Weird Blog

I ran into Lutheran Enignma because I was searching a source for Berg's infant communion material. Gary Gehlbach is the author of this blog:

Theosis: Achieving Your Potential in Christ (1)

In preparation for my presentation (directed discussion) for The Augustana Ministerium's Theological Conference (30-31 August 2007) in Burleson, Texas, one of the readings which I suggested was Achieving Your Potential in Christ: Theosis by Anthony M. Coniaris. Selected portions of his book can be found on the internet.

As John Fenton points out on his blog, "Orthodoxy has no central body of "confessional documents" because it does not have a central hierarchical authority." Thus I cannot attribute to Coniaris's book any authoritative status on the subject of theosis. However, numerous Orthodox parishes refer to his book as an excellent resource for those interested in discovering more about theosis. Coniaris may not necessarily be the final authority but his presentation is highly regarded among the Eastern Orthodox.

Coniaris's book is in its 2nd edition from Light and Life Publishing Company. Its slightly over 100 pages (1st edition) are in large type font. His presentation is not a theological treatise, but a treatise for Eastern Orthodox laity.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Theosis: Achieving Your Potential in Christ (2)

Over a decade ago, a friend introduced me to the term 'Theosis.' Being thoroughly rooted in Missouri Synod Lutheranism, I had no idea what 'theosis' was. It sounded like a disease. But I was informed that this was a very old term and had great importance to the Eastern Orthodox Church's view of salvation. Now, after reading a few works on 'theosis,' I'm beginning to wonder if my first impression was not so far off the mark.

It is possible that some readers are now thoroughly offended by that previous comment. I will be simply dismissed as an unenlightened protestant heretic. (Yes, some EO writers clearly lump all protestants together as heretics and I am not in the least bothered by that judgment because they are wrong.) What I have discovered is that the word and concept of theosis carries with it all the baggage of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Some Lutherans (particularly the Finnish Lutherans) have tried to resurrect the word 'theosis' into the vocabulary of the modern Lutheran Church. They rationalize their position by stating that 'theosis' simply means 'deification.' And because Luther himself uses the term 'deification,' it is appropriate for Lutherans to use the word 'theosis.' Some might consider this an over-simplification of their argument, but it basic point which I gathered from some Finnish Lutheran presentations.

The concept of theosis in Anthony Coniaris's book Achieving Your Potential in Christ: Theosis is the fruit of all Eastern Orthodox doctrine. All EO doctrine serves and enlightens its understanding of theosis. What this means is that the errors of EO on original sin, justfication, work of the Spirit (eg, Pelagianism) corrupt any positive usage of the term 'theosis.'

It is possible that 'theosis' is a very good term, but its current usage among the EO make it very inappropriate for usage by Evangelical Lutherans.

***

GJ - With a little research, certain threads come together: Fenton (who left Missouri for Eastern Orthodoxy), Berg's connections with Eastern Orthodoxy fans (probably Ft. Wayne graduates), and His Grace, the Right Rev. James Heiser, Archbishop of ELDONA. The theosis Eastern Orthodoxy paper will be or was given at the so-called Augustana Ministerium meeting. Augustana was organized to be a half-way house for LCMS pastors aching to join ELDONA but not ready yet.

My only conclusion at this point is that a lot of LCMS men are walking the tightrope between Lutheran doctrine and Eastern Orthodoxy, with far too much interest in EO, as the writer above likes to call it. (I consider that an ominous sign, like my classmate who referred to his parole officer as his PO. My crime-laden classmate seemed all too familiar with the criminal justice system.)

Since Lutheran clergy are so ignorant of Luther's doctrine and the writings of Chemnitz, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on their confessional writings rather than the dubious and amorphous body of Eastern Orthodox literature? As I recall, Kurt Marquart was quite wary of the EO trend, but he is gone. So is Robert Preus. It is not unusual to have the suppressed get even after the guard-dogs are gone.

***

A comment posted on Lutheran Enigma:

Fr John W Fenton said...
A few comments, if I may:

* I understand your argument that theosis does not measure up to a Lutheran standard. Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), I don't see the points listed for how or why it doesn't measure up.

* When Coniaris suggests that theosis is "the fruit of all Eastern Orthodox doctrine," he is suggesting that, for the Orthodox, theosis is not a doctrine (e.g., justification or sanctification). I would suggest that it is the practical (and practiceable) application of baptism--which, per se, is not a doctrine. (It took me a while to learn this point about theosis.)

* If I'm going to study what Lutherans teach about justification or any other doctrine, reading Scaer or Marquart would not be as profitable as reading the Book of Concord or the application of the doctrine in the liturgy. I suggest the same is true of Orthodox theology (or any theology, for that matter). Coniaris is good, but his context is the liturgy and the church fathers (e.g., St Athanasius, St Maximos the Confessor, etc). Orthodox priests are not "bound" to Coniaris, but they are to the fathers and liturgy (although not in the same way that Lutherans are "bound" to the Book of Concord).