A Russian Orthodoxy?

[Rick H.]

"A Distinctive Style of Orthodox Theology"

Dear Monachos Discussion Community,

Long before it ever occurred to me to even just visit an Eastern Orthodox Church, I was picking my first primer in Historical Theology off of the shelves. In this introduction to the History of Christian Thought, the author seemed to go out of his way to use words like 'distinctive(s)' and 'distinct' very often when he would reference Russian Orthodoxy. In this volume as a whole, I was very impressed by the very low level of bias by Alister McGrath as he covered much ground in a short time. As anyone who is familiar with his interest in Paleo-Orthodoxy knows, he does have views of his own, like all of us, but as he wrote of Historical Theology, again I was very impressed with his scholarship as well as his wider knowledge of other traditions and denominations. However, after looking through this work again recently, and from a somewhat more informed point of view now, I am interested in exploring, in general, Russian Orthodox distinctives.

And, it occurs to me that there is a significant Russian influence here on Monachos.net, so what better place to begin an exploration of this topic! I'm not sure where to begin though. Possibly, with the mindset of the Byzantine missionaries who were sent out, possibly with some of the complex political events that have occurred in Russia over the years up to modern times. I'm not quite sure. Possibly, at some point, there may be a greater level of awareness gained by considering how along the way, some Russians who were promised freedom, after helping those come into power who made the promises, instead of freedom they were rewarded with such things as tanks and barbed wire.

But, as the case is made that from the conversion of the Russians, at some point around 988, and by the end of the fifteenth century, Russian Orthodoxy had "its own distinctive style of theology," I would like to try to understand better what this distinctive nature is--and possibly what the ethos is which lies behind it.

Thanks very much to any who could help me to understand this question better as it relates to 'a Russian Orthodoxy?'


In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Rick Henry wrote:


But, as the case is made that from the conversion of the Russians, at some point around 988, and by the end of the fifteenth century, Russian Orthodoxy had "its own distinctive style of theology," I would like to try to understand better what this distinctive nature is--and possibly what the ethos is which lies behind it.

When it comes to the 'ethos' or 'spirit' of Russian Orthodoxy I've never been sure if this was only in one's imagination or if it actually reflected reality. In some sense though these two are often connected and in the case of Russia this is especially so.

At one time and maybe still it used to be very popular here in the west to speak of the kenotic spirit of Russian Orthodoxy. Examples such as St Theodosius, the Passion bearers Boris & Gleb and St Seraphim of Sarov were only a few of those particularly pointed to. In what way however were these saints similarly different from let's say Byzantine monastics or saints? Here things get more murky and I honestly have never known how much of this kenotic spirit was real if by real we mean distinctly Russian.

The fact is however that the question of the spirit of the Russian Church did preoccupy the Russian community in the 20th century. This had a notable effect on how Orthodoxy was viewed and taught within much of the Russian Church here in the west. It's true that a good deal of the motivation behind this was related more to cultural issues- the place of Russia within a larger westernized world- than religious ones. And it's also true that the answers given were often affected as much by modern Romanticism and German Idealism as what could be found in the Holy Fathers. But still the larger issues of religion and culture do profoundly affect Russian Orthodox to this day and a number of answers given in the 19th century still powerfully resonate.

I'm not sure that the 'spirit of Russian Orthodoxy' preoccupies those within the Church in Russia as much as it did or does us here in the west. The Church in Russia is affected now mainly by the way in which it is growing in numbers and social influence in a way not seen for a long, long time. In a way this is quite unprecedented in the rest of Orthodoxy and has to be experienced to be understood. It is really astounding & gives a resonance to their Orthodoxy on a level not seen here.

Basically the commitment shown by those who attend church is very obvious. Except that among Russians obvious is connected more to an overall ascetic commitment. Individual displays as one might see here are very little in evidence except in the case of the fool for Christ or at times apocalyptic type. (last May when visiting St Sergei Lavra there was a young man marching around with a pot of white paint and sign around his neck which said, 'clean up Russia'.) The presence of the many poor begging at church doors and their acceptance by the faithful also fits into this category. In Russia even what is different or eccentric speaks of the larger social/spiritual ethos. Indeed Russians can react very strongly and even violently at times to 'difference' which goes against the moral grain of the larger community.

Apart from this we can also speak of the definitely traditional direction of Russian Orthodoxy right now. Most of the committed faithful engage in serious fasting, attendance at services, spiritual reading (and now listening & watching with all the modern Orthodox media available) & sacramental participation including frequent confession and reception of the Eucharist. The growth of and support for monasticism is strikingly evident. Also there is a strong charitable element in the Church's work which includes support for the poor and sick, prison work, and the abused & afflicted of many sorts.

This brings us to a last comment on an aspect of the Church in Russia very different from here which is the involvement in society at large. The Russian Orthodox Church is the Church of the nation and people in a way which is very different from here in North America and much of the west. Even in comparison to the Church in Greece the Russian Church is far more a part of the living, breathing world of everyday Russians and this goes even for those who do not attend Church. Basically, since the collapse of communism Russian Orthodoxy is seen as a social force for the potential good of society even though it remains critical that the Church balance this involvement when it comes to political forces within society. But still though the Church is evident in society in way very different from here.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andrew]

This is not an insult directed towards Russians...

I think Russians are naturally wild and barbaric, but this is coupled with an intense intelligence. As pagans they realized this, and rejoiced when they found Orthodoxy. They saw the urgency of the need for salvation, for the Cross of Christ, the need for the ascetical life, and the power of grace within the Church. The characteristics of Russians fed directly into making a Churchly culture. The savage drive of the Russian was baptized and became an intense pursuit of salvation. When seperated from the Church, Russians tend to delve back into a pagan sort of barbarianism... under communism the persecution of holiness, under consumerism debauchery and crass sensuality - buying expensive clothes, fornication, excessive drinking, partying, etc.

But again, Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. Holiness is universal, and the saints of Russia are more than the saints of Russia. Russian Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. The "spirit" of Russian Orthodoxy is the pursuit of Christ in the ascetical-sacramental life of the Church.

orthodoxengland.org.uk has some good writings on these topics.

[Olga]

I think Russians are naturally wild and barbaric, but this is coupled with an intense intelligence.

Very well put, Andrew. Having a foot in both Greek and Russian camps, I can certainly vouch for the "all or nothing" nature of Russians. They are not known for doing anything by halves. Abject poverty and unimaginable splendour. Great saints and seemingly irredeemable sinners. Paragons of selflessness, and perpetrators of the worst barbarity and inhumanity. Of course, all nations and cultures have elements of these characteristics, but the spectrum is widest among the Russians. Anyone who has read even a small amount of Russian history, or has had something to do with Russian people, will soon realise that they are even more paradoxical than Greeks :-o

Years ago, I heard a radio interview with a Russian physicist who had emigrated to the US (as did many scientists, mathematicians, etc) following the fall of the Soviet system. The question was put to him: Even taking into account the large population, Russia seems to have produced a disproportionately high number of brilliant and ground-breaking scientists and mathematicians over the last couple of centuries - was there an explanation?

The physicist replied that he and his colleagues in the field would regularly get together to discuss their work. Someone would offer an idea, an explanation or a hypothesis on some matter. The rest of the group would proceed to howl him down, criticising what had been put forward, trying to poke holes in his argument. The meeting would degenerate into a slanging match. Yet, out of this chaotic rabble, the REALLY good ideas would come forth! Order arising out of chaos, indeed.

[Father David Moser]

One of the things that seems to come out to me is that the different Orthodox cultures seem to reflect the different aspects of the soul - as each is emphasized or de-emphasized in the culture. I don't really have a whole lot of solid concrete or scholastic evidence for this assumption so I can only say that this is an observation that I have made concerning especially the Mediterranean (eg. Greek, Arabic) cultures, the Slavic cultures and the Western (eg. Western Europe, North America, etc) cultures.

As we know from the Fathers, there are three basic aspects of the soul - the incensive (feeling) aspect, the desiring aspect and the intellective (reasoning) aspect (heart, will and mind). In the Mediterranean culture, the incensive aspect seems to be the primary aspect of the soul. This is described by the "fiery" or "passionate" descriptions of personalities (or as it is described in a review of Zorba the Greek "in love with life").

It has been my experience that Greeks and Arabs tend to be emotionally volatile - one moment passionate and demonstrative foes and the next the most intimate of friends. The writings of the desert fathers also frequently focus on controlling or taming the heart and the incensive passions.

Russians, otoh, tend also to be given to emotional outbursts, but the core is not the incensive aspect but rather the desiring aspect. One need only to read the ruminations and internal thoughts of Dostoevsky's heros and he will see this clearly. The desiring aspect is primary in the Russian culture often working under the surface and then erupting in sudden "all or nothing" passionate outbursts flowing from the desires which pulse under the surface. Although the intense emotional outburst may appear similar to the Greek culture, the root is different and the desire/will drives these outbursts and makes the Russian a passionate and tenacious debater. The writings and sayings of the Slavic startsi are more often focused on this desiring aspect of the soul (Look at the prayer of the Optina Elders which focuses entirely on surrendering one's own will - the seat of the desires - so that one may live entirely by the will of God.)

Westerners tend to be more "rational" The British reserve, the American intellectualism. We are driven to "understand" and "make sense of" things. The primary push of our personality is the intellective. We always have to know "why" BEFORE we will adopt some practice. We equate learning and understanding with superiority. There are no "American" fathers to equal the ascetic desert fathers of the Mediterranian or the hermetic forest dwellers of Russia - but those that emerge will be both intelligent and at the same time will address the over dominance of "intelligence" and reason in our culture.

Thus, when we look at "Russian Orthodoxy" one of the characteristics that differentiates it from the Greek or other cultural expressions is the predominance of desire - the deep burning desire for God and the absolute necessity of surrendering oneself completely to the will of God.

As I said these are just informal observations and ramblings. My overgeneralizations of various cultures were not meant to insult or even to describe all members of a culture, but only to describe a general trend - so if I have offended or in any way misrepresented a particular individual I bow down and beg forgiveness. And you know - I could be wrong.

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

I do not mean to disagree with what others say about emotions, wildness, rational people etc.

But am I the only one who drives in this area of the world? Road rage? Drivers killed because they unwittingly run over a dog? Clubs and pubs full with people who get drunk up to the point of being unconscious, or indecent in public? People abusing sex, drugs, others? Daily shootings and violence in my city (can't watch the news)? etc. What is rational about these phenomena?

These kinds of examples do not point to a rational people/culture etc. Certainly I do not mean to generalize, but just to emphasize that all people of the world are different and we can not classify an entire nation in the same category.

[Rick H.]

Dear Nina,

I hear you. And, I think that people are people and human nature is human nature. And, as we consider what has been called Russian Orthodox distinctives further, I think we have been helped along very well by some of the above posts, especially Fr. David's. Believe it or not, I am not a big fan of categories and overly systematic approaches; however, I have found that at times informal observations (especially when linked to the received thinking of a group such as the fathers, or by making use of comparison and contrast) can be most insightful and illuminating. At times, as I think we see above, the subjective can be most helpful in increasing one's awareness, and again at times worth much more than what is presented as objective and concrete. But, as we may continue here with our exploration of Russian Orthodox distinctives, I just want to say yes, and I hear you. Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Yes, Rick I hear you too. I just thought to contribute with what impressions I have from here as an outsider observant since people are giving impressions about others as outsider observants as well. I think it contributes to a more interesting and diverse disscusion (if you are for diversity and a better understanding). Also I would not equate Russians of 1 century ago, with the Russians today for example.

However it is very interesting for me to read what it is being said about the Fathers and I would love to learn more from all the incoming input, therefore I meant no disruption. Just a reminder that Fathers were people who had achieved apathia (passionless state/dispassion) and they always addressed audiences for correction of passions and avoidance of sin; and there is sin everywhere (in both forms hot and cold; premeditated and impulsive). And frankly, "nothing changes under the sun".

Because: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. " (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

and as Andrew said:



But again, Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. Holiness is universal, and the saints of Russia are more than the saints of Russia. Russian Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. The "spirit" of Russian Orthodoxy is the pursuit of Christ in the ascetical-sacramental life of the Church.

[Nicolaj]

At first it is a need to say that the History of Christianity in the East didn't start at 988, it started a little bit earlier on as the Holy Apostle Andreas was on the tour bringing the gospel to the people living on the shores of the Black See. It is said that he blessed the hills where later the city of Kiev was to be build.

I think about the things around 988 the most here are informed. I think it remarkable that someone here said that the Russians are wild and barbarians. Well it is true we are wild and so on but what is more important we are straight. Our yes is an yes and our no is no. And so is orthodoxy lived in the east. And it is the yeast which you find in the whole society. Even the people who don't attend church at all, well they know exact what feast is on and what is to do in the house and the family to have a proper feast. And that even after so many years of communist devastation.

This summer I visited the city of Kiev myself. It is such a beautiful city and all the holy fathers there at the Pecherska Lavra! Already from the plane you can see the golden domes of the churches spread all over town.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Anthony]

I think it remarkable that someone here said that the Russians are wild and barbarians.

I found it remarkable as well.

I think the comment that was nearest to the mark was that Russia in some way combines the most glaring opposites; extreme tenderness (milost') with extremes of brutality. Russian historians commenting on the latter often like to attribute it to the Mongol invasion, and although I am an amateur here, I think there is a lot of truth in this. At any rate, harsh circumstances do not always bring out the best in people. But I don't know that this trait is worse in Russia than anywhere else. In my last visit to Ekaterinburg I was drugged, attacked and robbed, and I can tell you that this was not a particularly pleasant experience. But if that had been London, I would probably not be around to tell the story now. In fact if you are looking for barbarism, I would say that you don't need to look much further than London at pub closing time.

As somebody else who has a foot in several camps (actually far more camps than I have feet), obviously I am aware of differences in character, and sometimes I try to generalise about them. I think this is second nature (though possibly it is partly fallen nature). Although it can be interesting (and I certainly found some of Fr David's comments interesting), there is a big danger of using too broad brushstrokes when trying to do this. Almost any generalization I try to make, I immediately come up against counter-examples. I am not sure, just to take an example which I know well, that I can come up with generalizations about the British which cover equally Scottish highlanders and Londoners. Never mind trying to deal with the big bad world which begins at Calais...

[Andrew]

I think the term "barbarian" was too loaded. I'm sorry if it came across the wrong way. I meant that Russians at their best and worst do not fit in with a western sense of "civility."

[Anthony]

Dear Andrew,

I understand what you meant, and am sorry if I seemed to be getting at you. (Actually I had forgotten who had used the word anyway.)

Anthony

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Anthony has provided a helpful counterbalance with his comments about broad strokes and generalizations, I think. While we can allow room for such thinking of 'rules' and 'exceptions to rules,' especially when taking a sociological turn such as we have here right out of the gate, I think his comments are well placed.

As Anthony has views on the Scottish Highlanders and Londoners, I could also share my views based on my experience with such things as American Fundamentalism. Or, as I may, with full confidence provide an outline of Baptist distinctives, for example, which would be based on my experience and backed up with works on Baptist history, we do see a value in such offerings. Or, as we read from a previous post from Fr. David, in the 'Letter from Russia' thread (pertaining to cultural issues):





Not at all - I am saying that in this case such strong language may be necessary. Sometimes you have to hit the mule on the head with a 2x4 just to get his attention before you can teach him anything.

[ . . . ] For example, as a pastor of a "mixed' parish, I have to talk very differently to the American converts than I do to the Russian immigrants. If I spoke to Americans the way I speak to Russians sometimes, the Americans would get all upset and insulted and they would never listen or learn anything. OTOH, if I spoke to the Russians the way I do to Americans, they would never even hear what I am trying to say to them. Be very careful of assuming that your cultural norms will apply universally.



we do see a clear illustration that while people are people and human nature is human nature, there are some real differences that need to be grasped, and understood, and in this sense both the fields of sociology and anthropology can offer some very helpful insights (as well as observations from the pastors who are in the trenches every day).

But, again, ultimately, Anthony provides timely and helpful comments for us here.

In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

When, last week, my wife (and her parents) and I were driving around central Italy, there were times when I was anxious about finding the way, getting to where we were staying before dark, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc. My wife said (Russian outburst!), 'why don't you become Orthodox? Pray to St Nicholas and stop being anxious!'

As to being barbaric, etc, the cause of the Russian character is that they have never been free, save, to an extent, for a brief period between the 1860s and 1917. There has not been a time when the ordinary Russian could develop a sense of responsibility for himself and feel he had some stake in his society. This was so before the Revolution but more so during communism. The 'freedom' since the early 1990s is merely licence for gangs of criminals to do what they like. Russian authority at any level doesn't trust the people. Russian bureaucrats and officials are control freaks. To some extent, this gets reflected in the ROC. What goes on in the sanctuary is concealed from the people. The eucharistic prayers are never heard. Can't trust the people with that sort of knowledge! They forget the etymology of the word 'liturgy' - work of the people. When, in the parish I attend in Moscow, there was a request for money, I asked my wife when they had parish meetings, who was the treasurer, and how often were accounts published? She laughed with heavy irony: 'you're joking! They never do such things. The people are told nothing!'

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

The real spirit in eastern orthodoxy and for those who want to reduce this on Russian orthodoxy is some different of the way it is looked at in some 'western' cultures! For example it wouldn't come on an orthodox christ in the East to break his mind over money. They are poor there, and when I mention poor I mean POOR. Having to less to live and to much to die. And therefore it is quit normal when the priest asks in the church for money for this and this. And it is always a good investment to give and not to know what is done with your alms. It is just the westerners who heavily trust on the power of money, which separate from there most holy cow so grievous. They want given account what the priest is doing with THEIR money!! Don't worry about such things, it isn't yours any more, neither was at any time, just given to you for a short moment from your heavenly father.

In the orthodox churches of the East, although there is no need for me defending them here, nobody is expelled from the things the priest is doing in the sanctuary, all are invited to get familiar with the prayers he does and all things done there, but there are things that are just the priest allowed to do and nobody else. As from the quotation by his wife I understand that Andreas isn't orthodox himself. The people are encouraged to know and read the prayers the priest says in the sanctuary. Also the prayers he does before the liturgy starts and so on.

Generalising isn't a bit of help to put this discussion forward. The way the USA lives the few centuries of written history there, they aren't the best example of being civilised. The British way of self understanding it's role in history through the ages neither. And so I can continuing on and on. The Church in the East isn't in this world it is the place where heaven and earth are bound together. It is the place where I find salvation. Where I can come and repent, taste a bit of the life to come.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

Nicolaj raises an interesting point - should the eucharistic prayers be audible? Russians I know think they should be and object that they are not. Why should not the people hear them? As to accountability, I take Nicolaj's point that what we all have is from God, but God expects us to be responsible with and for what He gives us. Surely a parish should be open to avoid any doubts about what is happening: trust comes from transparency. Does this not happen as a matter of course in western parishes? It did when I was president of the Sheffield parish. I wonder what the clergy here think?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Nicolaj raises an interesting point - should the eucharistic prayers be audible? Russians I know think they should be and object that they are not. Why should not the people hear them? As to accountability, I take Nicolaj's point that what we all have is from God, but God expects us to be responsible with and for what He gives us. Surely a parish should be open to avoid any doubts about what is happening: trust comes from transparency. Does this not happen as a matter of course in western parishes? It did when I was president of the Sheffield parish. I wonder what the clergy here think?

I think that the general kind of parish structure that we have in the west is for the better. It would be interesting to know a bit more about the origins of this. Was it borrowed from other western churches already long established here? Was it a putting into place of what was found in the 'old countries'? Or was it the establishment of a structure thought to be more in accord with the life of an Orthodox parish?

Looking at our own history (rocor) I suspect there is a lot of the latter. Our church came relatively late to the west (as a distinct body anyway). It's strongest influences were the Patristic/monastic revival within the 19th century Russian Church with a critical edge as far as western culture went. It's immediate adoption of the parish structures familiar to all of us in the west (parish council, sisterhood, etc) probably was the result then of a conscious decision concerning what would be best for Orthodox parish life within its purview. The bylaws reflect not just a legal or practical structure but rather a deeper Orthodox philosophy concerning parish life. For the most part the intent of the bylaws is reflected in parish life.

Most all here in the west however are also familiar with the fact that parish structure and bylaws have often been the subject of great abuse. Parish participation can be something for good but it can also work to tremendous evil and damage within a parish. Basically this occurs whenever self-will, materialism, & worldliness gain the upper hand within the parish. Here begin the famous all out fights between parish & priest or parish & bishop.

But the problem doesn't necessarily have to result in this kind of acrimony. It can also result in an inner spiritual lethargy in the parish or else with what is quite common nowadays- the replacement of the spiritual life with a social life. This has a more thought out angle where surrounding cultural values are consciously adopted rather than- as with the older way- drifted or fallen into. In this more modern take on an old problem because the parish is 'active' it is considered as being in good shape. At its most extreme every aspect of its life is governed by a committee to the point that everyday charitable acts which should be the result of spontaneous giving are now voted on.

We should also admit that this western sense of 'nothing is real/valid unless I've put my stamp on it' also affects the shape of our liturgical life. More understanding and participation in a certain sense does give real life to a parish. But not every prayer in the services (the prayers the priest prays during the services) is meant to be said out loud. A more critical approach needs to be taken here. Here the meaning of each prayer within the larger context of the service should be looked at. Perhaps some of the prayers said out loud would have a place while others would not.

Like everything else here in the west it has taken us time to learn the best and most Orthodox way of doing things. Basically we have had to find a balance between the deadness produced whenever there is little understanding of the need for common participation within the Church & the stifling atmosphere which results when nothing can be achieved except through the consultation and approval of everyone within the parish.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

And it is always a good investment to give and not to know what is done with your alms.
Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

Truly He is Risen!

Exactly! What about the money one gives to a beggar? Does that someone chases the beggar to see what is being done with his money? These feelings come from pride (I am not excluding myself). We should remember that we give that money to Christ and stop our thinking there. If one wants to know, they should ask Christ about the mansion being built in Heaven for them with the alms/help they give.

I do not think it is the society in the west, or east thinking like this. It is the humans of our times all over the world. We have become too proud and too wretched and have surpassed other generations in evil. Our pride, materialism, consumerism and comforts are enslaving us daily. (This is not meant as preaching for others, this is meant first for me from personal experience and from what I observe around me.)

Like today, a year ago my mother passed away. I do not know about her alms and help - where those are and I do not wish to know. I can just tell you about the material belongings she left behind. The Holy Fathers are so right (and I can not even express it how right they are) that we die and we leave all things behind. The Fathers keep repeating it and we see it happening around us (people dying and leaving everything behind) but somehow the evil one convinces us that we are different and it is going to be different for us. Where is the knowledge about what is being done with our money then when we die? Maybe it is better to transfer most of the money in the heavenly realm so at least we have some mercy from God. And who said that is our money anyway? What we have, Fathers say is from God and we are managing His gifts, and the time when we will respond how justly and well we managed them will come. Instead of being so proud and controlling of our money now, we need to remember what will we tell to God when we are in front of Him about the gifts He allowed us to manage.

Look at the icon of Saint Sisoes when he saw the remains of Alexander the Great. All is vanity. The eternal life is what counts.

If you do not trust some people, go share the money with the poor. There are so many poor people in the world today that it is a shame calling ourselves modern people.

Also we must read the stories of the Saints. Saint John the Almsgiver the Patriarch of Alexandria gave three times to the same beggar who run through a shortcut to ask him for money. The people who were with the Saint thought that the Saint was being deceived by the beggar and warned the Saint. Saint John with a smile reminded them that he knew, but he was giving that money to Christ. We are given by Him and we give it back to Him, it is that simple.

Also another wonderful saint whose feast-day is approaching in December is Saint Philaret. His story is amazing. Reading these lives is very beneficial because these lives help refocus us spiritually and although we can not follow in the exact gigantic footsteps of the Saints, we can at least try as a miniature imitator of them since they all imitated Christ.

[Nina]

But the problem doesn't necessarily have to result in this kind of acrimony. It can also result in an inner spiritual lethargy in the parish or else with what is quite common nowadays- the replacement of the spiritual life with a social life.

I couldn't agree more with you Father Raphael. Sometimes looking at the church calendar for a parish I see only 2 Divine Liturgies beside the Sunday Liturgies for an entire month which has some of the greatest saints we have and most of them are not commemorated with Liturgy. It is so saddening and a shame for our generation... Where are the vigils, paraklesis, vespers, matins??? We have the beauty of Orthodoxy, we have the freedom and peace thank God, and we do not take advantage of them. What will those, who worshiped God in catacombs and during persecution, say to us during the Last Judgment? We have become so soft, so fragile, so self-centered.

On the other hand the calendar I was speaking about above has daily (and at least one and sometimes up to four) social activities.



This has a more thought out angle where surrounding cultural values are consciously adopted rather than- as with the older way- drifted or fallen into. In this more modern take on an old problem because the parish is 'active' it is considered as being in good shape. At its most extreme every aspect of its life is governed by a committee to the point that everyday charitable acts which should be the result of spontaneous giving are now voted on. So true!



We should also admit that this western sense of 'nothing is real/valid unless I've put my stamp on it' also affects the shape of our liturgical life. More understanding and participation in a certain sense does give real life to a parish. But not every prayer in the services (the prayers the priest prays during the services) is meant to be said out loud. A more critical approach needs to be taken here. Here the meaning of each prayer within the larger context of the service should be looked at. Perhaps some of the prayers said out loud would have a place while others would not. I do not understand why we lay people put so much pressure on our priests about such things? I know that there is pride involved, because I know pride first-hand very well since I am a very proud person. However what will we do when we go to Heaven? Will we tell God that He should not do things the way He does because it does not suit us? There is a certain order in this life and universe as established by our God. We need to keep our place because if we are not brave and worthy enough to become priests/monastics we should also accept the fact that there are things which should be mysteries for us since our status is lay people. Of course there are prayers which are told only by the priest because I as a lay person with all my sins and weaknesses I can not dare to say such prayers to God. Because not only I lack the grace of priesthood, or schema etc., but also at the end I should remind myself: "Who am i?" And at least in my case the answer given in unison by the universe is: "Nothing." And maybe what was told to Saint Thais the Harlot, is true for all of us: "Because of your sins you are not worthy to say with your lips the name of God, or to raise your hands and eyes towards the sky, but you should pray thus: You, Who made me, have mercy on me the sinner."

[Andreas Moran]

If there is nothing to hide, why not publish acccounts? I just think that if everything is done in a proper manner and above board, you minimise opportunities for the devil to sow mistrust and dissension. Of course, in England, and, I suppose, in North America and Australasia, parishes will take advantage of charitable status and so be obliged to keep and publish accounts.

[Effie Ganatsios]

concerning the Russian character :


I just wanted to outline my own experience with Russians, given the fact that for at least 20 years, a Russian engineering company (EMI) was part of the consortium of foreign companies that erected 2 of the electrical power stations (4 units) in this area. As I was personal secretary to the General Managers of these two consortiums (German and French) over this long period, I had daily contact with our Russian partner as the same company was part of both consortiums).

I found Russians to be both well mannered and very easy to work with. I realize that I had contact only with the top levels of this company but I know that both the Germans and the French had no problems with them at all levels of technical co-operation. Only on two occasions was there any friction. Both times had to do with WWII. The Russians take a 3 day holiday to celebrate the end of WWII and the Germans became extremely sensitive during this period.

Whether they are brutal or not is not something we should discuss. We have had recent experience of so-called "civilized" countries being extremely brutal and barbarian.

I agree with Nina. It is best not to generalize about "national characteristics" because they have proven time and time again to be incorrect mainly because they are usually based on false premises.

Get to know people from different countries, learn about their culture and their history. You will find that people are much the same everywhere. We have quite a few Russian immigrants here now and even though I have never been in a position to make friends with them, I see how pious they are in church and I admire them for this. They are not afraid to go against the flow, they keep their own customs and are proud of them.

Effie

[Andreas Moran]

I cannot agree that people are the same everywhere. Russians are given to extremes of emotion and reaction, both good and bad, which the cold, reserved English are not. Russians doing business abroad will be different from Russians in Russia. Within Russia, there are differences. Native Mucovites are not the same as people who come there from the provinces. Russians have been damaged and brutalised by their history.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I cannot agree that people are the same everywhere. Russians are given to extremes of emotion and reaction, both good and bad, which the cold, reserved English are not. Russians doing business abroad will be different from Russians in Russia. Within Russia, there are differences. Native Mucovites are not the same as people who come there from the provinces. Russians have been damaged and brutalised by their history.


I agree that communism has left scars on Russia's people, but I definitely do not think that "national characteristics" are inbred. Perhaps it is more a matter of the society you live in.

Perhaps the English living in England are "cold and reserved". Here in Greece a large percentage of English tourists are incredibly vulgar and ill mannered. They publicly act in a way that can only be described as immoral and outrageous. Can we infer from these inferior people that all the English are like this? I think not.

Effie

[John Charmley]

Dear Effie,

You write:

Can we infer from these inferior people that all the English are like this? I think not.

I am sure it is simply a linguistic slip, but there are no 'inferior people' - we are all made in His image.

In Him,

John

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear Effie,

You write:

I am sure it is simply a linguistic slip, but there are no 'inferior people' - we are all made in His image.

In Him,

John

Forgive me, John and thank you for correcting me.

Perhaps, inferior behaviour, behaviour that does no honour to those who act in a certain manner. I won't go into details because images of what these people did last summer and during previous summers, have been shown around the world I believe, and if their behaviour has not been shown in England, it certainly should have been. But certainly inferior behaviour, or if you will, behaviour that is more beastly than human.

We do not detest people, but we can certainly detest the behaviour of some people. Being unjudgmental and forgiving does not mean we should meekly say that whatever people do is right and good.

Prov 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

Prov 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

Prov 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

Prov 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Prov 11:20 They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

Prov 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness..


Froward (frowardly)
Meaning: turning back to one's own ways; difficult to deal with: stubbornly disobedient or contrary; going in one's own willful ways.

Thanks again for correcting me. My fingers sometimes type quicker than my brain thinks.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Concerning Russian orthodoxy : I posted a link on another thread concerning Parish spirituality. Section 6 of the text refers to Russian orthodoxy and is well worth reading.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8141.asp

"“Thus we love Russia because she preserves within herself the Russian idea, the Russian spiritual character, the Russian way of life. This idea is God’s Kingdom, this character is the striving for holiness, this way of life expresses in itself the efforts of the 700-year life of the country and the 900-year life of the people to establish in the land the godliness of the Gospels, to reject everything so as to find Christ and to apply His will and the canons of the Church as the law of social life. "

[John Charmley]

Perhaps, inferior behaviour, behaviour that does no honour to those who act in a certain manner. I won't go into details because images of what these people did last summer and during previous summers, were shown around the world I believe, but certainly inferior behaviour, or if you will, behaviour that is more beastly than human.


Dear Effie,

certainly, I am sure, behaviour of which they need to repent. How much easier the open sin than the secret, the public misdeed over the private, for the former we can see and condemn; the latter - well, whited sepulchres come to mind.

Generalising on national characteristics is something many of us do, but I suspect Andreas' point about the effects of history is more relevant here. Quite often on this forum comments get made about 'western freedom' which imply it is not all it is cracked on to be. That is no doubt true, since one of the things we inherit in the west is the exaggerated expectation that things will always get better, but with all its many downsides, it is a freedom we cherish - and you don't seem to get a great many people emigrating to places where it is absent.

It may be relevant to recall what the initials ROCOR stand for, and why it was necessary to be 'outside Russia' for so many brave and pious Russians. It must have been hard for patriotic Russians to have to settle in a west they had been taught to be suspicious of; but they seem to have managed, and in becoming Orthodox westerners should beware of taking on that very old Russian mistrust of the 'west' and all its doings. Without the west, with all its faults, it seems unlikely that there would be a free and growing Orthodox Church in Holy Mother Russia.

I sometimes spot something of a parallel with the way some Europeans regard the USA with scorn; they too should remember that without it, we'd mostly be speaking German - or Russian.

So, with all that is wrong with the West, let us remember that Orthodoxy's mission has been greatly aided by it - and not least by the USA, where Orthodoxy itself seems to be growing daily.

In Christ,

John

ps. Perhaps one should add North America so that Canada's contribution, so often forgotten, is remembered.

[Effie Ganatsios]

It is true that Russian orthodoxy suffered under the communists. I think we have all read accounts of the first years of this regime and the burning of churches and monasteries with people still in them - the same thing happened to many of the peasants who refused to give up their harvests. It's uplifting to realize that through this trial the Russian people managed to hold on to their religion.

I won't go into detail concerning the "west" and who we would be governed by today etc. No one has forgotten, although it seems that today people forget that tiny countries like Greece fought heroically and their losses were far greater per population than many other countries. Greece was the first country to win victory against the Axis in WWII and this is now forgotten unfortunately - or perhaps is not even known to younger people.

John, we need to respect each other and that is why I said that people were much the same all over the world. Most of us are honourable, we want to live in such a way that when it is time to die we are able to do so with a clear conscience. We want to make this world of ours, which, incidentally is becoming smaller and smaller each year, a place where our children are not afraid to live. It is so easy to generalize about certain nationalities and I believe that it is a grave misjustice when we do this. Let each person be judged on his or her own merit.

Do you know of any countries that have not committed atrocities at some time in their history? Yesterday it was your turn, today it is mine, seems to be what political arrogance is all about, no matter whether the country committing the atrocities has been labelled a democracy, a theocracy, a dictatorship or whatever else you might like to call it.

Thank God that there are good people committed to truth and honour in every country on this tiny planet of ours. They are the yeast that might not be heard or seen but that continues to work, sometimes against great odds, to ensure that we do not slide down into complete anarchy.

Effie

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

So many of as Orthodox live within or are greatly affected by the 'ethnic' side of the churches we are in. So I have been thinking about a suitable reply to this discussion.

I think that mainly the point of all this comes down to a pastoral question. How for example would we pastorally respond within a Russian parish to the people we find there? If you are already Russian then perhaps the response comes so naturally you don't realize you're making a conscious effort. But here for example in our parish where there are so many non-Russians a conscious effort is called on. Basically this has come down to assessing who people are.

Thus many of the recent arrivals from Russia who attend our parish are already quite formed in their Orthodoxy. This is very different from the first arrivals 10 years ago. As many notice present day Orthodoxy in Russia is definitely on the 'traditional' side. They go in for services done in length, quite frequent participation in the sacramental life, spiritual reading, etc.

It is also striking to us from the west how 'physical' new Russians are in their manner of Orthodox expression. Most all of the women insist on heads covered during the service (and afterwards at coffee or the meal also). Genuine crossing of oneself accompanied with a bow each time is very noticeable.

At the same time while it is true that Russians can be very expressive (but we have a couple of women who are very quiet and meek mannered by our standards) they tend to be so in a different way from the west. Usually it is more personal, accompanied by gestures and language which denotes you are 'in their space', much more easily than we are used to.

Though not entirely thought out our parish has responded by trying to be more serious in our spirituality. I have noticed for example some of the changes in our older people who have been here for many years. More heads are covered and I think participation at some of the services besides Liturgy has increased. Without feeling threatened (or at least expressing this outwardly) there have been positive changes within the parish due to the influence of the new arrivals.

On the other hand the new arrivals have also had to change in their own way. Our life here is marked by the need for adaptability and the new arrivals have to learn that our parishes are not a duplicate (what I call the Russian religious embassy abroad) of Church life in Russia.

Here an assessment of how this is positively so (not easy since so many of our reactions are essentially defensive in nature) is very important. For example as commented here already the parish structure we have here in the west is a real positive. And once new Russians 'get it' they usually respond and begin participating in a real way. Without being superior about this we have to learn how to present this difference in a positive way to the newcomers. And since it actually responds to an aspect of their own culture (small groups communally deciding on and then acting on certain matters) this is very possible. But we in turn have to learn to give up our old proprietorial habits of mind in achieving a transition from the older to the new generation of Russians.

A last point which calls for change from the new arrivals. Some of our jurisdictions have a definite mandate to the new arrivals. This is part of the responsibility of our jurisdiction. The Russian aspect of this though has to be tempered by the fact of arrival in a new environment. Without going to extremes the Church should be able to present aspects of this culture which can correspond to the Church. And this especially relates to the children of the new arrivals who at a certain age almost certainly partially assimilate.

Without renewing the 'ethnic question' which we have discussed here many times before it seems the Church is best served by following the Royal Road and avoiding the extremes at either end. If we ourselves as 'native land' Orthodox are taught to have a critical approach to our culture then our approach shouldn't encourage new comers to mindlessly assimilate for the sake of our 'native church'. But on the other hand we also shouldn't present our church as a religious embassy abroad since it already is something different and shaped by a century or so of active Orthodox life here.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Effie Ganatsios]

Fr. Raphael, I have been thinking of how much easier it is for people like me who live in countries where orthodoxy is an inseparable part of the culture.

What would I do, how would I react, if I were living in a culture where many different nationalities came to my church to pray? Would I accept them as they are, would I expect them to adjust to how things are in my particular church, would I try to "remake" them into what I consider to be the "proper" orthodox person. Would I resent the fact that they cling to their own traditions and customs from their old country? I suppose all of the above could become causes of discord amongst the church members, if they let them.

Would I be up to the test? Could I be humble enough to just accept the wonderful diversity of humanity and allow myself to be enriched by these people and their different ways. I have a sneaking suspicion that God would have a good laugh at me and my endeavours.

As I said, we have it much easier here. On the other hand, we miss out on the advantages of getting to know people who are different from us.

Effie

[Nina]

People are people everywhere. As confirmation read the Old Testament and see that we all originate from Adam and Eve. It is true that some are like Abel, some are like Cain, some are like Enoch, and some are like Seth. In my case I meet only the good ones I guess. :) However as you can see from Adam's sons, only one, out of four is a "bad" guy. So people are good everywhere in the world and let's remember that. We do not need more stereotyping and hatred in this world.

More importantly, Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy everywhere. Because we are members of the same Body, the Body of our God Jesus Christ. I never heard a Father of the Church say divisive things about Orthodoxy, trying to categorize from nationalities. The only categorization is what God will do at the Last Judgment: deified and sinners; Heaven and Hell.

[Effie Ganatsios]

People are people everywhere. As confirmation read the Old Testament and see that we all originate from Adam and Eve. It is true that some are like Abel, some are like Cain, some are like Enoch, and some are like Seth. In my case I meet only the good ones I guess. :) However as you can see from Adam's sons, only one, out of four is a "bad" guy. So people are good everywhere in the world and let's remember that. We do not need more stereotyping and hatred in this world.

More importantly, Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy everywhere. Because we are members of the same Body, the Body of our God Jesus Christ. I never heard a Father of the Church say divisive things about Orthodoxy, trying to categorize from nationalities. The only categorization is what God will do at the Last Judgment: deified and sinners; Heaven and Hell.

Good post, Nina.

Effie

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

We all know about the treasurer in the community of the apostles, there is nothing more to say about this theme here. And yes it is an western desire to control the money at forehand. Andreas it is not about that the parish the things with the money haven't done properly but it is not bringing any fruits for your and mine nor anybody else salvation. And it isn't in that way not a thing that should bother you, me or anybody. Thinking about the money, caring the money is very difficult and has many temptations in it. Worrying about the money isn't an orthodox attitude at all!! Open your hands, open your purses and moneybags and let Satan out!
And this attitude of having things done in a right way doesn't count here a bit!

About culture, what is there to see clearly is that mankind has always have and still has a strong xenophobia. But such things implemented by input here aren't acceptable for any orthodox christ. We aren't that close to criminals as thought by some members, we are civilised people and we do have a long and solid tradition in Orthodoxy! And we are very proud of it, although this isn't our work, but we stand in this tradition and we keep to it. Everything changes on earth and all is in a flow as told by the moderners, but the orthodox church is keeping everything at the right place, because Jesus is the same tomorrow as he was yesterday and is today.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Nina]

we'd mostly be speaking German
John


Ummm, Merriam-Webster tells us that most etymologies of English words are from Old German.

And just for the record, the German people I know, or I have met, are wonderful. Also many German immigrants have settled during the past in the USA, and today one can meet their descendants everywhere. German festivals here are huge. Many places have German names.

In this great country, in America, people are very embracing. They accept one for who he/she is, regardless of nationality. They do not dwell in the past. They are elated to meet someone different and it is genuine because they have twinkles in their eyes when they talk to someone different. I like this attitude so much.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear Brethren!

The real spirit in eastern orthodoxy and for those who want to reduce this on Russian orthodoxy is some different of the way it is looked at in some 'western' cultures! For example it wouldn't come on an orthodox christ in the East to break his mind over money. They are poor there, and when I mention poor I mean POOR. Having to less to live and to much to die. And therefore it is quit normal when the priest asks in the church for money for this and this. And it is always a good investment to give and not to know what is done with your alms. It is just the westerners who heavily trust on the power of money, which separate from there most holy cow so grievous. They want given account what the priest is doing with THEIR money!! Don't worry about such things, it isn't yours any more, neither was at any time, just given to you for a short moment from your heavenly father.

In the orthodox churches of the East, although there is no need for me defending them here, nobody is expelled from the things the priest is doing in the sanctuary, all are invited to get familiar with the prayers he does and all things done there, but there are things that are just the priest allowed to do and nobody else. As from the quotation by his wife I understand that Andreas isn't orthodox himself. The people are encouraged to know and read the prayers the priest says in the sanctuary. Also the prayers he does before the liturgy starts and so on.

Generalising isn't a bit of help to put this discussion forward. The way the USA lives the few centuries of written history there, they aren't the best example of being civilised. The British way of self understanding it's role in history through the ages neither. And so I can continuing on and on. The Church in the East isn't in this world it is the place where heaven and earth are bound together. It is the place where I find salvation. Where I can come and repent, taste a bit of the life to come.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

A couple of things I wanted to comment on : "And it is always a good investment to give and not to know what is done with your alms. "

I agree with this because, first of all, a person who is temporarily in a difficult position economically finds it much easier to accept money from a priest, and secondly, the donor is anonymous and therefore is not tempted to feel good about himself.

"In the orthodox churches of the East, although there is no need for me defending them here, nobody is expelled from the things the priest is doing in the sanctuary, all are invited to get familiar with the prayers he does and all things done there,"

We also hear everything the priest chants or prays when he is in the sanctuary even though it is very low toned, while at the same time we are listening to either the psalters or another priest who is continuing with the service. I thought this was normal for all orthodox liturgies.

Effie

[Nina]

"In the orthodox churches of the East, although there is no need for me defending them here, nobody is expelled from the things the priest is doing in the sanctuary, all are invited to get familiar with the prayers he does and all things done there,"

We also hear everything the priest chants or prays when he is in the sanctuary even though it is very low toned, while at the same time we are listening to either the psalters or another priest who is continuing with the service. I thought this was normal for all orthodox liturgies.

Effie

Yes, dear Effie. And here we also have the Liturgy books published and available in every church where we sit. It is not that there are secrets; and we can read in the books the prayers where it says "Priest says in low voice".

[Andreas Moran]

Yes the texts of prayers are published, but that is not the same as experiencing the prayer of invocation being said by the priest at the most sacred part of the Divine Liturgy. Surely all our spiritual energy is concentrated on that moment, and I find in Russia, because the Eucharistic prayer is not heard, something is lost. The prayer does ask, after all, that the Holy Spirit come upon us, and then upon the Gifts. In parishes here and at the monastery in Essex, the prayer of invocation is heard and the people respond with their 'amens'. The work of the people, as I said before, not the preserve of the clergy. Is there any reason why the prayer should not be audible?

[Andreas Moran]

Just to clarify, when Nikolaj says, 'Andreas is not himself Orthodox', my wife meant, 'why don't you embrace a more Orthodox spirit?'

[Effie Ganatsios]

Yes the texts of prayers are published, but that is not the same as experiencing the prayer of invocation being said by the priest at the most sacred part of the Divine Liturgy. Surely all our spiritual energy is concentrated on that moment, and I find in Russia, because the Eucharistic prayer is not heard, something is lost. The prayer does ask, after all, that the Holy Spirit come upon us, and then upon the Gifts. In parishes here and at the monastery in Essex, the prayer of invocation is heard and the people respond with their 'amens'. The work of the people, as I said before, not the preserve of the clergy. Is there any reason why the prayer should not be audible?

Something I am curious about : Andreas, you say that in Russian the Eucharistic prayer (The Holy Anaphora) is not heard. Isn't the Orthodox liturgy the same in every country? I always assumed that it was. As Nina mentioned the complete liturgy is in our liturgy book and we can listen and follow everything during the liturgy. My liturgy book has been published bythe Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and the greek version is on the left and the english on the right, which makes it very easy for me to follow and understand everything. I didn't know that perhaps in some countries some parts of the liturgy are hidden. I know of course that we don't see everything the priests do in the sanctuary, but we can hear and follow the chanting.

The only thing I would wish is that the beautiful words of the Holy Anaphora be chanted a little more slowly than they presently are by the priest so that we could appreciate them more

Effie

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Effie,

In one sense, yes, the Divine Liturgy is the same everywhere save for some variation in the prayers sometimes included or omitted. But the manner of celebration can vary. The normal case in Russia, in both parish churches and monasteries (in my experience), is that after 'Holy, Holy Holy, Lord of Sabaoth' nothing can be heard from the sanctuary until, 'Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos'. The choir meanwhile sing some hymn so that anything that could be heard is not, so the Anaphora cannot be appreciated at all. This is not Greek practice in which (in my experience) everything can be heard. Yet, it seems that making the Epiclisis audible is not actually forbidden - there are one or two churches in Moscow where the priest does make these prayers audible, and many people go to these churches exactly for that reason. My own feeling is that the faithful are, in the normal Russian practice within Russia, deprived of that sense of sublimity, even the very purpose, of the Divine Liturgy. That feeling is shared by my wife and members of her family. I'd be interested to know if there are sound reasons for the practice.

As for not seeing what the clergy do, that was not the case in the early Church. In Sami, on the Greek island of Kefalonia, the village church was rebuilt after an earthquake and the design of the iconostasis and sanctuary appear to have been modelled on designs from the early Church (there is a reconstruction in the Byzantine Museum in Athens). There are marble stands for the icons and just a low marble ballustrade marking off the sanctuary so everything in there can be seen.

[Nina]

Thanks for telling me about this. Does anyone know if the frescoes on the walls of churches were also a part of the early churches?

Effoe

Effie, I do not know exactly but we should remember that there was not freedom in the society for the Early Church. From the catacombs we know that they used the fish symbols and letters.




As for not seeing what the clergy do, that was not the case in the early Church.


I am no expert in this field, however common sense and some critical thinking tells us - Which early church?

The one where the original Pentecost happened? The ones in the catacombs in the midst of persecution? - by the way developments in periods of persecution were not in this aspect of Christianity. However the blood and lives of martyrs became the foundations of the Church (and literally we do the same when a church is being built).
Or the ones after the persecution? As we know the Liturgy today is that of Saint John Chrysostom. He was born centuries after the very first Church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

As I understand it, what would eventually become the iconostas actually started as a low railing used simply to keep the crowds from jostling the celebrant and knocking over the Eucharist during the Liturgy. It became more elaborate over the years. IIRC, St. John of Kronstadt encouraged a more open iconostas in his time.

YIMV (Your Iconostas May Vary...)

[Rick H.]

As to being barbaric, etc, the cause of the Russian character is that they have never been free, save, to an extent, for a brief period between the 1860s and 1917. There has not been a time when the ordinary Russian could develop a sense of responsibility for himself and feel he had some stake in his society. This was so before the Revolution but more so during communism. The 'freedom' since the early 1990s is merely licence for gangs of criminals to do what they like. Russian authority at any level doesn't trust the people. Russian bureaucrats and officials are control freaks. To some extent, this gets reflected in the ROC. What goes on in the sanctuary is concealed from the people. The eucharistic prayers are never heard. Can't trust the people with that sort of knowledge! They forget the etymology of the word 'liturgy' - work of the people. When, in the parish I attend in Moscow, there was a request for money, I asked my wife when they had parish meetings, who was the treasurer, and how often were accounts published? She laughed with heavy irony: 'you're joking! They never do such things. The people are told nothing!'



Dear All,

I think Andreas has provided a very helpful post in the above. This is in agreement with my research so far, as I think we can pull from the above, about Russian distinctives, that there is a:


lack of freedom
lack of personal interest in society
underdeveloped sense of responsibility
view of officials as control freaksMy Mother in law is from Russia. She has actually just become a US citizen recently. My Father in law travels to Russia for his business on a regular basis. Working with Russian industries, he has shared a common expression in Russia with me that speaks to some of this. In Russia, it is said that the employers pretend to pay the workers, so the workers return the favor and pretend to work. I am under the impression that this is a general principle whether one is working in a paper mill or on a road paving crew. So this would support the above comments about a lack of personal interest and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility. But, I wonder if there are any others here who could speak to the issue of a lack of freedom and possibly how this may affect one's mindset towards political and religious matters?

In Christ,
Rick

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren.

Talking from a point having a certain insight in the problems Russia is facing at the time I would like to bring some points.

First, it is obvious that in Russia people having their problems with the relative freedom they became after the Fall of communism. It is relative because more freedom wasn't taken by the people and they aren't used to get along with it. After some years of confusion, about what Russia was going to be after communism, the oil crisis and the globalization provided the Russian state with money and newly national proud. In this clime the government starts a new politic of oppression.

Second, the wealth doesn't come to most Russians. Most of them are poor as I already said in a previous post: To less to live and to much to die.

Third, many jobs are provided by Mafia-like organizations where you have to be some kind of member and deliver some of your earnings. If you don't, well, anybody knows someone who tried, but may not live to tell. Police isn't very motivated to risk their lives to change this, because the live-expectation for their occupation group isn't that long.

Fourth, responsibility in categories of society is a luxury that most can't effort. They take responsibility that there is something to eat at home and that they having a place to live and for more there is no energy left!

So you see that there are lacks in the Russian society but I ask myself if it is better in the US, because there I also can see many things that don't work out right.
But as the years will go on it will be interesting to see how Russia will develop. The younger generations have visions and ideas and they have the future, and they will shape it this way or the other.


But as this thread is about Russian Orthodoxy I like to make some marks here as well.
The situation in the churches is euphoric, many people come and attend the services, the seminaries are to few to take all the young men, and the monasteries are prospering. In the churches the people are hungry for the words of the church and they buy very many books and also appreciate many offers the church has beside the services. For example, the role of the anonymous alcoholics, is in the east taken by the church which has a very good and successful ministry here!
So our Russian Orthodox Church does well and that is also the way we feel as the flock. We have very wise men in the church, then as token of the blessings by the Lord, He has given us wise men, capable to stand in the ongoing tradition of the Starets. Just to remember, our Patriarch said no to a invitation of the RC pope for Russia.
So by all the things there are to say about the development of Russian society, it would do the discussion good, to separate them from those in the Russian Orthodox church.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

According to the teachings and prophecies of Russian saints and elders, it is impossible to separate Russia's political past and present from the destiny of the ROC and her faithful, indeed, from the end of the age. Russians do not expect the sort of democracy we have in the West (though no one elected Gordon Brown as prime minister!) and which, in England, took centuries to evolve. What Russians would like is 'freedom from', not 'freedom to'. They want to be free from corruption, from criminality and lawlessness at all levels, from vast wealth being creamed off by a very few, from the swamping of their communities (in Moscow) by non-Russian migrants, from the indifference of authority to the condition of so many of the people. The Church is free to exist and operate but needs to be careful to remain free from too much money being thrown at it. To paraphrase St John Chrysostom, God wants golden hearts, not golden cupolas.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think we can pull from the above, about Russian distinctives, that there is a:

lack of freedom
lack of personal interest in society
underdeveloped sense of responsibility
view of officials as control freaks

Dear all,

I've rather remained on the sidelines in this thread; but the above does lead me into a few thoughts.

To me, this sounds very much like an overtly external view of things - a somewhat negative assessment forged by 'those on the outside looking in', and I do question whether it accurately reflects things from a more subjective, 'internal' vantage point. Of course, some of this is only to be expected in a discussion which consists of many people of a different culture
(indeed, different cultures) trying to forge a new stereotype - for whatever reason - of a distinct culture and its characteristics; but even so, I do wonder if these above set of observations / assessments doesn't bend things much beyond the breaking point. Sometimes acceptance of an outside view skewers things just too much.

To state that Russian distinctiveness might be characterised by a 'lack of freedom', causes me at once to question the categories one is using. The statement only makes any sense to me at all (and then, only barely), if the criterion of 'freedom' one is applying is one of a particularly Western type -- essentially a Western European / North American perception of what constitutes 'freedom', forced on an intrinsically more eastern-comme-Asian culture. Perhaps Russian culture does not conform to a certain construction of 'freedom'; but the basic characterisation I think speaks more of a somewhat domineering approach to seeing other cultures, than it does of any specific characteristics of Russians. I have always found Russian culture and history (current as well as ancient) to be characterised by a quite profound emphasis on freedom, though freedom understood quite differently than it is in the UK and the USA, whose own political histories define it in a very constrained manner.

This seems more true yet with a characterisation of Russian distinctiveness as including a 'lack of personal interest in society'. This seems a commontary even more obviously grounded in a preconception as to what 'personal interest in society' means and ought to look like -- a preconception to which Russian culture does not mesh, thus identifying a 'lack'. But this seems to me to take little account of the idea that 'society' and one's 'responsibility' toward it, might be perceived quite differently in a Russian context. Within that context, which tends not to see 'society' in terms of specific political constructs and obligations (of which it has had many, and radically different, in its history), but in terms of a received heritage transcending changing political vicisitudes, I would be inclined to say that Russians are at least as, if not more, interested in soiciety and one's role within it than are most western Europeans and north Americans.

This is yet all the more pronounced in the characterisation of an 'underdeveloped sense of responsibility'. This seems again profoundly culturally biased. Developed in relation to what? Responsibility in respect of what? In terms of responsibilities in familial relationships and social ties, I would find Russian culture in many ways far more developed than in the USA or Britain.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

To respond to Fr Dcn Matthew, I would say that such insights and perceptions as I have of Russia and Russians have been formed from conversations with my wife and her family. It is true that the US administration has a 'one size fits all' view of what is good for the world in terms of freedom and democracy (which it is happy to abandon as its interests require), which is why US and European criticism of the Russian administration is often so inapt and sometimes just plain inaccurate. So, yes, Russia does not conform to other constructs. My wife and her family tell me that ordinary Russians have never felt that they have a stake in their society because the Russian state and all its organs from top to bottom have little or no regard for the individual. There is no sense of responsibility by the organised community to individuals and so none from individuals to the organised community. I have many examples of this. The police are corrupt at all levels. The idea of a policeman being there to serve and assist citizens (as in England) is laughable. You can be stopped for no reason, either driving or walking, be told you've done something you haven't, and be relieved of $100 or so. There's nothing you can do about it. Hooligans regularly set off fireworks near your apartment block, day and night. There's nothing anyone will do about it. An organised gang of men from somewhere in the Caucasus can try to take over ownership of the block where you live - residents have to organise round-the-clock vigils to stop them literally occupying the place. No one in authority is interested except in the bribes that may be paid for transfer of ownership. You can't open a business without paying protection money. No one takes the Duma seriously as a democratic body - my wife has no idea who her Duma representative is because there's no point, he wouldn't do anything. Huge new apartment blocks go up metres from yours, with no permission at all. Residents protest but nothing happens. And yet. And yet . . . you slip into a little church or a monastery, light a candle, venerate the icons, pray a bit, and you can forgive Russia everything, and you feel a deep sense of 'Holy Russia'. As Churchill said, Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

[Rick H.]

Dear Deacon Matthew,

While it is clear that there is no world class scholarship going on in any of the posts here, it appears that you have misunderstood the objective(s) of this thread, and the method somewhat. I can imagine you are very busy now in your new position; however, in the first post of this thread you may observe we are actually working towards a consideration of what has been pointed to as being a Russian style of Orthodox theology, and in this sense Russian Orthodox distinctives.

I'm sure you do not dismiss research that is accomplished by interviewing people familiar with a given topic. This is usually considered a most acceptable means as it relates to hearing from' insiders,' in this case Russians who are friends and relatives of some of the posters here. There is a huge Russian community in my neck of the woods. It is from these folks, sometimes in very broken English that we learn of life in Russia of today and in the past, as we work our way towards our intended goals. But, and here's the part I want to get across, we must be willing to stop and listen! Otherwise, things will never make any sense to us, and in this sense we have no choice but to remain on the fringe of a consideration such as this.

I am familiar enough with Alister McGrath to know that often times when he uses the term "distinctive style" as it relates to subjects such as ours, he usually links the terms 'polemic' and 'defensive,' or 'aggressive' with his topic. Possibly, you are familiar with his writing on Byzantine Theology and you know what I mean. In fact, as it relates to this thread, it occurs to me that you should be able to contribute in a substantive way, as this is in your area of training. But, as it relates to where we are now in this conversation, I do not think you should be so harsh about Andreas's comments. His comments are very intelligent, and well informed, I think. What he has shared should not be hard to understand, based on my research, it makes perfect sense.

His main points, which I have bullet pointed, are exactly what the Russians who I have interviewed are telling me! I am not familiar with your background, possibly you are a Russian or have spent much time in Russia? But, as a counterpoint, your last post is a stand alone point of view so far in my efforts in this area. In fact, I am looking forward to sharing you last post with my Russian friends, to get their reaction. Especially, when you say:




I have always found Russian culture and history (current as well as ancient) to be characterised by a quite profound emphasis on freedom, though freedom understood quite differently than it is in the UK and the USA, whose own political histories define it in a very constrained manner.



And, I noticed that you did not address the issue of control freakery as it relates to those in authority; however, hopefully, you will have time to contribute from your field as it relates to our consideration of a Russian Orthodoxy: "A Distinctive Style of Orthodox Theology."

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

'Interviewing' persons from a specific culture or context is in itself only data collection. How one goes about analysing the data that has been observed and received is where that material has the potential to be and to do and number of things. It can be simply taken in and repeated by sharing it in some other context - a pattern that is nine times out of ten unhelpful and misleading, as data without contextualisation and consideration is always intrinsically biased by the transmitter and the reader. It can be considered from a purely external vantage point, which may offer some objective clarification, but may also wholly distort the real significance of what has been received / observed. It can be considered from an internal vantage point, which may retain its own biases and frustrations. Ideally, such data is met with an attempt at external objectivity paired with a desired authenticity to the complexity of a subjective context.

To me, the following list of 'distinctives' of Russians and Russian culture, even if gleaned from comments heard from real people at first-hand, falls squarely within either the first or second category - of being decontextualised and therefore fairly unhelpful data, or data heard, interpreted and relayed through a very external set of judgements:




lack of freedom
lack of personal interest in society
underdeveloped sense of responsibility
view of officials as control freaks

The reasons I think these are dangerous and unhelpful comments I've tried to explain - a bit, at least - in my previous post.

I have, in fact, Rick, been reading this thread as it has developed from its beginning, and it is particularly with reference toward the project of trying to characterise 'a Russian style of Orthodox theology, and in this sense Russian Orthodox distinctives', that I think this kind of setting is very dangerous.

No one doubts or questions that many Russian people complain of freedom and roles in society. But in what context are questions about these topics being raised? What definitions of the terms are being employed, consciously or subconsciously? In comparison to what? If a Western European model of 'freedom' and 'responsibility' has now mass-markeded its influence so effectively that even people in the heartland of Russia or elsewhere begin to make self-assessments based on comparison to its standards, do these claims really tell us much?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Rick,

Firstly, I think it important to distinguish between Russian society now as it is structured post communism and Russian Orthodox society. The communist mentality by many remains among those that used to be communist in society even though that society has changed. Such ones are still in positions that "serve" society. Indeed that very notion (communist in charge of the MP) was central to the schism between the MP and ROCOR that thanks be to God has been healed by Russians with a much different attitude than that of "control freaks".

I agree with Father Deacon Matthew, there often has been a quite profound emphasis on freedom. Just look at the larger picture if you will. The Bolshevik revolution came about through a sense of freedom albeit wicked. Certainly there was a non-lack of freedom expressed by those that freely stood up and ended up being killed. The rather recent transition from communism to something else that is happening now came about rather abruptly from that same sense of freedom.



Originally Posted by Rick Henry

I think we can pull from the above, about Russian distinctive, that there is a:

lack of freedom
lack of personal interest in society
underdeveloped sense of responsibility
view of officials as control freaks

The conclusions that have been reached by Rick Henry however he arrived at them, reflect a deeper problem that has caused many problems in the past, namely, that of creating ones own truths based upon observing things really from a very "outside" perspective within their own minds.

I'm Russian Orthodox, I find there to be:

Russian Orthodox Christians that are very interested in society, see Bishop Kyrill's or many of those that participated in unification on both sides as many Russian Orthodox Christians expressed concerns about the changes within Russian society. See those that had been murdered for a lack of personal interest in society when they oppossed the changes in society. See those Russians that read the newspaper to see what is happening in Moscow.

Russian Orthodox Christians that are very interested in freedom, see those comments as well in the aforementioned dialog. In short, see the healing of the schism between the MP and ROCOR as an example.

Russian Orthodox Christians that view officials outside the Church to have some different motivations than those that are sincere inside the Church.

Russian Orthodox Christians with a profound sense of responsibility to many things, see "Who has sinned?" That is a Russian Orthodox saying when trouble arises so that Russians stop for a bit to consider and reflect upon their behavior and the consequences of their actions.


"God forgives."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Andreas Moran]

I did not take Rick's use of the word 'interviewing' to mean that he interviews Russians as if he were a reporter. Certainly, I have not 'interviewed' my Russian relations and friends in Russia.

What I tried to do in my last post was to indicate that the comments I have made on life in Russia today are not an external view since they are not those of an outsider looking in but are an accurate report of the view of Russians (who happen to be my relations in law) who find that the problems I have mentioned are a regular part their lives, and of mine while I am there. If I am stopped by a policeman for no reason and relieved of $100, as I have been, that, I think, indicates a first-hand experience of Russian society, not an abstract attempt to 'forge a new stereotype'. A 'negative assessment' is understandable if you're walking the dog and hooligans let off very loud fireworks metres away and make the dog go berserk, or if fireworks wake you up at 2am. Every car journey we make as family is made tense by the worry of being stopped by the ДПС (traffic police) for no reason and being relieved of another $100. That tends for me and my relations to a negative experience. Now that the view from our apartment windows is ruined by illegally-built apartment blocks, we find the quality of life there reduced. Such assessments are not based upon a Western European model of freedom and responsibility, but are the natural response of any person anywhere who knows very well when things are not as they should be by comparison with any minimum and universal criteria.

Russians, like everyone else, have an innate sense of what is right in society and what is wrong. If certain organs of state and authorities are supposed to be there to fulfill certain functions and they don't (and even countervail those functions), the resultant view of that society by those living in it is one which would be common to anyone, and not one 'perceived differently in a Russian context'. I do not see how a faithful relaying of what Russians think of their society can be culturally biased. Indeed, an 'inclination to believe' what Russians think about their society lacks, I would respectfully suggest, the very precision for which Fr Dcn Matthew contends.

[Nina]

What I tried to do in my last post was to indicate that the comments I have made on life in Russia today are not an external view since they are not those of an outsider looking in but are an accurate report of the view of Russians (who happen to be my relations in law) who find that the problems I have mentioned are a regular part their lives, and of mine while I am there. If I am stopped by a policeman for no reason and relieved of $100, as I have been, that, I think, indicates a first-hand experience of Russian society, not an abstract attempt to 'forge a new stereotype'. A 'negative assessment' is understandable if you're walking the dog and hooligans let off very loud fireworks metres away and make the dog go berserk, or if fireworks wake you up at 2am. Every car journey we make as family is made tense by the worry of being stopped by the ДПС (traffic police) for no reason and being relieved of another $100. That tends for me and my relations to a negative experience. Now that the view from our apartment windows is ruined by illegally-built apartment blocks, we find the quality of life there reduced. Such assessments are not based upon a Western European model of freedom and responsibility, but are the natural response of any person anywhere who knows very well when things are not as they should be by comparison with any minimum and universal criteria.

Russians, like everyone else, have an innate sense of what is right in society and what is wrong. If certain organs of state and authorities are supposed to be there to fulfill certain functions and they don't (and even countervail those functions), the resultant view of that society by those living in it is one which would be common to anyone, and not one 'perceived differently in a Russian context'. I do not see how a faithful relaying of what Russians think of their society can be culturally biased.

Dear Andreas and all,

The two posts from Father Deacon Matthew offer a very balanced approach and a wonderful one, and it is wise to have his words in mind here. Because after all we are Christians and categories, we built to place entire nations, do not save us.

Talking about an entire nation as if it was one person, it is never profitable. People you might interview might be a considerable number and you might be related in all ways possible to them, but that is not a strong argument because the opinion of twenty is not the opinion of the entire nation about what is going on in their country.

Also let us not forget that many ex-communists are not happy with their newfound status after the communism collapsed in those countries. I have seen and witnessed that first-hand myself in several ex-communist countries. And yes, I am sorry for those people because with the fall of communism they fell from comforts and perks that communism offered them.

However I feel more sorry about the other innocents souls, who perished, who were persecuted, robed, imprisoned, exiled, ruined economically, psychologically, who were terrorized etc. by the communist elites and their loyal servants. It is painful also to think of the churches and monasteries closed, or destroyed, the icons, religious books burned, for the clergy and monastics who were assassinated, murdered, exiled, persecuted etc.

Let's not forget that most of those who complain today in ex-communist countries were the people who tried to demolish the Church in those countries and ruined many people and families. But who complains about the lives of those they killed and destroyed? Many endured and even perished without a single complain because that was the cross imposed to them by the communists, and many endured it with a Christian stoicism and forgiveness. Those who suffered and perished, or survived, are the weak, those are the ones who know how to forgive.

Communists always had a target of attack, if there was nothing, they invented one. In one particular ex-communist country of northern Europe, many ex-communists, even those who were not members of the elite, complain today about the new economic system by saying: "In the past the communist leaders thought and cared about us and we did not lack a thing. Now [after the fall of communism] we are suffering so much." Such hypocrisy, or insanity, when they know very well that they sat on bones and the blood of many innocents. Maybe denial.

Also if those ex-communists and members of the elite complain about their nation, they should know that what destroyed the person, in those countries, was the "brilliant" communist idea of building "the new person". A person striped from the virtues Christ and Church taught; a person stripped from the natural human feelings God implanted in us; a person who was to be a loyal marionette for the communist system either from fear, or from the brainwashing communist propaganda etc. etc. etc.

So if there are many wrong things going on today in an ex-communist country, it is thanks to the philosophy of communism which many people fervently helped spread. It has nothing to do with the soul of the people. People are created good by God because we are created in His image.

But since we are in this thread as Christians that we are, I have a question (for all those who bring here categories of nations) which dawned on me after reading several negative characterizations of several nations by some here. How will you spread the love of Christ to those nations and people, if you have so many negative preconceived ideas about them as nations and people?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas,

I rather suspect we agree on most aspects of this discussion - and indeed on our observations of and engagements with Russian culture and spirituality.

What I find quite dangerous is the simple relaying of basic comments as, collectively, a basis for assessment. While it may seem less than obvious at first glance, it is a well established sociological principle that simply relaying comments is an avenue for bias or mutation - by simple virtue of what questions one asks, what selection of comments one elects to relay, what meanings may or may not be included in either the speakers' or the relayer's definitions of concepts, etc.

Relaying of experiences in the human diologue of shared experience is valid and good - and ought to be just that: the free, personal communication of ideas by the individuals involved. Hence your police experiences. However, the project of 'forging a new stereotype', as I called it I think in an earlier post, comes into the fray if one wishes to extrapolate out of such experiences precisely that: a typos that is given a kind of generic or standard status. To have negative experiences, even multiple negative experiences,can form a system of encounter that ought to cause us to question social mores, beliefs, orientations, etc.; but divorced of a far more nuanced and wide-ranging exploration of backgrounds, definitions, expectations and the like, becomes distortative if it gives birth to a generalising characteristic.

I do still find it rather obvious in the characterisations of Russians as marked by 'lack of freedom; lack of personal interest in society; underdeveloped sense of responsibility; view of officials as control freaks.' Fundamentally these are social concepts of Western European society. The fact that Russians and Russian culture may be 'lacking' or 'underdevelopled' against these terms, to me says almost nothing about Russians or Russian culture in itself, and more about the tendencies of the individual making the statements.

To me it would be far healthier to explore what freedom means in a Russian context - and then perhaps how it relates and does not relate to freedom in another. Similarly, what is 'responsibility', or what is understood by 'society' in this set of cultures?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Matthew,

You wrote,
"I do still find it rather obvious in the characterisations of Russians as marked by 'lack of freedom; lack of personal interest in society; underdeveloped sense of responsibility; view of officials as control freaks.' Fundamentally these are social concepts of Western European society."

This is what Russians themselves say, not what I have prompted them to say. I agree that a smooth, corruption-free, citizen-centred officialdom may be more characteristic of Britain and Scandinavia than anywhere else, but does that mean that such concepts are Western European? The anger and frustration that any Russian feels, faced with, for example, an obstructive official behind a glass window, are not the result of that Russian applying a Western European view to his predicament. He knows things should not be like that, even in Russia. I'm not a sociologist, and I would be suspicious of applying sociological methodology to plain experience and common sense, but then I don't think much of sociology!

Dear Nina,


I'm sorry but I have to say that it is unfair to say that those who criticise Russia now are ex-communists who are not doing so well now as before. As Russians know all to well, it is largely ex-communists who are doing very well indeed because they kept the means of power and influence.

Generally, how are we to view a place if we cannot rely upon the experiences of those who live there and those who know those who live there?

[M.C. Steenberg]

This is what Russians themselves say, not what I have prompted them to say. I agree that a smooth, corruption-free, citizen-centred officialdom may be more characteristic of Britain and Scandinavia than anywhere else, but does that mean that such concepts are Western European? The anger and frustration that any Russian feels, faced with, for example, an obstructive official behind a glass window, are not the result of that Russian applying a Western European view to his predicament. He knows things should not be like that, even in Russia. I'm not a sociologist, and I would be suspicious of applying sociological methodology to plain experience and common sense, but then I don't think much of sociology!

I suppose what makes me uncomfortable in some of the earlier parts of this thread is the seamless shift from reminscing on experiences, to producing stereotyped listings of character traits. I've no wish to deny or diminish the real experience of Russians in Russia, outside of Russia, etc. What does make me uncomfortable is a conversation that seems willing to proceed on the lines of such generalisations.

I've my own set of experiences of Russia, Russians, Russian culture and Russian spirituality, both of a personal nature and, like you and others, through the recounting of Russians here and there. And I've my own perceptions of certain common points among them. But I would be extremely uncomfortable attempting to scope out a listing of stereotypes based even on these common experiences. Is it helpful? I'm not sure that a phrase like 'Russians have an underdeveloped sence of responsibility' serves much practical end.

All this by way of saying that, by and large, I agree with the individual traits you've noticed, as well as the trends. Both your own experiences and the things you've heard said from others strongly reflect my own experiences and my own conversations. It's a matter of what we do with the material, really.

I do actually think it healthy to explore the questions of freedom and responsibility in Russian culture - but we're not dealing with closed, black-and-white categories here. Speaking of 'freedom' isn't like speaking of a virus - 'you've got it or you don't.' When we look at these common experiences of upset over infringed freedom, over lack of it, what sort of freedom are we talking about? I'd be curious to know. This, I think, might tell me something interesting, even profound, about the culture. What would be the ideal change - i.e., what sort of freedom is seen as 'highest' and good? Again, there could be something truly revelatory in this. And how might this raise questions of freedom in some absolute sense, versus freedom as just a concept that is relativistically applied (which has been a consistent problem in Russia: different people/governments/ideologies telling people quite different things about what it means to be free - until the whole concept becomes so socially relativistic as to be all but nothing at all)? Surely we can say that relativism of freedom and responsibility, which has been part of the defining characteristic of the polical landscape of the country over the past 200 years especially, poses real problems to Christian life and spirituality, since ultimately freedom is a Christian concept for Christians, grounded in the life and will of Christ.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I have been discussing the recent posts on this thread with my wife. I can't quote her (!) but she said emphatically that what has been said about Russia and its problems is definitely not an unrepresentative view. She says that in Russia, there has been a complete breakdown of social conscience so that criminality of all sorts is endemic. It is the topic of conversation amongst all. It is the subject of comment and debate on TV and in the newspapers. Most certainy not the view of '20 or so'. Only a few days ago, her mother said that near their dacha, they went to church and an acquaintance who has a nearby dacha was in church in great distress. She had arrived at her dacha for the weekend in the usual way and found it occupied by a bunch of tartars! When she protested, they told her to go away and not come back or else they would kill her. The police did nothing. Doubtless, they had been paid by these tartars. Life in Russia today is not pleasant - your property and your very life are at risk. How the ROC fits into all this is not a question I can deal with just now.

[Nina]

Dear Andreas,




Dear Nina,

I'm sorry but I have to say that it is unfair to say that those who criticise Russia now are ex-communists who are not doing so well now as before. As Russians know all to well, it is largely ex-communists who are doing very well indeed because they kept the means of power and influence.

Some did, some did not. But still the ex-communists consciously, or subconsciously are resentful because someone is doing better than them, in a lot of aspects. Instead of the former economical uniformity that communists and their elite enjoyed (by stealing and robbing the property and riches of others and by sending them to prison, exile, or death) they are faced now with another economical reality and new social order.

If an ex-communist today drives a Mercedes, there are many others (who do not hold his political views, or who had not forged his political/economical connections) who do drive Mercedeses, or even better, who have private jets with golden sinks.

We need to remember that when we try to describe/understand recent phenomena in countries of the former Iron Curtain, within an Orthodox framework, communism can not go unmentioned since it caused a great harm with its persecution to the Church and the individual.

Another incomprehensible point for me is that why should all these comments be in a thread with a title which ends with a question mark after the words 'A Russian Orthodoxy'. Please enlighten me, if I do not understand it, but are we doubting now that there is a Russian Orthodoxy. Because last time I checked the Church calendar is filled with amazing Saints and Holy Fathers produced by Russia and its beautiful Orthodoxy.


Generally, how are we to view a place if we cannot rely upon the experiences of those who live there and those who know those who live there?

Please allow me to reply with the words of Father Deacon Matthew, who is reiterating this point over and over again and which expresses very well what I feel also:


I suppose what makes me uncomfortable in some of the earlier parts of this thread is the seamless shift from reminscing on experiences, to producing stereotyped listings of character traits. I've no wish to deny or diminish the real experience of Russians in Russia, outside of Russia, etc. What does make me uncomfortable is a conversation that seems willing to proceed on the lines of such generalisations.

[Andreas Moran]

I think the generalisations are apt because they do reflect the reality - the things described are generally true.

I have no idea, also, why there was a question mark after 'Russian Orthodoxy'. It is part of the enigma that is Russia that the Orthodox Church there is a beacon in the world which may even save it.

[Rick H.]

According to the teachings and prophecies of Russian saints and elders, it is impossible to separate Russia's political past and present from the destiny of the ROC and her faithful, indeed, from the end of the age.



Dear All,

Yesterday, the following list was printed repeatedly.

--lack of freedom
--lack of personal interest in society
--underdeveloped sense of responsibility
--view of officials as control freaks

I had no idea that this would prove to be so controversial. When Andreas commented that "the Russians have never been free, save a brief period," I thought to use the word 'lack' to express this lack of freedom was fair. But, apparently this word and the word 'underdeveloped' really caused some problems for some individuals. I am grateful to have Andreas in this conversation, without his input we would really be limited here.

One poster referred to these as 'dangerous and unhelpful comments.' Another poster said this was an 'example of creating one's own truth.' Although, we work with what we have to work with in these discussions, and these unfold the best that they can at times (enduring some detours); I think Andreas has consistently stated the facts through this part of the discussion with no flip-flopping, just a straight line. As Andreas quoted the following poster:




"I do still find it rather obvious in the characterizations of Russians as marked by 'lack of freedom; lack of personal interest in society; underdeveloped sense of responsibility; view of officials as control freaks.' Fundamentally these are social concepts of Western European society."




and then as he responded by saying:




This is what Russians themselves say, not what I have prompted them to say.



This is a black and white thing. And, I further agree with him when he says:




I think the generalizations are apt because they do reflect the reality - the things described are generally true.



Because to suggest that there is a creating of one's own truth here as if there is a fantasy game of some sort being played, or to say that we should not say these things or think these things IS to deny reality, and ironically, to enter into, and to demonstrate, some of what is being said here about a Russian milieu! I wonder who can see what I am saying here as it relates to a possible microcosm of this very topic. Don't think that way! It's dangerous to think that way! You are creating your own truth!

Of course there is a Russian Orthodoxy. The 'question' is, are there Russian Orthodox distinctives? Is there a distinctive style to be found in Russian Orthodoxy? What is this distinctive nature and what is the ethos which lies behind it?

I think it is possible that we are taking the long way round here, but what has begun to emerge is clearly a valid avenue--what is being said does seem to clearly "reflect the reality" of the situation. I am somewhat amazed that the comments here so far have caused so much discomfort. Actually, I am somewhat confused to be honest. The same poster who said above that these comments are 'dangerous and unhelpful,' ended the days flurry of activity by saying:




All this by way of saying that, by and large, I agree with the individual traits you've noticed, as well as the trends. Both your own experiences and the things you've heard said from others strongly reflect my own experiences and my own conversations. It's a matter of what we do with the material, really.



The point was made repeatedly that 'It's what we do with the material.' Are we saying that what is being presented here is true and it does reflect reality, but it is dangerous and unhelpful? In terms of methodology, I think that is a separate conversation; however, it seems (possibly with the exception of Matthew P.), we are all in agreement that there is not a creating of one's own truth here; but, as in the words of the above poster, what has been shared "strongly reflects" our common experiences and conversations? So hopefully, we can move on past all of this now.

I hope so, because I don't think it is any more of a question whether these things that have been shared reflect reality in Russia, than there is a question of whether there is a Russian Orthodoxy--because of course it does and of course there is. These things go without saying for any who are able to think for themselves. But, I guess this is part of the question here in this discussion/question which asks if there is the possibility of a distinctive style of Orthodox theology to be found in a Russian Orthodoxy?

In Christ
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

FREE is a very loaded word. There is "free" as in "free beer", or as in "free speech", two very different meanings of "free". "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" for Bobby McGee. We say that Truth will set you free. And we know that Truth is Christ our Lord. Being free in Christ means that even if you are in prison, even if you are a slave, even if you are confined to your bed by illness, or secluded in a monastic cell, you are FREE. Fr. Arseny, living in a Soviet Gulag death camp, was a free man.

If there is anything that the Russian experience can teach us, perhaps one thing is that "freedom" has many, sometimes subtle meanings. That even in the midst of chaos, fear, crime, and upheaval, we can find a Peace that surpasses human understanding, by accepting the FREE gift of Christ, which is FREEDOM from sin and the power of this world. The Russian experience is witnessed to by Dostoevski, Solzenitzen, Fr. Arseny, the New Martyrs of the Communist yoke, those who lived through the Tartar invasions, who held Napoleon at bay and halted the Nazi invasion at such great cost, the dynamic tension of the Possessors and non-Possessors, the wise Fathers of Optima and the monastics scattered through the vast wilderness of Rus.

I don't know if there is a distinct Russian "theology", but there can be no denying that there is a distinct Russian spirituality, shaped by a very Russian spirit, a unique melancholy stoicism withstanding centuries of great turmoil and oppresion. It is absolutely essential that those of us who enjoy the so-called "freedoms" of the "free world" to look at this other kind of freedom, since many of us are not as "free" as we think we are, slaves to passion, sin, and the cares of this world. The Russian character has been tried by fire, the Russian Church has spent its time in the Babylonian furnace, but the fires consumed, not the Church, but the Communists.

Times are still hard in places like Russia, in ways that those of us living in tidy little suburbs in nice little communities cannot begin to comprehend. But when Faith is strong, the world cannot win, Christ is the victor, and a Russian believer can be a truely FREE person. As the Russians have struggled to endure through the oppressions that surround them, let us also endure through the so-called "freedoms" that surround us, so that we may know the true freedom of Christ our Lord. This is the gift of Russia to me.

Please forgive my ramblings.

Your servant,
Herman

[Andreas Moran]

Rick wrote:
The 'question' is, are there Russian Orthodox distinctives? Is there a distinctive style to be found in Russian Orthodoxy? What is this distinctive nature and what is the ethos which lies behind it.

Maybe I'm being superficial here but surely each Orthodox Church has its distinctive characteristics. We all know that going to an Antiochian church, to a Greek church, to a Russian church is, in some ways, a different experience. There are different customs, different prayers, different musical styles, different icon styles, not to mention different languages. If we are looking deeper than these things, we may find differences in practice: some churches are strict about some things which others are relaxed about. Looking deeper still, do we find differences in the spiritual life of the various Churches? I'm not enough of a theologian to know, but it is clear that all the Orthodox Churches share most things in terms of the spiritual life. The question that comes to my mind is this: if there are differences at a deeper level between the Russian Church and others, is it important to know what they are? It may be important if the Russian Church has some distinctive elements in its spirituality from which those in other Churches would benefit. (The converse may also be true.) It does seem to me to have a distinctive spirit but I can't articulate what that is. I don't feel qualified to identify what is distinctive about the ROC but I'd be interetsed to hear from those who can.

My wife cannot understand how those who are not Russians and do not live in Russia can form accurate views about how things are there. She is clear that what I have relayed accurately describes things.

[Andreas Moran]

I'm grateful to Herman for his post and agree with what he says. For the reasons he gives, the Church in Russia may save the world.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Herman's post exactly sums up my thoughts. I'm deeply grateful for the insightful and elegant post. It puts everything in what, to my mind, seems the right framework.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Herman wrote:
Times are still hard in places like Russia, in ways that those of us living in tidy little suburbs in nice little communities cannot begin to comprehend. But when Faith is strong, the world cannot win, Christ is the victor, and a Russian believer can be a truely FREE person.

I think this is what my wife means when she tells me to be Orthodox - I should not be anxious. Where can God work if our lives are as they are in our 'tidy little suburbs'? When we daren't step out of the country without millions of pounds' worth of insurance? When we act like demented squirrels storing stuff away, as I do, 'for the future' (fool, your soul may be required of you this night)? Lydia says, 'in Russia, you can't live without Christ, the saints, and miracles'. Herman is right - this is what we must learn from Russia and her long-suffering people. Do I have the guts and resolve to be truly Orthodox as the faithful Russians are? If I had, I would go and live in a little wooden house close to the Lavra.

[Father David Moser]

FREE is a very loaded word. There is "free" as in "free beer", or as in "free speech", two very different meanings of "free". "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" for Bobby McGee. We say that Truth will set you free. And we know that Truth is Christ our Lord. Being free in Christ means that even if you are in prison, even if you are a slave, even if you are confined to your bed by illness, or secluded in a monastic cell, you are FREE. Fr. Arseny, living in a Soviet Gulag death camp, was a free man.


This statement prompted me to perhaps a more universal definition of "free" and "freedom". Freedom is not just "nothing left to lose" but rather freedom is "nothing left to fear" and to be free is to act without fear. Thus it is possible to be free and to be a prisoner at the same time, it is possible to be free and to be confined to your bed, to be secluded in a monastic cell, or even to be a slave. Freedom and free action is not an external state but a state of the heart.

External freedom (removing or controlling all things to be feared in one's environment) actually leads to less freedom and more fear. Look at how much fear we live in in the supposedly "free" country of the US. We fear terrorist acts, we fear corrupt industry, we fear coffee that's too hot from the drive thru, we fear our neighbor and so increasingly shut ourselves in our houses, we fear any form of discomfort. By creating a mythology that freedom is an external condition, we have only sacrificed more and more of it. The ultimate fear is, of course, death - but we don't often speak of that since we cannot control it.

But freedom is not external it is internal. The only antidote for fear is love (Perfect love casts out all fear) To be truly free is to be able to act with unrestrained and limitless love towards everyone else. A society which is based on the avoidance of fear but without the value of true love (greater love has no man than this than he lay down his life for another) can only lead to greater and greater fear. The only society which can truly be said to be "free" is one that is based on love, not one that is based on the avoidance of fear. The only "free society" is one that is based on and filled with the love of Christ. The capitalistic/democratic society and culture of the west is not free - for it is based on the avoidance of fear and its only true end is the loss of true (internal) freedom while pretending to have the (external) semblance of freedom. A society imbued with and based upon Orthodoxy sets its values not on external freedom, but rather upon the internal freedom which results from living in the love of Christ. In this sense, the Russian society, which has been steeped for a millennium in Orthodoxy and which has, in large part been shaped by Orthodoxy is much more a "free society" than is the US.

In Christ, I am free to lose everything - the whole world - without fear for in doing so I gain the only thing worth having, and that is the love of Christ which fills and transforms the soul. What is it worth to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? What will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mk 8:36,37 for those of you who were listening on Sunday, the Sunday after the Cross)

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that Herman was getting at something important (a point I think Fr Dn Matthew also made) when he wrote:


If there is anything that the Russian experience can teach us, perhaps one thing is that "freedom" has many, sometimes subtle meanings. That even in the midst of chaos, fear, crime, and upheaval, we can find a Peace that surpasses human understanding, by accepting the FREE gift of Christ, which is FREEDOM from sin and the power of this world. The Russian experience is witnessed to by Dostoevski, Solzenitzen, Fr. Arseny, the New Martyrs of the Communist yoke, those who lived through the Tartar invasions, who held Napoleon at bay and halted the Nazi invasion at such great cost, the dynamic tension of the Possessors and non-Possessors, the wise Fathers of Optima and the monastics scattered through the vast wilderness of Rus.

In effect we are saying that Russia in general has a different understanding of freedom than is found in the west. Some of this understanding expresses itself in the dark ways described in our posts above. A key insight of Dostoevsky after all concerns how the frightening darkness found at times in Russian behaviour comes from a distortion of human freedom. We see this portrayed powerfully in his novels.

Along parallel lines however the Russian sense of freedom seeks to transform this darkness from within in a way very different from the west. Whereas in the west we tend to focus on what is exterior as the criterion of what is free in Russia the standard is much more focussed on personal transformation of a given situation. Many examples can be shown here but one is of St Alexander Nevsky who transformed a situation of abject slavery ( ie the Tatar yoke) into one of spiritual freedom. He did this not by focusing on the outer and trying to radically change it. But rather by radically transforming the situation from the inside out as it were. We see this same thing at work with the other Passion bearers from St Boris & Gleb all of the way to our own time with the Holy Royal Martyrs (plus of course the new martyrs and confessors of Russia).

In terms of this discussion an interesting question is whether what we see in these saints is related to the values of Russian society. A few months ago I referred in the Forum to a very interesting book by Alexei Yurchak called Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More (the last Soviet Generation). The author who grew up during the late Soviet period and then emigrated to the States describes how Russian people transformed the Soviet system from the inside out. They did this not as part of a political strategy but rather through a series of extended personal relationships in which the meaning of the activity they were engaged in (often on the most official level) was transformed. Thus for example, the author, from personal anecdotes (much of the book is based on interviews of people growing up in Soviet Russia from the 60s - 80s) recounts how it was increasingly common at Komsomol camp outs by the 1980s for youth to use the occasion to discuss everything from philosophy to rock & roll to religion. This wasn't anti-Soviet so much as it was stretching the meaning of what Soviet meant (ie communal, for the common benefit, etc). The point of the author is that it was the Russian people themselves who were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet system as the divide grew between the discourse of the official system and how everyday Russians were stretching the meaning of this discourse far beyond its actual intent.

I think there is a connection between this and what we see in the Russian spirituality described above. This relates to how Russians in general tend to see and act in regards to freedom. We shouldn't go to extremes here as if Russians have no regard to liberty and rule of law as we know this. Any basic examination of Russian history shows there has and continues to be this focus also in Russian society. But beyond this at a deeper level Russians in general tend to see the connection between personal freedom and society in a different way than us. And this has I think had its own effect on Russian Orthodoxy and helped give it a distinct character.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

I'm sure we are all deeply grateful to Fr David for this post. I feel a complete fraud and coward.

[Andreas Moran]

And Fr Raphael's!

[Rick H.]

But beyond this at a deeper level Russians in general tend to see the connection between personal freedom and society in a different way than us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Dear Father Raphael,

This line above jumped right off the screen when I read it . . . I wonder if you may have time to speak in more detail about this 'connection' which is seen at a deeper level?

I would love to know what you are talking about here. Is it possible that you could speak more about this connection between "personal freedom" and "society?" Maria Mahoney might just have a few coffee coupons left over! :)

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Rick Henry wrote:


Dear Father Raphael,

This line above jumped right off the screen when I read it . . . I wonder if you may have time to speak in more detail about this 'connection' which is seen at a deeper level?

I would love to know what you are talking about here. Is it possible that you could speak more about this connection between "personal freedom" and "society?" Maria Mahoney might just have a few coffee coupons left over! :)



But that's your job or anyone else's here who feels the need to look further into this.

My contract expires as soon as I type the words onto this screen.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sometimes you need to say the same thing a slightly different way. I have always been a master of the obvious. I have no original ideas, I merely parrot.

Herman the parrot

[Andreas Moran]

Well, sometimes, the obvious isn't obvious to me, so I'm glad of the parrot.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Rick,


Originally Posted by Rick Henry

I think we can pull from the above, about Russian distinctive, that there is a:

lack of freedom
lack of personal interest in society
underdeveloped sense of responsibility
view of officials as control freaks

Originally Posted by Rick Henry

The point was made repeatedly that 'It's what we do with the material.' Are we saying that what is being presented here is true and it does reflect reality, but it is dangerous and unhelpful? In terms of methodology, I think that is a separate conversation; however, it seems (possibly with the exception of Matthew P.), we are all in agreement that there is not a creating of one's own truth here; but, as in the words of the above poster, what has been shared "strongly reflects" our common experiences and conversations? So hopefully, we can move on past all of this now.


Nope Rick, let me be in control for a bit, we can move past this when it is the right time to move past it according to my thinking on it.

I'll get inline then with the rest here and embrace the true things that you have "pulled from above". What are your truth's, they neither fish nor foul? They are the inadequacy of the Specks found in the road less traveled, A and B type categories created then attempting to merged them together even within the Church. We have seen this before even by those in the Church teaching the Russians and Greeks, then when they are older they tell us other odd things.

Your ways I can't agree with Rick, if I did I could head over to the Russian Orthodox Cathedral, get re-voted in as Starosta, listen to the two bishops and Russian Orthodox while selectively holding fast with what has been handed down here on Monachos, keeping in mind the Russian distinctive thread. I'll do the best that I can with the material and "knowledge" conveyed by you and others pulled from the above. I'll let you know if there is a Cathedral left after a few years. No wonder here anymore why the strange messes in the "sects" or places that the converts come from get worse and worse as the years go by. Nevertheless, surely the good Russian Orthodox Archbishop will stand and not walk away, even when the converts felt that it would be best that he be put in a nursing home because he will most likely never walk, the top Doctor's say so in America you know. Some of the Russians say that would have killed him, so the non-Soviet types had been against it, saying Slava Bogu we can help out and keep him here God willing. Should I hear the Russian saying, "A fish rots from the head down." I'll think about the balamoota not created from the High Russians, but nevertheless created distinctively. I'll try to pray good keeping in mind the Russian distinctive while fleeing from the sort of thinking that produces such conclusions.

It is interesting to note that I'm sure that it would be since when they built it they:

Listened to an official, freely collected tin cans from society on the streets of Chicago to raise money to pay the Church bills. Even then recent Soviet immigrants helped out.

From what I have heard there are many Orthodox Churches and Monasteries springing up in Russia, I suppose Andreas it depends on what one is looking at, the how and why of it? If my memory serves me correctly, Saint Seraphim mentioned that Russia will rise again or something like that, so Slava Bogu, the Russian distinctive mentality won't prevail, that is the hope of the Russian Orthodox I know anyway. Perhaps Saint Seraphim's observations are correct and others are not? Such things are happening in spite of the Russian distinctive that you and others have observed from experience. I suppose that holding fast with what has been handed down here on Monachos, save those that don't agree with your 'reasoning" here and in other sections works better.

I think we can pull from the above, about American converts to Orthodoxy distinctive, that they:

do not have a lack of freedom
do not have a lack of personal interest in society
do not have a underdeveloped sense of responsibility
do not have a view of officials as control freaks

All those opposite things from the Russian distinctive, so that's good, the moderators only control people when necessary.

Dear Raphael,

I'll let you know how things go in the tent at the monastery over the weekend, you know when the canings are reversed that is from the converts outside in and inside out. Reminiscing on experiences, to producing stereotyped listings of character traits, I suppose that is a concept that both those that are rational in the west and east can't understand, no business cards and the sign on the tent "leave the iconographers alone they create their own truths".

We have seen how iconography is created in the West and distortions that are brought into the Church, often by well meaning people that know better than others from what they have read or observed. We have also seen that things approaching authentic racism can take root when people allow the roots to grow even if they groan during the process. Rick, do you think they really exist? It appears that what has been shared really does not "rightly" "strongly reflect" common experiences and conversations. You should hear how the cradle Orthodox observe the convert baggage that they have seen in non-Orthodox societies coming into the Church. It is discussed and then usually dismissed quickly so that we are not judging others, but certainly many are aware of it quietly usually. We know that all the converts are not always wrong even if we have common experiences with them, let us give the same consideration to the Russians and others. Suffer it quietly, give them time to work things out seems like the best way to go. One does get to the point though that one can see his own feeble efforts and limitations, as such all we can do is trust in Christ and be quiet.



In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew P,

Okay, you're in control ;) . . . and I think you provide much fodder for the "A Theology of Freedom vs. a Theology of Anxiety' thread, as well as a new thread on E.O. converts which I may begin soon (with your permission of course :)


Dear All,

I'm not sure if we are actually going to be able to have this discussion here about a possible distinctive style of Russian Orthodox theology. It seems that most of the discussion is limited to Russia in the present day, as well as methods and motives somewhat. There also has been a focusing on the subject of freedom which I have enjoyed and benefited from myself. As it relates to the universal principle of freedom in Christ, and 'being' a truly free *person,* this does speak to the heart of the matter in a most heavenly way. And, as we may even consider the Trinitarian doctrine of Zizioulas who works his way to the conclusion that, "It thus becomes evident that the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is love," and that "love is constitutive of His substance," I agree with Deacon Matthew that a further discussion of freedom could even be revelatory. But, possibly there is no appetite in the discussion community for the topic of this thread at the present, and as we know at some stages in these threads when this is the case there is not usually much fruit to be harvested past a certain point.

Possibly, and ironically, both language and style are a hindrance here as we have seen with the appreciation of Herman's translation/treatment on freedom. With this in mind, I think this is why I "ramble" so much here Herman, and use a variety of expressions/vehicles in order to try to communicate. I am most comfortable when speaking the language of systematics, but when this is the case alienation is usually the only thing that is found in the end--the opposite of anything remotely resembling interpersonal communication. I love to read both contemplative and academic/scholarly works. In fact, Jetavan said something yesterday which I could relate to in another thread as it relates to this; however, usually the language of the academic only serves to alienate and frustrate folks. And, again this is another example of a cosmic irony because I am a firm believer that academic theology is pastoral theology . . . BUT, as has been said previously, it [academic theology] does *not* speak the language of the people and does not express the experiences and hopes of the people--regardless of how long one has been Orthodox there is usually little or no understanding of the academic theologian who, as Moltmann said, "lives in separation from the people who can no longer go to college or university."

So, I don't know, possibly this can be continued in a more general way, and a more fruitful way in the above mentioned "Freedom vs. Anxiety" thread?

In Christ,
Rick

PS But for any who may have an appetite in the future, "we'll leave the light on for you" :)

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren,

Happy as I am that the discussion here came back to the real theme, Russian Orthodoxy, I would like to follow up with some remarks on this theme and some adds to my earlier post.

Alexander Nevsky didn't fight just the Tartars but also the united Roman-catholic armies which where trying to conquer our Russian Homeland while already threatened by the Tartars. They didn't come to help fellow Christians, no they wanted to destroy our orthodox heritage. But they failed where God blessed Alexander Nevsky!
They orthodox believers in Russia are fully aware of all the evil which takes place in society and they know that up to a certain level there is nothing they can do against it NOW! But they know there will comes another day and the next one and a certain day will come where it wiil come right.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I don't think there is evident any lack of interest in the topic at all. All that's been seen is a certain displeasure, amongst some (I include myself) with one general approach toward to beginnings of exploring it. But disagreeing with a mode of approach is not the same as being disinterested in the topic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Rick H.]

Deacon Matthew wrote:




Dear all,

I don't think there is evident any lack of interest in the topic at all. All that's been seen is a certain displeasure, amongst some (I include myself) with one general approach toward to beginnings of exploring it. But disagreeing with a mode of approach is not the same as being disinterested in the topic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew




Well this is a very pleasant development. And, with this in mind, I wonder if there are any, more informed than I, who--as it relates to our topic--may see a correlation between the institution of the Obshchina and what Father Raphael has suggested in his last post (about a connection between "personal freedom" and "society " in Russia)?

Or, possibly some may wish to explore the thinking of the Slavophile/Slavophilism as it relates or doesn't relate to the Russian Orthodox Church?

I have been attempting to study early Russian Orthodox Church history, possibly this could be another avenue/approach to consider our topic here.

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Rick Henry wrote:


I wonder if there are any, more informed than I, who--as it relates to our topic--may see a correlation between the institution of the Obshchina and ... "personal freedom" and "society " in Russia)?

I think that would be a fruitful investigation.

And how could that relate to the parish structure, especially as found here in the west.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Okay, you're in control ;) . . . and I think you provide much fodder for the "A Theology of Freedom vs. a Theology of Anxiety' thread, as well as a new thread on E.O. converts which I may begin soon (with your permission of course :)

however, usually the language of the academic only serves to alienate and frustrate folks. And, again this is another example of a cosmic irony because I am a firm believer that academic theology is pastoral theology . . . BUT, as has been said previously, it [academic theology] does *not* speak the language of the people and does not express the experiences and hopes of the people--regardless of how long one has been Orthodox there is usually little or no understanding of the academic theologian who, as Moltmann said, "lives in separation from the people who can no longer go to college or university."

Dear Rick,

If the academic theologian who, as Moltmann said, "lives in separation from the people who can no longer go to college or university." then he ceases to be a real theologian. So it is with the false or pretending academic theologian who only serves to alienate and frustrate folks. He comes to the true "knowledge" of his actions or writings and the severity of them should he repent then he can understand theology, that is the theology the comes from the heart. The authentic academic theologian can rejoice in the simplicity of the gifts conveyed to him through the Church that he clearly is not disconnected from, he builds up the body of Christ because he embraces the Spirit of Truth. That embrace makes things move in a much different way no matter where he is, his words are not like reeds blowing in the wind confusing the more simple. So his comments on Saint Anthony the Great can be as simple as kissing an icon or as complex as many well thought through words in volumes of works but they are the same.

Your Theology of Freedom produces a Theology of Anxiety, whether you are aware of it at this time or not. We have read those threads in the prefaces of the Orthodox works or books written by the "OCA convert types" of the not so distant past and distributed in the West. Those distortions will be around for quite sometime while now and latter they try to figure what to do. What of that fruit, that pastoral theology that is different, what does one do? Singing happy birthday instead of God grant you many years... So the Slavophile types must scratch their heads and silently wonder... most of the time anyway.

Ultimately, all the rational flock can do is turn to the Orthodox Church and Christ when things are good and not so good, from what I try to understand that is the Orthodox way, since the things are good and not so good status only can change through one way.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew P,

I think you missed the mark somewhat on the Moltmann quote. For better or worse, there is definitely a parting, or a gap involved in the situation of which he speaks. Possibly, if you reread the part of his quote that you did not include, in your last post, it may make more sense.

Otherwise, none of what you have said in your last post pertains to this thread. So as long as this remains more fun than a good poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I will continue with this in the following thread:

A theology of freedom vs. a theology of anxiety - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3941)

Otherwise, a Russian Orthodoxy anyone?

In Christ,
Rick

[Tim Grass]

Dear all,

I don't think there is evident any lack of interest in the topic at all. All that's been seen is a certain displeasure, amongst some (I include myself) with one general approach toward to beginnings of exploring it. But disagreeing with a mode of approach is not the same as being disinterested in the topic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Absolutely.......... we've seen this before.... someone starts a thread, it doesn't go the way they want, so they announce no one is willing to talk about the topic. Because it doesn't go the way they want.

--tim

[Rick H.]

Sorry posted to wrong thread here. Clean up in isle three!

[Effie Ganatsios]

Yesterday I was reading H. Allen's “Come Over into Macedonia”, which is about the rural programmes that were introduced into North Greece in 1928. H. Allen was part of the Near East Relief organization of New York and directed this programme in Greece. Greece had appealed to the League of Nations for assistance in settling the residents of Asia Minor and Constantinople in the exchange of populations in 1922.

Reading the beginning of Chapter 18, I thought how opinions about national characteristics had changed from 1928 to now.

Fr. David Moser wrote :
One of the things that seems to come out to me is that the different Orthodox cultures seem to reflect the different aspects of the soul - as each is emphasized or de-emphasized in the culture. I don't really have a whole lot of solid concrete or scholastic evidence for this assumption so I can only say that this is an observation that I have made concerning especially the Mediterranean (eg. Greek, Arabic) cultures, the Slavic cultures and the Western (eg. Western Europe, North America, etc) cultures.

As we know from the Fathers, there are three basic aspects of the soul - the incensive (feeling) aspect, the desiring aspect and the intellective (reasoning) aspect (heart, will and mind). In the Mediterranean culture, the incensive aspect seems to be the primary aspect of the soul. This is described by the "fiery" or "passionate" descriptions of personalities (or as it is described in a review of Zorba the Greek "in love with life").

It has been my experience that Greeks and Arabs tend to be emotionally volatile - one moment passionate and demonstrative foes and the next the most intimate of friends. The writings of the desert fathers also frequently focus on controlling or taming the heart and the incensive passions. "


This is what H. Allen had to say about his 10 year experience of Greeks in Macedonia, North Greece.

"18
"Siga—Siga"

THE GREEKS normally are a patient, philosophical people. Americans, on the other hand, are likely, under pressure, to become highly excitable, very much in a rush to get something done in the shortest time possible. On such occasions, we are likely to hear the Greek whisper softly to himself, "Siga, siga"; or, perhaps, in frank admonition say quietly but firmly to his American friend, "Siga, siga; slowly, slowly, take it easy, take it easy."

One of the reasons I love reading books from previous centuries is the discovery of how people thought then and how we think now. I am sometimes surprised by the differences. At other times I am truly amazed by the similarities e.g. Dickens in Nicholas Nickleby might be writing about today's politicians and their devious ways.

I also found quite a bit about the Orthodox Church in the book, which I haven't finished yet.

"The Church Speaks Out
THE CHURCH is a vital element in the life of the Greek people. It was an important factor in the success of Near East Relief in its amazing record of reclaiming human life and it played from the beginning a significant role in the development of the Macedonian reconstruction program under Near East Foundation. It is appropriate, therefore, that we indicate the relation of the church to the rural enterprise with which we are dealing. ...Its origin might be said to date from the teachings of St. Paul in Greece, just as the Catholic faith is reported to have sprung from St. Peter. “

Just thought you might find the above interesting.

Effie