An American Orthodoxy?

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I read an article recently by Fr. Aris Metrakos titled, There is an American Orthodoxy, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MetrakosAmerica.php which I thought raised some interesting points or at least provided some food for thought (viz. his consideration of the viability, comprehensibility, and degree of connectedness of the Orthodox Church in America--as well as the question of the validity of an American Orthodoxy). In particular, I would like to turn his statement into a question and ask, "Is There an American Orthodoxy?" On the surface, it would appear that we are dealing with praxis related issues here including matters of cultural preference and tradition with a lower case "t;" but, on a subterraneous level [mystical theology] there is a dimension here that needs to be explored/addressed as it is relates to the faith and the Tradition of the Church with a upper case "T." In my neck of the woods, Orthodox theological discussions are not unlike motorcycle doors, so I am grateful to have found this forum. Also, by way of introduction, I would like to share the fact that I am primarily one to spend time with "my silent companions" and that I am very inexperienced with this type of electronic arena so I apologize in advance for any ignorant missteps that I will make.


It appears that the casual/conversational style and language that Fr. Metrakos has employed have put some of my fellow Orthodox off (which is very interesting as the subject of linguistics relates to the topic itself); while, others who are able to get past this aspect consider his thesis to be either non-Orthodox or a non-issue that will soon be rendered passe. However, ultimately, knowing as has been said, one's ontology models one's epistemology, to summarily dismiss what is being presented for consideration here (as it relates to the state of being of the church in America) is, I think, both a flat-footed approach and support for the assertion of some that there is a lack of American Orthodox scholarship. So I am turning to this wider discussion forum for some dialogue and some help thinking through what Fr. Metrakos is presenting.

Initially, on one hand, I think it is noteworthy to consider the words of Pope Benedict XVI spoken in his first public address after being elected (being the good German theologian that he is), "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest values one's own ego and one's own desires." But, on the other hand, Jürgen Moltmann, who is also no stranger to the halls of Tübingen, provides a theology of hope in his work, In the End, The Beginning, when he writes, "Creative powers are awakened at every age, when new possibilities emerge and if they are recognized as such. In this sense we are always standing at the beginning."

Peace,
Rick

[Alec Lowly]

Dear All,

I read an article recently by Fr. Aris Metrakos titled, There is an American Orthodoxy, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MetrakosAmerica.php which I thought raised some interesting points or at least provided some food for thought (viz. his consideration of the viability, comprehensibility, and degree of connectedness of the Orthodox Church in America--as well as the question of the validity of an American Orthodoxy). In particular, I would like to turn his statement into a question and ask, "Is There an American Orthodoxy?" On the surface, it would appear that we are dealing with praxis related issues here including matters of cultural preference and tradition with a lower case "t;" but, on a subterraneous level [mystical theology] there is a dimension here that needs to be explored/addressed as it is relates to the faith and the Tradition of the Church with a upper case "T." In my neck of the woods, Orthodox theological discussions are not unlike motorcycle doors, so I am grateful to have found this forum. Also, by way of introduction, I would like to share the fact that I am primarily one to spend time with "my silent companions" and that I am very inexperienced with this type of electronic arena so I apologize in advance for any ignorant missteps that I will make.


It appears that the casual/conversational style and language that Fr. Metrakos has employed have put some of my fellow Orthodox off (which is very interesting as the subject of linguistics relates to the topic itself); while, others who are able to get past this aspect consider his thesis to be either non-Orthodox or a non-issue that will soon be rendered passe. However, ultimately, knowing as has been said, one's ontology models one's epistemology, to summarily dismiss what is being presented for consideration here (as it relates to the state of being of the church in America) is, I think, both a flat-footed approach and support for the assertion of some that there is a lack of American Orthodox scholarship. So I am turning to this wider discussion forum for some dialogue and some help thinking through what Fr. Metrakos is presenting.

Initially, on one hand, I think it is noteworthy to consider the words of Pope Benedict XVI spoken in his first public address after being elected (being the good German theologian that he is), "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest values one's own ego and one's own desires." But, on the other hand, Jürgen Moltmann, who is also no stranger to the halls of Tübingen, provides a theology of hope in his work, In the End, The Beginning, when he writes, "Creative powers are awakened at every age, when new possibilities emerge and if they are recognized as such. In this sense we are always standing at the beginning."

Peace,
Rick

The following is a very bold -- indeed, provocative -- address on this subject by Metropolitan +PHILIP, Archbishop if the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America.

American Orthodoxy: Success and Failure

Delivered on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, 1984, in Worcester, Massachusetts

Excerpted from Metropolitan Philip: His Life and His Dreams, by Peter E. Gillquist, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991

Once every year, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the Orthodox people in
America emerge from their ethnic islands to celebrate the triumph of the
Orthodox Faith over the iconoclastic heresy. This victory happened in the
year AD 787, 1197 years ago. I am proud of our history; for those who have
no past, have no present and will have no future. There is a difference,
however, between contemplating history and worshiping history.

During the first one thousand years of her existence, the Church was
courageous enough to respond to the challenges of her times. Many local
councils were called, and seven ecumenical councils were convened to deal
with important issues which the Church had to face. The question now is:
What happened to that dynamism which characterized the life of the Church
between Pentecost and the tenth century?

Did God stop speaking to the Church? Did the action of the Holy Spirit
in the Church cease after the tenth century? Why are we always celebrating
the remote past? Have we been lost in our long, long history? I wish we
could gather to celebrate an event which happened five hundred years ago or two hundred years ago or perhaps something which happened last year.

In the Gospel of St. John, our Lord said, "My Father has been working
until now, and I have been working" (John 5:17). Thus, we cannot blame God
or the Holy Spirit for our inaction. History, from a Christian perspective,
is a dynamic process because it is the arena of God's action in the past as
well as in the present. But if we do not fully, creatively, and faithfully
respond to the divine challenge, no change can be effected in our Church,
values, and human situation. Our forefathers, motivated by the power of the
Holy Spirit, have fought valiantly and triumphantly against iconoclasm and
all kinds of heresies; but the triumphs of the past will not save us from
the sterility of the present and the uncertainty of the future.

It is indeed astonishing that we have not had an ecumenical council
since AD 787, despite the many changes which the Church has encountered
during the past 1197 years. I shall mention but a few of these global events
which affected the life of the Church directly or indirectly since the last
Ecumenical Council: the 1054 schism between East and West; the fall of
Constantinople; the European Renaissance with all its implications; the
Protestant Reformation; the discovery of the New World; the French
Revolution; the Industrial Revolution; the Communist Revolution and its
impact on the Orthodox Church; the First and Second World Wars; the dawning of the nuclear age; the exploration of space and all the scientific and technological discoveries which baffle the mind.

. . .

You might ask, what is the reason behind this Orthodox stagnation? Did
our history freeze after AD 787? There is no doubt that the rise of Islam,
the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, and the fall of Tsarist Russia have
contributed much to our past and present stagnation. The sad condition of
our mother churches across the ocean is indicative of this reality.

. . .

Have we then lost all hope for an Orthodox renaissance? Is there not a
place on this planet where we can dream of a better Orthodox future? I
believe that there is a place, and this place is the North American
continent. We have a tremendous opportunity in this land to dream dreams and see visions, only if we can put our house in order. Where in the whole world today* can you find seven million** free Orthodox except in North America?

We are no longer a church of immigrants; the first Orthodox liturgy
was celebrated in this country before the American Revolution. Many of our
Orthodox young people have died on the battlefields of various wars,
defending American ideals and principles. We have contributed much to the
success of this country in the fields of medicine, science, technology,
government, education, art, entertainment, and business.

We consider ourselves Americans, and we are proud of it-except when we
go to church, we suddenly become Greeks, Russians, Arabs, and Albanians.
Despite our rootedness in the American soil, our Church in America is still
divided into fifteen jurisdictions, contrary to our Orthodox ecclesiology
and canon law, which forbid the multiplicity of jurisdictions in the same
territory.

Individually, Orthodox jurisdictions have done much for themselves. We
have some of the finest theological institutions in the world. We have
excellent religious publications. Many volumes have been written in English
on Orthodox theology. We have some of the best Christian education programs. Our clergy are highly educated and deeply committed to the Orthodox faith. We have built multimillion-dollar churches and cathedrals, and our laity are well organized and have contributed generously to the financial and spiritual well-being of our parishes.

Collectively, however, we have not been able to rise above our
ethnicity and work together with one mind and one accord for the glory of
Orthodoxy. Our efforts continue to be scattered in different directions.

Why should we have fifteen departments for Christian education, media
relations, sacred music, youth ministry, and clergy pensions? Where is our
spiritual and moral impact on the life of this nation? Where is our voice in
the media? Why is it that every time there is a moral issue to be discussed,
a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, and a Jew are invited for such discussions?
How can we explain our Orthodox absence despite the authenticity of our
theology and moral teachings?

The answer to these disturbing questions is simple: It is ethnicism.
Unfortunately, we have permitted ourselves to become victims of our ethnic
mentalities. We cannot be agents of change in full obedience to the truth
unless we transcend ethnicism and establish a new Orthodox reality in North
America.

I am not asking you to deny your own history and your own culture.
What I am asking is to blend your old and new cultures into some kind of an
integrated reality. I am not against ethnicism, if ethnicism means a return
to the spirit of the desert fathers, the Syrian fathers, the Greek fathers,
and the Slavic fathers. But if ethnicism means a narrow, fanatic ghetto
mentality which separates us from each other, then I am definitely against
such ethnicism.

The mission of the Church is not to be subservient to any kind of
nationalism. The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls-all souls.
In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

Brothers and sisters in Orthodoxy, I have shared with you today some
of my reflections on our past and present, success and failure. I would like
to share with you now some daring visions about the future.

My first vision concerns the role for our Orthodox laity in this
relentless quest for Orthodox unity. After eighteen years in the episcopate,
I have been convinced that Orthodox unity in America must begin on the
grassroots level. You, the laity, are the conscience of the Church and the
defenders of the faith. Consequently, I would like to see a strong
pan-Orthodox lay movement, totally dedicated to the cause of Orthodox unity. Without the laity, our churches would be empty, and our liturgical and
sacramental services would be in vain. The clergy and laity, working
together, are the people of God, and they constitute the Orthodox Church.

My second vision concerns the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops
in America (SCOBA). Since the purpose of SCOBA is to bring organic unity to
our churches in America, I believe that SCOBA should be elevated to the rank
of an Orthodox synod which will have the power to deal effectively and
decisively with our Orthodox problems in this country.

My third vision, ladies and gentlemen, concerns the ecumenical
patriarchate. There is no doubt that we need a catalyst to lead us from the
wilderness of division to the promised land of unity and fulfillment. I do
not know of a better catalyst than the ecumenical patriarch himself, who
continues to live like a prisoner in Istanbul. Let us prevail on him to
leave Turkey, come to America, and unite our various jurisdictions. The
Greek remnant in Istanbul can be shepherded by an exarch, who would
represent the ecumenical throne. The ecumenical patriarch will preserve his
traditional role in the world regardless of where he resides.

We have unlimited opportunities in this free land, but if we do not
move forward with faith and courage, our Church on this continent will
remain an insignificant dot on the margin of history.

Finally, I would like to conclude this sermon with the words of the
late Alexander Schmemann. "One can almost visualize the glorious and blessed day when forty Orthodox bishops of America will open their first synod in New York or Chicago or Pittsburgh with the hymn, 'Today the grace of the Holy Spirit assembled us together,' and will appear to us not as
'representatives' of Greek, Russian, or any other 'jurisdictions' and
interests but as the very icon, the very 'Epiphany' of our unity within the
body of Christ; when each of them and all together will think and deliberate
only in terms of the whole, putting aside all particular and national
problems, real and important as they may be. On that day, we shall 'taste
and see' the oneness of the Orthodox Church in America."

__________

* - This was written in 1984, before the fall of communism in the
Soviet Union. A.L.

** - With all respect due to His Grace, it must be stated that this figure for the Orthodox population of Norrh America is untenable. Three million is the figure accepted by those who have "done the math," and three million is viewed as the realistic ~upper~ limit. By "Orthodox in North America" is meant people who actually attend church and support the church by service and/or donations. A.L.

This article originally appears in AGAIN Vol. 28 No. 2, Summer 2006

[Owen Jones]

I think the total number of Orthodox in America is closer to one million. The Greek Archdiocese has approx 600 parishes. I don't know what the average membership is, but I think 1000 would be a realistic if perhaps somewhat generous figure. They are usually fairly large congregations. The OCA is tiny. TINY. Ten years ago the dean of the seminary said there were about 50,000 and shrinking. I think the Antiochians have maybe three times that. (I seem to recall that at some point their mailing list was 40,000. But several people in one household might be on the list.

The six million figure I think comes from adding up all of the people with Greek last names. This is the same way they compute the number of Orthodox in Russia. Anyone who is Russian is Orthodox!!!!

[Andrew]

I think the best way in which American Orthodoxy can develop is by producing American born saints. Once a common piety and sense of greater catholic community among members of each jurisdiction is felt, things will fall into place on a larger "organizational" scale (or it might not). If there is no grassroots unity, attempts at unity from a top down approach will fail, as evidenced by SCOBA and such organizations... the answer isn't "Americanization" but "Orthodoxization" (please excuse my weak made up word!).

[Alec Lowly]

I think the total number of Orthodox in America is closer to one million. The Greek Archdiocese has approx 600 parishes. I don't know what the average membership is, but I think 1000 would be a realistic if perhaps somewhat generous figure. They are usually fairly large congregations. The OCA is tiny. TINY. Ten years ago the dean of the seminary said there were about 50,000 and shrinking. I think the Antiochians have maybe three times that. (I seem to recall that at some point their mailing list was 40,000. But several people in one household might be on the list.

The six million figure I think comes from adding up all of the people with Greek last names. This is the same way they compute the number of Orthodox in Russia. Anyone who is Russian is Orthodox!!!!

Dear Seraphim,

Thank you for your comments.

My personal estimate, based on such hard evidence as I and others have been able to identify, is that there are roughly 2 million "active" Orthodox in North America -- meaning people who are registered with a parish, and/or attend services on a regular basis, and/or put money on the plate. And then, of course, there are the Christmas-and-Easter folks and the ethnic festival folks, bless all their hearts.

The 50,000 figure for the OCA is not total membership, but approximately the number of individuals or families on the books 10 years ago as "fair share" donors, i.e., payers of the OCA annual assessment. That 50,000 figure probably represents up to 200,000 souls. Many retirees, for instance, choose not to pay "fair share" but do support their parishes by Sunday attendance and local giving.

[Rick H.]

Alec--Thank you[!] for the article that you have shared as it relates to the topic/question at hand. Yes, a bold and provocative article as you have well said. I have not read this article before; it is very interesting to me. It appears that Metropolitan Phillip has not been one to mince his words on this subject. As others have asked in the past with the question/statement, "Did God stop speaking to the Church?" The Metropolitan asks, "Did the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church cease after the tenth century? And, his conclusion on the whole matter came to me with great force as I read the words of the Archbishop in the following:

"We have unlimited opportunities in this free land, but if we do not move forward with faith and courage, our Church on this continent will remain an insignificant dot on the margin of history."

I do not think that I will soon forget this past reference to the Church in America as being "an insignificant dot on the margin of history." And, honestly, I cannot see how so many people can dismiss something like this so easily as being passe (or yawn and reply, ''oh, yes 'thinking like this' and the question(s) you raise today were popular topics in the 80's')--how can 'thinking like this' [as one's ontology models one's epistemology] be considered as being either current or out of date? Clearly, one can point to what is known as the status quo as described by the Metropolitan and others such as Stanley Grenz in the 80's and say that it has been maintained, but to say that the above assertion is either in fashion or out of fashion in any sense is, I think, to demonstrate the definition of the word stupor and fix one's self firmly (and me too for a time) in 'the theater of the absurd.' So hats-off to you Alec[!] for sharing this illuminating article and hats-off to the Archbishop[!] for his candor and passion on the subject. I suspect Metropolitan Phillip would appreciate the Moltmann quote that I supplied at the end of my original posting above.

Grace and Peace to you Alec!
Ex tenebris lux,
Rick

[Kris]

On the surface, it would appear that we are dealing with praxis related issues here including matters of cultural preference and tradition with a lower case "t;" but, on a subterraneous level [mystical theology] there is a dimension here that needs to be explored/addressed as it is relates to the faith and the Tradition of the Church with a upper case "T."

I hear the "lower case 't'" and "upper case 'T'" distinction made quite often; particularly with respect to Orthodoxy in the West (esp. America) and the various reforms that have taken place there, be it dog-collars, clean-shaven priests, pews, organs, or whatever.

Whilst it is necessary to distinguish between the Faith itself and the way in which it is expressed, I am not so sure it is necessary (or indeed right) to speak of them as being totally separate. And to what extent can one distinguish between the two?

Of course, I am not speaking of Greek dancing on thursday evenings or merely cultural customs which have only been connected to the Church in the West because parishes often double as cultural centres. But rather of things that are directly related to the Church.

The Liturgies developed, as did iconography, etc. yet one would not class such elements as being nothing but "small t" traditions. Their place in the faith and worship of the Church is one of great importance.

Can it not be said, to some extent, that although there are many variant "small t" traditions, all of equal value, these are nevertheless integral parts of the much greater "big T" Tradition.

Considering the liturgical nature of our faith, it does not seem right to separate the Faith of the Church from the ways in which She has chosen to express it.

What are peoples' thoughts on this issue?

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps you are right, Alec, but these statistics are notoriously unreliable. Are the people responding to survey questions in the affirmative? Or are they actually in Church? The Gallup and Pew surveys say that 40% of the American people are in Church on a typical Sunday. The actual figure that is done by actually counting heads and then applying statistical sampling as about half that.

Even if you increase my numbers for the OCA and Antioch, I just don't see how you get a figure any greater than one million from the Greeks. And I think that is pushing it with approx. 600 parishes. I am not trying to make a case one way or the other here, good or bad. Just simply searching for accuracy.

[Rick H.]

Dear Andrew,

I hope it is okay that I speak casually to you, because I feel that anyone who can make up a word like "Orthodoxization" just has to be a good guy in my book! :) I coined the term "Pneumanticism" once before as it relates to theosis; however, it never really caught on surprisingly ;) And, I know it is somewhat cliche to say, "I just don't know where to start" with your email, but I really don't. You have said so much in so few words that my mind is going in several directions at the present. You are addressing this topic, as alluded to initially, on a 'subterraneous level' (both universally and in particular) while at the same time transcending both the localism and universalism of the question. I think, you are on this like a guided missile locked on target. And, now, as I think about this a little more, I would like to just keep my reply to your wonderful posting short, not that I don't have at least 30 pages of serious rambling to offer on your few outstanding remarks, but because I didn't join this discussion group in order to be heard as much as to listen and hear and learn from others. So I think I will delay a direct response here, in the hopes that other Monachos Community Members will join in. And, for now, please allow me to just say nothing other than that I agree 100% with your assertions that:

1.) ". . . attempts at unity from a top down approach will fail"

2.) ". . . the answer isn't 'Americanization' but 'Orthodoxization'

And, I agree 1000% with your thinking on 'a common piety' and a sense of a greater catholicity among the members as it relates to a remedy. Thank you very much for this excellent contribution! I think we are getting somewhere now. I am looking forward to addressing your comments more directly in the future.

Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear Kris,

I have a confession for you my new friend. When I initially read your thoughts, as they relate to our topic as a whole, I found myself thinking something like, "What's this guy's problem?" It is a common practice in theological and philosophical conversations to distinguish between universal forms and particulars by means of using upper case and lower case letters (viz. the Church and churches). However, as I continued to read what you had written, including the following:


"Whilst it is necessary to distinguish between the Faith itself and the way in which it is expressed, I am not so sure it is necessary (or indeed right) to speak of them as being totally separate."

I then started to agree with you that possibly this is an unhelpful distinction. Namely, as I considered how the practice of using "Tradition/tradition" could be compared with developing a system centered on a Christianity (with an upper case 'C') as opposed to a christianity (with a lower case 'c'), or a "Bible/bible" methodology. So I would like to thank you for this enlightening process.

And, with all that said, let me agree with you completely that we are not talking about such things as "Greek Dancing Night" as it relates to the question of an American Orthodoxy, but instead, as you say, we are talking about "things that are directly related to the Church" and "the validity of a ministy" or to be even more specific as it relates to our topic, we are considering the validity of an American Orthodoxy in general. But, even this approach carries with it some of the baggage as the above "T/t" discussion doesn't it? And, now I realize that I am speaking the language of John Zizioulas (he really seems to have influenced me with just his one book ), so I might as well just quote him directly in order to make this point clearly and spare us all some grief :). . .In Being as Communion, in chap. 6 section V. The 'Validity' of the Ministry, John Zizioulas says:

"All that has been said so far leads to the question whether it is at all proper to speak of the 'validity' of a certain ministry. 'Validity' is basically a juridicial term, and it implies that the ministry can be isolated from the rest of ecclesiology and be judged in itself. This notion implies, furthermore, that there can be objective criteria, such as 'faith' or 'historical apostolic succession,' etc., that can form the norms for such a judgement. Such an approach would tend to undermine the fact that all these 'criteria' originally formed an integral and organic part of the concrete community, especially in its eucharistic form. Their meaning, therefore, depends constantly on their natural context, which is the community.
We have seen, for example, how this is the case with apostolic succession. The same must be remembered with regard to the 'faith': the 'symbols' or 'confessions' of faith were not in the early Church autonomous statements, as they are today in dogmatic manuals, but integral parts of the life and especially the worship of the community; they started as baptismal creeds and were adopted and used again as confessions for baptismal and eucharistic use. The great methodological error in the classical therories of 'validity' therefore is that they tend to go to the unity of the community via these criteria, as if the latter could be conceived before and regardless of the community itself.
If , as we have insisted in this paper, we do not isolate the ministry from the reality of the community created by the koinonia of the Holy Spirit, [B]what 'validates' a certain ministry is to be found not in isolated and objectified 'norms' but in the community to which the ministry belongs."

Kris, assuming that the last post in this thread is by Andrew is not John Zizioulas writing under a pseudonym :) you might want to peruse his post and my response to him and then compare the last paragraph of your submission with the last paragraph of Zizioulas's work above. It may not appear on a superficial level that there is a huge amount of agreement between these two paragraphs, but if you dig a little deeper and consider what is being presented from a true apophatic approach which ultimately transcends affirmations and negations from a motivation/foundation of love, I think it is possible that we may allow some room for a consideration of the mystical theology of the "liturgical nature of our faith" as it relates to the question of an American Orthodoxy.

Thank you very much Kris!

Grace and Peace to you,
Rick

"In the End, the Beginning"

[Alec Lowly]

I think the best way in which American Orthodoxy can develop is by producing American born saints. Once a common piety and sense of greater catholic community among members of each jurisdiction is felt, things will fall into place on a larger "organizational" scale (or it might not). If there is no grassroots unity, attempts at unity from a top down approach will fail, as evidenced by SCOBA and such organizations... the answer isn't "Americanization" but "Orthodoxization" (please excuse my weak made up word!).

Well, saints are certainly the jewels of the Church and we cannot have too many of them, but I don't see how theur presence would create "a common piety and sense of a greater catholic community among members of each jurisdiction." The fact is that each jurisdiction already has many traditional saints who remain unknown outside "the family" -- so how and why would new saints in each jurisdiction foster unity?

And I hope you would agree, Andrew, that while we lack formally glorified saints with hagiographies, miracles, relics, etc., we do not lack for saints themselves. Surely we have fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters from our American churches in the glory of the kingdom, interceding for us right now. I can think of several ...

One of the prayers they may be praying (and I hope they are) is that the Lord forgive the grieving and the quenching of the Holy Spirit that all of us stand guilty of by our complicity in the scandalous disunity of the Church in North America. And may our fathers among the saints -- the giants who obeyed the Holy Spirit's guidance by promulgating the holy canons which we have been so willfully ignoring for nearly a century -- pray for us, as well.

[Alec Lowly]

Perhaps you are right, Alec, but these statistics are notoriously unreliable. Are the people responding to survey questions in the affirmative? Or are they actually in Church? The Gallup and Pew surveys say that 40% of the American people are in Church on a typical Sunday. The actual figure that is done by actually counting heads and then applying statistical sampling as about half that.

Even if you increase my numbers for the OCA and Antioch, I just don't see how you get a figure any greater than one million from the Greeks. And I think that is pushing it with approx. 600 parishes. I am not trying to make a case one way or the other here, good or bad. Just simply searching for accuracy.

I'm definitely with you, Owen, on that "search for accuracy," which is just a subset of the commitment to ~truth~ that should characterize everything the Church says and does. We ought to have hard numbers, and they ought to be accurate.

But the Church in North America has not even begun to deal with this issue by making the only start that can be made -- by defining in plain language what constitutes "membership" and by applying this definition rigorously right across the board of all jurisdictions.

Why haven't we done such an obvious and elementary thing as a census of North American Orthodox? So that we can continue to speak of 7 million -- or 5, or 3, that's why. Also, so that nobody has to face the prospect of being identified as the smallest ethnic, that's another why.

Neither reason has anything to do with the Gospel, the salvation of souls or the future of the Church on this continent.

[Alec Lowly]

I hear the "lower case 't'" and "upper case 'T'" distinction made quite often; particularly with respect to Orthodoxy in the West (esp. America) and the various reforms that have taken place there, be it dog-collars, clean-shaven priests, pews, organs, or whatever.

Whilst it is necessary to distinguish between the Faith itself and the way in which it is expressed, I am not so sure it is necessary (or indeed right) to speak of them as being totally separate. And to what extent can one distinguish between the two?

Of course, I am not speaking of Greek dancing on thursday evenings or merely cultural customs which have only been connected to the Church in the West because parishes often double as cultural centres. But rather of things that are directly related to the Church.

The Liturgies developed, as did iconography, etc. yet one would not class such elements as being nothing but "small t" traditions. Their place in the faith and worship of the Church is one of great importance.

Can it not be said, to some extent, that although there are many variant "small t" traditions, all of equal value, these are nevertheless integral parts of the much greater "big T" Tradition.

Considering the liturgical nature of our faith, it does not seem right to separate the Faith of the Church from the ways in which She has chosen to express it.

What are peoples' thoughts on this issue?

Dear Kris,

Do a site search and you will find the cap "T"-lower case "t" issue discussed at length elsewhere.

In XC,
Alec

[Jennifer]

Dear Kris and Rick,


On the surface, it would appear that we are dealing with praxis related issues here including matters of cultural preference and tradition with a lower case "t;" but, on a subterraneous level [mystical theology] there is a dimension here that needs to be explored/addressed as it is relates to the faith and the Tradition of the Church with a upper case "T."


Whilst it is necessary to distinguish between the Faith itself and the way in which it is expressed, I am not so sure it is necessary (or indeed right) to speak of them as being totally separate. And to what extent can one distinguish between the two?

I very much agree with both of you on this issue. It is very difficult to distinguish between little "t" and big "T" traditions in North America. Despite the substantive unity in doctrine, the Orthodox of various jurisdisctions have developed different ways of expressing that doctrine, and the differences, I think, are more apparent in America than in any other part of the world.

At first, it would seem that, in order to have a unified Orthodox Church in North America, Americans must choose a unified way of being Orthodox, but I'm not convinced that is true. There are so many differences that Americans would have to choose between. Would the choirs sing in four-part harmony or monophonically? Would there be pews or would we all learn to stand through the services? What language would we use - Slavonic, Greek, Arabic, English? These truly are important differences, but I don't think that Americans should choose one tradition and lay aside the others. We have been able to maintain communion with each other despite these differences; I think that Americans can also become a unified jurisdiction with these differences.

I don't know; do you all think it would be too confusing for all these differences to exist in a single jurisdiction? It certainly would do away with some of the legalism in our Orthodox churches, wouldn't it?!

Jennifer

[Sophia]

This discussion has been very interesting to me. As a fairly recent convert to Orthodoxy, I have been painfully aware of the lack of unity that I see around me. I have visited many Orthodox churches in the area around my home and found several things very interesting.

First of all, most of the members of any given parish that I have spoken to have never even visited the other parishes in the area. I've been given the impression that my behavior seems odd to them as I am active in several parishes (along with my brother and my daughter). We've spent one weekend working at a Greek festival, another at a rummage sale in a Western Rite Antiochian parish, and yet a third at a Russian festival at yet another parish.

I am constantly asked about my ethnicity and my typical response is that I am Orthodox and an american. We are so blessed here in America to have such rich and marvelous ethnic diversity amongst the Orthodox that it should be celebrated and not used as a divider. Unfortunately that is something I have seen too seldom.

I may be wrong, or just simple, but I truly think that if we, as members of The Church, start to think of ourselves as just Orthodox, (without our ethnicity attached) and become involved in all Church activities that we can, maybe we will be more united. I have never spent time at an Orthodox Church and not been welcomed as part of its parish. We are one family and must remember that at all times.

In Christ,
Sophia

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This discussion has been very interesting to me. As a fairly recent convert to Orthodoxy, I have been painfully aware of the lack of unity that I see around me. I have visited many Orthodox churches in the area around my home and found several things very interesting.
First of all, most of the members of any given parish that I have spoken to have never even visited the other parishes in the area. I've been given the impression that my behavior seems odd to them as I am active in several parishes (along with my brother and my daughter). We've spent one weekend working at a Greek festival, another at a rummage sale in a Western Rite Antiochian parish, and yet a third at a Russian festival at yet another parish.
I am constantly asked about my ethnicity and my typical response is that I am Orthodox and an american. We are so blessed here in America to have such rich and marvelous ethnic diversity amongst the Orthodox that it should be celebrated and not used as a divider. Unfortunately that is something I have seen too seldom.

I may be wrong, or just simple, but I truly think that if we, as members of The Church, start to think of ourselves as just Orthodox, (without our ethnicity attached) and become involved in all Church activities that we can, maybe we will be more united. I have never spent time at an Orthodox Church and not been welcomed as part of its parish. We are one family and must remember that at all times.

In Christ,
Sophia

I think that in all of this balance is needed.

For sure there is a tendency at times especially here in the west to hole up in our own parishes and never get to see the rest of Orthodoxy. Jurisdictions & geographic isolation both of which are mostly unique to our non-Orthodox countries greatly contribute to this. Very often we know only our own parish & perhaps about our own jurisdiction with little contact with the rest of the Church. So making the extra effort to get to know the rest of our Orthodox brothers & sisters, their parishes and jurisdictions is important.

We do however need to have a home parish. This is like having a family. Other families are also equally families. But our family has been given us by God especially so that we can achieve our salvation. In this sense we need to keep our minds and hearts focussed on where God wants us to be.

This having a home parish is very important not just because we feel at home when there. More than this the home parish is that unplannable combination of persons & situations through which we achieve our salvation; through which we learn patience and love, which after all are the criterion by which we shall be judged.

This also is why many people in fact have been brought by God to parishes where there is that slight, or greater even, tension point, so that precisely they do not feel too much at home, where they cannot settle into too comfortably and have everything their own way. Something- language, customs, their being a new-comer- makes it so that they must continually go beyond themselves & make that extra effort.

In fact one of the greatest temptations of the modern parish is its tendency to drift towards being custom designed in the image of its human members. On the one hand there is some need of management but on the other hand things can get to such a level of control that the Holy Spirit barely has room to work anymore.

A home parish which allows for us to show responsibility but in which we also have to navigate through uncharted waters is the best combination in terms of our salvation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Andrew--I submitted a posting yesterday to your contribution to this thread before I replied to Kris's thought provoking posting; but, I do not see it here. Possibly, my "Junior Member" status has caused a break in the order, or it was lost in transmission. So, I will wait until later today, and if I don't see it I will re-send--Rick


Dear Jennifer,

Well said [!], I am very happy with the turn that this conversation has taken after reading your high-flying remarks. I was somewhat concerned, when I first started this topic here on Monochos that it would be hard to keep people focused on the question at hand and that it never would develop properly, but I felt that this was the best way to wade in to the subject as it relates to both the small picture and the big picture (and I think I was concerned somewhat because it would be very easy for people to become emotional about certain aspects of this subject as it relates to their 'individual views' and anthropological/sociological systems). And, I do expect that there will be more than a few speed bumps as we turn onto the main runway and accelerate, but, I think that you have provided a vehicle to help us get this topic off the ground on our first trip down the runway! Especially, in your opening remarks you demonstrate the importance of this discussion not just for the United States of America in particular, but for the mode of existence or the way of being of a global Orthodoxy. When you say (regarding the different expressions of the same doctrine found within the various jurisdictions in America):

" . . . the differences, I think, are more apparent in America than in any other part of the world. "

you are beginning to focus our attention in a very helpful way, by shining a decidedly one pointed light on the sine qua non of the received doctrine of the Orthodox Church (especially in the thinking of Gregory of Nanzianzus). And, you are providing a perfect model for the consideration of "The Orthodox Church" in a way (not unlike what was proposed by Andrew's contribution--which I think is 'pregnant' with at least quintuplets) that would bring about a true unity-in-diversity, and in this sense a truly "Orthodox Way" that is void of all forms of legalism (and dysfunctional particularism). Yes, I think we are developing a theme to our exploration of the shape and dimension of an Orthodox supra-polarity: as we work towards a retrieval of an historic Orthodox ecclesiological center-- which is one of "In the End, the Beginning." And, to follow up your opening remarks you share the following:


"At first, it would seem that, in order to have a unified Orthodox Church in North America, Americans must choose a unified way of being Orthodox, but I'm not convinced that is true."


***Note: One of these days I will learn how to use the blue block quote box for my references. Although, my wife says that I am not one to read the directions until all else fails :) so we will see.

But, here in your second comment you again provide a very helpful vehicle/expression (and call somewhat) for a reorientation via a "generous orthodoxy" and in my opinion you offer both an irenic and celebrative hope against hope for the global community of Christ which is reminiscent of the Trinitarian doctrine of Gregory of Nazianzus (viz. 'divided without division') as well as Gregory's other themes including "united in division" and "neither making the Unity a confusion, nor the division a separation."

So, good job Jennifer[!] and maybe you can see that I am excited about what you have suggested here very clearly and concisely, and I would like to delve more into what you have suggested in your contribution (especially your reference to legalism as it relates to formalism, and a self-reproducing dysfunction, in an apathetic approach that is only concerned with maintaining the status quo, and has either no intention or a low level of interest in harmonizing theory and practice--or recapturing a credible ecclesiology in some cases) but, with the way this thread is going now--and again in an effort to both listen and learn as opposed to lecturing or riding hobby horses--I think I will conclude and look for further input possibly from you and others.

Thank you again, for your views regarding a generous Orthodoxy in our search for the Community of communities, and thank you also very much for modeling (in your kind and tactful speech) your ethic of being beyond 'traditional' polarities that create artificial separations where they do not exist in fact.

Grace and Peace,
Rick
"In the End, the Beginning"

[Rick H.]

Dear Andrew,

I hope it is okay that I speak casually to you, because I feel that anyone who can make up a word like "Orthodoxization" just has to be a good guy in my book! :) I coined the term "Pneumanticism" once before as it relates to theosis; however, it never really caught on surprisingly ;) And, I know it is somewhat cliche to say, "I just don't know where to start" with your email, but I really don't. You have said so much in so few words that my mind is going in several directions at the present. You are addressing this topic, as alluded to initially, on a 'subterraneous level' (both universally and in particular) while at the same time transcending both the localism and universalism of the question. I think, you are on this like a guided missile locked on target. And, now, as I think about this a little more, I would like to just keep my reply to your wonderful posting short--not that I don't have at least 30 pages to offer on your few outstanding remarks--but because I didn't join this discussion group in order to be heard as much as to listen and hear and learn from others. So I think I will delay a direct response here, in the hopes that other Monachos Community Members will join in. And, for now, please allow me to just say very plainly and nothing other than that I agree 100% with your assertions that:

1.) ". . . attempts at unity from a top down approach will fail"

2.) ". . . the answer isn't 'Americanization' but 'Orthodoxization'

And, I agree 1000% with your thinking on a common piety and a sense of a greater catholicity among the members as it relates to a remedy. Thank you very much for this excellent contribution! I think we are getting somewhere now. I am looking forward to addressing your comments more directly in the future.

Ex tenebris lux!
Rick
"In the End, the Begining"

[Sophia]

Fr Raphael Bless,

I appreciate your added emphasis on home parishes as I did not intend to over look or under value them. I too agree that it is critical to have a home parish and balance.

I understand that my location certainly allows the visits I mentioned which may not be the case for many here. I can think of over a dozen parishes that are within a one hour drive from my home as well as The Metropolis. Being able to have regular interactions with His Eminence, Metropolitan Isaiah and the many, pious, members of our clergy has been very humbling and I can't imagine not having the influence of all of them in my life.

With that said, please know that I am very close to my Spiritual Father and that all of my visits are with his blessing and foreknowledge.

Kissing Your Right Hand,
Sophia

[Rick H.]

Dear Sophia,

How appropriate that you bear the name "Sophia!" It is very obvious to me that you speak a wisdom that is not of this world, and that you are blessed with a beautiful state of equanimity and an intuitive linguistic gift which I can easily recognize as being "the Language of Love."

When you shared the following:

"I am Orthodox and an American . . . We are so blessed here in America to have such rich and marvelous ethnic diversity amongst the Orthodox that it should be celebrated and not used as a divider . . . I may be wrong, or just simple, but I truly think that if we, as members of The Church, start to think of ourselves as just Orthodox, (without our ethnicity attached) and become involved in all Church activities that we can, maybe we will be more united . . . We are one family and must remember that at all times."

I realized two things. Firstly, that the Holy Spirit is clearly at work in and through the Monachos group, and, secondly, it is time to start collecting the individual contributions that are being made and to put them together in a way that we can see what is being said collectively. So, I think I will just thank you now for blessing all of us with your words, and I will take the remainder of this post to use as the beginning of a worksheet of sorts that will serve as a tool to let us see at a glance what has been shared so far.

In the crucified and risen Lord,
Rick

"In the End, the Beginning"
__________________________________________________ _______________


EXPLORING THE SHAPE AND DIMENSION OF AN ORTHODOX SUPRA-POLARITY:
TOWARD A RETRIEVAL OF AN HISTORIC ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGICAL CENTER

1.) "After eighteen years in the episcopate, I have been convinced that Orthodox unity in America must begin on the grassroots level. You, the laity, are the conscience of the Church and the defenders of the faith. Consequently, I would like to see a strong
pan-Orthodox lay movement, totally dedicated to the cause of Orthodox unity . . . We have unlimited opportunities in this free land, but if we do not move forward with faith and courage, our Church on this continent will remain an insignificant dot on the margin of history."

[via Alec: Metropolitan +PHILIP, Archbishop if the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America]


2.) "Once a common piety and sense of greater catholic community among members of each jurisdiction is felt, things will fall into place on a larger "organizational" scale (or it might not). If there is no grassroots unity, attempts at unity from a top down approach will fail, as evidenced by SCOBA and such organizations... the answer isn't 'Americanization' but 'Orthodoxization.'"

[Andrew]


3.) If, as we have insisted in this paper, we do not isolate the ministry from the reality of the community created by the koinonia of the Holy Spirit [emphasis mine], what 'validates' a certain ministry is to be found not in isolated and objectified 'norms' but in the community to which the ministry belongs."

[John D. Zizioulas/Metropolitan of Pergamon, Being As Communion, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002), 243.]


4.) At first, it would seem that, in order to have a unified Orthodox Church in North America, Americans must choose a unified way of being Orthodox, but I'm not convinced that is true.

[Jennifer]


5.) "I am Orthodox and an American . . . We are so blessed here in America to have such rich and marvelous ethnic diversity amongst the Orthodox that it should be celebrated and not used as a divider . . . I may be wrong, or just simple, but I truly think that if we, as members of The Church, start to think of ourselves as just Orthodox, (without our ethnicity attached) and become involved in all Church activities that we can, maybe we will be more united . . . We are one family and must remember that at all times."

[Sophia]


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I suspect that some of our thoughts on this one went down with the system, because I think we had reached a stage where there was something in the way of a consensus developing that although Orthodoxy has become associated with ethnic groups there is no need for this to be the case, except in so far as it is from such sources that an American (or English) Orthodoxy is likely to be fed.

As I think Mr. Henry commented, Rus had no Orthodox mindset before Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and the same was true of Hellas before St. Paul, so these things have to grow, and we are told there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

We all owe a huge debt to those who have nurtured and preserved the Orthodox heritage, and we must all learn from them, but in the process we must be part of changing the mindset of this secular west - even as in Greece and Russia the challenges of secularism are to be faced.

In Christ,

John

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear members of Monachos,
The Season of Nativity of Jesus Christ is almost to its half measure. As I look at and read these posts concerning Orthodoxy,: Ethnic, English, Greek, Russian, or even American, etc. ... I am utterly perplexed!

In my humble estimation, I believe that all orthodoxies, with a capital "O" or not, must be first Christian.
A true Christian is a follower of Christ Jesus, a follower of the "Way" who IS in TRUTH a PERSON!

All of us Orthodox Christians can talkread, write about all of this ad infinitum; and does that make us truly "Orthodox" according to Christ Jesus, the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE?
I ask this of myself each day! And, often I don't really know if I am truly Christian as an Orthodox Christian.

Am I only imitating the Greeks, the Russians, the Copts, the Rumanians, etc. ... and, I do admire and respect their journies into being and becoming each day MORE Christian, as followers of Jesus Christ! not, only as followers of each particular Ethnic embodiment of the Orthodox Faith, but as true Orthodox Christians in this Modern Time in which God has ordained in His Divine Providence, that we live.

Or am I truly attempting to discover the depth, the width, the height, the all around immensity of that "Divine Message" brought to our little planet at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of a Virgin named Mary, by enterring fully into the "Mystery beyond all understanding" which is fully alive among ALL Ethnic Groups, as well as withing the Fullness of Truth of which I am a part and partaker at the Eucharist and in the Priestly Prayer of Jesus, Himself before His ultimate Sacrifice on Calvary.

We as modern day Americans, Canadians, Europeans, how does each of us see and understand our place and function in this Mystical Body of Christ, as depicted in the Gospels, in the lives of the Early Christians, as Christianity developped into what it is today? It has been a long journey and development, that of 2000 + years.

Sometimes, I think that more attention is given to "appearances" and exterior pomp and circumstances than to the simple "MYSTERY" that is daily unfolding before our very eyes and in our personal lives.

When I first enterred into the Orthodox Chruch I was filled with a Holy, Divinely given Joy and Gratitude. Little by little I had a rude awakening: that of being in the midst of all the hastles of Jurisdiction, Church politics, and the never ending search for money and glory by whomever it may have concerned. My heart and soul seemed to be united with Jesus as He wept over Jerusalem ...
"If you in your turn had only understood on this day the message of peace! but, alas, it is hidden from your eyes! ... you did not recognize your opportunity when God offered it!! Then, He went into the Temple and began driving out those who were selling. 'According to Scripture', he said, 'my house well be a house of prayer. But you have made it into a robbers den.'" Lk. 19:41-46

Simply I leave you with these words, as we Orthodox Christians are preparing the CAVE of our Hearts for a renewed coming of Christ at Christmas.

Maranatha!

marie_duquette

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Well, it looks like the lights are back on :) . . .and, for those of us who can remember back before "The Great Monochos System Crash of '06" occurred (last Thursday), we had our topic on the runway and we were cleared for take-off and ready to push the throttle forward courtesy of: Kris, John, Fr. Raphael, and Alec. But, it seems that all four of these high-caliber contributions (and a two postings from me) were lost in the crash, and are no longer on the system. This is what we native-born American theologians refer to as "a-real-bummer."

However, all is not lost, and to be more serious here, it is--in reality--as St. Basil has said, in his letter To the wife of Nectarius, as he wrote, "But our lives are not without a Providence." And, I say all is not lost because, I have copies of the postings mentioned above that I will take from my files, and with the permission of the Monochos members who originally posted them, I will begin replacing them under the headings of "Duplicate Copies" to the best of my ability. I can see how this might bring a small degree of confusion, but hopefully, God willing[!] we can reposition ourselves and once again be poised on the runway ready to take-off.

Thanks very much[!] to John and Marie for helping us to get going again, I think there are "key" references found in each of these two postings. Hopefully we can all catch-up together now and be on the same page again.

Grace and Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Here is a link to an excellent article:
Problems of Orthodoxy in America:The Canonical Problem, http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_canon.aspx .

This would be perfect to read with a cup of coffee or tea today (especially if you are in Ohio where 'all the leaves are brown and the sky is gray.') This essay, written over thirty years ago by one of the most brilliant and in-touch Orthodox writing theologians, Father Alexander Schmemann, clearly speaks volumes to our present discussion, and "should be read by all serious-minded Orthodox Christians in America [as is stated in the introduction]. Without a basic understanding of what is being presented here, it is really hard to even begin to contemplate or gain a toe-hold on the subject at hand. I think it is very interesting to compare Fr. Schmemann's assessment of the climate then with the present day.

I hope if you have never read this article that you will make time to read it, and those who have read this in the past will review what has been said. In addition to Andrew's sentiments that he has expressed about the primacy of a mystical/spiritual solution, I would like to add that it seems to me that so many people these days are so willing to just "pop-off" about any topic, but they are not willing to invest any time researching about the topic or study and learn. I wish there was more studying and thinking going on today (with articles such as these) and less "popping-off."

"This article, written over 30 years ago, is considered by many Orthodox scholars and Church leaders, including His Eminence Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, to be a brilliant statement of the concept of 'canonicity.' It is also, for the most part, a very insightful and correct analysis of the American Orthodox scene. This article should be carefully read by all serious-minded Orthodox Christians in America" (also as stated in the introduction).

In addition, if you don't know what to ask in terms of a present this year for Christmas, let me suggest a copy of Fr. Schmemann's "study guide" titled For the Life of the World. In this work he provides a tour de force and addresses the "deep polarization which secularism has provoked among Christians themselves" as well as brings much clarity to the subject of what constitutes the Church. And, especially, if any of the contributors to the Why Eastern tradition over Catholic tradition? ‎ thread are reading now--you absolutely have to introduce Fr. Schmemann's work from this book! With the turn your conversation has taken of late, if introduced, the former Dean and Professor of Liturgical Theology at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary would come in to your conversation like a "bulldozer" with his thinking on the "reduction of the liturgy to 'cultic' areas of life as opposed to a 'liturgical' understanding of the liturgy." Yes, again here, I think we see the wisdom in the phrase, "In the End, the Beginning."

Peace to All,

Rick

[Alec Lowly]

Dear Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I suspect that some of our thoughts on this one went down with the system, because I think we had reached a stage where there was something in the way of a consensus developing that although Orthodoxy has become associated with ethnic groups there is no need for this to be the case, except in so far as it is from such sources that an American (or English) Orthodoxy is likely to be fed.

As I think Mr. Henry commented, Rus had no Orthodox mindset before Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and the same was true of Hellas before St. Paul, so these things have to grow, and we are told there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

We all owe a huge debt to those who have nurtured and preserved the Orthodox heritage, and we must all learn from them, but in the process we must be part of changing the mindset of this secular west - even as in Greece and Russia the challenges of secularism are to be faced.

In Christ,

John


I'm sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but I sincerely think that we haven't gotten very far in this discussion.

Here are some of the questions I ask myself:

Since it has pleased God to bring together here Orthodox believers from all manner of ethnic and national heritages, could it be His will that the Church develop here as the civil society has developed here, i.e. (asking the indulgence of the Canadians), ~e pluribus unum,~ out of many, one? Could it be the charge of the Church in North America to create a new model for Orthodox communion for a new chapter of the church's history? In plain English: Is the Lord offering the Church the opportunity to leave behind the Old World and all of its old issues and chart a new course?

Referencing Metropolitan Philip's statement, below: So much of Orthodoxy has spent so long a time simply struggling to survive (Turkish and Marxist yokes, etc.), or else wedded to moribund models of social order (sacred monarchy), that the Church has been effectively "out to lunch" on dozens of issues of great import to modern humanity. Since it has pleased the Lord to bring together Orthodox believers from all manner of ethnic and national heritages in a secular, pluralistic society, could this be the lesson we are meant to learn -- how to be the Church in a secular, pluralistic society? Since it has also pleased the Lord to plunk us down right in the midst of all manner of heterodox Christians, is it possible that there may be things He wishes us to learn from them?

We Orthodox in North America may be small in number, but we are the richest in money and resources, and the most free Orthodox on the planet, and in the Church's history. The American church, such as it may become, stands to have a simply enormous influence on Orthodoxy everywhere. This cannot be an accident, brothers and sisters. This is a gift and a call. This is a charge and a challenge.

Some people reading these words will immediately say, No, no, no, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls, nothing has changed, pray, fast and do good works, you're bringing up all these other issues, this is dangerous talk, you sound like a "renovator," an ecumenist, a (fill in whatever category frightens you), etc. I have even had people tell me these concerns aren't important because the Lord is coming soon. But if He tarries ... I ask? There's a whole world out there.

The scriptures brim with parables about lamps under bushels and talents buried in the ground. We are not obeying the Lord's command if we huddle together, facing inward, intent on our salvation, while the society around us is going to hell in a handbasket with no idea who we are and why we believe what we do. As individual believers, and also as THE CHURCH, we have a duty to preach the Gospel and to do mission -- and we cannot do that effectively when we're disunited, self-referential, focused on the past, and disconnected from the society we live in. Look in the mirror -- that's us.

I don't know about you, but I am surrounded every day by people dying of spiritual starvation. Our controversies about jurisdictions and calendars and fasting rules and pews and whether priests can be clean-shaven, etc., etc., etc., are of no use to them and, I daresay, of no use to us. The Lord quizzes nobody on points of theology and canonical niceties in Matthew 25.

There are a lot of discomfiting passages in scripture, but the one that really makes me squirm is Luke 12:48. "From everyone wo has been given much, much shall be required, and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." That's us, too, we Orthodox in North America -- rich, free and powerful in a way our brethren in the Old World are not. We will surely be judged on our use of the unparalleled resources that the Lord has placed in our hands.

Do any of you see what I am seeing?

[Rick H.]

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=39204#post39204
Posted by: Orthodox11
On: 30-11-2006 09:50 AM

---Quote (Originally by Rick Henry)---
Here is a link to an excellent article titled, Problems of Orthodoxy in America
The Canonical Problem: *http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_canon.aspx *

"...there are those who believe that the old pattern of national and religious unity can be simply applied to America. The Church is Greek in Greece, Russian in Russia, therefore it must be American in America—such is their reasoning. We are no longer Russians or Greeks, let us translate services in English, eliminate all "nationalism" from the Church and be one... . Logical as it sounds, this solution is deeply wrong and, in fact, impossible. For what, in their cheerful but superficial "Americanism," the partisans of this view seem completely to overlook is that the rapport between Orthodoxy and Russia, or Orthodoxy and Greece, is fundamentally different from, if not opposed to, the rapport between Orthodoxy and America. There is not and there cannot be a religion of America in the sense in which Orthodoxy is the religion of Greece or Russia and this, in spite of all possible and actual betrayals and apostasies. And for this reason Orthodoxy cannot be American in the sense in which it certainly is Greek, Russian or Serbian. Whereas there, in the old world, Orthodoxy is coextensive with national culture, and to some extent, is the national culture (so that the only alternative is the escape into a "cosmopolitan," viz. "Western" culture), in America, religious pluralism and therefore, a basic religious "neutrality," belongs to the very essence of culture and prevents religion from a total "integration" in culture. Americans may be more religious people than Russians or Serbs, religion in America may have privileges, prestige and status it has not had in the "organic" Orthodox countries, all this does not alter the fundamentally secular nature of contemporary American culture; and yet it is precisely this dichotomy of culture and religion that Orthodoxy has never known or experienced and that is totally alien to Orthodoxy. For the first time in its whole history, Orthodoxy must live within a secular culture. This presents enormous spiritual problems with which I hope to deal in a special article. What is important for us here, however, is that the concept of "americanization" and "American" Orthodoxy is thus far from being a simple one. It is a great error to think that all problems are solved by the use of English in services, essential as it is. For the real problem (and we will probably only begin to realize and to face it when "everything" is translated into English) is that of culture, of the "way of life." It belongs to the very essence of Orthodoxy not only to "accept" a culture, but to permeate and to transform it, or, in other terms, to consider it an integral part and object of the Orthodox vision of life. Deprived of this living interrelation with culture, of this claim to the whole of life, Orthodoxy, in spite of all formal rectitude of dogma and liturgy, betrays and loses something absolutely essential. This explains the instinctive attachment of so many Orthodox, even American born, to the "national" forms of Orthodoxy, their resistance, however narrow-minded and "nationalistic," to a complete divorce between Orthodoxy and its various national expressions. In these forms and expressions Orthodoxy preserves something of its existential wholeness, of its link with life in its totality, and is not reduced to a "rite," a clearly delineated number of credal statements and a set of "minimal rules." One cannot by a surgical operation called "americanization" distill a pure "Orthodoxy in itself," without disconnecting it from its flesh and blood, making it a lifeless form. There can be no doubt, therefore, that in view of a this, a living continuity with national traditions will remain for a long time not only a "compromise" meant to satisfy the "old-timers," but an essential condition for the very life of the Orthodox Church. And any attempt to build the unity of Orthodoxy here by opposing the "American" to the traditional national connotations and terms will lead neither to a real unity nor to real Orthodoxy."

"...as a general rule, a parish cannot live by an "abstract" Orthodoxy. In reality it is always shape by this or that liturgical tradition and piety, belongs to a definite "expression" of Orthodoxy. And it is good that it be so. At this stage of the history of Orthodoxy in America it would be e spiritually dangerous—and we have explained why-to break this organic continuity of piety and culture, of memory and custom. There are some among us who dream of "uniformity" in everything, thinking that uniformity and unity are identical. But this is wrong, and it reflects a very formal and not a spiritual understanding of unity."
---End Quote---


I found these parts particularly interesting. They make an important point that one could also apply to the situation in Western Europe, and the discussions on this forum regarding the establishment of a "British Orthodoxy"; not to the same extent, but applicable nontheless.

In XC,
Kris

[Rick H.]

************
Orthodoxy in America
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=39209#post39209
Posted by: John Charmley
On: 30-11-2006 01:02 PM

---Quote (Originally by Orthodox11)---
I found these parts particularly interesting. They make an important point that one could also apply to the situation in Western Europe, and the discussions on this forum regarding the establishment of a "British Orthodoxy"; not to the same extent, but applicable nontheless.

In XC,
Kris
---End Quote---
Dear Kris,

Yes, some very interesting points here, but the tenor and direction of the argument seem a little unclear.

Obviously it is true that the

---Quote---
rapport between Orthodoxy and Russia, or Orthodoxy and Greece, is fundamentally different from, if not opposed to, the rapport between Orthodoxy and America.
---End Quote---
But I am uncertain what conclusion to draw from that, since it is also true that

---Quote---
in America, religious pluralism and therefore, a basic religious "neutrality," belongs to the very essence of culture and prevents religion from a total "integration" in culture.
---End Quote---
This situation is very unlikely to change, so what is actually being said here, except that America isn't like Greece and therefore Orthodoxy in America can't be like it is in Greece? Unless I have misread the point, is that not exactly the point being made about 'American orthodoxy'?

Mr. Henry makes a central and important point when he writes:

---Quote---
For the first time in its whole history, Orthodoxy must live within a secular culture.
---End Quote---
and it will be very interesting to read his thoughts on this topic - which one suspects lies at the heart of this discussion.

Of course anyone simple enough to suppose that all problems will be 'solved' by the adoption of English will be wrong - even as those who suppose they can be 'solved' by not speaking in the native language of a majority (where that is the case) will also be mistaken. When Cyril and Methodius went into the Russian lands they realised they'd get nowhere by taking the view that the Slavs had better learn Greek, and since Slavic society did not have the same attitude to religion and the state as pertained in Byzantium, Rus could never attain that blessed state; there may, perhaps, be lessons here for us all.

Orthodoxy is particularly good at reminding the arrogance of the modern era of the wisdom of old, and with its long and successful history of mission, we may be able to learn something from the past here, too; do you think?

When Mr, Henry, with his customary insight, write that:

---Quote---
It belongs to the very essence of Orthodoxy not only to "accept" a culture, but to permeate and to transform it, or, in other terms, to consider it an integral part and object of the Orthodox vision of life.
---End Quote---
is it impossible that Orthodoxy should be able to do something similar in the US? As he says, this is where existing, more ethnic, Orthodoxy has played, plays, and will play, a crucial role. But the nature of that role may change over time, as Orthodoxy permeates even the secular mindset of some westerners.

We need not be as defensive as this dialogue sometimes sounds. We must trust in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost and follow where we are called. We are warned against placing too great a yoke on those who may not be able to bear it, and the practice of the Church over the ages has in it much wisdom from which we can draw examples and strength.

In Christ,

John
************

[Rick H.]

canonicity and the north american church
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=39213#post39213
Posted by: fr_r_v
On: 30-11-2006 04:04 PM

Canonicity relates both to the spirit in which something within the Church is done and also to the situation the Church is in. In other words there are guiding principles that guide the Church- the canons, Scripture, writings of the Fathers- but all of this must be applied with discernment to the actual situation at hand.

This is critical because if we separate principles from the need to apply them to actual situations the Church lives through then we will always neglect discernment. And in a real way we can act according to the outward injunctions of the canons while denying the spirit of the Church.

The starting point in understanding the situation we now find ourselves in North America is the chaos which followed the Russian revolution. Few would argue that there was up to this time a canonical situation in the N American church. From the chaos which followed the Revolution however multiple jurisdictions were set up.

Here I think lies a critical step which was taken which to this day is not examined enough. Often this situation of multiple jurisdictions is described as if itself being non-canonical. This overlooks however the fact that the Church must deal with the actual situations it is given. The Church was given a situation of unprecedented social and spiritual chaos in which often the most basic canonical connections with the rest of the Church were compromised. In this situation it was often necessary- and canonical- for the local Church to oversee and maintain care for the flock in the best way it could. And in the actual situation of the 20th century this care at times was like that of a triage hospital; ie care for those in most critical need and immediately entrusted to ones care.

Even though in many ways unprecedented this kind of care by the Church is not in itself non-canonical. Indeed we could even say that the alternative- leaving the flock to be scattered for the sake of formal administrative links to the rest of the Church- is what would have been non-canonical. In any case the main point here is that what can be overlooked is how multiple jurisdictions arose as a direct way of caring for the flock.

Of course we can question the legitimacy of these jurisdictions. At the time almost every jurisdiction was out of communion with some other(s) precisely because it questioned their legitimacy or whether they were 'canonical'. This time however seems to have passed & for the most part we now accept the basic legitimacy of each others' jurisdictions. This should not be taken for granted for it shows in fact what great strides forward have in fact been made towards unity in the past while.

Basically it seems that we are approaching a time when we are no longer a real threat to each others' sense of what it means to be part of the Church. For in fact one of the most tragic legacies of the time of chaos was that gradually many jurisdictions came to represent a particular kind of Orthodoxy- 'traditional', or 'liberal' or 'N American' or 'ethnic'- to the exclusion of whatever it felt was most threatening to it. In this atmosphere it was inevitable that jurisdictions became brand names and fortresses with their own mentalities.

Perhaps this too served a purpose in its time but then it came to be only of harm for even the most worthy causes within the Church can be distorted from lack of balance. And that is what the accusations of each other not being 'canonical' were coming to mean.

It is wonderful that we have entered a time when the situation which gave rise to multiple jurisdictions has passed away. Also passing away is the time when each jurisdiction finds its legitimacy in comparison with how some other jurisdiction is wrong. Instead we seem to be entering a time when we can call on the experience of each other as people of One Church regardless of jurisdiction.

This brings us to the thought that we will find ourselves part of one Church only insomuch as we see and find that we are part of One Church.

As someone wisely said: administrative and official recognition can only follow the recognition which the people have already achieved as members of the One Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andrew]

I think "jurisdictional chaos" is a side issue. What really matters is The Faith. If we preserve and live the true faith, we will become unified in a meaningful manner. Unity must first start within individual parishes... are the faithful united in a life of prayer, confession, and Communion? Do they live according to the faith delivered to us from the saints? First, we must come to union from within... we must fight the battle of Interior Warfare, of the struggle against sin, of living a transfigured life. Our minds, hearts, and bodies must be directed towards Christ Crucified. Once this starts happening within individuals, especially priests, it spreads throughout the parish, to the Diocese, and on and on. It draws others in, and crosses boundaries. If all of us in various jurisdictions want to become united in an organizational sense, then we need to be united in a Personal sense, within ourselves. So, I can serve Church unity much better by being active in my parish and in prayer.

And I must remember, the Church was perfect, free of scandal and of any form of disunity, spiritual laxness, etc. until it accepted me!

[John Charmley]

I think "jurisdictional chaos" is a side issue. What really matters is The Faith. If we preserve and live the true faith, we will become unified in a meaningful manner. Unity must first start within individual parishes... are the faithful united in a life of prayer, confession, and Communion? Do they live according to the faith delivered to us from the saints? First, we must come to union from within... we must fight the battle of Interior Warfare, of the struggle against sin, of living a transfigured life. Our minds, hearts, and bodies must be directed towards Christ Crucified. Once this starts happening within individuals, especially priests, it spreads throughout the parish, to the Diocese, and on and on. It draws others in, and crosses boundaries. If all of us in various jurisdictions want to become united in an organizational sense, then we need to be united in a Personal sense, within ourselves. So, I can serve Church unity much better by being active in my parish and in prayer.

And I must remember, the Church was perfect, free of scandal and of any form of disunity, spiritual laxness, etc. until it accepted me!

Well said Andrew!

I am grateful to Rick for retrieving the 'lost' posts. There does seem to be a degree of convergence here.

There is no conflict really between ethnicity, which is where, in a country like America or the UK we can expect to locate Orthodoxy for historical reasons, and the need to develop a native Orthodoxy which can reach out to the wider community; that would seem to be what is happening with the many here who have come to the fulness of the Faith via other Christian traditions. After all, if it can happen to one or two sinners, there are a lot more out there still to come.

Sometimes, I know, converts can feel a little bitterness looking back, but for my part, well, being born where and when I was, 'cradle Orthodoxy' was not an option, and I am grateful to the Church of England for having brought me so far on my journey as a Christian - even as I am more grateful to those who are bringing me to the fulness of Orthodoxy.


In Christ,


John

[Rick H.]

Originally posted on: 11/30/06
By: R.R. Henry

Dear John,

Firstly, I would like to point out that the quotations you have attributed to me are actually from Fr. Alexander Schmemann. I can see how you might possibly have thought they were mine though, because of the way my name appeared at the top of the block quote in Kris's posting. But, the really great news here is that (as long as no one asks me for details) I can now say that Fr. Schmemann's writing has been mistaken for my writing in England :) And, interestingly enough I had some of the same questions about some of the very passages that you extracted from Schmemman's essay, but it is too late in the evening to move forward with this.

I will be traveling this weekend, so I probably won't be in a position to interact with your pleasingly systematic and "straight-shooting" reflections until next week. In addition, after reading Kris's posting (as well as some of his other postings regarding a 'British Orthodoxy'), and especially the Father's and Alec's high-caliber contributions, I can see clearly that we have been 'cleared for take-off' with this discussion. So, I am very much looking forward to returning/rejoining, and sitting down with a nice cup of coffee and my favorite light and dark cavendish blend (or maybe a nice cup of Earl Grey and one of my favorite English blends :)

Shalom-Shalom (Isa 26:3),

Rick

P.S. Just in case you do not smoke cigars and someone gives you one, as Alec has suggested, can I have it? :)

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

The lost postings are now replaced with the exception of one by Alec.

Alec--I don't seem to have the response you made referencing John Charmely when you said something like, "Bingo, give that man a cigar . . ." So, if you still have that one in your files by any chance please re-post it. And, also I realize that I have just "buried" with my duplicate postings a very provocative posting that you made this evening (that should accelerate things I would think). So, please feel free to re-post that one too, if you so desire, so that it will indeed be seen now that I am done with the replacement process from the Monochos system crash.

In all, four postings were somewhat obscured by this replacement process and readers may wish to review postings #21, #22, #25, and #29 in order to be current with this thread.

Thank you.

Your Obsessive-Compulsive Friend,
Rick

[Tanya Hoadley]

I'm sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but I sincerely think that we haven't gotten very far in this discussion.

Here are some of the questions I ask myself:

Since it has pleased God to bring together here Orthodox believers from all manner of ethnic and national heritages, could it be His will that the Church develop here as the civil society has developed here, i.e. (asking the indulgence of the Canadians), ~e pluribus unum,~ out of many, one? Could it be the charge of the Church in North America to create a new model for Orthodox communion for a new chapter of the church's history? In plain English: Is the Lord offering the Church the opportunity to leave behind the Old World and all of its old issues and chart a new course?

Referencing Metropolitan Philip's statement, below: So much of Orthodoxy has spent so long a time simply struggling to survive (Turkish and Marxist yokes, etc.), or else wedded to moribund models of social order (sacred monarchy), that the Church has been effectively "out to lunch" on dozens of issues of great import to modern humanity. Since it has pleased the Lord to bring together Orthodox believers from all manner of ethnic and national heritages in a secular, pluralistic society, could this be the lesson we are meant to learn -- how to be the Church in a secular, pluralistic society? Since it has also pleased the Lord to plunk us down right in the midst of all manner of heterodox Christians, is it possible that there may be things He wishes us to learn from them?

We Orthodox in North America may be small in number, but we are the richest in money and resources, and the most free Orthodox on the planet, and in the Church's history. The American church, such as it may become, stands to have a simply enormous influence on Orthodoxy everywhere. This cannot be an accident, brothers and sisters. This is a gift and a call. This is a charge and a challenge.

Some people reading these words will immediately say, No, no, no, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls, nothing has changed, pray, fast and do good works, you're bringing up all these other issues, this is dangerous talk, you sound like a "renovator," an ecumenist, a (fill in whatever category frightens you), etc. I have even had people tell me these concerns aren't important because the Lord is coming soon. But if He tarries ... I ask? There's a whole world out there.

The scriptures brim with parables about lamps under bushels and talents buried in the ground. We are not obeying the Lord's command if we huddle together, facing inward, intent on our salvation, while the society around us is going to hell in a handbasket with no idea who we are and why we believe what we do. As individual believers, and also as THE CHURCH, we have a duty to preach the Gospel and to do mission -- and we cannot do that effectively when we're disunited, self-referential, focused on the past, and disconnected from the society we live in. Look in the mirror -- that's us.

I don't know about you, but I am surrounded every day by people dying of spiritual starvation. Our controversies about jurisdictions and calendars and fasting rules and pews and whether priests can be clean-shaven, etc., etc., etc., are of no use to them and, I daresay, of no use to us. The Lord quizzes nobody on points of theology and canonical niceties in Matthew 25.

There are a lot of discomfiting passages in scripture, but the one that really makes me squirm is Luke 12:48. "From everyone wo has been given much, much shall be required, and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." That's us, too, we Orthodox in North America -- rich, free and powerful in a way our brethren in the Old World are not. We will surely be judged on our use of the unparalleled resources that the Lord has placed in our hands.

Do any of you see what I am seeing?

Dear Alec,

Well said. Very well said.

A really not that funny thing happened to me about 2 weeks ago.A woman (not Orthodox) inquired if I was Greek or Russian Orthodox. I replied that I was American Orthodox and the woman cocked her head to one side and looked quite like my border collie does when I sing too high, too loudly and too off key.

Sometimes I fear that Orthodoxy is perceived as some sort of foreign club and that membership requires specific genetic/ethnic heritage. And the worst of it is, I fear this for some of those inside as well as outside the Church!

Well Alec, maybe the problem is we are the freest, wealthiest etc.
It seems that great things happen in the Church during trials, tribulations, and persecutions. Perhaps we have not yet begun to be refined by fire.

In Christ,
Tanya

[John Charmley]

Well Alec, maybe the problem is we are the freest, wealthiest etc.
It seems that great things happen in the Church during trials, tribulations, and persecutions. Perhaps we have not yet begun to be refined by fire.

In Christ,
Tanya

Dear Tanya,

Excellent points - but it occurs to me that perhaps our trials and tribulations are to do with our great wealth and our 'freedom'.

In this western society we do indeed have a great deal of 'freedom' - except, as Solzhenitsin pointed out many years ago, we mistake consumerism for freedom. In May this year he wrote about the way in which western concepts of freedom were morality free zones, and supported a report from an Orthodox source calling for a new concept of human rights which incorporated a wider conception of what humanity was for. It might be worth citing one of his comments:


Limitless human rights are what our cave-dwelling ancestor already had - nothing prevented him from depriving his neighbour of prey or finishing him off with a cudgel," Solzhenitsyn told the Moskovskiye Novosti weekly newspaper. "Even to call for self-restraint is considered ridiculous and funny. However, it is only self-restraint that offers a moral and reliable way out of any conflict."

This seems germane to this discussion. Perhaps it is part of our 'trial' to be considered 'ridiculous and funny' as we strive to practice what the Church teaches in this society?

In the Coptic Synaxarium today marks the Commemoration of the Martyrdom of the Sts. Valerian (Balaryanos) and Tiburcius (Thiborinos), His Brother (as well as St.Gregory of Nyssa), who went to repose in the reign of Diocletian. They are just two of many examples of how Christians have held firm to their faith despite the threat of physical death.

Perhaps in our generation and time and place we have to hold firm in the face of the spiritual death which this society's values offer to so many? In so doing, we may, in our quiet and humble way, contribute to Christian witness.

In Christ,

John

[Marie-Duquette]

Tanya,
Peace!

True American Orthodox people have not yet been refined by fire, as you say. Perhaps we have not yet truly read the Gospel, the lives of the Early Christians, and been really attuned to the "roots" of Christianity as a whole, and made them our own. I truly believe that we who call ourselves "Orthodox" even "American Orthodox" need to take a NEW look at Jesus Christ, as well as truly "Living of the Gospel Without Compromise"

All the haggeling will bring us to nothing NEW! what is needed in my humble thought is to rediscover the "Living Christ" and to live by His Word. He is the WORD made Flesh; and He did come among us to show us the WAY.

This Season preparatory to re-enterring the Christmas Mystery should fill our thoughts and hearts as we strive to "follow the star, hear the singing of the Angels announcing, 'GLory to God in the highest and PEACE to all of good will.'" and, how to apply these thoughts and mysterious happening of 2000 + years ago to TODAY's secular life style?

Let us READ the WORD of GOD, absorbe the WORD of God, LIVE the WORD of God for TODAY!

I don't think that the Early Christians tried to be Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Middle-Eastern or any other thing than:

to be followers of the WAY pointed out to them by the Master and Teacher, our Lord Jesus, the Christ! A very difficult thing happened to them when the Holy Spirit fell upon them as FIRE at Pentecost, as well as when they heard the WORD spoken by the Apostles, which fell into the soil of their of their lives as NEW SEEDS of Faith, Hope, Life in the Love of God!

They gathered in one anothers homes, in caves, and in catacombs, to LISTEN to the WORD and take it to Heart, living IT in full Trust in its Living Power.

How to re-discover and live the WORD of God in today's world while being in the world, but seperate from it! A mystifying thing indeed! Why should we be so intent of building an American Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy or call is Christian Orthodoxy, is already UNIVERSAL for the Spirit of God is alive and fillest all things!

It is simple: Look to Mary the Theotokos who not only carried Jesus in her womb, gave Him earthly life, ............. she also said, one of her very few words recorded in the Gospel: "Do all that He will tell you.! It's New Wine that is needed, the water of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, made alive by the Fire of the Holy Spirit!

Maranatha! (come Lord Jesus, come!)

marie_duquette

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

What a great discussion group! This subject was just introduced here on Monachos about one week before the system crash, and now just two days after it is back up, everywhere I turn there are so many colorful gems and shining golden nuggets--just laying on top of the ground waiting to be picked up--in all/even the shortest of these posts, that I must confess I am somewhat mesmerized (in a very pleasant way).

There are varied styles of communication here (and seemingly for the present varied topical approaches), but all are coming together in one very beautiful tapestry that has brought a radiance into my life that is all encompassing and not beyond at the present--what a beautiful blessing. And, there is a type of koinonia here that I am not sure that I have experienced before even in face-to-face situations that is providing a very helpful illustration of both the small picture and the big picture [which are in reality one in the same] as it relates to our discussion.

So with all that said, I think it is safe to say that we did get off the ground on our first trip down the runway in a very smooth fashion. And, as we are gaining altitude and preparing to level off, I am going to go back to pull the most colorful threads from what has been shared here so far--it's not an option to leave them behind. I guess it is the nature of a forum such as this, but sometimes when we just "tip our hat" to the author of a previous posting and then move on to say whatever we want, pearls of wisdom are trampled into the ground and left behind. And, in light of this, yes, Professor John (or should I say Paul?), you are characteristically most correct; I do have views that I would like to share, and I will over the course of time when it seems appropriate. And, Alec (or should I say Peter?), you are correct "we haven't gotten very far in this discussion" yet--in fact the surface has only been scratched. But, God willing, we as a group will continue to move towards the subterraneous aspects of the object of our study. And, God willing, we will continue to have insights provided about the ecclesiological dimensions as well as the philosophical and practical dimensions of Christian living whereby, hopefully, we can allow some room for a dialectical theology. Wherein a quenching the Spirit is not to be found; but, instead possibly we can listen and interact with each other a little more than we have been.

So, hopefully, the colorful strands will continue to be contributed here to the present work which is over 50 printed pages long (at 12pt. type), and I will join in later, but for now, I have some weaving to do :)

In Christ's Love,
Rick

Psalm 37:5

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

If I could frame my comments mainly as a parish priest (which I just happen to be!). No matter what is said I really don't think what I will try to describe is so much different from other Orthodox parishes.

First off I think it very important to keep in mind that we are in the parish we are simply because God drew us to this. Sure there are things like the general spirituality of the place, language, religious education, etc. Mainly however the most important drawing card was first off how that parish spiritually resonated & whether this was the place God called us to.

I point this out not to deny the other things pointed out in the above posts. But rather I'm only trying to point out that in reality these issues mostly are engaged in within specific parish settings.

This is crucial to keep in mind because people are in, as they say, the oddest places, and feel very spiritually at home and fed there. Thus for example we have here despite our heavy use of Slavonic at times, quite a few people who use English as a first language and barely understand Slavonic. Having a sufficient enough understanding of Slavonic myself (although I have difficulty with Russian) in surprise I at times ask my 'Anglos' how they get by? Usually the answer is that they would appreciate more English if there could be more- but the main reason they are here is due to their feeling this is their spiritual home. Granted there are a lot of intangibles in such an answer, but I think in a way this is much more the basic framework we all work within (or are called to anyway) than we realize.

Thus we pretty well all have 'language issues' whether Russian/Greek born Orthodox or convert. So too with culture. The parish however is the setting in which we engage these issues. Of course this could be just to state the obvious except that the main point being made here is that the results of this will necessarily be different and also ongoing in each parish setting.

Thus principles about language and culture are helpful but also a bit like work horses. If kept harnessed to their actual need and setting they serve their purpose but if not they run all over the field to little purpose (beyond running around the field!).

Another connected point I want to bring up is how for no one in our Church is language and culture so simple as they may appear. Apart from the fact that reaction to these issues is often an individual and not on a group level (eg "Russians", "Greeks") a large part of what forms this reaction is how a Russian for example perceives himself as someone living precisely in a new land. Thus although this Russian worshiping in America may have a different way of looking at the language question from someone born in America, both are really trying to come to grips with the same question- how they as specific people should worship in the conditions they find themselves in. And in fact this is what most often shapes specific parishes.

It's crucial to recognize this process precisely because it is so organic. Who knows what damage we inadvertently do to parish life by trying to adopt principles such as "English only" or "Russian only" which deny the very people God sends to us. For in reality this is how parishes are formed- by the people who come together to form them.

This means I think that we need to question the idea that we should form parishes according to some sort of abstract cultural principles. Besides the obvious question of what these principles should actually should be- again we deal with real people with specific characteristics- the danger of this approach is it ends up doing exactly what it attempted to avoid: which is closing and opening doors according to a set criterion which doesn't match the flesh & blood people whom God has already placed in our midst.

The criterion we actually use in a parish setting is Orthodox praxis. The specific characteristics of each parish forms the balance between the give & take that makes up real parish life and also explains how each parish is unique. Similarly to the criterion by which families live something is asked and something is given so parishes already have a way of life natural to themselves. But this way of life needs constant paying attention to by all since like a family what is asked for may change. Sensitivity to this is what is most needed.

In any case it is within this parish context that the question of culture and then language get naturally answered. A Russian in an American parish can be coming as much to grips with the question of local culture when he worships in Slavonic as an American who worships in English. This is similar to how parishes which use only English for worship each have a distinctive ethos or something amounting to a 'rule'. We must make room for the way in which parishes as families each respond to their surrounding culture in the most unique ways, some of which may appear accomodating to the culture and others which may be more 'counter-cultural'. There certainly is no one recipe here and indeed there may be many more colours on the palate that we have not seen yet.

After all, if in the world, listening to 17th c Baroque music by Germans, Italians & French or reading 'escapist' fantasy literature is a valid response to one's culture and indeed a statement of one's place within it, then why have such a strong response against the use of an ancient Church language or to traditional & poetic forms of English?

These in fact are our cultural responses as modern westerners who are attempting to be Orthodox in this modern world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

canonicity and the north american church
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=39213#post39213
Posted by: fr_r_v
On: 30-11-2006 04:04 PM

Canonicity relates both to the spirit in which something within the Church is done and also to the situation the Church is in. In other words there are guiding principles that guide the Church- the canons, Scripture, writings of the Fathers- but all of this must be applied with discernment to the actual situation at hand.

No question, Father, but implied somehow in your statement is the idea that in "the canons ... writings of the Fathers" are guiding principles sufficient to this time and place. Perhaps so, but the plain fact that must be frankly acknowledged is that the Church has ~never before~ in her history found herself in this situation. Numerous jurisdictions, with no ruling synod, in the midst of a secular, pluralistic society, with separation of church and state. There is simply ~no precedent~ for this, Father, in the history of the Church.

Please note that I have deliberately left Scripture in place as a source -- indeed, in this situation, the source -- of guiding principles. It seems to me that Acts 1 provides the paradigm we should be contemplating -- the synaxis of the apostles in the upper room, where they constituted themselves as a body. A start here would be for the bishops of SCOBA to constitute themselves as a synod -- or at least to open discussion about what such an action would mean if it were to be taken.

There can be no possible justification for the presence of numerous ruling bishops in the same territory. This situation is subversive of the very essence of the episcopacy. One flock, one shepherd, not many flocks, many shepherd -- unless, of course, we're saying that the Orthodox Church is not one body. But we profess that she is one body in every Liturgy we celebrate. We expect the Lord to bless us when we are not living the words we confess?


As someone wisely said: administrative and official recognition can only follow the recognition which the people have already achieved as members of the One Church.

Father, I don't understand what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that it's up to the sheep to lead, and the shepherds to follow, in the achievement of unity? That doesn't sound Orthodox, traditional or canonical to me.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I originally posted:


As someone wisely said: administrative and official recognition can only follow the recognition which the people have already achieved as members of the One Church.

And to this Alec Lowly asked:



Father, I don't understand what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that it's up to the sheep to lead, and the shepherds to follow, in the achievement of unity? That doesn't sound Orthodox, traditional or canonical to me.

Shepherds can lead as much as servants as masters. They indicate a proper direction but they also respond to the positive initiatives of the flock.

As of yet our human shepherds have not indicated to us one direction to unity and I think the reasons for this are clear, namely that there are still too many local/jurisdictional issues to deal with before really tackling the larger N American picture.

The one way this larger picture is currently being dealt with however is the increasing unity of mind shown by the faithful themselves.

If over-all unity of the N American church is something presently God pleasing then I would suggest that our shepherds will be able at some future time to build on what the faithful are already beginning to accomplish.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

I beg to differ with Mr. Lowly's historical assessment. Prior to 325, there were no councils, and there were often bitter conflicts within the faith over doctrine and practice. One cannot wait for an external authority to solve one's difficulties. We must first find the Bishop within.

[John Charmley]

I beg to differ with Mr. Lowly's historical assessment. Prior to 325, there were no councils, and there were often bitter conflicts within the faith over doctrine and practice. One cannot wait for an external authority to solve one's difficulties. We must first find the Bishop within.

And then get cooperation amongst the bishops without, perhaps? I am rather taken with Fr. Raphael's formulation; as anyone who has actually dealt with sheep knows, herding them is the sort of interactive process the Father describes, and both sides of the relationship develop an instinct which creates real cooperation. In our largely urban society we don't always pick up on the wisdom contained in the 'sheep/shepherd' imagery of the Bible.

The challenge of engaging with this secular, materialist western society is one we are clearly called to face, and Fr. Raphael is, of course, correct to see this as something to be dealt with at parochial level as local circumstances demand. What is Orthodox praxis and what is ethnic praxis has, in some ancient Orthodox cultures become so closely intertwined that making such a distinction perhaps makes little sense. In new worlds it may, in time and circumstances, come to be a question to which there will be as many answers as there are parishes, because in the Church there is neither Jew nor Gentile and we are all one in Him; we shall see how this works through, and with the Holy Ghost we know we have a constant inspiration, and with the Church, a rock against which hades will not prevail.

But at least some of what was being said earlier had to do with circumstances which might be described as 'Church planting'. Whatever so-called problems might arise with enthnicity, there comes with them the blessings of Orthodoxy. But what of areas, such as my own, where there is no immigrant community from which Orthodoxy spreads, and which acts as the seedbed for further plantings?

Some of my own comments on such matters as language and culture derive from this situation, which in many ways is more analogous to that of apostolic times - right down to letters to scattered local congregations where two or three gather together in His name, and where our bishop keeps in touch through that means because the mission field is so scattered. If, sometimes, I seem a little too keen on services in English and being able to appeal to an English community, it is perhaps for this reason.

When we get to the stage of having conflicting jurisdictions to worry about, that will be a good anxiety to have!


In Christ,

John

[Alec Lowly]

I beg to differ with Mr. Lowly's historical assessment. Prior to 325, there were no councils, and there were often bitter conflicts within the faith over doctrine and practice. One cannot wait for an external authority to solve one's difficulties. We must first find the Bishop within.

Acts 15 was not a council? If not, then what was it? And what, pray tell, Mr. Jones, do you mean by "the Bishop within"?

Cheers, A.L.

[Owen Jones]

No.

xxx xxx xxx

[Rick H.]

Dear Father, Alec, Owen, John, and All,

As evidenced by my last posting, I do allow some room for an aesthetic unity of sorts; however, ultimately, it is as His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America said last week in a news conference regarding the reception of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at the Ecumenical Patriarchate: "You cannot have a dialogue based on a romantic understanding of something; real dialogue must be based on real data. . . you have to have a realistic picture."

The Archbishop also shared two other things on this day that I think are helpful for us to remember, as we move forward here in order to fly above as much turbulence as possible, which is firstly, "Dialogue is a central way of promoting peace and understanding" and secondly, "A dialogue needs preparation and it needs following up--it is a constant activity."

So, as we consider a realistic picture as it relates to both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic conversation, as well as our dialogue at the present, I think we would all agree--and it is more than obvious--that it is a genuine unity and it is an organic unity that is desired (as opposed to an artificial or mere mechanical unity). But, possibly what is not as evident [as it begins to bring forth a secondary thesis of this thread] is the differentiation between a realism that "rejects an imaginative idealization," and one that "combines fantastic or dreamlike elements" with a realistic picture. And, it is precisely at this point that I would like to suggest [as we begin to both 'level-off' and move below the surface] that in order to have a 'realistic picture' and 'real data' as it relates to both an American, British, Australian, etc., and a global Orthodoxy, it is necessary to be able to juxtapose an empirical approach and a metaphysical approach as it relates to such wisdom-filled concepts as "The Bishop Within," or the two "I's" of Paul, or the priestly prayer of Christ in John 17. Especially, in the prayer of Christ in John 17 we can see the difference between an abstract utopia (as referred to by the Archbishop above as an unhelpful 'romantic understanding') and a concrete utopia as was the prayer of Christ (John 17:21) "that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us." Which takes us back once again to the Trinitarian thinking of Gregory, as was mentioned in an earlier post, to further illustrate the need for a 'truly' apophatic or supra-epistemological methodology as it relates to a state of being (in the shape of a mystical theology) which is manifested in the midst of both one's life in particular and in the community of the cross as a whole. Wherein, it also occurs to me to appeal to Francis Thompson's, The Hound of Heaven to further move this conversation forward as it relates to our thread; but, I think a transition is in order as it relates to the most recent postings (viz. the comments about the synergistic roles found within the Church and the local visible parishes).

In the article by Fr. Schmemmann [provided earlier], there is great insight and much of what has been presented recently in this thread is buttressed in the following:

"For the Church cannot be reduced to 'jurisdiction.' She is a living organism and her continuity is precisely that of life. The function of the Episcopate and of 'power' in general is to preserve, defend and express this continuity and fullness of life, but it is a function within and not above the Church. The ministry of power does not create the church but is created by God within the Church, which is ontologically prior to all functions, charisms and ministries."

Speaking also to the concept of an organic unity to be found within an Orthodox ecclesiology/polity, Fr. Schmemmann continues:

"The 'Church is in the Bishop' because the 'Bishop is in the Church,' in the organic unity with a particular body of church people."

And, granted for some, this is getting long here . . . but in order to complete this one thought unit I would like to offer a final transition by way of a contribution from the field of sociology that provides "a feast for thought" from my point of view as it relates to our question. In the following we read a summary of a work which speaks against a divisive particularism as well as dysfunctional particularistic attempts to create artificial communities. The original work is by Tonnies, "Gemeinshcaft und Gesellschaft" (Community and Society) and it is summarized (below) by Moltmann in his Christian Anthropology, "Man."

"Community and society are two opposed basic possibilities of human corporate life. The relationship of men to one another is either understood as a real organic life, and this is the nature of community; or it is understood as only an ideal and mechanical formation, and this is the concept of society. Community means a lasting and genuine corporate life, society only a transient and apparent one. Community is to be understood as a living organism, society as a rather mechanical aggregate of the total existing of men, as a man-made institution. In community men are bound together by a natural process; in society they are divided by their very nature. While in community men remain bound together in spite of their divisions, in society they are divided in spite of all their bonds that link them. Communities are original and primordial relationships of life, like marriage, family, or clan. Here man understands himself on the basis of his corporate life. Societies on the other hand are associations made for a purpose. They last only for a time . . .and are formed on the basis of services expected in return, and of personal advantage.

Although Tonnies only describes both forms alongside one another in order to distinguish them sociologically, the value he places on each of them is clear. Community is the original, and therefore also earlier, society the derived (contrived) and therefore later relationship. Society is always a product of the falling apart of the original community."

Grace and Peace,
Rick

Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.

[Owen Jones]

We must first find unity within ourselves.....Otherwise, it is just another corporate managerial theory, a la Peter Drucker.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Kris and Rick,





I very much agree with both of you on this issue. It is very difficult to distinguish between little "t" and big "T" traditions in North America. Despite the substantive unity in doctrine, the Orthodox of various jurisdisctions have developed different ways of expressing that doctrine, and the differences, I think, are more apparent in America than in any other part of the world.

At first, it would seem that, in order to have a unified Orthodox Church in North America, Americans must choose a unified way of being Orthodox, but I'm not convinced that is true. There are so many differences that Americans would have to choose between. Would the choirs sing in four-part harmony or monophonically? Would there be pews or would we all learn to stand through the services? What language would we use - Slavonic, Greek, Arabic, English? These truly are important differences, but I don't think that Americans should choose one tradition and lay aside the others. We have been able to maintain communion with each other despite these differences; I think that Americans can also become a unified jurisdiction with these differences.

I don't know; do you all think it would be too confusing for all these differences to exist in a single jurisdiction? It certainly would do away with some of the legalism in our Orthodox churches, wouldn't it?!

Jennifer

When I first began to look into Orthodoxy , I listened to a cassette tape of a conference address, where the speaker said that the First Century Christians, and all Orthodox since, took a part of their culture, and using it as they lived out their faith, transformed the world. I've often thought since listening to that message, "What is there that's distinctly Ametrican that the Orthodox Church can use to transform the United States.

Much has been said here on this forum about an "American Orthodox Church", and what jurisdictional stamp will be upon it. Much of which has been said because various ones have found that the parish of the Faith they've chosen, has decided to worship in a tongue foreign to them, for the sake of not losing their cultural identity. And so we've this conundrum: How do we keep the faith (that doesn't change), which so identified our "mother tongue", in a culture and tongue completely new? The point I think is missed, that it was not the culture which identified the Church, but the Church which gave the culture it's identity. For if I cannot hope to find my true self apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, how then can the Church of which I am a part, or the culture, in which the Church is the "salt of the earth" ?

[John Charmley]

The point I think is missed, that it was not the culture which identified the Church, but the Church which gave the culture it's identity. For if I cannot hope to find my true self apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, how then can the Church of which I am a part, or the culture, in which the Church is the "salt of the earth" ?

This is, indeed, the crucial point, and put in this insightful way it offers some pointers to possible answers.

We need to remember that the Church has always been a missionary church, and as we know from Acts 15 it has always had to deal with the problems with which we are dealing here - which should encourage us greatly.

We should recall the words of St, Peter as recorded in Acts 15

15:7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
15:8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
15:9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


A traditionalist in my own communion, I am all too aware of the danger of sounding like those Pharisees who 'rose up, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.' [Acts 15:5] We have been given in Acts 15 an example, and it seems sensible to take note of it. When we behave like those Pharisees we show a greater pride in our work and our 'ethnic tradition' than we do faith in the risen Lord.

If we can work our way through to adapting the example of the earliest church to our own situation, we shall have made some progress.


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father David

Perhaps we can look for those things which are good and true in the culture in which we find ourselves, and build on those.

St Paul didn't say to the Greeks...'You are a bunch of pagans with no redeeming features at all!', rather he started his mission by finding something commendable..'I see that you are a very devout people..'.

Maybe we need to be doing the same. Finding people and processes which are doing good and working with them.

It is easy for me to despair and be negative about my own society, but perhaps I would be doing better to be down in the town centre handing out soup with other Christians and non-Christians, and bearing witness and building Orthodoxy in that way. I say that to challenge myself.

There is a lot of good for us to build on, if we look for it.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

And Tony Blair said today that preaching (in England) should be in English. I wonder how that will go down in the Greek Cypriot parishes of England? After all, I remember being at one Greek church when Bishop Kallistos visited. The congregation was invited to go forward for a blessing. I heard one senior member of the parish committee mutter, 'I don't know what sort of blessing it will be - he's English.'

Andreas.

[John Charmley]

And Tony Blair said today that preaching (in England) should be in English. I wonder how that will go down in the Greek Cypriot parishes of England? After all, I remember being at one Greek church when Bishop Kallistos visited. The congregation was invited to go forward for a blessing. I heard one senior member of the parish committee mutter, 'I don't know what sort of blessing it will be - he's English.'

Andreas.


Dear Andreas,

Indeed! I am sure the spiritual ancestor of that 'senior member' was equally keen that converts should accept the whole of the Law of Moses - and if he had prevailed there might be no Greek speaking Christians - indeed, there might have been none at all! How fortunate, therefore, that St. Peter's advice prevailed.

It would be foolish to insist that in Greek-speaking communities services should be in any other language, and I doubt that even Mr. Blair meant that (although, of course, who can tell with him?). It would probably be equally foolish to think that one can spread the Faith in a foreign land speaking only in one's own tongue and insisting that ethnic practice and Orthodox praxis are one - Christian missionaries have not generally behaved so. And is anyone in any doubt that the Church is in a mission situation in the western world?

Peter's comments seem very pertinent, and I know he has given much thought to the problems of mission.

Those fortunate enough to be in Orthodox parishes can, as Fr. Raphael describes so well, work through their problems (if any) on these issues. For those not so placed, we do need to ensure we are mindful of the weight of the yoke - and of our own prideful natures.


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

I know that on my own pilgrimage one of the reasons I have not ended up in the Greek Church is that I was told by Greek Orthodox, with complete confusion on their faces, that I could not become Orthodox because I was not Greek.

As John intimates, this is rather ironic since the first Christians had similar conversations and said 'How can they become Christians, they are Greek!?'

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

When I first began to look into Orthodoxy , I listened to a cassette tape of a conference address, where the speaker said that the First Century Christians, and all Orthodox since, took a part of their culture, and using it as they lived out their faith, transformed the world. I've often thought since listening to that message, "What is there that's distinctly Ametrican that the Orthodox Church can use to transform the United States.


But I don't think the Church of that early time when the culture was basically Hellenic didn't ask what aspects of this culture to keep or reject. Rather people brought themselves as people and from their life within the Church it was gradually seen what is transformable & how.

Thus we are speaking of something which is first a new way of life which was taken up from within the Church. And from within this life it could gradually be perceived how this way of life related to that of a society which had not yet accepted the Church.

The two points to keep in mind here I think are that first the Church has tended to look at the question of how it relates to the surrounding culture in an ascetic and personal way.

Secondly the first writings referring to this question from within the Church come from the Apologists. Their specific purpose is not an apologia for the surrounding culture & not even that the Church deserves a place within the larger culture. Rather their appeal is that the Church is legitimately at the centre of that culture since anything good from that culture finds its fulfillment only within the Church.

In a real sense then the Apologists' message is maximalist in terms of the surrounding culture. Potentially in seed there is good to be found in the surrounding culture, but this is so only to the extent that those from within that culture enter the life of the Church & those seeds can grow.

What the Apologists leave out of their writings however, as this is not their main focus, is the transformative process of what happens to the person once they enter the Church. Here the person doesn't cease to be a Greek or Roman; but what these things mean are completely redefined.

(For a short exercise in the difference, for a few hours compare Suetonius' Twelve Caesars with Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Both are well educated from within a Hellenic/Roman perspective, both open-minded and tolerant of life. But the difference in tone, one pagan, the other Christian, is very striking.)

Thus I don't think that when we enter the Church we so much take part of our culture & use it as we enter the Church as what we are and then see this transformed and refined by the way of life we take up from within the Church.

Before we engage in this process we have little idea of what will come out from this way of life & what happens to the baggage we carry to the Church. In a way it's even dangerous to ask too much of this as our life is to be one mainly of dying to ourselves.

But I think as we go on we see what transformation means & of how the Old relates to the New. This could never have been planned beforehand without falling into something that would distort our spiritual life. But still we see that Christ doesn't destroy what we were- He indeed transforms it in unexpected ways.

If I could offer one thing here. I think that a lot of what culture is boils down to how we relate to the life we daily encounter. Culturally this varies according to certain values which in modern experience to a great extent is defined by the nation we live in. Each of us- Americans, English, Canadians, etc- learn certain national values on how to deal with life from our infancy.

Of course we bring these values when we enter the Church. An Orthodox parish which uses English in Canada is different from that of America or England. What's interesting is that even Russian or Greek parishes are also different from those of other countries.

But these values are transformed. It's not that the local identity disappears. But then again it usually is transformed to something distinct from the surrounding culture. In other words something distinct but new is created.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen,

What a beautiful quote/aspiration you have posted in your personal profile:

"Acquire the spirit of serenity and a thousand souls will be saved."

As a general rule, I am fully persuaded that 'a spirit of serenity' [shalom-shalom]which manifests itself/walks in 'a language of love' is a prerequisite for the Christian missionary and the Christian theologian. As Karl Barth has said, "Without love, theological work would be miserable polemics and a waste of words." As, I think back to some of the times when my theological modus operandi has been void of the above, I just shudder (so this speaks directly to me!).

I can also appreciate on a personal level what you have expressed in your last posting as it relates to "finding a unity within ourselves." I will confess to you that I struggle with this in my life knowing that the alternative is to move in the direction of a chaotic psychological state rendering myself vulnerable to the "demon of dejection" and a spirit of anxiety/distraction (as John Cassian describes it in his Institutes). Speaking of the "Good Doctor," I wonder if you have ever read any of Cassian's works? The abridged version in the Philokalia which contains Cassian's work On the Eight Vices: Written for Bishop Kastor was especially helpful to me.

Also, I think you have hit the nail right on the head in our present discussion as you introduce the concept of "corporate managerial theories." While I am not entirely sure that I know any corporate managerial theories myself, I think I know what you mean here as it relates to contrived systems which are meant to bring about change or renewal by means of a mechanical manipulation. If I am wrong about this, please correct me here.

And, as I think about this even further I am back to John Zizioulas once again. Maybe I should just get rid of all of my 'silent companions' except for my Zizioulas book? ;) Maybe not. :) But, as we consider an American Orthodoxy as it relates to a Global Orthodoxy--in light of your differentiation between the individual and the ecclesial--I would like to offer a passage by Zizioulas as at least fodder for our present topic. Whereby, in Zizioulas's writing I think we can see in the following, regardless of what age or geographic location the Church finds herself in in relation to a man, or the world, it is an existential necessity for a human being to take on God's "way of being/mode of existence:"

(***NOTE TO READER: It is helpful when reading this to know that Zizioulas has stated that God's 'way of being/mode of existence' is love; and, in this sense love ceases to be a qualifying--i.e. secondary--property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate, which constitutes his being. [BAC 46])

"The Church is not simply an institution. She is a 'mode of existence,' a way of being. The mystery of the Church, even in its institutional dimension, is deeply bound to the being of man, to the being of the world and to the very being of God. In virtue of this bond, so characteristic of patristic thought, ecclesiology assumes a marked importance, not only for all aspects of theology, but also for the existential needs of man in every age.

In the first place, ecclesial being is bound to the very being of God. From the fact that a human being is a member of the Church, he becomes an 'image of God,' he exists as God Himself exists, he takes on God's 'way of being.' This way of being is not a moral attainment, something that man accomplishes. It is a way of relationship with the world, with other people and with God, an event of communion, and that is why it cannot be realized as the achievement of an individual, but only as an ecclesial fact.

However, for the Church to present this way of existence, she must herself be an image of the way in which God exists. Her entire structure, her ministries etc. must express this way of existence. And that means, above all else, that the Church must have a right faith, a correct vision with respect to the being of God. Orthodoxy concerning the being of God is not a luxury for the Church and for man: it is an existential necessity."

In Christ's Love,
Rick

"In the End, the Beginning"

[Father David Moser]

Dear Father David

Perhaps we can look for those things which are good and true in the culture in which we find ourselves, and build on those...

Since I have not yet made any comment in this discussion, I wonder what it is that Peter is referring to that he feels a need to address his comments to me? I have purposefully kept myself out of this conversation because, although, I have certain strong feelings about the topic, it has been my experience that the discussion has relatively little benefit to my spiritual life. I am one of those who has chosen to work out my salvation within the Russian Church and thus have made certain adaptations. I am not really a Russophile by any real stretch of the imagination (I don't even speak Russian), its just that the Russian style speaks to my soul more than the Byzantine traditions. One of the things that helps, I think, is that the Russian Church in North America is essentially an organic missionary outreach. No matter how much that missionary emphasis has been diluted by the waves of immigrants and refugees, it is still there. In my experience, the Russian Church has made the greatest effort to embrace as much American "culture" as is possible and yet remain Orthodox. But all of this is simply my opinion and my experience so there is nothing to discuss - it's simply a reporting of what has happened to me.

One thing I have noticed as a convert clergyman with children who are "cradle" Orthodox is that there is a very different spiritual culture in the souls of those born and raised in the Orthodox faith. My children, although they grew up in my household and learned and experienced Orthodoxy from my hands (both as a father and as their priest) experience the faith in a much deeper, much more organic way than I ever will. Many things that for me are still intellectual exericises and the result of rational informed decisions are for them as natural as breathing. Before an "American Orthodoxy" can take shape we have to have a few generations of devout Orthodox children who are fully "American" (not Greek-American or Russian-American or any other hyphenated cultural thing). Not me or even my children, but perhaps their children and grand children can begin to bring form to an "American" Orthodox Church. We Americans are always in such a rush - but this takes time, it takes generations of Orthodox Americans in order to even begin to see what an "American Orthodox" Church will look like.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

My mistake. I was reading but had mis-remembered who I was responding to when I posted the reply.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

I suppose I copped out by moving to Essex, but I'm sorry to say I just couldn't stand parishes any more. As much my shortcoming as anyone's, I suppose. As to Fr David's point about converts and cradle Orthodox [will someone tell me how you do quotes from other posts?] I found it made a difference that I wasn't a convert because I wasn't anything before I became Orthodox. Not that I claim thereby any particular advantage spiritually - God help me, I'm negligent, the weakest of men and the worst of sinners. But I didn't have any baggage, and some say that I was lucky in that regard. Sorry - doesn't advance the discussion, does it?

In Christ,

Andreas.

[John Charmley]

Before an "American Orthodoxy" can take shape we have to have a few generations of devout Orthodox children who are fully "American" (not Greek-American or Russian-American or any other hyphenated cultural thing). Not me or even my children, but perhaps their children and grand children can begin to bring form to an "American" Orthodox Church. We Americans are always in such a rush - but this takes time, it takes generations of Orthodox Americans in order to even begin to see what an "American Orthodox" Church will look like.

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David/Peter,

What a very fortunate mistake of Peter's. It has produced this gem. This is surely how an American Orthodoxy is formed? It was certainly how Greek and Russian Orthodoxy were formed.

Sometimes we just need to press the wrong button to get the right answer!

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Sometimes we just need to press the wrong button to get the right answer!



Very good John[!] :) . . . Henny Youngman [or at least Jack Handy] would be proud :) Possibly, as I have been called "the Bob Hope [or the Monty Python] of Golf" in the past, you can earn the title, "King of the one-liners." :)

Dear Fr. David,

Yes, I too consider your entrance into the conversation to be 'a very fortunate mistake,' as John has said, or maybe you remember the late painter, that had a show on PBS, named Bob Ross who was in the habit of referring to his mis-strokes as " happy little mistakes." :)


I have purposefully kept myself out of this conversation because, although, I have certain strong feelings about the topic, it has been my experience that the discussion has relatively little benefit to my spiritual life.

Hopefully, your past experience will not hold true as this discussion unfolds in the future, and God willing, you will choose to enter it, and share some of your feelings, as we bring-out on to the table for consideration the overlap/harmony to be found in Orthodox theology viz. Ecclesiology and Christology--as it relates to the initial question, "Is there an American Orthodoxy?". And, then from there a multi-faceted transcending of compartmentalized sections of theological science in a consideration of a Christological/Pneumatology or a Pneumatological/Christology as it relates to one's own spiritual life and one's own hope of becoming an authentic person.


Joy and Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Thus I don't think that when we enter the Church we so much take part of our culture & use it as we enter the Church as what we are and then see this transformed and refined by the way of life we take up from within the Church.

Before we engage in this process we have little idea of what will come out from this way of life & what happens to the baggage we carry to the Church. In a way it's even dangerous to ask too much of this as our life is to be one mainly of dying to ourselves.

But I think as we go on we see what transformation means & of how the Old relates to the New. This could never have been planned beforehand without falling into something that would distort our spiritual life. But still we see that Christ doesn't destroy what we were- He indeed transforms it in unexpected ways.
If I could offer one thing here. I think that a lot of what culture is boils down to how we relate to the life we daily encounter. Culturally this varies according to certain values which in modern experience to a great extent is defined by the nation we live in. Each of us- Americans, English, Canadians, etc- learn certain national values on how to deal with life from our infancy.

Of course we bring these values when we enter the Church. An Orthodox parish which uses English in Canada is different from that of America or England. What's interesting is that even Russian or Greek parishes are also different from those of other countries.

But these values are transformed. It's not that the local identity disappears. But then again it usually is transformed to something distinct from the surrounding culture. In other words something distinct but new is created.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


[bold face font and underlining mine]
Thank you for this gift Father. You are a blessing to me.

Rick
('The servant of God'--Paul)

[Robert Hegwood]

If I may I would like to respond from the perspective of a convert of traditionalist sympathies in the Russian tradition maintained in the OCA.

It cannot be denied that for many converts our conversion involved and involves not a little romance. We get misty-eyed when we read of devout peasants in little mountianside villiages living a life so shaped and permiated with Orthodoxy that we can practically hear the distant clank and tingle of cow bell as the herd returns from grazing all day in lush pastures while reciting the Jesus prayer to produce milk as rich and nourishing as the sage council of a venerable saretz...of which the villiage possesses three, five counting the two aged monks that grace the little monastery just above the meadow where the lupine blooms in and out of season. This is just the villige where every beloved elder and almost every would be holy fool got their start, the villiage where the very best boys and girls grow up to be priests, monks, and nuns, and the rest live lives so holy, so naturally monastic that only on the Holy Mountian might you find a community more fully invested in living the faith in its fullness. And we sigh.

We read the Russians practically made a religion out of bell ringing and look mournfully on our own bells...which we got because we are Orthodox and must have them...but they didn't come with instructions, so we bang out nine tolls here and a tippity tappity tap there...hoping we did it right, but knowing there is so much more we are ignorant of.

We want to visit monasteries, but there are so few and so far away. Not that we would seriously suggest that the young men and women we know hang up a potential carreer to go become monastics.

We want the organic rhythm and unity of an Orthodox villiage but we live scattered a dozen different ways from everyone else. Our parish has relatively little to do with where we live...it only has to be in reasonable driving distance. And for some of us reasonable can mean anything less than 100 miles.

We want to fast but it cost us more to keep its letter than its spirit...vegan chicken nuggets anyone...a pat of margine with that...some nondairy creamer for that coffee?

The truth is we want a connection, however tenuius to that fuller richer "real" Orthodoxy that we see in our books and long for in our hearts. We don't feel quite real yet, not to ourselves. We are committed to the Orthodox faith, but still just dabblers for the most part. At least this is how it seems to me.

The new thing that Orthodoxy has to find a way to transform or baptize about us is our deep seperation from each other...our fracturedness. In the Old World people lived in communities, and those communities functioned more or less organically as a whole regardless of the faith held by its members. But we don't live in communities anymore. We are nodes in a series of interconnected networks. We have become not only rootless but soilless. Even our Jurisdictions are just extended networks that are not really tied to any place smaller than a continent.

That is our social reality and it strikes me as very different from any millieu that Orthodoxy...or any doxy has had to deal with to date. And as much as I dream of what it might have been like learning to read from copying Akathists and babysitting little children that refused their mothers' breast on Wed. and Fridays that is not the world I live in. Yet there are things in that life that I miss not having as an American Orthodox Christian...at least in the part of America that I live in...maybe in Alaska and a few pristine vales of Pennsylvannia it's different.

So what are we to do? What is our path forward should the Lord tarry much longer. I don't know, but it is going to have to involve some kind of Orthodox transformation of nodal existance...maybe via monasteries (may it please God to give us many more), maybe via a reenvisioning of some aspects of parish life.

In the meantime someone needs to teach me better how to ring the bells.

[Tanya Hoadley]

Greetings to All,

Question: I was baptized in the Church in infancy; I was born and raised in the US. If there is no American Orthodoxy, then what am I?

In Christ,
Tanya

[John Charmley]

Greetings to All,

Question: I was baptized in the Church in infancy; I was born and raised in the US. If there is no American Orthodoxy, then what am I?

In Christ,
Tanya

Dear Tanya,

You are, thank the Lord, exactly what Fr. David described - the future of Orthodoxy in the USA. Sometimes we are all too busy swimming for survival to see much of the river in which we are immersed, but as it flows on and catches up more of us, it changes even as it remains the same - so too with the Church.

I enjoyed Seraphim98's rural rhapsody, it spoke to my own Anglican longings for a better age when Church and State were one, and when everyone went to Church on Sunday; but my historian's training tells me it was probably rather different to my imaginings, and that the spectacles I use are tinted with rose. The 'rootlessness and soullessness' about which he wrote so movingly, have been the lot of people in many parts of Britain since the early nineteenth century, and during that period the Church of England and other Protestant denominations did a great job of creating communities in the new, large and alienating urban centres; perhaps, as ever, we have something to learn form the past - and if Orthodoxy is inexperienced in dealing with such situations (I can't think it is) then other Christians can provide examples.

A Church that minstered to two of the greatest cities in the world in Patristic times, Constantinople and Alexandria, and which descends directly from the very Apostles who spread that word, has within itself and in the Comforter, the answer to Seraphim's questions.

It is sometimes a comfort to recall that there was a time when all the Christians in the world could fit into an upper room in Jesusalem. It was a wonderful community, but even there one would betray the Lord. The Apostles were not commanded to stay in their rural Palestinian idylls (if such they were) but to spread the word of God to all men. In so doing, new communities were created. That remains our calling.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Greetings to All,

Question: I was baptized in the Church in infancy; I was born and raised in the US. If there is no American Orthodoxy, then what am I?

In Christ,
Tanya

Dear Tanya,

Once again, it seems as though the shortest of postings offers the most fertile soil. Thank you. I appreciate your clear-headed and 'realistic' thinking very much which is in the present tense--I was hoping that someone would move in this direction and provide a meeting place for the 'systematic theologian' and the 'historian' in this conversation. As John Meyendorff has very well said:

"This dichotomy is particularly dangerous for Orthodox theology, which simply ceases to be Orthodox if it either neglects Tradition, uncovered in history, or forgets the truth, which is its raison d' etre."

Whereby, I would like to take this opportunity to answer your question as directly as you have asked it, and then follow this up with a possibly provocative assertion, for some, and another question in order to hopefully move this dialogue forward.

Firstly, it is as Father Metrakos has said in his article referenced in the initial posting in this thread:

"There is an American Orthodoxy," and you are American Orthodox.


Secondly:

1.) 'If' there is no such thing as American Orthodoxy 'then' there is no such thing as Eastern Orthodoxy.


2.) Knowing there is an American Orthodoxy, the question now becomes: Are there American Orthodox churches?


In Christ,

Rick
(Your fellow American Orthodox friend)

Christianusmus Renesans!

[Tanya Hoadley]

Dear Rick,

Perhaps I am being simplistic, but if there is an American Bishop, American priests and American laity, all on American soil, then doesn't it follow that these are American Orthodox Churches?

Again, if not, then what are they?

I have thought much about the unusual situation in America with multiple juristictions and multiple bishops in the same city. I found it perplexing. Then I thought about how America came to be what it is today.

It is the 'great melting pot', people from different backgrounds, cultures and perspectives coming together in one place.

Perhaps God's plan for His Church in America follows a similar pattern and we are just waiting on the Lord to stir the pot.

In Christ,
Tanya

[Paul Cowan]

Hi Tanya:
As a chef at Casa de Paul, I appreciate the stirring the pot analogy. This Great Melting Pot will lead to the destruction of USA due to the many peoples being all separate entities unto themselves. Just as water and oil do not mix, neither does the multiFaith caqumire we find ourselves in now. I may be wrong, but there are some 2000+ groups calling themselves Christians in America, not to mention the hundreds of nonChristian Faiths in this country. How is the Lord to stir this huge pot of differences?

Until the cook can break down the molecular structure of the cell walls when cooking as by whipping very fast the water and oil to form an emmulsion (or a joining of the molecules) I fear there is never to be a unifying Faith in America. Not only the multi Faiths we come face to face with each day, even in my own office, but even within the many ethnic jurisdictions of Orthodoxy. Rome was the first among equals way back when. Only because it was, bigger?

Is this the standard we should use to come under a single American Orthodox jurisidiction? I ask this for further discussion and not as a point of contention. Should we follow the Russians who settled Orthodoxy in USA? Should we pick the Greeks since more people have heard of Greek Orthodox? Will the MANY ethnic jurisdictions and countries represented in my own city ever come together and say, We are American Orthodox! or will the Serbs stay Serbs and the Greeks stay Greek and the Syrians stay Syrian etc...

How can the nonChristian community who has seen so much violence and bickering and hypocricy coming from the so called Christians ever support or believe in the American Orthodox church when we can't unify ourselves.

I am not complaining. I am yearning for this country and ALL its Pan Orthodox communities to become autocephalous (did I misspell or misuse that word?) I found Orhtodoxy because I have been searching for the True Faith for years. If this is (and it is) the first church and God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then can we not put away our ethnic identities and become one with the country we have all chosen to migrate to?

The only other choice I see is to ask those that do not want to join a single American Orthodox identity to go back to your country of origin and participate in the identity of your homeland. We are not Jew, or Greek or slave or free. We are all one in Christ. Let's make the decision and just do this.

Outspoken with respect,
Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As an Englishman I have contributed with more than usual trepidation to this thread, but only because I think the discussion has a universal aspect.

In almost every way I can think of, the fact that this discussion can happen and is necessary is a blessing - it shows that the Church is extending its reach.

In every age when this has happened (as Acts 15 shows) there has been debate between those already in the Church and comfortable with the synchonicities between ethnicity and Orthodoxy, and those who wish to go out and bring in the Gentiles. For far too long the Orthodox Church has been forced into a defensive posture.

The Islamic invasions destroyed much of the Church in the ancient centres of the East, before finally overwhelming Constantinople itself in 1453; for the next four hundred years most of the Orthodox lands in the Balkans were under Islamic rule. Only in Holy Mother Russia was Orthodoxy free to spread the word, but Russia was never in a situation where that word went westward, until the emigration of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries brought it, surely providentially, to the New World. Then, for most of the twentieth century, Russia itself was officially and aggressively atheist.

Perhaps in this defensive posture the habits of a missionary Church were not easily kept or practised, and it was enough, and so hard at that, to keep the Faith undefiled against such waves of persecution.

Now that time has passed for Orthodoxy. Although in the Islamic lands there is still persecution, Orthodoxy flourishes in lands where it is new, and even where the shadow of the Crescent lies heavily, there is a blessed renewal of confidence.

Rejoice in the blessings of the Holy Ghost. Christ is Risen indeed, and His Church can, and must, go forward in societies where, for long ages, the fulness of the Christian message has not been heard. Places like the UK are virtually post-Christian, and on your own continent there are millions of Christians whose views are not Orthodox, but who believe and can be helped to a fuller belief.

And so what if, at this stage of development, we discuss problems of jurisdictions and ethnicity and language? Isn't it just wonderful that growth brings these problems in its train?

Can the Orthodox Church move from its long, and necessary defensive posture, to carry out the commission it was given by its Founder - to spread the Good News? Such language has, in the US and the UK, traditionally been annexed by Protestant Evangelicals, but it is the language of Our Lord and Saviour, in whose name we are called to act.

Sometimes, it can almost seem as though some Orthodox resent expansion because it makes their 'club' less cosy, and we hear language about the 'pearl of great price' not being sullied. We should remember, with thankfulness, that the Apostles did not speak or act so, and nor must we.

I am filled with wonder and thankfulness as I think I see, in historical perspective, the Church move from the defensive to a position from which it can spread the Word. The question remains - will it? Or rather, do we, as Christians, have the courage to respond to the challenges of this age?

In Christ,

John

[Owen Jones]

A good place to start would be for the local Orthodox parish to help the poor, the sick, the homeless. And, yes, to proselytize. Not in the heavy-handed, indeed, ham-handed way of television evangelists. But in an Orthodox way. A good place to start would be college campuses. And there has been an enormous outpouring of translations of patristic texts in the last thirty to forty years. Send them to people....Let people know of this vast storehouse of spiritual knowledge -- people who are yearning and searching and end up in cults, or thinking they have found it in nature religions, or some kind of primitive paganism. There are far more people in new age cults in America than there are in anything remotely orthodox Christian. But at least they are seeking SOMETHING! But they are ignorant and have never been exposed to an alternative.

[Rick H.]

Dear Rick,

Perhaps I am being simplistic, but if there is an American Bishop, American priests and American laity, all on American soil, then doesn't it follow that these are American Orthodox Churches?

Again, if not, then what are they?

I have thought much about the unusual situation in America with multiple juristictions and multiple bishops in the same city. I found it perplexing. Then I thought about how America came to be what it is today.

It is the 'great melting pot', people from different backgrounds, cultures and perspectives coming together in one place.

Perhaps God's plan for His Church in America follows a similar pattern and we are just waiting on the Lord to stir the pot.

In Christ,
Tanya


Perhaps I am being simplistic, but if there is an American Bishop, American priests and American laity, all on American soil, then doesn't it follow that these are American Orthodox Churches?

Again, if not, then what are they?

Dear Tanya,

I think your logic is sound here as long as we subscribe to the little formula: "A is A" and if you have A, it is not non-A; however, as a counter-point please allow me to say, as has been said, that sometimes in conversations like these "A = A is a dead logic and consequently a denial of being which is life." And, in an attempt to provide an answer, please permit me to provide another example (as just food for thought) of a sound logic that does not really provide a clear picture of a given situation. Specifically, I am speaking of a time before the first shot was fired in the American Revolution--a time when American soil was considered English soil. If we could think back for a moment to this time in history after the British colonization of the Americas (which made the colonies along the east coast of North America part of the Kingdom of Great Britain) then could we not use the same line of reasoning[?] and say:

1.) "Since there were British troops, British Governors, and British citizens, all on British soil, then doesn't it follow that these were British Colonies?"

2.) "Again, if not, then what were they?"

Well, the answer to question #1 is that it does follow that they were British Colonies, but one who was familiar with the day-to-day life, and the state of being, of these British Colonies back then may have been tempted to say (if there were no 'redcoats' around) the true answer is yes and no.

Regarding question #2, I think this is very much parallel to the initial question(s) raised in association with Father Metrakos's article [as it relates to this analogy] which would bring about a consideration of the "viability" and "degree of connectedness" of the 'British government' in America--as well as the question of the validity of a British government' in America. Here we see, in fact, regarding their viability, the Kingdom of England was not capable of normal growth and development and (not coincidently) there was a very low degree of connectedness. In name they were British Colonies but in reality they were dysfunctional societies--in theory they were British Colonies but in practice they were not British Colonies.



I have thought much about the unusual situation in America with multiple jurisdictions and multiple bishops in the same city. I found it perplexing. Then I thought about how America came to be what it is today. It is the 'great melting pot', people from different backgrounds, cultures and perspectives coming together in one place.

I appreciate what you are pointing to in terms of America as a melting pot as it relates to our discussion. I also feel that there is much value in a consideration of ". . . how America came to be what it is today" specifically as it relates again to the time right after America gained her independence,and the origination of a nation (even before we became a melting pot). Even more than 'backgrounds' and 'cultures' in this sense, in future discussions, I would like to point to the modern thinking that is evident from the time of the writing of the Constitution forward. Here, in a look at the history and development of the diverse American Colonies we can see some of the initial incubation or beginnings of what has come to be know as post-modernism (which I feel provides a much stronger common denominator and a fuller explanation of what is happening now with the Church in America as it relates to both the spirit of humanism and the question of authority).



Perhaps God's plan for His Church in America follows a similar pattern and we are just waiting on the Lord to stir the pot.

Could it also be that in spite of the lack of humility and repentance by the bourgeois Christians of the past Century, God in his sovereignty has determined to bring today (as He has in the past) a correction through an unlikely source (viz. a postmodern epistemology)?

Thanks again Tanya.

Peace,
Rick

Ex tenebris lux

[Marie-Duquette]

R.R. Henry, and responders to this enlightening thread.

"From the darkness LIGHT!" So, TRUE!

Do we all believe this: that from the Darkness comes Light? I heard a long, long time ago the saying: "Only those who walk at night see the stars!

Even if we walk in this valley oif darkness that is the American soil, in this day and age, the Light of Christ is about to be revealed again at the end of this "waiting period of Advent" Maranatha! The Lord comes! The Lord is coming! He comes today, as He did long ago, and He ever comes, doesn't He?

So, are we newly awaiting His coming? as did Mary and Joseph, as pilgrims, outcasts, and the poor of this Earth.

If it were my decision, American Orthodoxy would be out of the picture! The Orthodx Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Aportolic as it is, according to the Nicene Creed. So why belabor the point of trying to build an American Orthodoxy? in American, those of us who are Orthodox, are called a-new to "CONVERT". All of us! Cradle Orthodox as well as New Orthodox. New Wine as a new coming of Christ needs new wine skins, new vessels, purified and seeking, and emptied of All else that is not God Emmanuel, who is God among us!

So, let us look up! not around, under, over and beyond! look up with a deepening FAITH into the darkening skies finding the Star that leads to Christ born in a Manger in Bethlehem (House of Bread) He is our ALL! in All! Seek Him with simple, pure and loving hearts! Each day preparing the Way of the Lord in our World, in our Church, in our families, in our own personal life.

marie_duquette

[Rick H.]

As an Englishman I have contributed with more than usual trepidation to this thread, but only because I think the discussion has a universal aspect.

In almost every way I can think of, the fact that this discussion can happen and is necessary is a blessing - it shows that the Church is extending its reach . . .



John--Yes, I agree on both counts. Thanks for this posting it is helpful to me--Rick

[Sunny]

Dear Father David, bless,
You mentioned a few posts back that you are Russian Orthodox. Does this mean that you are part of the OCA?
Mr. Hegwood,
Your #60 post was beautifully written IMHO. I too have read longingly about those holy saints that were raised from childhood immersed in Orthodox teachings and the Bible and protected from exposure to godless society. I wonder if there is any hope for more saints to be raised up because there are so few places where secular beliefs have not infiltrated and contaminated society.
Sue

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The Orthodox Church is now here in the west - where it has not been prevalent for a millennium. The process of producing a complete Bible in English for the Orthodox has not yet (I think) been completed. Orthodoxy is still most often found in diaspora ethnic communities, which understandably attach vast importance to maintaining their ethnic traditions - which for Greeks and Russians are so permeated with Orthodoxy as to be inseparable. Such is the way of the Holy Ghost that these diaspora communities find themselves with English-speaking peoples of diverse ethnicities turning up wanting to know more about Orthodoxy and even to become Orthodox. It is not altogether surprising that such communities sometimes react like the earliest Christians in Jerusalem, and insist that the newcomers adapt to their ways; nor that the newcomers can seem rather arrogant when they wish to adapt Orthodoxy to their own ethnicity. But we must remember that these things have always happened - when the Faith has been spreading; indeed, as I commented earlier, it is a sign for rejoicing when we see this happening.

On all sides a little Christian humility and a reference to the practice of the early Church will help matters along, but only time and the Holy Ghost will see us all through to a stage where there really is an American Orthodoxy.

I remain admiring of the progress being made in the USA. There is sometimes an almost quasi-gnostic response to evangelisation, as though the Good News was for the elect and not for the many. That was not what Our Incarnate Lord proclaimed, nor has it been what Orthodoxy has preached in His Holy Name.

The process whereby sinful mankind is brought into the fold is bound to involve trouble with sheep who think they should be elsewhere, and who, even when in the fold, snap at other sheep who get too close. That is why we need a Good Shepherd.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Thank you very much for your contributions to this dialogue. From my point of view it is a true blessing. In some ways I feel like we are getting a very realistic picture and a 'genuine' taste of the original "community of the cross." I feel that in this thread we have Peters and Pauls, and Marys and Marthas, and even a John. I also appreciate the fact that for the most part this has evolved into a dialogue and not a monologue or a collection of monologues.

In many aspects I think we are well on our way in this journey, and in many ways we have covered a lot of ground in a short time. However, I think there is still a hinderance present here in the form of a fog or a cloud bank surrounding the area of what is really meant (ontologically) by a reference to an American Orthodoxy (or for that matter to a British Orthodoxy, or even to an Eastern Orthodoxy) as it relates to universal forms and particulars, and the thinking of some of the men who have been brought into the discussion here in this thread (viz. Frs. Zizioulas, Schmemman, Meyendorff, and others). But, some things do have to be discovered for one's own self--in due time and in season--in order to be truly seen and 'grasped' --and as I know from personal experience in my own life, this is not always a quick process or a painless process. It is, in fact, as I think John has been sharing, if there are no growing pains that means the body has become stunted and is not growing and developing properly so growing pains are a normal and proper thing and in this sense a good thing. But, again, as I also know from my own experience, at times a quick process of discovery will only serve to overturn one's applecart, so ultimately we are to just betach (safely trust) in the Lord, and rest in Him, and patiently persevere.

Defining terms is not always a quick process but it is crucial, and it is not always clear whether one should attempt to fly above or below the clouds at times; however, I think it is again a matter of trust and surrender in the end.

But, to move now in the direction of a biblical approach, I am seeing references by several of the people participating here to Acts 15. And, I think this is a good starting place which is relevant to our discussion but I wonder if anyone has considered The Book of Galatians as it relates to Acts 15. I am not seeing much expository work going on here at Monachos. I see many references/addresses being used as proof texts for what is being presented but not much exposition. Specifically, in our thread the Acts 15 reference is cited as being support for a method/norm or possibly for the apostolic position of the Church. But, I think Paul's letter to the Galatian's is also an appropriate point of consideration as it relates to our topic. From even a method of 'lower criticism' there are definitely hermeneutical and bibliological dimensions to this comparison of the two Paul's (both in tone and conclusions) of Galatians and Acts [as recorded by Luke], and hopefully we won't get sidetracked on these dimensions or move anywhere near a method which would employ a 'higher criticism'; however, I wonder if anyone would care to read the short book of Galatians and compare and contrast this to what Paul and the others have concluded in Acts 15?

Grace and Peace,
Rick

[Robert Hegwood]

After thinking a bit more on our situation in US it seems we have three core challenges: 1. Lack of administrative unity, and thus lack common vision and of unified witness. 2. Pervasive nominalism concerning the faith in too many quarters. 3. Thinly spead...like a single pat of butter on a whole loaf of bread.

The first relates both to jurisdictional overlap and culture clubbing...but then again maybe our culture needs a little clubbing. This is perhaps the easiest to fix formally but one of the hardest to fix pragmatically. In theory we could step back to the canonical situation as it existed before communism and bring our administrative units/episcopacies together in a common synod and sort the details of who governs what dioceses from there. But that actually scares me a little. My parish has Russian roots (OCA) and customs rooted in that tradition. I don't want to find myself under a cleanshaven hierarch from another former jurisdiction that pushes pews and organs and other westernizations...indeed I would be happy if we had scads of fluffy faced heirarchs who encourged scarves/hats for women, open floors, and had the cogregation stand the old way with men on one side and women on the other...naturally these heirarchs would live worthily of their beards and be holy as well. On the otherhand it seems proper that the congregation sings along with the choir and that seems to be an American development away from the strict Russian tradition but in keeping with other Orthrodox expressions. But I suppose the greater synods can work out ways...perhaps via regional synods to both serve and protect expressions of custom and heritage that vary from parish to parish. And perhaps we may have to come to a kind of quartodecinian compromise. Establish a common vision/piety for going forward on the broad front but grandfather out certian ethnic distinctive practices/languages over the course of a couple of generations. For example we could develop a common Scripture translation, common liturgical translation, a range of acceptable parish pieties (congregational singing, blessed bread and wine after the Eucharist, bell rubrics, pews/no pews etc.), to name a few.

All of these are well and good if we can do them but they are meaningless apart from attention to the no. 2 problem, nominalism. This in some respects is a craddle/convert issue. Converts don't always know what a genuine deep rooted Orthodox piety looks and sounds like and go tromping like a bull in a china shop to try and out orthodox the orthodox. But it cannot be denied that there are far too many in our parishes whose only connection to the faith day to day is at the cultural/heritage level. They wouldn't know a fasting season from Nascar Sunday. Lent is the fluffy stuff in the dyer vent right? I've met some who weren't even sure if Jesus is God (a curable condition)...but the point is they are only aware of the Christian faith at a very superficial level....which is dangerous in our world for that's how we lose the coming generation who are not really raised in the Church, among other things. And this is where our fractured American way of life hurts us badly...where our nodalism runs in such strong counter current to "traditional" Orthodox patterns of life. It keeps us out of community and thus out of the very support structures that keep us living and nourished in the faith as families even if individuals fail to try and live their faith.

It might well be that monastacism as it is shaping up in America might hold a key to reverse this trend. In the US monasteries are places laity goes to forge deeper connections with the faith before going back to their normal lives. They are places of respite and spiritual hospitality. While it is nice to dream of an American Athos/Valaam or two we might be better served to think in terms of holy Holiday Inns in the interim. Our own supernodes as it were seeded across the continent to serve and root the faith across the breadth of the land...at least one or two per state/province, if not more. And if they were seeded in large part by bringing over select monks and nuns from the "old countries" so much the better...a few scions of Mt. Athos, Siahastra, Valaam, and Mt. Sinai among others would be quite welcome. Each diocese ought to have at least two reasonablly sized monasteries (men's and women's) in its borders in addition to any other smaller ones it might have. And honestly, I don't think it would hurt if we encouraged our young people to spend at least 3 or 4 months at one at some point in their lives, if not a year or more...hey if Mormons can demand a year or two of the lives of their young men...given our day and time maybe its not too much to ask our youth to invest a little of their lives in their faith as well....just a thought.

At any rate increasing the number of monasteries would increase the opportunity for Orthodox Christians to be "rooted" in the faith not just in relation to their parish...which too often can be a cultural ghetto, but to the deeper aspects of their faith, things they can bring home with them....sort of a desert/oasis ecosphere approch. As the super nodes grow the community...increasing the nutrient base for new life to expand from the desert shrinks a little...and in time the life generated by the nodes meets up to form a pasture...a prarie (or prayery if you prefer) where all God's little sheep can graze. Then as that job is done the better rooted and established of the monasteries can work on deepening their own lives as monasteries until we have at least a few that can stand in the same company as the great monasteries of the old world...and produce our own Xenia's and Seraphim's and others of that caliber, God willing.

Our day to day lives in the western world are hurt by our disconnectedness. A mutual connection to the rooted lives of monasteries though can ameliorate that to a certain extent. still, we don't have nearly enough of them yet. But if our heirarchs press for it, and bring over some key monastics from abroad we will see this or something much like it. If our heirarchs don't, I rather suspect in the comming generation we shall see more monasteries grow on the model of Platina. Two or three young men or woman who want that life and band together to learn it and become as much as possible the sons and daughters of the saints they've read of and admire...they might even import their own abbas an ammas.

I say this because of what I see in the young catechumens in our parish...there is a genuine longing for some connection to monastic life. In some it is strong enough it may eventually turn into a monastic vocation. What is true here must be true elsewhere...people are still people. A recent example is that Punks to Monks group last decade that ended up on Spruce Island. Such things may never be a flood tide...but I would be very surprised if we don't see more of them popping up here and there in the next twenty or thirty years.

Well enough of my blattering and dreaming.

[John Charmley]

however, I wonder if anyone would care to read the short book of Galatians and compare and contrast this to what Paul and the others have concluded in Acts 15?

Grace and Peace,
Rick

Dear Rick (if I may),

You have summarised things in an excellent fashion, and this is, I think, a real dialogue in which we are trying to help each other explore ways forward. I found Seraphim98's last post very helpful, and if he would care to do some more dreaming, I am sure I won't be the only one who would positively welcome such 'blather'; he has actually moved us forward very helpfully.

You direct our thoughts towards Galatians, which does, indeed, speak to us in our situation; it would be very good if one of our Orthodox priests might guide us here.

Shaff's History of the Church has an apposite comment when dealing with Paul's work:


Where-ever there is life and motion in a denomination or
sect, there will be at least two tendencies of thought and action—whether
they be called old and new school, or high church and low church, or by
any other party name. In like manner there is no free government without
parties. It is only stagnant waters that never run and overflow, and corpses
that never move.
History of the Christian Church vol. I p. 279.
If this perception applies also to Orthodoxy, we can see that the waters are far from stagnant, and the movement shows signs of new growth; these bring with them problems - but perhaps a better sort of problem than the ones I am used to in Anglicanism?

When Paul says in Galatians 5: 4-5 that

4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

he seems to challenge all those of us who are of a traditionalist bent to consider whether our thoughts are of Christ or of our own devising. In turn, such folk considered him a dangerous radical. He responds with something such people considered even more dangerous and radical [Galatians 5: 14-15]:

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
All of this, of course, takes us to Acts 15, because the Pharisees were not convinced, even though Paul spoke as an Apostle.

I feel uneasy even expounding this limited distance on an Orthodox site, since my theological background in Anglican, and whilst Lightfoot and Paley are great names in my tradition, they were not Orthodox, and since my views on Galatians were formed by their works, I shall stop there lest I should cause offence - which is not my desire.

I hope, however, this moves us a little way forward - and my sincere apologies for citing Anglican divines to anyone who takes it amiss.

In Christ,

John

[Father David Moser]

Dear Father David, bless,
You mentioned a few posts back that you are Russian Orthodox. Does this mean that you are part of the OCA?


I am an archpriest in the the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under Metr. Laurus of NY and Eastern America. I am in the Western American Diocese of ROCOR under the omiphore of Archbishop Kyrill of San Francisco and Western America.


Fr David Moser

[Scott Pierson]

On the otherhand it seems proper that the congregation sings along with the choir and that seems to be an American development away from the strict Russian tradition but in keeping with other Orthrodox expressions.

Thats an interesting point. Is congregational singing really an American inovation or was the loss of congregational singing an inovation that simple became the rule over time. Joining in on the singing of the Litrugy is a great experience it helps you to feel a part of it and I think the people who dont are missing out... It helps you get into a more prayerful state of mind. Did the earliest Liturgys even have choirs ?

[Andreas Moran]

Whether you're missing out may depend on the tunefulness of the voices nearest you!

[John Charmley]

Whether you're missing out may depend on the tunefulness of the voices nearest you!

Good job it isn't me then! My wife reckons I can strike one in five notes correctly - but also observes that I have no idea which one that might be!

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

The truth is we want a connection, however tenuous to that fuller richer "real" Orthodoxy that we see in our books and long for in our hearts. We don't feel quite real yet, not to ourselves. We are committed to the Orthodox faith, but still just dabblers for the most part. At least this is how it seems to me.

The new thing that Orthodoxy has to find a way to transform or baptize about us is our deep separation from each other...our fracturedness. In the Old World people lived in communities, and those communities functioned more or less organically as a whole regardless of the faith held by its members. But we don't live in communities anymore. We are nodes in a series of interconnected networks. We have become not only rootless but soilless. Even our Jurisdictions are just extended networks that are not really tied to any place smaller than a continent.

That is our social reality and it strikes me as very different from any milieu that Orthodoxy...or any doxy has had to deal with to date. And as much as I dream of what it might have been like learning to read from copying Akathists and babysitting little children that refused their mothers' breast on Wed. and Fridays that is not the world I live in. Yet there are things in that life that I miss not having as an American Orthodox Christian...at least in the part of America that I live in...maybe in Alaska and a few pristine vales of Pennsylvania it's different.

So what are we to do? What is our path forward should the Lord tarry much longer. I don't know, but it is going to have to involve some kind of Orthodox transformation of nodal existence...maybe via monasteries (may it please God to give us many more), maybe via a reenvisioning of some aspects of parish life.

In the meantime someone needs to teach me better how to ring the bells.

Dear Robert and ALL,

I must confess that I am quite taken by the robust thinking in both of your postings, and I am not too sure exactly what genre your writing would fall in; but, especially as it relates to this conversation, at times, genres are nothing more than unhelpful divisions. And, I must also confess a lack of moderation in the way I devoured what you placed on the table
yesterday--which I have digested but not completely assimilated/incorporated at the present. Also, your posting yesterday (#74) brought about an increased understanding of your first contribution (#60 partially quoted above) to this thread. But, again what a healthy and vigorous offering--thank you!

Initially, I would like to share with you the "eerie" feeling I had when I read your "Three Core Challenges:"

1. Lack of administrative unity, and thus lack common vision of unified witness.

2. Pervasive nominalism concerning the faith in too many quarters.

3. Thinly spread...like a single pat of butter on a whole loaf of bread.

Because (and to narrow the conversation somewhat), it occurred to me at once that the first two "challenges" are identical--perfectly parallel--with the present day American Protestants as a whole, and the American Evangelical Movement in particular ('as much as it remains a movement at all'). Think about this. Consider the trajectory and the logical end of the Protestant/'Evangelical Movement' (which is perpetual division) and then consider the proposition, as it relates to these three points, that the only ecclesial/political difference (in practice) between the present day Church in America (Orthodox) and the American Protestant/Evangelical Churches is that the Orthodox are "Thinly spread. . ." Knowing, there is a fine line between faith and denial, I think I will stop here, but at the same time, I think the one who's attention is not drawn by this consideration is the one who has no need of any sort of theological-historical-biblical-patristic-missiological input or any other type of digestion/assimilation/incorporation because there is no pulse--no life--no being.

And, as it relates to those who consider this a non-issue or think that 'time' is the answer . . . I wonder who can imagine what it was really like for the early apostles/disciples who gave up everything in order to follow Christ? I am talking about men who gave up their own homes, vocations/regular paychecks,health benefits, and retirement programs, and all sources of livelihood in order to follow and serve with their whole beings. I am not sure that I can or ever will completely understand/know what this would be like. But, I wonder what the response of these men to a conversation such as ours today would be as it relates to the Church of God and Her way of being today? Based on the Holy Writ and other source documents that we have, I wonder if these men would convene in a council and say, "What we need is . . . more time!"? Or, I wonder if Paul would stand up in their midst and say, "Brothers, it appears to me that we are helpless at the present, and what we need is for our great-grandchildren's children to come on the scene!" Based on what we know about the practice of the early church these would be absurd assumptions wouldn't they? Particularly, in the case of Paul, as Schaff has said about him [HOTCC, Eerdmans, 1980-288], "Whatever he was, he was with his whole soul. He was totus in illis, a man of one idea and of one purpose . . . his nature was martial and heroic." And to paraphrase Schaff further about Paul, sometimes it was not obvious to others because of his "strongest will" that he did have the "tenderest feelings" and did speak the 'language of love,' but I think overall the above point has been made sufficiently.

Whereby, now Robert, in an effort to change the subject, let me first work towards a close here by sharing something with you and then making a request. Firstly, I seem to be hyper-focused and "holding on with both hands" to what you have written here and I would like to delve deeper into all three areas of your latest posting, but I think I would like to wait for a clarification from you (and to have some time to break out my pink, yellow, and blue hi-liters to give your work another hard read). Secondly, to hopefully avoid taking off in a different direction than you had intended in your assertion--regarding 'The Problem of Nominalism.' I would like to make sure we are on the same page with how we are using the word "nominalism." Granted some words like "existentialism" have taken on so many different meanings to so many different people that it is almost a word without definition now; however, I would just like to make sure that you are using this term in the classic sense before I take off with it viz. the following definition:

"Nominalism is the designation usually applied to any philosophical system, ancient or modern, that denies all objectivity, whether actual or potential, to universals; in other words, nominalists grant no universality to mental concepts outside the mind . . . Nominalism is simultaneously opposed to the philosophical idealism of Plato and to the moderate realism of Aristotle. The principal objection of nominalists is to the attribution of objective existence to ideas formally as they exist in the mind and fundamentally (or potentially) as they exist in particulars having some similarity to each other in any given class or species."

In the End, the Beginning,

Rick
Eph 5:15-18

PS John--Thanks very much for your posting in response to my request for a look at Paul and the churches of Galatia. I am looking forward to working in this area in the future. Also, I must say that I am most envious of your musical gift which includes the ability to hit one out of every five notes . . . I am more a long the line of one out of every ten notes :)

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Rick,

I didn't realize that forum posts could belong to genres. What is the proper genre for bucolic pontifications? But speaking of genres...(shameless plug alert) you can read a recently published on-line short story of mine over at Infuze Journal. It is in the Creative Works section, a short story called "Ashangel" (plug over).

With regard to the Apostles waiting for their grandchildren to show up...that does highlight a current plank in our collective eyes, certianly mine. We want things to change (for the better). We want something done and done now and we are tired of waiting for someone else to do thing we so clearly see needs doing...and that is frustrating...very inconsiderate of them (whoever they are) to keep us waiting.

Back in my protestant days I encountered what I think remains a piece of sage advice: You want to see a ministry to the homeless...well take one of them home. You want to see more done to feed the hungry...well cook something and give it to someone who is hungry. From the Orthodox perspective, while it is not a good thing to act in the name of the Church without an appropriate blessing...maybe we could at least bother ourselves to ask for one and then to do what we ask about. We want more monastics, but which of us are prepared to be sacrificed on that altar or to ask it of our sons and daughters. We want some of that old world piety in our midst...well could we at least perhap find time and resources to help budding monastics and priests in the "old world"...maybe work to bring a couple over and set them up near us...but that's just a job for the diocese right.

As for Nominalism...I think our ships passed silently in the fog. I wasn't talking about philosophy but about people taking their faith nominally...more or less in name only.

Being too thinly spread: I think this is more a problem for Orthodoxy than evangelcalism. Evangelicalism is the religicized flip side of modern individualistic consumer culture. Orthodoxy by its nature requires some form of community. We need each other as Orthodox more than one evangelical needs another evangelical. There is an organic quality to the Orthodox faith that deepens and ripens in the context of community. That is why I suggested that monastic seeding might prove to be Orthodoxy's answer to the nodal individualitic experience of western life and culture. Our parishes are more places of intersection not of natural community. We live very scattered from each other and hence loose the abiltity to grow in the faith in the deeper more pervasive ways that we fantisize about in little Romanian villages on the mountainside. Monasteries as supernodes...nodal communities can provide places for that deeper life to root more fully among us and give us places to make contact and be nourished from that richer Orthodox life that flourishes there...and if we are richer our parish life becomes richer.

The natural model I'm using is that of desert vegetation....in relation to the spiritual desert of the western world today. In the desert and near desert condition vegetation clumps...There are islands of green in the sand. These islands of life concentrate moisture and nutrients around their roots, enriching the area around them. As conditions improve, these areas can expand, if they don't they become bastions of life and shade in an otherwise dry and thirsty land. Little bugs, mice, and lizards have to scurry between them to live, and to find shade during the heat of the day. Think of how monasteries were instrumential in converting pagan Europe. They became centers of the Christian communities as they grew and spread...anchor points. So I'm thinking this model might be adaptable to the American circumstance. We have to scurry about in our daily lives but the more "clumps" of life for us to be refreshed by the better it is for us as little bugs, mice, and lizards. But over time those clumps can act both to restrain the advance of the desert...and very slowly even to reverse it in some places...they can ultimately effect microclimate change and enable the establishment of grasslands at the margins with just a little increase in water.

[Rick H.]

Dear Robert,

You have a great sense of humor :) I am looking forward to reading your short story and spending more time with your other postings this evening with my favorite hot beverage. And, I will even give you a plug in the way of a link to your short story for the Monachos community members:

http://www.infuzemag.com/creative/stories/archives/2006/10/ashangel_by_rob.html

Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear Robert and ALL,

Now that the coffee and the reading is finished it is time to write a little bit.


As for Nominalism...I think our ships passed silently in the fog. I wasn't talking about philosophy but about people taking their faith nominally...more or less in name only.


Glad I asked, I would have ran the ball out of the stadium on that one.


Back in my protestant days I encountered what I think remains a piece of sage advice: You want to see a ministry to the homeless...well take one of them home. You want to see more done to feed the hungry...well cook something and give it to someone who is hungry. From the Orthodox perspective, while it is not a good thing to act in the name of the Church without an appropriate blessing...maybe we could at least bother ourselves to ask for one and then to do what we ask about.

I would like to add to this sage advice a thought on service from St. Paul the Apostle Orthodox Church in Dayton Ohio:

"Christians are recognized as saints when they offer service to others rather than when they try to have power over others. Yet sadly even to this day many within the Church struggle for power rather than for service. Jesus Himself said, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves" (Luke 22:25-27).

Christ served and blessed service. He gave an example and pointed the way for His disciples. Even in history, Christianity developed an ideal for a Christian King. "The king, as representative of the laity and of its 'royal priesthood', bore the image of Christ in a special way. In him power was sanctified by becoming creative service, the restriction of evil, the establishment in the midst of chaos of an enclave of order and peace. ... Today it is the duty of each Christian to assume the 'royal priesthood', by which power is sanctified through service and creativity." (Olivier Clement, ON BEING HUMAN)

If we want power over others, following Christ is not likely to help us realize our goal. If we want to empower the Church, we have to be willing to imitate Christ and offer service to one another. If we follow Christ and serve one another, we will experience the power of Christ over sin and death."

I think a combining of the two above thoughts on service would bring about a very healthy and balanced perspective.

But now we are moving into a consideration of such concepts as 'agape' and 'eros' as expounded by Nygren and others, as well as concepts such as individualism, particularism, and community . . .

Peace,
Rick

[Trudy]

How very American to want to put our stamp on something thus creating our own ethnic enclave. How very American to throw our weight around as if we are entitled to whatever it is we are discussing at the time.

The Orthodoxy we have received is beyond any ethnicity. We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.

If we were busy working out our salvation, the ethnicity or lack of so-called Americanization wouldn't make a hill-of-beans difference. And while we may live in a wonderful country, just take a peak out the window at the youth of our culture and you'll get a really clear picture of what Americanization has done. Can't say I want that to happen in the Church of God.

Forgive me if my words offend.

In Christ, Athanasia

[Rick H.]

How very American to want to put our stamp on something thus creating our own ethnic enclave. How very American to throw our weight around as if we are entitled to whatever it is we are discussing at the time.

The Orthodoxy we have received is beyond any ethnicity. We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.

If we were busy working out our salvation, the ethnicity or lack of so-called Americanization wouldn't make a hill-of-beans difference. And while we may live in a wonderful country, just take a peak out the window at the youth of our culture and you'll get a really clear picture of what Americanization has done. Can't say I want that to happen in the Church of God.

Forgive me if my words offend.

In Christ, Athanasia

Dear Trudy,

No need for forgiveness here--thank you for your contribution :) Discussions like these, by design, bring about a greater understanding with each contribution. However, I am not completely sure what it is that you are reacting to here?

I think there is actually a true irony presented in your posting that carries the potential for great illumination in this dialogue; however, I don't think anyone in this thread has lobbied for an "ethnic enclave" (great expression by the way) . . . in fact there have been postings denouncing anything resembling a "Christian ghetto mentality" or any type of unhealthy introversion or escapism in connection with an historic Christian Orthodoxy. And, when you say:


The Orthodoxy we have received is beyond any ethnicity.

You have brought out the essence of this discussion/thread with great precision!

I see a few dogmatic statements in your posting viz.:


We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.

Possibly, this view is what you feel is being challenged somewhere in this thread or in the article by Father Metrakos or Fr. Schmemman, or one of the other outside authors who have been quoted here?

Ultimately though, I do appreciate your thoughts in the following very much as you do open a window in a very helpful way!


And while we may live in a wonderful country, just take a peak out the window at the youth of our culture and you'll get a really clear picture of what Americanization has done. Can't say I want that to happen in the Church of God.

I have a very tender spot in my heart for the youth of our culture. I feel great compassion for the youth as I am familiar with what is nothing short of a true victimization. But, I am not sure that it is completely accurate to point to Americanization as the culprit as I think the postmodern presuppositions regarding 'truth' and its objective reality are a world-wide phenomenon. And, this is not a short subject, but I think Francis Schaeffer, really cuts to the chase on this topic in the following:

"The tragedy of our situation today is that men and women are being fundamentally affected by the new way of looking at truth, and yet they have never even analyzed the drift which has taken place. Young people from Christian homes are brought up in the old framework of truth. Then they are subjected to the modern framework. In time they become confused because they do not understand the alternatives with which they are being presented. Confusion becomes bewilderment, and before long they are overwhelmed."

Possibly, the above addresses your concerns or maybe I am still missing the mark and you would like to help me understand more clearly?

Thanks again for your contribution.

In Christ's Love,
Rick :)

Pro 27:17

[Herman Blaydoe]

We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.I must admit some concern with this statement. Similar reasoning was certainly voiced when Sts Methodios and Cyril dared to translate Holy Scripture and the services for the Slavs. God gave us Latin and Greek and Hebrew, the languages on the Cross. Why should it be "changed" into Slavonic?

I do not believe anyone here has advocated "removing" or "improving" anything. Christ is Christ is Christ, in whatever language or culture. But history shows us explicitly that CHANGE DOES occur, and is, in fact, desireable, to better "fit" the cultural mileu it finds itself in. Every culture must "discover" and incorporate the Truth of Christ. The example of Sts. Cyril and Methodios shows us that the Slavs did not have to become Greeks to become Christians, just as the Inuit did not have to become Russian to become Orthodox. A unique cultural expression of the UNCHANGING Truth of Christ does represent a "different" practice. Are there not differences between Russian and Greek practice? Is modern practice exactly the same as the ancient Constantinopolitan worship in the Hagia Sophia? Is one "better" than the other? In that the unchanging Truth is "better" expressed to reach a particular group of people in a familiar culture, then yes. In that one particular expression might not be as appropriate in another cultural context, then perhaps no.

I certainly agree that anything must be done with care and discernment. The idea is NOT to "remove" anything, but to ADD context and perhaps beauty to BETTER express things in a manner that enhances our culture, but not letting our "culture" detgract from the message of Christ. Christ is the focus, not culture nor ethnicity nor nationality.

In that context then, does celebrating the Liturgy in English represent a "change"? Yes, it does to those who are used to Slavonic or Koine. I do think that things like the style of music, for example, can change. Greek chant, beautiful to some, sounds discordant to other ears. And the beautiful TRUTH that never changes is still lost if the individual cannot, as the Apostle Paul admonishes, "pray with UNDERSTANDING". Personally, while I love much of the Russian music, I find a lot of it overbearing, orchestral, better suited to the concert hall than to Liturgical worship, but that may just be me. I love the plain chant (in English) of my diocese (ACROD) and congregational singing over having a trained choir. Visitors to my parish see much that is "different" from what they are used to! But is it "changed"? Is not the same UNCHANGING TRUTH expressed, simply in a different manner? Is this a BAD THING? I think not, but your mileage may vary.

Therefore, I have to believe that a "different" expression of the unchanging Truth, unique to the American culture can come about. In fact, whether we like it or not, it is happening even as we discuss it. Russian, Greek, and other Orthodox traditions are mixing and amalgamating. Greek tunes are being sung in four part harmony. Russian melodies are being adapted to English words. Uniquely American foods appear in Pascha baskets. And ultimately, any discussion will limit itself to differences in orthopraxis, because this is what changes, the externals. The internal Truth does NOT change, Christ does not change. It is only how we express that Truth can can, and indeed, I contend MUST change to BETTER express that Truth as Christ is incorporated into the culture. We are not adding our culture to Christ, we are adding Christ to our culture.

At least that is how it seems to this simple mind.

[Robert Hegwood]

It seems to me the thrust of the discussion so far is not how to put the American stamp on Orthodoxy but rather more the other way around...how will Orthodoxy put its stamp on America and her culture. This culture and our present history within it presents a number of challenges to Orthodox life and community, and so it seems we are exploring some of the resources that Orthodoxy might have to call upon more heavily in order to root a full and flourishing Orthodoxy in American soil. We are also looking a how things have shaped up to present and how those things might continue to develop...as well as which should be encouraged...say congregational singing, use of Engish, blending of heretofore ethnic specific customs, the development of new monasteries, and which should not...say (in my opinion) pews, organs, loss of women covering and both sexes dressing too loosly, ghettoization, nominal faith, minimized parish life, etc.

[Herman Blaydoe]

how will Orthodoxy put its stamp on America and her culturePersonally, I see this happening two ways. First off, by blessing and INCORPORATING aspects of "American" culture that are not inimicable to Orthodoxy, such as using English in the services, perhaps congregational singing?, putting such "American" things into an Orthodox context. Secondly, by TRANSFORMING American culture by accepting and incorporating into our daily lives such treasures brought from the "Old World" that help make Christ REAL OUTSIDE as well as inside the Church building itself. Let nothing be "added" or "rejected" to suit our tastes, but may things be TRANSFORMED to suit Christ's purpose in this place.

[Rick H.]

Are there not differences between Russian and Greek practice? Is modern practice exactly the same as the ancient Constantinopolitan worship in the Hagia Sophia? Is one "better" than the other? In that the unchanging Truth is "better" expressed to reach a particular group of people in a familiar culture, then yes. In that one particular expression might not be as appropriate in another cultural context, then perhaps no.

Well . . . so much for our Bible study John :) . . . because Herman [above] has taken us straightway out into the deeper water (which is a very good thing and where I think we would have ended up after comparing/contrasting The Book of Galatians with The Book of Acts (namely chap. 15).

So without further delay let us start to dig in and begin to 'establish our position' . . . in Acts 15--as has been referenced by others--we see the formation of something fantastic in the practice of the early church. Although still in its embryonic state, nevertheless, we see the emergence of the "Community of communities" and a very clear picture of a "generous Orthodoxy," whereby, there is an allowance for a form of communal relativism (both in proposition and in practice) by the original community of the cross which at once embraces both a unity-in-diversity and acknowledges a type of "Orthodox Christian Global Village."

And, honestly, I don't think it is an overstatement to say now that where Herman directs our attention is crucial to this discussion in all of its aspects. Or, in other words, to be very frank . . . without an understanding of this one [above] very simple thought unit, there is not much use in continuing this discussion, and this dialogue will necessarily degenerate into nothing more than a microcosm of the "us" versus "you" mentality/polarization which can only yield two opposing camps and babbling voices in discord, at best--or a historical-theological agnosticism at worst.

Whereby, knowing there is a "discovery process" that is realized on an individual basis, and that we should pick our battles very carefully (and at the risk of an increase of 'drive-by' postings), as it relates to a "community of the cross" as opposed to a "religion of the cross" . . . this is "a 'hill' to die on." A clear understanding and grasping of Herman's questions and answers is imperative to breaking a cycle of 'Ignorance-Separation-Dysfunction-Dysfunction' . . . Without an allowance for this dialectical call for renewal and unity in the form of an "Orthodox Christian Global Village" where as has been said: "What is right for 'us' may not be right for 'you'" and "what is wrong in 'our' context, may in 'your' context be okay or even preferable," there is no reason for anyone to either discuss or explore an Orthodox supra-polarity of any sort, or work toward a retrieval of an historic orthodox ecclesiological center in America or any where else.

There continues to be an increasing amount of high-caliber Christian thinking contributed to this thread at a very fast pace (more than I can process and retain at the present), thanks to all, especially of late! I hope that we are not just reading and forgetting such concepts as the above or the recent references by John to "growing pains," and by Robert to "the development of new monasteries," and again (especially[!]) by Herman who said, "Let nothing be "added" or "rejected" to suit our tastes, but may things be TRANSFORMED to suit Christ's purpose in this place." This thread was initiated just about three weeks ago and we have covered so much ground so quickly that I hope we are allowing time for a review of what has been said.

So, at this pivotal point, I would like to call for a consensus of sorts here at Monachos, in this 'wider community,' as it relates to the above proposition, and in so doing [hopefully] bring about a reference point and a degree of order whereby the difference between a 'hill of beans' and a 'hill to die on' is made clear to all. I take this conversation very seriously and I am in the process of correlating what is being contributed for a future presentation/modus operandi, God willing, that may begin centrifugally from particular communities and expand into the global dimension of the Church which is the Community of communities--and from there find a place of common ground with the global postmodern conversation 'outside' the Church. And, I would like to suggest that now is the time for those who have contributed in the past as well as those who have been "lurking" to weigh in clearly and candidly on the above proposition. While I do allow some room for the suggestion of the demise of foundationalism and realism in our present day, I cannot allow much room for the suggestion that this is a post-theological age and that all such dialogues as this are a mere subscribing to a philosophical dream of discovering a perfect "language."

As Metropolitan Phillip has said in the past . . .

"What happened to that dynamism which characterized the life of the Church between Pentecost and the tenth century? . . . Did God stop speaking to the Church? Did the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church cease after the tenth century? Why are we always celebrating the remote past? Have we been lost in our long, long history? I wish we could gather to celebrate an event which happened five hundred years ago or two hundred years ago or perhaps something which happened last year."

. . . we are saying today; there must be a celebrative hope against hope, and at this transitional time in our discussion, God willing, a consensus will be formed and we will move forward in such a way that if this is indeed a post-theological age that we are living in then there will be a rebirth of an historic Orthodox Christianity within the Community of communities.


Ex tenebris lux!
Rick

"In the End, the Beginning"

[Robert Hegwood]

Perfect language: If I am not mistaken the Fathers and Saints teach that the language of Heaven is silence.

This is one of the things we Americans need to learn from the best of the Old World Orthodox. We are chatty Kathies...and consumers by our national nature. We have opinions on everything and we devour all that incites our interest...a vast appitite never sated. For my own part I know I have read many spiritual writings of many saints and teachers almost like spiritual candy...tidbits of wisdom to snack upon without regard to how hard won this wisdom was. Thankfully they are healthy snacks...but my attitude and appraoch is not.

Yet we need to be familiar with such spiritual works if we are ever to develop an Orthodox culture of any depth and root. We would do well I think to learn a measure of sobrity to counterbalance our enthusiasm (at least among the converts). And silence is a lesson we need to learn better ourselves that it may be salt to our nation.

Of course Orthodox silence is not empty, rather it is the fruit of communion, the realization of our being members of each other and our Head. It seems to me words are but images of communion, both the desire and the expression of knowing and being known by another...or as Spock would say, "My thoughts to your thoughts.." True silence listens propeleptically.

This is why we need monasteries especially in our time and culture. We need places to learn to listen, to fast from our many words and opinions and simply be present to God and to each other...to become saltier salt so that the thirst of our nation might be revealed and the thristing may be called to drink of Christ the inexaustable cup and fountain of immortality.

[Rick H.]

Perfect language: If I am not mistaken the Fathers and Saints teach that the language of Heaven is silence.

Yes, Robert--the "language of Love" is most often silent and 'seemingly' passive; however, it is also very loud and active at times, as we see in the Gospels and especially in the Letters of Paul (and in the writings of the Great Cappadocian theologians). So there is a two-fold dimension to the perfect language which is the "language of Love."

And, I can see your great passion for a monastic movement very clearly, and I second that motion wholeheartedly. But, possibly another helpful means of equilibrium can be found, as it relates to a theoria and praxis discussion, in a work by Walter Holden Capps, titled, Hope Against Hope: "Moltmann to Merton in One Theological Decade". In this work an outstanding assessment of a "positive disengagement" is presented as well as a harmonizing of theoria and praxis that results in a very beautiful active-passivity or passive-activity such as we see in the Passion of Christ.

But, I wonder if you would care to bring/employ your most excellent wordsmithing gift by way of a contribution, to this thread, with any thoughts that you might have as it relates to either an Orthodox Christian Global Village or the comments by Metropolitan Phillip in the last posting (#89)?

Peace,
Rick

[John Charmley]

So without further delay let us start to dig in and begin to 'establish our position' . . . in Acts 15--as has been referenced by others--we see the formation of something fantastic in the practice of the early church. Although still in its embryonic state, nevertheless, we see the emergence of the "Community of communities" and a very clear picture of a "generous Orthodoxy," whereby, there is an allowance for a form of communal relativism (both in proposition and in practice) by the original community of the cross which at once embraces both a unity-in-diversity and acknowledges a type of "Orthodox Christian Global Village."

Dear Rick,

Yes, let us try this, since, as you say, Herman has helped us get here by the more direct route.

It is, perhaps, an indication of the length of time that has passed since the Orthodox Church was last in expansionist mode that we are (rightly) minded to look back to the early Church - and surely we are called in the same direction if we try to answer Metropolitan Phillip's probing question? Of course the Holy Ghost has not ceased operating - but are we open to Him?

This thought struck me all the more re-reading Philip Gilquist's book on Becoming Orthodox. How very typical that even as he and the EOC were knocking on the door, there should have been those advising the EP that letting them in would swamp the Church in the US and make it more 'American'. How long was it since such Christians pondered on their own history? No one is arguing for expansion for its own sake and, thereby, diluting the fulness of the Faith, but goodness me, there is a wide spectrum of options between that (which no one wants) and the semi-gnosticism of the stance that 'you need to be Greek/Russian to be Orthodox'. No you don't - but what do you need to be - that is the question?

What does it take to be part of the 'Orthodox Christian Global Village'? [@ R. Henry 2006]

Some Orthodox give the impression they prefer their converts to have been heathens beforehand, because they are easier to bring into the Church; is that really so? What are we saying if we say that? (Of course, the way things are going in the west, it won't be too long before that is bound to be the case). What is the Orthodox response to Christians from other denominations and how should they be received? Responses to this seem to vary. The Antiochenes seem a good deal more attuned to the 'Global Village' approach than some others. There are times when an outsider might wonder whether Orthodoxy was even interested in converts? The insistence in places that conversion includes embracing Orthodox praxis and ethnic practices is fine for the few who find a fascination in things Russian or Greek, but it is always caviar to the general - and it wasn't how the Apostles or the Early Church behaved; so why should we?

Does the Orthodox Church actually wish to expand? There are times in my reading that I get the impression some of its members would be happier staying 'small and pure' - as though 'larger' meant 'impure'; where is the confidence in the Holy Ghost here? Why so fearful?

For forty years and more one Orthodox Church that insists it is the Orthodox Church has been speaking to another that holds the same view, and despite that, men of goodwill and eirenic spirt got past some of the historical baggage and made some progress; but it is glacially slow, and to the man and woman not in the pew, the EOs and OOs are still as divided as ever. And, as we have seen here and can see elsewhere, such discussions raise strong passions and allegations of betrayal and syncretism.

And shall we go forth then and spread the word. Have we met the Risen Lord's direct command before His glorious ascension: [John 17:21-23]


20 I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:
23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

We've hardly reached first base on this when two Churches that have so much in common of the one deposit of the True Faith cannot (will not?) agree on ways forward. Unity so that the 'world may know You have sent Me' - or disunity because of our different histories?

It is all very well to say that when other Christians accept the fulness of Orthodoxy they can become part of the Church - but which Orthodoxy? And simply saying that there is only one is not actually an answer - it is part of the problem. To those of us outside Orthodoxy it is not, believe me, easy to see why, if the option is there, one should 'join' an Eastern as opposed to an Oriental Orthodoxy - and, as my attempts to get an answer to this on another thread showed, it ain't easy to get a straight answer to a straight question either!

I say these things not (please not) to arouse a debate on the EO/OO unit thing, as that has been flogged to death and the thread locked (and the key buried seven fathoms deep I hope) - but because they are a crucial part of the discussion about how we get towards an American (and British) Orthodoxy.

I do hope that I will not (as has happened once or twice) be suspected of trailing a hidden agenda here, there isn't one, just a desire to continue with this most interesting discussion as to how an Orthodox Christian Global Village might be built in some not so green but still pleasant lands. If what I have said, or the mode of expression has caused offence, I am sorry for it - but not quite as sorry as I am for the spectacle Christians sometimes make of themselves through their disunity. (Regular posters here will know this is my Anglican background showing - but honest guvnor, it isn't a plea for syncretism - if I thought that was OK I'd stay with the greatest syncretic Church ever known - the Anglican one!).

In Christ,


John

[Tanya Hoadley]

How very American to want to put our stamp on something thus creating our own ethnic enclave. How very American to throw our weight around as if we are entitled to whatever it is we are discussing at the time.

The Orthodoxy we have received is beyond any ethnicity. We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.

If we were busy working out our salvation, the ethnicity or lack of so-called Americanization wouldn't make a hill-of-beans difference. And while we may live in a wonderful country, just take a peak out the window at the youth of our culture and you'll get a really clear picture of what Americanization has done. Can't say I want that to happen in the Church of God.

Forgive me if my words offend.

In Christ, Athanasia


Dear Athanasia,

Thank you for your post. For me, it speaks to setting priorities and not allowing pride and distractions to inhibit us in our work.

May God Grant us all 'busy-ness'!
In Christ,
Tanya

[Rick H.]

John--What a great posting (#92)! . . . and what a great spirit you have--you are a credit to the Anglicans. Or, if you are leaning towards making a move in the Orthodox direction, and you are on the edge . . . please allow me to give you a little push :)

Let's see if there is any other response to my request (in posting #89) for a consensus here [hopefully the community will not be mute in this area] and then it will be my pleasure to move directly to #92. I loved reading the "guvnor" expression by the way, the only other English expression I think I know is "spot-on" and my source for that one is Simon Cowell from the TV show American Idol. Hey, maybe you and I could try out for American Idol? If my math is correct between the two of us we could hit a least one out of every 7.5 notes consistently.--Rick

[Robert Hegwood]

With regard to global Orthodoxy I'm hardly in a position to have much in the way of an informed or useful opinion. It does seem though that there is a sense that Orthodoxy is still a bit off balance. I don't mean doctrinally, but situationally. To use a modern example, Ortodoxy had been hit a Hurricane Katrina and while it was trying to figure out how to put its world back into some semblance of order...all these other people show up all ready to move into its reeling communities and be neighbors and best buds... Orthodoxy is being asked to reach out at the same time it desperatly needs to regroup.

In a word modern Orthodoxy is acting a little disoriented, and for the first time in a long time it is having to deal with difficulties without the resources of an Orthodox empire out there somewhere. God speed the good Czar's return.

[Peter Farrington]

Personally, I think the last thing any Church needs in these days is 'establishment', and especially a 'friendly' Tsar. The Church has always seen the greatest and most lasting growth in times of need when it is forced to call upon God rather than men.

Indeed the Scriptures say..

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

and

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

I would be glad if Prince Charles became Orthodox. He has wandered over and seen the British Orthodox Church on the Sandringham estate. But he would only be a layman and I certainly would not be willing to accord him any position over the Church, or within it, as a mere consequence of his membership of the royal family.

It seems to me that a lack of missionary zeal is at the root of nearly all problems within all Orthodox communities. When a community ceases to reach out with generosity, courage and open-heartedness to those around it, wherever and whenever it finds itself, then it ceases to be the Church. There may well be pastoral problems which the Churches face in the West, but these are always secondary to the missionary commission.

Peter

[Robert Hegwood]

Well, unless the old monks were deluded a good Czar is coming and one of the things he is supposed to do is some house cleaning at least within the Russian end of the fold.

That said, I think it would be great if Prince Charles and his heirs became Orthodox as well...it would be wonderful to have an anointed Orthodox English monarch again. We might have to rethink the wisdom of that whole American Revolution thing.

And That said, I would agree that we should not put our trust in princes. My remarks though are directed at the mess left in the aftermath of the Soviet era last century and the calendar controversy. That is where a lot of our present administrative disorder is rooted. And now that the Church in Russia and other former communist lands is free again...now it has to deal both with reevangelizing their nations, rebuilding a robust clergy, but also competing with modern heresies looking to capture the attention of their people. On top of that there has been a steady stream of converts in the New World, resources are thin and too much is happening at once.

Missionary work is important and its high time Orthodox came out of their collective bunkers to begin again. But we also need to be a bit more on the same page it seems with regard to some of the issues coming out of the last century.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Seraphim

There is always a 'good Czar' coming, and things were always 'better in the old days'. :-)

But what do we do? We live where we are and when we are. IMHO many of the problems of the Orthodox Churches are not due so much to the baggage from the past, as much as our failure to live sacrificial missionary lives. It is very easy to spend our time condemning every one else for their weaknesses and lack of strictness, or too much strictness etc etc as long as we don't actually focus on why we are in a place.

If we start asking ourselves how we should live in view of the multitudes around us who do not know Christ then I think we get a different perspective on what is important.

Peter

[Trudy]

Catching up on this thread…

Written by Mr. Hegwood,
Perfect language: If I am not mistaken the Fathers and Saints teach that the language of Heaven is silence. This is one of the things we Americans need to learn from the best of the Old World Orthodox. We are chatty Kathies...and consumers by our national nature. We have opinions on everything and we devour all that incites our interest...a vast appetite never sated.

Written by Mr. Farrington,
IMHO many of the problems of the Orthodox Churches are not due so much to the baggage from the past, as much as our failure to live sacrificial missionary lives. It is very easy to spend our time condemning every one else for their weaknesses and lack of strictness, or too much strictness etc etc as long as we don't actually focus on why we are in a place. If we start asking ourselves how we should live in view of the multitudes around us who do not know Christ then I think we get a different perspective on what is important.
And

It seems to me that a lack of missionary zeal is at the root of nearly all problems within all Orthodox communities. When a community ceases to reach out with generosity, courage and open-heartedness to those around it, wherever and whenever it finds itself, then it ceases to be the Church. There may well be pastoral problems which the Churches face in the West, but these are always secondary to the missionary commission.

Amen! Amen! Amen!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In response to Mr. Henry’s question in post #85 where he states,
I see a few dogmatic statements in your posting .

This may be quite true in that the word “dogmatic” has been used to describe me in the past! LOL! I always want to say “thank you” when it is used, though sometimes (perhaps most times) it has not been complimentary. LOL!

What I meant by my statement “We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.” in post #84 was not related to any author, though I do appreciate some of the words in Mr. Shaffer’s quote. I’ve not read any of his books though, as I’ve heard mixed reviews. But that is off topic.

What I meant was, I sometimes see and hear Orthodox converts say, “We don’t need to do that! We’re Americans.” when it comes to various Orthodox practices. My fear, which is probably what I usually write out of, is that we American’s being so independent and analytical, will remove the parts of Orthodoxy we don’t like and replace them with something we perceive as more palatable. Thus taking the True Church, allowing it to be watered down, turning it into mush; much like what I have witnessed in so many Protestant denominations. Herman Blaydoe wrote some of what I was trying to say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tanya, re: post #93 you are more than welcome!

~Athanasia~

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Where we stand, the Apostles also stood; the questions we face, they faced. How could a bunch of gentiles be Orthodox? Would not the introduction of gentiles into the Church on their own cultural terms destroy the Church? The traditions of the Mosaic Law were ancient and honorable, so those wishing to come to the Church should show their obedience by adapting to those traditions. The pearl of great price should not be sullied, we must not detract from the Faith in order to accommodate late-comers to it. The Pauline letters and the Acts of the Apostles are a witness - and a guide. There is, truly, nothing new under the sun, and if we would but humble our pride in our own achievements (which are nothing without Him) for a moment and learn from the Apostles, what might we not achieve?

When Trudy writes:

My fear, which is probably what I usually write out of, is that we American’s being so independent and analytical, will remove the parts of Orthodoxy we don’t like and replace them with something we perceive as more palatable. Thus taking the True Church, allowing it to be watered down, turning it into mush; much like what I have witnessed in so many Protestant denominations.

she shows much wisdom. Let us not write and speak out of fear, but out of the love of the Incarnate Lord, who died that all might live - not that all who keep this custom or that language might live, but 'all'. Why should we fear the True Church will be watered down, we have His assurance that the gates of hades will not prevail against it; what is there to be afraid of? A very great American once said 'we have nothing to fear except fear itself'; how much truer is that for the Christian and for the Church?

It will take time to establish Orthodox praxis in ethnicities which have not had it, but it will soon permeate other cultures as it has Greek and Russian culture, and we shall see what is inseparable from the True Faith, and what is contingent to our circumstances. We can, of course, choose to spend our time arguing over details of liturgical practices as though our salvation depended upon it, and whilst thus ignoring the whacking great beam in our own eye, concentrate upon the motes in the eyes of others; did not the Incarnate Lord say we would do as much? How well He knew us!

Where does this fear come from, why are we so frightened? Do we not believe that He is with us always? We can remain in what an old clergyman friend of mine used to call a 'holy huddle', and we can thank God that we are not like others - or we can do what the Angel of the Lord commanded the Apostles [Acts 5:20]

20 Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.


Let us also heed the words of St. Paul in Romans 10: 11-15

11 For the Scripture says, Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!

It is tempting, in our circumstances to turn St. Paul's final passage into a question for us all: 'Who bring(s) glad tidings of good things?' Answer: the Church. Question: who is the Church? Answer: we are.

'How shall they hear without a preacher?' What a sharp question the holy Paul puts to us; what is our answer?

None of this is a call to syncretism, or to dilute the true Faith, it is to have the confidence we are called to have in the Holy Ghost.

Our Lord's last words in Matthew 28 are our commission:

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.


We cannot know when 'the end of the age is', but we do know He is with us always. We need have no fear.


In Christ,


John

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Athanasia

I enjoyed your post. Thank you. To elaborate a little.

For me, the missionary perspective means that I want to fast so that I can pray more urgently for those around me. I want to become that better Christian so that others will see the way I live and believe and find Christ for themselves.

I don't want to be worrying if someone else is not fasting in the same way as I do, or if our bishop or priest has given a dispensation for an important event. If I am fasting for the salvation of others, and a dispensation is offered for the same reason, then it is not my place, nor my desire, to criticise. I cannot object if some use one calendar and others another, nor harp on about over-lapping jurisdictions, or language in the Liturgy etc etc as long as we, and especially me, are looking to see souls reached with the Gospel.

Of course some will say it is a false Gospel which uses the New Calendar etc. I'll have to let that go, I am not wise enough to make such a distinction. All I know is that the people here sitting around me as I work need Christ, not a Calendar. I'd rather they all became half-Orthodox and truly met Christ, than be turned off Christ by my phariseeism and hypocrisy.

Maybe a developing American (and British) Orthodoxy will make mistakes, but if Christ is preached and Christ is lived out as best we are able, then they will not be too damaging. I'd rather a beginning seeker learn to fast as best they could than crush them under a requirement to fast strictly for 210 days a year. Oftentimes it is in beginning gently with a soul that we bring them to a place where they can mature in the fulness of our Tradition. Maybeso Orthodoxy itself needs to be gentle with the West, understanding and tolerant, so that it might grow up into maturity in God's time.

But souls are being lost all around us. We are culpable if we would rather spend time fighting each other than reaching out to them.

Peter

[Rick H.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In response to Mr. Henry’s question in post #85 where he states,

"I see a few dogmatic statements in your posting"

This may be quite true in that the word “dogmatic” has been used to describe me in the past! LOL! I always want to say “thank you” when it is used, though sometimes (perhaps most times) it has not been complimentary. LOL!

What I meant by my statement “We must accept that which God has passed down to us through the Apostles for what it is. There is nothing to change, improve upon, or remove.” in post #84 was not related to any author, though I do appreciate some of the words in Mr. Shaffer’s quote. I’ve not read any of his books though, as I’ve heard mixed reviews. But that is off topic.

What I meant was, I sometimes see and hear Orthodox converts say, “We don’t need to do that! We’re Americans.” when it comes to various Orthodox practices. My fear, which is probably what I usually write out of, is that we American’s being so independent and analytical, will remove the parts of Orthodoxy we don’t like and replace them with something we perceive as more palatable. Thus taking the True Church, allowing it to be watered down, turning it into mush; much like what I have witnessed in so many Protestant denominations. Herman Blaydoe wrote some of what I was trying to say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

~Athanasia~

Dear Athanasia,

Thanks very much for the response :) After reading the above, I think it is possible that you and I have some things in common, and I hope you have time to continue with our conversation here, because I also now think it is possible that you are a true dogmatician--in the very good sense of the word (viz. 'Dogmatics as the self-examination of the Christian Church in respect of the content of its distinctive talk about God' [as stated and used by Barth in his 14 volume Church Dogmatics]). In fact you may find Barth's vol. I.1 "The Doctrine of the Word of God" very interesting in general and as it relates to this dialogue.

About the Schaeffer quote, I would just like to offer as a clarification to any of the readers who may not know, I was quoting Francis and not Frank Schaeffer--Francis is the father and Frank is the son. Francis was an original philosopher and is considered by many Non-Orthodox Christians as a prophet . . . I absolutely could not help but think of Dr. Schaeffer's book and classic film series by the same name, "How Should We Then Live?" after reading Peter's posting (#98) where he said, "If we start asking ourselves how we should live in view of the multitudes around us who do not know Christ then I think we get a different perspective on what is important." I hope to hear a lot more from Peter the evangelist. . . But, I am very glad that you appreciated some of the words by Francis Schaeffer. Frankly Franky Schaeffer (try to say that five times fast :), is very deserving of his mixed reviews--even just the title of his work, Dancing Alone (which should not be confused with 'doin the happy dance' ;), pits a defensive polemical approach against anything remotely resembling an historic Orthodox Christianity or an "Orthodox Christian Global Village." I found the following article helpful for any who would like more on this:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/reviews/guroian_dancing_alone_schaeffer.htm

Finally, regarding your last paragraph (above) I share your concerns--and I give you "5 STARS" :) for what you have expressed here. But, by way of an affirmation of sorts, may all dogmaticians everywhere have a confident conviction in our crucified and risen Lord.

Peace,
Rick

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Rick

I think I need to dig out my Schaeffer again, Francis of course. :-) I guess that there was an unconscious echo of his book in my sentence. My sense is that Orthodox have a great deal to learn from those who are orthodox prophets in the West, because these are often the men and women who are most reflective about the Christian life in the West, and their thoughts can find fulfillment in an Orthodoxy that listens to them.

I am not convinced that careful and spiritual reflection on our situation in the West requires that Orthodoxy be diminished, but I sense sometimes that this reflection does not take place, and this can itself cause us to propagate an Orthodoxy which is true to the letter but has lost the spirit.

I do try to read Western Christian writers, especially serious ones, because I think that there is much that Orthodox need to learn about being Christian in the West - both positively and negatively.

Francis Schaeffer is a good writer to start with.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,


Dialogue with non-Orthodox confessions has revived the understanding that the one catholic truth and norm can be expressed and embodied in a variety of cultural and linguistic contexts. In the course of dialogue it is essential for Orthodox theologians to be able to distinguish between a specific context and an actual deviation from catholic plenitude. It is also necessary to investigate the question of the limits of diversity in the one catholic tradition.

This statement was adopted by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church - August 14, 2000, and would seem to have relevance to this discussion.

The holy and God-guided bishops also stated that:

The ecclesial status of those who have separated themselves from the Church does not lend itself to simple definition. In a divided Christendom, there are still certain characteristics which make it one: the Word of God, faith in Christ as God and Saviour come in the flesh (1 Jn. 1:1-2; 4, 2, 9), and sincere devotion.


Can the wisdom here cast some light on our discussions? The first statement seems to say what we have been trying to say about Orthodox praxis and ethnic practices, whilst the second has something to say about evangelisation.

The bishops also declared:

The essential goal of relations between the Orthodox Church and other Christian confessions is the restoration of that unity among Christians which is required of us by God (Jn. 17:21). Unity is part of God's design and belongs to the very essence of Christianity. It is a task of the highest priority for the Orthodox Church at every level of her life.

Indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God's commandment of unity. According to St. Basil the Great, "all who are really and truly serving the Lord should have this one aim - to bring back into union the Churches that have been severed from one another" (Letters,114).

Nevertheless, while recognising the need to restore our broken Christian unity, the Orthodox Church asserts that genuine unity is possible only in the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other "models" of unity seem to us to be unacceptable.


So, the task before us seems quite clear. There are no obstacles on this view to establishing an American Orthodoxy so long as we are 'able to distinguish between a specific context and an actual deviation from catholic plenitude'. And, at the same time, those who are Orthodox are called to dialogue with others who are not, but who retain 'certain characteristics' of the One Church. I admire the statement that: 'Indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God's commandment of unity'.


In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear John,

Thank you very much for your last two postings. I am looking forward to picking back up with these, They are two very powerful contributions[!], especially #92 where you ask the question:


What does it take to be part of the 'Orthodox Christian Global Village'?

. . . and in your more recent post we see one example of many that are available to us that there IS a theological elasticity and different schools of thought to be found within Orthodoxy. I agree there should not be an attitude of indifference or rejection to the quotes from the Jubilee Bishops Council.

Also, I was just reading some of the other threads on the Monachos site and I noticed your conversation with Andreas. I loved Andreas's comments and I agree with him 100%. But, what I realized was that I should not have been so flippant with you when I had an intuition the other day that you were possibly considering a move in the Orthodox direction, and I offered to "give you a little push." After reading some of your other postings I have realized that you are in a "place" where ONLY another who has been there can really know what it is like. A place of excitement and a place of suffering/pathos at the same time; a place of great theology and spirituality and a place of a theological no-mans land (like a man without a country) and a dark night of the soul (leaning more to the Sufi influence on St. John of the Cross) at the same time; and a search/great desire for a genuine unity with the true community of cross but finding mostly divisiveness and offers of artificial unity.

I have found that there is a fine line between being an authentic/genuine seeker and falling into the trap of a romantic individualism and 'dancing alone,' so to speak, in the sense as used by Vigen Guroian. And, sometimes it is not possible to avoid crossing back and forth at times--we are human. But, I guess what I am saying now is (and hopefully I am using this expression correctly and not repeating my past mistake) . . . I hear you 'govnur.' And, I would like to share something with you that was very helpful during a similar time in my life when I was forced into a consideration of my Christian roots and a step of faith was called for--hopefully, there will be something in the following that may speak to you:

"More radical (radix) Christian faith can only mean committing oneself without reserve to the 'crucified God.' This is dangerous. It does not promise the confirmation of one's own conceptions,hopes, and good intentions. It promises first of all the pain of repentance and fundamental change. It offers no recipe for success. But it brings a confrontation with the truth. It is not positive and constructive, but is in the first instance critical and destructive. It does not bring a man into better harmony with himself and his environment but into contradiction with himself and his environment. It does not create a home for him and integrate him into society, but makes him 'homeless' and 'rootless,' and liberates him in following Christ who was homeless and rootless. The 'religion of the cross,' if faith on this basis can ever be so called, does not elevate and edify in the usual sense, but scandalizes; and most of all it scandalizes one's 'co-religionists' in one's own circle. But by this scandal, it brings liberation into a world which is not free. For ultimately, in a civilization which is constructed on the principle of achievement and enjoyment, and therefore makes pain and death a private matter, excluded from public life, so that in the final issue the world must no longer be experienced as offering resistance, there is nothing so unpopular as for the crucified God to be made a present reality through faith. It alienates alienated men, who have come to terms with alienation. And yet this faith, with its consequences are capable of setting men free from their cultural illusions, releasing them from the involvements which bind them, and confronting them with the truth of their existence and their society. Before there can be correspondence and agreements between faith and the surrounding world, there must first be the painful demonstration of truth in the midst of untruth."

Peace and Grace,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Also, I was just reading some of the other threads on the Monachos site and I noticed your conversation with Andreas. I loved Andreas's comments and I agree with him 100%. But, what I realized was that I should not have been so flippant with you when I had an intuition the other day that you were possibly considering a move in the Orthodox direction, and I offered to "give you a little push." After reading some of your other postings I have realized that you are in a "place" where ONLY another who has been there can really know what it is like. A place of excitement and a place of suffering/pathos at the same time; a place of great theology and spirituality and a place of a theological no-mans land (like a man without a country) and a dark night of the soul (leaning more to the Sufi influence on St. John of the Cross) at the same time; and a search/great desire for a genuine unity with the true community of cross but finding mostly divisiveness and offers of artificial unity.

Rick

Dear Rick,

Bless you for your last post - it touched me very deeply; thank you.

What you call your 'flippancy' was a welcome touch of lightness, which brought a smile to me - and your description above is accurate beyond the reach of my words; you have an acute intuition, as well as a poetic talent, and that you should use them for me is a great gift beyond expectation - and another sign that it is when one presses the wrong button that the right answer tends to emerge. As always, His will be done!

The quotation you share with me speaks to my condition, not least the lines:
The 'religion of the cross,' if faith on this basis can ever be so called, does not elevate and edify in the usual sense, but scandalizes
I shall not easily forget a discussion with two of my best friends (both Catholic converts, as it happens) who, on hearing of my interest in Orthodoxy, clearly thought I had gone mad; even now they are apt to look at me warily from time to time; neither of them can see why I do not just do what they, and so many we know have done, which is go to Rome.

I can explain that at one level, but the real reasons are not those of the head, but those of the heart; Rome does not, and never has, felt like home. It feels like a place which has added too much to the deposit of faith; I have a sense of its Catholicity, but it is foreign in a way Orthodoxy is not.

I should love to know the source of the quotation.

There is, indeed, at times a dark night of the soul. But there is also an acute awareness of not being alone. There is a growing sadness at the realisation of how barren my spiritual life had become as an Anglican. Too much time spent arguing an Orthodox understanding of the faith to people who wanted something more modern, and too much effort at understanding and obedience; all these took up energy that should have been spent on other prayers. Still, I know there was a purpose in it all, and now, although I do indeed feel like a man without a country at times, I know that I am held, and that He will not let me go. It is a lesson in faith, and, for an intellectual, in humility and trust - all very good for me.

There is an identification with those early Christians to whom St. Paul came - which is, I suppose, why I am so sensitive to what is said in his letters and in Acts. Sometimes, those who see from outside have something to say, even if they do not always know what it is.

But one thing is sure, in what you have said, and in what Andreas and Peter have also said, I find comfort and joy - even as I do challenges.


In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Rick and John,

Rick, I found your post very interesting but I'd like to comment, if I may, on the last paragraph (starting 'More radical' - will someone please tell me how to do quotes?!). You say quite rightly that being Orthodox is a challenge and involves unreserved commitment. But at the very first, we experience such grace and a lightness of soul that we feel we are floating. The pain and struggle come when this first euphoria relaxes in us and we find we cannot keep what we had. The whole Bible is a metaphor for our whole spiritual life. We begin in Paradise. We fall and lament our fallen condition. We struggle with 'the Egyptian', we wander in deserts and complain to God how hard things are. We search for the Promised Land and yet even when we find it, we still cannot manage. Always we need Christ. There is no recipe for certain success but there is always the saving mercy of Christ. Our confrontation with Him Who is Truth helps the destruction of the old man in us and does start to construct the new man. You are right this is not a once-and-for-all transformation - grace is not magic. We experience alternating states of grace and abandonment, as Father Sophrony describes. And I find that the Orthodox faith IS home - the true home. If, for a moment, I think of life without Orthodoxy, I am horrified to think of the darkness and nihilism outside it (where I was for so long). It is true that we must be, to a degree, different and so alienated from most people. It is the price of freedom.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Rick H.]

Dear John, Andrew and ALL,

John--Thank you very much for your encouraging words. I am beginning to see the wisdom of the "'emergence' of a right answer" via "pressing the wrong button" at times now--in even the sense that sometimes things taken out of context can be more helpful than when taken in context (as is the case with some of the Reformed and Neo-Orthodox writing theologians that have been quoted here both by name and anonymously from time to time). At times I withhold the name of an author in the hope that one's theology will not get in the way of one's understanding, but to answer you question, the source of the quotation I shared with you was:

Jürgen Moltmann, Trans. by R.A. Wilson and John Bowden: The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology [Der gekreuzigte Gott], (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 39.

Now, being Monday morning, in my neck of the woods, it is time to get back to work on the subject at hand. In some ways, at this pivotal/transitional point we are in very deep water; however, in other ways we have not even got our feet wet yet. And, this is not a short conversation that we are having, is it? We are not operating from a mode of giddy superficiality or one of a frenzied activism, are we? So the question becomes one of how to proceed from here? On the one hand it seems as though it would be best to land this plane now and start a new thread titled "A Global Orthodox Christian Village?," but on the other hand, it seems that a consideration of such concepts as an American Orthodoxy or a British Orthodoxy or even an Eastern Orthodoxy would be lacking severely by limiting the conversation in any way. Therefore, seeing a high degree of Providence in this thread especially in relation to the end result of a vast amount of 'wrong button pushing,' possibly the proper course remains to be found via the auto-pilot so to speak, or an absolute surrender to the sovereignty of God, and as the Archbishop has said, it is one of "moving forward with faith and with courage." Last week I asked (#89) for a consensus on Herman's assertion (#86) and unless I missed something you, John, and I are in agreement with Herman--and there was no opposition to what was presented. Possibly, an electronic forum such as this does not lend itself to a timely response to a call such as this, or possibly others may feel it is wise to remain mute, but I would like to move forward now knowing that this crucial area can (and probably will) be revisited in the future :)

Your last two posts, John, provide an excellent platform to work from at the present. Especially #92, in which you proposed the following question:


What does it take to be part of the 'Orthodox Christian Global Village'? [@ R. Henry 2006]

Thanks for the documentation there by the way, that might come in handy some day :) But, now I would like to move forward by means of going back to Andrew's first posting (#4)--as promised. Much as Herman provided a crucial assertion/transition which has implications for 'the small picture' and 'the big picture,' as it relates to this discussion, in his two sentence contribution, I think Andrew has provided the crux of the matter in the following:


"I think the best way in which American Orthodoxy can develop is by producing American born saints. Once a common piety and sense of greater catholic community among members of each jurisdiction is felt, things will fall into place on a larger "organizational" scale (or it might not). If there is no grassroots unity, attempts at unity from a top down approach will fail, as evidenced by SCOBA and such organizations... the answer isn't "Americanization" but "Orthodoxization" (please excuse my weak made up word!)."

And, also by way of review, to this posting by Andrew I responded (#9) with the following:


You are addressing this topic, as alluded to initially, on a 'subterraneous level' (both universally and in particular) while at the same time transcending both the localism and universalism of the question.

In other words, I am saying that Andrew is addressing the issue of both an American Orthodoxy and Global Orthodox Christian Village through the instrumentality of a supra-epistemology and by means of a dialectical theology/methodology and a mystical approach which is indeed "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" as "witnessed" to by both primary and secondary witnesses in the past and even to our day by men such as the late Vladimir Lossky.

So we are in deep water, but possibly in a boat of sorts here as we firstly consider Lossky's assessment of the term 'mystical theology' as being a term that "denotes no more than a spirituality which expresses a doctrinal attitude."

Whereby, in this Monachos area which is Doctrine and Theology in general and Tradition, Scripture, Intellect, and Experience in particular. I think it is very appropriate that we introduce Lossky's thinking in more detail where we see in our consideration of Orthodox theology that all Orthodox theology is necessarily "mystical theology." Because, "the eastern tradition has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology; between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church." As, Lossky has shared in the past:

". . . in a certain sense all theology is mystical, inasmuch as it shows forth the divine mystery; the data of revelation . . . The term 'mystical theology' denotes the realm of human experience, that which is accessible yet inaccessible; those things understood yet surpassing all knowledge."


"What does it take to be a part of the 'Orthodox Christian Global Village?'"

May God give us the Grace to be somewhat focused or at least to hit the right wrong button as we attempt to "move forward in faith and in courage."

Peace and Joy,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Whereby, in this Monachos area which is Doctrine and Theology in general and Tradition, Scripture, Intellect, and Experience in particular. I think it is very appropriate that we introduce Lossky's thinking in more detail where we see in our consideration of Orthodox theology that all Orthodox theology is necessarily "mystical theology." Because, "the eastern tradition has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology; between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church."


I think this is going in the right direction in terms of what will provide for unity and an indigenous expression of Orthodoxy.

First off we need to recognize that we are far from the first Orthodox to attempt unity on a wider scale in these 'new' lands. This has been attempted even on practical levels for at least the last century. Strong signs of dealing with the fact of an assimilated Church (culturally if not theologically) are also evident from the 1920s.

What is more than evident however is that each time these efforts failed no matter how forward looking or courageous those in involved were.

Why this failure up to our own times? Here I can only speculate but I think the above posts are on the right track.

The point of my comments above is simply to point out that administrative & practical measures have been attempted in the past although perhaps one mistake is little awareness by each new generation of what occurred a generation before. In any case there definitely have been those truly open to this new reality we live in.


Failure however occurred in each case due to human weakness and passion but manifested in a very particular way. Basically failure almost always resulted because each jurisdiction (and sometimes this came right down to individual parishes also) saw themselves as defenders of a particular vision which in no case could be given up or rounded out by the experience of other Orthodox. This is what I have often called the experience of Orthodox jurisdictions as 'brand names' like labels for items in a grocery store. Simply put- for many years and far before our time we Orthodox have desired and attempted unity. But failure has always resulted from the 'brand name' mentality.

What has often been missing up until recently however was proceeding in an Orthodox spirit guided in all things patristically. Here inasmuch as there is a unity of mind & heart, unity on the larger level will result naturally, because this indeed is the kind of unity Christ refers to: ie the catholic bond of Faith which naturally ties all members of the Church together inasmuch as they strive to live their life in Christ. Thus to begin with, our work is a spiritual work of unity & only then will administrative measures work almost as a blessing to what the Church is already in the process of accomplishing.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Robert Hegwood]

Here's a monkey wrench. Why must there be a single "American" Orthodoxy. There are several "Slavic" Orthodoxies are there not? The essential canonical problem at the administrative level is the over lap of episcopal oversite...more than one bishop per city in some cases. It would be nice if we could all get together under a single synod and hierarch...maybe though there can be another way forward...regionalization. Maybe in the end North America ends up with three or four autocephalous non overlapping synods divied up along state/province lines.

Just an idea...but our autocephalous patriarcate of Texas and the Deep South will be keeping his grace Archbishop Dimitri. :)

[Herman Blaydoe]

What does it take to be a part of the 'Orthodox Christian Global Village?Hmmm. Symphonia? That is, it is the "global village" that helps maintain the Apostolic Witness: that which is believed at all times in all places. It is one of the primary defenses against innovation, although it doesn't seem to be working too well for the Anglicans, we can still see how the model is supposed to work, as the African and other churches try to bring the Anglican communion back from the brink.
Why must there be a single "American" OrthodoxyThere doesn't HAVE to be "one" monolithic "American" (whatever that means) Orthodox tradition. There is room for variety in SYNOD. I would like to see ONE AMERICAN SYNOD of bishops, based on regions, working together to a common vision. There can be some flexibility in how it is administered. I, for one, am mostly interested in simply allowing for the POSSIBILITY of an emerging and validated "American" tradition alongside the others, but working in SYMPHONIA, in concert with each other, not in competition or opposition.

That's all

[Antonios]

Hi everyone,

I found these two new articles which may be of interest regarding the topic of this thread...


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/TrenhamUnity.php

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HarakasUnity.php

[Rick H.]

Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you for your wise and Spirit-filled guidance and for your convicting and evenhanded comments. Again, you provide an indispensable point of view and a point of balance in this discussion in relation to "this new reality we live in," as you say.

And, when you offer in the following:


Failure however occurred in each case due to human weakness and passion but manifested in a very particular way. Basically failure almost always resulted because each jurisdiction (and sometimes this came right down to individual parishes also) saw themselves as defenders of a particular vision which in no case could be given up or rounded out by the experience of other Orthodox. This is what I have often called the experience of Orthodox jurisdictions as 'brand names' like labels for items in a grocery store. Simply put- for many years and far before our time we Orthodox have desired and attempted unity. But failure has always resulted from the 'brand name' mentality.

. . . from my perspective, you provide a very unique opportunity for us in this thread--in the way of "a true threshold" or "a getting out of the boat," so to speak, that would offer once again, a new starting point (hopefully leading to a new state).

But, on a personal note, I must confess now that as we are standing at this threshold, there is as John has said, 'more than the usual degree of trepidation/apprehension' on my part due to the implications (and the question of the appropriateness of the time and the place as we continue). On one hand, I absolutely cannot believe that we have come so far--since the last week of November--in our discussion here (especially to the place where we are now): I am interested in an inter-personal communication, I am not trying to use this forum as a podium from which to make a presentation [hopefully, I am not doing this!]; but, on the other hand, I seem to be constantly provoked from without by such contributions as yours to continue, and I am compelled from within to continue which is amounting to a presentation in 'bit form.' It is also as John has said, in one of his initial postings to this thread, 'I do have views/thoughts which do lie at the heart of this discussion' and this is why I initiated this thread. I initiated this thread for the purpose of research and dialogue in a wider community and for feedback/help thinking through such concepts as a "neopatristic synthesis" in this "new reality we live in" [which some consider to be the age of Postmodernity]. In summary, while, I have tried to act as a facilitator of sorts here to keep the conversation moving, I have also striven to keep from making a formal presentation; however, your above contribution which speaks of a "'brand name' mentality" appears, on the surface, to be perfectly parallel to my primary thesis which is that the "new reality we live in" is an "aparticularistic" philosophy of a relativistic modernity, which is--at its core--an absurd and final reaction against all true particularism by means of an antithetical inclusive particularism. But, in order to move forward with this thesis we would need to define some terms and bring an abstract into view. I agree with you that "our work is a spiritual work," and I am allowing an increasing amount of room for 'wrong button pushing' here, but possibly you see the horns of my dilemma in that neither one presents a tennable position.

The servant of God,
Paul

[Robert Hegwood]

"But, in order to move forward with this thesis we would need to define some terms and bring an abstract into view. "

"antithetical aparticularism"...sounds like we are already deep into abstract territory already.

If I understand what you are saying...and I offer no guarrantees, is that the particular problem of our time and culture is its knee-jerk inclusiveness/acceptance of just about anything except any kind of standards based exclusivity...like notions of absolute truth, one true faith, etc. And further to move the discussion forward we need to talk about certian things with a greater degree of abstraction.

[Rick H.]

Robert--I am sorry for the ambiguity, I was using the term "abstract" in the sense of a draft or a summary one would submit to a professor for approval of a potential paper, or what one might find in the beginning of an academic paper (like a 'term' or 'position' paper) before the introduction or preface : viz. "a statement summarizing the important points of a text." If I do compose an abstract then possibly we can go from there with your other comments. And, so begins the defining of terms . . . :) --Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

Perhaps we might start with defining what is meant by "Orthodox Global Village"? I believe the term was originally coined by Marshall McLuhan, to describe the historical period following what he called the "Gutenberg Galaxy". The defining feature being the advent of mass media which spans the globe, collapsing space and time barriers in human communication, enabling people to interact and live on a global scale. IOW, the whole world has become a single village because everybody can know what is going on, like there are few secrets in a small town. I am not sure if this is part of the context here however.

I am shooting in the dark here, but we are demonstrating here in the Monachos fora an aspect of "Global Village", in that people from all over the world can meet and interact to a degree. Views and experiences are shared, which enables a common consciousness to some degree, in a McLuhanian sense.

I also see it from another perspective, in that the Orthodox Faith is a common element across cultures, geography and language. If I walk into a Greek Church, I pretty much know what the people believe, and what the service is, even if I don't understand the language. On the other hand, if I walk into a Baptist Church, even though I understand the language, I really have no idea what the beliefs of that Church may be and how they differ from the Baptist church down the street. Orthodoxy spans cultures. While Protestantism is really a product of a particular culture. In fact, for Protestant evangelization to be effective, the culture must be transformed before the Protestant Gospel can really take root. People have to understand why "Rationalism" and "Reason" are so darned "important" before the theology can be explained. Whereas, Orthodoxy (and of course "unreformed" Catholicism) reaches out at a more subliminal level, speaking to the "Holy", going beyond reason and rationality (which are very limited concepts, let's face it). This, I suspect, might be the line of demarkation between "East" and "West" when it comes to theology. Perhaps I am dwelling more on the "global" than the "village" here but I'm still trying to sort it out in my simple mind.

[Rick H.]

HP Pavilion Lap Top Computer $1475
Netgear Router and Card $275
Internet Service $23

Time spent on Monachos Priceless!


:) I haven't read all the rules for Monachos, but I hope it is not against the rules to allow some room for humor here :) In fact, if I remember correctly there is a Spiritual Father from Winnipeg on this system who is a very frequent poster who has a picture of a beagle wearing airplane wings and aviator goggles (who looks very much like Snoopy) on his images section of his personal profile :) So I'm going to assume it is not against the rules to lighten things up a little bit from time to time.

So, Herman . . I hope you have a sense of humor and can see that I am smiling as I say no!-no!-no!, a thousand times no! :) to the "Gutenberg Galaxy" and "McLuhan." This has nothing to do with my usage of the words 'global' and 'village' in this thread. I do give you credit though for your research and thinking here for which if we ever end up in a coffee shop one day, I will gladly buy/foot the bill as a gesture to acknowledge your spirit of enquiry. I do appreciate your method very much. And, maybe this will demonstrate to you that I have had too much espresso today, but I will share with you that I laughed out loud when I read the above because it occurred to me that it could be said that in a 'Gutenberg Galaxy' far-far away . . . the words were spoken "'McLuhan' I am your father". Okay, I better stop now before I get kicked out of here :)

I can see why you thought this--all things considered--but again, no correlation here in my usage--and for that matter what is said by McLuhan could apply to many discussion communities I think as well as other media. If you look on Wikipedia or other such encyclopedic websites (hmm . . . what does 'Wiki'pedia mean? ;), I think you will see that to speak of a 'global village' is to utilize a symbol of sorts and it is used by everyone from sociologists to businessmen, but when you add modifiers to these two words and use it to represent a 'philosophy' or 'a school of thought' then it can take on a "very specific meaning" as it does in the Postmodern Conversation. Or when you bring it out, and place it on the table, as we have here, as a "Global Orthodox Christian Village" then while it does in fact become very specific and unique; it at the same time is also "truly 'generic'" in the sense of not having a
"brand name(s)" by way of reference to the Father's most recent posting.

But, again the question is raised by you today:


. . . what is meant by "Orthodox Global Village"?

As was raised by John last week:


What does it take to be part of the 'Orthodox Christian Global Village'? [@ R. Henry 2006]


. . . and this is a discussion "community" so hopefully we will have some discussion. And, hopefully we will see more clergy weigh in on this subject. The guidence of Fr. Raphael is a true blessing and it would be a great loss if he were to stop contributing, but I wonder if there is any other clergy available (especially US native born) to help/guide us in this consideration of what it takes to be part of the "Orthodox Christian Global Village?"

Peace and Joy,
Rick

"In the End, the Beginning"

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick, Herman, Fr. Raphael and other posters,


I am struck, at this juncture in what is an interesting and productive dialogue, by the following from Herman's last posting:


In fact, for Protestant evangelization to be effective, the culture must be transformed before the Protestant Gospel can really take root. People have to understand why "Rationalism" and "Reason" are so darned "important" before the theology can be explained. Whereas, Orthodoxy (and of course "unreformed" Catholicism) reaches out at a more subliminal level, speaking to the "Holy", going beyond reason and rationality (which are very limited concepts, let's face it). This, I suspect, might be the line of demarkation between "East" and "West" when it comes to theology. Perhaps I am dwelling more on the "global" than the "village" here but I'm still trying to sort it out in my simple mind.


Not only is that the line of demarcation, it is where Orthodoxy probably has the greatest potential for those who have not experienced it.

There seems to be a great disinterest among people, particularly the young, in what might be called traditional western versions of Christianity - precisely because they often fail to go 'beyond reason and rationality'. Now, often that literally means they fall for stuff this is unreasonable and irrational - which Orthodoxy, of course, is not.

Orthodoxy reaches the parts that other Christian denominations often fail to reach. In trying to become more 'rational' and 'relevant', something like Anglicanism has jettisoned precisely those parts of Christianity that speak to the whole person, that get under the radar of the intellect and touch the soul. That is what so many people in this society hunger for - and Orthodoxy has the answer to that hunger. It is 'real' Christianity, with, as Andreas has said on another thread, 'nowt left out and nowt added'.

This is where Orthodoxy intersects with the spiritual sickness and shallowness of this society, and where, if people knew about it and could approach it, it offers them the richness they are seeking.

Just as people grow tired of 'fast food' and political 'spin', so too they tire of their religious equivalents. Is Orthodoxy ready to lead them to it?


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Many parishes and monasteries have been following the principles spoken of here ie. use of local language, adjustment to local culture, etc; since at least the late 1970s. I personally came from and know of these parishes & monasteries to this day.

Although such parishes and monasteries have seen growth during this time considering that we are talking about over 25 years in many cases- ie a quarter century and more- this growth by any sober standards has been slow to say the least. Sometimes years pass with things only holding their own as it were.

What we are talking about here is the truth about the Church in the west which anyone who has lived with this experience knows about first hand. Yes it is true that many parishes are still ethnic if one objects to this; but there are certainly now many parishes which have been following the principles suggested in these posts, and over long enough period of time, to have a fairly good idea of how local people react to this presentation of Orthodoxy.

The sober truth my friends is that it is extremely rare that a genuine presentation of Orthodoxy in any language will lead to the kind of growth we are speaking of here. The truth is that most missions which begin with let's say about 25 people are at about 100 or so people 25 years later. This is more than enough for a very viable parish. But in terms of a real example I know of where in a city of 750,000 there is one parish of 100 people after 25 years this actually represents less people in the parish than live in one city block.

For those who spend years in a parish or monastery you will recognize the phenomenon which in fact is the reality we presently face: i) for those who inquire about the Church only a fraction of these will actually get to the Church to see what it is about (often only the priest who answers the parish phone is aware of this); ii) of these only a fraction will remain past a visit or two; iii) of those who begin the catechumenate or who even are received sacramentally into the Church a noticeable number will not be in the parish within two years or so, ie past the honey-moon period. iv) those who make it through this period are more likely to endure long-term.

How to meet the actual culture we live in is part of the Gospel calling indeed. The Church must continually deal with this challenge but of course according to its own standards and not those of this world. If we fall into trying to cater to people according to the standards of the world we are twice fooled since we betray our own calling as the Church while placing a pathetic distant last place to what the world really offers. If there is any falseness which young people really do spot nowadays it is the falseness of a church which proclaims itself not of this world and then presents itself as a third rate copy of it.

So for those on the ground with almost 30 years of experience in the very things spoken of here what is there? Certainly no one I know feels it anything but a fundamental betrayal to abandon the call to spread the Light of Christ's Gospel to this world in the way they do. Again, many shining examples of this effort can be found from the Church throughout the world.

But what almost all have also come to recognize is that doing this is not a method for having the world fall into our laps. Christ never promised us this nor does it seem to match the mood of the times. Of course except for those with the prophetic gift to know these things the situation could dramatically change (I personally believe the situation is more dire compared to thirty years ago not better) in a very unexpected way. But most who have the spiritual callouses on their hands to prove their experience do not expect this kind of change. Rather they see it as their call to continue with their ministry to the world in the place God called them to do this; they have joy over every person who enters Christ's Church; but those who come to the Church and commit themselves are few; so amidst the undoubted consolations for parishes this is also a martyric period we live in. To a great degree the actual life of most parishes is found by the balance between these two.

Why come to grips with this side of the question of whether this is really a time of dramatic society-shifting growth for the Church or not? First because we are called as Christians to be sober and realistic about the communities we live in. Sober assessment directly affects those acts of outreach and faith that are the lifeblood of a parish but in turn prevents anxious projects which end in disappointment at best and possibly burn out and abandoning the Church entirely at worst.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

In fact, for Protestant evangelization to be effective, the culture must be transformed before the Protestant Gospel can really take root. People have to understand why "Rationalism" and "Reason" are so darned "important" before the theology can be explained. Whereas, Orthodoxy (and of course "unreformed" Catholicism) reaches out at a more subliminal level, speaking to the "Holy", going beyond reason and rationality (which are very limited concepts, let's face it). This, I suspect, might be the line of demarkation between "East" and "West" when it comes to theology. Perhaps I am dwelling more on the "global" than the "village" here but I'm still trying to sort it out in my simple mind.


Yes, John I agree--thank you Herman. Along this line also I found the following helpful by James J. Stamoolis:

-- The East was not influenced by Augustine; its anthropology is different from that of the West

--The East was not influenced by Anselm; its soteriology is different from that of the West

--The East was not influenced by Thomas; its methodology is different from that of the West

Also, thank you Antonios for the excellent articles . . . they both look like pure gold on a quick skim. I am looking forward to giving them a hard read hopefully tomorrow.

Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

On Christian sobriety, about two thousand years ago, St. Peter has written:



NAS 1 Peter 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. 6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, 7 casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you. 8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world. 10 And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.


On Christian sobriety, yesterday, Fr. Raphael has written:


Why come to grips with this side of the question of whether this is really a time of dramatic society-shifting growth for the Church or not? First because we are called as Christians to be sober and realistic about the communities we live in. Sober assessment directly affects those acts of outreach and faith that are the lifeblood of a parish but in turn prevents anxious projects which end in disappointment at best and possibly burn out and abandoning the Church entirely at worst. [emphasis mine]


The message of these two spiritual fathers/shepherds, although separated by many centuries, speaks a beautiful wisdom and provides a unified heavenly harmony to the individual Christian within the Eucharistic Community of our day. And, as it relates to Father Raphael's postings, I would like to invite the reader to go back to his first posting (#16) and re-read all of his postings to this thread (up to his last #119)--and consider the Father's contributions as a whole. Sometimes we need to be able to harmonize what is being said (viz. pneumatikos thoughts and pneumatikos words) over the course of time (and collectively) in order to appreciate what is being said, and also in order to avoid misunderstanding what is being shared at times.

Now with that said (hopefully in a clear fashion), I would like to say firstly, and plainly, that based on my hands-on experience and my 'spiritual calluses, ' I do not have any use for church growth gurus and their strategic planning efforts that I would categorize as "anxious projects." And, secondly, I would like to place the above question under the microscope for a closer look at the above reference to a "'shift' in society" which is:


Why come to grips with this side of the question of whether this is really a time of dramatic 'society-shifting' growth for the Church or not?


Specifically, I would like to focus our attention on the question 'is this really a time of dramatic society-shifting' or in other words:

Realistically, is there a dramatic 'shift' taking place now?

As the Father has wisely shared before, I will take one step further . . . it is an ignorant method yielding an arrogant state of stupor by which a current generation makes no effort to consider the experience of the previous generation (even the most recent history of the past thirty years), let alone the past sixty or ninety or one-hundred and twenty years. We cannot call ourselves Christian thinkers (or any kind of thinker at all!) if we do not consider at the least even the most recent past can we? Especially, as it relates to a societal shifting we speak only as drunken ones with very red eyes and a slurring of our words if we are not aware due to a lack of either interest or analytical skills of what has taken place in past generations. It is a 'tragedy' as Dr. Francis Schaeffer has said, as quoted by me in a previous contribution.

In fact, knowing the Father has already answered the question 'Why?' come to grips with this . . . let us consider further our question in a very sober and realistic way by means of going back and beginning again with Francis Schaeffer in the following:

"Wherever you look today, the new concept holds the field. The consensus about us is almost monolithic, whether you review the arts, literature or simply read the newspapers and magazines such as Time, Life, or Newsweek, The Listener or The Observer. On every side you can feel the stranglehold of this new methodology--and by "methodology" we mean the way we approach truth and knowing. It is like suffocating in a particularly bad London fog. And just as fog cannot be kept out by walls or doors, so this consensus comes in around us, until the room we live in is no longer unpolluted, and yet we hardly realize what has happened."

FS continues:

"The tragedy of our situation today is that men and women are being fundamentally affected by the new way of looking at truth, and yet they have never even analyzed the drift which has taken place. Young people from Christian homes are brought up in the old framework of truth. Then they are subjected to the modern framework. In time they become confused because they do not understand the alternatives with which they are being presented. Confusion becomes bewilderment, and before long they are overwhelmed. This is unhappily true not only of young people, but of many pastors, Christian educators, evangelists and missionaries as well "

"If you had lived in Europe, let us say prior to about 1890, or in the United States before about 1935, you would not have to have had to spend much time, in practice, in thinking about your presuppositions. (These dates are arbitrary as the change came, in Europe at least, fairly gradually. In America the crucial years of change were from 1913 to 1940, and during these relatively few years the whole way of thinking underwent a revolution; 1913 was a most important year in the United States, not because it was the year before the First World War, but for another highly significant reason, as we shall see later) . . ."

And, I can see that this is running too long now before I can even get started [ugh]. . . so I think this does indicate the necessity of composing an abstract (a statement summarizing the important points) because this 'shift' is our starting place in this discussion as it relates specifically to a "Global Orthodox Christian Village" which is not a short or quick conversation especially as it relates to presuppositions. In fact, while we have been going for over four weeks now with over one hundred contributions and have come a long way towards a starting place . . . we really haven't even reached the beginning of the conversation yet or walked through the first doorway. Which is to say, without an understanding of this 'shift' that has already taken place many years ago, there can be no sober thinking by any so called Christian or other "thinkers." Therefore, please allow me to attempt to move us out of the boat by way of one final quote by FS and then I will prepare an offering/abstract for transmission, God willing, in the next 24-48 hrs.

"It was indeed unfortunate that our Christian "thinkers," in the time before the shift took place and the chasm was fixed, did not teach and preach with a clear grasp of presuppositions. Had they done this they would not have been taken by surprise, and they could have helped young people to face their difficulties. The really foolish thing is that even now, years after the shift is complete, many Christians still do not know what is happening. And this is because they are still not being taught the importance of thinking in terms of presuppositions, especially concerning the truth."

In the Crucified and Risen Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Clearly Fr. Raphael, as ever, makes us pause for thought with his experience, and we would be wise to do as you suggest, and take on board what he says; he has been there, labouring in the vineyard.

Reading his post, and thinking what good sense it was, something else struck me, which was where I had heard the tone before, and I realised that it was very recently - and that it was myself speaking to a new, eager and young colleague, who had more ideas about how to put everything right, and more energy to apply to the tasks in hand, than I had ideas and energy to deal with any one of a number of major issues. It was only when I reflected on what I had said, that it reminded me of something in the past - my own senior professor talking to me nearly thirty years ago, when as a new young lecturer I too had the energy to want to tackle anything that moved (so to speak) - as well as the lack of experience to think my judgement was spot on in terms of what was needed. All of which set me to thinking.

Experience is invaluable, and not least in what we are talking about; but it has its downsides. My current inclination to proceed cautiously and to select carefully which problems with which to deal, as well as my tendency to expect that little will be achieved, and to be fairly happy if anything approximating to progress is ever made, is certainly the fruit of very long experience; but if I have gained from having experience, I have also lost things through it. There are times when energy and optimism have to have cold water splashed upon them, but there are others when one tries to give those with the energy their head, trying, the while (as I think Fr. Raphael is) to guide them towards a constructive way of engaging with whatever the problems are, without letting them reinvent that square wheel that the last lot tried to invent, and were so disappointed when the vehicle refused to move.

This is why this discussion thread is so productive, because we can, as it were, self-moderate; keeping the energy, such as it is, without letting it go off at unfruitful tangents.

I remain struck by the way in which young western people seek out an Eastern mysticism in something like Buddhism, whilst knowing nothing of the richness of Orthodoxy which is more or less under their noses. Indeed, it is easier, at times, in western cities to encounter Buddhism or TM than it is Orthodox Christianity. It is that that has to change.

The wisdom of Fr. Raphael's comment:

The Church must continually deal with this challenge but of course according to its own standards and not those of this world. If we fall into trying to cater to people according to the standards of the world we are twice fooled since we betray our own calling as the Church while placing a pathetic distant last place to what the world really offers. If there is any falseness which young people really do spot nowadays it is the falseness of a church which proclaims itself not of this world and then presents itself as a third rate copy of it

is self-evident, and I see nothing in this thread which would lead us into this danger. The Anglicans have explored this path for us, and there is no need, or use, in repeating their mistakes.

The voice of experience it is that tells us with wisdom
we are called as Christians to be sober and realistic about the communities we live in. - but there is also a small voice which asks whether that is how the Apostles went about things. How mad they must have appeared to those sober-sided Roman officials before whom so many of them were hauled for punishment - how unrealistic they were. And yet how they prevailed.

Maybe we cannot do likewise, maybe we can only wait out the bad times and hope and work for better ones, but then I am reminded of one of the disadvantages of experience - that feeling I often have that just keeping afloat isn't a bad achievement in this world. My younger colleagues make me aware that there are times to temper that feeling with their energy and enthusiasm, just as their qualities need the direction mine can bring. It is in this mix of skills and energies that progress might be made. To assume that all that is possible is survival is probably to ensure that even that is not ultimately possible.

But, as I would say to my younger colleagues, I have been here a long time, I have not only the t-shirt to prove it, but the scars and callouses, and it is easier to talk about the plough than it is to put your hand to it and plough a straight furrow - and it is easier to do that than it is to do the whole field. That, of course, is why we need the help we get.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I hope that none take the comments of my posts as being harshly critical because I do not mean them in this way. Mostly I'm just trying to make some points about out-reach that come from hands-on experience of the past 30 years.

One of these points I was just reminded of by Rick's post is that when the EOM first joined the Antiochene jurisdiction they had a well thought out plan for taking Orthodoxy to North America. I recall there were a certain number of parishes they aimed at founding by I think the year 2000. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but the basic plan I do recall- and it was most ambitious.

Now the point is that despite the use of English, an openness to the local culture & an obvious eagerness to accomplish the task at hand, why was the objective never reached?

Maybe some of you recall this and why the plan failed at least in its set goal. Recalling this & considering its lessons may be of use to the discussion.

I suppose part of my overall point is that there are pioneers in this effort who have come before us and it would be of great help to refer to their experience.
Especially I have in mind what has worked so far and what has not.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

John--I really do appreciate your writing/thinking and your varied fields of knowledge, and especially the mood/energy/spirit that is manifested through your modus operandi. Thanks. Also, I took note of the following in your last post:


I remain struck by the way in which young western people seek out an Eastern mysticism in something like Buddhism, whilst knowing nothing of the richness of Orthodoxy which is more or less under their noses. Indeed, it is easier, at times, in western cities to encounter Buddhism or TM than it is Orthodox Christianity. It is that that has to change.

Possibly as you know, in the US many fads and lasting systems seem to move from the west coast (California & the Pacific Northwest) to the east coast. And, based on my reading, travel, and friends/relatives around the country, I would say that Yogic/Vedantic thought, Buddhism, Bahai, TM and others that I will call 'tossed salads' put together by some of our home grown gurus and others abroad have been established coast to coast, and have taken root (especially Buddhism, which some consider to be 'the most spiritual of psychologies and the most psychological of spiritualities') in such a fashion that in comparison they do make Orthodoxy appear as "an insignificant dot on the margin . . ." as Metropolitan Phillip has said. I have actually been doing an independent study of Eastern Mysticism and its off-shoots which some refer to as New Age thinking/living for the past 2.5 years. Whereby, (in general and in consideration of the points of intersection with Orthodox praxis) it is very-very easy for me to see why not only the young people, but many middle aged and older people (and those transitioning from one stage of life to another) are completely 'swept away' with what is being offered in some of these systems. Regarding the outreach and very high caliber educational and training efforts (both academically and in practice[viz. yoga{s} & meditation{s}]) that these systems offer (which do provide huge 'real' benefits--physiologically & psychologically--to the followers of these systems) . . . in contrast to the severe deficiency of education and training offered as outlined by the Archbishop Dimetrios at a recent clergy-laity conference in Nashville--one would have to be deaf-dumb-blind-dead to not be able to both see what is happening directionally here and to not agree with you that this cannot continue (without a clearly defined dereliction on our part). And, I bring all of this up because I think it will likely play a role in our conversation here down the road as we consider both the wholistic approach or lack of it that is being presented through Orthodoxy as it addresses (practically speaking) the psychological needs of man in the present day, and the postmodern question in terms of whom it is applicable to and whom it is not applicable to (viz. pre-modern vs. modern societies/epistemologies) . . . and at this point I hope to be able to draw some of the Indians in to this thread who are contributing so well on Monachos in other threads, because then, so to speak, we would not be limited to the dreaded secondary sources in this conversation. In fact, if it sounds agreeable to you, I wonder if you would consider inviting some of the Indian Orthodox that you are in dialogue with to monitor our conversation, from time to time, so that if they are willing they can join in on this aspect (or others!) and be somewhat informed of where we have been (to hopefully avoid--as I have learned is not uncommon in an electronic arena--a mere reading of the last posting and then just "spouting-off" in such a way that there is a 'popping-in', then a 'popping-off', and then a 'popping-out' resulting in a contribution ranging from a kicking over of a trash can to a full-blown train wreck which ultimately brings things to a grinding halt and leaves a mess to clean up).

Speaking of grinding things down, I haven't had my morning coffee or pipe yet today, is it obvious? :)

Father, thank you for your last posting. I think we are all speaking the same 'language' here (or soon will be after I make coffee :0) I also appreciated your most excellent points on considering what has been tried in the past and the following question that you posed:


Now the point is that despite the use of English, an openness to the local culture & an obvious eagerness to accomplish the task at hand, why was the objective never reached?

I am excited at this point in our discussion, which I also consider to be profitable, because with great speed we clearly have the right questions in hand. Whereby, between subscribing to the Johanian Philosophy of getting the right answers from pushing the wrong buttons, and the fact that we are asking the right questions ,I think we are, as has been said, 'heading in the right direction here.'

Now where is that coffee bean grinder?

Peace,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Speaking of grinding things down, I haven't had my morning coffee or pipe yet today, is it obvious? :)

... I think we are all speaking the same 'language' here (or soon will be after I make coffee :0)


Boy are we ever speaking the same language here! Monachos & my first cup of coffee (never try try to separate a monk from his cup- or mug- of coffee in the morning) seem to go hand in hand as part of my morning routine.

Anyway- My suggestion is to speak with your priest and those in the trenches, as it were, about this question. There are plenty of those around who have first hand experience of the successes and failures of bringing Orthodoxy to these lands. What is so striking is the variety of ways God has led those within the Church to this.

The story is not one of great failure to my way of thinking unless one is expecting something the situation hasn't given us. But this is my main question in these posts- why are we so certain that Christ intends the west to fall into our laps if we could only find the right method?

Experience seems to show that our light will be more like a candle here & a candle there in a wider landscape. Why be so sure that this is not what Christ intends for His Church right now? After all this is similar to the Church in the first three centuries. And this wasn't the result of the first Christians doing something wrong was it? Rather it's the way Christ gave the Church to witness at the time.

It's my experience (but maybe only my own) that Orthodoxy is a hard sell in our time. In our fairly typical city as far as Orthodoxy goes, parishes can, thanks be to God, maintain themselves. But even those parishes which stress or use only English are not booming or taking the city by storm.

The reason for this I would suggest is not that no one has thought of suitable ways to bring Orthodoxy to the local culture. Rather the reason is that most visitors to our parishes get the point of Orthodoxy far faster then we who have been in it for awhile realize. And what they 'get' is that Orthodoxy is about dying to oneself. Somehow even if it's only from the grace of the services & the parish building they get it even if we've forgotten it or overlook it ourselves.

Many then, just as when Christ preached, will turn away. But we need to be conscious and aware of this so we understand how to meet this reality.

A couple of things come to mind here that come from experience gained in the field. We need to grow in awareness of what essentially the Church is offering and HOW- dying to oneself through the ascetic method. Generally of course we are personally aware of this- it is part of our own life in Christ within our parish.

But perhaps we are unaware of how to present this fact of the Church's life to visitors or are even a bit ashamed of it (to the degree that we do not see asceticism as the glory of the Church aren't we ourselves responsible for how visitors are not attracted to the Church? What else are we trying to offer than the Cross and Resurrection?).

Then too, hand in hand with this must go a certain kind of freedom in regards to who visits our parishes. Many will reject what the Church offers & we need to become sensitive to people's points of resistance while being ready to meet their genuine points of searching. This is not something which will come without effort on all our parts and also learning how both to respond and let go of people both often at the same time. Learning how to deal with the pain that goes with allowing people their freedom- even to reject the Church- is something that needs to be consciously undertaken & learnt. Ideally this learning process could be accomplished on a group/parish level with members of the parish guiding each other in the best way from their own experience.

To repeat a point already made. To not recognize how to deal with those who will visit our parishes and then reject what is offered is precisely to risk falling into the classic blind alleys past experience by this time should have alerted us to.

Looking for that undiscovered method by which more would be attracted to the Church does of course have a point to it. The 'undiscovered method' assumes that as a parish we're not up to snuff, that we overlook even the simple things when it comes to those who visit our parishes. And this is correct.

But there's a fine line between this crucial attitude necessary for the life of a parish and the anxious spirit prevalent in our times which assumes that if only we found the right method, the whole world would fall into our laps. If we go too far down this path we risk wasting time or even doing ourselves real spiritual harm.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Looking for that undiscovered method by which more would be attracted to the Church does of course have a point to it. The 'undiscovered method' assumes that as a parish we're not up to snuff, that we overlook even the simple things when it comes to those who visit our parishes. And this is correct.

But there's a fine line between this crucial attitude necessary for the life of a parish and the anxious spirit prevalent in our times which assumes that if only we found the right method, the whole world would fall into our laps. If we go too far down this path we risk wasting time or even doing ourselves real spiritual harm.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr. Raphael, Dear Rick,

Again, some excellent points from Fr. Raphael to help ground the discussion - and after the appropriate amount of coffee, I am sure that Rick will take them into his work on this thread.

We must not assume that anything will 'fall into our lap'. The Apostles all died in the cause of spreading the Word, and we know from the Pauline letters and from Acts how hard it is to preach the word and to make converts; Fr. Raphael reminds us, most usefully, that times are no easier - no doubt because human nature remains stubbornly resistant to the changes it needs to make.

One of the reasons that 'unity' is an important topic which needs to be incorporated into our thinking is, of course, that the visible disunity of the Church is a great impediment to any mission. Again, I would say this is not a call for syncretism, but for a continuation of and progress in the talks that have taken place between the Orthodox Churches.

Whilst eschewing any notion that we are in any deep sense wiser than our forefathers, if we cannot learn something from our history, then we are actually more stupid than they were; we have only one benefit over them, we can see how things have turned out since their time, and we can try to learn the lessons and, in humility, strive to correct the mistakes of the past. Or, sinful, prideful man, as ever, we can simply live with them and despair of doing any better. From those to whom much is given, much will be expected.

Looking forward to Rick's posting.


In Christ,

John

[Andrew]

My own spiritual father has preached about these topics before... basically, as I think Father Raphael could agree upon, we live in a certain place and age that in many ways is diametrically opposed to Orthodox praxis. American culture is consumer culture, and Orthodoxy can never truly become mainstream if it holds to the traditional way of salvation, ascetic podvig, cosuffering love, etc. The Church will attract those who want The Cross. Pop culture does not want the Cross, so why would it want Orthodoxy? We cannot offer anyone happiness, success, self-empowerment, etc. We can offer them the Crucified God, repentance, and the life of the God-man. Look at the American religious scene: what sells? What fills "churches"? It is a religion of self-affirmation, of becoming a better businessman/schoolteacher/plumber/wife/etc. according to the principles of whatever guru/motivational speaker/celebrity/demagogue holds to be the new sure thing. Those who want to die to the world will become Orthodox. We just need open doors - I know this is what brought me to Orthodoxy! I had no idea there were any Orthodox Churches where I lived. I knew I was sick of the pathology of American youth culture, of evangelical enthusiasm, and my own sinful ways. I searched on the internet for a Church, found one, showed up at the door, and it was a sealed deal. I'm sure everyone's journey is different, but just know that those who seek after Truth will find him. We don't need flashy programs, we don't need Festivals, we don't need the things that attract the World; we need the Cross and Churches visible to those who want crucifixion, and God will sort the rest out. An Orthodox presence on the internet is certainly helpful, and the existence of Orthodox temples and people living transfigured lives... this is the Orthodox way of evangelism. Monasteries are essential too.

We are certainly blessed today to follow after the blessed lives of modern Orthodox confessors like Elder Sophrony, Saint Justin Popovich, Elder Cleopa, and thousands of others. And even today, their spiritual children breath life into this world.

But anyways, enough of my rant. And to encourage some of the people here - my home parish, in 2005, received about three people into the Church. This year of 2006, maybe 13 people were brought into the Body of Christ. At the (very) small parish I go to in Arkansas, there are about 10 catechumens who are going to be received soon. God is with us!

And whoever spoke of coffee and pipes - I think coffee is a tool for stamina, mental wellbeing, and good cheer. And a good pipe is like a warm blanket... Father Raphael, are priests allowed to smoke pipe tobacco, or is this canonically forbidden?

[Owen Jones]

The late Will Herberg, author of "Protestant, Christian Jew," was asked why he had not discussed Orthodoxy in his seminal work on religion in America. He said, "the Orthodox don't stand a chance in America."

However, things have changed. America is much less conventional than it was then, and there are more people searching, and a serious monasticism is going to have more and more appeal. That's the foundation for an American "style" of Orthodoxy taking root.

[Andreas Moran]

Apparently, Elder Sophrony found it very hard to give up smoking when he went to the Holy Mountain. And you remember the story in 'St Silouan the Athonite' about a salesman on the train offering St Silouan a cigarette. St Silouan didn't say to the man it was a sin to smoke (which it is in Russia now!) but proposed they say the Lord's Prayer first. 'Hmm', said the man, 'praying and then smoking - that doesn't go'. 'Then', replied St Silouan, 'never do anything that cannot be preceded by untroubled prayer.' I often think of that injunction - and, God help me, how I wish I could comply with it! Excuse me for a few moments . . .

Andreas.

[Andrew]

Apparently, Elder Sophrony found it very hard to give up smoking when he went to the Holy Mountain. And you remember the story in 'St Silouan the Athonite' about a salesman on the train offering St Silouan a cigarette. St Silouan didn't say to the man it was a sin to smoke (which it is in Russia now!) but proposed they say the Lord's Prayer first. 'Hmm', said the man, 'praying and then smoking - that doesn't go'. 'Then', replied St Silouan, 'never do anything that cannot be preceded by untroubled prayer.' I often think of that injunction - and, God help, me, how I wish I could comply with it! Excuse me for a few moments . . .

Andreas.

I've heard that story before:) I've always seen tobacco as a gift from God, just as barley (beer) and grapes (wine) are. In moderation they are helpful to the human person, in excess they can destroy.

[Peter Farrington]

Beer and wine, yes I agree.

But is smoking ever beneficial? Maybe an occasional cigar I guess, but I'd have thought the known dangers of smoking even a little would put a Christian off the habit?

But so that I do not sound pious, I am also aware that I am a little overweight and do not do any exercise, and that if I wish to encourage others to be healthier and take care of their 'temple', then I need to encourage myself first.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Raphael, are priests allowed to smoke pipe tobacco, or is this canonically forbidden?

Well, we shouldn't really be smoking, but you do see it sometimes.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Well, I have to confess to the occasional post-prandial puff in the garden, but the priest in our parish in Moscow is dead against it.

Andreas.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

There is a unique authentic dynamic at work here, in the writing of this community, at this 'time' and in this 'place.' I wonder if we are able to see it? My mind keeps going back to the posting by Herman where he introduced me to McLuhan's thoughts on such media as this, and regardless of all else (knowing that it is all too easy to become 'fettered by the fetters of our own views' in a most unhelpful way), when one boils it all down, it is as Herman has keenly suggested[!] and we are clearly beginning to answer some of the questions that have been asked here through even just our 'mode of existence,' as previously quoted by Zizioulas when he explained, "The Church is not simply an institution. She is a mode of existence, 'a way of being.'" It is as Herman has suggested, we are demonstrating very well an aspect of a global village, here at Monachos, as it relates to everything that has been said up to this point.

And, concerning some of our questions that we have in hand at the present, I think some questions are best addressed directly while others can possibly be answered most efficiently through an indirect or dialectical approach knowing that in many cases, such as the early Church, one size does not fit 'All'[!] and it is a truly Christological theology that allows room for such concepts as a tandem truth. Whereby, I would like to offer the following two thoughts regarding: 1.) distinguishing between the genuine and the less than genuine; and, 2.) questions of how to conduct oneself as a Christian as it relates to both conduct and service.

Firstly, as has been said about Soren Kierkegaard:

"Kierkegaard came to distinguish between 'genuine,' essential, or authentic authors and 'premise-authors.'" 'Genuine' authors are those who can see things in their total connection, who have a point of view congruent with the way in which they live, and, thus, they can give to their age what it needs. 'Premise-authors,' on the other hand, merely take from the age the experience they need and give only a quick display of playing with matches."

Secondly, by Elisabeth Elliot, after the murder of her husband, Jim Elliot (the Plymouth Brethren missionary killed by the Auca tribe in South America to which he was attempting to share the Gospel of Christ):

"Questions of how to conduct oneself as a Christian, or how to serve as a Christian, must be answered by life itself--the life of the individual in his direct, responsible relationship to God. This is a dynamic never static, thing. And how can we speak at all of the true meaning of conduct and service if we do not speak first and last of love? For it is love which sums up all other commands. The one who loves knows better than anyone else how to conduct himself, how to serve the one he loves. Love prescribes an answer in a given situation as no mere rule can do."

St. Symeon the New Theologian wrote about "watchfulness/attentiveness," "mindfulness," and "detachment" in a way that brings freedom from many evil attacks in The Three Methods of Prayer. St. Symeon's work helps us to smell the roses on the cross by first helping us to "see" the roses on the cross. May we not create artificial separations where they do not exist in fact. There is suffering; but, may Love abide.


Peace and Love,
Rick

"Christ is born; glorify Him!
Christ comes from heaven; go to meet Him!
Christ is on earth; be exalted!
Sing to the Lord, all the earth!
And praise Him in gladness, O people, for He has been glorified!"

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Reading Matthew 16:24-25:this struck me as relevant to our discussion:


24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it

How can we make this true for us here and now?

Then, listening to a recording of a Choral Evensong, the following from 1 Thessalonians 5:5-11 was read:


4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.
5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober.
7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night.
8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation.
9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
11 Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing.


I would like to think we are at least doing this last here.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear John,

I am a little tired this evening, and it would probably be more wise to wait until the morning to respond, but I have time now that I might not have later this holiday weekend (mainly because I am the senior 'chopper' of fruits and vegetables for my wife who begins her barrage of holiday cooking and baking early tomorrow), so I want to make an attempt here. And, with that said, I hope you will pardon any hard reading or out of the ordinary "herky-jerkyness" :) on my part.

Thanks for your posting, I agree with your comment about Matthew 16 and I have the same hope that you have expressed regarding the I Thessalonians reference. And, simply put, your post here is touching to me. And possibly I am projecting here, but I am being made uneasy with conflicting impulses here. I will let the cat out of the bag somewhat and share with you that I feel it is possible that I have already walked a path very similar to the one that you are walking now as it relates to both a possible move towards Orthodoxy and some clearly defined strong aspirations for the Church. And, possibly because of this fact and for different reasons, I am having trouble finding a starting place, and getting my hands around a response here to be honest with you. There is a compulsion at work in me that is prompting me to move in the direction of pastoral care here while I am also compelled to address these very fair questions on different levels and out of my respect for you to address them as directly as you have asked them. For that matter, I think it is possible that my last email was so enigmatic that it was incomprehensible. I have tested as an intuitive linguist in the past and while this is supposed to be a gift, sometimes it seems to be a curse and whether I am working in the medium of my own words or collecting and using the words of others at times, it seems like at times I can be compared to Yeats in a less than flattering way in the sense of Yeats writes only for Yeats. So I apologize for when this happens and if it happened here in my last posting.

But, anyway . . . possibly I am way off here, but if I am not, then possibly you can see the close connection and the 'stutter stepping' of sorts as I will share with you that I think the Matthew reference is more than relevant to this discussion and it is in fact at the heart of a philosophy of Christian living (which includes service in my opinion), and this reference is also at the heart of all Renewal Theology [which is actually my area of specialty if I do have one]. Hopefully, this won't set off a firestorm here, especially since the smoke has just cleared from the great tobacco debate of '06 :), and by the way Peter--what is this "a little overweight" business? Let's talk some numbers here :) . . . But, as I was saying, I actually allow quite a bit of room for some of the holiness teachings as they relate to an "Absolute Surrender" and a taking up of one's own cross in the same fashion as the Matthew reference indicates (possibly when I say Holiness it might be more meaningful to you if I say Keswick Teachings?). And, I don't go along with everything they have going on under their tent for sure in Keswick (or the Weslyan Holiness teachings that are put out by Fr. Jack Sparks in his 'Victory Series' . . . and for that matter I can't get past first base with Fr. Eusebius in Florida as it relates to a Charismatic Chaos (probably not even out of the batter's box actually), but the point
is I do see the critical question at hand here as it relates to a taking up of one's own cross; but, as you write the following about Matthew 16:



How can we make this true for us here and now?


. . . as much as I see the weight and the sincerity of this question, I think I am forced to answer that there is no way we can make this true for us here and now or in the future for two reasons. And, again I am hoping to work into this through dialogue and discussion in the future, God willing, but whether we-- 1.) emphasize the grammar in this passage (imper aorist active third person singular) and call for a radical individualism as the means for true community [not unlike the last Moltmann quote I shared with you], or whether we-- 2.) consider a movement by the Community as a whole [as differentiated from a society in my previous posting which summarized the thinking of Tonnies] we still come up with a need for an organic or a non-contrived simultaneous movement/cooperation of the freedom of man and the freedom of God to avoid anything other than an artificial unity both horizontally and vertically. And, John, you have extended yourself to me here and been more kind to me here on Monachos than anyone else, so I don't want to take any chance of offending you and your beautiful spirit, (and here comes the 'but' as if you didn't already know :) . . .but, in an effort to learn and understand what you are saying here, I have to share with you that to my American ears the languaging/wording of the above question rings more true of a Revivalism and an American Fundamentalism which is the opposite of an American Orthodoxy (in both its localism and isolationism) and is traditionally motivated by a "frenzied activism" and not a trusting in the power and sovereignty of God as its method for either a Great Awakening of an entire seaboard or just the coming into the Church by one's neighbor next door. So, I don't know, maybe you have even quit reading this by now, but in case you are still here :) I will just end this with a request for clarification in case I have totally missed the train here on this one, and share with you that I think we are on the same page/track here and working for the same thing, but I think just as you see Paul preaching a peace that passes all understanding (shalom-shalom) one day, and as you see him despairing of life itself on another day, the life of the pastoral theologian missionary who does not limit his vocation to a sitting in a favorite chair by the fire will more than likely resembles a roller-coaster more than it does anything else. We may never arrive where I hope that we will on this journey, and we may just land this plane at the next closest airport at any given time and I will remember this experience as being one of the best experiences that I have had of this type. Or, we may complete this journey in grand fashion . . . but if we do it will not be anytime soon, I think as you know John, this is not a commuter flight but an oceanic flight. Not a sprint, but a marathon. It is part of my psychological make up that I am prone to oscillating between a gazing into the void and an anxiously looking about at times when I become too tired or too hungry or someone 'comes between me and my morning cup/mug of coffee' :) Hopefully, this isn't the case here at the present and I have completely wasted your time and anyone else's who has invested time in reading this.

Grace and Peace to you John!

Your Friend In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

PS Maybe I will get that abstract up by Christmas Day? Come to think of it maybe that would be a most appropriate day in the sense of a "Christianusmus Renesans!"

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

As you chop your mountain of vegetables, know that I don't take anything from this in the slightest amiss - I am grateful for your words, and am reminded of 1 Peter 3:8:


8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;


that is how I feel when reading what you write.

I am all too conscious of the path as it lengthens before me, and as the days grow shorter and the shadows lengthen, there are almost times when I wish it were possible to rush on; but it cannot be so, and what comes does so slowly, as is needful. My thoughts are best expressed in Romans 8:18:


18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God

I can see how my comment might make you think

I have to share with you that to my American ears the languaging/wording of the above question rings more true of a Revivalism and an American Fundamentalism which is the opposite of an American Orthodoxy (in both its localism and isolationism) and is traditionally motivated by a "frenzied activism" and not a trusting in the power and sovereignty of God as its method for either a Great Awakening of an entire seaboard or just the coming into the Church by one's neighbor next door.

but what I meant by it was how can 'we' as Christians open ourselves so that we can be guided as He wishes, so in that sense it was, again, His will, not our own; by ourselves we shall achieve naught. But as a group of Christians, with the guidance and wisdom of the Church, are we saying we can no longer do what Paul did in Antioch in Pisidia in Acts 13:46-49:


46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so the Lord has commanded us: `I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.'
48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region.

How we might contribute to that Great Commission is at the heart of this discussion.

For centuries the Orthodox Church has been either oppressed or isolated - or both simultaneously - and simply to hold the Faith has, at times, taken a superhuman effort. How it moves to the evangelism which is its calling is part of exploring what an American Orthodoxy might come to look like. I appreciate both your insights, and your efforts to bring together our discussions - and look forward to continuing discussions - after the vegetables are prepared.


Peace, in Christ,


John

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Before I too turn to other duties, I thought the following from the Monachos archives had great relevance to our discussions here - this is from Mr. Jones on 18 August 2002



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

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

.......

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


As so often with Mr. Jones' straight talking, it set off a few fireworks, but four and a half years on it stands the test of time and wears well - as he seems to from the continuing robustness of his contributions.

A happy and holy Christmas to us all,


In Christ,

John

[Nicolaj]

I can see there is always in the USA this need to do things which are already invented somewhere else again in the States. So, by now you smart guys are making concerns about a Church of Jesus Christ also known as American Orthodox Church. I can't see any need for such a thing, only the will to create a new schisma in the church the lord himself invented.
We should all be humble and gratefull that this church is there and gives us this warm comforted experience of life rooted in liturgics and prayer. Yes this church has an language which is hard to learn, but as I see so many learning chinese or japanese or someother silly thing I wonder why they don't put this much energy in learning the basics of greek, chuchslavonic etc.
Sure it would be nice to have an own American Orthodox Church for what ever reasons that would be good, but history gave you and also the city where I live an orthodox church many years after Jesus invented the church. There came orthodox people here and many years after them there children asked for a preist and built him an church. That is the way Orthodoxy spreads, by Come and See. I came one day to this chuch after a life searching for God. As I came in, I was caught by the liturgy and although I didn't understood a Word of it, it went straight to the heart and there I keep it. And I look after it that the fire keeps burning, for the angel speaks and says Your fire has grown cold. It is up to each of us to keep the fire burning, and that doesn't depends on an 'Amercan Orthodoxy'. God likes the man whos heart is humble.

Wisdom, brethern! through our Lord!

[Peter Farrington]

Nicolaj

It is wonderful that you were able to walk into a liturgy being offered in a language that you did not understand and were immediately affected by it.

Unfortunately I know a very great many people who have had what seems to them a wholly negative experience of Orthodoxy because it has been presented to them in a language and culture that is uncomprehensible to them.

The Holy Apostles did not use a foreign language when they evangelised, and looking around the people I know who have shown an interest in Orthodoxy, they are almost all folk who would not have given Orthodoxy a second look if they had to learn a foreign language. Indeed I have just come from an Anglican Nativity Service and 90% of the people there were not Christian, let alone Orthodox. Had the service, and the opportunity to speak about Christ, been in Russian, Greek, Coptic or Arabic then I can guarantee that 99% of the folk there would not have attended.

Thank God for the grace he gave you, and others, but the example of the Apostles shows us that ordinarily the Church uses a language that people can understand, mission requires this, otherwise we will only reach the ones and twos, the eclectic folk, we will never reach the mass of folk who also need Christ and won't be reached by insisting they learn a foreign langage.

Happy Feast of the Nativity

Peter

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

As you know, in this thread, we have stepped into an existing conversation that has been going on for many years and on several fronts as it relates to an historic Orthodox Christianity (in theory and in practice) in "the new reality we live in." From my point of view, the purpose of our dialogue is for theological research and ministry application. Whereby, a willingness to "pursue truth wherever it might be found," concomitantly "not cautiously going where everyone has gone before" may necessarily involve a highly theological/philosophical method at times that may result in the breaking of some new ground. In an attempt to advance our discussion I am offering an abstract for review. The vocabulary used in this discussion has and will be limited (on my part) to words that are in most any dictionary or on-line encyclopedic resource with the exception of a word, that I have coined, and I feel the need to introduce into this 'conversation,' which is "aparticularism." The reason why I feel the need to introduce this philological construct, as well as the definition of this word/concept, will be made clear in future postings. Granted, this abstract may raise more questions than provide answers initially; however, it seems abundantly clear to me, for several reasons, that without such a tool as this--at this time--our only other option (in order to avoid a perpetual tossing about by the waves and being blown about by the winds) would be to simply paddle back to the shore. On a final note, I would like to say that it might appear to some that I am proposing mainly a study of what is called Postmodernism, but this could not be further from the truth! What I am proposing is found in the following title/sub-title:


EXPLORING THE SHAPE AND DIMENSION OF AN ORTHODOX SUPRA-POLARITY: TOWARD A RETRIEVAL OF AN HISTORIC ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGICAL CENTER

However, initially, I feel that in order to reach the subterraneous level [mystical theology] which is found in the above, and to move beyond the running around in circles that has taken place to date--in this existing conversation that we have stepped in to--we are compelled to first move in a direction that includes "an exploration of the postmodern myth as an 'aparticularistic' world view." Because, without a clear understanding of this "new reality that we live in," how can one make any sense of this conversation--let alone take part in it (especially as it pertains to points of intersection between the new reality and the Church of today Herself)? Or as one popular pocket dictionary of theological terms asks its readers, if you don't understand the vocabulary how can you take part in any theological conversation?



[B]ABSTRACT
12/25/06

The primary thesis of this project is the postmodern idea (in its current overdeveloped state) does not provide either a new age to come or a stand alone system; however, it is an aparticularistic philosophy of a relativistic modernity, which is--at its core--an absurd and final reaction against all true particularism by means of an antithetical inclusive particularism. The secondary thesis of this project is while the postmodern construct, as it has been developed to date, is clearly an aparticularism, it can at the same time have potentially far-reaching and real consequences.

A summary of the content section includes first, an introduction to the topic, which is an exploration of the nature of the postmodern idea and its potential consequences. Second, in support of the primary thesis, and in an effort to begin distinguishing the basic facts, the term/concept "aparticularism" is introduced and defined. This is followed by an effort to further examine/explore the nature of postmodernism. In an attempt to link postmodernism to a relativistic modernity, postmodernism is compared to modernism via a consideration of the question: is postmodernism Modernity gone to seed or Modernity gone mad? Third, in order to further understand and explain the sensitive issues and validity of the postmodern suggestion, anthropological and sociological concerns are brought into the discussion. In this section the concepts of individualism, particularism, and community are introduced and developed in relation to "the sensitive issue"--which is identified as being the question of authority [especially as it relates to the question of particularism]. At the end of this section a critical observation is made in the form of distinguishing the modern spirit of humanism regarding what it "asserts in proposition" as opposed to what it "asserts in practice." This aspect of the postmodern idea is seen not simply as a means to dismiss postmodernism (and bring about the end of the conversation) as a self-contradicting and doomed system that will eventually consume itself. But, instead, at the end of this pivotal section, the postmodern idea is viewed through a creative and dialectical lens that "allows new possibilities to emerge, and in this sense if they are recognized as such, a new beginning" which could hold great implications for Christian life and ministry. In this transitional section of the project, the observation is made that postmodernism, "in proposition," is clearly a subjective system which allows no room for an objective reality/truth (which in turn allows no room for a parallel ecclesiological movement); however, postmoderinism, "in practice," clearly demonstrates a high degree of objective reality/truth (and [at its core] is in many ways, epistemologically and methodologically congruent with a 'theology of the cross' as manifested by the 'community of the cross').

The somewhat lengthy conclusion of this project provides a fuller exploration of the implications of our conclusions as they relate to Christian life and ministry. In this final section of the project, the secondary thesis is more prevalent as it relates to the potentially far-reaching and real consequences of the postmodern idea. For the purposes of this part of the project, the assertion that the advent of postmodernism is in reality a mere change in methodology of a relativistic modernity is set aside. For the remainder of the project, postmodernity (with a lower case 'p') is no longer discussed as being a new invention of modern philosophers, but instead, it is discussed as Postmodernity (with an upper case 'P'). Both, the potentially negative consequences of an aparticularistic Postmodernity, "in proposition," and the potentially positive consequences of an aparticularistic Postmodernity, "in practice," are discussed, which ultimately results in position best characterized as a doctrine of hope.


Merry Christmas!
Rick

[Nicolaj]

My dear orthodox brethern,

This whole discussion on an own way for attracting the masses to faith, in these case the orthodox faith, carries very many temptations within.
There are many churches trying to attract as many as they can reach and get on board. I always stun when I see this Osteen Church and for myself I can report from a chuch which changed its whole concept in an attempt to attract the masses, the roman-catholic church. I was in there a long intensive time and saw everything distructed by the second vatican council and a whole lot of good meaning people, priests, bishops and people at the basis. All this people meant to do a good work by changing their chuch into something open to the world, open to everything and really attractive to the masses!!
Here in Europe the effects of these movement are disastrous! The churches are empty and get even more empty, there are no priests, sinn is all around, but everything can be discussed and the church is very attractive to the masses. There are a whole lot of reasons why everything developed this way, but the primary is pride and this is sin. And where sin is put at first place, Satan is in the best position to attack the chuch. In the russian orthodox church there was this sunday the gospel of Luke about the Feast to whom the Lord invited so many people but all had something to do in the world which was of higher priority to them. Jesus himself already said that the chuch isn't for the masses. The kingdom is for those innocent like a child, not proud and trying to be seen in the world as popular people. Liked by everybody, looked after by the newspapers and cnn! All say they like you and that you are doing a good job by inventing a church for the masses. Where did you get this idea that this is important to do? I say to you it wasn't while you where praying, it wasn't during the liturgy.
This whole talking about being attractive to the world has only one father and his name is evil for all times. Be aware, the enemy is in the heart of people thinking they are doing the work of father. They are in the vineyard slaying the knights of the true owner. Be vigilant!!
Pray and repent!

[Peter Farrington]

Dearest to Christ nicholaj

I think that there is a difference between making the Church attractive to the masses of people by bringing her teaching and practice down to the lowest common denominator, and making the teaching of the Church intelligible to people.

This is, I think, what we are discussing here.

Many people in the world are looking for Christ and do not find him in an Orthodoxy that speaks a foreign language, and even an English language Orthodoxy can be so caught up in various doctrinal and ecclesiological disputes that it fails to preach the Gospel of Christ.

This is what many of us here are looking for! Not Orthodoxy-lite, but an Orthodoxy that can reach English speaking people. We fail our Lord if we dare to say that because the way is narrow we need not bother trying to reach the lost.

Rather we must become, as St Paul teaches, all things to all men so that we can win some for Christ and for the fulness of Orthodoxy.

If we are so intent on being the most Orthodox of Orthodox that we are unable to communicate our faith to others in a way they can understand then we are not living the Gospel at all.

This is a constant struggle for me as I find it harder to explain my faith in simple terms for simple people, in their own English language. But this is necessary for me to learn if I want to share the Good News and not just be Bad News.

Peter

[Rick H.]

Dear John,

Thanks again for bringing me up to speed, in your usual most excellent fashion, and for your encouraging words. I laughed yesterday as I took a break and read your post because I 'did' have a mountain of vegetables to chop (I'm really glad that is over).

I appreciate your pointed emphasis in bold face type and adverbial usage of the word "How" (viz. in what manner or way; by what means) in your statement:


"How we might contribute to that Great Commission is at the heart of this discussion."

There have been a few suggestions as to what is 'at the heart' of what we are discussing here, and while I view the answer as being found in a type of prismatic integrative motif more than in any one suggestion, I think your statement contains a very concise assessment of our evolving discussion, and I feel certain that we are on the same page.

Thanks again.

In the Crucified and Risen Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Hi Nicolaj,

Thanks for your input here from Austria, and welcome to our discussion! I am new to the Monachos community myself, but I have found it to be very profitable in a very short time--I should warn you though, this is a very habit-forming thing ;). I am very glad to have you on board especially as it relates to the "Global Orthodox Christian Village" aspect of our conversation. I think it is possible that your presence (as well as your Roman Catholic, Buddhist, and New Age backgrounds) could provide some very helpful insights as we move along. We all have things that have shaped and molded us along the way (I know I have!) And, based on my past experience I know first hand that sometimes these things amount to a type of baggage that hinder me in my consideration of some ideas/concepts, but at other times these things can be a great advantage; however, I think it is possible that some of the things in your background could be very helpful here as we move along. I wonder if you have any Eastern (theistic) world religion involvement in your background? I am continually surprised to find how many people I meet have a "Hindu phase" or something similar that they went through. I see in another posting that you made today on Monachos that you too are a fellow chopper of vegetables :) I am actually moving closer and closer to becoming a true vegetarian, much to my surprise. I have been trying to adopt a more healthy lifestyle during the past year or so and it seems to be taking on a life of its own and in this sense really becoming a lifestyle in the true sense of the word! I see that you have made a friend in Peter (which is a very good thing--again 'based on my past experience' here). So I would like to encourage you to remain engaged and to continue following this thread as well as possibly spending some time reviewing the past postings here. There are quite a few postings here (and I know 'so many books--so little time') but I think there is a good return on the investment involved in a reviewing of some of the posts here by several of the contributors, especially of late.

Peace and Grace to you Nicolaj!

Rick

PS I am wondering if you could share with me what (CJCAKAAOC) means?

NAS Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

[Trudy]

This whole talking about being attractive to the world has only one father and his name is evil for all times. Be aware, the enemy is in the heart of people thinking they are doing the work of father. They are in the vineyard slaying the knights of the true owner. Be vigilant!!
Pray and repent!

Nicolaj has made the point very well. We ought to heed his warning for it is timely, profitable, and of his own experience and that of so many others!

If people are truly seeking God, they will find Him. He does not play hide-and-seek behind a tree but stands in the open field saying "Here am I!" Orthodoxy preaches the One Truth in every word spoken in every Liturgy, Vespers, Tropar, Kontak, etc., etc., etc.

I was received into the One True Church in the Greek Archdiocese of the South. The Liturgy was spoken in English AND Greek. I found God with no problem...in every single word and prayer.

Those who have ears WILL hear. Those who have eyes WILL see. That is not to say we ought not speak of our Lord with His Love. We are to take His message to all the nations.

It does mean, in fact, that God is already present. Nothing needs to change except the hard hearts of people who wish things to be changed to have their needs met to suit what they want not what God wants for them.

Forgive me if I sound crunchy. This issue is a hot button because I watched a wonderful Protestant church tank because of the leadership's desire to make the message palatable for those who were/are seeking God. It was made so palatable that the church has lost 2/3rds of its membership and 3/4's of its budget.

Orthodoxy has been appealing to the masses for 2000 years. There is nothing that needs to be different about the Truth Itself. The only thing that needs to change are hearts.

Through your prayers,
Athanasia

[Paul Cowan]

Hello all:
Without actually reading all 8 pages (minus a couple) and some 144 posts on this topic, forgive me, it seems I may be misreading the topic some what.

I would never be in favor of changing anything in the Liturgy or the "message" of Christ. Far be it from me to have an opinion opposed to the Holy Fathers. However, I don't see anything wrong with and whole heartedly promote the Orthodox evangilizing of America in English. I know the translation of most of the world's languages do not translate well into English as they lose much in the tranlsation. (one Greek word would take a whole english sentence to define.)

However, if the Church is to preach to this country, which it desperately needs, it will have to be in English. St. Herman of Alaska learned the Aluetian (sp) language and translated the Holy books into it. Other great Fathers of the Church when sent to a new land, learned or developed for the people an alphabet bases on their language so they could learn the services in their own tongue. The Orthodox services. Not a watered down Aluetian service.

Maybe I am reading incorrectly into a few of these posts to "leave it alone" and let the Americans learn Greek? or Syriac? or whatever the tongue of the ethnic Parish they happen to attend that Sunday. It ain't gonna happen. You won't even see the dust settle as they run so fast. If there is nothing to connect the people to the service, they, 99.9% of the time, will not take the time to learn a new language just to have the ears to hear.

The apostles spoke in the "tongue" of their audience. The Church will need to in my humble opinion

1) merge the various jurisdictions in to a unified body of Christ within this country
2) get past it's various cultural and ethnic inclusivness
3) Speak to the people in English
4) advertise! a little
5) be prepared for the "come and sees"

I am not trying to capitailze our faith. I am not trying to get the masses to attend. But if nobody knows we are out there, nobody will come. Yet if we don't have the infrastructure as a unified body to handle the many people who are earnestly looking for and are finally hearing about the original church, Americans will leave just as fast as they came.

It has become a learned behavior here to want it fast and cheap. But we have to get them in the doors first. Once they come we can work on keeping them. Those of you in other countrys may not understand this as Orthodoxy was at one time at least the base religion in your land. It never has been here. I had never heard of orthodoxy up until 4 years ago. I am now 40.

God meets us where we are. Can we do no less? God never changes nor am I suggesting The Faith does either. I have had the privledge of attending a Coptic Orthodox service recently. It was nice. I was able to keep up because I recognized the music. Had I not, I would have left thinking that looked very Catholic and sounded very eastern with all the symbol clanging. I would have no reason to return because I could never participate in the service based on the language. How do I pray in Egyptian? I was sure not going to take the time to learn when I know no one who speaks it or teaches it. Besides, there are other churchs down the street that speak English. It' all about Jesus anyway, right?

This is how we think! The church needs to understand this or it will have a hard time reaching the people.

In my humble opinion
Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Paul,

No, you have not missed the point of this discussion, and I suspect it might be useful for us all to think about what you say in your post.

I think one needs to be very careful of the 'I found Orthodoxy and wasn't put off by it being in a foreign language' line of thinking, simply because that was not how the Apostles and the early Church went about things; it may be that some of us think we know better and would be with those Jewish Christians who at the Jerusalem council said that the Gentiles would just have to become Jews in order to be Christians - but if we are of that persuasion we should mediate on what Sts. Paul and James said back then.

The parable of the talents seems relevant here, also. No one is suggesting that the Faith should be in any way diluted, and the fact that people go there as a sort of knee-jerk reaction to the idea of an American Orthodoxy is, itself, a trifle worrying; why so defensive? The Church survived going to a place even as strange as Kievan Rus - so why not the USA? Why are Russian services not in old Greek? Come on folks, get a bit of a grip here - the Church is not an ethnic social club, and Christ became Incarnate and was resurrected for all, not just those of Greek or Russian extraction.

The exclusiveness of some Orthodox worries me, it is almost as though they really do believe that only those who follow a certain calendar will be saved; well, in this relativistic society, you can believe what you like, but such attitudes only encourage those who think of Christians as bigots and pharisees, more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit; and did not our Saviour have words for such people? The Incarnate Lord knew His own creation better than anyone, and His words have so much wisdom in them. His Apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, provide a tremendous example of how to spread the word; do we know so much better?


When Trudy says:


I was received into the One True Church in the Greek Archdiocese of the South. The Liturgy was spoken in English AND Greek. I found God with no problem...in every single word and prayer.

I could cite at least three people, myself included, who were turned away by Greeks saying 'you are not Greek, it is not for you' - it is wonderful that Trudy found God that way, but what of the legion who have not? Are we called to say 'well I'm OK, and everyone can be'? or are we called to convert the world?

Whence, by the way, this quasi-aristocratic disdain for the 'masses'? It is like listening to some old English aristo bemoaning the country 'going to the dogs'. My reading of the Gospel was that Christ brought it to all. Yes, there were those who wondered at His associating with Pharisees and Publicans - and women without husbands, and we can probably think of those in every Church who would have been very sniffy about Our Lord and His chums, but when we have given thanks that we are not like they are, and pondered, with due solemnity, the mote in their eye, we might get off our high horse in time to thank someone who pointed out the great beam in our own eye.

Let us recall what John the Baptiser said: [Matthew 3: 7-12]


7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,
3:9 and do not think to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
3:12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


The whole of Matthew 23 seems relevant here, but perhaps, when we think that the Church should preserve its pearl of great price by keeping away from 'the masses' we might recall these words of ther Incarnate Lord:


23:13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.



In Christ,


John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hello all:
Without actually reading all 8 pages (minus a couple) and some 144 posts on this topic, forgive me, it seems I may be misreading the topic some what.

I would never be in favor of changing anything in the Liturgy or the "message" of Christ. Far be it from me to have an opinion opposed to the Holy Fathers. However, I don't see anything wrong with and whole heartedly promote the Orthodox evangilizing of America in English. I know the translation of most of the world's languages do not translate well into English as they lose much in the tranlsation. (one Greek word would take a whole english sentence to define.)

However, if the Church is to preach to this country, which it desperately needs, it will have to be in English. St. Herman of Alaska learned the Aluetian (sp) language and translated the Holy books into it. Other great Fathers of the Church when sent to a new land, learned or developed for the people an alphabet bases on their language so they could learn the services in their own tongue. The Orthodox services. Not a watered down Aluetian service.

Maybe I am reading incorrectly into a few of these posts to "leave it alone" and let the Americans learn Greek? or Syriac? or whatever the tongue of the ethnic Parish they happen to attend that Sunday. It ain't gonna happen. You won't even see the dust settle as they run so fast. If there is nothing to connect the people to the service, they, 99.9% of the time, will not take the time to learn a new language just to have the ears to hear.

The apostles spoke in the "tongue" of their audience. The Church will need to in my humble opinion

1) merge the various jurisdictions in to a unified body of Christ within this country
2) get past it's various cultural and ethnic inclusivness
3) Speak to the people in English
4) advertise! a little
5) be prepared for the "come and sees"

I am not trying to capitailze our faith. I am not trying to get the masses to attend. But if nobody knows we are out there, nobody will come. Yet if we don't have the infrastructure as a unified body to handle the many people who are earnestly looking for and are finally hearing about the original church, Americans will leave just as fast as they came.

It has become a learned behavior here to want it fast and cheap. But we have to get them in the doors first. Once they come we can work on keeping them. Those of you in other countrys may not understand this as Orthodoxy was at one time at least the base religion in your land. It never has been here. I had never heard of orthodoxy up until 4 years ago. I am now 40.

God meets us where we are. Can we do no less? God never changes nor am I suggesting The Faith does either. I have had the privledge of attending a Coptic Orthodox service recently. It was nice. I was able to keep up because I recognized the music. Had I not, I would have left thinking that looked very Catholic and sounded very eastern with all the symbol clanging. I would have no reason to return because I could never participate in the service based on the language. How do I pray in Egyptian? I was sure not going to take the time to learn when I know no one who speaks it or teaches it. Besides, there are other churchs down the street that speak English. It' all about Jesus anyway, right?

This is how we think! The church needs to understand this or it will have a hard time reaching the people.

In my humble opinion
Paul



St Herman's interaction in Aleut with the natives was quite limited. More natives learnt to speak with him in Russian than the other way around. And all of his services were read in Church Slavonic. He wasn't a priest so even some of the major services such as the Liturgy were left out. And yet the natives were drawn towards St Herman and Orthodoxy due to his otherworldly manner of love & ascetic way of life. Thus St Herman is certainly a model for us concerning mission- but quite challenging for us in terms of method.

Of course a good case can be made that at some point local languages would have been used. Later generations such as St Innocent began work in this direction. But even up until at least the 1960s, church Slavonic was still a major liturgical language among the Alaskan natives; until gradually in the 1970s it was replaced by English. This however was actually the same experience & in the same time frame as the Orthodox in mainland America. So the evidence is that language change occurred as a response to natural assimilation.

What is the point here? That the Church first deals with those actually before Her. For a very long time many of these people were directly or second generation from Russia, Greece, etc. The church universally (ie literally every jurisdiction in the west did this) felt called to deal with these people both pastorally & liturgically in the language that was native to itself, not that of the country to which they arrived. To deny this part of the Church's history is to not only turn our backs on our Church's past- it actually denies the pastoral wisdom which was part of that time. In so doing I would say we risk overlooking the lessons that are there for us to build on.


None of this is to say that we must not now deal with the question of an assimilated reality within the Church. Obviously this is a very important question. But we do ourselves a grave disservice if we overlook that this is exactly what the Church has been doing already for the past 30 years & so lessons are there to be learnt.

One lesson is that in our day & age Orthodoxy is an extremely hard thing to really accept. Much more work needs to be done on why this is so and how to accommodate this to our pastoral practice. Up until now we have largely lived either in a state of denial about this or overlooked it. This I think is why at times we have a way of thinking which implies that our calling is that all of the west will be Orthodox & that the only thing preventing this is that we haven't yet found the right method.

The problem here we need to look at is that this puts us in direct opposition with our past & which still practically surrounds us. "They didn't see the right method (or even see the problem) but we do." This way of thinking sooner or later asks to be translated into some plan or other; plans that take real people, time and motivation. So far the experience of the past 30 years shows that such plans accomplish only a limited amount.

Instead I would urge us to first look at the pastoral practice of our past which is already very much present within our local parishes, priests and people. What was done then is evident in the fact of what we have now, which is dramatically different from let's say the 1960s or even 70s. The point is that we already have made great strides about these questions. But to really help in this area we need to graft ourselves into the experience already there & not assume that something radically different needs to be done.

In other words the question of the local shape of Orthodoxy in these lands I feel confident will be naturally solved by working with what we already have. So far at least it has harvested good fruit, all things considered.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

I agree with much of what Father Raphael says, but it seems to me that much of Greece is nominally Orthodox, and much of Russia was nominally Orthodox, and likewise other Eastern European nations.

I can see no justification for believing that God wills most Greeks to become Orthodox but only a few Americans or British.

In my own limited experience there is a great interest in Orthodox spirituality and theology in my own country and among non-Orthodox Christians, what puts them off becoming Orthodox are the Orthodox. Therefore I do believe that if we find God's methods and God's purpose then we will see many people become Orthodox.

The fact is that when I contacted the Greeks they sent me to the Anglicans. When I contacted the Russians they could do nothing for me. When I contacted the local Byzantines their calendar of events was filled with Greek nationalist and cultural dates, and they could offer me little unless I learned Greek.

Had there been a local community celebrating in English and trying to do mission to British people then I would have joined them. There wasn't and I was led to the British Orthodox Church which seemed to be doing what I was longing for.

I don't believe we can take the few people who presently find their way to Orthodoxy, especially in a foreign culture, and extrapolate from them. I think rather that we should expect people to respond to the Good News and do much soul seeking and be much in prayer and fasting if we are not seeing growth and don't have a sense of God's will.

There are Orthodox Churches which are doing things, but there are many, very many, who are not - and this is true of all other Christian traditions as well so it is not something we need feel is a unique problem.


God .. will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)

Now of course the way is narrow, but God forgive us if we make it narrower than it need be, and God forbid that those whom God would save fail to hear the Gospel because we do not speak it in a language (in the widest sense) that our hearers can understand.

Christ commands us to 'go into all the world', not 'wait in our churches'. This requires action on our part 'go' and some degree of awareness of cultural contexts 'all the world'.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I agree with much of what Father Raphael says, but it seems to me that much of Greece is nominally Orthodox, and much of Russia was nominally Orthodox, and likewise other Eastern European nations.

I can see no justification for believing that God wills most Greeks to become Orthodox but only a few Americans or British.

In my own limited experience there is a great interest in Orthodox spirituality and theology in my own country and among non-Orthodox Christians, what puts them off becoming Orthodox are the Orthodox. Therefore I do believe that if we find God's methods and God's purpose then we will see many people become Orthodox.

The fact is that when I contacted the Greeks they sent me to the Anglicans. When I contacted the Russians they could do nothing for me. When I contacted the local Byzantines their calendar of events was filled with Greek nationalist and cultural dates, and they could offer me little unless I learned Greek.

Had there been a local community celebrating in English and trying to do mission to British people then I would have joined them. There wasn't and I was led to the British Orthodox Church which seemed to be doing what I was longing for.

I don't believe we can take the few people who presently find their way to Orthodoxy, especially in a foreign culture, and extrapolate from them. I think rather that we should expect people to respond to the Good News and do much soul seeking and be much in prayer and fasting if we are not seeing growth and don't have a sense of God's will.

There are Orthodox Churches which are doing things, but there are many, very many, who are not - and this is true of all other Christian traditions as well so it is not something we need feel is a unique problem.



Now of course the way is narrow, but God forgive us if we make it narrower than it need be, and God forbid that those whom God would save fail to hear the Gospel because we do not speak it in a language (in the widest sense) that our hearers can understand.

Christ commands us to 'go into all the world', not 'wait in our churches'. This requires action on our part 'go' and some degree of awareness of cultural contexts 'all the world'.

Peter


There are good insights here I think.

Part of our experience though is being shaped by our jurisdictional frame of mind. I think this leads us to think that the parish is ideally a place where anyone should be able to fit in- or more to the point if they can't fit in in our parish then they don't belong anywhere.

And yet past experience shows that this is not a universal experience for example in largely Orthodox countries. Not every parish would fit for everybody. One fit into a parish like one fit into a family. So one parish could work while another wouldn't. This isn't really a criticism of any one parish. It's just to state that it's natural really that people within the Church belong in the community where they belong. So in each parish we need to allow for this.

To refine this a bit, 'belonging' can often have to do with language used within the parish, the size of the parish, character of the priest & parishioners, educational programs, etc (in these parts even driving distance is a factor).

Thus to take the concrete example of our parish. We have many Russian parishioners and always have during our 50+ years of existence.

But about 10 years ago it became brutally clear that without opening up to the use of English we were much more likely to die out as a parish. (I recall one Sunday Liturgy about 10 years ago where looking out at the congregation for 'Blessed is the Kingdom...' there were about 10 people). Now, this being open to English didn't mean being open to the abstract 'anybody'. It meant those who were actually trying to attend the church, sometimes from time to time & sometimes steadily. It meant being able to change and open ourselves up to those right before us and wanting to be among us.

Thankfully the answer to this challenge was 'yes' from among our people. Without this we would never have been able to make the change we did for this is not something a priest can accomplish on his own. It needs to be a community effort.

Still though this has led us to a certain kind of reality which may not respond to all. We still use about 75% church Slavonic at Liturgy & about 50% at Vigils (with English as the other percent). Our core group who manage most of the tasks are still from among the founding generation's families. Meanwhile in the past 10 years we have quite few new Russians who are very pious.

This means that we are still a challenging parish for someone whose only language is English. Yes, thankfully we now have a fair contingent of 'Anglos' (or Canadians as my Russian people call them) among us. But some few have left for a more English environment. And that's alright as long as it wasn't caused simply by closed-mindedness and lack of charity. For many reasons, not every parish fits every person.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Trudy]

CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM!


I could cite at least three people, myself included, who were turned away by Greeks saying 'you are not Greek, it is not for you'

Dear John,

I am so sorry that this has been your experience. Let me elaborate more on my experience. It is true, when I first visited the Greek church the first two questions to me were, "You Grick?" and "You husband? He Grick?" When I answered no to both, I was asked, "Why you here then?" To which I replied, "Well, is the Orthodox Church the one True Church?" When answered, "yes", I continued with "Well, I want to be part of the One True Church!"

The poor priest of that small mission parish was then grabbed by the sleeve, drug out of the conversation in which he was engaged, over to me and promptly told, "She no Grick! But she want to be Orthodox! Talk to her! NOW!" And so it went from there.

When I was received, I was the first catechumen at their mission and the first adult person any of them had seen received into the church by chrismation.

I loved being part of that parish. The people there went out of their way to welcome me and teach me about the Faith. I came to love them deeply. My Godparents are both Greek (Thomas reposed +2005). I did not tell them I had taken a college class and had probably read more than they ever had about the Faith. Though that may have not been true. To what end? I was blessed by each one of them. They taught me to sing the responses in Greek. I cried when I had to leave the church because I was moving.

That is not to say, I don't think we ought to have more English speaking parishes. I do think that. But I also know the richness of the ethnicity. However, that could be because my grandmother was an Italian immigrant and I deeply appreciate what I grew up with.

And for what it is worth, which isn't much, I agree with Fr. Raphael.

In Christ,
Athanasia

[Father David Moser]

when I first visited the Greek church the first two questions to me were, "You Grick?" and "You husband? He Grick?" When I answered no to both, I was asked, "Why you here then?" To which I replied, "Well, is the Orthodox Church the one True Church?" When answered, "yes", I continued with "Well, I want to be part of the One True Church!"

The poor priest of that small mission parish was then grabbed by the sleeve, drug out of the conversation in which he was engaged, over to me and promptly told, "She no Grick! But she want to be Orthodox! Talk to her! NOW!" And so it went from there.

This reminds me of a bit of conversation I had just last week. I was accompanying the Archbishop and some other clergy (all Russian) on some visits to parishioners in Seattle (not my home). At one house we were served drinks and a light dinner. Because this was a relatively new Russian family, the conversation was entirely in Russian. As the only non-speaker, I was relegated to the background - to listen and observe with occasional translation of significant statements or good jokes provided by some of the others. At dinner, there were, as usual a number of toasts. I had been drinking cognac and do not like to "mix" drinks so I toasted with cognac rather than the vodka that many (not all) of the others had. At one point, the host humorously questioned whether I was really Orthodox since I wasn't drinking vodka (everyone laughed and assured him that I was) and then his wife asked why I had become Orthodox if I wasn't Russian. I simply told her (in my own halting Russian) that it was because Orthodoxy was truth (Istina) and that answer put a huge smile on her face. Then, because it was my turn to toast, I offered a toast to the Truth which makes us one. There was no further question - humorous or serious - about my proper place at the table, because everyone knew that above all, even above being Russian, Orthodoxy is Truth. Because I embraced them for who they were, they embraced me with equal warmth for who I am because in the end we are one in Christ.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

It's funny, but as an ex-Plymouth Brethren brought up in a pretty much teetotal household I still find it hard to see a priest or bishop drink! I don't mean that in a critical way because I do drink a little and have no problem with anyone else doing so, but there is some core Plymouth Brethren attitude in their somewhere!! :-)

I do think it is important that there is not a reverse ethnicity if an English language Orthodoxy develops in a place. There should be that genuine respect for the mother Church and culture which has preserved and nourished the Orthodox Faith so that it CAN be transmitted into the English language context.

I think this is what you are saying?

To be honest I have no problem, if my opinion matters, in mixing with Orthodox who use liturgically their own languages. I have been to Eritrean Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox liturgies, and they are all enjoyable and spiritual - as something that can be experienced occasionally and as a blessing. I think my issue is more with language in mission, and language in catechesis and in normal Church life.

Someone who is more mature in the faith might well be able to worship with the Eritrean Orthodox - and I might be at their Nativity celebrations next week - because the shape of the liturgy is pretty much the same and it is not so hard to pick up some Ge'ez.

But for mission, or for a new Orthodox, or for the normal life of an English speaking Orthodox, especially with a family, I would find it very hard indeed to be part of a Ge'ez speaking eucharistic community. But as I say, that does not mean that I am, or any one should be, antagonostic to communities using other languages. Indeed it can be a great joy to worship in such contexts and bear witness to the universality of the faith and the variety of cultural expressions in a unity of faith.

Peter

[Nicolaj]

My dear fellow brethren in Christ!

The language to meet people with the message of Jesus Christ can and must be the tongue they understand. That is not the point I want to mark! I have been on the streets and in the houses of Vienna for the Roman-catholic church bringing the people the good news. From this experience I can tell that it helps a lot if you can talk to people unknown with the message in their own tongue. I speak about 6 languages fluently and learning at the time Russian and Ukrainian.
Here in Vienna we have the whole spectrum of churches also many from the different orthodox traditions. If the Lord put my feet to the Russian Orthodox cathedral here and I came the first time it was so beautiful to experience an liturgic, so mystical. It is true that in an orthodox liturgy heaven and earth touch another. And it wasn't difficult to understand what was going on as the Lord gave it right to the heart. Thereafter I was willing to do more, to know more, to get in touch! I asked in the church if there were any helps in German to help me understand what was saidin the Holy Liturgy. Well there was. And please excuse me but I also find the same helps, or books for English spoken countries.

But it is a different thing if we want to change a liturgical text, hymn or whatever into something that doesn't suit. The translations of the Liturgy are very soulful and by pious people. We have here once a month a liturgy in German. We can try to slay on another by bringing bible citations, but it is enough to see what the fruits will be which bear the tree.
And if many see it for acceptable to put some more water in the wine to make it easier to join the orthodox church or the achieve the kingdom to come, be aware then the camel goes earlier through the eye of the needle as that we will come in! But as He says for Him all is possible!
We just have to open our hearts for the kingdom, for his love and then the heart becomes so filled with love that we can only speak about this love and our testimony will speak for itself.
For tonight, the love of Christ to all of us.

Nicolaj

P.S. Legion is a demon and dispossessed by the Lord.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

After the Divine Liturgy on Christmas Eve, I was downstairs in the fellowship hall at my usual table, having a cup of coffee, and someone asked me if I had seen the article in the magazine Christianity Today, by Bradley Nassif, titled, "Will the 21st be the Orthodox Century?" I hadn't read that issue yet, but I was curious so I went straight home to dig through my stack of periodicals at which time I found that my subscription had expired as of the October issue.

But, my beautiful wife just came in the door and handed me a copy of this issue, and after reading this article (which has very much in common with our thread!) I would like to recommend it to you all. In this article Dr. Nassif poses and ponders the question of a "rebirth of the church's theological vision." I think this article is very interesting for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is appearing in a decidedly Evangelical magazine. The three first level sub-headings in this article are: I. The Rebirth of Orthodoxy; II. Organically Connected; and III. Evangelical Orthodoxy. I think we all will have a high level of interest in different aspects of this article (especially Peter, Paul, and John to name just a few). For those of you who want to pick up a copy now, great! For those who cannot, or prefer to wait, the online version should be available soon and I will reproduce it here in our thread at that time.

Thanks to all for the super contributions here. I know I have said it before, but there really is a 'very' unique spiritual communal dynamic present here, in the form of the Spirit of Life, to a degree that I have not experienced before (even face-to-face!) Possibly, some can relate to this as I must confess that I am overwhelmed with what is being shared here, and I am not able to process or respond to everything that I want to in this thread (although there is one in particular that I will move to next)--but as far as I'm concerned this discussion really is "pure gold!"

Peace,
Rick

PS Dear Fr. Raphael, I think you have a sense of humor . . . so I am going to share with you that I seem to agree with you the great majority of the time (and learn from you very much as well) when you write. But, I have noticed also that even when I don't agree with you as I am reading your words I seem to end up agreeing with you, as if there is a kind of Jedi mind control going on :) So in honor of you I have placed my first image on the Monachos site here that I think may rival your image of the beagle in the aviator goggles :)

[Paul Cowan]

Thank you Father Raphael

Please be assured I very much embrace the "Old Ways". My brother and his wife came to see where I worship. They are very much Baptist. Open minded in as much as they listen to my renditions of what Orthodoxy is. But that's about as far as they are willing to look at it. They feel as long as I believe in Jesus and His resurrection, they are satisfied with my salvation. Everything else we do is flat out weird to them and unnecessary.

When my priest walked them around the church, he tried to explain icons to them in a better way than I ever could. They saw the Holy Life giving Cross behind the alter with Christ nailed to it. They asked "Why is Jesus still there? He is resurrected! He is not supposed to be on the Cross anymore". Father Matthew patiently said to deny He was nailed to the Cross is to deny His resurrection. (paraphrasing that last part)

Just a question to the group...
What is the density of Orthodoxy where you live? Number of Churchs, parish members? How far do people have to drive to go to another Parish?

http://orthodoxhouston.org/

Here in Houston there are 23 parishes representing 7 Jurisdictions. Houston has close to 3 million people. Most speak English, almost as many speak Spanish. The minority (according to the latest census) speak other languages. My Parish, St. Joseph the Betrothed, has +/- 80 families. I would guess we are an average size Parish. That would mean we, Orthodox, are serving roughly 1850 families or about 6000 people. (Total guestimation) That equates to .2% of the population in Houston.

Not even 1/4 of 1%. Why? I talk to people in my office when I can about my Faith. Only 1 other person has ever heard of Orthodoxy out of 125 people. And he is RC. The fields are ripe in my "plot of land". I am pained by the responses I get from people. I am pained by their lack of interest. I am pained by their heartfelt "i'm ok, you're ok" mentality.

Of the 23 Jurisdictional parishes in Houston, mine is 1 of only a small few (3-4) that are in English. The next closest parish that speaks English is close to 15 miles away. Here, that translates to almost a 45 minute drive.

I do understand what you all are saying about keeping the faith and ethnic traditions and not losing our ethnic heritages. Please keep in mind where you all live is very closely knit unlike the South. We are very spread out down here. We need more Parish churches and Priests to reach the many. If the RC and EO ever do reconcile, then we are in good shape, due to the many Catholic Hispanics we have immigrating daily. Until then, we need to be seen, heard and realistic in reaching those that do not know of us.

St. Paul was "all things to all people". I can't serve the other 2,994,000 people in this city. I suppose my McDonald's fast food American mentality gets in my way. I am very passionate about Orthodoxy and getting it's "fullness" to others. I want others to know about what I have found. Just Come and See. But when they do, will they feel welcome/ comfortable in a Syriac speaking parish?

A little over zealous
Paul

[Nicolaj]

Being a christian has nothing in common with feeling comfortable, or do you really believe Paul (while referring to him) was comfortable running around, preaching the gospel, being put up in jail, beaten up, spit out. Do you think Paul spoke all the tongues of all the different races he visited? Do you think he was comfortable put to death for preaching Jesus?
I don't know, but I think something you can do right away is when you find someone interrested in Orthodoxy, you can be his/hers host. You esscort them the first times they like to encounter the Faith. You stay close to them, like a godparent, explain, help, discuss (not to much), and help them to find their way in the church. That is not comfortable for you!!! But it will be a big help for those who Come and See!

In Christ-your brother Nicolaj

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Rick Henry wrote:



The three first level sub-headings in this article are: I. The Rebirth of Orthodoxy; II. Organically Connected; and III. Evangelical Orthodoxy. I think we all will have a high level of interest in different aspects of this article (especially Peter, Paul, and John to name just a few).

I have to admit I had to read this over a few times before I realized this was meant in reference not to several of the Holy Apostles but to some of the posters here!




PS Dear Fr. Raphael, I think you have a sense of humor . . . so I am going to share with you that I seem to agree with you the great majority of the time (and learn from you very much as well) when you write. But, I have noticed also that even when I don't agree with you as I am reading your words I seem to end up agreeing with you, as if there is a kind of Jedi mind control going on :) So in honor of you I have placed my first image on the Monachos site here that I think may rival your image of the beagle in the aviator goggles :)


OK- so I can't deny it anymore since you're on to my secret. I sprinkle a secret potion onto my posts.

If you find yourself speaking with a Canadian accent & develop an uncontrollable urge to run out and buy a hockey stick & then play hockey you'll know it's working.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Fr. Raphael comments that:

One lesson is that in our day & age Orthodoxy is an extremely hard thing to really accept.


It is so, but at what time was it not so? Are we uniquely afflicted in this way? Or do we face the challenge the Church has always faced. As Nicolaj says, the Great Commission was not 'go away and be comfy'.

It is comforting to read accounts of how individuals were able to be accommodated with and accommodate themselves to ethnic Orthodoxy, and no one here has ever suggested this was not possible; nor has anyone suggested that we all owe anything but the deepest respect and affection to those who have brought Orthodoxy to somewhere like the USA, where it was not, or to the UK, where it has not been for a thousand years. But is anyone suggesting that the Apostles had it wrong in Acts 15?

As I wrote in my last post, Our Lord's comment in Matthew 23 strikes home:

23:13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.


When Paul writes:

I do understand what you all are saying about keeping the faith and ethnic traditions and not losing our ethnic heritages.

He comes back to the heart of this discussion. What about those whose ethnic background is not Greek or Russian?

To want to embrace everyone is not to dilute the Faith - we can see what has happened to those who have tried this route - it is to wish to do what we are commanded to do. It may be that there are insights others have that can be adapted to the need to do this; why should evangelism mean watering the message down? Perhaps an unwatered down Christianity is what people might be attracted to - if it spoke in their language? As Peter says, let us not make the way narrower than it already is.

If there seems a little more passion in these postings than is usual, then it is because I am a kind of test case of what we are writing about here.

A Christian born in England, who moved in his teenage years into what he was told was indeed the natural 'parish' for his ethnicity - Anglicanism; who has tried for very many years to be obedient to where he was placed, and who, in the end, has found it impossible because his understanding of the Faith and that of his own Church are not one. How hard that is I cannot properly say, but the joys of parish life ring hollow against it.

The one Orthodox group who have spoken to me in my own tongue and have welcomed me with open arms, love and understanding, are not the Eastern Orthodox, who talk to me of their ethnicity and the importance of their culture as though they think Christ was Greek or Russian, but the British Orthodox; of whom some Eastern Orthodox say 'ah, but they are Monophysites', but, when challenged to state in what way they depart from the Faith of the ancient undivided Church, cannot say, though they can say much else.

A quiet, eirenic willingness to answer questions, however simple; a willingness to accept my questions without assuming I have any agenda other than the desire to know the fulness of the Faith; a patience with my slowness; a patent desire to share with me everything that can be shared at this stage; and an acknowledgement of what my previous Christian background may have brought with it; all of these, so it seems to me, will bring those like me towards the fulness of the Faith.

A spirit of exclusiveness; a holy huddle in which the pearl of great price is reserved as though only an elite were worthy of it; an attitude of gnosis; a view which takes the parish as a solipsism; these are often encountered by those of us searching, and who would look there for long? It is no use thinking that if one is really searching, one will put up with anything - that is what cults think, and they do well out of it - but it is not the sign of Christ's Church.

So, as we continue our dialogue, let us remember those who knock on the door, and ask ourselves how we welcome them in?

In Christ,

John

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Rick:
I anxiously look forward to the article when you can post it.


Being a christian has nothing in common with feeling comfortable, or do you really believe Paul (while referring to him) was comfortable running around, preaching the gospel, being put up in jail, beaten up, spit out. Do you think Paul spoke all the tongues of all the different races he visited? Do you think he was comfortable put to death for preaching Jesus?
I don't know, but I think something you can do right away is when you find someone interrested in Orthodoxy, you can be his/hers host. You esscort them the first times they like to encounter the Faith. You stay close to them, like a godparent, explain, help, discuss (not to much), and help them to find their way in the church. That is not comfortable for you!!! But it will be a big help for those who Come and See!

In Christ-your brother Nicolaj

Nicolaj,

I think I let my emotionalism run away with my intellect at times. Of course the Church has been around for a long time and things seem to work and in their own time. I am always late and always feel rushed, so I think the rest of the world should be as well.

I read the lives of the Saints and try to understand it taking years to complete an obedience or other such examples that take a great length of time. I want to share what I have found. In my haste, I want to share it yesterday. I have lived in the South all my life. I know how the people here think. I know what it takes to reach them and what turns them off. I am sure whomever reads this "knows" their culture equally well.

The Church has already taken root here. It is only now a matter of time before it bears fruit. I hope it happens in my life time. But that is me being pushy and selfish. God's timing is perfect. Even for the slow moving South.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Paul,

I don't think of the situation quite as radically as my words might lead one to think. During my Orthodox life I have lived most of it in a mostly English only environment and this was a tremendous blessing. To me it's not even a question that we should invest more time and effort than we have to the use of English and local language.

But I also think it important to keep very firmly in mind that anything we have now in our own language comes from a church which was and ways still is of a largely ethnic experience. In other words what we have comes from the inheritance which others were willing to share with us. It's a bit different for us but to be able to get into their head as it were- like both Fr David & Athanasia have referred to here today- really helps to broaden us out, even if our own parish we worship in a completely local way.

For sure how what we achieve is often also determined by local conditions. I think it's wonderful you point this out. I have only briefly been in the American evangelical space and completely agree a lot of time and prayer needs to be put into how we express the Faith in this sort of environment. Probably more than in Canada where we grow up in an environment we call multiculturalism, where you are demands an almost completely local expression of the Faith.

It is crucial however that the new shoot be taken from the Vine of continuity which the Church certainly by this point has in North America. This already is achieved through our seminaries which train parish priests in an environment tied into the whole Church. It also helps that today we can travel to places like Greece, Mt Athos & Russia to see a kind of Orthodoxy with more continuity than we are used to.

As to your practical questions about locale. Here in our city of about 675,000 we have 12 Orthodox parishes. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada has the most parishes in the city- 6. Besides this we have two 'standard' OCA; one Romanian OCA; one Romanian Patriarchate; one Serbian; and one ROCOR parish. Of these, 3 parishes ( 1 'standard' OCA, 1 Romanian OCA & 1 Ukrainian) are devoted completely to the use of English. I would say this is about a typical representation of parishes per population for a largish city in Canada & that numbers of parishioners per parish would be about equivalent to what you have in America. Driving distance of course is determined by size of the city (one factor worth noting is how Canadian cities have very developed public transportation. Young people without cars can still feasibly attend services)

One big difference though is that except for western Canada (where there are older Ukrainian parishes present) small cities and towns in Canada tend to have no organized Orthodox presence at all. This is so even where there are numbers of Ukrainians or Greeks which is often so in small Canadian cities.

Here the challenge is the extremely fast rate of assimilation outside of the cities which throws a spanner into the whole question of what reality- ethnic or not- provides the foundation for missionary work. Those parishes which have managed to shade off from use of ethnic to local languages have done quite well at times. But these are found only in the big cities. Those attempts based primarily on the use of English outside of the large cities have never succeeded . In other words a real difference seen in Canada from America is that Canadians only seem to 'get it' about Orthodoxy if they are first exposed to this in an ethnic context which uses enough English to have some sense as to what is going on. Many if not most missions in our cities which use English only begin in this way in Canada- transplants from a mother ethnic parish. I'm not sure what accounts for this Canadian/American difference but it is very apparent. It really affects attempts at missionary work.

In Christ- Fr Raphael




Thank you Father Raphael

Please be assured I very much embrace the "Old Ways". My brother and his wife came to see where I worship. They are very much Baptist. Open minded in as much as they listen to my renditions of what Orthodoxy is. But that's about as far as they are willing to look at it. They feel as long as I believe in Jesus and His resurrection, they are satisfied with my salvation. Everything else we do is flat out weird to them and unnecessary.

When my priest walked them around the church, he tried to explain icons to them in a better way than I ever could. They saw the Holy Life giving Cross behind the alter with Christ nailed to it. They asked "Why is Jesus still there? He is resurrected! He is not supposed to be on the Cross anymore". Father Matthew patiently said to deny He was nailed to the Cross is to deny His resurrection. (paraphrasing that last part)

Just a question to the group...
What is the density of Orthodoxy where you live? Number of Churchs, parish members? How far do people have to drive to go to another Parish?

http://orthodoxhouston.org/

Here in Houston there are 23 parishes representing 7 Jurisdictions. Houston has close to 3 million people. Most speak English, almost as many speak Spanish. The minority (according to the latest census) speak other languages. My Parish, St. Joseph the Betrothed, has +/- 80 families. I would guess we are an average size Parish. That would mean we, Orthodox, are serving roughly 1850 families or about 6000 people. (Total guestimation) That equates to .2% of the population in Houston.

Not even 1/4 of 1%. Why? I talk to people in my office when I can about my Faith. Only 1 other person has ever heard of Orthodoxy out of 125 people. And he is RC. The fields are ripe in my "plot of land". I am pained by the responses I get from people. I am pained by their lack of interest. I am pained by their heartfelt "i'm ok, you're ok" mentality.

Of the 23 Jurisdictional parishes in Houston, mine is 1 of only a small few (3-4) that are in English. The next closest parish that speaks English is close to 15 miles away. Here, that translates to almost a 45 minute drive.

I do understand what you all are saying about keeping the faith and ethnic traditions and not losing our ethnic heritages. Please keep in mind where you all live is very closely knit unlike the South. We are very spread out down here. We need more Parish churches and Priests to reach the many. If the RC and EO ever do reconcile, then we are in good shape, due to the many Catholic Hispanics we have immigrating daily. Until then, we need to be seen, heard and realistic in reaching those that do not know of us.

St. Paul was "all things to all people". I can't serve the other 2,994,000 people in this city. I suppose my McDonald's fast food American mentality gets in my way. I am very passionate about Orthodoxy and getting it's "fullness" to others. I want others to know about what I have found. Just Come and See. But when they do, will they feel welcome/ comfortable in a Syriac speaking parish?

A little over zealous
Paul

[Paul Cowan]

Father Bless,

You are of course right.


Here the challenge is the extremely fast rate of assimilation outside of the cities which throws a spanner into the whole question of what reality- ethnic or not- provides the foundation for missionary work. Those parishes which have managed to shade off from use of ethnic to local languages have done quite well at times. But these are found only in the big cities. Those attempts based primarily on the use of English outside of the large cities have never succeeded . In other words a real difference seen in Canada from America is that Canadians only seem to 'get it' about Orthodoxy if they are first exposed to this in an ethnic context which uses enough English to have some sense as to what is going on. Many if not most missions in our cities which use English only begin in this way in Canada- transplants from a mother ethnic parish. I'm not sure what accounts for this Canadian/American difference but it is very apparent. It really affects attempts at missionary work. (Bold type mine)

I have trouble seeing things in the big picture rather than under my microspope. The Church moves forward in the manner and timing God sets out for it. Regardless if I go to McDonalds or Burger King, I get my burger within 60 seconds.

Pray for me. I have something once again to discuss with my priest Saturday night after Vespers. ;)

In Love
Paul

[Rick H.]

Dear John,

In the conclusion of your last post you shared the following:



A spirit of exclusiveness; a holy huddle in which the pearl of great price is reserved as though only an elite were worthy of it; an attitude of gnosis; a view which takes the parish as a solipsism; these are often encountered by those of us searching, and who would look there for long? It is no use thinking that if one is really searching, one will put up with anything - that is what cults think, and they do well out of it - but it is not the sign of Christ's Church.

So, as we continue our dialogue, let us remember those who knock on the door, and ask ourselves how we welcome them in?



Even though, I think it would speak directly to what you have raised here John, instead of launching into a defining of the word/concept "aparticularism" as I had intended (as it relates to an earlier posting of Fr. Raphael's today), I feel compelled to change gears here and speak directly to you about what you have encountered.

Actually, these are not my words here, but again this is something, like a previous quote that I shared, that was very helpful to me as I was transitioning from being a disillusioned believer from another Christian tradition to Orthodoxy (even after one becomes Orthodox sometimes there is still an extended time of 'transition(s)' after the honeymoon is over--as has been said):

"In the process of searching for answers I lost all the questions. Had the answers been given to me upon my request I probably would not have been ready to accept them. The benefits of waiting for answers surpass the actual attainment of answers that come to us without a bit of hardship and suffering. What I have described in my story is typical of how a true seeker successfully searches for the truth, in such a way that the searching cleanses us, so that when truth comes we are, not only ready for it, but appropriately appreciative. And when it comes to us in this way it is not so much an intellectual acceptance as it is a 'direct experience," because the spiritual reality that lies behind worldly words and concepts is enabled to pierce the weakened veils of selfish objection. For this is an experience that goes beyond words and conveys to us such wisdom that transcends the mind. It is absolute Certitude. It enfolds the mind, but comes from a deep place within the heart, 'the seat of consciousness,' and spreads throughout your whole being. It makes one's whole being ready and willing to surrender. It will empty itself instantly of any acquired knowledge upon its recognition of revelation. For it is in this surrender that the divinity within us connects with the greater divinity from which it came, enabling it to see and hear the fullness of Truth with the eyes and ears of God."

Also, as it relates to a listening to and an observation of this group vs. that group, I hear you 'Guvnor,' I promise, and you have to consider this, but I am glad I didn't have that experience on top of everything else--I think I might have gone mad! But, to cut to the chase here, I would like to share some of Andrew's words from another thread and offer these as a possible alternative epistemology/metaphysic (especially as an alternative to the 'parish as solipsism!') of which no one particular group/assembly or individual is able to claim any exclusive authority over (I sure hope Andrew the Mystic is around at conclusion time in this thread):


The Church is the body of Christ, physically, mystically, in all ways truly the Body of the Theanthropos who sits upon the right hand of the Father. The Orthodox Church is not a religious organization - it is an organism in which fallen humanity is crucified, illumined, and deified by God himself to take part in the very life of the Trinity. .

Orthodoxy is not a religion, it is reality itself, it is life itself, it is Christ himself. Saint Paul is clear about this -

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the Fullness of him that Filleth All in All."


I know I am not telling you anything that you do not already know here, but as I look back on some of the postings in this discussion, I see a lot of sharing of personal experiences by most of us here like, 'I am glad you had this experience' or 'I am sorry you had this experience' or 'well, let me tell you about my experience,' etc., . . . and I do this too (obviously :) especially when I can use it as an illustration or to make a point that may be helpful to another brother or sister in Christ. God Willing, hopefully, this feeble attempt is of some help in your journey at the present as well as a demonstration of the "How?" in a very practical way.

Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

On Christmas day I posted an abstract. To this I would like to add today the following outline/contents page as a type of road map for your review.

Possibly, some of you have read the very sad account of James Kim who died in Oregon recently. He and his family became lost while driving home to California, and then it began to snow trapping them in the wilderness. James left his family in his car in a very brave attempt to save his family; however, when he was found lying dead in a creek, it was determined by his tracks in the snow that he had walked ten miles in a circle and had died one mile away from his car. This is obviously not an example of "In the End, the Beginning" but instead "In the End, the End." And, I have realized that it is not possible for all of us to always be on the same page here all the time because of the nature of this electronic medium, and I have also realized that it is not always reasonable, due to the size and scope of this thread, to expect new comers to review and catch up on everything. So, it might not be possible to transcend the previous running around in circles that has characterized past discussions like this. . . before they seem to just come to an end. But, my plan is to continue forging ahead in a spirit of gratitude/thanksgiving for what is happening at the present in this community, and at the same time being flexible and sensitive to the Spirit of Life that is present here. Or, in other words, hopefully not just plow through things in an obtuse fashion; but, based on the flow/current (of the community) be looking for that 'next right step.' Hopefully, God willing, the unique spiritual dynamic that is present here in our midst will continue to be the rule and not the exception in the future and we will move forward, and we will find that it is not as Will Herberg has said, "the Orthodox don't stand a chance in America." But, it is as Owen has said, " . . . things have changed." And, I will be the first to admit that the title of this thread, "An American Orthodoxy?" is somewhat of an enigma, but what is not a riddle to me is what has been asserted in some of Andrew's comments as well as what has been proposed by me here before, "If there is no such thing as an American Orthodoxy then there is no such thing as an Eastern Orthodoxy.' And to this end, I would like to start addressing this "shift" and this "new reality that we live in" in the hope that in the end we 'will' find the beginning.




CONTENTS


I. INTRODUCTION


II. DISTINGUISHING THE BASIC FACTS

-- Defining Aparticualrism

-- Modernity Gone to Seed or Modernity Gone Mad?


III. EXPLAINING THE SENSITIVE ISSUES

-- The Question of Authority

-- The Question of Particularism


IV. CONCLUSION

-- The Potentially Negative Consequences of an Aparticularistic Postmodernity "In Propostion"

-- The Potentially Positive Consequences of an Aparticualaristic Postmodernity "In Practice"

-- In the End--the Beginning



Peace and Grace,
Rick

[Marie-Duquette]

Rick, Paul, John, Nicolaj, et al,

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

These wonderful discussions, insights, and thoughts, I've been slowly reading -- Thanks to all for the openness found here at the Monachos site. Almost forgot to say "passionate thoughts and sharing about Orthodoxy!" -- Sometimes I find it diffulcult to keep up with the SPEED of input!

Though the thought often comes to me that perhaps we all need to go back to the "Beginning" in which is the "End" as well as being and living in the ever moving process of life-in-the making ... Let's go back to the "Manger" and truly see and experience what went on there in relation to what is going on in today's world.

that is: LEARNING anew from the Life of Christ Jesus as simply stated in the Gospels:

to live the Gospel without compromise!

... this being the simple and true answer to the question "How to live Orthoxy today in this fast moving world that seems to want to become a village.

Otherwise, things might just then become TOO COMFORTABLE, don't you think? all of us part of a Global Orthodox Village? Where then will we be sent "Go tell your brothers (and sisters)... The Resurrection of Christ after the Crucifixtion took the Women and then the Apostles out of the "comfort zone" of daily life into the "unknown" that of meeting the Living Christ including the marks of His wounds...

It is the "Coming of the Holy Spirit" at Pentecost, in tongues of fire at that, firing them up to live, speak, spread the Message of their Master, Jesus the Christ; and, this not without the CROSS, as part of the total Mystery.

Just wanted to put in a little thought on this Feast of St. John the Beloved, who took the Mother of Jesus to his home; spoke so eloquently of what he had "seen" and experienced; and then exiled at Patmos continuing to be at the foot of the Cross until the end!

marie_duquette

[Rick H.]

***NOTE TO READER: We are working towards "a very penetrating and coherent reading of the Tradition of the Holy Apostles and the Church Fathers here!"--much in the same fashion as has been said about John D. Zizioulas. But, this is not a quick process. Sometimes retrieval efforts such as these are not quick conversations, especially when given in short choppy bites like is required on the Monachos site. And, it IS as John Meyendorff has said:

"One of the major and permanent goals of a theologian, who wants to express the Christian faith, as it is held by the Orthodox Catholic Tradition, is to be able to do justice to history as well as to "systematic" thought addressed to contemporaries. In most cases, however, historians limit themselves to history establishing the facts of the past and leaving open the issue of objective truth. Systematic theologians, on the contrary, neglect the rigorous demands of historical criticism, and use the past merely as a source of proof-texts, selected by them to suport their own, so often arbitrary interpretaion of the truth.

This dichotomy is particularly dangerous for Orthodox theology, which simply ceases to be Orthodox if it either neglects Tradition, uncovered in history, or forgets the truth."


Dear Robert, Herman, and All,

(Robert and Herman, I have flagged you both here in order to pick up, where we left off last time, below in section II)

With your permission, I would like to continue now with a sharing of my thoughts here in this Monachos electronic medium, under the following working title:


EXPLORING THE SHAPE AND DIMENSION OF AN ORTHODOX SUPRA-POLARITY: TOWARD A RETRIEVAL OF AN HISTORIC ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGICAL CENTER©

But first, before I begin, as others have already, I would like to extend my warmest welcome to Fr. Christopher and say that I am very glad to have you aboard also (as well as something like 'all rights are reserved.' :)

And, now as I bring my contribution to the table, I would like to acknowledge that much like my homemade lentil bean soup which I think is very tasty :) but not everyone at my church agrees . . . I am aware that not everyone here at Monachos will appreciate my contribution. At my church, at times, I have noticed that when I take my crock-pot of soup into the fellowship hall, there are some people who go back for seconds and thirds, but there are also others who do not finish their first bowl and instead go back to the table to look for something else to eat. So I am aware that this contribution may or may not be appreciated, but the point is that this is being presented under the doctrine and theology area and not the cooking and recipe area so I hope no one considers this an inappropriate starting point. But, even more so what I hope is that this is not considered an unfruitful tangent that would cause some to discontinue placing their contributions on the table because there is a very beautiful banquet that has and is being prepared here, and I do not want to see anything disrupt the Spirit of Life that seems to be motivating our electronic assembly. So, if my Monachos soup is not tasty to you, just pass it by or for that matter you can dump it out and I will never know :) But, I hope you don't pack up and leave the fellowship hall just because you didn't like one dish. There are many outstanding dishes here to choose from! For that matter, who just wants only lentil bean soup anyway?


By way of a partial review/introduction we are working towards the above initially by means of an exploration of the postmodern myth as an 'aparticularistic' world view (which includes a full consideration of the implications of this for Orthodox Christian life and ministry 'in practice'). In our initial approach to the above I will attempt to demonstrate by its very design and nature, the postmodern idea is a contrived, sophisticated anthropocentric system/language game, "in proposition," that can potentially yield very negative consequences. However, I will also assert that the postmodern suggestion can potentially hold theocentric purposes as well, in the areas of apologetics, evangelisim, and as a tool/rod of God intended as renewal/correction of sorts (from below)--as it relates to Christian identity/assemblage in order to bring about a wider church.

In posting #1 I quoted Pope Benedict XVI who said, "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest values one's own ego and one's own desires." In this one thought unit, the Pope stands as a beacon of light and clarity as it relates to our discussion, and the so-called post-modern construct. Here the Pope has fully encapsulated both the present condition of our relativistic society and the age of a relativistic modernity to come. This recent thinking juxtaposed with the quotes that I have shared from Francis Shaeffer (written almost forty years ago), in addition to our dialogue here to date, provides more than an ample introduction. Therefore, in an effort to begin to accomplish the previously stated goals and objectives, an attempt to define and distinguish the degree of objective reality of postmodernism will now be undertaken.

II. Distinguishing the Basic Facts

Primarily, due to the conjuring of the postmodern idea itself, I have found it necessary to bring this new word/philological construct into the discussion in order to truly distinguish the objective reality of postmodernism. The term "aparticularism" is not meant to be substituted for the term postmodernism; however, it does well describe the so-called postmodern epistemology (or supra-epistemology).

Defining Aparticularism

An aparticularism, such as the postmodern idea, is a category that exists only in one's mind (which speaks directly to John's expression in his last heartfelt posting in which he referred to the 'parish as solipsism'). Additionally, in much the same way that a myth is a story that is accepted as history, by some, and can serve to explain/justify the world view of a people, an aparticularism is a way of knowing, doing, and being.

Aristotelian language is helpful here (but not necessary) for grasping aparticularism. For example, there are universals and there are particulars that can be represented by "a horse," in general (which is a universal), or "a specific horse" e.g., the black horse in the field behind one's house (a particular). In this example, it is obvious that "a horse" does not exist except as a category in one's mind. Everyone knows what "a horse" in general is and what "a horse" in general is not; however, no one can point to "a horse" in general because it simply doesn't exist. It is only possible to point to "a specific horse," like the black horse in the field behind one's house. So here it is obvious that "a horse" in general (a universal) is something that exists only in one's mind as a category, but "a specific horse" (a particular) is something that exists in reality/fact, and has a high degree of objective truth.

***NOTE: On a side note, it just occurred to me that I could be accused of being a Thomist or a Scholastic here; but, I am not . . . this is the only time you will hear me using Aristotelian language and I will try to limit the highly theological/philosophical method as much as possible in the future (and if you do levy the above charges I will dump my lentil bean soup on you! ;) While I do (obviously) allow some room for these methods at times, and do respect the work of Aquinas, I would not want to end up like him as it seems is almost a certainty for those who walk/work on the ragged edge for to long.

But, back to work here . . . (Robert) While it is obvious, from the above, that a particular is not an aparticularism, it should also be made clear that a universal is not an aparticularism as well (even though a universal exists only in one's mid as an aparticularism does). This is because an aparticularism is represented neither by "a horse in general" (universal) nor by "a specific horse in particular" (particular). But, instead, it can be only--and perfectly--represented by "a specific collection of horses, in general, that exclude one or more horses in the group" (aparticular). To continue the horse analogy further, examples of an aparticularism would be: a collection/group, in general, of all white, black, and red horses but no others; or a collection of red and blue horses but no others; or, a collection/group, in general, of all horses except brown horses; or, any collection(s) of horses, in general, assembled together by height, weight, color, function, etc., as long as one or more of the categories of horse(s) is excluded from the group (John please note the last part here).

Therefore, these arbitrary and diverse "herds" of horses cannot be universals or examples of a universalism in any shape or form. It may possibly seem to some, in theory/proposition, that because of the high degree of unity and the level of exclusiveness required by these "herds" that they could in deed be examples of types or particulars. But, in fact, it is because of the very presence of randomness, inclusiveness, and diversity in these groups that they can in no way be examples of particulars--but just the opposite. Because of the randomness, inclusiveness, and diversity (as well as the fact that they are herds in general existing only in one's mind) these "herds" are clearly aparticulars. Also, it is as these specific collection of horses, these aparticularistic "herds," relate to each other in theory (finding unity in their diversity both in the 'local visible' herd and the 'one global herd'), that the postmodern idea manifests itself finding its constitution and completion via an aparticularistic world view.

Well . . . I had planned on moving towards a consideration of this further as it relates to the superb contributions by Fr. Raphael, but again this has run too long and it is time to quit for now.

For God's Glory In Christ,
Rick

[Robert Hegwood]

In line with some of the recent posts I wonder what we can learn from the experience of the Slavs or the Celts or others outside the old Roman empire who converted to the Orthodox Christian faith. Each took the holy deposit as it was given but each gave it unique expression within the context of their time and culture. For example Russians kept the Byzantine tone structure but adjusted Byzantine tonality to fit their own "ear". Among the celts monastic life took on a huge role, almost as larger if not larger than parish and diocesian life (if I've read correctly). The Russians took so much of monastic life into their parish life as to practically make Russia a nation sized monastery for a few centuries.

I would wonder what aspects of Native American Culture in Alaska found new or continued expression within Orthodoxy and what aspects of Orthodoxy especially appealed to them and perhaps received a particular emphasis that was appropriate to their culture.

So given the ways baptized cultures have expressed the Orthodox deposit in the past, a close and accurate look at the best of American culture may give us some insights into how that ancient deposit will be expressed in that context. Some in other posts have mentioned such things as English usage, and congregational singing. I think Fr. Roman Braga has noted the American ability to fundraise and to organize large scale relief and assistance programs, as well as the curious ways American monastics have found to support themselves absent a culture of state support.

Some of these observations stike me though as perhaps superficial (at least I hope they are...what a pity it would be if American Orthodoxy was just going to be materially pragmatic and a cozy sing along.)

I'm also waiting to see what our home grown saints will look like...most if not all of N. America's saints were spiritually formed deep in the context of well established Orthodox cultures. What are the saints going to be like who started life as coverts or the children of converts at a mission in Terra Haute or Tampa? That will tell us a lot about the emerging shape and sensibilities of the American Orthodox Church.

[John Charmley]

Dear Robert,

Some useful thoughts in your post, and much to think about. I am enjoying Rick's elaboration on this theme, and looking forward to further instalments.

A quick thought in the form of a quotation:


"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be Eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies." Saint John of Shanghai the Wonderworker, sometime Archbishop of Paris.


Interesting and useful?

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

In letter #114, To: Cyriacus and his Followers in Tarsus, St. Basil said, " ... There is nothing more characteristic of a Christian than to be a peacemaker. ...", and in his letter #186, To: Antipater the 'govnur', St. Basil reverses his stand on pickled cabbage. So, in light of both of these patristic writings, may we continue here in the spirit of peacemaking (while retaining our spirit of humor) as we strive to stay within the Monachos guidelines with our retrieval efforts. And, on my part, so that there will be no need of a re-chewing of the cabbage concerning these recently restated guidelines, I would like to share that I hope to set the stage for our retrevial via patristic theology and monastic study through initially (as briefly as possible) a survey/assessment of the current landscape in which the Church finds herself in today (which I can accomplish in about one week, God willing!). If this sounds problematic could someone please offer me some counsel/guidance on a possible alternative avenue. Otherwise, I will get started on the second installment of our survey/assessment to hopefully have ready to post tomorrow. And, also, I would like to share the fact that I seem to have a strange urge to place a Rocky Balboa photo in my Monachos image section as well as a strange urge to go out and purchase a hockey stick . . . Hmm? What's up with that aye? :)

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

This is one of my favorite postings on Monachos. It is by Father David Moser, who said:



". . . then his wife asked why I had become Orthodox if I wasn't Russian. I simply told her (in my own halting Russian) that it was because Orthodoxy was truth (Istina) and that answer put a huge smile on her face. Then, because it was my turn to toast, I offered a toast to the Truth which makes us one. There was no further question - humorous or serious - about my proper place at the table, because everyone knew that above all, even above being Russian, Orthodoxy is Truth. Because I embraced them for who they were, they embraced me with equal warmth for who I am because in the end we are one in Christ."


Thank you Father, just beautiful! "A toast to Truth which makes us one," because "in the end we are one in Christ."

And, I had intended to use this as a segue into the next installment; but I think instead, I would just like to send this as a great way to start the New Years Eve weekend.

Peace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Circa 358, in Basil to Gregory (letter #2) we see a Basil who speaks in a heartfelt and transparent way of his own experience initially, and then he moves on to write in a more general way of the primacy of silence and solitude, and study of the inspired Scriptures in the life of the Christian. Basil writes:



"We must strive after a quiet mind. As well might the eye ascertain an object put before it while it is wandering restless up and down and sideways, without fixing a steady gaze upon it, as a mind, distracted by a thousand worldly cares, be able clearly to apprehend the truth."

"Now solitude is of the greatest use for this purpose, inasmuch as it stills our passions, and gives room for principle to cut them out of the soul."

"The study of inspired Scripture is the Chief way of finding our duty, for in it we find both instruction about conduct and the lives of blessed men, delivered in writing, as some breathing images of godly living, for the imitation of their good works."


There is a balance presented here that is especially helpful to me. Possibly, as some of you can relate, there are times when I start to lament with the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, 'vanity of vanities', and if I could, I would like to spend a great deal (if not all) of my time in solitude and silence just as St. Basil develops this further in this text (as it relates to "contemplation" and "pious exercises that nourish the soul with divine thoughts.") There are times when I have a strong compulsion and I come very close to making a decisive move by loading up all of my books and driving them to the Great Miami River which is very close to my home and tossing them all off of the bridge. But, that would be both unbalanced and escapist. However, there are other times when I would like to do just the opposite and lock the door and spend a great deal of time with my silent companions because as St. Basil says, there are many practical reasons for this. But, there is a balance here isn't there?

I appreciate St. Basil very much in the same way that I do the Apostle Paul, and there is a compassion that one feels for both of these men (and others) as you read their letters chronologically. You can see St. Basil age in his letters and it seems as though his increasing bodily sickness seemed to correspond with increasing administrative duties and increasing charges of unsound doctrine. Even just about eighteen years after St. Basil wrote the above, we read a letter which is not uncharacteristic of the times (to the people of Evasa) in which he is petitioning God to grant the blessings of Jerusalem, to these people for "flinging back at the heads of the liars and slanders" who are accusing him of wrongdoing. and in which he says:



"My occupations are very numerous, and my mind is full of many anxious cares . . . Truly nowadays it is hard to find and extraordinary to see, a Church pure unharmed by the troubles of the times, and preserving the apostolic doctrine in all its integrity and completeness."


So without going any further here in this direction as it relates to the fine line (or ragged edge) between a proper and healthy view of self and personhood as opposed to an unhelpful individualism. With you permission, I will now provide a second installment in order to take a closer look the times in which the Church of our day finds herself in as we continue our retrieval efforts in this thread.

Each age has some of the same troubles, and ultimately, as it relates to the heartbeat of the world, it is as the Preacher has said--'there is nothing new under the sun.' But, there are also troubles which are unique to certain times. Whereby, I am presenting for consideration the following question about the times in which We live:

Modernity Gone to Seed or Modernity Gone Mad?

Knowing that modernity, at its core, was initially a reaction against particularism by means of individualism, the thesis of this project proposes that postmodernism is not a departure from modernity at all, and that the postmodern idea is not representative of a new age to come; but instead, it is simply a change in methodology of the existing age of modernity. Or, in other words, the goal/objective of modernity has not changed, the goal is still to dismantle all particularistic messages with universal appeals or claims to authority. But, the way and means of accomplishing this goal has been changed from the promotion of a strictly individualistic individualism to the promotion of a communitarian aparticularism.

The thesis of this project also proposes that the postmodern idea is an absurd (and final) reaction of modernity to particularism. This is because modernity--specifically the modern avant-garde--is now thinking, knowing, doing, feeling, and being based on an aparticularistic world view, that has no objective reality, and is based on an inclusive particularism (which is a complete contradiction that is ultimately its fatal flaw). Whereby, this project asserts there is no transition taking place from one age to another at the present time (viz. modernity to postmodernity). Postmodernity exists only in the minds of those who have conjured the original tenants and those who have bought into the myth or added to it. Postmodernity is not a new age, it does not exist on its own, it is a modern idea/suggestion which maintains the same violent reaction to particularism that the age of modernity has always put forth. This modern reaction to particularism is simply being put forth in a new epistemological packaging by the same relativistic modernity that Schaeffer warned of in the middle of the last century, and that Pope Benedict is warning of in the present day.

The nature of the postmodern proposition is the nature of the modern proposition. At their core, they both seek the deconstruction of a true particularism which leads to a true universalism. At their core they are both one-in-the-same sharing the same core objectives and goals as they relate to all particularism that has a universal appeal and claim to authority.

The term postmodernism was originally coined in an effort to explain real methodological changes (in thinking and knowing) that have taken place during the past one hundred years in western civilization. However, the true watershed regarding both the objective reality and the nature of the postmodern construct is found in the understanding that while the postmodern idea was originally considered as a means for grasping these epistemological and methodological changes (that were in fact taking place), the concept of postmodernity has been overdeveloped to the point of fiction.

In an effort to explain real changes that have occurred in the last one hundred years in the landscape in which the Church finds herself in today, thinkers and writers, in an increasingly mad rush/competition of sorts, have simply gone too far! They have so thoroughly distorted, perverted, and added to the original task/question of analyzing a relativistic modernity (some intentionally and some not), that the postmodern idea is now beyond reason, and is beyond reality.

Much as John pleaded earlier for us to "get a grip." In some ways, the developmental process of the postmodern suggestion of the last century resembles a group of young boys walking past a condemned house which still has all of its windows intact. In this situation, there is some discussion among the boys about the possibility of one of them throwing a rock at one of the windows in order to break it. In the end, it is decided that this will be attempted, and one boy takes his time selecting just the right rock. Then he takes his time aiming, as others stand and watch, until the boy lets the rock fly and breaks the window. This is repeated by another boy, and then another, and then another, before long, all of the boys are bending over as fast as they can finding rocks and throwing them at all the windows in the house until they have whipped themselves into a frenzy trying to "out-do" the other boys. Through this process of running around and finding rocks and throwing rocks, there is a type of madness (as well as a mob mentality) that takes over. The dynamic of the group of boys has become greater than its sum parts, which ultimately results in a contest to see who can break the most windows. The original question of whether or not to break one window has been long lost, and a competitive frenzied activism has taken over! Such is the case with the postmodern idea. It was originally considered as a means for grasping epistemological and methodological changes that were in fact taking place; however, it has resulted in a theological/philosophical free-for-all (reminiscent of Erasmus's In Praise of Folly) to see who can add to it the most creatively, or take it to a new plane the quickest, or to develop it the furthest.

To be sure[!] the development of the postmodern idea (in its present stage) is a new and unique methodology that does employ a new metaphysic a new form of a supra-epistemology; however, at its core, as it relates to particularism, it provides neither a new way of knowing nor a new age in any way, shape, or form. Postmodernity is not "modernism gone to seed" (although a more appropriate horticultural argument for some who do assert a change in nature would be a modernism gone wild or one that is experiencing erratic growth). The postmodern idea is instead the last dying gasp of modernism, which has come to realize that its original emphasis/promotion of a strict individualism and its appeal to human reason will ultimately provide no answer, but instead only a final act in the "theater of the absurd."

Initially, modernism sought to dismantle all spiritual and non-spiritual systems of authoritative particularism via an extreme individualism which would in turn divide and dismantle all truly particularistic communities which claim to have a universal/authoritative appeal. Although the methodology has been changed, the goal of the modern construct is still the same. Currently, its present stage (which appears to be its last), a desperate modernity is attempting to dismantle partiucalrism by means of aparticularism.

Considering the fact that the only outcome of an aparticularistic world view would be an auniversalistic world view, possibly, the most concise way to distinguish the basic facts of postmodernism is to consider it as the methodology of a relativistic modernism gone mad.

Peace and Grace,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I have noticed that the activity on the Monachos site as a whole has fallen off drastically, in the past few days, since the "red-lettered notes" have appeared on the posting/reply forms. And, the waters seem to have become completely still in this thread to the point where the current/flow is not discernable. So, honestly, I am not too sure about the best way to proceed (or not) at this point.

Maybe the lack of response/activity that I am observing is due to the time of the year where we are tired from the activity and demands of the holidays. Maybe, some of us have company coming over this evening and we are busy memorizing our "Toast to Truth" :) Hopefully, the still waters are an indication of the depth of the waters, as it relates to the regular contributors of this thread, and there is a pondering of what is being presented at the present time. But, on the other hand I did receive a "red-button" in the way of anonymous negative feedback on my personal profile form someone who shared that he or she cannot understand what is being said and that what I am sharing is 'senseless/meaningless' to this person. There are many parallels that are being drawn here, on different levels, in this survey of our times and the landscape the Church finds herself in at the present day. These parallels are directly related to both "the new age that we are living in" and the big picture as it relates to the Church as well as other aspects of the Church (for example the liturgical aspect of the Church as it relates to even the above feedback as compared to some people's experience in the Divine Liturgy who do not speak the langauge). So, this thread is pregnant with meaning, and I think this "retrieval effort" is very appropriate for the "Tradition, Scripture, Intellect, and Experience" section of the "Doctrine and Theology" area. However, I also think that (all things considered), I would like to use this down time here at Monachos to shift into 'hyper-drive' and serve up a severe abridgement of sorts in order to finish up all of the installments (in this survey) in this one posting today--with the exception of the Conclusion. In the Conclusion we will find the meat and potatoes of this thread, I think, and in the Conclusion(s) phase it is not an option to abridge our patristic and monastic approach/study as it relates to the Tradition of the Church and as it relates to the Holy Scriptures. I have no trouble serving up a smaller crock pot of lentil bean soup as it relates to the present landscape. But, as it relates to patristic and monastic studies in relation to Tradition and the Scriptures, hopefully you would agree that this is not negotiable and this approach cannot be rushed. So let us suffer through one more installment and then this survey phase will be over.

And, I think, I will just skip over almost all of the question of authority completely now, (knowing that it will most like come up later) and just finish up this survey now with a consideration/explanation of a sensitive issue:

The Question of Particularism

Knowing that the spirit of modernity is driven by the spirit of humanism, why have moderns fought (and continue to fight) so doggedly and determinedly on this one hill of particularism? The reason why there is such a violent reaction to particularism, by the relativistic modern spirit of humanism is very simple and easy to grasp. It is because the moderns perceive particularism as always carrying an authoritative, freedom suppressing exclusiveness in one hand, and an extreme introverted divisiveness in the other. For the modern/humanist, the question of authority does not find an answer in an authoritative exclusiveness (e.g., monarchial rule) to be sure, but instead, an answer is found via a radical individualism that "collectively" determines and forms its own community (e.g., the Constitution of the United States). With all due respect to my new English friends, I think in a look at the history and development of the diverse American Colonies in opposition to the King of England, we see the beginnings of aparticularistic thinking in modernism. And, in this case, (The American Revolution) it is clear to me anyway, that early modernity laid the egg that later modernity (in the form of the aparticular academy) hatched.

In addition the humanist knows by reason alone that all endeavors which operate by means of division/introversion ultimately produce/breed ignorance during the course of time. The humanist also knows by reason alone that ignorance will quickly produce/breed dysfunction in individuals at first and then in the community as a whole--which will in turn continue in a perpetual cycle of reproducing itself [dysfunction] over and over. Whereby, in addition to not desiring to submit to particularistic authority by nature, the modernist wisely does not want a system in place that will end in a perpetual cycle of dysfunction for his community . . . the Age of Modernity is not completely without defense in their thinking . . . and, it is easy to see why particularism is the archenemy and is under attack by the modern spirit of humanism.

The exploration of the nature of particularism is also very helpful for understanding the huge contradiction in the postmodern proposition. The modern spirit of humanism, on the one hand, "asserts in practice" (The United States Constitution for example) that truth--in general--is individualistic/objective/authoritative and communitarian/objective/authoritative, and all true particularism (monarchial rule for example) is lie. But, on the other hand, it "asserts in proposition" that truth--in general--is individualistic/subjective/authoritative (the mini narrative of personal experience for example) and communitarian/subjective/authoritative (local tribes for example), while still maintaining that all true particularism is a lie. In other words, '"in proposition," the postmodern idea (as supported by even its earliest forms) proposes that truth is subjective to the individual and the community and without objective reality; however, "in practice," the postmodern idea itself demonstrates that truth does have a strong degree of objective reality. The obvious fatal flaw here, as has been pointed out in the past, being found in the self-contradicting "proposition" that truth is without objective reality. Also, it is interesting to note here again the consistent position taken against all true particularism--both in proposition and in practice.

The sensitive issues of the postmodern idea involve firstly, the question of authority, and secondly the concepts of individualism, particularism, and community as they relate to the question of authority (and a functional community).


***So that is it. Thanks for suffering through these three installments (to all who actually did). If we are able to keep going here and work into some real conclusions, I think the value and relevance of what has been shared in the past few days will become more evident. But, as for now I have a toast to memorize.

Peace and Grace,
Rick

Happy New Year to All!

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

In view of the opening parts of your last post, a message of support.

Silence from here indicates a close reading of what you are writing and lots of thinking.

Those who do not like this sort of dialogue are welcome to say so, but I find it a little sad that someone would 'yellow card' (a 'soccer' term for warning a player) you rather than just say publicly - 'hey guys, you sure this is Orthodox and patristic, 'cause to me it sounds like philosophy'. After all, no one forces anyone to read anything here!

I am just reading an essay by Professor John McGuckin in which he laments:


the destruction and impoverishment of Orthodox institutes of higher learning ... that for Proestants and Catholics became the high points of a nexus of cultural development

- maybe your dissentient vote disagrees? Or maybe the Professor has a point?

This is, after all, a scholarly site, and, if I may be allowed, as an outsider to say so, a wonderful riposte to what McGuckin describes as the western parody of Orthodoxy as 'an exotic, dim and reactionary Church'. In the same paragraph he calls for 'us' to 'claim our true place by making and describing our own identity instead of taking it from the mouths of others'. In our quiet and humble way, the discussion here is part of that effort.

So, good on you Rick - and all the best for 07!

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear John and All,

I will have to expose my lack of electronic forum savvy now, because I cannot seem to navigate my way back and find your posting from earlier today dealing with the BBC show (in order to give you and Radio 4 the proper credit). But, I can type pretty fast, so I was able to get a transcript of the last question and answer from this program, without too much trouble, which I would like to present in this thread. I didn't hear the host of "Beyond Belief" identify himself:

Host of Beyond Belief: "Felix, from a journalistic perspective, what signs of development should I look out for in the future in Orthodoxy?"

Felix Corley/Editor of Forum Eighteen News Service: "The center of gravity in the Orthodox world has shifted in the last decades. First of all perhaps to Moscow and now it's shifting I think to North America. I think that is going to be the powerhouse of Orthodoxy in the future. The church there is very divided both on ethnic lines, on linguistic lines, on juridical lines. Everything happens first in the US may be perhaps a cliche, but I think people there are having to face the things that the people in Britain are having to face within the Orthodox churches. And, the historic heartlands in the middle east, at least, are gradually disappearing."

Thanks again John.

Peace,
Rick


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/index.shtml

[Rick H.]

"A Call for Native-Born American Scholarship"

Dear All,

First of all, does it feel like Monday to anyone else today? :) And, secondly, I would like to invite all readers of this thread to march straight over to the thread in this same forum (Tradition, Scripture, Intellect, & Experience), "The Pursuit of Knowledge in Light of the Fathers", and read especially the English and Canadian influence/contributions. I think there is a very helpful conversation going on there. There is a beautiful and balanced approach to knowledge unfolding there that provides (at least for me) some very good lessons and points of reference. But, primarily because my post is limited in scope on this topic (and because the following brings great harmony to what is being said here in this thread), I want to bring an aspect of that conversation into ours by way of a sharing of a recent call at Holy Cross Seminary, by Frs. Dragas and Pentiuc, for "native-born American scholarship." And, in an attempt to define more precisely what I mean by the above reference to harmony, I am speaking of clergy-laity, church from above-church from below, and a theory in practice as it relates to both speaking a 'language' that makes a difference and ministering to the great psychological needs of our brothers and sisters and neighbors.

Hopefully, God willing! this call for Orthodox scholarship will not "get the crickets" from either the clergy or the laity.

On October 12, 2006, the following titled, "Orthodox Scholars" was shared by a seminarian at Holy Cross Seminary :

"Well yesterday brought up a very interesting topic. Both Frs. Dragas and Pentiuc brought up the problem of the lack of American Orthodox scholars, and both of them encouraged our class to begin developing native-born scholarship."

To which the same seminarian posed the following statement/question:

"My question is how does a parish priest become an academic scholar?"

And, finally, here is my reply that I shared with this person last November:

I appreciate Frs. Dragas and Pentiuc's question as it relates to the lack of American Orthodox scholars; however, I think I appreciate your question even more. It has been my experience that both the local Christian churches and the Christian colleges and seminaries, as a whole, seem to have lost sight of the fact that pastoral theology is academic theology and vice versa. Ministry and theology have been separated into individual areas of study, which has resulted in either ministers with a limited understanding of theology or theologians with a limited understanding of ministry at the disposal of the church members. These are very complex times, and to continue to accept ministers with a limited understanding of theology (and philosophy) as the ones responsible for equipping the church members is no longer a viable option. So what is the answer? Knowing one does not become a scholar overnight (or through a mystical process), this part of the answer is more than obvious. But, if we can fly a little higher, I would like to suggest that just as Zizioulas has concluded in his relational ontology (BAC) the supreme ontological predicate of God is love--and it is love that constitutes His being--the answer is found in a genuine love of the priest for the people. And, I hear the sincerity in your voice as you ask this question, but in this sense the question becomes not one of 'how can the priest become an academic scholar?,' but instead, the question/statement becomes 'how can he not become an academic scholar[!]'--at least to the degree that is required to serve his flock. Which speaks directly to and brings us back to the priest's theory/state of being and his theory of knowing. Whereby one's ontology does model ones epistemology and ultimately (hopefully) demonstrates that words and concepts are never enough and it is, in fact, only "the language of love" that will suffice.

In Christ's Love,
Rick

[Rick H.]

"Theosis via Mystical Theology"

Herman:

What a great book referral you gave to Audrey! I just skimmed it online at:

http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.00.htm#more

and now I can see that you were "spot on" (I think I have a hidden desire to be English :) and I can see that I will have to order a copy of this so I can really work through it. I can also see at a glance why you were so emphatic about this book, especially chapter six: "Orthodox Epistemology."

This book is actually very appropriate for this thread as we work towards a conclusion in the form of a mystical theology , as well as for Audrey's thread (and the [I]'Pursuit of Knowledge' thread which I think is discussing valid and invalid pursuits at the present . . . Hmmm?). I especially appreciated the following by St. Gregory Palamas:

"One who has cleared his soul of all connection with things of this world, who has detached himself from everything by keeping the commandments and by the dispassion that this brings, and who has passed beyond all cognitive activity through continuous, sincere and immaterial prayer, and who has been abundantly illuminated by the inaccessible light in an inconceivable union, he alone, becoming light, contemplating by the light and beholding the light, in the vision and enjoyment of this light recognizes truly that God is transcendently radiant and beyond comprehension; he glorifies God not only beyond his nous's human power of understanding, for many created things are beyond that, but even beyond that marvelous union which is the only means by which the nous is united with what is beyond intelligible things, `imitating divinely the supracelestial nouses'" (2,3,57).

"Supracelestial nouses," now that's my kind of 'reality principle.'

Also, along these lines, with the continued hope[!] of ultimately moving towards a conclusion(s) in this thread as it relates to such themes as "An American Orthodoxy," "An Eastern Orthodoxy," and "A Global Orthodox Christian Village," I would like to share a passage by Panayiotis Nellas's book, Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person (Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir's Seminary Press, 1987), 115-16. My priest gave me a copy of this book to read a few months ago and it also really speaks to Audrey's thread as well as the "Knowledge" thread as well as ours here. Actually, I will let the cat out of the bag, one more time here and share that I think all threads could be contained in the topic and conclusion of this thread. For that matter this thread could have been titled An Orthodox Psychotherapy? as easily as it could have been titled An American Orthodoxy? as it relates to the ultimate end which is the theosis of the Greek Fathers. But, anyway without further adu in an attempt to move forward:

"The life of man differs radically from the life of any other animal on earth. From his creation man, made in the image of God, possesses intellect and free will as his inalienable property and can thus create his own world, either a world common to the human race, namely civilized life, or a separate world which gifted individuals create internally for themselves. Life on this level may be "interior," as with the vision of an artist or a philosopher. It may even be called "spiritual," in the sense that it operates through the higher "non-material: functions of the human organism, namely the intellect, the emotions and the imagination. Such an "interior" or "spiritual" life, however, without being narrowly bodily is certainly biological, albeit with all the majesty and wealth which the Creator desired that even the biological limits of man should enclose within them. But, however much the psychic world of man is developed, it cannot while functioning autonomously attain to the reality of God and live with the life of the Spirit. Such a life has no connection with the Christian spiritual life.

But, on the other hand, since man has within him an ineradicable consciousness of his createdness, he also can create a world which takes the existence of God seriously, which is organized with laws and precepts in the sight of God. Life on this level is called "religious." Since, however, it is merely organized in the sight of God and is not yet united with Him, even this life cannot be called in the true sense "spiritual." The spiritual life is not a life of laws and precepts but a life of participation, affection and love, a life of mingling and mixing with God.

However high then, the degrees of "interior," "spiritual" or "religious" life may be to which a man has raised himself, he cannot yet be considered a truly spiritual person. St. Paul felicitously calls him "psychic" (1 cor 2:14). Looked at from the ontological point of view, this means that he is not yet a full and true man, and this is precisely because union with God is not some additional element but actually constitutes man. For a man to be a man he must become that which he was created to be."

Along these same lines, my priest gave me another book by Georgios Mantzaridis titled, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984), 113-14. In this work we read:

"Every intelligent human being can come to recognize the Creator through creation. To deny the existence of God is not merely an error in reasoning on man's part, but evidence of delusion and derangement. Nevertheless, the way of natural revelation does not bring man into personal contact or communion with God. But only to the bare recognition of His existence. This recognition, however, is seen by Palamas to be so obvious that it may be defined as an inference from rational evidence.

But knowledge of God acquired in this natural way is purile and preliminary, for God is not being approached as a living being, but as an impersonal, transcendent power by which the world is governed and directed.

Direct and personal knowledge of God is achieved through a mystical communion with Him. Man gains true knowledge of Him once he is visited by deifying grace and united through it with God. The more man accepts the divinizing transformation worked within him by the Holy Spirit, the more perfect and full is his knowledge of God."

As we quoted Vladimir Lossky in an earlier posting, I would like to submit it is true as we quote him now afresh:

"Unlike gnosticism, in which knowledge for its own sake constitutes the aim of the gnostic, Christian theology is always in the last resort a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God or deification, the theosis of the Greek Fathers."

In the End, the Beginning.

Rick

NAS Acts 17:27-28 "that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His offspring.'"

[Peter Farrington]

Just one comment on this most interesting and stimulating thread... and especially since it also relates to the thread on knowledge.

Lossky is quoted as saying


Unlike gnosticism, in which knowledge for its own sake constitutes the aim of the gnostic, Christian theology is always in the last resort a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God or deification, the theosis of the Greek Fathers.

I wonder if this is true? And what others think? My understanding was that in the gnostic sects, and in the non-Christian mystery cults with their own secret gnosis, gnosis did not stand for an academic knowledge at all, but a transcendent knowledge through some ritual? This is why some of our own Fathers speak of a true gnosis, not as being an intellectual knowledge at all, but an experience and intuition founded on an encounter with the living God, in place of a demonic encounter in darkness.

Peter

[John Charmley]

I wonder if this is true? And what others think? My understanding was that in the gnostic sects, and in the non-Christian mystery cults with their own secret gnosis, gnosis did not stand for an academic knowledge at all, but a transcendent knowledge through some ritual? This is why some of our own Fathers speak of a true gnosis, not as being an intellectual knowledge at all, but an experience and intuition founded on an encounter with the living God, in place of a demonic encounter in darkness.

Peter

Dear Peter,

In Colossians 1:26-28 St. Paul addresses this very question and provides the Orthodox answer on probably the first occasion the gnostic question gets posed:

26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.
27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.

This contrasts the openness of the Christian 'mystery' with secret rites of the gnostics.

In Colossians 2:8 St. Paul addresses forcefully one of our themes here and in other threads when he chides his readers with their taste for philosophical speculations:

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

His reasons are soteriological, as he explained in Colossians 1:13-14:

13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

It is only through the resurrection of the Incarnate Lord that we can be redeemed, not though knowledge of philosophy.

St. John's writings are full of corrections to gnostic heresies - see 1 John 2:22-23, 1 John 4:1-3, and 1 John 5:6-8.

How do you know you are righteous? Because you act that way (1 John 3:7). You show you are born of God by resisting sin (1 John 3:9, 19); you show you know God by your obedience to Him (1 John 2:3); and you act as Our Lord would have you act (1 John 2:6). All this is a far cry from the esoteric 'knowledge' of the gnostics.

When St. John writes in 1 John 1:5-7

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
he clears away the gnostic love of darkness and secrecy; the true foundation of ethics is the Incarnate Lord - and Light that came into the world - although the world knew Him not.

As in so many other things, the God-inspired Apostles provide the answers to the esoteric nonsense of the heretics. Or so it seems to me.


In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Dear Peter, John, and All,

Thank you for your insights on Gnosticism (and your encouraging words Peter). I'm afraid I do not feel qualified to comment on this subject because--both in ancient history and especially in recent times--it seems that the more I study this "subject," the more it seems that I have an increasingly difficult time even just defining the concept(s) as it has been used in the past and is being used by some who would bring a Gnostic revival today. I am not entirely sure that (at least in our present day) this is not a part of the language game that I have referred to in some of my earlier postings. But, none the less I appreciate your contributions very much in this area where I am lacking. Peter, I don't know if this will be of any help or not, but I will share with you that in Lossky's quote that I provided yesterday, there is a footnote indicating his use of the word gnosticism in his introductory clause, "Unlike gnosticism, . . . " which is:

&quo