Modern problems and 'revival'

[Alban]

Owen, I know this isn't really specifically in the topic of this thread, but about your statement that "the spirit of the apostles tends to be lost on the current flock of priests and bishops" ..... do you really think it's as bad as that?

--- Alban

[Owen Jones]

I think it's far, far worse than that. I know it's a judgmental thing to say, but to me it's just obvious and needs to be said despite the fact that I will be judged accordingly.

Seminary training really does not address the person. It does not deal with what kind of person we are ordaining. The process assumes that by studying theology and learning the liturgy that something holy will rub off. But the priesthood tends to attract people these days who are emotionally damaged people for whom religion is a power fixation, not a healthy psychic reality. So the clergy have a higher incidence of mental problems, alcoholism and drug addiction, sexual fixations and other obssessions. Since matters of the spirit are dynamic and in flux and not easily containable, there is much confusion. PEople have what they assume is a positive spiritual experience and they see that as a sign that they should be ordained, so they promote themselves for the priesthood. But inwardly there is nothing but chaos.

For many others it's a career move. The laity are left out of the discernment process entirely. When the priest is placed in a parish he is completely ill-equipped to deal with the reality of parish life, which is that he is supposed to go through the motions and not rock the boat and make sure he doesn't spend too much money or offend the people with money. The bishops are often selected for political reasons and in the Antiochian Church they are chosen by mafioso thugs. In Russia, by former or active KGB agents.

With all that said, because it's Orthodoxy, the situation is not as bad as it is in other so-called Church bodies and denominations.

What I would like to see is for we Orthodox to stop pointing out the faults in the world in which we live, and the faults among heretics and non-believers, and conduct some serious self-criticism about how we do things.

I so tire of hearing the common excuses from clergy -- oh, the Church has always had problems -- if you study church history you would know!! that sort of stupidity just drives me nuts. The church is clearly at a low point historically and in need of a significant spiritual revival. But try talking to people in the typical parish about such things. There is simply no interest. And if you hang around monasteries you'll really encounter screwed up people. So what is one to do if one is seriously interested in the spiritual life as it is supposed to be lived? You sign up for a web chat group. That's a sad commentary.

By the grace of God, the Church, and Satan especially if you look at modern history, is still producing holy men and women. A little documentary evidence has come out of Russia to that effect, post communism, and so we have the witness of people like Fr. Arseny. But it's in books, not up close for us to taste and see.

Perhaps your experience is different, or perhaps I'm just an old cynic.

[Owen Jones]

Here is the specific point I wish to make to get beyond my general carping and complaining. I do not think following in the way of Christ is meant for everyone, or possible by everyone or necessary for everyone. The Church ought to make it extremely difficult and demanding for anyone to be a Christian. Now, granted, people are born into the Church, but at a certain age there ought to be very serious demands placed on them, or there ought to be some category for them that's kind of inbetween being totally lapsed and being really a part of the community. There ought to be some continuing demands placed on the rest of us. We should all be required to undergo some serious catechesis and aschesis at some point in our lives. And there should be extremely rigorous standards imposed on converts.

Success has killed the Church. It is now a social institution, not a life or death matter.

For it to once again become a life or death matter, it should be made very, very difficult to become a Christian and remain a Christian. And I mean extremely difficult. I think the degree of difficulty should be tantamount to some of the more rigorous monastic communities today. I think that should be the standard for virtually all of us. And if we are not willing to abide by that standard, so be it. We can be ushered out the door.

The Church is a sacrament. It has a sacramental effect on the world. It's not a numbers game. To maintain its spiritual integrity it ought to be small, trim and fit. Period. It has to be tough enough so that I wouldn't qualify. Then the irony is that I would really want to qualify. The tougher our standards, the more power the Church would have as a witness, and the more it would attract people who are here for the right reasons.

Oh, and by the way, we should stop our lying. The Greek Church claims, what, 6 million members? There are barely a million members in the U.S. and most of that is nominal observance. (There are only 600 parishes -- there can't be an average of 1,000 members per parish or anything close to that.)

The OCA membership is barely 60,000. The Antiochian membership is about 30,000 families.

In Russia, they just count the whole damn population as Orthodox. I would say there are maybe a couple million or so church going Orthodox in Russia. There are many more who have icons in the home and observe their saints days but rarely go to Church because they can't trust it. But who knows what that number is?

Let's just stop lying about how many Orthodox there are and demand that the Church return to extremely rigorous standards. I would rather play the role of Groucho Marx while seeing the Church raise its standards to a level that I could admire.

[sinjin smithe]

Interesting comments Owen. Let me ask you this, do you still believe that it is possible for the church today, with its problems, to lead someone on the path to salvation who yearns for it and seeks it?

[Justin]

While I found much of what you said interesting Owen, I was wondering if you would clarify what you mean by this statement:


The bishops are often selected for political reasons and in the Antiochian Church they are chosen by mafioso thugs.

[sinjin smithe]

Let me play devil's advocate here. You say that the church needs more rigorous standards, let me remind you that there are many Protestant sects that have very strict, rigorous standards such as the anabaptists(amish, mennonites). Strict standards are not the panacea for salvation. {They are only good if they lead to salvation} otherwise if you only have strict standards, you become something akin to buddhism.

The problem lies in how one view's the church. Many view it as a social institution but there are some that view it as a sacrament. Unfortunately many young people are not taught this by elder church members. Instead of complaining about it, why not teach and enlighten others in your church about the church and what it is, especially the young people. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but the path to salvation must be chosen and wanted...so the church may not be rigourous enough for some, then find one that is demanding. Owen, I am curious as to what rigourous standards would like to see applied? Have a priest check up on people to see if their are fasting? Dressing plain? Forcing people to give alms? Orthodoxy is quite rigourous compared to most of protestanism. I don't mean to be harsh but I get sick and tired of cynics who complain yet do nothing about it in their own situation. Many people are ignorant of the church, including many in it, why not instead teach them about it and the way to salvation.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Justin,

The Patriarch in Damascus serves at the pleasure of a dictator and tyrant who sponsors terrorism abroad and keeps a very tight thumb on his people. So lying and conniving is simply a habit, a survival tactic. Politics trumps everything in the Antiochian archdiocese. I've seen the devastating consequences of this first hand, close up. I try to be philosophical about it, but let's not cover it up either.

[Owen Jones]

I didn't say that rigorism alone was the answer, Sinjin. The Donatists were condemned as heretics because they refused to grant forgiveness to people who had betrayed the Church during one of the persecutions. But honestly, come on. Anyone can call himself an Orthodox Christian without any cost. So other than some smug self-assurance that we are part of a very fine history, so what? What's so special about it?

I can "convert" by attending a few classes on Church history, with absolutely no price attached to it. I don't have to change anything about myself.

If I join the Marines, for example, I pay a price. I have to go through a very rigorous selection process and many people are washed out. I have to go through a rigorous training process where more are washed out. I have to live a demanding regimen that requires being willing to give up my life for others, continuous discipline, sacrifice and obedience. And I might even be called to lead others to their death. It's all voluntary. No one these days is drafted into the Marines. But once I make the commitment, there's a point of no return where the Marines own me.

That is an ANALOGY to the way the church ought to function.

[Owen Jones]

Sinjin,

With God, all things are possible, right?

A super-correct traditionalist would say that at such and such a point (say, by adopting the new calendar), the church adopted modernism and there can be no salvation in a modernist church. So therefore there is no salvation unless you are in an old calendar jurisdiction. Actually, the monks on Athos pretty much argue that. And perhaps they are right. Who knows?

oaj

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,
Let's get this straight, you do not think that "following in the way of Christ is meant for everyone..." If your thinking is correct, then Jesus did not die for the sins of the world, but only that a select few should be saved, and that He didn't mean it when He said that He came to call all men to repentance.
It seems I'm making the same point over and.... The only rigorous standard that the Church has, is the one that Jesus set forth, and, taught the Apostles, "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Seeing as how we are all caught up in the maladies of this flesh, that is an awfully tough standard. Do you think that we should go back to the practices of the persecuted Church, where the catechumens were instructed for three years, before baptism and chrismation?
The spiritual integrity of the Church has nothing to do with size. With this comment, "To maintain its spiritual it ought to be small, trim and fit." you seem to be caught up in the very numbers game, for which you condemn the rest of the Church. Jesus died so that ALL, REPEAT ALL, should have the possibility of salvation, that is whosoever should call upon His name.
You want a tough standard, how about these words of Jesus to the disciples, and consequently you and me, "As the Father has sent me, even so, I send you." What happened to your talking about the standard of Jesus' example in the thread on celibacy and voluntary poverty. How about if we just try living up to jGods standards first, regardless of what we may think of the state of piety in God's/Jesus' body.
It's either going to be 'our tough standards', or the standard Jesus set, "they'll know we are Christians by our love..." The right reason for being in the Church is that you do not want to die in sin, and suffer eternal separation from the presence of God. By your seeming push for tougher standards Abraham (who lied), Jacob (who cheated), David the friend of God, (who murdered), all would have a really tough time being a part of the family of God.
Here's another standard that 's missing in the Church you may have missed, "...for who am I to judge one mans servant to another, for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of God." If it was good enough for David to not utter a cross word about Saul, who was trying to kill him, because he was the anointed of God, how is it that you without apparent fear, make such bold state-
ments. Again I say, be careful of your words, "by yuor words you shall be....."
The Pharisees added to the standards that God set, and all it got them was a mention by Jesus for being really disciplined!
I do however think of my Metropolitan and Patriarch as somewhat more holy than mafiosos.

the unworthy sub-deacon
Moses

[Owen Jones]

Actually, I do think that we should go back to something akin to the early church discipline in which there were real catechumens, where you had to pay a price in terms of your relations with civil society in order to be in the Church. I realize that it won't happen so it's a kind of cheap criticism that I can get away with. Also, I really don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, which means that I don't have to do anything about it. If I got a thousand positive responses from people who agreed and wanted to actually join me in living a more rigorous life, then I would be in big trouble.

As for Phariseeism, that particular problem is really a matter of tone more than level of rigorousness. Christ led a far more rigorous life than the Pharisees, but the tone was right.

Finally, while Christ admonishes us to carry the message to others, I don't see any evidence which says that everyone can or should or will be a member of the Church. He sends some people on their merry way who seem resistent. He says others are naturally righteous and don't need his intervention.

Becoming socially acceptable and popular has really undermined the Church's witness more than anything. Today it is seen as something that's kind of quaint, if people even have heard of it.

Let me give you an example of something I would like to see. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new, fancy Churches in the U.S., why not publicize to the American people the witness of the Martyrs under communism and Islam? Why are we not witnessing to young people the benefits of living a holy life, of voluntary virginity and poverty? Because that would undermine our very safe, comfortable lifestyles.

I will go so far as to argue that our salvation is most at risk in a Church that puts on a nice show on Sunday morning, and argues over organs or no organs, but has not made any witness, has not given up anything, has not paid any cost for Christ. We are more at risk than the ignorant who are outside of the faith. They have a legitimate excuse. We do not and are therefore to be punished far more harshly by falsely claiming we are Christians.

[Stephen Keeler]

Owen wrote:

"So therefore there is no salvation unless you are in an old calendar jurisdiction.Actually, the monks on Athos pretty much argue that. And perhaps they are right. Who knows? "


While I know a fair number of monks on Athos would argue this, they do not deny communion to Orthodox of new calendar jurisdictions. Plus, any conversation regarding "salvation outside the church" is sinful if it is conducted without this qualifier, namely that all we know is where the Holy Spirit is - in the Church. It is presumptuous in the extreme to even speculate as to where the Holy Spirit is not. It also approaches or can lead others to approach the "unforgivable sin" against the Holy Spirit. So please all tread lightly in this sort of thread, and tell your other chat rooms about this qualification. The Enemy can use the freedom of the Internet to our destruction, and even a cursory glance of the vast majority of Orthodox chat rooms reveals a total lack of discipline -even an rabid, ungodly indulgence on some sites - on speculating about where the Holy Spirit is not. So if you have contributed to this, stop and see your confessor immediately.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Stephen,

You quoted me out of context, but that's OK. don't worry about it. Also, there was an intended tone of irony which doesn't come through in e-mail format.

[Justin]

Thank you for the clarification, Owen. I've been thinking about all you've said on this thread over the past couple days, and I'm honestly not sure as to how I lean. What you describe sounds a lot like the early Church to me, which I think would be great to return to. I'm ashamed to say it, but I'd be a lot better Christian (or person seeking communion with the Church) if there were greater requirements (e.g., I have a number of sins that would disappear in the blink of an eye if I was told I'd be excommunicated if I didn't stop -- sad, but true) The early Church did seem much more disciplined, and much more holy (no wonder they were all called saint).

On the other hand, it seems that much of the mindset of Christianity is about attempting to live up to the command "be perfect," it's not as important that we actually get there (e.g., we can't despair when we see how far we still have to go). Peter and the rest of the crew were pretty dense sometimes, adversarial ('Get behind me, Satan') at times, but Jesus put up with them and even washed the feet of he who betrayed Him. I'm not one that believes that "intention" as normally understood covers all sins, but love covers many, and done in true faith (ie. faith that is worked out in action) it may be enough to gain God's forgiveness.

I guess, then, I'd take a middle path in this discussion. I definately think higher standards are needed, but I think they have to be brought in slowly, and individually. To borrow from a theme that Saint Gregory the Theologian discusses in his 2nd Oration, everyone has different needs, and what might spur one person on to a better relationship with God, could very well push a different person away from God entirely. I would love to see the great majority (though not all) of the pews taken out of our Churches. I'd love to return to everyone fasting on the proper days (and fasting from sex as well as food). I'd love to have more services, and get out of the "Sunday Morning" type of Church we've become. I'd love that, but other people would be repulsed if it were demanded of them all of a sudden. From my reading of Priestly literature in the Fathers, the Church is to lead people into asceticism and truth, it's not to forcibly thrust new ascetical standards on the general (altogether) laity. We are to approach each individually, personally, and help them along. It took centuries and centuries (from the Apostles to c. Athanasius) for the Church to lose it's once-great ascetical zeal (And of course it's been centuries a change since then.) I think if we are to regain that zeal and (Christian) strictness, it'll take centuries more. Just my 2 cents.

[Owen Jones]

The best scenario I can conjure up is that at some point the whole secular nonsense will come crashing down and there will be a broad spiritual revival. then people will go looking for something serious and some of them will light on our doorstep.

It's inevitable since you cannot deny human nature forever. At that point you will have the rich and the powerful, the creative geniuses, the people who now live by very high, rigorous standards that are being diverted into other activities, want to apply those same high standards toward their spiritual development. Presumably some will find a legacy of that in Orthodoxy. That will create tension and conflict within the Church, because all of the complacent people in the church who like things comfortable, just the way they are, not too demanding, etc., will be thrown out on their rear ends.

I don't think the issue is simply one of following the feasts and fasts more rigorously. One can have a religious fixation and do all of those things very well. To the letter. I know many people who are expert liturgists who just love doing all of this stuff. They would be in hog heaven participating in services every day. Many of these same people are totally uninterested or incapable of changing one thing about their lives.

What the Church needs is people with the same kind of dedication AND EFFECTIVENESS that John Templeton has put into investing over the last fifty years, or that Bill Gates has put into entrepreneurship, or that Jane Fonda has put into activism, or that Norman Schwartzkopf has put into military service, or that the Bushes and the Kennedys have put into political life, or that Tom Wolfe has put into social criticism. Until the Church begins attracting that kind of person, who actually transfers that kind of talent and dedication into the Church, we will basically be consigned to the dustbin of history. We'll still have plenty of individually pious folk, but institutionally, we'll still be a kind of bush league pinch hitter.

[M. Rallis]

Owen:

Who, in your opnion, is an historical and Orthodox example of this dedication and effectiveness that you invision will save the Holy Orthodox Church from the "dustbin" of history? I find your use of examples of successful people from the secular world contrary to our Lord's wisdom in choosing as his apostles, men who were not the elite in terms of worldly success, education, and wealth. Neither were they political actvists nor of the ruling class, but were "fisherman made supremely wise by the sending down upon them of the Holy Spirit" and, truly, through them has our Lord drawn us into His net of salvation.

Then, you compare our Holy Orthodox Church, though being comprised of "plenty of individually pious folk" to a "bush league pinch-hitter". If pious folk are people concerned with their salvation, through humility seeking purfication of their souls and praying for the illumination of the Holy Spirit so as to have a good account of their lives at the fearful judgement seat of our Lord, hoping to be shepherded in with the good sheep to behold Him in His Glory...then to the extent that our Holy Church produces these "pious individuals" even if they are "only" grandmothers, restauranteurs, laborers,or mechanics to the eyes of the world, to me these pious individuals are the evidence that our Church is not bush-league in any respect but the continuing hope of anyone who would seek the spiritual healing offered to the creation by our Lord, and likewise the hope of any who would avail themselves of His mercy.

Owen, we can all easily point out numerous faults in any individual either layman or bishop, and if you knew me, numerous, numerous faults, but...looking beyond our human imperfections, there is in our Holy Orhtodox Church the continuing presence and activity of the Holy Spirit and this is our power and strength and success and wisdom.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Michael,

I know of no organization or institution that survives without self-examination and self-criticism. I know that God promises to defend His Church, but he expects us to do the legwork.

WE have to continue to make things new and fresh. But more often than not we are interested in just keeping things running smoothly. Now, I realize it's the liberals who are always talking about the need for change. Traditional believers should not, however, assume a reactionary position. We are the true advocates of change, an inner change in the person. When this is actually demonstrated we know it by the fruit that it bears. It attracts attention. When the Church fails to attract the wealthy and powerful and highly educated, the beautiful and famous, it should be telling us something. We will know we are truly doing the right thing, when large numbers of people who supposedly have it all give all of that up in exchange for heavenly riches. Thank God for the peasants who keep the traditions in the pure form. They kept the faith alive during the darkest periods of totalitarianism in Russia. But that's not enough. The most significant impact of the apostolic Church was to say to the rich and powerful and famous that the poor man has greater riches and power than you -- but it is not too late for you to give up your world for ours. And this confidence overwhelmed the pagan world. It can have the same impact on the modern secular world, but not until we get serious. Not until we heal ourselves first.
Today we attract a small group of zealous protestant converts who have the courage to realize that protestantism is a case of very thin gruel. WE do little or nothing, apart from some occasional examples, of attracting the rich and powerful, the secular sophisticates, the famous, the beautiful, the highly intelligent and creative, the thrill seekers, because we are not challenging them enough. Because we are not challenging ourselves enough.

You seem to be judging such people and writing them off and condemning them. I think I am within the tradition of the desert fathers which says that only in the Church does the true erotic desire find its true object. All of these other human activities are diversions that occur when eros is misdirected. The Church is simply not functioning in its intended manner when we simply focus on the outward forms without the inner revolution that those forms symbolize. It's important to revive the underlying erotic impulse that is the foundation of the apostolic spirit -- the true spirit of Pentacost.

For the first 1500 years, the greatest intellects, the most heroic personalities, were attracted to the Church because the Church offered them a more authentic life, an opportunity for true heroic exploits. Where is the heroic exploit today held up as the standard? Priests and bishops who preach such things are spat upon and halled into court, or sent to small rural dioceses. If there were lay groups springing up challenging ourselves to true ascetic exploits, they would be quickly suppressed by the bishops. Believe me.

I'm one who believes that true hope begins with the unvarnished truth about our condition. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with me that we live at the virtual low point of the Church in its earthly pilgrimage.

I think I read this in the book about Fr. Arseny, but somewhere I read about a priest who said that communism was a judgment against the Church having turned the priesthood into a profession. I agree that that is a major part of the problem.

One simple reform would be to de-professionalise the priesthood. Priests should not be paid by their congregations. They should be required to support themselves, or perhaps in combination with a diocesan trust fund, so that they can have the freedom to preach the word and not be fired for challenging their people. We should cultivate the tradition of perapitetic preachers and healers. WE should not assume that everything has to be under an organized institutional thumb. In the Church today, if you feel called to a greater level of service than just showing up to church on Sunday, your opportunities are limited to serving on stultifyingly stupid boards and committees, or seeking ordination. If you become too much of a spiritual pest you are repelled like a noxious insect.

But the parishes are an unlikely venue for reform. As I've carped and harped before, until we see a real strong revival of a serious ascetic monasticism, we cannot expect parishes to do anything other than continue down the road toward Episcopalianism. The parish Church cannot be expected to keep the faith without a higher standard to look up to -- and to call it into judgment. Since the legalization of the Church that has been the role of monasticism. When the Muslims took over the Middle East, some estimates run as high as 500,000 as the number of monks in the desert that they murdered. In America and Europe today, that would translate to many millions of people having left the world to do battle with the demons. Where are they? Where will they have to come from?

The Church is more than just a personal experience. It is a cosmos. And culture is a key battle ground in the cosmos where the demons have traditionally found the most success. We should offer an alternative world, cosmos, eon, culture, adventure, heroic path. Instead, we offer covered dish suppers.

[sinjin smithe]

Owen after reading your posts here, who on earth wants to be a part of the Orthodox church? This is the question that I am asking myself right now. Why be a part of it, if it is so bad as you claim it is? I read your posts and as someone who was born Orthodox, fell away, then back again, you make me question my way back to the faith. I believed you said in another message somewhere that the holy spirit has been letting us done for the past 500 years, I agree it seems to have been letting the Orthodox church down according to your comments. Perhaps, the Orthodox church is not the true church that it claims to be. Perhaps God works elsewhere, who knows, right?

[Justin]

This post is not in reference to what Owen recently wrote (which I'm still thinking about -- at the very least I think it needed to be said, whether it be fully accurate or only partially). I did want to just say, though, that whatever may be the case, Jesus' prophecy that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church will not be broken. If you are convinced that Orthodoxy is the true Church, you must try to look past sin and corruption and heretical leanings that may pop up from time to time, (by look past I don't mean they should be ignored, I mean only that they should not cause utter despair.) This is so even if it is on the seemingly Church-wide level.

It was once said (to paraphrase) that the Church (or world) woke up one day and found itself to be Arian. Well, the Church needs to wake up today and realise that it's not where it ought to be. Just like in the case of the Arian heresy, though, the majority falling does not mean the Church is falling. The Church resides not in all the Bishops, and not in one bishop, but in whoever might be orthodox.

Owen could very well be approaching the truth regarding how bad it is, but that doesn't mean we should jump ship. And even if we wanted to jump, where will we jump to? Athanasius didn't leave, Maximos the Confessor didn't jump, Mark of Ephesus never gave up; and neither can we (though I'm sure we'll play an extremely smaller part than these Saints did in correcting things). I was reading something in "The Melody of Theology" by Jaroslav Pelikan today, and while it was speaking of a different context, I believe the words Mr. Pelikan used are applicable here:


"However corrupt the conditions in the church might be, the only hope for reforming them [is] to stay within the church's structures rather than attacking them from the outside."

Jaroslav Pelikan is, to me, a wonderful testimony of why you should stay in the Orthodox Church. Here's a Lutheran scholar who knew Luther and other reformer's theology very well, and he'd also done a lot of research on the early Church. Some of that research led him to a view of Roman primacy that is actually (from my admittedly biased reading of his 2nd volume on the Catholic tradition) closer to the Roman Catholics than the Orthodox. Mr. Pelikan was very supportive of the Ecumenical movement. There were 101 reasons to not convert, but he converted to Orthodoxy anyway. In spite of the bad situation which owen describes (and which I don't outright deny), in spite of the bickering amongst the various factions of Orthodoxy, in spite of the mess that is American and British Orthodoxy (well, religion in general), he still converted.

No matter how bad it get's, God's Church will always have Christ as the head. No cancer or wound will ever kill it. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Moses Anthony]

I have sat here for quite a few minutes, pondering about the words of Owen, and various comments they've given rise to.
To say that I was more than a little offended by the statements about His Holiness, Patriarch Ignatius IV and His Grace Metropolitan Philip, would be an understatement! I really meant the comparison with David and King Saul. I, or anyone else for that matter, may be called of God to be a "Jeremiah" to the church, but causing a brother or sister to stumble through the usage of the liberties I have in Christ, is Still an offense.
I myself have on numerous ocassions said how I believe the passage from 2Chron. 7:14 calls for a very serious and deep self-examination by the Church, and that the growth of ungodliness is the evident failure of the Church to meet the conditions God set forth for the healing of our land. A Protestant preacher said something I firmly believe; "A preacher will preach many sermons, but he will usually have only one or two messages." Prayer is his message; living according to the "revealed will fo God", i.e, all of Holy Tradition -the Fathers and Holy Scripture is mine. Making excuses for traits we see in ourselves as just our personality, instead of calling impatience, anger, unkindness, bearing false witness, gossip and faithlessness for the sins they are is the big partof what has gotten the Church in the anemic state of witness she's in now.
While it's true that we must examine ourselves to see if we are within the faith, several of your posts Owen, have the 'tone' of pouring more of a caustic liquid, than a healing balm upon the open sore(yes I know that you have to clean a wound before it can successfully heal). As a Protestant preacher once said, "I never critize my wife in public". It would be hard to find a more public forum than the WORLD WIDE WEB. The faults and criticisms I have of my wife may be valid, but what wife will remain humble and submissive if that's all she hears.
True Love Waits is a para-church ministry endorsed by among others Focus on the Family. They do not promote voluntary poverty, but they do promote virginity to young people as a viable standard to what they're normally getting. Chuck Colson began the ministry Prison Fellowship, which itself gave birth to the Angel Tree ministry, who in the name of (or in place of) the incarcerated father gives Christmas presents to children. Hopefully all of us have heard of Doctors Without Borders! I personally know a young woman who at this very instant is in Tanzinia on a mission project with Orthodox Christian Mission Center. Believe me when I say, "...there are 7,000" and more who have not bowed the knee to Baal!
Many years ago when my best friend and I would go nightly to the streets of the city(another city), witnessing to the young people congregated in parking lots, I once prayed, "Lord if there's nothing you want me to say, then keep my mouth shut." There were several opportunities for me to put in my 'two cents worth', and I remember one occassion where I'd parted my lips to do just that; however, my prayer was answered.
On another thread someone mentioned that they believed the subject had been exhausted, and we should move on. I believe that is the case in this thread about standards for the Church.

the unworthy sub-deacon
Moses

[M. Rallis]

Dear Owen:

First, I sincerely apologize to all the rich and powerful, the secular sophisticates, the famous, the beautiful, the highly intelligent and creative, and the thrill seekers, as I truly did not mean to be judgmental of them, nor did I mean to write them off or condemn them. I am sure that God's love extends to all regardless of their position in the secular world.

Second, I just don't share your emphasis on grading our progress toward salvation by how many converts come to Orthodoxy from the above mentioned classes of people. But I agree with you that we should be serious about the great gifts we have received and that there is much room for spiritual progress in our communities, but were we members of St. John Chrysostom's congregation we would have also have had the need of spiritual progress.

Third, you ask where does the Church offer the opportunity for heroic exploits. Then you say that priests and bishops are spat upon, hauled into court, and sent to small rural dioceses for preaching. If the priests and bishops you refer to are preaching the truth, it sounds to me like they are having heroic exploits as a result, as in the servant is not greater than his master.

Fourth, you seem to judge serving on stupid boards and committees and even participating in covered-dish socials as having no value. Again I do not share your viewpoint, but believe that each part of the body has its own unique and important role and we should not think we are better off if our role seems to be more spiritual or heroic, nor condemn those that cook pastries, or grill souvlaki.

Fifth, I share your implied viewpoint that the "spiritual pest" should also be treated with christian love and respect rather than being "repelled as a noxious insect" but I recognize that the latter response is more often encountered, perhaps thereby increasing the heavenly reward of the "pest"?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Michael,


I don't discount social gatherings in Church. Christ went to weddings and feasts and family and public social events. Just by asserting that A is true doesn't mean that B is false, or has no value. We live in a funny world of political correctness and illogic which seems to have infected the Church. By arguing that we desperately need a real spiritual revival in the Church (perhaps this is particularly so in America, I don't know), doesn't mean that I am arguing that St. John Chrysostom's flock were without sin. These seem to be straw man arguments to me. But I'm being too contentious.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Sinjin,

I'm reminded of General McCauliff's answer to the Nazi's when asked to surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. "Nuts!" Is your (our) faith so weak that a little criticism of the contemporary church should leave us in a state of despair to the point where we want to give up and go somewhere else? How bout the other alternative? Standing and fighting for what we believe?

I'm no Saint Nicholas, but had I been at the Council of Nicea when he hauled off and slugged Arius, I would have been standing and cheering him on. Sometimes it's the right time to be meek and mild. But sometimes it's right to carry a sidearm and be prepared to use it (figuratively in this case -- please don't tell the Metropolitan that you talked to some guy on the net who plans to whack him!).

But even Our Lord had armed body guards who were prepared to use their weapons to defend him, because He knew that he had to get to a certain point in his ministry before it was OK to be turned over to the authorities. I could go on, but it seems to me I am well within the traditional bounds of the faith in offering a little constructive criticism.

[Theron Mathis]

To all,

Owen has made some interesting comments in the past several posts and has probably expressed a frustration that many converts and cradles already feel. My guess is that anyone who frequents this site as well as others like it, desire to take their faith seriously; and I see that as cause for optimisim within the Church.

Like Owen, I find myself often in the role of the cynic, but I have to quell those impulses so I don't become too bitter or disillusioned.

Beyond the criticism, I think that there are many things happening in the American church that deserve some measure of praise and cause for optimism.

1. The Orthodox Study Bible project that will soon incorporate all the LXX into the NT edition. If you have not visited the site check out www.lxx.org (http://www.lxx.org).
2. OCMC. The fact that most of the American jurisdictions are working together for foreign missions is exciting. I wish we could do more; and one thing that need to be done is to create a similar organization that focuses on home missions and evangelism.
3. The growth of monasticism in the US. We would all agree that more needs to happen here, but the work of Elder Ephraim and others is bringing a measure of healthy monasticsim to the States.
4. Some of the "best and brightest" of the Evangelical world are continually streaming into the church. While it takes some time to develop an Orthodox mindset, and begin sloughing off the old cobwebs of Protestantism; these people bring a zeal that is infectious.
5. The growth of daily services within the parishes. For example, my parish has been having daily services for at least 2 years now; and during Lent and the other 3 extended fasts services are held twice daily. This has raised the level of "piety" within the church, and the stream of catechumens continues to grow.
6. Ministries such as the radio program "Come Receive the Light" are growing. Publishing houses and books are expanding.

There is much to be encourgaed within Orthodoxy today. There is no doubt that much needs to be fixed and we should always pray for revival. Frustrations abound, but lets begin looking for ways that we can be creative at change in the unchanging Body of Christ. Efficiency in ministry, and involvement of the laity in more hands on ministry of the church (feeding the poor; evangelism; missions; pilgrimages; support of monastics, etc.). Let us look for ways that we can bring about renewal within our own lives, parishes, dioceses, and archdioceses. This should be the topic for discussion as well.

God Bless,

Theron Mark

[Richard Domina]

What a live wire this thread turned out to be. Thank God! By questioning the stasis Owen has given us a great gift and that is that each of us is now actively in relationship with our own faith. This is the dynamic of life. The reason all of these problems we find in the church exist is because the church,while having the life of the Holy Spirit, is also in the material world of decay and error.(like us). Owen said 'we need to make things fresh and new'. The very idea of Orthodoxy is contrary to this- only because we have imprisoned the Spirit in man's interpretation of scripture. Of course this is unavoidable. Jesus said 'you don't put new wine into old wineskins'. This is what all of religion is. We need to keep knocking and asking and seeking and not rest so smugly in any doctrine so much that means smother the END. St. John's first letter is the best version of what church is. Sinjin wrote 'perhaps God works elsewhere', no, God works ONLY where we work. Our faith is just a noun and Jesus is only about verbs. We are being fooled by the devil. He is distracting us from the simple truth of abiding. I've talked too much . Peace, Rick

[sinjin smithe]

Richard, in other words if we just abide and follow and seek God, then he will lead us to the truth correct? Are you saying that the great patristic tradition of the church is to blame in all of this?

[Richard Domina]

Sinjin, The great patristic tradition is one of the greatest outpourings of man's imbibing(I hope that's the right word)of the Gospels. If anyone's to blame it's Adam. Given the nature of time and space it's guaranteed that the outer form of the church,(like us) will suffer corruption and decay. It's a law. This same law is everywhere and can be observed for instance in a business where there are those people in the company who are stuck on status or who are busybodies etc. This doesn't mean the business isn't valid and does'nt have a good product. It all boils down to where we will to put our attention. We need to find the best environment to grow in Christ and this is where the difference in denominations is an issue. The outer church is under the same laws that everything else in time is. We can't judge a book by it's cover. Where can I find the Gospels in the spirit in which they were given? We are like moths swarming around a Lamp. We get distracted by how articulate one moth is or by how scandalous another moth is or the moths councils. I don't mean to undermine doctrine I only mean to put it in perspective. Right doctrine is essential until it takes on a tertiary life of it's own,(endless hairsplitting at the expense of charity). I hope this helps clarify . All glory to Thee Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

[Richard Domina]

One more thought- Although the Holy Spirit is the inspiration and we call it scripture, the writings of St. Paul and St.Peter shouldn't be taken on the same level as the Holy Gospels. The words of Jesus are Spirit and Life. We need to eat,drink and breath those words. Many doors will open.

[Richard McBride]

This is NOT the way of Orthodoxy, and I hope this is not what Seraphim meant:

"We need to keep knocking and asking and seeking and not rest so smugly in any doctrine so much that means smother the END."

If retaining the tradition while testing its doctrines were in any way Orthodox, any such change would be done through the collegial agreement of all the Patriarchs; and the testing might take centuries to produce fruit. It could never be done by fiat of a single Patriarch, or fire brand.

It has been a long time since Rome seceded from Orthodoxy, so long that the Patriarch of Rome long ago lost sight of the true tradition which it had forsaken. As a result of this isolation, the general nature of Rome is to focus upon an entirely internal and self reflective notion of how its own interests might change. But that thinking does not take into account the whole body of Christ -- only of that splinter in Rome.

Change itself is neither good nor bad. The error in it is introduced when the urge to change is left unmodified by the always much larger body in stasis. The results of such progressiveness are all around us. Without a healthy amount of stasis, and rather running with the search for new doctrines as one's banner, the outcome is obvious. It lies before us: It is Modernism at its highest; it is the way of America, just as it is the way of American Catholicism -- in its desire to seek relevancy. If these progressive and revolutionary urges do indeed take over Orthodoxy (which they may) it will result (among other things) in an ecumenism which will finally do what the Fourth Crusade and the Ottoman Empire failed to do: it will remove the Church, finally, from its eternal foundation as the true Body of Christ, with the Spirit of Truth as its overseer.

The thoroughly indoctrinated nature of too many Americans may indeed react to jingoistic phrases, to the accusations of being ?smug?. But that other nature which still exists, and which the Church seeks to engage, is broader than this; this holier nature is beyond the miserable urges to progress and thus to its companion, dissatisfaction, and this holier nature will always see the error in any call to contaminate doctrine retained since the beginning of the Church -- doctrine to which revelation has been added, but not doctrine which has responded to fits and starts of human urges and political moderations.

It is probably true that non-Orthodox Westerners have never understood this quality of stasis upon which the Church is built. But as they do come to understanding, we who are Orthodox must work tirelessly to retain the Church as it has been, so that it may receive those who, finally, seek the full truth -- that is, more than the bits and pieces stolen away during schisms.

If we as Orthodox follow the demonic urge to change our doctrines, than indeed, ?We are being fooled by the devil!? That portion of Christianity which has split off, and split off, over and over, is there to testify to the truth of this demonic foolishness.

It is there for those who have eyes to see. And we welcome everyone who has seen.

richard mcbride

[Moses Anthony]

There's a contemorary Christian music group who began their careers within the confines of Liberty University (Jerry Falwell), who recorded a song titled Love is A Verb. The idea is that the love we possess -the love of God- isn't something which we as Christians enjoy, with some laid back attitude of, "I've got it." The idea is that like the role of the verb in a sentence, the love of God is active.
One of the problems I saw in Orthodoxy after my chrismation, was ethnicity. This was a perception I myself had before entering Holy Orthodoxy, I think it's still one of the big hurdles Orthodoxy has to overcome if she is to turn America on its ear as it did the Roman world. I also thought, "What is there that's uniquely American, that incoporated and transformed by reason of use, the Church could use to transform our culture?"
Imagine how astonished converts are when they find out that this seemingly new and unheard of religion, is actually millenium old,even older than the Canon of Scripture. If then the Church is in need of a new paradigm, a new freshness, what better paradigm than the active love of Almighty God. Look at the transformation it has accomplished in those of us here on this web site, and how diametrically opposite it is to the committment of the love relationships the world espouses. The insinuated statement in this, is that within the Church as a whole- that is displayed through the members of the body- there isn't an overabundance of the transforming love of God. Either party in a marriage must be willing to change without regard to the attitude of the other partner, i.e, one heart at a time.
Someone mentioned Father Arseny; I have never been so convicted over my lack of Christian love, as when I read and re-read the first book about his life.
God is able to get His message across whether we co-operate or not! Remember the talking donkey, remember Paul in prison for preaching Christ, and his enemies hoping to cause Paul more pain by preaching Christ under false pretenses. Rmember Paul's response in the letter of Philippians.
The freshness and newness the Church needs is the members of His body, allowing God to be who He is, through them, to the world.
Other duties call.

the unworthy servant
moses

[Richard Domina]

Richard, This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. I have an insight into something and want to share it with others and in the transfer from my understanding to yours very much was lost(miscommunicated,misunderstood)because of these unavoidable laws of change. I never for one second meant to say or imply that there should be any change in church doctrine. What is changeing is our ability to hear the Gospel message because or the institutional nature of the Body of Christ. I am not saying that should change either, please don't get ahead of me- What I am saying is that as individual members in the church we need to practice this inner work of prayer and attention because this is the heart of the teaching.(This is why I'm in this amazing forum). What I failed to communicate clearly,forgive me, is that we shouldn't be resting on our doctrinal laurals assuming we have the faith if in fact our faith is not in motion. This is what I meant by nouns and verbs. I totally agree with you that any outward 'progressive' change is wrong,(if it tampers with essntial doctrine). I think doctrine is like the scaffolding from which the structure(our soul) is to be built. If the doctrine is wrong than the structure will be affected by it. Using the same analogy I think it's silly to be so preoccupied with the scaffolding that we neglect the reason it's there. I would also like to comment on what you said about Catholics but I don't have time right now. Rick

[Richard Domina]

I would like to comment on a couple statements of Richard McBride's. \i(If these progressive and revolutionary urges do indeed take over Orthodoxy...it will remove the Church,finally, from its eternal foundation as the true Body of Christ,with the Spirit of Truth as it's overseer.) The only progress that's not an illusion is entering into the Holy Trinity. If I said differently I'm sorry. Also- If it is the true Body of Christ have no fear, the gates of hell will not prevail. \i(We who are Orthodox must work tirelessly to retain the Church as it has been.) Has been since when? 100AD? 300AD? 1054AD? It's been through outer embellishments and alterations since the time of St.Paul and seems to have stopped with the schism. If you are certain of the truth of your doctrine then why worry about change? Truth is beyond change. What changes is our ability to understand.(ideally). The fact that you've embalmed it in a 3rd or 5th century interpretation wont stop the Living Christ from drawing all men to Himself through endless outward forms and traditions if need be. There is a point where one stops being a Chhristian and falls into the role of curator. It's very seductive and has eons of momentum behind it but it only speaks to the lateral realm. If tradition leads to the metaxy then it serves it's purpose, if not than it failed and the most you'll end up getting is $5.00 for a guided tour. Thanks for the comments. Rick

[Owen Jones]

Dear Rick

Speaking of 1054, here's another comment that will probably drive people up the wall. Soloviev argued that Orthodoxy had to get over it's insularity and it's pride and submit to the Bishop of Rome. I think that can and should be done without betraying anything. Rome will submit on the issue of filioque. Intercommunion could simply be a local option. That's the priest's business anyway, and in my view, a good parish priest will not want to offer communion to someone who he doesn't know -- a member of his flock -- except in special circumstances. Communion discipline in Orthodoxy varies widely. And the laity still have much to say about this. I can envision Orthodoxy pushing the papacy in a more traditional direction, and I can see the American church going into schism with Rome and becoming another protestant denomination.

Then traditional Orthodox countries will no longer be in mortal combat with Rome over turf battles. There is very little if anything that this Pope believes that is not Orthodox, aside from the obvious ecclesiastical issues. But not everything has to be resolved. Not unlike the recent trend toward unity with the Copts.

It's not simply a calculating posture. We claim that Orthodoxy preaches obedience to Christ and humility. This would be a good opportunity to lead by example.

I know too many converts who blame all of the world's problems on Rome. Not too mention the historic Russian--Roman love hate relationship. It's time to overcome all of that and become a light to the whole world. Sectarianism and schism is a scandal to the whole world that Satan loves to exploit.

[Justin]

Owen, I'd like to comment on what you said in your last post, but since it's going a bit off topic, I started a new thread here (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/1/3140.html?1029877988).

[Richard McBride]

Dearly beloved of God, Richard;

I am grateful for your messages and the earnestness of your search. I respond to a few of your comments:

A. mcb had said: ?If these progressive and revolutionary urges do indeed take over Orthodoxy...it will remove the Church, finally, from its eternal foundation as the true Body of Christ, with the Spirit of Truth as it's overseer.?

To this Domina wisely responded: ?If it is the true Body of Christ have no fear, the gates of hell will not prevail.?

mcb: Yes, Richard, you are quite right to say this. But my message was not intended to save the Church -- which, as you suggest, would be foolish presumption on my part.

Rather my words were addressed to the body, to those who might fall into error due to the enormous pressures of our impossibly modernist-heretical society; it was warning against the unrealised urges which creep into our minds, urges today which seem so natural (and they are ?natural? in this climate) yet which produce such devastating hypocrisies (for instance: The denial of sin; so many of the beautiful children so naively refuse to imagine that sin truly does exist; and equally naturally the enemy truly does encourage such beliefs).

But at the top of this list of hypocrisies is the great modernist theme of ?progress?, which is to say, ?change?. It enthusiastically emerged in the US among the modernist revolutionaries, who by then had read Locke, and who, having much to gain and not so much to loose, led the charge of that most illogical rebellion fondly labelled, The American Revolution. While that began with only a handful of discontents (dragging the rest of the people with it), its own built-in nature of Individualism, Discontent, Progressive Change and Super Egotism, has become the norm.

Lord, save us from our discontents!

B. Quoting mcb: ?(We who are Orthodox must work tirelessly to retain the Church as it has been.)?
Domina said: ?Has been since when? 100AD? 300AD? 1054AD? It's been through outer embellishments and alterations since the time of St.Paul and seems to have stopped with the schism.?

mcb: All along, the Church has been what it is. From the beginning, the Church was. So, we are not discussing the Church itself, which was and is and ever shall be of God?s doing. We are really discussing that which we, the body, make of it. If one?s urge is toward change and progress, then one will be caught up in the little whirlpools of life; and while the one who seeks these extraneous issues may imagine that his efforts refer to the Church, he will be mostly running in circles. Unfortunately, he may entice others into his unhappiness as well.

What we discuss, Richard, is the attitude of the person toward the Church. It is this attitude which is in flux. And if it founders on extraneous issues, then it will inevitably be at the expense of one?s learning -- a learning which should be done in the glory of God and not spent foolishly, as did the Prodigal.

I have not thought of the ?curator? you mention; but that is a good idea. Yes, I pray that God may allow me to be a curator of his work, in spite of the sins of my past, of my misdirections (which Richard is concerned enough to point out), and in spite of my slothful nature. I also pray that God guide Richard in his struggles, and encourage him to pray for discernment. For, without discernment, one stays trapped in the whirlpools outside the Church.

richard mcbride sd

[Chad Duskin]

Reading back over all of the posts to this thread the same thought has been going through my mind: Owen, it seems to me that revival in the church has resulted from those men (and women) of deep conviction separating themselves from society and devoting themselves fully to prayer and the ascetic life. That testimony has attracted people around them forming a monastic community which in turn effected society around them. It seems to me that you would be better off starting a monastic community and thus having a deeper effect on the church from outside than trying to do it from within.

[Richard Domina]

Dear Richard McB. Thanks again for your comments. Your posts are stimulating and your eloquence is downright enviable. I don't mind disagreeing but I fear we're not on the same page. I think the misunderstanding lies in that you are speaking about a preferance to a certain crop of grapes and I'm speaking about clinging to the Vine in full confidence that the grapes will be fine. What do you think? You said in your post;"we are not discussing the Church itself, which was and is and ever shall be of God's doing. We are really discussing that which we, the body,make of it." I say AMEN! God is doing constantly and we need to make something of It.(respond,acknowledge moment by moment). This is what Peter demonstrated in MT16:16. This is Church. It's not outward progress, it's waking up. On the new thread I would love to respond to some other comments about 'errors' you mentioned because I think it's on a different level than this discussion. Thank you for your prayers my friend as you can be assured of mine. Rick

[Moses Anthony]

I've read the history of several of the revivals among the Protestants, and believe me, it wasn't the result of any meetings that were held. That is any meetings in the conventional sense of revival meeetings. From the Scottish Hebredes (I'm not sure of the spelling there), to New York City to Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission, the determining factor was always PRAYER. As to the people separating themselves to the ascetic life, I'm not as sure.
In NYC the people forsook the bars and pool halls, and sometimes their businesses, to meet at a church for prayer. The meetings started small but grew in size and spiritual fervor to such an extent, that sailors on their ships coming into the harbor were struck with convictioin of the Holy Spirit!
I know this is Protestant history, but the principle is the same as that in the verse I often refer to, 2Chron. 7:14. This would bring healing not only to the Church, but also to our land(s). And wouldn't that be even better! So Christians, pray, heal thyself!

the unworthy servant
moses

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

Christ is in our midst!

I have been doing some reading on our cultural shift, that is away from modernism and post-modernism. The following article from an Evangelical Protestant encourages those in the ministry to address this change in culture:

http://www.theooze.com/articles/read.cfm?ID=200&CATID=4

Based upon this reading and others, it seems the PoMos (Post-moderns) don't have to be convinced of the need for spirituality as their Modernist anscestors have been. Up to this point much evangelism has been geared towards "apologetics," prooving the validity of faith in the supernatural, to materialists. The PoMos are willing to accept the supernatural, BUT, they seem to view all faiths as equally valid. How do we reach them?

Secondly, the Evangelicals are moving in response to the PoMos expressed need for relationships, from the "mega-church," to the micro-church, usually expressed as a "home church." Now, their idea about "church" and worship is obviously much different from our own. They can have a "Bible study" and fellowship in any context: home, office, park, etc. Given our desire to establish "sacred space," and the central act of the body being the Eucharist, it still seems to me that Orthodoxy is uniqually situated to respond to the PoMos. Our faiht is ABOUT relationship. We have never been into "programs," and "bigger is better."

But instead of a parish w/ 200 families in a city, should we shoot for 10 parishes of 20? That would mean more clergy, and increased lay leadership for one thing. What would our buildings be like? "Garage churches?"

Some of my best worshipful experiences since becomming Orthodox have been in small settings. The monastery for one, and the little Antiochian parish we have in London, Ont. for another. As we know, this is how the early church grew so fast, because of the personal encounters wiht the faith. Person to person.

Any thougths? What is the Patristic perspective on reaching our culture?

IN Christ,
Fr. Dcn. Raphael K. Barberg

St. George the Trophybearer
Antiochian Orthodox Church,
Niagara Falls, NY

[Owen Jones]

Dear Fr.

My view is that the clergy needs to be deprofessionalized as much as possible. We need far more clergy than we have. A typical parish of 200 should probably have a couple of priests at least and half a dozen deacons who arise out of that community. They should be supporting themselves with secular jobs. As soon as the congregation pays the priest's salary, it becomes a career, with all of the pitfalls. This is not a theory. I've seen this work. Of course, the bishops don't like this because they have less control that way over their priests. And the wealthy donors don't like it because they have less control as well.

[Stephen Keeler]

There's another format too, namely that parishes should break down into smaller ones as they grow, and have one priest for roughly 100 families in any one parish.

[Huw Richardson]

Let me delurk here after some weeks of just reading...

One of the things that the Mega-Churches and some of the PoMo Churches have in common is the "seeker service". Sadly the service is usually a rather dumbed-down sort of praise and worship service containing nothing really challenging, but it may open an interesting avenue of exploration. I imagine Vesper or Compline services done in homes, coffee houses, etc, perhaps preceded by dinner and followed by Bible study or some sort of reading group? (It was reading Olivier Clement's "Roots of Christian Mysticism" that started me on my search that ended in my Chrismation) This would allow for fellowship in a small intimate space, yet it would be connected, directly, to the Eucharistic Community. The outreach would be there, but with every intent of bringing folks into the Church.

Prior to Chrismation I was Episcopalian and served on the nat'l board of the "GenX" ministry team. We organized a national conference with all the usual stuff - keynotes, discussion groups, etc. But one of the most well received bits were the daily morning prayer services which were held in small rooms around the conference hotel. They were too small to hold more than 20 or so comfortably. Granted the services conducted there was all across the spectrum, but these seemed to be better attended than was thought for such an hour of the morning, and more welcomed than the huge "mega" opening and closing Eucharists.

Asking your prayers.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

For interest you may all like to know that in the UK, where shopping is the new religion, it has been seriously proposed to draw people in to church by wafting the scent of coffee across their nostrils and, once they are inside, to ask them to meditate on Harry Potter and a Bluewater shopping centre. This is a news item taken from a joint church report (CofE, Methodist, Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, Church in Wales) and flagged up in today's London Times under the headline "Churches urged to find faith in Harry Potter". The proposal apparently has the full support of at least one bishop. Any port in a storm, I suppose.

[John Wehling]

Owen wrote:

>>My view is that the clergy needs to be deprofessionalized as much as possible. We need far more clergy than we have. A typical parish of 200 should probably have a couple of priests at least and half a dozen deacons who arise out of that community. They should be supporting themselves with secular jobs. As soon as the congregation pays the priest's salary, it becomes a career, with all of the pitfalls. This is not a theory. I've seen this work. Of course, the bishops don't like this because they have less control that way over their priests. And the wealthy donors don't like it because they have less control as well.<<

Owen, why does it seem that we always disagree? :>)

It seems to me that your "solution" is a radical (to the root) one for a problem that is not radical. Is this professionalism a problem among most priests? Is it inherent in the very idea of priesthood as it has been practiced for probably 1700 years? I hope not.

Practically speaking, if the priest has a secular job who is going to take communion to the dying man, woman, or child when the priest can't get off work? When is the priest going to find the time to pray as he is supposed to do, to prepare for the services, write homilies, read the fathers, visit the sick, etc.? Again, I think your idea too radical for the problem at hand.

Peace,
John

[Owen Jones]

Do you have any idea how "radical" the church was in the early centuries? There is no comparison today. It was extremely hard and demanding. And I don't mean just because of the persecution. If today we were going by the same standards, not one of the people on this message board would qualify. About one in a hundred thousand people today would qualify for the rigors of the early Church. The Church today punishes people who are not conventional. I will gladly be "radical" in my thinking. If only I were as radical in my doings.

[Huw Richardson]

Owen, I think you may be on to something about "radical" here. I seem to remember from Church History classes that the professional status of clergy is really only something that develops in a non-persecution setting when the church is a welcomed part of a given society. It is *very* useful in those settings for exactly the reason noted in the earlier post: having someone who is free to be the pastor all the time. But St. Kosmos Aitolos notes that "When the laymen ask you, my brother, to become a priest without payment of money, then you are blessed and thrice-blessed" and I've read stories about Fr. Arseny in Soviet Russia, so I imagine that there have been even very recent times (perhaps in the "bad times") when non-professional clergy, non-paid clergy have been used with great blessings flowing forth.

Given our "post-Christian" culture (at least here in the US) , perhaps we would do well to start thinking in those terms at least as far as "outreach" goes.

[John Wehling]

Owen,

I am afraid you misunderstand my meaning, which was probably due to my lack of clarity. What I mean by radical is "going to the root or origin" of a thing; "fundamental"; or "thouroughgoing or extreme" (Random House Webster's College Dictionary). In other words, the priesthood has existed in the Church for at least the last 1700 hundred years as an ordained ministry set apart for the sacral functions of the Church. Thus, in a way similar to the apostles in the book of Acts, they are not to be divided in their devotion, time, energy, etc. by work outside the life of the Church. Apostolic Canon 6 and the 3rd canon of Chalcedon are aimed at this very issue. I assume that the reason has something to do with the concerns I stated in my previous post. Your idea seems to cut at the very root of this vision of the priesthood, and thus I call it "radical."

Regarding the "radical" nature of the early Church, I would concur that we could certainly use a dose of the "stuff" that made the martyrs so powerful, those who lived their witness as well as those who died. But we should not forget that in the early Church, the Orthodox were not considered "radical" enough by several heretical sects, including the Montanists, the Donatists, and the Novatians who, among other things, forbade second marriages of any sort (even after the death of a spouse), refused penance and restoration to those who lapsed during persecution, and would not receive the mysteries from a priest that they considered "impure" because it would not be grace-filled. These groups and the people who filled their ranks (including the fire-breathing but brilliant Tertullian) taunted the Church with claims that it was weak, insipid, and impure. In short, not "radical" enough.

It has been said many times, and maybe even in excuse of things which ought not be excused, but it remains true nevertheless: the Church is a hospital where sinners find healing, not just a temple for saints who have already arrived.

Peace,
John

[Owen Jones]

I think we have a long way to go before we end up like Donatists. As for the professionalism of the clergy issue, that indeed was a problem from the beginnings of Empire onward. You can cite canons, but I can also cite cases in which many fled the professionalized secular priesthood for a higher path. But professionalism as it is understood today really is much different still. It is a career for many people who have no discernable spiritual calling. The training is of no particular spiritual consequence. It is more like the kind of management training you woudl get in large corporations, and the result is not unlike the cartoon characters is Dilbert. As a consequence, our clergy probably have an even higher incidence of today's typical psychological problems.

What we need to see is some flexibility -- independent catechetical schools for example that bishops would not suppress, unless they were teaching some kind of outright heresy.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Huw,

Yes, Fr. Arseny went so far as blaming the REvolution on a professionalized clergy that had lost the confidence of the people. In the U.S., a priest is simply not free to speak the truth or from his heart without being punished. His salary, the support of his family is on the line. Many priests are very angry because of what they say their bishop or their flock have done to them, but the real problem is that they have surrendered their freedom. One might say that the "system" has forced this on them. I know priests who cannot function without librium. This is a scandalous situation, but if you were to raise such an issue out of concern for the soul of the priest, you would only get an angry reaction. Priests are, simply put, given an absolutely impossible task and are all alone, left to their own devises, without ever having been given a proper preparation in seminary for the fact of parish life. Unless a priest is able to develop a rich inner life the assault of the demons is simply too much for him.

This is not just a theory. I am only speaking about things I've seen and heard personally. I have also seen the opposite. Communities that have several priests and numerous deacons, perhaps all but one of whom are non-stipendiary. They thrive. Until, of course, some bishop becomes resentful of their spiritual success and puts them out of business. Sorry to sound cynical. That's not my intention.

[Moses Anthony]

Hmmmm! Did the Apostle Paul consider it a mark of professionalism when he wrote that "those who preach the gospel, should get their living from the gospel".
The idea of ministers/priests having a secular (tentmaking) occupation has been around for some time, as an answer to those who for one reason or another think that the Church is theirs to control with their monies. My former priest had two 'tentmaking' jobs, when all he wanted to do was be a "full-time" priest. In other words, the priest having a secular job just might be the death of some parishes, for who would be there (as John W. noted) to do those things that pastors are PAID to do. What would prevent the priest from seein greener pastures (money wise), and leaving the priesthood for something more lucrative.
Jesus ws supported by the means of those who traveled with Him, Paul was supported by the offerings from churches he established in his missionary travels. The Apostles just before establishing the diaconate left other things behind for one purpose, that they might "give themselves to prayer and the Scriptures".
The Early Church lived a martyrs life and so, befittingly the members often departed this world in a martyr's death. The Church in Uganda, under Idi Imin's dictatorship painted the grtound red with their blood, as did those whose lives we read about in Foxx's Book of Martyrs, or The Prologue From Orchid. There have always been those who have not "...bowed the knee to Baal".
Why not spend the rest of time upon our 'collective' knees praying for the increased piety of the Church (saying the Jesus Prayer for others, perhaps). I firmly believe that through prayer, "more things are wrought than this world ever dreams of"! And how long should prayer be offered for the piety of the clergy, the laity, the Church, until they nail our coffins shut.

the unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

Those are all excellent points, James. Who would argue with them? But still, professionalism today means something quite different than simply getting paid out of offerings.

[John Wehling]

Tell us, Owen, what you mean by the professionalism of the clergy today so that we can be clear what we are talking about.

John

[Effie Ganatsios]

Answer to Owen's message "It is a career for many people who have no = discernible spiritual calling. The training is of no particular = spiritual consequence. "

Hi Owen,

I completely agree with the first sentence. This is unfortunately the = situation in Greece. =20

The statement in the second sentence doesn't apply to Greece, = fortunately. This used to be true but priests are now obliged to = attend theological school and those that have a university degree in = theology are preferred.

This has given rise to a lot of trouble in at least 3 of the churches in = the town where I live. The older priests are resisting this new = movement and we have had some very "humorous" situations as a result.=20

Fortunately, the Greek faithful don't believe in keeping their opinions = to themselves and I witnessed an incident in one church after a tirade = by the elderly priest who had managed to get rid of a very popular = younger priest, and who then proceeded to try and justify himself by = attacking the woman who had the audacity to complain to the Metropolitan = about his behaviour. This attack took the place of the sermon at the = end of the service and he finished it by saying that he knew who the = woman was and would refuse to give communion to her.

There was some muttering amongst the congregation when he said this but = the Greeks, being especially polite in church, didn't make an issue of = it. When they had to pass in front of him however, to receive the = anditheron, a few of the older people quietly took him aside and told = him that the church was not his private domain and that as a priest he = could not refuse to give communion to whoever wished it.=20

This made me proud because it illustrated the fact that the Orthodox = Church is a living church and that people feel free to reprimand priests = when they feel they have overstepped the line.

I'd be interested in hearing what you feel about my last statement. =20 Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Hi, My name's Effie.

I'm new to this thread and I'd like to butt into your discussion, if I = may. I live in Greece and I just wanted to say something about the = priests here. Up until about 15 years ago priests had to support their = families and themselves on what the faithful gave them. They now = receive a government salary and everyone has noticed the difference in = their behaviour.=20

I remember that when we first came to Greece a priest would go around = to all the houses that belonged to his parish at the beginning of each = month and bless the house and families. Each family would give him a = small amount of money. This practice has now stopped. You have to = telephone and ask him to come (and he still expects payment of course). = This is only one example of many. Everything seems to have a price = and I don't think it's right - not now that they get very good salaries. =

I don't believe that a priest can function if he has to work at another = job as well as being a priest but I definitely don't like the way some = priests seem to be interested in money first and everything else after. That's probably why Greeks are very, very cynical about priests and the = Church itself. Not about the Greek Orthodox religion though, because = they live it intimately every day of their lives.

What's the situation like in America?

Effie

[Owen Jones]

Dear Effie,

Formal theological training may or may not be of a spiritual nature. We have established seminaries that conform to the German graduate school model, instead of the ancient method of catechesis. This trains seminarians in all of the formalized aspects of priestly duties. And avoids all of the important (spiritual) stuff. This is part of the professionalism trend. It's not even good professional training, because it deludes the seminarian into thinking that with his newfound theological knowledge there is power. The seminaries destroy the ancient concept of theology as a disciplined visionary/prophetic experience and turn it into an academic discipline.

As for the laity calling the priests to account, our priest locally was challenged in Church the other day on something he said about the war on terrorism. (I wish it had been a theological point but it wasn't). I say, hooray. This should be done more often. I heard a story about a parish in Moscow where a priest allowed an American Episcopalian priestess behind the iconostasis during the liturgy. Many people walked out and refused to return until he publicly apologized.

But most people these days see the priest as hired help. We pay him to do a job and as long as he doesn't cause a stir we'll keep him around. The priest, on the other hand, sees himself as a manager who is in charge of the parish.

[sinjin smithe]

This is an interesting discussion. There is a story in the news about how the Holy Synod of Greece rejected a plea by their clergy to do away with the beards, long black robes, and tall headgear.

Here is the link to the story:
Beards must stay (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=856&ncid=856&e=3&u=/nm/20021009/od_uk_nm/oukoe_greece_priests)

[Moses Anthony]

It seems to me that the problem of "professionalism" in the clergy, should be adressed by the offending priests Bishop. This is only applicable if the Bishop himself is a godly man, and without worldly ambitions, able to recognize through the Holy Spirit such a base motive. This is where problems arise that get splashed all over the media.
I've never understood how anyone could be an effective undersheperd, and not be called of God to that vocation.

the unworthy servant

[Moses Anthony]

Modern problems & revival:
Professionalism in the clergy, sexual abuse by priests, inappropriate counseling, squabbling and the rejection of Scripture amongst denominations. The Apostle Philip invited his brother Peter to, "come and see", when he told Peter they had found the one about whom Moses and the prophets spoke. All the forementioned problems are in the church, the very place where hurting people should, in the Holy Spirit, find the life of Jesus Christ. Instead many unbelivers think (and find) ICHABOD written over the door.
We know enough about asceticism, desert spirituality, etc., etc., to do as the Early Church did to the Roman culture, turn it completely upside down. Myabe after a few years of living what we know, we can as Philip, tell our friends and relatives "..come and see".

the unworthy servant

[John Simmons]

I have been reflecting on "revivals" that I witnessed during the "Jesus movement". A new video has come out about the life of Keith Green, a hippie musician who became a christian at a protestant Bible study and merely decided to take the gospel seriously with a down-home no-compromise attitude. A missions leader rightly called him a "wonderful extremeist". I recalled the inspiration and simplicity of those days while watching the video, and it occurred to me that people are not as open hearted as they were back then. This basic commitment to the Gospel as he understood it, caused Keith to lead many into full time Christian service, start orphanages in Mexico, start a big discipleship community and print ministry, etc. I wouldn't give those days up for anything, but I wouldn't go back to them for anything either!

Re-reading the first part of "The Arena" by St. Ignaty Brianchaninov, I recall that he emphasizes that fullfulling the Gospel commandments is the essence of the entire monastic/ascetic spiritual life, and that all other foundations are sand. I think Keith was on to something, but St. Ignaty really communicated the whole picture. Continuing to go back to the Gospel and observing ourselves to see if we are ready to sacrifice 100% for it, seems to be the common thread there.

I'm trying to struggle onward for now, but I still wouldn't mind seeing the "Orthodox Keith Green" appear on the scene! :-)

John

[Moses Anthony]

John S;
I have several of Keith Green's albums 'archived' in my closet, along with wax from another contemporary named Mark Heard (who is also deceased).
The nearest thing you will probably find to anyone of Keith's notariety, is a Roman Catholic named John Michael Talbot. He lives at The Hermitage, somewhere in Tennessee. Although not as famous as the aforementioned, Peter Jon Gilquuist (son of the V.Rev. Fr.Peter Gilquist), records contemporary songs from the Orthodox perspective.
If my memory serves me correctly, the former director of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Prison Ministry, Fr.Duane Pederson came out of the 'Jesus Movement', as I did myself.
Nothing serious here, just some FYI.

tus