The Anglican Communion

[Mark Harrison]

Over the course of the last 23 years since I came to the Orthodox Church from the Anglican Communion (ECUSA), I have had reasons to seriously consider the state of that communion and Orthodox relations with it. Some might see my views as 'sour grapes' but I think not. I have observed specific theological trends that form the basis of my views. I believe that the Anglican Communion poses a unique problem for Orthodox in terms of 'ecumenical' relations for a couple of reasons (and these are not in order of priroity): 1) It is a simple fact that Anglicans from the late 19th century through the 1950s were the closest friends Orthodox had in the West. Anglicans gave shelter to Orthodox in many situations, and still do provide a place for worship in some instances. Superficially, the poliity of the Anglican Communion is similar to that of the Orthodox Church, with administratively distinct, autocephalous churches joined together by common principles. 2) On the opposite side of the coin, Anglican theology has been called rightly 'the theology of imprecision,' as opposed to 'imprecise theology,' a reality that is absolutely alien to orthodoxia, diametrically opposed even. Anglicans pride themselves on their "Anglican Comprehensiveness, by which they strive to hold all manners of theology together. Following from this: 3) The so-called branch theory of Anglicanism, that suggests that the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are all equally branchdes of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is likewise contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology and a source of confusion in Orthodox-Anglican relations.

It is important that Orthodox recognise and appreciate the hospitality shown by Anglicans. That is just common decency. This does not mean, however, that Orthodox should for a moment concede to Anglican Comprehensiveness or the Branch Theory. In 1976 the issue of the ordination of women further complicated matters, and most recently, in 2003 the Episcopal Church chose to 'consecrate' an openly gay man to the episcopal office, against the express advice, pleas, even of other constituent provinces of the Anglican Communion, giving rise to schism within the Communion. These moves were justified by Anglican Comprehensiveness, and are seen among Anlgicans, who uphold the branch theory, as enriching the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It goes without saying that fundamental Orthodox doctrine excludes the very notion of Anglican Comprehensiveness. The Holy Fathers, at all times, and our all of our hierarchs today, have sworn to uphold the one Orthodox Faith, which is not divided by personal experiences or feelings, or cultural experiences of the Gospel, or whatever. Likewise, by the same principle, the Church itself cannot be divided into varying doctrinal branches. 'There is one body and one Spirit…one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism…' (Eph. 4:4-6). The branch theory was rightly condemned as heresy by ROCOR in 1983, and I have yet to meet any Orthodox outside of ROCOR who would disagree with this particular point. For Orthodox, the criterion of the faith is Tradition. Tradition is not just custom, it is the very content of the Gospel, expressed and enshrined in Scriptures, Liturgy, Ikons, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church Fathers, etc. It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The practical problem that I see is that it has been the policy in most Orthodox jurisdictions to receive Anglicans and others by Chrismation, rather than Baptism. Various justifications are given for this, but they generally point back to the practise espoused in the canons of receiving different heretical groups by different means. It has been deemed that since Anglicans do believe in the Trinity, their Baptism is 'valid.' What is meant by this term is rather ambiguous, it seems to me, but what it comes down to is that, at the very least, there is something there to work with, and through Chrismation, the Holy Spirit can heal that which is infirm and complete that which is lacking.

It is time to challenge the presuppositions about Anglican baptism. One defence of the current policy among most Orthodox (I say current but it is already changing in some places) is the canonical epistle of St Basil the Great, in which he distinguishes between heretics and schismatics. Those who appeal to this epistle will say that Anglicans fall into the category of schismatics, not heretics. However true that may have been at one time, it is very questionable now. The revisionnism that has allowed the ordination both of women and of avowed homosexuals has distorted the very understanding of God as Trinity. Many feminist Anglicans refuse to address the Trinity as 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' They opt instead for supposedly gender-neutral terms like 'creator, redeemer, sanctifier.' These terms are supposedly more inclusive, but they are, in fact, exclusive. They exclude the very language of Scripture itself, and they exclude the reality that gender, according to Scripture, is important. Hence, these revisionists, have done exactly what St Basil said heretics do: they pervert the doctrine of God. Therefore, the very basis on which those who have until now supported the reception of Anglicans by Chrismation, must now be applied to end that practise. If by that principle, previously Trinitarian Anglicans could be received by Chrismation only, that principle demands, not just allows, that modernist, revisionist Anglicans be received as un-baptised. At the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States, there was a motion to reaffirm Christ as the unique Saviour, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That motion failed in committee. It never even made it to the floor. Hence, there is not even a lowest-common-denominator by which the Episcopal Church can be seen as Christian, and no basis for accepting Episcopalian rites as having any substance whatsoever, based on the very rule of St Basil that has been used to support a 'recognition' of Anglican baptism.

However, in considering this, we are faced with another problem. The revisionism of ECUSA (the American Episcopal Church) has given rise to schism within the Anglican Communion. The Anglican provinces of the 'Gloal South,' that is Africa and parts of South America, are opposed to the Episcopalian views and have gone so far as to break communion (astonishing for Anglicans), and even further, to accept clergy into their jurisdictions without canonical release. They have been bold in the face of Episcopalian heresy. How then, do we relate to these Anglicans? Do we continue to accept them by Chrismation? Would it be an undue insult to lump them together with the Episcopalians by baptising the whole lot? Is there a basis for doing anything else? Sadly, while I don't wish to lump the whole lot together, sacramentally, I don't see that we have a choice. The simple fact is that the root cause of the revisionism in North America is Anglican Comprehensiveness. If anyone doubts that, let them read sermons, addresses, and articles by the revisionists and they will see repeated appeals to comprehensiveness. The principle of Anglican Comprehensiveness has not be repudiated by the Global South or any other Anglicans. While they may not have embraced the blatant anti-Trinitarian heresies, they still embrace the heretical principle of latitude in theology according to local, even personal reasoning and experience. While they may speak of the three legs of 'Scripture, tradition, and reason', they do not understand the same thing by the word Tradition. To them it is custom, and custom can be changed, and must change according to 'reason.' Likewise, the understanding of Scripture must be subject to 'reason.'

At the same time, the conservative Anglicans are without doubt people who are struggling as best as they can within their own context. They are sincere, if not orthodox, in their faith. It is my firm conviction that we should lend them every ounce of moral support that we honestly can. We shouldn't fudge on anything, of course, but whereever we can be supportive, we should. That is the least we can do to show respect to the fact that they have helped us in the past on numerous occasions. My immeidate suggestion is to do what the Moscow Patriarchate has already done: break off all diplomatic (ecumenical) relations with revisionist Anglicans. They are fruitless anyways. There is no basis for common discussion. If we are to continue to engage in ecumenical discussion and cooperation in humanitarian areas, as I believe we may, it should be with those with whom there is a basis for discussion. The Antiochian Archdiocese has already adopted this principle, as I understand, and has withdrawn from the NCC, but not from all ecumenical contacts. If this is combined with equally strong efforts to foster positive, honest, constructive relations with the conservative Anglicans, our message will be loud and clear. If we do not do this, will not our emphasis on the importance of orthodoxy seem rather hollow?

Finally, and this will be more difficult in the light of what I just said, I believe it is necessary to communicate to our own faithful (and to Anglicans) that we totally reject the branch theory and Anglican Comprehensiveness on principle. I have long thought that ROCOR's anathema of the branch theory was not only right, but necessary and should be more widely adopted. Sadly, because they proclaim their communion to be a branch of the One, HOly, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I see little choice but to specifically include Anglicanism in the anathemata on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (which means that I think we need to abandon the absurd practise of not actually pronouncing the anathemata, but reducing the service down to one tiny excerpt from the Synodikon of Orthodoxy). Other liberal Protestants don't identify themselves so strongly with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, so there is less need to specifically address their situation, although a general anathema against liberal revisionism would be a good idea too. Another reason to single out Anglicanism is that there has been a lot of confusion on both sides about Orthodox 'recognition of Anglican Orders' and that kind of thing. At one time, Orthodox who had no access to Orthodox parishes, were advised to attend Anglican parishes. In some ill-advised cases, communion was understood to be permitted, whether or not it really was. St Raphael (Hawaweeny) came to regret his advice to his flock to turn to Anglicans under even limited conditions. The end result was a perception of a state of 'inter-communion' existing, and that perception has not entirely gone away. Under the present circumstances, it is important that it be thoroughly irradicated. I say this, not out of spite for anybody, but in the spirit in which the anathemata have always been understood; as means of protecting the faithful from confusion. In a world in which the evil one's greatest accomplishments are to convince everyone that he doesn't exist, and to reduce faith down to personal opinion that is culturally relative, it is important for Orthodox to state clearly and emphatically what the Church's faith is, and what it is not. The fathers never backed down from this, nor should we today. I have Episcopalian friends for whom I feel deeply because they are in great turmoil. It is not easy to just pack up and leave 'home,' no matter how right it is. We should be sympathetic, and above all, we must distinguish between the heretical institution and the conflicted individuals who do not adhere to the heresies being taught, and who want to do right but just don't know where to turn. Many disaffected Episcopalians will still believe that Anglicanism is right in general, even if ECUSA has gone off the deep end. Our only response can be an honest disagreement, which includes a clear statement of why we disagree, mixed with acceptance of the decison they make and support where we can honestly give it.

There is an old Latin saying (from Blessed Augustine?): in necesarias, unitas; in dubias, diversitas, in omnia, caritas - 'in what is necessary, unity; in what is open to doubt, diversity; in all things, charity.' Certainly proclaiming an anathema is a fearful thing and should not be undertaken lightly. It must not be motivated by anger, or fear, or malice, but only be love for the Truth. It must be directed to the avoidance of wrong teaching, and not toward the persecution of anybody. The last thing we need in this world is more 'holy war.' I do believe that in examining the Anglican situation we are talking about necesarias, not dubias, but still the rule must be caritas.

If I've held your attention, and you've read this far, I look forward to your comments.

[Alec Lowly]

Over the course of the last 23 years since I came to the Orthodox Church from the Anglican Communion (ECUSA), I have had reasons to seriously consider the state of that communion and Orthodox relations with it. Some might see my views as 'sour grapes' but I think not. I have observed specific theological trends that form the basis of my views. I believe that the Anglican Communion poses a unique problem for Orthodox in terms of 'ecumenical' relations for a couple of reasons (and these are not in order of priroity): 1) It is a simple fact that Anglicans from the late 19th century through the 1950s were the closest friends Orthodox had in the West. Anglicans gave shelter to Orthodox in many situations, and still do provide a place for worship in some instances. Superficially, the poliity of the Anglican Communion is similar to that of the Orthodox Church, with administratively distinct, autocephalous churches joined together by common principles. 2) On the opposite side of the coin, Anglican theology has been called rightly 'the theology of imprecision,' as opposed to 'imprecise theology,' a reality that is absolutely alien to orthodoxia, diametrically opposed even. Anglicans pride themselves on their "Anglican Comprehensiveness, by which they strive to hold all manners of theology together. Following from this: 3) The so-called branch theory of Anglicanism, that suggests that the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are all equally branchdes of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is likewise contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology and a source of confusion in Orthodox-Anglican relations.

It is important that Orthodox recognise and appreciate the hospitality shown by Anglicans. That is just common decency. This does not mean, however, that Orthodox should for a moment concede to Anglican Comprehensiveness or the Branch Theory. In 1976 the issue of the ordination of women further complicated matters, and most recently, in 2003 the Episcopal Church chose to 'consecrate' an openly gay man to the episcopal office, against the express advice, pleas, even of other constituent provinces of the Anglican Communion, giving rise to schism within the Communion. These moves were justified by Anglican Comprehensiveness, and are seen among Anlgicans, who uphold the branch theory, as enriching the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It goes without saying that fundamental Orthodox doctrine excludes the very notion of Anglican Comprehensiveness. The Holy Fathers, at all times, and our all of our hierarchs today, have sworn to uphold the one Orthodox Faith, which is not divided by personal experiences or feelings, or cultural experiences of the Gospel, or whatever. Likewise, by the same principle, the Church itself cannot be divided into varying doctrinal branches. 'There is one body and one Spirit…one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism…' (Eph. 4:4-6). The branch theory was rightly condemned as heresy by ROCOR in 1983, and I have yet to meet any Orthodox outside of ROCOR who would disagree with this particular point. For Orthodox, the criterion of the faith is Tradition. Tradition is not just custom, it is the very content of the Gospel, expressed and enshrined in Scriptures, Liturgy, Ikons, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church Fathers, etc. It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The practical problem that I see is that it has been the policy in most Orthodox jurisdictions to receive Anglicans and others by Chrismation, rather than Baptism. Various justifications are given for this, but they generally point back to the practise espoused in the canons of receiving different heretical groups by different means. It has been deemed that since Anglicans do believe in the Trinity, their Baptism is 'valid.' What is meant by this term is rather ambiguous, it seems to me, but what it comes down to is that, at the very least, there is something there to work with, and through Chrismation, the Holy Spirit can heal that which is infirm and complete that which is lacking.

It is time to challenge the presuppositions about Anglican baptism. One defence of the current policy among most Orthodox (I say current but it is already changing in some places) is the canonical epistle of St Basil the Great, in which he distinguishes between heretics and schismatics. Those who appeal to this epistle will say that Anglicans fall into the category of schismatics, not heretics. However true that may have been at one time, it is very questionable now. The revisionnism that has allowed the ordination both of women and of avowed homosexuals has distorted the very understanding of God as Trinity. Many feminist Anglicans refuse to address the Trinity as 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' They opt instead for supposedly gender-neutral terms like 'creator, redeemer, sanctifier.' These terms are supposedly more inclusive, but they are, in fact, exclusive. They exclude the very language of Scripture itself, and they exclude the reality that gender, according to Scripture, is important. Hence, these revisionists, have done exactly what St Basil said heretics do: they pervert the doctrine of God. Therefore, the very basis on which those who have until now supported the reception of Anglicans by Chrismation, must now be applied to end that practise. If by that principle, previously Trinitarian Anglicans could be received by Chrismation only, that principle demands, not just allows, that modernist, revisionist Anglicans be received as un-baptised. At the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States, there was a motion to reaffirm Christ as the unique Saviour, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That motion failed in committee. It never even made it to the floor. Hence, there is not even a lowest-common-denominator by which the Episcopal Church can be seen as Christian, and no basis for accepting Episcopalian rites as having any substance whatsoever, based on the very rule of St Basil that has been used to support a 'recognition' of Anglican baptism.

However, in considering this, we are faced with another problem. The revisionism of ECUSA (the American Episcopal Church) has given rise to schism within the Anglican Communion. The Anglican provinces of the 'Gloal South,' that is Africa and parts of South America, are opposed to the Episcopalian views and have gone so far as to break communion (astonishing for Anglicans), and even further, to accept clergy into their jurisdictions without canonical release. They have been bold in the face of Episcopalian heresy. How then, do we relate to these Anglicans? Do we continue to accept them by Chrismation? Would it be an undue insult to lump them together with the Episcopalians by baptising the whole lot? Is there a basis for doing anything else? Sadly, while I don't wish to lump the whole lot together, sacramentally, I don't see that we have a choice. The simple fact is that the root cause of the revisionism in North America is Anglican Comprehensiveness. If anyone doubts that, let them read sermons, addresses, and articles by the revisionists and they will see repeated appeals to comprehensiveness. The principle of Anglican Comprehensiveness has not be repudiated by the Global South or any other Anglicans. While they may not have embraced the blatant anti-Trinitarian heresies, they still embrace the heretical principle of latitude in theology according to local, even personal reasoning and experience. While they may speak of the three legs of 'Scripture, tradition, and reason', they do not understand the same thing by the word Tradition. To them it is custom, and custom can be changed, and must change according to 'reason.' Likewise, the understanding of Scripture must be subject to 'reason.'

At the same time, the conservative Anglicans are without doubt people who are struggling as best as they can within their own context. They are sincere, if not orthodox, in their faith. It is my firm conviction that we should lend them every ounce of moral support that we honestly can. We shouldn't fudge on anything, of course, but whereever we can be supportive, we should. That is the least we can do to show respect to the fact that they have helped us in the past on numerous occasions. My immeidate suggestion is to do what the Moscow Patriarchate has already done: break off all diplomatic (ecumenical) relations with revisionist Anglicans. They are fruitless anyways. There is no basis for common discussion. If we are to continue to engage in ecumenical discussion and cooperation in humanitarian areas, as I believe we may, it should be with those with whom there is a basis for discussion. The Antiochian Archdiocese has already adopted this principle, as I understand, and has withdrawn from the NCC, but not from all ecumenical contacts. If this is combined with equally strong efforts to foster positive, honest, constructive relations with the conservative Anglicans, our message will be loud and clear. If we do not do this, will not our emphasis on the importance of orthodoxy seem rather hollow?

Finally, and this will be more difficult in the light of what I just said, I believe it is necessary to communicate to our own faithful (and to Anglicans) that we totally reject the branch theory and Anglican Comprehensiveness on principle. I have long thought that ROCOR's anathema of the branch theory was not only right, but necessary and should be more widely adopted. Sadly, because they proclaim their communion to be a branch of the One, HOly, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I see little choice but to specifically include Anglicanism in the anathemata on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (which means that I think we need to abandon the absurd practise of not actually pronouncing the anathemata, but reducing the service down to one tiny excerpt from the Synodikon of Orthodoxy). Other liberal Protestants don't identify themselves so strongly with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, so there is less need to specifically address their situation, although a general anathema against liberal revisionism would be a good idea too. Another reason to single out Anglicanism is that there has been a lot of confusion on both sides about Orthodox 'recognition of Anglican Orders' and that kind of thing. At one time, Orthodox who had no access to Orthodox parishes, were advised to attend Anglican parishes. In some ill-advised cases, communion was understood to be permitted, whether or not it really was. St Raphael (Hawaweeny) came to regret his advice to his flock to turn to Anglicans under even limited conditions. The end result was a perception of a state of 'inter-communion' existing, and that perception has not entirely gone away. Under the present circumstances, it is important that it be thoroughly irradicated. I say this, not out of spite for anybody, but in the spirit in which the anathemata have always been understood; as means of protecting the faithful from confusion. In a world in which the evil one's greatest accomplishments are to convince everyone that he doesn't exist, and to reduce faith down to personal opinion that is culturally relative, it is important for Orthodox to state clearly and emphatically what the Church's faith is, and what it is not. The fathers never backed down from this, nor should we today. I have Episcopalian friends for whom I feel deeply because they are in great turmoil. It is not easy to just pack up and leave 'home,' no matter how right it is. We should be sympathetic, and above all, we must distinguish between the heretical institution and the conflicted individuals who do not adhere to the heresies being taught, and who want to do right but just don't know where to turn. Many disaffected Episcopalians will still believe that Anglicanism is right in general, even if ECUSA has gone off the deep end. Our only response can be an honest disagreement, which includes a clear statement of why we disagree, mixed with acceptance of the decison they make and support where we can honestly give it.

There is an old Latin saying (from Blessed Augustine?): in necesarias, unitas; in dubias, diversitas, in omnia, caritas - 'in what is necessary, unity; in what is open to doubt, diversity; in all things, charity.' Certainly proclaiming an anathema is a fearful thing and should not be undertaken lightly. It must not be motivated by anger, or fear, or malice, but only be love for the Truth. It must be directed to the avoidance of wrong teaching, and not toward the persecution of anybody. The last thing we need in this world is more 'holy war.' I do believe that in examining the Anglican situation we are talking about necesarias, not dubias, but still the rule must be caritas.

If I've held your attention, and you've read this far, I look forward to your comments.

Dear Mr. Harrison,

In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.

I agree with you, in the main, especially the resolute rejection of branch theory.

Concerning the reception of Anglicans into Orthodoxy, how would you address the circumstance that precisely those Anglicans most willing to make the change are those whose beliefs concerning the Trinity, and most all other core dogma, are basically orthodox? We receive these people by telling them that they're not really Christian and so need to be baptized?

Concerning the anathemata, well ... we have yet to arrive, it seems to me, at a place where all jurisdictions have endorsed, or are even willing to endorse, ROCOR's anathema, never mind proclaim anathemata of their own. What's to be done about this, I cannot say.

IC XC NIKA,
Alec Lowly

[Mark Harrison]

Dear Mr. Harrison,

In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.

I agree with you, in the main, especially the resolute rejection of branch theory.

Concerning the reception of Anglicans into Orthodoxy, how would you address the circumstance that precisely those Anglicans most willing to make the change are those whose beliefs concerning the Trinity, and most all other core dogma, are basically orthodox? We receive these people by telling them that they're not really Christian and so need to be baptized?

Concerning the anathemata, well ... we have yet to arrive, it seems to me, at a place where all jurisdictions have endorsed, or are even willing to endorse, ROCOR's anathema, never mind proclaim anathemata of their own. What's to be done about this, I cannot say.

IC XC NIKA,
Alec Lowly

Hi Alec,

First, thank you for the correction of my Latin. I was trying to remember the quote from twenty years ago. That'll learn me good!

Regarding your first question: I think the principle of oikonomia can be justified here. I remember reading, somewhere, (Metropolitan ANTONY (Khrapovitsky), or St BASIL?) that it would be wrong to lump some group they were dealing with in with pagans and the like. Certainly Arians were received without baptising them in spite of their heresy. Precisely because it would be the more orthodox Anglican who would be attracted to Orthodoxy, oikonomia might be justifiable - for a while.

As I have considered this question over the years, I have thought in terms of a relativley arbitrary year of demarcation: those born before that year might be received by Chrismation, while those born after that year would be baptised. The year I've always used in my own mind has been 1976 - the year of the infamous General Convention scorned even by the retired Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Michael Ramsey (the last truly great Abp of Canterbury, IMO). My logic has been that those born in or after 1976, have never known anything but a revisionist Episcopal Church and overall, revisionist Anglicanism. While some born before (like in 1970-1975) would be too young to really know the difference, they were at least born before revisionism totally took over. God can sort them out. My date is arbitrary, and one could argue for 1974, the year of the ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven, or even 1970, just because it's the beginning of a new decade and when the revisions of the BCP were really getting underway. The advantage there would be that people born before 1970 would at least have some faint possibility of knowing that severe changes had taken place.

I was born in 1961. I remember an Episcopal Church that was clearly different from the one I left. I have no doubt that my teachers then were sincere Christians. All of the truly faithful Anglicans (Episcopalians) I know now were already adults when I was a child. This is part of why I think this scheme could do justice to the situation. Those are the people, the ones born well before 1970 even, who would be inclined to come to Orthodoxy. Like I said, 1976 was an arbitrary and somewhat symbolic year to choose. It gives the benefit of the doubt to many who might be in a grey zone.

After 1976, however, everyone who was born into and grew up in the Episcopal Church has lived their entire lives under the influence of revisionism. There is no way around that. Even the children of one of my faithful Episcopalian friends (this friend is my mothers age, and her kids are half a generation younger than I), show the marked influence of revisionism. We cannot speak the same language as well as I do with their mother. In short, to them, the revisionist theology is normal, even normative.

This basic principle could be applied to other Anglicans as well, with different arbitrary dates. Anglicans from the province of Nigeria, for example, might have as their date, no date at all, or it might be a much more recent date, depending on how much feminist theology has crept into that province. I know the Anglican Church of Nigeria has been firm on the 39 Articles and the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which is a beginning, at least. In fact, I guess that in the back of my mind, the adherence to the Quadrilateral on the part of the province as a whole is a premise for considering (but not requiring) reception by oikonomia, since revisionism violates the Quadrilateral. Thus in Anglican provinces in which the Quadrilateral is still taken serious, there can be a basis for reception by Chrismation, while in provinces where it has been eroded, it would be necessary to go back to where it was still taken seriously and use that as the arbitrary date. I think that from a formal point of view, that happened in 1976 in ECUSA, even if it was already happening informally years before.

All of this assumes that we find the application of oikonomia to be warranted at all, in the case of any Anglicans, or any heterodox for that matter. This review of the Anglican situation I think is a special needs case, but not one that is isolated from the need to look at how we receive converts period. The OCA, following the Russian practise that was in place at least in the 19th century, if not all the way back to Peter I, receives Protestants by Chrismation as a general rule, though this is beginning to change. The MP follows this practise as well, but they are not even asking ROCOR to change their practise, which is the opposite - receiving by Baptism, with Chrismation being the exception to the rule. I have heard various things from the Greeks and Antiochians, which leads me to believe that change is happening there too. We need to re-think our policies here. The syncretistic nature of the WCC, run mostly by Protestants, demands that we do so. I'll go one step further and say that I think that once ROCOR and MP are reconciled, it will be high time to hold a pan-Orthodox council to seriously examine Western Christianity as a whole. For too long people have hidden behind the excuse that no ecumenical council has ever condemned Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It shouldn't take an ecumenical council to name this or that group heretical if said group obviously adheres to heresies already condemned (as in the case of most Protestants who are ikonoclastic), but nevertheless, it would be helpful for us internally to seriously review Western sects and define what heresies we find in them, or don't find in them, if such is the case with any. Such a move, would be very 'anti-ecumenical,' of course, but that shouldn't be our priority. At the same time, such a review should not be undertaken with malice or an a priori intent to discredit. The sole motive must be the Truth of the Gospel: to rightly divide the Word of Truth for the sake of the welfare of the Orthodox faithful. This may also be a painstaking process, calling upon us to have varying practises with the various Protestant sects. Very likely, the Roman Catholics would have to be evaluated quite separately. No matter what the present situation, they do relate to a millennium of common history with us. In principle, they have hierarchy and a sacramental life, even if we adjudge it 'invalid' in the end as some do now. It seems most likely to me that they would fit in closer to the Monophysites. There is an objective common ground with them that does not exist with the Protestant world, and that must be recognised and taken into account.

Regarding the common adoption among all Orthodox of ROCOR's anathema, it might not actually be that difficult. For one thing, the MP has already accepted it in principle. As I said elsewhere, I know no Orthodox who would reject it. It might have to be amended slightly in the context of a pan-Orthodox council, just so that everybody feels they had a voice in it, before it could be adopted, but I don't think the basic principle is a problem. I SURE HOPE NOT! One way to make it go down well with some of the more staunch ecumenists might be to set it into a wider context, such as what I outlined above about a review of Western Christianity as a whole in the light of Tradition. As a whole, I think ecumenical fever is waning and ROCOR's anathema will find less and less resistance in the near future, even it its present form.

[Kosta]

Due to modernism we have forgotten what the canons teach on reception of converts. This is because the priests have gotten "lazy". It is easier to chrismate and be done with it than to perform a baptism. So instead we paraphrase canon 7 of constantinople and canon 95 of the quinisext council leaving out much.

What our bishops do not want us to know, is that chrismation (only) for reception of converts into the Church was limited to those groups whose leaders were at one timed ordained bishops of the Church, but left to join/lead a heterodox/and or schismatic group. These groups had apostolic succession and also followed the same form (triple immersion & a trinitarian formula) The Aryans were recieved back into the church thru chrismation only. But the Eunomians were re-baptised, soley because they baptised using a single immersion.
St Basil taught that both triple immersion and a Trinitarian formula is the Tradition to be followed

Those groups claiming to be christian but never had ties with the Church, (those whose leaders had no apostolic succesion) were labeled as gnostics and had to be (re)baptised. Most heterodox groups except for the monophysites, assyrians and the RC fall under this category.
Canon 95 of Quinisext updated the canon from Constantinople and declared that nestorians and monophysites can be admitted to Holy Communion without baptism or chrismation, thru a renunciation of heresies and the heresiarchs who were behind them.
This is because both nestorians and monophysites had the same exact form, the same exact understanding of the Trinity (they accept the first 2 ecumenical councils) and their bishops had apostolic succession.

Bit dont take my word for it read the canons for yourself canon 7:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-61.htm#P4014_722138

And heres the link, scroll down to canon 95 (xcv):


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.html

[Alec Lowly]

I'll go one step further and say that I think that once ROCOR and MP are reconciled, it will be high time to hold a pan-Orthodox council to seriously examine Western Christianity as a whole. For too long people have hidden behind the excuse that no ecumenical council has ever condemned Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It shouldn't take an ecumenical council to name this or that group heretical if said group obviously adheres to heresies already condemned (as in the case of most Protestants who are ikonoclastic), but nevertheless, it would be helpful for us internally to seriously review Western sects and define what heresies we find in them, or don't find in them, if such is the case with any. Such a move, would be very 'anti-ecumenical,' of course, but that shouldn't be our priority. At the same time, such a review should not be undertaken with malice or an a priori intent to discredit. The sole motive must be the Truth of the Gospel: to rightly divide the Word of Truth for the sake of the welfare of the Orthodox faithful. This may also be a painstaking process, calling upon us to have varying practises with the various Protestant sects. Very likely, the Roman Catholics would have to be evaluated quite separately. No matter what the present situation, they do relate to a millennium of common history with us. In principle, they have hierarchy and a sacramental life, even if we adjudge it 'invalid' in the end as some do now. It seems most likely to me that they would fit in closer to the Monophysites. There is an objective common ground with them that does not exist with the Protestant world, and that must be recognised and taken into account.

Well, Mark, we see eye to eye on this. Such a pan-Orthodox council is long overdue. Its agenda ought to include, as well, the settling and good order of jurisdictional claims in all areas outside the traditional boundaries of the ancient patriarchates and the later-established patriarchal churches -- which just happens to be most of the planet.

Alec Lowly

[Mark Harrison]

Well, Mark, we see eye to eye on this. Such a pan-Orthodox council is long overdue. Its agenda ought to include, as well, the settling and good order of jurisdictional claims in all areas outside the traditional boundaries of the ancient patriarchates and the later-established patriarchal churches -- which just happens to be most of the planet.

Alec Lowly

Oh, you mean deal with the EP's dubious interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon? That should make for a very interesting synod. I can't wait to see that!

Yes, I am being rather sarcastic, but I do agree with you. The Sourozh situation is just another chapter in the long struggle between the Russian interpretation of Canon 28 and the EP's. Personally, I just can't comprehend where the EP is coming from. The Russian interpretation seems self-evidently correct to me.

This matter, however, would be best discussed in a thread of its own, and I do think it is worth discussion. I'd like to stick to the Anglicanism issue here, if any interest develops.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Oh, you mean deal with the EP's dubious interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon? That should make for a very interesting synod. I can't wait to see that!

Yes, I am being rather sarcastic, but I do agree with you. The Sourozh situation is just another chapter in the long struggle between the Russian interpretation of Canon 28 and the EP's. Personally, I just can't comprehend where the EP is coming from. The Russian interpretation seems self-evidently correct to me.

This matter, however, would be best discussed in a thread of its own, and I do think it is worth discussion. I'd like to stick to the Anglicanism issue here, if any interest develops.

Yes- while discussing on this thread we should remain on the theme the title of this thread refers to.

In Christ- Fr Raphael (temporary moderator)

[Mark Harrison]

Due to modernism we have forgotten what the canons teach on reception of converts. This is because the priests have gotten "lazy". It is easier to chrismate and be done with it than to perform a baptism. So instead we paraphrase canon 7 of constantinople and canon 95 of the quinisext council leaving out much.

What our bishops do not want us to know, is that chrismation (only) for reception of converts into the Church was limited to those groups whose leaders were at one timed ordained bishops of the Church, but left to join/lead a heterodox/and or schismatic group. These groups had apostolic succession and also followed the same form (triple immersion & a trinitarian formula) The Aryans were recieved back into the church thru chrismation only. But the Eunomians were re-baptised, soley because they baptised using a single immersion.
St Basil taught that both triple immersion and a Trinitarian formula is the Tradition to be followed
Those groups claiming to be christian but never had ties with the Church, (those whose leaders had no apostolic succesion) were labeled as gnostics and had to be (re)baptised. Most heterodox groups except for the monophysites, assyrians and the RC fall under this category.
Canon 95 of Quinisext updated the canon from Constantinople and declared that nestorians and monophysites can be admitted to Holy Communion without baptism or chrismation, thru a renunciation of heresies and the heresiarchs who were behind them.
This is because both nestorians and monophysites had the same exact form, the same exact understanding of the Trinity (they accept the first 2 ecumenical councils) and their bishops had apostolic succession.

I am sorry if I offend, but I think you are being too simplistic here. I am reasonably familiar with the canons to which you refer, but there is another historical precedent: the Russian Church, since long before the twentieth century and ecumenism, modernism, etc. crept in, has received converts from the Christian West by Chrismation for most Protestants and mere profession of faith (in some cases, at least) for Latin converts. This is not a product of modern laziness or ecumenism. Even ROCOR recognises that. It's a bit rich to be accusing our hierarchs of a cover-up in this matter when there is a lot more to the issue than you're admitting. It is equally rich to accuse all of our clergy of chrismating instead of baptising owing to laziness when they are bound to obey their bishops. What is more, I now know far more clergy who baptise as their normative practise, and they are not ROCOR priests either.

That being said, I believe that ROCOR is wise in not continuing that practise. Whatever its merits were in the past, our present day situation, I believe, demands a review at the very least, but most likely a reversion to having Baptism be the norm, even for those who were 'baptised' in Protestant sects. Roman Catholics, as you seem to agree yourself, are a bit different. There is there a definite connection to the Church, however defective we may see their rites due to their doctrinal innovations. By my own logic, I'd have to distinguish between Latins and Anglicans, for example. For all the bad things we can say about the Papacy, one good thing is that we know what Rome teaches, officially at least. If reconciliation were ever to become a real possibility, I think Orthodox should expect the Vatican to really clamp down on the numerous vocal, liberal heretics out there. Nevertheless, at present I do believe that it is within the spirit of the canons to receive Latins by Chrism at the most. The Vatican resolutely holds to the dogmas of all seven Ecumenical Councils. Ironically, it is the very issues addressed by those councils that are now fundamental problems in the Christian West.

Anglicans in particular have an insatiable appetite for things ancient and oriental. The problem is that it is a museum curiosity, not a humbly submissive desire to entire into the life expressed by things ancient and oriental. The Oxford Movement had potential to restore Anglicanism, or at least some sectors of Anglicanism, to Orthodoxy. The study of the fathers, and the re-familiarisation with the liturgical life of the East was sincere and it definitely had a profound effect on the consciousness of Oxford Anglicans. In spite of the people being tried in ecclesiastical court for being ritualists at one point, most of the ritualism of the Oxford Movement slowly became common place in Anglican parishes. So why didn't Oxford Anglicans become Orthodox, or at least Roman Catholic?

One did go to Rome: John Cardinal Newman. He was alone, however, in seeing that within Anglicanism, the Patristic and liturgical revival was just a museum exercise. Anglican Comprehensiveness, to which he bears witness, would never allow the Tracts to subplant the Thirty-Nine Articles, not to mention become the doctrinal norm of the Anglican Communion. At first the Oxford scholars were ridiculed and persecuted, but the principle of comprehensiveness won out and the Oxford Movement found its place along side the Evangelical or reformed wing of Anglicanism. Thus, in my own day, one cleric could refer to Our Lady as ever-virgin and another could call perpetual virginity medieval hogwash. There was no living continuity to inform the very ecclesial life and faith of the Anglican Communion. It was all like looking at the ancient Fathers through a telescope. If you happen to know the episode of the original Star Trek series called "The Squire of Gothos," it illustrates what my point very well. The 'squire' had created replicas of things on earth, which he had been observing from light years way, but none of them had substance: he had a fire that didn't put out heat, for example. Everything was a shadow of the reality because he didn't really have any personal knowledge of the reality - no living connection. Likewise, the Oxford Anglicans had no living connection to the Fathers or the ecclesial life in which the Fathers lived, so the best they could come up with were shadows, some more substantial than others because of their contact with Rome.

As a result, Anglicans in particular believe that if they have the proper forms they're fine. They (at least ECUSA) have added a paraphrase of "Blessed is the Kingdom…" to the beginning of their liturgy. They've added a post-baptismal anointing with oil to the Baptismal rite, and the kontakion for the departed and the Paschal troparion to their funeral office. Many are communing infants now. Their Eucharistic Prayer D is a redaction and paraphrase of the anaphora of St. Basil. To them, this makes the 1979 BCP much more 'catholic' than the 1928. Codswallop, I say! It's all form, with no substance. The Byzantine formulae and practises are all optional, first of all, nor do they ever use the original text; instead they paraphrase it to not offend anybody. Secondly, in the case of the post-baptismal anointing, the formula itself betrays their lack of understanding of Chrismation. It says, 'you are sealed with the Holy Spirit in baptism and marked as Christ's own forever.' Only Baptism is the real sacrament, as per the 39 Articles of Religion; what the anointing is, well, my broad church pastor told me when I was a teenager that nobody really knew! That was one of the big questions that was in the back of my mind when I first read Bishop KALLISTOS' book The Orthodox Church.

I learned a joke as an Episcopalian: The setting is Midnight Mass at St Patrick's Cathedral (RC) in NYC, back in the days of the Tridentine Latin Mass. As the acolyte is walking up the steps to the altar with the cruets of wine and water, he trips and drops the cruets, which shatter, spilling the wine and water. An attending cleric says quietly to another, 'They'll be doing that at St Mary the Virgin (High-Church Episcopal) for the next fifty years.'

In one Episcopal Church in San Diego, they used to have an 'Orthodox' liturgy every year on 6 August - the Transfiguration. They sang the Creed sans Filioque, they crossed themselves from right to left, they performed the offertory procession in the style of the Great Entrance, commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople right along with the Abp of Canterbury, the Pope, the head of the ELCA, etc. They rented out an ikon from an art gallery. The clergy duly venerated it, the laity just stared at it admiringly as they walked by. They had priests playing deacons, and so forth. For all of their Orthodox trapping, it was abundantly clear that they had no idea what Orthodoxy is all about. It was all playing church.

This problem extends further. As I said earlier, the very issues addressed by the Seven Oecumenical Councils are being raised again as revisionists 're-think' everything, hoping to come up with a 'better' understanding. If one reads the feminist theology behind the ordination of women (e.g. in Newsweek, Feb 13, 1989), one will find blatant attacks on the doctrines on Trinitarian theology and Christology. At the Episcopalian cathedral they at least used to have (and I have seen this with my own eyes) a 'christa,' an 'ikon' of a female christ, depicted as crucified, with a dagger in her bosom with the American flag on the hilt, and at her feet a plaque that read: Nicaragua: Años - Muertos (Nicaragua: years - number of dead). It pretty much summed up all seven Oecumenical Councils in the form of a travesty. In the bookstore of General Theological Seminary (Episcopal), some 12 years ago, I found texts about examing the Pauline writings from a Gnostic perspective. I didn't find any other texts, even after asking an employee. Apparently, and I could be mistaken, of course, the Gnostic approach is now the norm there.

Yes, Anglicans do a lot of mimmicking, owing to their museum fascination with the past combined with their lack of real understanding. But they are not the only ones. Their claims that because they have the right forms they are part of the Church is what make me believe that we need to single them out in the anathemata. There is a much higher risk of confusion among uneducated, or mis-educated Orthodox. This doesn't mean that all other Protestants are just fine. This fascination with things ancient and oriental has spread as Protestant syncretism has flourished. According to one professor at SVS who came back from an ecumenical meeting, the head of the United Methodist Church had said that 50% of their ministers baptised using a formula other than the traditional Trinitarian formula! The United Methodists also used to have, and may still have, a bumber sticker advertising the Holy Spirit: 'catch the wave.' If there is any evidence of the damage done by Filioque, that's it. Last I heard, they were defending Filioque more than the Vatican!

The end result, is that I would agree in advocating making Baptism the normative means for receiving converts, reserving Chrismation mostly for Latins or non-Chalcedonians. But I don't see the situation as simplistically as you seem to. If we return to that practise, after centuries of a different practise, we must consider our reasons. My argument is that it is because the social conditions have reverted back to what they were when those canons were composed. We are once again surrounded by rampant paganism, and 'Christian' sects, that teach all sorts of heresies, and Gnosticism isn't the least of them. For this reason, not simply because the canons say so, there is now the same need to be especially careful about guarding the Faith as there was in ancient times. Whether or not it was a good idea, the practise of receiving Western converts did exist in imperial Russia, and it was not motivated by ecumenist capitulations. The Greeks, who at least part of the time, received even Latins by Baptism, did not repudiate the Russian practise as far as I know. Likewise, the MP and ROCOR have agreed that each will keep its own practise in this matter. Neither is seen as uncanoncial, or a product of laziness or extremism, or anything other than different, based on different perceptions of the situation at hand. Each sees the other as applying the Church's doctrinal and liturgical norms to their situation. This seems to me to be a very common sense arrangement. If only common sense were more common.

[Kosta]

Dear Mark, Thank-you for your reply.
Before i get into my comments i would like to thank monachos.net. This is the only Orthodox Forum site ive been to where controversial Orthodox topics are discussed with people who have an awareness of them and do not sink to polemics.

You are right to say that in Russia , converts of protestant background are accepted by chrismation and RC by renunciation of heresy. I believe many times ROCOR also chrismates protestants but does not baptise them. (Not sure how they recieve RC) I read somewhere that Fr Seraphim Rose was accepted into Orthodoxy by ROCOR thru chrismation only but he lamented that he was not (re)baptised.
What i would like to know is if the russian practise sets forth "a precedence" or was it an anomaly to begin with. George Florovosky speaks of the 300 years of Latin captivity of the Russian Church. For uniformity i would like the most ancient canons (the ones i mentioned) to be the "norm".
As a hypothetical example, in 200 years from now an infant Orthodox Church somwhere in the diaspora, may look back at our times, here in america and use the confusion on this subject as evidence that exceptions have always been the norm on this issue. That the american Orthodox experience justifys variant interpretations on what is the understanding of heterodox baptism and for whom (re)baptism is reserved for. Unfortunately all it shows is the mass confusion. The current baptism issue on reception of converts (for me) doesnt demonstrate the laying of a foundation of "precedense " which future churches can use as part of apostolic Tradition. This is how i view the russian practises. Atleast 1 ecumenical council can help us in having a legitimate uniformity based on the Fathers.

Also i do not want you to think that i believe the bishops are covering things up. Its a matter of practicality and they have to shy away of mentioning certain parts of the canon to avoid controversy among their flocks. But i strongly believe that the Laity has a role in reminding bishops to not cross reasonable boundaries as well. The Laity involvement in preserving what was handed down to us without corruption is also an integral part of that same tradition.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Mark, Thank-you for your reply.
Before i get into my comments i would like to thank monachos.net. This is the only Orthodox Forum site ive been to where controversial Orthodox topics are discussed with people who have an awareness of them and do not sink to polemics.

You are right to say that in Russia , converts of protestant background are accepted by chrismation and RC by renunciation of heresy. I believe many times ROCOR also chrismates protestants but does not baptise them. (Not sure how they recieve RC) I read somewhere that Fr Seraphim Rose was accepted into Orthodoxy by ROCOR thru chrismation only but he lamented that he was not (re)baptised.
What i would like to know is if the russian practise sets forth "a precedence" or was it an anomaly to begin with. George Florovosky speaks of the 300 years of Latin captivity of the Russian Church. For uniformity i would like the most ancient canons (the ones i mentioned) to be the "norm".
As a hypothetical example, in 200 years from now an infant Orthodox Church somwhere in the diaspora, may look back at our times, here in america and use the confusion on this subject as evidence that exceptions have always been the norm on this issue. That the american Orthodox experience justifys variant interpretations on what is the understanding of heterodox baptism and for whom (re)baptism is reserved for. Unfortunately all it shows is the mass confusion. The current baptism issue on reception of converts (for me) doesnt demonstrate the laying of a foundation of "precedense " which future churches can use as part of apostolic Tradition. This is how i view the russian practises. Atleast 1 ecumenical council can help us in having a legitimate uniformity based on the Fathers.

Also i do not want you to think that i believe the bishops are covering things up. Its a matter of practicality and they have to shy away of mentioning certain parts of the canon to avoid controversy among their flocks. But i strongly believe that the Laity has a role in reminding bishops to not cross reasonable boundaries as well. The Laity involvement in preserving what was handed down to us without corruption is also an integral part of that same tradition.

Wow! A fascinating discussion to say the least!

How to interpret past practice whether it was actually economia or unwarranted leniency is really a discussion I think of what it is proper to do now. There is an argument that the standard Russian way of receiving Christians though chrismation only dates only from the time of Peter the Great. Since his name is so often brought up in association with this the implication is that this was a conscious westernisation on his part imposed on the Church. There are so many parts to this argument that it is difficult to know for sure what the actual motivation was especially since we're talking about something that began (apparently) in the early 18th century.

One thing for sure however is that this way of receiving became standard through the next 200 years of common Russian practice. It certainly is part of the normal Book of Needs (Trebnik) where we find the services and rubrics for how to receive people into the Church. One would think that if this way of receiving without Baptism was really anathema somewhere within the Church there would have been resistance to this for example from the great Elders like those at Optina. And yet at least as far as I know this didn't occur.

I'm not sure that accepted practice of the past proves anything one way or the other. The evidence is certain that many different ways were used from baptism all the way to simple confession. What's not so simple is to interpret these different ways. One way that seems more fruitful is to look at the actual context, the when and why this particular way was used. Even here however we see variety as for example between St Basil the Great's inclination to use more strictness while he himself accepts that others of his time didn't.

What all of this shows I think is that there has indeed over the centuries been a variety of ways of receiving people. This doesn't mean however that the manner of reception is to be arbitrary or that all ways are of equal value. Rather it means that in each case or at different times and circumstances discernment is needed. The point of this is that no absolute standard is given us by the Church.

Even the more strict measure used recently by rocor I think bears this out. When official instructions went out to receive by baptism in no way was this done as a criticism of past practice which the Russian church used. Rather the instruction to Baptise was given to meet the changed modern circumstance in which the church found itself in. Thus beyond questions of whether Christians had been baptised in the name of the Trinity is the point of how close or far is the life of the denomination one was part of to that the Orthodox Church. And indeed one could ask how far one's personal life was from that of the Orthodox Church since a person can be Protestant or Catholic in name while not at all in practice.

This gets down to a discussion of what the relationship of the sacrament within the Church and ones way of life previous to the Church is actually supposed to be. Are the sacraments of Baptism or Chrismation supposed to cover everything regardless of the way one lived? Or is it more that the way one is received is supposed to be determined by the way of life of the person coming to the Church? One way seems to see the sacraments as being like a doctor who gives out one medicine as appropriate for all who come to him. While the other sees it as being like a doctor who must choose which medicine is appropriate for which condition.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mark Harrison]

Thank you, Fr Raphael. I think your thoughts sum up my own quite well, and you also bring in another factor that I had not: the personal life of the convert. I know of a man who was received from Roman Catholicism by Baptism in the OCA, with the blessing of the local hierarch. It was the conclusion of all involved that this man had not really been living a Christian life to that point, and therefore Baptism was the most appropriate route to take.

In this case, the norms about how converts in general are received were balanced with this man's particular life, and I think this points to the true understanding that St Basil had of the term oikonomia. We generally think of oikonomia as a 'dispensation' from the general rule, but that is rather one-sided. The term means 'household management' and implies 'good household management' or 'good pastoral practise.'

My favourite example is one of two teenage boys who are caught together in the same crime. The one is a repeat offender and insolent to boot, the other is a lost kid who let himself get caught up with the wrong crowd. He's never been in trouble before, even in school and his repentence is sincere. They both come before the judge. The judge hands down the maximum sentence to the first, and the minimum to the second. The norm of the law is the same, but the application is different, and in both cases, proper oikonomia is shown. Obviously the first kid just isn't getting the message. What is best for his soul, and for society, is a long stay in juvenile detention and a good work program while he's there. That's what he needs, and society needs to be protected from him until he gets his act together; therefore that is what oikonomia demands in his case. In the other boy's case, he's probably already suffered a lot of guilt and shame. His conscience is already punishing him. A punishment that includes making direct amends to the person vicitimised by his crime is probably the most medicinal solution in his case. Once again this is an exercise in oikonomia. What is important is that both are equally applications of the same principle of economy.

Now, going back to this case of the man being baptised, even though the OCA normally doesn't do that with RC converts, oikonomia said that the more appropriate course of action in this man's life was the stricter practise. It happened to have been what he requested anyway, and the local bishop agreed that in his case, the 'stricter' path was the appropriate one. That was, in my opinion, an excellent exercise of the principle of economy.

In the wider circle, I believe that our times have changed such that the 'stricter' practise going to be the more appropriate practise more and more, as I said before. My perception is that it should now the the norm, not the exception. Whatever the historical background is to the Russian practise, and however that may fit in the experience of the Russian Orthodox Church today, here in America at least, and in Western Europe too, the condition of society just doesn't seem to warrant this. Metropolitan KIRILL of Smolensk recently attended a conference called "Giving a Soul to Europe" recognising the de-Christianisation of Western Europe. In such a context, does reception by Chrismation seem to be the appropriate norm? Not to me, at least. I'd say that both the condition of the heterodox Christian institutions and of the individual people, are such that oikonomia would demand Baptism.

By the very same token, I could see how a faithful Anglican, raised in Nigeria with solid moral grounding, Trinitarian theology and Christology, could be received by Chrismation. The fact that the Nigerian province has broken communion with ECUSA suggests that there is still a firm Christian institution there, and a person who has been living a faithful life in that context is going to be very different from the person who has grown up as a nominal Christian in America or Western Europe. The Nigerian's life would suggest to me that reception by Chrismation is at least not inappropriate, that his Anglican baptism has had some substance to it; there is something there that can be healed and filled by the grace of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation. Of course, if the person wishes to be baptised, I'd not deny him.

When I set the arbitrary birth year of 1976, after which I'd receive all Anglicans, or at least all Episcopalians, by Baptism, I reckoned that those born after that year would have no hope of their baptisms having the kind of place in their own lives that would suggest that there was a 'suitable vessel' to be filled by the Holy Spirit. For one thing, the ECUSA as an institution had become blatantly heretical, even by the loosest standards. The result, however, is that there is no longer any genuine Christian formation. The aqueous rite of initiation is neither corresponds in itself to Orthodox Baptism in anyway, nor do its fruits correspond to genuine Christian life in the person who undergoes it. The person is left truly, 'an alien and a worldling.' The fact that he has been led to believe that he is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with a very false understanding of what that means, only complicates the matter further. I'd figure that a person who approaches Orthodoxy from that background is going to be rather messed up: confused, conflicted, and in search of moral and spiritual grounding. Such a person needs the solid start of Orthodox Baptism. Such a person is really very much at the point of starting a whole new life, as drastic as a former drug-user who is serious about starting a new life after rehabilitation. This is very different from my own experience. I came on a matter of principle, because I had discovered that what I had always believed, even from my earliest childhood, was in fact Orthodoxy, not Anglicanism. I was affirming what was true in my Anglican past, while casting off what was not, but there was much that was true. There was a solid core of faith in God as Trinity, and in the God-Manhood of Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, the Life. My path also included a rejection of an insitution in which these very core doctrines were being challenged in favour of the True Church, where they were the unquestionable standard of faith. That was the Church I had always believed in. Yes, I had a few things to learn yet, a few prejudices to overcome, but in those few cases, I said to God, 'I fully trust that you have shown me your Church and that I there I will come to understand these little things.' I cannot conceive of a child raised in the Episcopal Church today having the formation that allow an experience like mine. Of course, miracles do happen. In the Anglican Church of Nigeria, I think it is still quite possible.

Father Raphael is quite correct in pointing out the individual aspects of this issue. The relationship of heterodox insitutions to the Church, their closeness or alienation to or from the Church, is certain an important factor, and it always has been a factor in determining the general rules about how people from those institutions; but the particular life of the person coming to the Church is also a factor, and perhaps even the most important factor in determining not whether oikonomia will be applied, but how it will be applied, because in every case it will be oikonomia.

MAH

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The relationship of heterodox insitutions to the Church, their closeness or alienation to or from the Church, is certain an important factor, and it always has been a factor in determining the general rules about how people from those institutions; but the particular life of the person coming to the Church is also a factor, and perhaps even the most important factor in determining not whether oikonomia will be applied, but how it will be applied, because in every case it will be oikonomia.


Some may want to read the attached article on the Orthodox principle of economia. It is from a report read by Nun Vassa (Larin) in 2002.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This will be an opportunity to see how the attachments work!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It doesn't seem my attempt at uploading an attachment worked.

[Father David Moser]

I believe many times ROCOR also chrismates protestants but does not baptise them. (Not sure how they recieve RC)

Up until fairly recently - by that I mean in the 90's - ROCOR followed the practice of the pre-revolutionary Russian Church. That practice was a three tiered reception by 1) baptism and chrismation 2) chrismation and confession of faith or 3) confession of faith. Even the Tsaritsa Matryr Alexandra and her older sister the Grand-duchess Martyr Elizabeth were raised Lutheran (they were German princesses) and were recieved into Orthodoxy by Chrismation and confession of faith. You can read a discussion of the parameters of this practice at: www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

The Russian Church in Russia follows this practice to this day. ROCOR, sometime in the 90's (I think), issued an ukaze (proclamation) directing that all converts be received by baptism and chrismation without regard to their prior faith tradition. Exceptions were granted on a case by case basis by the ruling bishop of the diocese. (I have, btw, received people by all the above methods from time to time - all with episcopal blessing) There is no real move at present for ROCOR to abandon this practice.

Fr David Moser

[James M.]

As someone coming OUT of Anglicanism into Orthodoxy, I would have to agree with about 99% of your post. I guess I don't have a big deal with baptism and chrismation as opposed to simply chrismation. But then I'm flexible and not as off-put as many would be at being told they were formerly heterodox - even though God's call for them to leave seems a puzzle inside an enigma inside a riddle in this case.

Thus I wonder whether a blanket decision doesn't deny the circumstances and individuality of the person. But maybe there is a virtue in this as it may be easiest to simply treat all the same. And yes this is quibbling, yet would suggest that simply because contemporary period ECUSA has fallen where it has, doesn't mean EVERY baptism is false. Is it worth parsing everyone? I don't know. I do know that in 1965, things were simpler. And I wonder if even in Rome, emergency baptism can be performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost by even non-ordained persons and be recognized....I wonder if this desire to explicitly NOT recognize baptism is not giving in to albeit well-earned but nevertheless undue animus. There are those who I have known who made it this far into Orthodoxy and were turned off by failure to recognize their baptism as essentially telling them the error was in their Christianity rather than in their sacrament or the administering church.

Thus I guess I would find that if this last is the case, that exceptions for RC's seem to beg the question. I find much of the appeal in Orthodoxy is precisely the resistance to imbalance and animus seen among so many traditionalists....the emphasis on living in the Way and the Spirit rather than splitting hairs over the distinction between us and the folks we are thankful to be transformed from being (our former selves)....and it is this free-from Pharisee-likeness that I think I see more alive here in Orthodoxy than I can find in the other traditionalists - tradition with a heart.

That said, I do agree especially with the museum piece. And ditto for the Branch Theory: tried it...but it falls on the visible vs. invisible church notion.

FWIW, I was called out of ECUSA by the change of heart worked on me through the funeral of Pope John Paul II. It was clear at this point that one has to seek something closer to a relationship after his vision to be a real Christian. And I'm not sure "real" is the right word at all. But for me, this was seeking the relationship with God to parallel the sort I have with my wife: Full, Complete, Total, no holding back, no half measures, no "only this much and no more", full daily devotions, daily rituals - and this whole nine yards leads only to the Apostolic churches - Rome and Orthodoxy. This is real love, and I think what we hunger for when we find it. Pope John Paul was fortunate to have found it in a way that seemed transparently real, and alive. The Episcopal Church never taught me this in all my years....(Fact is, it no longer seems a teaching church)...but maybe my heart was simply hardened, too. Or maybe it wasn't questioned and led.

I spent a year in the Anglican Continuum, which is very anglocatholic and traditional. My priest called it a good detox for ECUSA. Fr. Evan (Greek Orthodox) called it still an island shipwreck rather than return. FWIW, the Continuing Anglicans rebaptise many protestants for precisely the same reason - as it is hardly ECUSA alone that uses the heretical rite. I never heard the 3-fold errors used in rituals...and I went to almost every service in my ECUSA parish - which otherwise was VERY liberal. But to the point, within the Continuing church, as time wore on, it became clear your museum comment was and still is spot-on. The saints, the Theotokos, the Seven Councils (Affirmation of St. Louis) - are all nominally "in"....but when I would question, it was clear the so called comprehensiveness comprehended it not. Parishoners were all over the landscape on their level of engagement, and the clergy take the Seven Councils only in terms of the doctrinal development and not the canons or other material ( out of my realm here, but in enough to see the difference). I think actually by accepting the saints - and BVM but without incorporating them, without giving them context but retaining the "museum" atmosphere, there is the sense that 1) there is room for future errors, and 2) people act adversely because they don't know what to make of it - and so leave with their pre-conceptions rightly or wrongly - still intact.
I began to want a statement of faith similar to the "I believe and I confess". The Nicene Creed is all well and good, same with the Apostles Creed (I have always felt strongly about the "Communion of Saints") but it is the St. Athanasius Creed that really spells out things - and seems sadly relinquished to the ashbin. In the year I spent with the Continuum, I never heard it. Did hear it recently on Trinity Sunday with the Antiochians. But the weekly recitation of "I Believe and I Confess" is great!

So I came not quite to Newman's conclusion in so many words, but to the conclusion that the more I talked to Anglocatholics the more I realized they were not home, and couldn't freely offer a home. There seemed not to be a future there. They were still decidedly Protestant in terms of a real unwillingness to submit to the Church, and yet their church wanted no part of them, or if they were in the Continuum, their church wanted in truth, to be seen as canonical and take the place of ECUSA - risking an unsecure future rather than seeking to join either Orthodoxy (as Peter Gilchrist did) or convert to Rome. And this backwards focus while standing still impairs their mission, and clarity of evangelical message.

All the same, I feel the Anglican church was a good beginner church: it doesn't ask too much, but then it doesn't give very much either. A sort of English austerity in a sense. The notion of maintaining two or three opposite perspectives in tension simply failed at the beginning and throughout Anglican history...typically leading to the stripping of altars, pilgrims, or blood. Nevertheless, I am happy to have been there...though the incessant change bothered me, .....increasingly because it forced me to the conclusion through this experience that I needed another Church where the same infectious fevers wouldn't follow, and the faith as I learned it wasn't a stranger. I am not afraid of doctrine, of teaching, but I saw no point in fighting in a place that had already conceded so much the Nicene Creed had been voted out. In fairness, most Epsicopalians don't know this because we don't read the papers coming out of the Conventions. It was our view that Conventions were for the truly committed crazy political-church types more interested in power than worship. Probably not too far off, either. Most folks simply never dreamed the shepherds would become the wolves, changing the institution into something far less....I hesitate in charity to say.

I guess in the end, the struggle is to get us past baptism and chrismation to real change of heart, real commitment. I will admit to the distinction between this being made OUTSIDE the church, and that made INSIDE the church is a wonder to me - as it is the SAME change of heart - once inside. And as someone still outside at the moment, I frankly see it as - whatever you guys want. Not much canonical guidance or argument from me.

But there is a larger point that I think is worthy. The jurisdictional dilemma has led to different practices and in a sense a lack of clarity where it should exist: what is the ground level for entry into the church. Your suggestion the church needs to decide this....and not just for America, but for the reconversion of Europ....is spot on, IMHO.

So then how do you convert a nation that thinks of itself as Christian, when in fact it may be christian (small c) or nominalist in so many ways....how do you do this gently? And for me it is important. I'm NOT important and to me, the whole shebang approach has some cool features I'm not keen to miss, but others may take a dimmer view. (Yep. He wants to bring his wife. Uh huh. You got it.) So there's the sales job I don't know how to win except through patience. Because telling someone I know is much deeper in Christian spirit than I'll ever be that she is somehow nominally unacceptable because an accident of birth made her a Methodist Christian rather than an Orthodox Christian is a problem I'll need help from a lot of folks to figure: Prayer for one, intercession, for another. For the moment, though, I'm not sure she's interested, and I remain thankful that the present state of confusion means there's a shot and not having to go to too many lengths to get her home, too.

[Mark Harrison]

Mr Mersereau,

First, before I forget, might I ask the name of the Fr Evan to whom you referred? I know very few Greek clergy, but the name Evan rings a bell.

The path through Anglo-Catholicism has one definite plus: it makes you think. All of us who come to Orthodoxy via that path are forced to contend with the truth that the Anglo-Catholic movement seeks to proclaim, and the inherent contradiction between that movement and that truth on the one hand, and the rest of the Anglican Communion on the other.

What saddens me most as I look at ECUSA, and I believe it is happening in other parts of the Anglican Communion as well, is that the term "Anglo-Catholic" is being hijacked by the revisionists. 'Catholicity' is being revised to mean 'everything goes.' A parish can be quite high church and off in the Delta Quadrant (to use a Star Trek image - I hope you get it) theologically and morally. It has been reduced to matters of taste and form, not conviction. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that Oxford always was a museum science, not living Tradition. The Tradition had been lost. Now, the very parish in which I learned devotion to the Catholic Faith is a fraud - it is a den of homosexuality disguised as Anglo-Catholicism.

The problem with Anglican comprehensivness (is there only one?) is that it is ultimately a form of syncretism in which each individual draws his own line as to how far out he or she wants to go. One person may only pick and choose among Orthodox and Roman devotions and beliefs. Another person, however, may be willing to pick and choose among Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist practises and beliefs. Granted, the 'Anglo-Catholic' types are more likely to fall into the first category, but that is not at all certain. The principle of comprehensiveness - that is, syncretism - is still there. I rather suspect that well-trained Anlgo-Catholics will be highly offended by what I just said. 'Me, a syncretist?' one might ask. Unfortunately, by remaining in the Anglican Communion, a person is still opting for syncretism. An American who leaves ECUSA for the province of Nigeria is admittedly making some conscious effort to get away from syncretism, but the principle is not absent even in Nigeria. Nigeria was in communion with ECUSA all the way up until 2003, in spite of the blatant revisionism that supported the ordination of women. Nigeria is still in communion with Canterbury, when the Archbishop of Canterbury himself admits that the Church of England doesn't know what position to take on the sexuality issue.

Glory to God you found your way. Sadly, many will not. God not only does not compel us to choose the right, he seldom even sticks it under our noses to see if we'll bite. There is a lot of choice on our own part; rather, there are many choices - subtle ones, little ones that add up, and lead us to the point where our consciences compel us. Each step along the way we can turn aside. Anglo-Catholicism is far easier. It is a 'broad' path, one of very little resistance. As you said, it doesn't demand much. It is appealing to the senses and even to reason in many ways. I saw a web-site the other day that used that horrible term 'spikey' to refer to people who go in for incense, sanctus bells, processions, etc. I can't even find the words to describe how offensive that term is to me, or what exactly it suggests. In loose terms, it suggests that incense and rituals and so forth are (just) for those of a particular personality type; comewhat compulsive, dramatic, drawn to the stylish or the elegant. In many cases, this happens to coincide with the 'gay' image, True catholic (Orthodox) values and theology are completely shoved aside in favour of a new agenda that rationalises wordly values and thus accepts them.

Rationalisation is just part of the world around us. We all rationalise from time to time, but most of us are caught by our consciences, at least up until relatively recently. Now, rationalisation is not even seen for what it is: the mind trying to justify what cannot be justified. The end result is that people do accept the rationalisation as true and reasonable and, taking the bate, they bite the hook of a lie; then it's too late. Truth itself is reduced to being a matter of preference or taste and if someone else challenges that 'truth,' he or she is a bigot. Nevermind the fact that such a line of reasoning is a fundamental logical fallacy - ad hominem attack. As in all cases of rationalisation (think of an addict, for example), the person blocks out evidence that will refute the cherished belief.

I hardly think it is our responsibility to convert the world, and from what I read in Scripture (e.g. Apocalypse of St John), it's not even possible or how God knows things will work out anyway. Western Christendom somehow got the idea that preaching the Gospel to all nations means that we are responsible for saving all nations, a notion that led to all sorts of perversions from the Inquisition to Tele-evangelism. Our responsibility is to make the Kingdom of God available to all nations, and we do that best by living our own lives in a manner that is conformed to the Kingdom. St Seraphim of Sarov is famous for saying if we aquire peace, a thousand people around us will be saved. This is our duty, and it applies even with our spouses and parents and children. We cannot force them, we cannot 'save' them. I tried to ground my 16-year-old son when he refused to go to church. After three weeks he made it clear that he was ready to stay grounded. I couldn't beat him - and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to! He is a bright young man, who is now almost 20. We've had positive exchanges since then. God willing, he will return, but probably not until the path he is choosing proves to be a dead end; nor have his choices been the worst possible choices by any means. He has done much of which I can be, and am, very proud. I affirm and praise what I can, and when the opportunity arises, I suggest where his choices might not be to his own advantage and try to present an Orthodox perspective.

If I were you, I'd not worry about my wife, and even less about the world. If my take on the apocalyptic passages in Scripture is even close, the world IS going to go to hell in a handbasket. There's no way around it. I don't mean to say that you should be apathetic. Obviously I am not. I'm the one who raised the issue of what to do with Anglicans. Even in this raising this question, perhaps I have erred. I like to think that I was motivated by the examples of the Holy Fathers who sought diligently to rightly divide the word of truth for the sake of Orthodox and heretics alike. As of this moment, I still think it was the right thing to do, but perhaps I too need to remember that St Seraphim was right. Acquire peace, and by God's grace, a thousand around you will be saved, and great will your reward be in heaven; you will have been a faithful steward.

In Christ,

Mark Harrison

[Mark Harrison]

There are those who I have known who made it this far into Orthodoxy and were turned off by failure to recognize their baptism as essentially telling them the error was in their Christianity rather than in their sacrament or the administering church.

I hope that a peripheral benefit of my scheme of using an arbitrary year like 1976 would be that those born before that time, who are old enough to have been formed in honest Christianity, would have the option of being received by Chrismation only. Those born after that year, who have only known revisionism, if they are coming to the Orthodox Church, I'd figure it would be because they know there is something really wrong and would readily accept Baptism. Perhaps I am wrong. Thanks be to God, all of this falls under the saving grace of oikonomia. May He grant our hierarchs and priests the wisdom of discernment.

MAH

[Father David Moser]

I hardly think it is our responsibility to convert the world, a...Western Christendom somehow got the idea that preaching the Gospel to all nations means that we are responsible for saving all nations, a notion that led to all sorts of perversions from the Inquisition to Tele-evangelism. Our responsibility is to make the Kingdom of God available to all nations,

This is true - not one of us could convert even a stone - let alone a person - to Christ. It is not our task to convert anyone - let alone the whole world. That is the task of the Holy Spirit. It is our task to simply witness to the faith in and to the whole world. Leave the converting up to God. If you live your life before Christ so that those around you can see His light, then he will use your life in the hearts of those with whom you come into contact - many times in ways that you can't or never will see. That's what God does - the only person or whom you can work out salvation is yourself - so do that and trust the rest to the Holy Spirit.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

...my scheme of using an arbitrary year like 1976 would be that those born before that time, who are old enough to have been formed in honest Christianity, would have the option of being received by Chrismation only. ...

This is an interesting thought, however, Orthodoxy is not a set of rules but a means of healing. Each and every exercise of economia is on a person by person basis - what is necessary for the healng of *this particular* soul. So while such a guideline might have some application, it still is not and cannot be a hard and fast "rule". Orthodoxy is a pastoral religion, dealing with each person as a person, not as a cog in the machine. There aren't "rules" about how to apply the exceptions to the rule because there can't be - it has to be left up to the discernment of the pastor and ultimately archpastor to see what is required in each case for the benefit of the person and for his salvation.

Fr David Moser

[Patrick Lee]

I am sorry if I offend,

I'm hard to offend with regard to the Episcopal Church, so don't worry about me :)




In one Episcopal Church in San Diego, they used to have an 'Orthodox' liturgy every year on 6 August - the Transfiguration. They sang the Creed sans Filioque, they crossed themselves from right to left, they performed the offertory procession in the style of the Great Entrance, commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople right along with the Abp of Canterbury, the Pope, the head of the ELCA, etc. They rented out an ikon from an art gallery. The clergy duly venerated it, the laity just stared at it admiringly as they walked by. They had priests playing deacons, and so forth. For all of their Orthodox trapping, it was abundantly clear that they had no idea what Orthodoxy is all about. It was all playing church.

Do you recall which parish? I'm a recent convert from the diocese of San Diego, and within the last 15 years or so, I was unaware of this (not that I was necessarily familiar with what was going on throughout the diocese, which extends into Arizona). However, I'm just curious.

At any rate, there are at least a couple of points I would like to respond to in this thread:

The issue of how to apply oikonomia is definitely quite difficult given the current range of theologies which are acceptable within Anglicanism. I think Fr. Moser is correct in that it is ultimately a pastoral decision, but it might be useful to tighten up the "guidelines" if you will. In my case, our 4 children were all baptized in the '90's and the early part of this century. However, they were raised in one of the last AngloCatholic (or at least AngloCatholic-like) parishes in San Diego, and by Dad who was the parish Catechist. So, the transition to Orthodoxy was only painful in the sense of having to leave friends. We used to observe some (but not all, I grant you) of the Orthodox fasts, and the theology that the children learned at home was fairly Orthodox. I say fairly, because it is of course impossible to really learn Orthodox theology absent the liturgical/Church context. At any rate, the hardest theological point I needed to make, which involved an admission of my own intellectual dishonesty, was that the branch theory wasn't really valid. I think I knew that for years, as I always dreaded getting into ecclesiological discussions during our Catechumenate. However, to admit that would have required an immediate departure from the ECUSA, and I was just too afraid to do that. The upshot of all this, is that our Priest, per the guidance of our Bishop, chrismated all of us. I don't doubt the theological foundation of our children.

OTOH, their could be a lot of dubious baptisms out there that may ultimately come into Orthodoxy. I think at that point, however, those individuals would have come to a place where they might have their own doubts about their baptism and it would hardly be a stumbling block to them.

On another note, I think the statement about the Anglican fascination with Orthodoxy having a museum quality is correct, even if that quality was added without intention. I think the mere fact that Orthodox theology is hard to really comprehend absent the life of the Church, any study of Orthodox theology or liturgics is necessarily going to be somewhat empty unless undertaken within the life of the Church. I fancy myself having been very well educated about both topics, and yet now that we are Orthodox and have experienced, albeit for only a brief time now, Orthodox life and worship (especially Holy Week), I feel I have only recently come to the well. Many things make sense that I don't think I ever "got" before. The nature of the Church, the nature of our Salvation, all of that, while I'm still learning, seems so much more clear.

At any rate, just wanted to post some thoughts.

[James M.]

Mr. Harrison et al:

Thanks for writing both a response and for initiating the thread.

"First, before I forget, might I ask the name of the Fr Evan to whom you referred? I know very few Greek clergy, but the name Evan rings a bell."

Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Catherine's church in Denver. The church is blessed with some great technology and posts sermons as well as adult ed podcasts on their website (http://www.stcatherinechurch.org/) which include 8 1-hour sessions of "Introduction to Orthodoxy". I've listened to these and they're great from a newby's perspective, as he is a reasonably young, approachable guy with what seems a comprehensive and sensitive take on things....and some of what he has to say simply resonates....because it is so much of what I've felt and said for a long time (y'know how we always like someone who agrees with us!!). I've also corresponded and spoken with Fr. Evan (I'm in the East, and he's in the West). IMHO, he and Fr. Lou have a wonderful mission to wider America, and I can say have made the whole much more do-able for this inquirer, and for those like me who without contact within, wonder how to begin. I'm beyond that by some considerable measure, and look forward to presenting myself as a would-be catechumen in September.

"What saddens me most .....is that the term "Anglo-Catholic" is being hijacked by the revisionists. 'Catholicity' is being revised to mean 'everything goes.'

I think what you refer to is in all candor referred to is now commonly called "Affirming Catholicism" - but many once-anglocatholic parishes simply haven't relabelled themselves. What saddens me most is that many folks I love and have left behind have literally no clue as to what they're missing, and sadly, perhaps less interest.

Would agree with the syncretism comment.

"Glory to God you found your way. Sadly, many will not. God not only does not compel us to choose the right, he seldom even sticks it under our noses to see if we'll bite."

I am blessed He kept trying. Frankly, if you will forgive me, I do think God sticks it right under our noses for us to bite....the challenge is recognizing it. One thinks of how He placed the Nativity within an easy jaunt to Jerusalem, but no one deemed it worthwhile to follow the Magi who even told the "powers that be" what they were about. "Oh yeah, go on and let me know if it's worthwhile." If the truth were told, I have no doubt that this has happened every doggone day of my life and I'd missed it until a year ago. For in retrospect, the pieces do fit together and He was there knocking all the time, and I was running the other way - pretending that answering as I had already done was "well enough". Yep, "Don't call me, I'll call you."

Yet I am thankful as well to have found that according to Newton's law, once I became a body in motion (out of ECUSA), I tended to remain in motion until coming up against an equal and opposite force - the rock of a true confession of faith. I did not find sufficient friction in the Anglican Continuum to stop, and remained agitated and distressed. I felt called to move on in order to try to quiet the gnawing agitation within, and began looking again in earnest at Orthodoxy. Have attended Divine Liturgy continuously since.

"Anglo-Catholicism is far easier. It is a 'broad' path, one of very little resistance."

See Newton's Law reference above. Longer answer: The obscurity of anglocatholicism is such that I struggled to describe how it and what it represented to common understanding. In the same sense that when you say "Orthodox" folks think Jewish, or "Oh, like Seinfeld....the funny hats!"....somehow it is easier to deal with and explain from this base, then to go in to the differences among Anglicans without feeling like you're in some sort of pocket within a pocket of a splinter group, and you're adhering to something no one else cares about...and the folks who do....consider you either 1) schismatic, 2) heretical, 3) unacceptably regressive and conservative in adhering to traditions. That's a lonely place and just seemed increasingly like even authentic anglocatholicism just has too many obstacles to break through in order to stand a real chance of becoming a real vibrant church. If it will, it won't in my lifetime I suspect. And I do need something between here and eternity if I'm going to make it. So here alone it seems is enough material to sink the viability of the branch theory. But for this, I prefer the visible vs. invisible Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church lines.

Orthodoxy, by contrast seems a far simpler explanation, and simply a fulfillment and extension of "the way it ought to be". And it is expressed matter of factly in simple words that mean what they say and say what they mean. In addition, as disorganized as many Orthodox claim their church to be, it retains a unity of faith the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Diaspora (Continuum) - and perhaps even Protestantism in general have never aspired to their present detriment.

The "Taste and See" approach is valid. Rubber meets the road when ideas leave the paper. Morning and Evening Prayer in the 1928 BCP ultimately led me to believe the Anglican Way was deficient in authentic, unified integrity in the elements of the faith - as much is still left out. Oddly almost entirely felt this as a result of the Magnificat. For another, I found it incredulous that teh Anglican church had no means for recognizing saints.....so has had none since separating from Rome. By contrast, praying from an Orthodox prayerbook led me to believe: "Hey, this seems right, let me try it in a church." And praying for guidance in this process ain't a failure either.

"I saw a web-site the other day that used that horrible term 'spikey' "

Never fond of the term either. Akin to "bells and smells" but without the humor. But again, this gets to the dismissive "whatever floats your boat" ecclectic approach to the museum of tradition. Fact is many point to the Anglican problem as replacing the Tradition leg of the stool with the leg of "experience".

Your comments on the Great Commision: Agreed. Very balanced.

As an aside, if you have never listened to Peter Kreeft (Peterkreeft.com) I suggest you may enjoy his 1 hour lecture "Winning the Culture Wars". A great speaker and fan of C.S. Lewis, RC's describe him as their answer to Lewis. I found this a very moving, faithful address....and find just about anyone who gives it a chance feels the same: i.e. if only more RC's were as balanced....!! When I find my enthusiasm for this journey flagging, I find it helpful.

Finally, I'm in an unfinished play at this point, and one conversion and one commitment at time is all I can manage.

In Christ,
Skip

[John Charmley]

As a new member to this forum I have found this discussion fascinating, and for someone who is trying to gain some insight into the Orthodox way of being, this whole website is a blessing.

For those, like myself, who are finding their life long Anglicanism untenable because of the ways in which our Church is showing that it is not part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, there are no easy answers when it comes to seeking that Church, and the foregoing posts give one furiously to think.

My own searchings and prayers led me to this forum and to Orthodoxy, where I have found much spiritual enrichment; so often I have read something and found it was what I have always believed, although it is Orthodox and not Anglican. But Orthodoxy itself is not one, even though there will be those within it who will claim their Church to be the One.

The dangers of the western scholastic mindset are always before me as I seek to be guided and prompted, and however much I read, it is through prayer that the way will become clear - I trust.

The ways of the Lord are mysterious to us, and not least for those of us in what we have always thought of as the Anglican branch of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Perhaps Orthodoxy will prove better at resisting the secularising tendencies of this age in the West, but in the meantime, at the risk of seeming syncretist (a natural Anglican tendency), I would hope that those already in the bosom of Orthodoxy might remember troubled Anglicans in their prayers.

[Mark Harrison]

As a new member to this forum I have found this discussion fascinating, and for someone who is trying to gain some insight into the Orthodox way of being, this whole website is a blessing.

But Orthodoxy itself is not one, even though there will be those within it who will claim their Church to be the One.

The dangers of the western scholastic mindset are always before me as I seek to be guided and prompted, and however much I read, it is through prayer that the way will become clear - I trust.

The ways of the Lord are mysterious to us, and not least for those of us in what we have always thought of as the Anglican branch of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Perhaps Orthodoxy will prove better at resisting the secularising tendencies of this age in the West, but in the meantime, at the risk of seeming syncretist (a natural Anglican tendency), I would hope that those already in the bosom of Orthodoxy might remember troubled Anglicans in their prayers.

Greetings, John:

I am glad this thread has been a blessing for you.

I am not sure I understand what you mean about the Orthodox Church not really being one. What I am hearing, I must vehemently reject, but maybe I am misunderstanding. Can you clarify, please?

When I became Orthodox, there were still many things I didn't fully understand, but I was convinced that the Orthodox Church is the Church and that in her I'd find the Truth of Jesus Christ if I opened myself to it. With that trust in God I forged ahead, and my questions were answered, and are still being answered. Many of those answers come from gazing upon an Ikon of the Theotokos as we sing her hymn, the Magnificat ("My soul magnififes the Lord"). There is an Ikon of the Ascension in Three Hierarchs Chapel at SVS in which the Theotokos is the dominant figure. It has always been for me a the paradigmatic ikon of the Panagia. She is standing in the midst of the Church as the mother and chief intercessor of the Church. I'd always gaze up at that Ikon as we sang the Magnificat, and at other times too, and somehow life just makes sense. I can't really explain it better. It's an Ikon of things coming together - earth and heaven, death and life, past, present and future, humanity and divinity, God and I (to the small degree that I open myself up to Him). Somehow, for me at least, that Ikon summarises, well just about everything, in a way. I can't say that this is the purpose of that Ikon. I don't know that others have the same experience, though I remember seeing Fr Paul Lazor gaze up at it in awe as he was censing.

As we heard in the Gospel this morning (those of us on the Old Calendar who celebrated the Dormition this morning). "Blessed rather is he who hears the Word of God and keeps it." Who above all other people did that? The Theotokos, "and blessed is she that believed that (for) there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her of the Lord." That's why she's important and why she can point to the answer to so many questions: she believed and the Word spoken to her was fulfilled in her, and now she is the supreme model of Christian life.

Syncretism is definitely an Anglican tendency. It's what comprehensiveness is all about. However, it is not syncretism to ask private prayers on behalf of heterodox. We are commanded in Scripture to pray for the civil authorities, even if they are pagans who are perssecuting us, as they were when St Paul wrote that admonishment. It becomes syncretism when we consider heterodox views to be the same as Orthdoox views, and heterodox institutions to be Orthodox. That is why (most) Orthodox consider it improper to place a particle on the Diskos to commemorate heterodox at the Proksomedia. The arrangement on the diskos of the Lamb, the Panagia, the Ranks of Angels, Prophets, Martyrs, all Saints, and all the faithful, living and departed is an Ikon of the Church, in which the Lamb is in the centre with the Queen at His right and the rest of us surrounding him, according to our rank. This doesn't exclude others from God's love; on the contrary, it shows what all of humanity is called to be - the Church. It is an Ikon of the precious gift of unity in Christ.

Hope I wasn't simply rambling there. I'm getting tired. It makes sense to me now; I hope it does in the morning!

MAH

[Mark Harrison]

Skip, I'll try to get back to you soon. Good thoughts, IMO.

MAH

[John Charmley]

Mark, thank you for this, and for your kind thoughts.

Your statement that there is only one Orthodox Church has been echoed to me by others. A good Catholic friend of mine uses arguments similar to those used by another Eastern Orthodox friend to show me the right way; as an historian I find it interesting and instructive to see how the same history looks from different perspectives; both my friends are good and sincere people, and both are vehmently sure that their Church is the One.

This is not, I understand, a forum for discussing the rights, wrongs and whys and wherefors of these things, but to explore our understandings of Orthodoxy and to deepen our experience through contact with a community - and in these ways I feel blessed by what I read here.

What I was getting at in my post was to do with my own experience of exploring Orthodoxy. My closest contacts have been with the British Orthodox Church, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria, and which, in others threads on this site has beem characterised as 'monophysite'. Yet, in conferences with what the Oriental Orthodox would call 'Eastern' Orthodox (and I mean no offence in using that terminology, and quite acknowledge that to many, the adjective is redundant), learned theologians have pronounced against the use of that term and stated a great community of belief between those divided since Chalcedon.

I am equally aware of the denunciations that such discussions have called forth in some quarters. This is where, an an enquiring Anglican, I find myself in need of guidance - hence my own prayers and need for those of others.

It has, of course, occurred to me that in questioning the Communion into which I was born, I might simply be exhibiting a profoundly (and hitherto unsuspected, at least by me) Protestant streak, and that in exploring Orthodoxy I may inadvertently be falling into a 'cafeteria menu' attitude toward the Christian Faith. For many years such thoughts, and a naturally conservative nature, have kept me within the Anglican communion, but it is so impossible to disagree with the previous posters in this thread, that some movement has to happen.

I am glad to know that the Orthodox can pray for the heterodox - and for some of you the contents of this post will suggest that I need all the prayers I can get. I am certainly grateful for them, and for the illumination offered by this community.

John

[James M.]

John:

Just wanted to respond in a different way to your comment that "Orthodox are not all one" - a way that simply occurred to me and is not frequently considered as the asset it may be - by either Orthodox or Roman Catholics - in the preservation of the Faith. For often folks will say that the divisions, the jurisdictions and separate partriachies of the Orthodox prevent the presentation of a unified resistance to secular culture. This is true, but it also presumes that this is the appropriate and/or "best" form for resisting an all-pervasive infusion of "newry". This latter is debatable as it doesn't present the same sort of military challenge.

Fact is, one of the blessings of contemporary culture is our newly rediscovered appreciation of cellular structural strengths in terms of organic imperviousness through reproducability. Sounds like a lot of gobbledy-gook. But what I mean is that the advent of contemporary warfare and its replication of traditional Native American fighting force structures in "cellular warfare" may in fact have a corresponding place in spiritual warfare. Thus, if one "cell", diocese/bishop, jurisdiction or patriarch comes under an adverse influence, the organic unity of the whole is less likely to be overwhelmed, but instead resist through the natural process of conciliar review that requires a one-by-one assault on the part of the invading party. In this, the culture of the resistant cells remains set on resisting mutation. By contrast, a more centralized administration need only receive one well-placed intrusion to have a detrimental effect upon the whole. In a church like the Episcopal Church where doctrine is debated and changed with every tri-ennial convention, this becomes ever more systemically vulnerable.

As hinted, I tend to think that the all-invasive nature of today's challenges may in fact make a virtue out of the apparent weakness by actually better enabling resistance to change, and that the presumption of unity's advantages may not apply here, but as Mark has suggested: unity in faith abounds and though diversity in governance may appear to make the Church ungovernable, it may only seem to be so to those who would change it. :)

Just a thought. And with it I also contribute that it seems that the Hebrew faith has been equally resiliant and resistant, and though weak in numbers as well, remains vibrant. And although I cannot claim to be schooled in comparative ecclesiology, I suspect the Orthodox churches more closely conform to this model than either the Anglican or Roman model.

Oh, and yes, those of us ex-Anglicans do in fact pray for those we left behind. And I am certain many of us don't presume to be better off or more virtuous for having left, but simply have left because we KNOW we are not better off, and rather find ourselves in need of the teachings and a disciplines the Church offers for our lives to support rather than (almost fecklessly) challenge our faith. In a word, we're looking for the guidance of the saints to bring us to their level rather than bringing them (back) down to ours. We're looking for the "tried and true" rather than the "new". From experience, I simply find each of our walks is complicated enough without having to re-invent or re-vision the Church....rather it is the change of heart, the sense of repentance that opens us to re-visioning ourselves in Christ that I think is the thrust of the Orthodox Christian churches. And I think this is substantially different in tenor, tone and direction than what the Anglican world has come to see as its mission.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,
Skip

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

James wrote


Fact is, one of the blessings of contemporary culture is our newly rediscovered appreciation of cellular structural strengths in terms of organic imperviousness through reproducability. Sounds like a lot of gobbledy-gook. But what I mean is that the advent of contemporary warfare and its replication of traditional Native American fighting force structures in "cellular warfare" may in fact have a corresponding place in spiritual warfare. Thus, if one "cell", diocese/bishop, jurisdiction or patriarch comes under an adverse influence, the organic unity of the whole is less likely to be overwhelmed, but instead resist through the natural process of conciliar review that requires a one-by-one assault on the part of the invading party. In this, the culture of the resistant cells remains set on resisting mutation. By contrast, a more centralized administration need only receive one well-placed intrusion to have a detrimental effect upon the whole. In a church like the Episcopal Church where doctrine is debated and changed with every tri-ennial convention, this becomes ever more systemically vulnerable.

As hinted, I tend to think that the all-invasive nature of today's challenges may in fact make a virtue out of the apparent weakness by actually better enabling resistance to change, and that the presumption of unity's advantages may not apply here, but as Mark has suggested: unity in faith abounds and though diversity in governance may appear to make the Church ungovernable, it may only seem to be so to those who would change it. :)

I could be wrong but I thought John Charmley's comment about Orthodoxy "not all being one" referred to the fact of the non-Chalcedonians also considering themselves to be Orthodox along with us. One point to keep in mind about this however is that Roman Catholics along with others also consider themselves to be Orthodox. Maybe one could even say some fundamental Protestants consider themselves to be Orthodox even if they wouldn't use the word Orthodox (although they are increasingly looking to this word as the foundation of their faith).

In other words as long as one considers that there is an absolute standard called to by Christ within the Church- however one defines this standard- then
one can call or think of oneself as defending the authentic faith; one can think of oneself as being orthodox. So we're back to where we began of wondering how to discern where the Church is amidst so many contradictory claims.

One thing that struck me from John Charmley's posts and also the quote above from James is how the Church although it definitely suffers through very difficult times where it almost seems to lose track of the essence of the faith- eg the time of the Turkish yoke, or the secularising Tsars- there are always sparks that retain the Faith as with Sts Nikodemos the Agiorite in Greece and Paisy Velichkovsky in Russia. Indeed the great spiritual/patristic revival which occurred through out Orthodoxy in the last half of the 19th century sprang largely from these two saints & their spiritual disciples. What this points to is that within the history of the Church there are frequently decadent periods. But amidst this inevitably a spark arises to fan the flames of the true Faith. What this shows is that a sign of the where the Church lies is precisely this power, which comes from the Holy Spirit, to revive itself according to the self-same Apostolic Faith the Church has always known.

Decadence however is not the same as the official rejection of Orthodox teaching and practice and its replacement with other quite foreign teachings which we see in other Christian denominations. Although the dividing line between the two is not so clear the effect is since decadence within Orthodoxy still allows for the revival of the Church whereas an offical rejection of what the Church should stand for largely extingushes this power of authentic Orthodox revival. Unless one turns back to Orthodox teachings and practice.

It's important to point this out because the way John raised the question about how to discern the One Church among so many conflicting claims points to a crucial difference we Orthodox see when it comes to problems within the Church and outside of it.

The sign of the Church is precisely in how it has constantly revived itself for these past 2000 years. And when one is in the Church one gains a confidence from experience of how the Church will survive and precisely show itself amidst the most terrible storms, heresies, schisms, etc.

For us though the changes we see outside of Orthodoxy are the result of a slow unravelling and loss of Orthodox consciousness. The fall these Christians suffer from within their denominations is the result of a fundamental turning away from authentic and Apostolic life and practice. The alarming changes occuring are precisely one of the most important signs that they are separate from the One Church and have fundamentally rejected it. To use the image Christ does what goes on in these denominations is exactly what happens when one tries to gorw a the branch apart from the Vine. Unless they return to the Apostolic teachings and life of the Church the logic of the course they are on can only continue to be an unravelling of Church life.

Thankfully though since none of this is inevitable any of these Christians can at any time return to the true way to revive themselves- by a return to the Apostolic teaching and life of the Church. Then truly we will all be one again.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

James/Father Vereshack,

Thank for for your thought-provoking posts; the one from James really deserves a thread to itself; it is an interesting conception of Orthodoxy and one that will bear much meditation. Orthodoxy has suffered much persecution, but we know that martyrs have been the seed of the Church, and Christianity has (alas) much experience of persecution - and of its results. Here in the contemporary west we face what is perhaps a new and more insidious challenge - a secular materialism which seeks to persuade people they do not need God, just more possessions. In these circumstance, James may well be correct in seeing advantages for Orthodoxy.

Father Vereshack not only pin pointed my dilemma, he expressed the reasons for it more pithily. I had always thought myself a member of a Church with claims to Orthodoxy, but as it changed in directions far removed from any such concept, I began to feel alienated. I tried to accept what my spiritual advisers told me, and wondered whether my problems doing so just indicated an inherently Protestant desire to decide for myself; but, right or wrong, I really do feel that it is Anglicanism that has moved, not me. Of course, as I have come to have a closer acquaintanceship with Orthodoxy, I know how far from it I have been; but I do know I want to be closer to it, and as my own Church moves in the other direction, I cannot, even in obedience, follow it.

Finding oneself adrift in this way in mid life is a disconcerting experience, and one I know many fellow Anglicans share. We have a great affection for our Church and for all the good things about it, and some of us once hoped it would move closer to Orthodoxy; but we were wrong.

I am convinced, Father, that what you say about our ability to recognised the Church because of its resilience through the Ages is right, but those who found Chalcedon a step away from their conception of the true Church, could, and do, make the same claim, adding to the 'storms' the one vented upon them by the Imperial authorities from Constantinople.

My own contacts have been mainly with the British Orthodox Church, who come under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Patriarchy. The BOC members I have met have been prayerful, compassionate, eirenic and patient, and their commitment to the Orthodox way seems absolute. It is hard to read their story and their understanding of Christology and to see it as 'monophysite' in the usual sense of that word.

Yet I am well aware that other Orthodox people would take a harder line and see the Coptic Church as schismatic, if not heretical. It may simply be that, as an Anglican, I am so shot through with eirenicism that I find the anathematisation thrown about problematic in itself, but I do not find it creates an atmosphere conducive to prayer. Having spent much of my life thinking I was closer to Orthodoxy than I was, only to find my Church going the other way, I had rather not make the same mistake again.

Ideally it would be through a mixture of intellectual enquiry, prayer and the assistance of a spiritual adviser, as well as the experience of Orthodoxy that I would find my steps guided, but for obvious reasons, the spiritual adviser is difficult to find, and I am in a dilemma over what sort of Orthodoxy to experience (not that it is easy in the wilds of Norfolk to find either sort) - hence my joining this community, which I must say, is a blessing to a bewildered and perplexed Anglican. Fortunately, prayer is a resource that does not fail.

I am grateful to members of this community for their collective wisdom, and for the experience this site puts at the disposal of those searching for the right path. It is, in truth, a Godly work.

yours in Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote




I am convinced, Father, that what you say about our ability to recognised the Church because of its resilience through the Ages is right, but those who found Chalcedon a step away from their conception of the true Church, could, and do, make the same claim, adding to the 'storms' the one vented upon them by the Imperial authorities from Constantinople.

My own contacts have been mainly with the British Orthodox Church, who come under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Patriarchy. The BOC members I have met have been prayerful, compassionate, eirenic and patient, and their commitment to the Orthodox way seems absolute. It is hard to read their story and their understanding of Christology and to see it as 'monophysite' in the usual sense of that word.

Yet I am well aware that other Orthodox people would take a harder line and see the Coptic Church as schismatic, if not heretical. It may simply be that, as an Anglican, I am so shot through with eirenicism that I find the anathematisation thrown about problematic in itself, but I do not find it creates an atmosphere conducive to prayer. Having spent much of my life thinking I was closer to Orthodoxy than I was, only to find my Church going the other way, I had rather not make the same mistake again.

I have to admit that as I was writing my post yesterday I wondered if the non-Chalcedonians also exhibit some of the characteristics of the Church I referred to. I know they have a basic sense of tradition and its importance. They don't seem to be unravelling with the same theological and moral uncertainty as among other Christians.

On the other hand a lot would come down to whether one believes that the rejection of Chalcedon is a fundamental challenge to Tradition- to the Church's theology & piety- or not. If so there certainly are some of the same concerns we have about the rest of Christianity.

And yet without this necessarily being a thought out position for us we Orthodox do tend to feel closer to the non-Chalcedonians. History shows that not only in the present but also throughout the past there have been times when a great degree of mutual accomodation was shown by each to the other. This has to do with sharing a basic respect for the Apostolic tradition and sense of piety. But I think it also shows that the change seen in western Christianity is different in nature from that of, at least by our lights, of the non-Chalcedonians.

For us at least the rejection of Chalcedon is the result of theological miscomprehension (I want to use the word 'misunderstanding' but that word has too many modern associations to use it without great care). Western Christianity however is the result of a fundamentally altered way of seeing reality which involves culture as much as theology. For us the unravelling amidst western Christianity is exhibited in the lead up to the Schism and is revealed in its character from that time all the way up to this. In other words in western Christianity we the same dynamic at work even if outwardly the way this manifests itself is certainly different from century to century or decade to decade.

Maybe that's why someone like Dostoevsky with his portrayal of the Grand Inquisitor can appeal to us as getting to the heart of the matter as much as any great work of theology. St. Photios and St Gregory Palamas certainly show us the short comings in western theology and piety. Dostoevsky however complements this by showing how western Christianity is fundamentally based on a rejection of the other-worldy Christ for something that is 'more likely to succeed in this world'. Our reaction against this is so strong like that of Dostoevsky because we recognise in it not just some sinful attraction to the world but rather a fundamental betrayal of Christ while using His name for our own selfish agenda. The result of this as Dostoevsky symbolises with the imprisoned Christ that the Inquisitor visits is some sort of ongoing and barely concealed inner torment where we want to tame Christ but never manage to. Outwardly everything's going along in grand style but inwardly our conscience gnaws away at us for Christ is still there. We try to imprison Him in our own selfish ideas but still His presence haunts us and troubles us. We try to imprison Him but we have ended up imprisoning ourselves.

As the Holy Frs continually point out the only way out of this prison is through humbling ourselves to what Christ actually offers rather than to our ideas of what Christ should be offering us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

What can one say after reading such wise words except how blessed I feel to have had a part in prompting them?

As a newcomer to this forum, perhaps I might be permitted to say how very useful it is for those of us who cannot get access to a physical Orthodox community. I am sure one can only know Orthodoxy by experiencing it, and that is not easy in my part of England, but you make it possible to do so virtually.

Like so many Anglicans, I find it difficult to know where to turn - but then Father Vereshack reminds me that I know where to turn if I do so in prayer.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Wow! A lot of discussion suddenly.

My own perspective on the non-Chalcedonians is that there is a bond with the Church that the Western Christians do not have, though the Latins would be the closest. There is a common ethos. The basic question is, has the 1,500 years of separation been the result of a theological miscomprehension (to use Fr Raphael's term), or has it been heresy. No doubt there were at one time Monophysites - absolute heretics. The curious thing is that the non-Chalcedonians themselves anathematise the most extreme Monophysites, like Eutyches, and they also glorify St Cyril of Alexandria, whose famous dictum is quotes by both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians and the understanding of that dictum seems to be the key to understanding the apparent theological differences. The dictum goes: mia physis theou logou sesarkomeni. One incarnate nature of God the Word. As Fr John Meyendorff pointed out in class, the word 'sesarkomeni' (incarnate) modifies 'physis' ('nature'), suggesting that 'physis' was not being used by the Alexandrians in quite the same way it was by the Antiochians.' How could the one single nature become incarnate? Becoming incarnate itself implies the assumption of a second nature. Fr John's interpretation was that 'physis' was being used here in more of a sense of 'hypostasis' and as such, the phrase is quite Orthodox, even though it is the rallying cry of the non-Chalcedonian 'Monophysites.'

To me, this suggests that beyond the common ethos, their theological tradition is at the very least tangent witih our own at some points, even intersecting it. Because of their common spiritual ethos and these points of tangency (is that the right word?) or even intersection, their relationship to us is closer not only in degree, but in a fundamentally different way. I'd never commune in a Coptic parish, but if I were in a place where there was no Greek Orthdoox Church, I'd probably attend a Coptic church whereas I'd not attend a Protestant church, nor an average RC parish, in the absence of an Orthodox parish. As matter of liturgical academic interest I probably would attend a Tridentine Latin Mass once or twice. In a Coptic parish I think I'd feel like I was among first cousins, if not direct brothers and sisters.

Does this mean that the 1,500 years of separation has been no different than the shorter separations that have existed between say Russia and Constantinople, or Constantinople and Antioch? I am really not prepared to say one way or the other.

MAH

[Mark Harrison]

What can one say after reading such wise words except how blessed I feel to have had a part in prompting them?

As a newcomer to this forum, perhaps I might be permitted to say how very useful it is for those of us who cannot get access to a physical Orthodox community. I am sure one can only know Orthodoxy by experiencing it, and that is not easy in my part of England, but you make it possible to do so virtually.

Like so many Anglicans, I find it difficult to know where to turn - but then Father Vereshack reminds me that I know where to turn if I do so in prayer.

In Christ,

John

Hi John,

I'm a bit tired as I write this. I am under the impression that you are still Anglican, but dissatisfied and looking. If I missed something and you are already Orthodox, please take my words as an assurance that you're looking in the right place.

Where in England are you located? If you haven't already, you might wish to contact Fr Andrew Philips in Felixstowe. He is a ROCOR priest there. My experience with him, which has been entirely 'virtual' has been excellent. Or course, there is also Bishop KALLISTOS (Ware) and there is the Greek monastery in Essex. If I were to visit the UK as an Orthodox Christian, I'd seek out Fr Andrew first. He seems to be very level headed. His web address is: http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/hp.htm

The appeal of Anglicanism is that it tries to be eirenical and 'middle of the road.' In and of themselves those are admirable qualities. Where they become problematic is where tolerance is perverted into acquiescence. I do not have to agree with my Baptist neighbour to be tolerant of him. Being tolerant means that I'll not pick a fight, I won't burn down his church, I won't throw insults, etc. At the same time, I shall certainly stand my ground, as amicably, and eirenically as possible, but firmly all the same. I must respect the image of God in my Baptist neighbour, but I must not respect the heresy he teaches; on the contrary I must reject it. I must rejoice in what is right, acknowledge it and rejoice in it, while never accepting what is wrong, or still less saying it makes no difference.

I spent 20 years of my life as an Anglican (Episcopalian in the US). I have many memories that I treasure. My reception into Orthdoxy was the fulfilment of all that was true - all that I could honestly rejoice in as an Anglican, and a rejection of all that was patently false.

Don't be dismayed or turned away by ethnic family squabbles and the like. Find an Orthodox priest in the UK with whom you can have regular contact and develop a spiritual relationship in which you can focus on becoming Orthodox (and we're all still becoming Orthodox decades after being received), no matter what stupid things are happening around you. The more you seek, the deeper you delve, the more the evil one will tempt you with distractions that come from 'places deep where dark things sleep' to borrow from Tolkien.

Read Tolkien. He was a genius. It is hardly coincidence that he traced the collapse of truly English literature to the Norman Invasion, while we would trace the collapse of British Orthodoxy to the same event. Tolkien may have been Roman Catholic, but he has a lot of orthodox insights, especially about the passions, and his literature reflects a culture far more akin to that of the ancient Ecclesia Anglicana (Orthodoxa) than anything else today.

Finally, you perhaps (probably) know the hymn 'The Church's One Foundation.' The second verse is based on Ephesians 4, which is also reflected in the introductory verses in the more recent revisions of the BCP: 'There is one body and one spirit…one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.' This was the verse to which St Cyprian of Carthage referred in his treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church.' Perhaps you also know St Patrick's hymn. I know the English hymnal and the American hymnals are a bit different, but these two are pretty common. Consider also hymns like 'Veni Emmanuel' and 'Let All Mortal Flesh.' These are among the hymns that I, as I was becoming Orthodox, realised were the clues to the fact that I had always been Orthodox at heart. They were the hymns that I had loved the most even as a child.

I'd not wish to mislead anybody. If you're looking for the perfect church, the church with no internal squabbles or politics, the church with only devout believers, you're going to be looking your whole life and never finding. The Orthodox Church is none of the above. It might even be the church with the most internal squabbles and politics and nominal believers to rival Anglicanism in many places. But there is only one Body and one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism - Orthodoxy. It's not pretty, or glorious. It's not ever likely to be fashionable among the lords and ladies of Britain. It's just right.

MAH

[John Charmley]

Dear Brian,

Very many thanks for your post - which was so helpful on a whole number of levels.

Tired or not, you were spot on. I am an Anglican who can identify with so much of what you write. What you say about tolerance is much to the point; like so many virtues, it can become a vice if used to extremes, and that, alas, if what I fear has happened to the Anglican Church. But since I began exploring Orthodoxy I begin to see, even as through a glass darkly, what has been missing from my experience of the Christian life. Your Tolkien quotation was apposite, and I have noticed of late an increase in temptations designed to lead me away from this path - which is hard, but perhaps an indication that it is the right path.

It is not that I am looking for a perfect communion where all is sweetness and light - as an historian I am aware of the implausibility of that happening in any Communion - but as an Anglican who has come to recognise that his Church is not Orthodox, I am anxious not to repeat that mistake.

My main contacts thus far have been with the British Orthodox Church which is under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Church, but as we are discussing in another thread on this site, the divisions going back to Chalcedon make this communion one which the Eastern Orthodox do not recognise as Orthodox; the same is, of course, true from the other side.

So I find myself looking at two Godly Churches, not in Communion with each other (although in dialogue, but one which seems to have stalled) and seeking a way forward that does not repeat my Anglican experience of not being 'Orthodox'.

I am grateful for the contact address for Father Phillips - Felixstowe is reachable in an hour from here. Reading of your experiences is also a great help - the hymns you mention are favourites of mine. It is, I fear, a lonely place when one realises that the Church one is a part of has moved away from the place you regard as Orthodox; it gets lonelier when you begin to see how far from real Orthodoxy it really was.

Perhaps it sounds strange to write about loneliness when prayer is available, but my mindset is not a Protestant one, and I feel the need for the Church and its teaching and its consolations. For so long obedience has kept me hoping that the promptings of my heart were wrong and that Anglicanism was the 'via media' I had believed; but there is only so long you can deny the evidence of your eyes and ears.

But the problem of 'which Orthodoxy' is a difficult one from where I stand. So, I am grateful for help in exploring and enquiring - and for the prayers of those who can give them. Your post was a great comfort and help.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Mr. Harrison et al:

Thanks for writing both a response and for initiating the thread.

"First, before I forget, might I ask the name of the Fr Evan to whom you referred? I know very few Greek clergy, but the name Evan rings a bell."

Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Catherine's church in Denver. The church is blessed with some great technology and posts sermons as well as adult ed podcasts on their website (http://www.stcatherinechurch.org/) which include 8 1-hour sessions of "Introduction to Orthodoxy". I've listened to these and they're great from a newby's perspective, as he is a reasonably young, approachable guy with what seems a comprehensive and sensitive take on things....and some of what he has to say simply resonates....because it is so much of what I've felt and said for a long time (y'know how we always like someone who agrees with us!!). I've also corresponded and spoken with Fr. Evan (I'm in the East, and he's in the West). IMHO, he and Fr. Lou have a wonderful mission to wider America, and I can say have made the whole much more do-able for this inquirer, and for those like me who without contact within, wonder how to begin. I'm beyond that by some considerable measure, and look forward to presenting myself as a would-be catechumen in September.

"What saddens me most .....is that the term "Anglo-Catholic" is being hijacked by the revisionists. 'Catholicity' is being revised to mean 'everything goes.'

I think what you refer to is in all candor referred to is now commonly called "Affirming Catholicism" - but many once-anglocatholic parishes simply haven't relabelled themselves. What saddens me most is that many folks I love and have left behind have literally no clue as to what they're missing, and sadly, perhaps less interest.

Would agree with the syncretism comment.

"Glory to God you found your way. Sadly, many will not. God not only does not compel us to choose the right, he seldom even sticks it under our noses to see if we'll bite."

I am blessed He kept trying. Frankly, if you will forgive me, I do think God sticks it right under our noses for us to bite....the challenge is recognizing it. One thinks of how He placed the Nativity within an easy jaunt to Jerusalem, but no one deemed it worthwhile to follow the Magi who even told the "powers that be" what they were about. "Oh yeah, go on and let me know if it's worthwhile." If the truth were told, I have no doubt that this has happened every doggone day of my life and I'd missed it until a year ago. For in retrospect, the pieces do fit together and He was there knocking all the time, and I was running the other way - pretending that answering as I had already done was "well enough". Yep, "Don't call me, I'll call you."

Yet I am thankful as well to have found that according to Newton's law, once I became a body in motion (out of ECUSA), I tended to remain in motion until coming up against an equal and opposite force - the rock of a true confession of faith. I did not find sufficient friction in the Anglican Continuum to stop, and remained agitated and distressed. I felt called to move on in order to try to quiet the gnawing agitation within, and began looking again in earnest at Orthodoxy. Have attended Divine Liturgy continuously since.

"Anglo-Catholicism is far easier. It is a 'broad' path, one of very little resistance."

See Newton's Law reference above. Longer answer: The obscurity of anglocatholicism is such that I struggled to describe how it and what it represented to common understanding. In the same sense that when you say "Orthodox" folks think Jewish, or "Oh, like Seinfeld....the funny hats!"....somehow it is easier to deal with and explain from this base, then to go in to the differences among Anglicans without feeling like you're in some sort of pocket within a pocket of a splinter group, and you're adhering to something no one else cares about...and the folks who do....consider you either 1) schismatic, 2) heretical, 3) unacceptably regressive and conservative in adhering to traditions. That's a lonely place and just seemed increasingly like even authentic anglocatholicism just has too many obstacles to break through in order to stand a real chance of becoming a real vibrant church. If it will, it won't in my lifetime I suspect. And I do need something between here and eternity if I'm going to make it. So here alone it seems is enough material to sink the viability of the branch theory. But for this, I prefer the visible vs. invisible Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church lines.

Orthodoxy, by contrast seems a far simpler explanation, and simply a fulfillment and extension of "the way it ought to be". And it is expressed matter of factly in simple words that mean what they say and say what they mean. In addition, as disorganized as many Orthodox claim their church to be, it retains a unity of faith the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Diaspora (Continuum) - and perhaps even Protestantism in general have never aspired to their present detriment.

The "Taste and See" approach is valid. Rubber meets the road when ideas leave the paper. Morning and Evening Prayer in the 1928 BCP ultimately led me to believe the Anglican Way was deficient in authentic, unified integrity in the elements of the faith - as much is still left out. Oddly almost entirely felt this as a result of the Magnificat. For another, I found it incredulous that teh Anglican church had no means for recognizing saints.....so has had none since separating from Rome. By contrast, praying from an Orthodox prayerbook led me to believe: "Hey, this seems right, let me try it in a church." And praying for guidance in this process ain't a failure either.

"I saw a web-site the other day that used that horrible term 'spikey' "

Never fond of the term either. Akin to "bells and smells" but without the humor. But again, this gets to the dismissive "whatever floats your boat" ecclectic approach to the museum of tradition. Fact is many point to the Anglican problem as replacing the Tradition leg of the stool with the leg of "experience".

Your comments on the Great Commision: Agreed. Very balanced.

As an aside, if you have never listened to Peter Kreeft (Peterkreeft.com) I suggest you may enjoy his 1 hour lecture "Winning the Culture Wars". A great speaker and fan of C.S. Lewis, RC's describe him as their answer to Lewis. I found this a very moving, faithful address....and find just about anyone who gives it a chance feels the same: i.e. if only more RC's were as balanced....!! When I find my enthusiasm for this journey flagging, I find it helpful.

Finally, I'm in an unfinished play at this point, and one conversion and one commitment at time is all I can manage.

In Christ,
Skip

If I understand you correctly from your examples, I agree with what you say about God putting something under our noses - it's a matter of us recognising it. My point was that God is not going to force us to become Orthodox. He's not going to make it the only possible choice anybody could ever make. That wouldn't be free will. I think we were saying the same thing, differently.

Your Newton's law image is interesting. Yours seems to be an experience quite different from my own. My gut was being wrenched every time I heard about the so-called three-legged stool, and other such things. I knew that the more ancient hymns I was singing belied the heresy of comprehensiveness; only for the longest time, I didn't know where to turn and stayed put. When I found Orthodoxy, there was no question in my mind. As such, I never went searching, never became a body in motion, other than being propelled right into the solid bulwark of Orthodoxy. For me, it was a very short trip.

You mention the Magnificant pointing to the deficiencies. One of the hymns that struck me was closely related: 'Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones.' I still muse at my liberal Protestant (Episcopalian) mother for liking that hymn when the second verse is naught but a paraphrase of the Byzantine hymn to the Theotokos: More honourable than the cherubim' which is sung as a refrain on the Magnificat at Mattins.

I think that what you are pointing to with your comment about Orthodoxy being a 'simpler' explanation is the fact that the Orthodox Church has no need to defend itself. Perhaps you are familiar with Dom Gregory Dix's book Defence of Anglican Orders? There is no such thing in the Orthdoox Church. Bishop KALLISTOS (Ware) hasn't written a Defence of Orthdoox Orders. To whom would we have to defend them? The nature of the split of the Church of England from Rome was clearly an act of schism: it was a deliberate repudiation of what had been accepted as the legitimate canonical authority of Rome. Such an act must be defended. Of course, theoretically, there could easily be a good defence, just as a local bishop or priest might have a good defence for breaking with his local synod or diocesan hierarch (respectively).

Likewise, the Church need not defend her theology. The continuity is not only there on paper, it is a living continuity. Even the Vatican knows it can't dismiss St Gregory Palamas or the Orthdoox undertanding of Romans 5:12. It is not the Orthodox who must defend their refusal to accept the Papal claims, it is Rome that must defend those claims, and is finding it necessary to nuance those claims more and more. Oh, I suppose that the liberal Episcopalian (ex RC) campus minister who helped drive me into the Orthodox Church would argue that Orthodox must defend all sorts of 'medieval accretions,' but I'd beg to differ. Firstly, I'd challenge him to demonstrate his claim of the existence of 'medieval accretions.' He said once that the Orthodox Church needs a reformation. The Reformation was all about rebellion and it is rebellion that needs to be justified, not fidelity. Can rebellion ever be justified? Yes, of course. Not everything that is handed down is right and true; not all fidelity is wise. Nevertheless, fidelity as a whole is a virtue, while rebellion is a vice. Of course, Americans have a big problem here because our nation was founded on rebellion. No matter how legitimate we may see that rebelliion, it was still rebellion and that spirit permeates American culture. It's like a filter through which Americans tend to view the world. I suspect the French aren't too terribly different in this regard. Look at what that once Catholic nation has become today. England does not need to justify its national existence. It just is. America, however, had to defend before God and before their fellow men, their act of taking up arms against their king. Were they necessarily wrong in doing so? No, of course not. However, it is the Americans, not the British, who must justify their separate existence. Likewise, Anglicanism, which was established in rebellion against the Papacy, no matter how legitimate that rebellion by be demonstrated to be in the end, must justify its separate existence, not Rome.

Enough for now.

Mark

[Mark Harrison]

Hi John,

No offence taken, but to set the record straight, my name is Mark. Not sure where you came up with Brian, though ironically I have a friend named Brian whose baptismal name is Mark. I'm about the only person who calls him 'Mark' though.

Second, you might wish to start getting used to calling Orthodox priests by their Christian names. I know to an Anglican this seems disrespectful at first. My last Anglican priest is one that I'd never have called by his first name. I respected him too much to be so informal. However, in the Orthodox Church, that's not informality. In the case of monastics, we generally place a person's surname in parentheses. The person is dead to the world and the only reason for using their surname at all is to distinguish that person from another of the same name, or for legal purposes. With secular clergy, we don't use the parentheses, but we still don't use the last name's except when use of the first name alone would not effectively communicate to whom we are referring. For example, I've seen Fr Thomas Hopko referred to as Fr Hopko in the press, but I'd never call him that. He was my spiritual father (he is the dean emeritus of St Vladimir's Seminary in New York and the author of several books, which you may nor may not have encountered). In formal circumstances I'd call him 'Fr Thomas' in less formal circumstances 'Fr Tom.' Enough said.

I can especially relate to your comments about loneliness. I was the only person in my family with Orthodox leanings as a grew up (not knowing what those leanings were then). My father was atheist, my mother liberal Episcopalian, my grandmother a disaffected Catholic turned Episcopalian, and my grandfather claimed to believe in God but not in churches. To them, I was just into 'bells and smells,' though Fr Satrang (my last Anglican priest) made a great impression on my mother especially. She never agreed with him, but she came to really respect him. So, my early childhood love for worship left me all alone in that area of my life. I had no one to whom I could relate, neither peers nor adults, until I met Fr Satrang. Well, that's not quite true. Fr Lawrence Bausch, with whom I still have limited contact, was a person I could talk to. He is one of those who has now left ECUSA. When I became Orthodox, there were some, peers and others, who still saw it as a shallow infatuation with incense and ritual. Fr Satrang figured the ethnicism would be a problem for me. Again, it was an adventure I had to take on my own.

I had met Fr Michael Zelneronok, a mitred archpriest (priests receive rewards and 'promotions' but all priests are still priests), originally from Riga, Latvia. He was 72 years old, stood nearly 2 metres tall (6'2"), and had a booming base voice. He became like a grandfather to me (and nobody ever called him by his last name). Yes, the parish was very ethnic. It was a good thing I was good at foreign languages. I learned some Russian and Church Slavonic. I could have gone to the all English parish instead; Fr Michael suggested that I might be more comfortable there, but it was clear to me that God had put me with Fr Michael. He was a living contact to the New Martyrs of Russia. Through him and others in the parish, I received a good second-hand look at suffering for one's faith as I listened to peoples' stories. The Serbians also had stunning stories of being herded onto trains by the Nazis. it was quite clear, these people weren't Orthodox simply because they fancied incense and ritual. They had faced death, like the Three Youths in Babylon. As I learned the Byzantine services, with the hymns about the Three Youths and about the Martyrs, the connection was firmly established in my mind between those people and the ones I knew personally, who likewise had 'braved dangers for their fathers' God.' The new-martyrs and confessors of Russia became personal heroes for me, especially SS Benjamin of Petrograd and Vladimir of Kiev, and above all, Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, the Confessor, who had served as archbishop in North America ten years before being elected as the first Patriarch of Moscow since Peter I, the not-so-great.

In this way, the communion of saints became very much a living reality for me. Outside of the Orthodox Church I still had no friends who could come close to relating to me in this area. Within the church, there were a whole 'cloud of witnesses' as we read in Hebrews. The Orthodox Church's claim to be uniquely the Church was confirmed for me by the witness of martyr's blood right down to the people I personally knew. I was amazed that I never even missed those Anglican hymns. I do still sing a few of them to myself. I still even know them by heart, 23 years later. They were and are a part of me as an Orthodox Christian.

I've never had reason to seriously look at the non-Chalcedonians in terms of joining them. Of course, I understand the theological differences and the history behind them. I was, perhaps, immediately formed in my opinion by Bishop KALLISTOS (Ware's) focus on the balance in the Byzantine approach to the Christological controversies, which rejects the extremes both of Monophysitism and Nestorianism, which recognising the legitimate insights. Even more importantly, I believe that the Chalcedonian point that without this balance there can be no salvation, is correct. 'That which is not assumed cannot be healed' is a typical response to the Monophysites, but to the Nestorians we'd have to say that if Mary is not Theotokos, if the divine nature and the human nature remain that separate, then the Incarnation is a a joke, and ironically we arrive at the same problem we do with the Monophysites: 'that which is not assumed cannot be healed.' Both heresies had the common presupposition that God would not truly become incarnate.

If there is anything true in the Latin/Anglican tradition, it is the understanding of the Incarnation. It was, after all St Leo the Great, Pope of Rome who found the language that was used at Chalcedon. Not only Chalcedonian theology, but the understanding of what is at stake, is beautifully summed up in an Anglican hymn:

O love how deep, how broad, how high, how passing thought and fantasy; that God, the Son of God should take, our mortal form for mortals' sake.

It is a great mistake to think that Orthodox focus on the Resurrection and Transfiguration over the Incarnation, as some uneducated Westerners suppose. At the Nativity, at Theophany (Epiphany) and at Transfiguration, we place emphasis on Christ being born, baptised and transfigured 'in the flesh.' This is the key to our salvation; this is why anything he did has anything to do with us. Otherwise, we could well say, 'so what if he rose from the dead, or was transfigured; what does that have to do with me? I'm not him.' If He is not perfect God and perfect man, without change, confusion, division or separation, nothing He did on this earth really makes a difference for you and me; the 'Great Divorce' remains, to borrow Lewis's title. Far from a theological abstraction, the Chalcedonian definition is all about why you and I today should even care about this Jesus bloke who (supposedly) lived two thousand years ago. Many would doubt He was an historical figure. Others would doubt that He did the things the Bible says He did; but without the truth to which Chalcedon points, even if was a real historical person and did do all those things, it wouldn't make a bit of difference for you and me because He would have been some being totally different from us and we'd be stuck in the same mire we were in before He came. The people He healed would have been the lucky few.

But I do accept the truth of Chalcedon. Furthermore, I attend a church where we have the relics of St Herman. Relics aren't magic, they are witnesses to the truth of Chalcedon. Because Christ was transfigured in the flesh, so can we also be transfigured if we open ourselves that. Thus, St Peter could talk about becoming partakers of the divine nature. Thus St Gregory Palamas could speak of the Uncreated Light in which Christ was transfigured, and which was perceptible around other people since, like St Serpahim of Sarov. St Herman is known as a wonder-worker. It's not his own skills or whatever, it is the grace of God working through his very flesh and bones. This is only possible because Christ was transfigured in His very flesh and bones, and thus our humanity can be transfigured likewise. Wonder-working saints and relics, down to our own day, are witnesses to the truth of Chalcedon.

I am glad to hear that you are not expecting sinlessness in the Orthodox Church. The idea of the Church as the communion of the perfect went down with the Donatists and the Novatians. I am also glad that you wish to be cautious and avoid past mistakes. As I have thought about all of this, I have become more certain that the person you need to seek out is Fr Andrew. I am a member of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Fr Andrew, like Fr Raphael and Fr David on this site, is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). For decades there has been serious friction between the two. Alas, I fear that some of ROCOR's concerns about the OCA are being proven true. ROCOR has been working toward reconciliation with the Patriarchate of Moscow. It has been a long, difficult road. Fr Andrew's bishop, Archbishop MARK of Berlin, has been one of the leaders. From what I have seen in his writing, he is a man who is willing to be realistic, to admit errors, put aside past prejudices, and in doing so to put Christ first. I have never had what I should consider to be the great honour of meeting His Eminence, but at present he is among the hierarchs whom I respect most. Likewise, Fr Andrew has come off to me as a man who is very realistic and very straightforward. ROCOR is not into ecumenical politics. They have opposed Orthodox participation in the WCC, much to their credit, and I fear that the OCA's strong focus on participation in such organisations has derailed it, helping to turn the attention of our hierarchs to politics and prestige, and away from being true shepherds. Having learned from the lessons of my own experience, I really think that you, as one coming out of Anglicanism, dealing with the particular issues you are, would receive the best guidance from someone like Fr Andrew, at least as far as I can tell from my Internet pen-pal relationship with him.

If you wish to correspond with me directly, send me an e-mail to markandersh@gmail.com.

Yours in Christian friendship,

Mark Harrison

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark,

On all sorts of levels I am grateful to you for this post, and can only apologise for my gaffe over your Christian name; interesting subliminal stuff perhaps, since there is a very distinguished British historian with that Christian name and your surname! So I am gratful for your forebearance on that.

Secondly, I am in your debt for the information about how to address an Orthodox priest; as you observe, in Anglicanism (especially in its home variety) respect is shown by the use of the surname, and that, of course, was my intention towards Father Raphael, whose posts on this site are deserving of the highest respect; how fortunate his flock are to have him.

In the third place, the thoughtfulness that prompted your post almost overwhelms me; I know from it that you have indeed been to the lonely places that follow the realisation that one is in the wrong Communion, and it is certainly true that because Orthodoxy is so little known in the west that an attraction to it meets much misunderstanding from one's friends and family; in a way, that was what drew me to this forum - but to meet the kindness with which you, Father Raphael and others have shown, is indeed balm in Gilead, and I am duly thankful for it - and humbled by such Christian charity.

Moreover, what you go on to say about your own journey encourages me to keep going. The way in which you write about your experiences of the 'cloud of witnesses' is inspiring, and what you say about the witness of such Saints moves me very much.

The question of ethnicity has arisen for me before. Thirty or so years ago I was told that I could not be Orthodox because I was not Russian; an unfortunate experience, which I would now be robust enough to get past, but back then I lacked that ability. I remember thinking later that it was a good job that Saints Cyril and Methodius had not taken that view when they began their mission; I suspect if they had insisted on the Slavs speaking Greek they would not have gotten very far. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but in this world it is perhaps natural, especially in diaspora situations, that when Christianity has played the role it has in Greek and Russian history, ethnicity and Orthodoxy should be so intermingled.

What has interested me about my experience with the Copts that whilst immensely (and rightly) proud of their ancient heritage, they are confident enough in it to have taken the British Orthodox Church under their jurisdiction in a way that allows it to develop Orthodoxy with a British ethos; no one has insisted that anyone learns Arabic or Coptic (although some choose to). That is where considerations of Chalcedon become important; as I have said earlier, having, as it were, been proven wrong about Anglicanism, I don't want to make another mistake - which brings me to another area in which I am in your debt, with the reference to Father Andrew.

I have found his website a great source of information, and as I summon up the questions (and the courage) I shall contact him. It is good to have your address too.

Very, very many thanks.

Yours in Christ,


John

[Mark Harrison]

Hi John,

Glory to God that you are finding what you are looking for here, or at least some of it.

Sadly, ethnicism on a lay level leads to a variation on the ecumenist heresy: if you're Eastern European you 'belong' in the Orthodox Church, otherwise you 'belong' in the Catholic or Protestant churches. I've long thought about a title for a paper 'From Ethnicism to Ecumenism.' No educated cleric would hold to this version of ecumenism, but sadly, lay people spout it all too often. 'You Greek?' 'No.' 'How come you come to Greek Orthodox Church?' Yep, been there, heard that.

My comments on Chalcedon in my previous post, while hopefully spot on theologically, didn't take into account the position of the Copts and other non-Chalcedonians. We have a Coptic gentleman here. He does not commune, but he is, as far as any of us can tell, perfectly Orthodox in his Christology. I have had the same experiences with Copts and Ethiopians in other places too. On the other hand, I have been less certain about the Armenians. The ones I met when I was in seminary seemed to have a difficulty with the meaning of the Chalcedonian Definition. The various national churches that comprises the 'Oriental Orthodox' communion were separated from each other for centuries. I suppose that it is possible that the Armenians were more influenced by the 'extremists' of the non-Chalcedonian party, those who at least bordered on true Monophysitism (Eutychianism). I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the non-chalcedonian churches in their history or present-day reality to speak with any authority whatsoever. All I know is that I have had different experiences with Copts than I have with Armenians, and the Copts sound perfectly Orthodox to me, while the Armenians leave question marks in my mind. This would be just enough to lead me personally to lean toward the Chalcedonians as a whole if I were in your shoes.

As I mentioned before, I never let the ethnic issue stop me. However, I am reasonably adept at foreign languages so learning a bit of Russian and Slavonic wasn't all that big a deal for me. From what you are saying, ethnicity has not been a problem for you with the Copts either. That is good. I be a bit foolish to try to convince you with an argument from numbers; by that argument you should become Catholic, or even Muslim. No, the single biggest argument I have in favour of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy is balance; if the non-Chalcedonians do indeed share the Orthodox balanced view of the Person of Christ, glory to God!

It does strike me while Orthodoxy (Chalcedonian) has spread out among numerous cultures (and then faded from some), the non-Chalcedonians have remained isolated until very recently. In these recent times, either they have seen their way to express their traditional theology in a way that satisfies the ears of Chalcedonians, or they have moved toward the Chalcedonian position. In either case, it appears to me that their expansion beyond their national confines is being accompanied by full(er) expression of the Faith; in other words, catholicity is becoming more evident among them, both in terms of fullness of faith (kath-olike = according to the whole), and in terms of there being neither Jew nor Greek, etc.

In the end, I believe that the best piece of advice I can give you, as I have already said, is to contact Fr Andrew in Felixstowe. He too has had to deal with ethnic issues. He is in a distinctly Russian jurisdiction, and yet he is an Englishman, no doubt in my mind about that. More important to me, ROCOR is at present the most grounded Orthodox jurisidiction in the Western world. In spite of decades of persecution, even by other Orthodox and other Russians, they have kept their focus. There are exceptions, of course, but their All-Diaspora Council in May demonstrated where they are as a whole, and to me, at least, it is admirable. I am from a jurisdiction in the States that has fought ROCOR tooth and nail. (Is there a different British expression? I like British expressions.) Where things stand now, I think ROCOR was mistaken in some of its perceptions of the OCA over the years, but our hierarchy and administration is proving very aptly that ROCOR was on to something. I have far more respect for the ROCOR hierarchy as a whole than I do for just about anybody else in the Orthodox Church. Are they perfect? Of course not. They, do, however, seem to have their priorities straight.

Finally, regarding Fr Andrew in particular, I should like to point out that I have never met him in person. Nevertheless, while he could have simply ignored my e-mails or grown tired of them by now, he has been very gracious in sharing with me his thoughts on issues that are troubling me about the state of ecclesiastical affairs here in America. I have appreciated his candour and I have respected him for following the example of his own bishop, +MARK, who has been a shining example of humility in terms of recognising past errors and setting a course to move forward constructively, working with those who were considered 'the enemy' only ten years ago - and less.

Well, whilst it is just the beginning of the day in Britain, it is 22hrs here in Alaska, and as you Brits like to say, I'm knackered. I'll end here, and look forward to hearing from you again. I hope others are getting something out of these exchanges too. I for one certainly welcome comments from others.

MAH

[John Charmley]

My comments on Chalcedon in my previous post, while hopefully spot on theologically, didn't take into account the position of the Copts and other non-Chalcedonians. We have a Coptic gentleman here. He does not commune, but he is, as far as any of us can tell, perfectly Orthodox in his Christology.

No, the single biggest argument I have in favour of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy is balance; if the non-Chalcedonians do indeed share the Orthodox balanced view of the Person of Christ, glory to God!


Dear Mark,

I have pondered hard, and have found in Father Andrew's website a great treasure trove; I am most grateful to you, for without your reference I should not have known of it. It is, as with the rest of your post, a caution against acting too quickly.

What you say about the Copts is interesting, and I am finding the discussion on the Christology thread illuminating - but as yet inconclusive.

It would be good, as you say, to hear from others on this theme, since I can hardly be the only Anglican lurking around this site who finds him (or her) self closer to Orthodoxy than to parts of his own Communion.

If one thing is clear, however (and Anglicanism specialises in the opaque), it is that the hopes of those Anglicans who have always seen their Communion as an interim arrangement pending reunion are unlikely to be realised.

I am very grateful to you, Mark, and to others on this site, for their assistance; where the way is dark, light is everything.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Dear Mark,

I have pondered hard, and have found in Father Andrew's website a great treasure trove; I am most grateful to you, for without your reference I should not have known of it. It is, as with the rest of your post, a caution against acting too quickly.

What you say about the Copts is interesting, and I am finding the discussion on the Christology thread illuminating - but as yet inconclusive.

It would be good, as you say, to hear from others on this theme, since I can hardly be the only Anglican lurking around this site who finds him (or her) self closer to Orthodoxy than to parts of his own Communion.

If one thing is clear, however (and Anglicanism specialises in the opaque), it is that the hopes of those Anglicans who have always seen their Communion as an interim arrangement pending reunion are unlikely to be realised.

I am very grateful to you, Mark, and to others on this site, for their assistance; where the way is dark, light is everything.

In Christ,

John

You are most welcome, John. I am glad our exchanges have been of help.

I was thinking about the issue of the non-Chalcedonians vs the Chalcedonians in terms if I were making the decision to leave the Anglican Communion today. All other things being equal, my question to myself is, if Chalcedonian Christology (which I have always held) is indeed Orthodox, why join a body that does not endorse Chalcedon? This is a variation of the 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' rule. If the non-Chalcedonians were raising serious, credible arguments against what I consider to be Orthodox Christology, I'd feel compelled to deal with those, but they are not. They are affirming the essence of Chalcedon (as I understand it) without affirming the authority of the Council itself. All else being equal, since I come from a Chalcedonian background, I see no reason to go to a body that does not affirm that Council. The there is nothing 'broken' about the teaching of the council, so why abandon the council? The non-Chalcedonians may take issue with the Council itself on historical grounds, but those grounds are of local significance only. My entire, personal Christian life is founded on Chalcedon, and has its roots in the local churches that affirmed Chalcedon. Unless someone can demonstrate that Chalcedon was indeed in error ('broken'), which the non-Chalcedonians are not even trying to do, coming from my background I'd stick with the Chalcedonians. If I had been raised non-Chalcedonian, all else being equal, I'd stay non-Chalcedonian by the same principle. I guess another way of putting is to use an image of highways. If two motorways lead to the same city, say London, in close to the same amount of time, and I know one well but not the other, I'd take the one I know, unless someone tells me that the one I know is having construction done on it and there will be long delays, or gives me some other particular reason to choose the other road.

'Anglicanism specialises in the opaque.' I've never heard it said that way, but I most definitely agree. One Orthodox priest refers to Anglican theology as 'the theology of imprecision' as opposed to imprecise theology. Theology 101: How to muddy the waters. (101 is a beginner's course in college here in the States; I suspect the system is probably different in the UK.)

The bigger problem I see in Anglicanism, however, is 'Anglican Comprehensiveness,' which is not only heretical in that it negates genuine Tradition, but it is based on bad social principles too - namely a dangerous view of tolerance. I think our present world plight is evidence enough of my point: Nowadays we are expected not simply to respect those who differ from us, but to affirm them in their incompatible belief systems. That's not tolerance, it's tyranny. Genuine tolerance will be rooted in the core belief of the human being as the Image of God. I respect that Image no matter where I find it. I do my best to treat every person with dignity. I expect, however, that each person will accept that I cannot always agree with their points of view. If I am not allowed to disagree openly without being accused of some sort of intolerance, that itself is intolerance. I can't say for what is happening in the Church of England, but this pseudo-tolerance was already sweeping the Episcopal Church USA 30 years ago.

Because of this core problem, which is both both theological and sociological, there can be no clearing the waters. They must and therefore will remain murky - opaque. Because comprehensiveness is so central to the Anglican identity, it is likewise foundational to Anglican theology and sociology.Because it is foundation in both of those areas, it is vital to the Anglican well-being to keep the waters murky. If they ever clear up, there will be open warfare and someone will lose. The current crisis stirred up by ECUSA over the ordination of a practising homosexual is pushing the African provinces of the Communion to clarify at least their part of the sea, and the result is strife within the Communion, strife which cannot really go away, and will no longer tolerate being obscured in muddy water. It's actually amazing that the Oxford Movement didn't tare the Communion apart. This is just an initial thought, but perhaps it didn't because Oxford was primarily a theological movement with ritual consequences. The present issue is both theological and sociological (like Comprehensiveness itself), and therefore cuts to the core identity of people.

When one's identity is (perceived to be) attacked, defences go up and reasoned thinking diminishes rapidly. In particular, people lump various issues together. Disagreeing about what Tradition says about homosexuality is equated with beating or murdering a homosexual. However, these are two fundamentally different issues. Theologically, I am bound to examine the entire Tradition of the Church to understand God's revelation in this matter, and to be guided by that. I am also bound theologically to respect the Image of God in the homosexual person. Sociologically, I am bound to treat the person with all the dignity I expect for myself. Thus (in theory at least) I can, without hypocrisy, condemn homosexual practise and the elevation of homosexuals to holy orders in an ecclesial body, while supporting certain gay rights measures after careful examination of their actual purpose, scope, and other particulars.

BTW - If you look at the Western Rite discussion, you'll see where I apply this same principle of sorting out component issues to that problem. In that case I emphasise the need to deal with the merits of particular Western Rite practises in their own right, completely separately from the historical context why some are seeking out a Western Rite in the Orthodox Church -namely the liturgical and theological chaos that followed Vatican II. The latter is an important issue, but irrelevant to the adequacy of WR for use in Orthodox worship. Because these issues have not been separated (I opine), WR parishes have been content to call 'traditional' liturgical practises that are of mediaeval origin. This ignores key points in liturgical history, which if elucidatd, would not only be more 'ancient' but would better demonstrate the closeness of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Patriarchates in their liturgical ethos in the early centuries.

You're no doubt just going for the day, but it's past my bedtime (2326 hrs). Hope to hear from you again soon.

MAH

[Peter Farrington]

Unless someone can demonstrate that Chalcedon was indeed in error ('broken'), which the non-Chalcedonians are not even trying to do, coming from my background I'd stick with the Chalcedonians. If I had been raised non-Chalcedonian, all else being equal, I'd stay non-Chalcedonian by the same principle. I guess another way of putting is to use an image of highways. If two motorways lead to the same city, say London, in close to the same amount of time, and I know one well but not the other, I'd take the one I know, unless someone tells me that the one I know is having construction done on it and there will be long delays, or gives me some other particular reason to choose the other road.


Dear Mark

You write generously about the non-Chalcedonians and I would want to write as generously about the Chalcedonians.

I am not sure that the matter of staying in a Church that affirms or fails to affirm Chalcedon is so important. Does the Anglican Church really affirm Chalcedon? Is that one of the main features of Anglicanism? Not in any Anglicanism I have known.

And the comparison is not, in the UK, between two similar and parallel motorways, though that is a useful analogy. If it were a matter of choosing, for instance, between the Greeks and the Copts, then each would present a similar range of problems for an enquirer.

But in fact it seems to me that Oriental Orthodoxy has the advantage of being rooted in cultural difference and is able to cope easily with properly managed cultural difference. This is why the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, a deeply conservative Eastern community, has within it both a French and British Orthodox Church whose mission is to grow and become a genuinely British and authentically Orthodox Church in its own right. Though the British Orthodox Church is small at the moment this nascent autonomy is already present. We have a British Metropolitan, not merely a diocesan bishop of the Coptic Church.

There are other Eastern Orthodox communities who are predominantly British convert but it seems to me, since I had to consider which way I went 12 or so years ago, that their situation is not at all the same as that of the British Orthodox Church. They have Greek or Arab bishops who have a wider concern for their own Greek and Arab and Russian communities. They are single parishes among many others who are explicitly Greek and Arab and Russian. Their is no structure in place for these convert parishes to become a British Orthodox Church.

Indeed recent events in the Moscow Patriarchate show the great difficulties in a jurisdiction which is torn between being British and being Russian. It would seem that being Russian has won.

So I am not convinced that there are two similar motorways. There are certainly two roads which both go to the same destination. Both have things which commend them. But personally I find the issue of Chalcedon to be low on the list of things which need to be taken into account. How many Russians in the congregation at Ennismore Gardens are thinking, 'I thank God I am in a Church which affirms Chalcedon'?

I would also have to say that Father Andrew is rather unique. His parish may well seek to take account of the Western Orthodox heritage but many others do not. I know Russian bishops in the West who will not allow a Christian to be named Patrick since Patrick is not listed in the traditional Russian calendar. Most of ROCOR is very rooted in a Russian tradition and is not half as friendly to our British tradition as Father Andrew.

The British Orthodox Church is a missionary Church. This needs to be taken into account. But our aim is clear. We want those non-Orthodox who think about Orthodoxy to know us, to know our website, to find that we have things to say to them in a language they can understand.

I am not convinced that most of the ethnic communities in the UK are seeking to be such a missionary Church. In fact when I contacted the Archdiocesan office of the Greek Church in the UK I was told by a clergy officer there that I should become Anglican since that was the Orthodox Church for British people.

This is not to criticise any of the British converts in any jurisdictions. But I am not sure that all Orthodox jurisidictions have the same aim. Certainly both the Greeks and Russians seem more concerned, quite legitimately, in caring for their predominantly immigrant congregations in their own culture and language. And none of them seem to be moving towards the development of a British Orthodoxy. Indeed I know of Eastern Orthodox convert priests criticised by their hierarchs for being too British.

Indeed +Kallistos has said,

The vision of a united Orthodox Church in the British Isles was outlined by the Rt Revd Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia when he spoke at a conference organised by the Orthodox Fellowship of St John the Baptist. But after recalling the same views he gave on the subject 21 years ago, he added: "It is a little depressing that nothing has happened in those 21 years to make my words out of date."

So I think we need to be realistic. Despite the work of some priests and congregations neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the ethnic Oriental Orthodox seem to be moving to create a British Orthodox Church. But the Copts HAVE! recognising that a certain degree of independence is necessary if such a local Church is to have any chance.

I would join the British Orthodox Church again like a shot if I were making the choice today. It is completely given over to mission and is producing a whole range of exciting opportunities for service. There is very little of the pressure found in many other places, including Coptic congregations, to conform to an Eastern culture and we have a British bishop who is also committed to doing what is necessary to seeing a British Orthodox Church flourish. It is certainly not easy and requires the commitment of new members, but it is exciting. We have a vision of 50 communities in a decade and are committed to praying and doing what is necessary to see God bring that about.

I guess to some extent the proof must be in the fruits and the harvest and we will see what God chooses to do. But we have just launched a new ministry for enquirers, the British Orthodox Fellowship, and we have 20 paid subscribers in a week, with a target for 200 by Christmas.

I don't think that the two motorways are the same or rather I think the comparison should be between those churches serving a predominantly foriegn and immigrant community, like my own local Greek Church which serves in Greek and whose culture is Greek, or some of the Coptic congregations of course, and those churches seeking to be authentically Orthodox and genuinely British. There are such communities in all the 'ethnic' jurisidictions, but they are not a jurisdiction themselves with mission to British people as their aim and goal, and this cannot help but be problematic in the wider scope and the longer run as the recent disaster in the Moscow Patriarchate shows.

Peter Theodore Farrington

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark, Dear Peter Theodore,

Two weighty contributions which strike to the heart of the matter, and by which I feel blessed - so thank you, both.

Mark is right on target when he comments that:

'The bigger problem I see in Anglicanism, however, is 'Anglican Comprehensiveness,' which is not only heretical in that it negates genuine Tradition, but it is based on bad social principles too - namely a dangerous view of tolerance. I think our present world plight is evidence enough of my point.'

This is so accurate. We can love the sinner whilst hating the sin, but should bear in mind St. Cyril's comment to Nestorius that he would never find anyone who loved him as much - but that would not be at the expense of his faith.

Part of Anglicanism's genius has to been to adapt with the times; the problem Mark outlines is that this is what happens when the times are secular and materialist. From a secular and materialist view point Anglican comprehensiveness makes sense; but it fails at St. Cyril's point. But since it is so hard to define exactly what Anglicans ought to believe, Anglicanism is wide open for a take-over by secularism. The so-called third world churches do know what they believe, but how long they can remain in communion with Episcopalians who ordain gay men (and women) and have women bishops is a moot point.

For Anglicans like me, however, the answer to the question of whether to stay is easier than the answer to the question of where to go, and it is on this point that yourself and Peter Theodore offer fascinating perspectives.

When Peter Theodore writes:

'I think we need to be realistic. Despite the work of some priests and congregations neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the ethnic Oriental Orthodox seem to be moving to create a British Orthodox Church. But the Copts HAVE! recognising that a certain degree of independence is necessary if such a local Church is to have any chance.

I would join the British Orthodox Church again like a shot if I were making the choice today. It is completely given over to mission and is producing a whole range of exciting opportunities for service. There is very little of the pressure found in many other places, including Coptic congregations, to conform to an Eastern culture and we have a British bishop who is also committed to doing what is necessary to seeing a British Orthodox Church flourish. It is certainly not easy and requires the commitment of new members, but it is exciting. We have a vision of 50 communities in a decade and are committed to praying and doing what is necessary to see God bring that about'

he touches on important considerations, especially for those, like myself, who had agreed with that Orthodox bishop who thought Anglicanism was English Orthodoxy.

That is why, for me, the issue of Chalcedon matters (and why on another thread I am probably in danger of wearying everyone with questions about it).

IF Chalcedon matters, and IF the OO are on the wrong side of something that still matters, then I may end up repeating my Anglican experience. If Chalcedon matters and the EO are on the right side of that, then it may well become necessary to acquaint myself with the minutiae of Russian ecclesiastical politics.

But if one acts on one's experience, then I have to say that the BOC's attempts to create Orthodoxy with a British ethos is working for me. Peter Theodore himself has been a model of selfless assistance, and the eirenic (in the best sense of that word) tone of the BOC is appealing. The real sense of mission, of holiness, and of fellowship, has been in marked contrast to what I experienced nearly thirty years ago at University from the EO - who made it clear that my ethnicity was a barrier. I am sure that has changed, but am mindful that Father Andrew's site does seem to be exceptional.

I am struck by the fact that the Copts have welcomed the BOC, but are quite prepared to let them have their own Metropolitan. Few Orthodox have suffered for as long as the Copts, and their witness is humbling to someone from my comfortable English background.

But there is that 'little' question about Chalcedon!

I know one thing, which is that had I been exposed to the wonders of Orthodoxy earlier, I should not have spent so many years in a spiritual desert. But I would not want anyone to suppose that in saying this, I intend disprespect for my current Communion. Those who founded it saw it as provisional, but no one could have foreseen that the English talent for prevarication would have lasted for this long. The Church of England has a potentially great Archbishop in Rowan Williams, but whether he should use his great talents to keep the show on the road is one to debate elsewhere.

In the meantime, both of you have given me, and other readers, so much to think over - many thanks.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Dear Peter, John et al:

I must admit immediately that I had only vaguely heard of the British Orthodox Church (BOC) until this discussion. My impression had been that it was one of those 'episcopi vaganti' organisations, pretending to having some connection with an historical Orthodox Church, but in fact being more of a neo-gnostic pseudo-church. Of course, I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and so far the comments I am hearing, and my brief perusal of the British Orthodox Church's web-site is making me much more comfortable.

The point about ethnic issues is well taken. What happened in the Sourozh Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, however one looks at it, was tragic. I read the report of the commission that invesigated the crisis and it sounds to me like it could have been avoided at many points if people had been of a rather different frame of mind - the one that you (Peter) are saying exists in the BOC. The failure to truly deal with such issues has been the bain of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in the West all along. I should note immediately that I am absolutely shocked and horrified that an officer, clerical or lay, of the Greek Church would ever remotely call the Anglicans 'Orthodox.' That is appalling!

A question, if I may: Can you please tell me about your liturgical practise? Are you Western Rite, Liturgy of St Mark, or what? Is there a place on the BOC web-site where I can find liturgical materials? I am quite interested in such things, as you may be able to tell from the Western Rite discussion on this site. Furthermore, I have a student here at St Herman Seminary who is asking me about Celtic liturgy. To this date I have no knowledge of a legitimate in-tact rite on paper, not to mention in living use. I should very much like to be better informed about the worship of the BOC - in fact, the more informed, the better. I am inviting my student to join, but I don't know if he'll have the time to do so. He has to share his computer with others (and I have to enforce the equal time). It is ridiculously expensive to post things from the UK to the US, I know; so anything you can point me to in PDF format (or other electronic formats) would be most helpful. I should be happy to include any legitimate materials in the seminary library's collection. We already have a number of books by Pope Shenouda.

Yours in Christ,

Mark Harrison

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Mark

Well the British Orthodox Church is a consituent of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and has been for 12 years. Our bishop is a Metropolitan of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and is a senior member of the Coptic Orthodox Holy Synod.

I have known them for perhaps 18 years now. I never once had any sense that they were other than a serious orthodox group in the wider sense, trying hard to be Orthodox in the narrower sense, while coping with an isolated status they had not chosen.

I've never come across any neo-gnosticism, though I have found that some Eastern Orthodox clergy with more time on their hands than they should have do try to spread rumours about all manner of churches and people to cause trouble.

I know the history of the groups that made up what is now the British Orthodox Church fairly well. I am close to my bishop and he knows the history very well. Is everything commendable? Of course not? But they were struggling after having been rather abandoned under pressure from the Anglican authorities. So I do not begrudge them a few characters who lacked discretion. They are, indeed I should say, we are, after all not responsible for everyone in the history of our community.

Is it not the case that many Eastern Orthodox clergy, bishops even, have been and even still are, Freemasons? Other Eastern Orthodox hierachs have been tainted with being KGB spies etc etc. We cannot chose all those who are or have been members of our communities.

But it is the case that we are happily and completely an integral part of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and I can visit any Oriental Orthodox church and recieve communion. Indeed my bishop is regularly invited by the Eritrean hierarchy to minister to their communities in England, and he has been a guest of the Syrian Patriarchate, and regularly of the Armenians especially in Istanbul. Whenever he is in Istanbul he has a private meeting with HH the EP.

Last June I attended an inter-Orthodox Conference on Christology with him, where he was the Coptic Orthodox representative and presented the key-note paper.

So I have no doubt, and have never had doubts, that this group and its immediate antecedents were and are entirely Orthodox. I am a member of the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and I guess I expect to be considered as that which I am. I did not join the antecedent church before its union with the COP because I knew that it was hard enough then to become Orthodox and I did not want to formally join a Church that was still finding its way back into the wider communion. But the Anglican Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy didn't appeal so much to me either at the time, so I waited, and when the union took place I knew I should join the BOC. I had known them well for 4 years and so it was not a hurried decision and I have not regretted it or wished I had taken another direction. Indeed one of our priests was with the Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy and joined the Antiochean Archdiocese, and later requested a canonical release to our jurisdiction which was granted by +Gabriel.

In the BOC we use our own edition of Greek St James as our normal liturgy, and we use our own editions of the Coptic Rites for Vespers and Matins and the Hours and other services. I do have a draft revised edition of the Liturgy which I will send you by email. As far as I am concerned the texts are in good English and only a scholar would know they were of Eastern origin. Of course the service is different, but a modern Charismatic celebration would also be different, and as long. I am not sure that is the main issue for folk especially if they are not invited cold to the liturgy as if it were an evangelistic service. I do not believe it is.

I am very interested in early Christianity in England, and it is important to us, without being allowed to become an obsession. I used to maintain a website called Celtic Orthodoxy, and will probably add all the texts I collected there to our main BOC website. It is wonderful that the grave of my patron St Theodore, is just 18 miles from my home. There is a real sense of being in an Orthodox landscape if we open our eyes.

The only person I know who is really using the Celtic Liturgy is +Maelruian, whom I have known a long time. He is not canonical, but he is serious. He has a website at http://www.celticchristianity.org. He has the text of the Liturgy and the Breviary. I think it is all authentic in my opinion. But I do also rather think that the issue of Rite can become a bit of a red herring and that people are more interested in having a comfortable culture with good translations of the texts that they can follow and participate in. Indeed for most non-Christians whom we should be trying to reach, ALL liturgy is alien.

Have you seen the books I have published at http://www.orthodox-library.org? Does the St Herman Seminary Library have any of them.

In Christ

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

Actually I see that the key-note paper I referred to has been posted on the forum here and is at:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1570

I would commend it to the EO members and would be interested in their comments.

Peter

[Mark Harrison]

Hi Peter (et al),

Thank you for your explanation about the BOC. Whatever it may have been before, I can see that it is fully, and legitimately, a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion.

Regarding the books, we do not have any of those and they would make an excellent addition to our library. Unfortunately, I don't have the funding for new purchases at present.

It is indeed true that one will find all manners of dodgy chaps among the EO hierarchy. Thank God, Augustine did have at least one good point - that the moral character of the minister doesn't invalidate his sacramental ministrations. If it did, there would be no Church today. There's never been a day in history, I suppose, on which something dodgy wasn't done somewhere.

You use the Liturgy of St James, eh? I've yet to attend a celebration of that rite, though it has fascinated me. I should love to see anything you are willing to send, but I personally have no more money than the library, so my piqued interests may have to go unsatisfied for a while.

Since you seem to be much closer to direct sources than I have any hope of being, what is the present state of talks between the EO and OO communions? Is there any hope that reunion will take place in the near future (ten years or less)? Certainly, I'd be among the first to rejoice if it happened. I am particularly amazed that +Gabriel gave a canonical release to a priest to move to non-Chalcedonian jurisdiction. I'd like to think that is in line with the state of discussions and formal relations. I had heard some time ago that the EO and OO Patriarchates of Antioch were establishing close ties, but I am a little fuzzy about exactly what that means in practical terms.

This may be of help to John too: How do you see formal reconciliation coming about? How can the issue of Chalcedon and the remaining 3 councils that EO churches count as ecumenical be resolved, so that matters of faith are not violated, but historical realities are recognised. Are there any doctrinal problems with the fifth, sixth or seventh councils from the OO point of view? I've never heard of any. Monothelitism seemed to derive from Monophysitism, and yet I've never heard that the non-Chalcedonians accepted the Monothelite heresy. If it is true that they did not, that would seem to be an indication that they did not hold the Eutychean Monophysite heresy. Can the non-Chalcedonians affirm the doctrinal teachings of those councils, and thus the oecumenical authority of those teachings?

I am, in fact, quite anxious to see reunion between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Eastern/Oriental Churches. If there has been any good that has come out of the ecumenical movement, it has been the opportunity to get to know each other again. Certainly we have far more in common with each other than we do with any of the Western Christians. I cannot help but sense that, in spite of 1,500 years of alienation, there is a genuine kinship between us.

At present, I stand by the Council of Chalcedon. I probably always shall hold it as authoritative, and that is a point of difficulty for me when it comes to sorting out the place of the Orientals in the overall scheme of things. The Tome of St Leo and the Chalcedonian Definition that derived from it, maintain in their language a delicate balance in understanding the God-man Jesus Christ. If that same balance can be maintained using different language, that doesn't sound Nestorian to the non-Chalcedonians, glory to God!

Since this is supposed to be a thread on Anglicanism, I'll make a plug for the establishment of an Orthodox see of Canterbury. Of course, the Anglicans won't appreciate that, and I hope it doesn't offend our friend John. Perhaps the time has not quite come yet, but I don't think we should be afraid to do so, not unless we actually believe what that Greek cleric said about the Anglicans being the British Orthodox. If they are Orthodox, I'm a heretic. May God have mercy on my soul. By the way, John, IMO, the last truly great Archbishop of Canterbury was Michael Ramsey. If by chance you have not read his discussions of Anglican-Orthodox relations, you must. Our dean, Fr Chad (named for St Chad of Litchfield), when he was an Episcopalian in seminary, had the then retired Archbishop as a professor for one class and got to be quite friendly with him. I have heard many personal stories about him, much to my joy. At least one of those centred around that wonderful British custom of high tea. (Like Jean-Luc Picard, I prefer Earl Grey, though I've never grown accustomed to the British practise of adding cream or milk to my tea.)

I hope this finds you both well.

In Christian friendship I remain,

Mark Harrison

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Mark

Perhaps I will start another thread elsewhere about the prospects for reconciliation so that this thread does not get too off topic.

Michael Ramsey is highly respected by many members of the BOC. One of the men who is growing towards Orthodoxy with us at the moment is a godson of Ramsey, and my local Anglican priest who is very Anglo-Orthodox (he visits the monasteries in the Ukraine most years) was ordained by Ramsey.

In short however, I do not believe there are ANY substantive theological differences between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. I believe that the theological intent of the latter councils as described by modern Eastern Orthodox is entirely Orthodox and is accepted as being Orthodox.

The Second Agreement says as much and has been recived by the Holy Synods of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

If you want to read about the important agreements between the Antiocheans and Syrians, and the Greeks and Copts in Egypt, then read the statements at http://www.orthodoxunity.org.

I'll post about my thoughts on the dialogue later on today, I'm just out to the shops now.

In Christ

Peter

[Mark Harrison]

PLEASE SEE NEW THREAD 'CELTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH'

Thanks

[John Charmley]

Since this is supposed to be a thread on Anglicanism, I'll make a plug for the establishment of an Orthodox see of Canterbury. Of course, the Anglicans won't appreciate that, and I hope it doesn't offend our friend John. Perhaps the time has not quite come yet, but I don't think we should be afraid to do so, not unless we actually believe what that Greek cleric said about the Anglicans being the British Orthodox. If they are Orthodox, I'm a heretic. May God have mercy on my soul. By the way, John, IMO, the last truly great Archbishop of Canterbury was Michael Ramsey. If by chance you have not read his discussions of Anglican-Orthodox relations, you must. Our dean, Fr Chad (named for St Chad of Litchfield), when he was an Episcopalian in seminary, had the then retired Archbishop as a professor for one class and got to be quite friendly with him. I have heard many personal stories about him, much to my joy. At least one of those centred around that wonderful British custom of high tea. (Like Jean-Luc Picard, I prefer Earl Grey, though I've never grown accustomed to the British practise of adding cream or milk to my tea.)



Mark,

What a delicious idea! Alas, however, I fear you are correct about the distance between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. However, agreeing with you as I do about Lord Ramsey, I do think that back then there was more in common between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, and thoughts of a reconciliation (or whatever one wishes to call it) were not as odd as they now seem.

Having said that, I notice that in the newer edition of +Ware's book on the Orthodox Church, he seems to be warming to the idea of women priests; a little worrying, since that is how this started with the Anglicans.

You are quite right - an Orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury is an enticing prospect - but since the first one began the process by which the Celtic Church was defeated at Whitby, perhaps not!

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Mark,

What a delicious idea! Alas, however, I fear you are correct about the distance between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. However, agreeing with you as I do about Lord Ramsey, I do think that back then there was more in common between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, and thoughts of a reconciliation (or whatever one wishes to call it) were not as odd as they now seem.

Having said that, I notice that in the newer edition of +Ware's book on the Orthodox Church, he seems to be warming to the idea of women priests; a little worrying, since that is how this started with the Anglicans.

You are quite right - an Orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury is an enticing prospect - but since the first one began the process by which the Celtic Church was defeated at Whitby, perhaps not!

In Christ,

John

It is indeed true that when Lord Ramsey was Archbishop of Canterbury, the whole picture was different. When he was yet Archbishop of York, he went to Moscow where he was an Anglican represntative in Anglican-Orthodox discussions. From that particular meeting came a quote that was in older editions of Bishop KALLISTOS' The Orthodox Church in which Lord Ramsey very eloquently stated the Orthodox position on Tradition and a typical Orthodox response to the Anglican position. I have kept my older editions just for this quote, though I now have in the library the original source in the journal Sobornost.

The fellowship of SS Alban and Sergius was no joke, nor just a warm-fuzzy ecumenical group. It was based on the genuine hope that there could one day be reunion. In so many areas there were possibilities; there was genuine potential, at least with some Anglicans. The problem, however, was always Anglican Comprehensiveness. Every time Orthodox try to work with Anglicans, to come to a genuine common understanding, or work together pastorally, we are confronted by the fact that only a portion of Anglicans believe any one thing, and even the beliefs of that portion are tainted by the tacit acceptance of contrary opinions. This problem was first discovered in the seventeenth century with the Non-Jurors, and it has never gone away. John Cardinal Newman, leader of the Oxford Movement before he went to Rome, saw the same problem; likewise William Palmer of Magdalene College (the one who went to Russia), was also troubled by this phenomenon, as I recall. He ended up Roman Catholic due to a spot of bother with the Orthodox, or so I recall.

Bishop KALLISTOS has been worrying a lot of people. It's not going to go anywhere. The very mechanism of genuine conciliarity will prevent it. If nothing else, as soon as someone tries to ordain a woman to the priesthood, that bishop and all who choose to remain in communion with him will be instantly anathematised. Ecumenism itself has already led to a local anathema by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. While some people tried to paint ROCOR up as a bunch of fanatics twenty years ago, ROCOR's position is winning out. They have at the very least forced the rest of the Orthodox Church to carefully define the meaning and purpose of participation in the WCC, to make changes in the manner of participation in some events, and overall to recognise that ROCOR was right in its fundamental principle. We are not going to be seeing women priests. I don't even think we are going to be seeing women deacons any time soon. Nobody wants to repeat the Anglican mistake of opening that door. First of all, we need to go much further in rebuilding the distinct diaconal ministry, the perpetual diaconate. Secondly, we need to understand far better exactly what the role of female deacons was. Although they were ordained in Byzantine practise in a rite exactly parallel to the ordination of male deacons, there is no evidence that they performed a parallel liturgical ministry. We do know that they assisted in the baptisms of women for the sake of modesty and propriety. We also know of social activities, such as those peformed by female monastics today; but there is no evidence presently available to suggest that women deacons stood on the amvon and intoned litanies or the Gospel, or even vested in diaconal vestments. When St Nektarios of Aegina supposedly ordained two female deacons, it was a great matter of controversy what exactly it was he was doing, or even how much truth there was to the account. That (alleged) action has not become a precedent even after 90 years or so.

Perhaps if we create an Orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury we can take the right path this time. I have to admit, it sounds like the Copts are doing better on this point.

I question of protocol coming from a Yank: I know, from speaking to Fr Chad, that Lady Ramsey was referred to as 'Lady Ramsey'; but does her husband's place in the House of Lord's outweigh his clerical status? I almost referred to him as 'Lord Ramsey' myself, but it seemed to disrespect his ecclesial rank. Of course, as an Orthodox Christian I take an 'I don't know, that's in God's hands' view about Anglican Orders, but I still cannot help but respect Lord Ramsey as Archbishop of Canterbury, if for no other reason than his own faithfulness and consequent openness to being a vessel of God's grace, however God would see fit to work it. Can you clarify how this works?

Gotta run. I downloaded updates and I need to restart my computer. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Olga]

Dare I say that Mark's dilemma is a product of a clergyman (of whichever Christian denomination) entering the political arena. Even if Abp Ramsey resigned his clerical duties on taking his seat in the Parliament, many would continue to refer to him by his clerical title. Once a bishop, always a bishop, is how many would see it. An analogy to this would be the American practice of former presidents continuing to be called "President" as a mark of respect and acknowledgement of their service to their country.

The Orthodox position, as far as I am aware, prohibits clergy from secular political office, which eliminates the dilemma. (Though how the late Archbishop Makarios became President of Cyprus has always been a puzzle for me ...).

Here in Australia, we had the appointment a few years ago of an Anglican archbishop to the post of Governor-General (Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state, the G-G is her representative). Even in a country which rarely wears its religious heart on its sleeve, the appointment was widely seen as controversial, despite Abp Hollingworth resigning from all his clerical posts.

[Peter Farrington]

In the British context those senior bishops and archbishops were/are members of the House of Lords by virtue of their episcopacy rather than in spite of it.

I'm not sure what the correct address would have been, probably My Lord Archbishop, although, as with the several archbishops I was in company of today (at a Roman-Catholic/Oriental Orthodox conference) I prefer to ignore any political form of address and stick to the ecclesiastical.

A colleague subdeacon is a PhD as well, but he is always subdeacon Michael, never Dr subdeacon or subdeacon Dr. I don't know if that is ancient canon, but it is our practice.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Because the Church of England is the Established Church, its bishops and archbishops were members of the legislature, which from 1689 through to 1828 was an entirely Anglican assembly. After the repeal of the Test and Corporations Acts in 1828 and Catholic emancipation in 1829 the 'confessional state' ceased to exist in its previous form, and as Britain became a more pluralistic polity, and as the Anglican Church expanded, two things happened: first not all Anglican bishops became automatically members of the House of Lords; secondly, in the later twentieth century, leaders of other religions were added to the Lords.

In this sense, the presence of the Anglican primates in the Lords is one of the public marks of Establishment. But during the heyday of the confessional state erastianism ruled, in so far as promotion to the episcopate was a political decision.

The proper address would be 'the Right Reverend Lord Ramsey', marking the superiority of the spiritual rank.

We are all, of course, aware of the toll which the state's interest in religious practices has had on the Church.

Here endeth the lesson!

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Ah, yes, that would be the lesson from the 3rd chapter of the epsitle of John, beginning at the seventh verse, right?

Thank you gentlemen for the clarification and lesson in history.

So, are all of the Anglican archbishops lords? Are there any Orthodox hierarchs among the lords, or Roman Catholic bishops?

I am a peculiar American. I actually like the system of nobility; but I am not blind to its failings, the greatest of which is that so few nobles behave in a noble manner.

I always say that if I had been born around 1750 in the colonies, by 1775 I'd have either moved to Canada or to England. Taking up arms against the Crown just doesn't seem right to me.

I'd love to read a British-written history of the establishment of the United States, up through the War of 1812. It would be very interesting. Likewise, I should like to see a CoE take on the formation and polity of the American Episcopal Church.

Back to a question relevant to Anglicanism: Peter's comment about a Greek cleric telling him that the Anglicans are the British Orthodox is truly sickening, and I can only expect that it arose from ecumenical politics. Does the Church of England pressure the Orthodox? What would happen if Orthodox were to establish a see of Canterbury? Of course, you can only speculate, but your speculations will certainly be closer to the mark than my own. Personally, I wouldn't care what Anglicans thought, though I might care what the Queen thought. She might get a little fussed.

MAH

[Olga]

The Queen may well get a little fussed, however, given that both she and the Duke of Edinburgh are related to the Romanov dynasty by more than one family link, and what with Prince Charles's dabbling in Orthodoxy, who knows what may happen in the future in the UK, particularly if Charles becomes king ....

[Peter Farrington]

I think that part of the problem is that many Greek communities borrow facilities from the Anglicans, and they both rather have an 'established church' mentality.

Some Greeks have expressed utter confusion to me as to HOW a British person could become Orthodox (in any jurisdiction) since it is self-evidently necessary to be Greek to be Orthodox, indeed they are the same.

If this view informs attitudes to the Anglican Church then it becomes THE Church for British people just as Orthodoxy is THE Church for Greek people.

I am not so sure it is to do with ecumenism at all, rather that each people should belong to their own national church and to some/many Greeks it would seem that Anglicanism is OUR Church while Orthodoxy is THEIRS.

The Greek authorities did also issues statements condemning proselytism/evangelism directed towards Anglicans and also formed a joint committee to interview those who wished to become Orthodox. All very un-Orthodox in fact.

I don't know what their practice is now. But that was certainly the situation a decade ago.

I would also like all Orthodox bishops in the UK to have British dioceses. The Coptic bishops are all named in the UK for UK places and regions rather than ruined villages in Egypt. It is a shame, IMHO, that +Basil is still not a bishop of anywhere in Britain.

I would like to see an Orthodox Metropolitan of Canterbury. There are no legal reasons why there should not be one. Perhaps if Canterbury ceases to be the focus of the Anglican Communion and it moves to Nigeria or elsewhere then it might be more politic.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

I'd love to read a British-written history of the establishment of the United States, up through the War of 1812. It would be very interesting.


You might want to look at Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" While not exhaustive US history - he does dwell on the colonies in North America.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

I was talking about this with some US friends on another list some time ago because I wanted to know what had happened to the Loyalists - it wasn't very nice.

But I did find and buy what was a good scholarly book which presented a closer look at the Loyalist side.

I will have to try and find it, although I think I found a good website about the Loyalist experience in the American Revolutionary War and that was where I got the review of the book.

Peter

[Kris]

I think that part of the problem is that many Greek communities borrow facilities from the Anglicans, and they both rather have an 'established church' mentality.

Some Greeks have expressed utter confusion to me as to HOW a British person could become Orthodox (in any jurisdiction) since it is self-evidently necessary to be Greek to be Orthodox, indeed they are the same.

If this view informs attitudes to the Anglican Church then it becomes THE Church for British people just as Orthodoxy is THE Church for Greek people.

I am not so sure it is to do with ecumenism at all, rather that each people should belong to their own national church and to some/many Greeks it would seem that Anglicanism is OUR Church while Orthodoxy is THEIRS.

The Greek authorities did also issues statements condemning proselytism/evangelism directed towards Anglicans and also formed a joint committee to interview those who wished to become Orthodox. All very un-Orthodox in fact.

I don't know what their practice is now. But that was certainly the situation a decade ago.


Dear Peter,

Thanks be to God, the situation is very different now. I think you would have to look hard to find an Orthodox clergyman foolish enough to suggest that Anglicanism was British Orthodoxy.

This attitude, I believe, came from the fact that there were serious attempts to unify the two Churches; to make the Church of England the English Orthodox Church so to speak. As such it was not merely ethnocentrism or ignorance, but something coming from a positive (albeit far-fetched) goal.

Of course, you still get certain older Greeks who believe Christ was born in Thessaloniki and that "Orthodox" and "Greek" are synonyms. But these are the exception.

My own parish in London, although services are in Greek, has a large number Romanian faithful, as well as a few Brits, East-Asians, etc. This is the case in many Greek parishes now, and so people quite simply aren't able to hold to such an insular view.

The monastery of St. John the Baptist in Essex, founded by the Blessed Archimandrite Sophrony, is a spiritual centre for the Eastern Orthodox community in Britain. Having been founded by a Russian, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and having monks and nuns from all over the world (Britain, Russia, Greece, America, Switzerland, Romania, Sweden, Australia, etc.), with services in many different languages, its very much a melting-pot that breaks down cultural barriers.

Then there is the small monastic Brotherhood of St. Edward (which publishes English magazine, The Shepherd), located in Brookwood, Surrey. All the monks there are British (former Anglicans I believe), the services are all in English, and a huge emphasis is placed on the veneration of British Saints (notably St. Edward, whose relics are housed there) and they conduct pilgrimages to sites around the UK, such as the Isle of White.

I can only apologise on behalf of my brothers for what you experienced a decade ago, but I can assure you that this is certainly not a prevailing attitude in Britain today.

In XC,
Kris

[Mark Harrison]

Hi All,

Kris - That'sa relief to hear. Many Greeks in the United States are still quite ethnocentric, though things are changing here too as more and more parishes become pan-Orthodox, and common activities among Orthodox parishes in metropolitan areas.

Olga - I have long hoped that H.R.H. Prince Charles would become truly serious about his 'dabling' in Orthodoxy. It is my understanding from more than one source that Prince Philip has quiety returned to Orthodoxy, though, of course, he must attend certain Anglican services as a matter of State. If Prince Charles can marry a second time, perhaps parliament would allow him to be king and Orthodox, though I believe the law would have to be changed. I also wondered if using the title 'metropolitan' instead of 'archbishop' would soothe the Anglicans somewhat. My pet scenario (probably far-fetched, but who knows) is that the EP would grant autocephaly to the UK so that no church official would have any duty toward a foreign hierarchy, and parliament would then have no problem with allowing the monarch to be Orthodox.

So, everybody, what do we all believe should be the stance of the Orthodox toward the Anglican Communion? Obviously, one does not need to be deliberately rude or uncivil. I don't propose that at all. When I started this thread, this question was already in the back of my mind. The simple fact is that the Anglicans have dug themselves ever deeper into the whole of heresy. I was quite amused by the statement of Rowan Williams that the Church of England 'doesn't know' when it comes to the homosexuality issue. The problem is that the Anglicans do claim to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and while Peter's experience may be a decade old and less likely to occur nowadays, it is not impossible. For the protection of our own faithful, how forceful should we be in speaking out about Anglican heresies?

My personal opinion is that we need to be much more vocal than we have been. Again, we don't need to be uncivil about it, but we do need to educate our own people, and we need to give a very clear message to the Anglicans, we must not tacitly enable them in their delusions of orthodoxy. The big question for me arises when it comes to discerning between American Episcopalians, members of the Church of England, and members of the Anglican province of Nigeria (for example). Should we distinguish? On the one hand, Canterbury is communion with both, which makes for a fuzzy picture right there and Nigeria is still in communion with Canterbury, which is communion with ECUSA. What does that say? On the other hand, Nigeria and the other 'Global South' provinces have clearly taken a hard line, and this must be acknowledged. Though they may still be in error on many points (the 39 Articles), they are still genuine Christians - sincere and loyal to the faith that was delivered to them.

I also believe that whatever stance we take must be reflected in our liturgical practise. We can no longer afford to simply 'accept' as baptised all who come from heterodox communities that use water and the Trinitarian formula. The very meaning of ritual and formulae is nebulous to say the least when it comes to Anglicans and other groups. They could do the Byzantine (or Coptic) rite and mean something drastically different by it; they'd use it just because it is 'ancient' but they would read their own theology into it. After all, they recite the Creed, but it is clear that they mean something very different when they proclaim belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The fact that many Anglicans baptise in some alternative names, with impunity, is itself a doctrinal statement on their part.

While the other Protestants do not claim to hold apostolic succession or sacraments. The Anglicans do, and if looking at it from a purely mechanical point of view (pedigree), their claim is stronger than Rome likes to admit. Of course, pedigree is not all there is to it, but that is where they seem to miss the boat. They seem to think that as long as you have the pedigree you're in the church, no matter what new, wild theological innovation you come up with; that's what 'catholicity' is all about to them - the universal acceptance and embracing of all ideas. This, of course, is a serious deformation of the very meaning of 'katholiki.' Have we really made that clear to them?

The most radical step would be to include them in the anathemata on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (assuming that the anathemata are ever proclaimed, which they hardly ever are in this country). In our day and age, proclaiming them at all is deemed uncivil; to add the Anglicans to the list would likely be deemed outright malicious - hate-mongering. But is it? How far does one go with trying to not offend the sensibilities of others? Perhaps one could word the anathema to name the heresies without any names of people or groups: 'whosoever shall say…', for example. As I said, my goal is not to foster hate or anger, nor to be uncivil. There is nothing to be gained. But I do think we need to think carefully about whether we are going the opposite direction being too politie to the point of enabling the Anglicans in their heresy. I do think that firm clarifications of Orthodox position should be made in words and backed up liturgically. I particuarly do not believe there is a basis for receiving Anglicans a baptised, at least not those born in recent years, baptised into a community where they will never learn even the traditional Christianity their grandparents knew, not to mention Orthodoxy. Ultimately, it seems to be that reception by Chrismation should become the exception for all converts, whether from Anglicanism or any other Protestant sect. Perhaps we could receive Nigerian Anglicans by Chrismation based on their faithfulness to their own tradition.

These are rather scattered thoughts I've had for a long time. I've never worked them into a cohesive, systematic 'plan' that would be generally acceptable and worthy of being proposed to the hierarchy for consideration. As such, I welcome any thoughts you all may have, positive or negative.

In Christ,

Mark

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark/Kris/Peter

There are a number of important and interesting points here, and I shall try to do at least some of them justice.

As the law stands in Britain, Prince Charles (or King George VII as he is likely to be crowned) has to be a communicating member of the Anglican Church in order to ascend the throne; that rather rules out conversion - although it assumes the Anglican Church is still there when Elizabeth II does, which is not a foregone conclusion.

Obviously I am keenly interested in the attitude of the Church to Anglicanism (as I am in EO and OO relations, as you know). The key passage in Mark's last post seems to me to be:

'we need to give a very clear message to the Anglicans, we must not tacitly enable them in their delusions of orthodoxy'

If I think of myself, I came to the conclusion that I could no longer convince myself that my Church was a 'branch' of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - but that process might have been helped had there been a clear Orthodox statement to that effect, made, of course, in love and respect, but actually out of love and respect and the desire to show the correct way forward. Including Anglicans in an anathemata might, in these days, be open to misconstruction - still, since it is the Anglicans, you know no one is going to demand an apology or burn down a church!

But the ethnic question raised by Peter should be taken on board. Our duty as Christians is to spread the Faith and bring people to the Church. Anglicans in my position are simply not going to go off wholesale to join a Greek or Russian church, just as the Rus would not have joined a Greek-speaking missionary church in the early days. This is one of the areas where, for me, the BOC and the Copts have got something to teach us all. Perhaps because of their long (and continuing) history of persecution, the Copts have been very open to the idea of a British Orthodox Church which will teach the Faith to the English in a way that will draw them back to where they should be. That includes the pre-1066 Church with its Anglo-Saxon and British saints.

In this sense, it seems to me that the BOC is positioned to offer Anglicans such as myself a Church which is not in any way 'foreign' and which fulfils that sense we had as Anglicans of being 'orthodox'. I say this last because where I was as an Anglican shows how comprehensive (and dangerously so, perhaps) Anglicanism can be. My theology was, as I now see, very little different from Orthodoxy (indeed I have always had trouble with the double procession of the Holy Ghost, but had been told by more than one priest that 'it didn't matter, it was a perfectly respectable position to hold') - which is why, I now see, I will have to leave the Anglican communion which contains too many people whose faith is far from Orthodox.

But if Orthodoxy is to fulfil its Christ-charged mission in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it cannot do it from a Greek or Russian base, I fear.

In Christ,

John

[Kris]

But the ethnic question raised by Peter should be taken on board. Our duty as Christians is to spread the Faith and bring people to the Church. Anglicans in my position are simply not going to go off wholesale to join a Greek or Russian church, just as the Rus would not have joined a Greek-speaking missionary church in the early days. This is one of the areas where, for me, the BOC and the Copts have got something to teach us all. Perhaps because of their long (and continuing) history of persecution, the Copts have been very open to the idea of a British Orthodox Church which will teach the Faith to the English in a way that will draw them back to where they should be. That includes the pre-1066 Church with its Anglo-Saxon and British saints.

In this sense, it seems to me that the BOC is positioned to offer Anglicans such as myself a Church which is not in any way 'foreign' and which fulfils that sense we had as Anglicans of being 'orthodox'. I say this last because where I was as an Anglican shows how comprehensive (and dangerously so, perhaps) Anglicanism can be. My theology was, as I now see, very little different from Orthodoxy (indeed I have always had trouble with the double procession of the Holy Ghost, but had been told by more than one priest that 'it didn't matter, it was a perfectly respectable position to hold') - which is why, I now see, I will have to leave the Anglican communion which contains too many people whose faith is far from Orthodox.

But if Orthodoxy is to fulfil its Christ-charged mission in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it cannot do it from a Greek or Russian base, I fear.


Dear John,

I would be interested to hear how you (and the others) defined "British." Clearly, Orthodoxy in Britain cannot be established on the principles of secular British society (which stands in opposition to Christianity), but must trancend it. So perhaps, whilst we work towards establishing a truly British Orthodoxy, it is important to ask what exactly we mean by this.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

John must of course answer for himself, but for me a Western and British Orthodoxy means one that is at least making the effort to be culturally present here in the British Isles and takes account of our long Christian heritage.

I think that the key is do we appear to be foreign or not. There must be a difference, but do we appear foreign. Of course there are also degrees of foreign-ness as well, and the whole area is one of experiment and judgement.

I know that some EO bishops in the West, and probably OO ones as well, will not baptise any convert with the names of saints such as Patrick, because they are not Orthodox, or Russian Orthodox at least. On the other hand I have a friend in one of the EO jurisdictions who has the name of a very local irish saint. Which procedure is Western Orthodox? Both are theologically Orthodox but the one seems to promote a cultural distance from British people and the other a cultural closeness.

Likewise I am Peter Theodore, taking as my patron St Theodore of Canterbury who lies just 18 miles from me. There seems to be no requirement that every convert receive a local saints name, since clearly many historic British Christians took the names of universal saints, but it seems to militate against making Orthodoxy at home here if an Eastern saint is 'required'.

There is also the matter of the names of bishops. I do find it culturally relevant that most EO bishops have the names of sees that are now ruined villages in the East. This does not say 'we are at home here in Britain'. My own bishop has a British name and other bishops in the British Orthodox Church will have British names, and the Coptic Orthodox also insist that the bishops here in the UK have British sees. I think it is disappointing that +Basil, ostensibly leaving the MP to preserve a British character to his communities should take an even harder Greek name to pronounce than his Russian one.

The language of worship is also important. All of our services are in English, with present developments we might see other British languages used on occasion as is appropriate. But worship should be in a language that people can readily comprehend. I do not believe that anyone should normally be following a service along with a translation. That seems to me to be very much against the Gospel.

The recognition of local saints is also important, and local history. This again comes back to Christian names. If a convert may not be called Patrick then it is unlikely that the life of St Patrick will be esteemed or his prayers sought.

I think that there is also the entire social culture of a community. In my own little Church, though we have Indians, Copts and Poles most of us are British and we have a British social culture. Some of the immigrant members may tend to gravitate towards different sides of the church based on their gender, but this is not part of our culture and so as in other British places of worship people will sit on either side. Others are welcomed and their differences celebrated but we are British Orthodox and we do not feel that we need to conform to Indian or Polish or Syrian or whatever other religious culture. When in Rome....

We do not have the clericalism that can be a feature of some social cultures. I certainly respect my priest greatly but I do not expect him to do everything, or expect him to have the correct answer to everything. We are a team, both he and I and my fellow subdeacon. This is I believe part of our British culture.

We try to be friendly and welcoming to visitors, without overwhelming them or making them uncomfortable. But I know one of our members was a long term member of an ethnic jurisdiction and was ignored every Sunday because he was not of that ethnicity.

We sing good English language hymns that are theologically sound. This is part of our British culture. We expect the congregation to join in with all of the responses in a hearty manner and not merely spectate.

We do not make Egyptian Independence Day the major festival of the year. In fact I do not know when it is to be honest. We do not do belly dancing. We do not eat Egyptian foods on feast days.

Most of our clergy are British, and our bishop is British. I think that is actually quite important because it shows that we are not a foreign church where British people are tolerated but that we are a here for British people, and anyone else of course, but mostly to be engaged in mission to British people. A foreign bishop may have to deal with many cultural tensions if his flock is predominantly immigrant. A native bishop tends to produce less tension.

Of course all of this can be part of any congregation. But I think that the use of a foreign language, foreign terms for things that have English words, and a foreign social culture can be very intimidating.

I do not think it reasonable to expect that every immigrant congregation can switch from being an ex-pat chaplaincy to a missional church, but if we are serious about being Orthodox and not just Greek or Russian or Arab or Coptic then we have to try.

My own local Greek community is too Greek for me. And I was committed to searching for Orthodoxy. If it had celebrated in English I would have been more likely to have considered it more seriously. It has no hope of being missional if it uses Greek.

So what do I think is key:

i. Language
ii. Social culture (are non ethnics made to feel excluded)
iii. Embracing of Western Christian heritage
iv. Taking mission seriously

That would be a start.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Kris/Peter,

Peter is spot on.

For all the recent immigration in certain parts of the country, Britain is a remarkably settled place; most of the families in the town I live in have been here for at least the last century, and many of them for a century before that. Those, like myself, who are 'incomers' have been here for a quarter of a century, and we came from other parts of a small country where the same conditions applied. We have language and culture in common, and we have a very long common history; we know the same folk tales, the same historical anecdotes, we eat similar food, we share similar hobbies; you'll always get a conversation with a British person if you mention either the weather, or gardening, or the national press.

The modern media also provides something of a common focus; most of us grew up with 2 or 3 TV channels. This is only one of the ways in which modernity has provided ways of overriding local differences. The result of these historical and modern processes has been the production of a fairly homogeneous culture. If Orthodoxy is going to make progress in the UK it needs to be able to relate to this culture.

This is not to say that Orthodoxy has to adapt itself to a secular and materialist culture, but if it is going to change that culture (which would be an excellent thing) it needs to be able to work with the good things in it.

So the very first thing is language. The British are notoriously poor at learning foreign languages (our children can opt out of learning them at 14!), so anyone expecting them to learn old Greek or Slavonic in order to listen to the message of Our Lord is in for a big disappointment. After all, one of the reasons the Reformation was able to take hold was that the reformers were speaking to the people in their own language, not in Latin; the Bible in English has always been a best-seller. One of the secrets of Anglican success was the Book of Common Prayer, and it was so foolish of the C of E to abandon it.

So, unless the Church can speak and preach to people in their own language and from a knowledge of their own culture, it won't get far. This isn't news - after all Sts. Cyril and Methodius did not go to the Slavs speaking Greek and with the Gospel in the same language. From my memory of these things, St. Methodius poineered the use of local and vernacular languages in liturgical settings, so the BOC is in good company!

Peter is right about the British tendency towards if not anti-clericism, then a healthy scepticism about the clergy, and this also needs to be taken into account. We are used to working with our clergy, not waiting for them to do everything in the parish.

There is a long history of Christianity in these Islands. The Faith arrived here when we were under Roman rule, and any successful Orthodox mission is going to have to take that on board. Working with a culture as relatively homogeneous and deep-rooted as this requires an acknowledgement that England was Orthodox before 1054, and that in that sense the Church is simply bringing us back to where we once were, before the Normans got in the way!

All of this the BOC seems to understand, and it is firmly committed to mission. I can understand that in a diaspora setting an EO community also wishes to preserve its culture, but that places it poorly for mission. Indeed it would be quite wrong to expect mission from such a situation. But in that case, where is it going to come from?

Goodness knows that Anglicanism has at times behaved as though the Church is the equivalent of a country club, but its success across the globe suggests that it has been able to transcend its own ethnicity. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ, but as St. Paul recognised, there was not a lot of point preaching to the Gentiles in Aramaic or writing to Gentiles in Hebrew.

Sts. Paul and Methodius have shown us the way, and who are we to think we know better? Or to think that with the help of the Holy Ghost we cannot go and do likewise? I sometimes think that this is where Peter is coming from - and it is a wonderful and blessed place.

The scale of the task is immense. Overlying the long historical roots of Christianity is a latter-day neo-paganism, stoked up by a materialism that seeks to take the place of God. To work against these forces of darkness is a formidable task, and it would be easier to preach to the converted and wait for better days. The Gospel commission does not allow for that, though it is easier - and in a real sense more 'British' in its pragmatism.

Yet the BOC is in this fight, and I, for one, pray for its work.

One day, perhaps, we shall be able to bear a united witness to our Faith, but wherever we are, we face formidable obstacles, and we should not add to them those of language and ethnicity. The Copts I have met have been marvellously generous in sharing the pearl of great price, and I am sure the same is true of some EO jurisdictions too.

Hope that helps!

In Christ,

John

[Kris]

Dear Peter and John,


Thank you for your replies. I must say that I am more or less in complete agreement with you both.



I know that some EO bishops in the West, and probably OO ones as well, will not baptise any convert with the names of saints such as Patrick, because they are not Orthodox, or Russian Orthodox at least. On the other hand I have a friend in one of the EO jurisdictions who has the name of a very local irish saint. Which procedure is Western Orthodox? Both are theologically Orthodox but the one seems to promote a cultural distance from British people and the other a cultural closeness.

Likewise I am Peter Theodore, taking as my patron St Theodore of Canterbury who lies just 18 miles from me. There seems to be no requirement that every convert receive a local saints name, since clearly many historic British Christians took the names of universal saints, but it seems to militate against making Orthodoxy at home here if an Eastern saint is 'required'.


An emphasis on the Christian heritage of Britain is certainly very important, and its an area where the ROCOR in particular has been very instrumental.

I find it interesting that you took the name of a 7th century Western Saint, since he would have been a Chalcedonian, outside the canonical boundaries of the Oriental Orthodox communion, of which the British Orthodox Church is now a part (please correct me if I am mistaken). It’s certainly positive from our perspective, since it shows that the Miaphysites are prepared to canonise and venerate Chalcedonian Saints. However, it makes me question the Orthodoxy of your ecclesiology (this is not a criticism but a question).



There is also the matter of the names of bishops. I do find it culturally relevant that most EO bishops have the names of sees that are now ruined villages in the East. This does not say 'we are at home here in Britain'.


This is another good point. I suppose one of the reasons for this is the uncanonical arrangement of over-lapping jurisdictions that we have in the West, both in the EO and the OO. Its certainly an issue that needs addressing, but I don’t think one can do so adequately until there is a single Orthodox Church of Western Europe or Britain.

You mention Bishop Basil. Personally I believe his actions were totally unjustified. His proposal was essentially to divide the Church along ethnic lines; that is the last thing we need. I am also disappointed that the EP were so quick to accept him, with no respect for H.H. Patriarch Alexy at all.

Personally, I believe that the ROCOR, following recent developments, can and should form the basis for a Western Orthodox Church. The fact that it has its administrative centre in the West means that, despite its Russian origin, it carries much less of the same baggage as the other jurisdictions.



Some of the immigrant members may tend to gravitate towards different sides of the church based on their gender, but this is not part of our culture and so as in other British places of worship people will sit on either side.


Here I would disagree with you. The segregation of the sexes during worship is a custom dating back to the Old Testament Temple. As such it is a practice that transcends cultural barriers. Moreover, one must remember that although Britain has a rich Christian heritage, it has not been Orthodox for a millennium. It is simply not possible to say with certainty what would or wouldn’t have been the practice among Christians a thousand years ago. And so I think with issues such as these, which have a direct relationship to our worship, we are simply forced to import certain things from abroad.

If it can be proven that Christian men and women stood together during worship in Orthodox Britain, then that’s fine; but I’m not sure it can.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a pretty trivial issue (in most Greek and Syrian parishes, people are mixed anyway), I’m just saying that one cannot say with any certainty what is and isn’t British.



We do not have the clericalism that can be a feature of some social cultures. I certainly respect my priest greatly but I do not expect him to do everything, or expect him to have the correct answer to everything. We are a team, both he and I and my fellow subdeacon. This is I believe part of our British culture.


That’s an interesting concept, and one I think I’ll have to chew on for a while :-)



We try to be friendly and welcoming to visitors, without overwhelming them or making them uncomfortable. But I know one of our members was a long term member of an ethnic jurisdiction and was ignored every Sunday because he was not of that ethnicity.


This is more a question of simply being Christian in ones dealings with others. It is something that should exist universally. Ironically, I remember speaking to a Greek person living in the US. He was married to an America convert to Orthodoxy and the parish he attended was made up almost entirely of Americans. He said that he experienced exactly the same rejection as you speak of above. I think its important that we don’t make British Orthodoxy yet another ethnic “tribe,” which is why I think Bishop Basil’s decision was a bad one.



We sing good English language hymns that are theologically sound. This is part of our British culture. We expect the congregation to join in with all of the responses in a hearty manner and not merely spectate.


Could you please elaborate on this subject? Are these ancient British hymns or are they recent ones, written specifically for the BOC? Or perhaps of a non-Orthodox origin (albeit theologically Orthodox)? I would be interested in hearing more about this.



We do not make Egyptian Independence Day the major festival of the year. In fact I do not know when it is to be honest. We do not do belly dancing. We do not eat Egyptian foods on feast days.


This is another point I think is important. I always sneak off to a non-Greek parish during any independence day celebrations; it makes me cringe.

As for belly dancing, I’m not sure that would be appropriate in church even if we were Egyptians :-)



Most of our clergy are British, and our bishop is British. I think that is actually quite important because it shows that we are not a foreign church where British people are tolerated but that we are a here for British people, and anyone else of course, but mostly to be engaged in mission to British people. A foreign bishop may have to deal with many cultural tensions if his flock is predominantly immigrant. A native bishop tends to produce less tension.
[quote]

Again, I agree. I suppose the only problem is that there simply aren’t enough British bishops and priests to go round. That being said, I know that there are many English priests among the clergy in the Greek churches here in London, the Russian Cathedral only had two priests that were actually Russian (and both had lived here for years and spoke perfect English, etc.) until the recent problems. Then there is Fr. Michael Harper of the Syrian church here. Most notable is probably H.G. Bishop Kallistos, who is as British as one can possibly get :-)

[quote]
So what do I think is key:

i. Language
ii. Social culture (are non ethnics made to feel excluded)
iii. Embracing of Western Christian heritage
iv. Taking mission seriously


I agree totally. My only concern would be the definition of British social culture. How does one distinguish between its various components. As John hit the nail on the head when he said:


This is not to say that Orthodoxy has to adapt itself to a secular and materialist culture, but if it is going to change that culture (which would be an excellent thing) it needs to be able to work with the good things in it.

The question is just, how do we adopt British social culture whilst avoiding the “latter-day neo-paganism, stoked up by a materialism that seeks to take the place of God.”



So the very first thing is language. The British are notoriously poor at learning foreign languages (our children can opt out of learning them at 14!), so anyone expecting them to learn old Greek or Slavonic in order to listen to the message of Our Lord is in for a big disappointment. After all, one of the reasons the Reformation was able to take hold was that the reformers were speaking to the people in their own language, not in Latin; the Bible in English has always been a best-seller. One of the secrets of Anglican success was the Book of Common Prayer, and it was so foolish of the C of E to abandon it.


I also think language is key, and it is something that can be introduced without any major shake-up. In the ROCOR Brotherhood of St. Edward in Surrey (which I keep referring to), the vast majority of faithful are Russian (although many English also attend), yet all services are done entirely in English, there is a notable emphasis on British Saints, and all of the monks there (including the priest) are English. Yet you do not hear any demands for more Russian during the services, or anything of the sort.

The Brotherhood manages to be very British, but without excluding the various ethnic communities which make up the bulk of Orthodox faithful in this country. It gets the balance just right in my opinion. And I think it could serve as a model for parishes around the British Isles. Further dividing the Church along ethnic lines, as Bishop Basil proposed to do, will only add to the polarisation and ethnocentrism that plagues the Church today, and which (I believe) is a stumbling block to potential converts.

In XC,
Kris

[Kris]

Dear Peter and John,


Thank you for your replies. I must say that I am more or less in complete agreement with you both.



I know that some EO bishops in the West, and probably OO ones as well, will not baptise any convert with the names of saints such as Patrick, because they are not Orthodox, or Russian Orthodox at least. On the other hand I have a friend in one of the EO jurisdictions who has the name of a very local irish saint. Which procedure is Western Orthodox? Both are theologically Orthodox but the one seems to promote a cultural distance from British people and the other a cultural closeness.

Likewise I am Peter Theodore, taking as my patron St Theodore of Canterbury who lies just 18 miles from me. There seems to be no requirement that every convert receive a local saints name, since clearly many historic British Christians took the names of universal saints, but it seems to militate against making Orthodoxy at home here if an Eastern saint is 'required'.


An emphasis on the Christian heritage of Britain is certainly very important, and its an area where the ROCOR in particular has been very instrumental.

I find it interesting that you took the name of a 7th century Western Saint, since he would have been a Chalcedonian, outside the canonical boundaries of the Oriental Orthodox communion, of which the British Orthodox Church is now a part (please correct me if I am mistaken). It’s certainly positive from our perspective, since it shows that the Miaphysites are prepared to canonise and venerate Chalcedonian Saints. However, it makes me question the Orthodoxy of your ecclesiology (this is not a criticism but a question).



There is also the matter of the names of bishops. I do find it culturally relevant that most EO bishops have the names of sees that are now ruined villages in the East. This does not say 'we are at home here in Britain'.


This is another good point. I suppose one of the reasons for this is the uncanonical arrangement of over-lapping jurisdictions that we have in the West, both in the EO and the OO. Its certainly an issue that needs addressing, but I don’t think one can do so adequately until there is a single Orthodox Church of Western Europe or Britain.

You mention Bishop Basil. Personally I believe his actions were totally unjustified. His proposal was essentially to divide the Church along ethnic lines; that is the last thing we need. I am also disappointed that the EP were so quick to accept him, with no respect for H.H. Patriarch Alexy at all.

Personally, I believe that the ROCOR, following recent developments, can and should form the basis for a Western Orthodox Church. The fact that it has its administrative centre in the West means that, despite its Russian origin, it carries much less of the same baggage as the other jurisdictions.



Some of the immigrant members may tend to gravitate towards different sides of the church based on their gender, but this is not part of our culture and so as in other British places of worship people will sit on either side.


Here I would disagree with you. The segregation of the sexes during worship is a custom dating back to the Old Testament Temple. As such it is a practice that transcends cultural barriers. Moreover, one must remember that although Britain has a rich Christian heritage, it has not been Orthodox for a millennium. It is simply not possible to say with certainty what would or wouldn’t have been the practice among Christians a thousand years ago. And so I think with issues such as these, which have a direct relationship to our worship, we are simply forced to import certain things from abroad.

If it can be proven that Christian men and women stood together during worship in Orthodox Britain, then that’s fine; but I’m not sure it can.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a pretty trivial issue (in most Greek and Syrian parishes, people are mixed anyway), I’m just saying that one cannot say with any certainty what is and isn’t British.



We do not have the clericalism that can be a feature of some social cultures. I certainly respect my priest greatly but I do not expect him to do everything, or expect him to have the correct answer to everything. We are a team, both he and I and my fellow subdeacon. This is I believe part of our British culture.


That’s an interesting concept, and one I think I’ll have to chew on for a while :-)



We try to be friendly and welcoming to visitors, without overwhelming them or making them uncomfortable. But I know one of our members was a long term member of an ethnic jurisdiction and was ignored every Sunday because he was not of that ethnicity.


This is more a question of simply being Christian in ones dealings with others. It is something that should exist universally. Ironically, I remember speaking to a Greek person living in the US. He was married to an America convert to Orthodoxy and the parish he attended was made up almost entirely of Americans. He said that he experienced exactly the same rejection as you speak of above. I think its important that we don’t make British Orthodoxy yet another ethnic “tribe,” which is why I think Bishop Basil’s decision was a bad one.



We sing good English language hymns that are theologically sound. This is part of our British culture. We expect the congregation to join in with all of the responses in a hearty manner and not merely spectate.


Could you please elaborate on this subject? Are these ancient British hymns or are they recent ones, written specifically for the BOC? Or perhaps of a non-Orthodox origin (albeit theologically Orthodox)? I would be interested in hearing more about this.



We do not make Egyptian Independence Day the major festival of the year. In fact I do not know when it is to be honest. We do not do belly dancing. We do not eat Egyptian foods on feast days.


This is another point I think is important. I always sneak off to a non-Greek parish during any independence day celebrations; it makes me cringe.

As for belly dancing, I’m not sure that would be appropriate in church even if we were Egyptians :-)



Most of our clergy are British, and our bishop is British. I think that is actually quite important because it shows that we are not a foreign church where British people are tolerated but that we are a here for British people, and anyone else of course, but mostly to be engaged in mission to British people. A foreign bishop may have to deal with many cultural tensions if his flock is predominantly immigrant. A native bishop tends to produce less tension.
[quote]

Again, I agree. I suppose the only problem is that there simply aren’t enough British bishops and priests to go round. That being said, I know that there are many English priests among the clergy in the Greek churches here in London, the Russian Cathedral only had two priests that were actually Russian (and both had lived here for years and spoke perfect English, etc.) until the recent problems. Then there is Fr. Michael Harper of the Syrian church here. Most notable is probably H.G. Bishop Kallistos, who is as British as one can possibly get :-)

[quote]
So what do I think is key:

i. Language
ii. Social culture (are non ethnics made to feel excluded)
iii. Embracing of Western Christian heritage
iv. Taking mission seriously


I agree totally. My only concern would be the definition of British social culture. How does one distinguish between its various components. As John hit the nail on the head when he said:


This is not to say that Orthodoxy has to adapt itself to a secular and materialist culture, but if it is going to change that culture (which would be an excellent thing) it needs to be able to work with the good things in it.

The question is just, how do we adopt British social culture whilst avoiding the “latter-day neo-paganism, stoked up by a materialism that seeks to take the place of God.”



So the very first thing is language. The British are notoriously poor at learning foreign languages (our children can opt out of learning them at 14!), so anyone expecting them to learn old Greek or Slavonic in order to listen to the message of Our Lord is in for a big disappointment. After all, one of the reasons the Reformation was able to take hold was that the reformers were speaking to the people in their own language, not in Latin; the Bible in English has always been a best-seller. One of the secrets of Anglican success was the Book of Common Prayer, and it was so foolish of the C of E to abandon it.


I also think language is key, and it is something that can be introduced without any major shake-up. In the ROCOR Brotherhood of St. Edward in Surrey (which I keep referring to), the vast majority of faithful are Russian (although many English also attend), yet all services are done entirely in English, there is a notable emphasis on British Saints, and all of the monks there (including the priest) are English. Yet you do not hear any demands for more Russian during the services, or anything of the sort.

The Brotherhood manages to be very British, but without excluding the various ethnic communities which make up the bulk of Orthodox faithful in this country. It gets the balance just right in my opinion. And I think it could serve as a model for parishes around the British Isles. Further dividing the Church along ethnic lines, as Bishop Basil proposed to do, will only add to the polarisation and ethnocentrism that plagues the Church today, and which (I believe) is a stumbling block to potential converts.

In XC,
Kris

[James M.]

Folks:

Two things stand out in my mind. These two are the protestant nature of the English Church and the development of doctrine through majority vote. You might even call these one and the same. Neither seems consistent with any which way or other of the form of the Orthdox Christian churches.

First, the branch theory never held much water. If apostolic succession is more than laying on of hands, but as Hooker said, upholding the right faith....then the Anglican Communion has had problems for a long, long time. Typically, at least a small contingent has recovered its faith, but this has not been an unbroken trail, and the heterodox have not typically left the church in turn. So today's variances are not the first time it has veered from the path, but perhaps the last. Fair examination of the history of the English Church shows a decidedly protestant strain that no claim to comprehensive muddle can cover. The reaction to Newman's catholic reading of the 39 articles settled the fundamentally protestant character over 150 years ago. And the broader freedom of worship within all English-speaking countries has meant that those faced with the deviation of their church have not been afraid to leave the C of E or Episcopal Church. This has weakened the church and sealed the path as it would not have in an earlier time: the chance of recovery is vastly reduced.

Second, the contrast in development of doctrine within the Anglican Church with the history as recounted by Greek Orthodox on orthdox.tv.org. In the former - especially here in the states - changes are effected by majority vote. The ecumenical councils by contrast, as related on orthodox.tv, were decided by unanimous vote. I had not heard this before, but the reception of this doctrine was then required to be subjected to unanimous vote a generation later - when all the original voters were dead - before it became doctrine. With no similar stringency in the Anglican church, there can be no sense of REAL comprehensiveness through time....and only that this is a church married to this point in time. Tomorrow it appears likely to wither with the wind.

Hence in my view, the Anglican church fails in any way at all to conform to what one might call catholic or orthodox faith. While it does speak and read well, if the institution does not read these documents with the "mind of the Church" but with any number of different minds, then its emphasis is personal faith, not "right faith". And this is a different objective than the Orthodox church.

The problem though with the Orthodox churches that have seen their mission abroad as serving their people rather than "...all people..." is that this truly lacks in catholic comprehensiveness. This should be criticized. But I can't see that this is a problem of doctrine, but of people and their misguided notion of service to others and thereby to God.

The important distinction in all of this is that I think the Anglican Church is no longer self-righting. The societal boundaries have fallen that once inhibited the traditionalists from leaving and finding more fruitful ground for sowing their faith. With these departures...and they are legion and growing....the generation in control has to pass before there might be a chance. Even then, it seems increasingly remote IMHO as much as I pray that it would happen for the benefit of all believers. But the matters troubling the Orthodox diaspora and its relation to those beyond its traditional immigrant focused confines - these are fixable...AND self-correcting. And though I may be short-sighted, it seems the same convergence of forces dissipating the faithful within Anglicanism are actually having an opposite and strengthening effect on Orthodoxy as it broadens to encompass all peoples as it should.

In Christ,
Skip

[Peter Farrington]

I find it interesting that you took the name of a 7th century Western Saint, since he would have been a Chalcedonian, outside the canonical boundaries of the Oriental Orthodox communion, of which the British Orthodox Church is now a part (please correct me if I am mistaken). It’s certainly positive from our perspective, since it shows that the Miaphysites are prepared to canonise and venerate Chalcedonian Saints. However, it makes me question the Orthodoxy of your ecclesiology (this is not a criticism but a question).


Hi Kris

I would have to say that I DO find EO ecclesiology rather defective myself but this is rather rooted in the long-standing controversy which separates us. It seems to me that the OO have always managed to be both exclusive and inclusive, whereas I have found many EO only exclusive in a negative sense.

The OO believe that the EO are Orthodox, therefore the saints of the EO (generally speaking) are Orthodox. How DARE I consider them less than Orthodox. In my opinion our division is a scandal and brings shame upon us. I am not going to do anything to perpetuate it.

St Theodore is so clearly a saint, there is no eccelsiological problem as far as I can see. That there is an ecclesiological problem says more about our weakness than about our Faith.

The Holy Empress Theodora is a saint, but you also venerate her even though she was the great champion of our Faith. I would imagine you venerate St Columbanus? Yet he rejected Constantinople 553. The idea that we can neatly categorise those heroic servants of God who vastly outrun our holiness and sanctity seems prideful.

There are many writers in the OO who speak of EO figures respectfully as saints. This is the outcome of our belief that the EO have preserved the Orthodox Faith even while separated from us. If this is the case then (generally speaking) the EO saints are OO saints.

I have found it suggested by some EO that if I really had an Orthodox ecclesiology I would reject the EO as heretics and treat them as many EO treat OO. That doesn't seem to follow to me. It might well be an ecclesiology but it is not a Christian one. If the EO have the same substantial faith - as it seems very clear that they do - then St Theodore was Orthodox, and if he was and is Orthodox then he is worthy of veneration.

It seems to me that an ecclesiology that witholds the veneration of those who showed by their lives and faith that they were entirely Orthodox in a universal sense simply because of an organisational division is not an Orthodox one.

If we have had few shared saints since the division among us then it is mostly because we have not occupied the same space. Figures such as St Barsanuphius, St Theodora, St Isaac, show that where controversy does not loom large, or where the figure is of Imperial status (in the EO context) then we can venerate the same saints.

In the end it is the Holy Spirit who reveals Christ in the saints, it is not at root, a matter of politics (although of course too often it is).

As ever

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

Second, the contrast in development of doctrine within the Anglican Church with the history as recounted by Greek Orthodox on orthdox.tv.org. In the former - especially here in the states - changes are effected by majority vote. The ecumenical councils by contrast, as related on orthodox.tv, were decided by unanimous vote. I had not heard this before, but the reception of this doctrine was then required to be subjected to unanimous vote a generation later - when all the original voters were dead - before it became doctrine. With no similar stringency in the Anglican church, there can be no sense of REAL comprehensiveness through time....and only that this is a church married to this point in time. Tomorrow it appears likely to wither with the wind.


This is certainly not true and it is rather bad if it is being presented as true. If we look simply at Ephesus 431 we will see that it was an event of great disagreement and a counter-council was being held at the same time. No wonder there was agreement in St Cyril's council! He had started before those who opposed him turned up!!!

In fact the leaders of these two opposing groups ended up under house arrest for months while some sort of unitive outcome was sought for. In the end both parties managed to make it home and went into schism from each other.

There was a patch up in 433 between some of the parties, St Cyril and John of Antioch, but many of the Antiocheans remained resolutely opposed to Ephesus. Indeed Theodoret never received it and died rejecting it.

So I am not at all sure where the Greeks get the idea that the councils were unanimous. At Chalcedon of course the entire Church was split into opposing parties, a division which has not yet been healed, so that was hardly unanimous in any terms. In fact if you read the complete Acts which I have here you will see that constantly the opposing sides voted for different things, and shouted out different opinions.

A generation after Chalcedon there was still not unanimous reception. In fact the same bishops who had voted for Chalcedon, later voted against it, then for it, then against it and then for it. The only way a unanimous reception could be posited is by excluding those who rejected it, and then by trying to wipe them out using armed force.

This would be like saying that everyone voted for New Labour, by ignoring those who didn't vote for New Labour.

In fact the search for truth is always a struggle, no less nowadays. We must take up the challenge of finding unity in the truth and at last coming to unanimity. This is not achieved by pretending that there was unanimity in the time of Ephesus or Chalcedon.

And if you look at Constantinople 553 you will find that people were locked up in prison for months and years to make them sign up to it, and in the West and North Africa the whole council was rejected. St Columbanus, a generation later, writes about how it had abandoned the faith of Chalcedon.

So this picture on Greek.tv is completely false and presents the rosy view of Eastern Orthodox history that bears little relation to history.

Peter

[John Charmley]

'First, the branch theory never held much water. If apostolic succession is more than laying on of hands, but as Hooker said, upholding the right faith....then the Anglican Communion has had problems for a long, long time. Typically, at least a small contingent has recovered its faith, but this has not been an unbroken trail, and the heterodox have not typically left the church in turn.

Second, the contrast in development of doctrine within the Anglican Church with the history as recounted by Greek Orthodox on orthdox.tv.org. In the former - especially here in the states - changes are effected by majority vote. The ecumenical councils by contrast, as related on orthodox.tv, were decided by unanimous vote. I had not heard this before, but the reception of this doctrine was then required to be subjected to unanimous vote a generation later - when all the original voters were dead - before it became doctrine. With no similar stringency in the Anglican church, there can be no sense of REAL comprehensiveness through time....and only that this is a church married to this point in time.'

I am not out of sympathy with the general tenor of Skip's comments - although I do feel a little guilty at one of them, since I am an Anglican heading for the exit. In my defence I would say I have stayed for a decade and a half after I might have left, entirely because I hoped that by staying with Anglicanism I could add what little weight I had to the traditionalist side, where, incidentally, we would not be quite so blithe about no one believing the 'branch theory'; perhaps we should not have, but many of us did. I would not be so quick to write off something that men of the calibre of E.B. Pusey, John Keble and Archbishop Ramsey all found credible - although I fear that, after a great deal of slowness, I have done just that!

But I am puzzled by the second paragraph quoted above. The General Synod of the Church of England believes the majority is guided by the Holy Ghost, and I am not convinced that the Ecumenical Councils proceeded as Skip suggests; if they had there would have been no split at Chalcedon. Moreover, as Peter reminds us, the Ephesus Council did indeed result in both St. Cyril and John of Antioch being put under a version of house arrest - which makes the Anglican synod sound positively innocuous.

I suspect we have traced out the problems with Anglicanism here, but we should not forget that many Anglicans have always seen themselves as Orthodox and confessed a theology that is just that; the sadness is that Skip is correct when he says we have been in a dwindling majority for some time.

This is, of course, why, coming from where I do, the split between OO and EO looms so large. There are many Anglicans who feel as I do, but we are not likely to be heading for anywhere where Russian and old Greek are requirements. But as the thread on ROCOR points out many times, the OCA has a not dissimilar problem.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

In the former - especially here in the states - changes are effected by majority vote. The ecumenical councils by contrast, as related on orthodox.tv, were decided by unanimous vote. I had not heard this before, but the reception of this doctrine was then required to be subjected to unanimous vote a generation later - when all the original voters were dead - before it became doctrine.

This sounds a bit romanticised to me!

So far as I am aware, the ecumenical councils were rarely unanimous on anything.

INXC, Matthew

[James M.]

"This sounds a bit romanticised to me! So far as I am aware, the ecumenical councils were rarely unanimous on anything."

I wouldn't disagree. Bonnell Spencer's "Ye Are the Body" - my high school religous text of yore - gave a different impression as well. Perhaps the Greeks have sat on some of the same boards as I have...and perhaps the approach was accordingly something as follows: "Majority makes the rule, but then so that everyone is clear....all deicsions once made - are unanimous." Kind of serves to get people's attention focused that no matter how they voted individually, afterwards, they are accountable together as a whole. Perhaps it is this implication that was conveyed. I'd have to listen to the orthodox.tv thing again.

I would note that the history's of the English Church written today accord a vastly less charitable view of Henry and his church than I was used to. Believe me when I say that after 40 years in the Episcopal church it grieves me to admit that I'd misplaced my confidence to the contrary all those years, but perhaps it merely attests to my weakness for romanticism. Spencer did provide hints of the mayhem, but only hints. And the Church has always been subject to swings between the catholic party and the protestant /secularist parties...with the latter tending to win. If Pusey's formula had caught on and been promulgated without involving disobedience to bishops unfriendly to anglocatholicism, I think the branch theory would have had more legs. As it is, anglocatholicism has succeeded within Anglicanism through inculturating a quiet disobedience to the wider church that in the diaspora has not served the cause well. In my lifetime within the Broad or Central church, the direction of things has been to assume that the branch theory stands on its own and requires no corresponding supporting behavior as it certainly served in no way as a check on our present day "reformers". This is simply to say as Mr. Harrison might, that the branch theory has been deployed as another museum piece.

Further, I guess the more I have engaged in the study of the catholic faith, the more the premise of the original Reformers and their limiting of the relevant parts of Church history to some arbitrary period (1st Four Centuries and 1st 5 Councils) surely smacks much more of Protestantism othan Reformed Catholicism. Indeed, the anglopapalists would suggest it is Tridentism, not Anglocatholicism that reflects Reformed Catholicism....and anything less they tend to call caffeteria catholicism. I know that there are those who here in the states among the Anglocatholic diaspora would refer to themselves as constituting a Western Orthodoxy. But having spent time worshipping there and in the Western Rite Orthodoxy - as well as Byzantine Rite - I can honestly say there is a material, tangible, and fundamental difference despite similarities. It is a difference that is hard to ascribe, but it is real.

Finally, in defense of my criticism of the Anglican / Episcopal governance, I would simply suggest that Richard Hooker's caution remains valid. He suggested that many would come who would seek to compel their way through claiming the authority of the Holy Spirit. I think every televangelist does this in hawking their wares. But he cautions that these claims be discerned on the basis that the Holy Spirit has always been supported by the working of miracles...that the sceptical might see and believe. I know there are those who think an act of Parliament constitutes a miracle, but I don't think this is what Hooker had in mind.

The convenience of reforming doctrine and dogma to correspond to the whims (and legislative demands) of the day and claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is extremely suspect....no matter what it is that is promulgated. I'd like to believe the Greek premise. I'd sure like to know more.

Hope this helps.
JWM

[John Charmley]

If Pusey's formula had caught on and been promulgated without involving disobedience to bishops unfriendly to anglocatholicism, I think the branch theory would have had more legs. As it is, anglocatholicism has succeeded within Anglicanism through inculturating a quiet disobedience to the wider church that in the diaspora has not served the cause well. In my lifetime within the Broad or Central church, the direction of things has been to assume that the branch theory stands on its own and requires no corresponding supporting behavior as it certainly served in no way as a check on our present day "reformers". This is simply to say as Mr. Harrison might, that the branch theory has been deployed as another museum piece.


Dear James,

It does indeed help - and what an interesting set of ideas.

I would tend to agree with the quotation above, but had not thought as much as I should about the 'quiet disobedience' aspect.

I suspect, alas, that I have been quietly disobedient, although to me it seemed as though I had a choice between the Faith I had always believed and this new interpretation that was being foisted upon me.

What worried me about this reaction is whether it was not a Protestant one; after all, I was deciding to stay put, so to speak. What supported me was reading Church history and being able to say that what I believed was what the Orthodox Church had always believed; which was got me praying for guidance on this matter. After all, if, as far as I could see, what I had always believed was Orthodox, and if the Church of England had moved from that, surely (I reasoned) I should move towards the Orthodox Church.

The problem then, was which one - OE or OO. But that we are discussing elsewhere on this site. I am just so grateful to those such as yourself who contribute to making the site the special place it is. I hope we're all stumping up for the appeal!

Thanks again for the post.

In Christ,


John

[Scott Pierson]

But the ethnic question raised by Peter should be taken on board. Our duty as Christians is to spread the Faith and bring people to the Church. Anglicans in my position are simply not going to go off wholesale to join a Greek or Russian church, just as the Rus would not have joined a Greek-speaking missionary church in the early days.

If a certain people do not yet have an Orthodox influenced culture and values and such I think foreign customs and traditions are just something people will have to live with untill such a time as a truely native Orthodox culture can be brought about. Over time a new a unique national Orthodox culture will be founded. With the language thing though I can see what you mean.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If a certain people do not yet have an Orthodox influenced culture and values and such I think foreign customs and traditions are just something people will have to live with untill such a time as a truely native Orthodox culture can be brought about. Over time a new a unique national Orthodox culture will be founded. With the language thing though I can see what you mean.

No "native" Orthodox culture can happen unless there are "native" Orthodox to make it happen, OR if the missionaries make an effort to ADAPT what they have to the local culture, like the Russian monastics did in Alaska. They took time to learn what the Alaskans believed and put an Orthodox "spin" on much of it, using things that were meaningful to them, in an Orthodox context. One example might be turning "Easter baskets" with candy and bunnies into Pascha baskets blessed at Church, but instead of requiring kielbasa and hrutka and red eggs, allowing people to include fried chicken and honey-baked spiral-sliced hams, with multicolored eggs and perhaps even chocolate bunnies and a few sweets? If we want the locals to become Orthodox, we really have to CREATE the Orthodox culture now. Sts Innocent and Herman didn't wait for a "natural" process, they simply made it happen. We really ought to be doing something similar.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Herman

I agree very much with your post. And I am sure that my own British Orthodox Church will make mistakes as we seek to be genuinely British and also authentically part of the Coptic Orthodox and wider Oriental Orthodox communion.

But it is worth making the effort, as all Orthodox missionaries have done in the past. Otherwise we would all be speaking Aramaic, circumcising our children and following the Law. :-)

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

No "native" Orthodox culture can happen unless there are "native" Orthodox to make it happen, OR if the missionaries make an effort to ADAPT what they have to the local culture, like the Russian monastics did in Alaska. They took time to learn what the Alaskans believed and put an Orthodox "spin" on much of it, using things that were meaningful to them, in an Orthodox context. One example might be turning "Easter baskets" with candy and bunnies into Pascha baskets blessed at Church, but instead of requiring kielbasa and hrutka and red eggs, allowing people to include fried chicken and honey-baked spiral-sliced hams, with multicolored eggs and perhaps even chocolate bunnies and a few sweets? If we want the locals to become Orthodox, we really have to CREATE the Orthodox culture now. Sts Innocent and Herman didn't wait for a "natural" process, they simply made it happen. We really ought to be doing something similar.

Not to deny anything said in these posts. In the ongoing talks between ROCOR and the MP one of the main starting points was each acknowledging the distinct and valid expression of Orthodoxy in each other. Thus we got to the point where we were able to recognize that the differences between us didn't refer to something not Orthodox; we were able to see how difference was alright within the larger Church.

One thing the MP seemed to accept is the way we have adapted to western culture over the past century or so. They understood that we had a different calling than they.

One thing though that St Herman's life wonderfully brings out is balance. Yes he adapted to native conditions. But read his life and you'll see the natives also adapted to what he brought them. It was mutual.

I point this out only because I think sometimes this balance needs to be stressed a little more. Sure Sts Cyril & Methodius brought Orthodoxy to the Slavs in a slavic 'package'. But there was also a lot of what they brought which was radically different from that culture.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

I agree Father, but I think that most Orthodox engaged in mission are aware of the value of the Pearl of Great Price which they are trying to share in another culture, as far as that is appropriate.

But unfortunately we all know a great many Orthodox (and other Christians of all types) who confuse their own culture with Orthodoxy in an inappropriate manner, and this acts against the communication of the gospel because people can sense when they are being encouraged to adopt a foreign human culture and when they are being asked to adopt a Christian culture which takes account of their own culture.

I did not become Greek Orthodox fundamentally because the local community seemed to make no effort to be at home in England, and other Greek Orthodox made it clear that an Englishman could not become Greek and therefore Orthodox.

I do know of other communities who are more accomodating in the positive sense, and this is why they are able to do mission among British people without making them Russian or Greek. But I still know a great many who are not, and even of hierarchs who discourage mission to British people.

Peter

[John Charmley]

No "native" Orthodox culture can happen unless there are "native" Orthodox to make it happen, OR if the missionaries make an effort to ADAPT what they have to the local culture, like the Russian monastics did in Alaska.

Herman's point is, as both Peter and Father Raphael have pointed out, crucial, and I should have thought unassailable.

The British example is, in some ways, more complex even than the Alaskan case, and points up real difficulties.

Elsewhere on this site I have essayed the notion, with a little hesitation, that England was Orthodox from at least the 2nd century A.D. down to the 1050s. Not, of course, from the non-Chalcedonian point of view after the 450s, but one can't have everything.

It was clearly and increasingly part of the western Church from the time of Augustine, and naturally followed the rest of western Christendom in the long, complicated and conflicted process we simplify by calling the 'Great Schism'.

Half a century later, the Anglican Church came into existence from the equally complicated process we call the Reformation. Anglicanism was in many ways not that different from its parent Church, and never became as Protestant (for any period of time) as some of the reformers wanted. All of which meant, I have always been taught, that there were large deposits of Orthodox truth and tradition in Anglican teaching.

The Anglican experience distanced the Church in Britain from the Papal innovations of the last two centuries, and at least before the dear old C of E succumbed (as I and others would, alas, see it) to the malaise of secularism and trendiness, there were very sensible people who supposed it not impossible to envisage a process whereby the breach between the English Church and Orthodoxy might be healed. That suggests that only a generation or so ago, it was recognised that there was still a large deposit of the Orthodox Faith in Anglicanism; not, of course, in a pure and unbroken form, and not without some sad fallings away and some false teaching. That, surely, was one of the reasons why the Greek and Russian Orthodox were so chary about taking converts; I had one friend who was advised to stay where he was and work for unity - but that was thirty-five years ago.

It is, I suspect, the failure of those hopes, thanks to the C of E, that has created a mission field for Orthodoxy here. But the Orthodox Church needs to see this, and to be able to speak to such people in their own language and from within their own culture. This is exactly what the British Orthodox Church is doing; and in so doing, it both seizes the opportunity for mission, and for reminding the English of their own long Orthodox heritage.

Most traditionalist Anglicans are fairly well-read theologically, and they are, many of them, painfully aware of where their Church falls short of Orthodoxy. Now they have lost the hope that they once had, it is raising unnecessary obstacles to treat such people as though they were little better than pagans, and/or to expect them to accommodate themselves to Greek or Russian mores. Of course, for some, that may even be part of the attraction of Orthodoxy, but it won't win many converts.

England is a mission field for Orthodoxy, but it is one with a long and complex relationship with that same Orthodoxy. Provide it with a Mission that will speak to it in terms it can understand, and incorporate from it, those things where Orthodoxy is still recoverable, and who can tell what the result might be?

Expect the English to speak Greek or Old Church Slavonic, and I can predict pretty precisely what the result will be.

The British Orthodox Church seems to recognise these things - and it is drawing me, and other disillusioned but (we thought) orthodox Anglicans to it.

Whatever is God's will, that will be done. But let's not put too many obstacles in the way, even for the pleasure of seeing how the Holy Ghost will surmount them.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

No "native" Orthodox culture can happen unless there are "native" Orthodox to make it happen, OR if the missionaries make an effort to ADAPT what they have to the local culture, like the Russian monastics did in Alaska. They took time to learn what the Alaskans believed and put an Orthodox "spin" on much of it, using things that were meaningful to them, in an Orthodox context. One example might be turning "Easter baskets" with candy and bunnies into Pascha baskets blessed at Church, but instead of requiring kielbasa and hrutka and red eggs, allowing people to include fried chicken and honey-baked spiral-sliced hams, with multicolored eggs and perhaps even chocolate bunnies and a few sweets? If we want the locals to become Orthodox, we really have to CREATE the Orthodox culture now. Sts Innocent and Herman didn't wait for a "natural" process, they simply made it happen. We really ought to be doing something similar.

You make some good points. All I'm saying is it isnt something that is going to happen overnight. You cant just throw together something as complicated as a culture in a few years without it being something really contrived and disconnected to any lived reality. Its something that has to grow organically. How many centuries did it take to refine the Christian culture of Russia to its full maturity for example. In the mean time one has to relize that so many of our traditions (or anti traditions ? ) here in the west are the result of secular and humanist thinking. In an integral and traditional culture everything is informed by religion in america however nearly everything is a mismatch of secular customs often intended to feed the flesh and the ego, etc. Even the pagans of the past had more to work with culturally then we do here in the modern nihilistic west. I would say that the aleuts of Alaska also had more to work with as well having been isolated to some extent from the "modern world " and all it implys.

[Tim Grass]

British Orthodoxy?With everything that's gone on in the U.K. over the past summer, it's clear that Britain isn't even close to being ready to become a local Orthodox Church.... not even remotely. I say give it another 2 or 3 hundred years....... In Orthodox time that's not so long.

--tim

[Peter Farrington]

I think it is a mistake to consider that people living in the secular West are not religious. They are just not satisfied by the choices they have been offered.

People are always spiritual, but if their spirit is not nurtured then they fill the hole in their lives with other things, but these are not all nihilistic in any sense. On Wednesday I took one of my daughters to a football (soccer) training evening. There were a number of adults obviously committed to helping these youngsters get fit and have fun in a safe environment. The matches are played on Sundays and there is an obvious sense in which football for kids in the UK has become a variant of Sunday School.

But these people are not nihilistic. They just have no urge or inclination to be in Church on a Sunday because they have not been introduced to Christ. It would be wrong to treat them as nihilists. I know few nihilists. I do know plenty of people filling their lives with pleasant activities because they don't know Christ.

To be honest I'd rather someone was helping out at a football practice than worshipping Hindu deities. There are lots of analogies one could use from football in an evangelistic message. Indeed there is a challenge for me to even get involved with some football training (though I am useless at football) to show that I, as a Christian, believe that what they are doing is good, and to start where they are, not where I would like them to be.

I am not sure we should be afraid of the 'modern world'. It is just where we are. It is surely no worse than the 'ancient world' of Rome. People are very willing to accept that technology does not have all the answers. Ecological thinking is on the increase. People do not generally believe that 'this is all there is'. But they are not convinced by Protestantism, nor by Roman Catholicism, nor in general by Orthodoxy when it is presented in a foreign culture. I believe firmly that people want reality and they want Christ, we surely have a responsibility in our mission to go where they are, to share Christ with them. This must mean some sacrifices and changes on our part, even while we preserve the substance of the Faith.

Peter

[John Charmley]

With everything that's gone on in the U.K. over the past summer, it's clear that Britain isn't even close to being ready to become a local Orthodox Church.... not even remotely. I say give it another 2 or 3 hundred years....... In Orthodox time that's not so long.

--tim

But Tim, that would be like saying that after what has gone in in the Episcopalian Church this summer that America wasn't even close to being ... Oh, I see!

But seriously, my point is that there is actually a great deal of orthodox belief and teaching in Anglicanism, that is why so many Anglicans are heading for the same exit as myself. The question for anyone beginning on the millennial quest to bring Orthodoxy to all the British people, is how to go about it. Staying in an ethnic diaspora and asking the British to learn Greek or Old Church Slavonic may not be the best way. Imitating St. Paul or Sts. Cyril and Methodius may just be the smarter path ... the evidence suggests so.

The British Orthodox Church starts out from the premise that talking to the English in English, and recognising the existing deposits of orthodox belief, is not a bad way of going about things. The Coptic Church, I am glad to say, takes a rather more optimistic view of things than Tim's post - and we need a little optimism sometimes.

I have been struck by the way in which the Copts do not judge, do not insist that we become Copts, but simply share the fulness of the Faith they have kept with us; I am overwhelmed by their generosity of spirit and by their humility. Pope Shenouda III is a man of vision as well as holiness - the Christian churches have few men of his stature.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

But these people are not nihilistic. They just have no urge or inclination to be in Church on a Sunday because they have not been introduced to Christ. It would be wrong to treat them as nihilists. I know few nihilists. I do know plenty of people filling their lives with pleasant activities because they don't know Christ.

That’s true not everyone (who holds to "Western/American ideals" , "science" <such as Darwinism>, rationalism, etc ) has taken it to its logical conclusion. I think Nietzsche and (Father Seraphim Rose) did a wonderful job showing how the beliefs of the modern west can not hold up to the nihilist assault however and actually work to give rise to it (when rationalism and logic turns in on itself). When the west took their Christianity out of the heavens and placed it on the dissection table of rationalism they "broke" it and it no longer works. Most forms of Christianity (or religiosity in general**) in the west have been tainted by rationalism/ scholasticism.

We do see massive evidence of a nihilistic spirit though. More babies murdered every year in American than have died in all the major wars of the USA combined, massive levels of drug , alcohol, food addiction, people living as if life ended at death (even if they don’t consciously admit it), perverted discourse , media, TV radio popular culture (hip hop culture, death metal culture, goths,etc..), greed, rule by capitalist oligarchs, death of sacred monarchy, neophilia, hatred of tradition and things old fashioned, materialism, republicans and democrats (or similar parties in Europe) ::barf:::, materialism, etc.... I could go on an on but my fingers will hurt from typing.

The little book " Nihilism" by Father Seraphim Rose explains this issue well. Also many of the books of the so called "traditionalist" school (though they often have religious nonsense about all religions being equal and such) are informative too (the authors - S. Hossein Nassr, Guenon, etc..) on this issue at least .


I think the "pagan" aleuts on a whole were a much more honest, simple folk who found it much eaiser to adapt to the ascetism, moral struggle, etc of Orthdoxy then the (generally) lazy over endulged massess here in the west.
I wouldnt doubt that they also had a closer relationship with the divine (even as pagans) despite the supposed "christian" nature of american culture.

** such as the "new age", scientology, Wicca or western Pseudo Buddhism / Hinduism .

[Peter Farrington]

You are indeed right that much of Western society is tainted by sin, but it has always been thus.

I sense that you are not happy in our society, that is a shame, because I believe deeply that whatever the ills which we face, and they are no mystery to Christ, there is a tremendous amount of love and kindness in most people, but they need the life of Christ to bring it to fruition.

I am very wary of reading the works of Father Seraphim Rose. I think that he was also very unhappy in our society and the books I have read of his seem to describe a different reality to the one I know.

Christ calls us to be 'in' but not 'of' the world. I sense that some EO prefer to be 'against' the world, and even 'against' everything.

I also agree with you about the rationalist/scholastic spirit in the Church, but to be honest I have found it in the greatest measure in some of the EO converts I have known over the last 12 years Many of them, in their own way, would put Aquinas to shame!

Peter

[Ryan]

I agree that there's always been a degenerate element in our society, and it's silly to talk about "golden ages" or such. At the same time, any time I go out in public I feel increasingly offended by the shallowness of just about everything. It's depressing how utterly predictable and conformist even the "alternative" culture has become.

American Christianity is by and large just another commodity, or market niche, for selling "Left Behind" novels and WWJD bracelets. In that respect I would agree that even the paganism of indigenous peoples has alot more spirituality in it.

All this said, I think Peter has probably laid out the best attitude we can take- look at the kindness and love inherent in people, and try to bring it to fruition. Isolating ourselves from the world makes it worse.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Ryan

I just wonder if there has ever been a time when people have not tried to fill the emptiness of life without Christ with shallow distractions?

At the moment we can watch rubbish like 'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here', where so-called celebrities are forced to eat insects and worse! This is indeed shallow. But is it worse than providing opportunities for a whole town to go and watch people killing each other or being eaten by wild animals?

We can be horrified at the loss of civilian life in theatres of conflict such as Iraq, and can fill our newspapers with concern over every single incident, but in the 13th century warring armies raped and pillaged up and down the countryside for decades at a time with no concern for the civilian population.

And earlier on Julius Caesar killed and enslaved the entire population of some Gallic tribes as a matter of course.

So I am not convinced that things are irredeemably worse nowadays. There are the real evils of abortion and pornography. The wasted time spent watching drivel on TV. But there is also the abolition of slavery. Medical advances that save billions from lives of squallor and misery. And there is a real sense, as far as I can see, that many people are looking for spiritual answers again. People are growing increasingly aware that there MUST BE MORE to life.

So I am at once both frustrated and encouraged, disturbed and hopeful. In the end we cannot solve all the problems of the world. But we know who can, and as we have seen him begin a work of theosis in us, we can believem with hope, that He can perform such a work in all the people we meet.

God is not frustrated by evil in the world, it is in fact the reason that the Word of God became fully and perfectly man, for our salvation, without ceasing to be God.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I sense that you are not happy in our society, that is a shame, because I believe deeply that whatever the ills which we face, and they are no mystery to Christ, there is a tremendous amount of love and kindness in most people, but they need the life of Christ to bring it to fruition.

To a certain extent that might be true I tend to think that I'm more upset WITH our society then unhappy myself. You do make a good point about the love and kindess that people possess still and such.


I am very wary of reading the works of Father Seraphim Rose. I think that he was also very unhappy in our society and the books I have read of his seem to describe a different reality to the one I know.

Thats not true Father Seraphim had a real joy in life after his conversion to Orthodoxy. He was so filled with joy that even the natural world was transfigured to him and he would kiss the trees as he passed by praying at his monastery. He was a very calm person in control of his passions and would rarely stay angry and was not easily provoked for that matter (especially later in his life ). Check out the biography of his life "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works" by Hieromonk Damascene

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

I think I mean that I think that Father Seraphim was too negative about the world. I read the Religion of the Future and thought I agreed with it for a week or two then I realised I didn't. After a while I came to think that it didn't really describe the world I knew.

The charismatic movement, for instance, is an easy target for criticism, and Father Seraphim criticises it, but I think that what is required of us is not to criticise people for not being Orthodox but to try and understand where they are and what they are seeking after. Sometimes what they are after is plain wrong and even plain passion-feeding, but often it manifests a real desire for a greater closeness with God and for a real theosis.

For myself I loved and desired God when I was an evangelical but I did not have the resources (in so many senses) to move towards that which I desired so much. So I am fairly committed, because of my background as an evangelical, to wanting to find all that is Orthodox in their lives, to encourage them to explore and discover more of Orthodoxy, and ultimately, if it be their desire and if God allows and wills it, that they find themselves in the place where they can most completely experience that which will fulfill all their desires.

I am just not sure that criticism ever achieves as much as praise - though I often practice the opposite as a bad parent. :-(

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

The charismatic movement, for instance, is an easy target for criticism, and Father Seraphim criticises it, but I think that what is required of us is not to criticise people for not being Orthodox but to try and understand where they are and what they are seeking after. Sometimes what they are after is plain wrong and even plain passion-feeding, but often it manifests a real desire for a greater closeness with God and for a real theosis.

I think the main reason Father Seraphim brought up the topic of the Charismatic movement was because it was starting to infiltrate into Orthodoxy itself. And he was warning people that the movement had many troubling aspect that could lead to demonic ecstasies and communications and similar things. I've seen 'charismatics" roll on the floor barking twitching, howling and after claim they "felt an energy fill them like lightning" .. very simmilar to the experiences of shamans suffering demonic possession. This movement has also given rise to forms of Trinitarian heresies such as oneness Pentecostalism. He never claimed however that all the people involved lacked in sincerity or were totally without any spiritual understanding and such. Just that movement itself is something to watch out for and protect the church from and that it could be an aspect of the "religion of the future" .. the antichrists religion.

[Scott Pierson]

BTW. I wouldnt judge Father Seraphims views based on that book alone it was actually one of his worst books imo (still good mind you just not one of his best). Check out his book on Genesis or his life after death book those are classics.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

I will do then. You come over as a fan, so if you think Religion of the Future is not the best then I'll try something else.

Peter

[John Charmley]

That’s true not everyone (who holds to "Western/American ideals" , "science" , rationalism, etc ) has taken it to its logical conclusion. I think Nietzsche and (Father Seraphim Rose) did a wonderful job showing how the beliefs of the modern west can not hold up to the nihilist assault however and actually work to give rise to it (when rationalism and logic turns in on itself). When the west took their Christianity out of the heavens and placed it on the dissection table of rationalism they "broke" it and it no longer works. Most forms of Christianity (or religiosity in general**) in the west have been tainted by rationalism/ scholasticism.

We do see massive evidence of a nihilistic spirit though.

Dear Scott,
A powerful indictment of a fractured world - and a most persuasive argument for cooperation between Christians to do something about it - and to cooperate we need to talk, and to talk we need to listen.

After all, in the past, as Byron once put it: 'Christians have burned each other/ quite persuaded, that all the Apostles would have done as they did'.

I'm not a great believer in the Enlightenment project or its concept of progress, but it has to be a sign of better times that Christians do not burn each other. Now all we need to do is to work out how to set about fulfilling Christ's commission, and we can know we are doing His work. As it happens, I think that anyone who is introduced to Orthodoxy in the west will be amazed at what they find. Our young people want 'eastern mysticism', well, there they have Orthodoxy; they want meditation, well, try prayer in the Orthodox manner; they want authenticity - well there isn't anything more so than Orthodoxy - telling the Truth since 33 A.D. as it were!

In Christ,

JOhn

[Scott Pierson]

A powerful indictment of a fractured world - and a most persuasive argument for cooperation between Christians to do something about it - and to cooperate we need to talk, and to talk we need to listen.

I don’t have any problem with cooperation on humanitarian missions, feeding the poor, or as political allies in opposition to abortion** or such. I don’t think that requires EO to change their traditional ecclesiology or teachings or any sort of doctrinal compromise for that matter.

** I think the cooperation that takes place in the pro life movement for example is a great thing. In things of that nature I think we should even expand to work with muslims, etc..

[Peter Farrington]

Father Seraphim Rose said that in these last days all those Christians who have any sort of respect and commitment to 'traditional' Christianity should be in fellowship as far as is possible with each other, since those who reject all tradition are the danger for us all.

(I am paraphrasing from memory).

I must say that I don't see so many followers of Father Seraphim putting his suggestion into practice. He seemed to have much more in view that co-operating on non-religious matters.

Peter

[John Charmley]

I don’t have any problem with cooperation on humanitarian missions, feeding the poor, or as political allies in opposition to abortion** or such. I don’t think that requires EO to change their traditional ecclesiology or teachings or any sort of doctrinal compromise for that matter.

** I think the cooperation that takes place in the pro life movement for example is a great thing. In things of that nature I think we should even expand to work with muslims, etc..

Dear Scott,

Agreed, but I am a little surprised at one level. You write as though 'humanitarianism' was always compatible with Christian values; is that always so? Handing out contraception and advocating abortion, which often accompany western humanitarian efforts, are products of our secular culture; would this cause you 'no problem'? There would be a 'doctrinal compromise' of tremendous proportions involved in so doing.

No one doubts the bona fides of humanitarian efforts, but it is not as clear to me as it appears to be to you that Christians can cooperate fully without compromising their own principles.

In Christ

John

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

maybe humanitarianism wasnt the proper word. I was just talking about helping people, like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, etc... I didnt mean anything like handing out contraception or abortion or such.

[John Charmley]

maybe humanitarianism wasnt the proper word. I was just talking about helping people, like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, etc... I didnt many anything like handing out contraception or abortion or such.

Dear Scott,

I am sure you did not; but your post raised interesting questions that do, indeed, appertain to the theme of this thread - Anglicanism.

What I recognised in your post was what might be called an Anglican mind-set; what mattered was 'doing good', and in such things 'doctrine' and ''dogma' should be set aside. This mind-set is that of most of our press. That is why Christopher Hitchens was able to mount a bitter and insensitively-timed critique of Mother Theresa, which attacked her for not fostering the birth-control and abortion approach to welfare work. In this society there is no area where secularism does not insist on the absolute nature of the demands it makes on us.

It has become an ersatz religion. It has its episcopacy - the human rights celebrities; it has its clergy - the human rights activists; it has its doctrines: thou shalt believe in high-taxation so that the bias against the poor should be rectified by state action; thou shalt not discriminate against another because of colour, gender or creed - except in the case of Christians who insist of believing in the transcendental nature of their Faith; and thou shalt in no wise keep the Sabbath day holy, honour thy father and mother (assuming thou knowest who the former is), nor yet refrain from committing adultery, or indeed in any way restrain any of thy natural passions; if thou doest so, thou shalt be sent for counselling because thou art repressed. Above all, thou shalt acknowledge that the concept of the Lord thy God is a western patriachal concept which has been used to oppress the Third World by bringing them 'God' when what they needed was food and sanitation.

Or so it seems to me!

When I ponder this, it sounds rather like the Church of England. I think that most of its clergy still have some belief in God, but I am not sure about the episcopacy; but I do know that it is very happy to refrain from, as it were, 'pushing God' in its humanitarian work. It is not very hot on credal faith, and tends to regard doctrine and dogma as obstacles to union between persons of good will. Does our society say women should have equal rights? Jolly good, then in that case they must become priests and bishops, and anyone who argues against this based on orthodox tradition is simply covering his misogyny and bigotry.

On the Ecumenism thread, as well as in the EO/OO unity thread, we have been discussing unity, but there we have been arguing for what might be called 'highest common factor' unity - that is bringing all those who wish to come to a knowledge of the fulness of the Christian life in Orthodoxy. The C of E I fear represents another approach - the syncretic. It doesn't really matter what anyone believes, just let him or her be a good sort and 'do good' and all will be well. Of course, as the C of E has discovered, this creates problems when there are those about who still hold to the doctrines of the Church, but fortunately they will eventually go away, and we can get on with constructing the Church of Jesus Christ the very nice and good chap who wants us all to be happy.

Oh dear! That sounds terribly uncharitable! I fear that if Jesus had wanted me for a sunbeam he wouldn't have made me such an old curmudgeon.


In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Reading my last post, I thought I'd better own up to what prompted such a lack of Christian charity, it was reading through the following article just after I read Scott's post about humanitarianism:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211587,00.html

For those of you with strong constitutions, you will see 'Bishop Katharine' states that the first duty of the Church is to deal with world poverty, but she's not too fussed about Jesus. For anyone with the patience to read this and my last post, the connection is all too clear.


In Christ


John

[Scott Pierson]

I think your post was right on actually. The humanist religion often regards "being nice" and helping people as the only legitmate reason for religion . I was just talking about (for example) an Orthodox working with a baptist to bring food into a certain area if the Orthodox didnt have the resources to do it on his own. Or people temporarily banding together who share simmilar views on abortion, gay marriage, or things of that nature. People often act as if we need the "union of all "churches" " in order for Christians to work effectivly to help people but I dont see that as the case. In those areas in which the EO Church is not organized enough , properly financed or is lacking in resources it can work with others while "agreeing to disagree" and refraining from intercommunion. We dont need one big WCC superchurch to do that.

[John Charmley]

I think your post was right on actually. The humanist religion often regards "being nice" and helping people as the only legitmate reason for religion . I was just talking about (for example) an Orthodox working with a baptist to bring food into a certain area if the Orthodox didnt have the resources to do it on his own. Or people temporarily banding together who share simmilar views on abortion, gay marriage, or things of that nature. People often act as if we need the "union of all "churches" " in order for Christians to work effectivly to help people but I dont see that as the case. In those areas in which the EO Church is not organized enough , properly financed or is lacking in resources it can work with others while "agreeing to disagree" and refraining from intercommunion. We dont need one big WCC superchurch to do that.

Dear Scott,
Amen to that last thought!

If you could bring yourself to read 'bishop Katharine's' thoughts, I should be interested in your take on them. It is that sort of thing which has convinced me that Anglicanism is becoming synonymous with syncretism.

Can I say, incidentally, that I appreciate your posts for the insight they afford me into an EO mindset that I need to apprehend more of.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

Can I say, incidentally, that I appreciate your posts for the insight they afford me into an EO mindset that I need to apprehend more of.

Thanks. Thats kind of scarey though. Please dont take what I say as example of the EO mindset I'm not that good of an example. I'm argumentative, insensitive, have trouble admiting when I'm wrong and all sorts of stuff. I hope you are not totaly disgusted with the EO Church because of me.

[Brian B.]

Dear Scott,
Can I say, incidentally, that I appreciate your posts for the insight they afford me into an EO mindset that I need to apprehend more of.

Dear in Christ John,

I sympathize with Scott's response:

"Please dont take what I say as example of the EO mindset I'm not that good of an example."

I think the wiser attitude is to take each person as an individual rather than as representative of a type, *especially* in lay discussions online, even on a site as unique as Monachos. The Orthodox mindset, from my outsider Lutheran perspective, is best exemplified in the writings of the Fathers, the pronouncements of the Councils, the traditions of the generations, and the lives of the Saints, all informed by Holy Scripture. It is these that have led me more and more to conform my mindset to Orthodoxy.

However, I think Scott does appreciate the generous spirit in which you offer your comments on this and other threads, as do we all. Your openness and enthusiasm are quite infectious, in a very Anglican sort of way. ;)

Sincerely,
Brian

[Peter Farrington]

May I be slightly more critical then...though I also appreciate that Scott is committed to his Faith.

If we are not representing the mindset of our Church then surely we should post rather less definitively and with a greater degree of hesitancy?

Scott posts with a great degree of certainty in his position, and has refused to countenance any modification of his view of the Oriental Orthodox communion, even in the face of evidence presented here. If the EO mindset is not being represented then should there not be less insistence on a particular position?

It is hard to do other than take very definite posts as being representative, otherwise why are they so definite?

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

This thread is not the place to raise matters of EO/OO representation, etc. We have a dedicated area (http://www.monachos.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=365) for such discussion, which should be held there. For some reason recently this theme has begun to recur in almost every thread active in discussion, which is something that needs to be held in check. Please keep discussion on the topic in its own area.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I don't exactly see how you can want to force any mention of the OO into just one small area of the forum? I was only responding to Scott saying that he was not representative of the EO.

How is it reasonable for me to post an answer to a post in a completely different area? The reason that the OO position pops up in many places is because there are those of us who are OO here surely?

How would it be if you instructed EO not to mention their Orthodoxy outside of a special area? Of course it is your forum and you can set whatever rules you choose but I don't see how OO can be expected to act as if they were not OO outside of the area you have set up.

If someone posts for instance 'Severus is a heretic' and it is outside the designated area for OO does this mean that we should not respond? I think it is important to ask questions about the nature of the representation of Eastern Orthodoxy on this forum, not least for other visitors. Are the most decided voices the most authoritative? It just happened that Scott raised it here. I don't see how it is unreasonable to answer his post here?

Peter

[Brian B.]

Dear Peter,

I think the point is that Scott's mindset could at most be generalized to a certain kind of zealous Orthodox who tend to frequent message boards. His mindset is just an example of Scott being Scott, as he himself admits. We should take him at his word; and resist the temptation to move from the particular to the general here, no matter how strongly he states his positions.

As for bringing in the EO/OO discussion, I have sincerely enjoyed your comments and appreciate your efforts on other threads. I have learned a lot from those discussions. However I agree with Matthew that it is best to keep that discussion out of a thread dedicated to the Anglican mindset.

In Christ,
Brian

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Brian

I agree with your post, and I wasn't meaning that the EO/OO controversy should invade every thread, just that it is not possible for an Oriental Orthodox not to be Oriental Orthodox in all threads.

But you are right, the thread is actually about the Anglican mindset.

Nevertheless on the general point, if Scott is not representing EO opinion then I would expect other EO to correct him. I haven't seen this really happen, therefore I can only assume that when his posts are not corrected he does actually represent EO opinion.

Of course that is at least positive in the sense that the Anglican mindset tends to reject any universal opinion and this has made dialogue with the Anglicans especially difficult.

Peter

[William Swabey]

Dear Peter,

I so agree with your pastoral view of Christian mission in the UK.

Isn't the key for any of us as Christians, myself as Roman Catholic, yourself as Orthodox, that all of us are, in the current society, foreigners ?

Now, any converts have to (to use a crude but acurate marketing phrase) 'buy into us as a brand'. A lifestyle option. You choose one brand, I choose another (that is if I could be bothered in the first place).

This is a major subversion to Christian faith. We have been refining our different 'brands' for centuries, far too well.

Is it surprising that our society views us like a supermarket ?

Once received, I have found adult converts uneasy with the
mismatch of orthodox (Catholic) teaching and the world around them.

Hardly surprising, and probably the same for Orthodox in England.

So without questioning your opinions, which I think are accurate,
isn't it time we also developed a realistic approach that admits
from the outset that we are all 'foreign' ? I think it would be more
realistic. In that there is a long Christian tradition. Worth a book perhaps?

Best wishes

William Swabey

[Peter Farrington]

I rather hesitate to post because I take seriously Matthew's desire that threads remain focus, although perhaps appropriately this thread on Anglicanism seems to have rather lost focus.

Personally, I think that we actually need to be much more engaged in the 'world' in the UK. It may well be that it is a rather shallow and luke-warm variety of hell, but we to be present in this place of darkness and confusion.

I have on my desk here at work a copy of 'A City Not Forsaken - The Jerusalem Community Rule of Life' by Pierre-Marie Dalfieux, the close friend of Carlo Carretto. The Jerusalem Communities are rooted in Desert spirituality but bring life and light and peace and calm to the spiritual desert which is the modern city. This particular book is much influenced by the Desert Fathers, but I don't necessarily read it to copy it, but to be inspired by their vision and encouraged by their compassion.

I am not convinced that in these times the right answer is a general withdrawal from society. Rather I am thinking that we must be such strong and grace-filled Christians that we are able to take the life of Christ into the world that tries to struggle on without Him.

Yes, I agree with you that we are foreigners in this world, and one of the problems of the Anglican communion in the West from an Orthodox perspective is that it has lost its salt and become too much at home in the world. I do not say that, but rather that we should live in the world as strangers, but WITH those who do not know Christ, not apart from them.

I am sure it is harder. More confusing. More liable to making mistakes. But there is a nation that needs Christ, and like St Paul we need to go to the marketplaces and find those who do not even know how to begin to seek.

I think I would want to believe that if the life of Christ is shared with folk and if we are living out that life in front of people then the issue of rooting new believers into the Church becomes easier, though never without difficulties.

Be bold, be strong, for the Lord our God is with us.

Peter

[Owen Jones]

As a former Episcopal priest I have avoided posting to this thread for fear of the appearance of sour grapes. But a sound, objective appraisal of most of Anglicanism today in Britain and the U.S. would be hard pressed to recognize anything particularly Christian about it, either in doctrine or practice. All of the major urban dioceses are controlled by lesbians and homosexuals. The seminaries are largely controlled by lesbians and homosexuals who worship on the altar of alienation. Alienation is the sacrament of this new union between sexual dysfunction and personal, political and social alienation. It follows all of the typical structures of a gnostic cultism. Here's how it works. In the eucharist, we come together as an act of corporate will to express our mutual alienation from God, world, society, our fellow creatures. In this mutual act of recognition of our alienation is our salvation. It creates spiritual power -- a communal creation of spiritual power to take control of our destinies and to change the world by an ongoing revolution in social relationships. Like Marxism, we will know that the revolution has succeeded when the Church disappears -- there will be no need for a Church anymore once it is achieved its social aims. (Remember the withering away of the state from Marx?) The only power standing in the way of this revolution are the bigoted, homophobic reactionaries. The sooner they are purged from the Church command structure the better (although it is OK if they continue to contribute to the Church, and especially to the seminaries). But in order to pull off this revolution, one must still appear to be outwardly traditional. So the revolutionaries use traditional religious language (even though the meaning of the words has been changed) and appear in traditional religious garb.

All of this stands as a warning to Orthodoxy not to even take any small steps down that path. In Orthodoxy, we must never concede the faith to "experts" in the clergy or in the seminaries. We are the responsible guardians of the faith. We must not permit experimentation with liturgical practice. At the same time, we must not permit ourselves to be formalists in religion -- to believe that just because we have preserved our liturgical traditions that this is sufficient.

I personally believe that the best hope for the preservation of our faith lies in a growth of a vibrant monasticism. Monastics have nothing to lose and are the last bulwark against heresy. Monastics have also been noted for expounding heresies, but other monastics are also the best at combating this. And so we are all responsible for encouraging and promoting the growth of a healthy, vibrant, Orthodox monasticism and supporting it through our wallets and our prayers. We all ought to ask ourselves this question -- would we be joyful or sorrowful if our son or daughter chose the path of monasticism?

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

I so agree with your pastoral view of Christian mission in the UK.

Isn't the key for any of us as Christians, myself as Roman Catholic, yourself as Orthodox, that all of us are, in the current society, foreigners ?


So without questioning your opinions, which I think are accurate,
isn't it time we also developed a realistic approach that admits
from the outset that we are all 'foreign' ? I think it would be more
realistic. In that there is a long Christian tradition. Worth a book perhaps?

Best wishes

William Swabey

Dear Mr. Swabey,

I see where you are coming from, as they say, and yes, in the sense you mean we are, as Christians, 'foreign'. But let us not make it worse by actually speaking in a foreign tongue and by expecting people to adapt themselves to an ethnically strange culture; adapting to those things in Christianity which are, indeed, 'foreign' is quite enough for one catechumenate; load up the other things, and the camel's back gets severely strained.

We are, of course, fortunate, in having St. Paul's example of how to go about these things; he seems to have been rather an adept at it. To get to first base in this secular society, we must be able to speak to it in its own tongue - even if many of the ideas we will be articulating will, indeed, be foreign.

In Christ,

John

[Father David Moser]

Alienation is the sacrament of this new union between sexual dysfunction and personal, political and social alienation. It follows all of the typical structures of a gnostic cultism. Here's how it works. In the eucharist, we come together as an act of corporate will to express our mutual alienation from God, world, society, our fellow creatures. In this mutual act of recognition of our alienation is our salvation. It creates spiritual power -- a communal creation of spiritual power to take control of our destinies and to change the world by an ongoing revolution in social relationships. ...

I had an interesting conversation yesterday in the airport (while waiting for a long delayed flight) that this kind of brings to mind. The man that I was talking with (a Lutheran) was expounding on an idea that we can treat the traditional Christian symbology (the cross, the Body and Blood, etc) as "anti-viral" elements in the body of Christian belief. The faithful adherence to these symbols acts as a kind of guarantee for the veracity of the body of the Faith because it is impossible to hold these symbols as real and viable and at the same time adhere to heretical/schismatic belief. The symbol/image/icon eventually reveals the flaw in the heretical teaching because at some point the heretical ideal is incompatible with the symbol. Now I'm not sure I agree with him in an absolute sense - but the more I consider this idea, it does seem to have some validity.

Owen's idea of the "sacrament of alienation" falls into this category because as we pursue the imagery of Holy Communion, the conflict between union with God and alienation from God will become more and more clear. Only by distorting or abandoning the image of the Resurrected "Christ the Victor" into the idea of "Christ the Victim" can this alienation survive. The dogma of the Trinity must also suffer because rather than see the Son as of one essence with the Father, one must come to see the Son as separated from the Father - remaining on the cross crying out "My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me." with no hope of an answer.


I personally believe that the best hope for the preservation of our faith lies in a growth of a vibrant monasticism. ... we are all responsible for encouraging and promoting the growth of a healthy, vibrant, Orthodox monasticism and supporting it through our wallets and our prayers. We all ought to ask ourselves this question -- would we be joyful or sorrowful if our son or daughter chose the path of monasticism?

Amen and Amen! Although neither of my children has made that choice, they were both certainly exposed to monastics and monasticism as a postive and valued life choice. Perhaps my grandchildren will make the choice (I will certianly encourage them as well).

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

As a former Episcopal priest I have avoided posting to this thread for fear of the appearance of sour grapes. But a sound, objective appraisal of most of Anglicanism today in Britain and the U.S. would be hard pressed to recognize anything particularly Christian about it, either in doctrine or practice. All of the major urban dioceses are controlled by lesbians and homosexuals. The seminaries are largely controlled by lesbians and homosexuals who worship on the altar of alienation. Alienation is the sacrament of this new union between sexual dysfunction and personal, political and social alienation.

It is always bracing to read such wonderfully astringent and eloquent words, and they make my rather curmudgeonly comments from earlier posts look almost panglossian. But I do wonder whether the grapes are not a little sourer in posse than is needful in in esse? I would hesitate to contradict your wonderfully sweeping statement in so far as it applies to the US, but I doubt that the UK has 'advanced' to such a state where homosexuals and lesbians have quite the dominance they may well have in the US; here it is the secular mind-set that holds sway. The difference between parts of the Anglican Church and the nonconformist denominations often escapes me nowadays. That being said, there are many examples of individuals toiling in the vineyard doing the Lord's work as best they can in the situation to which they feel they have been called; neither sexually dysfunctional or yet personally alienated, but quietly getting on with preaching the Gospel and ministering to those among the vast secularised mass whom they can reach. It is these people who have kept me where I have been so long; it is the certainty that their plight will, as Own implies, worsen, that makes me head for the exit. But even as I go, I pray for them and their work.

And yet, inclined to pessimism as I am, I can't quite get there. The Word became Flesh, emptied Himself for me, suffered for me, died and was resurrected so that I should have the chance of salvation; the divinised Flesh showed what we can be and calls us to theosis. I keep trying to be a pessimist, but the shadow of the Cross just reminds me that my Redeemer liveth and calls me to repentance and to salvation; and who am I to despair?

I'd better stop - getting optimistic might be a little much for this time of the day.

But thank you for this thought-provoking - and wonderfully pungent post. It added, it its own way, to the joie de vivre of being on this site.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

I am really sorry, friends, that I cannot participate much now. I have started a Masters program and I am overloaded. Nevertheless, I am planning to watch the thread of conversation and add in my tuppance worth where and when I can.

I am glad that this thread has been lively, provoking so much thought - and balanced thought at that.

One quick note I'll make about Christianity being foreign: I am certain this will become more and more the case. We are not only going to be foreign to society, we'll become more of an anathema, I suspect, from now until the Second Coming. This alienation is part and parcel of the problem of Anglican Comprehensiveness, which seeks to avoid the Gospel truth: 'they will put you out of the synagogues…'

I was just speaking to a student about relevance, and it hit me that the way we need to be 'relevant' is by addressing culture, constructively, realistically, truthfully, and in the spirit of love. We cannot deny what is good when we see it, nor can we ignore or dismiss what is evil. Sadly, the evil seems to far outweigh the good, but we must address it all in truth and in love.

Sdn. Mark Harrison

[Scott Pierson]

Dear Brian

I agree with your post, and I wasn't meaning that the EO/OO controversy should invade every thread, just that it is not possible for an Oriental Orthodox not to be Oriental Orthodox in all threads.

But you are right, the thread is actually about the Anglican mindset.

Nevertheless on the general point, if Scott is not representing EO opinion then I would expect other EO to correct him. I haven't seen this really happen, therefore I can only assume that when his posts are not corrected he does actually represent EO opinion.

Of course that is at least positive in the sense that the Anglican mindset tends to reject any universal opinion and this has made dialogue with the Anglicans especially difficult.

Peter

I'm not saying that the views I express are not necesarily valid EO views (though they may not be at times I know I'm not perfect.) I'm just saying that I might not always express things with the proper love and charity or even for the right reasons ... etc. One can be technically right and still fail to express the proper spirit.

I've seen more then a few EO disagree with me at times just look a little harder lol.

[John Charmley]

I was just speaking to a student about relevance, and it hit me that the way we need to be 'relevant' is by addressing culture, constructively, realistically, truthfully, and in the spirit of love. We cannot deny what is good when we see it, nor can we ignore or dismiss what is evil. Sadly, the evil seems to far outweigh the good, but we must address it all in truth and in love.

Sdn. Mark Harrison

Dear Mark,

Best of luck with the Masters' programme; it is good to know you will be with us.

You raise a vital question. Anglicanism has sought to tackle this issue of relevant by becoming more like the society it seeks to communicate with; that is why we had to suffer the abomination of abandoning the Prayer Book (sorry, the introduction of an alternative which you are encouraged to use), guitar masses (there is an Elvis impersonator doing evensong at Truro Cathedral - honest, I'm not, alas, making any of this up), women 'priests'. gay liberation theology, God as 'mother' and all the rest of it. We can see where this has led; but how does Orthodoxy relate to this world?

Mark's prescription seems a good one to me. Orthodoxy is relevant because it has the answers to the big questions. When you've made your money and you feel empty; when you've had serial marriages and you feel alienated and alone; when you've got your nth fast car and your nth house to keep it in; when all the material goods are yours and your kids are out of control and you feel something is lacking, come to the Church to find what it is you've been missing - and why you've been missing it.

The Church has to be able to address the materially wealthy and spiritually poor; indeed, in western society it might be argued that this is the biggest area for mission.

I like Mark's thought and wonder how others think we might be 'relevant' without going the Anglican route?

In Christ

John

[Mark Harrison]

Dear Mark,

Best of luck with the Masters' programme; it is good to know you will be with us.

You raise a vital question. Anglicanism has sought to tackle this issue of relevant by becoming more like the society it seeks to communicate with; that is why we had to suffer the abomination of abandoning the Prayer Book (sorry, the introduction of an alternative which you are encouraged to use), guitar masses (there is an Elvis impersonator doing evensong at Truro Cathedral - honest, I'm not, alas, making any of this up), women 'priests'. gay liberation theology, God as 'mother' and all the rest of it. We can see where this has led; but how does Orthodoxy relate to this world?

Mark's prescription seems a good one to me. Orthodoxy is relevant because it has the answers to the big questions. When you've made your money and you feel empty; when you've had serial marriages and you feel alienated and alone; when you've got your nth fast car and your nth house to keep it in; when all the material goods are yours and your kids are out of control and you feel something is lacking, come to the Church to find what it is you've been missing - and why you've been missing it.

The Church has to be able to address the materially wealthy and spiritually poor; indeed, in western society it might be argued that this is the biggest area for mission.

I like Mark's thought and wonder how others think we might be 'relevant' without going the Anglican route?

In Christ

John

I hope we can ALL find ways to be relevant without taking even a step down the Anglican path to spiritual/theological schizophrenia! The worst part about it, is that even from a purely saecular point of view, there is a sickness there - a willingness to be intellectually dishonest. There is wilfully dishonesty symptomised by rampant rationalisation.

May I suggest, gentlemen, that you start a new thread to cover the EO/OO issues? I think the discussion is very valuable. We may still be formally separated, but if that barrier to be overcome, it will take us reaching into our common Tradition to address, even confront, our culture - to be relevant. (I seem to be becoming famous for that word - one of my past students was telling a present student over the phone that 'relevance' was a theme he remembered from classes with me.)

I think there is a lot that can be accomplished on the lay level, especially toward presenting a united witness to Western Christianity. Solid reflection, on a lay level, as well as among monastics and hierarchs, rooted in Tradition, will allow this, and a forum like this is a good place to begin. I am sorry that I am not in a position to participate more right now, but I definitely favour the idea. If you do opt to go this route, please let me know (markandersh@gmail.com) so that I can monitor your discussions and chime in where I can.

This is not to say that I have been unhappy about the Anglicanism thread being used like this. I am only suggesting this for the sake of clarity and organisation. I should hope that an OO/EO forum could then lead to further discussion on this forum - cross pollination as it were. The advantage to a discussion like this is that we all, or at least most of us involved, have lived Anglicanism. It is not difficult to truly understand it and be 'relevant.' The one thing we must all accept, I am afraid, is that in being relevant, we are going to offend some, no matter how polite we intend to be. We are not going to win over the Archbishop of Canterbury! In fact, it really isn't up ot us to win anybody over. That itself is a Protestant error in thinking. It is God who converts the soul. We can however, take our experiences as former Anglicans and present Orthodox to present the True Faith in a way that duly addresses the present culture and say as we read in Scripture, 'those who have ears to hear, let them hear.'

Thank you for the well-wishes, John.

In Christ,

Mark Harrison

[John Charmley]

The advantage to a discussion like this is that we all, or at least most of us involved, have lived Anglicanism. It is not difficult to truly understand it and be 'relevant.' The one thing we must all accept, I am afraid, is that in being relevant, we are going to offend some, no matter how polite we intend to be. We are not going to win over the Archbishop of Canterbury! In fact, it really isn't up ot us to win anybody over. That itself is a Protestant error in thinking. It is God who converts the soul. We can however, take our experiences as former Anglicans and present Orthodox to present the True Faith in a way that duly addresses the present culture and say as we read in Scripture, 'those who have ears to hear, let them hear.'

Thank you for the well-wishes, John.

In Christ,

Mark Harrison

Dear Mark,

As you will see, much of the EO/OO discussion has now done what you suggest, and is in the EO/OO folder.

Anglicanism does, I suspect, provide us with an example NOT to follow; but it is still far more pervasive in the UK than Orthodoxy, and I remain unconvinced that it does not have large deposits of Orthodoxy within it in the beliefs of individual Anglicans. Those Anglicans already perceive themselves as being isolated in a Church that has moved elsewhere, and I would be surprised if I were one of only a few who had arrived at the gates of Orthodoxy.

For these people, God has already called them, and they believe as they have been taught; they can, through contact with Orthodoxy, learn more about the fulness of the Christian life; so the challenge is not to 'convert', but to show such Anglicans that there is a welcome for them in Orthodoxy.

That is where an innovation such as the BOC's Orthodox Fellowship is so valuable - and where the stress on ethnicity on the part of some EOs is less helpful.

Many Anglicans have headed for the Roman Church because they thought it the only viable alternative in the west; it is the task of Orthodoxy to show this is not so; not to 'convert' but to welcome the lost sheep into the fold.

In Christ

John

[John Charmley]

With everything that's gone on in the U.K. over the past summer, it's clear that Britain isn't even close to being ready to become a local Orthodox Church.... not even remotely. I say give it another 2 or 3 hundred years....... In Orthodox time that's not so long.

--tim

Dear Tim,

I have pondered this a long while, not because I disagree, but because I agree and wonder what the implications might be?

Two or three hundred years is not long in historical terms, but it would amount to a great number of people missing out on Orthodoxy; is that really OK, and something one can accept in this manner? A good job St. Paul didn't take such a view.

At the moment there are many Anglicans in my position - that is in a state of despair over the direction in which their native Church has gone. We acknowledge the good men and women within it, but we do feel as though parts of it have invented another religion and dubbed it Christianity.

We stand, therefore, in a no-man's land. Some go over to Rome, but some of us cannot do so because we feel it too has departed from the path of true teaching. There are moments (many of them) when I feel uneasy with this. Who am I to say such things? On what authority do I show disobedience to my own hierarchy? On what authority do I not acknowledge the authority of Rome as some of my friends have done? And by what means shall I move to the Church whose teachings are Orthodox? How shall that be recognised?

All problems without obvious solutions, save to those who already know the True way. There is already, in such thinking, a strain of protestantism it sometimes seems to me.

Anglicanism has nurtured me, and I am grateful to it for that. The way is dark ahead, and only prayer will sustain.

Yes, Britain is not ready to be Orthodox, but it is by no means clear to me that Orthodoxy is ready to do the work of mission needed to bring this about. Recent events in London do nothing to convince one otherwise.

It is all very well to be an exiting Anglican, but the trajectory is the thing!

INXC

John

[Tim Grass]

Hi John.... and thanks for the good thoughts. I defintely wouldn't ever want to say that we aren't supposed to be a living church.... thriving, preaching the Gospel, being truly, fully, energetically Orthodox. But we've got to stop thinking that the only way to do this is to become a "local church." We're just not ready for that in this country..... and the result of trying to become (or worse: to just try to be!) a local church when we're not ready, is just fraction and destruction. It's like a rebellious teenager who insists he's a full grown adult.... it's not wise, it's not healthy.... and it's defintely counter productive.

If we really want to witness to the world, we need to learn how to be a true and real daughter/child church, before we try being an adult church. To do that right..... would convert a nation.

--tim

[Kris]

Two or three hundred years is not long in historical terms, but it would amount to a great number of people missing out on Orthodoxy; is that really OK, and something one can accept in this manner? A good job St. Paul didn't take such a view.


Hi,

I don't believe he was saying that there cannot be Orthodoxy here, or even that a decidedly English form of Orthodoxy cannot be acheived.

Rather, the question was one of establishing a local (i.e. totally self-governed) Orthodox jurisdiction in Britain. This I do not believe it is ready for (it took several centuries before the Russian Church was made autocephalous).

But I don't think a local Orthodox Church is necessary to bring the British to the faith. When the West was still Orthodox, it was but a single jurisdiction, with its centre in Rome.

One can still have English faithful, celebrating services in English, with English priests, and English Bishops who lead them and still be dependant on the Holy Synod of Alexandria, Moscow, or another Patriarchate.

Of course, a Patriarch based in Western Europe would be nice (Fr. Andrew Phillips has a nice little map on his website), but the unfortunate fact is that the West has not been Orthodox for well over a millennia, and just isn't ready (Moscow made that mistake in granting the OCA independance way too early).

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Hi,

I don't believe he was saying that there cannot be Orthodoxy here, or even that a decidedly English form of Orthodoxy cannot be acheived.

Rather, the question was one of establishing a local (i.e. totally self-governed) Orthodox jurisdiction in Britain. This I do not believe it is ready for (it took several centuries before the Russian Church was made autocephalous).

But I don't think a local Orthodox Church is necessary to bring the British to the faith. When the West was still Orthodox, it was but a single jurisdiction, with its centre in Rome.

One can still have English faithful, celebrating services in English, with English priests, and English Bishops who lead them and still be dependant on the Holy Synod of Alexandria, Moscow, or another Patriarchate.

Of course, a Patriarch based in Western Europe would be nice (Fr. Andrew Phillips has a nice little map on his website), but the unfortunate fact is that the West has not been Orthodox for well over a millennia, and just isn't ready (Moscow made that mistake in granting the OCA independance way too early).

In XC,
Kris

Dear Kris,

Excellent points, but still unsure whether Orthodoxy is any more ready for the British than Britain is for Orthodoxy.

One has to recall that to most of those in the UK, Orthodoxy is more or less unknown, and something that is unknown is also unknowable. What, if anything, is Orthodoxy doing by way of mission?

I know what Peter and the BOC are doing, because when I went looking they answered my questions, as they still do, and they have been happy to try to explain to me why they think there are no hard doctrinal differences between them and the EO. This is not a universal practice among the Orthodox, which makes me ask the question in my first paragraph.

You mention Moscow as a possible centre - recent events hardly suggest this is wholly likely to be conducive to successful mission. Understanding the British was never easy for Rome, even as it was never easy for the British to understand Rome. As the secular example of the British and the EU suggests, the British have a troubled relationship with non-autochthonous authority. As has been commented before, speaking to the British in old Greek or old Church Slavonic may appeal to a few, but not the many.

In many senses Britain is a mission field - where are the missionaries?

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear John,

A former Anglican I know who became Orthodox said, 'I didn't leave the Church of England - it left me.

[Elena]

British Orthodoxy already exsists.
If you are British and Orthodox at the same time then you are already an expression of it. Is Britain ready for a self governing Orthodox Church? Personally I have never observed that such a desire is a priority for most British Orthodox.

There is one Orthodox Church. We may come from different cultural traditions, but there is only one Tradition. Why should we as the laity worry about the question of the nationality of our patriach. I confess I see little benefit in worrying about nationality in any forum.

In Britain we have an opportunity to emphasise the unity of all parts of the Orthodox Church. Regardless of differences and disagreements (which in recent months have been painfully apparent) we are all of the same body. Particularly given the recent turmoil in Britain is this a time to realise and focus on our unity and our love for one another.

A self governing Orthodox Church will probably happen when the majority of Eastern Orthodox Chrisitans in Britain feel more British than they do Russian/Greek/Romanian etc. How long this will be none of us can know but it is likely to be quite a while and we should not try to accelerate the proccess.

[Kris]

One has to recall that to most of those in the UK, Orthodoxy is more or less unknown, and something that is unknown is also unknowable. What, if anything, is Orthodoxy doing by way of mission?


Hi, you're right; much more needs to be done in terms of mission. Not that nothing is being done; look for example at the Orthodox Study Bible, numerous introductory books in the English language, English prayer books, service books, magazines, countless websites, etc.

But much more needs to be done to bring Orthodoxy to the people.

However, my point is that I don't believe an independant Orthodox jurisdiction is required to achieve that. Nor, as Elena correctly pointed out, have I found this desire among most British converts.

Yes, they want services in English and things like that; but I've never heard anyone say that an English Patriarch was a particularly important issue.

Personally, I am extremely patriotic (the sin of pride, I know) and would want all the services in my own language, with priests from my own country, etc. But if anyone ever proposed that there should be an independant Norwegian Orthodox Church, when only a minute fraction (I doubt its even 1%) of Orthodox faithful in Norway are natives, I would say they were bonkers, and would be doing a huge diservice to the Orthodox mission there.

The situation in the UK is, of course, quite different, but I'd say the same thing is true.



I know what Peter and the BOC are doing, because when I went looking they answered my questions, as they still do, and they have been happy to try to explain to me why they think there are no hard doctrinal differences between them and the EO. This is not a universal practice among the Orthodox, which makes me ask the question in my first paragraph.


Certainly this is important. But do you think an independant English jurisdiction is needed in order to answer such inquiries?



You mention Moscow as a possible centre - recent events hardly suggest this is wholly likely to be conducive to successful mission.


I only mentioned Moscow as an example of one of the many Patriarchates, not necessarily that this should be the base of any British Orthodoxy.

However, if you're refering to the recent events involving Bishop Basil, I must say that I fully support H.H. Alexy's position. I think the idea of further dividing the Church along ethnic lines is very harmful.

It's bad enough that there is one jurisdiction here for Greeks, another for Russians, another for Romanians, another for Arabs, etc. A situation that, with respect to the canons of the Church, is completely unacceptable (but understandable, given the fact that Orthodox was brought here through immigration).

I believe the solution lies in anglicizing the existing Orthodox bodies here, not to create yet another rival jurisdiction.



Understanding the British was never easy for Rome, even as it was never easy for the British to understand Rome. As the secular example of the British and the EU suggests, the British have a troubled relationship with non-autochthonous authority.


I'm not sure if this makes me more or less in favour of an independant Church. What I'm afraid of is a similar situation to the one within the Anglican communion (I'm thinking of the Episcopaleans).



As has been commented before, speaking to the British in old Greek or old Church Slavonic may appeal to a few, but not the many.


Of course, I don't think anyone here has suggested that there shouldn't be a greater use of the English language. Thankfully, many churches do their services either partially or fully in English.

But I'm not convinced we need a separate British jurisdiction to do that. Even the BOC is not an independant entity, but under the authority of an Egyptian Pope and Synod based in far-away Cairo.


Another thing makes me wonder to what extent the ethnic make-up of Orthodoxy in Britain really deters serious seekers.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West, not just due to immigration but through conversion also.

I cannot think of any big religion that is more ethnocentric, more unaccommodating, etc. than Islam. A convert will be expected to say all their prayers in Arabic only, to listen to the Qur'an being recited in Arabic in the mosques, where the imam is probably of South Asian origin.

No doubt, this makes conversion to Islam very difficult for many, yet it doesn't deter those who take it seriously. Why? Because they believe they have found the true faith.

Certainly, ethnocentrism is a big problem for the Orthodox, and it is one we must deal with. But for those who believe they have seen the true Light, received the heavenly Spirit, found the true faith in the worship of the undivided Trinity and trust in His salvation, it would be more of an inconvenience than an real obstacle.

Just a thought.

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Elena/Kris,

I am grateful to you both for such thoughtful posts,.

The point about a self-governing British Orthodox Church was not where I was coming from, but knowing something of the current situation in London, I can understand where arguments about this within Orthodoxy might make it a current issue; I agree with what you both say on this score.

When Elena says not to worry about nationality, that begs many questions. There may only be one tradition, but it has many national flavours, so to say, and both Greek and Russian nationality have been so shaped by Orthodoxy that to disassociate nationalism from the way in which the Faith is practised seems more an academic than a practical exercise. Those of us who have been met in the past by the statement that we could not be Orthodox because we were not Greek or Russian, might be pardoned for thinking that nationality was a relevant consideration.

It is also relevant to mission, since, as Sts.. Cyril and Methodius recognised so long ago, language and evangelisation are inextricably linked. Here, I am with Kris that: 'much more needs to be done to bring Orthodoxy to the people'.


The point being made about the BOC is such a personal one, and my own position may be so eccentric that it has no wider implications, and if anyone who reads on feels that, then I do apolgise for being self-indulgent.

I do not know whether you are both cradle-Orthodox, but I sense that you are both part of a younger generation than myself, and things may well be different for you, but for me, for most of my life, being Anglican was my orthodoxy; it is the state Church in which I was baptised and married; it was the Church in which my children were baptised and to which my family has gone every Sunday for nearly thirty years. My understanding of Anglicanism was a very traditional one, and as Kris' friend commented, I didn't leave it, it left me!

In turn, that required me to do something I had never thought to do, being an obedient Anglican, namely decide not to attend Anglican services, and then, even more difficult, to find another place to worship. For my friends, Roman Catholicism has been the preferred option, but for me that has never felt right; it too has accretions to the faith which seem unorthodox to me; I say this with a profound sense of unease, since who am I to make such a pronouncement about a Church which witnesses so much to Christ's presence in this troubled world? But it is what I believe.

The Orthodoxy that I tried, unsuccessfully, to join thirty years ago seemed the most obvious other option. But in the course of my searches, it has proven much easier for me to approach the BOC than other Orthodox Churches; the latter seemed hard to contact and not much interested - or else rather difficult because of the issue of ethnicity; none of these things were true of the BOC. Its members have been helpful without being pressing in any way. My one point of unease, as Peter Farrington knows, was the fact that the Coptic Orthodox were non-Chalcedonian. Peter's writings on these matters, along with my own readings, have led me to a position where I could not see where the hard doctrinal differences between the two Orthodoxies lay, so I pursued that quest here on another thread. I may have been asking the wrong question or the wrong people, but after several interesting months, I am no nearer understanding what the substantive differences are; I know all the historical and traditional ones and do not discount them, but since neither my history nor my tradition are bound up in these matters, I view them with less concern than those who are not so situated.

That, really, is where I am coming from. The BOC seem firmly committed to mission to the English in a language and with a tone that immediately communicates a welcome. The Copts, whom I have found just wonderfully welcoming, seem very happy to help the BOC in their mission, and the British hierarchy of the BOC could hardly have been more welcoming, helpful or humble in the way they have offered help without expecting anything in return. So it isn't about an independent British hierarchy, where I agree with you both, but, with due respect to this site and its posters, for someone like me being 'British' and 'Orthodox' isn't as simple as it might appear.

I am well aware from other threads that there will be those who will say that the OO are, despite everything I have experienced, heretical; that was why I have been a little pressing elsewhere about the nature of that heresy, and why I have been a little puzzled by the nature of the answers to my, no doubt, naive, questions.

I suppose that one of the reasons I get so exercised about the question of unity is that from outside I find it difficult to see the OO as less orthodox than the EO, and I have certainly found them a help in my journey. In that sense, ethnicity is an issue. I am too old, traditional and set in my ways to be comfortable in a Greek or Russian environment; had someone been able to show me how the BOC are not orthodox in their faith, then those things would have been as nothing were my soul in peril - for that I should be prepared to travel wherever and even learn American-English if necessary.

As it is, I have a British Orthodox Church that is helpful, supportive and gives answers to my questions that I can understand.

None of this lessens my dilemma, but it perhaps explains where I am coming from on this. My central difficulty is that I do have a choice to make. Of course, one could argue that we all do, but mine is as outlined.

Hope that was not too self-indulgent, and that no one thinks that will happen every time someone posts as thought-provokingly as you both did.

In Christ


John

[Antonios]

Dear John,

Thank you for your post. I admire and respect you for your frankness and inquisitvness in searching for the Truth. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that you haven't been introduced to a (Chaldean) Orthodox Church in Britian where you could feel comfortable with. In fact, the Pearl of Great Price is called that specifically because it is often not so easily found. I, myself, am cradle Orthodox, and I thank God for that because He knew in His foreknowledge how weak I really am. That way, at least if I'm born in the faith, I might stay in the faith! So, when I hear of others who have spent their entire lives outside of Orthodoxy and who finally come to find this Pearl of Great Price, I stand amazed and awed by the Providence of God, Who in His ineffable ways, works to bring all His children to the Truth. In fact, I believe such brothers and sisters in Christ more blessed than the cradle Orthodox.

Here in the States, things have become easier, that is, people from all walks of life have embraced Orthodoxy without feeling restricted because of ethnic and cultural differences. The Orthodox Church of America, the Antiochian Church of America, and others come to mind. It is, in fact, a modern day podvig for cradle Orthodox Christians to de-emphasize the little 't' tradition, and emphasize the big 't' Tradition.

May God bless you along your way into Orthodoxy and may you rest assurred that in prayer, patience, and forebearance in the name of Christ, you will enter into the Truth.

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

Thank you for your post. I admire and respect you for your frankness and inquisitvness in searching for the Truth. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that you haven't been introduced to a (Chaldean) Orthodox Church in Britian where you could feel comfortable with. In fact, the Pearl of Great Price is called that specifically because it is often not so easily found. I, myself, am cradle Orthodox, and I thank God for that because He knew in His foreknowledge how weak I really am. That way, at least if I'm born in the faith, I might stay in the faith! So, when I hear of others who have spent their entire lives outside of Orthodoxy and who finally come to find this Pearl of Great Price, I stand amazed and awed by the Providence of God, Who in His ineffable ways, works to bring all His children to the Truth. In fact, I believe such brothers and sisters in Christ more blessed than the cradle Orthodox.

Here in the States, things have become easier, that is, people from all walks of life have embraced Orthodoxy without feeling restricted because of ethnic and cultural differences. The Orthodox Church of America, the Antiochian Church of America, and others come to mind. It is, in fact, a modern day podvig for cradle Orthodox Christians to de-emphasize the little 't' tradition, and emphasize the big 't' Tradition.

May God bless you along your way into Orthodoxy and may you rest assurred that in prayer, patience, and forebearance in the name of Christ, you will enter into the Truth.

My dear Antonios,

I am touched by your sentiments, encouraged by your reassurances, and sustained by your message.

For someone of conservative and traditional instincts, finding oneself in a situation where choices have to be made is painful, and I envy those who had no such agony, although, as I say, I do not underestimate what it takes to be a Christian in this society. At the same time, I have faith that all of this is for a reason - and when I experience what has been called the kindness of strangers, I get a glimpse of one of these reasons.

My deepest thanks.

INXC,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Its easy to take what we have noticed in one place and then assume that "Eastern Orthodoxy" in general is like that. Is it possible you might have done that ? My Church for example has 50% converts and there are many Churches thoughout the USA that have an even higher percentage. In my entire life as an Orthodox (which I guess inst that long ..) I've only had one person show confusion and say "you know Orthodox are of such and such ethnicitys.." when I said I wasnt Russian, Greek or Bulgarian, etc. and even that person later said " well its good you are here come see the Priest when he gets back , you will like it here." Maybe it isnt like that in some parts of Britain but thats only one place .


Yes the situation is actually so complex it's difficult to say it's just one way or another.

It's true that one can find resistance to the godly change or openness that is needed. But that is to be found everywhere and not restricted to ethnic parishes. There have been examples of this resistance in N America where 'non-ethnic' parishes have quite a long history now- and the results have not been pretty. The evil one speaks local languages even without an accent!

On the other hand the ethnic parish situation in Orthodoxy isn't straight-forward either. There actually are very many of these parishes that are open to converts or the assimilated but sometimes they have had to reach a certain point to reach this point. In all of this we need to keep in mind that a number of 'ethnic parishes' have been badly burnt by opening their doors to converts and changing their inner life only to see these people leave when inevitably the adversity of an Orthodox life begins. Anyway, parishes like people go through an internal history.

Converts need to be extremely patient and enduring. Language is one of those issues that touches the deepest part of who we are. At times we take in the wrong way someone not communicating in our language. We need to show tolerance towards those who actually gave and built our parishes in difficult conditions we can only read about in books.

In parish life much time and patience is needed while awaiting to see what the situation can give, much like the sower who goes out to sow. Everything is done in hope & expectation according to what God has given and allowed in the situation one finds oneself in.

This is absolutely necessary in order to not get caught in an exitless cycle produced by lessening results from increasing demands. The latter is a spiritual law: the more we demand the less we receive back. But the other way and trying to be selfless, the more we deny ourselves the more God gives us grace- but in such unexpected ways! That's just the way it is given us by God for our good in order to grow in the essential things. It's not just a matter of being patient. It's more a matter of learning what God means by- or letting God teach us about- patience in the first place.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

"Anglicans in my position are not going to go off wholesale and join a Greek or Russian Church..."

Why not? I was an Anglican priest and I did it? Why not you?

[William Swabey]

Dare one say, as a mere western Roman Catholic,
that the conversion patterns you describe do not
suprise me.

To read you discussing which church is right or wrong
or orthodox or not is quaint (at least from a theological
point of view). In England we largely explored that in
the 19th century with John Henry Newman et al.

Isn't the real point where you feel at home ?

Catholicism was always accused of being a foreign form
of faith. Now its mainstream.

Orthodoxy is to me the same. A few more perimeter fences
perhaps, particularly national (Russian, Greek, Coptic etc) but similarly apostolic.

The point perhaps is this : if England or America were to be declared
Roman Catholic states tomorrow (which I hope they wouldn't be),
the particular identity of Orthodox faith should be respected. As a
Catholic I may have a few theological differences with you. But I need
you as orthodox believers. Orthodoxy, when it works, works well.
When it doesn't, like Catholicism or any other form of faith, it doesn't.

Doesn't it come down to what an old Benedictine abbot I knew used
to say to us at school - 'pray as you can - not as you can't'.

That's why someone would want to be orthodox. Negatives need not apply.


Best wishes

William Swabey

[Andreas Moran]

I was in the fortunate position of not being a convert as such - I was Christened in the C of E but I never went to any church and had no interest in churches until I became Orthodox in my forties.

I was startled a few years ago when, at the university where I used to teach, a Greek lad came up to me and said, 'I hear you are Orthodox - is that true?' 'Yes', I replied. He said, 'How can you be Orthodox? You're not Greek!' I don't know what he thought about Russians, Serbs, etc, etc.

There's no doubt ethnicity is a problem for converts. In any Greek parish (mostly Cypriots) one is bound to feel on the outside looking in. Now that I go to Russia regularly, it's the same, except I can't speak Russian (whereas I had learned Greek). Sometimes I think, whyever did I get mixed up in all this? Then I think of how life would be without the Orthodox Church, and I know.

[William Swabey]

Dare one say, as a mere western Roman Catholic,
that the conversion patterns you describe do not
suprise me.

To read you discussing which church is right or wrong
or orthodox or not is quaint (at least from a theological
point of view). In England we largely explored that in
the 19th century with John Henry Newman et al.

Isn't the real point where you feel at home ?

Catholicism was always accused of being a foreign form
of faith. Now its mainstream.

Orthodoxy is to me the same. A few more perimeter fences
perhaps, particularly national (Russian, Greek, Coptic etc) but similarly apostolic.

The point perhaps is this : if England or America were to be declared
Roman Catholic states tomorrow (which I hope they wouldn't be),
the particular identity of Orthodox faith should be respected. As a
Catholic I may have a few theological differences with you. But I need
you as orthodox believers. Orthodoxy, when it works, works well.
When it doesn't, like Catholicism or any other form of faith, it doesn't.

Doesn't it come down to what an old Benedictine abbot I knew used
to say to us at school - 'pray as you can - not as you can't'.

That's why someone would want to be orthodox. Negatives need not apply.


Best wishes

William Swabey

[John Charmley]

"Anglicans in my position are not going to go off wholesale and join a Greek or Russian Church..."

Why not? I was an Anglican priest and I did it? Why not you?

Dear Mr. Jones,

because when I tried I was told to go away because I was not Greek or Russian.

You were clearly more fortunate.

In Christ

John

[John Charmley]

Dare one say, as a mere western Roman Catholic,
that the conversion patterns you describe do not
suprise me.

To read you discussing which church is right or wrong
or orthodox or not is quaint (at least from a theological
point of view). In England we largely explored that in
the 19th century with John Henry Newman et al.

Isn't the real point where you feel at home ?


Dear Mr. Swabey,

Many thanks. I think if you explore other threads you may find that 'the real point' is seen otherwise by many here. I should like it to be that simple, and perhaps it is and I am over complicating it?

I should be interested in other views on this.

My difficulty is with the idea that one can simply choose in a kind of cafeteria style, which is, I suppose, why I lurk here.

Newman has always interested me, as has the contrast between his career and that of Manning. It does seem to illustrate the problems of foreignness. For all its later veneration of him, the RC's never trusted or understood Newman. Still, these are hardly matters for an Orthodox site, perhaps.

Many thanks for your post.

INXC

John

[Ryan]

I can second Scott's experience. I am attending a Greek church, most of the people are Greek, but no one has ever questioned my being there (I'm Irish/ Chinese) and the priest has been very welcoming. I think the "ethnic" attitude that some put on is well counteracted by the history of missions in places like Alaska or Africa, or the martyrs of the chinese orthodox church.

[Elena]

Dear John,

I entirely understand your frustration at only finding EO in a foreign enviroment. Although a cradle-Orthodox I have struggled with this myself. As a child I sat through hours of litergy that was completely incomprehensible to me and a faced growing sense of ignorance of my faith as my Anglican and Roman Catholic education taught me far more about other denominations my own.

I am deeply troubled that you were ever told you could not be Orthodox because you were not Russian/Greek, I am barely Russian myself (third generation in England) but I suppose I should not underestimate the difference that small part has made in my life. The 'situation' in the Russian Orthodox Church caused me to examine so much this year, and in the resulting division caused so much pain. It is as a result of this division that I feel so passionatly that the unity and oneness of the church should be emphasised at the moment.

Kris mentioned the problems this year as a wish to further divide the church along ethnic lines. Speaking from my own limited experience this in NOT what the disagreement was about, on the contrary it is about wishing to concentrate on the Orthodoxy as one enternal church whose 't'radition at a local level takes into account the enviroment of the laity it serves.

I do not underestimate the importance of nationality in our exsistence, but it should never be allowed to get in the way of our fellowship with one another or our desire to share our joy in our faith with others of different nationalities.

My apologies I have not fully replied to you post but I must cut mine short as I should have left the house ten minutes ago.

With love,

Elena

[Scott Pierson]

he Orthodoxy that I tried, unsuccessfully, to join thirty years ago seemed the most obvious other option. But in the course of my searches, it has proven much easier for me to approach the BOC than other Orthodox Churches; the latter seemed hard to contact and not much interested - or else rather difficult because of the issue of ethnicity; none of these things were true of the BOC. Its members have been helpful without being pressing in any way. My one point of unease, as Peter Farrington knows, was the fact that the Coptic Orthodox were non-Chalcedonian. Peter's writings on these matters, along with my own readings, have led me to a position where I could not see where the hard doctrinal differences between the two Orthodoxies lay, so I pursued that quest here on another thread. I may have been asking the wrong question or the wrong people, but after several interesting months, I am no nearer understanding what the substantive differences are; I know all the historical and traditional ones and do not discount them, but since neither my history nor my tradition are bound up in these matters, I view them with less concern than those who are not so situated.

Its easy to take what we have noticed in one place and then assume that "Eastern Orthodoxy" in general is like that. Is it possible you might have done that ? My Church for example has 50% converts and there are many Churches thoughout the USA that have an even higher percentage. In my entire life as an Orthodox (which I guess inst that long ..) I've only had one person show confusion and say "you know Orthodox are of such and such ethnicitys.." when I said I wasnt Russian, Greek or Bulgarian, etc. and even that person later said " well its good you are here come see the Priest when he gets back , you will like it here." Maybe it isnt like that in some parts of Britain but thats only one place .

[John Charmley]

I've only had one person show confusion and say "you know Orthodox are of such and such ethnicitys.." when I said I wasnt Russian, Greek or Bulgarian, etc. and even that person later said " well its good you are here come see the Priest when he gets back , you will like it here." Maybe it isnt like that in some parts of Britain but thats only one place .

Dear Scott,

Of course you are correct - but Britain is where I am.

There are many Anglicans who still hang on in there in organisations such as Forward in the Faith, but that has seemed to me like a road to schism. The mind of the Anglican Church seems set on modernism, and its arguments for women priests and gay marriages make sense against that agenda.

There was a time when Anglicanism was prepared to acknowledge that the filioque clause was an unorthodox addition to the Creed, and it even pledged itself to move to its removal; but that has not happened. The momentum has gone the other way.

There were comments earlier in this thread about the Anglican taste for the exotic, and its habit of mistaking a museum for the living Church, and whilst true to an extent, these are signs of the deep disturbance caused by the shift to a liberal and secular agenda. I am sure that converts from the Anglican communion know whereof I write, but for those who do not, imagine how it would feel if the OCA suddenly decided it wanted to ordain women, 'modernise' the liturgy, and jettison tradition in favour of the latest fashions?

For some the journey from where they are to somewhere else is easier than it is for others. When there was much in one's own tradition that spoke to the deepest parts of oneself, recognising those things in Orthodoxy which speaks in a way one can hear, at least makes the steps less painful.

INXC

John

[Kris]

Dear John,

Forgive me for taking so long to reply. I wrote a reply earlier, but being the genius that I am, I managed to hit the “back” button on the browser, and so lost the whole thing.



When Elena says not to worry about nationality, that begs many questions. There may only be one tradition, but it has many national flavours, so to say, and both Greek and Russian nationality have been so shaped by Orthodoxy that to disassociate nationalism from the way in which the Faith is practised seems more an academic than a practical exercise.

It is also relevant to mission, since, as Sts.. Cyril and Methodius recognised so long ago, language and evangelisation are inextricably linked. Here, I am with Kris that: 'much more needs to be done to bring Orthodoxy to the people'.


Although it is true that each culture in which Orthodoxy finds itself has produced unique “national flavours,” I am not sure how important that is.

Although great missionaries, from the Apostles to Ss Cyril and Methodius; St. Herman of Alaska to blessed Fr. Cosmas in Zaire, all made a point of giving the faith to the people in their own language – something I think is paramount in the spread of Orthodoxy in the UK – what they brought was nevertheless a completely alien set of cultural traditions.

These missionaries brought with them a radically new set of ideas and customs, whether it be outward things such as the music, rituals, architecture, or inward things such as the uniquely Semitic worldview Christianity had to offer.

So I am unconvinced that these cultural expressions are really of much importance.

For me, it is language and little else that is the key. And I am pleased to see a great number of parishes in the UK (at least in London) are increasingly adopting English.

Of course, the ethnic makeup of the parish plays an important role; but until more Brits turn (or rather, return) to Orthodoxy, this will just be a fact of life. It is also why I think these existing communities need to be “anglicised” rather than establishing uniquely British communities along side them; a method by which Orthodoxy in Britain would be doomed to remain “us and them.”



Those of us who have been met in the past by the statement that we could not be Orthodox because we were not Greek or Russian, might be pardoned for thinking that nationality was a relevant consideration.


I can only apologise on behalf of the Church for the fact that you were subjected to such treatment.

This is certainly not the situation today. At least, I have yet to encounter such attitudes. I met nothing but helpful and enthusiastic people when I made the decision to embrace Orthodoxy. Not once was my nationality (coming from a country where 85% of the population are Lutheran, the other 15% are Catholics, other Protestants or immigrants) raised as a negative.



The point being made about the BOC is such a personal one, and my own position may be so eccentric that it has no wider implications, and if anyone who reads on feels that, then I do apolgise for being self-indulgent.


I do not think anyone would accuse you of being self-indulgent.

Just to clarify, my previous post was only in respect to the point someone raised about an independent, self-ruled, Orthodox Church in Britain. I was not questioning your relationship to the BOC, nor to their dedication to mission, which I find admirable.



My one point of unease, as Peter Farrington knows, was the fact that the Coptic Orthodox were non-Chalcedonian. Peter's writings on these matters, along with my own readings, have led me to a position where I could not see where the hard doctrinal differences between the two Orthodoxies lay, so I pursued that quest here on another thread. I may have been asking the wrong question or the wrong people, but after several interesting months, I am no nearer understanding what the substantive differences are; I know all the historical and traditional ones and do not discount them, but since neither my history nor my tradition are bound up in these matters, I view them with less concern than those who are not so situated.


I, like you, cannot see any substantive differences between our respective Christologies.

For me, it is an issue of ecclesiology.

The schism of 451 has meant that we have been apart for over 1500 years, sharing neither a common Eucharist nor accepting the same canonical authorities.

As both Scripture, the Fathers and the Creed teach, there is but one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. I simply do not believe that one can say both the EO and OO are both parts of the same one Church, without accepting some kind of “branch theory.”

That is not to say that I deny the possibility of individuals who exist outside the canonical boundaries of the EO to be part of the Church (St. Isaac is a perfect example).

I think Kallistos Ware said something along the lines of “whilst we can be certain of where the Church is, we cannot be certain of where she is not.” I suppose that’s something similar to my own view.

But that’s an issue for another thread I suppose.


I am glad you have found a place in which you feel comfortable, and can only wish you the best of luck as you continue your search.

In XC,
Kris

[Kris]

Isn't the real point where you feel at home ?


Dear William,

I can't really say I agree with this statement. It implies that all forms of Christianity are equally valid in all respects, which I just don't believe is true.

For those of us who are Orthodox, it is not merely one form of Christianity among many, but the Truth.

For us the Orthodox Church is not merely one church among many, but the Church; the one founded by Jesus Christ and His Apostles; the one He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against; the Ark of Salvation.

And so although the two are related (I would not feel at home in a church I believed to be anything less than wholly Orthodox), "feeling at home" just isn't enough in my opinion.

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Dear Kris,

First of all, a thank you for this post, which was more than worth any wait, and which I am glad escaped the 'back button' syndrome! It is full of wisdom, understanding, and a spirit that is Christian to the core; such things are one of the gifts of being here, and I am extremely grateful that you have taken the time and care to compose such a post.

Your post to Mr. Swabey actually sums up rather better than I have been able to do why I am where I am - 'quaint' though it undoubtedly may seem to some. Your formulation:


For us the Orthodox Church is not merely one church among many, but the Church; the one founded by Jesus Christ and His Apostles; the one He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against; the Ark of Salvation.

And so although the two are related (I would not feel at home in a church I believed to be anything less than wholly Orthodox), "feeling at home" just isn't enough in my opinion.
would be mine - were I capable of the pithiness and precision of language and sentiment it conveys!



This is certainly not the situation today. At least, I have yet to encounter such attitudes. I met nothing but helpful and enthusiastic people when I made the decision to embrace Orthodoxy. Not once was my nationality (coming from a country where 85% of the population are Lutheran, the other 15% are Catholics, other Protestants or immigrants) raised as a negative.
This is immensely encouraging, and perhaps I should venture out a little more than I have done!


Just to clarify, my previous post was only in respect to the point someone raised about an independent, self-ruled, Orthodox Church in Britain. I was not questioning your relationship to the BOC, nor to their dedication to mission, which I find admirable.

I took that to be your point, and agree with it.

Once more you encapsulate my position with concision when you write:

I, like you, cannot see any substantive differences between our respective Christologies.


Which leads, naturally, to the ecclesiological question. Here I confess to being at sea.

As both Scripture, the Fathers and the Creed teach, there is but one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. I simply do not believe that one can say both the EO and OO are both parts of the same one Church, without accepting some kind of “branch theory.”

This has to be correct, and I quite understand why some may have thought that in questioning the hard doctrinal differences on Christology, an Anglican might have been smuggling the infamous branch theory via a stain-glass window, so to speak. That was never my intent. But I confess that the ecclesiological question troubles me, and in that sense 'comfort' is not quite achievable - not that one expects Christianity to offer that in a secular sense.

Again, Kris, my thanks for the real enlightenment and encouragement you, and others here, offer.

INXC


John

[William Swabey]

Kris,

I rather thought you wouldn't agree, because its typically Orthodox
not to, particularly if a comment comes from a Roman Catholic quarter. This
I understand, as I appreciate your theological integrity. I wasn't
being controversial !

I have long known the Orthodox think Rome have 'added bits' which weren't original, but as a lecturer in Early Church one knows each church did, even within the first centuries. That was how the early church developed in different places and in different periods. As Newman would have said 'to live is to change...' as a principal of theological development, preceeding Darwin.

Orthodoxy is particularly attractive to Anglicans, I understand. Its particularly attractive to me as well, as a sister church would be. But there's nothing there that I couldn't find doctrinally where I am as a Catholic and quite a
lot I couldn't.

Perhaps what I was getting at is relativity. We do have to relate together -
a first-step towards being in a culture together. That doesn't mean to say
that apostolic claims can be denied. I can no more deny the apostolic claims of Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy can deny the apostles buried in Rome or that Cyril and Methodius set off from San Clemente to take Christiianity to Russia.

Things were, I think,more fluid then. Not perhaps, such a bad idea and not divided.

I don't know if you ever knew a former Anglican bishop of Oxford, I was very fond of, Bishop Woollcombe. He used to joke that God's way of working church unity was to mix us all up until we felt at home in each other's houses. I think that was what I was getting at.

Yours in Christ

William

[Herman Blaydoe]

Things were, I think,more fluid then. Not perhaps, such a bad idea and not divided. And yet there were "bits" that were good and "bits" that were not so good. Unity is more than "why can't we all just get along", it has to include Truth.


He used to joke that God's way of working church unity was to mix us all up until we felt at home in each other's houses. I think that was what I was getting at.Interesting concept, except it is not "our houses"--it is HIS House, His Bride. I'm not so sure that is God's way, and I really don't see any evidence that it is. If we are to believe the Apostle Paul, being "of one mind" seems to have some importance.

[Andrew]

Kris,

I rather thought you wouldn't agree, because its typically Orthodox
not to, particularly if a comment comes from a Roman Catholic quarter. This
I understand, as I appreciate your theological integrity. I wasn't
being controversial !

I have long known the Orthodox think Rome have 'added bits' which weren't original, but as a lecturer in Early Church one knows each church did, even within the first centuries. That was how the early church developed in different places and in different periods. As Newman would have said 'to live is to change...' as a principal of theological development, preceeding Darwin.

Orthodoxy is particularly attractive to Anglicans, I understand. Its particularly attractive to me as well, as a sister church would be. But there's nothing there that I couldn't find doctrinally where I am as a Catholic and quite a
lot I couldn't.

Perhaps what I was getting at is relativity. We do have to relate together -
a first-step towards being in a culture together. That doesn't mean to say
that apostolic claims can be denied. I can no more deny the apostolic claims of Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy can deny the apostles buried in Rome or that Cyril and Methodius set off from San Clemente to take Christiianity to Russia.

Things were, I think,more fluid then. Not perhaps, such a bad idea and not divided.

I don't know if you ever knew a former Anglican bishop of Oxford, I was very fond of, Bishop Woollcombe. He used to joke that God's way of working church unity was to mix us all up until we felt at home in each other's houses. I think that was what I was getting at.

Yours in Christ

William

The thing Catholics oftentimes don't understand is that the Orthodox are not united with the Franco-Latins because of merely theological points and cultural customs. The Filioque, beards, and leavened bread are just expressions of the underlying spirit of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is ontological therapy... the Church's aim is to create gods. We are to become deified by the Uncreated energies of God. Theology is not a matter of philosophy for us, or of reasoning between issues of epistemology, metaphysics, etc. It is a matter of being illumined by the Holy Spirit and Transfigured. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are not sisters... they are two completely different systems, different organisms. Read Father John Romanides and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos; I think you'd find their works quite interesting.

And just because a group can trace it's lineage back to the Apostles doesn't mean they preach the same thing as the Apostles.

[John Charmley]

Kris,
Orthodoxy is particularly attractive to Anglicans, I understand. Its particularly attractive to me as well, as a sister church would be. But there's nothing there that I couldn't find doctrinally where I am as a Catholic and quite a
lot I couldn't.

Perhaps what I was getting at is relativity. We do have to relate together -
a first-step towards being in a culture together. That doesn't mean to say
that apostolic claims can be denied. I can no more deny the apostolic claims of Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy can deny the apostles buried in Rome or that Cyril and Methodius set off from San Clemente to take Christiianity to Russia.



Dear Mr. Swabey,

I can see that you are unsurprised by the response of our Orthodox brothers on this one, but I suspect that neither of us are quite 'getting it' when we refer to our own Churches as 'sister churches'.

I have noticed that anything that even sounds as though it might be distantly related to a third cousin of the 'branch theory' brings the sort of response that your posts have had; a courteous (Monachos should be famed for this) but firm statement that the Orthodox Church is the Church.

In this light I was particularly interested in Andrew's statement that:

And just because a group can trace it's lineage back to the Apostles doesn't mean they preach the same thing as the Apostles.
because that seems to me a double-edged sword.

Several times in this thread it has been pointed out that this claim to Apostolic succession is made by other Churches, and the response has usually been as one would expect; but Andrew's comment could be read by all those claiming apostolicity in a negative or a positive way; that is, to do what I think you are doing with it, and what Andrew is.

In raising and exploring this, I am not trying to be polemical, but rather to understand things better than I do.

Obviously it is ecclesiologically, theologically and historically too simple for any church to base its claims on 'what the Apostles taught' as though we have an uncomplicated, privileged and unproblematic view of what that might have been; that is not to say that the claim cannot be made, but it is to say that making it in a monochrome way won't get us far.

You have given us one of the reasons for this. All students of early Church history are aware of the processes you describe, and my understanding is that that is one of the reasons that the Orthodox Church venerates the Fathers and looks to the Ecumenical Councils, as well as the Scriptures; it is out of this mix that we see the guidance of the Holy Spirit; as Dr. Steenberg has reminded us, what makes a council 'ecumenical' is not as simple as some have thought.

At this juncture, though, your comments surely still apply:

But there's nothing there that I couldn't find doctrinally where I am as a Catholic and quite a lot I couldn't.


Would I be catching your drift correctly if I asked whether what you are meaning is that since your Church accepts the Councils, the same Fathers, and, upto the 11th century, the same tradition, the differences between Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church matter less than the essential similarities? I sense I may not quite have caught the nuances of your position, which is an interesting one, and any clarification might be useful.

I can see that from such a position, my hesitations and doubts do seem positively nineteenth century; but from the view point espoused by Kris and Herman, they are perhaps comprehensible?

The question of what difference it makes which 'house' one occupies, is perhaps too close to the polemical, although it underlies much of this discussion.

That for many Anglicans in a position similar to mine, the 'push' factors include female priests and bishops, the recognition of 'gay marriage', contemporary liturgies, suggests a mindset (to use a phrase currently under discussion elsewhere here) which suggests that 'development' has gone too far. In my own case, there had always been problems with the Augustinian emphasis in western theological thinking, as well as an unease with the double procession of the Holy Spirit, not to mention the whole raft of Papal 'reforms' of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which is, I suppose, why the 'extras' you mention in Roman Catholicism do not appeal to me.

It is, however, by no means clear that any of this helps towards the aim you state so well: 'We do have to relate together - a first-step towards being in a culture together.'

After all, Christians of any sort are a minority in western society, and without wishing to advocate a syncretic approach (simply because I think that leads to an emptying out of the Faith and is the low, straight road to unbelief), it might be no bad idea if we found a way to do what you suggest - even if not quite in the way you imply.

INXC,

John

[William Swabey]

John,

What you are saying is very to the point. I am neither trying to preach
or convert or to be polemical. What is rather more interesting to me however
theologically are the points you focus on, because there are
questions underlying them that I too would like the answer to.

I was born a Catholic. Pot-luck perhaps, but here I am. I don't need
to become Orthodox but I am very much an admirer of its spiritual and
cultural strengths. In that sense it has become part of my tradition, too.
It has given me much, although keeping me at a distance, being a Catholic
and therefore presumably somehow corrupted or impure in some undefined way, which I find puzzling, obviously. What I've wondered is that its simply because I'm just not 'orthodox', a word with a variety of meanings, depending on how its applied.

You ask if the differences between our churches matters less than the similarities ? Instant answer, yes. Christ prayed exactly that in St John's Gospel, so the divine encouragement for reinforcing the barriers would seem to somewhat lacking.

How apostolic we are or how heretical is also, to me at least, somewhat
pointless. We have got to where we are. I am puzzled by some Orthodox who reject the Pope's suggestion that eastern and western orthodoxy and catholicism are like two lungs, breathing Christian faith and tradition, maybe in a different way and with a different history.

Which brings me back to a more fundamental theological question that I have,
for both churches. We say we are both 'apostolic' and have plenty of apostles
scattered about, either in tombs or in tradition. What does that prove ? Probably very little. 'Apostolic' in the western tradition starts to translate into 'authority', which I understand many Orthodox would prefer to avoid, particularly if its Roman-based, or particularly Petrine.

Yet there has always been something that has frustrated me about 'tradition'
and the development of doctrine which gets to the root of where I'm coming from. Its not what tradition preserves that is 'the only thing'. Its what it has forgotten, lost or mislaid. That, historically, gives me more humility and an inability to say my church or the Orthodox 'has it all'. Sufficient, maybe, but not exclusively.

The exclusivity thing worries me. It would be so comfortable to be exclusive.
It makes it so much easier.

Yet if tradition is as capable of losing itself, as it has done at intervals, what does it mean ?

The practical theological answer is that its what we've ended up with.

But it doesn't answer why we have also lost so much. For instance :
An Orthodox abbot on Mount Athos can have a key early Christian text
sold from his library and have it discovered as wrapping in the equivalent of a fish and chip shop in Athens. We have had numerous discoveries in the Egyptian deserts which have added hugely to our understanding of early
Christianity, yet what else was in the library at Alexandria and Ephesus
that we don't know existed ? When the monasteries in England were
destroyed, what was lost ? Why didn't the Armenian Orthodox turn up
to an early church council and thereby became 'de facto', heretical ?

Its what 'tradition' forgot or through ignorance or accident just lost,
that is the other side of the 'tradition' question. We have all been careless, including the Orthodox. This is a theological area not explored and I can feel
a book worth writing.

Similarly, as I have often joked about in lectures, the doctrine of papal infallibility should also have two sides for faith - the other being a corresponding doctrine of 'fallibility' which is the capacity of any church
to shoot itself in the foot given half a chance. Very Petrine!

Which makes me think that neither East nor West can claim absolute
certainty to be 'right'. It also makes me think that we can both be right,
in our different ways, given our different histories.

I had never realised the Orthodox/Roman Uniate question was such a sore point before going to the Czech Republic. It hurt the Orthodox very much,
and I felt somehow responsible, in Orthodox eyes.

The Anglican question is one that I feel even more wary of approaching.
Its suddenly got very complicated over a single decade and having studied
for a doctorate under Rowan Williams I feel very sorry for his current position, which must be so difficult.

What is true is that neither the Orthodox or Catholics would ordain women
priests because of their 'joint' tradition (or absence of it). That doesn't mean
it couldn't happen, but then it comes down to authority, which in Catholic
terms means when we want to change things, 'its forbidden until its compulsory'.

I know that's not an Orthodox way of thinking.

My frustration with the Orthodox is their tendency for exclusion. My love for them is in their liturgy and prayer and spirituality.

So, if someone waved (a rather regrettable) magic wand and made
the Catholic Church vanish, I would find my home in Orthodoxy overnight.

Which 'bit' of it would be rather more problematic - which language, cultural
history and religious inheritance - Russian, Greek, Coptic, Syriac and so on.
That I would find more difficult than the theology and history of eastern
orthodoxy.

And I don't like Augustinian theology either.

I have prayed more for the Orthodox and Anglican church/churches since this thread began than ever before. Presumably that is positive.

Yours in Christ

WIlliam Swabey






















The branch theory always struck me as a non-starter, although it gave
some people some comfort about being 'apostolic', whatever that was
interpreted at the time and place and by the person.

[Andreas Moran]

I have never thought of the Orthodox Church as being exclusive - anyone can join. No sensible Orthodox person should give an impression of exclusivity.
I have always thought it odd that the Church of England believes in the communion of saints but can't make any.

Andreas.

[John Charmley]

I have never thought of the Orthodox Church as being exclusive - anyone can join. No sensible Orthodox person should give an impression of exclusivity.
I have always thought it odd that the Church of England believes in the communion of saints but can't make any.

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

Mr. Swabey must speak for himself, but for myself, I cannot say that I read him as saying what you say above.

I may have misread the tone and the sense (of which there was much), but to me he seemed to be referring to the view common on this site that all other Churches are either schismatic or heretical. I would guess, at the risk of straying close to the edge of the track, this would include comments such as 'if the Oriental Orthodox accept Chalcedon and the Ecumenical Councils, the way to unity might be open'. There is a sense of exclusivity here, which may well be wholly defensible and natural to an Orthodox mindset, but which might appear somewhat differently to those from a different tradition.

To an Anglican who believed in the 'branch theory', such an attitude would indeed, seem exclusive. To say, 'well, if you accept our rules you can join our club' is both a natural thing to say, and exclusive to those who feel they, and you, are part of a wider club.

I remember an old clergyman once telling me a joke which went thus:


St. Peter was showing a group of newcomers around Heaven when they passed a locked door. From inside the room came the sound of preaching. St. Peter motioned his party to be silent, and when, after they had walked on, he was asked why he had done so, he responded: "Because they are the Plymouth Brethren and they think they are the only ones here!"

[Apologies to PBs and the Peter Farrington!]


INXC

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

To an Anglican who believed in the 'branch theory', such an attitude would indeed, seem exclusive. To say, 'well, if you accept our rules you can join our club' is both a natural thing to say, and exclusive to those who feel they, and you, are part of a wider club.

But this is the uncomfortable quandary of truth itself.

Of course there is the mistake of considering this truth to be 'my truth'. But this goes with the territory about truth. Our selfish sin often appropriates what we speak about truth as if it is ours. Truth itself calls us to engage in a long-term struggle over truth.

Surely the solution to this is precisely that this truth which we have been called to struggle over is bigger than us. And the fact that it is bigger than us gradually changes our relationship to that truth and how we witness to it. In other words our personal shortcomings in regards to truth does not mean that truth hasn't a bigger call on us than we have on ourselves.

As many have come to see the most important question is not really about whether one proclaims the truth in a more or less exclusive way. The most important question comes down to whether there really is truth. And if there is, how does one relate to this in how one lives.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Surely the solution to this is precisely that this truth which we have been called to struggle over is bigger than us. And the fact that it is bigger than us gradually changes our relationship to that truth and how we witness to it. In other words our personal shortcomings in regards to truth does not mean that truth hasn't a bigger call on us than we have on ourselves.

As many have come to see the most important question is not really about whether one proclaims the truth in a more or less exclusive way. The most important question comes down to whether there really is truth. And if there is, how does one relate to this in how one lives.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Indeed, Father, and if the truth is, as you say, bigger then ourselves (which it must be) then our relationship to it is so complex that in proclaiming it in an exclusive way, we may unconsciously be confining it. That was the implication in the old joke, and, I thought, in Mr. Swabey's posts; I should be very interested in his comments on some of these matters.

To know what it is others believe, and to know where and how it intersects and interacts with what our own Church believes need not lead to syncretism; nor need it arouse any fears of dilution of the Faith.

Very many people belong to Churches which they consider Christian, and a fair number of these Churches would make a claim to be the Church. The arguments they use (if they feel the need to use any) usually convince those using them, but seldom anyone from another tradition. This leaves us with the question of how Christians relate to each other.

Here, Byron's lines jar, even as they come to mind: 'And Christians have burnt each other / quite persuaded, that all the Apostles would have done as they did.'

We no longer do this to each other, but the question of how we do relate to each other is not easily answered; the sort of exclusivity to which I thought that Mr. Swabey referred, acts as a repellent to any relationship.

Such attitudes, where they exist, probably serve the cause of false ecumenism rather well, since they allow syncretists to write off those who oppose them as bigots, which they are not, but it is a label which sticks too easily, given the level of secular awareness of religious doctrine.

None of this is to be taken as detracting from anyone's claims for their own Church, everyone can be equally offended if they choose to be. One of the things to be gained from an excellent site such as this, is a real insight into what those who practice it say and think Orthodoxy is. This, I have found, immeasurably enriching. If, as a result, it seems to me that I am being called to go in that direction, that is a blessing. But even were that not the case, my experience of Christianity has been deepened and widened, and that is not something I would have been without.

Perhaps that is why I think these dialogues worth pursuing.

INXC


John

[Andreas Moran]

The point about exclusivity came home to me first when I was on holiday in Cyprus about nine years ago. We were staying in a village in theTroodos mountains, and it turned out our holiday neighbours were Anglicans and we talked about the village church. It came out that we were Orthodox. So these people said they'd like to join us for the Divine Liturgy. When they realised they could not take Holy Communion, they were very miffed and wouldn't come. I tried to explain, but nothing would dispel their offence.

Now, the best writing I have read on why Holy Communion cannot be given to non-Orthodox is the essay on Communion and Inter-Communion by Bishop Kallistos. It is not out of exclusivity but out of love for all that only Orthodox can partake. I won't try to summarise what he writes - best to read it.

My point is that however open (whatever I mean by that) Orthodox people may be, some non-Orthodox will react that way simply because of the fact of how the Orthodox Church is. The converse happened when I went to the ordination of a colleague as an Angican priest and during the Holy Communion service when I was invited to take Holy Communion and, of course, declined, I got a very strange look! Explaining that I was not Anglican didn't help!

The case is more difficult when we are talking about the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and those Orthodox Churches which are not in communion with each other. I'm not a theologian nor a historian so I can say nothing with any authority. But I approached the Orthodox Church in my forties as your average non-religious man in the street and I believed I had found the Truth, not subjectively but objectively. The Truth, as we all know, is Christ. It is a trite observation that the Orthodox Church is not a human organisation but the Body of Christ. It is not, as William says, that the Orthodox tend to exclusion (and I'm sorry if some do). The Orthodox Church is what it is. We can't help that. Clearly some non-Orthodox find this hard to accept. As Fr Raphael suggests, 'this is the uncomfortable quandary of truth itself'. Fr Raphael asks whether there really is truth. Of course there is, with a capital 'T'.

Is it being exclusive to say, 'here is the Truth'? I'm not a bigot and I don't think of the Truth as my truth. The Truth objectively exists - if one finds it, how can it be 'exclusive' to tell others where it is? If they argue about it, well that can't be helped.

The really interesting question is, what difference does it make to the prospects for salvation whether a person is visibly in the Church or not. I find it a terrifying responsibility - I have no excuses. When I was receiving instruction from a venerable Greek bishop, I asked him about other churches and faiths. He replied, 'the Orthodox Church contains the fulness of the truth - but does not have a monopoly of it'. 'And what about all the non-Orthodox and even non-Christians?', I asked. He replied, 'do not ask me to tell God whom He may have for His friends'.

[John Charmley]

The really interesting question is, what difference does it make to the prospects for salvation whether a person is visibly in the Church or not. I find it a terrifying responsibility - I have no excuses. When I was receiving instruction from a venerable Greek bishop, I asked him about other churches and faiths. He replied, 'the Orthodox Church contains the fulness of the truth - but does not have a monopoly of it'. 'And what about all the non-Orthodox and even non-Christians?', I asked. He replied, 'do not ask me to tell God whom He may have for His friends'.

Dear Andreas,

Very many thanks for this post - and the final comment is just so wonderful that it made me smile.

As my previous post made clear, I hope, nothing I say should be interpreted as being disrespectful to anyone's Church and Faith. The question is how we as Christians relate to each other, and I can see why the Anglicans you mention might have been a little miffed.

As I understand it (and since that is not very far, so I crave correction here) the Orthodox Church would state that the Faith was that 'faith which was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3) and that it is full and complete as the revelation of Christ. If this is close to being correct, then many other Christians would agree.

However, this is not (or is it??) the same as saying the revelation was 'complete' and full. Our Lord gave clues to the Trinity which the Church was able, when the time for it was ripe, to read in a way it had not previously. This is not to argue for a Newmanite 'development', simply to say that a full and complete revelation comes via the workings of the Holy Ghost as and when needful. Praise to the Lord!

The relationship between the unchanging deposit of the Faith (given by Our Lord to His apostles, and preserved by the apostolic succession of bishops, and explained through the Fathers and the Councils) and the needs of the faithful to have it explained over time and space, is surely a dynamic one? Isn't that what the Orthodox practice of 'theological proclamation' means? Homilies during or after the Liturgy are part of this process age after age, unto all ages.

Is this so? None of this is to argue that the 'Faith' has changed or developed, that cannot be, Our Lord gave it full and complete to the apostles, but it is to say that our understanding of its fulness can be improved upon. Now, how far this process goes before we would (given our human limitations) end up effectively redefining it, is wisely limited by the canons of the Church and its hierarchy.

Should these things be so, then it may well behove us to engage in dialogue with our the others of 'God's friends' to see in what way they may have an Orthodox understanding of the Faith, and in what ways they have not. In my own case, it is the realisation (OK, I know, but I'm a bit slow!) that the Church of England has actually re-defined the Faith, that makes me, with sorrow, need to be somewhere that has not.

This was a difficult one to write, and it probably shows how little of Orthodoxy I have experienced and comprehended, so I would ask your indulgence, and pardon where I have misspoken, so to say.

INXC,

John

[William Swabey]

This was a difficult one to write, and it probably shows how little of Orthodoxy I have experienced and comprehended, so I would ask your indulgence, and pardon where I have misspoken, so to say.

[Mark Harrison]

This was a difficult one to write, and it probably shows how little of Orthodoxy I have experienced and comprehended, so I would ask your indulgence, and pardon where I have misspoken, so to say.

Greetings, William,

My name is Mark Harrison. I started this particular thread, though I have not had time to participate in it.

I wanted to quickly say that I don't see a need for you to apologise. You have spoken honestly and not in any hostile manner that I can see. Part of my own understanding of 'tolerance' is that we must be able to speak openly, honestly, critically, without fear of starting mob action.

Needless to say, I should have to agree with you statement above, however, that your understanding of Orthodoxy seems limited. I've only skimmed what you wrote earlier, but my impression was that you were looking at Orthodoxy from a very Western worldview. From that worldview, your specific perspectives on Orthodoxy will be quite logical, I am sure. However, the fact that Orthodox reject the 'two lung' theory and other such versions of the Anglican Branch theory lies not only in specific theological issues, but in the very foundational worldview. If you can't relate to that, you won't understand the specific points.

There is indeed 1,000 years of common Tradition between East and West. Yet since the Great Schism, the very fundamental understanding of God and man and knowledge of God has diverged to the point of mutual exclusivity. This is reflected in the fact that Thomas Aquinas is venerated in the West while Gregory Palamas is venerated in the East. Palamas is called a naval-gazing idolator by some Roman Catholics, but his elucidation of the Christian life and the knowledge of God is fundamental to Orthodox Tradition. Meanwhile, Aquinas pretty much just doesn't show up on our radar screen.

If Orthodox and Roman Catholics were able to honestly build on the common foundation, glorious things could happen. I have no doubt of that. But, we must first come to a mutual understanding of that common past. Certainly Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have desired that. Some Orthodox are more open to it than others. There is a long way to go. Uniatism is a serious obstacle. While it seems like a 'bridge' to Roman Catholics, it is a barrier to Orthodox. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The issue is made more complex when the Patriarch of Constantinople, for political reasons and other motives perhaps, goes further than the majority of Orthodox are prepared to go. What was the real, practical significance of the lifting of Anathemata in 1965? Communion is not about to be restored. Those anathemata were originally against individuals anyway. It was a symbolic gesture that had no real meaning. Instead it caused confusion. I am not in favour of enmity, but if gestures have little meaning in practical terms, they can do more harm than good. The recent gestures between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR are of opposite nature: they have been true signs of reconciliation and their fruits are sweet to the taste. They have further promoted the reconciliation process. Certainly, the return of the Holy Relics of the SS John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian by Pope John Paul II was a true and sincere gesture. It will bear fruit. It will help ease at least some tension. There is much more to go.

Well, I've written far more than I have had time for. Please do stay in touch and feel free to speak openly and honestly - as long, of course, as it is also constructive.

In Christian friendship,

Sdn. Mark Harrison

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This thread has been quiet for a while, but an article in one of today's British newspapers brought me back to it.

The link is at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2029264.ece

It reads:
Christianity's first foothold in Britain?
By David Keys
Published: 01 December 2006
Archaeologists excavating near the edge of Trafalgar Square in London have found evidence of early Christianity in England, suggesting the area has a much older religious significance than was originally believed.

A team from the Museum of London has discovered a hoard of what is almost certainly royal treasure, buried in a mysterious, empty human grave laid out in the traditional Christian manner - east to west.

"Our excavations demonstrate the position as a significant and important place at an earlier date than we thought," said Alison Telfer, the senior archaeologist in charge of the dig.

The finds are among the most remarkable discoveries ever made in London and are likely to shed new light on the very early stages of the introduction of Christian ideas into the Anglo-Saxon world 1,400 years ago.

Located immediately next to one of the capital's most famous churches - St Martin-in-the-Fields - immediately to the north of Trafalgar Square, the empty grave appears to form part of a previously unknown ancient cemetery, dating back more than one and a half millennia. Archaeologists have also discovered 24 other graves on the site, all still holding the remains of their occupants.

The treasure hoard in the empty grave consists of a gold pendant inlaid with blue-green glass; glass beads and fragments of silver (possibly a neck pendant); and two pieces of amethyst, possibly earrings.

The empty grave, judging by its treasure, and several of the other early graves in the cemetery are estimated to date from the time that Bertha was Queen of Kent - 590 to 610.

"It is likely that the grave did initially accommodate a body, but the remains were removed after some months or years for burial inside a church, potentially an early version of St Martin's itself," said Professor Ian Wood of Leeds University, who specialises in 6th and 7th century history.

"It is likely that the empty grave belonged to a relative - possibly even a daughter or a niece - of the most important woman in Britain at the time, Queen Bertha, the wife of the most powerful ruler in England, King Aethelberht of Kent, overlord of the English."

Professor Wood added: "Bertha is the unsung heroine of early English Christianity because it was she, rather than the much more famous St Augustine, who was initially responsible for the introduction of Christianity into the Anglo-Saxon world. It was as a result of her activities that St Augustine was sent to England by the Pope to become the first Archbishop of Canterbury.

"The discoveries are therefore important because they reveal Christian activity, probably associated with Bertha's circle, at this very early stage of Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England."

Bertha was a devotee of the cult of St Martin. Her personal church in Canterbury, presented to her in about 590 by her then pagan husband, Aethelberht, was dedicated to the saint - probably at her behest. And her husband was, after about 597, very keen on ecclesiastical development in London, which was technically part of the kingdom of Essex but in reality under Kentish overall control.

The mysterious empty grave near Trafalgar Square may therefore have been a temporary resting place for a senior Kentish princess during the time that the Anglo-Saxon church of St Martin's was being built.

The excavations have also revealed a second mystery. At least one of the other graves was pre-Anglo-Saxon and dates from the very late Roman or immediate post-Roman period. The burial, in a stone sarcophagus, was also Christian - like virtually all the others - but was 200 years older.

This raises the possibility that the site had Christian links long before the conversion of Anglo-Saxon England, possibly as the location of a small church or mortuary chapel built there in the very late Roman period, immediately before the Anglo-Saxon pagan conquest. This would mean St Martin-in-the-Fields is London's oldest surviving ecclesiastical site, predating St Paul's by some two centuries.


---------------

Wonderful evidence of the existence of Orthodoxy in England from Roman times.

So, we can say that from c. 200 to c.1054 England was Orthodox - now all we need to do is to discover that spiritual heritage even as the archaeologists have discovered its material remains.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Wow! Impressive!

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As those on the Old Calendar prepare to celebrate Christmas, Anglicans have the following prospect for the new year:

Archbishop fears Church schism in gay row
The Archbishop of Canterbury has admitted that he fears losing control of the worldwide Anglican Church, which is on the brink of schism over homosexuality.

In a surprisingly frank assessment of the crisis, Dr Rowan Williams said that he feared anything that set Christians more deeply at odds with each other.

"And because I am an ordinary, sinful human being, I fear the situation slipping out of my control, such as it is," he said.

"I fear schism, not because I think it's the worst thing in the world but because, at this particular juncture, it's going to be bad for us. It's going to drive people into recrimination and bitterness."

In a documentary on Canterbury Cathedral to be broadcast on ITV tomorrow, the archbishop added: "We can't take it for granted that the Anglican Communion will go on as it always has been.

"Of course that's unsettling, of course that's painful for everybody, but there's no way of moving on without asking the hard questions."

The full story is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/nchurch06.xml

Still, on the bright side:

a leading liberal, the Rev Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney in west London, urged "fight to keep alive the Anglican project of an inclusive and open Church".

Inclusive of 'anything goes' and 'open' to whatever gnostic nonsense if currently flavour of the month?

Next month's conference of bishops in Africa will test even the Anglican genius for fudging everything - it is hard to see the traditionalist African bishops going a bundle on the new head of the Episcopalians - or approving 'gay marriages'.

Not sure that, on any calendar, 'happy new year' is appropriate for Anglicanism?


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

I am very fortunate that about 5 miles from where I work are the remains of a Roman villa which had part of one wing converted into a chapel and anterooms with external access, and therefore for a local community of Christians not just for personal use.

I like to go there several times a year just to spend time where Christians prayed 1700 years ago. Thousands of small fragments of painted wall plaster were found and when reconstructed these formed a large painted Chi-Rho symbol and a frieze of figures praying in the orans position, possibly deceased members of the household or community.

There are many other such traces of early Christianity in the county where I live, indeed my patron, St Theodore, may still be buried about 18 miles away in the ruins of St Augustine's Abbey. It is a blessing to visit and sit at the place where he was buried and may still be.

Such a heritage, and such a shame that the Church of England has forgotten so much of which it was a steward.

Peter

[Tanya Hoadley]

Dear John,

As history shows us, a schism is never a simple matter of 'let's agree to disagree and just each go our own way'. It causes divisions, pain and suffering across the board; within nations, communities and families. I truly grieve for all in this matter.

In an odd way that I don't quite understand myself, I feel compelled to apologize for being American.

I was really quite ignorant of the Anglican community until I joined monachos and had the pleasure of seeing it thru your eyes. Thank you for helping me to see it in a personal way.

May the Lord Have Mercy on us All,
Tanya

[John Charmley]

Dear Tanya,

Thank you for your kind words.

The really sad thing is that there are many Anglicans who, like myself, felt that the Church they were born into was the English form of Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism itself, with its 'branch' theory, obviously recognised the need for such a foundational 'myth', and with all its deficiencies, there was once a time when this was not as ludicrous as it now sounds. There is still an organisation for Anglicans wishing for closer relations with Orthodoxy, but I don't think anyone now believes what the late Archbishop Michael Ramsey believed, which was in the inevitability of union.

For very many years, out of a spirit of obedience, I remained where I was, hoping, in my small way just to be a part of those bearing witness to the traditions of Anglicanism. But, of course, it had to be recognised that where I was was only one part of that tradition, and clearly, over the last two decades, other parts of it have predominated - not least that part which has always thought it necessary to 'move with the times'. Just a shame that the times allow for a neo-gnostic inclusiveness that takes on board Wicca, gay vicars, women priests and a disbelief in the Icarnation or in the divinity of Our Lord. Of course, most Anglican lay people still have very traditional beliefs, but you can't successfully fight what clergymen (and women) are taught in theological college. Modernism has won - and the Churches are emptier than ever.

It is all very sad, not least because Anglicans have contributed some wonderful chapters to Christian history, and its traditional liturgy and hymnody are very moving - and a good Cathedral evensong remains one of the beauties of the Faith.

Still, as He wills it, not as we do,

Christ is born, let us rejoice!


John

[Peter Farrington]

There are still a few who think rather like the saintly Archbishop Michael. My own local Anglican priest has a devotion to him, and was priested by him 40 years ago. But he is himself, I think, the odd one out in his Diocese.

He has just had a holiday in one of the monasteries in the Ukraine and goes to Russia or the Ukraine each year.

I know that he also believed that Anglicanism was the Orthodox Church for British people, but now I guess he feels that it is the Church which has abandoned him rather than the other way round.

I feel very sad for him as he would make a wonderful Orthodox priest.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

It is priests such as the one you describe whom I am most sorrowful for. They have given a life of service to Christ and to his followers - and it surely cannot be that they will not receive their due reward from Him whom they have served so long and so devotedly.

But what he, and I, and others like us really have to face up to is that there were other traditions inside Anglicanism, and they are driving that Church towards whatever future it has. I am reminded that some of the early sects which split from the Church had a life time of many centuries.

There are times it seems depressing enough to someone like me who has only ever been a layman - but what it must be like for a priest I cannot imagine - and there is a sense in which it is made even worse by the misrepresentation which sees opposition to gay and women vicars as homophobia or misogyny - when it is neither, it is simply being orthodox in one's belief. This is what has been believed by everyone, everywhere, always - until sinful mankind starts to design a Church to fill his wants, rather than accept the one that will minister to his (and her) needs.


In Christ,

John

[William Swabey]

Dear Tanya,

Thank you for your kind words.

The really sad thing is that there are many Anglicans who, like myself, felt that the Church they were born into was the English form of Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism itself, with its 'branch' theory, obviously recognised the need for such a foundational 'myth', and with all its deficiencies, there was once a time when this was not as ludicrous as it now sounds. There is still an organisation for Anglicans wishing for closer relations with Orthodoxy, but I don't think anyone now believes what the late Archbishop Michael Ramsey believed, which was in the inevitability of union.

For very many years, out of a spirit of obedience, I remained where I was, hoping, in my small way just to be a part of those bearing witness to the traditions of Anglicanism. But, of course, it had to be recognised that where I was was only one part of that tradition, and clearly, over the last two decades, other parts of it have predominated - not least that part which has always thought it necessary to 'move with the times'. Just a shame that the times allow for a neo-gnostic inclusiveness that takes on board Wicca, gay vicars, women priests and a disbelief in the Icarnation or in the divinity of Our Lord. Of course, most Anglican lay people still have very traditional beliefs, but you can't successfully fight what clergymen (and women) are taught in theological college. Modernism has won - and the Churches are emptier than ever.

It is all very sad, not least because Anglicans have contributed some wonderful chapters to Christian history, and its traditional liturgy and hymnody are very moving - and a good Cathedral evensong remains one of the beauties of the Faith.

Still, as He wills it, not as we do,

Christ is born, let us rejoice!


John
Dear John,

I was very touched by this exchange, albeit as a Catholic bystander.

I'm not sure this helps, but it might. My father was Anglican, my mother
Catholic, so I went to an Anglican school followed by a Catholic one -
a real hybrid ! But I don't regret a bit of it. My Anglican formation couldn't have been better and so I have a great fondness for its traditional integrity.
It taught me to love scripture so much.

I don't envy Rowan Williams in the least. I don't know the answers to the problems he is facing either. I am saddened by the increasing gulf emerging between the Anglican and Catholic churches. Michael Ramsay had a hope that fired our current Cardinal, Cormac - but maybe those were more optimistic times.

I would hate to see the Anglican church drifting into irrelevance. If it was going to, I, as not an Anglican necessarily, but someone who has benefitted from its ethos of generosity and giving, academic balance and marking of times and sacred space would need to reinvent it !

Take that as a Catholic compliment, please. Its meant very genuinely. Your
communion may not be perfect. Nor is mine, and nor is the Orthodox. But what you give from your tradition is the most important gift. Thank you for what you gave to me. It was, looking back, with the grace of God.

Thank you.

William Swabey

[John Charmley]

.

I don't envy Rowan Williams in the least. I don't know the answers to the problems he is facing either. I am saddened by the increasing gulf emerging between the Anglican and Catholic churches. Michael Ramsay had a hope that fired our current Cardinal, Cormac - but maybe those were more optimistic times.

I would hate to see the Anglican church drifting into irrelevance. If it was going to, I, as not an Anglican necessarily, but someone who has benefitted from its ethos of generosity and giving, academic balance and marking of times and sacred space would need to reinvent it !

Take that as a Catholic compliment, please. Its meant very genuinely. Your
communion may not be perfect. Nor is mine, and nor is the Orthodox. But what you give from your tradition is the most important gift. Thank you for what you gave to me. It was, looking back, with the grace of God.

Thank you.

William Swabey

Dear William,

Good to have your voice back here - and thank you for the kind words.

I suspect that the Anglican Church will survive the loss of a few old fogeys like myself, indeed, it might do well, from its own point of view, to decide to firmly embrace the protestant modernism that is becoming so prominent a part of its current face; but then it faces the real difficulty, which is not a few old Anglo-Catholics, but the mass of evangelicals, here, and in America and Africa, who are not enamoured to the modernism bit, but rather like the Protestant part.

There is something to be said, from the point of view of common courtesy, in knowing when to take one's leave. I am sure there are all sorts of arguments for staying, but I fear I have heard them - and the still small voice of conscience is too insistent. Still, I wish it well, because what you write is not only very charitable, it is right.

All v. sad.

In Christ,

John

[William Swabey]

John,

What I have learnt to loath ecclesiologically is people pulling churches apart
out of 'principle' - whatever that principle may be.

It isn't very positive, and misses the point, almost always.
Your integrity is your own and yet no doubt, troubled.

I am not suggesting a solution, but I do think that teaching Christian
faith is the prior priority. The fashions and fads of 'modern' faith will not
last. The ancient truths will always come out, but so few people have that
talent - to teach with faith.

Someone who believes, as you do, so deeply, will give to others
by that depth of belief. You could do that as an Anglican, Orthodox or Catholic, but the same basic bedrock is the same. Christ will work through
you in any situation. The grace of God overrides the distinctions.

Not perhaps a theological response, but a spiritual recognition that
God must work through the mess that we've created, and will
do so, regardless.

I hope that whatever you decide to do it becomes 'home' for you
and then you will be so much use and 'feeding' of others as a result.
That basic happiness is fundamental to anyone who teaches and preaches Christianity.

The other thing I have noticed is that those who go through this kind of grief gain an extraordinary gift of giving as a result.

You may be lucky !

If you do become Orthodox please keep us informed and then tell
us as much about it as you can. I for one would really appreciate
the learning.

With all best wishes in Christ,

William

[John Charmley]

Dear William,

One great blessing is that I receive such kindness in the form of posts such as your own.

Your comment

Christ will work through you in any situation. The grace of God overrides the distinctions.

is most encouraging.

This site in particular has been a great source of information and experience. One of the first things I began to recognise as I renewed my acquaintanceship with Orthodoxy is how my understanding of the Faith has always been Orthodox, although my mindset is not - if that is possible.

I sense a commonality between us when you write:

I have learnt to loath ecclesiologically is people pulling churches apart
out of 'principle' - whatever that principle may be


Of course, sometimes, as with Athanasius, this risk has to be taken - but how very often are such principles little more than our pride?

I also have trouble with what seems to me the sort of Pharisaical formalism that Our Lord so often rebuked. I have always kept in my heart His words in Matthew 23:23-28


23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.
26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

How often do Christians seem like that?

I was put in mind of it reading the thread 'A Letter from Russia', where Andreas has described how monks had put up a notice not just setting out a dress code (which is fair enough) but one which threatened women with make up, dyed hair or wearing trousers with hell. Why no notice threatening men with 'lust in their hearts' with the same fate? Talk about straining at gnats. But perhaps that is my Anglican mindset?

Of course, sometimes Christian love means telling people things they don't want to hear, but especially then, we must be mindful of what Our Lord says in Mark 7:6


He answered and said to them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: `This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.


But then one of the joys of this site, and of posts such as your own is that one feels the kindness of strangers - only to be reminded that we are not that, but rather brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Greetings to all!

John, do I read correctly that you are now heavily leaning toward Orthodoxy?

I should like to reply to William's comments about splitting parishes over 'principle.'

It is a sad reality that all too often, what purports to be 'principle' is really pride in disguise. This happens (in my opinion) in Orthodox circles when the calendar becomes an artificial issue of 'principle.' Having lived under both calendars I have clear ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of each, AND I know that I can 'redeem the time' following either.

Certainly, one should wish to avoid division wherever possible. I know of cases in which Episcopal clergy have come to Orthodoxy with most of their parishes, and others in which they came alone. I don't know of any in which the priest tried to make a crusade of their conversion.

John spoke of the voice of conscience. That is why I became Orthodox. My conscience would no longer allow me to remain Anglican. I could not in good conscience continue to live my Christian life in a community in which the most basic tenets of the Faith (is Jesus truly God?) were up for debate. That is not an issue like the calendar. That is an issue where Christ's own words, 'I am not come to bring peace, but a sword' come to the fore. This is a case in where sadly, division is inevitable. One must not deny the truth or even side-step it, just to avoid division.

In the days of St Athanasius the Great, the faith of the Empire was at stake. The world was groaning in Arianism. There was nothing for it but to throw down the gauntlet. It happened in Scripture, where Joshua told the people they could do as they pleased, but 'as for me and my house….' At a certain point, a choice must be made - for love – for faith, hope and love, but above all for love. That's why it should not be made lightly. If what is truly in my heart is Orthodoxy, I cannot remain Anglican. To remain Anglican would not have been pursuit of the treasure God had placed in my heart.

One doesn't need to obey the truth by fomenting hatred and rivalry. One need only be faithful to what is given. Indeed, one should do so as quietly and simply as possible. I didn't try to lead others out of the parish I was in. I continued to have the highest respect for Fr Satrang, and I still do: requiescat in pace.

Finally, while God's grace can transcend our human divisions, the outright preaching of falsehood is a rebellion against that grace and an obstruction of Truth. God has given us free will, and does not abrogate it even when we freely chose heresy. The result is that in the midst of heresy, Truth is hampered, because God respects human choices. This means that those who know better must chose the Truth. Does that make such people better people? Generally not. A person could easily choose Christological truth while living a personal lie. We aren't Protestants who claim that if we just confess Jesus with our lips we're saved and it doesn't matter how much our lives contradict that lip-service confession.

OK - I've given my tuppence worth. Time to get on with studies. A new quarter has begun.

MAH

[John Charmley]

Greetings to all!

John, do I read correctly that you are now heavily leaning toward Orthodoxy?

...

John spoke of the voice of conscience. That is why I became Orthodox. My conscience would no longer allow me to remain Anglican. I could not in good conscience continue to live my Christian life in a community in which the most basic tenets of the Faith (is Jesus truly God?) were up for debate. That is not an issue like the calendar. That is an issue where Christ's own words, 'I am not come to bring peace, but a sword' come to the fore. This is a case in where sadly, division is inevitable. One must not deny the truth or even side-step it, just to avoid division.


Dear Mark,

You did indeed read correctly. In Orthodoxy I am finding what I have always believed - but much more than I knew before. I constantly find myself saying inwardly 'but this is what I believe - but how much richer, deeper, wider, greater, this is; this is the Faith once delivered in its fulness.' It is, in the proper sense of that overused word, awesome.

The only question for me, for some time I suspect, has been 'which Orthodoxy?' This has worried me greatly because it sounds to my ears like Protestantism, and, much though I respect my Protestant friends, I have always considered myself to be part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and those last two adjectives matter to me.

But that was how it has presented itself, whatever I do and whatever I did. My first welcome to Orthodoxy has been through the British Orthodox Church, which some here, in all good conscience, consider schismatic because of Chalcedon. This disturbed me, for obvious reasons (such as, what a good idea, let's leave one schismatic sect for another). But here, and elsewhere, and in prayer, I have asked constantly what the hard doctrinal differences really are between the BOC and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Certainly there are ecclesiological differences, but nothing I encounter with the Copts or the BOC seems in the slightest bit unOrthodox - and I am finding that those who think there is actually know very little other than what they have been told, and, in good honest obedience they believe that; but it is not so all the same.

So, there is a conscience botherer, so to say. So, I wait, I study, I pray, I enquire, I experience what Orthodoxy I can actually experience here on the Suffolk border. I become aware of the width of Eastern Orthodoxy, and frankly there are parts of it that seem to be a little too hung up on what seem second-order issues; I would take your view on the calendar issue - and I am frankly horrified at the idea of any holy men telling women they'll go to hell if they wear trousers; whatever that is, it isn't anything I could relate to except in a negative way; that may be their judgement as to what their Saviour calls them to do, but it isn't what I hear. But EO is much bigger than Anglicanism in its varying tone, and you can, as I have found here, have a Greek Orthodox Patriarch who will commune OOs - and then you have that vast, expanding and vibrant phenomenon of what might be called American Orthodoxy, which, as it develops, will, I suspect, bring amazing things with it.

But I am where I am. So, I wait and I pray - and I benefit from both - as I do from my discussions with you and with other brothers and sisters in Christ here. I am under no illusion that ratiocination and intellect will illuminate my way by themselves - but they may help to show where the matches are, so to speak.

Now, like you, with term starting, I must away - but thank you, as ever, for your thoughts and your kindness and time.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear William,

One great blessing is that I receive such kindness in the form of posts such as your own.

Your comment

is most encouraging.

This site in particular has been a great source of information and experience. One of the first things I began to recognise as I renewed my acquaintanceship with Orthodoxy is how my understanding of the Faith has always been Orthodox, although my mindset is not - if that is possible.

I sense a commonality between us when you write:


Of course, sometimes, as with Athanasius, this risk has to be taken - but how very often are such principles little more than our pride?

I also have trouble with what seems to me the sort of Pharisaical formalism that Our Lord so often rebuked. I have always kept in my heart His words in Matthew 23:23-28

How often do Christians seem like that?

I was put in mind of it reading the thread 'A Letter from Russia', where Andreas has described how monks had put up a notice not just setting out a dress code (which is fair enough) but one which threatened women with make up, dyed hair or wearing trousers with hell. Why no notice threatening men with 'lust in their hearts' with the same fate? Talk about straining at gnats. But perhaps that is my Anglican mindset?

Of course, sometimes Christian love means telling people things they don't want to hear, but especially then, we must be mindful of what Our Lord says in Mark 7:6


But then one of the joys of this site, and of posts such as your own is that one feels the kindness of strangers - only to be reminded that we are not that, but rather brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Christ,

John


We must be extremely careful about making analogous the interaction we have on an internet forum with the life God leads us to within His Church.

Even here, beyond the obvious main purpose of forums like this- which is the discussion or expression of Orthodoxy- there can be only so much of the actual Orthodox life which each of us is living through even while posting.

The main point which is consistent with what is expressed through all of the Holy Frs for the past 2000 years is twofold: i) we are always led to convert through a specific community; & ii) once having been led to accept the life of Christ within this community the time of struggle & trial begins through which Christ actually leads on His path of salvation.

This is necessary to point out because of how difficult many nowadays find both of these ideas. First off having to live one's life within a specific community requires dying to one's self & a special kind of obedience somewhat similar to marriage. Secondly to accept trials and struggles as being providential will normally take a very long time. One's mind & heart normally rebels at the idea that God would allow one to be surrounded by 'not-nice' people who disagree with me, aren't interested in my particular concerns, & to top it all off maybe speak & look a way which is not very nice at all.

What typically happens is that we enter the Church first off in our honeymoon period and little of this is noticed or bothers us. Then however we encounter people and situations which scrape against us like sandpaper. Many leave the Church at this point since they do not acknowledge that it is Christ Himself Who leads us to encounter people and situations difficult for us.

Especially nowadays, we tend to come to the Church with expectations of our own particular making. We have little understanding of how much of this is based on pride & a self-sufficiency. Especially this last is very deeply embedded in us as something we grow up with and are taught to the point we scarcely notice how much it has come to play the predominant role in defining what we are. This is no longer something external like 'learned behaviour' but rather more something internalized like 'second nature'.

Christ doesn't lead us to have a nice experience within the Church. Rather He leads us into those exact situations conducive to transforming unrecognized pride & self-sufficiency into love.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

But of course, all that you say is so, and I thank you for it.

After more than two decades dying to oneself and accepting in obedience as the mysterious workings of providence within one's own community even women priests and gay vicars, one at least has extensive experience of 'not nice' people - the 'sandpaper' has long ago scraped away the skin, leaving much rawness to remind one of the price obedience exacts.

Indeed, these things are why I have stayed where I have, and I could speak long on the theme 'Christ doesn't lead us to have a nice experience within the Church.' It is, indeed, the fear that it may be individual pride at work, that has kept me in my community when my conscience has screamed out in pain at the unorthodoxy of it.

So, grateful as I am for the reminders of the call to humility, obedience and suffering, they do not speak to one thinking of converting, for their counsel, which I have followed long, has led to where I am.

It is horrible to have to talk of oneself - but who else is it wishes to convert. There is no community to convert into, so if this

we are always led to convert through a specific community
is correct, then I am not called, and the voice I think is conscience is, as I fear often, pride.

No, there is no community, just the obedience that keeps me bound to a Church that goes off towards a neo-gnosticism - and voices off telling me of individualism. Were it not for the love of Christ it would be too much.


In Christ,


John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

But of course, all that you say is so, and I thank you for it.

After more than two decades dying to oneself and accepting in obedience as the mysterious workings of providence within one's own community even women priests and gay vicars, one at least has extensive experience of 'not nice' people - the 'sandpaper' has long ago scraped away the skin, leaving much rawness to remind one of the price obedience exacts.

Indeed, these things are why I have stayed where I have, and I could speak long on the theme 'Christ doesn't lead us to have a nice experience within the Church.' It is, indeed, the fear that it may be individual pride at work, that has kept me in my community when my conscience has screamed out in pain at the unorthodoxy of it.

So, grateful as I am for the reminders of the call to humility, obedience and suffering, they do not speak to one thinking of converting, for their counsel, which I have followed long, has led to where I am.

It is horrible to have to talk of oneself - but who else is it wishes to convert. There is no community to convert into, so if this

is correct, then I am not called, and the voice I think is conscience is, as I fear often, pride.

No, there is no community, just the obedience that keeps me bound to a Church that goes off towards a neo-gnosticism - and voices off telling me of individualism. Were it not for the love of Christ it would be too much.


In Christ,


John


I'm talking about the Church, John. If there isn't the Church then there is no solution to your question beyond getting on with it and doing the best you can. There's really little to be discussed beyond that.

But if there is something beyond what you have experienced, something which is the Church, then there is a frame of mind needed to enter this. Indeed a commitment and laying aside of what came before is needed. Conversion is needed.

When you do this, at some point it will become very clear why the Anglican and the myriad other communions out there cannot offer the deepest things which we strive for. Only then will it become clear why our understanding that where we were before was not the Church, no matter what good may have been there.

In the west there is an understanding of what the Church is which is fundamentally different from the Orthodox understanding. In the west 'things go wrong', we add to the Faith we can take things away or simply change the 'church' we are part of. Without quite seeing it this means that we think as if all things are the Church even to the point of absolute self-contradiction in teachings & praxis. All that matters is personal disposition. The Orthodox understanding though is that at this point of the individual with his/her own take on religion, you literally have no Church left. For us then as cruel or closed minded as it may sound, we believe that the modern predicament of western Christianity is the natural outcome of having forgotten about an Orthodox frame of mind & heart. As Bp Theophan of Poltava would say, this is literally "Christianity without the Church."

In a word the Church is not good people trying to be Christian. The Church is literally the living Body of Christ held together by the ingrafting of the People of God to Christ and through a basic faithfulness to the Church's life-giving tradition. The only way to get there is through self-sacrificial laying aside of what came before.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

I'm talking about the Church, John. If there isn't the Church then there is no solution to your question beyond getting on with it and doing the best you can. There's really little to be discussed beyond that.

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Indeed.

In Christ,

John

[William Swabey]

Fr Raphael.

What you say is indeed right, about a community of faith.
Its fundamental.

I thought of this thread yesterday when reading Solovyev's
'God, Man and the Church'. His definition of 'intellectual
mortification' reminding me of The Way of A Pilgrim was this :

'There is an intellectual fasting...

This is the rule of intellectual mortification. Do not try to know many
things useless for our neighbours and the work of God'.

An excellent definition, I thought.

With all best wishes in Christ

William

[John Charmley]

'There is an intellectual fasting...

This is the rule of intellectual mortification. Do not try to know many
things useless for our neighbours and the work of God'.



Dear William,

A good quotation. There are, however, times I wonder whether my own communion may not have taken it a little too literally. There is certainly much mortification (of many sorts) in reading The Church Times. I wonder if there is a modern disease of intellectual anorexia?

Perhaps that is why I have taken to reading The Tablet?

On the subject of 'the Church' I have been much edified by the encyclical 'Dominus Iesus', which, as I have suggested in another thread ('Orthodox communion with Rome') says much more in the way of good sense on this issue than many of the things one reads. Paragraph 17, whilst impeccably Catholic, is nonetheless a guide to an ecclesiology which will be helpful to 'synergy'.

Although I am sure you know it well, to those who are not Roman Catholic or do not frequent such websites, this is the site: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

It is a mightily impressive document - and increases my admiration for Pope Benedict. The last two occupants of the Papal throne seem to have a stature which is given to few - but we live in good times when those few include H.H. Bartholemew and Pope Shenouda III. (do take as evidence of my ignorance the want of others here, not as bad intent).

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

There is an interesting piece in today's British Daily Telegraph by Archbishop Rowan Williams about the continuing problems and debates within the Anglican communion; this is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/23/do2301.xml

I mention it not to trespass upon a delicate area, but because one of his comments struck me as having wider application to some of our discussions here; it is this:

For most Anglicans, questions about sexual ethics belonged in that category of teaching that was not up for negotiation as a result of cultural variation or social development. As with the central doctrines of the Creed and the biblical world view, people could only say: "This isn't mine to give away."

This last comment seems apposite, and whether the Archbishop realises it or not (and I suspect he does), is exactly where many of those who were once part of his flock parted company with the Anglican Church - because it did, indeed, give away those things which were not its property.

Is this not the perfect answer to those who argue that we should change with the times? 'This isn't mine to give away'?

In Christ,

John

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Having been Orthodox now for about 30 years, I have only a few bumbling observations to add to the already excellent discussion here.

1. I am glad I did not become Orthodox in a hurry. I took several years to study all I could find on the Church and the Faith, and every minute spent on that study was worthwhile. One does encounter situations, after becoming Orthodox, that might initially strike one as "anomalous" or "unexpected", and only with a thorough grounding in the Faith can one adequately cope at such times [see observation No. 3, below].

2. I do not think that even a whole lifetime is long enough for a convert to Orthodoxy to learn everything. Every day I learn something new, and I am delighted to find this forum where I seem to learn something new every few minutes! There is much wisdom here--so much that I often feel I ought to "stand with fear" when reading your posts!

3. If and when one leaves a church such as the "TEC" (as they call it now), please never leave in anger or emotional distress. Instead, leave with love for those who remain behind, with prayers for them always. Who knows but what they may turn again to the right path? Please try very hard not to compare the Orthodox Church with the former church, even unfavourably. Wait, if at all possible, till you can feel calm and certain about your decision. All any one of us is looking for is God and His unchanging truth and love. "Rites" and "Ceremonies" must take second place, and liturgical languages come in a distant third place, in my humble opinion. I've been in Orthodox Churches that offered the Divine Liturgy in Greek, in Slavonic, in Arabic, in English. I can personally testify that once one is used to the Divine Liturgy and has learnt what is happening (though, as the western saint John Vianney once said [I paraphrase] "If we really knew what is happening [in the Divine Liturgy] we would die [of ecstasy!]", one can follow along, especially if one has a good prayer book and a spiritual father of whom one can ask questions later on.

4. When we leave, we must leave completely, willingly and wholeheartedly, never looking back. Those who bring in "Anglican baggage" are likely to find that not everyone is as excited as they are about the fine points of "Ritual Notes" and "Fortescue". My spiritual father, of eternal memory now (and how I do miss him!), used to put on his "Speedy Gonzalez" face and say, "We are all High Church, so we don' need no 'steenkin' ' High Church!"

Just a few thoughts from an unworthy convert who thanks our Lord and God and Saviour every day for the Orthodox Faith.

Best wishes and prayers,

Mary Emily