Hubby wrote a letter to the pastor about the glory theology and some other things (the church was in trouble), but felt ostracized after that. We felt driven out by wrong doctrine, and finally found the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2004. Last we heard in 2005, the E-Free church was dying, with so few members they didnt know if they could get another pastor when that one left. Apparently, it's still around, but we don't know what's going on with it anymore. Hubby feels it was spiritually abusive, especially since its taken him a while to recover from it.
I did a lot of searching on the PCUSA website, which is full of information, and felt satisfied that wed found a good church. Glory theology was absent; they follow the theology of the cross. Tithing is encouraged, but were not accused of a lack of faith if we cant manage it. The PCUSA allows considerable theological freedom among its members; I could be a conservative Calvinist, a liberal who believed homosexuality is perfectly okay with God, a universalist, or somewhere in the middle. Since I no longer believed in inerrancy, premillennialism, or strict literalism in the first chapters of Genesis, this was a comfortable place to be. Hubby and I became members and felt we were finally home.
I discovered we had a website with our server, and began tinkering with it. I posted a theology page as a reaction to things the E-Free preacher had taught, a way to deal with them, then began expanding it. As I searched for theological webpages disputing glory theology, they seemed to be sadly lacking, and I wondered if we were wrong. Hubby found a webpage by Lutheran writer Don Matzat that contrasted the theology of glory to the theology of the cross. As it turned out, this was an entirely different kind of glory theology, dealing not with Gods passion for his own glory, but with mans constant striving to be good enough for God, the Sinners Prayer, rededicating your life to God when you fall away, etc. My own Nazarene church fell under this kind of theology of glory. In the first reading, I was offended that it said the teachings of Holiness churches were wrong. After a second reading, I was amazed at how wrongly Id been taught in the Nazarene church.
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/gloryvs.htm
Then, while reading a paper on the Lutheran (MS) official website disputing premillennial dispensationalism, I discovered that dispensationalism, along with Calvinism, are sources for the doctrine that God does everything for his own glory. Lutheran theology disagrees vehemently with this, saying that everything is centered in the Cross. Not only that, but I discovered the Nazarene church is premillennial dispensationalist, and that many of its teachings are wrong. This was quite a shock; I couldnt tell which doctrines were correct and which were wrong anymore. I believe this was in the summer of 2005.
The more I searched the Lutheran Church website, the works of Don Matzat, and blogs on various issues, the more convinced I became that evangelicalism was full of wrong doctrines, but I wasnt sure what was correct doctrine. One day I sang too many silly songs in the contemporary service, and began to want to sing hymns again. Hubby and I tried reading
Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren, but it was full of prooftexting and wrong conclusions, so we couldnt finish it. I read most of the way through the
Message Bible, but discovered it took far too many liberties with the original text. The pastor of our new church occasionally asked us to do motions to songs, but we didnt, standing there motionless while the people around us did these motions. Wed had far too much of this at the E-Free church, especially when visiting song leaders told everyone to do clap offerings. I began to see the problem with emotionalism in worship services, because I felt manipulated by song leaders.
The PCUSA does not teach the Nazarene, Fundamentalist or Evangelical version of Hell, a version which I had begun doubting. But what it does teach is unclear. I discovered that some people in the denomination are universalists, so out of curiosity I began checking it out. Universalist webpages described teachings of Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, claiming that the Early Church was originally universalist, but when Constantine made Christianity legal, paganism infused the churchleading to the demise of universalism. They also debated the use of the word eternal for aeon or ages of ages. I didnt know what to make of this.
Then, one day, maybe a little more than a year ago, this guy VK posted on a Goth Christian Web forum, listing the problems with evangelicalism. He was Greek Orthodox. He wasnt received very well by the other posters. I knew very little about Greek Orthodoxy, so I asked him what GO believes on various doctrines I'd been pondering. He couldn't answer everything, but his answers amazed me, especially one that said his priest told him that the meaning of "eternal" has never been dogmatically fixed. Wanting to know if the universalist webpages were correct, I began checking into the Orthodox view of Hell, using websites VK linked for me, and came across River of Fire by Alexandre Kalomiros in late 2005. It blew my mind. After that, everything changed.
I kept searching the Orthodox websites VK gave me, such as for GOARCH, OCA, and Orthodox Info. Originally I just wanted to find out whether or not the universalists were right about Church history. Instead, I found that the Orthodox had better theology about Hell than the universalists, but more loving than the fundamentalist doctrines I was used to. My dad had told me about the Harrowing of Hell, though he didnt tell me the name for it; it always comforted me when thinking about the pagan generations who died before Christ. Then I discovered that Lutherans dont believe in it, and didnt know what to think about the fate of those generations. Then I discovered that the Orthodox do believe in the Harrowing of Hell.
The more I searched, the more intrigued I became. I used to think the Orthodox were just Eastern Catholics who let their priests get married and had a Great Schism with the Pope in the Middle Ages. Instead, studying the Orthodox Church became, for me, like an archaeologist coming across an island full of Stone Age people: the Early Church preserved throughout the ages, untouched by the various changes in Western Christianity.
I had issues with various doctrineswhat Protestant doesnt? But I bought the Orthodox Study Bible and began using the prayers in the back of the book. I began practicing the sign of the Cross. I left Evangelical forums which opposed everything even remotely Catholic, and joined an Orthodox forum to learn more. I became more and more dissatisfied with contemporary worship services, megachurch practices and Protestant doctrines of all typesCharismatic, Evangelical, Baptist, Presbtyerian, Lutheran.
I also learned that River of Fire is very controversial, though I e-mailed the guy who answers questions on the OCA site, and he said that the fires of Hell are metaphorical. I also found this on catechisms on the (I believe) Toronto church website and the Orthodox Europe site. On this and other things, I have to agree with a Lutheran blogger who wrote that its hard to pin down what exactly the Orthodox believe on many things, because youll read one thing and somebody will say, No, thats not true Orthodoxy. Try this website instead.
The more I study the Early Church Fathers and histories, the more convinced I become that the Orthodox faith has the pure faith of the Early Churchand that its the most loving of all denominations Ive investigated. With our local PCUSA church going into the megachurch relevance mindset, and the homosexuality issue driving more conservative churches into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I just can't stay there anymore. Theres a huge crack in the denomination, formed from some 25 years of arguing over homosexuality and other issues, and a recent denominational decision has started a split.
Every day that passes, I feel more sure that Orthodoxy is the original faith of the Apostles--that I've finally found what I was looking for. And that's why I'm entering the catechumenate.