Bp Kallistos on Orthodoxy and the West

[Theophrastus]

“We Orthodox who live in the West are heirs to the entire cultural and intellectual tradition of the West, much of which indeed is profoundly Christian. We are heirs to Dante, to Shakespeare, to Milton, to Wordsworth,” Bishop Kallistos continued passionately. “Of course we have our own Orthodox interpretation of their work. But if we are to play our role as Orthodox in the Western world we must be willing to listen and to learn from the spiritual masters of the Western tradition— yes, even from the world of the Enlightenment. Because this for us, and I speak as a Western convert, this for us is our own cultural heritage. We must not simply reject it and say ‘I shall only read Orthodox authors.’ Sometimes Orthodox say to me ‘Oh, I’m not going to waste my time reading Dante; he wasn’t Orthodox,’ which is a pity: for, if they did read Dante, they might learn a lot. Well, perhaps some people should just read Orthodox books. But others of us must surely engage in a dialogue with Western culture. Otherwise we are betraying our roles as Orthodox placed here in the West as mediators and witnesses. God did not put me in ninth-century Byzantium. He placed me in twenty-first-century Oxford. There must be a reason for that. Moreover, what is asked of us Orthodox is to listen as well as speak. All too often we carry on an Orthodox monologue. But we need to hear the voice of the other. Somebody said to a friend of mine (my friend is Christian, the person speaking to her was not): ‘The trouble with you Christians is you want to give us the answer before you bother to find out what our questions are!’ ”

I joined Bishop Kallistos in a hearty laugh.

Then he continued, “Now, I think we could apply that to Orthodoxy in the modern Western world. Before we give them all the Orthodox answers, which in any case we ourselves know so incompletely, we need to listen to what their questions are. We need to consider where these questions are coming from, what is the meaning of the whole experience of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment? As a Westerner I should start from where they are.”

“And be able to share your own understanding, by understanding where they come from,” I added.

“That’s right.”

“Again, speaking for myself,” I said, “I cannot give up the Enlightenment tradition. I am myself a product of it and I consider it a spark of the divine in history.”

“The Spirit,” Bishop Kallistos declared, “is working in all kinds of ways— even in a movement like secular feminism. It’s very easy for us Orthodox to be ironical about that, and certainly sometimes within the feminist movement there are some things that are just silly. But we would be very, very much in error to dismiss the movement as a whole. It is a serious movement, there is a real searching there, and the Spirit speaks in the most unexpected places. And so there is something in the feminist movement, even in its more anti-Christian forms, to which we ought to be listening and from which we can learn.”

Markides, Kyriacos C. Gifts of the Desert : The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality. Westminster, MD, USA: Doubleday Publishing, 2005. p 168-169.

[Anthony]

Sometimes Orthodox say to me ‘Oh, I’m not going to waste my time reading Dante; he wasn’t Orthodox,’ which is a pity: for, if they did read Dante, they might learn a lot.

I couldn't agree more.

[Rick H.]

Dear Jetavan,

Thank you. Very good:




‘The trouble with you Christians is you want to give us the answer before you bother to find out what our questions are!’



. . . yes, the primacy of the question. More fodder for a consideration of starting points possibly? But, this is also a consideration for Christian Education as well as Evangelism and Apologetics isn't it?

In Christ,
Rick

PS The other day when you said :

"I find it helpful to remember that even the solitaires are who they are, only because of community."

I allowed room in my reply for the possibility that you could be speaking of the community formed of those who had withdrawn/separated themselves--in this sense the monachos who give reality to the community of monachoi; however I am wondering if you would like to take a crack at developing this a little more. I'm not sure which thread in particular would be most appropriate, it seems many of the new threads have taken on the character of the An American Orthodoxy? thread in general. ;) The spin offs are really spinning. :) So, I guess you can decide which seems most appropriate to you, if you choose to move forward. Possibly, even here. I am not sure that the views expressed above are the majority view, so there may be room here knowing the minority view is not always to be associated with the immature view.

And, as it relates to the above as well as a previous conversation about such things as crossing or 'jumping' rivers, as has been said by another, ""Man's world is manifold, and his attitudes are manifold. What is manifold is often frightening because it is not neat and simple. Men prefer to forget how many possibilities are open to them.They like to be told that there are two worlds and two ways. This is comforting because it is so tidy. Almost always one way turns out to be common and the other one is celebrated as superior." But, this is just an introduction of sorts, or possibly a River Crossing 101. I wonder at times if "A common ground" will not be limited to an eschatological event? But, at other times even here in monachoiland, especially when reading Learner's poetry, I think "no" it is already here and now, and will be always until the end of the ages for those with eyes and ears.

[Marie-Duquette]

"The Holy Spirit is workind in many ways .... (among us) ; and speaks in the most unexpected places " Kalistos Ware

from an interview recorded in Gifts of the Desert by K.Markides and refered to in an above post.

[Chris Manaras]

Thank you, Theophrastus, for this post.

I had recently listened to a Orthodox podcast and the person being interviewed held such "anti" views of everything possibly "new age". There were authors mentioned whose teachings and belief systems were the catalyst for me embracing the Church after many years of feelings of contempt.

I continue to enjoy non-Orthodox orthodox teachings. I find it so incredibly uplifting to encounter the same ultimate Truth from those that also see It from a different perspective.

[Bogdan]

"I find it helpful to remember that even the solitaires are who they are, only because of community."


Forgive me if I jump into a more private conversation, but If allowed I would like to make a small point on this quote. The word community itself is used first as "communion" with God. Therefore, by bringing yourself closer to God, you are joining that ever exclusive community of people such as the saints and martyrs of past and present. What a community to join!!

I believe this is why solitaries as you put it choose to leave the communities of this world and attempt to join those. The benefits are most likely just as great as the sacrifices.

[Antony Solomon]

I don't know where I'd be without Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Dune, Iris Murdoch, Star Trek even, etc. There are elements of mere Christianity that unite across boundaries, and are helpful bridges to common understanding for the astute observer, just as i have found reading Dostoyevsky and Kazantzakis helpful in understanding Orthodoxy. Culture, rather than Dogma, has the ability to transmit messages that are amenable to more than one interpretation, and threfore available as vehicles of cross cultural understanding.

[Rick H.]

Forgive me if I jump into a more private conversation, but If allowed I would like to make a small point on this quote. The word community itself is used first as "communion" with God. Therefore, by bringing yourself closer to God, you are joining that ever exclusive community of people such as the saints and martyrs of past and present. What a community to join!!

I believe this is why solitaries as you put it choose to leave the communities of this world and attempt to join those. The benefits are most likely just as great as the sacrifices.

Dear Bogdan,

How perfect! "What a community to join!!!" [extra exclamation point mine]

In Christ,
Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Rick H.]

I don't know where I'd be without Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Dune, Iris Murdoch, Star Trek even, etc. There are elements of mere Christianity that unite across boundaries, and are helpful bridges to common understanding for the astute observer, just as i have found reading Dostoyevsky and Kazantzakis helpful in understanding Orthodoxy. Culture, rather than Dogma, has the ability to transmit messages that are amenable to more than one interpretation, and threfore available as vehicles of cross cultural understanding.

Dear Antony,

Have you been reading the Apostle Paul again? ;) Possibly one day we will move beyond the present "stale period," as OJ has said repeadly in the past, and we can begin to relearn things afresh in each generation as it is meant to be. Relearning or unknowing, you can pick which, but either way thanks again here too! What a novel concept--'vehicles' of cross cultural understanding. :)

In Christ,
Rick

Acts 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" [via the other good doctor Luke]

1 Corinthians 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of IT with you.


In the End, the Beginning

[Antony Solomon]

Dear Antony,

Have you been reading the Apostle Paul again? ;) Possibly one day we will move beyond the present "stale period," as OJ has said repeadly in the past, and we can begin to relearn things afresh in each generation as it is meant to be. Relearning or unknowing, you can pick which, but either way thanks again here too! What a novel concept--'vehicles' of cross cultural understanding. :)

In Christ,
Rick

Acts 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'"

1 Corinthians 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


In the End, the Beginning

Indeed! For instance, what better way to show the despair and hopes of man than the character of Dimitri in the Brothers Karamazov, who, even in his debaucheries is found praying to God to rescue him. I have yet to read Met Anthony's book on Dostoyevsky's doctrine of spiritual rebirth, but I bet it's good. Equally, if you can stomach the modern elements in the former, then the end of Matrix Revolutions and Lord of the Rings (the book at least) is a clear indication of the nature of the Gospel - and certain contemporary situations - that the victory cannot be won by violence, though it requires sacrifice to gain the victory. I read LOTR not long after becoming a Christian, and was amazed at the way a book whose author excluded religion on purpose, yet presents us with a composite picture of Christ in the characters of Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn.

These things are of course in the West, and despite any departures from the true and living way that might be lamented, yet (and again, pace branch theories) there is an organic link that has seeped into the wider culture and crops up in unexpected places, be it Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, or 'popular' works. Try listening to Mahler's 2nd 'Resurrection' Symphony (which I did long ago as an atheist) and see!

what is intresting, though, is how these shadows of truth can deform into manichaeanism, dualism, etc. Popular entertainment is full of good guy/bad guy fiction, in which the bad guys are usually irredeemable - this is the challenge of the Gospel of course, that the irredeemable are redeemed, that we are all bad guys, and can't scapegoat someone else for our failures. But rather than meeting that challenge, too often modern culture blurs the lines the other way, making the good guys almost as bad as the bad guys, so that all are lost!

[Adrian Matthews]

Here is a very short extract from a book I wrote on intercession, from a section which deals with how to deal with those who question the validity of faith and intercessory prayer. I was struck by the similarities to the original post.


"Authentic Christianity is not (as it is often now portrayed) imperialistic or simplistic; nor should it model the exclusive sectarianism of the Protestant Reformation or Catholic inquisition, where people were persecuted and burnt for their differences in faith, but it is an expression of a Love relationship between God and His creation: a dialogue of Love and understanding, Grace, forgiveness, Healing and New Life.

Pluralism recognises our “right” to Orthodoxy but we must never become sectarian and exclusive or defensive. We should rather, embrace all those who question… and accept with a quiet heart and a turned cheek the attacks of those who are hostile to the historic faith of the church and Holy Tradition, which live again in each generation.

We trust in and know a God of Love and Grace who calls us into His Love and service to the world, particularly into the Opus Dei….the work of Prayer and service…the privilege of praying for and serving the world which He Loves and serves… in us and through us." © Adrian Matthews 2002. All rights reserved.

Blessings,

Fr Adrian.

[Theophrastus]

PS The other day when you said :

"I find it helpful to remember that even the solitaires are who they are, only because of community."

I allowed room in my reply for the possibility that you could be speaking of the community formed of those who had withdrawn/separated themselves--in this sense the monachos who give reality to the community of monachoi; however I am wondering if you would like to take a crack at developing this a little more. I'm not sure which thread in particular would be most appropriate, it seems many of the new threads have taken on the character of the An American Orthodoxy? thread in general. ;) The spin offs are really spinning. :) So, I guess you can decide which seems most appropriate to you, if you choose to move forward. Possibly, even here. I am not sure that the views expressed above are the majority view, so there may be room here knowing the minority view is not always to be associated with the immature view.



Hi Rick,

I actually didn't have in mind a community of monachoi, but that certainly would be one case. I was thinking more along the lines of the larger community composed mostly of laypeople and religious, and the solitaire coming out of that community, at least in terms of spatial organization. But the community actually formed the basis of the solitaire's framework for living, even if the solitaire no longer actually lives within the community on a daily basis. To put it more colloquially, "You can take the boy out of the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy". There would not be the Desert Fathers without the agricultural and urban communities in which the not-yet-Desert-Father is born; and it's the values of those communities that actually induce the not-yet-Desert-Father to go out into the desert. Certain communities have within them, this built-in value system that puts the community itself within a larger framework, such that the process of stepping-outside-the-community becomes a necessary element of the community's very survival. I think we might be seeing this in the West, where the very survival of the West will definitely depend upon people taking the West so seriously, that they "step-outside" of the West in order to revive it. (And by "West" I refer specifically to the set of psychological and cultural tendencies and thoughts that support both a mechanistic-empirical worldview and a liberal/non-ascetic moral-ethics.)

[Rick H.]

A Middle Way?: The 'Basis' and the 'Framework'


Hi Rick,

I actually didn't have in mind a community of monachoi, but that certainly would be one case. I was thinking more along the lines of the larger community composed mostly of laypeople and religious, and the solitaire coming out of that community, at least in terms of spatial organization. But the community actually formed the basis of the solitaire's framework for living, even if the solitaire no longer actually lives within the community on a daily basis. To put it more colloquially, "You can take the boy out of the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy". There would not be the Desert Fathers without the agricultural and urban communities in which the not-yet-Desert-Father is born; and it's the values of those communities that actually induce the not-yet-Desert-Father to go out into the desert. Certain communities have within them, this built-in value system that puts the community itself within a larger framework, such that the process of stepping-outside-the-community becomes a necessary element of the community's very survival. I think we might be seeing this in the West, where the very survival of the West will definitely depend upon people taking the West so seriously, that they "step-outside" of the West in order to revive it. (And by "West" I refer specifically to the set of psychological and cultural tendencies and thoughts that support both a mechanistic-empirical worldview and a liberal/non-ascetic moral-ethics.)

Dear Jetavan,

Now there's a keeper--thanks :) . . . "the basis of the solitaire's framework for living." As we consider worldviews [or the lack thereof] and psychological/cultural tendencies of any group or so called community we are right back to asking what is the basis? What is the foundation? You have articulated so very well what has been said in the past cannot be put into words, as it relates to this innate continuum of an ethic of doing and ethic of being . . . that includes as you say so well, a "built-in-value system." So, even here, we are again, considering what determines the rightness or the wrongness of an act such as a stepping-outside-the-community as a part of promoting/advancing the community. On a side note, I think it is a huge blessing that as you suggest at times, ". . .you can't take the farm out of the boy." But, to finish up here, you bring up a very good point, and a question that seems to be being asked repeatedly here on this site, as it relates to a "stepping-outside" for even just a look. As even today in the new "The Church:" thread Antony asks, 'who determines this:




OTOH, the question of Church seems to be rather the question of authority, of who is in charge, who speaks for that group, and who is in and who is out (and who says so).



Who determines the rightness or the wrongness of an act? In the West, as you have indicated, it would appear that the basis or the foundation is determined by a consideration of the consequences of a proposed act. But, at the other end of the board, conduct is not secondary to character is it? So, where does this leave the one who would seek the middle way, the way that is perceived to be the path of genuineness and sincerity--in spite of the two extremes which present themselves? This is the question.

Possibly, the answer is more clear just as you have presented it for the West. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, spoken in his first public address after being elected:

"We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest values one's own ego and one's own desires."

The choice is to either continue as loyal subjects of this dictator, and simply bob up and down and spin around for the rest of their live's committed to the obligation to advance there own welfare above all others--no matter what. Or, the can step outside as you say, and attempt to break free from this ethical egoism. So, this is very well put on your part, and I think an extremely accurate assessment of the current state of decline and stale period that the West finds herself in now.

But, what about other communities where there is less freedom to speak of a middle way? Where does this leave the one who would turn from both extremes, but not reject either? It does not matter if we are talking about such things as an ethic of doing or an ethic of being, the 'culture' of the West or the 'culture' of the East, or even seemingly competing systems of ecclesiology. Especially, as we consider an Orthodox Ecclesiology, which brings into harmony, into oneness a christological-pneumatology or a pneumatological-christology . . . where does this leave the one who would seek to live out his beliefs based on this foundation? This is kind of a theological/philosophical no man's land, but this is also a very real place, this middle ground that some farm boys, in fact, cannot be separated from no matter where they live. And, now my mind is going back a few years to when I was in a class full of other first year 'know-it-alls' besides myself, and I was making this same suggestion. And, when I was finished the class bully said, "Oh, I see, you are a fence sitter!!!" And, then he laughed at his joke very loudly until he started choking on his own saliva and made a mess all over his desk. But, he was not known for being a good listener (anymore than I was).

So, it seems, it is being said, that when it is recognized as such, the process of stepping-outside-the-community, can be a true source of blessing for the one who has withdrawn as well as those around her. Thanks for developing this more Jetavan, very good--"hat's off." And, now back to the well [one more time] on page one, of the An American Orthodoxy? thread . . . possibly, this is the crux, when IT is recognized for what IT is . . . or if, as Jurgen Moltmann has said:

"Creative powers are awakened at every age, when new possibilities emerge and if they are recognized as such. In this sense we are always standing at the beginning."

You just have to love those German theologians! :)


May we awaken to our personal potential within the Eucharistic Community.

In Christ,
Rick

"In the End, the Beginning"

[Antony Solomon]

Hi Rick,

I actually didn't have in mind a community of monachoi, but that certainly would be one case. I was thinking more along the lines of the larger community composed mostly of laypeople and religious, and the solitaire coming out of that community, at least in terms of spatial organization. But the community actually formed the basis of the solitaire's framework for living, even if the solitaire no longer actually lives within the community on a daily basis. To put it more colloquially, "You can take the boy out of the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy". There would not be the Desert Fathers without the agricultural and urban communities in which the not-yet-Desert-Father is born; and it's the values of those communities that actually induce the not-yet-Desert-Father to go out into the desert. Certain communities have within them, this built-in value system that puts the community itself within a larger framework, such that the process of stepping-outside-the-community becomes a necessary element of the community's very survival. I think we might be seeing this in the West, where the very survival of the West will definitely depend upon people taking the West so seriously, that they "step-outside" of the West in order to revive it. (And by "West" I refer specifically to the set of psychological and cultural tendencies and thoughts that support both a mechanistic-empirical worldview and a liberal/non-ascetic moral-ethics.)

This is what the Emergent Church is seeking to do, but I tend to see it as a product of post-modernism, rather than the cure of modernism. For the moment, I assume, Orthodoxy in the West is a part immigrant, part convert phenomenon. It will take time to produce homegrown Westerners who have an Orthodox pov. THAT will be the stepping outside: people loyal to the West, yet not in hock to its value sytem. Of course, that is what the Church was always supposed to be; instead it happily stands by as nations go to war...

But Rick is right; there is the problem of who decides. When Newman left the Anglican church, it was a very ambiguous act, since not long before he had been calling for the authority of the Bishop to be respected in the Anglican church, and here he was rebelling against that authority. Is there a way of squaring the circle?

[Andrew]

Of course, that is what the Church was always supposed to be; instead it happily stands by as nations go to war...


I don't think this is true... the Orthodox Church has fought against Western aggression against the Serbs, made known the atrocities against the Armenians, condemned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, fought against abortion, and made known the sufferings of the Palestinian Christians and other people. I would not characterize the Church as one who idly stands by as war erupts. I would rather say that the darkness of the world rages against the Light of Christ, but the Light grows more and more. The Church has suffered greatly over the course of the horrible twentieth century, and will continue even more so in the twenty first. The Orthodox in Kosovo, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are under terrible persecutions. The Orthodox in the West are on the verge of apostasy from the Truth of the Faith - we are always close to selling out the faith for ease and convenience; what communism could not do, consumerism has already done.

And in regards to Western culture, I think we should seriously take heed of the words of Sts Nikolai and Justin of Serbia, and that of Fr. John Romanides.

[Antonios]

This is what the Emergent Church is seeking to do ...


Pardon my ignorance, but the term "Emergent Church" is new to me. What exactly does this term mean? Thanks.

[Antony Solomon]

I don't think this is true... the Orthodox Church has fought against Western aggression against the Serbs, made known the atrocities against the Armenians, condemned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, fought against abortion, and made known the sufferings of the Palestinian Christians and other people. I would not characterize the Church as one who idly stands by as war erupts. I would rather say that the darkness of the world rages against the Light of Christ, but the Light grows more and more. The Church has suffered greatly over the course of the horrible twentieth century, and will continue even more so in the twenty first. The Orthodox in Kosovo, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are under terrible persecutions. The Orthodox in the West are on the verge of apostasy from the Truth of the Faith - we are always close to selling out the faith for ease and convenience; what communism could not do, consumerism has already done.

And in regards to Western culture, I think we should seriously take heed of the words of Sts Nikolai and Justin of Serbia, and that of Fr. John Romanides.

You are generally right; I was referring to the West specifically, and the current military ventures in the Middle East - the Evangelical churches were rounded up to vote for Bush, and you don't here too much dissension outside the 'Peace churches' like the Mennonites; however, we might well differ on the position of the Serbs in your list, but that's another thread.

[Antony Solomon]

Pardon my ignorance, but the term "Emergent Church" is new to me. What exactly does this term mean? Thanks.

Pardon me if I point you to the all-knowing Wiki... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church), since the definitions can be a bit vague.

[Nina]

I don't think this is true... the Orthodox Church has fought against Western aggression against the Serbs, made known the atrocities against the Armenians, condemned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, fought against abortion, and made known the sufferings of the Palestinian Christians and other people. I would not characterize the Church as one who idly stands by as war erupts. I would rather say that the darkness of the world rages against the Light of Christ, but the Light grows more and more. The Church has suffered greatly over the course of the horrible twentieth century, and will continue even more so in the twenty first. The Orthodox in Kosovo, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are under terrible persecutions. The Orthodox in the West are on the verge of apostasy from the Truth of the Faith - we are always close to selling out the faith for ease and convenience; what communism could not do, consumerism has already done.

And in regards to Western culture, I think we should seriously take heed of the words of Sts Nikolai and Justin of Serbia, and that of Fr. John Romanides.

Thank you, Andrew! You reminded me of the words of Papa (Father) Dimitrios Gagastathis: the Man of God-
"God saved us from communism, but Satan delivered us to materialism."

[Nina]

Pardon me if I point you to the all-knowing Wiki... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church), since the definitions can be a bit vague.

How does the "emergent church" relate to Orthodoxy?

If it is "emergent", it is not Orthodox.

[Antonios]

I must confess, I have not read the entire article on Wiki, though from reading just the two first paragraphs, I would add that where it states:

"Critics of the movement are often conservative evangelical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism) theologians and pastors who disagree with the movement's embrace of postmodernism, believing such a worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview) leads emergents to unorthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorthodox) theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism), antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism), universalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism), and syncretism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism). "

I would add the Orthodox as also critics of this movement.

I am not doubting the sincerity of those involved, nor am I judging their faith and love in Christ, but the Patristic teachings are quite clear regarding such an approach. It seems to me like another novel movement, with a lot of contemporary terms. The Church is not 'emerging'. The Church is here, and has been here, since the day of Pentecost.

[Andrew]

I must confess, I have not read the entire article on Wiki, though from reading just the two first paragraphs, I would add that where it states:

"Critics of the movement are often conservative evangelical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism) theologians and pastors who disagree with the movement's embrace of postmodernism, believing such a worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview) leads emergents to unorthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorthodox) theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism), antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism), universalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism), and syncretism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism). "

I would add the Orthodox as also critics of this movement.

I am not doubting the sincerity of those involved, nor am I judging their faith and love in Christ, but the Patristic teachings are quite clear regarding such an approach. It seems to me like another novel movement, with a lot of contemporary terms. The Church is not 'emerging'. The Church is here, and has been here, since the day of Pentecost.

I have a few friends who came out of the emergent movement and into Orthodoxy. The "emergent church" seems to me a thing for upper middle class urbane hipsters who find evangelicalism too passe, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism too restrictive. So they go out to form their own new thing borrowing from whatever suits their tastes. It is spiritual consumerism, but they do some good things too; their focus on communal Christian love and worship with the whole person is good, but it does not go far enough. For some people it is a bridge into Orthodoxy, though.

These friends of mine told me some things about these groups that seem to counter their claim to be inclusive, nonjudgemental, and non-dogmaticized. A friend of mine who is well educated, culturally informed, and has a very good heart once applied to Mars Hill, but was rejected because he didn't fit into their precise view of who correctly fits into their vision of "relevance."

But basically, what they're doing has been done before, many times, throughout Protestant history. It is another attempt to make Protestantism relevant to the current times by becoming like a nonexistant "Church of the New Testament". In the end it becomes a captive to the spirit of the times. Just as modernism had was a hydra to mainline Protestantism in the 20th century, splitting it into cold reactionism on one hand, and agnostic liberalism on the other, so too does postmodernism affect evangelicalism in this present day... modern ecumenism is basically a result of this, not directly of mainline Protestantism, but of the Spirit of the Times in the 60s. A lot of the rhetoric that comes out of certain modernist Orthodox institutions established around the time of the 60s, and those scholastics who followed from them, are permeated with the same popular assumptions of Western intellectual society of that time. These people were the ones who got us into ecumenism, and who still push for it nowadays... but anyways, I digress. For Catholics, Vatican II was a result of this whole captivity.

One one hand you have pop culture evangelical groups with satellite preachers, stadium seating with cupholders, coffee bars/snack areas, live soft rock music, and all forms of entertainment, and on the other you have the intellectual side of postmodernism with former evangelical young adult liberal arts students who like Foucault, Derrida, Bonhoeffer, Stanley Hauerwas, NT Wright, and tidbits of the Neptic Fathers, and little bits of Transcendental Meditation, and maybe a snippet of avant-garde theatre, or whatever they want. Anyways, this has been done before, and it is a dead end.

But again, we Orthodox should reach out to these people. They have a yearning for spiritual depth, for growth, and for a Christian life that extends to all aspects of being. They want an ontological Christianity, and they've been burnt out by a propositional pseudo-Gospel. But they are limited by baggage of egoism, self reliance, and intellectualism (like all potential converts of the West!). So, like past Orthodox missionary ventures, it is one of love and a call to repentance and true Life in Christ by a quiet witness of holiness and humility.

[Nina]

“The Spirit,” Bishop Kallistos declared, “is working in all kinds of ways— even in a movement like secular feminism. It’s very easy for us Orthodox to be ironical about that, and certainly sometimes within the feminist movement there are some things that are just silly. But we would be very, very much in error to dismiss the movement as a whole. It is a serious movement, there is a real searching there, and the Spirit speaks in the most unexpected places. And so there is something in the feminist movement, even in its more anti-Christian forms, to which we ought to be listening and from which we can learn.”Markides, Kyriacos C. Gifts of the Desert : The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality. Westminster, MD, USA: Doubleday Publishing, 2005. p 168-169.

Reading and rereading it, I honestly do not understand this... Can someone please explain what this means, because there is much room for interpretation... some can be borderline dangerous... How can Holy Spirit work in a movement that teaches women to be, dress, work, act like men? The same Holy Spirit that inspired the Apostles to write urging females for a feminine modesty and etc. ?

[Antonios]

But again, we Orthodox should reach out to these people. They have a yearning for spiritual depth, for growth, and for a Christian life that extends to all aspects of being. They want an ontological Christianity, and they've been burnt out by a propositional pseudo-Gospel. But they are limited by baggage of egoism, self reliance, and intellectualism (like all potential converts of the West!). So, like past Orthodox missionary ventures, it is one of love and a call to repentance and true Life in Christ by a quiet witness of holiness and humility.

Andrew,

Thank you for the prior post. A truly enlightening one. It is true, we Orthodox should reach out to these people, and all people. The difficult part is how to do so. Their search for Truth is as strong as all Orthodox Christians. I pray they all find it.

-Antonios

[Nina]

Andrew,

Thank you for the prior post. A truly enlightening one. It is true, we Orthodox should reach out to these people, and all people. The difficult part is how to do so. Their search for Truth is as strong as all Orthodox Christians. I pray they all find it.

-Antonios

I agree. Andrew, thank you again.

[Trudy]

How can Holy Spirit work in a movement [feminist movement] that teaches women to be, dress, work, act like men?

Dear Nina,

You have asked a very good question, as far as I am concerned.

I would suggest that this question be taken back one step in order to ask, Why would a woman want to act/dress/work like a man? What is it she is seeking that she thinks she is lacking?

In a few words: power, validation, acceptance, worth.

In my opinion, women do not realize the awesome, God-given power we have. We think it can only be found out in the world. We see men achieve great things, according to the world. We want the same. Or so we think we do. What we haven't accepted is the fact that we have the power to do something more mighty than men...bring life into the world, nurture and shape that life into a responsible God-fearing person.

If a woman wants to know what power is, just watch your child start to do something they aren't supposed to, stare at the back of their head boring a hole into it with your eyes, watch them turn around because they 'feel' your stare, and then WHAMO! Slam them with that, "DON'T EVEN THINK IT BUCKO!
look. It will stop them dead in their tracks.

THAT is power!

If a woman wants to know what validation is, wait till the same child reaches adulthood and says to you, "Ya know Mom, I'm glad you taught me how to be/do ____ (fill in the blank) because I am teaching my charges that same thing." Or when your adult child says to you, "Gee Mom, I'm more like you that I ever imagined and I'm glad!"

THAT is validation!

While I use humorous examples, truly I am serious. Women, by virtue of the way God made us, are strong. Didn't Jesus teach, "The meek shall inherit the earth?" That the weak vessel is the one He can use the most for His Glory?

I dunno. Just some thoughts to throw out there for consideration.

In Christ,
athanasia

[Nina]

Christ is Risen!

Dearest Athanasia,

I couldn't agree more with you!

Feminism and I are diametric. My synonym is: feminine. Therefore I am thankful that God made me what He pleased and willed!

But I was puzzled and perplexed by that passage; and I wanted to know what was really the meaning behind it. And not as an Orthodox, but simply as a female.

L,
N

[Antony Solomon]

I have a few friends who came out of the emergent movement and into Orthodoxy. The "emergent church" seems to me a thing for upper middle class urbane hipsters who find evangelicalism too passe, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism too restrictive. So they go out to form their own new thing borrowing from whatever suits their tastes. It is spiritual consumerism, but they do some good things too; their focus on communal Christian love and worship with the whole person is good, but it does not go far enough. For some people it is a bridge into Orthodoxy, though.

These friends of mine told me some things about these groups that seem to counter their claim to be inclusive, nonjudgemental, and non-dogmaticized. A friend of mine who is well educated, culturally informed, and has a very good heart once applied to Mars Hill, but was rejected because he didn't fit into their precise view of who correctly fits into their vision of "relevance."

But basically, what they're doing has been done before, many times, throughout Protestant history. It is another attempt to make Protestantism relevant to the current times by becoming like a nonexistant "Church of the New Testament". In the end it becomes a captive to the spirit of the times. Just as modernism had was a hydra to mainline Protestantism in the 20th century, splitting it into cold reactionism on one hand, and agnostic liberalism on the other, so too does postmodernism affect evangelicalism in this present day... modern ecumenism is basically a result of this, not directly of mainline Protestantism, but of the Spirit of the Times in the 60s. A lot of the rhetoric that comes out of certain modernist Orthodox institutions established around the time of the 60s, and those scholastics who followed from them, are permeated with the same popular assumptions of Western intellectual society of that time. These people were the ones who got us into ecumenism, and who still push for it nowadays... but anyways, I digress. For Catholics, Vatican II was a result of this whole captivity.

One one hand you have pop culture evangelical groups with satellite preachers, stadium seating with cupholders, coffee bars/snack areas, live soft rock music, and all forms of entertainment, and on the other you have the intellectual side of postmodernism with former evangelical young adult liberal arts students who like Foucault, Derrida, Bonhoeffer, Stanley Hauerwas, NT Wright, and tidbits of the Neptic Fathers, and little bits of Transcendental Meditation, and maybe a snippet of avant-garde theatre, or whatever they want. Anyways, this has been done before, and it is a dead end.

But again, we Orthodox should reach out to these people. They have a yearning for spiritual depth, for growth, and for a Christian life that extends to all aspects of being. They want an ontological Christianity, and they've been burnt out by a propositional pseudo-Gospel. But they are limited by baggage of egoism, self reliance, and intellectualism (like all potential converts of the West!). So, like past Orthodox missionary ventures, it is one of love and a call to repentance and true Life in Christ by a quiet witness of holiness and humility.

Amen.

People - created in the image of God - are yearning for something, and are trying what is to hand, be it the Emergent Church, Jediism, Buddhism. The truth seekers are out there, you just have to know where to look, to coin a phrase.

[Elena]

This is only my humble opinion but I think the point on feminism is that through this movement the domination of the weak by the strong has been challenged. If the ballenced and loving relationship which we believe should exsist between men and women is to thrive surely this is neccessary?

I'm not sure what everyone else here considers feminism to be, but I have always understood it to be the belief that men and women should be treated equally under the civic law and be free to choose the path of their life (within that law) with reference only to their individual talents and skills rather than to their gender.

The choices that some people make today as a result of the freedom this idea has given us may not be ones I would make myself, but I don't find this undermines the value of the movement. If we examine the roots of the movement, women such as Mary Wollstonecroft we can see that they were reacting to the obvious injustices that women were prone to. Such injustices continue today, not everyone has the freedoms we do, all over the world women suffer to be dominated, rejected and humiliated on the grounds of their gender. Surely if feminism can temper or overcome such actions as it has in our societies it is a good thing and hence has the spirit working within it.

[Trudy]

Elena,

Well put and good points that I agree with.

~Athanasia~