Back that up, jmdrake: it wasn't a problem with my Lutheran church. Nobody in this conversation should assume I was the target of the bad experience (I was not), nor that I did not take it to levels above the congregation (I did, in a team along with others), nor that it was a minor matter (it was over an excommunication done for reasons which were never openly stated, even to those who were excommunicated), nor that I was not actually defending Sola Scriptura at the time (I was).
I did not leave because one Lutheran church did something horrible. I am well familiar with the fact that individual congregations do horrible things on a regular basis.
I left because when I took this to higher levels, I got told by the higher levels exactly what we are telling you is the primary problem with Sola Scriptura: Every congregation is free to work out their own issues, because ultimately there is no authority to judge anything they are doing.
First off, when I said "your Lutheran church" I wasn't meaning "your local congregation". I know enough about Lutherans to know that in the U.S. thre are at least two branches, Lutheran church Missouri Synod and Evangelical Lutherans. And there are multiple versions of the Orthodox church, (Russian, Greek, Ethiopian etc), and they don't believe the exact same things. Also you are mistakenly equating sola scriptura with lack of hierarchy. Or rather lack of a result in a particular instance. From what you described there was indeed hierarchy, as you took it to a higher branch, but you didn't get the result you wanted. Guess what? That happens in churches that don't subscribe to sola scriptura. I didn't bring this example up since you Orthodox and not Catholic, but since you are making this about sola scriptura, and EO and RCC believe the same on this regard, the example fits. With the pedophile priest scandal the problem was taken up the hierarchy all the way to the Vatican and
nothing was done. Priests were transferred to other parishes where the molested other children. So simply "appealing to hierarchy" is not enough.
By contrast, at least in the Seventh Day Adventist church, there is a check and balance going up the hierarchy. While I'm not a fan of hierarchy in general, it does exist. We had a situation where a conference president (over churches in several states) put the entire conference in legal and financial difficulty due to some unfortunate decisions he made. He ended up resigning after a no confidence vote from the representatives sent from each local church. Each church was able to send delegates that included the pastor and a number of regular members based on the membership size. Yes there was someone there from higher up the hierarchy (North American Division), but his attendance was not at all determinate of the outcome. Something like the pedophile priest, where major crimes are committed and the hierarchy is notified and nothing is done, simply can't happen in some churches because the regular members would revolt and they have the tools to do so.
1. If that means that individual congregations are going to have clown communion, or give the Eucharist to dogs, then that's A-OK.
2. If that means that individual congregations are going to elect abortion doctors as their president, then that's A-OK.
3. If that means that individual congregations are going to excommunicate people who speak their minds in meetings, then that's A-OK.
I took the liberty of numbering the above list for better discussion. Do you have any example of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allowing 1 and 2? If so please provide a reference. Note that I didn't say the evangelical Lutherans because that's a much more liberal organization. As for point #3, Lutheranism got started because Luther was excommunicated. And Huss and Jerome were Catholics that the Catholic church burned at the stake for speaking their mind. So....I'm not at all sure why you are linking that to sola scriptura.
And when someone patiently confronts them with Scripture to point out that these things are abhorrent, they can fall back on the exact thing you guys have done in this thread: Well, everyone has a different interpretation of the Gospel, and I'm sorry yours doesn't line up with ours.
If that's what you think then you have grossly misunderstood this thread and grossly misunderstood the history of the very non sola scriptura tradition you now love so much. I'm pointing
to scripture when I say that Stephen was already filled with the Holy Spirit
before he was ordained as a deacon. TER apparently believes it is the laying on of hands at ordination that imparts the Holy Spirit. And he's appealing to "church history" to make that case. It's not that everyone thinks every interpretation of scripture is okay. It's that those of us that don't agree with you don't believe that scripture can be turned on its head simply because of some argument made, not from scripture, but from "church history." Church history is fine for filling in the gaps for things we don't know about. The Bible doesn't say what happened to Paul, but I accept that he was beheaded in Rome. That bit of church history doesn't go against scripture.
And if something truly awful happens to someone in my parish, and if I take it up the chain of command, and I get politely told to go fuck myself again, then I will leave Orthodoxy, too.
Cool. I'm glad the hierarchy that you are in so far hasn't pissed you off. (Seriously). But that has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
But the difference is, Sola Scriptura doesn't ask anything of its adherents. You can be on any particular side of the predestination debate, but the bottom line is, if you're in the Sola Scriptura crowd, then your faith asks precisely nothing of you.
It does not ask you for repentance.
It does not ask you to forgive.
It does not ask you to love.
That is simply not true. Not unless you believe the Bible doesn't teach you to repent or to forgive or to love. It was a non sola scriptura tradition that allowed Catholics to kill Orthodox Christians during one of the crusades and believe they were doing God a favor.
Oh, of course it pays lip service to all these things, but when the rubber meets the road, it all goes out the window and things get real Earthly and pragmatic, because taking a stand on any of that means putting the Jesus-themed social club in jeopardy.
You can't go from Jesus-themed social club to an organization that takes forgiveness and repentance seriously in the snap of your fingers. If you're not doing it every Sunday, at the very least, then it is quite simply a foreign concept. This is why people get chewed up and spit out of protestant congregations. This is why there are 30,000 protestant denominations and counting.
No it's not. But feel free to believe what you wish to believe. That said, from what you've described you would have left the Catholic Church after the pedophile priest scandal broke (and I wouldn't blame you), so you would have left a non sola scriptura church for the same reason you left a sola scriptura church. As I said from jump, you're mistaking your own personal experience for a bigger picture that may or may not exist.
So yeah, if it happens in my parish, I'll leave. But I have more faith in Orthodoxy than to assume it will happen. Because it is a faith which involves practice, taming of the flesh, taming of the passions, multiple somatic components - it asks us to do something. So I can but assume that when asked to forgive, or to repent, its adherents will react a bit differently than Sola Scriptura Christians, who have been told their whole lives that they are the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, and that there is no authority over them.
And as I've already insinuated, vehicles are really only good ideas if they are capable of moving.
True. And there are people in every church that are moving in the direction of heaven and people who are not.
