Orthodoxy and culture

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Actually this does touch on something that deeply concerns me as I post.

ie. As we post here there is something very different from our life as Orthodox parishioners, priests and monastics going on. Mainly we express our deepest held views on issues within the Church; sometimes as God grants this can transform itself into theology.

But this is not an accurate reflection of our life as parishioners, etc where we assemble in the church for services and pray; where we confess and receive the Eucharist; or where we sing in the choir. Here we can go much or most of the time without expressing any of our deepest held or most exalted views of the Church.

So Monachos potentially reflects something real within ourselves but which risks being somehow false since it is a ready made soap box. Which I guess is why sharp disagreements can occur here. The reality of what we express is most assuredly genuine in one way; it's really what comes to mind or heart about the Church & reflects what we hold dearest about the Faith. But in some other way it can be a distortion of the reality of the Church since the Church doesn't normally give us so much room to be in a non-stop Chat room. Maybe we shouldn't be heard at all.

It may sound like there's no connection at first but this is what personally gives me most hesitation about 'an American Orthodoxy'. If one was to ask about a Canadian Orthodoxy or a German Orthodoxy probably you'd first get a response of silence, then laughter and then, 'oh yes. good joke. I get it.'

The problem isn't that there is something distinct about America which can positively affect how Orthodoxy is lived in that country. The problem is the frequent temptation to define everything by a program of success. And of course that means pre-defining everything & then herding life so as to meet your already established criterion of success. Talk about snuffing out the Holy Spirit!

Orthodoxy lived according to this criterion will come across the same temptation as we see here. In order to accommodate everyone in the program ('everyone has their place after all!') & in order to allow everyone equal time on the soap box ('everyone has something to say you know!') the tone gets progressively & more and more 'nice'. To the point that this becomes the definition for us of what love and humility means. Then of course where does a St Isaac stand in relation to St Paul whose obvious cantankerousness can't be completely hidden from view?

The problem is we are far too easy with our ideas of what humility and love mean in an Orthodox way. Anyone who has met the Elder Paisios or the elders of Jordanville or Fr Emilianos knows what a roaring and severe fire, love & humility are. Here is nothing 'nice' at all but rather the fire of God's grace whose criterion is truth & faithfulness. And who has ever heard of genuine humility that doesn't convict us of our own selfish egoism when we are in its presence? The Orthodox response to real humility is repentance or at least an acknowledgment of our own sinfulness.

So St Isaac certainly knew of St Paul and that in an extremely immediate way.
And these two actually are similar in a way to the point at hand. Which is death to oneself to the point where each could truly say that only Christ lived within themselves.

If we want to know how Orthodoxy will genuinely rise where we are then first let's start dying to ourselves.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[Robert Hegwood]

Fr. Rafael makes a point that I'm not sure I've thought enough about before...that is assuming I've understood his point.

It strikes me that a certian amount of the talk about an "American Orthodoxy" is essentially a reaction to slights/shortcomings real or precieved from those steeped in the ethnic expressions of Orthodoxy. And I'm not sure it is all healthy.

There is both validity and danger in the we don't wanna be Greek/Russian/Arabic etc. frame of mind. The validity is that we want a baptism of who we are at our best. And we want room to work out how to be Orthodox within the context of the peculiarities of our civilization makes unavoidable. We speak English so our worship should be in Englsih...and the very best and most beautiful Engish we can offer. We don't live in hamlets and closely integrated communities like in the Old world...we live in tracts of surburan housing where no one knows their neighbor...our communites are no longer that rooted in terms of place...we've our family, our work tribe, our church tribe, our avocational activities tribe....and they are often a long way from concentric...our lives are not just scattered with but without as well. For better or for worse we spend our lives on a thousand highways. Many day to day aspects of Orthodox life presume a much more settled, close knit community existance. There are few places in America where that is even possible to live that way anymore. Orthodoxy is going to have to help us find our way in this and offer us a form a shape of expression that can deal with this reality...unless the answer is to pack up into lifeboat communtities and move to Idaho and Montana.

On the other hand we are not wise to cast aside the ethnic roots by which we received our faith. It is nothing less than hubris to blithely pick and choose what we will and will not do/believe/observe because its too "ethnic". If we follow our own "American" intincts we will turn our Orthodoxy in a mass marketed dumbed down, fast food, low maintanence, spiritual consumer commodety...this is not to say we couldn't use some media savy now and again...but we turn everything into a product a baskin robins flavor to be experimented with until we have our sweet tooth satisfied. We will turn our monasteries into spiritual spas where we get a back rub and a facial. We are too egalitarian for our own good. And our old world "ethnic" Orthodox challenge us on every front. Where they've grown lax we pat ourselves on the back for being more involved and informed, Where they are intransigent we get sniffy and offended. And where they are quaint we treat them like menonnite quilt makers at the state fair...admire them a little for their "tradionality" but shudder at the thought of taking things as seriously as they do...for ourselves of course. We have forgotten to take into account what we loose in so uniformly rejecting anything too 'ethinic' for our tastes...who died and made our tastes God?

There's a lot about Greek culture that doesn't appeal to me...but from the Greeks we have our Scriptues, our core monastic traditions, the foundations of our theology. There is a lot about Russian/Slavic culture that I don't care for...but where would Orthodoxy be without the ascetic resolve, and the sheer beauty that the Russians have brought to temples, iconography, music, literature, spiritual writings. Arabic culture is even more of a mystery to me, but from them we get iconography, we get the foundational mindset out of which Scripture first came, and an example of perseverance hardly equaled in the world, and we get so many hymns and psalmody that we would be impoverished without.

Then there are the paradoxes. A number of American Orthodox don't want pews (good for them), but the women on the whole don't like or understand covering...and too often both sexes forget what modest apparel means, nor do we like to stand with women on one side and men on the other (hey we're not Russian peasants anymore). We tend to like our priests in cassocks and beards (sort of like our community ken dolls) but met more than one priest or bishop who gets embarrased by tradtional garb and greetings in public...outside the church setting. And we live in a world where cheap simple (for us) fare is not fasting and the foods we are allows are chic (vegan) and considered somewhat luxurious (shimp, lobster, or dungeness crab anyone). I'm rambling now...

My point is while the is God ordained vision in wanting an "American Orthodoxy" there is the danger as Fr. Rafael said that we predetermine what it will look like, what it must be, and work to shape it that way....and that typically American mindiset is not Orthodox. We are called to obedience, to transformation. Orthodoxy will adapt itself to us as it must as it has in every other culture it has encountered, but it will not capitulate what it is and must be to serve sop to our comfort zones. There are places we must change, where we must be more like the Arabs, Greeks, or Slavs...that is if we want to remain Orthodox...an just be Orthodox flavored. And we don't get to pick the places that need to change...that is the cross we must embrace as American Orthodox if we want our Orthodoxy to be Orthodoxy. At least I think it is.

We need certian "ethnic" aspects if for no other reason a bridge to the ancient and matured expressions of faith that rooted long ago in those lands.

[Father David Moser]

I would like to spin off this particular thread from the soon to be closed "An American Orthodoxy?" thread. Jumping off from Fr Raphael's post (which was forwarded to this thread above) and some of the replies to his post, I would like to provide a place to discuss the general relationship between Orthodoxy and the cultures in which we live as well as how the various cultures create a different approach to Orthodoxy that is unique and or complimentary. There are differences between Greek and Russian and US and Canadian and British and Serbian and Romanian and Bulgarian and the list could go on and on. How do these differences interrelate with each other and how are the different cultures shaped by Orthodoxy and how is the local praxis of Orthodoxy shaped by the local culture. This gives a place to talk not only about "an American Orthodoxy" but also about "Canadian Orthodoxy" or "British Orthodoxy" or whatever.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

Another post I would like to bring into this discussion is from one of our former well esteemed community members - Hieromonk Averky of fond memory. This is a post from 2004 under the topic "Our Church...too ethnic?"


Dear All,

As this question about what a few consider to be the "evils of ethnicity" comes up a few times a year, for the first time I would like to say what has been in my heart on this subject for quite some time with the hopes of offending no one.

As I have mentioned "ad nauseum," I am a convert of 37 years, and have experienced every possible aspect of the new convert's introduction to making his way in an Orthodox parish. I have experienced what it is like to be considered a "foreigner" in my own country by those who cannot even speak English! I have also experienced the joy of acceptance by those same people when they saw that I was serious about my salvation and about being a faithful Orthodox Christian. It goes without saying that we Americans have produced more than our share of "flakes!"

First, we have to consider an important cultural difference between Americans and "ethnics" ( a really insulting word, if you think about it). We Americans have a tendency to be far too open when we meet people, having no problem relating our live's experiences after having known a new person for literally only minutes. Many is the time that women whom I had never met before told me all about their numerous divorces, and other distasteful details of their lives and those of their children and other reltives, but not with sorrow or shame, but with almost what can be described as enthusiasm!

About ten years ago, a priestmonk friend and I went for dinner at a rather fine restaurant. I knew the owner, because she was the land lady at the time of a good local friend of mine. As we waited for our first course to arrive, the owner came up and sat with us. Within a few minutes after having been introduced to Fr. T., she proceeded to tell us about her "woman's" health problems and her operation, which included some rather indelicate details. ( I was seriously afraid that she would offer to show us her incision!) She then went on to tell us that her daughter was living in Florida in a car parked on the street with her six year old son and was "working the streets" to support herself and her child! When she finally got up and left, Father was so shocked that he said had we not already ordered, he would leave that very moment! He said, "What is it with Americans that they have no shame in revealing the most perfectly awful things about themselves to absolute strangers? Really!" (See: The Jerry Springer Show)

While this is quite an extreme example, it serves to point out how shockingly familiar we Americans tend to be, and how we expect those of different cultural backgrounds to not only understand, but to willingly accept our behavior. We fail to take into consideration that those people of European or Eastern European backgrounds have a very personal or even private sense of family and themselves. So many nations have fixed rituals about introduction, receiving of guests, even saying goodbye. I recently read that in one African nation, it must take a minimum of three hours to say "goodbye," in which a departing guest must ask after the health of his host's parents, children, grandchildren cousins, and then onto his crops, how his cows, goats, and other farm animals are doing, and then start all over again. These people have commented upon how rude Americans and Europeans are because they say goodbye in a few words and then leave so abruptly. In South America, one American diplomat became very angry when he came to present his credentials to a high government official and had to wait for three days, the usual expected time before any foreign official is received. In Spain, one never goes to a home as a guest empty-handed; he must aleways have a gift of flower or wine, or some appropriate gift. This my mother taught me, and I fulfill that social obligation faithfully to this day. People like Russians have a tendency to be xenophobic, that is, they actually are rather "afraid" of foreigners, and it takes awhile for them to accept new people.

Russian have their own philosophy time, so if you invite them to a dinner pafty at 7:00, they will arrive at 8:30 or 9:00 but will still expect that all will be having another cup of tea at midnight. Then begins the Ritual of Departure. The guests stand up and say they really must be going. The hostess laments that they are "going so soon," even it is well past midnight. Everyone keeps talking and slowly moves toward the door. The guests put on their coats, but everyone keeps on talking. Finally, someone finds a new topic of discussion, so coats are removed, and everyone returns to the table for "one last cup of tea and some more dessert." Finally, about 2:30 or so, everyone, as if by signal, decides this time it really is time to leave. If it is Summer, then the conversation moves out to the porch for at least another half hour. Then, the host and hostess sadly walk their guest down to their cars and it takes at least another ten minites for people to get into their cars. After this, car windows are opened, and the final "Goodbyes" and "Thank yous"are expressed, and then very reluctantly the guests depart after many assurances that they will "get together soon." Thus, most Russians make sure that they do not have to get up early the next day. I remember that at one dinner, I counted 27 "cups of tea" before we departed for home at nearly 4:00 am!

When Russians do come to accept you, they can be overwhelmingly generous in time, attention and in the giving of gifts: they open their hearts and their homes to you, and you are treated like family. This I have seen not only among Russians, but all Orthodox people. Before I became a monk I was married for a few years, and not too long before our wedding in the Russian Orthodox cathedral, my intended told one of the old ladies that her Baptismal name was Anastasia. Well, that is all it took; the old woman's name was Anastasia, and as it turned out, it would soon be the feast of St. Anastasia. My wife to be was warmly invited to her modest apartment for lunch where she was fussed over by a lovely group of old Russian women who fed her nearly to death and showered her with lovely small gifts, some of them from Imperial Russia. From my long experience, in time in any "ethnic" parish, Orthodox parish, it becomes more important that you are truly a faithful Orthodox Christian rather than your what your national background might be.

At one time we had an African-American novice here in our monastery, and one summer he was asked to sell flowers for an hour or two at a Feast of the monastery. He laughingly related to me how two sweet and very polite old Russian women bought some flowers and one of them said to him. "We noticed that you are quite dark, could it be that you are from one of the more southern regions of Russia. like Georgia? The novice smiled and replied, "I am from Georgia, but from a city called Atlanta." He and the ladies had a chuckle, and he assured them he was not offended. The other lady said to him, "what matters to us is that you are an Orthodox Christian; God help you!" They gave him a nice "tip" and entered the church.

So many times we Americans desire the church to be a center for social action, but the first business we have to concern ourselves with is our own salvation. It is only when we ourselves are moving forward spiritually that we can truly help others. Too many people tend to hide behind "social action" and "social Justice," which only fosters pride and self love in that they think that they are doing so much "good" while neglecting their spiritual lives and many times their own family. I know one well-intended well-to-do woman who spends so much of her time doing "good," that she never cooks a meal, never spends much time with here husband and children and almost never visits her aging parents or in-laws because she is too busy doing good for everyone else. She is quite a wonderful person, but she has her priorities a little mixed up. One Christmas, she did not prepare a meal for her family because she and her young son were handing out meals at a local shelter for the homeless. I felt that she could have prepared a meal for the family on the days before the Holiday and then contributed a few hours for the poor so that she and her family could be together. As it turned out, she and her son ate at the homeless shelter and her husband and three daughters ate a dreary buffet at a local restaurant and the daughters later told me how empty the day had been for them.

My last thoughts concern those who complain how "foreign" and "exotic" Orthodoxy seems to be and that we need a more "American" or "Aussie" ( as my beloved Br. Paul says) expression of Orthodoxy. Now, what would we have as our "expression" of Orthodoxy? Would we we have the Divine services in a Southern drawl, a Brooklyn or Bostonian accent such as "The Lord be with you all, or The Lord be wit you? What kind of ethos would we need. In America, would we use church melodies built around Country Western music, Blue Grass, or traditional Negro Spirituals or in Australia a dingaradoo? To have a truly indigenous sound, we would have to use guitars, banjos and the fiddle. What would be proper attire, Western style levis and cowboy boots or something appropriate to the Outback? In place of a Greek festival, would we have a local parade, massive yard sale with coke, hamburgers and hot dogs followed by fire works? Again, this sounds extreme, but if we wanted to have a "pure" American form of Orthodoxy, upon what could we rely to form an appropriate kind of worship for ourselves? This is truly a challenge, and may God grant that in time there will be those who will be inspired to compose hymns with solemnity, beauty and piety which will become part of our local Orthodoxy. In England, Sir John Taverner has made an attempt, but for me, his work is strange to an Orthodox ear, and does not seem to be able to make any connection with traditional Orthodox Church music. Yet he is to be praised in that he has made such a sincere effort. Orthodoxy has such a long way to go in non-Orthodox countries, and for that fact alone, it is important for us to accept and adapt to the parish situations we find ourselves in and not try not to change things to suit us.

About five years ago I helped bring two former Episcopalians to the Church. As they prepared themselves, they were humble and obedient and contributed as much as they could to the life of what would be their new parish. Sadly, not long after their Baptism, they started to make all kinds of demands; they did not approve of the choir director, who was the priest's daughter, and demanded that she be removed. They chastized the priest and the parishioners for being "dead beats" when they did not buy the church building that they had found for them, and so on and so on.

In time, they voiced to me their disapproval of our Russian Church, this monastery, my priesthood and monasticism, left their parish, and for the next few years floated from Orthodox parish to parish, each time finding fault with something. They then decided to form their own "monastic community," but this soon fizzled out, and one of them after writing me a particularly insulting letter, went about seeking a bishop, or actually, anyone calling himself an "orthodox" bishop to ordain him. I only just found out that he died suddenly a few months ago, and I grieve that he never made an attempt to reconcile. We never know when God will call us to His judgement throne. The other one reconciled with me, but a few months ago wrote me about the humble, meek and spiritual priest he had found ( interesting, the priest has to be humble and meek, but not the faithful), and that he would not be contacting me again. May God be with him!

In Orthodoxy we converts have found a great treasure, and we must love, it , honor, it, guuard it, and be faithfukl to it, for God led us to His True Church out of His great mercy. Let us therefore, be glad to be where we are, and be evdr so thankful to those who in time welcome us to our spiritual home. And let us be grateul that they did not rush, but waited to see if we were really serious, for so many converts game with seemingly so much potential but in the end, wandered off and are no longer in the saving Fold of the Body of Christ.

Pascha is soon upon us, and let those of us who have been blessed to be grafted onto the True Vine rejoice as we lift our voices in affirming that Christ our God is truly risen from the dead, opening the gates of heaven to us. Let us be glad and truly grateful to those who have given us a home, have taken us poor wandering strangers out of the cold world in which we lived and offering the warm hospitality of their hearts. Let us meekly offer gratitude to them for the suffering that so many of them endured through wars and civil wars, persecution and the loss of everything they possesed and especially the loss of their Motherland from which so many of them were forced to flee never to return. Let us honor them for their having preserved such a precious treasure-our glorious Orthodoxy which they brought with them- the Light which is Christ and his Holy Church. May He richly bless all of of as the Feast of Feasts approaches!

With love in our Christ,

hieromonk Averky
Least among monks

[Father David Moser]

Now to share a quick observation of one of the current cultural differences between the Church in Russia and the Church in North America. I have, in my parish a number of recent immigrants from Russia - "internet brides", refugees, opportunists, etc - and recently in conversations one of the things that has come up is that in Russia, the Churches tend to be larger and impersonal. This affects the way that the Orthodox Christian interacts with and relates to their local parish. There is not a real sense of "community" in the Russian parishes (or so I am told) and one may not even have a close relationship with a confessor. I have one former parishioner living in Diveevo and she describes this situation to me quite clearly. Even though she is living near and working in the convent established by St Seraphim, she does not get the same sense of community as here. Many pilgrims come, the Church is usually crowded and the priests don't have time to spend with individuals - especially those outside the convent. It creates a different kind of spirituality, more internally focused; but for specific pastoral advice, she and I talk on the phone long distance. OTOH her mother, who is one of my parishioners here often longs to be back in Russia with that kind of parish where she can go in and pray and no one notices whether or not she was there and she doesn't have to talk with anyone except God unless she wants to, because here, with the close communal nature of the parish, if she just wants to be quiet and not talk in order to avoid temptation, it is impossible because well meaning people - friends - will approach her and try and draw her out. It makes it difficult sometimes for her to pray and rather than face that distraction, sometimes she even "skips" the liturgy and prays at home. It is not only this mother and daughter who have noticed the difference - the same topic has come up with others who have said the same thing (in fact in Russia they were not "church people" much at all, but having come here, they are fully involved in the life of the parish community.)

The observation here is that the "ingrained" characteristic of Orthodoxy in Russian culture dimishes or does not create that intentional communal nature of the parish - it is somehow "assumed" by the fact that this is an Orthodox culture. OTOH, in the US, because we don't have that natural community in our culture, the Church becomes a community focus and is much more overtly communal in nature than elsewhere. The parish becomes a natural "intentional" community because such a community does not exist, or is not assumed to exist, in the larger culture.

Fr David Moser

[Anna Brenneis]

XB!!!

Thank you, Father David, for posting those wise words of Father Averky's. A couple of things that he said particularly hit home for me:

First, this quote: "From my long experience, in time in any "ethnic" Orthodox parish, it becomes more important that you are truly a faithful Orthodox Christian rather than your what your national background might be."

How true that is! In fact, the sense that I get from people in my very ethnically Russian parish is that they feel strengthened as a community when we westerners freely and enthusiastically embrace the Orthodox life and live it with them. For our part, I believe, a sense of gratefulness towards our brethren in the East, who have held fast to Orthodoxy and not let it slip from their grasp as we have in the West, should far outweigh any desire to remove ethnic flavors from our churches. Come to think of it, would it not be just as un-American to refuse to eat piroshki and baklava as it would be to refuse tacos and pizza?

Another thing Father said rings true: "So many times we Americans desire the church to be a center for social action, but the first business we have to concern ourselves with is our own salvation."

Saint Seraphim of Sarov said something like, "save yourself and you will save thousands around you," did he not? How liberating this statement is! How can we let our light shine before men, as Christ tells us in the Gospel, if we do not first cultivate the light?

Thank you all for listening to my 2-cents on this subject.

From your sister, Anna, who truly loves being an "adopted Russian."

[Nina]

Infinite yes, to Father Averky's, Father David's and Anna's posts!

Anna, thank you for all the ideas, but especially the one that says it is "un-American to refuse to eat piroshki and baklava as it would be to refuse tacos and pizza"! This (in other words though) is what I was telling a fellow from Monachos yesterday (in your own style - you know who you are :)).

Also, what you say Anna, about the church being a center for social action, brought in my mind something excellent I have read from Father Alexander Schmemann, who elaborates more on that, but for ethnic groups. I am sorry I do not have the time to copy the whole thing here, but for those who might be interested: it is the book Great Lent, pages 110-113. And even more because it tackles this problem and very rightly questions what will be with these "social places" when the ethnicities slowly disappear. These pages also should be read in the context of the whole chapter. It is so interesting and the whole book has a lot to teach.
Thank you again for your thoughts!

Truly He is Risen!

P.S If it proves difficult to obtain the book, please anyone let me know, because I can find some time in the near future to share the wonderful ideas of Father Schmemann.

P.P.S Father Schmemann at one point, on pages 110-113, has something similar with what Father Raphael has said above about "the tendency to solve all problems." So thank you to Father Raphael also!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks Fr David for starting this thread off with some very interesting points.

About the differences between Russian & North American sensibilities I have noticed something very similar. In our parish there has always been a close family atmosphere, for both better & worse, due to the way the immigrants arrived in Canada, sharing similar post-War experiences (ie fleeing from the Soviet army as it moved west at the end of the War) & then getting by and establishing a life completely from scratch in an unknown to them city in Canada.

We now have as it sounds like you quite a contingent of new arrivals from Russia & Ukraine. At first these people were not especially pious and there were not many of them at the services. In the past 5 or so years however many more of these people have begun regularly attending: these are generally speaking much younger, better educated, more understanding of the west, and more pious.

As you say they are much struck by the family atmosphere of our parishes compared to that in Russia or Ukraine; some are surprised that the priest is able to have personal contact with them.

As I have said before though I have also discovered that these new arrivals are less given to the excessive criticism & inability to endure that is so often seen among those who have grown up here. The difference in the behaviour of the children of these two groups is also often radically different.

Without generalizing too much about this I take it that this is a sign of the great degree of selfishness in our own culture compared to the moral chaos of the former Soviet Union and which has the most direct affect on the Church. I have often witnessed first hand how you can scratch the skin of the most degenerate Russian and you will discover buckets of tears; scratch the skin of the most fervent westerner and you can find shocking hard-heartedness. I've purposely chosen to describe the extremes as those who humble & balance themselves seem to do the best regardless of their cultural background.

As for Canadians. Canadians have almost an innate sense of accommodation with whatever environment surrounds them. Lack of accommodation to a Canadian is a synonym for arrogant hubris. Canadians are not given to high rhetoric or venerating those in government; words are to convey a message, government is to pave the streets and keep the schools in order.

What this means is that Canadians are tolerant but not as in Scandinavia; if you want to see a Canadian get really worked up then be or seem nasty, especially the bully on the block kind of nasty. Canadians believe every device, moral, social and legal, should be used against such nastiness. They'll even put down their hockey sticks and snow shovels in order to fight nastiness on the other side of the planet if it gets under their skin enough.

All of this affects the Orthodox Church in many ways in this country. In general there are far less converts than in America, maybe because it is hard for Canadians to be spiritually fervent. A Canadian will be uneasy that this is part of the hubris referred to already. Maybe if Orthodoxy was presented as a response to the nastiness of the evil one who hurts your neighbour then this would work better. Even asceticism has to be presented in a different way as Canadians don't like to think of themselves as individuals who scale the heights of spiritual Mt Everests in order to triumph over the cosmic enemy. Asceticism would do much better as part of a common effort like when you turn to your neighbour, but with a smile because really it's a positive experience, and say, 'we got through another winter didn't we?'

Maybe Orthodoxy will do better here when we can redefine what spiritual fervency means. For in an ironic twist on old theme maybe we've been too affected and unimpressed by other more triumphalistic presentations of Orthodoxy which don' quite resonate with us.

Just a few thoughts on the differences between us.

Eh?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

Father David, bless.

Thank you for launching this thread, which I believe unlike many such discussions is getting the right balance.

Though a convert myself, my attitude is that we are simply disciples of those who have been Orthodox before us - that is essentially the "ethnic" Orthodox, or those few westerners who have sat at their feet and done their apprenticeship. This view seems a bit extreme to some converts, so I will say a bit more about it (by the way I have not always held it).

There is a passage which has stuck in my mind where Fr Sophrony speaks of the "hypostasis" of each person as being something that we can not develop ourselves, once lost by sin, but which is given by grace while our only business is repentance and obedience (my paraphrase). I think something similar may be true of "Orthodox cultures". The Russians, for example, did not set out to create something Russian but to be obedient to the faith they had been taught by the Byzantines (at least as far as I know). The result (though not overnight) was the great gift of Russian Orthodoxy to the world.

So for me as a British citizen, I think that whatever I do in obedience to Orthodox teaching (little or nothing though that is) is by definition "British Orthodox" - or maybe German Orthodox since I live here? - and that is really all I have to worry about. I have no need for a self-consciously British Orthodoxy to tell me what I am or should be culturally (though in God's own good time Britain may once again be blessed with a flourishing Orthodox tradition of its own). In the meantime I am quite happy to be an adopted Greek, adopted Russian and adopted Romanian, and as at home with pirozhki, and the other foods Nina mentioned as I am with good British fare like spaghetti or curry ;)

I make two important qualifications here. One is the pressing question of language. The other is the rediscovery (if that is the right word) and veneration of the old saints of the Islands and western Europe. These get discussed quite a bit on other threads - I just want to make clear I have not forgotten them.

Where I live in Germany there is a large Russian immigration - officially the descendants of the German settlers from the Ostsiedlung, but the criteria aren't very strict. Despite their supposed German ancestry they have never really integrated here and face a lot of problems. The main work of the little Russian parish here is directed towards this constituency, plus (being a university town) a number of Orthodox students. For all that, and the fact that the church is hidden away both physically and in terms of publicity (it took me two years to find it!), there is some interest among the Germans I know, even though their linguistic needs are currently not well met. Apart from language, I don't perceive the "ethnic" character of the parish as problematic for them; half the struggle seems to be simple lack of information about what the Orthodox Church is and where it can be found. This seems strange in a modern setting. A bit more media savy, as Robert nicely put it, would play an important role here.

I am rambling now - will come back later when some other people have had their say.

[Nina]

[...] and as at home with pirozhki, and the other foods [...] as I am with good British fare like spaghetti or curry ;)


That is so funny!18

[Nina]

Anthony, thank you also for expressing a crucial point to our belief: that Orthodoxy is Universal.

[Alex Haig]

Christ is Risen!

I was at the Tolleshunt Knights monastery yesterday and I got thinking about language in particular. There was a Greek Bishop up from London who served the Liturgy. The Liturgy was (almost entirely) in Greek along with a short sermon. The at the end of the breakfast he gave a longer talk, again in Greek.

Unfortunatly I don't speak Greek so this made it very (!) difficult for me to understand. At the end of his talk after breakfast, however, he said a few words in English (I paraphrase): "I'm sorry that I have spoken in Greek but it is my mother tongue and I find it difficult to express myself in English." He then went on to explain that the Church condemns nationalism and that next time he will try to make sure there is something in English.

The point here is that us 'converts' can be as guilty as anyone, we want our services, sermons, &c. to be in English and often demand that this happens immediately, however, in doing so we lose the opportunity of learning from our spiritual elders in our petty linguistic arguement. Christ did not promise an easy time where everything goes our own way but a cross to take up. Perhaps this cross is to learn Greek, Russian or Arabic, perhaps to move closer to a Church so that we can attend more than just Sunday Liturgy (often only the second half of the service for that matter) or perhaps even to emmigrate to an 'Orthodox' country so that we can live in a community where the spiritual life of the Church can wash over us completely.

Remember, Orthodoxy is very young in the west, some argue that in Britain its future is not secure (how many English priests do you know under 50?). In order to live an Orthodox life we have to be open to instruction from whoever is capable of giving it.

I hope this has made sense and is not idle talk.

With love in the risen Christ

Alex

[Andrew]

We Americans need to take into account our own ethnic foibles when dealing with our brethren from other countries. I think Americans tend to treat everyone super friendly... everyone can automatically be a familiar friend, but not at a very deep level. On the other hand, a Slavic person might at first seem standoffish, but after a natural relationship forms there will be a warm bond of love. Also, I find it strange that many people are very touchy when people from other countries start speaking in their own language. But anyways...

The American desire for all things to be without overt conflict, easy, and fun, must be given up.

On a different note, we need to have more barbeques at Church. The Greeks can have their lamb, the Russians can have caviar, and I will have my ribs! :)

Also, I think the Orthodox in America are too "self aware" in a sense (ironically, I think me saying this is an example of it!). Too much time, energy, and vitrol is spent on talks of jurisdictional chaos, politics, and whatnot. What about raising up saints? What about resisting the waves of secularism that seek do destroy the warm piety of the Church, and to destroy the Person? What about sowing the seeds of monasticism? If anything, we need to forge even stronger links with the local churches and Patriarchates, not sever them. And, traditional Orthodox praxis must be taught for the faithful to grow in grace - out with Barlaam and sentimental moralistic messages! Let us hear of the transfiguration of the cosmos, deification, and the self emptying love of our Savior! But anyways, babysteps...

Again, sorry for my rants!

[Nina]

On a different note, we need to have more barbeques at Church. The Greeks can have their lamb, the Russians can have caviar, and I will have my ribs! :)


Andrew, how about telling you that my grandmother, back in Europe, loved ribs and always said: "In a roasted lamb the most delicious part are ribs!" I inherited this preference also. And I feel luckier than my grandmother, to be able to experience the barbecue here and have the ribs American style. So please sign me up for ribs ala Americana also! :)

[Father David Moser]

Another "cultural" thing that I am just now beginning to look at somewhat seriously is the phenomenon of the children of converts (who are "cradle" but in their own cultural settin) as they relate not only to their "convert" parents but also how they relate to their ethnic "cradle" peers and their "convert" peers. I am getting to this stage since my "cradle" children are now adults and my daughter, who has been living within a mixed ethnic cradle / convert social group, is now marrying a "convert". In many ways - especially in her attitude and outlook towards Orthodoxy - she is closer to the Russian "cradle" community than to her convert friends.

When I relate now to my children, I see them as more like the pious "Russians" that have been Orthodox since birth. For them Orthodoxy is "ingrained" it is a natural part of their lives. This whole "angst" that those of us who are converts seem to continuously feel about "American Orthodoxy" (or whatever nationality you choose) doesn't really affect them at all (the only issue being language - wanting to have the services in their native tongue). Converts (speaking mostly from the experience of myself and my wife here), no matter how long we have been Orthodox, always seem to wear Orthodoxy as a "patina" - no matter how "natural" it seems to the outside observer, there is a constant inner process of integrating the core person with the external patina of Orthodoxy. One of the ways that I can express it is that for me, as a convert, Orthodoxy is always somewhat of a "thinking" process - I "understand" what I have studied and "accept" what I don't understand on faith, but it is still something that is primarily processed in my mind. My children, otoh, although they are well educated in the faith, "understand" less but "feel" more. For them the Orthodox life is just natural life, they don't have to think about it, they don't have to understand it, it just is.

Therefore, I am growing towards the belief that the whole concept of "American" (or whatever other nationality) Orthodoxy isn't really about culture at all, but is a manifestation of the "convert" mentality. Thus *I* and those like me (converts) will never really be the ones to shape a truly "American" Orthodoxy, but rather it is my children and grandchildren, who are "cradle American Orthodox" who will be more apt to do this. I can not define American Orthodoxy, because for me Orthodoxy always will be a "change of clothes" in a deep emotional sense. But for my children, Orthodoxy is what they have worn since their birth.

Anyway, this is actually a concept in process - something I am trying to "understand" a little better. My kids, no doubt, would just kind of roll their eyes and wonder why it's even and issue (although now that she is engaged to a convert, I find that I have had to "educate" my daughter somewhat about how converts think and react - interesting phenomenon - so that she can better understand some of the attitudes of her fiancee.)

Fr David Moser

[Katherine Clark]

Thank you, Fr. David. I sense that your response "hits it spot on".

It seems very attractive to be able to "feel" the Orthodoxy without having to "think" it. However, I would miss the delight of discovery.

As an analogy, in our larger culture, it is true that I do not "think" my Americanism, but tend to feel that this is the natural way to live. No doubt those of my ancesters who came from other lands experienced their new American life very differently from that experienced by their children and grandchildren.

In Christ,
Katherine

[Rebecca Gabl]

Christ is Risen!
I'm glad the "American Orthodoxy" thread has moved in this direction; it's quite fascinating. Fr. David brought up a good point. We often hear of Western Orthodoxy as consisting of "cradle immigrants" and "Western converts". My ancestors came to America from Russia well over 100 years ago, and that's why my family is Orthodox. And as people continue to immigrate and convert, there will be more and more thoroughly American "cradle Orthodox" than ever. (Well, God willing, more and more Orthodox period!) I wonder how Russian "converts" fit in (I'm using the terms "Russian" and "American" because I'm an American who attends a Russian church and was formed in the Russian tradition). In my parish, there are a fair number of Russians who, due to the Communism, were baptized as adults or were baptized as infants but didn't start attending church regularly until they were adults. A nun I knew once said that Russians who grew up under Communism (specifically those whose families didn't practice Christianity) come to Orthodoxy with their own baggage as well.

[Father David Moser]

As an analogy, in our larger culture, it is true that I do not "think" my Americanism, but tend to feel that this is the natural way to live. No doubt those of my ancesters who came from other lands experienced their new American life very differently from that experienced by their children and grandchildren.

Yes! an excellent analogy. This is exactly the idea that I am trying to express. So in order to develop a true "American Orthodoxy" it is necessary to have a person who "feels" their Americanism and who "feels" their Orthodoxy without having to "think" them, both as the natural way to live. In their lives, the natural result of their lives will be "American Orthodoxy" (or at least the beginnings of it).

Thus one of the most effective ways for us converts to bring about an "American Orthodoxy" is to raise Orthodox children and trust God that they will be able to live their Americanism and their Orthodoxy as the natural fusion of their culture and their faith.

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

From Father Alexander Scmemman, of blessed memory:

"... for if Church life is not founded above all on Christ [...] then unavoidably something else emerges and dominates as the "focus" of a parish's preoccupation and activities. It may be "property" or superficial cultural "ethnicism," or simply material success as the only goal.... If it is not Christ, then something else- worldly and even sinful -will of neccesity shape but also disintegrate the life of the Church.

Until quite recently it may have been possible not to realize the urgency of this "either/or" proposition. Indeed, throughout the long immigrant period of the history of Orthodoxy in America, our parishes, in addition to their purely religious functions, had a kind of self-evident "secular" function and foundation: ethnic, national, linguistic. They were the necessary form and means of uniting the immigrants in need of corporate identity for mere survival within American society which at first was alien and sometimes even inimical to them. Now, however, this immigrant period is rapidly approaching its end. The "natural" -ethnic and linguistic- foundation of our Church is simply fading away; more and more of the Orthodox people understand no other language but English, and in some of our parishes nearly half of the parishioners are converts to Orthodoxy. But then the question is:what shall replace that foundation? Is it not abundantly clear that if it is not replaced with the central belief and also the experience of the Church as unity, life, and growth in Christ, i.e., with the genuine religious content of Orthodoxy, then inevitably the parish and the Church herself will begin their slow but inevitable decay and disintegration. Then, not united in and for something, people will unite against something. And herein lies the tragic urgency and depth of our present situation." pp. 111-112

Great Lent: Journey to Pascha.

[Bogdan]

Very interesting spin off, i must say. This gives me much food for thought which i will reply on when I digest it. For now, I wanted to make the following points.

To say that we must not be selfish and egotistical in wanting an American Orthodoxy is hypocritical in nature when one looks at how willing the mother churches are to even TALK about such a concept. If any of you remember there was a meeting of all orthodox bishops in the US a few years back, at which all bishops signed a letter stating that American Orthodoxy should be something considered more seriously. That is all they said, and the mother churches (Greece most of all) made the bishops remove their signatures!!

Who has asked THEM for lack of selfishness and egotism?

How many patriarchs of these churches have visited America? How often? How many of them have advisors with an American perspective on culture and lifestyle? It is easy for them to turn on the TV or newspapers and "see" america.

I am born Serbian, and will remain Serbian my whole life. I would however not be Serbian without Orthodoxy. I can not help feeling that having a patriarch on this island called North America could not be a bad thing. We would not need to stop opening Serbian churches, Russian churches, OCA churches, etc. We would not need to "make" an American Orthodoxy. It would make itself over time. By allowing for ethnicity within an organizational change, the ethnic part of it would eventually catch up. Bring the ecumenical patriarch here and solve all our problems!(small joke)

As Fr. said above, perhaps we should not have this forum for our thoughts, perhaps we are not worthy of such contemplations. However when the people that are in charge of such things refuse to even talk about it, it falls on the faithful to put them in line. This is the balance that Orthodoxy gives us.

I apologize for my fervor, this is a topic that always manages to get under my skin. I just can not bring myself to believe that two entire continents of blooming American Orthodoxy can not have at least 1 patriarchal seat.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Chris Manaras]

.... That is all they said, and the mother churches (Greece most of all) made the bishops remove their signatures!!....

I think the word mother here pretty much sums it up.

A mother generally thinks she (and only she) knows what's best for her child.

A child must find a way to enforce his/her "personal boundries" while showing respect for his/her mother.

The mother churches see us as little children and want to protect us from pain and suffering caused by mistakes we may make - and that is just what Mothers are supposed to do.

We, however, will never be able to "mature" unless we have a chance to gain the knowledge of experience through our trials and failings as well as our succeses - and that's how children learn.


To nurture a child into a healthy, mature, and responsible adult, a transfer of "personal ownership" from the parent to the child has to take place over time.

Perhaps this should be in the Parenting thread, but I can't help but see the application here.

[Father David Moser]

Chris brings up an interesting idea of applying parent/child dynamics to the different national Churches. Certainly we can see that it has never really been easy for a "mother Church" to let go of one of her "children".

How does this apply to culture though? Well I think that the "child" Church absorbs its cultural foundation from the mother Church. Thus in North America, parishes of Russian origin tend to be very "Russian" in their spiritual expression while parishes of Greek origin tend to be very "Greek" in their spiritual expression. But even so the "Greekness" or "Russianness" tends to be heavily influenced by "Americanness" One prime example is the whole idea of the "Parish Council" as a governing body and ownership of the local property by the "Parish Corporation". This is not something that was part of the heritage from the "old country" but it is a firmly entrenched part of "American Orthodoxy" (for good or for ill). But how those parish councils function are often very much influenced by the culture of the "mother Church". In my experience, Russian parish councils tend to be like family squabbles - emotional, lots of flash and bang, but in the end little gets accomplished whereas Greek parish councils may have the same kind of squabbles, but there is much more of a business atmosphere so that in the end the "business" of the parish goes on. And American converts have an even different approach which relates to what Andrew said earlier
The American desire for all things to be without overt conflict, easy, and fun, must be given up. so when a parish council meeting turns "nasty" and the flash and bang of emotional squabbles come out - many American converts just don't know how to cope

In addition you have the way that the "mother culture" leaks into the local parish and becomes part of the local culture - again, for example, Pascha (since that is fresh). There are some local differences, even in attitude, to how Pascha is celebrated in Greek and Russian parishes, but these differences are not part of the local North American culture, but rather are the heritage of the parent culture of the parish. Again as Andrew mentioned:

On a different note, we need to have more barbeques at Church. The Greeks can have their lamb, the Russians can have caviar, and I will have my ribs! :) At our parish Pascha party, I have taken to bringing good old "Shish Ka Bob" meat on a stick which the Russians immediately identify as "Shashlik" thus taking my "American thing" and giving it a slavic twist. Instead of Kulich, I have also taken to baking Portuguese "breakfast bread" which is a sweet bread (like kulich) but with an egg set in the center covered by a cross and a Georgian khachapuri (cheese filled bread). And I'm not the only one to be so "eclectic" so that in the end we have a real international buffet with everything from traditional Russian Kulich and Pashka to American BBQ and fried chicken.

So the culture of the "Mother Church" not only contributes directly to the local culture of the parish, but also indirectly by influencing the American customs.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

I appreciated your post, and your description of the various dynamics underlying the development of American Orthodoxies within particular cultural foundations.

Do you think, however, that arguments and conflict are aspects of various Orthodox cultures which should be allowed or encouraged, or do you think they are just plain sin and should be condemned?

I am a little confused, and I guess much is due to my own evangelical background. But I do not expect an Orthodox Church to be having to deal with such emotional strife, and I guess I am rather shocked at learning this week that Serbian Churches all have to have a bar. Certainly in my own experience I expect to be expected to give way to others, to allow others opinions greater weight than my own, to be obedient to my bishop and priest as far as I can. I would certainly not expect to have an argument with someone in the Church or about the Church.

So do you really think that arguments are part of Orthodox culture and can be accepted in the West or are they part of a social and emotional culture which may well need to be understood but should not necessarily be commended.

I ask this because I have not understood why the example you chose to offer of Mother Church culture is argumentativeness? I find it hard to conceive how such a spirit could ever be commended in any circumstance? A loudness of speech perhaps, more waving of hands, but not an argument. I have to say that I have never had an argument in my Church nor has there ever been an argument among those of us who manage the Church. I would feel rather shocked if we ever had an argument.

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

Chris brings up an interesting idea of applying parent/child dynamics to the different national Churches. Certainly we can see that it has never really been easy for a "mother Church" to let go of one of her "children".

I thought this an important analogy; for which my thanks.

To extend it somewhat further, it connects to what I have often described as the tendency for local child-churches to wish for autonomy and integral localisation far too soon. Just like every child goes through phases of wishing to be 'all grown up' long before that time has truly come, so is there a desire -- often for noble reasons -- to want to be a truly localised Church before the time is ready; before proper maturity has been reached; before the child is of sufficient age and preparation for what that truly entails. But an indigenous, fully localised 'American Orthodox Church', much the same as a 'British Orthodox Church' or a 'German Orthodox Church', is the fruit of a certain maturity and growth that we tend too regularly to wish to rush.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

To give a connection of my above comment to a patristic mindset, I think of such things as the ecclesiological expansion of basic anthropological ideas in the fathers. Perhaps most obviously is the comment on human maturation by Irenaeus of Lyons:

"Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are those who do not wait for the appropriate season of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created—men subject to passions; but go beyond the law of the human race, and before they have yet become fully men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator"
INXC, Matthew

[Anna Brenneis]

XB!!!

Father David, bless!

It is interesting that you bring up some variations in traditional foods for celebrating Pascha. As you know, our Cathdral parish is very Russian, yet we have some locally developed traditions like Father Yaroslav's Argentinian "asado" barbecue, Father John's honey vodka (which we still make even though Father John is now in Arizona), and Matushka Masya's yummy chocolate and orange cheese paschka -- all "must-haves" for our local celebration in San Francisco.

For my own family, because we have a strong Italian contingency, I have taken to making my cheese paschka with ricotta rather than farmer's cheese. We also like pannetone instead of kulich.

Any one else out there have their own twists on Paschal food traditions?

[Father David Moser]

Do you think, however, that arguments and conflict are aspects of various Orthodox cultures which should be allowed or encouraged, or do you think they are just plain sin and should be condemned?

I am a little confused, and I guess much is due to my own evangelical background. But I do not expect an Orthodox Church to be having to deal with such emotional strife, ... I expect to be expected to give way to others, to allow others opinions greater weight than my own, to be obedient to my bishop and priest as far as I can. I would certainly not expect to have an argument with someone in the Church or about the Church.

So do you really think that arguments are part of Orthodox culture ...

I ask this because I have not understood why the example you chose to offer of Mother Church culture is argumentativeness? I find it hard to conceive how such a spirit could ever be commended in any circumstance? A loudness of speech perhaps, more waving of hands, but not an argument. I have to say that I have never had an argument in my Church nor has there ever been an argument among those of us who manage the Church. I would feel rather shocked if we ever had an argument.


Peter, you have given an excellent example of my point here. Where in my description of parish councils did I ever speak of "argumentativeness"? I talked about "flash an bang" and "emotional squabbles" - but not about arguements. You did actually pick up on that when you said "A loudness of speech perhaps, more waving of hands, but not an argument." and that is exactly what happens. Lots of loud, flamboyant talking (sometimes even yelling) and vivid, energetic expression of personal opinion. But not "arguing" But because of your British (or my American) formation, all that loud noise, squabbling and flamboyance is off putting and interpreted by us as "arguing".

One observation I have made in the past is that different cultures have different balances of the three aspects of the soul (intellective, desiring and incensive - the mind, the will, the heart as St Theophan describes them). If you simply observe the way people from different cultures act and react, you will see the predominance of these different aspects. For example, Mediterranian cultures tend to be very "emotional", that is there is a lot of emotional energy expended in the way they talk, react and so on - there is a "big bang" but then after the catharsis, everything is gone and there is no residual left. Slavic, especially Russian, culture is not so much emotional as it is dominated by the desiring aspect of the soul. An excellent example of this can be found by reading the novels of Dostoevsky. His characters are not motivated by emotion or reason, but by a deep desire for something (or someone). This is the governing element of all their action. Western culture is exemplified by reason, rationality, the intellective aspect of the soul. We value reason above all else. Desire and Emotion as a basis for action are considered to be foolhardy and questionable. The primary motivation for our action reason. We can even go further and discuss the different "mix" of the other two aspects and the relative strengths of all three to look at the different temperament between US culture, Canadian culture and British culture should we desire to pursue this seriously (which I do not really intend to do at this point).

This difference can also be seen the writings of the various Fathers. The ascetic fathers of Scetis or Athos etc tend to focus on controlling the emotional passions. The ascetic Russian fathers focus more on quelling the desires. If we had a plethora true "European" fathers (something that I do not doubt we will see) I don't doubt that we would see an over riding theme of controlling the intellect.

The point of this little excursis is to point out that each culture has its own spiritual characteristic and that what is considered normal in one can easily be misinterpreted and misconstrued by another. I did not choose to speak of argumentativeness - I spoke of a loud, expressive, flamboyant and even emotional type of discussion, one that is not commonly considered to be profitable by us rational westerners. I also spoke of the difference between Greek and Russian attitudes toward the parish as a business. The only real comment that I made that I think could indicate a negative element is when I said "when the meeting turns nasty" and that simply belies my own western
"rational" prejudice.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

I agree with most of your post and believe that you have indeed put your finger on a difference of cultural perception between British and other cultures. We have an Italian neighbour of my Church and his manner is very 'Latin' and demonstrative, even loud.

But I would have to also say that in my 15 years on the internet I have read too many accounts of priests and others being damaged by real arguments in Greek and Russian and other parishes (not all of course, perhaps not many) but I know people who have been damaged, and when you speak of some squabbles turning nasty I think that in fact they do, not merely in a culturally relative sense but in a sinful sense.

Personally I am not sure that even a 'squabble' is acceptable in a Church context. This seems contrary to the teaching of St Paul and of our Lord who commands us to put ourselves last.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

...real arguments in Greek and Russian and other parishes (not all of course, perhaps not many) but I know people who have been damaged, and when you speak of some squabbles turning nasty I think that in fact they do, not merely in a culturally relative sense but in a sinful sense.

I do not disagree with you that such things occur. I can cite a whole host of my own examples (even in my own parish - coming usually from the American convert contingent) but this is not the characteristic of which I speak. It is a sad thing when our own sinfulness intrudes upon our communal life in the parish. However, this discussion is not about our sinfulness (specifically), but about cultural differences.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr David wrote:



One observation I have made in the past is that different cultures have different balances of the three aspects of the soul (intellective, desiring and incensive - the mind, the will, the heart as St Theophan describes them). If you simply observe the way people from different cultures act and react, you will see the predominance of these different aspects. For example, Mediterranian cultures tend to be very "emotional", that is there is a lot of emotional energy expended in the way they talk, react and so on - there is a "big bang" but then after the catharsis, everything is gone and there is no residual left. Slavic, especially Russian, culture is not so much emotional as it is dominated by the desiring aspect of the soul. An excellent example of this can be found by reading the novels of Dostoevsky. His characters are not motivated by emotion or reason, but by a deep desire for something (or someone). This is the governing element of all their action. Western culture is exemplified by reason, rationality, the intellective aspect of the soul. We value reason above all else. Desire and Emotion as a basis for action are considered to be foolhardy and questionable. The primary motivation for our action reason. We can even go further and discuss the different "mix" of the other two aspects and the relative strengths of all three to look at the different temperament between US culture, Canadian culture and British culture should we desire to pursue this seriously (which I do not really intend to do at this point).


Thanks for the insight Father. I really had never thought of culture in this way before. But when you put it this way, being a very patristic way of looking at it, it makes all the sense in the world.

What you say about Russian Slavs is very interesting. About half the Slavs in my parish are Russian. The Russians tend to be more extreme with very bright or dark colours (often one person will encompass both extremes). All of this is as you note very similar to what Dostoevsky describes & is authentic to the actual experience of being around Russians.

On the other hand the Ukrainians are more 'sunny' in personality and more tolerant in their expectations. I suppose, to follow the categories you have provided, this is why they are more sunny: more open ended desires.

If I can add a personal note here, your explanation also helps explain why from the first moment I stepped foot in a Russian church ( even though English was the main language of the services, the parish was very Russian in its ethos & at least half the people were Russians) it resonated so deeply for me even though I am 100% Canadian. A possible reason is that my family had many Slavic/Jewish sensibilities & I was raised in a very ethnic part of Montreal.

While many Canadians find it an insurmountable challenge in the long run to be in a very Russian parish, I have always felt deeply at home. Partly I took it that the way I was raised made me feel very much at home surrounded by a plethora of non-Anglo cultures & languages (Montreal is very unique for that). But now I see that it could also be due to the more expressive manners my family took for granted.



This difference can also be seen the writings of the various Fathers. The ascetic fathers of Scetis or Athos etc tend to focus on controlling the emotional passions. The ascetic Russian fathers focus more on quelling the desires. If we had a plethora true "European" fathers (something that I do not doubt we will see) I don't doubt that we would see an over riding theme of controlling the intellect.

This also is interesting as I have been to Athos twice. What was striking was how Greek the Greek monks were and how Russian the Russians, despite a common ascetic way of life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bogdan]

I thought this an important analogy; for which my thanks.

To extend it somewhat further, it connects to what I have often described as the tendency for local child-churches to wish for autonomy and integral localisation far too soon. Just like every child goes through phases of wishing to be 'all grown up' long before that time has truly come, so is there a desire -- often for noble reasons -- to want to be a truly localised Church before the time is ready; before proper maturity has been reached; before the child is of sufficient age and preparation for what that truly entails. But an indigenous, fully localised 'American Orthodox Church', much the same as a 'British Orthodox Church' or a 'German Orthodox Church', is the fruit of a certain maturity and growth that we tend too regularly to wish to rush.

INXC, Matthew

I understand this, but can not help but disagree. Do we not have the ability to even discuss this within the mother churches? You talk of how local churches want something before their ready...who is to judge our readiness? And if they are to judge it, how long before that judgement takes place.

I can offhand name 3 Serbian saints canonized within the last 100 years that did great things in America. St. Nikolaj Velimirovich being one you would be most familiar with. Does sainthood among Americans not show maturity and growth? I believe it shows at least enough where we can TALK about this! To ask a bishop to take his signature off a petition is in my views more the mother holding the child's hand than the child trying to go on it's own...

I also wanted to touch on Fr. David's post on Russian emotion/behavior, along with Fr. Raphel's response. Fr. Raphel, your personal note in particular i feel connected to. The fact that you just "feel" at home in the Russian parish, speaks volumes to the importance of ethnic influences. However, it also speaks volumes to the possible integration of that ethnic influence on certain American cultures. I believe ethnic influences are great in the churches we have here, but if you showed them to anyone in the mother land, they would not call MOST of our parishes Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. They would call them american!!

So in essence, I return to my earlier post and ask why ethnic divisions require organizational divisions? Is it not possible to continue having Serbian bishops, Russian bishops, expansion of Greek churches and archdiocese....with an organizational change revolving around 1 patriarch for America??

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Bogdan, thank you for the interesting recent post. In it you wrote:


I understand this, but can not help but disagree. Do we not have the ability to even discuss this within the mother churches?

I would certainly not suggest that it is something one is not to discuss. Indeed, healthy maturation always involves looking forward, preparing oneself for growth will eventually lead - and the telos of maturation is adulthood. There is a proper and normal order to growth, and indeed to stunt that process is to disfigure creation. Applied ecclesiologically, the telos of missionary work in a new land is local Orthodoxy, just as the telos of an infant is to become an adult; so surely discussion of growth into that end, preparation for it, work toward it, is good. I don't believe I suggested in my earlier remarks that it shouldn't be talked about - this seems to be a misreading of what I wrote.

The problem is one of bypassing the normal stages of growth. One cannot skip from infancy to adulthood simply as an act of will or desire, however sincere and well-intended. One must be a teenager, gain the experience of that phase of life (including the maturation of patience in development, that is perhaps the hardest aspect for many teenagers), etc. The same is true of churches. The desire for maturity, i.e. locality and autonomy, is healthy and good; but it must be maturity that comes in healthy phases -- that is, real maturation and not simply 'skipping to the end'.

We are often far too eager to do just this when it comes to the Church. But local churches have a growth cycle, which includes reception, conversion, infusion, integration, transformation, time. Part of the process involves a 'normalisation' into a culture and land; adults ultimately are deemed 'adult' because they have genuinely matured into adulthood, not because of the pronouncement. In this perhaps Orthodoxy in America is much further along than Orthodoxy in Britain, which is nowhere close to such a point. There is a long way yet to go in America, too; but it is further along.

I surely think one should, even must, talk about such things; but too often we are keen to talk about the ends rather than the actual process of growth in which the churches in our localities are involved. We often become deeply selfish, because it is easy to be selfish when one does so under the guise of it being for good - for a good end, a good result.


You talk of how local churches want something before their ready...who is to judge our readiness? And if they are to judge it, how long before that judgement takes place.This is a very good set of questions. Much has been said in the above (and in other threads, and elsewhere) of the 'mother-daughter' relationship of a parent church to its diaspora - a relation in some sense paralleled to a parent's raising a child, involved the child's rebelliousness, the parent's guidance, etc. Within this analogy, the judgement is in some sense symbiotic, a joint perception, based on observation as much as indication. A child is not 'deemed' a teenager; she grows and is a teenager. Judgement of readiness for autonomy, for localisation, in a church can (to a degree) be paralleled to this: as the mother church and child church grow together, the result of a fruitful growth is that the church becomes more localised, more autonomous, in an organic way; and the fruit of that is the recognition of what is, and then the accentuation of it.

Of course, there are limitations to the mother-daughter / parent-child analogy; or perhaps better, the analogy is effective in also showing up the challenges of this relationship. Children are not the only ones in such a relationship to be driven by self-willed desire -- so too are parents. Parents, and indeed parent churches, can be over-protective, fearful and therefore guarded, jealous, etc. These are real dynamics in ecclesiological growth. Which is yet another reason why such growth needs to be reciprocal.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

I might just add, as a follow-up, that I actually find discussions on the future of 'An American Orthodoxy' or 'A British Orthodoxy' (etc.) very encouraging, profitable, and the fuel for true missionary endeavour, in the rare instances in which they take the form of attempts genuinely to take stock of the state of maturity of Orthodoxy in given places, and then explore the means of maturing in a healthy, authentic Orthodox way in those circumstances - without beginning at the end by having a pre-determined timeline, picture, model, etc. in play for how it is to come about.

But I must say that with one or two exceptions off-line and out in 'the real world', I don't know of anyone, much less any group, that carries out discussions in such a way, and hence my (personal) belief that most often, such conversations are less than profitable, and there are more constructive ways to work towards genuine union in the churches.

And of course, we've many, many examples of how wrongly things can go when a group decides it's ready for a kind of consolidated, localised autonomy before it actually is.

INXC, Matthew

[Andrew]

American Orthodoxy is being laid by those living the Orthodoxy life of prayer, fasting, and Communion in humility and obedience. Over the course of generations as more American born saints shine forth, then there truly will be an "American" Orthodoxy. But I don't think we should really care too much about having an American Orthodoxy. We should care first about being Orthodox within the context of which parish and diocese we find ourselves.

In America, almost all the saints have been ones from foreign lands who came here and did marvellous works. They were "products" of mature Orthodoxy from other places. I think with the presence of Elder Ephraim's monasteries, and the flowering of monasticism under other spiritual fathers and jurisdictions, and the presence of highly motivated, patristically minded young priests coming out of seminaries will bring about a truly holy host of saints. But this means we need to step up and live without compromise in our Orthodoxy, and truly live with vigilance and in the love of Christ, which is not an easy love... but it is the love that transfigures.

This also means we need to support those who are forging ahead in lives of holiness and divinely blessed work.

We will have an American Orthodox when Americans become Orthodox and care less about having an American Church and more about saving their souls. I'm not saying this is mutually exclusive. But there are more important things at hand than disorganization of jurisdictions.

[Father David Moser]

I would like to request that the topic of posts in this thread move away from jurisdictional and organizational issues and move back to cultural issues. The topic of this thread is not about how to create or avoid a local united Church hierarchy, but rather about how we as Orthodox Christians living in real parishes in the real world live out our Orthodox lives and how those lives are influenced by the interaction of our own secular culture with the culture of Orthodoxy and with the immigrant cultures that we find in our parishes. This thread is NOT about creating an "American Orthodoxy" - we had that discussion for 20+ pages and it can easily continue - but not here. This thread is about our personal Orthodox experience. I'd really like to get it back on track.

Fr David Moser

[Chris Manaras]

I surely think one should, even must, talk about such things; but too often we are keen to talk about the ends rather than the actual process of growth in which the churches in our localities are involved. We often become deeply selfish, because it is easy to be selfish when one does so under the guise of it being for good - for a good end, a good result.

This is a very good set of questions. Much has been said in the above (and in other threads, and elsewhere) of the 'mother-daughter' relationship of a parent church to its diaspora - a relation in some sense paralleled to a parent's raising a child, involved the child's rebelliousness, the parent's guidance, etc. Within this analogy, the judgement is in some sense symbiotic, a joint perception, based on observation as much as indication. A child is not 'deemed' a teenager; she grows and is a teenager. Judgement of readiness for autonomy, for localisation, in a church can (to a degree) be paralleled to this: as the mother church and child church grow together, the result of a fruitful growth is that the church becomes more localised, more autonomous, in an organic way; and the fruit of that is the recognition of what is, and then the accentuation of it.

Of course, there are limitations to the mother-daughter / parent-child analogy; or perhaps better, the analogy is effective in also showing up the challenges of this relationship. Children are not the only ones in such a relationship to be driven by self-willed desire -- so too are parents. Parents, and indeed parent churches, can be over-protective, fearful and therefore guarded, jealous, etc. These are real dynamics in ecclesiological growth. Which is yet another reason why such growth needs to be reciprocal.



12-step recovery traditions warn of "problems of money, property, or prestiege divert[ing] us from our primary purpose."

I sometimes question if North American jusrisdictional unity is considered a "primary purpose" by either the Mother Churches or the local jurisdictions. While it might seem right and proper to talk about wanting it, is it just idle talk?

I must state that I am by no means an authority on this subjet matter, but perhaps as someone more on the outside looking in with a different perspective. Really, if everyone involved was committed to this, then it would be a done deal. And the all the details of the who does, who gets, who is, etc., would be dealt out and we all could be truely joyous without resentments and greivances. But guess what, there's politics involved.

[Andrew]

I would like to request that the topic of posts in this thread move away from jurisdictional and organizational issues and move back to cultural issues. The topic of this thread is not about how to create or avoid a local united Church hierarchy, but rather about how we as Orthodox Christians living in real parishes in the real world live out our Orthodox lives and how those lives are influenced by the interaction of our own secular culture with the culture of Orthodoxy and with the immigrant cultures that we find in our parishes. This thread is NOT about creating an "American Orthodoxy" - we had that discussion for 20+ pages and it can easily continue - but not here. This thread is about our personal Orthodox experience. I'd really like to get it back on track.

Fr David Moser

I'm sorry Father! I should have paid more attention to the topic of this thread.

My home parish is an interesting blend. Half of our parish is Eastern Europeans, mostly pious "new faithful" who are of the generation that has embraced Orthodoxy after the fall of Communism. The elderly of the parish are mainly those who were taken from Eastern Europe by their children to America for care, and are very kind and pious. There is one man who is in his nineties who has a wonderful smile, but unfortunately he speaks very little English, and I don't speak Russian. Still, he likes to talk to people with his grandchildren translating. There is a Romanian family, an Indian family, Bulgarians, Serbs, Russians, and the other half of the parish are those who converted in America. This group too is diverse; there are people who were once Catholics, evangelicals, atheists, new agers, hedonists, and whatnot, of different races, but mostly white. Our parish priest is young and preaches sermons focusing on the ascetical life in Christ as taught by the Fathers, and looks like a traditional Orthodox priest (always wears his cassock, has a long beard, etc.)

His book studies usually focus on various Fathers from the Holy Mountain in this modern era, and how their teaching and experience relates to our life. He teaches much from Elder Sophrony, Elder Porphyrios, Saint Silouan, Elder Zacharias, and Metropolitan Hierotheos.

There are tons of kids at this church... they run around like crazy! It is wonderful.

Foodwise... it is very eclectic. There are rotating teams of families who bring food for after Divine Liturgy. I especially like it when my godfather's Mexican wife brings her homemade salsa, and when the Indian family brings samosa and other tasty dishes.

Confession and communion are both quite frequent, on the whole. There is a long line for confession on Saturdays before and after Vespers. A few confess on Wednesdays and Sundays too. Our bishop says that once a month is ideal, but I think a good amount of the parish receives this sacrament atleast every other week. Our priest goes to confession often and recommends that we do too.

There are about 90 adults at the church. At Divine Liturgy on Sundays we have about six people on average serving in the altar alongside our priest and one of the subdeacons. We have two subdeacons, and (I think) four readers.

There is a unique atmosphere to this parish... there is a sense of vitality, intensity, and familial love in Christ. I wish I were there now! Not that my parish out of state is bad, but still, there is no place like a parish you call home!


When culture is approached in a personal manner, of respect for other people as they are, then I think interractions between people of various backgrounds are positive and loving. And especially if these people are receiving the Eucharist together often, and laboring together for the life and spiritual growth of the parish, then barriers are overcome.

[Kornelius]

Peter, you have given an excellent example of my point here. Where in my description of parish councils did I ever speak of "argumentativeness"? I talked about "flash an bang" and "emotional squabbles" - but not about arguements. You did actually pick up on that when you said "A loudness of speech perhaps, more waving of hands, but not an argument." and that is exactly what happens. Lots of loud, flamboyant talking (sometimes even yelling) and vivid, energetic expression of personal opinion. But not "arguing" But because of your British (or my American) formation, all that loud noise, squabbling and flamboyance is off putting and interpreted by us as "arguing".

One observation I have made in the past is that different cultures have different balances of the three aspects of the soul (intellective, desiring and incensive - the mind, the will, the heart as St Theophan describes them). If you simply observe the way people from different cultures act and react, you will see the predominance of these different aspects. For example, Mediterranian cultures tend to be very "emotional", that is there is a lot of emotional energy expended in the way they talk, react and so on - there is a "big bang" but then after the catharsis, everything is gone and there is no residual left. Slavic, especially Russian, culture is not so much emotional as it is dominated by the desiring aspect of the soul. An excellent example of this can be found by reading the novels of Dostoevsky. His characters are not motivated by emotion or reason, but by a deep desire for something (or someone). This is the governing element of all their action. Western culture is exemplified by reason, rationality, the intellective aspect of the soul. We value reason above all else. Desire and Emotion as a basis for action are considered to be foolhardy and questionable. The primary motivation for our action reason. We can even go further and discuss the different "mix" of the other two aspects and the relative strengths of all three to look at the different temperament between US culture, Canadian culture and British culture should we desire to pursue this seriously (which I do not really intend to do at this point).

This difference can also be seen the writings of the various Fathers. The ascetic fathers of Scetis or Athos etc tend to focus on controlling the emotional passions. The ascetic Russian fathers focus more on quelling the desires. If we had a plethora true "European" fathers (something that I do not doubt we will see) I don't doubt that we would see an over riding theme of controlling the intellect.

The point of this little excursis is to point out that each culture has its own spiritual characteristic and that what is considered normal in one can easily be misinterpreted and misconstrued by another. I did not choose to speak of argumentativeness - I spoke of a loud, expressive, flamboyant and even emotional type of discussion, one that is not commonly considered to be profitable by us rational westerners. I also spoke of the difference between Greek and Russian attitudes toward the parish as a business. The only real comment that I made that I think could indicate a negative element is when I said "when the meeting turns nasty" and that simply belies my own western
"rational" prejudice.

Fr David Moser


Fr. David,

With all due respect, I think that your interpretetion of various cultures or theologies may be unwittingly very generic or innacurate. For instance, you say that Russians as described par excellence in Dostoyevski are not so much emotional. Actually, the complete opposite is true. I like to remind you the emotional upheavel at the monastery following the death of Fr. Zosima in Brothers Karamazov. At times Dostoyevsky's characters or many other russian writers' characters are very emotional and at times even verge on the hysterical. I can provide many examples of that but this is not the purview of my post.
It also seems to me that when you speak of the Greek and Russian fathers you identify emotions with passions. Both fathers do not deal with emotions but rather impure passions of the body soul and nous (mind). There is a huge chasm between pure human emotions on one hand - varying accordingly to different cultures (even Christ had such emotions when he cried at the death of his friend Lazarus, or His divine anger at the temple as he was overthrowing the merchant's tables); and human passions on the other hand that are un-natural proclivities. It is the latter that comprises the subject of both Greek and Russian and other Orthodox fathers.
Lastly you mention that Western culture is exemplified by reason, rationality, the intellective aspect of the soul. I hope that you do not postulate this as a loftier juxtaposition to the other "emotional" cultures. The focus given on reason and intellict in the west does not indicate lack of human emotion, but rather lack of the metaphysical. In other words if it is not comprehended by the mind than it does not exist. Descarte as you may recall said "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think therefore I am.) The entire Enlightment shared in such views that brough Man and his intellect not God to the centre of the universe. Nitzche even dared to say that God is dead! Unfortunately West was brainwashed from such views! This was an elaborate scheme under the guise of humanism to bring atheism all over the world, and West fell for it. For us Orthodox the focus is only opon reason and intellect as illumined by Christ, otherwise we would be like the intellectual pharisees who despite their intellect were not able to recognize Christ!

[Father David Moser]

I think that your interpretetion of various cultures or theologies may be unwittingly very generic or innacurate. For instance, you say that Russians as described par excellence in Dostoyevski are not so much emotional.... At times Dostoyevsky's characters or many other russian writers' characters are very emotional and at times even verge on the hysterical.

Yes there is "emotional chaos" but the root of the chaos is not the incensive aspect of the soul, but rather the desiring aspect. The emotions are secondary to the desires. It is the "desire" that is inflated out of all proportion.



It also seems to me that when you speak of the Greek and Russian fathers you identify emotions with passions. Both fathers do not deal with emotions but rather impure passions of the body soul and nous (mind). There is a huge chasm between pure human emotions on one hand ... and human passions on the other hand.

I do not mean to conflate "passions" and "emotions" in the manner you suggest. I realize that they are not the same. When I speak of emotions in this situatiton I am speaking of the "feelings" that are characteristic of the heart. The emotions are "passionate" and a form of the "passions" (just as desire is also a form of the "passions" We suffer here from the difficulty of going between Greek and English, where there are insufficient nuances in vocabulary (at least in my vocabulary) to differentiate verbally between "passion" and "passions" I apologze for any confusion that my deficits might have caused.



Lastly you mention that Western culture is exemplified by reason, rationality, the intellective aspect of the soul. I hope that you do not postulate this as a loftier juxtaposition to the other "emotional" cultures.

Lord have mercy no. Reason is just as much one of the "passions" in the larger sense as desire or feeling. Now those of us in the west who are brought up in the atmosphere of "I think therefore I am" will hold the prejudice that this is "loftier" but that is simply a matter of prejudice. Not unlike the judgement expressed in the film "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" where the Greek father labels the White Episcopalian parents of the group as white toast (or something like that - its been a while since I've watched the movie) Because he has a cultural value of emotion as a primary root of action, he sees the "rationality" of the west as inferior, even bland. We all have our prejudices.

Fr David Moser

[Anna Brenneis]

XB!!!

Father David,

Indeed, the observations on this thread about how foreign and local culture "flavor" our experience of Orthodoxy in the diaspora are interesting and thought-provoking, but juristictional matters just seem to be temptations, except perhaps for those of us who are officially involved in peacemaking and/or unification processes. I'm with you, Father. Let's concentrate upon the fascinating process of cultivating Orthodoxy in the West.

One aspect of American life that seems particularly dangerous to me is the religion of secular humanism, with its chief doctrine of moral relativism. The idea that all belief systems are valid (so long as they are "politically correct") is so pervasive here! It is taught in the schools and propagated in the media, and sometimes I hear its mantras recited by fellow Orthodox and they don't seem to realize they are doing it. Having attended California public schools in the 1960s and 1970s, I've had to fight hard against the teachings of secular humanism in my own mind, as well.

Does anyone else think that moral relativism as a cultural phenomenon in the West is worth discussing here?

[Kornelius]

Lord have mercy no. Reason is just as much one of the "passions" in the larger sense as desire or feeling. Now those of us in the west who are brought up in the atmosphere of "I think therefore I am" will hold the prejudice that this is "loftier" but that is simply a matter of prejudice. Not unlike the judgement expressed in the film "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" where the Greek father labels the White Episcopalian parents of the group as white toast (or something like that - its been a while since I've watched the movie) Because he has a cultural value of emotion as a primary root of action, he sees the "rationality" of the west as inferior, even bland. We all have our prejudices.

Fr David Moser

Fr. David,

Actually the exaltation of Reason divorced from God (Humanism) in the west is not a matter of prejudice but is the fundamental principle of western reality. Besides, as you may see on my profile, my location is from the west too, not from Greece. So if I am critical of myself how does that make me prejudicial?

Second let me clarify the term west because from the movie example you provide I assume that you think that such a term refers exclusively to United States. (By the way, we cannot bring Hollywood in to clarify things in a spiritual milieu). West includes also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe. The latter is actually where humanistic progress was fermented. If you think that this is simply a matter of prejudice then with all due respect and humbleness I advise you to reconsider the matter more seriously, because the greatest contemporary orthodox theologians do point out to the gravity of the matter. Fr. Justin Popovich (perhaps the greatest contemporary orthodox theologian from Serbia) does not think of it as prejudice but as a real danger, “the dulling of the man’s sense of immortality, until it is completely blunted and the man of European culture resolutely asserts, after Nietzsche: ‘I am flesh, and flesh alone’, meaning ‘I am mortal and only mortal.’ ‘Man is a mortal being’ became the dominant motto of humanistic Europe. It is the formula of humanistic man, the essence of his progress. The realization that man is totally mortal was, at first unconsciously and then consciously, systematically and deliberately, injected into European man through science, philosophy and culture.” Archimandrite Dr. Justin Popovich, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, trans. Benjamin Emmanuel Stanley (Birmingham: Lazarica Press, 2000) p. 93.

[Father David Moser]

Does anyone else think that moral relativism as a cultural phenomenon in the West is worth discussing here?

Anna,

I think this is a good observation. Although "moral relativism" can be found in most cultures today, it is especially rampant in the western cultures. There is a similar type of cultural phenomenon, "triumphalism", that is almost the opposite of relativism, but which is in fact on the same specturm - we go from "everyone is right" to "I'm the only one who is right". These are both cultural phenomena that I think are worth looking at in this context because we see them in Orthodoxy quite frequently - "ecumenism" and "phyletism" for example.

Fr David Moser

[Trudy]

There is a similar type of cultural phenomenon, "triumphalism", that is almost the opposite of relativism, but which is in fact on the same specturm - we go from "everyone is right" to "I'm the only one who is right". These are both cultural phenomena that I think are worth looking at in this context because we see them in Orthodoxy quite frequently - "ecumenism" and "phyletism" for example.

Dear Fr. David,

Though I do not know what the last two words mean, I do understand the pendulum swinging from "everyone" to "Me" being right. This is a major topic in the American history class I am taking.

It seems to me, the strong individualistic nature is significantly foundational to our American history. The Revolutionary Generation fought for freedom and for their collective individual right to establish a nation that was no longer a colony of an overseas land. That same RG generation raised children to be individuals and continue the pursuit of freedom and happiness.

As I read people like Herbert Hover, Henry George, the Federalists; many if not all were proponents of individual initiative being the most important thing. We have 200+ years of this mindset.

Orthodoxy is a community mindset, of course because it is about Union with God, who is Union Himself. Therefore, it would be polar opposite to what we are most familiar with.

As you've said in a previous post, it will not be we who have converted to Orthodoxy but our children who are born and raised with the Orthodox Church as their Mother who will fully grasp what we struggle to because for them it will be in their nature. For us (and me) it is a nature we are trying to put on while trying to strip the other away.

A few meandering thoughts,
Athanasia (Trudy)

[Bogdan]

Fr David,

While I agree that the topic at hand is ethnicity and it's affect on Orthodoxy in the West(i.e. America) I can not help but believe my posts have been more than on topic. In fact, I am just exposing the side of the coin nobody seems to be talking about: How the ACTUAL ethnic groups back in the home countries percieve their step-children in the west. Step-children may be a crude term to use, but I can tell you from personal experience that at least in the Serbian church this is how we are viewed. We are at best ignored by the Patriarchal bureaucracy that exists, and at worst told we do not "get it" (orthodoxy) If anyone wishes to ignore this truth in how the west practices orthodoxy, and how it is percieved by the East, you may. Perhaps it is not the same with all the churches. However, as I pointed out the East has resisted all efforts at bringing up the topic of Stand-Alone-Orthodoxy in the west; which makes me believe they are not so different in their approaches to "us". So I come to a quote and a couple questions:


But I must say that with one or two exceptions off-line and out in 'the real world', I don't know of anyone, much less any group, that carries out discussions in such a way, and hence my (personal) belief that most often, such conversations are less than profitable, and there are more constructive ways to work towards genuine union in the churches.

I hope when you say one or two exceptions you are including my aformentioned meeting of American Bishops from all recognized jurisdictions. These men accomplished your concern for "discussion". These conversations were VERY "profitable" both spritually and practically. In fact, such a "genuine union" was formed that they all said without hesitation that the Holy Spirit had been among them.

I am sure you at least are aware of how Orthodoxy is about saying exactly where the Holy Spirit is and isn't.....

And then they are asked to remove their signatures? On a personal note, I would really love to hear your response to this Mathew??

Perhaps my "emotional ethnic upbringing" brings me to incredulous disbelief, but I can not easily get my mind around asking any of those bishops to remove their signature from ANYTHING, much less something of this magnitude.

This in turn brings me to my second question, more pertinent to everyone else and our discussion. As some of you have beautifully described your mixed Orthodox parishes, and how ethnic basis has evolved and involved American people & culture, how is it that Orthodoxy has not changed to include something American?

I believe it has, we are just not being recognized for it. If we look at any Orthodoxy church in the USA we would see a strong ethnic base with younger generations(possibly 4th-6th generation) who have strong American influences in their lives. Sometimes these clash, sometimes they do not. In any event, nobody of any relevance in the home country will ask how this integration is going, whether they can be of any help, etc. As I stated previously, if there is an advisor for American orthodoxy to any of the Patriarch's, he is not a regular one; most likely being one of the bishops in the US itself.

Would it be egregious to ask for an American advisor to the Patriarch? Just so he can give news, answer questions on how things work here, what the challenges are, how we face them and when....and many other questions that will no doubt come up. Just for instance this shooting at Virginia Tech (God rest their souls). This is almost exclusively an American phenomenon. Would it not be a great help to have someone explain how things like this tend to happen in America??

I think this would be the first of many actual steps that would result in a better, more cohesive and organized orthodoxy in America. Whether it becomes it's own seperate church...well that can wait. One step at a time.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Anthony]

Withdrawing this post, it contains a contradiction.

[Nina]

Christ is Risen!

So often we act like in a laboratory trying to dissect a human. So often we make an artificial disconnection between intellect, desire and emotions, while forgetting that those are different expressions of a whole person. So often we label entire anonymous entities; which is the opposite of an uniting action. We are called to love everyone that God brings on our path. Let’s not forget that He may place us all in the same Paradise: those that may be loud, or have exaggerated hand gestures and those who are reserved. These are not merits, or faults. Just different colors in a field bursting with colorful flowers. If we do not like a particular color, we are accusing the Creator.

"True wealth, for me, is to see you in the Kingdom of Heaven." Father Amphilochios

[Owen Jones]

A young Greek Orthodox priest friend of mine once described his parishioners to me as all "Protestants."

[Chris Manaras]

A young Greek Orthodox priest friend of mine once described his parishioners to me as all "Protestants."

hahaha...

Better Protestants than pagens or barberians.

See Mark 9:40