Tag Archives: Russia

Lutheranism in Russia

14 Monday Aug 2017

Posted by in Lutheranism

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Lutheran St. Peter. and Paul Moscow Service

Vladimir Putin continues to crackdown on religions that are “non-traditional” to Russia, persecuting people because of their religious beliefs on a scale unknown since Soviet days.  Interestingly, Lutheranism is considered one of the “traditional” religions (as are Baptists), so that some Protestant church work is still legal.  In fact, Lutheran Christianity, as an alternative to both Orthodoxy and other kinds of Protestantism, is reportedly showing special appeal to Russians, particularly to intellectuals and scientists.

I stumbled upon an article entitled Russian Lutheranism:  Between Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism.  in the East-West Church & Ministry Report (Vol. 11, No. 2, Spring 2003), a journal about Christian work in the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe.  The authors are an Orthodox scholar and his assistant, Sergei B. Filatov and Aleksandra Styopina.

They survey the various Lutheran groups in Russia–which owe their “traditional” bona fides to the German immigrants Catherine the Great and other Czars moved in to help modernist the country, to the strongly Lutheran Ingrian ethnic group, and to Lutherans in the Baltic regions.

They say that Lutheranism appeals to Russians because its sacramentalism and liturgical worship preserves the sense of “mystery” that they value in the Orthodox Church.  Lutherans also affirm the ecumenical creeds and thus much of what Orthodoxy teaches.

But Lutheranism is said to be more “intellectual” and to promote more “freedom.”  Russians like the emphasis on the Gospel and on the Bible.  But they think Lutherans are less “extreme” in their theology than other Protestants. (Whatever that means.)  They appreciate how Lutherans teach that salvation is by grace alone, and yet avoid the predestinarianism of Calvinists.

Also the Lutheran theology of culture–the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms–allows them to affirm Russian culture in a way that other kinds of Protestantism can’t or won’t.

Though there have been some liberal Lutherans, most Russian Lutherans have avoided the liberalism of so much of Western Christianity.  That too is a plus for Russians.

From: Why Lutheranism appeals to Russians

Dr. Veith also quotes a pastor of the Bible Lutheran Church in Irkutsk. He says something I find quite remarkable, perhaps astonishing.

There are two major religions in Russia, Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. Since the sixteenth century Lutheranism together with Orthodoxy has formed a part of Russian culture, science, and politics. Without the Lutheran tradition in Russia, only half of Russia would be left and the Lutheran part is not the worst half. You will become tired if you start counting everything that Lutherans have given to Russia. The regeneration of Russian Lutheranism is the restoration of the natural order of things.”

There’s considerably more at the link (and its linked article) but what I find interesting is that in Russia vis a vis the Orthodox Church, as with many of us in the west with our more hierarchical churches, there is a sense that the more decentralized Lutheran church, while still offering the mystery and sacramentalism of liturgical worship appears to be more honest because of its lack of ties to the government.

Seems to me something that most of us can relate to.

Keep Praying for the Copts

19 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Church of the East, Early Church, Saints

≈ 67 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

we-are-nYesterday, as most will recall, we mutually pledged to give up asperity for Lent on this blog. Today, I found myself biting my tongue (already) to keep my promise to us and to God. Here’s a bit of what Chalcedon said yesterday

In that spirit, as readers of the comments boxes will have seen, we are going to try to give up asperity for Lent – that is the blog’s collective sacrifice for Lent. because we welcome all here, there are times, and themes, which encourage a certain amount of controversy. We are going to see whether we can avoid that for the next six weeks, and, instead, encourage each other to see the image of Christ in each of us. There is not one of us without sin, and we all partake of a tendency to make up for that by pointing out the sins of others. We shall try, harder, to recall our own sinfulness, and to practice that forgiveness which God extends to all who truly repent.:

In reference to the atrocity in Libya and the Popes response i would again refer to Chalcedon in his post Pray for the Copts, adding Libya

There are reports of attacks on Copts in Suez, Fayoum, Minya, Sohag, Assiut & Beni-Suef.  This is turning into a catastrophe.  I long ago abandoned any hope that the British and American Governments would do anything to help the Copts, but now it seems that a disaster is unfolding. These Christians have borne faithful witness under centuries of persecution, and continue to do so.  May the Lord have mercy. Our Lady of Zeitoun have mercy.

We have always allowed open debate here but, we have always recognized that can cause controversy. But we have always welcomed a cross-section of all Christian denominations here as well as those attempting to learn about our Faith.

Personally, i think the Copts have a fair case to claim that we in the west have modified the Faith once received while they haven’t. Your mileage may vary of course but, anybody trying to make the point that this church which has been persecuted as long as any, is not Christian is simply out of line.

Let’s close with a bit more from Chalcedon, in a recent post:

It is far from clear, indeed so much so that I should be intrigued to see the exegesis which says it, that in wanting us to be one, Our Lord was referring to ‘petty animosities among the brethren’. Schism is not a good thing, but the Church has always been able to live with it and to work to bring erring brothers and sisters back into full communion; heresy is another matter, of course. But then it is precisely the nature and depth of the heresy which true ecumenism explores; for us simply to assume we understand what, say, the Copts mean, has turned out to be a bad assumption. Discussion with the non-Chalcedonianshas been the most fruitful area of ecumenism, although I doubt many in the West know it. It is clear enough that they never have been, as we claimed, Monophysites. When we used to hurl anathemata at them on the basis we thought they were, it achieved naught; now we have stopped doing it, they have stopped doing it to us, and we are beginning to explore how we can go forward to heal the old schism. That is worth the hours and years it has taken; in fifty years we have advanced further than we had in 1500 of behaving as QV seems to suggest we ought. For my part, I am with Einstein, in defining stupidity as doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

That is the meaning of my statement that there is very little point in insisting that we are THE Church. If we are, we know it, there is no need to sound like a braggart, it poisoned relations with the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and ever since, and with the Eastern Orthodox since 1054. If we are, as we should be, secure in who we are, let us behave as Christ would want. Let us listen, as he did, to the Samaritan woman, and not behave to her as the Jews would have.

I think that says it all. Anybody know a good surgeon to sew my tongue back on?