriarch actually is the spiritual lead of one of the smallest Orthodox jurisdictions in history.  Meanwhile it is the Russian Patriarch who leads almost 75% of all Orthodox Christians world wide. 

As for reconcilation (tied to penance) is foreign to Orthodox thinking.  Orthodox don't do penance, we are admonished to stop sinning and make improvements in our lives but there are no hail mary's and acts of contrition, etc.

I hope you don't feel as if we are arguring as you are known and respected as a very good man.
Sincerely,
Mendeleyev

[2tallbill]

Mendeleyev, don't worry I think you are clarifying more than arguing and admittedly my knowledge of the Orthodox Church is very limited.

I agree that the Pope of the Catholic Church has substantially more authority than the Head of the Orthodox church. There are many non Catholics that think Catholics believe the Pope is infallable in any way and of course thats not accurate at all.

I don't believe that reconciliation is tied to penance because of the many number of times as an adult I wasn't given any and was told to stop doing what I was doing etc.

Take care,

Bill

[SANDRO43]

There are many non Catholics that think Catholics believe the Pope is infallable in any way and of course thats not accurate at all.

This sentence is rather obscure. Anyway, as far as the Pope and his infallibility are concerned:

By action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation

was a dogma (undisputable article of faith) promulgated in the First Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX being the pontifex at the time. Thus, a Catholic has no option but to accept papal infallibility.

[2tallbill]

This sentence is rather obscure. Anyway, as far as the Pope and his infallibility are concerned: was a dogma (undisputable article of faith) promulgated in the First Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX being the pontifex at the time. Thus, a Catholic has no option but to accept papal infallibility.

Yes, on Dogma in certain very very infrequent times does a Pope ever have occasion to be considered in this light. 99% of Popes will (and have) end their lives never being considered as Infallable for a single moment of their lives.

Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, this power has been used only once: in 1950 when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

Here are two separate references to the above comment.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


Some Protestants think that Catholics believe that every word out of a Popes mouth is like an utterance from God. This is obviously not the case at all. They are human just like the rest of us and make mistakes all the time, even grave ones.

Just my two kopecks,

Bill