Fenton’s Admission
I just finished listening to John Fenton’s radio interview about his decision to leave Lutheranism and join the so-called "Orthodox" Faith. Several important things jumped out at me:
1) He had serious doubts and reservations about Lutheranism before he went to the seminary. He had visited an Orthodox parish and read Ware’s book on Orthodoxy and as he admits in his interview he had "considered dropping out of the seminary" several times, but did not. Here we have to be concerned that there was not a much more careful screening process at the seminary. Men who have these kinds of grave doubts and reservations about Lutheranism simply should not be permitted to continue in their studies. One should never be permittted to attend seminary as a way to work through such grave doubts and reservations.
2) Fenton clearly rejects the Biblical confession of the Gospel in
rejecting the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction and wishes simply to
chalk up the propitiation of God’s wrath as an Anselmic theory. He has
replaced the pure Gospel with adiaphora. In other words, for Fenton the
"law of faith" is trumped by the "law of praying." Pretty liturgy is no
substitute for the beautiful truth of pure doctrine.
3) Clearly this was a calculated and well orchestrated move out of
his parish. A home was purchased, plans were made, and "Bishop Mark" of
the Antiochian Diocese has green lighted the development of a "Western
Rite" Orthodox parish in the Detroit area and Fenton’s eventual
ordination. Pastors who are aware of fellow clergy dabbling with
Orthodoxy would do well to be aware that this is not simply some
innocent "questioning" but often part of a well planned effort to leave
Lutheranism, and there is, as I indicated, a clear program under way to
recruit others. To laity and pastors: if you suspect a person is being
tempted by the siren songs from Istanbul ask the pastor in question to
tell you, in full and thorough detail, why they believe Eastern
Orthodoxy is wrong. If they demur, there’s a problem.
4) Finally, and most tragically, Fenton indicates to the interviewer
that in spite of years of "discerning" and "studying" he said he
realized he simply had to embrace Orthodoxy in spite of things he
"doesn’t understand" about it, simply on the basis of "trust" that it
must be right. Isn’t that both pathetic and sad?
Let us pray that in spite of the error he has embraced by joining
"Orthodoxy," John Fenton will be preserved in the saving faith and pure
Gospel he learned at his father’s knee in the Small Catechism. And let
us all take heed and warning from this episode.
Do the Seminaries not interview or advise their students anymore?
I know that seminarians are supposed to keep their opinions to themselves “in public” because they are theologically immature, but shouldn’t they discuss them in-depth with the pastors at the Seminaries while they are there?
Is belief not part of the requirements when the examining board determines their fitness to be a pastor?
During the interview Fenton makes a few references to Tim (Kallistos) Ware as leading him into Eastern Orthodoxy. Ware’s own writings* about the Orthodox church places liturgical ritual nitpickings (adiaphora) above moral rules and statements of doctrine.
*Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore: Penguin, 1963) -or- Eastern Orthodox Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995)
I’m with you, Paul, that this is a sad story, rather than a heroic act of courage. Thanks for following up.
Fenton said in his interview that “Lutheranism has an attitude toward liturgy that says it is ultimately a man-made product.” In looking at Divine Service One in the LSB for tomorrow’s services, I see that the liturgy has references behind it. These references are not of man, but references of Holy Scripture. The last I checked, The LC-MS still does believe, teach, and confess that Scripture is from God and not from man. Maybe Fenton missed that part during his seminary studies because he was studying Orthodoxy.
McCain: Fenton is indeed a sadly confused man who deceived many and is himself very much deceived.
Rev. McCain: When you were a seminarist, were you 100% convinced of everything your professors taught about God’s Word? Did you ever question anything publicly or privately to your professors or among your fellow seminarists? If so, then you fall under your first comment. Perhaps you should not have been allowed to finish until you understood everything and had no more questions. I don’t know one pastor who did not undergo angst and anfechtungen as a seminarian. Tentatio is one-third of a theologian. We pastors go through a lot of it, especially at seminary. Though Mr. Fenton’s decision to leave for Eastern Orthodoxy is tragic and perhaps misguided, give seminarists and pastors the benefit of the doubt. Not a one of us went through seminary without questioning or working through a particular point of Scripture without much fear and trembling. Having responsibility over souls is a noble, but humbling task. Anfechtungen is a part of the process.
McCain: Perhaps I could use a human analogy. One courts a young lady for a period of time, then one enters into engagement with her. There may be some questions and doubts about the marriage to come that enter one’s mind, but I would hardly think it appropriate to become engaged to a young lady if one was harboring feelings of affection for another. That’s how I look at seminary. You are engaging yourself to the Church to be a minister to her, but one should not do this unless one has the strongest of commitments to her to begin with. Seminary is not a process of discernment about whether or not one embraces Lutheranism, but a period of discernment as to one’s fitness for ministry within the Lutheran Church. I believe this is a critically important disinction and I offer it to you, respectfully, for your consideration. As to your point about Anfechtungen/Tentatio may I simply say this, I have been serving in a variety of positions in The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod for twenty years. I have known my fair share of Anfechtungen/tentatio and most importantly the grace of Christ that has, and continues, to see me through.
I must post my objection to the suggestion that the seminary is to blame.
McCain: To clarify, I am not blaming the instruction at the seminary, I am expressing a concern about the screening process before one is admitted to the seminary, which, as far as I can tell, has significantly improved since I was admitted. I was interviewed by my university president, then admitted. There was nothing further than that. Now, I understand, men are screened by a local committee, etc. Perhaps this has improved things.
In the recent history of pastors “going east” there have been accusations that what is being taught at the seminary specifically pushes these men to leave the Missouri Synod. FALSE! Pastors from BOTH seminaries have left the Missouri Synod for any variety of denominations.
McCain: Screening for seminary admission is my concern. And, hopefully, this has vastly improved since the time that John and I were admitted to the seminary, in fact, I believe it has. You are right though. A person who is not entirely forthcoming in the admission process is to blame. Thanks for your comment. I’m *not* saying that John was lead into Orthodoxy because of what he was taught at the seminary. He came into the seminary with apparently the most serious of reservations and, apparently, was never dissuaded entirely. That’s too bad.
It is also suggested that an interview process would have caught these aberrations.
FALSE – at the time of interview there may not have been any problems. Theological internal conflict does not (should not) disqualify one from the ministry, by reason or by scripture that I can read. It could also be that the individual simply lies and gives the answers necessary to “cooperate and graduate.”
McCain: This is true. Read my response to Rev. Juhl. I sincerely still do not believe that the seminary is the time to work through questions of whether or not Lutheranism is a true confession. There are plenty of issues to work through while at seminary, but this should not be one of them, and if at any point a man develops that sort of reservation it would need immediately to be brought to the attention of the seminary administration for proper handling of the concern.
Finally, a question: What do we say of men from other denominations who, at a variety of places in their theological education, find it necessary to become a Missouri Synod Lutheran? Do we scold them for their dishonesty to their church?
McCain: No, because they are setting aside error for truth. I do know that the Synod’s colloquy process strives to ascertain very carefully and diligently precisely where a man is who comes to us from other denominations and then provide whatever appropriate steps are necessary for proper schooling in our confession.
To we suppose that they deceived their professors and congregations? Or, do we commend them for their careful study of God’s Word and rejoice that another brother confesses the truth of God’s Word? Perhaps the dividing line is that of false doctrine vs. truth and there is no objection to one moving from falsehood to truth. I’ll leave that to the academy. PZ
McCain: I concur with your second to last sentence.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Phil.
Blessings,
Paul
I regret that John Fenton’s move to the Orthodox Church was apparently accompanied by a reference to Anselm that has no basis in fact. To speak of “the propitiation of God’s wrath as an Anselmic theory” is to ascribe to Anselm a theory of redemption at variance, I believe, to what Anselm actually taught. As far as I know, Eastern Orthodox reservations about Anselm do not pre-date the 20th century, and I think they are founded on a distorted veiw of Anselmian theology.
Patrick Henry Reardon
Fr. Reardon,
I could not agree more. Just think of St. Anselm’s prayer to the holy cross!
Pax!
William Weedon